Talk:Jervis Bay Territory
|WikiProject Australia||(Rated B-class, Mid-importance)|
id like more information on its surface area size
I have seen maps which show the southernmost part of the Beecroft Peninsula as part of the Jervis Bay Territory. The map on the JBT official site does not show this though. Can anybody confirm or deny? If the JBT does include part of the Beecroft Peninsula, this fact should be included in the article. --Humehwy 09:11, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- I think I've discovered what the reason for this is. A lot of the Beecroft Peninsula is land controlled by the Department of Defence, which the Commonwealth has some control over. However, just like any other Commonwealth land in Australia, it is still part of the adjacent state, which means it is still NSW land for most purposes. The only land that is the JBT is on the south side of Jervis Bay. (JROBBO 04:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC))
Why was it felt necessary to give the ACT access to the sea? --Jfruh 05:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
- Because at the time, there were no planes so overseas travel was done by boat. It would have been important for the non New South Wales States that the nation's leaders and politicians could use a port that was not controlled/on territory owned by the NSW government. All of the Australian capital cities are on the coast, so perhaps it was envisioned that somewhere like Eden (as had been proposed) would become the capital. --Crazycrazyduck 01:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- That is interesting information (I too wondered why? when I read the article). Perhaps it could be worked into the article text somehow? --kingboyk 14:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- Even so its still apart of Australia, its not like its a foreign country they have to bypass. So still begs the question as to why they felt it needed the area. -- 11:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- That is interesting information (I too wondered why? when I read the article). Perhaps it could be worked into the article text somehow? --kingboyk 14:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I would need to find a reference for it then I guess. Time to dig out the history books again! --Crazycrazyduck 09:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it is written somewhere, i don't know where exactly, but it is 'written' that every capital city in australia must have access to their own Navy base. My C.O. told me this, he said that while there is a navy base in Canberra it also needed access to the sea. It is purely a result of our capital cities being mainly based close to water. Beatta. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 14:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I believe there reason is likely to be commonwealth-state politics at the time. The states harbored distrust of the Commonwealth early on in its creation (and still do). In it's early years of the 20th century the Commonwealth was relatively weak and it took time for the power equilibrium to be found between the Commonwealth and the States. The Commonwealth would have considered it important to be able to exercise control over a port that was outside the jurisdiction of any particular state. Arlington456 (talk) 01:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- It makes you wonder why they put the ACT inland in the first place, though. Jimp 07:59, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- The site of the nation's capital was a bone of contention between NSW and Victoria. Canberra's location was chosen as a compromise because it was roughly half-way between Sydney and Melbourne. A much better site in what is now North Arm Cove, to be called "Pindimar", had been considered but it was rejected by Victoria, even though it had both road and sea access by virtue of being between Port Stephens and the Pacific Highway. In 1918 that land was subdivided and a network of dirt roads based on the design of Pindimar was constructed. These roads are still visible today at . Unfortunately the city of Port Stephens never eventuated and the population of North Arm Cove is concentrated in a few streets close to the water. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:05, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Does anyone have a source for the use of the ACT flag, crest and other similar bits and pieces in the territory after it's separation from the ACT? matturn 09:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- I haven't heard of it. I'm inclined to think they should be removed, especially since the coat of arms is/was originally the coat of arms of Canberra in particular. JPD (talk) 18:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
With a little research I have come across this web page : http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/au-jbt.html (whilst I dispute some of the content on this page, there is a reference for the flag listed at: http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/bib-oma.html#ozf98 )
Judging by the article, I would have to suggest the flag for Jervis Bay is the Australian National Flag, although I find this hard to believe. The listed ISBN has not been reviewed by me (ISBN 978-0-642-47130-1 and/or ISBN 0-642-47130-4)
Although searching every listing of ISBN libraries listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Booksources&isbn=9780642471301#Australia, I found the book only to be listed at:
- Northern Territory Libraries iPortal (at various schools)
- University of Western Australia
- Queensland University of technology
- The State Library of South Australia
- The National Library of Australia
None of these libraries are located in Sydney, therefore I am unable to verify the contents... Possibly someone else could? Madivad 05:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- As stated at the Flags of the World page, the the Australian Flags booklet states that Jervis Bay does not have its own flag. The national flag is the only flag that has been seen used there (apart from at the Naval Base, I guess) - this does not mean that the flag is "the flag of the territory". As a sidetrack, which info on that page do you dispute? JPD (talk) 10:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
User:Felix Portier has repeatedly added several NSW towns to this article, as though they were in the territory. Please provide references for these towns being in JBT. If there are no references, they must be removed from the article. JPD (talk) 18:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- My Explore Australia is clear that Hyams Beach is outside the territory. It's not clear about Sussex Inlet though. --Scott Davis Talk 12:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
The Jervis Bay Territory does not have its own flag or coat of arms. Those that are shown in the main article belong to Canberra, a city inland from Jervis Bay. Also the town of Sussex Inlet is in New South Wales. It is on the Southern side of the geographical feature of Sussex Inlet.
Sussex Inlet Controversy
Those who believe that Sussex Inlet is in Jervis Bay Territory need to produce some official documents proving such. The burden is on them. I, however, will produce documents that prove Sussex Inlet is indeed located in New South Wales:
- http://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/resources/transcripts/act6-a1559-1915-19.rtf, which reads [emphasis mine], "1. The State shall surrender to the Commonwealth, and the Commonwealth shall accept, the territory (hereinafter called the territory), now being part of the State, described hereunder, namely:— All that piece and parcel of land and water situate at Jervis Bay in the Parish of Bherwerre, County of St. Vincent, State of New South Wales, Commonwealth of Australia, area about 18,000 acres, commencing at a point on the high water mark on the left bank of Sussex Inlet at its intersection with the western boundary of portion 12 of 40 acres and bounded thence westerly and north-westerly by that high water mark to the high water mark of St. George’s Basin, thence in a general easterly and north-easterly direction by that high water mark to its intersection with the production westerly of the southern boundary of portion 18 ..."
The only connection that Sussex Inlet has with Jervis Bay Territory is the fact that the JBT administration leases housing in Sussex Inlet for 18 individuals (cf. http://www.dotars.gov.au/territories/jervis_bay/index.aspx). It was in 1986 that "the Commonwealth acquired the workers cottage Pamir (erected Sussex Inlet leases area circa 1935) ..." (http://www.dotars.gov.au/territories/jervis_bay/history.aspx). However, a lease does not constitute territory (e.g., Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, is not US territory but leased Cuban territory controlled and administered by the US government).
Lastly, I can find no evidence whatsoever that Sussex Inlet constitutes the capital of Jervis Bay Territory. Again, I ask that those who claim such to show definitive proof of this. So, until this occurs, I'm removing the mention of Sussex Inlet being Jervis Bay Territory's capital. --Mike Beidler 13:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Well yes, we have also given links at Talk:Sussex Inlet, Jervis Bay Territory from Geoscience Australia and the GNB of NSW, showing that the town "Sussex Inlet" is in NSW. However, I think that the "leases area" that you mention above might actually be a few houses on the right bank of Sussex Inlet, in JBT. The idea that any version of Sussex Inlet is the capital is entirely unsupported so far, however, and ideally the capital shoudl be removed from the infobox, along with the emblems and the other NSW settlements in the towns and villages sections. JPD (talk) 16:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
JPD, I wholeheartedly agree with you and will welcome your changes if you should so make them. (On a related note, I noticed that Felix has also attempted to "create" capitals for various Antarctic territories; cf. the Wikipedia entry history for Australian Antarctic Territory.) I tried to purge the "Jervis Bay Territory" portion of the "Sussex Inlet, Jervis Bay Territory" entry, but don't know how to do it. --Mike Beidler 16:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- I have made some changes, although I feel the infobox here is pretty useless - much of the content is misleading at best. I have also asked an admin to move Sussex Inlet to the right name, and nominated Category:Councils in the Jervis Bay Territory for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 August 14. JPD (talk) 18:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the infobox from the article, as almost of all the fields are irrelevant to JBT (see some discussion concerning this above). If an infobox is necessary, I would suggest making a custom one with significantly less fields. JPD (talk) 17:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I certainly agree with this. The information regarding the administration of JBT is rather dodgy LW77
Hasn't Jervis Bay an own flag? Is it represented with the Australian Capitol Territory's Flag or with the Australian Flag? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 126.96.36.199 (talk • contribs) 06:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't have it's own flag. It is not represented by any flag, although obviuosly, as part of Australia, the Australian National Flag is used there. Since it is no longer part of the ACT, the ACT flag would be completely inappropriate. JPD (talk) 18:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
While it is true that for the purposes of the electoral act, the ACT includes JBT, I am not sure putting in this way in this context gives the right impression. It seems to imply that this is somehow to do with the fact that it used to be part of the ACT, however the arrangements for other small territories are for the most part similar, even though the history isn't. JPD (talk) 03:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
The Jervis Bay Territory has never been "part of the ACT". It was always a separate Commonwealth territory in its own right. It was governed by the laws of the ACT and administered by the ACT as if it was part of the ACT, but it never actually was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 11:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Contradiction with Beecroft Peninsula article
This article says "It was administered by the Department of the Interior and later, the Department of the Capital Territory as if it was part of the ACT, although it was always a separate Commonwealth territory. The perception that it is part of the ACT arises from the fact that under the terms of the Jervis Bay Territory Acceptance Act, the laws of the ACT apply to the Jervis Bay Territory."
By contrast, the Beecroft Peninsula article says "The ACT section was transferred to the Commonwealth of Australia in 1915, as part of the Jervis Bay lands transferred by New South Wales to federal control to provide the national capital with access to the sea. While the bulk of this land was established as a separate Jervis Bay Territory when the Australian Capital Territory was granted self-government, the portion on the Beecroft Peninsula remains part of the ACT."
So this article says JBT was always distinct from ACT, whereas the Beecroft Peninsula article suggests that the existence of JBT as distinct from ACT only dates from ACT self-government. I don't know what the answer is, yet I find the Beecroft Peninsula account more believable. Given that the s. 4 of the Seat of Government requires the ACT to have sea access, it is clear why the ACT has territory on the Beecroft Peninsula. Why then would JBT exist separately from the ACT? Self-government seems a reasonable explanation (separate the populated areas of coastal ACT from the ACT, but keeping the unpopulated coastal areas in the ACT to meet the legal requirement.) But why would have both JBT and coastal ACT have existed as a separate territory back in the early 20th century when there was no ACT self-government? It just doesn't make any sense. --SJK (talk) 08:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- OK, having done some more research, the two most relevant primary sources are Seat of Government Acceptance Act 1909 (Cth) and Jervis Bay Territory Acceptance Act 1915 (Cth). From that it seems clear that FCT (now known as ACT) and JBT were originally separate, even though both had territory in the Jervis Bay region. But I have trouble parsing the exact holdings of each in each region. (The description of FCT territory in SOGA1909 sounds broader than just the Beecroft Peninsula, but maybe its no more than that.) Its also not clear why if FCT already exists, why was JBT separately incorporated in 1915? It sounds like HMAS Creswell had something to do with it, but I would love if someone could dig up the relevant Hansard... --SJK (talk) 09:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I recall that the existence of JBT as a seperate territory from the FCT/ACT facilities the Commonwealth enacting laws that have a very specific, and obscure, application. One example I vaguely remember is that a law can be passed that applies only in JBT, or applies to JBT in a particular way. Then a law can be passed that says the law that apply in a particular area, or in a particular situation, are the laws that are in effect within JBT from time to time. Someone gave me an example that had to do with personal injury compensation to Commonwealth employees for injuries suffered while present on Commonwealth property overseas, such as embassies. I was told that the compensation law that was applied in those areas was something along the lines of "the laws in effect in JBT". This could make it easier to enact the same laws to apply to new situations or places. You can simply have a special body of law that you intend to apply to, say, overseas missions and then just enact one small piece of legislation that said the law to be applied, for the purposes of whatever issue, is the law of the JBT. If that is still the case then this could be an example of a non-military application of the usefulness of JBT as a separate jurisdiction. Military personal injury is governed by the Military Compensation and Rehabilitation Act. Hope that made some sense. Arlington456 (talk) 01:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
The area of the Jervis Bay Territory was set by the Jervis Bay Territory Acceptance Act, 1915, http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/ActCompilation1.nsf/framelodgmentattachments/BAF795AC95816EDBCA256F71004C5B25 the area on the Beecroft Peninsula was set by the Seat of Government Acceptance Act, 1922 http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/sogaa1922265/s3.html (which includes the Jervis Bay Territory area). The Beecroft Peninsula area has NEVER been part of the Jervis Bay Territory. The Beecroft Peninsula area is Commonwealth territory, and would appear to be part of the ACT, but it is not part of NSW. Newtaste (talk) 12:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Postcode contradiction with Postcodes in Australia
Postcodes in Australia indicates that Jervis Bay Territory uses 2540, however the article says it uses 2541.
PRONUNCIATION OF JERVIS BAY
YOU SAY JARVIS, WE SAY JERVIS
(From an article by Alan Clark in the South Coast Register, Friday 5th August, 2005)
[apparent copyvio removed]
Further to the above article, it should also be noted that at 11.30am on April 6th 1992 at the Declaration of the Jervis Bay National Park by the Australian Environment Minister, the Hon. Ros Kelly, MP at Greenpatch, Ms Kelly, in her role as Minister for the Crown, confirmed the pronunciation of Jervis Bay as being as it is spelt (not Jahvis)…Eyewitness account of Tom Phillips, Tourism Manager, Shoalhaven City Council.
- John Jervis's family pronounced the surname 'jerviss'.
- Kindly, for non-Aussies, what is the pronunciation of the place? It's not a dumb question. In the UK Berkeley is "bark-lee" while in the US it's "burk-lee"; ditto Derby, which in the UK is "dar-bee" and is "der-bee" in the US. My first instinct is "jerv-iss," but I could honestly see a Brit or an Australian saying "jar-viss." TuckerResearch (talk) 17:43, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- I note the recent addition to this matter from the Jervis Bay article. (the locals pronounce it Jer-vis) The cite states in a letter to the speaker of the house published 1928. The Speaker of the House of Representatives (Sir Littleton Groom),has received a letter from Mr. Jervis Manton, which reads as follows: There seems to be a growing inclination in Australia to mispronounce the name Jervis Bay. May I please assure you that the correct pronunciation of this word is Jervis and not Jarvis. Sir Thomas Jervis was a relative of my grandmother, and godfather to my father who, throughout his lifetime, was always called Jervis. If you will do what you can to maintain the correct pronunciation of Jervis I shall be glad.Sir Thomas Jervis may have pronounced his name Jervis. However Jervis Bay is named after John Jervis, 1st Earl of St Vincent. I would also suggest that in 1928 the locals were pronouncing it Jarvis much to the dislike of Mr Jervis Manton. CamV8 (talk) 03:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)