Talk:Caretaker government of Australia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

Australia: Politics Mid‑importance

	Australia portal Caretaker government of Australia is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics (assessed as High-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Caretaker government of Australia was copied or moved into Caretaker government of Malaysia with this edit on 17:47, 2 April 2016 (UTC). The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Untitled

This needs more work, but I've gotten if off the ground at least. Manning (talk) 05:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent start, MB. Just a couple of things:

the GG does not appoint the caretaker govt; the current govt simply goes into caretaker mode, and departments are advised what this means for them and what they must/must not do during the period.

This relates to your later text about the constitutional basis and the GG's powers. It has nothing to do with the GG's powers, and everything to do with having a system that is perceived as fair. During a campaign the government should not be at an unfair disadvantage because it has access to the full resources of government and the opposition doesn't, or because it would otherwise be in a position to make major decisions or appointments at the 11th hour which they mightn't have to live with if the government changes hands. What's good for one side should be good for another at another time - to prevent this, the convention is to operate on a caretaker basis, not an active basis, and every caretaker government plays by the same rules as every other. (Pity such fairness didn't operate all the time.)

I've also reworded the 1975 constitutional crisis bit. Kerr did appoint Fraser on a caretaker basis on 11 November, but even if he hadn't, Fraser's govt (of which he was the only member at that stage) would have gone into caretaker mode later that day when the Parliament was dissoved. The rest of the caretaker ministry was sworn in on 12 November. Extraordinary circumstances - extraordinary solution.

Cheers -- JackofOz (talk) 07:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should apply to state governments as well

Needs to be re-written to apply to state governments, which also have caretaker periods - will get to this hopefully Slac speak up! 12:20, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think of it, would anyone object if I moved this to caretaker convention? Slac speak up! 07:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is Australia the only country that has caretaker arrangements at specified times? I suspect that all Westminster democracies do this to some degree or other. Maybe we need to adopt the Big Picture approach and globalise the article, with sub-sections about the specific protocols in each country. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 08:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ten years late but I'll pop in, Canadian Here. Canada and its provinces also use a "Caretaker Convention" that is a near carbon copy of the Australian convention in terms of how it works. I know in the UK it's usually referred to as "Purdah" not the "Caretaker Convention", but the operation is pretty much the same as well. WanukeX (talk) 21:27, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removing "The caretaker convention also precludes public servants from making any political statements while the government is in caretaker mode."

This sentence is misleading if not outright wrong, so I'm removing it. The article referenced refers to the NBN boss, a well known public figure and public servant, making outright political statements during a caretaker period. It also refers to him fraternising with various political figures at other times. Australia's public servants are meant to be impartial / non-partisan when in their role as a public servant. However public servants are still able to make political statements and otherwise engage in political life as usual, so long as it's clear that they are not speaking on behalf of the public organisation they work for. The vast majority of public servants are not known Australia wide and can say what they want, even during a caretaker period, as long as others are aware that it is their own personal opinion. 1dragon (talk) 10:37, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]