Talk:Australian Capital Territory

According to Laying down the Law (a standard Aussie undergraduate law textbook), page 163, the ACT has no head of state. I guess this means that although the Governor-General may annull legislation, he's not the head of state and neither is the Queen. Is this view correct? Is it the case that NSW has the Queen has head of state and the ACT exists somehow superimposed on the land that already has that head of state from the NSW Constitution? - Richardcavell 08:49, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

The entire thing has been shrouded in controversy ever since Sydney got grumpy about not being the nations capital. I'm sure they were eventually happy, after all, it is just 100 miles from Sydney and surrounded by N.S.W. No doubt there was some underhandedness in the creatinon of the Australian Capital Territory. The creation of Canberra however, should be noted as an architectural, engineering and social masterpiece of the 20th century, brilliance by Walter Burley Griffin and all who participated in designing Canberra.

I'd like to see this issue investigated further as I have no clear sources to behind my comments. Although I'm sure somehow it will slowly fade away and be forgotten. Nick carson 03:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know the text book but I would disagree that the ACT has no head of state. (a) The fact that the ACT is physically within NSW is irrelevant. Legally, it is entirely separate. (2) The ACT is a territory of the Commonwealth of Australia. The British monarch is the head of state of Australia and is therefore the head of state of all parts of Australia, including the ACT. The very fact that the GG can annul ACT legislation proves that the person he represents, the Queen, is the head of state. If she were not the head of state, not only could the GG not annul legislation, but neither could he give it royal assent to begin with. JackofOz 06:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The ACT is not a state in either sense of the word, it has no sovereign or constitutional status, and therefore has no "head of state." It is an adminstrative convenience created by the Commonwealth, and could be abolished by the Commonwealth at any time. Since it has a Westminster system someone has to play the role of the Crown, and I gather that someone is the Governor-General, but his role is only analagous to that of a state governor, it is not constitutionally the same. Adam 08:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Neither is the Northern Territory. Despite having self-government, it too could be abolished at any time, techically speaking (although achieving that politically would be a very different question). Why does the NT have its own Administrator to represent the monarch, but the ACT not? The GG is a creature of the Australian Constitution, and the convention is that he acts solely on the advice of the Prime Minister. Does the ACT Chief Minister also get to advise him about ACT matters? What happens if the advices clash? JackofOz 03:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Lowest Elevation in Infobox

I think off the top of my head the lowest elevation in the ACT is where the Murrumbidge flows out to NSW. Not sure of it's elevation though. --Martyman-(talk) 05:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Looking up the gim.act.gov.au and putting in the 2 m contour the elevation is 423 meters where the river leaves the territory. However the low point would be in Jervis Bay at around sea level. Are we counting Jervis Bay in ACT?

GB 05:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

No Jervis bay is not technically par tof the ACT any more. --Martyman-(talk) 06:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I think I got 429m from one of my paper maps I am sure the source you have is better. --Martyman-(talk) 06:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The ACT does not have equal Federal representation.

I am just adding a comment The ACT does not have the full Federal representation accorded to a State to the governance section. That is a NPOV comment and it is notable. For example, the District of Columbia (in a similar situation to the ACT) has an entire section on the less than full Federal representation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia#Representation_in_federal_government This is very much the type of information that someone from a country other than Australia (who does not have the fine detail knowledge of the Senate) would feel it helpful to have.Sad mouse 03:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The Senate was dreated as a States' House, to protect WA and the other small states against Victoria and NSW. The introduction of Territory Senators went against this whole notion and was challanged twice in the High Court. As the ACT is not a State and was not an original State if anything it is overrepresented in the Senate. Xtra 04:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Additionally the ACT is vastly different from D.C. as the ACT is represented in both houses with voting members, unlike D.C. and if people want to find out about the Senate they can click on the link. Xtra 04:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

That is the why. I understand that. Just because there is a reason does not mean that it should be hidden. As I already said, the DC article spends an entire paragraph on it, and you constantly revert half a sentence. Your removal of a relevant fact of Australian politics in regards to the ACT is POV. Sad mouse 04:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It can be mentioned - but - in a NPOV way. Such as: "not being one of the original States, the ACT is not granted the Constitutional entitlement of 12 Senators, but rather has been granted 2" Xtra 04:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)