Talk:Parliament of Australia

An event mentioned in this article is a May 9 selected anniversary (may be in HTML comment)

Misc

According to the picture on this page, the Parliament of Australia meets under 4 pieces of metal that support a flag. Do parliamentarians get wet when it rains? Perhaps a better picture is in order? --Csnewton 19:57, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

actually they do meet under that as it is the roof. :P Xtra 07:30, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

It's a MAC/PC gamma issue. The building is so dark on the Mac you cannot even tell it's there. Might be worth finding a brighter photo. --Csnewton 20:51, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

---

Ah, I thought it looked wrong as it was. ;) -- Oliver P. 15:23, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

... :) Dysprosia 15:31, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Committees

Would anyone be willing to write about the committees of Parliament (select, standing, joint etc)?--cj | talk 13:10, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Territory Senators

I've noticed this elsewhere. There seems to be a furphy in some people's heads that the 4 non-state senators are elected at large to represent all the territories including the external territories. Both of these beliefs are completely untrue. The ACT elects 2 senators, and the NT elects 2 senators. That's it. There is NO senate representation for Norfolk Island, Christmas Island, or any other external territories. JackofOz 12:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

NT and ACT are entitled to 2 senators each. Any other territory that is entitled to at least 2 members of the House of representatives is entitled to a senator per 2 members. Cocos Island and Christmas Island are considered part of NT until they are entitled to representation on their own (Commonwealth Electoral Act, Sections 40(1),(5),(7)). Xtra 12:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

(After edit conflict) Christmas Island and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands are considered part of the Northern Territory for Senate elections (see here), and they are also part of the Division of Lingiari for House elections. The Division of Fraser includes the Jervis Bay Territory, but as far as I am aware people there don't vote in ACT Senate elections. Also, as far as I am aware, Norfolk Island residents aren't represented at all (although people living on the island can be considered residents of a state, and not Norfolk Island). --bainer (talk) 12:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

That is about the gist of what I said. Xtra 13:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually Jervis Bay residents do vote in the ACT Senate elections: [1]. And Norfolk Island residents have no separate representation, but can enrol in the division they last lived in, or the division their next of kin is enrolled in, or the division where you were born, or the division where you have the "closest connection" (if you weren't born in a state). If none of those apply, then they can enrol in the Division of Canberra or the Division of Solomon. Enrolment is not compulsory for Norfolk Island residents. (Source is this PDF document from the AEC: [2].) --bainer (talk) 12:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, Cocos and Christmas residents get represented in the Senate via NT. But let me get this other thing straight. To qualify for a seat in the HofR, the population of a territory would need to approach the average electorate size of 86,808 (ie. 13,021,230 divided by 150). Cocos currently has 629 inhabitants, and Christmas has 1,500. We're talking a population increase of 5,687% (Christmas Island) and and 13,701% (Cocos). Then, to get their own Senator, they'd need to have a second HofR seat which means doubling that population. Is this ever going to happen? In a word, NO. What a pointless bit of legislation. JackofOz 14:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Those provisions are more for the ACT and NT at the moment - the legislation provides for at least two MHRs and two Senators for each, but if their population grows big enough (which is plausible) the formula kicks in. --bainer (talk) 01:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It is actually quite a scary clause cause it means that if Australia takes on say New Zealand as an external territory, they would be entitled to 51 senators. :o Xtra 01:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I was looking at clauses (4)-(7) of s.40, which are specifically about territories other than the ACT or the NT

• (4) Subject to subsection (5), a Territory (other than the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory) is not entitled to separate representation in the Senate.
• (5) Where 2 or more members of the House of Representatives are to be chosen in a Territory (other than the Australian Capital Territory or the Northern Territory) at a general election, that Territory shall, on and from the day of the general election, be represented in the Senate by one senator for every 2 members of the House of Representatives to be chosen in that Territory.
• (6) Where the number of members of the House of Representatives to be chosen in a Territory (other than the Australian Capital Territory or the Northern Territory) at a general election is an odd number, subsection (5) applies as if the number were reduced by one.
• (7) Until the Territory of Cocos (Keeling) Islands or the Territory of Christmas Island becomes entitled to separate representation in the Senate under subsection (5), this section has effect as if the Territory of Cocos (Keeling) Islands or the Territory of Christmas Island, as the case may be, were a part of the Northern Territory.

Clause (7) anticipates the possibility of Cocos and Christmas Islands becoming entitled to separate representation in the Senate, which in turn by virtue of clause (5) relies on them becoming entitled to seats in the House of Reps. The only way this could occur is by virtue of a massive increase in their population as I calculated above (no less than a 27-thousand percent increase in the case of Cocos Island). And Norfolk Island has only a slightly larger population than Christmas Island. They certainly weren't thinking about New Zealand, for the very reason that Xtra pointed out. It just seems to be a nonsensical part of the law that will never apply, so what was the point? JackofOz 02:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Senators are not elected on the basis of population - that's why Tasmania and NSW have the same number of Senators. The Constitution says that all original states much have the same number of Senators. But if the NT or the ACT or Cocos Is or the Ashmore and Cartier reefs were to become states, they would have whatever number of Senators the relevant legislation chose to allocate to them. Adam 08:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

But the law I cited above says that the hypothetical Senators from the external territories can only be elected on the basis of population. First, they must have sufficient population to qualify for not one but 2 House of Reps seats, and then and only then would they get one Senator. This is a hypothetical possibility, but it is never going to happen in reality. The law applies to these territories only while they remain territories, because different constitutional provisions automatically cut in the moment they ever become states. JackofOz 11:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

This seems a remarkably stupid piece of legislation. When was it passed? Adam 12:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, ha. Somebody finally sees what I've been on about. No idea, mate. JackofOz 12:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

OK. This was inserted by the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Act 1989 (No. 24, 1990). From Stewart West's 2nd reading speech of 22 December 1989:

• This Bill provides fixed formulae for the representation of Territories in the Federal Parliament. The Joint Standing Committee examined this issue, following concern that it would be possible for a government with a majority in both Houses to increase the representation of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory out of proportion to their populations. The Government has accepted the Committee's conclusion that fixed formulae for the representation of Territories should be prescribed. Accordingly, this Bill provides for the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory to be entitled to be represented by at least one member of the House of Representatives, and that representation thereafter be in proportion to its population. Other Commonwealth Territories will be entitled to separate representation [in the House of Reps] when their population exceeds more than one half of a quota as determined by section 48 of the Electoral Act. The Bill also provides that where the numbers of members of the House of Representatives to be chosen in the Australian Capital Territory or the Northern Territory is six or more, that Territory will be entitled to representation in the Senate on the basis of one senator for every two members of the House of Representatives. However, each will be entitled to a minimum of two senators. Other Commonwealth Territories will be entitled to representation in the Senate on the basis of one senator for every two members of the House of Representatives..

So, it seems it was put in for establishing what rules would apply if an external territory ever reached a certain population, without regard to the extreme unlikelihood of that ever occurring. Rules for the sake of rules. What politicians do best, really. JackofOz 03:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Salaries/allowances?

Does anyone know the remuneration rates for MPs? It'd be great as part of a list. - Htra0497 01:56, 6 Spetember 2006 (AET)

Queen in the Parliament

I dont know that the Parliament contains the Queen, I'm sure it contains the GG and the two houses. The Governor General is mentioned in the Constitution... the Queen has no actual power in the Parliament unless she appoints herself as GG. Can anyone confirm/disagree? --Crazycrazyduck 11:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

See section 1 of the Constitution: the Parliament "shall consist of the Queen, a Senate, and a House of Representatives". --bainer (talk) 12:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the rest of the Constitution makes it clear that in Australia "the Queen" always means "the Governor-General acting as the Queen's representative." Adam 13:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course, and I think the current wording ('parl consists of Queen, HoR and Senate, Queen normally represented by G-G') conveys that sufficiently. That is, officially it's the Queen and the houses, in practice it's the G-G and the houses. --bainer (talk) 13:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

"The Queen is normally represented by the Governor-General." The consitution is a bit vague on this point but section 2 states "A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty's representative in the Commonwealth." Which seems to imply that the Queen must appoint a G-G, but can limit his powers "shall have and may exercise ... such powers and functions of the Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him." See also Section 61, "The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen's representative" (my emphasis) This seems to imply that while executive power is possessed by the Queen it is only exercised by the Governor-General. I would propose changing the above sentance to: "The Queen is represented by an appointed Governor-General, who is assigned executive power by the Queen subject to the Constitution. Davidovic 01:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Prime minister's role not otlined.

Did I miss something? I scanned the article for an overview of the Prime minister's role and didn't find it. Maybe I missed it? SauliH 15:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

This is an article about the Parliament, not the Prime Minister. In the context of this article, his role is that he is a Member of Parliament. He performs various roles as a Minister, but they don't really belong in this article. Adam 07:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Term of Office

Am I completely blind or does this article fail to mention what the standard term is for a parliament? The dates would seem to indicate a three-year maximum, but I don't see this stated anywhere. 74.234.19.73 18:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is no such thing as a standard term for the "Parliament". The parliament consists of 2 houses (and, technically, the monarch as well). The House of Representatives has a maximum term of 3 years (although the way this is worked out is not as simple as 3 years from the date of the last election); the majority of parliaments have not lasted the 3 years. The Senate theoretically has an indefinite term. The only time it ceases to function is when there's a double dissolution, and there have only been 6 of them in 106 years, the last one being in 1987. So it's not as simple as what you suggest. Cheers. -- JackofOz 05:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

This is when parliaments get feisty.24.166.7.9 (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)I am apalled by what is writen on this page24.166.7.9 (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Stages of a bill

A section like this (click) would be a great addition to this article. Where would I find out about the different stages a bill goes through in the Australian parliament? --Surturz (talk) 03:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)