Talk:Parliament of New South Wales

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reorganising Australian parliaments category[edit]

I propose to tidy up Category:Australian Parliaments a little by creating a new sub category within it called - Category:Parliaments of the Australian States and Territories . This category would contain articles on the Parliaments but not lists of previous parliaments. The category would then be listed at Category:Legislatures of subnational entities in place of Category:Australian Parliaments. This would mean that this article will be listed under the new Category:Parliaments of the Australian States and Territories instead of the current Category:Australian Parliaments. If you would like to comment please go to Category talk:Australian parliaments Adz 07:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Separation of Powers[edit]

I would question the need to compare the NSW system to the American System. Indeed, as America consists of a Federal System, 50 States and thousands of counties each with their own forms of government, can an archetypal American system exist?

To me to suggest that the separation of powers in the NSW system is not as great as in the American system is a judgement call. I could just as easily claim that the System of Checks and Balances is greater in the NSW Westminster System because individual Ministers (or Secretaries in American parlance) are directly responsible and accountable to the legislative and the electorate regardless of any protection the head of government may provide. Indeed, in the case of ministers, you could easily claim that NSW is far more democratic because ministers are elected, not appointed.

Perhaps it makes more sense to inform the reader of what the NSW parliamentary system is, rather than what it is not.Mdgr 02:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Making changes before declaration[edit]

I have noticed that changes to the composition of the Houses was made in the last few days, while I understand that most people were aware of the results (particularly for the Lower house) it is not really official until at least the NSWEC declares them elected (and really not until the writs are returned to the Governor), the results were declared this afternoon at 3pm. As for the upper house most seats are decided but there is still a battle over the last seat, and results are likely not to be known for sure until 12 April. It is a little bit un-encyclopedic to be changing numbers constantly, views?AlexanderFrancis (talk) 06:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upper and Lower Houses switch[edit]

Why have you switched the upper and lower houses in every state parliament article, it seems counter intuitive to call them Upper and Lower and then list them in reverse order. Also the upper houses (and their members) are considered senior, in order of precedence than their Lower house collegues. I dispute that it is a fix. AlexanderFrancis (talk) 05:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean about "senior" - the most senior representative, the Premier or PM, and their deputy, by convention are always members of the Lower House. It has always been the case and probably always will be that the great majority of ministers come from the Lower House - many historical cabinets had the constitutional minimum of Upper House members (often 1!) who often got such inspired and elevated roles as Chief Secretary or Master of the Rolls. The most obvious example that comes to mind is when Senator John Gorton quit his senate seat to run for a by-election for the House of Reps when he was made Prime Minister after Holt's death - a similar thing happened in NSW with Barry Unsworth and in VIC with Lindsay Thompson, although both moves predated their appointment (although were seen as demonstrating interest in the role). Additionally, confidence in a govt (and therefore, whether it can continue to be the government) is demonstrated exclusively in the lower house, not in the upper. Orderinchaos 05:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What he said. Timeshift (talk) 05:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is contrary to the order of precedence. ref: [[1]] So the president should be listed first. Besides the executive is separate (while intertwined) to the legislative and therefore is somewhat less important when discussing parliament. The President should be listed above the speaker as should all members of the legislative council AlexanderFrancis (talk) 06:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The PM and state executive councillors (the formal term for ministers), however, come ahead of both the Speaker and the President. And like I said, as government is formed exclusively in the lower house, the above point is irrelevant - it merely relates to what order they present at certain formal public events, which is probably the most obscure way of determining such things for a Wikipedia article on a well-read topic that I've ever seen. Orderinchaos 06:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Missed the discussion before I made the victorian change ref: [[2]] regarding the victorian change, same applies as above. The Premier and his government may be more important that the Members of the Legislative Council but the Council as a whole is higher in precedence AlexanderFrancis (talk) 06:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We have to make the distinction between the Executive and Legislature. AlexanderFrancis (talk) 06:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From the NSW Table "The table of precedence presents the formal and ceremonial status of members of Parliament, Government and the Judiciary. Each state has a table of precedence." It is a bit bizarre to call my argument obscure when it is supported by evidence and Formal Information. AlexanderFrancis (talk) 06:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I won't get in to the above debating points, except to say that I think AlexanderFrancis will be hard pressed to find listing upper before lower accepted by the wikipedia community. Timeshift (talk) 06:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest also noting WP:SURPRISE. We should have things where people expect us to have them, not where some obscure table buried on some departmental website has them. Most people wouldn't even know who the President of the Legislative Council is. Orderinchaos 06:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
in the real world do you often find things that are called "upper" above or below things called "lower"? and why won't you debate the points? Isn't that how we get a better article? BTW those tables were found with a very quick Google search I also disagree that WP: SURPRISE applies, I am not surprising anyone I am just telling the truth, the upper house is higher in precedence to the Lower House by definition, tradition and it would appear even by Law. AlexanderFrancis (talk) 06:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strangely, the "upper" and "lower" terms are basically official slang. They're actually called the Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Council. So your key contention doesn't work for that point. Orderinchaos 06:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK true enough, but well known "slang" (it was you who mentioned WP:SURPRISE) besides I have provided references to back up my claim, do you have any that support yours? AlexanderFrancis (talk) 07:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Name one serving prime minister or premier who formed government from the Legislative Council or the Senate (obviously excluding those who quit the same day to run for an Assembly/Reps by-election.) Orderinchaos 07:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Actually, there was one now that I think of it, but he had to quit the Premiership after a month because nobody in the Assembly would step aside to give him a run.) Orderinchaos 07:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


That is not the point I'm challenging I am talking about the Separation of Powers: Executive, Legislative and Judiciary. Barry O'Farrell is both the Premier and the Member for Ku-Ring-Gai, separate positions, with separate responsibilities. This article is about the Legislature, The Parliament. The member for Ku-Ring-Gai is subordinate to the Speaker, who could kick him out of the house at any time, that being said the Premier could easily mobilise his members to topple the Speaker. There must be a distinction made between the powers. The article about the Government can mention the Fact that the premier is the more important person but when it comes to the Parliament he is notAlexanderFrancis (talk) 07:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I get the distinct impression we are going in circles here. I don't agree - the fact that the lower house forms government and its leader is the leader of the country, regardless of what some obscure form guide says, makes the lower house more important than the upper. It may not formally "have precedence", but from a common understanding point of view, it is by far the more important of the two houses. Orderinchaos 07:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I second that statement. Timeshift (talk) 07:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Parliament of New South Wales. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:07, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seat colours - please change[edit]

In the seat distribution diagrams, I can't tell the difference between Labor and Shooters, Fishers and Farmers. Scarlet for Labor is fine, but could someone with the necessary expertise please recolour the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers? Their publicity doesn't use a single colour, but maybe light brown? Errantius (talk) 00:56, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox: Structure?[edit]

The infobox structure refers to the current parliament, not the parliament generally, and, the seat count by party doesn’t seem to add up.

Is there a separate page for the party makeup of each parliament? SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:47, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - discussion on Talk:Government of New South Wales[edit]

Just spreading widely, I've started a discussion on Talk:Government of New South Wales#Organisation of NSW government articles to review the organisation of NSW government-related articles. Please feel free to review and input :) Tim (Talk) 06:46, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Parliament_of_New_South_Wales&oldid=1209937648"