Talk:Prime Minister of Australia

Hey, if anyone has time, it would be really cool to make a graphical timeline, like in "United States Presidents" ... see here for info about them.... --spiralhighway 02:32, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• It has been done - enjoy. Brisvegas 03:36, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

---

Simon, these revisions are excellent IMHO. You've managed to make the melange of history, convention, and the written constitution comprehensible to others.

Personally, I think we should rewrite the constitution to make it easier for Wikipedia writers, though :)

--Robert Merkel

Someone better edit this page soon

The 'Kevin 07' t-shirts were right. Ebglider91 (talk) 11:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

---

Malcolm Fraser wasn't appointed to take over from Gough Whitlam, was he? Wasn't Parliament dissolved and then Fraser (formerly the opposition leader) was elected, as if it were any normal election. It wasn't an extraordinary appointment by the queen or anything. - User:Mark Ryan

Completely wrong, Mark. Fraser was appointed prime minister to replace Whitlam. A prime minister is not elected by the Australian parliament (nor indeed in the vast majority of parliamentary democracies). They are appointed by the head of state; sometimes that may require a prior nomination by parliament, often it does not. Fraser became PM on the same day as Whitlam was dismissed. Parliament had no role in the matter. STÓD/ÉÍRE

PML, I understand the word 'they' is a bit clumsy, but textbooks generally use it in preference to 'he and she', 'him and her', or simply using one. So it is 100% correct in its usage. I've reverted the page to that standard structure. STÓD/ÉÍRE 05:31 Mar 24, 2003 (UTC)

You must read some weird textbooks Jtdirl. Anyways, wikipedia is not Jtdirl's textbook. 172.130.39.50

Nor is it a place for clumsy editing. And no, I don't read '(sic) weird' textbooks. I deal with publishers when writing books, and they explicitly want to use 'they' because they do not like using 'he' or 'she' and 'he/she' sounds revolting. So they is now used to cover both sexes and is understood by most readers not to mean they plural but he or she. Publishers in general prefer to restrict 'he' or 'she' to an office that has been held by both sexes, allowing the author to use the sex of the current office holder in the text. But there has never been a female pm in Australia so in that case publishers use they. Similarly they use they when referring to Irish prime ministers but have no problem with 'he' or 'she' for the Irish president because there you are dealing with an office that has been held by other sexes. STÓD/ÉÍRE 06:16 Mar 24, 2003 (UTC)

---

In this instance, however, there are two problems that don't always occur: there aren't any female PMs (historical inaccuracy); and, the corporate impression conveyed by "they" is too far off what we need (it blurs the essential element of individual responsibility). So I wanted to start a search for something generally acceptable that was also workable, that brought out this side of things; it's not a clumsiness issue, this time (though I grant you I got to this from the absurdity of someone recommending this piece's prose approach). You've merely reverted (and probably reverted some of the other corrections I made in passing - I haven't checked). And sod the damned prescriptive types anyway. One can always recast the spurious singular "they" into something workable, if only one tries. It may cost some effort, but hey, I was willing to accept the accurate "he" anyway and leave the work to those more fussed. PML.

You completely misunderstood what I said.

No, I did not misunderstand - I both understood and thoroughly disagreed with that view. The past does not imply the future in that simplistic way, tout court. The "he" in no sense implies a constraint, it is a mere factual description. "They", on the other hand, is false - the PM's is not a joint function in any sense. (I am thinking of contrasts with things like "corporation sole" here, by which vicars would indeed be considered as some sort of "they" - despite being predominantly male.) PML.

If an office has been held by people of both sexes then it is possible to use he or to use she without raising sexist issues by arguing that you are simply using the term referring to the current holder. But where an office has never been held by one or other, to exclusively use one form opens up the charge of sexism and of implying that it will be only held by one gender, which is why publishing houses increasingly in that context to use the general neutral they rather than a gender-specific alternative. So in the case of Australian prime ministers, they is increasingly used rather than a gender-specific alternative. They does not blur the essential elemnt of individual responsibility, because it is universally understood in this context to be singular neutral,

As a simple statement of fact, that is false. It is capable of being construed that way, but unfortunately it is also capable of being construed the other way - so it is at least slightly ambiguous. I wished to bypass the problem area rather than clarify what was meant. PML.

It is not slightly ambiguous.

When I put "a simple statement of fact", that is just precisely what I meant. I myself had to look twice, in order to apply that very context in that very way, in order to achieve that clarification. It is ambiguous, though granted not very. On the one hand your accurate description of a way of resolving it is not a proof of unambiguity but rather a demonstration of a way of addressing it. On the other, I was suggesting we drop the whole thing rather than confront it, and end up with some form of words that doesn't even go near the problem area. Denial is not resolution. PML.

It has been used in this format for over thirty years and its meaning is unambiguously clear. You understand it by its context as to whether it is singular or plural, in exactly the same way as we contextualise man as being gender-specific or gender-neutral.STÓD/ÉÍRE

not third person plural. In the case of the presidency of Ireland, for example, it is regularly the case that when quoting from the constitution, people use he which is the term used there, but when referring to practicalities of the office, use she given that the current president is a woman. In 2004, that may change, and he would be used, with no problems, should a man be elected, because the office's history proves it can be held by either sex.

Stipulate that for the sake of argument; then why insist on that approach, rather than - as I was suggesting - search for some synthesis that avoids the personal sensitivity of prescriptive personalities (which I myself find offensive from its prescriptiveness, its pushiness) while also achieving the underlying purpose involved in communicating? Why insist on offending people like me, who like the language we have (which is also why I adjusted "whilst")? PML.

Whilst is in fact perfectly correct and has been used for centuries. While is in fact a more modern alternative. In fact whilst is used in formal state documentation in preference to while and many copywriters prefer to use it, in particular in British-english. As we are supposed to leave whichever version of english is used, (UK english or US english) whilst should be left in place as it is 100% correct, the formal version preferred by many people and the version used in British-english. STÓD/ÉÍRE

I am not saying that I agree with the implication that 'he' is automatically gender-specific, but having written books and worked as copy-editor in a newspaper, I have had to deal with the issue and find a way of minimising potential offence or generating pointless rows,

In this we differ. I prefer minimising actual offence; potential offence deserves only a lower priority, because of the constant disruption it throws on actual behaviour. PML.

There is no such thing as 'potential' offence.

One, that was your term. Two, there is in the sense that when the PC mob (here, also sucking you in) go to work, they are not ever expressing their own offended sensibilities but only their vicarious concern for hypothetical others. For instance, I have been seriously offended by Air India staff who kept disturbing me; I wanted to see the dawn, and they wanted the blind drawn in case someone was upset by the light. There was only one individual upset, me. They were genuinely unable to see the distinction, that I was quite willing to listen to a genuine complaint but that they were merely being officious. PML.

There is simply offence and exclusive rather than inclusive language does cause offence

I am offended by that attempt to anticipate a hypothetical. There is indeed an offence here, if you wish to ask about sensibilities. But again, why confront? Why not avoid both lots of problematic sensibilities? For what its worth, I am not the one imposing a usage and also, there appear to be at least some others of my perspective out there. You, however, are merely anticipating - unless you are offended in persona propria. PML.

and should be avoided particularly in a publication like wiki that is read by numerous people in numerous cultures. I am by no means a fan of political correctness. In fact much of the time I think it is a sick joke. But sometimes sensitivity is required, not least because if it isn't, you will have edit wars on wiki. STÓD/ÉÍRE

which on wiki is a regular occurance. As to your other changes, the only one I could see what replacing 'whilst' with 'while'. 'Whilst' is perfectly correct and widely used so there is no problem in having it there. STÓD/ÉÍRE 23:13 Mar 24, 2003 (UTC)

When it says, in the "Left Parliament" column, that Gough Whitlam was "dismissed 31 July 1978", is that right? Shouldn't the "dismissed" (and the various others - resigned, defeated, deceased) be under the "Left Office" column? --213.120.56.41 14:59, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

Actually, its not similar at all....

This separation between the Executive Council and the Cabinet is similar to that existing between the Privy Council and Cabinet in the United Kingdom, or between the Canadian Privy Council and the Cabinet in Canada. Roadrunner 08:02, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but there is a difference between the Cabinet and the Executive Council, ie only senior ministers are members of the Cabinet and all ministers and parliamentary secretaries are members of the Executive Council. Edited to this effect. --Qsjet 15:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I've spun off the very detailed list of prime ministers table into a separate article and added a more condensed one. The detail is useful but I think its also important to have a snappier table that is a bit easier to take in. Iota 16:00, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Trivia just removed from article. It was right to remove it but maybe it can be added in again some time in future if it can be made relevant:

Ten Australian Prime Ministers (Barton, Reid, Cook, Bruce, Page, Menzies, Fadden, McEwen, Gorton and McMahon) have been freemasons. Iota 20:00, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It can only be relevant if it can be shown that their Freemasonry in some way influenced their conduct in office. Since Freemasonry in Australia is entirely non-political I very much doubt that this can be shown, and I have never seen it alleged. All their membership demonstrates is that many middle-class Protestant Australian men used to join the Freemasons. Adam 14:20, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I would note as a minor aside, though, that all of these PM's were conservative, none Labor, perhaps demonstrating something about sectarian allegiances at that time. Lacrimosus 00:51, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cabinet Photo

Does anyone know where we can get a photo of the most recent (forth Howard) Cabinet, a la the Second Howard Ministry photo provided by Adam? Lacrimosus 00:51, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There is no official photo at the PM's website or the DPMC website. You could probably get one from Auspic. Adam 06:07, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I am personally counting Howard as the 30th not 25th Prime Minister.--Matthew See 02:53, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You can personally do whatever you please, so long as you don't change the article to that effect. Adam 03:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally why is it the Opposition Leaders and Treasurers are counted from the periods they are in instead of individually and Howard is still the 30th Prime Minister. (You did I can do whatever I please.)--Matthew See 05:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

To my knowledge, they're not. In any case, any numeration is unofficial. Slac speak up! 05:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I meant in context of this encyclopedia.--Matthew See 06:13, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

If they are, they shouldn't be. That is, Peacock, Howard and Beazley should only be numbered once in the list of Opposition Leaders. I will amend the articles accordingly if need be. Adam 11:41, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Two lists for the same thing?

Is there any reason why this page and the List of Prime Ministers of Australia by important facts couldn't be merged, this page would make a great featured list (see WP:FL) and I don't see why the comprehensive list isn't just included in this article?--nixie 4 July 2005 03:27 (UTC)

I think the reason that the list was taken out was that it is too comprehensive: there's too much detail. A simple sequence, with information conveyed in the body of the text, would be better. The list looks horribly cluttered to me currently. Slac speak up! 4 July 2005 22:05 (UTC)

This page is pretty cluttered, I think that getting rid of the template (only from this page), and incorporating the images into the the table would tidy it up a bit. Moving the images aroung would help to.--nixie 4 July 2005 23:08 (UTC)

Oppose. There's too much detail on the important facts page to effectively merge into this one. --RaiderAspect 10:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Howard

Shouldn't there be a more prominent picture of Howard, considering he is the current PM? Also why isn't there a history section, detailing the history of Australian Prime Ministers? Lapafrax 19:18, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Would this work?

Here is a revised PM of Australia template that also intergrates the succession box. Just want to know what everyone thinks

 

M W Johnson 05:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, don't like it. IMHO, succession boxes should be uniform accross Wikipedia, not specific to one particular office. Slac speak up! 03:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Salary

I've removed the reference to the PM being the second highest government employee after the governor general. Avoiding issues as to whether he is actually an employee, we know for certain some public servants are paid higher salaries, such as the governor of the RBA (see [1]).

Prime Ministers Profile

Is it possible that someone could replace the current pictures and put the offical portraits of the Prime Minister instead. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.134.35.91 (talk • contribs) 05:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

Vandalism

Seems to be regular vandalism (I am not a Howard fan, but this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, after all!). Should this page be protected? I am new to editing and am unsure how to do it. Timb66 10:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

DOB, DOD?

Below is a list of Prime Ministers of Australia by name, birth date, birth place, date first elected to the Australian parliament, political party, electoral constituency, date assumed office, date left office, date left parliament (where applicable) and date of death (where applicable).

The only fields here are name, date assumed office, date left office, and political party, yet this paragraph heads the table. Should columns be added to the table or the should the names of the fields be deleted from the paragraph?

Mal7798 03:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Graphical Timeline

Ok it's now getting to me... what part of wikipedia do I go to, to request assistance in fixing the inaccuracies in Template:Timeline Australian PM that nobody including the creator seems to be able to fix? Timeshift 07:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

EXCO and "ex officio"

• These Ministers are ex officio members of the Federal Executive Council, the senior members of which constitute the Cabinet.

I keep looking at this sentence and wondering about it. The Ex officio suggests, to me at least, that a person holds membership of EXCO solely because of their Ministerial office, and it's automatic as soon as they're sworn in as a Minister. That's actually not the way it works.

Section 62 of the Constitution says "There shall be a Federal EXCO ....and the members of the Council shall be chosen and summoned by the G-G and sworn as Executive Councillors, and shall hold office during his pleasure". Then s.64 says "The G-G may appoint officers to administer such departments of state ... as the G-G may establish. Such officers ... shall be members of the Federal EXCO, and shall be the Queen's Ministers of State for the Commonwealth". Unless we've been doing something naughty for 106 years, there would seem to be required two swearings: one as an Executive Councillor the first time they become one, and another as a Minister every time they take on a new or additional portfolio. Once sworn as an Executive Councillor, barring extraordinary circumstances, they remain an Executive Councillor for life, which is why it only happens once, and why they get to retain "The Hon" for life. They don't remain a Minister for life.

It's entirely possible to be sworn as an Executive Councillor but, for whatever reason, not chosen as a Minister. This actually happened with Glenister Sheil. Malcolm Fraser announced his choice of Sheil as Minister for Veterans' Affairs on December 19, 1977, but before Sheil had had a chance to be sworn in as a Minister, Fraser changed his mind about him two days later because of Sheil’s announced views on apartheid. It got a lot of press at the time (the headlines screamed "Sheil sacked!" etc - but he was never actually sacked because he was never actually appointed). This tells us he had not even been formally sworn in – as a Minister - and the Parliamentary Handbook bears that out in not listing him as a member of any Fraser ministry. But he had been sworn in as an Executive Councillor. Gavin Souter’s “Acts of Parliament” (p. 624) says “Sheil’s appointment to the Executive Council without portfolio was terminated on 22 December, 1977, only two days after it had been made”.

So, the situation is that a person is capable of being chosen as a Minister because they were first sworn as an Executive Councillor, not the other way around. Therefore, I think the "ex officio" is not correct, and should be removed. -- JackofOz 13:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Chopped off edit summary - the article is wrong!

Both in the table and the graph, there are issues. Chris Watson is wrong, Alfred Deakin is wrong, Billy Hughes is wrong, and they're just the ones i've noticed! I've made what changes I can, but as for other changes I don't have the knowledge. Timeshift 09:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

PM template

Per this history, do people think it's better to have the template as this or this? I think it is better to have the PM included if they have served a second term, such as Deakin, Fisher, and Menzies. Eg, I think it just doesnt look right for the PM list to go from Reid to Fisher, or from Chifley to Holt. I strongly believe in the latter edit. Thoughts? Timeshift 03:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Now i'm not one to like vandalism, but I think this revision takes Timeshift's 2007 vandalism of the year for inventiveness and creativeness. Timeshift 15:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Small thing - 'Style'

The PM is not normally styled 'The Right Honourable'. That only applies if the PM has been sworn of the (UK) Privy Council. The last 'Right Hon' PM was Malcolm Fraser. The style is generally 'The Honourable'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markswan (talk • contribs) 11:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The Infobox

I know next to nothing about infoboxes, but the one we have now is in need of change:

• 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 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.

• 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. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:58, 20 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. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit Request

Template:Protectededit Kevin Rudd is now PM. Please update. -- Whiteandnerdy111 (talk) 10:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

 Declined No, he is not. 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. 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.231.176.175 (talk) 11:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you should update it now. Rudd is the new PM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.43.170 (talk) 11:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we should make a note that he his outgoing 121.210.212.4 (talk) 11:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)