Talk:Australia

Historical population

How can the 1788 population have been only 900? I am sure there must have been thousands of aboriginals living there at the time. Or was Australia in 1788 a much smaller geographical area than today, including no aboriginal settlements? // Jens Persson (90.231.244.42 (talk) 21:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC))

The Aboriginal population in 1788, and in fact for most of Australia's history, was unknown and was not included in the population counts. Even now there is considerable disagreement over how many Aboriginals there might have been. Some claim there were several million while others claim that the current population (~455,000) doesn't support that claim. Nobody really knows so all we can count on being accurate is the non-Aboriginal population figure. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Many experts do in fact agree that it was greater than 300,000 and less than 2.5m, so that's the range. The problem with the table and the whole section as it stands is that it effectively ignores the pre-European population, which is incorrect within the stated terms, eg, if they are about the population history of Australia, something should be said in the main article about the pre-European situation and not just in a footnote. SoMuchTime (talk) 18:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. If you want to add something along those lines I see no problems, as long as you provide some reasonable citations. Somebody is bound to challenge it. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I came in here to add this exact statement - I believe there should be some type of footnote to indicate that values up to a certain point do not include aboriginals, but after that point, they are included in censuses (was it the year they were given the vote??). I don't know how to use Wiki very well, but I believe this is a VERY important piece of information to add because without it we are almost propogating an out-dated view of a valued part of our community. Pleitch (talk) 09:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

There is already a note explaining that "19th century figures do not include the indigenous population" in the citation. There's little more that can be said at this time as there is no indication when the figures used started including the indigenous population. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Crown Land?

"One interesting difference between Australia and the United States is that because the land area of the Commonwealth has not changed since federation, crown land in the states is the property of the state governments, not the commonwealth. The crown land owned by the Commonwealth consists of crown land in the territories and isolated small parcels used as airports etc. In the United States, because of its major expansion since federation, this only applies in the original thirteen colonies and Texas."

What the heck does this mean? America doesn't have any "crown land", so I have no clue what they're talking about. Is this some sort of arcane legal difference between the original thirteen colonies and the rest of America, or is this just some odd perspective on history? And whichever it is, why isn't there a link to an article about whatever the corresponding USian concept is that's different? 24.44.51.38 (talk) 05:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Fair question - have since linked crown land for your convenience. Others may wish to chime in also. Have also slightly refactored this page to bring your question in order to the bottom of the page. Cheers!--VS ^talk 07:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

From the Crown land article, it looks like the rough US equivalent would be Federal lands. I thing the passage is basically saying that public lands in Australia are largely managed by the state governments, as opposed to public lands in the US being mostly run by the federal government. Looking at the passage in the article though, it could use some sources, and I'm not sure why it is focusing so much on a comparison with just the US. AlexiusHoratius (talk) 07:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the paragraph in question is unecessary. The observation is not all that important or even interesting. And it tends to confuise, q.e.d. It suffices to say that the states are sovereign. This is stated clearly and implies everything that the paragraph attempts to convey.--Gazzster (talk) 00:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Australia is the only continent occupied by a single country

"Australia is the only continent occupied by a single country." This statement is not factually correct. Australia is part of the continent of Oceania. The same mistake is repeated in the entry for "continent". In turn, these entries are inconsistent with the entry for "Oceania". The view that Australia is a continent is Anglo-centric. In Europe, outside the British Isles, for example, Oceania is recognised as a continent. While recognising that the origin of the word "continent" refers to a continuous landmass, the word has evolved to have a different meaning, just like the word ocean, for example. We now do not understand an ocean to be "the great river or sea surrounding the disk of the Earth". Pcallioni (talk) 06:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Oceania is not a continent. It is a region. An examination of continental drift over the past 4.5 billion years supports the claim that Australia is a continent. By the way, this issue was discussed in June on this page. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

My dictionary defines a continent as "One of the main continuous bodies of land on the earth's surface." That is the English meaning of the word, and that is the meaning the English Wikipedia should follow. Oceania is, apart from Australia, mostly water. If Oceania is a continent, so is the Atlantic Ocean. Can we have some evidence for the proposition that "In Europe, outside the British Isles, for example, Oceania is recognised as a continent"? Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 11:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

My answer is a question: to which continent do New Guinea, New Zealand, Fiji et al belong? Pcallioni (talk) 22:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

They are islands. They don't belong to any continent. An island is a piece of land smaller than a continent. And that is no answer to my request for evidence for the proposition that "In Europe, outside the British Isles, for example, Oceania is recognised as a continent"? Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 23:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, we do have an article on Australia (continent), which describes an entity that includes New Guinea as well as the country called Australia. Just quite why geographers chose this absurbly confusing name is a mystery that will go with me to my grave. "Continent" is a matter of definition, and definitions get changed all the time, and definitions mean different things in different contexts (see also Borders of the continents for further enlightenment). If Europe can be considered a different continent than Asia when they're clearly part of the same land mass, as is Africa for that matter, then one can make a definition to suit any purpose one likes. When I was in school, a million years ago, I was taught that Australia (the country) is the world's largest island and the world's smallest continent. They seem to have forgotten that Tasmania and other islands are part of Australia, so maybe my teachers (I lived on the mainland) were talking about mainland Australia only in the "world's largest island" claim, but they never made that distinction as far as I can remember. I doubt that a Tasmanian teacher would ever have told their students that Australia (unqualified) was the world's largest island. Nowadays, better minds than ours have decided that a land mass cannot be simultaneously a continent and an island, so Greenland now gets the top honour for islands, and Australia (country) is regarded as a continental land mass. But there's still this other niggling matter of Australia (continent), which is more than just Australia (country). If all the experts could speak with one voice on this matter, it would be better for all of us. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I gave the standard English definition of "continent" above: "One of the main continuous bodies of land on the earth's surface." In a strictly geographical sense, therefore, Europe and Asia are one continent, occupying as they do one landmass and one tectonic plate. Whether Australia is a small continent or a large island is obviously a matter of opinion, but the consensus among geographers seems to be that it is a continent. New Guinea is an island which is closely associated with Australia in a geograhphical sense, but it is not part of the Australian landmass. Tasmania is part of Australia in a political sense but is not part of the Australian landmass, although it once was (as was New Guinea). What is clear, and the point of this discussion, is that there is not and never has been a continent called Oceania. There is by the way no Oceania tectonic plate. Australia and New Zealand are on the Australian plate, the rest of the Pacific, all the way up to the Aleutian Islands, is on the Pacific plate. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 23:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

In certain contexts, eg. some sporting competitions, the world is divided into "continents" and Oceania rates a mention there. It makes sense in these contexts to lump all the Pacific island nations in with Australia and New Zealand and call the merged entity by some name, the usual one being Oceania. Maybe that's what Pcallioni is referring to. The sentence "Australia is the only continent occupied by a single country" doesn't actually state that which definition of the word "continent" is being used, although it seems reasonably obvious it relates to continuous land masses. Or maybe not. You seem at odds with the writers of Australia (continent) when you say that New Guinea is not part of the Australian landmass. I don't personally support that notion, but I guess we can't just ignore the fact that geographers consider the 2 places to be part of the same continent, even if they're not a continuous land mass. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess the sporting competition you speak of is soccer, and now of course in that sport Australia is part of Asia. Not sure that helps us. I guess based on Australia (continent) the sentence should read "Australia is the only country to occupy the entire mainland of a continent". But that seems somewhat convoluted. --Michael Johnson (talk) 05:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

And of course, New Guinea is its own mainland in relation to its offshore islands. The continent of "Australia" seems unique (well, what else is new) in that it has 2 mainlands. Even the people on Flinders Island refer to Tasmania as their "mainland" before they get to the Big Island. That makes three: a main mainland (Australia minus Tasmania), a middle mainland (New Guinea), and a small mainland (Tasmania). So the term "mainland" could possibly mean different things to those who've boned up on the revelations contained in Australia (continent). How we deal with this in being absolutely non-misleading but still clearly and well written and sensible, beats me right now. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The UN defines the continental region as Oceania, which then breaks down into Polynesia, Melanesia, Micronesia and Australia & New Zealand. see http://millenniumindicators.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49regin.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.92.158.65 (talk) 10:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Moving on from the discussion above, the sentence has now been swapped around and says: "Australia is the only single country to occupy an entire continent." I don't mind this swap, but what I do mind is the tautology "only single country". Could someone please remove the word single - I cannot because the article is semi-locked. 86.9.201.247 (talk) 01:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth of Australia

The Autralia entry has the head of State as Queen Elizabeth II - Isn't this incorrect?

Elizabeth I was not head of State for Australia so QEII should surely be just QE in relation to Australia?

The Royal Mews near Buckingham Palace contains the Australian State Coach (presented to The Queen in 1988 by the Australian people to mark Australia's bicentenary). Whereas the other coaches include "E II" to represent Queen Elizabeth II, the Australia Coach states only "E", as Queen Elizabeth is the first Queen Elizabeth of Australia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.196 (talk) 12:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The Queen's title is Queen Elizabeth II, not Queen Elizabeth, and that is how she is referred to, regardless of the fact that she's the first Queen Elizabeth who has been Queen of Australia. If Charles ever becomes king the The Constitution will be amended to reflect that The King is now the head of state and he will be referred to as Charles II, not just Charles. Similarly, William will be referred to as William V. What's written on the state coach is not considered to be an authoritative decree of anything really. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

And that would be Charles III, not II. --Michael Johnson (talk) 22:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the Constitution isn't amended - in it, "the Queen" refers to the successors of Queen Victoria, male or female. The title of the Queen is given not by the constitution, but by the Royal Styles and Titles Act, which follows the convention that the monarch uses the highest ordinal number that is appropriate anywhere in their realms (so that a future King James would follow the Scottish numbering, not English). Also, there have been some reports that Charles will actually be known as George if he becomes king. JPD (talk) 23:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. The Constitution wasn't amended when kings Edward VII, George V, Edward VIII and George VI came to the throne. It still referred to the Queen, because we happened to have a queen when the Constitution was written. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Ungainly "Note 1" against national anthem in infobox

I'm sure there's a better way of doing it—at the very least, smaller font-size. I suppose it can't be just a plain superscript numeral, can it? Tony (talk) 00:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean "plain superscript" as in Advance Australia Fair¹ ? --AussieLegend (talk) 01:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm - you might have a point, Tony, but here's hoping it doesn't open up the old fight about how God Save the Queen is presented in the article. Let's try and keep the discussion focussed on the format of the note. --Merbabu (talk) 02:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

You may have just hit on a resolution of Tony's issue. A few days ago somebody removed English from the lannguage field[1]. While restoring it I discovered that the infobox has fields for diffent types of languages so the infobox now has fields for "Official lanuages" and "National language".[2] Suspecting that other fields may be missing I checked the template and there is a "royal_anthem" field that isn't used. Addition of this field would eliminate the need for a note. See example --AussieLegend (talk) 02:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I did mean the plain "1", yes. If that format is not used for anything else, it would be better. Just a tiny smaller would be nice. I'm being fussy because it's in such a prominent place. Tony (talk) 03:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I have some concerns about reducing the font size because this affects readbility for a lot of people. Using an abbreviation, eg Advance Australia Fair ^N1 is probably the better option. This was the style fomerly used by the article. I think just a plain numeral is a bit ambiguous as ¹ could be confused with ^[1]. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The "N" in "N1" etc to distinguish notes from ref numbers seems unnecessary, given that you can click on it to zoom straight to the note at the bottom. No big deal, though. Tony (talk) 05:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

overlinking

The opening is pretty heavily linked, and I'm concerned that the high-value links not be diluted by trivial ones. MOS deprecates the linking of dictionary-type words, and here I see plenty that are not even piped, such as "continent", "mainland", "country", "infectious disease", "United States" (see MOSLINK), "naval base" and "sea port". These are words that English-speakers are meant to know; if they don't, they can very easily tap the letters into the search box or look them up. I see "sq mi" and a very ungainly "-square-kilometre" linked; these are questionable. The latter should be a quadruple bunger: I'll recast it now. Tony (talk) 04:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Official name of Australia

What is the Official name of Australia? Commonwealth of Australia or Australian Government?--Kanags (talk) 09:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

As explained earlier on this page and in the article itself the full and formal name is Commonwealth of Australia but Australia is more commonly used. The Australian Government is the administrative entity that runs the country. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks AussieLegend.--Kanags (talk) 02:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Australia opens its doors to about 300,000 new migrants in 2008-09

Could 2008-09 be explained. Is it 300,000 new migrants in 2008 and 2009 so 150,000 per year or does 2008-09 refer to this year? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ItemSeven (talk • contribs) 13:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I assume that it would refer to the 2008-09 financial year which begins on 1 July 2008 and ends on 30 June 2009. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

States and territories

Reading this section I see that Northern territory is not a state. Excuse my confusion, but does this make it the only part of Australia that is neither a state or part of a state? If so, what is the reason for this? Jack forbes (talk) 11:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory are the two mainland Australian territories. These emerged after the six Australian states were instated and have as of yet not been given the full state status. Mvjs (talk) 12:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

States are sovereign, territories are administered by the Commonwealth government. Territories were once administered directly by the feds, but now have self government. However their legislators are created by act of the fed parliament, and their legislation can be overridden as well. Both Canada and US have federal territories as well. --Michael Johnson (talk) 12:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Northern Territory does have self government but doesn't have State hood (IE: Gets to have the powers that the states have but it has been tried but so far failed [See http://statehood.nt.gov.au but it seems to be down but try Google Cache]). Bidgee (talk) 13:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. I understand the articles concerning individual states and territories would go into detail on this, but would it not be a good idea to give a brief explanation in this article? Just stating the reason why Northern territory and Australian Capital territory are not states would be illuminating. Jack forbes (talk) 12:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

y do they live in the south not north not this crap —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.227.115.204 (talk) 20:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect 2006 census population numbers

The article provides incorrect 2006 census population numbers. Unfortunately, I do not have the editing rights for this page, so cannot change it myself. Please, could someone who can edit this page place the correct number: 20,061,646? The webpage of the Australian Bureau of Statistics containing the right number is http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/d3310114.nsf/4a256353001af3ed4b2562bb00121564/5d3cc840c7bcef0bca2573410017db9a Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimi-syd (talk • contribs) 07:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

According to that page, the figure you've shown includes overseas visitors, ie people not normally resident in Australia, so it's not an accurate indication of the resident population figure, which is what should be shown in the article. The ABS QuickStats page for Australia[3] shows the resident population and supports the figure in the article. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... The numbers do seem strange when you compare the population in 2006 and in 2008 as listed on the page.

It seems the population numbers swelt by nearly two million people in two years. Personally, I don't fully buy AussieLegend's argument about "non-resident" population. All people living in Australia, either permanently or temporary, should be listed - in this global world the movement of people is increasingly becoming a norm, so anyone who lives in the country in a given year should be included (and the notion of "resident population" increasingly obsolete). Whatever your opinion is, I do not think it is acceptable to have both numbers listed on the page together without at least explaining the reason why they appear so different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.183.74.246 (talk) 13:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The official population clock calculates the current resident population, as clearly stated in the fist line on the population clock page. Using the resident population for the census population provides for direct comparison. That's why we use it rather than the raw count. Overseas visitor numbers are subject to massive fluctuations throughout the year, especially during significant events such as the Olympics, World Youth Day/Week etc. and give a false indication of the actual population. The resident population is far more stable. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, if we agree with the definition of "resident population" as people live in the country for an extended period of time and thus their number does not fluctuate, how can we explain the discrepancy between the numbers for 2006 and 2008? Either one of the two numbers is incorrect or they use different definitions. The "resident" population number of a country cannot swell by 8% in two years - that would either require an enormous inflow of immigration or an unbelievable explosion in birth rates. Neither one happened in the past two years (the immigration inflow has been under 1% per year and no record birth rates have been observed). That leads me to conclude that either the two different sources used to obtain the two number used different definitions of "resident population" or one of them is plainly wrong... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.82.175 (talk) 12:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Both of the figures provided come from the same authoritative source, the Australian Bureau of Statistics. I don't understand the discrepancy either. The 2008 figure should only be about 700,000 more than the 2006 figure based on the increase rates that have been shown by the population clock. You'd need to ask the ABS why there is such a large difference. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Admiralty 1824 date

In 1824, the Admiralty agreed that the continent should be known officially as "Australia".

Is there any chance of narrowing this down to a specific month and day? It would be great if we could track down the document/s in which this agreement was conveyed. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I have a related question. My understanding is that "Australia" replaced "New Holland" as the name for the large island in 1824. That is, the name the British used; because the Dutch still called it Nieuw Holland till late in the 19th century. It was a geographic term, and it did not include Van Diemen's Land. Only gradually did "the Australian colonies" come to include VDL (name changed to Tasmania in 1856). I think we need to make it clear that it went from being a strictly geographic term that did not apply to the whole of what we now call Australia, to a political term that did. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

According to a 1787 chart of New Holland at the national Library of Australia, New Holland did indeed include Van Diemen's Land, which at the time was thought to be attached to the mainland.[4] This makes your suggestion unnecessary. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, but in 1798, George Bass and Matthew Flinders circumnavigated Van Diemen's Land, proving it to be separate. That island was still referred to as Van Diemen's Land, and the mainland continued to be called New Holland. When the term "Australia" was approved in 1824, that referred only to the geographical entity that was previously called New Holland, and did not include Van Diemen's Land. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The whole of what we now call Australia was still called New Holland after Bass and Flinders discovery. It was just less land mass that it was previously thought to be. Van Diemen's Land didn't stop being part of New Holland just because it was found to be an island. Remember, the British didn't actually call the continent New Holland. They didn't have a name for the whole continent. They referred to the colony of New South Wales which covered most of the mainland, right over to what is now Western Australia. NSW eventually shrank as other states were formed. New Holland was just the English version of Nieuw Holland and "Australia" was chosen in preference over that as a name for the whole continent when it was decided to name the country. It didn't actually replace it. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've worked it out now. Abel Tasman discovered and named Van Diemen's Land in 1642. He did not come up with the name New Holland until 1644, following his discovery of the north Qld, NT and WA coastlines. He had no reason to believe these 2 landmasses were connected - and as it turns out he was dead right. If he had believed they were contiguous, it would seem more logical to simply extend the first name, Van Diemen's Land, to the larger land mass that he later discovered. Only later was the false assumption made by the British that the east coast of Australia, that Cook discovered, extended all the way down to Van Diemen's Land. By that time, New Holland came to mean the whole of Australia, with VDL assumed to be a southern, Florida-like, promontory. So, it is clear that these names were coined in reference to different land masses, that were later assumed to be connected, and later still found to be disconnected. But in the context of the article we're discussing, it did mean the whole of Australia at the time "Australia" was approved. Thanks for an interesting discussion. Very enlightening. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Who's ministers?

The following is not clear:

the Queen is represented by the Governor-General, who by convention acts on the advice of his or her Ministers.

Does the Queen or does the GG act on the advice of their ministers? Are those the ministers of the Queen or of the GG?

--Michael Daly (talk) 16:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

By convention the GG acts on the advice of the Queen's ministers who, by virtue of him or her being the Queen's representative, are also his or her ministers. :) --AussieLegend (talk) 17:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Effectively it it the same office. The GG acts when the Queen is not present. When the Queen is in Australia, the GG "retires" and ministers give their advice directly to the Queen. When the Queen leaves, the GG resumes the office, and ministers give their advice to the GG again. The ministers are ministers of the Crown. The GG is the representative of the Crown. --Michael Johnson (talk) 21:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

That's actually not true, apart from the last 2 sentences. The GG has powers that the Queen does not have. When the Queen is visiting, the GG might for protocol reasons take a lower public profile than he/she normally does, but he/she is still the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces and is still the person ministers advise, and he does not "retire". The Prime Minister would take the opportunity of having a private audience with the Queen while she's here, and he may advise of her of the same sorts of things he'd advise her about if her were visiting her in London, but she doesn't suddenly become involved in giving Royal Assent to bills that have recently passed through the House of Reps and the Senate. The GG still does that, even when the Queen is here. Ministers other than the Prime Minister do not meet the Queen privately and do not advise her on anything. They sometimes advise the GG, though, and this could still occur while the Queen is visiting. Occasionally, a bill is reserved for the Queen's personal signature - such as the Flags Act 1953 or the Royal Styles and Titles Act 1973 - but that's only done in special cases and is very uncommon. The Queen does not normally even give Royal Assent personally to British acts of parliament - that's done by the Lords Commissioners in her name under letters patent. The GG on the other hand does personally sign Australian bills. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Um the Queen does not sign bills into law, but does sometimes? The Queen doesn't consult with ministers but does with the Prime Minister (who in constitutional terms is just another minister)? To be sure you are right from a practical point of view - the Queen on her short visits here does not take on all the responsibilities of the GG, but in a strictly legal, theoretical sense I am sure I am right. I'll see if I can find a source, you might like to do also. --Michael Johnson (talk) 23:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I will do that, but on your first question: The Queen rarely personally puts her signature "Elizabeth R" on acts of Parliament. In Britain, the function of Royal Assent is almost always carried out by the Lords Commissioners in her name, although there are the occasional exceptions. In the other Commonwealth Realms, the queen rarely signs their parliaments' acts, but it sometimes happens, such as the two I mentioned above. These were reserved for her personal signature because they involved her personally (one related to her title, and one related to national symbols, which were considered the monarch's prerogative in 1954. These days they're the GG's prerogative - e.g. Ninian Stephen proclaimed Advance Australia Fair in 1984). Normally, it's the GG's job to give Royal Assent. I suppose it's a null question, because I imagine that the Australian Parliament would not be sitting when the Queen visits, and there'd be no bills for her to sign anyway. She has opened our parliament more than once, but the sittings are suspended for the rest of her visit. (The Flags Act was passed in 1953, and could perfectly correctly have been signed by the GG the next day, but it was set aside to wait for the Queen's visit in February 1954.) But if some formal proclamation were deemed unavoidable during one of her visits, the person who signs it would be the GG, not the Queen. She simply does not involve herself in Australian politics, as she made very clear on at least 2 occasions: in 1975, when Speaker Scholes wrote to her asking her to reverse Kerr's decision to sack Whitlam (she replied that this was entirely a matter for the Australian authorities), and prior to the 1998 Republic Referendum (when she said that whatever decision the Australian people made would be fine by her). -- JackofOz (talk) 00:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree it is very much a nullpoint, entirely technical and of no relevance to current day politics. --Michael Johnson (talk) 00:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, so there is some clarification. Are these ministers exclusively elected Australians or can they include ministers in Britain (where this would imply Queen means - Queen wherever, rather than Queen of Australia)? I only ask this to be clear and I think all these explanations should be reflected in the article. --Michael Daly (talk) 19:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

In the context of the question you originally asked, we're talking about Australian ministers only. The Australian Governor-General is advised exclusively by the Australian ministers of the Queen of Australia, never by British ministers of the Queen of the UK, Canadian ministers of the Queen of Canada, etc. Hypothetically, the 16 crowns she wears could be worn by 16 different people, and as far as the law is concerned, she may as well be 16 different people. Sure, sometimes she speaks as monarch of more than one country, such as in her Christmas address to the Commonwealth, but then she's actually speaking not as monarch but as Head of the Commonwealth, because she is not monarch to every single country of the Commonwealth (of which there are 53), only to 16 of them. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

POPULATION

Tweed - Gold Coast is not counted as one city and neither is canberra - queenbeyan i should know since i live in canberra and in even my father and my wife says that. Newcastle is SIxth!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.10.139.107 (talk) 00:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Geography

This is a general intoductory article for the nation/continenent.The geography section rightly deals with the generality of the geogrpahy of the continent, giving general informtaionon cliamte, geology and so forth. It really isn't the place for contentious current affairs subjects such as climate change, no matter how important. Ethel Aardvark (talk) 02:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Climate change is a science topic, and should be included in the climate section. It is not a current affairs topic, however the political debate about it obviously is. --Michael Johnson (talk) 03:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

um... you should leave climate change out it could offend some people and cause fights because some people dont believe in it including me. --User:Montana Gy (User Talk:Montana Gy) —Preceding undated comment was added at 05:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC).

Aboriginal History

The removal of children from their families, which

• 1) some historians
• 2) have argued
• 3) could be considered
• 4) by some definitions
• 5) may have contributed

That sounds like Humprhrey Appleby at his best. How many vagueries and weasel words can we manage to fit into a single sentence? This sort of thing really doesn't belong in an enxyclopedia.

If it contributed, it contributed and it needs to be included in the sectio on Aboriginal population decline (and referenced of course).

If it can be argued that some historians, on a good day, may consider that under some circumstances the possibility exists that it is plausible that it contributed, in the fullness of time, along with other factors, to an overarching and ongoing process that, in certain aspects, may reflect certain patterns pertaining to what some definitions may incorporate into a broad definition that also embraces genocide, and that its ramifictaions never precluded the possibility that unnamed subgroups may have experienced a transient or more longterm decline in numerical status relative to....

Then it doesn't belong at all. It's controversial, it's doesn't actually say anyhting and it has become original research. There are already several articles discussing this subject, it hardly belongs in an article that only touches on major points in Australian history. By all means mention the "Stolen Generation" with a link to the appropriate article, but the spurious claim that it led to population decline needs to be removed if this is the only way it can be worded.Ethel Aardvark (talk) 00:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

If it can be referenced that some historians actually say this then it is not original research. Otherwise it needs to go. Jack forbes (talk) 00:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The numerous weasel words also need to go. If a reliable source says it then it should be stated as fact, not as a series of increasingly vague qualifiers. It becomes original research because as far as I can see an editor has decided that the removal policy was genocide, genocide results in population decline, therefore the policy must have resulted in population decline. As you say, it needs a reference from a reliable source that states clearly that the policy reduced the number of Aboriginals. Ethel Aardvark (talk) 03:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Economy

"Australia's balance of payments is more than 7% of GDP negative: Australia has had persistently large current account deficits for more than 50 years"

This is completely incorrect. The balance of payments is equal for countries with a floating exchange rate. It should say 'The current account deficit is 7%,Australia has had persistent current account deficits for more than 50 years'

also might be better to put the stuff on exports with the stuff on the balance of payments. id be happy to expand on this section and other sections :) Thegoldenrule (talk) 17:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting Ammendment/Ommission to Culture:

I've recently finished reading up on culture of Australia, but there is something a little disturbing about the overt, glowing references to the arts in Australia. Ending the first paragraph. Someone should add something about the following (I am not registered here, I will do it when I can and am able) to the section of that paragraph. Ie. Australia may well have some "original and vigour" in it's arts, but it apparently has the most disturbing and extreme history of censorship of any western democracy I have read about... Now, the two supporting articles for this conclusion are the wiki itself, but also these articles which I was reading.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Proud-to-ban/2005/05/06/1115092690466.html

""Australia was arguably one of the worst censors in the Western world," she says. Proud to ban what was hot in London, Paris and New York, the Australian censors described their role as a "bulwark for Anglo-Saxon standards".

Moore's research is hindered by the sheer size and severity of Australia's censorship regimes. She is only a month into her research but already has found more than 14 governmental agencies involved, with more than 67 archival file series, some measuring 200 metres."

And now Australia is implementing a world (western democratic, "free" country) first isp censoring scheme for their people? I would hence submit that the line ending the first paragraph is misleading and not NPOV, because it is completely ignoring (censoring?) this reputation, which is atrocious from a democratic viewpoint of freedom of speech.

Australia Will Censor the Internet http://www.searchviews.com/index.php/archives/2007/12/australia-will-censor-the-internet.php

The Australian government has announced it will censor the Internet, imposing filters to keep out porn and violence in the interest of protecting children. ISPs will now have to provide “clean feeds” and filter out any objectionable content. The country’s telecommunications minister, Stephen Conroy, countered freedom of speech arguments with this statement: “If people equate freedom of speech with watching child pornography, then the Rudd-Labor Government is going to disagree.”

Not only this, but the entire adult gaming population may not play adult video games...there are none. In other words, Australians are some of the most repressed citizens of any western democracy in the world. Clearly this must be mentioned alongside the gushing claims about the vigour and originality of the arts in the first paragraph of the culture section (currently it is not NPOV). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.254.82.64 (talk) 15:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a bit of original research going on here to reach the conclusion that Australians are some of the most repressed citizens of any western democracy . You bring together three disparate elements - book censorship (which Australia was hardly alone in implementing) that ended 40 or more years ago (I think it was Don Chipp in the 1960's who did most of the heavy lifting on that one) providing "clean feeds" on the internet on an "opt-out" basis, and censorship of video games (not usually countered as culture). Hard to draw your conclusion, and wrong to draw it anyway without a reliable source. --Michael Johnson (talk) 21:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I recomment that you read the articles I linked. Also, you may not be aware what is exactly available in other western democratic nations in which case you wouldn't really know. About books.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Australia#Books ...The wikipedia clearly shows it has not ended at all. Indeed there seems to be a lot going on in that area. You wouldn't know this of course because that is the nature of censorship to remove these options from sight. Also, according to this section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Australia#Political_speech , "Even though the nation prides itself in freedom, Australia lacks an explicitly protected form of freedom of speech." There is a lot more if you actually read up on it and compare it to other western democracies, which I stated I did. The repression angle is because all of this qualifies as adult material in some respect, and to not have such options available to free-thinking adults in a "free" country, is repressive from an objective viewpoint. Now another wikipedia article on freedom of speech in Australia has this line, amongst others, "Despite the court's ruling, however, not all political speech appears to be protected in Australia and several laws criminalise forms of speech that would be protected in other democratic countries such as the United States." There is no original research here, only logically based conclusions and comparisons. 124.254.82.64 (talk) 01:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I have read the articles. The SMH states book banning went out of fashion in the 1970s and '80s, but does refer to current film censorship, ironically referencing one film that did pass the censors unscathed. The blog (in itself not a very satisfactory reliable source) gives one opinion that the new laws are repressive, and a second that they are not and are comparable with those in other western countries, and followed by a readers comment that supports the second opinion. As I said hardly compelling stuff. As for the Wikipedia articles (which by definition are not reliable sources) the statement that "Even though the nation prides itself in freedom, Australia lacks an explicitly protected form of freedom of speech." is still a long way from an assertion that free speech in limited in Australia to any practical extent compared with other countries. And making logically based conclusions and comparisons is original research. You are welcome to edit the article but need to find a reliable source that supports your assertion. --Michael Johnson (talk) 04:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Michael – you sum it up well. And thanks for taking the time to read through all the material. Perhaps in future the anonymous contributor could try to be more succinct with their points. They will find that this is more effective in getting people to (a) pay attention, (b) understand, and (c) reply. --Merbabu (talk) 05:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I looked around a bit and have something else: http://www.nswccl.org.au/issues/freespeech/index.php (specifically, "This means that Australians are free to talk about politics. But that's it. All other forms of speech can be restricted by Parliament. ") This goes beyond far beyond books, video games, and free speech rights as described in the links. PS. I disagree this is OR as I have provided several independent articles. Also: "Australia is the only common law country without a Bill of Rights." http://www.nswccl.org.au/issues/bill_of_rights/australia.php This is highly unusual and interesting 124.254.82.64 (talk) 02:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps rather than making general observations about Australia you could make some very specific suggestions here on wording changes and they can commented on. --Merbabu (talk) 03:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Again you confuse the lack of a bill of rights with actual suppression of rights. You have not provided any source that says Australians right to free speech is substantially limited against that in other countries. We should also remember that a bill of rights is quite a recent innovation in countries like the UK, New Zealand, and Canada. And in the first two it is only a statutory bill, and could in theory be amended or repealed by Parliament. Lastly a bill of rights can only protect a citizen if there is the political will, ask any dissident in China. There are limits to freedom of speech in Australia as there are in all countries. But you still have a long way to go before you can show that Australia has, in your words, the most disturbing and extreme history of censorship of any western democracy. --Michael Johnson (talk) 05:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

You're obfuscating the issue. The bill of rights was only an incidental point to the original query. Same with the free speech issue. However they do have a role, which was noted. Before, I quoted one section that contradicts your contention Michael. What part of this quoted passage I provided, "Australia was arguably one of the worst censors in the Western world," don't you understand? Read it again. @Merbabu: Maybe I'll think about the phrasing a little. I'm aware of the context. At least you already made this NPOV, which I had pointed out and was my primary aim. Thanks. I may delete this section to reduce it's size and resubmit these quotations with phrasing to see if anyone ageed with it as Merbabu suggested.124.254.82.64 (talk) 04:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand it perfectly well, and the important words here are was and arguably one. The SMH article refers to the situation until the 1960's, an era which even I, ancient as I am, barely remember. You were wanting to edit a section that describes the situation today. And arguably one is quite a qualifier, not the worst at all but maybe up there with the worst. From my knowledge of the era I have no problems with that statement, but is a reference to censorship in Australia over 40 years ago really relevant to this article? We do have an extensive article on Censorship in Australia already. And please do not accuse me of obfuscation, you are the one trying to bring together unrelated references to try and promote an extreme POV. But you were right about one thing, original and vigour et al was over the top and POV without references, and Merbabu has done a good job tidying it up. If you're happy I'm happy. --Michael Johnson (talk) 06:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Royal Anthem

Under Anthem, Royal anthem "God Save the Queen" Should be added as it is an official anthem of australia. Like it has been put up for canada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sebgrove (talk • contribs) 14:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

We've had this discussion at least once before - see Talk:Australia/Archive 11#Royal anthem. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

At least once is an understatement. Looking through the archive indexes I counted five discussions. Personally I think it should be in the infobox but consensus seems to be against that. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's not an understatement if you think about it. If I'd said we'd had this discussion before, or once before, that would have been an understatement. But "at least once before" is open-ended, and could imply anywhere from only 1 discussion, through to 50++ discussions. -- JackofOz (talk) 15:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

My copyediting

I have worked carefully through the whole article today (see detailed edit summaries). I have not sifted through all of the notes, but I suspect they need a little attention as well. Two issues in particular have arisen, for me:

• By convention at Wikipedia and almost everywhere else in similar publishing, titles like dame and sir are omitted. Any other practice would be invidious, since these are almost certain to be applied selectively and inconsistently. Accordingly I have deleted such titles for Robert Helpmann, Nellie Melba, Arthur Streeton, and so on. Restoring these would require a strong argument and justification.
• Terra nullius may be translated several ways. Nullius is the genitive (or, equivalently here, "possessive") form of the pronoun nullus. It can occur impersonally, so it means "none" if the presumed domain is inanimate objects. It also occurs personally, so it means "no one", "nobody", "no person", or – yes!– "none" if the presumed domain is human beings. Now, the English word none is most often used impersonally; it is therefore unsettling and obscure to insist on translating terra nullius as "land of none". And it is unnecessary, given the many options. SOED has for res nullius "no one’s property; a thing or things that can belong to no one. Macquarie has for terra nullius "land of no-one". Again, we would need a strong argument to use land of none, given this evidence and these precedents.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 10:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Given the eveidence you've presented, why use "no person's land" rather than "land of no-one"? --AussieLegend (talk) 10:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't object so strongly to land of no-one as I did to land of none.

Thinking about all this, I now favour no-one's land or nobody's land above other options. My reason: these both represent natural expression in English, and the natural Latin translation of them both would be terra nullius. The differences in order and in syntactic detail are just facts about English and Latin; in moving between the two, we ought to adjust smoothly to the new language. There is no reason to strive to preserve the Latin order, any more than we should Latinise no-one's land as nullius terra (a possible but unwieldly construction).

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 12:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Historical population

How can the 1788 population have been only 900? I am sure there must have been thousands of aboriginals living there at the time. Or was Australia in 1788 a much smaller geographical area than today, including no aboriginal settlements? // Jens Persson (90.231.244.42 (talk) 21:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC))

The Aboriginal population in 1788, and in fact for most of Australia's history, was unknown and was not included in the population counts. Even now there is considerable disagreement over how many Aboriginals there might have been. Some claim there were several million while others claim that the current population (~455,000) doesn't support that claim. Nobody really knows so all we can count on being accurate is the non-Aboriginal population figure. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Many experts do in fact agree that it was greater than 300,000 and less than 2.5m, so that's the range. The problem with the table and the whole section as it stands is that it effectively ignores the pre-European population, which is incorrect within the stated terms, eg, if they are about the population history of Australia, something should be said in the main article about the pre-European situation and not just in a footnote. SoMuchTime (talk) 18:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. If you want to add something along those lines I see no problems, as long as you provide some reasonable citations. Somebody is bound to challenge it. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I came in here to add this exact statement - I believe there should be some type of footnote to indicate that values up to a certain point do not include aboriginals, but after that point, they are included in censuses (was it the year they were given the vote??). I don't know how to use Wiki very well, but I believe this is a VERY important piece of information to add because without it we are almost propogating an out-dated view of a valued part of our community. Pleitch (talk) 09:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

There is already a note explaining that "19th century figures do not include the indigenous population" in the citation. There's little more that can be said at this time as there is no indication when the figures used started including the indigenous population. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Crown Land?

"One interesting difference between Australia and the United States is that because the land area of the Commonwealth has not changed since federation, crown land in the states is the property of the state governments, not the commonwealth. The crown land owned by the Commonwealth consists of crown land in the territories and isolated small parcels used as airports etc. In the United States, because of its major expansion since federation, this only applies in the original thirteen colonies and Texas."

What the heck does this mean? America doesn't have any "crown land", so I have no clue what they're talking about. Is this some sort of arcane legal difference between the original thirteen colonies and the rest of America, or is this just some odd perspective on history? And whichever it is, why isn't there a link to an article about whatever the corresponding USian concept is that's different? 24.44.51.38 (talk) 05:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Fair question - have since linked crown land for your convenience. Others may wish to chime in also. Have also slightly refactored this page to bring your question in order to the bottom of the page. Cheers!--VS ^talk 07:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

From the Crown land article, it looks like the rough US equivalent would be Federal lands. I thing the passage is basically saying that public lands in Australia are largely managed by the state governments, as opposed to public lands in the US being mostly run by the federal government. Looking at the passage in the article though, it could use some sources, and I'm not sure why it is focusing so much on a comparison with just the US. AlexiusHoratius (talk) 07:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the paragraph in question is unecessary. The observation is not all that important or even interesting. And it tends to confuise, q.e.d. It suffices to say that the states are sovereign. This is stated clearly and implies everything that the paragraph attempts to convey.--Gazzster (talk) 00:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Australia is the only continent occupied by a single country

"Australia is the only continent occupied by a single country." This statement is not factually correct. Australia is part of the continent of Oceania. The same mistake is repeated in the entry for "continent". In turn, these entries are inconsistent with the entry for "Oceania". The view that Australia is a continent is Anglo-centric. In Europe, outside the British Isles, for example, Oceania is recognised as a continent. While recognising that the origin of the word "continent" refers to a continuous landmass, the word has evolved to have a different meaning, just like the word ocean, for example. We now do not understand an ocean to be "the great river or sea surrounding the disk of the Earth". Pcallioni (talk) 06:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Oceania is not a continent. It is a region. An examination of continental drift over the past 4.5 billion years supports the claim that Australia is a continent. By the way, this issue was discussed in June on this page. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

My dictionary defines a continent as "One of the main continuous bodies of land on the earth's surface." That is the English meaning of the word, and that is the meaning the English Wikipedia should follow. Oceania is, apart from Australia, mostly water. If Oceania is a continent, so is the Atlantic Ocean. Can we have some evidence for the proposition that "In Europe, outside the British Isles, for example, Oceania is recognised as a continent"? Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 11:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

My answer is a question: to which continent do New Guinea, New Zealand, Fiji et al belong? Pcallioni (talk) 22:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

They are islands. They don't belong to any continent. An island is a piece of land smaller than a continent. And that is no answer to my request for evidence for the proposition that "In Europe, outside the British Isles, for example, Oceania is recognised as a continent"? Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 23:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, we do have an article on Australia (continent), which describes an entity that includes New Guinea as well as the country called Australia. Just quite why geographers chose this absurbly confusing name is a mystery that will go with me to my grave. "Continent" is a matter of definition, and definitions get changed all the time, and definitions mean different things in different contexts (see also Borders of the continents for further enlightenment). If Europe can be considered a different continent than Asia when they're clearly part of the same land mass, as is Africa for that matter, then one can make a definition to suit any purpose one likes. When I was in school, a million years ago, I was taught that Australia (the country) is the world's largest island and the world's smallest continent. They seem to have forgotten that Tasmania and other islands are part of Australia, so maybe my teachers (I lived on the mainland) were talking about mainland Australia only in the "world's largest island" claim, but they never made that distinction as far as I can remember. I doubt that a Tasmanian teacher would ever have told their students that Australia (unqualified) was the world's largest island. Nowadays, better minds than ours have decided that a land mass cannot be simultaneously a continent and an island, so Greenland now gets the top honour for islands, and Australia (country) is regarded as a continental land mass. But there's still this other niggling matter of Australia (continent), which is more than just Australia (country). If all the experts could speak with one voice on this matter, it would be better for all of us. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I gave the standard English definition of "continent" above: "One of the main continuous bodies of land on the earth's surface." In a strictly geographical sense, therefore, Europe and Asia are one continent, occupying as they do one landmass and one tectonic plate. Whether Australia is a small continent or a large island is obviously a matter of opinion, but the consensus among geographers seems to be that it is a continent. New Guinea is an island which is closely associated with Australia in a geograhphical sense, but it is not part of the Australian landmass. Tasmania is part of Australia in a political sense but is not part of the Australian landmass, although it once was (as was New Guinea). What is clear, and the point of this discussion, is that there is not and never has been a continent called Oceania. There is by the way no Oceania tectonic plate. Australia and New Zealand are on the Australian plate, the rest of the Pacific, all the way up to the Aleutian Islands, is on the Pacific plate. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 23:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

In certain contexts, eg. some sporting competitions, the world is divided into "continents" and Oceania rates a mention there. It makes sense in these contexts to lump all the Pacific island nations in with Australia and New Zealand and call the merged entity by some name, the usual one being Oceania. Maybe that's what Pcallioni is referring to. The sentence "Australia is the only continent occupied by a single country" doesn't actually state that which definition of the word "continent" is being used, although it seems reasonably obvious it relates to continuous land masses. Or maybe not. You seem at odds with the writers of Australia (continent) when you say that New Guinea is not part of the Australian landmass. I don't personally support that notion, but I guess we can't just ignore the fact that geographers consider the 2 places to be part of the same continent, even if they're not a continuous land mass. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess the sporting competition you speak of is soccer, and now of course in that sport Australia is part of Asia. Not sure that helps us. I guess based on Australia (continent) the sentence should read "Australia is the only country to occupy the entire mainland of a continent". But that seems somewhat convoluted. --Michael Johnson (talk) 05:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

And of course, New Guinea is its own mainland in relation to its offshore islands. The continent of "Australia" seems unique (well, what else is new) in that it has 2 mainlands. Even the people on Flinders Island refer to Tasmania as their "mainland" before they get to the Big Island. That makes three: a main mainland (Australia minus Tasmania), a middle mainland (New Guinea), and a small mainland (Tasmania). So the term "mainland" could possibly mean different things to those who've boned up on the revelations contained in Australia (continent). How we deal with this in being absolutely non-misleading but still clearly and well written and sensible, beats me right now. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The UN defines the continental region as Oceania, which then breaks down into Polynesia, Melanesia, Micronesia and Australia & New Zealand. see http://millenniumindicators.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49regin.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.92.158.65 (talk) 10:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Moving on from the discussion above, the sentence has now been swapped around and says: "Australia is the only single country to occupy an entire continent." I don't mind this swap, but what I do mind is the tautology "only single country". Could someone please remove the word single - I cannot because the article is semi-locked. 86.9.201.247 (talk) 01:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth of Australia

The Autralia entry has the head of State as Queen Elizabeth II - Isn't this incorrect?

Elizabeth I was not head of State for Australia so QEII should surely be just QE in relation to Australia?

The Royal Mews near Buckingham Palace contains the Australian State Coach (presented to The Queen in 1988 by the Australian people to mark Australia's bicentenary). Whereas the other coaches include "E II" to represent Queen Elizabeth II, the Australia Coach states only "E", as Queen Elizabeth is the first Queen Elizabeth of Australia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.196 (talk) 12:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The Queen's title is Queen Elizabeth II, not Queen Elizabeth, and that is how she is referred to, regardless of the fact that she's the first Queen Elizabeth who has been Queen of Australia. If Charles ever becomes king the The Constitution will be amended to reflect that The King is now the head of state and he will be referred to as Charles II, not just Charles. Similarly, William will be referred to as William V. What's written on the state coach is not considered to be an authoritative decree of anything really. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

And that would be Charles III, not II. --Michael Johnson (talk) 22:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the Constitution isn't amended - in it, "the Queen" refers to the successors of Queen Victoria, male or female. The title of the Queen is given not by the constitution, but by the Royal Styles and Titles Act, which follows the convention that the monarch uses the highest ordinal number that is appropriate anywhere in their realms (so that a future King James would follow the Scottish numbering, not English). Also, there have been some reports that Charles will actually be known as George if he becomes king. JPD (talk) 23:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. The Constitution wasn't amended when kings Edward VII, George V, Edward VIII and George VI came to the throne. It still referred to the Queen, because we happened to have a queen when the Constitution was written. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Ungainly "Note 1" against national anthem in infobox

I'm sure there's a better way of doing it—at the very least, smaller font-size. I suppose it can't be just a plain superscript numeral, can it? Tony (talk) 00:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean "plain superscript" as in Advance Australia Fair¹ ? --AussieLegend (talk) 01:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm - you might have a point, Tony, but here's hoping it doesn't open up the old fight about how God Save the Queen is presented in the article. Let's try and keep the discussion focussed on the format of the note. --Merbabu (talk) 02:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

You may have just hit on a resolution of Tony's issue. A few days ago somebody removed English from the lannguage field[5]. While restoring it I discovered that the infobox has fields for diffent types of languages so the infobox now has fields for "Official lanuages" and "National language".[6] Suspecting that other fields may be missing I checked the template and there is a "royal_anthem" field that isn't used. Addition of this field would eliminate the need for a note. See example --AussieLegend (talk) 02:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I did mean the plain "1", yes. If that format is not used for anything else, it would be better. Just a tiny smaller would be nice. I'm being fussy because it's in such a prominent place. Tony (talk) 03:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I have some concerns about reducing the font size because this affects readbility for a lot of people. Using an abbreviation, eg Advance Australia Fair ^N1 is probably the better option. This was the style fomerly used by the article. I think just a plain numeral is a bit ambiguous as ¹ could be confused with ^[1]. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The "N" in "N1" etc to distinguish notes from ref numbers seems unnecessary, given that you can click on it to zoom straight to the note at the bottom. No big deal, though. Tony (talk) 05:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

overlinking

The opening is pretty heavily linked, and I'm concerned that the high-value links not be diluted by trivial ones. MOS deprecates the linking of dictionary-type words, and here I see plenty that are not even piped, such as "continent", "mainland", "country", "infectious disease", "United States" (see MOSLINK), "naval base" and "sea port". These are words that English-speakers are meant to know; if they don't, they can very easily tap the letters into the search box or look them up. I see "sq mi" and a very ungainly "-square-kilometre" linked; these are questionable. The latter should be a quadruple bunger: I'll recast it now. Tony (talk) 04:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Official name of Australia

What is the Official name of Australia? Commonwealth of Australia or Australian Government?--Kanags (talk) 09:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

As explained earlier on this page and in the article itself the full and formal name is Commonwealth of Australia but Australia is more commonly used. The Australian Government is the administrative entity that runs the country. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks AussieLegend.--Kanags (talk) 02:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Australia opens its doors to about 300,000 new migrants in 2008-09

Could 2008-09 be explained. Is it 300,000 new migrants in 2008 and 2009 so 150,000 per year or does 2008-09 refer to this year? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ItemSeven (talk • contribs) 13:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I assume that it would refer to the 2008-09 financial year which begins on 1 July 2008 and ends on 30 June 2009. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

States and territories

Reading this section I see that Northern territory is not a state. Excuse my confusion, but does this make it the only part of Australia that is neither a state or part of a state? If so, what is the reason for this? Jack forbes (talk) 11:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory are the two mainland Australian territories. These emerged after the six Australian states were instated and have as of yet not been given the full state status. Mvjs (talk) 12:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

States are sovereign, territories are administered by the Commonwealth government. Territories were once administered directly by the feds, but now have self government. However their legislators are created by act of the fed parliament, and their legislation can be overridden as well. Both Canada and US have federal territories as well. --Michael Johnson (talk) 12:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Northern Territory does have self government but doesn't have State hood (IE: Gets to have the powers that the states have but it has been tried but so far failed [See http://statehood.nt.gov.au but it seems to be down but try Google Cache]). Bidgee (talk) 13:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. I understand the articles concerning individual states and territories would go into detail on this, but would it not be a good idea to give a brief explanation in this article? Just stating the reason why Northern territory and Australian Capital territory are not states would be illuminating. Jack forbes (talk) 12:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

y do they live in the south not north not this crap —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.227.115.204 (talk) 20:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect 2006 census population numbers

The article provides incorrect 2006 census population numbers. Unfortunately, I do not have the editing rights for this page, so cannot change it myself. Please, could someone who can edit this page place the correct number: 20,061,646? The webpage of the Australian Bureau of Statistics containing the right number is http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/d3310114.nsf/4a256353001af3ed4b2562bb00121564/5d3cc840c7bcef0bca2573410017db9a Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimi-syd (talk • contribs) 07:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

According to that page, the figure you've shown includes overseas visitors, ie people not normally resident in Australia, so it's not an accurate indication of the resident population figure, which is what should be shown in the article. The ABS QuickStats page for Australia[7] shows the resident population and supports the figure in the article. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... The numbers do seem strange when you compare the population in 2006 and in 2008 as listed on the page.

It seems the population numbers swelt by nearly two million people in two years. Personally, I don't fully buy AussieLegend's argument about "non-resident" population. All people living in Australia, either permanently or temporary, should be listed - in this global world the movement of people is increasingly becoming a norm, so anyone who lives in the country in a given year should be included (and the notion of "resident population" increasingly obsolete). Whatever your opinion is, I do not think it is acceptable to have both numbers listed on the page together without at least explaining the reason why they appear so different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.183.74.246 (talk) 13:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The official population clock calculates the current resident population, as clearly stated in the fist line on the population clock page. Using the resident population for the census population provides for direct comparison. That's why we use it rather than the raw count. Overseas visitor numbers are subject to massive fluctuations throughout the year, especially during significant events such as the Olympics, World Youth Day/Week etc. and give a false indication of the actual population. The resident population is far more stable. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, if we agree with the definition of "resident population" as people live in the country for an extended period of time and thus their number does not fluctuate, how can we explain the discrepancy between the numbers for 2006 and 2008? Either one of the two numbers is incorrect or they use different definitions. The "resident" population number of a country cannot swell by 8% in two years - that would either require an enormous inflow of immigration or an unbelievable explosion in birth rates. Neither one happened in the past two years (the immigration inflow has been under 1% per year and no record birth rates have been observed). That leads me to conclude that either the two different sources used to obtain the two number used different definitions of "resident population" or one of them is plainly wrong... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.82.175 (talk) 12:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Both of the figures provided come from the same authoritative source, the Australian Bureau of Statistics. I don't understand the discrepancy either. The 2008 figure should only be about 700,000 more than the 2006 figure based on the increase rates that have been shown by the population clock. You'd need to ask the ABS why there is such a large difference. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Admiralty 1824 date

In 1824, the Admiralty agreed that the continent should be known officially as "Australia".

Is there any chance of narrowing this down to a specific month and day? It would be great if we could track down the document/s in which this agreement was conveyed. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I have a related question. My understanding is that "Australia" replaced "New Holland" as the name for the large island in 1824. That is, the name the British used; because the Dutch still called it Nieuw Holland till late in the 19th century. It was a geographic term, and it did not include Van Diemen's Land. Only gradually did "the Australian colonies" come to include VDL (name changed to Tasmania in 1856). I think we need to make it clear that it went from being a strictly geographic term that did not apply to the whole of what we now call Australia, to a political term that did. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

According to a 1787 chart of New Holland at the national Library of Australia, New Holland did indeed include Van Diemen's Land, which at the time was thought to be attached to the mainland.[8] This makes your suggestion unnecessary. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, but in 1798, George Bass and Matthew Flinders circumnavigated Van Diemen's Land, proving it to be separate. That island was still referred to as Van Diemen's Land, and the mainland continued to be called New Holland. When the term "Australia" was approved in 1824, that referred only to the geographical entity that was previously called New Holland, and did not include Van Diemen's Land. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The whole of what we now call Australia was still called New Holland after Bass and Flinders discovery. It was just less land mass that it was previously thought to be. Van Diemen's Land didn't stop being part of New Holland just because it was found to be an island. Remember, the British didn't actually call the continent New Holland. They didn't have a name for the whole continent. They referred to the colony of New South Wales which covered most of the mainland, right over to what is now Western Australia. NSW eventually shrank as other states were formed. New Holland was just the English version of Nieuw Holland and "Australia" was chosen in preference over that as a name for the whole continent when it was decided to name the country. It didn't actually replace it. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've worked it out now. Abel Tasman discovered and named Van Diemen's Land in 1642. He did not come up with the name New Holland until 1644, following his discovery of the north Qld, NT and WA coastlines. He had no reason to believe these 2 landmasses were connected - and as it turns out he was dead right. If he had believed they were contiguous, it would seem more logical to simply extend the first name, Van Diemen's Land, to the larger land mass that he later discovered. Only later was the false assumption made by the British that the east coast of Australia, that Cook discovered, extended all the way down to Van Diemen's Land. By that time, New Holland came to mean the whole of Australia, with VDL assumed to be a southern, Florida-like, promontory. So, it is clear that these names were coined in reference to different land masses, that were later assumed to be connected, and later still found to be disconnected. But in the context of the article we're discussing, it did mean the whole of Australia at the time "Australia" was approved. Thanks for an interesting discussion. Very enlightening. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Who's ministers?

The following is not clear:

the Queen is represented by the Governor-General, who by convention acts on the advice of his or her Ministers.

Does the Queen or does the GG act on the advice of their ministers? Are those the ministers of the Queen or of the GG?

--Michael Daly (talk) 16:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

By convention the GG acts on the advice of the Queen's ministers who, by virtue of him or her being the Queen's representative, are also his or her ministers. :) --AussieLegend (talk) 17:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Effectively it it the same office. The GG acts when the Queen is not present. When the Queen is in Australia, the GG "retires" and ministers give their advice directly to the Queen. When the Queen leaves, the GG resumes the office, and ministers give their advice to the GG again. The ministers are ministers of the Crown. The GG is the representative of the Crown. --Michael Johnson (talk) 21:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

That's actually not true, apart from the last 2 sentences. The GG has powers that the Queen does not have. When the Queen is visiting, the GG might for protocol reasons take a lower public profile than he/she normally does, but he/she is still the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces and is still the person ministers advise, and he does not "retire". The Prime Minister would take the opportunity of having a private audience with the Queen while she's here, and he may advise of her of the same sorts of things he'd advise her about if her were visiting her in London, but she doesn't suddenly become involved in giving Royal Assent to bills that have recently passed through the House of Reps and the Senate. The GG still does that, even when the Queen is here. Ministers other than the Prime Minister do not meet the Queen privately and do not advise her on anything. They sometimes advise the GG, though, and this could still occur while the Queen is visiting. Occasionally, a bill is reserved for the Queen's personal signature - such as the Flags Act 1953 or the Royal Styles and Titles Act 1973 - but that's only done in special cases and is very uncommon. The Queen does not normally even give Royal Assent personally to British acts of parliament - that's done by the Lords Commissioners in her name under letters patent. The GG on the other hand does personally sign Australian bills. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Um the Queen does not sign bills into law, but does sometimes? The Queen doesn't consult with ministers but does with the Prime Minister (who in constitutional terms is just another minister)? To be sure you are right from a practical point of view - the Queen on her short visits here does not take on all the responsibilities of the GG, but in a strictly legal, theoretical sense I am sure I am right. I'll see if I can find a source, you might like to do also. --Michael Johnson (talk) 23:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I will do that, but on your first question: The Queen rarely personally puts her signature "Elizabeth R" on acts of Parliament. In Britain, the function of Royal Assent is almost always carried out by the Lords Commissioners in her name, although there are the occasional exceptions. In the other Commonwealth Realms, the queen rarely signs their parliaments' acts, but it sometimes happens, such as the two I mentioned above. These were reserved for her personal signature because they involved her personally (one related to her title, and one related to national symbols, which were considered the monarch's prerogative in 1954. These days they're the GG's prerogative - e.g. Ninian Stephen proclaimed Advance Australia Fair in 1984). Normally, it's the GG's job to give Royal Assent. I suppose it's a null question, because I imagine that the Australian Parliament would not be sitting when the Queen visits, and there'd be no bills for her to sign anyway. She has opened our parliament more than once, but the sittings are suspended for the rest of her visit. (The Flags Act was passed in 1953, and could perfectly correctly have been signed by the GG the next day, but it was set aside to wait for the Queen's visit in February 1954.) But if some formal proclamation were deemed unavoidable during one of her visits, the person who signs it would be the GG, not the Queen. She simply does not involve herself in Australian politics, as she made very clear on at least 2 occasions: in 1975, when Speaker Scholes wrote to her asking her to reverse Kerr's decision to sack Whitlam (she replied that this was entirely a matter for the Australian authorities), and prior to the 1998 Republic Referendum (when she said that whatever decision the Australian people made would be fine by her). -- JackofOz (talk) 00:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree it is very much a nullpoint, entirely technical and of no relevance to current day politics. --Michael Johnson (talk) 00:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, so there is some clarification. Are these ministers exclusively elected Australians or can they include ministers in Britain (where this would imply Queen means - Queen wherever, rather than Queen of Australia)? I only ask this to be clear and I think all these explanations should be reflected in the article. --Michael Daly (talk) 19:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

In the context of the question you originally asked, we're talking about Australian ministers only. The Australian Governor-General is advised exclusively by the Australian ministers of the Queen of Australia, never by British ministers of the Queen of the UK, Canadian ministers of the Queen of Canada, etc. Hypothetically, the 16 crowns she wears could be worn by 16 different people, and as far as the law is concerned, she may as well be 16 different people. Sure, sometimes she speaks as monarch of more than one country, such as in her Christmas address to the Commonwealth, but then she's actually speaking not as monarch but as Head of the Commonwealth, because she is not monarch to every single country of the Commonwealth (of which there are 53), only to 16 of them. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

POPULATION

Tweed - Gold Coast is not counted as one city and neither is canberra - queenbeyan i should know since i live in canberra and in even my father and my wife says that. Newcastle is SIxth!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.10.139.107 (talk) 00:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Geography

This is a general intoductory article for the nation/continenent.The geography section rightly deals with the generality of the geogrpahy of the continent, giving general informtaionon cliamte, geology and so forth. It really isn't the place for contentious current affairs subjects such as climate change, no matter how important. Ethel Aardvark (talk) 02:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Climate change is a science topic, and should be included in the climate section. It is not a current affairs topic, however the political debate about it obviously is. --Michael Johnson (talk) 03:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

um... you should leave climate change out it could offend some people and cause fights because some people dont believe in it including me. --User:Montana Gy (User Talk:Montana Gy) —Preceding undated comment was added at 05:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC).

Aboriginal History

The removal of children from their families, which

• 1) some historians
• 2) have argued
• 3) could be considered
• 4) by some definitions
• 5) may have contributed

That sounds like Humprhrey Appleby at his best. How many vagueries and weasel words can we manage to fit into a single sentence? This sort of thing really doesn't belong in an enxyclopedia.

If it contributed, it contributed and it needs to be included in the sectio on Aboriginal population decline (and referenced of course).

If it can be argued that some historians, on a good day, may consider that under some circumstances the possibility exists that it is plausible that it contributed, in the fullness of time, along with other factors, to an overarching and ongoing process that, in certain aspects, may reflect certain patterns pertaining to what some definitions may incorporate into a broad definition that also embraces genocide, and that its ramifictaions never precluded the possibility that unnamed subgroups may have experienced a transient or more longterm decline in numerical status relative to....

Then it doesn't belong at all. It's controversial, it's doesn't actually say anyhting and it has become original research. There are already several articles discussing this subject, it hardly belongs in an article that only touches on major points in Australian history. By all means mention the "Stolen Generation" with a link to the appropriate article, but the spurious claim that it led to population decline needs to be removed if this is the only way it can be worded.Ethel Aardvark (talk) 00:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

If it can be referenced that some historians actually say this then it is not original research. Otherwise it needs to go. Jack forbes (talk) 00:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The numerous weasel words also need to go. If a reliable source says it then it should be stated as fact, not as a series of increasingly vague qualifiers. It becomes original research because as far as I can see an editor has decided that the removal policy was genocide, genocide results in population decline, therefore the policy must have resulted in population decline. As you say, it needs a reference from a reliable source that states clearly that the policy reduced the number of Aboriginals. Ethel Aardvark (talk) 03:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Economy

"Australia's balance of payments is more than 7% of GDP negative: Australia has had persistently large current account deficits for more than 50 years"

This is completely incorrect. The balance of payments is equal for countries with a floating exchange rate. It should say 'The current account deficit is 7%,Australia has had persistent current account deficits for more than 50 years'

also might be better to put the stuff on exports with the stuff on the balance of payments. id be happy to expand on this section and other sections :) Thegoldenrule (talk) 17:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting Ammendment/Ommission to Culture:

I've recently finished reading up on culture of Australia, but there is something a little disturbing about the overt, glowing references to the arts in Australia. Ending the first paragraph. Someone should add something about the following (I am not registered here, I will do it when I can and am able) to the section of that paragraph. Ie. Australia may well have some "original and vigour" in it's arts, but it apparently has the most disturbing and extreme history of censorship of any western democracy I have read about... Now, the two supporting articles for this conclusion are the wiki itself, but also these articles which I was reading.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Proud-to-ban/2005/05/06/1115092690466.html

""Australia was arguably one of the worst censors in the Western world," she says. Proud to ban what was hot in London, Paris and New York, the Australian censors described their role as a "bulwark for Anglo-Saxon standards".

Moore's research is hindered by the sheer size and severity of Australia's censorship regimes. She is only a month into her research but already has found more than 14 governmental agencies involved, with more than 67 archival file series, some measuring 200 metres."

And now Australia is implementing a world (western democratic, "free" country) first isp censoring scheme for their people? I would hence submit that the line ending the first paragraph is misleading and not NPOV, because it is completely ignoring (censoring?) this reputation, which is atrocious from a democratic viewpoint of freedom of speech.

Australia Will Censor the Internet http://www.searchviews.com/index.php/archives/2007/12/australia-will-censor-the-internet.php

The Australian government has announced it will censor the Internet, imposing filters to keep out porn and violence in the interest of protecting children. ISPs will now have to provide “clean feeds” and filter out any objectionable content. The country’s telecommunications minister, Stephen Conroy, countered freedom of speech arguments with this statement: “If people equate freedom of speech with watching child pornography, then the Rudd-Labor Government is going to disagree.”

Not only this, but the entire adult gaming population may not play adult video games...there are none. In other words, Australians are some of the most repressed citizens of any western democracy in the world. Clearly this must be mentioned alongside the gushing claims about the vigour and originality of the arts in the first paragraph of the culture section (currently it is not NPOV). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.254.82.64 (talk) 15:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a bit of original research going on here to reach the conclusion that Australians are some of the most repressed citizens of any western democracy . You bring together three disparate elements - book censorship (which Australia was hardly alone in implementing) that ended 40 or more years ago (I think it was Don Chipp in the 1960's who did most of the heavy lifting on that one) providing "clean feeds" on the internet on an "opt-out" basis, and censorship of video games (not usually countered as culture). Hard to draw your conclusion, and wrong to draw it anyway without a reliable source. --Michael Johnson (talk) 21:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I recomment that you read the articles I linked. Also, you may not be aware what is exactly available in other western democratic nations in which case you wouldn't really know. About books.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Australia#Books ...The wikipedia clearly shows it has not ended at all. Indeed there seems to be a lot going on in that area. You wouldn't know this of course because that is the nature of censorship to remove these options from sight. Also, according to this section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Australia#Political_speech , "Even though the nation prides itself in freedom, Australia lacks an explicitly protected form of freedom of speech." There is a lot more if you actually read up on it and compare it to other western democracies, which I stated I did. The repression angle is because all of this qualifies as adult material in some respect, and to not have such options available to free-thinking adults in a "free" country, is repressive from an objective viewpoint. Now another wikipedia article on freedom of speech in Australia has this line, amongst others, "Despite the court's ruling, however, not all political speech appears to be protected in Australia and several laws criminalise forms of speech that would be protected in other democratic countries such as the United States." There is no original research here, only logically based conclusions and comparisons. 124.254.82.64 (talk) 01:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I have read the articles. The SMH states book banning went out of fashion in the 1970s and '80s, but does refer to current film censorship, ironically referencing one film that did pass the censors unscathed. The blog (in itself not a very satisfactory reliable source) gives one opinion that the new laws are repressive, and a second that they are not and are comparable with those in other western countries, and followed by a readers comment that supports the second opinion. As I said hardly compelling stuff. As for the Wikipedia articles (which by definition are not reliable sources) the statement that "Even though the nation prides itself in freedom, Australia lacks an explicitly protected form of freedom of speech." is still a long way from an assertion that free speech in limited in Australia to any practical extent compared with other countries. And making logically based conclusions and comparisons is original research. You are welcome to edit the article but need to find a reliable source that supports your assertion. --Michael Johnson (talk) 04:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Michael – you sum it up well. And thanks for taking the time to read through all the material. Perhaps in future the anonymous contributor could try to be more succinct with their points. They will find that this is more effective in getting people to (a) pay attention, (b) understand, and (c) reply. --Merbabu (talk) 05:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I looked around a bit and have something else: http://www.nswccl.org.au/issues/freespeech/index.php (specifically, "This means that Australians are free to talk about politics. But that's it. All other forms of speech can be restricted by Parliament. ") This goes beyond far beyond books, video games, and free speech rights as described in the links. PS. I disagree this is OR as I have provided several independent articles. Also: "Australia is the only common law country without a Bill of Rights." http://www.nswccl.org.au/issues/bill_of_rights/australia.php This is highly unusual and interesting 124.254.82.64 (talk) 02:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps rather than making general observations about Australia you could make some very specific suggestions here on wording changes and they can commented on. --Merbabu (talk) 03:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Again you confuse the lack of a bill of rights with actual suppression of rights. You have not provided any source that says Australians right to free speech is substantially limited against that in other countries. We should also remember that a bill of rights is quite a recent innovation in countries like the UK, New Zealand, and Canada. And in the first two it is only a statutory bill, and could in theory be amended or repealed by Parliament. Lastly a bill of rights can only protect a citizen if there is the political will, ask any dissident in China. There are limits to freedom of speech in Australia as there are in all countries. But you still have a long way to go before you can show that Australia has, in your words, the most disturbing and extreme history of censorship of any western democracy. --Michael Johnson (talk) 05:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

You're obfuscating the issue. The bill of rights was only an incidental point to the original query. Same with the free speech issue. However they do have a role, which was noted. Before, I quoted one section that contradicts your contention Michael. What part of this quoted passage I provided, "Australia was arguably one of the worst censors in the Western world," don't you understand? Read it again. @Merbabu: Maybe I'll think about the phrasing a little. I'm aware of the context. At least you already made this NPOV, which I had pointed out and was my primary aim. Thanks. I may delete this section to reduce it's size and resubmit these quotations with phrasing to see if anyone ageed with it as Merbabu suggested.124.254.82.64 (talk) 04:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand it perfectly well, and the important words here are was and arguably one. The SMH article refers to the situation until the 1960's, an era which even I, ancient as I am, barely remember. You were wanting to edit a section that describes the situation today. And arguably one is quite a qualifier, not the worst at all but maybe up there with the worst. From my knowledge of the era I have no problems with that statement, but is a reference to censorship in Australia over 40 years ago really relevant to this article? We do have an extensive article on Censorship in Australia already. And please do not accuse me of obfuscation, you are the one trying to bring together unrelated references to try and promote an extreme POV. But you were right about one thing, original and vigour et al was over the top and POV without references, and Merbabu has done a good job tidying it up. If you're happy I'm happy. --Michael Johnson (talk) 06:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Royal Anthem

Under Anthem, Royal anthem "God Save the Queen" Should be added as it is an official anthem of australia. Like it has been put up for canada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sebgrove (talk • contribs) 14:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

We've had this discussion at least once before - see Talk:Australia/Archive 11#Royal anthem. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

At least once is an understatement. Looking through the archive indexes I counted five discussions. Personally I think it should be in the infobox but consensus seems to be against that. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's not an understatement if you think about it. If I'd said we'd had this discussion before, or once before, that would have been an understatement. But "at least once before" is open-ended, and could imply anywhere from only 1 discussion, through to 50++ discussions. -- JackofOz (talk) 15:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

My copyediting

I have worked carefully through the whole article today (see detailed edit summaries). I have not sifted through all of the notes, but I suspect they need a little attention as well. Two issues in particular have arisen, for me:

• By convention at Wikipedia and almost everywhere else in similar publishing, titles like dame and sir are omitted. Any other practice would be invidious, since these are almost certain to be applied selectively and inconsistently. Accordingly I have deleted such titles for Robert Helpmann, Nellie Melba, Arthur Streeton, and so on. Restoring these would require a strong argument and justification.
• Terra nullius may be translated several ways. Nullius is the genitive (or, equivalently here, "possessive") form of the pronoun nullus. It can occur impersonally, so it means "none" if the presumed domain is inanimate objects. It also occurs personally, so it means "no one", "nobody", "no person", or – yes!– "none" if the presumed domain is human beings. Now, the English word none is most often used impersonally; it is therefore unsettling and obscure to insist on translating terra nullius as "land of none". And it is unnecessary, given the many options. SOED has for res nullius "no one’s property; a thing or things that can belong to no one. Macquarie has for terra nullius "land of no-one". Again, we would need a strong argument to use land of none, given this evidence and these precedents.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 10:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Given the eveidence you've presented, why use "no person's land" rather than "land of no-one"? --AussieLegend (talk) 10:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't object so strongly to land of no-one as I did to land of none.

Thinking about all this, I now favour no-one's land or nobody's land above other options. My reason: these both represent natural expression in English, and the natural Latin translation of them both would be terra nullius. The differences in order and in syntactic detail are just facts about English and Latin; in moving between the two, we ought to adjust smoothly to the new language. There is no reason to strive to preserve the Latin order, any more than we should Latinise no-one's land as nullius terra (a possible but unwieldly construction).

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 12:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)