Talk:Australia

Expression

I recently attempted to change

Aussie is common colloquially, as an adjective and noun for "Australian"

to

Aussie is a common colloquialism for the adjective and noun "Australian"

but was reverted by AussieLegend with "Previous version was correct". Other opinions would be welcome. Anthony (talk) 13:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Whilst I couldn't say the original version is grammatically incorrect, I believe that Anthony's version is better phrased. Cheers, AusTerrapin (talk) 00:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Anthony's version is a cold, clinical analysis of the relationship between the words "Aussie" and "Australian" which is appropriate in a dictionary, but Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The current version is less clinical and more accurately represents how "Aussie" relates to "Australian", which is a more encyclopaedic treatment. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I think Anthony's version reads much better Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Aboriginals and independence

We need more info on the Aboriginals. Why Australia is run still by the Anglo- Australians - the British servants? Why the land is not returned to the Aboriginals? Why are they still the most disadvantaged part of the Australian society. So far this article totally ignores them and makes look Australia like a rightful part of the British Empire. Are there any pro-independence organizations in Australia who advocate the freedom for the Aboriginals? Are they legal? Can they be legalized? Why is the police and army mostly Anglo? Why they all swear to the English queen? Why the politicians in Australia only pray in Anglican church? The article must be more objective and honest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.50.48.2 (talk) 04:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Just checked. 31 mentions of indigenous in the article and 13 mentions of aboriginal (although most of the latter are in reference titles). That would seem to give a fair degree of coverage. The article does mention the History wars which, make adding content on this topic potentially controversial. I know that if I added my personal view on the matter it would create great angst among some, not just because it would be obvious POV, but also because many would feel threatened and condemned by it. It's a difficult area. Your IP address tells that you are posting from within Australia. What would YOU like to see added? HiLo48 (talk) 04:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The OP reads very much like somebody who was trolling here a few months back. (Edit: this guy.) I'm surprised anybody in Australia would claim that politicians "only pray in Anglican church" - I'd have thought anybody with even a vague interest in Oz politics would know that Tony Abbott is a well-known Catholic, for starters. --GenericBob (talk) 11:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

actually the IP goelocates to canberra, home of one our old trolls who had an inclination towards History Wars. I cant comment that australians swear at the English Queen we have our own Queen, but can confirm they swear at the English Cricket team all the time. Gnangarra 12:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Chinese mapping of Australia's coasts in 1421

I believe that a reference to Gavin Menzies' theory should be included in the History part:

http://www.1421.tv/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.255.244 (talk) 14:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

National Symbols of OZ

No mention of the two official national animals or the other third. No mention of the green and gold colors. No mention of the new OZ flag debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.84.86.213 (talk) 02:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

This article is about the country - not its coat of arms. There is a link in the article for the article on the coat of arms of Australia, where the subject is rightfully covered. JohnArmagh (talk) 15:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The question was about the national symbols, not just the coat of arms. The infobox mentions the flag, the coat of arms and the national anthem, but there are other official symbols. We have an article called National symbols of Australia, which seems little trafficked and can do with some attention. Some mention of it in this article wouldn't go astray either. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Schooling is compulsory.

It is actually compulsory to stay in school until the age of 17 or eighteen. you MUST go to year 11 and 12 now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.105.213 (talk) 06:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes, that's mostly true. The school leaving age is a matter for each state to decide. Most seem to have now made it 17, but there are many exceptions. These include leaving high school before 17 to go to TAFE, to an apprenticeship, or to ongoing employment for at least 25 hours per week. This latter condition still allows people to leave school for a serious job. HiLo48 (talk) 06:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

In WA, I think it is more accurate to say that if not completing year 12, a child must be in a full-time apprenticeship or traineeship. Source: Department of Education. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

BUt there are exceptions other than work to this in WA. Gnangarra 12:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Prime Minister

There are early reports that Julia Gillard has replaced Kevin Rudd as PM. As soon as this can be verified, this page should be updated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.71.137 (talk) 12:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Rudd is still PM but the ALP will go to a ballot tomorrow. Bidgee (talk) 12:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Any of the sources that that delivered such reports have simply proven themselves to be unreliable ones. HiLo48 (talk) 17:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Rudd has now resigned and reliable sources have confirmed Julia's new position. I will change it to PM designate. - S Masters (talk) 00:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Rudd didn't resign. He was challenged to a ballot by Julia and lost. I'm not sure what you call that, but it definitely does NOT fit the definition of resignation. If you're kicked out of your job against your will, that's called being fired, the exact opposite of resigning. I don't care what the The Sydney Morning Sun says, only the ABC is a reliable news source in Australia. And quite frankly I'd like to know why any newspaper is treated as a reliable source for an encylopaedia? AN encyclopaedia! Not a friggin gossip magazine, a god damn encyclopaedia! We all know that they print fabrications, yet we're willing to use them to write our encyclopaedia's! I can't help but laugh at the naivety of humans sometimes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.216.138 (talk) 02:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

He stood down as Leader at the beginning the spill, which is tantamount to resigning before being fired. He will have resigned as PM by the time Gillard is appointed, otherwise there would be no vacancy to fill. -Rrius (talk) 02:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Is "Ozzie" superfluous? "Australian English" or English?

under demonym in the table at the top right, it already says AUSSIE, so why does it also need to say OZZIE, a spelling very rarely used

also under de facto language in the same table, it says english but links to australian english, so why dont we just make it say australian english there as this is what it links to... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.31.62.157 (talk) 02:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that "Australian English" should be listed as Australia's language. (I'm a white English-speaking Australian, born and raised here.) It might be a dialect or variation, but the basic language is English. (Hence my recent change, subsequently reverted.) Does Wikipedia have any policies or guidelines on this? If you asked anyone what languge we speak in Australia, the answer would normally be "English". According to Encyclopædia Britannica's 2009 yearbook, the language is "English" not "Australian English". According to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade "... English is the official language in Australia ...". If we keep "Australian English" here, we should probably also change the United States article to say American English and the United Kingdom article to say British English - currently they both say "English" (with wiki-link to English language. Likewise Canada - which currently lists "English" (with a link to Canadian English), New Zealand (New Zealand English) and who knows how many other articles. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. It's English with a few regional features; it might be worth linking to an article that explains those characteristics, but for this box it should just read "English". It's not like, say, American Sign Language vs Australian Sign Language, which really are different languages. --GenericBob (talk) 10:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The "Language" section of the article has as its {{Main}} article, Australian English. "Australian English" in the infobox is therefore consistent with the infobox summarising the article as it's supposed to. It makes more sense to link to Australian English rather than a generic version of the language since Australian English is the specific variant that we speak. Since this is the English Wikipedia, we can safely assume that any reader is already familiar with generic English to at least some extent and what they need to know is the variant of English spoken here. Australian English contains a link to the generic article in its opening sentence. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The "Language" section of the article also starts with "English is the national language". Mitch Ames (talk) 12:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

It's immediately preceded by "Main article: Australian English" and immediately followed by "Australian English has..." There's clearly a strong focus on Australian English, which is as it should be. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

True - but why doesn't it say "Australian English is the national language"? I think the basic question is whether "Australian English" is a language, or perhaps only a dialect - although apparently even the experts can't agree on the difference between a language and a dialect. Reference 1 in Australian English - en-AU is the language code for Australian English , as defined by ISO standards ... - suggests that it is a language, but those standards (of which I have no particular knowledge) may cater for variants/dialects etc. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't say it because there's no need to as it's implied. If we spoke American English there might be a need but it's to be expected that Australians would speak Australian English, just as it's obvious that Americans speak American English. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Surely the same argument applies to the Infobox. In short, the first sentence in the Language section and the language field in the Infobox should be the same, so the article is consistent. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The infobox is supposed to summarise the article, not individual sentences. There's obviously a stronger focus on Australian English in the languages section than there is on generic English so using a link to generic English in the infobox is not consistent. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

If the language is "Australian English" (which I am not conceding is the case), then the first sentence in the Language section should be changed to match, ie: "Australian English is the national language". If "English" and "Australian English" are different languages - which you appear to be implying - then the current sentence contradicts the info box. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

As I've indicated in the immediately preceding post, the infobox is supposed to summarise the article, not individual sentences. Since the "{{main}}" link is to Australian English and the second sentence starts with "Australian English" it's unnecessary for the first sentence to also start with "Australian English". It doesn't need to be said three times in a row. That's just silly, not to mention bad English. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

AussieLegend, could you please give explicit eg yes or no answers to these questions. 1: Are "English" and "Australian English" different languages? 2: Is the existing sentence "English is the national language" factually correct? Mitch Ames (talk) 13:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Australian English is a variant of the English language that is specifically applicable to Australia and since that is the case, "English is the national language" is factually correct since Australian English is English. Sorry, but I can't give yes or no answers to your questions since the answers are not that simple. Not everything is black and white and trying to force somebody to answer simplistically just isn't going to happen, no matter how much you try. -100 points for the attempt. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Although this talk page nominally only covers the Australia page, I would like to see some comments on whether - if we keep Australian English here - we should also update other countries articles (per my comment of 08:25, 26 June 2010) for the sake of consistency. Alternatively, why this article should be different to other articles. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that {{Infobox country}} should give guidelines on this, so I will also raise the matter in that template's talk page. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox country#Guidelines for language, eg English or Australian_English raises the general question for all countries. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

This article should use the same link as in United States and United Kingdom. Format (talk) 20:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Why? (I'm assuming you have a reason) For guidance we should be looking at featured articles to see how they approach it. United States is only GA and United Kingdom lost its GA status. Canada is FA and it uses Canadian English. Another featured article is this one so it seems United States and United Kingdom should probably follow us, not the other way around. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone seriously believe that whether calling it English or Australian English is at all relevant to FA or GA status? Australian English is a dialect. It is certainly not a language unto itself. Thus, the question "What is Australia's official language?" cannot be answered "Australian English is Australia's de facto official language." As such, having "English" as the display text but linking to "Australian English" is probably the best way to go. -Rrius (talk) 08:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe that the GA or FA status of any article should be used as the guideline for the language in the infobox - unless someone can point to some explicit evidence that links the two. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

It should say English and link to English language because that is in fact the language. The article Australian English does not describe a language and that article, as it currently stands anyway, is not about a language. That article gives a brief discussion about a few aspects of the English spoken in Australia (eg, there is a mix of UK terms and US terms, there are a small number of Aboriginal terms, it speculates about the origins of a small number of slang terms) but really gives no clear overall idea of the language itself. That language itself is English language. Link to that. Format (talk) 08:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

"Featured articles are considered to be the best articles in Wikipedia, as determined by Wikipedia's editors." They are the type of articles that all articles should try to be. Articles are scrutinised very closely before being awarded FA status. (This article is undergoing such scrutiny now as part of the FAR) That's why we look to featured articles for guidance. That both identified FAs refer to country specific language and the GA and former GA articles don't says something. However, even if you ignore the FA issue, you can't avoid the fact that the infobox is supposed to summarise the article so use of Australian English in the infobox, where it's been for years, is consistent with that requirement. I mentioned that only this afternoon[1] but I notice it's been conveniently avoided. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it should be English. As an Australian, I speak English. Australian English is really just UK English with a few words adopted from US English for various reasons (Like truck) and with the inclusion of some aboriginal words as loanwords. Either way, it is simply English. Furthermore, there are 3 different dialects of Australian English, so Australian English is not the most accurate term either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chipmunkdavis (talk • contribs) 14:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Queen or Monarch

I've changed the Info box from Queen to Monarch again. Although AussieLegend correctly points out that the Constitution says "Queen", Clause 2 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act says The provisions of this Act referring to the Queen shall extend to Her Majesty's heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom. I am not a constitutional lawyer, but I think that means we can safely assume that the head of state is the "monarch" in general. According to Brodie's Our Constitution, p10: "The Constitution specified that the Commonwealth of Australia would have the Queen or King of Great Britain as its Head of State." Presumably this refers to Clause 2 of the act, because the Constitution itself does not appear to mention the King at all. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not clear on why you want to use the more general noun. Quentin Bryce isn't listed as "Viceroy", after all. That's not to say I think it's wrong; I genuinely don't understand why this matters. -Rrius (talk) 09:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The term Governor-general (rather than the more general viceroy) is appropriate because that term is used explicitly in the constitution. So far I as know there is nothing in the consitution or the Constitution Act that gives any hint that the term might not always be appropriate. By contrast, the problem with Queen is that it is a function of (the gender of) a particular person fulfilling the role. Should the leader_title1 in the info box change just because the person fulfilling the role changed (from male to female or vice-versa)? I think not. The clear intent of the constitution act is (to my non-lawyer mind) that the head of state at any point in time is the monarch - and the article infobox does list Australia's government as being a constitutional monarchy. For example, did the constitution change to use King instead of Queen when Victoria died and Edward VII took the throne? No, but that doesn't mean that he wasn't our head of state. Mitch Ames (talk) 10:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

"The term Governor-general (rather than the more general viceroy) is appropriate because that term is used explicitly in the constitution." - The term Queen (rather than the more general monarch) is appropriate because that term is used explicitly in the constitution. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Nitpick: while the head of state certainly is a monarch, the field is for their title. I can imagine the other two people in that box being announced as "Prime Minister Julia Gillard" and "Governor-General Quentin Bryce", but nobody would announce Her Maj as "Monarch Elizabeth". --GenericBob (talk) 09:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

A valid point. But perhaps we should use Head of State instead of Queen or Monarch, and Queen Elizabeth II instead of Elizabeth II. Head of State may not strictly be a "title", but perhaps it more clearly expresses her role, and keeps the word "Queen" associated with the individual rather than the role. Eg:

Australia
Government
• Head of State	Queen Elizabeth II

No, that won't do, because there's ongoing debate about whether our head of state is the monarch or the governor-general. Monarch is a better word to use here (even though nobody ever says "Monarch Elizabeth"). We won't always have Queen Elizabeth; if she dropped dead tomorrow, we'd suddenly have a king. Generally speaking, sometimes we have a king, sometimes we have a queen. It all depends on the sex of the individual on the throne. But whether it's a king or a queen, it's always going to be a monarch (while ever we keep that system). That's why Australia is a constitutional monarchy. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

There's no serious debate about who the head of state is. The Constitution is quite clear, "The legislative power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a Federal Parliament, which shall consist of the Queen, a Senate, and a House of Representatives, and which is herein-after called "The Parliament," or "The Parliament of the Commonwealth."" It then continues, "A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty's representative in the Commonwealth". The head of state is the Queen, the GG acts as her representative carrying out the duties of the head of state but the actual head is still the Queen. Liz may delegate all her duties to the GG but she's still the head. The proposal to remove her as head of state was defeated in 1999. This diversion aside, GenericBob is correct here, the field is for the title, which is Queen, not Monarch. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

From the Politics section: "Queen Elizabeth II is the Queen of Australia, a role that is distinct from her position as monarch of the other Commonwealth realms." - Use of "Queen" in the infobox is consistent with this section. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Anyone ever thought about having a look at how they have it at the articles about the other countries which share a Monarch with Australia? Looking at Canada, United Kingdom, and New Zealand, it would seem they use "Monarch" for the position and "Queen Elizabeth II" for the holder of the position. Perhaps that would be best here? Oh, and while were talking about the infobox, I've been wondering why the Chief Justice (of the High Court) of Australia is not listed on it, because Wikipedia articles on other countries normally seem to. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 12:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Valid points. I did look at those articles and then at Monarchy of Australia, which says, "The monarchy is a constitutional one modelled on the Westminster style of parliamentary government, incorporating features unique to the Constitution of Australia." One of those features is that The Constitution specifically refers to the "Queen", which is why Queen has been used here. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not right. The Constitution used Queen because there happened to be a queen on the throne at the time, Victoria. We're using queen here because there happens to be a queen on the throne currently, Elizabeth. The two things are not connected. If there had been a king in 1900, we'd still be using queen here, because Elizabeth is not a king. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

As I posted elsewhere on this page not long ago, the change from "Queen" to "King" takes two seconds. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's no argument for anything. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

<quoting Knowzilla> ...why the Chief Justice (of the High Court) of Australia is not listed on it ...
- The Info box lists "Government", but the Chief Justice / High Court is not part of the government, because of the Separation of powers in Australia. If the CJ/HC were to be listed, it would have to be under Judiciary, not Government. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for replying: But I noticed at the article United States the CJ is listed, and he is not part of the US government, and at article New Zealand, a country very similar to Australia in system of government (aside of being federation though) also has the CJ listed. "Government" has many definitions. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 15:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The Australian constitution appear to separate the judiciary from the government fairly clearly. Chapter 1: The Parliament describes the structure and legistlative powers of the parliament. Chapter 2: The Executive Government describes the executive powers of the government. Chapter 3: The Judicature describes the judicial power, High Court etc. Except for the implication in the title of chapter 2, I don't think that "government" is actually defined in the constitution or the Constitution Act (but I am not a lawyer). Mitch Ames (talk) 13:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

AussieLegend and GenericBob make compelling arguments for the case that leader_title1 should be "Queen", because that is her correct title. However I still feel that the end result (as displayed in the article) is somehow "wrong". Perhaps the infobox itself is "wrong", in that it should refer to the role (which would be monarch or head of state) rather than the title. Or perhaps it should be the title of the position, not the title of the person? Hence my earlier suggestion of leader_title1 = Head of State, leader_name1 = QE II. While I acknowledge that the constitution explicitly says Queen, I still believe that the role of the monarch is more important than the title of the Queen, as evidenced by Clause 2 of the Constitution Act which states that "Queen" is effectively a placeholder for "ruling monarch". And again I point out that the Constitution did not change when Victoria died and we had a series of Kings for 50 years. Surely no-one doubts that the King was our "leader1" during that time. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

You need to take into account the preamble of the Constitution, as it sets the stage for the document. It states: "2. The provisions of this Act referring to the Queen shall extend to Her Majesty’s heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom." Therefore, Monarch would be more appropriate, as the title of "Queen" will change if and when appropriate. - S Masters (talk) 02:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopaedia. It will take two seconds to change from "Queen" to "King" when that change eventually happens. Since it's good enough for The Constitution to say "Queen", as opposed to "Monarch", it should be good enough here. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Side issue: debate about the head of state

AussieLegend, you say there's no serious debate about who the head of state is. Maybe you ought to read these:

From Government of Australia#Head of state:

• The question of whether the Queen is Australia's head of state became a political one during the 1999 Australian republic referendum, when opponents of the move to make Australia a republic claimed that Australia already had an Australian as head of state in the person of the Governor-General, who since 1965 has invariably been an Australian citizen. The former Governor-General, Major General Michael Jeffery, said in 2004: "Her Majesty is Australia's head of state but I am her representative and to all intents and purposes I carry out the full role." However, in 2005, he declined to name the Queen as head of state, instead saying in response to a direct question, "The Queen is the Monarch and I represent her, and I carry out all the functions of head of state."[2] The Governor-General represents Australia internationally, making and receiving State visits.[3][4]
• In 2009 Prime Minister Kevin Rudd described the Governor-General as the Australian head of state, announcing an overseas visit by Quentin Bryce by saying, "A visit to Africa of this scale by Australia's Head of State will express the seriousness of Australia's commitment".[5]

From Monarchy of Australia#Constitutional role:

• As such, there is some debate over whether the sovereign or the Governor-General is Australia's head of state.

Sir David Smith, in his book “Head of State”, argues passionately that our head of state is the governor-general, and one might think he ought to know, having been the Official Secretary to 5 of them. I happen to disagree with him, as you presumably would. But that disagreement does not remove the existence of the debate. It actually acknowledges it, otherwise there’d be no position to disagree with. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 12:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you read what I wrote again: There is no serious debate. (emphasis added). Like this discussion, it's a side issue at best, involving only a limited number of people and it doesn't have any effect in the grand scheme of things. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't like to use such characterisations to downplay arguments against my positions on things. If a point is easily demolishable, then demolish it. And if it's been demolished, truly demolished, your opponent will have no recourse but to agree with your position. But have they agreed? Some have, but there are some very learned people who don't. The very fact that neither the Constitution nor any other document makes it explicitly clear who holds the title makes this not the black and white issue you might suggest. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 14:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

It makes sense to say Monarch there, rather than Queen. This is in line with United Kingdom and Canada, i do not see a problem with it. No point changing Monarch to Queen. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually it was "Queen" and somebody changed it to "Monarch". --AussieLegend (talk) 10:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Stick with Monarch. The queen mentioned in the constitution is simply a reference to the monarch at the time of the constitution, and the country will not alter its constitution every time the Monarch changes gender. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The listing of Monarch and Governor-General is appropriate. On a different page, I made some comments on the matter. New Zealand's constitution explicitly defines the monarch as the head of state. Australia's makes no such statement, nor is there any definitive legal instrument to rely upon. It is interesting to see the ABC and various other media outlets refer to Quentin Bryce as "Australia's first female head of state"[2] - as opposed to Queen Victoria! The best we can say is that opinions both official and general differ. --Pete (talk) 15:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I know I am coming into this a bit late but I think it is important that we use the most reliable sources available, not the writings of partisans in the monarchy debate (ie David Smith) or the ramblings of journalists, who unfortunately rarely know exactly what they are talking about. In this case I refer you to the Australian Government website, and in particular this document which clearly states "Australia’s head of state is Queen Elizabeth II" and "The Governor-General performs the ceremonial functions of head of state on behalf of the Queen" That is what the article needs to explain. --Michael Johnson (talk) 00:20, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

To me, "ceremonial" doesn't quite cover the full scope of the GG's role. While they tend to be only formalities, the GG does tasks to do with the calling of elections, appointing Prime Ministers, etc. This really mattered at the time of the Whitlam dismissal. It was all approved and processed by the Governor general. Her Majesty just sat back and watched. I would go along with ceremonial, plus "formal procedural matters to do with governance", or something like that.

If we had some legal document, stating the identity of the Australian head of state, that would be great. But unfortunately, the only two legal references I can find are rather obscure and contradictory. In one, the High Court describes the Governor-General as the "Constitutional head of the Commonwealth"[3], and in the other, the Governor-General is not listed in a schedule to a law as an International Protected Person, including heads of state, requiring Commonwealth security when visiting.[4] Calling opinions contrary to your own as partisan or "ramblings" is not helpful, especialy when your own sources are wobbly. Relying on departmental websites where the content providers are unlisted is a step up from using Wikipedia as a source, but not a big one.There is no definitive answer, and it is clear that community opinion is divided. --Pete (talk) 18:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but Smith is partisan in this debate - it has been a deliberate tactic of monarchists to deflect attention away from the Queen as a "foreign" head of state. And a statement by a journalist is not reliable either. My source is not just a "departmental website" but obviously the considered view of the Government of Australia on this matter. You really need to review both WP:RS and the website www.australia.gov.au if you really think it "wobbly". It is totally reliable. And if the Queen is not head of state what is she? Chopped liver? I mean really in what context is a reigning monarch not a head of state? --Michael Johnson (talk) 06:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't really considered the ABC,[5] The Australian,[6] the Sydney Morning Herald,[7] The Canberra Times[8] and all the rest to be monarchist media outlets, especially considering the way they acted during the referendum a few years back. Yet they all refer to the Governor-General as head of state, and have done so for decades, off and on. Presumably they reflect informed opinion. As has the government. The simple fact is that there is no definitive source. And that is because the matter is not defined in Australian law.

The Queen is undeniably the British head of state. But following the Statute of Westminster, which placed the Imperial Realms on the same independent footing as the United Kingdom, the position of the monarch became rather more complex. Under the Australian Constitution, which is now the foundation of Australian law, the monarch has very few powers indeed, and they very limited. The main power is that of appointment of the Governor-General, which is now on the advice of the Australian PM. As was demonstrated with King George V and Sir Isaac Isaacs, this is done whether the monarch wishes it or not. The powers of head of state are given directly to the Governor-General, and may not be exercised by the monarch - as we saw in 1975.

Lacking any definition, Australians are free to choose whom they regard as the head of state. Some choose the Queen, because she comes first in the Order of Precedence, and well, she's the Queen, yeah. Some choose the Governor-General, because she does the job in her own right, and as a head of state is someone who embodies the spirit of the nation, it is more fitting to have an Australian in the position. --Pete (talk) 07:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

(later)Looking at the ABC article mentioned, I was amused to find a footnote: "*Editor's note: The Governor-General is not Australia’s Head of State. The Governor-General is the Queen’s representative.". This "Queen's representative" idea is a source of much confusion, as people imagine that it means that the Queen tells the Governor-General what to do, and the G-G is her agent or deputy. Not so. The Queen cannot explicitly order the Governor-General to do something. She is not given that power under the Constitution, nor anywhere else. In fact, under Australian law the Queen, by virtue of the Royal Powers Act 1953, is empowered to act as the Governor-General's representative when present in Australia. Obviously the ABC is as confused as anybody else! --Pete (talk) 07:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

She also has the power to disallow any law within one year ... and on such disallowance being made known .. shall annul the law ... (clause 59). Ie the power to revoke any law that Parliament may make, as long as she does it within the year. Mitch Ames (talk) 07:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Obsolete at Federation and now well and truly moribund. Hard to imagine a Prime Minister advising the Queen to disallow his (or her - ain't that marvellous!) own legislation! --Pete (talk) 08:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The PM doesn't need to advise the Queen to do it; the Queen has that power under the Constitution. Your comment was that "Under the Australian Constitution, ... the monarch has very few powers indeed, and they very limited." In fact clause 59 gives the monarch the quite significant power to revoke any law that Parliament passes - overriding the GG's assent. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

But overriding that is the very strongly adhered to convention that the Queen and the GG act only on the advice of their Prime Minister. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Technically speaking, the Queen has the power to disallow legislation, I agree. But there is a lot in the Constitution that has no current effect. For example, the Constitution states that there shall be an Inter-State Commission. But where is it? And where in the Constitution does one find the Prime Minister? Unless you count "Almighty God". --Pete (talk) 09:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Guys, I opened up this side thread, not in order for us all to now have a debate about who the HOS is, but to shine a light on the fact that there has been debate about it for a number of years, without coming to universal agreement - all because there is no document that would settle it indisputably. As the above amply shows. It's not good enough to damn one side as partisan and then cherry pick our own favourite sources supporting the other side. That might do for a debate at a pub, but we're writing an encyclopedia here and we need to remain balanced. If we're going to quote an Australian government source that says it's the Queen, we cannot just ignore Rudd's statement of 2009 that says it's the Governor-General. If he wasn't talking on behalf of the Australian Government when he authorised those words, what was he on about? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 07:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Just so! --Pete (talk) 07:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Language

I know what is meant by "Australian English has a unique accent", but I don't think that's the accurate way to say it, since Australian English obviously has more than one accent. The Australian English article mentions "three main varieties" for a start. Any bright ideas for a reword? Kahuroa (talk) 02:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Australia Multicultural????

At the beginning of the Article it mentions that Australia is a multicultural society. We know its now very hip for a country to call itself multicultural in the now global village BUT Australia IS MULTICULTRAL in relation to what and whom???...the U.S? Canada? Australia still has tons of race relation issues and its 2010

Some western western european countries seem more multicultural than Australia

whit and white and white does not make multiculturalism!!! "In the 2006 Australian census, the most commonly nominated ancestry was Australian (37.13%),[184] followed by English (31.65%), Irish (9.08%), Scottish (7.56%), Italian (4.29%), German (4.09%), Chinese (3.37%), and Greek (1.84%).[18"

It's interesting to note that Aboriginals arent even mentioned in this summation...tsk , tsk, tsk..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.140.202 (talk) 17:59, 2 July 2010

Aborigines have a much lower population number than other races, which could be it. Additionally, they probably said their ancestry was Australian. The census didn't discriminate between "white australians" and "other australians", as it right and proper.Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, there's a separate question specifically for Indigenous identity. --GenericBob (talk) 00:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

'Multicultural' is a loaded word. It can be contentious because it has no precise meaning. Is a multiultural society one in which different cultural identities exist separately? Or is it one in which distinct cultures meet in a common identity? I wouldn't want to argue one or the other on Wikipedia because it is a controversial subject in Australia, the subject of frequent community debate. Some say Australia is culturally intolerant and racist as a society. Others say the opposite. The answer probably lies somewhere in the middle. Perhaps instead of using the word we could simply say something like, 'Australian society has been markedly shaped by immigation'.Gazzster (talk) 03:56, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Literacy rate. NOT 99%!

Under Education we told that Australia has "an adult literacy rate that is assumed to be 99%". That's a figure I've been hearing for over 50 years, without ever seeing evidence for it. More recently, some proper research has been performed. At [[9]] we have a 2000 report by The Australian Council for Adult Literacy which says "In Australia today, one in five adults do not have the literacy skills to effectively participate in everyday life." There are several other sources that give figures closer to this than the 99% historical myth. And it corresponds much more realistically with what I see daily as a secondary teacher in big Australian city. Can we finally drop this pretence of 99% literacy for Australia? HiLo48 (talk) 07:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

"Under Education we told that Australia has "an adult literacy rate that is assumed to be 99%"." Yep, 99% is definitely too high to be realistic, haha. ;) Hayden120 (talk) 07:54, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. OK smartypants. Glad I could prove my point! HiLo48 (talk) 08:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

No hard feelings, eh? I was just having a little bit of fun. Hayden120 (talk) 06:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Well i presume the figure comes from this report. [10] It states on page 216 of the PDF (labelled as 205 within the document),

"Many developed countries, having attained high levels of literacy, no longer collect basic literacy statistics and thus are not included in the UIS data. In calculating the HDI, a literacy rate of 99.0% is assumed for these countries if they do not report adult literacy information."

Australia appears as one of those countries in this report (page 181 of the PDF, labelled 171). It sounds a pretty unfair and misleading way of doing things, but at least it is an international source and not simply the government of Australia claiming its 99%. If there are other reliable sources suggesting another figure then perhaps it should be included, but the 99% assumed by this report could always remain as well. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:27, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh and the CIA world Fact Book says 99% for Australia as well [11] BritishWatcher (talk) 12:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

99% of claims of "99%" are exaggeration! If the report states there are 'assumptions' from non-reporting countries, that is a disclaimer of being a reliable source. I know the CIA fact book is unverifiable source, only circular references and guarded sources, they may consider lit'racy to be the ability to fill in a ballot paper. The report from the Aust. C of Adult lit. could be presented as evidence for a funding claim, and is also questionable. They probably reference a selection of reliable sources, that could be useful for a fact in the article. Cygnis insignis (talk) 12:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, Reliable sources, eh? I'm beginning to think that my very small sample based, personal observations might make me the most reliable source going on this matter. And nobody should trust me! Really, the most honest thing to say might be "No reliable figure available". HiLo48 (talk) 13:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

What about saying something like there are no detailed reliable figures on the literacy rate but international reports and the CIA world Fact book use the 99% figure. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

For an article on education in England it just uses the CIA figure with no clarification or attempt to dispute it. So if we just added the CIA / that report as a source the 99% could remain. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:09, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

But it would be wrong. And we all know that. What is coming out of this discussion is that sources regarded as reliable on many issues are wrong on this matter, certainly for Australia, and probably also for many other countries in the 99% category. There must come a time when the status of a normally "reliable" source has to be questioned. HiLo48 (talk) 22:11, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The lower literacy figures are sourced from the ABS' 1996 Survey of Adult Literacy and the follow-up 2006 Adult Literacy and Life Skills Survey. However, it is important to note that these surveys measured functional literacy, which is a rather different concept from the basic ability to read. Virtually everybody in Australia has basic literacy (eg, the ability to read written documents) but the two ABS surveys (which were part of international surveys) found that a lower proportion have the ability to understand the kinds of documents they encounter in day-to-day life. These surveys also took basic literacy as a given and tested respondents' ability to understand, interpret and act upon written material they were presented with. Both the above surveys were developed and coordinated by the OECD and its definition of 'functional literacy' is available here. It should also be noted that the ABS surveys are measures of adult literacy and exclude people aged under 15 and over 74 as well as people living in remote areas which are hard to survey. As such, the above discussion is comparing apples and oranges. The figures sourced from the UNDP's Human Development Report are perfectly reliable (the UNDP gets its Australian figures from the ABS and both are highly reputable statistical organisations) and probably entirely accurate, it's just that the concepts differ. To draw analogy, virtually everyone can read a newspaper article (basic literacy), but only a smaller proportion can accurately interpret the article and/or act upon it (functional literacy). To cut a long story short, there's a case to be made for using 'functional literacy' rather than 'basic literacy', but the two concepts shouldn't be confused and data on functional literacy are only available for the small numbers of (mainly rich) countries which participated in the OECD surveys. Nick-D (talk) 02:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Nick-D. Nice explanation. I'm aware of the definitional differences (and difficulties), but is there actually a source that supports your claim that "Virtually everybody in Australia has basic literacy (eg, the ability to read written documents)" and "virtually everyone can read a newspaper article"? I don't mean an "assumed" figure, as we started with. I do meet a surprising number of secondary students who seem unable to read at all. They use many strategies to get around the problem. And I think the proportion is increasing. OK, that's WP:OR, which doesn't count until someone else publishes my results, but it's pretty obvious stuff in certain demographics. HiLo48 (talk) 03:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Given that you were comparing basic and functional literacy in your original post I thought it was worth spelling out the difference. I'm not actually aware of any survey - other than the school-age NAPLAN test and its equivalents - that tests basic literacy. Given that Australia did dramatically better than Italy in the Adult Literacy and Life Skills Survey (ALLS) and Italy is stated as having a 98.9% basic literacy rate in the HDR there seems to be no reason to doubt that the 99% figure is about right, particularly as its the one used by the UNDP. I'd be all for adding the ALLS results to the 'education' section of the article though as I do agree that this is a much better measure than basic literacy and the PISA results are already there. Nick-D (talk) 05:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear, not NAPLAN. Students labelled as "Integration students", which can include many kids with learning difficulties, don't have to sit the test. Depending on how determined a school is to fudge the figures, and it's easy, the kids who can't read don't sit the test. Pointless exercise for statistical results. (It can be useful for individuals who can read and do try.) HiLo48 (talk) 07:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

John Howard's political affiliations

John Howard is mentioned in this article as a 'conservative commentator', and yet when you click his name, his article claims that he supports the 'liberal' party in Australia, protectionism, increased taxes, more regulations on employers, and other increases in the size and role of the Australian government. Since the John Howard article describes him as a 'liberal', why does this article call him a 'conservative'? Captain Vimes (talk) 21:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Expression

I recently attempted to change

Aussie is common colloquially, as an adjective and noun for "Australian"

to

Aussie is a common colloquialism for the adjective and noun "Australian"

but was reverted by AussieLegend with "Previous version was correct". Other opinions would be welcome. Anthony (talk) 13:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Whilst I couldn't say the original version is grammatically incorrect, I believe that Anthony's version is better phrased. Cheers, AusTerrapin (talk) 00:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Anthony's version is a cold, clinical analysis of the relationship between the words "Aussie" and "Australian" which is appropriate in a dictionary, but Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The current version is less clinical and more accurately represents how "Aussie" relates to "Australian", which is a more encyclopaedic treatment. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I think Anthony's version reads much better Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Aboriginals and independence

We need more info on the Aboriginals. Why Australia is run still by the Anglo- Australians - the British servants? Why the land is not returned to the Aboriginals? Why are they still the most disadvantaged part of the Australian society. So far this article totally ignores them and makes look Australia like a rightful part of the British Empire. Are there any pro-independence organizations in Australia who advocate the freedom for the Aboriginals? Are they legal? Can they be legalized? Why is the police and army mostly Anglo? Why they all swear to the English queen? Why the politicians in Australia only pray in Anglican church? The article must be more objective and honest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.50.48.2 (talk) 04:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Just checked. 31 mentions of indigenous in the article and 13 mentions of aboriginal (although most of the latter are in reference titles). That would seem to give a fair degree of coverage. The article does mention the History wars which, make adding content on this topic potentially controversial. I know that if I added my personal view on the matter it would create great angst among some, not just because it would be obvious POV, but also because many would feel threatened and condemned by it. It's a difficult area. Your IP address tells that you are posting from within Australia. What would YOU like to see added? HiLo48 (talk) 04:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The OP reads very much like somebody who was trolling here a few months back. (Edit: this guy.) I'm surprised anybody in Australia would claim that politicians "only pray in Anglican church" - I'd have thought anybody with even a vague interest in Oz politics would know that Tony Abbott is a well-known Catholic, for starters. --GenericBob (talk) 11:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

actually the IP goelocates to canberra, home of one our old trolls who had an inclination towards History Wars. I cant comment that australians swear at the English Queen we have our own Queen, but can confirm they swear at the English Cricket team all the time. Gnangarra 12:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Chinese mapping of Australia's coasts in 1421

I believe that a reference to Gavin Menzies' theory should be included in the History part:

http://www.1421.tv/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.255.244 (talk) 14:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

National Symbols of OZ

No mention of the two official national animals or the other third. No mention of the green and gold colors. No mention of the new OZ flag debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.84.86.213 (talk) 02:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

This article is about the country - not its coat of arms. There is a link in the article for the article on the coat of arms of Australia, where the subject is rightfully covered. JohnArmagh (talk) 15:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The question was about the national symbols, not just the coat of arms. The infobox mentions the flag, the coat of arms and the national anthem, but there are other official symbols. We have an article called National symbols of Australia, which seems little trafficked and can do with some attention. Some mention of it in this article wouldn't go astray either. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Schooling is compulsory.

It is actually compulsory to stay in school until the age of 17 or eighteen. you MUST go to year 11 and 12 now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.105.213 (talk) 06:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes, that's mostly true. The school leaving age is a matter for each state to decide. Most seem to have now made it 17, but there are many exceptions. These include leaving high school before 17 to go to TAFE, to an apprenticeship, or to ongoing employment for at least 25 hours per week. This latter condition still allows people to leave school for a serious job. HiLo48 (talk) 06:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

In WA, I think it is more accurate to say that if not completing year 12, a child must be in a full-time apprenticeship or traineeship. Source: Department of Education. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

BUt there are exceptions other than work to this in WA. Gnangarra 12:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Prime Minister

There are early reports that Julia Gillard has replaced Kevin Rudd as PM. As soon as this can be verified, this page should be updated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.71.137 (talk) 12:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Rudd is still PM but the ALP will go to a ballot tomorrow. Bidgee (talk) 12:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Any of the sources that that delivered such reports have simply proven themselves to be unreliable ones. HiLo48 (talk) 17:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Rudd has now resigned and reliable sources have confirmed Julia's new position. I will change it to PM designate. - S Masters (talk) 00:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Rudd didn't resign. He was challenged to a ballot by Julia and lost. I'm not sure what you call that, but it definitely does NOT fit the definition of resignation. If you're kicked out of your job against your will, that's called being fired, the exact opposite of resigning. I don't care what the The Sydney Morning Sun says, only the ABC is a reliable news source in Australia. And quite frankly I'd like to know why any newspaper is treated as a reliable source for an encylopaedia? AN encyclopaedia! Not a friggin gossip magazine, a god damn encyclopaedia! We all know that they print fabrications, yet we're willing to use them to write our encyclopaedia's! I can't help but laugh at the naivety of humans sometimes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.216.138 (talk) 02:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

He stood down as Leader at the beginning the spill, which is tantamount to resigning before being fired. He will have resigned as PM by the time Gillard is appointed, otherwise there would be no vacancy to fill. -Rrius (talk) 02:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Is "Ozzie" superfluous? "Australian English" or English?

under demonym in the table at the top right, it already says AUSSIE, so why does it also need to say OZZIE, a spelling very rarely used

also under de facto language in the same table, it says english but links to australian english, so why dont we just make it say australian english there as this is what it links to... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.31.62.157 (talk) 02:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that "Australian English" should be listed as Australia's language. (I'm a white English-speaking Australian, born and raised here.) It might be a dialect or variation, but the basic language is English. (Hence my recent change, subsequently reverted.) Does Wikipedia have any policies or guidelines on this? If you asked anyone what languge we speak in Australia, the answer would normally be "English". According to Encyclopædia Britannica's 2009 yearbook, the language is "English" not "Australian English". According to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade "... English is the official language in Australia ...". If we keep "Australian English" here, we should probably also change the United States article to say American English and the United Kingdom article to say British English - currently they both say "English" (with wiki-link to English language. Likewise Canada - which currently lists "English" (with a link to Canadian English), New Zealand (New Zealand English) and who knows how many other articles. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. It's English with a few regional features; it might be worth linking to an article that explains those characteristics, but for this box it should just read "English". It's not like, say, American Sign Language vs Australian Sign Language, which really are different languages. --GenericBob (talk) 10:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The "Language" section of the article has as its {{Main}} article, Australian English. "Australian English" in the infobox is therefore consistent with the infobox summarising the article as it's supposed to. It makes more sense to link to Australian English rather than a generic version of the language since Australian English is the specific variant that we speak. Since this is the English Wikipedia, we can safely assume that any reader is already familiar with generic English to at least some extent and what they need to know is the variant of English spoken here. Australian English contains a link to the generic article in its opening sentence. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The "Language" section of the article also starts with "English is the national language". Mitch Ames (talk) 12:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

It's immediately preceded by "Main article: Australian English" and immediately followed by "Australian English has..." There's clearly a strong focus on Australian English, which is as it should be. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

True - but why doesn't it say "Australian English is the national language"? I think the basic question is whether "Australian English" is a language, or perhaps only a dialect - although apparently even the experts can't agree on the difference between a language and a dialect. Reference 1 in Australian English - en-AU is the language code for Australian English , as defined by ISO standards ... - suggests that it is a language, but those standards (of which I have no particular knowledge) may cater for variants/dialects etc. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't say it because there's no need to as it's implied. If we spoke American English there might be a need but it's to be expected that Australians would speak Australian English, just as it's obvious that Americans speak American English. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Surely the same argument applies to the Infobox. In short, the first sentence in the Language section and the language field in the Infobox should be the same, so the article is consistent. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The infobox is supposed to summarise the article, not individual sentences. There's obviously a stronger focus on Australian English in the languages section than there is on generic English so using a link to generic English in the infobox is not consistent. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

If the language is "Australian English" (which I am not conceding is the case), then the first sentence in the Language section should be changed to match, ie: "Australian English is the national language". If "English" and "Australian English" are different languages - which you appear to be implying - then the current sentence contradicts the info box. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

As I've indicated in the immediately preceding post, the infobox is supposed to summarise the article, not individual sentences. Since the "{{main}}" link is to Australian English and the second sentence starts with "Australian English" it's unnecessary for the first sentence to also start with "Australian English". It doesn't need to be said three times in a row. That's just silly, not to mention bad English. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

AussieLegend, could you please give explicit eg yes or no answers to these questions. 1: Are "English" and "Australian English" different languages? 2: Is the existing sentence "English is the national language" factually correct? Mitch Ames (talk) 13:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Australian English is a variant of the English language that is specifically applicable to Australia and since that is the case, "English is the national language" is factually correct since Australian English is English. Sorry, but I can't give yes or no answers to your questions since the answers are not that simple. Not everything is black and white and trying to force somebody to answer simplistically just isn't going to happen, no matter how much you try. -100 points for the attempt. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Although this talk page nominally only covers the Australia page, I would like to see some comments on whether - if we keep Australian English here - we should also update other countries articles (per my comment of 08:25, 26 June 2010) for the sake of consistency. Alternatively, why this article should be different to other articles. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that {{Infobox country}} should give guidelines on this, so I will also raise the matter in that template's talk page. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox country#Guidelines for language, eg English or Australian_English raises the general question for all countries. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

This article should use the same link as in United States and United Kingdom. Format (talk) 20:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Why? (I'm assuming you have a reason) For guidance we should be looking at featured articles to see how they approach it. United States is only GA and United Kingdom lost its GA status. Canada is FA and it uses Canadian English. Another featured article is this one so it seems United States and United Kingdom should probably follow us, not the other way around. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone seriously believe that whether calling it English or Australian English is at all relevant to FA or GA status? Australian English is a dialect. It is certainly not a language unto itself. Thus, the question "What is Australia's official language?" cannot be answered "Australian English is Australia's de facto official language." As such, having "English" as the display text but linking to "Australian English" is probably the best way to go. -Rrius (talk) 08:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe that the GA or FA status of any article should be used as the guideline for the language in the infobox - unless someone can point to some explicit evidence that links the two. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

It should say English and link to English language because that is in fact the language. The article Australian English does not describe a language and that article, as it currently stands anyway, is not about a language. That article gives a brief discussion about a few aspects of the English spoken in Australia (eg, there is a mix of UK terms and US terms, there are a small number of Aboriginal terms, it speculates about the origins of a small number of slang terms) but really gives no clear overall idea of the language itself. That language itself is English language. Link to that. Format (talk) 08:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

"Featured articles are considered to be the best articles in Wikipedia, as determined by Wikipedia's editors." They are the type of articles that all articles should try to be. Articles are scrutinised very closely before being awarded FA status. (This article is undergoing such scrutiny now as part of the FAR) That's why we look to featured articles for guidance. That both identified FAs refer to country specific language and the GA and former GA articles don't says something. However, even if you ignore the FA issue, you can't avoid the fact that the infobox is supposed to summarise the article so use of Australian English in the infobox, where it's been for years, is consistent with that requirement. I mentioned that only this afternoon[12] but I notice it's been conveniently avoided. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it should be English. As an Australian, I speak English. Australian English is really just UK English with a few words adopted from US English for various reasons (Like truck) and with the inclusion of some aboriginal words as loanwords. Either way, it is simply English. Furthermore, there are 3 different dialects of Australian English, so Australian English is not the most accurate term either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chipmunkdavis (talk • contribs) 14:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Queen or Monarch

I've changed the Info box from Queen to Monarch again. Although AussieLegend correctly points out that the Constitution says "Queen", Clause 2 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act says The provisions of this Act referring to the Queen shall extend to Her Majesty's heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom. I am not a constitutional lawyer, but I think that means we can safely assume that the head of state is the "monarch" in general. According to Brodie's Our Constitution, p10: "The Constitution specified that the Commonwealth of Australia would have the Queen or King of Great Britain as its Head of State." Presumably this refers to Clause 2 of the act, because the Constitution itself does not appear to mention the King at all. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not clear on why you want to use the more general noun. Quentin Bryce isn't listed as "Viceroy", after all. That's not to say I think it's wrong; I genuinely don't understand why this matters. -Rrius (talk) 09:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The term Governor-general (rather than the more general viceroy) is appropriate because that term is used explicitly in the constitution. So far I as know there is nothing in the consitution or the Constitution Act that gives any hint that the term might not always be appropriate. By contrast, the problem with Queen is that it is a function of (the gender of) a particular person fulfilling the role. Should the leader_title1 in the info box change just because the person fulfilling the role changed (from male to female or vice-versa)? I think not. The clear intent of the constitution act is (to my non-lawyer mind) that the head of state at any point in time is the monarch - and the article infobox does list Australia's government as being a constitutional monarchy. For example, did the constitution change to use King instead of Queen when Victoria died and Edward VII took the throne? No, but that doesn't mean that he wasn't our head of state. Mitch Ames (talk) 10:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

"The term Governor-general (rather than the more general viceroy) is appropriate because that term is used explicitly in the constitution." - The term Queen (rather than the more general monarch) is appropriate because that term is used explicitly in the constitution. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Nitpick: while the head of state certainly is a monarch, the field is for their title. I can imagine the other two people in that box being announced as "Prime Minister Julia Gillard" and "Governor-General Quentin Bryce", but nobody would announce Her Maj as "Monarch Elizabeth". --GenericBob (talk) 09:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

A valid point. But perhaps we should use Head of State instead of Queen or Monarch, and Queen Elizabeth II instead of Elizabeth II. Head of State may not strictly be a "title", but perhaps it more clearly expresses her role, and keeps the word "Queen" associated with the individual rather than the role. Eg:

Australia
Government
• Head of State	Queen Elizabeth II

No, that won't do, because there's ongoing debate about whether our head of state is the monarch or the governor-general. Monarch is a better word to use here (even though nobody ever says "Monarch Elizabeth"). We won't always have Queen Elizabeth; if she dropped dead tomorrow, we'd suddenly have a king. Generally speaking, sometimes we have a king, sometimes we have a queen. It all depends on the sex of the individual on the throne. But whether it's a king or a queen, it's always going to be a monarch (while ever we keep that system). That's why Australia is a constitutional monarchy. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

There's no serious debate about who the head of state is. The Constitution is quite clear, "The legislative power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a Federal Parliament, which shall consist of the Queen, a Senate, and a House of Representatives, and which is herein-after called "The Parliament," or "The Parliament of the Commonwealth."" It then continues, "A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty's representative in the Commonwealth". The head of state is the Queen, the GG acts as her representative carrying out the duties of the head of state but the actual head is still the Queen. Liz may delegate all her duties to the GG but she's still the head. The proposal to remove her as head of state was defeated in 1999. This diversion aside, GenericBob is correct here, the field is for the title, which is Queen, not Monarch. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

From the Politics section: "Queen Elizabeth II is the Queen of Australia, a role that is distinct from her position as monarch of the other Commonwealth realms." - Use of "Queen" in the infobox is consistent with this section. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Anyone ever thought about having a look at how they have it at the articles about the other countries which share a Monarch with Australia? Looking at Canada, United Kingdom, and New Zealand, it would seem they use "Monarch" for the position and "Queen Elizabeth II" for the holder of the position. Perhaps that would be best here? Oh, and while were talking about the infobox, I've been wondering why the Chief Justice (of the High Court) of Australia is not listed on it, because Wikipedia articles on other countries normally seem to. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 12:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Valid points. I did look at those articles and then at Monarchy of Australia, which says, "The monarchy is a constitutional one modelled on the Westminster style of parliamentary government, incorporating features unique to the Constitution of Australia." One of those features is that The Constitution specifically refers to the "Queen", which is why Queen has been used here. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not right. The Constitution used Queen because there happened to be a queen on the throne at the time, Victoria. We're using queen here because there happens to be a queen on the throne currently, Elizabeth. The two things are not connected. If there had been a king in 1900, we'd still be using queen here, because Elizabeth is not a king. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

As I posted elsewhere on this page not long ago, the change from "Queen" to "King" takes two seconds. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's no argument for anything. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

<quoting Knowzilla> ...why the Chief Justice (of the High Court) of Australia is not listed on it ...
- The Info box lists "Government", but the Chief Justice / High Court is not part of the government, because of the Separation of powers in Australia. If the CJ/HC were to be listed, it would have to be under Judiciary, not Government. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for replying: But I noticed at the article United States the CJ is listed, and he is not part of the US government, and at article New Zealand, a country very similar to Australia in system of government (aside of being federation though) also has the CJ listed. "Government" has many definitions. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 15:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The Australian constitution appear to separate the judiciary from the government fairly clearly. Chapter 1: The Parliament describes the structure and legistlative powers of the parliament. Chapter 2: The Executive Government describes the executive powers of the government. Chapter 3: The Judicature describes the judicial power, High Court etc. Except for the implication in the title of chapter 2, I don't think that "government" is actually defined in the constitution or the Constitution Act (but I am not a lawyer). Mitch Ames (talk) 13:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

AussieLegend and GenericBob make compelling arguments for the case that leader_title1 should be "Queen", because that is her correct title. However I still feel that the end result (as displayed in the article) is somehow "wrong". Perhaps the infobox itself is "wrong", in that it should refer to the role (which would be monarch or head of state) rather than the title. Or perhaps it should be the title of the position, not the title of the person? Hence my earlier suggestion of leader_title1 = Head of State, leader_name1 = QE II. While I acknowledge that the constitution explicitly says Queen, I still believe that the role of the monarch is more important than the title of the Queen, as evidenced by Clause 2 of the Constitution Act which states that "Queen" is effectively a placeholder for "ruling monarch". And again I point out that the Constitution did not change when Victoria died and we had a series of Kings for 50 years. Surely no-one doubts that the King was our "leader1" during that time. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

You need to take into account the preamble of the Constitution, as it sets the stage for the document. It states: "2. The provisions of this Act referring to the Queen shall extend to Her Majesty’s heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom." Therefore, Monarch would be more appropriate, as the title of "Queen" will change if and when appropriate. - S Masters (talk) 02:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopaedia. It will take two seconds to change from "Queen" to "King" when that change eventually happens. Since it's good enough for The Constitution to say "Queen", as opposed to "Monarch", it should be good enough here. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Side issue: debate about the head of state

AussieLegend, you say there's no serious debate about who the head of state is. Maybe you ought to read these:

From Government of Australia#Head of state:

• The question of whether the Queen is Australia's head of state became a political one during the 1999 Australian republic referendum, when opponents of the move to make Australia a republic claimed that Australia already had an Australian as head of state in the person of the Governor-General, who since 1965 has invariably been an Australian citizen. The former Governor-General, Major General Michael Jeffery, said in 2004: "Her Majesty is Australia's head of state but I am her representative and to all intents and purposes I carry out the full role." However, in 2005, he declined to name the Queen as head of state, instead saying in response to a direct question, "The Queen is the Monarch and I represent her, and I carry out all the functions of head of state."[2] The Governor-General represents Australia internationally, making and receiving State visits.[3][4]
• In 2009 Prime Minister Kevin Rudd described the Governor-General as the Australian head of state, announcing an overseas visit by Quentin Bryce by saying, "A visit to Africa of this scale by Australia's Head of State will express the seriousness of Australia's commitment".[5]

From Monarchy of Australia#Constitutional role:

• As such, there is some debate over whether the sovereign or the Governor-General is Australia's head of state.

Sir David Smith, in his book “Head of State”, argues passionately that our head of state is the governor-general, and one might think he ought to know, having been the Official Secretary to 5 of them. I happen to disagree with him, as you presumably would. But that disagreement does not remove the existence of the debate. It actually acknowledges it, otherwise there’d be no position to disagree with. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 12:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you read what I wrote again: There is no serious debate. (emphasis added). Like this discussion, it's a side issue at best, involving only a limited number of people and it doesn't have any effect in the grand scheme of things. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't like to use such characterisations to downplay arguments against my positions on things. If a point is easily demolishable, then demolish it. And if it's been demolished, truly demolished, your opponent will have no recourse but to agree with your position. But have they agreed? Some have, but there are some very learned people who don't. The very fact that neither the Constitution nor any other document makes it explicitly clear who holds the title makes this not the black and white issue you might suggest. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 14:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

It makes sense to say Monarch there, rather than Queen. This is in line with United Kingdom and Canada, i do not see a problem with it. No point changing Monarch to Queen. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually it was "Queen" and somebody changed it to "Monarch". --AussieLegend (talk) 10:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Stick with Monarch. The queen mentioned in the constitution is simply a reference to the monarch at the time of the constitution, and the country will not alter its constitution every time the Monarch changes gender. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The listing of Monarch and Governor-General is appropriate. On a different page, I made some comments on the matter. New Zealand's constitution explicitly defines the monarch as the head of state. Australia's makes no such statement, nor is there any definitive legal instrument to rely upon. It is interesting to see the ABC and various other media outlets refer to Quentin Bryce as "Australia's first female head of state"[13] - as opposed to Queen Victoria! The best we can say is that opinions both official and general differ. --Pete (talk) 15:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I know I am coming into this a bit late but I think it is important that we use the most reliable sources available, not the writings of partisans in the monarchy debate (ie David Smith) or the ramblings of journalists, who unfortunately rarely know exactly what they are talking about. In this case I refer you to the Australian Government website, and in particular this document which clearly states "Australia’s head of state is Queen Elizabeth II" and "The Governor-General performs the ceremonial functions of head of state on behalf of the Queen" That is what the article needs to explain. --Michael Johnson (talk) 00:20, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

To me, "ceremonial" doesn't quite cover the full scope of the GG's role. While they tend to be only formalities, the GG does tasks to do with the calling of elections, appointing Prime Ministers, etc. This really mattered at the time of the Whitlam dismissal. It was all approved and processed by the Governor general. Her Majesty just sat back and watched. I would go along with ceremonial, plus "formal procedural matters to do with governance", or something like that.

If we had some legal document, stating the identity of the Australian head of state, that would be great. But unfortunately, the only two legal references I can find are rather obscure and contradictory. In one, the High Court describes the Governor-General as the "Constitutional head of the Commonwealth"[14], and in the other, the Governor-General is not listed in a schedule to a law as an International Protected Person, including heads of state, requiring Commonwealth security when visiting.[15] Calling opinions contrary to your own as partisan or "ramblings" is not helpful, especialy when your own sources are wobbly. Relying on departmental websites where the content providers are unlisted is a step up from using Wikipedia as a source, but not a big one.There is no definitive answer, and it is clear that community opinion is divided. --Pete (talk) 18:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but Smith is partisan in this debate - it has been a deliberate tactic of monarchists to deflect attention away from the Queen as a "foreign" head of state. And a statement by a journalist is not reliable either. My source is not just a "departmental website" but obviously the considered view of the Government of Australia on this matter. You really need to review both WP:RS and the website www.australia.gov.au if you really think it "wobbly". It is totally reliable. And if the Queen is not head of state what is she? Chopped liver? I mean really in what context is a reigning monarch not a head of state? --Michael Johnson (talk) 06:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't really considered the ABC,[16] The Australian,[17] the Sydney Morning Herald,[18] The Canberra Times[19] and all the rest to be monarchist media outlets, especially considering the way they acted during the referendum a few years back. Yet they all refer to the Governor-General as head of state, and have done so for decades, off and on. Presumably they reflect informed opinion. As has the government. The simple fact is that there is no definitive source. And that is because the matter is not defined in Australian law.

The Queen is undeniably the British head of state. But following the Statute of Westminster, which placed the Imperial Realms on the same independent footing as the United Kingdom, the position of the monarch became rather more complex. Under the Australian Constitution, which is now the foundation of Australian law, the monarch has very few powers indeed, and they very limited. The main power is that of appointment of the Governor-General, which is now on the advice of the Australian PM. As was demonstrated with King George V and Sir Isaac Isaacs, this is done whether the monarch wishes it or not. The powers of head of state are given directly to the Governor-General, and may not be exercised by the monarch - as we saw in 1975.

Lacking any definition, Australians are free to choose whom they regard as the head of state. Some choose the Queen, because she comes first in the Order of Precedence, and well, she's the Queen, yeah. Some choose the Governor-General, because she does the job in her own right, and as a head of state is someone who embodies the spirit of the nation, it is more fitting to have an Australian in the position. --Pete (talk) 07:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

(later)Looking at the ABC article mentioned, I was amused to find a footnote: "*Editor's note: The Governor-General is not Australia’s Head of State. The Governor-General is the Queen’s representative.". This "Queen's representative" idea is a source of much confusion, as people imagine that it means that the Queen tells the Governor-General what to do, and the G-G is her agent or deputy. Not so. The Queen cannot explicitly order the Governor-General to do something. She is not given that power under the Constitution, nor anywhere else. In fact, under Australian law the Queen, by virtue of the Royal Powers Act 1953, is empowered to act as the Governor-General's representative when present in Australia. Obviously the ABC is as confused as anybody else! --Pete (talk) 07:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

She also has the power to disallow any law within one year ... and on such disallowance being made known .. shall annul the law ... (clause 59). Ie the power to revoke any law that Parliament may make, as long as she does it within the year. Mitch Ames (talk) 07:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Obsolete at Federation and now well and truly moribund. Hard to imagine a Prime Minister advising the Queen to disallow his (or her - ain't that marvellous!) own legislation! --Pete (talk) 08:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The PM doesn't need to advise the Queen to do it; the Queen has that power under the Constitution. Your comment was that "Under the Australian Constitution, ... the monarch has very few powers indeed, and they very limited." In fact clause 59 gives the monarch the quite significant power to revoke any law that Parliament passes - overriding the GG's assent. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

But overriding that is the very strongly adhered to convention that the Queen and the GG act only on the advice of their Prime Minister. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Technically speaking, the Queen has the power to disallow legislation, I agree. But there is a lot in the Constitution that has no current effect. For example, the Constitution states that there shall be an Inter-State Commission. But where is it? And where in the Constitution does one find the Prime Minister? Unless you count "Almighty God". --Pete (talk) 09:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Guys, I opened up this side thread, not in order for us all to now have a debate about who the HOS is, but to shine a light on the fact that there has been debate about it for a number of years, without coming to universal agreement - all because there is no document that would settle it indisputably. As the above amply shows. It's not good enough to damn one side as partisan and then cherry pick our own favourite sources supporting the other side. That might do for a debate at a pub, but we're writing an encyclopedia here and we need to remain balanced. If we're going to quote an Australian government source that says it's the Queen, we cannot just ignore Rudd's statement of 2009 that says it's the Governor-General. If he wasn't talking on behalf of the Australian Government when he authorised those words, what was he on about? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 07:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Just so! --Pete (talk) 07:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Language

I know what is meant by "Australian English has a unique accent", but I don't think that's the accurate way to say it, since Australian English obviously has more than one accent. The Australian English article mentions "three main varieties" for a start. Any bright ideas for a reword? Kahuroa (talk) 02:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Australia Multicultural????

At the beginning of the Article it mentions that Australia is a multicultural society. We know its now very hip for a country to call itself multicultural in the now global village BUT Australia IS MULTICULTRAL in relation to what and whom???...the U.S? Canada? Australia still has tons of race relation issues and its 2010

Some western western european countries seem more multicultural than Australia

whit and white and white does not make multiculturalism!!! "In the 2006 Australian census, the most commonly nominated ancestry was Australian (37.13%),[184] followed by English (31.65%), Irish (9.08%), Scottish (7.56%), Italian (4.29%), German (4.09%), Chinese (3.37%), and Greek (1.84%).[18"

It's interesting to note that Aboriginals arent even mentioned in this summation...tsk , tsk, tsk..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.140.202 (talk) 17:59, 2 July 2010

Aborigines have a much lower population number than other races, which could be it. Additionally, they probably said their ancestry was Australian. The census didn't discriminate between "white australians" and "other australians", as it right and proper.Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, there's a separate question specifically for Indigenous identity. --GenericBob (talk) 00:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

'Multicultural' is a loaded word. It can be contentious because it has no precise meaning. Is a multiultural society one in which different cultural identities exist separately? Or is it one in which distinct cultures meet in a common identity? I wouldn't want to argue one or the other on Wikipedia because it is a controversial subject in Australia, the subject of frequent community debate. Some say Australia is culturally intolerant and racist as a society. Others say the opposite. The answer probably lies somewhere in the middle. Perhaps instead of using the word we could simply say something like, 'Australian society has been markedly shaped by immigation'.Gazzster (talk) 03:56, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Literacy rate. NOT 99%!

Under Education we told that Australia has "an adult literacy rate that is assumed to be 99%". That's a figure I've been hearing for over 50 years, without ever seeing evidence for it. More recently, some proper research has been performed. At [[20]] we have a 2000 report by The Australian Council for Adult Literacy which says "In Australia today, one in five adults do not have the literacy skills to effectively participate in everyday life." There are several other sources that give figures closer to this than the 99% historical myth. And it corresponds much more realistically with what I see daily as a secondary teacher in big Australian city. Can we finally drop this pretence of 99% literacy for Australia? HiLo48 (talk) 07:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

"Under Education we told that Australia has "an adult literacy rate that is assumed to be 99%"." Yep, 99% is definitely too high to be realistic, haha. ;) Hayden120 (talk) 07:54, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. OK smartypants. Glad I could prove my point! HiLo48 (talk) 08:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

No hard feelings, eh? I was just having a little bit of fun. Hayden120 (talk) 06:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Well i presume the figure comes from this report. [21] It states on page 216 of the PDF (labelled as 205 within the document),

"Many developed countries, having attained high levels of literacy, no longer collect basic literacy statistics and thus are not included in the UIS data. In calculating the HDI, a literacy rate of 99.0% is assumed for these countries if they do not report adult literacy information."

Australia appears as one of those countries in this report (page 181 of the PDF, labelled 171). It sounds a pretty unfair and misleading way of doing things, but at least it is an international source and not simply the government of Australia claiming its 99%. If there are other reliable sources suggesting another figure then perhaps it should be included, but the 99% assumed by this report could always remain as well. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:27, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh and the CIA world Fact Book says 99% for Australia as well [22] BritishWatcher (talk) 12:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

99% of claims of "99%" are exaggeration! If the report states there are 'assumptions' from non-reporting countries, that is a disclaimer of being a reliable source. I know the CIA fact book is unverifiable source, only circular references and guarded sources, they may consider lit'racy to be the ability to fill in a ballot paper. The report from the Aust. C of Adult lit. could be presented as evidence for a funding claim, and is also questionable. They probably reference a selection of reliable sources, that could be useful for a fact in the article. Cygnis insignis (talk) 12:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, Reliable sources, eh? I'm beginning to think that my very small sample based, personal observations might make me the most reliable source going on this matter. And nobody should trust me! Really, the most honest thing to say might be "No reliable figure available". HiLo48 (talk) 13:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

What about saying something like there are no detailed reliable figures on the literacy rate but international reports and the CIA world Fact book use the 99% figure. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

For an article on education in England it just uses the CIA figure with no clarification or attempt to dispute it. So if we just added the CIA / that report as a source the 99% could remain. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:09, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

But it would be wrong. And we all know that. What is coming out of this discussion is that sources regarded as reliable on many issues are wrong on this matter, certainly for Australia, and probably also for many other countries in the 99% category. There must come a time when the status of a normally "reliable" source has to be questioned. HiLo48 (talk) 22:11, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The lower literacy figures are sourced from the ABS' 1996 Survey of Adult Literacy and the follow-up 2006 Adult Literacy and Life Skills Survey. However, it is important to note that these surveys measured functional literacy, which is a rather different concept from the basic ability to read. Virtually everybody in Australia has basic literacy (eg, the ability to read written documents) but the two ABS surveys (which were part of international surveys) found that a lower proportion have the ability to understand the kinds of documents they encounter in day-to-day life. These surveys also took basic literacy as a given and tested respondents' ability to understand, interpret and act upon written material they were presented with. Both the above surveys were developed and coordinated by the OECD and its definition of 'functional literacy' is available here. It should also be noted that the ABS surveys are measures of adult literacy and exclude people aged under 15 and over 74 as well as people living in remote areas which are hard to survey. As such, the above discussion is comparing apples and oranges. The figures sourced from the UNDP's Human Development Report are perfectly reliable (the UNDP gets its Australian figures from the ABS and both are highly reputable statistical organisations) and probably entirely accurate, it's just that the concepts differ. To draw analogy, virtually everyone can read a newspaper article (basic literacy), but only a smaller proportion can accurately interpret the article and/or act upon it (functional literacy). To cut a long story short, there's a case to be made for using 'functional literacy' rather than 'basic literacy', but the two concepts shouldn't be confused and data on functional literacy are only available for the small numbers of (mainly rich) countries which participated in the OECD surveys. Nick-D (talk) 02:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Nick-D. Nice explanation. I'm aware of the definitional differences (and difficulties), but is there actually a source that supports your claim that "Virtually everybody in Australia has basic literacy (eg, the ability to read written documents)" and "virtually everyone can read a newspaper article"? I don't mean an "assumed" figure, as we started with. I do meet a surprising number of secondary students who seem unable to read at all. They use many strategies to get around the problem. And I think the proportion is increasing. OK, that's WP:OR, which doesn't count until someone else publishes my results, but it's pretty obvious stuff in certain demographics. HiLo48 (talk) 03:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Given that you were comparing basic and functional literacy in your original post I thought it was worth spelling out the difference. I'm not actually aware of any survey - other than the school-age NAPLAN test and its equivalents - that tests basic literacy. Given that Australia did dramatically better than Italy in the Adult Literacy and Life Skills Survey (ALLS) and Italy is stated as having a 98.9% basic literacy rate in the HDR there seems to be no reason to doubt that the 99% figure is about right, particularly as its the one used by the UNDP. I'd be all for adding the ALLS results to the 'education' section of the article though as I do agree that this is a much better measure than basic literacy and the PISA results are already there. Nick-D (talk) 05:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear, not NAPLAN. Students labelled as "Integration students", which can include many kids with learning difficulties, don't have to sit the test. Depending on how determined a school is to fudge the figures, and it's easy, the kids who can't read don't sit the test. Pointless exercise for statistical results. (It can be useful for individuals who can read and do try.) HiLo48 (talk) 07:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

John Howard's political affiliations

John Howard is mentioned in this article as a 'conservative commentator', and yet when you click his name, his article claims that he supports the 'liberal' party in Australia, protectionism, increased taxes, more regulations on employers, and other increases in the size and role of the Australian government. Since the John Howard article describes him as a 'liberal', why does this article call him a 'conservative'? Captain Vimes (talk) 21:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)