Talk:Advance Australia Fair

Early Article discussions

Referring to the discussion in the article about the swagman, I agree that Australians do identify with "his precarious existence, his stubborn defiance of authority" and "his working-class status", but I don't see how he is "defying the odds". He stole a sheep then drowned himself; surely there is nothing "lucky" in that?

Yes, can probably be dropped. --Alexxx1 ^{(talk/contribs)} 12:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

---

I removed the line which made the claim that the anthem is largely viewed as 'uninspiring' when compared with anthems of certain other countries. This statement made as one person's opinion would be an obviously subjective view, let alone it being represented as a commonly held opinion.

---

I have toned down the negative attitude to the anthem present in the article. Firstly, I would heartily disagree with the statement that "few" know the words. Yes, it's not universal, I would argue that particularly older Australians struggle sometimes, but I would think that a majority of Australians can now do a decent rendition. Secondly, nobody argues that we should go back to God Save The Queen. Waltzing Matilda is a point of contention, agreed, and the current edit reflects it. Finally, it seems worth mentioning some of the other patriotic songs, including Land Down Under and Peter Allen's classic.--Robert Merkel

Regarding 'few knowing the words', Geoffery Robertson demonstrated this on his Hypotheticals program when asking the panel the second verse. Seceral of his guests were not even game to try. --Lollerkeet 06:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

---

I have an issue with the comparison with the Star Spangled Banner (SSB). I think this is very un-NPOV and should be radically altered.

Firstly, whether some tune is or is not "easier to sing" than any other tune you care to name, is very much a subjective judgement. I, for one, while disagreeing with many current American behaviours and attitudes, have nevertheless always loved the tune of the SSB, and I would disagree that Advance Australia Fair is easier to sing.

But whether I agree or not, I think this comparison entirely misses the point of the article. The article is about Advance Australia Fair, which exists in its own right and has whatever merits it has. The sentence "At least it's easier to sing than ...", makes Advance Australia Fair only marginally better than an anthem the writer appears to dislike, and so whatever the intention of the comparison was, all the reader understands is that it's being damned with faint praise, which is utterly demeaning.

Who says the SSB is the benchmark against which other anthems are to be measured? Who says there should be any benchmark at all? I think this comparison displays an anti-American attitude on the part of the writer. Such an attitude may be completely justified in general terms, but what on earth is it doing in an article on the national anthem of another country? It is irrelevant. The article is not about the writer's attitude to America or any other country, it is about "Advance Australia Fair". Cheers JackofOz 23:13, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You are completely right. I have removed the biased comparison.

In a related topic, not being from an English-speaking country, I have never heard "Waltzing Matilda" performed. In fact, before reading about it here on Wikipedia I didn't even know it existed. I read the lyrics though, and although I have no idea of how it sounds when set to music, it appeared to me that it would not make such a good national anthem. I mean, I'm sure the song must be beautiful, but I really do think that "Advance Australia Fair" was indeed the better choice — how nice it is to hear a national anthem that doesn't allude to war, death or vengeance, Australians are to be commended for chosing that song! Redux 23:22, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that the popular belief is that Waltzing Matilda is our National Anthem...

Ditto to that, I was just going to mention that. — mæstro ^t/c 11:01, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

You and the anonymous editor are both Australian and of course know which is our anthem. Those from overseas may not. Dysprosia 12:10, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I just ran a quick poll on a forum I frequent, and most people didn't know - Waltzing Matilda got almost as many votes as AAF. — mæstro ^t/c

---

Was the third version really performed in the presence of the PM? It's something you see doing the email rounds and stuff like that saying that it was the original version of the song (something the article confusingly says too) and how we've forgotten god and stuff like that. And what does it mean the song is "is only authorised for use on religious occassions." As far as I know there is at the moment no law saying you're not allowed to sing whatever song you like (although who knows what's in those laws he's proposed at the moment), but it's not the national anthem. In short, I don't beleive it belongs in this article (if it does, I propose that Adam Hills' "Whoa-o-o-o Advance Australia Fair" lyrics belong here too).

On an unrelated note (other than its about this article about our anthem), did the dance remix really get a "mixed reaction"?, everyone I've talked to + the news story + Dicko said it was comlete rubbish. Bjmurph 14:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey, whoever wrote the explanation of why Waltzing Matilda would be an unsuitable national anthem, it is hilarious, intentionally or not. Just wanted to say that.

Heading 'version for religious occasions'

The material under the heading 'version for religious occasions' is wrong. There is no verse of the song/anthem penned by PD McCormick that reads as follows, or similar:

With Christ our head and cornerstone,

We'll build our Nation's might.

Whose way and truth and light alone

Can guide our path aright.

Our lives, a sacrifice of love, reflect our Master's care.

With faces turned to heaven above, Advance Australia fair.

In joyful strains then let us sing, Advance Australia fair.

See http://www.hamilton.net.au/advance.html for a debunking of the myth. To say that a three-verse version is "[t]he original version of the anthem that is only authorised for use on religious occasions" is self-evidently wrong: firstly because, as set out earlier on the page, the original version was five verses long; and secondly because there are no shortage of official government pages on the anthem, which:

a) confirm that the work is out of copyright and so cannot be "authorised" or de-authorised for use by anyone, and

b) contain no reference to there being any 'version' for use on religious occasions.

I've not edited the page myself as I'll leave it to those with more time/expertise. It's obviously a sufficiently well-circulated myth that it should still be referred to on the page, just under the heading of "Supposed 'religious' verse" or similar.

Uninspired? Some think so.

I've removed the cicumlocution/euphemism about how the anthem is criticised as being "unsuitable" and returned it to the criticism that it is ininspired. This is indeed a frequent criticism. Citation from Australian media is possible if this becomes a major point of contention.

I also plan to move on the "third verse authorised for religious occasions" section. This is an internet urban legend with no apparent substantiation in fact.

Dating

"early in the 21st century": My school used the religious verse in the 20th.

And this site [1] refers to it being used in 1998. I'll correct the article from "early 21st" to "late 20th". Rocksong 01:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

I have added back the section on Trivia following its deletion by Zscout370. While this section is light hearted, other serious pages in Wikipedia have trivia section and it actually makes a point not noted elsewhere in the article about the meter of the song. Zscout370 I'm interested in your views. cheers Actuarial disco boy 19:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I found no sources for it, so that is why I removed it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm..I did some searching around on Google and I did see some mentions of it, but only on forums and blog postings. I do not think it will be important enough to include in the article since no one has been documented as doing this and getting either public rebuke or admiration from it. It doesn't add anything to the article IMHO, since there are plenty of songs that their lyrics can fit the tune of other songs (I can easily stick the US anthem words to the Russian anthem) and some guy sung O Canada to a Christmas carol. However, unlike the Aussie Anthem/Gilligan's Isle connection, both of the examples I bring actually happened, documented and responses given. I am going to remove it again based on what I have found and discussed here. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be removed, this is an encyclopedia article after all, not a collection of random information.--Peta 23:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello again - I think the Famous Australian comedian Adam Hills performed this at the 2004 Edinburgh Fringe [2](but need to confirm) I'm not entirely sure about it being "random" information. I would not class the information as stochastic!?

There is much "fun facts" about songs, films and other items that have existed in the world. But a lot of them cause no significance to the subject matter. While there are many possible ways to sing a song, it is not our goal to list them all and even if we list them all, they will serve no purpose in the article other than just being there. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Hills has performed - and even recorded - AAF to the tune of Working Class Man, but not to the tune of Gilligan's Island, AFAIK. The link above seems to confirm this. Rocksong 04:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Is this the same person yall are refering to? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Read the article and find out.... Rocksong 05:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

A commedian signing a song to a different tune - I still can't see why this is of any relevance to an encyclopedia article.--Peta 05:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

It's quite a popular act of his, and has even sold records. IMHO, it's much more worthy of note than a one-off performance of a dance remix at the 2004 NYE celebrations. I think it might as well stay in. Rocksong 05:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. On Second thoughts, maybe I'm letting my love of Hills' version cloud my judgement. It's already (rightly) mentioned on the Adam Hills page, so maybe that's enough. I'll take a "don't care" approach: if someone else thinks it should be removed, I won't object. Rocksong 00:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

It can stay on the Hills article. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

What I meant is if someone thinks it should be removed from this article (Advance Australia Fair) I won't object; even though personally my slight preference is to leave it in. Rocksong 04:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok; well, I wish not to see the information on this article, but if people want to put it on Hill's article, then that is fine with me. Would that be a solution that will be good to all parties? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

There are similar comments (on national anthems set to different tunes) in the articles God Save the Queen, The Star-Spangled Banner and O Canada. So if it's good enough in those articles, why not this one? Also, if someone had heard AAF to the tune of Working Class Man, but didn't know who was the singer, and wanted to know more about it, he'd go this article rather than the Adam Hills article. So I say leave it in, though I won't engage in a revert war if it's cut. Rocksong 04:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I know there is a debate about the trivia at O Canada, I tried to split off the variants of the US anthem in their own article (looks like that is failing) and I have not touched GSTQ. But I will take a look and see if any of that can be pared down. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Well first off I don't think we'd include Working Class Anthem under trivia, it'd have it's own section. The actual song Working Class Man has a section on Working class anthem, so why not this article? If their are other versions aside from this then we deffinatly should have a section on other versions. Million_Moments 11:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Merger

I have propsed the merger of this page with Australian National Anthem. That article contains the lyrics and a link to the Department of Veterans Affairs mp3 download. There is no need for duplication, and a redirect would provent this from happening again. Blarneytherinosaur talk 09:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The second page redirected to here. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Zscout370. I thought that since there was already information there I should propose the merge and let it stand for a day, just so people knew what was going on, particularly those who edited the other page. Good on you for being bold. Blarneytherinosaur talk 09:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The only things that were on the other page were the lyrics and a link to an mp3 file. We got the lyrics and an OGG file that people can listen to, so the only logical thing I can think of is redirecting the second page to here. Plus, redirects are cheap and effective. :) Your welcome. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Official lyrics are copyrighted

I just discovered that the official lyrics are copyrighted with non-commercial permission, so I have added info to the article with official source. This mean that we cannot sing it and then upload to Wikimedia Commons until the official copyright expires.--Jusjih 15:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I see it at [3]. I was thinking about launching the office a letter, but I am not sure how we can go about it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons is non-commerical use. So what's the problem? Rocksong 00:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Problem, we cannot accept non-commercial works since May of 2005. This includes Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Commons and other projects run by the Wikimedia Foundation. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

As I read it the copyright only applies to the version approved as the national anthem in 1984. There would be a reasonable fair use argument for including the official lyrics - if someone was willing to write a bit more about why the shorter version was chosen and how it differs to the original. --Peta 02:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

We have a short paragraph showing what changes were made. I might also suggest bolding the sections of the song that are currently used. I will plan on seeing if there is an Australia Consulate near my home so I could see what course of action I should take. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I was given guidance from the Australian Consulate in Los Angeles to send a letter to a certain office. I will do that soon and hopefully get this matter cleared. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Claiming fair use on the official lyrics in the Wikipedia article should be possible. Otherwise, we have to remove the Maori lyrics of God Defend New Zealand from Wikipedia as well as so many fair use images. Both official lyrics have non-commercial licenses. I am not scaring anyone, but I consider the fact important.--Jusjih 11:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I know you are not scaring folks, but with the way Wikipedia has been moving, this would have came up eventually. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 16:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

This makes no sense

I just found [4], a government website, that stated this: "While permission is not required to use, perform or record the Australian National Anthem for non-commercial purposes, there is a requirement to seek permission for commercial use of the anthem. The words and music are in the public domain." It almost reminds me of the blasted Philippines Government images template; copyright is public domain but cannot use commercially (without jumping a few hoops first). What do yall think? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

But previously the same page states: "The Commonwealth owns copyright in the words of the Australian National Anthem as proclaimed." The public domain statement wrt non-commercial use seems to be a incorrect interpretation of copyright. --Peta 05:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I am going to try and write that letter and see how it goes. I just think this article looks strange without the official lyrics denote in some way, but we have to work within the policies set down by Jimbo and others at the Board. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

There isn't much point asking for permission, as we can't use with-permission material on Wikipedia. I think we'll just have to settle for a link on this one, thanks to the overzealous attitudes towards fair use and fair dealing. Rebecca 05:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Shi...that's right....hm...yeah, what Rebecca said is the only chance that we have is to link. I think the paragraph on the differences we have now qualifies for fair use/fair dealing. As for recordings, the only recording that is PD that I know of is by the USA Navy Band (by a release filed by them). Grrr...this sucks. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It makes sence if you know Australian copyright law, which allows for the seperate treatment of use eg performance/recording and word/written music. The words, written, can be allowed as public domain without inhibiting the copyright of use, which is offered standing permission for non-comercial purposes. Another difference between Australian Copyright and US (which I presume misunderstood from above) is we have "Fair Dealings" provision, not "Fair Use", and Wikipedia does not in my understanding qualify for "Fair Dealing". I believe that if you seek indepedent Australian legal advice you'll find you're allowed to have the text, but should note the retention copyright on use, including the general permission for non-commercial purposes. You would not be allowed to have a recording on this site, of the words and/or music, without specific permision. 211.30.194.8 13:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

We need to accept works for commercial use also, so that is why I have removed them before. I have sent an email to the officials that run the Australia Honors/Symbols website on behalf of Wikipedia and I want to see what that does. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm suprised to see the US Navy Band recording remains. It is not and can not be Public Domain, regardless of whether it was performed with or without permission, as Copyright on usage remains with the Australian Government. When someone performs a work copyright by another, they normally do so with permission or under license, and would normally create a seperate copyright for that effort, without affecting the underlying copyright. As there is no evidence that the Australain Government has assigned the underlying copyright to anyone, the US Navy Band can choose not to seek a seperate copyright to it's performance, but can not permit third parties usage in contravention of the underlying copyright. If this site holds itself to be commercial use this content requires express permission in Australia and under the US Free Trade Agreement with Australia. The Australian Government, however, does make it clear the text of the lyrics IS Public Domain. 211.30.194.8 09:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

That will be my fault there; I know about the derivative works there (been bit by it recently when doing Canadian images). When I talked to the US Navy Band via email, they told me that their recordings are the public domain and they only stressed on accuracy. I still see that "The words and music are in the public domain" statement on itsanhonour.gov.au, so that is why I wasn't told by Aussie admins to remove the music (I am a US national, so I am lost). I sent an email message to that office and I will assume they will take time to look at it. If they do not help me, there is a Consulate in Los Angeles, California I can see. I would hope to solve the issue once and for all, but it will have to involve the Aussie Government so I have firm answers. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't understand why Wikipedia keeps the lyrics to the McCormick version of 'Advance Australia Fair' hidden. From the Sydney Morning Herald, Sat April 13 1974: "The words of 'Advance Australia Fair', written in 1878 by a Scot, Peter Dodds McCormick, under the pen-name 'Amicus', were not subject to any copyright restrictions and were free for general use." a spokesman for the government of the day said. 20:05, 18 January 2008

They're not hidden. They're in the article in a collapsible box. The collapsible box reduces the overall length of the article. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Alternatives

This section reads oddly to me. This article is about Advance Australia Fair, not other possible anthems. The material in this section is nearly all speculation and none of it is cited. I proposal deletion. What do others think? Gillyweed 11:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I mentioned about Waltzing Matilda earlier on the article and the Song of Australia, but from it reads now, I think we can safely remove it (for now). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 16:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed Gillyweed 21:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

ABC

"Until then (1984), the song was sung in Australia as a patriotic song and to announce the news from the Australian Broadcasting Commission." So says the article. Has the writer confused this song with the ABC's famed fanfare used on news bulletins? Alpheus 10:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that doesn't sound right. I listened and watched ABC news as far back as the early 1970s and I never remember AAF being used as the theme. The traditional ABC news theme is called "Majestic Fanfare". I found one site saying it was used from 1960 on Tasmanian ABC TV news,[5] but I'm sure ABC used it elsewhere before that. I'll put a tag by the "fact". Rocksong 11:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, you and I should learn to read the full article. Later on it says the ABC used it during WWII, which is believable (and I certainly can't dispute personally!). Rocksong 11:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

This link tells us it was used up till 31 December 1951, when it was replaced by "Majestic Fanfare" by Charles Williams (the British composer who also wrote "The Dream of Olwen"). What we need now is a date when Advance Australia Fair was first used by the ABC. Btw, I'm writing an article on "Majestic Fanfare" (soon appearing on a screen near you now showing). -- JackofOz 02:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfair criticism

As someone who is not Australian (and actually has never been to Australia), I happen to find most of the criticism directed at the Australian national anthem unjustified. True, "Advance Australia Fair" is rather unsophisticated, both in music and lyrics, when compared to other national anthems. However, I believe it reflects well the Australian character and national spirit: simple, unpretentious, joyful, upbeat, optimistic, and egalitarian. In the end, that's the main criterion I normally use to rate any national anthem. What's the value of an anthem that may be a symphonic masterpiece, but tells nothing about the character of the nation it claims to represent ? 201.52.32.9 15:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest that most of the criticism came from Australians themselves, who are famous for "knocking" many things Australian. I think it's firmly entrenched now, and I hear little criticism these days, apart from "girt by sea". -- JackofOz 02:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I am certain that the lyrics read... "Australians all let us rejoice" rather than "Australia's sons..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.106.42.161 (talk) 09:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The original words did say "Australia's sons", but when it became the official national anthem in 1984, these were changed to "Australians all" in the interests of inclusivity (?). -- JackofOz (talk) 23:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry... did you just call me unsophisticated? Fuck you too. Far Queue 21:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC) I hope the irony was apparent... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Far Queue (talk • contribs) 21:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The Internationale, Deutchland Uber Alles, March of the Volunteers...the worst the regime, the better the anthem.58.161.138.245 (talk) 05:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

This article is a joke

Why do we only have the original lyrics and 1901 changes? These are certainly not he lyrics I learnt at school. It appears as though this article has been taken over by a bunch of Australian Monarchists. I will be back to correct the article. "Australia's sons let us rejoice"? You have got to be kidding!

Far Queue 21:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

While the original lyrics of the song might have contained 5 verses, the official national anthem contains only two. These are as follows

ADVANCE AUSTRALIA FAIR Australians all let us rejoice, For we are young and free; We've golden soil and wealth for toil; Our home is girt by sea; Our land abounds in nature's gifts Of beauty rich and rare; In history's page, let every stage Advance Australia Fair. In joyful strains then let us sing, Advance Australia Fair. Beneath our radiant Southern Cross We'll toil with hearts and hands; To make this Commonwealth of ours Renowned of all the lands; For those who've come across the seas We've boundless plains to share; With courage let us all combine To Advance Australia Fair. In joyful strains then let us sing, Advance Australia Fair.

This is as according to the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade web site... http://www.dfat.gov.au/facts/nat_anthem.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Far Queue (talk • contribs) 21:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

We been told to keep the lyrics out by Aussie administrators. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Butthe current article is misleading. It presents the official national anthem as including the original lyrics with a few changes for political correctness... this simply isn't the case. The official anthem only includes 2 verses. This article appears to have been taken over by people with a politicla agenda. Far Queue 21:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll see if the article can be reworked, since I know what you are getting at. But when it comes to printing the official lyrics, we cannot do it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see the evidence where it says not to include them. Seems absurd. No such issues with The Star-Spangled Banner or God Save the Queen. I agree every effort should be made to put the correct lyrics on this page, and put the out-dated origin lyrics in a "navbox collapsible collapsed" format like GSTQ.ROxBo 22:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

NB DFAT website listed above says "McCormick died in 1916 and ‘Advance Australia Fair' became free of copyright in 1966."ROxBo 22:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

We have it listed in the article that the current official lyrics, those adopted by the Government, are under copyright. Since we want all texts and images to be used commercially in the future, we cannot accept non-commercial text anymore. Plus, I been told that we cannot paste full lyrics if they are copyrighted. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that it is highly likely this represents not seeing the woods for the trees. I have made a template for the article which may be used when - eventually - it is accepted that current lyrics are acceptable on Wikipedia, (if only by common sense); I have included collapsible boxes for allow all lyrics to be listed and yet also keep a reasonable page length. It can be found here: [6] Cheers ROxBo 23:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Anyone feel like dropping a mention that nobody knows the second verse? Comradeash (talk) 19:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Adam Hills Version

Is there a place in this article for the Adam Hills version set to Working Class Man? Alot of Australians have mentioned this version to me, I was wondering if maybe a in popular culture section should be created? Million_Moments 15:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussed above at #Trivia. I wanted it in, but consensus was to leave it at. Feel free to argue it again :) Peter Ballard 05:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry, missed it in my scan of the page! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Million Moments (talk • contribs) 11:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that note could be placed on the article about how it fits in with the classic song "Working Class Man" by Jimmy Barnes (Cold Chisel), and how it is seen as something that is "very australian"--202.7.249.244 (talk) 07:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It is in the Working Class Man article. Peter Ballard (talk) 09:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Pronounciation of Advance in the anthem?

Is the anthem's Advance read as "Edvense" or "Aavaanse" in the basis of Australian English? Profession (talk) 11:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Neither, actually. Some say "Ad-vaanse", some say "Ad-vanse". Not so long ago, "ad-vaanse" would have been the predominant pronunciation; but certain words have been changing their pronunciations, e.g. the second syllable of "command'" and the middle syllable of "commander" were always, always "mahn", but these days it's common to hear "man". -- JackofOz (talk) 11:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Issues with the history of the official anthem

The history of AAF as the official national anthem needs some work.

It first became the official anthem in 1974, following the ABS poll. (God Save the Queen was still used for specifically royal occasions.) Why was it official? Because the Whitlam government said so. There was no formal proclamation involving the Governor-General, it was simply a government decision, but that’s still undoubtedly “official”. (It would be good to find a cite about Whitlam’s announcement, to get the exact flavour of AAF’s official status at that time.

"In January 1976, the Fraser Government reinstated the use of GSTQ for royal, vice-regal, defence and loyal toast occasions. AAF was played on all other official occasions." (quote from the Parliamentary Handbook)

So AAF was still the general official national anthem, except for certain defined occasions. GSTQ was now to be used on more occasions than previously, but that didn't change AAF's status as the official anthem for general use.

Fraser then decided to poll the entire nation, not just the 60,000 the ABS had polled. "The National Song Poll was held on 21 May 1977, at the same time as four referendum proposals. AAF was the clear choice of the voters. The Minister for Administrative Services then announced that the anthem was Advance Australia Fair." (Parl Handbook)

So, the anthem that had been deemed the official anthem by Whitlam in 1974 was confirmed by the voters in 1977, and the Fraser government’s announcement simply reflected that result. It could hardly have done otherwise. It was now more “official” than ever, because (a) it now had the imprimatur of the entire nation, and (b) had been declared the national anthem by 2 successive governments from opposing sides of the political divide.

What happened in 1984? I seem to recall this coming out of left field. There had been no great public debate about the anthem in the intervening years since 1977, because the matter was settled. AAF had been our official national anthem since 1974, except for minor fiddling in 1976 about its use on regal etc occasions. What Hawke did was to (a) change the sexist wording “Australia’s sons” to “Australians all”; (b) define exactly which verses the official anthem consisted of; (c) re-invented GSTQ as the Royal Anthem; and (d) gained a greater degree of “officialness” for both AAF and GSTQ by having the Governor-General formally proclaim them. This was widely hailed as a sort of birth of AAF in its official capacity, but that wasn’t so. I suppose one could argue that AAF in the precise form we now know it only came into being in 1984, but AAF in a slightly different version had already had official status for 10 years, and there is obviously a continuity that we can't pretend isn't there.

So I now come to our lead para: "... the song was first performed in 1878, but did not gain its status as the official anthem until 1984. Until then, the song was sung in Australia as a patriotic song. In order for the song to become the anthem, it had to face a vote between the Royal anthem God Save the Queen and the "unofficial anthem" Waltzing Matilda.

For the reasons I stated above, this is wrong. It had been official since 1974. It was confirmed as “official” in 1976 and again in 1977, and became, if you like, “super-official” in 1984. The para also suggests that the 1984 officialdom more-or-less immediately followed a popular vote, which reads as if the vote happened in 1984 or late 1983. In fact it happened in 1977. So, even if we accept that this version of events is correct (which I don’t), it still confuses the timeline and connects events that were only marginally related, and separated by 7 years.

I also take issue with the wording of "Other songs and marches have been influenced from Advance Australia Fair, such as the Australian Vice-Regal salute". I understand the Vice-Regal Salute was not just “influenced”, but completely changed, from the first verse of GSTQ, to the first verse of AAF.

Any comments before I make a start on some edits along the lines outlined above? -- JackofOz (talk) 01:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

All looks good. Except that these government sources [7] [8] say nothing about what happened after the 1977 plebiscite. Maybe nothing did happen, and there really was no change between 1976 and 1984? But if there was some sort of proclamation by Fraser, we should find it and add it.

Also something on sport would be good. By my reading of it, both the 1974 and 1976 proclamations meant AAF was played at Olympic/Commonwealth Games medal ceremonies from 1974 onwards. (Not that there was any cause to use it in 1976!). Peter Ballard (talk) 01:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The Parl Handbook says, of the 1977 plebiscite, "The Minister for Administrative Services then announced that the anthem was Advance Australia Fair". Slightly odd choice of words, since it had already been announced as the national anthem by the previous government 3 years earlier. Maybe "confirmed" would have been a better word. The first time there was ever a formal G-G Proclamation was in 1984; but that was for the reasons I stated above, and it did not introduce an officialness that wasn't already there. It just elevated it, perhaps. What happened between 1977 and 1984? Not much, afaik. That's because nothing needed to happen; we had an official national anthem. I think there may have been some minor community debate about how best to teach schoolkids the words; and whether it was ok or not for sportspeople not to sing it prior to major games or at the Olympics, just because they hadn't bothered to learn the words. Monarchists might have been mounting some rear-guard action to have GSTQ restored. But it was never front-page stuff in 1977-1984, from my memory. Which is why I said the 1984 proclamation came from out of left-field. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe he undid the 1976 change and reverted to the 1974 status, i.e. AAF for all but royal occasions? Just a guess, because otherwise we were using GSTQ for defence and vice-regal occasions as late as early 1984. Peter Ballard (talk) 02:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, we do need some authoritative info about exactly when GSTQ was to be used, and the history of changes to its use between 1974 and 1984. Interestingly, the 1974 and 1977 announcements did not, afaik, specifically say that GSTQ was no longer considered the national anthem. They said that AAF was now the national anthem, so maybe it wasn't necessary to state the obvious. This was all cleared up in 1984 when GSTQ was given the new moniker of Royal Anthem and rules for its use were laid down (which were virtually identical to the rules Whitlam had decided in 1974). It all came a little unstuck at the 2006 Melbourne Commonwealth Games, though, about which there was a lot of debate. But that's a different issue from the one about which tune was the official anthem and from when. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Late thought. All the sources I've seen focus on 19 April 1984 as the date on which it supposedly became "official". What we really need to counter this cemented-in date is the date of Whitlam's 1974 announcement. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing "supposed" about the 1984 date. That's the date on which the GG proclaimed AAF to be the national anthem and green and gold the official colours, so passing those things into law.[9] Before then, AAF wasn't actually officially the anthem. Governments had just announced it to be so but it wasn't law. In fact Fraser went against the polls and changed it back and it wasn't until the next Labor government that AAF became the anthem again.[10] --AussieLegend (talk) 05:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Answering my earlier sports question, AAF was played at the 1980 Olympics.[11] The author (Mark Tonelli) says "It was the first time ever 'Advance Australia Fair' was played as our national anthem" though I suspect he's using a bit of license there. Peter Ballard (talk) 05:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

(resetting indent) When a government announces that pensions are to be increased from 1 July, or that some tax rort is going to be stopped, or that some defence program has been approved, are those not official announcements? If the government announces that AAF is now the national anthem, how is this not official? Maybe not formal, but still official.

Do Governor-General proclamations have the force of law? I don’t think they do, generally speaking. Exceptions would include proclamation of regulations made under an act of parliament; the act makes provision for the G-G to make regulations, and the way they come into effect is via a formal proclamation and a gazette notice. But matters relating to national symbols are not part of the law of the land, just part of our cultural deposit. There’s no act of parliament relating to national symbols afaik, apart from the Flags Act. With that one exception, our symbols can be changed on the whim of a government, and the G-G has to comply if there’s any proclamation involved. The Rudd government could, if it wanted, decide that the Australian national animal is the cane toad, make an announcement, and that would be that. That announcement satisfies the minimum requirement for establishing a symbol, and the G-G would not have to be involved if they didn’t want him to be.

The two sources you give are inconsistent in some ways.

• The Waltzing Matilda (WM) site says that AAF was made the “official anthem” by Whitlam. The Parliamentary Handbook (PH) site says Whitlam “changed the anthem to Advance Australia Fair”, but doesn’t use the word “official”.

• WM says that Fraser reinstated GSTQ as the national anthem, but declared AAF to be the National Song. PH makes no mention of a national song except for the National Song Poll. In fact, it suggests that AAF continued to be the national anthem, because GSTQ was only reinstated “for royal, vice-regal, defence and loyal toast occasions. Advance Australia Fair was played on all other official occasions”, which means most occasions. In case there was any doubt about this, it also says, explicitly, “The Minister for Administrative Services then announced that the anthem was Advance Australia Fair."

• WM says that AAF “finally and permanently” became the official anthem in April 1984. Apart from the issue of when something becomes “official”, the proclamation to which he refers is not permanent. It could be changed tomorrow by government decision, and the G-G would have no choice but to comply. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

On pensions etc - The sorts of thing that you speak of are made under the authority of the appropriate minister who is acting under an already existing Act of Parliament (ie the law), usually under the regulations that are in force. Changes to Acts of Parliament require direct action by the whole parliament, which doesn't really need to involve itself in, or have time for, minor changes like increasing pension rates so Acts provide for a set of regulations and give individual ministers power to change things necessary for day to day implementation of Acts.

Not necessarily. If Wayne Swan called a press conference and said that XYZ tax minimisation scheme was going to be outlawed ASAP, what act of parliament is he invoking? The elimination of such a scheme may involve the amending of a single act, or various acts. But the announcement of the decision to amend is simply the communication of the fact that the government has made a decision to introduce legislation to the parliament proposing to make these amendments. They’re not law yet; and if the Senate isn’t happy, they may never be law. But Swan’s announcement is still an official announcement that might have to taken into account in certain legal proceedings. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Nothing you've said is inconsistent with what I wrote, except "Not necessarily". As you've pointed out, calling a press conference and making an announcement doesn't make something law. The appropriate Act(s) still need(s) amending unless the Act or regulations already provide for something to be implemented without needing changes to the Act. The minister has to work within the boundaries of the Act and regulations and something like outlawing a particular tax minimisation scheme may or may not be operating within the boundaries. Official announcements don't always lead to anything. "L.A.W. Law tax cuts" and "By 1990 no Australian child will live in poverty" are two priministerial decrees that immediately come to mind. Could a child living in poverty succeed in a legal action taken against the government of the basis of Hawke's decree? I doubt it. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

With respect, you're the one who introduced the topic of law, AussieLegend. I have never said, and I do not believe, that the national symbols - with the sole exception of the National Flag - are part of Australian law. I have been talking about when they become "official", and how one might best gauge that. This distinction relates to some of your later posts too. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware (after searching) there's no provision for any minister to declare that any song is now the national anthem with the authority of an Act of Parliament or an Executive Proclamation.

By your reasoning, Whitlam’s pronouncement on 8 April 1974 did not have the effect of ditching God Save the Queen and replacing it with Advance Australia Fair, because there was no formal proclamation by Hasluck (or later by Kerr). If we accept that position, then what did Fraser think he was doing in 1976, when he amended the now limited circumstances under which GSTQ was to be sung, to make them not quite so limited? If AAF had no formal status whatsoever, why wouldn’t GSTQ be sung on 100% of occasions, as it was prior to 8 April 1974?

The point you're missing here is that no individual can change a law by themselves. Changing the national anthem was not changing a law, it was just changing a policy. If somebody had wanted to use GSTQ as the national anthem after Whitlam's announcement they were quite in their rights to do so and many did just that. I remember refusing to stand and sing the national anthem on more than one occasion because the anthem that was being used was GSTQ and I supported AAF. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

So if we're talking about matters to do with policy, and not to do with law - a position with which I entirely agree (see above) - why introduce the subject of law in your opening sentence? -- JackofOz (talk) 03:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

If AAF wasn’t the national anthem between 1974 and 1984, and GSTQ was, then we must have had a situation where 2 prime ministers supported an arrangement under which:

• the national anthem was downgraded to be played only on royal-related (and later some other) occasions, and
• AAF, although it was not the official national anthem, was officially sanctioned for use on all other occasions (which means the vast majority of occasions), in place of the real official national anthem.

Why on Earth would they do that? Why would they confuse the Australian people so badly? If a question had been asked in a quiz program in 1975 or 1976 “What is Australia’s National Anthem?”, who could possibly have given an answer with any confidence of being correct? Even Barry Jones would have struggled to answer it. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you'd have to ask the PMs in question why they didin't ask for a royal proclamation. I'll touch on this later. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding GG proclamations - I suggest that you familiarise yourself with the Australian Constitution, which is the overriding document for all laws made in Australia. As the Queen's representative the GG has certain powers that exceed those given to the parliament. Making proclamations is one of them. The 1984 proclamation was made on the advice of the PM and therefore has the full force of the law behind it. The previous announcements were made by PM's without royal assent and without the backing of the parliament in the form of an Act. They really had little more authority, compared to the 1984 proclamation, than you or I declaring Kylie Minogue's (awful) version of "Locomotion" to be the new anthem.

"It could be changed tomorrow by government decision, and the G-G would have no choice but to comply." - That's not actually the case. Power of veto is one of the GG's reserve powers. While the GG would normally comply with the parliament's decision, he's not obligated to. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

With the greatest respect, I think you yourself might do a bit of boning up about the machinery of government. You’ve confused a number of things. There’s nothing in the Constitution giving the the parliament any power to make laws in respect of national symbols. Nevertheless, it certainly exercised such a power when it passed the Flags Act 1953. So I assume the power is implied somewhere (I am no constitutional expert). And therefore I suppose they could bring all the other symbols under the protection of an act of parliament. But they haven’t done so. All the other national symbols have come into being NOT through such an act, but through either Royal Letters patent or Governor-General proclamation. These are uses of the reserve powers of the Crown, about which the Constitution is silent. They are part of the institutions of the Westminster system, but they are not laws of the land as such. The 1984 proclamation was indeed made on the advice of the PM, and it is fully formal and official, but it does not have the power of any law behind it. When the G-G makes a proclamation under the authority of a particular act, there's a reference to that act in the proclamation. But he can proclaim other matters about which there's no act of parliament. The 1984 proclamations on AAF and the national colours were examples of this. Stephen was advised to make the proclamation by Hawke, and he obliged (although, as you correctly point out, he could have said No). Rudd could, theoretically, advise Jeffery to issue an amending proclamation making "Locomotion" the new anthem. Parliament would not be involved, just as they weren’t involved in 1984, 1977, 1976, or 1974. That's not to say parliament wouldn't later have something to say about it; and they might perhaps seek to censure the government; but at the end of the day, even if the government were censured, and even if the government were forced to resign over the affair, the proclamation about "Locomotion" would still stand, until a later PM advised the G-G to change it back to AAF or whatever. (I'm going to extremes here, obviously, to make an argument about process and machinery of government. I'm not even remotely suggesting that any of these things are ever actually going to happen.)

I suggest that you re-read what I wrote. The proclamation regarding the anthem and Australian colours was made the GG who does have the authority to make such a proclamation. As for your comments about Rudd, it's highly unlikely that the GG would agree to make such a proclamation solely on the PM's suggestion. He'd need backup to show that it was in the best interests of the nation or that the nation supported it, possibly in the form of results from a plebicite. This is probably one reason why earlier PMs didn't approach the GG. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course the GG would have acted on the PM's advice. By convention, he always does. (Constitutional Crisis aside). Peter Ballard (talk) 10:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

In any case, confusion seems to reign supreme on this entire question of when the national anthem changed and under what circumstances. No two sources I’ve seen (I have about 10) give a consistent version of events. Even DFAT differs significantly from It’s an Honour, which differs from the Parliamentary Handbook. One would think at least all the official sources might speak with one voice on this question, but there you go. I’m going to do some analysis of my sources and identify all the inconsistences so we can focus on finding out what really happened and when, but it’ll take a little while. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

You need to ask yourself, if the anthem was official before the GG's proclamation why did he need to make the proclamation? The answer is obviously that it wasn't official. That's why the proclamation date is the date that is generally accepted. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I addressed this right back at the start when I called it "super-official". Things can have official status prior to a proclamation, or an act of parliament. The Australian National Flag was "official" - in every ordinary understanding of the word - ever since 1902 when Edward VII approved it. As far as I know, he simply gave his agreement but there was no proclamation about it. But I want to do some more analysis and research before getting too much more involved in discussion. Thanks for the dialogue so far. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)