Talk:Elliott Lewis (politician)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Elliott Lewis (politician) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Australia: Tasmania / Politics Low‑importance

	Australia portal Elliott Lewis (politician) is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Tasmania (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics (assessed as High-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Tasmania.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

On the Template showing Tasmanian Premiers. Neil Elliott Lewis is shown twice. Once as "E. Lewis" Elliott Lewis and again ast "N. Lewis" Neil Lewis. This confused me while editing but I have checked the parliament website, they are the same person and are listed here twice. The "N. Lewis" article is a stub and should be deleted. --User:Kyle sb

Query

He was Premier of Tasmania between 1899 and 1903. In January-March 1901 he was simultaneously Minister without Portfolio in the Federal Government. This seems odd. I knew about his membership of Barton's ministry, but was not aware he was also the Premier of Tasmania at the time. How could he lead one government, while being a minor member of another government in another jurisdiction? If he had chosen to stand for Federal Parliament in March, he certainly would have been constitutionally required to resign from the Tasmanian Parliament. Since he didn't want to continue his life in federal politics, this wasn't necessary. But it still seems --- how can I put it --- bizarre, or at least improper. JackofOz 02:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first Barton Ministry was understood to be an interim ministry pending the election of the first Parliament. As a matter of form all the state premiers were offered ministries - Lyne of NSW, Turner of Vic, Dickson of Qld, Forrest of WA and Lewis of Tas. (Holder of SA either declined or was unacceptable as a Free Trader, so Kingston got the guernsey instead). This made it easy to avoid making difficult choices and left Barton's hand free to form a real party ministry after the election. Adam 03:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Adam. Did the Premiers take leave from their parliaments and governments for this period, or did they in fact fulfill all three offices (state member, state premier, federal minister)? I guess, being based in Melbourne, they could hardly have conducted their other business simultaneously in those days. JackofOz 03:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, you'd have to check the relevant dates. I assume those who were intending to stand for the federal Parliament would have had to resign their state seats by the close of federal nominations in February, but not necessarily their state portfolios. Anyway, the federal portfolios wouldn't have entailed a lot of work before March, because there was no parliament, no federal legislation, no federal departments to administer and very few federal public servants. Only Deakin as Attorney-General would have been really busy. Adam 03:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]