Talk:Prime Minister of Australia/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Left office column

Might I suggest that the 'left office' column is irrelevant too? The date is always the same as when the next person took over, and the footnote regarding the death of Harold Holt can easily be placed next to John McEwen or after "time spent in office" - Former Wikipedian. 125.63.176.32 (talk) 04:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Might I suggest that the table in this article is meant to be giving very basic information only, and that List of Prime Ministers of Australia is the place for more details to go, if anywhere. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 04:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Nationality column

The contents of the "nationality" column do not describe the nationality of the prime ministers. Gillard is listed as "Welsh-born": that is not her nationality, unless I'm very mistaken. While for the prime ministers born prior to Federation there is an interesting mixture of native and foreign-born, I don't see this is relevant either; the view of the time was that they were part of the "British" empire, but probably in the long run of history would consider themselves "Australians". 115.130.18.112 (talk) 07:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, I thought I had been logged in when I posted just above. 115.130.18.112 is me. :) Philip Legge _{User Email Talk} 07:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

And Wales isn't a nation anyway. It's a very silly column. I'd like to see it removed. If people want more detail on someone they will obviously click on their name to read their more detailed article. HiLo48 (talk) 08:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, this page isn't intended on being a full-blown bio on the person currently holding the office, but on the office itself. Australia2world (talk) 12:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree, as per the above convo and all listed here. Романов (talk) 13:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Remove it. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree. ALl MPs must be Australians (no dual nationality) when they enter parliament so by default Gillard is an Australian citizen. If we must keep it, change it to 'place of birth' or something like that. Scanorama (talk) 07:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Possible columns to add

Can I get some thoughts on adding these columns: Birthday Religion Spouse Number of children Highest popularity Lowest popularity Cheers, former wikipedian 125.63.176.32 (talk) 04:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Not here. See link in the thread above. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 04:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Jack. And popularity is questionable anywhere. It's a recent invention by by pollsters and the media. Even for those for whom it is recorded, it varies dramatically over time. HiLo48 (talk) 05:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

No, no, no, no, no and no. As per all previous dicussions regarding dropping columns, not adding them. Романов (talk) 08:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Personally, for a head of state/ prime minister the use of a table of this kind is remote see: President of the United States, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Prime Minister of New Zealand etc. Possibly removing the table or downsizing it as it was previoulsy wouldn't be such a bad idea. Романов (talk) 08:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Now done. The description of the table was never amended anyway, and now it doesn't need to be. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 12:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Sex column

I am against adding the sex column for the prime minister's table. I believe it's due to hysteria and once everyone calms down, it will look like a very bad idea. Does anyone agree/disagree? --TUSWCB (talk) 09:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

AGREED —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.12.229.221 (talk) 10:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely, completely, totally and fully agree. It's pointless. HiLo48 (talk) 08:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

This is good! If I can get one more person to agree then I shall inform the user who created the column and HOPEFULLY it will be gone! --TUSWCB (talk) 11:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Completely agree. The List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom gets by without several of the features that adorn the current list. Australia2world (talk) 12:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree 100%, possibly wait a week until the hysteria has died down and to also avoid a war with IPs. Романов (talk) 13:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll take your advice Романов. I'll tell the user on Thursday. --60.240.32.151 (talk) 00:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Whoops I forgot to sign in. 60.240.32.151 is me. --TUSWCB (talk) 01:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

oops, didn't mean to upset you all :( jolt76 (talk) 05:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's cut out some irrelevant material

One user appears keen to include some facts about Australian Prime Ministers which I consider are too trivial to meet Wikipedia's standards of Wikipedia:Notability.

Why are we mentioning the first two Prime Ministers to be born after Federation? (it is a bit unclear working out what the distinction between the two is supposed to be). Who cares if two Prime Ministers share the same birthday? (probably nobody, because I cannot find via Google this fact being mentioned anywhere else)

I believe there are more important and interesting details about Australian Prime Ministers worth mentioning instead.

Anybody wish to provide a dissenting view before I remove this material? Kransky (talk) 11:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Please go ahead. i find that coincidental date trivia to be annoying. It adds nothing to the story of who these people were and what they did as PM. HiLo48 (talk) 11:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• Kransky, you start out in a very pointed and personal way, with "one user appears keen ...". This material has been there since the latter part of 2007 (!), and in all that time, the only objection prior to now has been that expressed by Matilda at "Trivial material in subsection on Prime Ministerial Births and Deaths" above, in September 2008. When asked to provide some more substance to her objections, nothing was forthcoming. Given the large number of people who've edited the article since late 2007, to point to "one user" as being keen to keep the material, which invites readers to conclude that everyone else is against it, is misleading, dishonest and absurd. I'm not arguing that just because something has been in place for a long time is in itself an argument for keeping it even longer, because it's not. But equally, please do not use inappropriate references to unnamed users in your arguments.
• After Federation? Well, that was a very significant event in our history, and it also marked the creation of the office of Prime Minister. But there were various future PMs already alive at that time. I for one was interested to know who the first one born after 1.1.1901 was, so I found out and shared the knowledge.
• Same birthday? That sort of thing is of interest to a lot of people. That's why, for example, we have lists of notable names in the articles for every day of the year (e.g. 18 January).
• What are these "more important and interesting details" you refer to? Why cannot they exist alongside the stuff that's already there? Why does it have to be an either/or situation?
• I'd also ask you to consider the tone you're using, at "Anybody wish to provide a dissenting view before I remove this material?". This is saying that the decision to remove has been made, and you're just going through the motions of appearing to gain a consensus before actually carrying out your decision. That is a most uncollegiate manner, and is not the spirit in which consensuses are reached on Wikipedia. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 12:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Jack of Oz - I guess I can agree with you that some of the date stuff can be interesting, some of the time, but I don't really think it's notable. Does it really meet the level of importance required for inclusion in Wikipedia? HiLo48 (talk) 12:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

If not, then we need to do something about List of French Presidents by longevity, List of Philippine Presidents by date of birth, List of Philippine Vice Presidents by date of birth, List of Presidents of the United States by date of birth, List of Vice Presidents of the United States by date of birth, List of Indian Presidents by date of birth, and undoubtedly other similar material. At least we haven't got into their zodiac signs. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 13:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I would say that listing dates of birth for biographical purposes is fine, even essential wherever possible, but highlighting little coincidences and quaint but irrelevant placements in history are really not. HiLo48 (talk) 21:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with Kransky and HiLo. The material is there out of an implicit WP:CONSENSUS, but I think there always has been somewhat of an objection on my part but never really took action with it. Perhaps it is better on another page that can hold such trivial sections? Timeshift (talk) 22:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I regret if you find my tone harsh, uncollegiate or presumptious of an outcome. I engage robustly but constructively with editors on any material on contention, but I do not make bold edits if the matter is still being disputed. Kransky (talk) 22:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Now Jack, with all due respect, just because it's inclusion has not been challenged in three years does not justify it being here if it is not encyclopedic. There may have been other users who ignored or did not mind its inclusion, but you so far appear to be the only editor actively protesting its removal. I am not sure what point you are trying to make with the lists of other foreign leaders - those articles do not note casual and inconsequential coincidences.

As a compromise I can accept mentioning X was the first PM born after event (one PM per event). But the other material I feel is Unencyclopedic. It has not been mentioned elsewhere. If you had to give a lecture on Australian PMs to a classroom, would you really bother to mention such coincidences? Could you explain the significance of Whitlam being born during World War I? Kransky (talk) 22:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

"Now Jack, with all due respect, just because ..." - Now Kransky, I did go to the trouble of acknowledging that - quote: "I'm not arguing that just because something has been in place for a long time is in itself an argument for keeping it even longer, because it's not". Did you happen to read that?

If the consensus is to remove some or all of it, so be it. But what we've always had till now is an implcit consensus. What I was protesting was your manner of just removing without discussion material that had been there for a long time without any disagreement (I discount Matilda, who provided no arguments at all), but more to the point, material that had been added to, reworded, massaged and generally improved by a range of editors apart from myself (including such people as Timeshift, who now says he's always had a bit of an objection to it, which is hard to work out). If that's not agreement to the material being there, what is? If that's not a consensus that this information is acceptable, what is? Against that, you high-handedly decided to just remove it, and required (via an edit summary) any dissenters to come here and defend it. In turn, I required you to come here and justify the removal in the first place. Which you have not done. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Jack, why is it hard to work out why I had a bit of an objection I never brought up? Yes it is factual, but it seems trivial, almost like a DYK (did you know)... sorry. Timeshift (talk) 23:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Because you made a positive contribution to the text on at least one occasion (I seem to recall more edits from you, but don;t hold me to that), but now you're saying you're objecting to in principle. That at least means you've changed your mind since then. Or it may mean there's a bandwagon thing happening here. You tell me. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 01:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't recall what I did, and I don't recall changing my mind. Timeshift (talk) 01:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

See the link I provided just up above. Apart from being forced to do things against one's will, which isn't the case around here, you can't participate in something and also object in principle to it, without being seen to be two-faced - unless you've since changed your mind, which is OK. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 01:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

So the material now being objected to is essentially the "births and deaths" section? As far as I can see, the only problem with it is that it's completely unsourced; if sources can be found I have no objection whatsoever to their inclusion. (I'm not sure WP:N is the right policy to point to here, either, since it specifically states that it refers only to articles, not to content. I think WP:V is the relevant guideline.) Frickeg (talk) 02:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

In turn, I required you to come here and justify the removal in the first place. Which you have not done. I believe I made my reasons clear at 11:11 on 6 August 2010. To repeat - in my view, and I believe it is the view of most reasonable editors, the fact that two PMs share the same birthday is inconsequential and irrelevant. There are probably two people at your workplace who share the same birthdate - does this coincidence get discussed around the water fountain? I probably think not. Does the coincidence have any bearing on what these Prime Ministers actually did? Absolutely not. Is anybody really interested in this coincidence? You seem to be the only person actively seeking its inclusion.

Another detail I removed was the fact that many Prime Ministers were born in September. Actually September has an above average propensity for births across the Australian population, and not just babies destined to be Prime Ministers. I am not sure why in these last couple of years September babies are usually the 4th, 3rd, 2nd or most common babies (the effects of Christmas cheer of nine months past perhaps?). But I cannot find anything remotely notable or interesting about this fact.

So why does this matter? Because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of facts. Through adding irrelevant details the purpose of narrating the key facts of a particular topic is soundly defeated. Both Wikipedia and its editors loose credibility if, in our judgement, we consider inclusion of trivial details to be worthwhile Kransky (talk) 14:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've had a look for sources. The Age devoted an entire article to birthday coincidences (with Barton and Keating as first mention), but I haven't found anything else. This does allow us to cite the fact as non-OR, though, which is helpful. But reading WP:INDISCRIMINATE, I don't find anything at all referring to this kind of situation. As such I'm leaning towards keeping the information at the moment. I'll add the cite for the birthdays. Frickeg (talk) 14:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Kransky, you persist in making this an "us vs. them" sort of thing (or "us vs. JackofOz" sort of thing, more to the point). Why, I cannot imagine. "I believe it is the view of most reasonable editors ..." - where's your evidence for that? What I see is Kransky, HiLo48 and Timeshift9 expressing anti-views, and myself and Frickeg expressing pro-views. Does 3-2 equate to "most reasonable editors" being anti? Not in my maths. Where were those reasonable editors for the past 3 years, who saw this material and raised ZERO objections to it? Or were they just being too reasonable = too polite to say anything for fear of offending the author? Well, I'm, a big boy and I can take criticism of what I write. But if we're going to be talking about numbers pro and con, it's almost line-ball in this thread. As for birthday coincidences, I can only refer you again to List of Presidents of the United States by date of birth. What's good for the goose ... -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Where was I for the past three years? Not really active here until this year. And I see many things on Wikipedia that I wish were better, but cannot tackle them all at once. This isn't a huge issue. I won't be offended by whatever we end up with. I've just expressed my personal view that trivia and coincidences about dates don't really belong. But that's just me. I'm only a little voice. I've placed my vote. Good luck to the rest of you. HiLo48 (talk) 00:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Just as the matter is quite trivial, like HiLo I am not going to press the point any further. Probably somebody else will question its inclusion sometime later. Kransky (talk) 10:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Protect Page

{{editsemiprotected}}

The protection has expired. Hazard-SJ ^Talk 11:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Protect Page (moved from top of talk page)

{{editsemiprotected}}

An election is currently in progress - Vandalism is at a high level - Semi- Protect or Protect this page.

don't add new sections at the top of the page, you already have a semi protetect tag here, what are you doing cygopat?--Lerdthenerd (talk) 10:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be at WP:RFPP? Hazard-SJ ^Talk 11:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Ex-PMs who served as ministers in subsequent governments

• Joseph Cook (PM 1913-14) took on Navy (1917-20) and Treasurer (1920-21), under Billy Hughes
• Hughes (PM 1915-23) held a range of portfolios between 1934-41 (Health, Repatriation, VPEC, External Affairs, Attorney-General, Industry, Navy)
• Bruce (PM 1923-29) was a Minister without Portfolio (1932-33) under Lyons
• Page (PM April 1939) held Commerce (1940-41) and Health (1949-56) under Menzies
• Menzies (PM 1939-41) continued in Defence Co-ordination during the Fadden government, a portfolio he held while PM (of course he came back as PM himself 1949-66)
• Fadden (PM Aug-Oct 41) was Treasurer under Menzies 1949-58 (a record not broken until Costello)
• Forde (PM July 45) contined as Minister for Army under Chifley till 46, and was also appointed Minister for Defence Aug-Nov 46; he then lost his seat and was made High Commissioner to Canada as a consolation prize
• McEwen (PM 1967-68) was made the first formal Deputy Prime Minister by his successor Gorton, and was Minister for Trade and Industry 68-71
• Rudd (PM 07-10) has been given Foreign Affairs under Gillard.

Leaving aside the short-term/caretaker PMs (Page, Fadden, Forde, McEwen), the only one who continued as a minister without any break at all was Menzies (but he continued to hold an existing portfolio). Of the others who were given new portfolios, Hughes had an 11-year period on the backbench; Cook and Bruce had to wait 3 years (in Bruce’s case he had to wait till he got back into parliament, and his wasn't a substantive portfolio anyway); but Rudd was back within 3 months, by far the shortest ministerial career disruption.

Not sure if any of this is worth making mention of. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 00:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Sort on Total time in office Column is not working for Julia Gillard entry

Hi, If you sort by Total time in office , the Julia Gillard entry is in the incorrect position Relevant code is below, but I don't know enough to fix || 14 years, 177 days122.107.215.134 (talk) 12:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC) I think its this template http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Age_in_years_and_days Wakelamp (talk) 12:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, it may not matter now. She'll be gone inside of a week! However, it may be useful to see if it works for the next guy.Ericl (talk) 14:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Silly comment. However long she remains in the job, her time there will always appear in this table, and needs to come out in the right place when it's sorted. You're acting as if, whenever a person leaves a job, we should treat them as if they'd never been there at all. Please stop confusing your personal political allegiances with sober, dispassionate and objective writing of a creditable encyclopedia designed for readers of all backgrounds and points of view. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 03:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The sort is now fixed - thank-you. Wakelamp (talk) 13:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Edits to the Personal circumstances section

I'm curious, HiLo48 - why did you revert the edit specifying which PMs were atheists and agnostics to the rather blander "professed no faith"? I made that edit myself, and all the information used in it was found on the respective pages of the five PMs in question. I believe it qualifies under notability (all five pages can be found in the respective categories for Australian Agnostics or Australian Atheists), and I cannot help but wonder why, given the specificity of the rest of the list, why you would want to make the entry LESS precise. Would you perhaps prefer that it read: "All Australian Prime Ministers have been Christians with the exceptions of Deakin, a Spiritualist, and Curtin, Gorton, Whitlam, Hawke and Gillard, who each professed no religious beliefs"? I see no good reason not to differentiate between agnostics and atheists just as the page distinguishes between six different Christian sects --Lokicarbis (talk) 10:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Gee, that was a while ago. From memory, I was concerned at least about labelling Gillard as an atheist. That's not what her article says, nor has it been reported that she has ever actually said it. One word descriptors are rarely enough to properly tell the reader about someone's religious beliefs if they are not mainstream. Similar arguments probably apply to others. I'm actually not all that comfortable with "professed no faith" either, but at least that had been there for a while. Changes like yours need to be discussed and achieve consensus before adding to the article. HiLo48 (talk) 10:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

So that's Gillard. And having looked at the debate on the discussion page for that article, I can see your point about her. I'm certain the article did say atheist on the day I made the change, but Wikipedia is always a moving target. I see also a similar discussion regarding Whitlam. But what about the other three? None of their beliefs are particularly disputable, and all seem well-referenced in the respective articles --114.77.52.23 (talk) 15:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC) Sorry, this was me, didn't realise I wasn't logged in --Lokicarbis (talk) 15:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Postnominals

I don’t have a problem with this column. But are we showing only the postnoms they had when they were PM, or any postnoms they later acquired as well? We show Howard’s AC and OM, both acquired post-PM, but not his SSI, or Gorton’s or McMahon’s or Reid’s or Cook’s knighthoods or Bruce’s peerage. Maybe we need a column for the honours they had when they were PM and another column for later honours. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 12:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

POV edits to lead?

There have been a couple of edits in the past days or so to the third paragraph of the lead which seem intended to downplay the status of Gillard as PM. First we had the number of Independents changed from 3 to 2, with no explanation (it's the Peter Slipper story), then a description of her government as a minority one, with a somewhat dishonest Edit summary. I'm not comfortable with either change. I've reverted the latter. I think the former needs qualification. HiLo48 (talk) 02:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

We have enough relevant articles with this information in the lead already. This article however doesn't seem to hold the same relevance, a prime minister is a prime minister, be it of a majority or minority government. I've trimmed it back to what actually matters on this page. And one last thing more generally to all, and it's getting rather annoying with the media and the easily convinced misreporting the state of the house... so I want to go astray for a second and clear it up: As a result of the 2010 election, Labor won 72 seats, as did the Liberal/National/LNP/CLP Coalition, 50.12 to 49.88 on a two-party vote (even though the two-party vote is irrelevant to the technicalies of who forms government). Four of six crossbenchers declared their support for the incumbent government on confidence and supply votes, giving seat numbers of 76-74 and giving the incumbent government the numbers to continue. The speaker was appointed, giving numbers of 75-74 on the floor of the house. Slipper left the LNP when he became speaker, changing party numbers to 72-71 and increasing the number of non-party members in the house from 6 to 7. The former speaker Jenkins got his vote back, changing numbers on the floor of the house to 76-73. Wilkie has said it is possible he might abstain if the Gillard government had a confidence vote, which would make it 75-73, or if he voted against the government, 75-74. Slipper is the speaker, he does not get a vote unless a vote is tied, which it does not seem would occur. The house is not, I repeat NOT, back to a margin of one. Can we please get some decent reporting in this country? Rant over. Timeshift (talk) 05:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Nice trimming in the article. Brutal, but I agree it's all we need. And good work with that description above. I find the insistence by some that we have a minority government rather painful too. If we were in Italy (or most other countries with parliamentary systems) it would be called a coalition, but the media, the public, and the Libs and Nats think they own that word in Australia. Just to warn you to anticipate more crappy reportage, you may be amused by this afternoon's sensationalism based on speculation about Wilkie, here.

Not only Wilkie's words so far, but also a former Green candidate, and from the seat he comes from, at most it seems that Wilkie would approve a debate on confidence but not endorse a no confidence motion. Where is this "one-seat majority wiped out and govt collapsed if Libs were to gain Dobell" stuff coming from in the media? It's completely and utterly inaccurate and making a mockery of our democracy. Gross negligence in media reporting should carry capital punishment... Timeshift (talk) 05:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Who's ready to make a case that Wikipedia is an important part of 'the media'? And by logical extension the advocation of capital punishment for misdemeanours being grossly negligent? Mdw0 (talk) 06:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

With Slipper and Wilkie recently "changing their votes" (supposedly), I think it is now a WP:CRYSTAL vio to assert any numbers at all. Gillard gained the confidence of the house by one vote after the election (when Oakeshott declared his vote) and we can verifiably report. We cannot really report any numbers unless confidence is actually tested on the floor of the house, or if Gillard advises the G-G of something. How Wilkie would vote on a confidence motion is speculation. Indeed, how any MHR votes is speculation. In theory Rudd or any other MHR could cross the floor and change the numbers without warning. Once gained, the confidence of the house must be lost. It does not need to be actively sustained by public pronouncements of how an MHR says s/he would vote in a confidence motion--Surturz (talk) 07:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

If we don't clarify how numbers currently fall then the public continue to be duped by the media. It is not by any means inappropriate to always refer to the level of government support in the house. It's not crystal at all to say how MPs have given their confidence in the past and statements made since. And by the way... Slipper never "changed his vote"! *rips hair out* Timeshift (talk) 07:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Further Explanation of Timeline of Prime Ministers

I can not find any key to understanding the significance of the Roman numerals next to the names. My first guess is that it is to do with months. Perhaps this should be explained in a footnote to the Timeline. I would also like to see a graph with an indication of the actual hold on power that each party held, in terms of percentage of members in each house, each plotted against date. This is basic information for anyone wishing to evaluate past performance of each party when in power, as a resource for cross-referencing against other timeline data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.110.49.175 (talk) 12:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Dodgy assertion

"Following a resignation in other circumstances, or the death of a prime minister, the governor-general will generally appoint as prime minister the person voted by the governing party as their new leader. There have been four notable exceptions to this:"

In three of those four cases listed, the Governor-General did indeed appoint, as Prime Minister, the person voted by the parliamentary members of the governing party as their new party leader, as soon as that new party leader had been identified. So how are these cases "notable exceptions"  ?? It takes a week or two ( particularly before air travel ) to round up all the MP's in the party to have a vote, and meanwhile, there has to be a Prime Minister.

In the fourth case listed, after the resignation of Fadden, the Prime Ministership went to the Opposition ( Curtin ) because of a shift in the position of some independents. Eregli bob (talk) 16:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Malcolme01's edits

(moved from User talk:JackofOz) As it stands, the article dwells more on the powers and role of the GG than it does the PM. The article uses as its template for the role of GG the conduct of John Kerr rather than the other impeccably behaved office holders of the position. The PM IS in fact the chief executive of the federal government. The constant use of the phrase "in practice" is largely superfluous since if something is "in practice" then it simply "is". Furthermore, the power of the PM is more than "in practice" it is known and bound by Westminster convention. Barring some exceptional circumstance the Deputy PM would always be sworn in on the death or incapacitation of the PM (Frank Forde after Curtin's death and the subsequent election of Chifley; McEwen after Holt drwoned and the election of McMahon) pending a party room ballot to determine the new leader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malcolme01 (talk • contribs) 02:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, let’s discuss Malcolme01’s edits and 60.234.239.46’s reversion of my reversion:

• Chief executive – where is this term ever used in relation to PMs?
• The G-G has constitutional power to appoint and dismiss ministers “at his pleasure”, so constitutionally the PM is subordinate to the G-G, and ultimately the constitution is what's important. But in practice the G-G acts on the advice of the PM, making the PM in practice the most powerful office. Just not constitutionally.
• You changed "In the event of a Prime Minister dying in office, or becoming incapacitated, the Governor-General can terminate the commission" to "... the commission is terminated and the Deputy-Prime Minister is sworn in as a "caretaker" Prime Minster". The termination of the commission is not the automatic thing your edit seems to suggest. Curtin’s commission wasn’t terminated for more than a day after he was known to be dead. Even though it was always obvious that Holt was a goner on 17 December 1967, his commission wasn’t terminated till 19 December. Casey could have waited even longer before acting; the timing was his to determine. We’ve never had a case of a PM being incapacitated, so we can’t say what would happen – but termination of the commission is a possibility, which is why "can" is appropriate.

Well there was no "Deputy Prime Minister" before 1968, and all the cases of death or incapacity of the Prime Minister occured before that.Eregli bob (talk) 16:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• Deputy PMs have been sworn in in cases of sudden death, but again it’s not an automatic thing.
• There’s no hyphen in Deputy Prime Minister, and there’s a difference between Minister and Minster.
• The Governor-General's choice of replacement Prime Minister will be dictated by the circumstances. – I see no good reason for removing this.
• Kerr's actions are widely regarded as unconstitutional, since he ... – this is highly POV.
• Changing “choose” to “have choosen [sic]” is a retrograde step.
• You changed "John Howard made Kirribilli House in Sydney his primary residence, using The Lodge only whenever he was in Canberra on official business" to "Kirribilli House is the official residence when the Prime Minister is in Sydney". Yes it is, but your edit removed the point that Howard made an in-principle decision to base himself permanently in Sydney and only use the Lodge whenever he happened to be in Canberra. The intention was always supposed to be the reverse. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

head of government

I know I might seem pedantic, but I don't really care anyhow. Since the constitution states that the executive power of the Australian federal government is vested in the Queen (and the Governor-General as her representative) then strictly isn't she the official head of government? Surely the PM is only a de facto head of government since obviously the Queen and Governor-General do not actively exercise executive authority? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.28.135.2 (talk) 18:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Care - neither do we. We follow what the constitution stipulates. Timeshift (talk) 01:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The term Head of government should be not be interpreted by reference to who has formal authority over whom according to a literal reading of the Constitution, but by the meaning of the term as used by participants in, students of and commentators on politics and government. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The Constitution says a lot of things, but if you read it literally, there's no Prime Minister. Head of government is the leader of the council of ministers. This is why President Bush is the US Head of Government, but President Mary McAleese is not the Irish Head of Government. --Pete (talk) 02:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Head of government means the head of the executive branch. So Bush in the US is head of government since the US Constitution explicitly states that the executive authority of the federal government is vested in the President. And as for Ireland, well the Irish Constitution doesn't explicitly lay down the President as the head of the executive. The Taoseich and the Cabinet are labelled as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.3.178.50 (talk) 17:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The "executive branch" of the Government is the Executive Council, and hardly anybody has ever heard of it. And the chairperson of the Executive Council is supposedly the Governor-General. But the effective "head of government" is the Prime Minister. Its not that hard to understand. The difficulties only arise when you try and shoehorn the model into some irrelevant foreign paradigm.Eregli bob (talk) 17:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The point is that a government is not the ruling party or even the mebers of that party sitting in Parliament. Nor is it necessarily the person at the nominal top of the tree, such as a head of state. A government is the ministry, the people elected or appointed to head the various departments of government, such as Defence, Foreign Affairs, Treasury and so on. We don't have to look at what a nation's constitution specifies - we merely look at who runs the nation's government to find the head of government. --Pete (talk) 20:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Kevin Rudd - 2013

Can one of you wikipedians slap one of those "current events" titles on this article? People are going to be editing like crazy for the next few hours.

He's not Prime Minister until the Governor General swears him in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.208.65.20 (talk) 10:36, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

"Currently he is the leader of the ALP, someone should change that detail." Roartiger (talk) 10:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

"Can I edit this time without someone else overwriting?!" 2001:44B8:41CD:3800:11B0:5B7F:5AB2:47B2 (talk) 10:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Leader of the Labor Party, but not the PM, yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pokepal101 (talk • contribs) 11:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

As of 26 June 2013 Julia Gillard is still the Prime Minister of Australia. As of 26 June 2013 Kevin Rudd might be the leader of the Australian Federal Labor Party. As of 26 June 2013 Her Excellency Quentin Bryce has yet to recognise Rudd as Prime Minister. --Shirt58 (talk) 11:20, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Julia Gillard has now left Government House and may no longer be the prime minister or may be in a caretaker position. Louis6321 (talk) 12:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

the position of PM is now vacant. Flat Out let's discuss it 12:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the 2013 leadership spill, not the 2007 election Kevin Rudd is not the Prime Minister of Australia yet. He is the simply recently elected leader of the Federal Australian Labor caucus of of the Australian Labor Party members elected to the House of Representatives. The matter of the members of the Senate of Australia... oh fer fuxake --Shirt58 (talk) 12:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

If this were Ireland (which of course it isn't), the position would now be clear. Under the Irish Constitution, a Prime Minister who resigns continues as acting Prime Minister until his or her replacement is sworn in. As such the position of PM would not simply be marked 'vacant' as it is here, with no information for those wanting to find out who is officially in charge, or what supposedly happens next. (In particular in this case it is unclear to an outsider like me whether Rudd now becomes PM (or acting PM) when nominated by the Governor General, or whether Gillard remains acting PM while Rudd tries to get the support of Independents to gain a parliamentary majority to elect him (as would be the case in Ireland, but was not the case in Australia when the Governor General controversially fired PM Gough Whitlam in the 1970s, and appointed Malcolm Fraser as PM without any prospect of him gaining a majority, but the GG also dissolved Parliament, with Fraser getting a majority in the ensuing election - though for all I know the procedure may have changed since then, perhaps as a result of that controversy). Perhaps when this gets sorted out, somebody might amend the article to explain the current Australian procedure after a PM resigns. And if the position is vacant, a link could in future be given to such an explanation. And if that explanation already exists, a link from the word 'Vacant' could be given to it now. Tlhslobus (talk) 14:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Vacancy

Could somebody please put in something less confusing than what is currently showing:

The position is currently vacant, following the resignation of Julia Gillard, although as Kevin Rudd is the current Leader of the Labor Party, he will become Prime Minister if he and the party can be shown to hold a parliamentary majority.

Please tell us who's in charge of Australia now? Or is the situation what the above sentence absurdly appears to imply, that nobody is in charge until if and when Rudd manages to persuade Independents to vote him in as PM at some unknown future date (which I doubt, but that's in effect what Wikipedia is currently saying)? Tlhslobus (talk) 14:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

As long as Gillard hasn't handed in her resignation to the GG she remains Prime Minister (I believe that still has to be done, but I'm not sure). If she ceases to be PM without a new PM having been appointed yet, the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia acts as caretaker. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. If the bit about the Deputy PM now acting as caretaker PM is corrct, then the article should be amended to say so, in preference to the absurd statement that it's currently offering in the text, as well as in the info box that currently just says 'vacant'. I'd do it myself, except that I don't know whether it is correct. Tlhslobus (talk) 14:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Gillard has resigned to the GG. The office is vacant because the current PM has resigned her office to he Governor General and another PM has not been sworn in. The country continues on without a PM for a short period which is no big deal. What happens next is only complicated because the current government is a minority government and it is not clear if Rudd has the cross bench support to command a majority. The GG will most likely allow Rudd to test his ability to command a majority, and if he can he will most likely be sworn in as PM and an election date set. Flat Out let's discuss it 14:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

It is precisely because of that minority government uncertainty that the position regarding who is officially the current care-taker needs to be clarified and included in the article. Tlhslobus (talk) 14:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

This will be known tomorrow. Flat Out let's discuss it 14:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

If that were the case, then the article would need to say so. But I doubt if it is the case. I expect the legal position is that either Gillard or her Deputy is now caretaker, and the article needs to say who. I rather doubt if the legal position is that nobody is legally in charge of Australia (or that nobody knows who is legally in charge of Australia) until tomorrow (or next week or whenever, since I've no particular reason to believe 'tomorrow' either). Tlhslobus (talk) 15:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say nobody is in charge of Australia, I said the Office of PM is vacant. If you have other information feel free to make the edit. There are many people on social media opining that Gillard technically remains PM until another is sworn in but I haven't got a source to support that. Flat Out let's discuss it 15:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Flat Out. Having now read the none-too-clear bit about the Duty of the Deputy PM in the relevant article, it may well be that either the current legal position is genuinely unclear, or that Rudd needs to be added to Gillard and her Deputy PM in the list of possible legal caretakers. And what you have just said reinforces the impression that the legal position may be genuinely unclear. Unfortunately this just further complicates the job of anybody wishing to try to clarify this article. Tlhslobus (talk) 15:16, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Rudd appears to have cross bench numbers and will almost certainly be PM until the next election and if he doesn't have the numbers the GG can appoint him caretaker PM anyway. If he has the numbers this will be resolved tomorrow. Flat Out let's discuss it 15:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Sounds a bit strange to me. I'd expect cross-benchers to come under pressure overnight to deny him the numbers, because the Opposition benefits a little in the campaign if Rudd doesn't have the title of PM and the aura that goes with it; and I don't normally expect cross-benchers to bravely offend likely winners by doing favours for likely losers. And I also wouldn't normally expect the 1st female GG to do any favours for the guy who just ended the career of the first female PM. But then I know nothing of Australian politics so I'm probably completely wrong. And in any case this isn't really the place for such speculations.

Meanwhile surely there must be some Australian Wikipedian who knows of a reliable source that can tell us who's in charge of Australia right now (and will remain in charge until if and when Rudd or somebody else gets the job), so that we can actually fix the current weird situation of this article (which is what this discussion is supposed to be about).Tlhslobus (talk) 16:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Gillard has resigned to the Governor-General and Rudd has not been appointed yet. I believe the position of Prime Minister is genuinely vacant, until presumably Rudd is appointed in a few hours time. This is a constitutional grey area, as there is little precedent. As far as who is in charge: Executive power is always vested in the Governor-General and she is bound to act on the advice of her ministers (not necessarily the Prime Minister). If something comes up while there is no Prime Minister, she will follow the advice of her other ministers (or appoint a Prime Minister). While there is a clear line of succession for the Governor-General (through state Governors and the Judiciary, as specified by the constitution), there are no hard rules for the Prime Ministership. This is because historically, in Westminster systems, the Prime Minister is an informal position (the office was not formally recognized in the United Kingdom until the 20th century). The Prime Minister is simply `first among equals' and, as such, no line of succession is established. I suggest that the article be edited to say that the office is vacant after the resignation of Gillard and that Rudd is likely to be sworn in shortly.140.247.62.217 (talk) 19:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps she has tendered her resignation but it hasn't been accepted yet. In some systems outgoing ministers either put their portfolio's available to the appointing authority (in which case they remain in function until the appointing authority grants their release and appoints someone else) or resign flat out leaving a vacancy that is filled by a deputy that acts as caretaker in the mean time. I think the first option applies here and Gillard may still be Prime Minister. There are no accute reasons for her to leave inmediately. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

This, from the horse's mouth is interesting reading. Note that there's nothing on the G-G's website about her meeting with Gillard last night or her acceptance of her resignation at this stage. The resignation has been tendered, that's all we know. We do not know that Gillard's commission as PM has yet been withdrawn. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:34, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Very interesting indeed JackofOz. If Gillard is still advising the GG, as is suggested by her Official Secretary, she must have done that while still being PM. I think that tendering one's resignation is not the same thing as actually resigning. It's like offering it and putting your position available without actually leaving the post immediately. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:43, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

That would be my reading. I'm also thinking back to 17 December 1967, when Harold Holt went for a swim and never returned. By 18 December, it was plain to any rational person that he had drowned, and the best we could hope for was his body washed up on some beach. But he was not formally declared missing until 19 December, and that's when his commission was withdrawn and McEwen sworn in as PM. His status formally remained "missing" until as late as 2005 (!), when the Victorian Coroner formally found that Holt had in fact died on 17 December 1967. This could not happen until a change in Victorian law allowing death certificates to be issued in respect of missing people. So, for two days we had not just a dead body, but a dead body whose whereabouts were unknown, as our prime minister. The current situation is of somewhat less fanciful legal import than that. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, I'm sure that the consititutional imprudence of having any sort of hiatus in the office of PM would be uppermost in the G-G's mind. There must always be someone to be her chief adviser, as unexpected events tend to happen at unexpected moments, and the G-G cannot go around calling out the armed forces, declaring war or whatever, without prime ministerial advice. In the public's mind, Gillard ceased to be PM and Rudd became PM when the caucus voted last night. We know better. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:09, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I think the Governor-General's chief concern is whether or not Rudd has the confidence of parliament, as he needs the support of crossbench MPs. The Solicitor-General advised her to swear him in regardless. Rudd is not PM until he is sworn into the federal executive council. That much is clear. Australia is in a constitutional grey area until Rudd (or someone else) can demonstrate that he has the confidence of parliament. In the meantime, the Governor-General has some leeway in how she decides to handle any urgent matters. 140.247.62.217 (talk) 21:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

A Prime Minister is not "in charge of Australia" as suggested above, but instead leads the government and is the head of the Executive. The Queen is in charge, via the Governor-General. In fact the Government website acknowledges that there is no constitutional position of PM, it's merely the person selected to form and lead the constitutional government (who have been selected through public elections, takes on a few responsibilities on behalf of the government.

Australia continues to function even when the PM is asleep in bed or on holiday, so a few hours (or even days) between resignation and appointment is not a problem. The only problem is the lack of certainty of the strategic direction of the government that comes with having a permanent head. Just like without a CEO a corporation can still function until a new one is appointed. We always have a reigning monarch (ascending automatically upon death even if the coronation is a year later), but this is not the case with the PM. For all practical day-to-day issues, there are many procedures and many other people to deal with whatever comes up - the PM being the face and leader of it, and the deputy standing in in their absence (or non-existence). Of course this all depends on her resignation being accepted. TLDR: the gap is not a big deal. Gerard^talk 21:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Indeed JackofOz, that would be a consideration more important than bickering within any ruling party. I come from the Netherlands. There a PM and his ministers, when in political trouble, offer their resignation to the monarch. The monarch keeps the offer under advice until new magistrates can be appointed (usually after an election). In the meantime the PM and his ministers keep fulfilling their roles as caretakers. Although it is possible for individual ministers and even a PM to flatly resign, in which case a deputy PM is always in place. Ministers have resigned flatly but never a PM in our history. Somehow I think the procedure is mostly the same in Commonwealth Realms like Australia. That would just make sense. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

To my namesake Gerard. Although not having a PM for a day may not be lethal. having no ministers at all is. Ministers are necessary for the country to be governed. They don't have to be Prime but without them there is effectively no government. The monarch (represented by the GG) cannot sign anything into law or order without ministerial countersign. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I believe standard practice in Westminster systems is for the caretaker government to only resign once a new government can be appointed. For example, in 2010, Gordon Brown waited until negotiations between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats finished before seeing the Queen. Upon resigning, the outgoing Prime Minister advises the Sovereign to appoint the incoming Prime Minister. This is what happened yesterday when Gillard resigned. What is unusual is that the Governor-General is waiting before swearing in Rudd, because she does not know whether he has the confidence of parliament. 140.247.62.217 (talk) 21:47, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Next so-called 'Vacancy', if any

Could Australian Wikipedians please give some thought to how to try to prevent a possible recurrence (possibly 3 months from now, if the next election is inconclusive) of the situation yesterday, when for several hours, and despite much comment on the matter on this Talk page, this article was incorrectly telling the world the following:

The position is currently vacant, following the resignation of Julia Gillard, although as Kevin Rudd is the current Leader of the Labor Party, he will become Prime Minister if he and the party can be shown to hold a parliamentary majority.

The Infobox also said the position was vacant. Neither statement was backed by any reliable citation. Nor was there any indication given of who was currently in charge of Australia, nor of what the position would be if Rudd could not be shown to hold a majority. This useful link, supplied by User Jack of Oz (thanks, Jack), eventually made it perfectly clear there never was a vacancy (though I don't know whether or when the article got corrected as a result). The article has now being correctly amended to have Gillard's resignation only take effect when Rudd became PM, as she intended.

The Talk Page did inform us that 'A Prime Minister is not "in charge of Australia"'', and that 'The Queen is in charge, via the Governor-General', a 'fact' presumably too self-evident to everybody except me for the article to need to clarify who was then in charge. In any case, we were repeatedly told (in Talk, but not in the article) that it would all become clear the following day (as it happens, it did - Mystic Meg's Crystal Ball can't always be wrong) and that the gap in the meantime didn't matter (as it turned out, Mystic Meg got this one right too, at least if we accept that it doesn't matter that Wikipedia and/or Wikipedians and/or Australia and/or Australian Wikipedians have been made to look rather ridiculous, and have spread misinformation, possibly to hundreds of thousands of people given the likely high interest in the article on that particular day, and have presumably damaged Wikipedia's reputation for reliability, etc...). In a crisis uncertainty about who is in charge can matter quite a lot, and creating false uncertainty about who is in charge can sometimes itself create a crisis, but of course the odds are always heavily in favour of there being no crisis and thus of Mystic Meg getting it right (of course in practice it doesn't much matter when she's right, and it just might matter a lot on the rare occasions when she's wrong).

However, as I'm not Australian, I'll leave it to Australians to think about what, if anything, should be done to try to prevent a recurrence. Tlhslobus (talk) 08:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

It was reportedly widely today that Gillard remained PM until Rudd was sworn in. Jack of Oz correctly sourced that fact and proved me and others incorrect regarding a vacancy existing. The steps taken when there is 'uncertainty' relies on interpretation of the Constitution and while it's reasonably straight forward as to how to proceed in the event of a hung parliament or other less common outcomes, like most nations the Constitution is open to interpretation and that is why there are many very wealthy constitutional lawyers. The information given yesterday regarding Rudd's status after being elected Leader of the Parliamentary Labor Party was not wrong as far as I can see; his status was Leader of the Parliamentary ALP and his likelihood of becoming PM was not certain. The Governor General chose to swear in Rudd this morning. Whether or not the GG sought to identify whether Rudd would have cross-bench numbers prior to swearing in this morning is not known as far as I am aware but the Governor General could have taken a different course of action. The options open to the GG were also widely reported. Today the Opposition chose not to test the Governments majority on the floor of the Parliament but it could have and it is feasible it could have won a vote of no confidence which would have provoked a different outcome. Flat Out let's discuss it 11:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The answer in future should be to always default assume the incumbent is in office, even in caretaker capacity, until the new one is sworn in and an explicit source from someone who knows what they're talking about, not some random journalist trying to fill space, should be required to state otherwise.

Regardless of how wise it was to wait two days as late as 1967, the world is a much more instant place today and certainty of office is a much higher concern. If there's a terrorist attack in the middle of the night, somebody has to be woken to take the 3am call. And no outgoing PM is going to want the risk of their last action being to leave the country rudderless at what turned out to be a critical moment. This is especially the case if, as in the outgoing House of Reps, it's not immediately clear if an alternative can be sworn in and who that is, and how long the uncertainty may last. (In an extreme case it may well have been the situation that the GG asked for clear confirmation a politician had the confidence of the Reps before swearing them in and actually checked themselves, per Curtin, and because of the numbers no majority could be found for Rudd, Abbott or anyone else. So in theory Gillard could have been left tied to the office until after an election had been held. Or the entire political class could have suffered the humiliation of seeing a caretaker technocratic government of ex-public servants installed for the time being. Both scenarios have happened in some other countries.) Timrollpickering (talk) 19:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Section 62 of the Constitution says that ministers hold office at the governor-general's pleasure. Should a prime minister tender his/her resignation, it would not be the governor-general's pleasure to accept it and render it of any effect until such time as a new prime minister is identified and signifies their willingness to be sworn in. Had circumstances been only a little different, it would have been very possible that Quentin Bryce required the calling of an election immediately, with Julia Gillard remaining as caretaker prime minister despite her resignation.

Now, if a PM drops dead, the governor-general has no option but to accept the reality of that, and get a new person in place asap. That's really the only time there's ever an actual hiatus. The Holt case was unique in that, while it was reasonably obvious after a few hours that he was dead, that was not an established fact and options had to be left open for a day or so. When leadership spills happen, the media tends to muddy the waters with headlines like "Rudd returns to the Lodge" even before it was clear he would in fact be sworn in the next day. Some people would have read such reports on the evening of 26 June and believed Rudd had actually slept at the Lodge that very night. And they say kids in school don't need education in how our governments work. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 September 2013

Prime minister of Australia changed after Federal election 2013. Tony Abott is the new prime minister of Australia. 121.214.213.228 (talk) 12:27, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Denied. We cannot adjust the article officially until a new Prime Minister has been sworn in by the Governor General. — JamesR ^(talk) 12:31, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Prime Minister following Federal Election

Editors, please note, the Prime Minister of Australia has not officially been changed until Tony Abbott has been sworn in by the Governor General. A good indication is online at the Prime Minister's website - pm.gov.au - this still reflects Kevin Rudd being the Prime Minister. — JamesR ^(talk) 08:51, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Number of former PMs

I noticed that the number of former PMs was changed from seven to six. Does Kevin Rudd count as a former prime minister even if he is the current one? Technically he has been a former prime minister, but the numbering of PMs remains the same so he's still the 26th PM. Thanks for your ideas on this! The Giant Purple Platypus (talk) 08:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Funnily enough he was previously a former PM, but now an incumbent so he comes off the list Flat Out let's discuss it 12:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

That does makes sense. (He's a former former prime minister!) The Giant Purple Platypus (talk) 10:01, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Within days this should all be sorted with a swearing in :) Screech1616 (talk) 11:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Religious beliefs

This section was recently deleted as 'original research of little relevance'. However, there has been academic work on the topic of Prime Ministers' religion by reputable academics e.g. Prof John Warhurst of ANU (http://apsa2010.com.au/full-papers/pdf/APSA2010_0067.pdf). I would also dispute the assertion that it is of little relevance. Historically, Catholic vs Protestant sectarianism was one of the most important divides in Australian society, and a significant influence on politics (the Labor Party being heavily Catholic, the Liberal Party being Protestant-dominated). More recently, despite the increased secularization of Australian society, Prime Ministers' religious background (or lack thereof) has remained an important part of their public persona. Paul Keating's tribal Irish Catholicism, John Howards's traditional Protestantism, Kevin Rudd's intellectual Anglicanism, Julia Gillard's atheism and Tony Abbott's devout orthodox Catholicism have all been important parts of their public image - and in some cases have arguably influenced their policies and their electoral fortunes. If we have information about things like birthplace and criminal convictions, religion should definitely be here as well. Other authorities, like the Australian Dictionary of National Biography, include mention of the 'religious influences' of their subjects. I propose restoring this section, with the proper references to Warhurst's paper or other academic authorities. 86.26.56.117, 9 September 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.56.117 (talk) 11:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I deleted this and I will be watching any return very carefully. Any material must be well-referenced and relevant to the position. The mere assertion that x% were Calathumpian has no relevance to the position. Unlike other nations, the vast majority of Australians could not give a toss about the beliefs or non-beliefs of the PM. WWGB (talk) 11:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

With respect, I think it is exaggerated to say that it is irrelevant. In relation to both Rudd and Abbott, their religious views have long been a subject of discussion in the media and in public debate. And from a historical point of view, religious background has also been very important factor in politics and society generally - see Sectarianism in Australia. In any case, I fail to see how it is less relevant than their birthplace, what school or university they went to, their marital status/family life, their criminal convictions (if any) and things like that, which are currently included in the article. 86.26.56.117 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.56.117 (talk) 11:45, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

A pleasure

What's this nonsense in the infobox: "At her majesty's pleasure?" The sovereign has nothing to do with the term of service of an Australian Prime Minister. Or any minister. The Constitution is quite clear on this point; it is the Governor-General's pleasure to commission and dismiss ministers. --Pete (talk) 14:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Changing some section headings

Reasons have been explained numerous times, TIMELINE is just a varied statement , TIMELINE usually relates to events!!!, not a chronology of succession — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.42.15.25 (talk) 07:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I know you're a new editor, so a lack of knowledge of how things work here is understandable, but you need to accept that you might be able to learn from others. Please show some patience. Wikipedia has no deadline. It's not obvious to me what you're trying to say. You seem to have a very rigid definition of "timeline". Such a term is quite common in Wikipedia articles. And I recommend that you now await some comments from other editors. HiLo48 (talk) 09:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. A timeline is defined as "a graphical representation of a chronological sequence of events (past or future); a chronology". The term is widely used in this context. Wikipedia works by consensus, and at the moment, there is no consensus for the changes you are making. (Nor do I think there will be). --Dmol (talk) 10:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I see Okay TIMELINE Or Chronology of are similar, A Timeline of Events ,Okay. It Is Not under any circumstances what i would classified as an "EDITING WAR" it is a differing of personal opinions only. WE ARENT HERE TO CREATE A "WAR" But to make this enjoyable for everybody's readership — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.42.15.25 (talk) 11:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Trivia section that needs to be removed.

The section entitled "Living former prime ministers" is nothing but a list of unencyclopedic trivia. It reads,

• The most recently deceased prime minister was Malcolm Fraser (1975–1983), who died on 20 March 2015.
• The greatest number of living former prime ministers at any one time was eight. This has occurred twice:
• Between 7 October 1941 (when John Curtin succeeded Arthur Fadden) and 18 November 1941 (when Chris Watson died), the eight living former prime ministers were Bruce, Cook, Fadden, Hughes, Menzies, Page, Scullin and Watson
• Between 13 July 1945 (when Ben Chifley succeeded Frank Forde) and 30 July 1947 (when Sir Joseph Cook died), the eight living former prime ministers were Bruce, Cook, Fadden, Forde, Hughes, Menzies, Page and Scullin.
• Gough Whitlam lived in the lifetime of every prime minister of Australia and achieved a greater age than any other prime minister.

I've actually taken out some of the worst cases, such as who died on what day of the week and who died where, but the remaining is not much better. Re Fraser- we are not news. For the most living PM's, what possible encyclopedic info can this possibly impart. As for Whitlem, we are not the Guinness Book of Records.--Dmol (talk) 03:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I take it you're not proposing to get rid of the list? Because I think that's clearly useful.

As for the rest, I think the usual rule of thumb is good: if there's a source making note of it, fine. If not, then we lose it. To be honest, the existence of List of Australian Prime Ministers by age renders the whole thing fairly useless duplication anyway (as all this information is presented there without turning it into trivia). Frickeg (talk) 07:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm ok with the list of surviving PM's. Your suggestion of merging this to List of Australian Prime Ministers by age is good and makes sense. User Chug said that the trivia tag does not belong, but used the example of List of Presidents of the United States by age and Records of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom as support. But both these articles are closer to the List of Australian Prime Ministers by age article rather than the Prime Minister of Australia.--Dmol (talk) 11:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Prime Minister of Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130413222609/http://remtribunal.gov.au/determinationsReports/Current%20Principal%20Determinations/2012/2012-02%20Determination.pdf to http://www.remtribunal.gov.au/determinationsReports/Current%20Principal%20Determinations/2012/2012-02%20Determination.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Must be sworn in by GG

Turnbull is prime minister designate. He is not the prime minister until sworn in by the Governor General. This article should revert to Abbot as PM - for now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.209.173.187 (talk) 12:10, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Turnbull is NOT PM until he is sworn in by GG. Do not update until such time. 220.240.223.172 (talk) 11:54, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Don't be stupid - it needs to be updated now. Do not revert to Abbott. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.215.163.47 (talk) 11:58, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

No. Abbott is PM until Turnbull is sworn by the GG. Turnbull is not currently PM of Aus. 220.240.223.172 (talk) 12:00, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

You are correct, 220.240.223.172. The Prime Minister is commissioned by the Governor-General. The leadership of the Liberal Party is not synonymous with the office of Prime Minister. For completeness, statements to the effect that Malcolm Turnbull holds the "office" of Prime Minister designate are also incorrect, because "Prime Minister designate" is not an office. Cyril Washbrook (talk) 12:08, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

It's a well established constitutional convention that the GG acts on advice of his or her Australian ministers, and appoints the chief minister (the PM) who commands the confidence of the parliament. The fact that Turnbull has not been sworn in by the GG yet is a mere technicality. But sure, at least superficially, you're right. Not sure what purpose it serves to be so legalistic. Care to give us your reasoning? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtzuc (talk • contribs) 12:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The "reasoning" is stated above and, indeed, in your own comment. The "purpose" served is correctness. Until the new leader of the parliamentary Liberal Party receives his commission from the Governor-General, he is not the Prime Minister. If he is not the Prime Minister, he should not be identified as the Prime Minister in the article. That is a complete answer to your question. Cyril Washbrook (talk) 12:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Agree There is a correct answer, so WP should use it. And sometimes technicalities matter. Probably not in the current situation, but there's no point jumping the gun. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 12:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

In the meantime - someone with edit powers may want to revert the vandalism about the state car. 106.68.78.238 (talk) 15:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Replaced "Smart Cars" with "BMW 7 Series". Crētus (talk) 20:08, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Lol this edit war is the most entertaining part of the whole saga... 220.240.223.172 (talk) 02:55, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I've added a hidden comment to the info-box in a (perhaps forlorn) attempt to reduce further edit-warring... Cyril Washbrook (talk) 03:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

"With Federal Elections held no more than three years apart"

The info-box currently states that the Prime Minister's term of office is "[a]t the Governor-General's pleasure ... [w]ith Federal Elections held no more than three years apart". The latter part of this description is incorrect and should be replaced with a formulation along the lines of: "With Parliament being dissolved or expiring after no more than three years".

Section 28 of the Constitution provides: "Every House of Representatives shall continue for three years from the first meeting of the House, and no longer, but may be sooner dissolved by the Governor-General." It should be apparent from these words that elections can be held more than three years apart. And it should be apparent from history that this does in fact occur.

To see why this is the case, note that the Constitution provides that the duration of Parliament is no longer than three years from its first sitting. If it has not been dissolved after three years, it expires. Once you take into account (1) the period of time between the day of elections and the first sitting of the new Parliament; and (2) the period of time between the dissolution or expiry of Parliament and the holding of elections, then plainly it is possible for elections to be held more than three years apart. Cyril Washbrook (talk) 03:38, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Interesting tidbit

At 15 letters, Malcolm Turnbull is longer than any other Australian PM. Just sayin'. Timeshift (talk) 11:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Infofox

I've removed the redirect At the Governor-General's pleasure at the Term length entry & replaced it with At Her Majesty's pleasure. This is used throughout the other existing Commonwealth realm Prime Minister infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 19:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC) This is incorrect in Australia where the Prime Minister holds office at the pleasure of the Governor-General under s64 of the Constitution. Suastiastu (talk) 12:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC) I have also removed "on behalf of the Queen of Australia" as the Governor-General does not act on behalf of the Queen in appointing or removing Prime Ministers' - that much is also confirmed by the removal of Gough Whitlam by Kerr where the Queen disowned any role and pointed out that the matter was one for the Governor-GeneralSuastiastu (talk) 00:59, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Prime Minister of Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080718201628/http://dl.filmaust.com.au/tag/Prime+Ministers/ to http://dl.filmaust.com.au/tag/Prime+Ministers/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:16, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

commissioned by the Governor-General of Australia

Is the PM "commissioned by the Governor-General of Australia" or appointed?Royalcourtier (talk) 03:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

When and why was the timeline changed from vertical to horizontal...?

I've changed "Template:Timeline Australian PM Horizontal" back to "Template:Timeline Australian PM", which is what was used for a decade or so. When was it changed to the horizontal one? Timeshift (talk) 13:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Delete List of Prime Ministers of Australia with facial hair?

List of Prime Ministers of Australia with facial hair... really? What next? List of Oz PMs with a full head of hair? List of Oz PMs who changed their hairstyle whilst in office? Can someone organise for deletion please? Timeshift (talk) 03:13, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

PM is appointed?

How does this section make sense? Am I misunderstanding something? Isn't the "appointment" made by the Governor General merely ceremonial formality? (Yet the article implies that the PM and cabinet ministers are appointed.)

  The Prime Minister of Australia is appointed by the Governor-General of Australia under Section 64 of the Australian Constitution, which empowers the Governor-General to appoint government ministers and requires them to be members of the House of Representatives or the Senate, or become members within three months of the appointment. 

Useful source: While Executive Government powers are exercised by the Governor-General or in his or her name, such actions are carried out as advised by the Prime Minister and Ministers. ........ After a general election the political party (or coalition of parties) with the support of a majority of members in the House of Representatives becomes the governing party and its leader becomes the Prime Minister. .....achieves this position by being the elected leader of the party in government The Cabinet, consisting of senior Ministers presided over by the Prime Minister, is the government’s pre-eminent policy-making body. Major policy and legislative proposals are decided by the Cabinet. The Prime Minister selects Ministers for Cabinet positions. http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/House_of_Representatives/Powers_practice_and_procedure/00_-_Infosheets/Infosheet_20_-_The_Australian_system_of_government

Cabinet Ministers: The ministers are appointed by the Governor-General, on the advice of the Prime Minister, Cabinet of Australia Peter K Burian (talk) 14:47, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Why duplicate the list article

Why on earth does the List and timeline section of this article contain what is apparently a duplication of List of Prime Ministers of Australia, although the latter is linked by a {{Main}} link from the start of that section. I see that a user has tried to remove the duplication but other users have been repeatedly reverting the removal. Why the duplication? --David Biddulph (talk) 14:56, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Grounds under which PM is appointed

User:Minhle20002013 has changed the infobox to state that the GG appoints the PM "subject to the appointee's ability to command confidence and supply in the Australian Parliament" instead of the previous statement that this is done on "by convention, based on appointee's ability to command confidence in the House of Representatives". My attempts to correct this led to an edit war yesterday. Minhle20002013 has not provided any specific sources to support this contention, arguing on my talk page that it's because the Senate can block supply and the Constitution says that the two houses are equal [1]. Multiple authoritative sources demonstrate that the previous version is correct:

• The 'overview' which precedes the PDF copy of the Constitution on the APH website (written by the Australian Government Solicitor and Parliamentary Education Office) states that "when appointing a Prime Minister under section 64 of the Constitution, the Governor-General must, by convention, appoint the parliamentary leader of the party or coalition of parties which has a majority of seats in the House of Representatives" (page v) - the same page then also notes that there's a viewpoint that the ability to command supply in the senate is also relevant to determining who continues to be PM, but this is contested. As is well known, the Constitution itself does not include any reference to the position of Prime Minister.
• Similarly, the infosheet on 'The Australian System of Government' published on the APH website states that "after a general election the political party (or coalition of parties) with the support of a majority of members in the House of Representatives becomes the governing party and its leader becomes the Prime Minister" [2]
• The House of Representatives Practice states that "it is an essential tenet of the Westminster system that the Government must possess the confidence of the lower (representative) House. By convention, loss of the confidence of the House normally requires the Government to resign in favour of an alternative Government or to advise a dissolution of the House of Representatives" [3]
• Odgers' Senate Practice does not mention the Senate having any power over who the PM is - the term "Prime Minister" doesn't even appear [4]. However, it does say that when drafting the constitution "It was envisaged, though not specified in the Constitution, that these ministers would hold office only so long as they had the support of a majority of the House of Representatives" (page 3)
• The Oxford Companion to Australian Politics (available through the online Oxford University Press resources through libraries) states that "the constitutional convention of commissioning the leader of the major party to form a government has never been challenged by a governor-general in Australia" Nick-D (talk) 08:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

As no sources have been provided to support Minhle20002013's change and in light of the sources above, I've reverted to the stable version and added a couple of extra sources. Nick-D (talk) 09:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Grounds under which PM will stop continuing his job

The issue surrounding the ground for which the PM is appointed has been settled, by convention, the GG must appoint the the one who is likely to command confidence in the House of Rep. However, the issue I tried to edit is something different, they are grounds that PM will not continue to be PM, according to the Governor-General official website, updated on 2017, far more recent than the source that Nick-D is referred to which is

1/From the Solicitor-General and not the Governor-General and recently from the Parliamentarian crisis, view of the Solicitor General has been proven wrong so many time

2/It's in 2010

My source from Governor-General website which said little about ground that PM is appointed but stated this as part of the Governor-General reserved power according to convention :

There are some powers which the Governor-General may, in certain circumstances, exercise without – or contrary to – ministerial advice. These are known as the reserve powers. While the reserve powers are not codified as such, they are generally agreed to at least include:

The power to appoint a Prime Minister if an election has resulted in a ‘hung parliament’;

The power to dismiss a Prime Minister where he or she has lost the confidence of the Parliament;

The power to dismiss a Prime Minister or Minister when he or she is acting unlawfully; and

The power to refuse to dissolve the House of Representatives despite a request from the Prime Minister."

Hence, it's reasonable to say that the ground for which the PM is no longer PM is that he no longer enjoy the confidence in the Australian Parliament, given that there's other ground for example when his party removed him as leader but as we already stated that "almost always and according to convention, the PM is the leader of majority in Parliament... There's no need to repeat this part. Minhle (talk) 09:28, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

The source you provided does not support the material you added. Other reliable sources put things differently from the GG's page (eg, what 'confidence of the Parliament' means is unclear - presumably deliberately so. Most likely it's the same as the confidence of the House of Reps and maybe inability to secure supply noted in the commentary on the Constitution. But who knows?). There's a vast literature on whether the GG can and should sack the government if they can't obtain supply, with no agreement on either issue, so you can't put only one side (see also WP:NPOV). Unless you are a judge on the High Court or a senior legal expert, any argument based around you arguing that you know more about Australian constitutional law and conventions than the Solicitor General or can rule out the commentary on the constitution on the copy available on the Parliament House website as being outdated is not really a good idea. Nick-D (talk) 07:54, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

References

Former PMs section

The section is only showing 4 of the 7 former PMs. GoodDay (talk) 10:30, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Would somebody (with the know how) please restore Gillard, Abbott & Turnbull images? GoodDay (talk) 22:44, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

You can't see them? Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:46, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Found them now. There needs to be two rows of them, as having one row means the last four are out of screen shot, thus requiring moving the screen sideways. GoodDay (talk) 22:51, 27 August 2018 (UTC)