Jump to content

Talk:Australian Defence Force

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleAustralian Defence Force is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 26, 2018.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 6, 2007WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
May 30, 2007WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
July 24, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
June 9, 2009WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
June 26, 2013Peer reviewReviewed
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on February 9, 2011, February 9, 2013, February 9, 2015, February 9, 2016, February 9, 2018, February 9, 2022, and February 9, 2024.
Current status: Featured article



Assessment of capabilities section - update or remove?

[edit]

The 'Assessment of capabilities' section is due for an update as part of the overall update of this article I'm (slowly!) working though. However, I'm a bit concerned that as the section can only be subjective and the range of opinions is limited it might be best to remove it all together. A key problem is that there simply aren't many sources of objective yet independent assessments of the ADF - the Australian Strategic Policy Institute is by far the best source, but only has a small number of analysts, the analysis published by the Kokoda Foundation is interesting but generally forward-looking rather than focused on the current ADF, I'm a bit skeptical about the Australian Defence Association's neutrality (and they mainly source the more detailed analysis they publish from ASPI or Kokoda Foundation analysts anyway) and the ANU's Strategic & Defence Studies Centre is primarily focused on strategic issues in Australia's region. I rather like having a section which summarises the ADF's current strengths and weaknesses, and ASPI has recently updated their analysis of the ADF, but would be interested in seeing other editors' thoughts on this topic. Nick-D (talk) 01:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Australian Strategic Policy Institute is sometimes criticsed for their War hawk viewpoint. I believe the Lowy Institute may have also done some writing on the topic. Their are other forgein entities (including think tanks) in the U.S and UK that that have provided assessments on the ADF in recent times. Aditionally individuals such as former Lt. Gen. Mick Ryan have provided some assessment. SNITZ01 (talk) 02:14, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ASPI wasn't a controversial body when I wrote the above in 2010. As you note, it has since become controversial. This section has been removed since then. Nick-D (talk) 10:06, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Year of establishment

[edit]

Copied from my talk page:

Hi! I have a bit of a problem with the ADF article being categorised "1976 establishments in Australia" and "Military units and formations established in 1976". I would have less problem with a date of 1901, but even that has its problems. Obviously, "somebody" co-ordinated the three arms (well, initially two arms) of the military in the period 1901-1975 - but they didn't have the name "ADF". The ADF is still a somewhat nebulous concept - no-one is employed by the ADF; even the current Chief of the ADF is still employed by the Australian Army. I don't know what the best solution might be. (But removal of those two categories you added would remove the problem!) Your thoughts? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the categories pending discussion here as to their appropriateness. Tim! (talk) 16:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
David Horner's history of the establishment and first decades of the ADF explicitly states that "The Australian Defence Force slipped quietly into existence on 9 February 1976". Until the late 1950s only loose coordination arrangements existed between the services (with the Secretary of the Department of Defence playing the main coordination role during World War II), and the service chiefs were fairly free to go their own way if they so wished (which they quite often did). In 1958 the position of 'Chairman, Chiefs of Staff Committee' was established to provide inter-service advice to the Minister of Defence, but the holder of this position had no authority over the chiefs of the individual services, and the level of coordination remained weak. It wasn't until the Defence Force Reorganisation Act 1975 came into effect on 9 February 1976 that the services were placed under the legal authority of a single individual (the 'Chief of Defence Force Staff') and serious attempts to coordinate their activities began. David Horner's book spells this out in some detail, though he notes that the concept of a single 'ADF' wasn't widely acknowledged until the 1980s. As such, the categories seem appropriate. Nick-D (talk) 22:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say they were not appropriate. Nor did I say they were not accurate. What I said was that I had a bit of a problem with them. My problem is with the word "established". The implication is that there was nothing there before. As I said: Obviously, "somebody" co-ordinated the three arms (well, initially two arms) of the military in the period 1901-1975. And that same "somebody" (or bodies) must have had some sort of legal authority - or "power" - to do it. Does that make my problem clearer? Pdfpdf (talk) 23:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that anyone did coordinate the services properly before this time. There seem to have been unofficial arrangements, and the Minister for Defence obviously had overall legal authority, but the service chiefs were the bosses of their services and could ignore everyone but the minister if they wished. Horner gives examples of the problems this lead to (eg, differences in doctrine and force structures not lining up properly). I recommend Horner's book. Nick-D (talk) 23:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm. So basically, the minister had responsibility for the job, whether he chose to do it or not! Interesting. Yes, it sounds like I do need to read Mr Horner's book, (along with the other books on the "yet to be read" shelf, and the pile of "papers to be read"). When I've done that, I'll re-consider if I still have a problem. Thank you for that. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 00:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Material on 2012 budget cuts

[edit]

(moved from User talk:Nick-D)

I edited the "Current Expenditure" section of the ADF article with the US concerns about Australian defence spending in 2012. I didn't leave an explanation because I'm relatively new to this and didn't know it was required. The articles cited are from 2012, which is much more recent than many in the overall article and I think still relevant because Australian defence spending has not been raised as a percentage of GDP since. I have taken the word "recent" out though, due to subjectivity.

Regarding your second comment, I think that American defence spending cuts since are irrelevant to the discussion. They have not retracted their critisism and neither has Tony Abbott so I consider that they both stand. Incidentally, even after cuts the Americans spend roughly double on defence as a proportion of GDP as Australia does.

Cheers. Crikeydick (talk • contribs) 13:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've just re-removed this material. This article is about the ADF, and not short-term political debates. The Liberals have since released various statements on defence spending which boil down to pretty much the same thing as the ALP's expressed policy - eg, to not cut below the current level, and an aspirational target of increasing spending by 3% a year at some undefined future date when money becomes available (see page 48 of their overall policy document [_pages.pdf here]). Abbott criticizes pretty much everything the government does (which is the job of an opposition leader; Rudd and Beazley did the same) so there's no particular need to single this out. I really don't see the relevance of the US Government's reported concerns (which I don't think have ever been stated publicly) - the US is always whinging about its allies not spending as much as it does (virtually none of the NATO countries meet the spending targets), often in more strident terms (Robert Gates delivered several public lectures about the low NATO spending), and it's currently slashing defence spending itself and is expected to keep doing so. Nick-D (talk) 08:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abbott is the alternative Prime Minister of Australia and if he wins the next election will determine the shape of the ADF for years to come. That makes his opinion on what we should be spending on defence relevant in the leadup to the election - there is nothing to say that Wiki articles should only be "long term" - otherwise there wouldn't be articles on up coming elections at all. Therefore I have reverted it again. However, I take your point about the Liberals aspirational spending target so have referenced their policy in article.

Your point about the relevance of the American's point of view is subjective and I have reverted it. Donald Rumsfelt raised these concerns publicly while he was defence secretary and Richard Armitage has as well in the article that I have provided, as have other senior officials identified in the articles that I have provided . Personally I find the view of our major ally more relevant than an assessment of capability by some defence academic or thinktank, of the type quoted throughout the article, though others might disagree. The appropriate approach to resolving this is to report all opinions from a sources with a stake and expertise in the debate, make sure that it is identified as opinion and not fact, and then let the reader decide whether or not they agree. Otherwise take all the opinions, like the "assessment of capability" section, out of the article.

Can we discuss this without edit warring? I don't see the relevance of the views of onald Rumsfeld and Richard Armitage - Rumsfeld quit in 2006 and Armitage is a Republican who doesn't hold any position in the Obama administration (as far as I'm aware). The story you posted rests entirely on unnamed 'US officials' being reported to have complained during talks with the Secretary of the Department of Defence. Your material about the Liberals' target is wrong BTW - their stated goal (which is also the ALP's) is to increase the growth of the defence budget by 3% a year once finances allow. The Defence budget makes up a much higher proportion of government expenditure. BTW, given that this is a featured article, can you please take care with grammar and consistent referencing? Nick-D (talk) 08:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 143 mentions critisism by the current US commander of Pacific Command, Admiral Samuel Lockyear, so you are incorrect that there are no named current officials who have made the complaint. I mention Rumsfeld and Armitage to demonstrate that this is an ongoing issue, and because they were both senior US officials with an interest in the alliance and who worked closely with Australia. I consider the views of our major ally on the capability of our defence force is relevant to an article relating to Australian defence policy, because they are the ones who might not come to assist us if they do not consider us to be pulling our weight. If the Americans are irrelevant to our defence, why would there even be a section on our foreign alliances in the article?

In any case, if you don't think it is relevant then it is your right to ignore that content. However, others may think differently and value the perspective of the American's and the Opposition. I think it is inappropriate for these articles to be censored because of one person's point of view. I reiterate that the appropriate treatment for these controversial issues is to put both sides of the argument and then let the reader decide. That is what I have done.

Thank you for the edits on the Liberal policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crikeydick (talk • contribs) 08:12, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note, the approach that I have proposed is consistent with the Wikipedia article policies on Neutrality (equal weighting, neutral tone) and Verifiability (major newspapers are considered to be a reliable source). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crikeydick (talk • contribs) 08:20, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Australian Defence Force. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Australian Defence Force. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong info under 'Women In The ADF'

[edit]

1) citation 133 missing 2) percentage of women in ADF as of 2014-2015 financial year incorrectly calculated/misleading: not 30.6%, this figure has been arrived at by simply adding the two percentages of total permanent and total reserve women in the ADF (14.5% and 16.1% respectively). Thus the overall percentage should actually read as 15.3% as an average of the two figures — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.33.158.189 (talk) 09:18, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm Facepalm I wonder who made that mistake! I've just corrected the figure: thanks for pointing this out. Nick-D (talk) 11:37, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very Pro Article

[edit]

Is there many edits from Aust Gov computers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thelawlollol (talk • contribs) 08:01, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Department of Defence computers have firewalls that prevent them from editing Wikipedia. Not sure about the rest of the government, but I would assume the same. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:57, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Australian Defence Force. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update in progress

[edit]

I'm currently giving this article a - long overdue in many respects - major update. Please bear with me while the references are a mess, and content rapidly changes. And of course contributions from other editors would be great. Nick-D (talk) 22:52, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Australian Defence Force. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:51, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Australian Defence Force. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:14, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ADFHQ established 01 Jul 17

[edit]

Parking this here for later discussion and / or inclusion.

  • "ADFHQ standing up 01 July". Australian Army (Press release). 27 June 2017. Anotherclown (talk) 08:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I saw this in Army News, but the story wasn't clear about how ADFHQ fits in with the other high-level headquarters (eg, whether it means that Army, Navy and RAAF HQs have been subsumed into it, and how HQJOC relates). Do you know if any organisation charts or similar have been released? The most recent Defence portfolio budget statement provides the pre-1 July organisation charts, and annoyingly doesn't seem to mention this change. Nick-D (talk) 09:57, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Nick no I don't. I agree that this is unclear from the sources currently available which was one of the reasons why I haven't updated the article myself (it seems I'm not the only one confused at least). Anotherclown (talk) 10:19, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. The Department of Defence's summary of the ADO's organisation ([1] also seems to be as at 22 May - hopefully it's updated soon so the article can be corrected. Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is a bit in this article - see "Joining the forces: New headquarters raised to improve capability generation". Army: The Soldiers' Newspaper (1399 ed.). Canberra: Department of Defence. 29 June 2017. p. 2. ISSN 0729-5685. It states: "In practical terms the Chiefs will all be posted to ADFHQ reporting to CDF, and all their HQ staff will be part of ADFHQ. However, what doesn't change is that the Chiefs are still in command of their service, responsible for developing their specialised workforces and delivering advanced capabilities for joint forces." Unfortunately though that is still probably not clear enough. Anotherclown (talk) 11:13, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is a bit unclear. It does seem that the three service HQs have been combined, but hopefully something more explicit will come along. The next Defence annual report later this year should clarify it. Nick-D (talk) 11:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Australian Defence Force. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:16, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on Australian Defence Force. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:59, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Australian Defence Force. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:56, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Australian Defence Force. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments request

[edit]

Hi Nick-D, you asked for any comments re ADF. I've added some suggestions/queries but I don't think any are urgent for tomorrow's main page appearance, except maybe the inconsistency in numbers in the TFA blurb.

Personnel numbers

  • TFA blurb says:
    "strength of just under 80,000 full-time personnel and active reservists," but also says:
"with nearly 60,000 full-time active-duty personnel and 22,000 active reservists"
  • Article lede says:
"just under 80,000 full-time personnel and active reservists" and
"ADF's 58,206 full-time active-duty personnel and 21,694 active reservists" - (79,900) so all good
  • Section Personnel / numbers
Intro prose says at June 2017, 58,206 perm, 21,678 active reservists but table says 21,694 reservists.
The column for the 3 reserves adds up to 19,757 but shows total of 21,694.
Total across row for air force is iffy. I think problem is in the figure for raaf reserve ie 3,133. If 3,133 is correct, the row total would be 14,388 + 3,133 = 17,521, (which would in turn break other totals.)
If it's the total which is correct then the 3,133 should be 5,070?
I'd stuffed up the RAAF figure (by doing the calculations the dumb way with a calculator rather than Excel) - fixed in the article and the blurb Nick-D (talk) 09:37, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

general bits

Role

History

  • "...which protected the Australia embassy..." - Australian (or Embassy of Australia)
  • "In line with a promise made..." - commitment?
  • "...Liberal-National Party Abbott Government..." sounds a bit like the Qld party, maybe add coalition?
  • "...rules based order globally." - rules-based?
  • "Relatively few young Australians consider joining..." - slightly ambiguous ie relative to? ie fewer than previous intakes or than other countries, other careers?

Current structure

  • redlink Navy Strategic Command - doesn't need the dab, should turn blue
  • "The Chiefs are also the CDF's principal advisor on matters..." - advisors plural? or 'Each Chief'?
  • "...Committee chaired by the CDF and also includes the Vice Chief of the Defence Force and the Chief of Joint Operations..." - which also includes? or the Commitee also includes?
  • "...headed by the Chief Joint Operations..." - insert 'of'?

Logistic support

Military intelligence and surveillance

  • "...within the Department of Defence supports the services and co-operate with the..." - co-operates
  • "...though the DIGO has staff in Bendigo..." - what is DIGO or just a typo DIO?
  • "...jointly staffed by the DSD and personnel..." - DSD acronym not yet used
  • "... works with the Australian Secret Intelligence Service and has..." - already linked and abbreviated 2 sentences prior

Personnel

  • numbers per above
  • "...the Officer Training School – RAAF Base East Sale..." - wlink Officers' Training School RAAF?
  • "...decreased between the 2003–04 to 2005–06 financial due to problems..." - is that financial 'years'?
  • "...and the commercialisation of some elements of the military." - privatisation?
  • "The size of the ADF has growth between..." - grown or seen growth?
  • "There have been long-running debates over whether..." - mention between who (seeing ref not accessible)?

Defence expenditure

Domestic responsibilities

Refs

Image captions

  • Russell Offices alt=A group of multi-story office buildings - storey
  • Marchers "...Regiment marching on ANZAC day 2006" - style should be Anzac Day?

Nick, sorry this is a bit "11th hour". Pls just ignore anything not useful. Regards, JennyOz (talk) 08:33, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These comments are excellent - thanks a lot for your time Nick-D (talk) 09:37, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for such a comprehensive article! JennyOz (talk) 10:46, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Governor General as commander in chief

[edit]

The statement in the article and the infobox that the GG is the commander in chief of the ADF is supported by the source given. It's also supported by the GG's website: [2] ("Under Section 68 of the Constitution, the Governor-General is also the Commander-in-Chief of the Australian Defence Force, although in practice he or she acts only on the advice of Ministers of the Government.") and the Parliamentary Education Office [3]. Nick-D (talk) 09:36, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retired population

[edit]

Is data available on the number of living, retired ADF personnel? If so, could that data be added to this article please? --Danimations (talk) 06:24, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the article about the warcrimes in afhanistan?

[edit]

? Olidikser (talk) 21:22, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is here: War crimes in Afghanistan, although the lack of mention of the Brereton Report in this article is a significant shortcoming, and should be rectified as soon as possible. If I have time, I will add some material soon. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:51, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article is due for an update, and the Brereton Report's findings and the action being taken on it (and the lackthereof) will warrant coverage. Nick-D (talk) 22:08, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 update

[edit]

I've started the long-overdue process of updating this article. Contributions from other editors, and/or comments here about issues that need to be fixed or updates that are needed, would be very welcome. Nick-D (talk) 09:14, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Role of the Governor General

[edit]

There seems to be a misconception on the role of the Governor General. As noted in the above thread from 2018, secondary sources states that the GG is the Commander in Chief of the ADF as part of their role, and not as the representative of the monarch. This forms part of how the role of the GG works more broadly under the Constitution, where a wide range of powers that are nominally vested in the monarch are fully delegated to the GG by various constitutional provisions and the GG then has these roles in their own right.

  • The GG's website states that "The Governor-General is also the Commander-in-Chief of the Australian Defence Force"
  • The Parliamentary Education Office states that "The Constitution gives the Governor-General the power to ... act as Commander-in-Chief of the Australian Defence Force."
  • The House of Representatives Practice states that under the relevant elements of the Constitution, and particularly Section 68, the GG's role includes "acting as Commander-in-Chief of the naval and military forces"
  • This recent Department of Defence news story described the GG as the commander in chief and included a quote from the GG describing herself as such
  • This recent Australian Financial Review story states that "The governor-general is the commander-in-chief of the Australian Defence Force"
  • This scholarly 1984 article in the Melbourne University Law Review authored by then-GG Ninian Stephen on the role of the GG as the commander in chief stresses that it is the GG who is the commander in chief of the ADF with this function not being held by the monarch.
  • The only source I've been able to find that suggests otherwise is this article by the Australian Monarchist League which states that the GG holds the commander in chief office as the monarch's representative. I doubt that this is a reliable source given it's the website of a lobby group.

@Gus7896: could you please provide the secondary sources that support your position? You seem to be basing this on a misunderstanding of the role of the GG, and it appears to violate WP:NOR as you are directly interpreting the Constitution. I'd also be grateful if other editors could provide sources that point one way or another here. Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The DOD press release “Take the chance to try different aspects of your career, stick with it and know that it is an important job that is highly valued by the country, certainly valued by the Commander-in-Chief, and enjoy every bit of it.” No she does not say is CinC just that the CinC thinks something (she may have talked to the king about it).

But this says she is [[4]]. So ere in the side of saying she is. Slatersteven (talk) 11:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D:Hi there Nick, I think we may have our wires slight mixed up, for clarity I do not disagree with your sources or even the fact that the Governor General is in fact the commander in chief.

But I believe our disagreement is more in form than it is in function - merely, from a legal basis they act on this basis as a representative of the sovereign and the sovereign is indeed not the C-in-C. I note the reverse is true in Canada where the Monarch in right of that realm is the C-in-C and exercised by the Governor General.

Thus, from this basis I would respectfully note this, albeit slight, change in the article given this is the exact wording of section 68 of the Constitution. I would submit that this satisfies the evidential rules for Wikipedia.

I would appreciate your input given this.

Gus7896 (talk) 11:45, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Section 68 - "The command in chief of the naval and military forces of the Commonwealth is vested in the Governor-General as the Queen's representative."
Again it does not say that the GG isn't the Commander in Chief, just that they act as the Sovereigns representative. Gus7896 (talk) 12:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[This] article at page 443 also references the role of the Governor General as the Sovereigns representative which I believe is quoting the Sir Ninan Stephen article you quoted above. Gus7896 (talk) 12:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really safe to directly interpret the Australian Constitution as you are doing given the way it was drafted and operates, especially when trying to summarise things very succinctly for infoboxes. This is also not in line with Wikipedia's rules around original research which note that secondary sources are much preferred. The UNSW law journal article is relevant here, as that section focuses on the difference between a literal reading of the constitution which clearly states that the GG control the military and the intent from the moment this was drafted for the GG to never control the military. On page 442 it states that under Section 68 "the Governor-General is vested with the ‘command in chief’ of the naval and military forces of the Commonwealth". The quote from Stephen on page 443 notes that the Monarch didn't have control of the military and so it was never intended that the GG would have this as part of their role as the monarch's representative, so I don't think supports the contention you're advocating for here. Nick-D (talk) 10:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would still respectfully disagree with you on this. I say again that I agree that the monarch does not have any control over the military at all in Australia.
The secondary sources and the primary sources, even ones that you cite do say that the Governor General is the commander in chief and they are only a representative of the monarch and the monarch does not have any control whatsoever.
But like with alot of things on this platform it's all down to style and beliefs. Unlike some things, this does not really have any bearing in reality other than symbolically. The research supports the view as the way it is now - it would be wrong to say the Monarch is the CinC but the edit does not say that.
You are not wrong in saying the Governor General is the Commander in Chief but it is not the most complete answer. Gus7896 (talk) 10:59, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is another secondary source, that says at page 226 provides that "Section 61 vests the executive power of the Commonwealth in the Queen and makes it exercisable by the Governor-General. It includes the powers to conduct war and foreign relations, as well as control the public service and the economic levers of the Treasury."
It says earlier at page 224 in quoting another article that "The command in chief of the naval and military forces of the Commonwealth is, in accordance with constitutional usage, vested in the Governor-General as the Queen’s representative. This is one of the oldest and most honoured prerogatives of the Crown"
In addition the book Crown and Sword by Cameron Moore at page 92 states that the GG is invested as the commander in chief as representative of the crown.
This High Court of Australia judgement says "The King remains the titular head of the armed forces of the Crown, and the Constitution, s 68, therefore, provides that the command in chief of the Naval and Military Forces of the Commonwealth is vested in the Governor-General as the King’s representative."
This is Schedule 1 of the Defence regulation, which prescribes the oath each member of the ADF must subscribe to, which involves a promise to repeal the Sovereign's enemies.
Paragraph 150-15 of Halsbury's Laws of Australia as updated on 24 March 2022, largely says the same as the sources above.

Gus7896 (talk) 12:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • An infobox is for a [simple] summary of key facts from the article. It is unsuited for nuance or detail, best left to prose. The present information (Governor-General Sam Mostyn as representative of Charles III, King of Australia) is trying to capture detail in a prose-like statement, which is explained in the section Role. I note that the section would be better titled Command and role. The position of the GG as CiC is purely nominal. It is the position that is a key fact. The name of the current GG is not key. They exercise no actual command authority. If we cannot agree to simply report the GG as the CiC in the infobox, then guidance would indicate to not report it at all. The table of contents acts to direct the reader to the appropriate section Command and role, where the detail is given. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. The infobox is not the place for subtle nuances! The Governor General literally is the commander-in-chief but that does not inform the reader what that means in practice. Same goes for "as the King’s representative"; a reader might infer that the King can exercise the powers of the Governor General - but he cannot. The Governor General does exercise command authority and routine orders do go out under the Governor General's signature - but the reader more familiar with the American president as commander-in-chief might misunderstand this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would agree with you on this - it would be probably best just to take it out and leave the nuance for the body. Gus7896 (talk) 06:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I also agree. The various sources noted above all agree that the GG's role as commander in chief is essentially honorific, with the elected government exercising control over the military. Nick-D (talk) 10:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Cinderella157 (talk) 22:56, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not see why the GG was removed from the info box, the Governor General is the Commander-in-Chief by virtue of being the kings representative, it has been stated that it is "nuances" pertaining to the GGs role however this is not the case, the role of a commander in chief is not just reserved to that of being the supreme commanding authority, while the gg as the representative of the sovereign is the commanding authority they delegate this to the Government, by virtue of the gg acting on the advise and consent of the PM of Australia, however removing the GG from the chain of command shown in the info box is a poor reflection of an understanding on Australian customs, the role of head of state (and vice regal representatives) and head of government are separate the prime minister themselves does not control the defence forces but rather has that power delegated to them by the GG, section 68 of the constitution couldn't be more clear See here. the role of commander in chief is much more then being the daily decision maker of the defence force, it is being the leadership figure of the ADF leadership is not simply the action of directing the daily operations of the ADF, the GG gives out medals to ADF soldier, meets ADF soldiers, represents the ADF at the events, as does the Monarch of Australia. while i agree to does look long winded it is very bizarre to remove a commander in chief figure from an info box even if that person is a ceremonial position and only holds de jure power, see all other conditional monarchy pages or ceremonial presidential republic pages where the head of state is nominally commander in chief British Armed Forces, New Zealand Defence Force, Danish Defence, Spanish Armed Forces, Canadian Armed Forces, Singapore Armed Forces, Barbados Defence Force. it also looks misleading implying that the prime minister is commander in chief, while in practice they act similar to this legally under the constitution they do not posses this power and do not hold the ability to appoint the chief of defence staff etc. it must also be noted that all officer commissions in the ADF are issued by the GG in the name of the monarch of Australia, yet again the role of a commander in chief, which the prime minister does not fulfil, getting into technicalities as well the ADF take an oath to the monarch of Australia presently King Charles III, thereby indicating allegiance to them and their appointed representative, therefore any action taken by the government is done nominally with the consent of the GG. Knowledgework69 (talk) 15:40, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe it would've been more appropriate to add a note onto the info box explaining that the day to day operational leadership of the ADF is handled by the defence minister and prime minister. As done on the British, Danish and Canadian pages respectively. as the GG is the commander in chief and still has functions and roles relating to that Knowledgework69 (talk) 15:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All sources covering the roles of the Governor-General I've seen note that they are effectively powerless except in extremely unusual circumstances where they activate their 'reserve' powers. As such the GG plays no role at all in the command of the military beyond various honorific roles. Please provide sources that state otherwise. Nick-D (talk) 10:45, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Nick-D on this. Commissions, decorations etc might be granted by the GG, but the GG almost always acts on the advice of the government of the day, except in the case of the "reserve powers" which are uncodified. The government doesn't act "with the consent" of the GG, the GG acts on their advice. What independent functions and roles do you claim the GG has with respect to the ADF that are not done on advice of the government of the day? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi guys, so if you look at [5] under commander in chief role while a lot of those function I will agree with you do fall under acting on the advice of cabinet, as with most constitutional monarchs/ ceremonial pres/ vice regals etc. however certain roles the GG performs such as, Visiting military units to acknowledge the service of service personnel, Leading Australia’s response, celebration and acknowledgement at commemorative events and Presenting Colours, Banners and other Honours to military units and personnel. Now while these are not operational leadership taskings they are however activities becoming of a commander in chief, it must be remembered that not all of what the ADF do, as with all armed forces is operational, there are ceremonial attributes along with it. While the GG does not act as an operational leader for the ADF they serve in the role of commander in chief that is outlined by the constitution and the customs of Australia. Just because their role as CinC isnt the same as the US President for example or the King of Saudi Arabia they never the less exercise the duties expected of them as Commander in Chief, it is extremely unusual for a page to omit the head of state (or vice regal) from the info box for their role being more ceremony then operational focused. Reserve powers of the GG must also be taken into account, yes they are vague, yes they are unlikely to be used but they never the less exist and owing to them existing and in practice could very well be used should the situation arrive, this should be reflected.
    Folks I agree with you that their role is not operational however they are still commander in chief and carry out leadership functions accompanied with that referenced above, it must also be noted that the PM and by extension the Defence Minister's authority over the ADF stems from the GG. I truly believe a more suitable correction to the info box would've been a notetag explaining that the GG delegates the operational and daily running of the ADF to the Government of Australia. as seen on the Danish Defence page. Knowledgework69 (talk) 13:21, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Knowledgework69: The Danish Defence article does not contain information on the Commander-in-chief in the body of the article like this article and wikilinks to the Commander-in-chief article. If an explanatory footnote was included in the infobox in this article, how would you word it? bearing in mind the purpose of an infobox is to summarise "the key facts that appear in an article". Melbguy05 (talk) 08:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The PM and Defence minister's authority stems from the outcomes of elections, not the GG. The GG does not "delegate" anything: under the Australian form of government the elected executive government is in control of the ADF and the GG acts on their 'advice'. I'd suggest that you read up on the literature on how the Australian government works. You are seeking to compress a range of complex issues into a single misleading infobox field. Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The PM and Defence minister's legitimacy stems from the outcome of elections. Their authority stems from GG via the Constitution, which says:

    The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen's representative, and extends to the execution and maintenance of this Constitution, and of the laws of the Commonwealth.

    There shall be a Federal Executive Council to advise the Governor-General in the government of the Commonwealth, and the members of the Council shall be chosen and summoned by the Governor-General and sworn as Executive Councillors, and shall hold office during his pleasure.

    The provisions of this Constitution referring to the Governor-General in Council shall be construed as referring to the Governor-General acting with the advice of the Federal Executive Council.

    The rest is just custom, and we've seen from Scott Morrison and Donald Trump that isn't worth much anymore. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:54, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is getting well away from the topic of the article, but that's not really correct and is an example of why the constitution can't be read literally. Any GG who didn't appoint the winner of the election would be promptly sacked in almost all circumstances. The only time since federation the GG has appointed someone who didn't win an election PM was Kerr in 1975, and he appointed Fraser only on the condition that Fraser would immediately advise him to call an election. This remains very controversial. The Morrison multiple ministries affair is actually a good example of the PM's dominance over the GG, as the inquiry into this found that the GG had no discretion to not appoint Morrison to those ministries once he was advised to do so (see para 200). Nick-D (talk) 10:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A Parliamentary Joint Committee report published last year discussed section 68.[1] Melbguy05 (talk) 10:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nick, you still haven't expressly disagreed with the sources that I have cited above. I am curious, even if we accept us mere mortals can't interpret the Constitution ourselves, the people who do and are empowered to have interpreted in in the way that I have described so I don't really know where you are alluding to?Gus7896 (talk) 12:54, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do I need to disagree with the sources? I agreed with the suggestion by Cinderella157 that we omit this field from the infobox given the complexities around the role of the GG as commander in chief (all sources agree that the GG does not exercise any control over the ADF), and they have since made this change as it obtained consensus. Nick-D (talk) 22:56, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A consensus was obtained in accordance with WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE to remove the CiC/GG based on the nuance of the position. Since then, we have killed hundreds of electrons discussing the nuance of the position and the addition of notes to the infobox to clarify the nuance. The continued discussion only affirms the validity on the consensus (in accordance with WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE) to direct the reader through the TOC to the appropriate section where the CiC/GG is explained in prose - the medium most suited for capturing/explaining the nuance of the position. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:45, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Australia. Parliament. Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade (March 2023). Inquiry into international armed conflict decision making (PDF) (Report). Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia. pp. 9–11. ISBN 9781760924874. Retrieved 16 August 2024.

Decision/power to commit Australia to war

[edit]

A recent Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade report on the "Inquiry into international armed conflict decision making" published in 2023 examined the decision making/power to commit Australia to war.

A Department of Defence submission stated that:

"The decision to commit the Australian Defence Force to operations as part of an international armed conflict is an exercise of prerogative power pursuant to section 61 of the Constitution. Defence is further advised by these departments [Attorney-General’s Department and the Australian Government Solicitor] there is no constitutional requirement for the Government to act through the Governor-General in such circumstances."[1][2]

The Department of Defence submission is supported by an earlier 2010 Parliament of Australia Background note written by McKeown and Jordan that stated that "decisions to go to war or deploy troops are matters for the Prime Minister and Cabinet and do not involve the Governor-General or the Federal Executive Council."[3]

Section 61 of the Constitution states:

"The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen's representative and extends to the execution and maintenance of this Constitution, and of the laws of the Commonwealth."[4][5]

Professor Charles Sampford in a submission to the committee wrote that he was astonished to read the Department of Defence position regarding section 61 of the Constitution that the Governor General is not involved in the process.[6]

Sampford in a 2009 paper that he co-authored had speculated that section 8 of the Defence Act 1903 might have been used by the Minister of Defence to commit Australia to the War in Iraq as the Governor-General was not involved in the decision making process.[7]

A submission to the committee by the Attorney General's Office stated that:

"The Department of Defence is not aware of any practice or requirement, under successive Governments, for a direction to be made by the Minister for Defence under section 8 of the Defence Act in order to deploy the Australian Defence Force on operations."[8]

The committee report found that there was:

"..an absence of documentation detailing the way in which decisions have been given effect in previous conflicts. This is a significant gap in transparency and accountability of the Executive and hence in the nation’s collective understanding of how Australia took its path to war, particularly in reference to Iraq and Afghanistan."[9]

I have reworded the Command and role section in the article removing the Minister for Defence has the power to deploy ADF personnel overseas on "active service" that was in the 2010 ASPI paper by Khosa.[10] Melbguy05 (talk) 13:29, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Australia. Parliament. Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade (March 2023). Inquiry into international armed conflict decision making (PDF) (Report). Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia. p. 14. ISBN 9781760924874. Retrieved 23 August 2024.
  2. ^ "110.3 Defence Portfolio Supplementary Submission". Inquiry into international armed conflict decision making. Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. Retrieved 23 August 2024.
  3. ^ McKeown, Deirdre; Jordan, Roy (22 March 2010). "Parliamentary involvement in declaring war and deploying forces overseas" (PDF). Background note. Department of Parliamentary Services. Retrieved 23 August 2024.
  4. ^ JSCFADT 2023, pp. 9–10.
  5. ^ Australian Constitution (Cth) s 61
  6. ^ Professor Charles Sampford. "109.1 Supplementary Submission: Opening Statement December 9 2022". Inquiry into international armed conflict decision making. Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. p. 1. Retrieved 23 August 2024.
  7. ^ Charles Sampford; Margaret Palmer. "109.2 Supplementary Submission: The constitutional power to make war: Domestic legal issues raised by Australia's action in Iraq (Griffith Law Review published in 2009)". Inquiry into international armed conflict decision making. Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. p. 350. Retrieved 23 August 2024.
  8. ^ Attorney-General's Department (February 2023). "Submission 113: Submission to the Defence Subcommittee of the Parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade". Inquiry into international armed conflict decision making. Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. p. 2. Retrieved 23 August 2024.
  9. ^ JSCFADT 2023, p. 32.
  10. ^ Khosa, Raspal (2010). "Australian Defence Almanac 2010–2011". Australian Defence Almanac. Canberra: Australian Strategic Policy Institute. ISSN 1449-9355. Retrieved 23 August 2024.

Incorrect to label governor general as head of state, Consensus Needed

[edit]

Hi all, in the command and role section, presently it states

"The Governor-General serves as the commander-in-chief as part of their role as Australia's head of state."

I believe this is misleading and a vast over generalisation of the GG being C in C, I propose this edit below which I believe greater explains the nuance of the role, as a consensus has been previously reached in other topics that the nuance of the GG role should be discussed further in the prose of the article. The edit I propose also is more fitting with the description provided under section 68 of the constitution: "the command in chief of the naval and military forces of the Commonwealth is vested in the Governor-General as the Queen's representative"

Proposed edit:

" The Governor-General serves as the commander-in-chief as part of their role as the vice-regal representative of the King of Australia. All members of the ADF swear (or affirm) an Oath of Allegiance to the Australian Monarch, presently, Charles III. The Governor-General exercises their power based on advice from the Prime Minister following deliberations of the National Security Committee of Cabinet (NSC) that considers important national security matters. " Knowledgework69 (talk) 10:21, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

below is a link to an Australian Parliamentary Information sheet that lists the Monarch as the Head of State: [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledgework69 (talk • contribs) 10:30, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, my interest in this specific issue is purely administrative, ie I am intervening in a dispute which currently involves edit-warring with no or minimal discussion. Reliable sources on this matter clearly vary on the topic. You only have to read the sources cited at Australian head of state dispute#Scholarly sources to see that this matter is far from clear cut, and eminent legal minds remain divided on the issue of who the head of state is. Infoboxes are not the place to try to summarise complex matters such as this. This article from The Conversation is a useful summary. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:35, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the discussion above where a range of sources on the role of the GG were considered. This ended in a consensus on the current wording. This new wording is not an improvement, as various authoritative sources (including the current GG and a previous GG) state that the GG is the commander in chief of the ADF in their own right. Who members of the ADF swear allegiance to seems unimportant for this top level article - it's not noted in sources covering the ADF at a high level. Nick-D (talk) 00:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article about the ADF. It is not a detailed study of the role and function of the GG and nuance of how our constitution/parliamentary system operates. From the link: The Governor-General performs the ceremonial functions of head of state [on behalf of the Queen] - ie the statement is still correct without that which is in brackets. Also from the link: The Constitution states that the executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen’s representative. However, a realistic understanding of Australia’s Executive Government cannot be obtained from the Constitution alone, and in fact a literal reading of the Constitution can be misleading - but nor is this article the place to try to report the nuance of this. The GG performs their duties independent of the monarch. The only substantive role of the monarch is to appoint the GG - on advice of the PM. In reality, the executive power is possessed by the Prime Minister and Cabinet (senior Ministers). KISS. The edit is not an improvement. It fails the KISS test. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:40, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I didn’t ask to put it in the info box merely that in the article it shouldn’t be stated that the Governor General is head of state, when they are not Head of State Knowledgework69 (talk) 12:47, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, however, it is clear that is a disputed matter, even legal experts disagree. The term isn't even used in the Constitution. So, the question is, is it desirable, in an article about the ADF, to go into depth here regarding the arguments (pro and con) regarding who the head of state is? I understand Nick's position is that it isn't desirable to do that. It seems to me the key piece of information needed in this article is to explain who the commander-in-chief of the ADF is (the GG), along with a brief explanation of what this means in practice, not to engage in an extended exposition of the arguments about who the head of state is, as that is not directly relevant to the ADF. I recommend leaving the words "head of state" out of the article completely. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:28, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you @Peacemaker67 on leaving "head of state" out completely perhaps "The Governor-General serves as the commander-in-chief by virtue of their office." could be a more agreeable rewording? Knowledgework69 (talk) 16:47, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
or "The Governor-General serves as the commander-in-chief by virtue of their position." Knowledgework69 (talk) 16:49, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not even sure "by virtue ..." is needed. What IS needed is the sort of explanation provided in The Conversation article I linked about what it means in practice. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:00, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if it is needed in this article. Maybe the article on the governor general would be the best place for it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should remove "Head of State" as other users have pointed out it is a topic of debate amongst constitutional scholars as the title is not used in the Aus Constitution, and just have the paragraph read:
-
" Section 68 of the Constitution sets out the ADF's command arrangements. The section outlines that the commander in chief of the naval and military forces is the Governor-General as the Monarchs representative.[2][a].[3] The Governor-General exercises this power based on advice from the Prime Minister following deliberations of the National Security Committee of Cabinet (NSC) that considers important national security matters.[4][5] " Knowledgework69 (talk) 12:54, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the note "a" is not working I apologise, probably messed something up, but you get the idea, the note basically said the exact wording of section 68, with a sentence next to it explaining that it refers to Queen Victoria but applies to her successors also. Knowledgework69 (talk) 12:57, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The apparent consensus is to KISS and remove the reference to head of state. I have done this but retained the citation to The role of the Governor-General by incorporating it into note a (see this edit. The citation might be placed at any suitable place and there are several options. Also, with removal of the problematic sentence, I see no good reason why this para cannot now be incorporated with the one that follows. Consequently, I have made this edit, which also places the citation at the end of the para, since it is in effect supporting all that is stated within that para. There are various permutations on how we might use and cite The role of the Governor-General, but this is an aside from the main issue to be addressed. I trust this reflects the consensus of this discussion. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:21, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the edit quoting s68 of the Constitution is also significant overkill. The aim here seems to be to somehow make reference to the monarch. Given the monarch has no part in anything to do with the command arrangements of the ADF, and even the GG's role as C-in-C is ceremonial only, this seems like much ado about nothing, and it does nothing to advance the knowledge of the the reader about ADF command arrangements. There are plenty of learned tomes about ADF command arrangements, so citing something to the Constitution (which is referring to Queen Victoria) is not only unnecessary but potentially confusing. It would be far better to just explain what the actual command arrangements are and leave it at that. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree and have made this edit accordingly. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

[edit]
  1. ^ "the command in chief of the naval and military forces of the Commonwealth is vested in the Governor-General as the Queen's representative" - At the time referring to Queen Victoria, but presently means as the Representative of Charles III

References

  1. ^ https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/House_of_Representatives/Powers_practice_and_procedure/00_-_Infosheets/Infosheet_20_-_The_Australian_system_of_government
  2. ^ Australian Constitution (Cth) s 68.
  3. ^ "The role of the Governor-General". The Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia. Retrieved 5 August 2024.
  4. ^ JSCFADT 2023, p. 10.
  5. ^ "National Security Committee". Directory.gov.au. Commonwealth of Australia. Retrieved 18 August 2024.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Australian_Defence_Force&oldid=1252654736"