Talk:Premier of Queensland

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Premiers of Victoria which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 15:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

2012 State Election

Campbell Newman is the Premier Elect until he is sworn in as the Premier by the Governor of Queensland, therefore Anna Bligh is still the Premier in her own right.Nford24 (Talk) 22:38, 24 March 2012 (AEST)

24 January ????? It's March, mate. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 11:09, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Technically Anna Bligh remains Premier until she returns her commission to the Governor. ShipFan (Talk) 12:36, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Correct, the governor could, in theory, appoint someone else Premier and invite them to test their support in the House. In practice, Newman will be sworn in early next week, but he shouldn't be added to this page until that happens. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC).

Yes that is quite correct Lankiveil. Also Mr Newman will be appointed tomorrow afternoon by the Governor, here are some links [1] and 2. Nford24 (Talk) 07:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Also I should add, according to the first link I provided, Anna Bligh handed her resignation to the Governor at 12:30PM this afternoon. Nford24 (Talk) 07:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that technically, the defeated Premier remains premier until someone else is appointed. The resignation, if it's been made, is entirely symbolic and basically amounts to the Premier advising the Governor to see if Campbell Newman is able to form a government. Under normal circumstances, you can't have a situation with no Premier, unless the holder of the office dies. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC).

That's right. Ministers hold office at the governor's pleasure. They are ministers because the governor says they are. Bligh may have handed over a letter of resignation, but her commission to form a government still stands until very shortly before Newman is sworn in as the new premier. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 18:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Section on List of Premiers of Queensland

In this table, a number of the early premiers are characterised by being conservative or liberal, but there are no citations and indeed these labels don't always appear in their individual articles or do so without any citation to support it. I think it's reasonable to include party memberships here but not so clear that it's reasonable to say anything else. Even the "Ministerialist" label is not very meaningful. In that era, an MP either supported the Premier and his Minister (i.e. was a Ministerialist) or didn't support them (i.e. was an Oppositionist). So, it follows that Premiers and Ministers were automatically Ministerialists as they supported themselves. I am suggesting we remove anything that isn't an actual party affiliation from this table, and leave it to the individual articles to provide more insight into that particular premier's views and political alignments (with appropriate citations), which I doubt can be always easily summarised into one or two words for the table on this page. Kerry (talk) 01:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I'd rather try and source them in these cases, I think - there were some fairly meaningful ideological differences between them. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:42, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

There were no party/parties, party organisations or memberships, party room caucuses etc etc in the period prior to the 1890s. You certainly found nothing like that in Queensland before that time. I can't say for sure, as I am no expert in British pre 1890s politics, but I very much doubt that you can view even the British "Tory Party", "The Wighs" or the later "Liberal Party" as anything more than a description of movements and affiliation to movements. Mostly members were elected as independents with an affiliation, you do not find a party organisation behind him (no fem) Even the labour party was initially just a momement. When Karl Narx used the word party he was purely talking about moments, never anything like what we unbderstand as a party with membership rules etc etc. The modern day party was only emerging around 1890s, likely the labour movement in Europe gave birth to the modern party organisation based on the manner in which Unions were organised. The word party in pre-1890s politics was used in the sense of movement and affiliation to a movememnt and in that sense it was strong and you see divissions in the house along such affiliations. You see party affiliations best reflected in newspaper comments, reminiscences and at times reflected in polical debates in parliament albeith this is mostly indirectly. You may see it in the manner in which the division of seats were distributed but that is rarely recorded (at least not in the colonies). A good political historian in connected to a particular country/colonial parliament (as I am to Queensland) will know all this and can also point out where division was and name it. Queensland general history books such as Ross Fitzgerald From the Dreaming or Ray Evans A History of Queensland and press history such as Denis Cryle tells you about the "Squatter Party" or the "Liberal party" and which government was which. But we are dealing with movement not "party." To write "none" or "ministerial" makes no sense at all it is nonsense they were all connected to a movement. Some here have put Liberal and conservative on Griffiths and McIlwraits government this is correct but it is no more correct than me suggestion the word "Squatter Conservative" as correct when dealing with most govt up to 1874 ""The Squatter Party" was actually the name use in the press, if you look it up Bebel (talk) 05:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine with it if we can source something reliably, although it should also be added to their article as well,but lets avoid original research. Kerry (talk) 14:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

well in most cases you only need to add as source the Australian Dictionary of Biography on each Premier. That is a reliable academic source. The problem is that there is no space for the sources you want. Indeed, beyond the link to Wiki articles, none of these people ar sourced, not even the present Premier. Lilley for one is cast as a liberal, so is Macalister. Herbert and Palmer were heading so called "Squatter" domineered governments, meaning governments sustainene by the "party" of wealthy pastoral leaseholders or graziers. Indeed, the two major political movement in the 60s being the "Squatters" and the "selectors" the polar interest being large landholders ("conservatives" who furthered the interests of the squatters) and small farmes who formed an alliance with ("liberal" minded) urban industries and labourers and middleclass.There were no manhood sufferege, right to viote were granted only to proprietors and landholders (who often had several votes as they may have land in several electorates) so the labourers and large portions of the middleclagsses were not allowed to vote prior to November 1873.Bebel (talk) 13:35, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

see also contemporary political commentaries in newspapers such as this one here from Moreton Bay Courier editorial 21 June 1860 reflecting the struggle between large landholderse the "squatter party" and their oposition the small proprietors and farmers "seeing of the old squatter party--perceiving the impossibility of much longer depriving the country of "the benefits of a liberal land measure-are seriously contemplating putting themselves at the head of the movement and thereby, reaping those advantages which are to' be derived from the accession to power and popularity of their own party. What after all, if we should be indebted to the squatters themselves for a liberal Land Law?" Your compare that with the biographical note on Macalister saying that "He joined the opponents of R. G. W. Herbert's ministry" he fought against the squatters for the benefit of agricultural settlement "e took a strong stand against pastoralists in the settled areas and authorized resumption of large quantities of pastoral land for agricultural settlement" This was in those days classified as a liberal-orited position. Indeed the the phrase "Great Liberal party" was used "squattocracy" was an accusation levelled by the urban liberals against the squatter party for nururing a wish to be >the Tory's and a new aristocracy in the new world. On Charles Lilley his biogrphy states that he was "In 1859 he was active in forming the Liberal Association". The problem is that we are not supposed to uyse primary sources in thwe references, althouh it is still done. There are plenty of evidence to gather in leading articles in the contemporary newspaeres Brisbane Courier spoke of the "The Nomination for Wide Bay took place the 6th attacking grat attention. The entire district of Maryborough and Wide Bay had turned into the prime area of contest between the Liberals and the Squatter party." and so it goes on Bebel (talk) 14:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Go ahead and add the citations then. Kerry (talk) 03:27, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used in this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The file Rob-borbidge.jpg on Wikimedia Commons has been nominated for speedy deletion. View the deletion reason at the Commons file description page. Community Tech bot (talk) 22:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used in this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The file Russell Cooper (1).jpg on Wikimedia Commons has been nominated for speedy deletion. View the deletion reason at the Commons file description page. Community Tech bot (talk) 23:21, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Joh Bjelke-Petersen (78979r).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

No references

Should a banner be added to the article pointing out that it is devoid of references? The Elysian Vector Fields (talk) 00:27, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Flag of Queensland.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:44, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Premier of Victoria which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 07:31, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

When was the office of Premier created?

This article assumes that the office of Premier of Queensland has existed since 1859, but the ministerial lists published in the "Government Gazette" make it clear that this term, although it was in common use, had no legal basis before the end of the 19th century. In that period the head of the government nearly always had another portfolio for which he was paid a salary (usually Colonial Secretary or later Chief Secretary). The last ministerial list available in the "Government Gazette", that of the Philp ministry of December 1899, makes no mention of a Premier. Unfortunately, the "Goverment Gazette" is available online only until the end of 1900, so it is not possible to determine from that source when the position of Premier was officially established. However, a newspaper report ("Western Star and Roma Advertiser", 23 April 1902) tells us that at that date the Premier drew a salary of 1,300 pounds a year. It thus appears that the position of Premier was officially recognised at some time during the Premiership of Robert Philp (1899-1903). Can anyone shed further light on this question? Constant Pedant (talk) 07:30, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

The Queensland Parliament seems to think the position existed from the first parliament, see [2] Kerry (talk) 11:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Table

User:Teratix, thanks for that simplification. I wish we could go further: the more complicated these tables are, the more difficult they become to edit (and see on mobile devices), esp. for non-specialists. For instance, I don't see why "Term of office" takes three columns--the start and finish can be in one column, and length of term is really a bit redundant. Likewise, "Constituency" isn't all that relevant. And there's a bit more--the timeline basically just replicates the same thing, the table's colors are not explained in a legend before the table, and scrolling from the table to the bottom of the timeline is counterintuitive and confusing. If the party is also in a column, why do we need the color? Simpler is better--esp. when you consider that on mobile devices these wide tables are particularly difficult, if not impossible, to see. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:37, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Drmies, to be honest I'm just here because the Victorian equivalent is up at FLC, someone complained about the format being changed without discussion, I reverted on the Victorian list and noticed the change had been propagated to other Australian state premier articles as well. I'm going to go to bed now and I'll see what the fallout is in the morning. – Teratix ₵ 16:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

For the color the problem is someone removed them i think as for the Term of office" taking three columns thats pretty normal i dont see the problem Friendlyhistorian (talk) 17:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)