Jump to content

Talk:Prime Minister of Australia: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Mattrix18 (talk | contribs)
192 edits
 
(628 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talk header}}
{{WP Australia|class=B|importance=top|politics=yes |politics-importance=Top}}
{{Australian English|date=November 2010}}
{| class="messagebox small-talk"
{{WikiProject banner shell |class=C |listas=Australia, Prime Minister of |blp=other |1=
|-
{{WikiProject Australia|importance=Top|politics=yes|politics-importance=Top}}
! Archives
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=Mid}}
|-
}}
|
{{Annual readership}}
* [[/Archive 1|Archive One]]
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|-
|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}}
|}
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 3
|minthreadsleft = 1
|algo = old(90d)
|archive = Talk:Prime Minister of Australia/Archive %(counter)d
}}
__TOC__
__TOC__


== Albanese literally means Albanian in the Italin language. Why is there no section on his Arberesh heritage. These are Albanians who migrated to Italy before the Ottoman Empire invaded. ==


Section on his true origins. These facts are important. There is no Italian that wouldnt admit his surname means he is not Italian by origin. [[Special:Contributions/81.99.34.176|81.99.34.176]] ([[User talk:81.99.34.176|talk]]) 22:53, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
==The Infobox==
:If that can be reliably sourced with sources also confirming that this is a significant part of his heritage/identity, it would belong in the article on Albanese, not this article which is on the office of PM. [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]] ([[User talk:Nick-D|talk]]) 23:27, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
::To the IP editor, I recommend you try rewriting that final sentence without the triple negative. [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 05:29, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
:::Geez. How low can you go? Now you are throwing bricks at other editors whose first language is not English. If you don't understand something, politely ask for clarification instead of immediately sinking in the pointy boot. --[[User:Skyring|Pete]] ([[User talk:Skyring|talk]]) 20:36, 30 May 2022 (UTC)


== A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion ==
I know next to nothing about infoboxes, but the one we have now is in need of change:
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

* [[commons:File:The Lodge Canberra renovated.jpg|The Lodge Canberra renovated.jpg]]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2022-09-01T12:22:26.168234 | The Lodge Canberra renovated.jpg -->
* The last PM to be styled "[[Rt Hon]]" was Fraser (1983), and since the passage of the [[Australia Act]] (1986), no Australian will ever again be appointed to the Privy Council, so there will never again be a "Rt Hon" Australian Prime Minister (unless, maybe, if one of the people in [[Right Honourable#Australia|this list]] shows an interest in active politics; but they will all die eventually, and then there'll be none). The correct title is "The Hon" - but even then, it's not a title that is particular to the PM, but stems from the requirement in the Constitution that ''all'' Ministers be members of the [[Federal Executive Council]].
Participate in the deletion discussion at the [[commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Lodge Canberra renovated.jpg|nomination page]]. —[[User:Community Tech bot|Community Tech bot]] ([[User talk:Community Tech bot|talk]]) 12:22, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

== Page protection ==

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

== Edit Request ==

{{protectededit}}
Kevin Rudd is now PM. Please update. -- [[User:Whiteandnerdy111|Whiteandnerdy111]] ([[User talk:Whiteandnerdy111|talk]]) 10:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

:{{declined}} No, he is not. [[User:Sam Blacketer|Sam Blacketer]] ([[User talk:Sam Blacketer|talk]]) 10:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
It's not just tv media that are claiming Kevin Rudd as PM, Telstra Bigpond News are also saying that on their website. Check it out www.bigpond.com

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

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

::: He is now our prime minster, just choose one of our TV stations, News Papers or Websites. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/60.231.176.175|60.231.176.175]] ([[User talk:60.231.176.175|talk]]) 11:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
I think you should update it now. Rudd is the new PM. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/220.237.43.170|220.237.43.170]] ([[User talk:220.237.43.170|talk]]) 11:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

I think we should make a note that he his outgoing [[Special:Contributions/121.210.212.4|121.210.212.4]] ([[User talk:121.210.212.4|talk]]) 11:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

John Howard conceded. I think it should be updated.[[User:Mithead|Mithead]]

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

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

He must be sworn in first! +[[User:Hexagon1|Hexagon1]] <sup>([[User talk:Hexagon1|t]])</sup> 12:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

== Rudd won election ==

[[Kevin Rudd]] won the election tonight - we have a new PM. [[User:Benlisquare|Benlisquare]] ([[User talk:Benlisquare|talk]]) 12:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
:Yes, and it's frustrating that we cannot edit the article to reflect the circumstances![[User:Doktor Waterhouse|Doktor Waterhouse]] ([[User talk:Doktor Waterhouse|talk]]) 12:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

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

:I agree. We should wait until Rudd is sworn in. --[[User:TheSeer|TheSeer]] ([[User_talk:TheSeer|Talk]]ˑ[[Special:Contributions/TheSeer|Contribs]]) 13:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Yes, no new PM until formalities are done, but the article makes wikipedia look a little ridiculous by not even mentioning that we have had an election, so shoudl at least foreshadow the change. Sam, if you insist on keeping protection then you will have to make all relevatn edits to show that the reslt of the election will lead to imminent change in PM. [[User:JKW111|JKW111]] ([[User talk:JKW111|talk]]) 15:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
:''Imminent change in PM''? While, in pracise, that may seem the case, in reality it is not. Please see [[WP:CRYSTAL]]. --[[User:G2bambino|G2bambino]] ([[User talk:G2bambino|talk]]) 18:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
::Actually folks, Rudd wouldn't be Prime Minister-elect (as nobody votes for PM), he'd be Prime Minister-designate. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 18:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
:::PS- we always have these problems in bio articles, whenever an election is held. All editors must understand, Republic office holders & Parliamenty office holders don't immediately take office upon election. I dread the days between Nov 4, 2008 & Jan 20, 2009 (between the ''next'' US presidential election and Inauguration). [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 18:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
::::PPS- some countries do 'elect' their Prime Minister, but in those cases their Parliament does the electing (see [[Israel]]). [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 19:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
:::::PPPS- and then of course, that 'elected' PM is appointed by that country' Head of state. - Am I getting long winded?[[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 19:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

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

::Scratch that - it appears to be a term the BBC happens to have used. See [[Talk:Kevin_Rudd#Proper_term_for_Prime_Minister_to_be.3F]] - the ABC used "Prime Minister elect". Is there in fact a proper term for the person who's going to be, barring extreme circumstances, Prime Minister? - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 19:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
:::I don't know how Australia does it, but in my country (Canada) we you ''Designate''. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 20:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
The news media on Kevin Rudd seem to be almost unanimous in their use of "Prime Minister-elect". While this doesn't mean they are right, it does point to common usage with regards to an Australian PM in waiting IMHO. (and while the PM isn't directly elected, we do vote for his/her government)[[Special:Contributions/219.90.235.72|219.90.235.72]] ([[User talk:219.90.235.72|talk]]) 23:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
::::'''The facts are the following.''' Kevin Rudd is the Prime Minister-elect until he is sworn in. John Howard is no longer Prime Minister, as the Government and the Prime Ministership went into caretaker mode on the day the election was called. This is evidenced at www.australia.gov.au. It would appear to me that the person demanding the locking of this article is a fearful Liberal supporter not ready to let go. Fact remains Howard is no longer in a position of power and there is NO incumbent Prime Minister at present. The image and box should list Mr Rudd's image and the tag Elect, not Incumbent. I request this be changed as soon as practicable. Just because somebody locks an article, does not make their standpoint correct.[[User:Timmah86|Timmah86]] ([[User talk:Timmah86|talk]]) 00:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
:::::If this is the case, then Australia does things differently from (at least) Canada & the UK. Sorry guys, I assumed it was the same thing. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 00:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

::John Howard may not be in a position of ''legislative'' power, but he is still in a position of trust as the leader of the nation (after all, a leader is still needed). I can see how it could be very frustrating to maintain constitutional accuracy in the article when the media reports with the assumption that the majority of Australians are not familiar with the technicalities and simply report that we have a new prime minister. ''Shouldn't wikipedia be educating people then?'' Protection is probably warranted, not because someone's viewpoint is correct, but because the majority of edits are incorrect (in reply to [[User:Timmah86|Timmah86]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APrime_Minister_of_Australia&diff=173584787&oldid=173577737]). However, someone needs to make all this clear in the article with references that everyone else can visit. For example, the explanation on pm.gov.au is a good one. [[User:SMC89|SMC89]] <sup>( [[User_talk:SMC89|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/SMC89|contribs]] )</sup> 01:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

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

:(note: pm.gov.au is informative, but not a fixed ongoing reference for this detail.) - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 01:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
::If it will calm everybody down - call Howard ''Outgoing Prime Minister'' and Rudd ''Incoming Prime Minister''. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 01:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

:Any objections? - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|comment]] was added at 01:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)</small><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
*'''Accept''', the prime ministership is certainly not ''vacant''. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 01:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

: *facepalm* Oh, Lordy. If you can dig out something that has references and can form a concise sentence for the intro (to explain the Howard photo) and there's an admin handy to make the edit, please do so :-) - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 01:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
::Curious, when did John Howard ''resign'' as Prime Minister? [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 01:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

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

::I'm an admin so I could make the changes. But I'm hesitant to do so, because (1) it will be complicated to get right (and I would need to pour over the consitution to make sure I've got every detail correct) and (ii) what is the actual value in regard to this article? The public, the press and the newly elected parliamentarians all act as if this is NOT the case anyway and it is really nothing more constitutional trivia. [[User:Manning Bartlett|Manning]] ([[User talk:Manning Bartlett|talk]]) 01:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
:::Are these supposed ''vacancies'' between 'electon of new PM & his swearing in', reflected on past PMs bios & this articles list? [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 01:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

:::Howard is still the PM for the time being. He did not resign, but his government went into caretaker mode. When he was elected on 2 March 1996, he was not sworn in until 11 March, and [[Paul Keating]] remained PM till 11 March. The GG never, but ''never'' acts as the leader of the country, because he is apolitical and has to be seen to be so, in all circumstances. If we were invaded by a foreign power this afternoon, it would be John Howard who'd be fully authorised to do somehing about it, including, if necessary, advising the GG to issue a proclamation declaring war. Such a proclamation would be counter-signed "John Howard, Prime Minister". I imagine he'd consult with Kevin Rudd, but it would be his call, not Rudd's. Unless it were decided under the circumstances to swear Rudd in as PM immediately and leave it to him to conduct the defence of the nation. An extreme example, I hope, but a telling one. [http://www.pmc.gov.au/guidelines/docs/caretaker_conventions Here] are the full Caretaker Conventions that will answer these questions. [http://www.oph.gov.au/files/63-caretaker-role.pdf This] is a good short summary of them. Read them and learn about how we actually do things in this country at election times. -- [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] ([[User talk:JackofOz|talk]]) 02:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

::::You are correct - I'd just finished reading the caretaker provisions and was about to say the same thing.[[User:Manning Bartlett|Manning]] ([[User talk:Manning Bartlett|talk]]) 02:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
:::::In complete agreement. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 02:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
::::::The Prime Minister's webpage should answer this "Canadian" guy's protests: http://www.pm.gov.au/ . We have a different system than in Canada, we even have an elected Senate. [[User:Mattrix18|Mattrix18]] ([[User talk:Mattrix18|talk]]) 09:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

== New sentence added to intro ==

I just added this.

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

Comments? Are we happy with this? [[User:Manning Bartlett|Manning]] ([[User talk:Manning Bartlett|talk]]) 02:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
:Remove the ''caretaker'' tag, as it means ''acting''. John Howard is not ''Acting PM''. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 02:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

::No, according to the caretaker provisions, "caretaker" does not mean "acting". [http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/rules/cc/ Have a read of this.][[User:Manning Bartlett|Manning]] ([[User talk:Manning Bartlett|talk]]) 02:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
:::John Howard is ''still'' Prime Minister - Unless somebody can proove he has resigned. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 02:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
::::He's is not a caretaker government. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 02:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
:::::Yes he is. The rules and convetions are quite specific on this fact.[[User:Manning Bartlett|Manning]] ([[User talk:Manning Bartlett|talk]]) 02:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
::::::Where's the sources for the mass resignations of his cabinet & the appointments of a 'caretaker' cabinent? If you add 'caretaker PM'? then you must make that edit also on [[John Howard]] and all the other Australian PM bios. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 02:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Good Day, the caretaker period does not only operate up until election day, it continues until the new government is sworn in. [http://www.pmc.gov.au/guidelines/docs/caretaker_conventions Here] are the full Caretaker Conventions that will answer these questions. [http://www.oph.gov.au/files/63-caretaker-role.pdf This] is a good short summary of them. -- [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] ([[User talk:JackofOz|talk]]) 02:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
:In my country (Canada), a caretaker PM is the governing party's ''interim party leader''; an emergancy appointment caused by an unexpected PM's (ie the governing party's leader) resignation or death. I suppose things are done differently in Australia. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 02:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

::That's right, and there's no supposing about it. We have our ways and you have yours. This article is about the Australian PM, not the Canadian. -- [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] ([[User talk:JackofOz|talk]]) <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|comment]] was added at 02:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)</small><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::Don't forget to add the 'caretaker' tag to ''all'' the Australian PM bios (the PMs whose governments were defeated for reelection). The caretaker tag designates their service from election-defeat to successor swearing-in aswell. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 03:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

I'm no Howard fan - I voted for Rudd. But I've spent all morning persusing the consitution, the caretaker provisions and the electoral act 1926 and the fact it that Howard remains the Prime Minister until the GG appoints Rudd to the position. Whether he is the "caretaker" prime minister or the leader of the "caretaker government" is really just semantics - I can't determine the actaul situation one way or the other. But he definitely IS the prime minister - [http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/11/25/1195947536249.html even Rudd says so]. [[User:Manning Bartlett|Manning]] ([[User talk:Manning Bartlett|talk]]) 03:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

:::Well said. [[User:Manning Bartlett|Manning]] ([[User talk:Manning Bartlett|talk]]) 05:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

== Kevin Rudd ==
This page should not be changed until Kevin Rudd has been sworn in by the Governor-General. Anything could happen between now and when he is officially sworn in. The Australian Electoral Commission has to send the results to the Governor-General first. People need to stop rushing to change things. We have a few days yet. [[User:Mattrix18|Mattrix18]] ([[User talk:Mattrix18|talk]]) 09:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
:[http://news.google.com.au/news?hl=en&ned=au&q=%22prime+minister-elect%22 Yawn]. [[User:Timeshift9|Timeshift]] ([[User talk:Timeshift9|talk]]) 09:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
::The issue is with the term "Incumbent". Mr Howard is no longer the "incumbent", he is the Caretaker. The infobox should be changed to represent that. I hereby apologise also for my political based remarks previously [[User:Timmah86|Timmah86]] ([[User talk:Timmah86|talk]]) 10:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
:::"Incumbent" means the person actually occupying the office in question. The office in question is that of Prime Minister of Australia. John Howard is the Prime Minister of Australia until he hands in his commission, which won't happen till Kevin Rudd has chosen his ministry and they are ready to be sworn in. That won't happen till Thursday. Howard remains the PM till then. His government is in caretaker mode. There is no actual office as "caretaker Prime Minister" - it's shorthand for the Prime Minister who's heading a government that is currently in caretaker mode. John Howard is the incumbent until Thursday. (End of lesson.) -- [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] ([[User talk:JackofOz|talk]]) 12:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
::::There's no actual office as "Prime Minister" in Australia according to the constitution. I have never seen the term "Prime Minister" written within the constitution. The office of Prime Minister is simply part of the westminster tradition and protocol, an implied office, just like the caretaker role. [[User:Mattrix18|Mattrix18]] ([[User talk:Mattrix18|talk]]) 13:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 11:40, 13 December 2024

Albanese literally means Albanian in the Italin language. Why is there no section on his Arberesh heritage. These are Albanians who migrated to Italy before the Ottoman Empire invaded.

[edit]

Section on his true origins. These facts are important. There is no Italian that wouldnt admit his surname means he is not Italian by origin. 81.99.34.176 (talk) 22:53, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If that can be reliably sourced with sources also confirming that this is a significant part of his heritage/identity, it would belong in the article on Albanese, not this article which is on the office of PM. Nick-D (talk) 23:27, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To the IP editor, I recommend you try rewriting that final sentence without the triple negative. HiLo48 (talk) 05:29, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Geez. How low can you go? Now you are throwing bricks at other editors whose first language is not English. If you don't understand something, politely ask for clarification instead of immediately sinking in the pointy boot. --Pete (talk) 20:36, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:22, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prime_Minister_of_Australia&oldid=1262844179"