Talk:Prime Minister of Australia

Archives
Archive One

The Infobox

I know next to nothing about infoboxes, but the one we have now is in need of change:

• The last PM to be styled "Rt Hon" was Fraser (1983), and since the passage of the Australia Act (1986), no Australian will ever again be appointed to the Privy Council, so there will never again be a "Rt Hon" Australian Prime Minister (unless, maybe, if one of the people in this list shows an interest in active politics; but they will all die eventually, and then there'll be none). The correct title is "The Hon" - but even then, it's not a title that is particular to the PM, but stems from the requirement in the Constitution that all Ministers be members of the Federal Executive Council.

• True, Howard was first appointed PM by Sir William Deane in 1996. But he was re-appointed after each election - 1998, 2001, 2004 - see Second Howard Ministry, Third Howard Ministry and Fourth Howard Ministry. These ministries were sworn in by Deane, Hollingworth and Jeffery respectively. Showing only the first Governor-General might suggest that once a person becomes the PM, they have the job as long as the electorate keeps on voting his party in - which is true in real terms (although not always - see Keating vs Hawke), but in theoretical terms he has the job at the pleasure of the Governor-General of the day, and the G-G exercises his pleasure after each election (barring Kerr-like circumstances).

Any assistance in correcting these problems would be appreciated. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The office of PM doesn't vacate because of an election (whether the incumbent wins or not), therefore there was no need for the GG to reappoint John Howard each time he won. He just continued in office uninterrupted. "At the pleasure of the Governor-General" means 'opened ended', i.e. there isn't any automatic end to the term of office. Mauls (talk) 13:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I refer you to s.64 of the Constitution: "The GG may appoint officers to administer such departments of State of the Commonwealth as the GG in Council may establish. Such officers shall hold office during the pleasure of the GG. They shall be members of the Fed Executive Council, and shall be the Queen's Ministers of State for the Commonwealth". This constitutional theory is circumscribed by convention. In theory, the GG could refuse to swear in a winning candidate for PM - but it's obviously unthinkable given the strong conventions we have. In theory, the GG could refuse to give Royal Assent to a bill that he finds personally unacceptable - but again, it's not going to happen. This all goes to the reserve powers of the Crown, which are rarely exercised (there was a rather notable exception in 1975). In practical terms, a winning incumbent PM obviously continues uninterrupted. Nevertheless, my understanding is that after every election that is won by the incumbent PM, he hands in his commission and is re-appointed by and re-sworn in by the Governor-General of the day. We still have to fix the Rt Hon problem. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

John Howard is still caretaker PM up untill the GG apoints a new one. See the media release from the GG on Monday and listed on the GG's own website:

"On Monday 26 November 2007, at Admiralty House, Sydney, the Governor-General, His Excellency Major General Michael Jeffery AC CVO MC, invited the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Kevin Rudd MP, to form a Government and requested Mr Howard and his Ministers to remain in Government in caretaker capacity until a new Government is sworn in." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Totalcomputer (talk • contribs) 14:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that, it's good information for our Caretaker prime minister article. But I can't quite see how it's relevant to the issues I've raised here. Nobody's denying that Howard is currently the caretaker PM. Shortly before the First Rudd Ministry is sworn in, Howard will hand in his commission. What I'm arguing is that even if Howard had won the election, he would still have handed in his commission in order to be issued with a new one; and the GG would have sworn in not only the new faces, but the entire new Ministry, led by Howard personally. That is, he would have been yet again re-appointed, as he was in 1998, 2001 and 2004. Maybe I'm trying to get too technical for an encyclopedia article, but having just Deane as Howard's appointee doesn't sit well in my brain. Oh, and we still have to fix the Rt Hon problem. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

There's also this reference, which is headed:

The following lists show each ministry and its term of office since 1901. The termination date of each ministry coincides with the date on which the Prime Minister submitted his resignation and that of each of his ministers to the Governor-General. In a number of instances, however, such resignations have been the occasion for the Prime Minister of the day to request the Governor-General for a commission to form a new ministry and thus remain in office.

The list shows Howard resigning in 1998, 2001 and 2004 and being immediately re-appointed each time. -- JackofOz 23:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there are more problems than that. We have a photo of the incumbent followed by the words Incumbent and his name. Then there's a line. What follows below the line might appear to be general info, not particular to the incumbent. The style (which should say The Hon), the first PM (Barton) and the formation of the office (1.1.01) are all general info - but the "Appointed by" (Deane) refers back to this particular incumbent, Howard. It should appear above the line, if anywhere. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Appointed By

Should it not be updated to reflect the fact that there is a different Governor-General? 220.239.227.179 (talk) 10:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this relates to the issue I raised above. -- JackofOz (talk) 11:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Page protection

The 1996 Australian election polled on 2 March; John Howard was not formally appointed as Prime Minister until 11 March. Adding Kevin Rudd as the new Prime Minister is a prediction and is not a fact; news organisations are only predicting the result of the election. Until such time as the Governor-General formally appoints a new Prime Minister, John Howard remains in office. Because this page has been frequently vandalised to add Kevin Rudd, I have temporarily protected it from editing. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit Request

I have an additional request to make. The summary box at the top indicates that the Prime Minister's style is "The Right Honourable". However this is incorrect. The style Rt. Hon. went with an appointment to the British Privy Council, which no Australian has been appointed to since the practice was abolished by Prime Minister Bob Hawke in the 1980s. Please rectify the situation. As a member of the Australian Executive Council (as are all Cabinet Ministers) the PM can be addressed only as "The Honourable".

Template:Protectededit Kevin Rudd is now PM. Please update. -- Whiteandnerdy111 (talk) 10:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Declined No, he is not. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not just tv media that are claiming Kevin Rudd as PM, Telstra Bigpond News are also saying that on their website. Check it out www.bigpond.com

News.com.au is also claiming Kevin Rudd's victory, as is The Daily Telegraph's website. So can you update it now please, or do we actually have to wait till he is sworn in?

Yes, you have to wait until he is sworn in. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

He is now our prime minster, just choose one of our TV stations, News Papers or Websites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.231.176.175 (talk) 11:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you should update it now. Rudd is the new PM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.43.170 (talk) 11:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we should make a note that he his outgoing 121.210.212.4 (talk) 11:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

John Howard conceded. I think it should be updated.Mithead

Also note Howard has conceded the election and named Rudd PM. NeoRicen (talk) 12:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Update this article now - it's lacking behind the WP policy. Josh the lad (talk) 12:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

He must be sworn in first! +Hexagon1 ^(t) 12:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Its on the Wikipedia current events, I think it is important. How stupid will Sam Blacketer if the community finds out he is the one delaying the article?

All of the above please note that the winner of an election does not immediately become the incumbent Prime Minister on election night. John Howard is still the Prime Minister of Australia today and tomorrow and until Kevin Rudd is sworn in to office by the Governor General approximately two weeks after the election. I've added a designate line for Rudd, but Sam Blacketer is correct that Rudd is not yet the incumbent. Our job on Wikipedia is to be accurate, not to reflect incorrect common perceptions. Bearcat (talk) 16:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Copying from my post in the thread below: Kevin Rudd is certainly not PM-designate, because nobody has "designated" him as PM. That terminology is used for appointed offices like governors-general and state governors. Between the announcement of their appointment and their swearing-in (usually a few months later), they are GG-designate or governor-designate. It's also the case that PM-elect is not strictly correct, because the whole country doesn't vote for/against a PM personally; but it's a widely used term, and is understood for what it is. We'll need to correct this when the page is unprotected. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Rudd won election

Kevin Rudd won the election tonight - we have a new PM. Benlisquare (talk) 12:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and it's frustrating that we cannot edit the article to reflect the circumstances!Doktor Waterhouse (talk) 12:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Please check above; you do not have a new Prime Minister until the Governor-General appoints one. If you wish to edit the page, you can use {{Editprotected}}. If you want to ask another administrator to review the protection, go to Requests for page protection and add the request to the appropriate section. However, as many editors still do not seem to understand the constitutional position, I would resist unprotection at this time. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. We should wait until Rudd is sworn in. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 13:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The article we are discussing, Prime Minister of Australia#Appointment, makes clear the process of transition of the prime ministership. Kevvy sure ain't PM yet! WWGB (talk) 13:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The article should properly state that rudd is at least PM-elect.

Yes, no new PM until formalities are done, but the article makes wikipedia look a little ridiculous by not even mentioning that we have had an election, so shoudl at least foreshadow the change. Sam, if you insist on keeping protection then you will have to make all relevatn edits to show that the reslt of the election will lead to imminent change in PM. JKW111 (talk) 15:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Imminent change in PM? While, in pracise, that may seem the case, in reality it is not. Please see WP:CRYSTAL. --G2bambino (talk) 18:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually folks, Rudd wouldn't be Prime Minister-elect (as nobody votes for PM), he'd be Prime Minister-designate. GoodDay (talk) 18:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

PS- we always have these problems in bio articles, whenever an election is held. All editors must understand, Republic office holders & Parliamenty office holders don't immediately take office upon election. I dread the days between Nov 4, 2008 & Jan 20, 2009 (between the next US presidential election and Inauguration). GoodDay (talk) 18:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

PPS- some countries do 'elect' their Prime Minister, but in those cases their Parliament does the electing (see Israel). GoodDay (talk) 19:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

PPPS- and then of course, that 'elected' PM is appointed by that country' Head of state. - Am I getting long winded?GoodDay (talk) 19:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Add that Rudd is prime minister designate? (It does say that on Kevin Rudd.) - David Gerard (talk) 19:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Scratch that - it appears to be a term the BBC happens to have used. See Talk:Kevin_Rudd#Proper_term_for_Prime_Minister_to_be.3F - the ABC used "Prime Minister elect". Is there in fact a proper term for the person who's going to be, barring extreme circumstances, Prime Minister? - David Gerard (talk) 19:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how Australia does it, but in my country (Canada) we you Designate. GoodDay (talk) 20:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The news media on Kevin Rudd seem to be almost unanimous in their use of "Prime Minister-elect". While this doesn't mean they are right, it does point to common usage with regards to an Australian PM in waiting IMHO. (and while the PM isn't directly elected, we do vote for his/her government)219.90.235.72 (talk) 23:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The facts are the following. Kevin Rudd is the Prime Minister-elect until he is sworn in. John Howard is no longer Prime Minister, as the Government and the Prime Ministership went into caretaker mode on the day the election was called. This is evidenced at www.australia.gov.au. It would appear to me that the person demanding the locking of this article is a fearful Liberal supporter not ready to let go. Fact remains Howard is no longer in a position of power and there is NO incumbent Prime Minister at present. The image and box should list Mr Rudd's image and the tag Elect, not Incumbent. I request this be changed as soon as practicable. Just because somebody locks an article, does not make their standpoint correct.Timmah86 (talk) 00:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

If this is the case, then Australia does things differently from (at least) Canada & the UK. Sorry guys, I assumed it was the same thing. GoodDay (talk) 00:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) The Prime Minister of Australia's website says: "A new Government led by the Leader of the Australian Labor Party, Mr Kevin Rudd MP, is expected to be sworn in by the Governor-General in the near future. .. Mr Howard will remain the caretaker Prime Minister until the new Ministry is sworn in." (my emphasis) Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Kevin Rudd is certainly not PM-designate, because nobody has "designated" him as PM. That terminology is used for appointed offices like governors-general and state governors. Between the announcement of their appointment and their swearing-in (usually a few months later), they are GG-designate or governor-designate. It's also the case that PM-elect is not strictly correct, because the whole country doesn't vote for/against a PM personally; but it's a widely used term, and is understood for what it is. As for Timmah86's "facts", Howard is still the PM until he hands in his commission to the GG. Howard was elected on 2 March 1996, but did not become PM till 11 March 1996. Paul Keating remained PM till 11 March 1996. It's true that Howard's not in a position of power right now, but that's always the case during an election campaign, no matter who wins. The caretaker period does not end until the new or re-elected PM is sworn in. Basically, there are many differences between our actual constitutional arrangements and the way they're generally presented in the media. We have to go by the former, not the latter. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

John Howard may not be in a position of legislative power, but he is still in a position of trust as the leader of the nation (after all, a leader is still needed). I can see how it could be very frustrating to maintain constitutional accuracy in the article when the media reports with the assumption that the majority of Australians are not familiar with the technicalities and simply report that we have a new prime minister. Shouldn't wikipedia be educating people then? Protection is probably warranted, not because someone's viewpoint is correct, but because the majority of edits are incorrect (in reply to Timmah86 [1]). However, someone needs to make all this clear in the article with references that everyone else can visit. For example, the explanation on pm.gov.au is a good one. SMC89 ^{( talk • contribs )} 01:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Can someone dig up references to how this process works? Then we can add a para (if agreed here) to the intro with the text "John Howard is the current Prime Minister. His party lost the 2007 Federal election, but he remains in office until the Governor General swears in Kevin Rudd, the leader of the ALP." or similar. Preferably with some references for the precise constitutional niceties - then we can have an up-to-date page, and it'll be the sort of little wrinkle of detail that makes people love Wikipedia - David Gerard (talk) 01:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

(note: pm.gov.au is informative, but not a fixed ongoing reference for this detail.) - David Gerard (talk) 01:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

If it will calm everybody down - call Howard Outgoing Prime Minister and Rudd Incoming Prime Minister. GoodDay (talk) 01:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the text in the article should do. So how's this for a para on the intro:

John Howard is the current Prime Minister. His party (the Liberal Party of Australia) lost the 2007 Federal election, but he remains in office until the Governor General has sworn in the next prime minister, almost certainly Kevin Rudd of the Australian Labor Party.

Any objections? - David Gerard (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• Accept, the prime ministership is certainly not vacant. GoodDay (talk) 01:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually I disagree - my consitutional understanding is that technically Australia is leaderless at the moment. (Added later - scratch that. The GG is the current leader and has been ever since parliament was dissolved.)

I'll need to dig into the constitution to confirm, but my understanding is that technically Australia has NO leader right now, and it will not have a leader until the Governor General invites the parliamentary leader of the victorious party to form a government. Likewise the posts of "leader of the Parliamentary Liberal Party" and "leader of the Parliamentary Labor Party" are both technically vacant at the moment.

Both leadership positions are automatically vacated on Election day and new elections will be held once the election results have been finalised and the new parliamentary members reconvene. Rudd will be elected to the position of "Leader of the Parliamentary Labor Party" this week obviously, and then the GG will invite him to form a government, at which point he willo become PM.

All the above demonstrates is that there is a big gap between the consitutional reality and the practical reality - Rudd is (for all practical purposes) the new PM.Manning (talk) 01:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

*facepalm* Oh, Lordy. If you can dig out something that has references and can form a concise sentence for the intro (to explain the Howard photo) and there's an admin handy to make the edit, please do so :-) - David Gerard (talk) 01:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Curious, when did John Howard resign as Prime Minister? GoodDay (talk) 01:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Howard technically "resigned" when he dissolved the parliament. I'm fairly certain that the Governor General is the current leader of the nation and has been since parliament was dissolved. I'll go verify this.

I'm an admin so I could make the changes. But I'm hesitant to do so, because (1) it will be complicated to get right (and I would need to pour over the consitution to make sure I've got every detail correct) and (ii) what is the actual value in regard to this article? The public, the press and the newly elected parliamentarians all act as if this is NOT the case anyway and it is really nothing more constitutional trivia. Manning (talk) 01:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Are these supposed vacancies between 'electon of new PM & his swearing in', reflected on past PMs bios & this articles list? GoodDay (talk) 01:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe so, but again what is the actual value? May an article which explains the exact technical process would be useful, but if we state that "Howard has not been PM since the dissolution of parliament back in October" we are going to be inaccurate on all levels except a very anal consitutional one. It could be handy to link off to a seperate article which details the consitutional specifics, but we should stick with the "practical" reality in terms of the main articles. Manning (talk) 01:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear. Would tagging the Howard photo "Outgoing" be sufficiently accurate? My concern at present is that the page appears "obviously" wrong and is locked, so looks silly - David Gerard (talk) 01:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to add another bio box for Rudd and tag him as "incoming" (and tag Howard as "outgoing"). We can finalise it when Rudd is invited to form a government by the GG. Manning (talk) 02:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Howard is still the PM for the time being. He did not resign, but his government went into caretaker mode. When he was elected on 2 March 1996, he was not sworn in until 11 March, and Paul Keating remained PM till 11 March. The GG never, but never acts as the leader of the country, because he is apolitical and has to be seen to be so, in all circumstances. If we were invaded by a foreign power this afternoon, it would be John Howard who'd be fully authorised to do somehing about it, including, if necessary, advising the GG to issue a proclamation declaring war. Such a proclamation would be counter-signed "John Howard, Prime Minister". I imagine he'd consult with Kevin Rudd, but it would be his call, not Rudd's. Unless it were decided under the circumstances to swear Rudd in as PM immediately and leave it to him to conduct the defence of the nation. An extreme example, I hope, but a telling one. Here are the full Caretaker Conventions that will answer these questions. This is a good short summary of them. Read them and learn about how we actually do things in this country at election times. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

You are correct - I'd just finished reading the caretaker provisions and was about to say the same thing.Manning (talk) 02:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

In complete agreement. GoodDay (talk) 02:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The Prime Minister's webpage should answer this "Canadian" guy's protests: http://www.pm.gov.au/ . We have a different system than in Canada, we even have an elected Senate. Mattrix18 (talk) 09:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

John Howard is still caretaker PM up untill the GG apoints a new one. See the media release from the GG on Monday and listed on the GG's own website:

"On Monday 26 November 2007, at Admiralty House, Sydney, the Governor-General, His Excellency Major General Michael Jeffery AC CVO MC, invited the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Kevin Rudd MP, to form a Government and requested Mr Howard and his Ministers to remain in Government in caretaker capacity until a new Government is sworn in." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Totalcomputer (talk • contribs) 14:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

New sentence added to intro

I just added this.

"The current Prime Minister of Australia is John Howard. Howard was defeated in the Federal election of November 24, 2007, however he remains as 'caretaker' Prime Minister until the Governor General formally appoints Kevin Rudd (leader of the victorious Labor Party) to the position."

Comments? Are we happy with this? Manning (talk) 02:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Remove the caretaker tag, as it means acting. John Howard is not Acting PM. GoodDay (talk) 02:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

No, according to the caretaker provisions, "caretaker" does not mean "acting". Have a read of this.Manning (talk) 02:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

John Howard is still Prime Minister - Unless somebody can proove he has resigned. GoodDay (talk) 02:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

He's is not a caretaker government. GoodDay (talk) 02:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes he is. The rules and convetions are quite specific on this fact.Manning (talk) 02:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Where's the sources for the mass resignations of his cabinet & the appointments of a 'caretaker' cabinent? If you add 'caretaker PM'? then you must make that edit also on John Howard and all the other Australian PM bios. GoodDay (talk) 02:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Good Day, the caretaker period does not only operate up until election day, it continues until the new government is sworn in. Here are the full Caretaker Conventions that will answer these questions. This is a good short summary of them. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

In my country (Canada), a caretaker PM is the governing party's interim party leader; an emergancy appointment caused by an unexpected PM's (ie the governing party's leader) resignation or death. I suppose things are done differently in Australia. GoodDay (talk) 02:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

That's right, and there's no supposing about it. We have our ways and you have yours. This article is about the Australian PM, not the Canadian. -- JackofOz (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget to add the 'caretaker' tag to all the Australian PM bios (the PMs whose governments were defeated for reelection). The caretaker tag designates their service from election-defeat to successor swearing-in aswell. GoodDay (talk) 03:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a little unnecessary. The fact that the government of the day goes into caretaker mode prior to the election does not mean the PM stops being PM. He may be referred to loosely as "caretaker PM", but that's just shorthand for "a PM who is leading a government that is currently in caretaker mode". It's the government that's the caretaker, not the PM personally. He just heads that caretaker government and his name becomes attached to it for ease of identification. Your suggestion would apply not just to the PM, but to all Ministers in a caretaker government. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

This all seems like some relatively desperate Liberal-hanging-on to me. Status wise Howard can no longer be incumbent if the Labor victory means his term will end, especially considering he himself has conceded defeat. The photo should represent Rudd, with a term akin to "Elect" beneath it. Howard is not incumbent. Timmah86 (talk) 03:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

According to this article - all those past 'defeated' PMs need to have their office tenures amended. GoodDay (talk) 03:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm no Howard fan - I voted for Rudd. But I've spent all morning persusing the consitution, the caretaker provisions and the electoral act 1926 and the fact it that Howard remains the Prime Minister until the GG appoints Rudd to the position. Whether he is the "caretaker" prime minister or the leader of the "caretaker government" is really just semantics - I can't determine the actaul situation one way or the other. But he definitely IS the prime minister - even Rudd says so. Manning (talk) 03:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not Howard fan either. GoodDay (talk) 03:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the period of office of a defeated PM is from the date he was sworn in by the Governor-General to the date he hands his commission in to the Governor-General. The swearing-in and the termination of the commission, and only those things, define the terms of a Minister's commission - that's any Minister, including the PM. That's all there is to it. Howard was elected to office in the 1996 election, which was held on 2 March 1996. It took 9 days for the swearing-in to take place, 11 March. Paul Keating remained PM until then. His government was in caretaker mode, but he was still PM. The media described him in the interim period as "ex-PM" or what have you, but until 11 March he was PM in every sense except perhaps in the eyes of the public, who, with respect, in many cases aren't even aware we have a Constitution, or care, let alone have ever read it. True, the caretaker conventions prevented Keating from doing certain things, such as make major appointments or make major decisions likely to commit the incoming Howard government. (Well, not actually prevented him; but they are things that people in his situation agree not to do, and an agreement is an agreement). But all Keating's Ministers were still Ministers till 11 March, and he was PM till 11 March. Same deal for Fraser/Hawke, McMahon/Whitlam, Chifley/Menzies all the way back.

You mention status - well, of course Howard's public profile has withered overnight, and he certainly won't be having any more Cabinet meetings (not that he's prevented from doing so constitutionally, just that it would be pointless). But he's still the incumbent PM until Rudd's sworn in.

Rudd's photo does indeed have the "PM-elect" caption (I changed it from the wrong "PM-designate").

The "relatively desperate Liberal-hanging-on" comment is completely inappropriate - not to mention extremely wide of the mark. Please do not personalise this, but keep it to a civil discussion of actual constitutional arrangements and requirements, as I have been at pains to do. There are far too many editors out there who edit politics-related pages, who make their own personal political allegiances very clear. To me, this is completely out of step with the NPOV principles, not to mention utterly irrelevant. This is a place for discussing the content of articles, not for political point-scoring or revealing who votes for who. For that reason, I've never revealed my own politics on Wikipedia, and I never will. But you might be very surprised. I would be making exactly the same arguments as I have above had the situation been reversed. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Well said. Manning (talk) 05:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually I dont think PM-elect or PM--designate are accurate, but i dont think there is a real actual term. Maybe we can create a new one ... PM-presumptive?? As reflected above, the position of PM has nothing to do (technically) with the recent election. The election was for parliamentary positions, which is separate from executive positions. After the election, the Queen (in practice through her representative) 'invites' the leader of the winning party to form government, at which point executive positions are conferred. So John Howard is still PM (this is actually an unqualified title, there is no such thing as 'caretaker' PM, but rather he is the PM but under the conventions established throughout the history of the federation, he only exercises executive powers in very limited situations during the 'caretaker' period, which extends until a new government is invited to be formed. JKW111 (talk) 07:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Create a new term ???? I can't believe I'm reading this. Every newspaper in the country, every TV station, every radio station, every journalist, and zillions of websites are calling Kevin Rudd the Prime Minister-elect. Whether anyone thinks it's "correct" or not is hardly the point. That is the term that is used in this country in these circumstances. To use any other term would be just wrong. "Designate" is bad enough, but making up an entirely new one is ..... I'm lost for words. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The interesting thing about all this bickering? If it goes on long enough (until Rudd is sworn in), we'll no longer be concerned about it. GoodDay (talk) 16:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I hereby insist that from now on we use the term "Almost Prime Minister" and will fight anyone who opposes me to the death. Manning (talk) 22:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Kevin Rudd

This page should not be changed until Kevin Rudd has been sworn in by the Governor-General. Anything could happen between now and when he is officially sworn in. The Australian Electoral Commission has to send the results to the Governor-General first. People need to stop rushing to change things. We have a few days yet. Mattrix18 (talk) 09:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Yawn. Timeshift (talk) 09:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The issue is with the term "Incumbent". Mr Howard is no longer the "incumbent", he is the Caretaker. The infobox should be changed to represent that. I hereby apologise also for my political based remarks previously Timmah86 (talk) 10:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

"Incumbent" means the person actually occupying the office in question. The office in question is that of Prime Minister of Australia. John Howard is the Prime Minister of Australia until he hands in his commission, which won't happen till Kevin Rudd has chosen his ministry and they are ready to be sworn in. That won't happen till Thursday. Howard remains the PM till then. His government is in caretaker mode. There is no actual office as "caretaker Prime Minister" - it's shorthand for the Prime Minister who's heading a government that is currently in caretaker mode. John Howard is the incumbent until Thursday. (End of lesson.) -- JackofOz (talk) 12:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

There's no actual office as "Prime Minister" in Australia according to the constitution. I have never seen the term "Prime Minister" written within the constitution. The office of Prime Minister is simply part of the westminster tradition and protocol, an implied office, just like the caretaker role. Mattrix18 (talk) 13:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

In both Australia and the UK the office of Prime Minister is now explicitly established in law. For a start, it's paid a salary in it's own right... 81.77.175.145 (talk) 13:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The term "Prime Minister" may not appear in the Constitution, but there have been 25 people who have been sworn in to and held a ministerial portfolio called "Prime Minister". There will soon be a 26th. Nobody has ever held a portfolio titled "Caretaker Prime Minister", because no such portfolio exists. That's because it's not the PM who's the caretaker but the government he leads. Terminology gets used loosely out there in the real world, often with good reason. -- JackofOz (talk) 14:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The current wording in the intro at least explains why Howard's picture is still there and is unlikely to make anyone cough up their own skulls in horror. (Though constitutional trainspotters are spewing forth hairballs wildly ;-) Can someone find a solid reference where someone has already done all the working out we've tried to above? Then, even past the current time before Rudd is (almost certainly) sworn in, it'll be useful for the article - David Gerard (talk) 18:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

List of Australian PMs

Why is there a List of Prime Ministers of Australia in this article? All that's needed is a 'link' to the article List of Prime Ministers of Australia. No need to have the same list on 'two' articles. GoodDay (talk) 20:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The list here is a "raw" list (if you like), with only the basic details of terms and party allegiance. The one in the separate article is more extensive, containing personal and other details. But there should certainly be a link here to let readers know there is a more detailed list in another article. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

This website; http://www.aph.gov.au/library/parl/hist/primmins.htm says that the length of office is off by one day. its obviously just whether they count the first day or when its starts and stops. seeing as its the official parliament of Australia site, it seems fairly reputable. wat u think? 121.208.64.145 (talk) 13:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC) james

i changed them 121.208.64.145 (talk) 14:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)james

I think the state they represent should be moved to the full list. It has no place in the summary list. Timeshift (talk) 00:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Graphical timeline

The timeline colour-coding shows Chris Watson as a Protectionist Party Prime Minister. This is not the case; he was a Labor Prime Minister. Also, there is a mistake in showing Billy Hughes' National Labor Party term. Hughes' second stint under the NLP was from november 1916 to Feb 1917 (the 1917-1917 stat makes no sense). And the National Labor Party colours are very difficult to distinguish from the Nationalist Party of Australia colours, but this might be nit-picking a bit. Australian Matt (talk) 02:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we know. Unfortunately, nobody can seem to be able to fix it. Timeshift (talk) 02:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The template is located here Template:Timeline_Australian_PM. You can go and edit this template and the results will automatically be reflected in this article. Manning (talk) 08:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

No, they can't. It cannot be fixed. But if you seem to think it can be done, be my guest! You'd be the first to successfully rectify it! Timeshift (talk) 08:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You are not wrong. I just had several attempts and only turned it to gibberish. (I had assumed that people thought it couldn't be edited because the page is protected - I hadn't looked at the issue very closely). The coding seems straightforward enough and I can't see why it keeps screwing up. Manning (talk) 08:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to the club. Everyone's had a go at it. Timeshift (talk) 09:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The timeline's resistance to editing continues to baffle me, but I will point out that the problem with Watson isn't that he is shown as Protectionist - he simply isn't shown at all, since his term is described as from:1904 till:1904. I think Matt must have thought Deakin's first bar was for Watson. JPD (talk) 16:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I was aware Watson's issue is that he doesn't span from one calender year to the next, thus in the graph terms, he served 0 years. As for Deakin being CLP 1905-1908, that annoys me too. Then there was the original post's issue. I fear to think what adding Rudd would do to the graph *gasp* it needs fixing or removing. Timeshift (talk) 16:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

If we can't fix it by the time Rudd is sworn in then it will have to be removed from the main article until we can sort it out. We can move it to the Talk page in the interim. I'm completely stumped by it though. Manning (talk) 16:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The Watson issue was on of the original post's issues - that's why I bothered saying it, even though Timeshift was obviously already aware of it. I agree that it would probably be best to remove it from the article if we can't fix the problem. JPD (talk) 19:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

There MUST be somewhere we can turn to for help with this bloody graph... Timeshift (talk) 04:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

NICE WORK! The uneditable has become the editable! Now make Deakin's 1905-08 term protectionist PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE and i'll be happy! :D Also, does moving from National Labor to Nationalist make Hughes go from second time to third time as PM? Timeshift 08:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed Deaking - it shouldn't be too hard for anyone to edit now. Nothing has actually been fixed, someone has just removed the links, which were the only part that was displaying strangely. I guess losing the links is a small price to pay for actually being able to update the thing. JPD (talk) 11:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Graphical timeline

Good move. Manning (talk) 00:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

errrr... there is a typo next to Robert Menzies "secord time" how could noone spot that!

60.241.205.78 (talk) 02:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

sorry, maybe its my browser, or the font used. i first thought it was a typo of "record" i see its meant to be "second" but the 'n' is touching the 'd'

60.241.205.78 (talk) 03:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The timeline got fixed!

Major kudos to whoever it was. (I know I could go and look, but I'm lazy.)Manning 10:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Style

Why does the box at the right say the PM's style is "Right Honourable"? The last Australian PM to be a member of the British Privy Council was Malcolm Fraser. The correct style is "The Honourable". Does any one know how to change the box?

58.166.142.122 (talk) 10:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Any further corrections?

Looks good now. One thing though, it's good to see Watson with his own red knobbly bit at the start, but what about Page and Fadden's knobbly bits? Page, fair enough, he was PM for less than a month. As for Fadden, he was PM for 6 weeks and even had his budget voted against before he lost office after independents crossed the floor to deliver government to Curtin and Labor. What barometer should be used to determine if they get their knobbly bits? Timeshift 06:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Politics of Australia

This section has a very similar graph, and has the same issues (neglects ALP in 1904, Prot 1905-08 etc). How can it be fixed? Timeshift (talk) 03:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I found a copy of this timeline in a user page and fixed it up

This graph has the links restored and is updated with data from the current one. The left side is a bit of a kludge to compensate for the align:right bug in EasyTimeline but it's a reliable one that will hold together if they ever fix that bug. All you have to do for the left side is add spaces to make the text line up. Aaron Walkhouse (talk) 04:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The Infobox drama

The numerous issues raised about problems with the infobox all stem from the fact that we are trying to use a template (being intended for reusability) for what is in fact a one-off requirement. We need an infobox which allows simply for desribing the position of Australian PM.

The infobox for individual PMs Of Australia needs the ability to allow for multiple terms, multiple appointments.

I will go and find someone who can design an infobox from scratch... Manning (talk) 11:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

One of? In what way does the PM of Australia differ from, say, the PM of Canada? At least, in terms of the infobox. --G2bambino (talk) 18:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The style for Australian PMs is no longer "The Rt Honourable", but "The Honourable" (virtually always written "The Hon", and without a full stop). I don't know enough about Canadian affairs and maybe you can educate me. Maybe all Canadian PMs are automatically "the Rt Hon". That has never been the case in Australia. It was the general practice that the PM would accept appointment to the Privy Council, although some PMs refused (Whitlam and Hawke certainly, and I think Curtin and others). If they accepted, they'd be "the Rt Hon". If not, they remained "the Hon". The last "Rt Hon" PM was Malcolm Fraser, who ceased office in 1983. In the meantime, we've had the Australia Act 1986, which severed our connection with the Privy Council, so there will be no more "Rt Hon" PMs. But as I pointed out at the top of the page, even "the Hon" is not something that refers specifically to Prime Ministers. All Ministers and even now Parliamentary Secretaries must be members of the Executive Council, and once sworn in, they retain "the Hon" for life. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Caretaker drama

IMHO, outgoing Prime Minister would be more accurate then caretaker Prime Minister. GoodDay (talk) 17:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Caretaker is the accepted term according to the conventions. Also see here Manning (talk) 18:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I've always understood that, a caretaker PM was an emergency fill-in between PMs - Howard isn't an emergency fill-in, he's a Lame-duck. GoodDay (talk) 18:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

That may reflect Canadian terminology, but not Australian. Have you read the Caretaker Conventions document? It's very educational. But there is a lot of confusion out there, I must admit. A lot of Australians, for example, refuse to accept that McEwen, Forde, Fadden and Page were "real" Prime Ministers, but insist they were only acting PM. Not so. They were indeed appointed on an interim, short-term (and in some cases, emergency) basis, but constitutionally they were as fully PM during their short tenures as Robert Menzies was during his long tenure. It's correct to refer to them as "interim PMs", and in a very broad sense one could say they were "caretaker PMs", but in the sense of "caretaker" we're using here, they were not caretaker PMs. That term here refers to an incumbent PM whose government goes into caretaker mode prior to an election, and remains in caretaker mode until they or their successor government is sworn in. Currently, the Howard government is in caretaker mode (and would have been regardless of the outcome), so you could call him the "caretaker PM". Because Rudd has won the election, Howard is also the "outgoing PM". In relation to Lame Duck, he's only that (or was, going into the election) because he announced he'd be retiring some time during his next term, if re-elected. If he had said that he would serve his full term if re-elected (and people generally believed him), he would not have been seen as a lame duck. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, it is confusing. But, I've no intentions of changing things on the article. Interesting topic, though. GoodDay (talk) 23:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Swearing In

Kevin Rudd will be sworn in on Monday the 3rd of December AD2007 , I suggest we leave any edits until monday night 121.210.212.4 —Preceding comment was added at 02:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Judging by the amount of times it's been changed already (and then wearily changed back by any one out of a whole group of us) I suspect it will be updated within seconds of it becoming fact.Manning 09:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It's official - Rudd is now PM. We can stop having to check this page every five minutes!Manning 23:27, 2 December 2007 (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.
• 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 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)

Most powerful political office - in practice

I know this has been slightly discussed before, but I was having a re-think.

• The Prime Minister of Australia is the head of government of the Commonwealth of Australia, holding office on commission from the Governor-General. The office of Prime Minister is, in practice, the most powerful political office in Australia.

The G-G is above politics; his concern is the proper governance of Australia. Hence his office is not a political one. The whole structure is geared towards ensuring the G-G never involves himself in political matters; which is why, for example, when he reads out his speech at the opening of parliament it's important it be widely known that he didn't personally write it but the government did it for him, and the words he utters do not necessarily align with his private political views at all. One could certainly say that the office of G-G is the highest office in Australia. But the highest political office is the PM, not just in practice but in fact, because there simply is no higher political office. Comments, anyone? -- JackofOz (talk) 23:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Politics is about power. The G-G has a LOT of power according to the Constitution, which makes the office potentially very political, although the standard practice is for the G-G not to act in a PARTISAN manner. That doesn't mean the office is apolitical, as 1975 showed very clearly. Mdw0 (talk) 03:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Politics is about power. Yes. But does the reverse apply? I'd say no, generally speaking. Just because a person has power does not make their office a political one. If a particular viceroy acted in a partisan way, then his/her actions, and he/she personally, would be worthy of condemnation. Witness the removal of Sir Colin Hannah's dormant commission to become Administrator as punishment for making public statements critical of the Whitlam government. And there was Kerr. But even with Kerr, one could argue that what he did was from the standpoint of ensuring Supply (well, that's certainly how he justified it), and not because he wanted to see a Liberal/Country coalition in power at all costs or because he wanted to get rid of the Labor government at all costs. If the office of Governor-General was routinely abused, to the point where occupants regularly injected themselves into partisan political debates, then yes it would be rightly seen as a political office. But what Kerr did, whatever one may think of it, was indisputably within the reserve powers of the Crown, which continue to this day, but without any of his successors ever getting anywhere close to contemplating similar action. Of course, the circumstances that led up to 11/11 have never been repeated, and probably never will. If you take the view that the existence of those reserve powers makes the office of governor-general an inherently political office, we could argue that proposition. I would disagree with that notion, however. The occasional exceptions to the general practice and the general expectation do not convert an apolitical office into a political office. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The potential for a G-G to act, although it is rarely done, is always there - the ability to sack a government, prime minister. That power does have an effect on the behavior of governments and politicians. That makes it a political office, so yes, the existance of the powers makes the G-G inherently a political office. I wanted to make the comment that just because an office isn't partisan, it can still be political. Just because a G-G chooses not to, or is never forced to use their power during their tenure doesn't mean the office itself is merely ceremonial or apolitical. Mdw0 (talk) 04:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from. I've never seen it as just a rubber stamp, even if for much of the time it appears to be indistiguishable from one. The GG would be stupid not to keep abreast of ongoing party political developments, just as the Queen does in the UK. But he/she cannot make decisions that favour one side or the other, and the reserve powers are kept tightly locked away in a bottom drawer. In this sense of "political", it's an apolitical office. But every once in a while there's a need to bring them out and use them. That's where it gets risky because it exposes not only the office of GG to criticism that some partisanship is involved, but also the relevant GG personally. One would hope that partisanship would never play a part in their thinking, and that some higher principle would always be their motivation - but I agree this gets us into the other sense of "political". So, how do we get across the idea that the GG is a non-partisan political office, and that the PM is the highest partisan political office? Those words aren't suitable because they suggest the PM's main interest is in the success of his party, and the welfare of the people of Australia is a lower priority. That may be true of certain PMs, but ... The current wording isn't quite right either, because it could suggest the GG sometimes gets involved in party politics, which should never be the case under any circumstances. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Expressing this in the article I think can be done by not saying who is the 'highest' power and just say what the powers are, without having to satisfy those who are obsessed with relative hierarchy. You'd say the Prime Minister is an elected politician with has little personal power, but because they lead the Government, the PM has power over the Parliament, the Cabinet and Government policy. The G-G is a non-elected non-partisan executive who holds particular executive powers of the Queen, powers rarely used overtly, but which can be used to sack Parliaments and Prime ministers in certain situations. That may indicate the odd balance between the two powers, that they can sack each other, highlighted in 1975 when Whitlam's colleagues were telling him not to dissolve Parliament and to sack Kerr, which he probably could have done if he'd had the will to resist, but that's a different exchange on a different article. Mdw0 (talk) 05:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Length in office

The table should be amended to the style here so the incumbent is self-updating. Timeshift (talk) 05:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Forde PM with ministry, but not ALP leader?

Per Talk:Frank Forde, is it correct that Forde was not a leader of the ALP in 1945? Timeshift (talk) 04:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'd say it's correct. The moment Curtin died, there was no leader in a formal sense. It took them a week to choose a new leader, but in the meantime there had to be a PM, and the obvious choice was the deputy to the late PM. Parliament wouldn't have been sitting in July; but what would have happened if Parliament had been in session? Forde would have made a statement to the House that the GG had commissioned him as Prime Minister, but he would have stopped short of declaring that he was the parliamentary leader of the Labor Party. In practice, he was obviously leading the party (exactly as Julia Gillard does whenever she's acting PM), but he wasn't the Leader of the party. Important distinction. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Trivial material in subsection on Prime Ministerial Births and Deaths

• While I think some of the material in the subsection on Prime Ministerial Births and Deaths is interesting and useful, other material is mere trivia and shouldn't be included. Any views before I remove what I consider trivial and unencyclopaedic? --Matilda ^talk 23:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Personally, whenever I see a trivia section it means that whoever added it wasn't a good enough writer to include it in the body of the article. Delete away. --Roisterer (talk) 03:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

just to clarify - the section isn't entitled trivia - just some of the contents are trivial --Matilda ^talk 04:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I wrote much of that stuff, but I don't have a problem if there's a good rationale for removing some of it. It's a bit hard to comment on your proposal, though, without knowing what you consider trivial and why. Can you identify the bits you want to remove? -- JackofOz (talk) 04:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Acting prime ministers

(question originally posted at Talk:Deputy Prime Minister of Australia)

Is there a list anywhere of all the people who've acted as PM back to 1901? In most cases it would amount to a list of the unofficial deputy PM before 1968, and the official Deputy Prime Minister of Australia from then on. But there are some others who've acted (and not necessarily for short periods). A case in point is James Fenton, Minister for Trade and Customs, who acted PM for 5 months (August 1930-January 1931) while James Scullin was overseas. During this period Scullin was his own Treasurer, and Postmaster-General Joseph Lyons acted as Treasurer. Frank Brennan was Attorney-General and was more senior to either Lyons or Fenton in the ranking, but he was for some reason overlooked for the acting PM role. Then there was Senator George Pearce, who acted as PM at some stage. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Table glitch

Is it just my browser, or is there something wrong with the coding of the table at List of Prime Ministers? It's affecting the Took office and Left office columns.

Took office is blank for: Barton, Deakin II and III, Bruce, Lyons, Page, Curtin, Forde, Whitlam, Hawke and Rudd.

Left office is blank for: Reid, Fisher I, Hughes, Scullin, Lyons, Fadden, Curtin, McMahon, Fraser and Howard.

I've looked at the markup but there's nothing obviously wrong with it. What's going on? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Debenham, 23 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} There is a small typo in the "List of prime ministers" table where it says Julia Gillard is a member of 'Lalor' instead of 'Labor'

Debenham (talk) 23:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Gillard represents the Division of Lalor in Victoria, not necessarily a typo. Whenbongoscollide (talk) 00:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Correct, see Division of Lalor. :) N Not done ^Avicenna_sis @ 05:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Gillard

Just a few notes:

• Julia Gillard does not become PM until the GG appoints her. At the moment she is just the leader of the ALP (and hence prime minister-designate).
• We need to make sure this article does not become a spinning wheel of all the details. It is about the office of prime minister, not the minute-by-minute turnings of the leadership spill. I.e., let's make sure any details about the change are kept in the appropriate article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by El T (talk • contribs) 00:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Editors have been active in making clear she is not PM yet, so I'm not sure what the point was of stating that. On your second point, some explanation is necessary to explain how she became PM, and it is okay to err on the side of too much detain in the short term when this article is going to see increased traffic. It is particularly important that this article direct people to the appropriate article. -Rrius (talk) 00:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• Deputy Prime Minister of Australia is already linking to here with Swan as Deputy-designate appointed by Gillard as PM of Australia. Should infobox be updated to reflect reality in that she is PM-designate, and come official swearing-in be updated to reflect full PM status? --Australia2world (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC).

I think it should continue to show the sitting Prime Minister and only be changed in about an hour when that changes. I know people are anxious, but let's have enough patience to allow reality to work itself out. -Rrius (talk) 01:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

New prime minister

Kevin Rudd is no longer AusPM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.13.27.105 (talk) 00:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

No news source is reporting that he has turned in his commission or that she has officially been appointed or taken the oath. That she has been elected party leader does not automatically change the Government. -Rrius (talk) 00:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Just thinking that perhaps "Prime Minister Julia Gillard won a party leadership election on 24 June 2010" is not quite correct as the leadership election never occurred due to Kevin Rudd not nominating himself. How can you win something that never occurred? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.50.152 (talk) 04:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 121.210.133.129, 24 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} The prime minister of Australia is no longer Kevin Rudd, it's Julia Gillard. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_Gillard

121.210.133.129 (talk) 02:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Not yet. She's at Government House now; once she emerges, we'll change it. -Rrius (talk) 02:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Sooner, actually, the swearing-in is going to be broadcast. -Rrius (talk) 02:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Australian English and using positions as titles

In response to our American friend - who seems to think that American English conventions should be treated as standard everywhere - in formal Australian English it is not considered correct to use certain positions, such as "prime minister", as titles. Therefore it is considered correct to say "The prime minister, Kevin Rudd." or "The prime minister, "Mr Rudd." but not "Prime Minister Rudd". Although examples such as "Prime Minister Rudd" can be found this does not mean that such use is considered correct use and that they should be used in encyclopedia articles. Afterwriting (talk) 12:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Then why are Australians doing it? This has not a thing to do with American conventions, and I would appreciate it if you would keep nationalist crap out of this. If your contention is that Prime Minister is never used before the name as anything other than an appositive, all I ask is that you prove it. Not just to me, but to the Australians who have also been using it. Keep in mind, "your American friend" (God, how condescending is that!) didn't write a damn line of that. -Rrius (talk) 12:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, while you try to stop accusing people of things that are untrue, unfair, and completely baseless, you might consider ways to make your point more articulately. Trying to say that "prime minister" is not used as a title is such an utterly ridiculous contention that, taken together with your condescending, accusatory, and dismissive manner, really stands in the way of your point being properly considered. -Rrius (talk) 12:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

In addition, if "Australian Standard English" is to trump MOS, then "Prime Minister" should always be capitalised, shouldn't it? -Rrius (talk) 12:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

A check of pm.gov.au and its latest archive revealed that Rrius' position is supported in this matter. I find it hard to believe that the PM's website would get it wrong. I'll take this opportunity to remind Afterwriting of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Concentrate on the issues, not the editor. I certainly wouldn't think it wise to criticise somebody for using American English conventions when you've spelled "encyclopedia"[sic] the American way. It's "encyclopædia" mate. (But we'll accept "encyclopaedia".) --AussieLegend (talk) 12:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Er, the Typographic ligature is hardly a hallmark of Australian English, mate. I'd rather say It's "encyclopaedia", mate. (But we'll accept "encyclopædia".). -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 12:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

It is especially strange to attack in that way someone who tries mightily to use country-appropriate spellings even on talk pages and in edit summaries. Hell, I even do it on my talk page when the subject or even the main editor I'm conversing with is from a country with non-American spellings. -Rrius (talk) 13:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Is the Australian Broadcasting Company not Australian or not using AusEng here? Does Antony Green also have problems with Australian Standard English? -Rrius (talk) 12:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Correction ABC is Australian Broadcasting Corporation. ;) Bidgee (talk) 12:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I know, but I'm irritated. -Rrius (talk) 12:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Another fairly common convention is instead of "He or She" which is clumsy and also places male in front of female is to use the word their. "The Prime Minister gets his or her salary" should be "the Prime Minister gets their salary". frankly I believe this should be a standard everyone uses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.131.179 (talk) 13:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Unlike some other countries, political positions in Australia ( prime minister, premier etc ) are not conventionally used as titles before names. Therefore "Prime Minister Hawke" or "Premier Brumby", for example, are unconventional uses and therefore should, I would strongly argue, be avoided in Australia-related articles in favour of conventional uses such as "the prime minister, Mr Hawke" or the Prime Minister of Australia, Mr Hawke". I recognise that some newspapers and websites etc use an "inhouse" style in such matters but this should not be confused as being the conventional or standard Australian English use. Afterwriting (talk) 16:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

A glance at this morning's papers shows that usages such as "Prime Minister Gillard" are commonplace. The usage is generally to capitalise the title when used to refer to a specific officeholder, and leave it uncapitalised otherwise. eg. "The Prime Minister promised that he would consult with stakeholders before announcing a big new tax on encyclopaedias" and "It is common practice for a prime minister to move into The Lodge after assuming the position." Of course, we often see counter-examples." --Pete (talk) 23:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

It is becoming common to see that sort of use. But "The prime minister, Julia Gillard" should not be spurned. I wouldn't go as far as Afterwriting suggests, though. "The prime minister, Mr Rudd/Ms Gillard" is too redolent of my 1950s' and 1960s' memories of "The prime minister, Mr Menzies". Referring to the PM by their given and last names is perfectly fine these days. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Longevity

This has been edited: All the others (excluding the three prime ministers who died in office and the most recent ex-incumbent Kevin Rudd) lasted at least 10 years. It was "the most recent ex-incumbent John Howard". However, since John Howard is not dead it should read "the most recent ex-incumbents, John Howard and Kevin Rudd". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.207.146 (talk) 22:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Howard's only been out of the job less than 3 years so he has to be mentioned there. Done. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:37, 25 June 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)

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)

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)

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)

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 || 01100 !&100000000000000010000001 year, &10000000000000262000000262 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)

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)

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)