Talk:Premiers of the Australian states

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Australia / Politics (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon Premiers of the Australian states is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics (marked as Top-importance).
Note icon
Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia.
Note icon
The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to for other than editorial assistance.


Why is there a line all along Australian coast in the map? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

It shows the political party of the Prime Minister of Australia --Astrokey44 09:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
The picture purportedly shows the political parties of the Premiers. Unfortunately, the "animated GIF" does not work at less than full size. Accordingly, I have removed it. The owner or others interested may care to offer a smaller version for use here. - Peter Ellis - Talk 18:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Peter, it worked fine on my screen, and those discussing the image at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics#Genius image seem to be able to view it fine at the smaller size, were you giving it a bit of time to load? Thanks, WikiTownsvillian 00:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Works well for me too. I think we may be able to re-include it in the page. --Roisterer 01:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Where it says that the wall-to-wall Labour governments today are a first for any party co-alition, isn't 1969 the same, but with the co-alition? If so, how is it a first? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I also noticed that, any ideas? (talk) 13:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
OK. Back in 1969-70, the NT and ACT had not achieved self-government. The coalition was in power in all 7 jurisdictions that were self-governing (federally and the 6 states). Since then the NT (1978) and ACT (1989) have come on line, and 2007 was the first time that a single party or coalition has held power in all 9 jurisdictions (federally, the 6 states and the 2 territories). That's how I read it. With today's result in WA, it's history now. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Animated graphic is wrong. It shows that in about 1968, there was a Liberal government in Queensland. This is incorrect. In 1968 there was a coalition of the Country Party and Liberal Party in Queensland, dominated by the Country Party. The Premier ( Leader of the Country Party ) died and the Governor appointed the Deputy Premier ( leader of the Liberal Party junior partner in the governing coalition ) as Premier, for one week until the Country Party MPs elected a new party leader, who became the new Premier. Although the short-term Premier was a Liberal Party member, the Country Party remained the dominant party of the Parliament and a majority membership of the Queensland Cabinet and Executive Council. It cannot therefore be said it was a Liberal Party government. It was still a Country/Liberal ( with the Country Party dominant ) coalition government. Eregli bob (talk) 04:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

More importantly there is now a liberal government in WA123.243.36.192 (talk) 10:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed template[edit]

I've removed Template:Australian premiers from the various state Premier pages. It seems pointless considering Template:AustralianPremiers covers each link that the first template does. Timeshift (talk) 07:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Financial mismanagement (Labor)[edit]

"Liberal government in coalition with the Nationals and independents. Coincidentally, this is the only state not to be running a budget deficit, demonstrating Labor's in-built financial mismanagement tendancy." Isn't this a little biased? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the mining boom keeping their budget in the black is thanks to the former Labor government. Tax revenue downturns in a weakened economy puts budgets in to the red, not "Labor financial mismanagement" as if somehow all the state governments magically became inept at the same time when the GFC came along - what a coincidence. I've removed it from the article. Timeshift (talk) 09:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Prime Ministers[edit]

I've removed this paragraph - the heads of the colonial ministries (or governments) were never known as Prime Ministers - New Zealand changed the title from Premier to Prime Minister, but no Australian colony did the same.

In the 19th century the heads of the colonial ministries were commonly called Prime Ministers, since this was the term used in Britain (see Prime Minister of the United Kingdom), although the term Premier was also used. When the six colonies federated in 1901, it was realised that it would be confusing to have seven Prime Ministers in one country, and the term Premier became standardised. This practice may have been influenced by the example of Canada, which became a federation in 1867 and used the title of Premier for the heads of its provincial governments.

Quiensabe (talk) 22:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd strongly suggest you reverse that edit, as this tells us that, at least in NSW, the head of the colonial government was often known as the Prime Minister. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Norfolk Island[edit]

I'd just like to know why the Norfolk Island Chief Minister is not counted as a Chief Minister of a self governing Territory? Welshboyau11 (talk) 12:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps because it is not an internal territory and not a member of COAG. WWGB (talk) 13:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
That's the one. Timeshift (talk) 13:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
What's 'internal' got to do with it? Hawaii is external of the mainland United States, but still counted as the 50th state. Norfolk Island is also a COAG observer. Welshboyau11 (talk) 13:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
The fundamentals here: 1. It's a self-governing territory of Australia, with the same legal provisions as the NT and ACT under the Norfolk Island Act. The section says nothing about 'internal'. That is an absurd excuse. Welshboyau11 (talk) 13:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps we can reconsider this when Norfolk Island has Senators and MPs in Canberra? WWGB (talk) 14:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
It does. I can't believe this is such an issue. I would have thought this would be fairly uncontroversial. Welshboyau11 (talk) 14:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Per other article disputes, please understand that not everyone agrees with your view. These distinctions have been around for years on wikipedia, vetted by many Australian editors. Why do you seem to be willing to unilaterally declare what is and isn't correct? Timeshift (talk) 14:36, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry timeshift, what is it I said you dispute? The comments I made are factual based upon sourcesand reliable info, not views per se. I haven't had any other disputes you with except meat sock puppet Welshboyau11 (talk) 14:51, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
I honestly don't see what internal vs external has to do with it? Welshboyau11 (talk) 14:54, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Consensus can be wrong. The consensus used to be women couldn't vote, the consensus used to be behind the White Australia policy, discrimination against Indigenous Australians, and the consensus used to be homosexuality was illegal, dangerous and immoral. That doesen't make it right. Welshboyau11 (talk) 15:03, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Fortunately, the right/wrong and true/false paradigms have less to do with our deliberations here than with consensus, on the one hand, or verifiability, on the other. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 23:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:19, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Premiers of the Australian statesFirst ministers of the Australian states – Article should be expanded to include both Premiers and Chief Ministers. The term is frequently used to refer to the sub-national heads of government such as during during this week's COAG meeting. As their is no separate page for Chief Minister, nor should there be as much would be duplicated, that information should be included on this page. This is only possible if the topic is broadened to include it. --Relisted. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:31, 10 May 2014 (UTC) --DilatoryRevolution (talk) 18:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: I will notify WP:AWNB.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:31, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. "The term is frequently used" is unconvincing. "ltr" and "mtr" are frequently used to refer to litres and metres but that doesn't mean it's correct to do so. The present name may have issues when referring to territories but is absolutely correct when referring to states. The proposed name is not correct at all. All 6 of the states have "Premiers" while only the 2 territories have "Chief Ministers" (not "First ministers"), so the proposal makes the name inaccurate for all 8 because of the minority. While "First ministers" is supposedly a better umbrella term, the proposal retains "states", even though the article is supposed to cover the territories. While the present title is accurate for the most part, the proposed title is not accurate at all. "Premiers and Chief Ministers of the Australian states and territories" is more accurate but too long for a title. That said, this article is in Category:Heads of government of Australian states and territories, so there's an option. --AussieLegend () 01:54, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. I cannot recall ever hearing the term "first minister" used in this country. If we want to be more inclusive of the territories, I guess it could be renamed Premiers and chief ministers of the Australian states and territories, a bit of a mouthful but at least it's using the names people will expect to find.Kerry (talk) 03:48, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose as said above WP:COMMONNAME, would IMHO suggest that Cheif Ministers be excised from this article as the States are an independent entity who combined to create the Federal Government where as the Territories are sub entities of the Federal Government with conditional authority as aligned to LGA mayors in structure as they are to Premiers. Gnangarra 06:18, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME as well. I see no problem with a separate article for Chief Ministers, who have a distinct function from Premiers anyway. I have never heard "first minister" used to describe this position in Australia. Frickeg (talk) 08:55, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The proposed title still excludes the territories. If you want to include territories, there are better options such as Heads of government of Australian states and territories. Hack (talk) 03:06, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
    • I think using "heads of government" runs the risk of confusion with the governors (who are the head of government, as the Premiers' article points out our premiers are de facto heads of state). If we are going to stick to common usage (and everyone seems in agreement on that), then I think there are 3 options:
  1. call the article "Premiers and Chief Ministers of Australian states and territories" (all common usage terms)
  2. have two separate articles one for Premiers and one for Chief Ministers ( they would cross-link each mentioning the similar role that the other performs)
  3. just have the Premiers article that describes both roles (making distinctions where applicable) and making Chief Ministers of Australian Territories article a redirect to the Premiers article

Personally I would find any of these acceptable, but with a preference for the 1st and 3rd as they avois having two separate articles to keep mutually up-to-date Kerry (talk) 07:37, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Governors are not heads of government, they are heads of state by proxy, a la the Governor-General. Premiers and Chief Ministers are the heads of government. Frickeg (talk) 08:14, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
agree, Governors(inc GG) are the Queens representative as head of State, Premiers are head of Government for the States, Chief Ministers are head of government for some territories these two entities of government have significantly different legal powers and constitutional relationships to the Federal government and therefore should be treated separately from each other. Gnangarra 10:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - if it was a commonly used expression in Australia, it would be possibly acceptable, however, it is not. And has not been used as such in the last 50 years. satusuro 13:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I've got half a political science degree and am obsessively read on Australian politics and have never, ever heard "first minister" used in an Australian context. This is a neologism that makes no sense in this context. The Drover's Wife (talk) 16:50, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Apparently it must be covered in the other half. ;) The Handbook for COAG Councils published on 21 November 2011 uses the term five times. Still, it's an unfamiliar term in this country. --AussieLegend () 17:14, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, for all the reasons above, "First Minister" is not a term in wide use in the country. I do like Kerry's idea to move the article to Premiers and Chief Ministers of Australian states and territories if it's really a problem. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC).
  • Oppose a ridiculous suggestion. this term is not used at all, it is either premiers for the states or chief ministers for some of the territories. For this, since it is states, it should remain premiers. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

ACT minority government[edit]

OK, can someone please explain to me why pointing out that the ACT has a minority government with a non-Labor member is apparently controversial. The only reason that's been given is that the ACT has usually had minority governments (though not with members of other parties in cabinet, holding multiple ministries), but how on earth this constitutes a reason not to mention it is beyond me. I'm trying very hard to assume good faith, but I'm having trouble conceiving of how anyone other than a Labor partisan could have a problem with this edit.Colonial Overlord (talk) 06:28, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

First, you started off by saying ACT and SA were both minority govt. That's not the case, SA has a majority. The ACT is the only minority govt in Australia, and apart from one term, has always had a minority govt. You're left looking like you're defending your original incorrect edit. And don't throw accusations around, it won't help your case. I must say though, for someone claiming editors are partisan, you have some interesting edit summaries... "Stop adding the Liberal Party! It's not a socially conservative party." LOL!!! Timeshift (talk) 06:30, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Whether a government is in majority or minority has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of "Premiers of the Australian states" unless Shane Rattenbury got elected Chief Minister while I wasn't looking, and I see no reason to talk about irrelevant material in this article. Thanks for the heads up about the confirmation of Cook's win in Fisher, Timeshift. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:50, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Firstly, I said in my edit summary that I made a mistake with SA. I'm hardly defending my original edit and it appears I'm not the only one "throwing accusations around".
Secondly, you still haven't addressed my point that the fact the ACT has usually had minority governments provides no reason whatsoever not to mention it in an encyclopedia. As I said, an encyclopedia should not assume that some fact is so obvious to everyone that it doesn't need to be stated.
Thirdly, you also didn't address the point that while minority governments may be common in the ACT, members of other parties in cabinet are not.
Fourthly, if you want to talk about the Liberal Party, might I suggest you do so on the appropriate talk page. I believe that would conform to wikipedia policy.Colonial Overlord (talk) 07:01, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
This article is not "Cabinets of the Australian states". It is "Premiers of the Australian states". You're yet to come within cooee of a relevance argument to put it in this article. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
It is relevant to the claim in the article that SA, ACT and VIC "have Labor governments". I actually don't think the ACT government can be meaningfully described as a Labor government at all, but I settled for a note that it was minority. If you want to reword the section so it talks only about premiers, then there'd be no need to mention minority status.Colonial Overlord (talk) 07:10, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I should also note that the justification for reverting my edit was not that it wa irrelevant, but that the ACT has always had minority governments. I was responding to the (IMO) absurdity of that as an argument.Colonial Overlord (talk) 07:14, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
SA and Vic have majority Labor governments, and referring to the ACT as anything but a Labor government because of Rattenbury is a bit of a stretch. I am yet to be convinced this is vaguely relevant. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:28, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Why is it a stretch? The word "government" refers to all members of the ministry, not just the premier. Surely you wouldn't call the Abbott government a "Liberal government"; it is a "Coalition government". And anyway, even if the information is not completely relevant (which I don't accept) why are there such strong objections to including factual information?Colonial Overlord (talk) 07:43, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Actually you're right, minority status is not really relevant, so I have rephrased to refer only to cabinet composition. Given this, South Australia remains included unless and until the independent ministers are dismissed from cabinet.Colonial Overlord (talk) 11:21, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
How does that change relevance to this article? Again, gain consensus! Timeshift (talk) 15:02, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
All right, what's the objection now? Please try to make an actual argument, in the form "x, therefore y" and bearing in mind all the points I've raised above.Colonial Overlord (talk) 15:45, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
You've completely lost me with your claims as to why SA is not a Labor government. I think that one is firmly in the realms of original research at the best of times. The problem is that there aren't any points to bear in mind as to why this is actually relevant. The Drover's Wife (talk) 16:32, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
My edit did not remove the claim that it's a labor government; it merely added a line mentioning that it has non-Labor members of cabinet. I am completely lost as to why mentioning this information is controversial. Are you seriously saying that in a section about which states have labor governments, clarifying which ones are full labor governments and which ones have non-labor members is irrelevant?Colonial Overlord (talk) 00:26, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Colonial Overlord, Timeshift9 and The Drover's Wife. I have received a message from Colonial Overlord from the Teahouse, and I would like to know what happened. Ping me. DEW. Adrenaline (Nahnah4) 06:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
@Nahnah4:, *raises eyebrow* - this discussion happened, and that is the sum total of it. Read it? The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:06, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Since there have been no replies for over two days (though it took all of two minutes for my edit to he reverted), I will restore the information.Colonial Overlord (talk) 06:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
the normal is allow 7 days for consensus where there are opposing views, and since you have ask for input from other editors elsewhere I suggest you read WP:POINT and revert as it appears you have acted with intent to disrupt. Gnangarra 07:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


  • discussion from User:Gnangarra talk page this section is a copy of a portion discussion that took place on my talk page given its topic Nick-D has suggest that it take place of here, the whole discussion including portion not directly relevant to the issue at hand can seen here. Please keep further discussion here Gnangarra 14:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Um...the issues can be seen by reading the talk page and the edit history. What else is there to say?Colonial Overlord (talk) 08:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
You have invited people in to assess what is going on and to help resolve the issue. If you expect people to take time out to help, you can give them the courtesy of summing what the issues and where you see the barriers to s resolution, rather than dismissing their request as they may have already read the talk page and still dont understand why you think there remains an issue. My understanding of the issue is that you dont think the Government in the ACT should be referred to as a Labor government, I google that term and found Katy Gallagher will be returned as ACT Chief Minister after balance-of-power Greens MLA Shane Rattenbury agreed to support Labor to form government for the next four years. source - my understand would be to refer a Labor Government in the ACT as the sources support this, therefore what Drovers Wife and Timeshift are saying makes sense to me Gnangarra 08:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
OK, so you want me to summarise it from my point of view? That wasn't clear. It sounded like you wanted me to just repeat what had been said on the page.
I made an edit to the article noting that the ACT government is a minority government with a non-labor member. Timeshift reverted it saying the ACT has almost always had minority governments. I asked timeshift multiple times how on earth that was a reason not to mention it in an encyclopedia. Timeshift did not respond. Another editor, the drover's wife, said that minority status is irrelevant to the article. I heeded that, and rephrased the edit to not mention minority status. Timeshift reverted again, giving no reason. I asked him on the talk page for an argument against the change. He didn't respond. The drover's wife has at least replied to some of my talk page comments but she hasn't addressed most of my points. She said composition of cabinet was irrelevant to an article about premiers. I responded that the section was about governments not premiers but it could be reworded to focus only on premiers. She didn't address those points, merely saying vaguely that my argument was "a bit of a stretch". I asked why it was a stretch and provided further reasons for my position. She didn't respond. Separately, she said vaguely that she was "completely lost with claims as to why SA is not a labor government". I explained that I was not objecting to calling it a labor government, merely adding a clarification that it has non labor members, and I asked her how this was irrelevant. She didn't respond.
As to the issues, they are as follows:
(1) wikipedia guidelines say edits should not be reverted merely for being unecessary yet user timeshift has done exactly that
(2) The same user has repeatedly reverted me but has refused to engage in discussion on the talk page or explain what the problem is with the edits.
(3) My proposed edit is nothing more than a note that the SA and ACT governments have non-Labor members of cabinet. Despite me asking over and over, neither timeshift nor the drover's wife has provided an argument against this edit. I have presented multiple arguments myself and most of what I have said has not been addressed.
Does all this make sense?Colonial Overlord (talk) 10:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
This discussion might best be continued as part of the dispute resolution at Talk:Premiers of the Australian states. Nick-D (talk) 10:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the information it makes it clearer as what the problem, 1 is you didnt like being revert and that you interpret unnecessary as being the edit where as timeshift is say the content is unnecessary in the context of the articles subject(a point he repeated on this talk discussion). 2 is a revert war thats unacceptable for all parties involved it can only happen if multiple people are doing it, both are trying to engage in discussion like me and possible Nahnah they havent understood why you think the information is necessary. 3 The editors here are saying that your proposed changes are off topic and irrelevant to an article about Premiers as its to do with cabinet members. That makes sense in that despite there being Green party members in coalition with the recent Federal labor government it was the Labor party who were referred to as the "government" with Julie Gillard as PM being held accountable for the actions of that government if fact it continues to be the case even now. As you(Colonial Overlord) are proposing a change to the article content the responsibility rests with you to gain consensus for the change to do that you need to provide sufficient reliable sources to support your reasonings for changing the content/context of the article. See Wikipedia:CONACHIEVE for an explanation on how to reach consensus, the decision is now upto you how to proceed. Gnangarra 14:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

(1) You say that my changes are irrelevant to an article about premiers as they are about cabinet members. But, as I have said several times, the section "party dominance" referred to "governments" NOT "premiers". "Government" means all members of cabinet.
(2) The federal case is completely different. The Gillard government was a Labor government, unequivocally, as it had only Labor ministers. This is completely different from the SA and ACT cases. However, I am happy for the article to say that SA and ACT have Labor governments, and have never sought to change that, provided there is a note that those governments have non-Labor members. Describing them as labor governments without such a note is misleading as some people, if not most, would think that means only labor ministers. There is a reason why the term "Coalition government" exists, rather than just "Liberal government". It would be misleading to call the Abbott government a "Liberal government" without clarification, as it has National ministers. Same goes for SA and ACT.
(3) You mentioned "reliable sources". I hardly think sources are necessary for the fact that SA and ACT cabinets have non-Labor members, but if you want them they'd be very easy to find. Colonial Overlord (talk) 08:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Sourcing is mandatory, whether for content or for convincing others that information is relevant. Gnangarra 14:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
ACT and SA. Colonial Overlord (talk) 01:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
and I'm not finding sources that appear to think that there is anything confusing for South Australia in relation to the cabinet having a non labor member. The premier is the person who can show the governor that his party has sufficient support on the floor of the parliament to form government Gnangarra 14:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to say. Could you rephrase it. Colonial Overlord (talk) 01:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm asking for sourcing that supports your claim " ... is misleading as some people, if not most, would think that means only labor ministers" as I cant find any Gnangarra 02:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Eh? Um, I'm not proposing to include "it's misleading as some people if not most would think that means only labor ministers" in the article. Its just a piece of common sense, and frankly I can't see how you can deny it. As I have said over and over, "government" means cabinet so "labor government" makes a claim about cabinet composition. If you disagree with this, does that mean you would call the Abbott government a "liberal government"? Would you be happy for it to be referred that way without any clarification throughout wikipedia? Colonial Overlord (talk) 03:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Most sources do refer to the "SA Labor government", "Weatherill Labor government", "ACT Labor government" or "Gallagher/Barr Labor government", so at least in this context you're not very convincing. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
And as I have said many times I do not propose changing that. And please answer my question. Colonial Overlord (talk) 03:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Your question isn't relevant. The sources call them Labor governments, we call them Labor governments. What the sources call governments that you're not proposing to change the wording around has nothing to do with this discussion. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
And, for the last time, I am not objecting to calling them labor governments. I am getting tired of repeating that point.
You've also lost me as to what the diffetence is between the federal and SA/ACT cases that justifies the inconsistency. Colonial Overlord (talk) 04:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Colonial Overlord, as your contribution is disputed, you require consensus to add it. It is incumbent upon the person wanting to make the change away from the status quo to gain consensus, not the other way around. Imagine what a mess wikipedia would be if it were the other way around. WP:BRD. Lastly, don't say that no argument has been made, as that's your opinion. You choose to dismiss the arguments as non-arguments. That's your choice, and your opinion. Timeshift (talk) 01:32, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Protected for 72 hours[edit]

I've just protected this article for 72 hours to stop the edit warring, and encourage dispute resolution. Nick-D (talk) 10:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments on new section and subsequent revert[edit]

See here. Most people would agree precedents for females is noteworthy, why not LGBTI? a) It's controversial when it happens and some question if it's a good or bad thing. b) A significant number of parliamentarians try/tried to stop female heads of government and LGBTI heads of governments, I doubt there were any that were trying to stop the first Catholic or left-handed or ranga, those uncontroversial boats have long sailed - they not in the same category. First female/LGBTI is relatively new and controversial with a significant anti-following, unlike first Catholic/left-handed/ranga. If first female should be included, why not LGBTI? I'm not sure there are any other noteables apart from those two but please feel free to suggest those that meet the points I raised. Being Catholic/left-handed/ranga never got in the way historically, unlike female/LGBTI. However, something like first aboriginal if/when it happens would be as notable as first female/first LGBTI and also worthy of inclusion. If LGBTI or aboriginal isn't worthy of inclusion, why single female out? Perhaps your aversion is to the distinctly seperate headings and sections? Could we somehow merge first female and first LGBTI in to the same section/heading? There's only been one female PM (speaks for itself) and no LGBTI or aboriginal PMs yet but I dare say if there were several examples of any and/or all, like in this article, it would no doubt be included at Prime Minister of Australia. Timeshift (talk) 00:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Don Dunstan exemplifies some of the issues here. He was certainly not "out" at the time of his election, so it cannot be argued that the electorate made a decision for or against him on the basis of his sexual identity. He did not achieve a landmark election as a member of the gay community. His coincidental homosexuality was only confirmed after leaving politics, so is therefore unrelated to his political career. So why mention it in an article about state premiers? WWGB (talk) 01:38, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm inclined to think Barr, at least, deserves mentioning, and that Dunstan would therefore have to be mentioned parenthetically (to explain the "openly" part with Barr). Given the sectarianism there probably was quite a bit of rancour around the first Catholic premier, although I don't know off the top of my head who that was. Frickeg (talk) 02:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I think the first Catholic premier was probably John O'Shanassy in Victoria in 1857. --Canley (talk) 02:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Exactly. Timeshift (talk) 03:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I think that having this is WP:Undue in this article., It is fair enough to talk about on the page about the person, but not important enough for the whole concept of Premiers. There would be no limit to the "firsts" or categories, eg those that ride bicycles or horses, those that did not come from the capital city, short, or sacked from the job mid term. There are too many possibilities. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I thought we already covered this? The first PM to be left handed or ranga or ride a bike or horse or not from a capital city or short is not something notable and controversial that hasn't already happened after timeless suppression by those against the demographic. We get coverage on first female (Gillard) or first LGBT (Brown) or first indigenous (Bonner)... not first to ride a bike. People have been known to be sexist, homophobic, racist... but not ride-a-horseist. People don't hold up placards in the US saying GOD SAYS NO TO RIDING BIKES. It's not a valid argument and many sources enforce that. Timeshift (talk) 04:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC)