Talk:Australia/Archive 3

((diff) Australia/Geography 12:58 am [deleting US-centricism] . . . . . Simon J Kissane

"US-centricism"? You are deleting information that may be useful to a lot of readers of this article. Why? If you don't like making comparisons to the US, add a comparison to another country. But why delete?

That's an absurd idea - which other country do you intend to use? We would have to include comparisons for almost every country in the world. I completely support SJK on this one.

(Thanks to whoever wrote the above reply while I was writing this.) Well, why not then add a comparison to every country in the world? There are only around 189 of them. That should clog up the article with a few pages of comparisons. We can't compare to everyone, so to be fair compare to none. The CIA world factbook can do that because the primary intended market for their product is Americans; Wikipedia aims to be more global than that.

Besides, the only readers that sort of information is likely to be useful to is Americans. While the comparison in this particular article isn't that bad, comparing it to the size of the U.S., other CIA world factbook entries compare states to the size of Connecticut or Delaware; frankly I wouldn't have the slightest clue how big those U.S. states are, and most of the people in the world wouldn't either. -- SJK]

Why is there so much history on this page? Why don't we just put in an ultra-brief summary and a link to history of Australia, like what is done on United States? -- Tim

The WikiProject Countries will eventually also changeover the Australia article - you can do it if you want to, or wait. Jeronimo

I made this change to the template, but much of the removed text is not present in the currenty history article - I'll paste it here:

Australia has been populated for over 40,000 years. Its earliest human inhabitants, the Australian Aborigines, the indigenous people of Australia crossed the Torres Strait from the lands that currently make up Indonesia and Papua New Guinea. At that time the Torres and Bass Straits were land bridges.

The first European to sight Australia was probably a Portuguese, Manuel Godhino de Eredia, in 1601. It may also have been sighted by a Spaniard, Luis Vaez de Torres, around 1605-6. Australia was later visited by the Dutch (based in Java, who named it New Holland, and Abel Tasman landed on the island of Tasmania in 1642. In 1688 the Englishman William Dampier landed at King Sound on the northwest coast.

In 1770 Captain James Cook discovered the northern two-thirds of the east coast. He named it New South Wales (the reasons for this particular name are unknown) and claimed it for Great Britain. In his report he recommended Botany Bay as an ideal site for a future colony. Cook's report was ignored at first, but in the 1780's the interest of the British government increased. The most important factor was Britain's need to provide strategic raw materials to its naval and commercial fleet and to relieve its overcrowded prisons. Several violent incidents at overcrowded prisons convinced the British government of the need to separate unruly elements from the rest of the prison populace. The loss of the North American territories during the War of Independence deprived Britain of a source of hemp (canvas & rope). A decision was made to found an apiary at Botany Bay.

As a result, Captain Arthur Phillip, commanding eleven ships full of convicts, left Britain for Australia on May 13, 1787. He successfully landed a full fleet at Botany Bay on January 18, 1788. However, they left the bay eight days later because of its openness, short supply of fresh water and poor soil, and settled instead at Port Jackson, a few kilometres north. The ships landed 1,373 people, including 732 convicts, and the settlement became Sydney Town (later Sydney). The early years of the colony were somewhat disastrous; Phillip ordered the crops to be planted in March (failing to factor in the reversal of seasons) and they promptly withered during the winter, leading to a number of famines.

In 1803, another prison colony was established in Van Diemen's Land, later renamed Tasmania to remove the convict connotation. Other colonies were not established to take convicts (although some did), and eventually support for shipping convicts from England declined, and Australia ceased to take them.

Australia became a commonwealth of the British Empire in 1901. She was able to take advantage of her natural resources to rapidly develop her agricultural and manufacturing industries and to make a major contribution to the British effort in World Wars I and II. Australia's war dead are remembered on ANZAC Day and Remembrance Day.

Original policies of Australia were designed to encourage the British nature of the country, and policies such as the White Australia policy were set up to specifically exclude those not from Britain from coming into the country. This policy was eventually undone after World War II when mass immigration was encouraged, and racist views began to decline.

A referendum to change Australia's nation status, from a commonwealth headed by the British monarch to an independent republic, was defeated in 1999. Some people attribute this partly to the terms of the referendum, suggesting that it created the perception that the change would have granted parliament a 'blank cheque' to change the constitution without any further public consultation (or some similar undesirable side-effect), and partly to many Australians' sentimental fondness for Britain, the Queen and/or the Commonwealth. It is speculated that the referendum may have failed because Republicans do not agree on what system could or should replace the monarchy, and the electorate merely rejected the particular model proposed for sound reasons rather than from any mistaken perceptions; however many other factors may well have played a part, and this begs the question of whether some such workable system can be designed and implemented. As well as all this, most referenda in Australia to change the Constitution have failed, so it could also be argued that this was just another example of Australians rejecting change with the argument of 'if it's not broken, don't fix it'. Australia remains a member of The Commonwealth, an organisation containing Britain and most of its former colonies, but this increasingly irrelevant organisation is mainly concerned with promoting human rights, democracy, and open government in some of its less developed members rather than discussing shared economic interests as existed in the past.

When the constitution for the Commonwealth of Australia was being negotiated between the colonies, Melbourne and Sydney each demanded that they become the capital. As a compromise, it was agreed that the capital would initially be Melbourne, until a new capital city could be built. This new capital city would be located in territory taken from New South Wales, and be 200 statute miles or more from Sydney. The present site was chosen and named Canberra in 1906; the federal government moved there from Melbourne in the 1920s, Parliament making the shift in 1927. Canberra's name comes from the Aboriginal word Kamberra, meaning 'meeting place'

I took out the links to two patriotic songs that had been on this page for three months, because I had never heard of them. I used the history to find out who put them on there in the first place - it was an anonymous iPrimus user. The author of the songs is a marketing executive from SA with the email address peterbarnes@iprimus.com.au. Hmmmm... A classic example of the need for weeding. -- Tim

The present para on famous Australians sticks out like dogs unmentionables. There is nothing actually wrong with it, but I think it needs to (a) expanded, and (b) moved to a subsiduary page. I moved it to here for now. Perhaps someone who is good at this stuff could add it to the List of famous Australians and make an article out of it. (Not me. I have trouble remembering which one is Kylie and which one is Rolf.)

Due to the language, Australians have been able to easily merge with the American movie, television and music industries, resulting in many Australians being world famous, such as actors Heath Ledger and Errol Flynn, and singers Kylie Minogue and Rolf Harris. See the List of famous Australians.

Also, in a minute or two, I'll try addressing something that bugs me a little: the way that the links to the really interesting info on Australia (which in my entirely biased view is the flora and flora) are relegated to a couple of minor dot points. This may or may not be something that meets with general approval: I'll just do it and promise not to throw my toys out of the pram if someone reverses it. Tannin 04:55 Dec 21, 2002 (UTC)

Looking much better with the public holidays split off. Well done, Tim. Tannin 06:50 Jan 9, 2003 (UTC)

Who wrote this dribble about 53,000 years and ancestors of the current Australian Aborigines? As far as I know the first inhabiants came over one hundred thousand years ago, a second wave came around thirty plus thousand years ago displacing the first. And todays Australian Aborigines are decendant from these people - who I imagine are the same ancestors of the various Papuan peoples.

Can an anthropologist please review update the article? ... Daeron

Time you updated your sources, then, Daeron. This is the common & accepted view - 53,000 years, but with a very wide margin for error. Most authorities that I have consulted put it at between 60,000 and 45,000. Actual human remains (as opposed to indirect evidence of human presence) are sadly lacking in the archeological record. The 100,000 year figure, if my memory is to be trusted, comes from one single site in the far north for which the dating is not generally accepted. (Further, more conclusive, evidence may yet turn up of very ancient human presence in Australia, of course.) DNA and linguistic studies indicate that there has been little mixing between Australians and the people to the immediate north, so if Australians and New Guineans do indeed share a common ancestory (as seems reasonable on first sight), it is not a recent one. Tannin 06:30 Feb 11, 2003 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion in one person's mind ( Daeron) regarding whether Australia is a republic or a monarchy, hence his constant doctoring of the Australia page to call it a republic. (He seems to be the only one on the planet with such confusion).

No, and you are refusing to accept both the dictionary and common definitions of "republic" and "Commonwealth".

So a little lesson in political science:

A state with a monarch is a monarchy; either absolute or constitutional.

What does that have to do with the definition of a Republic or a Commonwealth?

A state with a president is normally a republic - though there have been exceptions (eg, Ireland from 1937 to 1949 had a president but only began calling itself a republic in 1949).

Dictatorships also normally have a self-declared "president" - but you mis-use the English & Australian languages by trying to re-define Republic.

I can only suppose that his confusion is due to mis-understanding the word 'Commonwealth'. In the seventeeth century the word was applied to the English Republic that existed under Cromwell. That was the one and only occasion that it was taken to imply that. It has regularly been used in other contexts since then, but never interpreted to automatically mean republic. It doesn't, as any political scientist, historian or lawyer can confirm.

No, as you live in Ireland perhaps you use a different language? But the Australian dictionaries all define:

-commonwealth
n. republic;
federation of self-governing states;
official designation of Australia.

Now I know that members of the Republican movement have to pretend Australia isn't a republic, but it is.

republic
n. state in which supremacy of people or their representives
is formally acknowledged.

Finally, I was highly amused to be accused to pushing an agenda in calling the Commonwealth of Australia a constitutional monarchy. The last time I wrote about Australia in the page on the Republic Advisory Committee (which incidentially was concerned with creating a republic, ie, there was not one!!!) I was accused to being a republican. Now apparently I am a monarchist. Actually I'm neither. I'm a historian and political scientist who followed the debate on whether or not Australia should become a republic. It decided in that instance not to, a fact the Rip Van Winkle who keeps vandalising the page here seems not to have noticed. JTD 06:42 Feb 11, 2003 (UTC)

Republic: "A state in which the supreme power rests in the people and their elected representatives or officers, as opposed to one governed by a king or the like". Shorter Oxford Dictionary. No king = republic. King = not a republic. Seems pretty clear to me. Tannin 06:46 Feb 11, 2003 (UTC)

I don't see anything in your definition that says that a republic can't have a king, just that the king doesn't rule. What's wrong with that? -- Zoe

Thank you Zoe, yes indeed. He also forgets that a "commonwealth" is by definition a "Republic".

It is possible to be a republic and be part of the British Commonwealth - India is just that. Australia is not.

The queen is the head of state of Australia (and represented by the Governor-General). Australia is not a republic. Daeron will need to take a close look at the Australian Constitution. If he keeps up this "Australia is a republic" stance , he'll get reported as an annoying user. Arno 06:59 Feb 11, 2003 (UTC)

Get it through your head, we can apoint 'Micky Mouse' as the Head of State

to meet visiting heads of state from other countries. That still doesn't change the fact that Australia is a republic governed by representatives elected by the people of Australia.

Your fantasy that Australia is a monarchy because it choses to use a royal linerage as the official head of state, is laughable.

In theory, as power has moved from absolute monarchs to parliamentary systems under constitutional monarchies, all democratic states are republics, ie, ruled by their republics. So the definition is now explicitly linked to the issue of the manner in which a head of state is chosen. States where some method of democratic election the head of state exists are defined as republics. States where there is no democratic selection, but the head of state, a monarch holds office by inheritance are taken by definition to be monarchies; the only exceptions are where there are a number of royal families and they between them elect one of their own to be monarch. But in those states, the people have no role in selecting the monarch, it is merely a choice made by the royal families. One or two such states exist. So in reality, Zoe, a republic cannot have a king. That's a basic point taught in every political science textbook. Australia, as its own laws and its constitution states, has a monarch, Queen Elizabeth II. Therefore it is a monarchy. And as power resides in a government (albeit acting in the Crown's name) answerable to parliament, it is a constitutional monarchy. Whether it should be is a different matter. But it is, and will remain a constitutional monarchy until a referendum changes the constitutution to replace an inherited throne by a head of state elected in some manner. JTD 07:01 Feb 11, 2003 (UTC)

Republic: "a state whose head is not a monarch". The Penguin reference dictionary. Can't get much clearer than that.

Commonwealth: The body politic: the state, esp viewed as a body in which the whole people have a voice or an interest. SOED. Tannin 07:02 Feb 11, 2003 (UTC)

Commonwealth: n. republic; (C-) federation of self-governing states;
(C-) official designation of Australia.

Collins Australian English Dictionary

ISBN 0 00 458361 2
Published: 1902, 1936, 1954, 1963, 1981, 1985, 1987
Australian Edition Published 1981, 1988, 1990, 1991, 1992

commonwealth, n.
1. the group of people who make up a nation; citizens of a state.
2. a democratic state; republic.
3. any one of the states of the United States.
The official title of four states (Kentucky, Massachusetts,
Pennsylvania, and Virginia) is Commonwealth.

LCC: 78-88577

Yup: that's what a commonwealth is allright. No doubt about it, Australia is a commonwealth. Or, to put the whole thing in a nutshell, the Commonwealth of Australia is a constitutional monarchy. Which is exactly what the entry says now. Seeing this bit is right, let's leave it this way. Tannin 10:19 Feb 11, 2003 (UTC)

So you admit that Australia is a REPUBLIC. A state where the people or their elected representatives govern the country. Nothing to do with whether there are or are not monarchs on the planet.

IF (head of state) = (monarch) THEN (form of government) = (monarchy). Seriously, how difficult is this to understand? Tannin 11:39 Feb 11, 2003 (UTC)

(head of state) = person at tea-party

(form of government) = who rules = elected representatives.

Seriously, how difficult is this to understand? The Queen could jump up and down outside a SS or any other office and demand the doors open for her - but they won't. She has *less* rights in this country than most anyone else because she isn't even a citizen - she can not vote, give orders, or make any demands. READ a DICTIONARY!!! She is NOT the supreme authority, and you are mis-representing the truth to suit your personal goals.

Monarchy = n. state ruled by sovereign; his rule.

Now STOP trying to trick the world into believing our government is not a republic!

A commonwealth is by definition a type of republic, the word republic needs to be added so that some people like you will understand that the voters are the supreme authority in this country.

From "The Australian Concise Oxford Dictionary" (third edition reprint - 1999):

republic:

a nation in which supreme power is held by the people or their elected representatives or by an elected or nominated president, not by a monarch etc.

You see, supreme power is not held by a monarch

She can't open a Fish&Chip shop, she has no authority nor control.

monarchy:

a form of government with the monarch at the head;
a nation with this.

at the head as in control of government!

In my own country, Belgium, supreme power is held by the elected representatives of the people (the prime minister and his cabinet). We do have a king, but his role is overwhelmingly ceremonial. According to the given definition of republic my country is a republic. According to the given definition of monarchy my country is not a monarchy (the king is a head of state, not a head of government). I have never ever heard or read anyone refer to it as such. Officially, Belgium is a constitutional monarchy. It is also the first time I see a reference to Australia being a republic (at the present time). I seriously doubt that the definitions given in the dictionaries are the same as what is generally understood to be a republic and a monarchy. Dictionaries should follow common usage, not dictate it. D.D. 11:55 Feb 11, 2003 (UTC)

Your first problem is that you have fixated the US model as meaning "republic" in your mind. A republic merely means that utimate authority lies with the people or their representives, anything else is an extension like a "constitutional monarchy" instead of "monarchy". I never said Australia had a 'Presidental Republic', just a Republic form of government.

I am an Australian and Australia is refered to as a commonwealth and republic all the time. I've never once heard anyone talk about what law or budget the monarch is going to decide upon - because its not her position to do so in our government - it's a republic. Likewise you may be familiar with Kangaroos jumping down the streets of Sydney -- but actually living here I know that is a fiction.

I'm a little confused by your comment, DD. As you say, Belgium is a constitutional monarchy just like Australia. I have always assumed that the King has two roles (a) do nothing and let the elected Prime Minister govern (except in very special circumstances), and (b) open bridges, kiss babies, and attend important funerals. If you read the given definitions, they are perfectly clear: a republic has a form of government where supreme power is held by an elected representative of the people. A monarchy has a form of government where supreme power is held by a king (or queen, prince, whatever). Most modern monarchies are, like Belgium and Australia, constitutional monarchies, where the king holds power in theory (and could actually exercise it as a last resort) but in practice only acts on the advice of the head of government (the prime minister or equivalent). There seems to be nothing wrong with the definitions. Where is the problem you see? Tannin 12:13 Feb 11, 2003 (UTC)

The problem is this:

The king is not the head of government (see definition of monarchy and your reply), but the head of state. In a number of countries these two positions are held by one and the same person. Not in Australia and not in Belgium.
You say that "... where the king holds power in theory (and could actually exercise it as a last resort) but in practice only acts on the advice of the head of government ..." I do not agree on the part between brackets ("and could actually exercise it as a last resort"). Governor-general John Kerr who represented Queen Elizabeth II in Australia did just that in 1975 by dismissing the Gough Whitlam government. I honestly don't know if the Belgian king has the power to dismiss the government. A few years ago an abortion law was passed by our parliament. Constitutionally, our former king, Baudouin I had to give his assent to it, but he couldn't because he had a personal conscience problem. A solution was then devised, and for one day the king was judged "unable to reign". The law was passed without the formal approval of the king, and the next day he could "reign" again. To me, that doesn't sound as if the king can exercise power as a last resort. He has to do what the government tells him to do, otherwise he risks to saddle the country with a constitutional crisis. All that to say that supreme power lies not with the monarch (not even as a last resort) but with the elected representatives.

Perhaps there is a difference between the Australian (British) and the Belgian monarchies. But, by all means, Australia is a constitutional monarchy, not (yet) a republic. D.D. 12:57 Feb 11, 2003 (UTC)

UTC, are you labour voter still upset about that? 1) The Governor-general and NOT the Queen is able to exercise that power. There is no precedent for it and it would never be recognised. She has no control not even to say deal another hand. 2) That power is STILL subject to the people because th GG would be out on his ear if he made a wrong call. As it happened, the ALP lost that election with the largest majority in Australian history against it.

The Queen has no control of the governments decisions or powers. By all means, Australia is a republic which uses the term "constitutional monarchy" because it was a hundred years ago. You can no longer appeal to the privy council nor does England appoint our Governor Generals - those days are long since gone and the people are the supreme authority in this country, a republic.