Talk:Quentin Bryce

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Has she ever stood for public office or even preselection. If she hasn't then we should delete the reference to politician. Albatross2147 13:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The Governor/Governor-General is a part of the Government. Surely this qualifies a threshold in the classification of 'politician'. I refer you to Politican#Considered_a_politician Doktor Waterhouse (talk) 05:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Disagree. The G-G is part of the machinery of government, in that legislation has to receive Royal Assent etc. But the G-G is required to act in a totally apolitical and bipartisan manner in public, and those who fail to do so, such as Colin Hannah, are dealt with. She is most definitely NOT a politician. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Concur with JackofOz - she should not be classified as a politician --Matilda talk 05:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
By convention, yes. But there have been times when the position has been politicised (Kerr is the obvious example). The Constitution gives the G-G powers which by their very nature are political (appointing judges and ministers [obviously on the advice of the Prime Minister but you see what I mean], declaring war, signing treaties and legislation into law. Also, like Cabinet the prerogative powers of the G-G are non-justiciable. Also the ceremonial role is a political one, as the Head of State the G-G meets with dignitaries and is required to act diplomatically. I realize that the role of the G-G is supposed to be limited (and has been largely adhered to) but that does not prevent them from taking an active role in domestic and foreign affairs. [Paul Hasluck was notorious in this regard, he pushed his powers as far as he could without actually breaking with convention; and Deane was pretty overt in his criticism of Howard.] I guess this is a question that needs to be put on a case by case basis. Doktor Waterhouse (talk) 07:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
If the office were to become politicised, that would be a different matter. Currently, the office is apolitical, regardless of how partially an incumbent governor-general may happen to act. Under one republican model, candidates for President would seek a popular mandate. That would make it an inherently political office, regardless of how impartially an incumbent president may act. That's the difference. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Governor of both Australia and Queensland? At the same time?[edit]

Is that correct? And if so, is there precedent for this? Wouldn't it be a bit hard to hold both positions? You can't be in Canberra and Brisbane at the same time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Her state term finishes before her federal term starts. Timeshift (talk) 16:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Her Majesty has not yet signed the instrument of appointment needed to appoint Ms Bryce as Governor-General of Australia, thus she has not yet been "appointed" as stated in the article.

I don't know the mechanics of what documents get signed and exactly when, but technically I suppose the Queen has agreed to QB being appointed and has permitted a public announcement of her agreement to be made. For all we know, the Queen might have actually signed a document appointing her to the position, the term to take effect on 5 September. Or it may be signed closer to the date. To express these finer points of technical detail would be burdensome on us and counter-productive to our readers. All the readers need to know is that the Queen has agreed to Rudd's proposal, and Bryce's term will commence on 5 September. Effectively, she has been appointed already, but that's not the same as saying her term has commenced already. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

WP Australia importance[edit]

Raised from mid to high. (talk) 06:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

She is the head of state surely this is top importance. (talk) 01:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Photo out of focus[edit]

Isn't the photo of her out of focus? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree but it is the best free image we have at the moment. We are always looking for better free images if you can locate any. Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 04:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm sending an email to the webmaster to request that an image be licensed under a free license. — Jeremy 02:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Good luck on that one! Timeshift (talk) 02:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Very poor photo and not fitting for Wikipedia, especially ACOTF. Please discuss here before re-adding. Thanks, WWGB (talk) 12:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, didn't notice this discussion and the previous removal when I added that. My apologies. Jeremy; good luck! Giggy (talk) 12:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I think someone should find a good photo of her for this article. The GG's office should release an official photo(should be in public domain as she is a public representative). —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Infobox website[edit]

I have changed the website from her official QLD website to the official GG website, which includes a picture of her upon first click, links back to the official QLD website, and contains other relevant links on this issue to boot. I hope there aren't any objections? Timeshift (talk) 01:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

First woman barrister[edit]

The entry page says that Quentin Bryce is said by some to be the first woman barrister in Queensland. It appears she was not. The Women in the Law in Queensland Exhibition, for instance, is quite clear. The first woman admitted as a barrister in Queensland is said there to be Katharine McGregor on 5 October 1926, but she practised as a solicitor. Elizabeth Trout (nee Nimmo) was admitted as a barrister on 4 June 1930. Quentin Bryce was admitted as a barrister on 15 December 1965. Naida Haxton, who was admitted on 30 August 1966 was, according to the Exhibition, the first woman to actively practice at the Queensland Bar. I suggest you delete the uncertainty and allow credit for pioneering to fall where it is due. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CarolineRebecca (talkcontribs) 03:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

  • I gather that she was, in fact, the seventh or eighth woman admitted to the bar. I think I have a source that clarifies this, so I'll clean it up a bit better later: the view that she was first has been widely repeated in the media, in spite of being wrong. :) - Bilby (talk) 09:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
  • The previous, completely inaccurate description, "The first woman barrister", seems to have been modified to "One of the first", an even more inaccurate description. One can either be the first or one is not. "One of the first" is ugly and imprecise; perfectly suited to politicians and advertising executives; it has no place in a reference work, especially given the 40 year gap between the purported real first and this also-ran. Make up your mind- is this hagiography or biography? Is Wikipedia an encyclopedia or a blog? DylanThomas (talk) 14:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Referencing Format[edit]

Hi! In regard to this article, is there any interest in changing over to footnotes + references, using the reference list for the list of sources, and the footnotes for ref details (eg Hill (2008), p. 11.), or is the preference to leave it as it is with the combined references/footnotes model? I'm not worried either way, but I suspect references + footnotes works better if multiple pages are to be used from soruces or if only quotations are to be included with the refs, while teh combined model works better if you're predominatly using newspaper sources or sources are only used once. :) - Bilby (talk) 00:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Normally I'd leave this to sit for a bit in case of other opinions, but I'm hitting a few issues in the research, where commonly held beliefs found in the media are countered or otherwise questioned by some sources. Claims such as "the first woman appointed to the Queensland bar". These would be better handled in footnotes rather than the body, but that causes problems given the number of references which are likely to be used. So I'm changing it from the current referencing format to footnotes + references, but I'm happy to change it back again if there are objections. - Bilby (talk) 03:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I think you're probably right in terms of the eventual look of the page. Also, eventually, I'd like to see that all citations have an identified author (makes it easier to look up the reference, quite apart from any traceability issues). However, at least for ACOTF purposes, I'd like the flexibility to remain, so we don't discourage anyone who might have useful input but is uncomfortable or unfamiliar with citation formatting - or on the other hand, annoy anyone who just doesn't want to do it that way. So for the moment, of course continue with what you are doing, but don't change what others have done / are doing until a consensus is reached. Pingku (talk) 16:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


I've done what I can with the lead, but I'm pretty crappy at writing them, so someone might want to fix it up. (I always hated writing abstracts, too). :) - Bilby (talk) 11:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Further development[edit]

I think I've added as much as I'm confident to add. There are a couple of things that may warrant adding to the article (that I can think of, at least), but should probably be discussed. The first is something about her political views and her position on the monarchy - both are hard to pin down, which might be the point to make in the article. On the monarchy issue, some sources place her as a monarchist, some have no idea, and Jopson's "From radical to regal" quotes her as saying that there should be more debate about the republican issue (suggesting that she may have republican leanings). On political views, she has been seen as both a Liberal and a Labor supporter. Several sources make note of the difficulty in pinning her down on these issues. The second issue concerns how she is perceived in the media: almost everything talks about her fashion sense, but I'm not sure where or how to add that, and there is nothing in the article on how she is perceived by other people. At the moment it is all about what she did, and little about how she is seen or what she is (if that makes sense). - Bilby (talk) 11:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Please don't remove the image[edit]

Image:Quentin Bryce.jpg

Not to mention it is my own personal belief, but I am sure wikipedia guidelines also state that any free image is better than no image at all, even if it is of a poor quality such as the one here. If anything, it only inspires someone with a bias to find a better quality free image. Timeshift (talk) 05:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

This is our Governor General. That photo is unprofessional, unflattering and inappropriate. It has no place in Wikipedia.
Please note guidelines that "Poor quality images (too dark, blurry etc.) or where the subject in the image is too small, hidden in clutter, ambiguous or otherwise not obvious, should not be used." See:Wikipedia:Image#Image choice and placement. WWGB (talk) 06:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
The fact it has been there for a period of time is in itself a form of consensus. You are wanting to change the status quo. I'm in my rights to revert you as you have no consensus for your change from the status quo, but I feel it will not achieve anything. In regards to the guideline, it is ambiguous. To use that image of the Opera House and helicopter as an example, it would be used in the Opera House article if it were the only free image available. I'm requesting people to comment from Australian Wikipedians' notice board and WikiProject Australian politics. Timeshift (talk) 07:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree, that image is really awful, and the article is better off with no image than a poor image. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC).
I think that the image detracts from the article, and support its removal. Melburnian (talk) 08:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Incorrect Timeshift, there is no consensus to have a poor blurred image in this article which Wikipedia:Image#Image choice and placement clearly states that it shouldn't be used. I've stated why it shouldn't be added (On this talk page or WWGB talk page) and I fully back it's removal. I'm keeping an ear out on where she plans to visit and if it near by and isn't going to cost me a great deal of money to get there then I'll get a free unblurred photo but if someone gets/uploads a unblurred good quality photo then great as it saves me in time and money. Bidgee (talk) 08:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
The purpose of having a photo in a BLP article is to identify the person. This photo could be our GG or it could be Camilla Parker Bowles or even Princess Di. It's not identifiable, so it shouldn't be on the page. It's not like she's a recluse and we're unlikely to get a chance to get a better shot. On the other hand, User:Orderinchaos managed to get Colin Barnett's office to release an appropriately licenced image of him for use, maybe we should approach the GG office for one too... and show them this one as the alternative! The-Pope (talk) 09:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Maybe my eyes are better than I thought because I have no problem identifying the image as not being Princess Di or Camilla. I agree it's an awful photo but it's better at providing identification than nothing at all would be. I see no reason why it can't be used while WWGB, Lankiveil, Melburnian, Bidgee, The-Pope and anyone else oppposing its use are busy obtaining better images for Wikipedia to use. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
and there is a guideline and it seems an consensus not to have the poor quality photo included. Bidgee (talk) 10:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Policies outrank guidelines. WP:IGNORE is a policy and states "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." --AussieLegend (talk) 10:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
As this is an awful image of a very prominant person, I don't think that it adds anything to the article. Writing to the GG's office asking for a photo to be released for use in her article has a fair chance of being successful and would probably be the best solution. Better photos of her seem certain to be taken and uploaded as she starts performing her official duties as well. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
One possible way to improve such an image is to shrink it to about a quarter of the size. It would look better. But it is already small, so it was probably cropped off a bigger but blurry picture. I expect if I carry my camera with me that I could get a better photo some time in the next couple of years! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
User:Jeremy Visser above mentioned that he had already written to the GG's office asking for a freely available photo. I've already left a note on his talk page asking if he ever heard a response, but as that user seems to be quite inactive these days it might be awhile before he gets it. Lankiveil (speak to me) 14:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC).
Well if I can find out[1] when she will be in Albury/Wodonga I could do a trip down there. Bidgee (talk) 14:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
October 20/21. She'll be in Adelaide on the 10th, so if I figure out where I'll see if I can help as well. - Bilby (talk) 23:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
The GG is visiting Mildura on Oct 8-9. I'll do my best to grab a photo. -- Longhair\talk 09:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Well I sent an email on Saturday to see what she will be visiting but no reply. :( Bidgee (talk) 02:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I missed my opportunity yesterday when she was in town. Was already inside by the time I arrived. She's here again today but miles away from where I live so I think my chances are slipping :( -- Longhair\talk 02:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Bugger! Well looks like I'll email The Border Mail in Albury to see if they will give me an idea where she will be. Bidgee (talk) 02:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Is there an offence of stalking the G-G? ;>) WWGB (talk) 03:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I obviously have more luck photographing a closeup of Australia's most dangerous snake than the GG. Less security and all... :) -- Longhair\talk 03:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
They're not that dangerous. The one that tried to take on my son never had a chance against my shovel. It's now in his room somewhere, pickled in a jar. Unfortunately I don't have a jar big enough for the GG, otherwise...... --AussieLegend (talk) 13:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Urk... I hate snakes (Too many close calls with them)! I find it a bit rude that the GG's media adviser has not replied back to my email, since it would be nice to let me know if they are willing to help out. Bidgee (talk) 14:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


I have received an email from their media department a few days ago, so pretty soon I should be getting a publicity image to put on the article. — Jeremy 10:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Cool. I can't get down to Albury/Wodonga for the G.G's visit so that would be awesome if they can give us a free-use photo. Bidgee (talk) 10:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Apparently, there are some problems with the article -- e.g. Bryce apparently wasn't home schooled (that statement is uncited, by the way). So we're going to have to rip out some stuff before they'll give us the image, apparently. I hope this isn't going to affect the fact that I requested the image be licensed under the GFDL. — Jeremy 22:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm a tad uncomfortable with that as a matter of principle, but I did expect it. Nevertheless, in regard to home schooling, that comes under the reference for that paragraph - Condon's "to the manor born" article, which is the only really extensive biography that was published so far. It isn't exactly a big deal either way, of course (I mean, I can't see myself really worrying about whether a point that minor remains), but I've added a more specific ref and quote (from Bryce via Condon) to clarify it. - Bilby (talk) 23:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I realised I forgot to add: my discomfort isn't the same as having them suggest changes where things may be incorrect. That's not merely fine, but much desired. :) - Bilby (talk) 23:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

(non) Update 2[edit]

Still no response from them. Not looking good. Boy -- what if a journalist wanted an image within 24 hours. They'd be waiting an awfully long time. Can somebody else harass them for me to try and get them to hurry up? — Jeremy 23:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Order of appointment[edit]

An editor keeps removing the fact that Bryce is the 25th Governor General. [2] [3] [4] The infobox field is called "order" to indicate that the order of appointment is reported. Please see earlier examples Michael Jeffery (24th), Peter Hollingworth (23rd) etc which confirm that the order is reported. WWGB (talk) 04:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

What controversy (and when)?[edit]

In the article it is stated that Bryce has caused 'controversy' in her past. Unfortunatley this term is very popular in Australia and often mis-used, therefore I believe it would be wise to provide details of these incidents (even if only a brief description), so if anyone has any knowledge of these incidents or know of any reliable sources it would greatly contribute to the article. Also it may be beneficial to change the term itself.

Thank you, (talk) 12:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for the comment. I'm not sure what to change the term to, because, as you say, it is in common use in Australia. (For example, I'm not convinced that failing to visit the Riverland on her current tour counts as controversial, yet the term has been used to describe it). Both uses in the article are backed up with references, although not for the use of the term itself (which is possible to do, if needed, as it was thrown around a bit after the Governor General posting was announced). I don't see any real problem with changing the wording, though, especially if there's a good alternative. - Bilby (talk) 12:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the word is often misused. Controversy is "a commencement of a conflict between statements of accepted fact and a new or unaccepted proposal that disagrees with, argues against, or debates the accepted knowledge or opinion". Whenever a public figure makes an announcement, no matter what it's about, there will inevitably be some people who aren't happy about it. Those criticisms of themselves do not make the matter a controversy. Whenever a figure in authority hires, fires, restructures their office etc, there will inevitably be some people who aren't happy about it. Again, that of itself does not make it a controversy. Bryce announced which places she'd be visiting on her recent trip. Some people thought she should have gone further afield, and made their views known. In their minds, I'm sure they were justified. But the existence of these alternative views is just that. Had Bryce got into a public debate about why she chose to visit A, B and C and not X, Y and Z, then that would have brought it into the area of controversy. But she wisely chose not to get into it, because G-G's are best advised not to engage in controversy. Peter Hollingworth is perhaps the best known example of one who failed to follow this advice, to his great cost. But then, given the circumstances he faced, maybe he felt he had some explaining to do and he had no other option but to go on Australian Story. That and its aftermath truly became a controversy. Whatever Quentin Bryce did with her staff in Queensland, and the itinerary for her recent trip, are not remotely controversies, except in the minds of the media. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree with both of you, and I've done my best to remove the use of the term - it is certainly overused. While I was at it, I tried to improve the weight of the two sections - the problem is that the media, naturally, focuses on the "controversies" (as per the media's use of the term), causing problems with weight. For example, clearly she was good as Governor, as otherwise she wouldn't have had her position extended, and then become the GG. Yet almost every article discussing her term mentions the staff problems and the parties, and few make a clear statement about why she was good at the role. She does get positive press, of course, and lots of it - but much is of the "great, strong woman" variety, focusing on her strengths as a person rather than the position. That aside, I've done what I can - hopefully others can help from here. :) - Bilby (talk) 04:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


I took a photo of Her Excellency this morning. It's not fantastic (long distance, long zoom) but it's better than the previous one. Feel free to replace it with something better. ShipFan (talk) 04:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Well done! Timeshift (talk) 05:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Better then the other one! I'll rather it grainy then blurred. Bidgee (talk) 05:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Style and Title[edit]

Governor's official formal titles include postnominals. Governors of Australian States are refered to as eg "Governor of Queensland" not "Governor of the State of Queensland".

I have been unable to find any reference to the title "in full" as recently added:

"Bryce's style and title as governor general is, in full: Her Excellency Ms Quentin Alice Louise Bryce, Chancellor and Principal Companion of the Order of Australia, Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia."

Safarisuit1 (talk) 24 Jan 10 —Preceding undated comment added 22:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC).

(ec) Re this edit: since we're getting all formal about it, the form "Mrs Quentin Bryce" would only be used of a widow. While her husband's still alive, it would have to be "Mrs Michael Bryce", since Mrs means "mistress of ...". But when did she go from Mrs to Ms? And why? And is there a cite? I'd prefer to have her shown as Ms all along, even if we have to engage in some rewriting of history (as Ms was not used back when she was first married).

Also, her full current title:

Her Excellency Ms Quentin Alice Louise Bryce, Chancellor and Principal Companion of the Order of Australia, Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia

seems just a little too much. Is it cited? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I note Siegfried Nugent has changed this article again. Government House Queensland refered to Ms Quentin Bryce AC, Governor of Queensland. The use of the archaic Mrs Michael Bryce is inappropriate. Australian Protocol and Procedures and Debretts Correct Form both prefer the use of Mrs or Ms Quentin Bryce. The determination of whether it is Mrs or Ms is a preference of the individual. The style when Governor of Queensland and at present is Ms.

Neither Queensland nor New South Wales include "of the State of" in the title of their Governor. As part of their formal title they do include their postnominals. eg Her Excellency Ms Quentin Bryce AC, Governor of Queensland.

I recommend reversion to the correct titles.

--Safarisuit1 (talk) 10:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Do social titles like Mr or Ms really follow "His/Her Excellency" or is it just the name? Also why did her title change from Mrs to Ms when she became governor? Alphaboi867 (talk) 21:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Ribbon Bars[edit]

I have tidied up the ribbon bars section; changing to rows of 3 which is the normal arrangement for females and centering the top row. Are there any others that should be included?

That being said, while this section looks pretty, does it add any other value to the article? I would assume the GG doesn't wear ribbons very often?

--Oliver Nouther (talk) 22:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming she only wears them on occasions (IE: Australia Day, ANZAC Day ect). See this photo which was taken on Australia Day. Bidgee (talk) 01:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes certainly she would wear decorations on ceremonial occasions but not just the ribbon bars. They would normally only be worn on a military style uniform (Scouts?) when not wearing the full medals. Perhaps this section helps people to identify those decorations? --Oliver Nouther (talk) 22:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Head of state according to some sources[edit]

I reinstated this because the source looks reliable to me. SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The belief that the GG is Australia's head of state is a minority view. It seems political and certainly does not belong in the opening sentence. I have moved it to the Governor-General of Australia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I think that that opinion should be mentioned somewhere in the article, if not in the lead. There is a slow edit war at the moment. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I think the ref should be Kevin Rudd directly describing Quentin Bryce as "Australia's head of state", rather than Sir David Smith talking about the office in general. I'm not sure it should be just plonked into the lead, either. --Pete (talk) 01:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
AFAIK, there's no reliable sources backing the GG as HoS. GoodDay (talk) 02:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
There are reliable sources for both Governor-General and Queen. It is not our place to choose one side or the other according to our own POV. --Pete (talk) 03:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

This whole "Head of State" thing - in this article and elsewhere - is a candidate for Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars. Honestly, rather than get caught up in titles, wouldn't it better to actually describe the role of GG and sovereign in the respective articles and avoid the whole HoS thing here in its entirety? -- Mattinbgn (talk) 02:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, Head of State isn't mentioned at the Elizabeth II article. Why mention it at this article? GoodDay (talk) 02:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
It's a point on which readers should be informed. It would help if we had a uniform position, instead of editors adding and removing content depending on their opinion. That's why I created the Australian head of state dispute article - to show the situation, with reliable sources. You have participated in editing that article, and your contributions are welcome, so I cannot see how you can gain any impression that it supports one POV over another. --Pete (talk) 03:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I've removed reference to the Head of State. It's a general issue that potentially affects all governors-general, not just this one. If we say that Bryce is the Head of State according to some authorities, we have to say the same thing for each and every previous governor-general, and we ain't gonna do that. Making no reference to the possibility she might be the Head of State is not denying the possiblity, but neither is it accepting it. The issue is better addressed at the Dispute article, which is about the office itself, and not at any individual incumbent. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 05:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
In agreement with your removal, Jack. GoodDay (talk) 05:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

If this particular person, Ms. Bryce personally by name, has been mentioned specifically by any respectable authority as the Head of State of Australia, and if that has been published in any reliable source - the assertion that she is (not necessarily that she is) - it seems to me that some editors are attempting to work censorship on that item and on this article if that very essential item is not included in the lede of this biography. SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted your 're-addition'. Recommend you get a consensus for your proposal, as we don't want or need, an edit war. GoodDay (talk) 03:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
She was mentioned specifically personally by name because she happens to be the current occupant of the office, Serge. If Wilson Tuckey (heaven forbid) happened to be the governor-general, then he would have been mentioned specifically personally by name too. Surely, this issue affects the office, because it's simply not possible that Quentin Bryce is the Head of State if Michael Jeffery wasn't, or vice-versa. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 10:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

WP Censorship here?[edit]

This particular person, Ms. Bryce personally by name, seems to have been mentioned specifically, by a respectable authority or two, as the Head of State of Australia, and that seems to have been published in a reliable source or two - the assertion that she is (not necessarily that she is). It seems to me then that we should not work censorship on that item and on this article by excluding that very essential item from the lede of this biography. This has now been removed repeatedly:

..and according to some authorities the Head of state of Australia.<ref>[ speech] by [[David Smith (Australian public servant)|David Smith]] on 19 March 2001: "the Queen is our Sovereign and the Governor-General is our Head of State".

Consensus for or against such censorship? SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

No, it is not censorship and claims of censorship are spurious. This article is about this specific Governor-General and not the constitutional arrangements of Australia. The claims about whether this specific GG is Head of State is outside the scope of this article. That topic belongs in other articles such as Governor-General of Australia, Monarchy of Australia etc. not this one. The role of this article is to discuss Ms Bryce specifically. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 22:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I feel extremely unintelligent now. If Bryce personally has been called Head of State of Australia, that could be "out of scope" in her biography? Just don't get it. Sincerely, SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
It’s not censorship, Serge, but sensibility. If these respectable authorities think that Quentin Bryce is the Head of State, then they must also think that Michael Jeffery, Peter Hollingworth, Sir William Deane, Bill Hayden … right back to Lord Hopetoun were also the Head of State, so why not make this claim in each and every one of their articles? It’s not about Bryce specifically or personally. The Constitution says that the Governor-General is Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, and nobody disputes that, but we don’t make that reference in any of our articles on individual governors-general. It’s an attribute of the office they hold, not of the incumbent personally. The primary title is Governor-General of Australia, and that’s how we identify in their individual articles which office they hold/held. Whatever other attributes stem from that office are matters for mention at the articles Mattinbgn mentioned and/or the Australian head of state dispute article. But not at the individual incumbents’ articles. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 22:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Mattinbgn and JackofOz are correct. Timeshift (talk) 05:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I thought the Queen of Australia, was the Commander-in-chief. Anyways, in agreement with Matt & Jack, concerning the HoS mentioning. GoodDay (talk) 06:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
You're sort of half right, GD. Section 68 of the Constitution says: The command in chief of the naval and military forces of the Commonwealth is vested in the Governor-General as the Queen's representative. See also this. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 08:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Just like my country's set-up. GoodDay (talk) 14:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Since I am not Australian, I am going to give up on trying to understand these points of view (which truly make no sense at all to me) about what is relevant to this biography in 2011 (regardless of earlier persons) and leave this to Australians to try hash out for themselves. So long y'all! SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I refuse to believe the point is that difficult to understand. To spell the entire argument out:
  1. This article is about the specific individual, Quentin Bryce
  2. Quentin Bryce is currently the Governor-General of Australia
  3. The position of Governor-General includes a range of other roles and responsibilities, all of which attach to the role and not the individual currently holding the role.
  4. It is a current point of disagreement in Australia about whether one of these roles is "Head of State". There is a reasonable case to be made for both sides of the argument and reasonable people can and do disagree on this point.
  5. While David Smith may have called Bryce Australia's Head of State, the point he was trying to make is that he believes the office that Bryce holds (i.e. Governor-General) is the Head of State of Australia. If Bryce was not the GG, she would not be considered the HoS by anyone.
  6. Smith's point therefore is not a point about Bryce but about the position she holds - the only reason Bryce is used as an example is because she is the current office-holder. Smith could quite easily have used any of the previous GGs to make the same point. Unless you believe that Bryce is somehow different from her predecessors, this point is uncontroversial.
  7. Given that Smith's argument could apply to any of the 25 GGs to date, as Wikipedia editors we have a choice. We can refer to the disagreement about the title of "Head of State" in every one of these articles or we can take the common sense route and refer to each person simply as the GG and avoid using the disputed HoS terminology.
  8. The disagreement is not ignored however as it is discussed in depth at Governor-General of Australia which is linked to from this article. That is where Smith's claim belongs.
  9. Even if Smith's claim was to be included in Bryce's article, the article would require balance to reflect the far more common view among Australian constitutional experts that Bryce is not the HoS of Australia and in fact the HoS of Australia is the Queen of Australia.

While the role of the Monarchy and the Governor-General in Australia can be complex, this complexity is not the issue here. The reasoning for not including this claim in this article is simply that Smith's statement is a general one about the position of Governor-General and not a specific one about Bryce. As such, it is better dealt with in the general article rather than multiple times in each of the specific articles. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 12:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, I admit that (1) I did read this again, even though I am trying to bow out gracefully, and (2) I thought the source referred to Bryce personally by name or I wouldn't have argued this at all.
If the latter is true or were true in other reliably published remarks of another respectable authority, I trust you will reinstate such a highly relevant fact to the lede of this bio. B'ing's her reliably asserted position as Head of State of a country is hardly just a tidbit in "a range of other roles and responsibilities", it can hardly be ignored, if asserted reliably. SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
You might be trying to nail jelly to a wall, with this issue. GoodDay (talk) 04:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Condescending? SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
More accurately, get a consensus for the change you wish to add. GoodDay (talk) 14:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

unusual name[edit]

The article makes no reference to her unusual name, which seems to be the first thing that non-Australians comment upon. Is Quentin a woman's name in Australia? Up until now i've only ever seen it used as an exclusively male name. (talk) 12:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Role in 2010[edit]

Her role in 2010 must have been difficult, appointing a prime minister without an electoral mandate. Is it worth describing her role during that time? Though I might suppose, that, secretive as those talks would have been, information might not be available yet. Did she send for both Gillard and Abbott, or did both approach her? Gazzster (talk) 04:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I haven't seen any sources which suggest that she played any role, much less a complex one. Her job was basically to swear in a government which had the confidence of a majority of the house of representatives, and she would have simply waited until the negotiations were complete. I doubt she had any discussions at all with the party leaders about the negotiations, beyond confirming that the ALP had the numbers at the end of the process - which the written agreements Gillard secured with the Greens and independents would have demonstrated. If neither party had been able to secure a majority she would have had to step in and either encourage another round of negotiations or, more likely, to call another election on the advice of Gillard as the caretaker PM. Nick-D (talk) 04:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I suppose if the GG had a greater role to play it would have made headlines.Gazzster (talk) 05:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Since there is NO prime minister NOW...[edit]

What are her powers and how can she use them?Ericl (talk) 13:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

She was technically able to carry out the full powers and duties of the Prime Minister with the same authority. Whether she exercised such is unknown and I find the note rather irrelevant. Technically the Governor-General already has the full power and authority of the Government; they simply use it on the advice of the Prime Minister or other Ministers of the Crown. Every time there is a transition in government, the PM's office is briefly vacant. Here in the US, if the President's inauguration is delayed until after noon, technically the V.P., who's sworn in first, could be acting President. But that's a technicality, b/c the U.S. Constitution states the President's term starts at noon on Jan. 20th, whether sworn or not. I presume the same applies in Australia. If you want to know, do some research. It sounds interesting. (talk) 00:53, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Julia Gillard in her letter of resignation wrote it so that she is no longer Prime Minister the moment [[Kevin Rudd] was sworn in. Australia at no point in time did not have a PM, what we did not have was a Deputy Prime Minister as Wayne Swan resigned effective immediately. Nford24 (Want to have a chat?) 12:47, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
According to the Constitution all the viceroy can do is in such a situation is appoint a Prime Minister who can command the confidence of the House of Representatives. In the very unlikely event that this was impossible, even after attempting to form a minority government, I suppose the Governor-general would appoint a caretaker who would advise issuing writs for a fresh election. In the recent scenario there was much speculation about what the Governor-general would do, but fortunately for Australia she simply appointed Rudd upon the advise of the outgoing PM.Gazzster (talk) 07:25, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

That was my point, I'm not trying to criticize or attack anyone, simply that the matter is largely irrelevant b/c there is always a Prime Minister, since resignations take effect from successors being appointed. At no time can someone be both Governor-General and Prime Minister. That's all I was saying. Cheers! (talk) 17:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Who ever said someone could be both Governor-General and Prime Minister? That's an absurdity, since the former takes advice from the latter. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:52, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Relationship with Bill Shorten[edit]

I know that tittle-tattle about family members isn't considered OK, but Quentin Bryce is the mother-in-law of Bill Shorten, a significant figure in the ALP (and is currently contesting the ALP leadership). The relationship is mentioned on Bill Shorten's page but not on Quentin Bryce's. Is it appropriate to include it here ? A quick google search reveals plenty of news reports that mention the fact. Kerry (talk) 04:55, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Nothing to do with tittle-tattle, Kerry. Marriages are still highly regarded by all sections of society.
I'd support a small section on her family, listing any connections her kids have with notable people.
No charges of conflict of interests have ever been raised in relation to Shorten's providing ministerial advice to the governor-general, as far as I know. If that ever happened, it'd soon get front-page attention.
That reminds me: How come nobody ever took notice when Bob Menzies appointed his first cousin as a High Court Judge in 1958? Or maybe they did. I asked the question two years ago but it's had no response so far. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:05, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Actually conflict-of-interest concerns have been raised as there is a clear potential conflict-of-interest (which is different of course to an actual conflict-of-interest) and I presume this would intensify if Shorten gets the Labor leadership. Kerry (talk) 01:15, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Wow, I was blissfully unaware of any of that commentary. In that case, we definitely should have something about not just her family connections but also the issues that prominent commentators have raised about the potential conflict created by Chloe marrying Shorten. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 01:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Now that Mr Bill Shorten is the Leader of the Opposition in the Federal Parliament, and he still is QB's son-in-law, it is arguably inconsistent (for example) with her successor-GG Sir Peter Cosgrove's wiki entry, that no Family section is included here. The rumblings about conflicts of interest muted, when nothing emerged substantively, and then she was replaced. Of course, there is the overhang of Shorten's being accused of (student-unionist) rape, however that has been strenuously denied, and put aside by Victoria Police apparently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:04, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Criticism section[edit]

I wonder why this is included at all. Compared to the daily barrages levelled at senior politicians, Quentin Bryce has attracted very little in five years. It is comparatively rare for any Governor-General to be the target of public criticism. Sir John Kerr or Archbishop Hollingworth copped a bit - perhaps we should look at similar sections in their articles and use those as yardsticks. Hollingworth was forced to retire, but we barely mention why. The criticism here might perhaps be better aimed at other targets. The comments about her African tour are fairly mild, more to do with Rudd's judgement at sending her on a fairly blatant political mission. What was she going to do, refuse to follow government advice? And, as Tony Abbott pointed out, she's free to speak her mind on relevant issues toward the end of her term. She's not about to be sacked, is she? She's realistically doing no more than express the popular sentiment, which she apparently shares. Giving David Flint more of a pulpit than he deserves is not an appropriate use of this article. The focus should be on the subject, not others. I support Bilby's recent edits, but again, I wonder why we need to have this at all. --Pete (talk) 00:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree: "criticism" sections are normally bad ideas, and are especially bad in BLPs. Greg Sheridan's views appear to be being given greatly undue weight here, especially as his underling argument that the campaign for a security council seat was partisan is dubious (the Coalition supported the bid, albeit somewhat unenthusiastically) and there's a long history of GGs being involved in uncontroversial diplomatic and trade promotion activities during overseas trips. Bryce's recent comments can and should be covered in the section on her Governor-Generalship. Nick-D (talk) 01:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
The difficulty I tend to have with criticism sections is that responses to stances, like Bryce's on same-sex marriage and republicanism, tend to be more complex that the section title would suggest - a mix of criticism and support. If we move it back into the Governor-General section we can still cover the comments for and against, which I think are worth covering, but we present it a bit more neutrally. (Also that seems to be what we've been doing in the rest of the article). I agree that the Africian tour criticism is very mild - perhaps worth mentioning, but also open to being folded back into the Governor-Generalship. - Bilby (talk) 01:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Dame of the Order of Australia[edit]

Despite the PM's media release, she hasn't been made a Dame yet. It doesn't take effect until she receives the accolade. (talk) 06:20, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Dames don't receive the accolade. It takes effect from when it's gazetted, although I don't know if that has happened yet. --Ibagli (Talk) 07:09, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Abbott addressed her as "Dame Quentin Bryce" at the official farewell a few minutes ago, and she was introduced with the same title. It seems to have taken effect already. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 07:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
If the letters patent making the change have already been done up, then she's a dame, as it's automatic for the GG.--Ibagli (Talk) 09:21, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
The changes to the letters patent came into effect from today. Her appointment as dame is automatic by virtue of her holding the office of Governor General, nothing more needs to be done. She is currently a Dame. (talk) 09:37, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Quentin Bryce. 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}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)