> But would you discount the northern Territory and the Australian Capital
> territory because they are territories like the Heard and MacDonald Island

> Territory is?

Obviously not; they are political subdivisions that are *on* the Australian
continent. Heald isn't. It's a tiny island thousands of miles away from
Australia. If the question is "What is the highest point in Australia" it
would be taken to mean that which we call Australia, and not some overseas
territory it happens to rule.

Now, if you asked what is the highest point on Heald Island, that would be
easier! Mawson's Peak. Heald Island isn't geographically part of Australia;
it's simply a political part of the nation. AIUI.

> Or would you discount Tasmania because it's not part of Mainland

Australia?

No. I would count it, unless the inquirer wanted to know only what is the
highest point on *mainland* Australia. It's the same as acknowledging that
Mount McKinley is the highest point in the USA; Alaska is an exclave state.
As well, active volcanoes in the USA would have to include Mauna Loa in the
Hawaiian Islands.

> When we say "Australia" do we mean the country or the continent without

any

> other islands?
> It's a tricky question...

I'd ask the questioner what he meant.

> And the original example was Germany. Does this mean if we say 'portugal'
> we count or don't count its overseas provinces (like East Timor, Goa, etc
> once were?).

Obviously they would not be counted. The highest point in what we know as
Portugal (on the Iberian Peninsula) would not be in the East Indies.

> Are the Azores part of Portugal by your definition?

It would seem so. But if the questioner wanted to know what was the highest
point or some other statistic on the mainland, then it would not be
included.