Talk:Prime Minister of Australia/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

List of Australian Prime Ministers

The copy of the list of Australian Prime Ministers has been removed

Don't restore it. There is a link to what is pretty much the same article that has been removed. The link remains. Arglebargle79 (talk) 22:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

@Arglebargle79: - "Unless someone can give me a good reason why to KEEP it, I'll try again to remove it tomorrow."[1] - You're already at the bright line of 3RR and waiting "until tomorrow" to presumably avoid 4RR could be seen as gaming the system, and you could still end up blocked for edit-warring. (well, depending on the admin... ). What all of you should is ctfo, leave the article at QUO (it won't kill anyone) and have a discussion, (failing that, an RfC). You don't get to decide on your own what stays and what goes. Consensus (and P&G) does that. For the record, I agree with Arglebargle79's position, if not their approach. Having a repeat of the list here is totally needless. Either have it here and get rid of the other page, or keep the other page and link it, not both - wolf 23:42, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

BTW - I've posted a notice of this discussion at Talk:List of Prime Ministers of Australia#FYI. - wolf 23:51, 26 August 2018 (UTC)~

I'd like to see a list here, but with different detail than the other article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:48, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

That's another possibility, but it would have to be significantly different. Right now, having a copy of a list article list (yes, I meant that) here is redundant, if not silly. - wolf 23:56, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

@Arglebargle79: as other editors have discussed, I'd have no worries with having the the apparent duplicated list in this article modified into a simple timeline – that's fine. What I wasn't fine with was you removing content without adequately explaining why, and also continuously edit warring whilst adding in false information (as I explained on your talk page Paul Rudd = actor, Kevin Rudd = politician. Very different people.) Thanks, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 04:36, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I noticed it's still there, that copy, and anyone who genuinely wants it there as it is, please post the reasons here in the next few hours, or I'll consider it a go ahead to delete it again. The article should look like other major countries'. Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:46, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't support removing it entirely. It should replaced or abridged. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:40, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

@Arglebargle79: No, that's not how it works. The onus is on you to bring other editors to your conclusion for a change in content (and hence, a change in consensus). If you decide to remove the content again based on your own opinions -- and not reflected in consensus -- that's called "disruptive editing": and your edit will be reverted. I've suggested that it stays, or is changed into a simple timeline; I see Onetwothreeip suggested it be abridged but not removed. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 06:26, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

why? What purpose does the complete copy of the list article serve? Like I said. There were NO reasons to keep it as it is listed. just "don't do it!" So explain in detail Why this complete copy belongs here and why it is nowhere else in any other major country's prime minister/president article.Arglebargle79 (talk) 00:48, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Right now you're the only one insisting that the list must be removed. There is no harm in letting the list be present while we discuss what changes we would like to make to the list, if any. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Federalism

This article doesn't sufficiently acknowledge Australia's federal system. The "Powers and role" section doesn't make it clear that the power of the federal parliament, and therefore that of the PM, is limited by the constitution to heads of power listed in section 51. The powers and role of the Australian PM are not as extensive as the British PM for this reason. There are many issues which the Australian PM has no power over. He or she is not really the head of the Australian government. The Australian government has many heads. The lead says: "The individual who holds the office is the most senior Minister of the Crown, the leader of the Cabinet". That isn't really true. In general, the PM has no right to overrule a state premier. And she or he is the leader of the federal cabinet.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:09, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Section 51 concerns powers of the parliament, not the prime minister. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:36, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

But the powers of the PM come from parliament.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:10, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Which powers? Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:17, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm no expert, but my understanding is that it is incorrect to say that the powers of the Australian PM, or the powers of any governmental Ministers, come from Parliament. According to Prime Minister of Australia#Constitutional basis and appointment, the Prime Minister of Australia is appointed by the Governor-General of Australia under Section 64 of the Australian Constitution, which empowers the Governor-General as the official representative of the monarch. The Minister of the Crown article says that those governmental Ministers advise the sovereign or viceroy on how to exercise the Crown prerogative relative to the minister's department or ministry. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:02, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

The above comments seem rather irrelevant, as they don't deal with federalism.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:18, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Federalism isn't really relevant to prime ministerial powers. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:12, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Why do you say that? Do you think that the PM has the power to overrule a premier?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:26, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Not per se. But the PM's governing party can have the Parliament overrule a law passed by a state parliament controlled by a premier's governing party, if such a law conflicts with a Commonwealth law. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:43, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but only if the state law relates to the heads of power listed in section 51.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:31, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, that's a non sequitur. The Commonwealth couldn't and wouldn't make laws outside those heads of power in the first place. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:11, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

So the PM's power is limited by s 51. QED.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:48, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

The PM has zero power in terms of the written constitution, as his office is not even mentioned there. He has certain powers acquired through longstanding Westminster convention, such as advising the governor-general and the monarch about a limited range of non-codified matters. He may have certain specific powers granted through legislation, but such legislation is always amenable to amendment. Outside of that, he has very little power to do anything, unilaterally. Section 51 is about the power of the parliament, not about the PM at all. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:01, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

If, as the article says, the PM is a Minister of State, then his or her role is "to advise the Governor-General in the government of the Commonwealth" (s 62). According to s 61, "The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen's representative, and extends to the execution and maintenance of this Constitution, and of the laws of the Commonwealth." As the "laws of the Commonwealth" are limited by s 51, the "executive power of the Commonwealth" is also limited by s 51. The power of the PM as a "Minister of State" who "advises" the Governor-General is also limited by s 51. Also, as the PM is a member of parliament, any restriction on the power of parliament is also a restriction on the power of the PM.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:15, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

OK, but what's the point you're making? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:12, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

The point is that the federal system restricts the power of the PM.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:21, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

All you've convinced me of (not that I needed convincing) is that the power of the PM is restricted by the Constitution. Obviously the federal system and the Constitution have a lot to do with each other, but they are still different things. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:55, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Just to be clear here, section 51 doesn't restrict the power of a member of parliament or the prime minister, only the parliament itself. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:40, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

What is parliament but a collection of its members?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:19, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

What's that got to do with anything? The prime minister can't overrule the mayor of London either, or the Earth's orbit around the sun. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:55, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, that's literally nonsense, and it's indicative of the bizarre nature of this discussion. The British PM probably could alter Earth's orbit using atomic bombs. But how is that relevant to a discussion of a PM's political power within a country? With regard to London, the PM has, by passing acts through parliament, reorganised its local government many times. Thatcher abolished the left-wing Greater London Council and later Blair created the elected Mayor of London. Both the PM and the Mayor have to act according to law, but the office of Mayor could be abolished at any time, so long as the PM had sufficient numbers in the parliament. By contrast, the Australian PM can't abolish or reorganise a state government, no matter what legislation is passed through parliament.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:24, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm referring to the Australian prime minister, as Scott Morrison doesn't have power over the mayor of London. Although it wasn't Thatcher who abolished the GLC and neither was it Blair who created the current assembly, both of those were acts of parliament. Federalism relates to the division of powers, while the role of the prime minister regards the separation of powers. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:27, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

That's complete nonsense again.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:33, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

That's the point. It's the same for the role of a prime minister over a premier, it doesn't fit. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:03, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

It is true the power of the PM are limited by physical impossibilities and national boundaries, but that's stating the obvious. It is not obvious that the Australian PM can't interfere with state governments.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:19, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• "Restraints on the Power of the Prime Minister: The States – Section 51 of the Constitution divides responsibilities between the Federal government and the States. Often, co-operation with the States is an important element in ensuring political stability. Disagreements with State Premiers undermined John Gorton’s position as Prime Minister between 1968-71. Equally, the Federal government’s dominance over financial matters has also given prime ministers an edge in dealing with the States."[2]--Jack Upland (talk) 06:30, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute

The article was recently tagged as NPOV [3], but justification was not provided on the talk page as per WP:NPOV dispute. @User:Jack Upland, you've pointed out several issues on this talk page, but to me they don't look like an issue with neutrality. Could you please justify the NPOV tag below? Jaxcab (talk) 05:00, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

The article seems to represent the point of view of a few editors, based on their own interpretation of the Constitution, with very few citations to back them up. As demonstrated above, a few editors who watch this page are hostile to the idea that the PM operates within a federal structure, even though this is a fundamental fact of Australia politics. Also, as touched on above, the article gives excessive attention to the role of the Governor-General. Both these issues seem to be issues of WP:Weight. The GG is given too much weight, and federalism is given no weight at all. The point of view expressed in the federalism dispute seems to be a fringe opinion, but I don't understand its origin or intention. Hence, I can't say that this article is pushing an X point of view, because I don't know what X is. However, it is clear that there is an opinion that federalism should not mentioned.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:23, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the article is quite scrappy and deficient at the moment. Jack's concerns are valid. I don't know if slapping tags on it is helpful though. I would suggest we find a similar article to model this on, and then work on getting the opening paragraphs right so we can build a better structure. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 06:45, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Federalism really isn't relevant to the office of prime minister, it's not about being hostile to the idea. The reliable sources reflect that. Sources that say certain prime ministers had disputes with state governments are inaccurate, it's the federal government that comes into conflict with the state governments, not the prime minister. The issue of neutral point of view relates to bias, and it doesn't seem like you're accusing anybody of bias. Events such as the federal government's involvement in the Tasmanian dams issue for example are better expressed on an article relating to the division of powers than an article about the office of prime minister. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:05, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I think you are biased, but I don't understand why.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:01, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad you are honest enough to say you think I am biased. What do you think I am biased to? Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:12, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I think you are biased against mentioning federalism in this article.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:12, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't call that bias, as much as you are biased against mentioning anything that isn't relevant to the prime minister. What is your case for mentioning federalism, and what would you like the article to say about it? Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:16, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps we could add a few sentences clarifying that the prime minister is the leader of the federal government, and is hence limited in power by the powers of the federal government. It might seem a little obvious, but some people are likely to have a misconceived idea about it. Jaxcab (talk) 00:20, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't make a big fuss about state-federal relations, but COAG should at least be mentioned. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 11:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Good idea.

I think while this article does have issues, we can remove the NPOV tag. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:02, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• The President of the United States article uses the word "federal" or its derivatives 35 times, including 8 times in the lead. It says in first paragraph that "The president directs the executive branch of the federal government", and it discusses the federation of colonies to become the United States. By contrast, this article uses it only 13 times, and crucially never in the lead. Almost all references are to the Federal Executive Council or the federal parliament. Federation is mentioned incidentally only. The only reference to the "federal government" was added in after this discussion. Anyone reading the lead would think that Australia had a centralised political system: "The Prime Minister of Australia ... is the head of government of Australia. The individual who holds the office is the most senior Minister of the Crown, the leader of the Cabinet and the chairperson of the National Security Committee." There is a clear imbalance here towards a strange kind of centralism that believes that if federalism isn't mentioned it will go away. I think the lead should indicate that the PM is a member of the federal government (as the US President's article does), I think the section on "powers" should indicate that the PM's powers are restricted by federalism, along the lines of my quotation given above.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:01, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

We don't add stuff just because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but we can certainly add references to the federal system in the article where it's appropriate to do so. The main difference between the prime minister and the US president is that the US president is effectively both the prime minister and the governor general, so it encompasses more. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Further to the counting of how many times "federal" is mentioned, the word "Commonwealth" is used fifteen times. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:18, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but a lot of references to "Commonwealth" are to the "Commonwealth Liberals" and at least one to the Commonwealth of Nations. There is no mention of this in the lead, nor is there an explanation what the "Commonwealth" actually means in Australia. The contrast with the US example is that there the federal system has been mentioned appropriately, and here it has almost been censored. Yes, the US presidency is very different from the Australian prime minister, but US federalism was copied by Australia. The real contrast is the lead, where the US example clearly signals that the president operates in a federal system, but this article seems to falsely indicate the opposite.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:51, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

"Commonwealth" is actually a more accepted name for the federal government in Australia. Still there's no particular reason to mention federalism in the leading paragraph, we don't say the prime minister operates in a democratic system or a metric system either. There is absolutely nothing there that implies Australia is not a federation. Do you have any specific suggestions? Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:53, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I provide arguments, examples, and sources; you make flippant remarks. There's no particular reason to say that the Prime Minister is the leader of the federal government??? The opening sentences clearly suggest that it is a unitary government. The PM is "head of government", not head of the federal government; the "most senior Minister of the Crown", not the most senior federal minister; the "leader of the Cabinet", not leader of the federal cabinet. If you click on "Cabinet" it leads to Cabinet of Australia, which again barely acknowledges the federal system. At the very least the article should begin by saying the PM is "the head of the federal government of Australia".--Jack Upland (talk) 08:46, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

So why should it say federal? "Head of government" is the correct term and every country is supposed to have one. Officially he is the chair of the Cabinet of Australia, not the "federal Cabinet" or something like that. We don't say Australia is in the southern hemisphere either, it doesn't mean the article is implying Australia is in the northern hemisphere. If anybody believes Australia is not a federation, it won't be because they read this article. I'm certainly willing to include information that relates to the federal system, which is why I wrote information about the Council of Australian Governments after it was brought to my attention on this talk page. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:33, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Who said it's officially called "Cabinet of Australia"???--Jack Upland (talk) 07:35, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

The Dismissal

The Dismissal of Whitlam is discussed three times. It would be much better to have one discussion.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:20, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Agree fully. The 1975 Dismissal was an aberration highly unlikely to be repeated, and only ever done once in 117 years. It certainly doesn't need the prominence this article now gives it. TheBustopher (talk) 17:58, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Trivia

There is a lot of trivia in this article. It doesn't have any citations, and is presumably just based on the research of editors. For example:

All the others who have left office have lived at least another 10 years. Nine of them (Bruce, Cook, Fadden, Forde, Fraser, Gorton, Hughes, Watson, and Whitlam) lived more than 25 years after leaving the office, and all but one of them have survived longer than 30 years (Hughes lived for 29 years and 8 months following service). Bob Hawke, who is still alive, has also lived 25 years beyond the end of his prime ministership.

This is basically pointless. How can you compare Forde, who served as PM very briefly, with Hawke? What does it matter how long they lived after leaving office? What exactly is the significance of the fact that Hughes didn't live for 30 years afterwards?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:19, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Politics reduced to numerology, to quote Allen Ginsberg.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:15, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I'd support removing stuff hello like this. Nick-D (talk) 08:00, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

List of prime ministers

I think previously it was agreed that this article should have a list of prime ministers (unlike some other head of government articles where there is no list only a link to a list article). However the list at this article is currently an exact duplicate of List of Prime Ministers of Australia. Would anyone object to paring down the list in this article to the essentials, i.e. deleting the electorate, ministry, and ref columns, and possibly also the elections column and the life dates? Ivar the Boneful (talk) 09:39, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Stanley Bruce - Stoneman.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:52, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Stanley Bruce - Stoneman.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I think that the list of PM's at the bottom of the page should have the tenure of each PM.

I think that the list of PM's at the bottom of the page should have the tenure of each PM. Pretty much every list from other countries PM's has this information and it does not hurt to have it here. I believe that the way it is presented here is sufficiently different to the list of PM's by Time in Office as its still a chronological list with just more information. Any other thoughts? Superegz (talk) 10:00, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

What other countries have that information? I've just had a look through Template:Prime Minister and clicked on the articles for major countries. Bangladesh, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Denmark, France, Greece, India, Italy, and Japan don't have any list of prime ministers on the article "Prime Minister of XYZ"; presumably it's the same for most of the rest. Ireland has a list, but it doesn't have the tenures listed. The only country I could find that does is Singapore, but they've only had three prime ministers in their history so it makes sense. I think there should be a list of prime ministers included in this article, as that's what most readers would want to see, but we shouldn't overload it with information when other lists already exist as standalone articles. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 11:09, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

It would probably be easier to list who hasn't been prime minister.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:22, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

RfC on PM numbering

There is an RfC on numbering of prime ministers, which could affect this article, in Boris Johnson Talk. If you wish to contribute to that discussion, please do so there. Errantius (talk) 09:02, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

That RfC has now been closed, with a strong consensus against any numbering. Therefore I would like to remove the numbering from the list here, but I can't see how to do it. Errantius (talk) 21:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

That was not a broad RfC on numbering in general, and the Australian WikiProject was not notified in any way. The RfC was also about numbering by tenure rather than by person, which is not what happens on Australian pages. I don't feel particularly strongly on this, but that RfC absolutely did not result in a consensus that would allow someone to make changes anywhere other than that specific page. Frickeg (talk) 21:20, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the RfC itself was not on numbering in general—but the consensus was. Let us have a cold-beer discussion. Errantius (talk) 21:59, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

It wasn't a project-wide RfC in any sense. It was a local RfC on what to do with Boris Johnson, and arguably other British PMs. This is long-standing Australian convention, and a discussion of a handful of BritPol editors doesn't override it whatsoever. If someone wants to propose an Australia-wide change, there is nothing stopping them from doing so. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:58, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Not a problem. Errantius (talk) 03:14, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Succession

This is taken from the lead:

There is no line of succession, but the position of deputy prime minister is well established.

What does this mean? Has the deputy PM ever not stepped in when the PM dies?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:25, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

No, but the Governor-General is not actually required to call upon them. (It has, after all, only happened three times - and for two of those times, the Deputy PM position did not even exist.) The Governor-General can technically call upon whomever they please to serve as caretaker, as the role of Prime Minister is not mentioned in the Constitution and thus is bound entirely by convention. If Lord Gowrie had not chosen to call on Page in 1939 (and there were some who thought he should have called on Menzies directly), we might have a different convention altogether. Frickeg (talk) 08:53, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah... Well, that's a good reason not to have that sentence. There is a convention in place. And your comment about two of those times doesn't make sense....--Jack Upland (talk) 09:36, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Just to bring this back, it might be worth saying something like While there is no constitutional procedure, convention is that the governor-general commissions the deputy prime minister to be prime minister until such time that parliament can determine who holds the confidence of the House of Representatives.? We can then use this Parliamentary Education Office as a source. ItsPugle (please use {{reply|ItsPugle}}) 10:04, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that would be good to add in somewhere...--Jack Upland (talk) 10:12, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Done-ty, done! ItsPugle (please use {{reply|ItsPugle}}) 10:32, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

That is much clearer. As for the two times, the office of Deputy Prime Minister was only formalised in 1968, as our article says, although it existed informally from the 1920s. Frickeg (talk) 11:33, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

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

• Julia Gillard official photo.jpg (discussion)
• Tony Abbott official photo.jpg (discussion)

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:37, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Executive power

Our article reads "Executive power is formally vested in the monarch and exercised by the governor-general on advice from government ministers" which is taken from s61. The executive power isn't some vast power to do anything and everything, it is the remnants of the ancient royal prerogative - which is why it is "vested in the Queen" - not otherwise described in the various powers assigned to various officers under the Constitution and elsewhere, as well as the power to do things not specifically mentioned but are needful in maintaining the nation as a going concern. For example the money to pay for the Bicentenary in 1988 or the Centenary a few years later was approved and spent under the executive power. It's also how the government can make treaties without needing to consult Parliament because that's a thing that kings did and it's now something in the hand of the Governor-General as advised by the PM. --Pete (talk) 22:26, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

What improvement are you suggesting?--Jack Upland (talk) 22:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Some sort of wording change to make it clear that this is not the supreme overlordship of the nation, merely a grab bag of powers that have been given the collective title of "executive power". I'm not entirely sure how to do this in a concise fashion, however! --Pete (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

The APH website has some very useful (and obviously authoritative) resources that describe how the constitution and Parliament work in practice, including the role of conventions. For instance, [4] and the introduction to the Constitution by the Australian Government Solicitor in the PDF at [5]). Nick-D (talk) 23:41, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I would agree with that. I had a battle on this topic earlier.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:40, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

The first three chapters of the Australian Constitution allocate the three "powers" of government—legislative, executive and judicial. These "powers" are not defined, but were familiar to the framers from the similar arrangement in the US Constitution and, before that, in interpretations of Montesquieu's doctrine of "separation of powers".

The executive power is vested in the Queen and exercisable by the G-G as her representative. This is the "power" considered as authorisation. One of the G-G's first exercises of the power is to appoint ministers. Then the ministers exercise the power in day-to-day government. (This hierarchy of activity is the "executive power" considered as an arm of government.) Most ministerial powers are specified by legislation. The royal prerogative is not the executive power but a part of it: it is, roughly (and it is only understood roughly), a residue of executive power that is not specified by legislation. The article is currently correct.

Good sources for this information are the textbooks/treatises of constitutional law by Blackshield et al. and by Winterton et al. Both of these examine in detail the Constitution itself, related legislation and judicial decisions, and relevant scholarly literature. Authors of an encyclopaedia should not rely upon lesser sources. The APH website is not an adequate source, although it may be good for online references. Errantius (talk) 01:48, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

I suspect that Elizabeth II's role in Australia is the same as her role in the other Commonwealth realms, that have governors-general to represent her. For example: King George V chose 'not' to get involved with the King-Byng Affair of 1926. Much like his granddaughter Queen Elizabeth II chose not to get involved with the Kerr-Whitlam affair of 1975. GoodDay (talk) 18:05, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

The Queen's role in Australia is as defined by the Conbstitution and other legislation such as the Australia Act. Canada has a differtent constitution and subsequent legislation. The role of the monarch in the two nations may be similar, but the details certainly differ. --Pete (talk) 23:02, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Clarify: Are you suggesting that the Australian monarch has no reserve powers? GoodDay (talk) 00:26, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Short answer, no. Long answer: s1 says that the Queen may give the Governor-General additional powers. Presumably she could give him the power to name her corgis and this would not be something that would need prime ministerial advice to do. She obviously can't give him powers that would affect those already assigned in the Constitution because the Constitution cannot be changed except by referendum. Likewise, she cannot give him powers that would alter anything in existing legislation, because that would require advice which would not be given unless the Australian PM went right off the rails. So it would seem that she has a reserve power to assign additional but inconsequential powers to the Australian Governor-General on a whim. This seems to have nothing to do with the executive power given in s61. --Pete (talk) 02:12, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

"One of the G-G's first exercises of the power is to appoint ministers." What nonsense. The power to appoint ministers is quite distinct and is found in s64: "The Governor-General may appoint officers to administer such departments of State of the Commonwealth as the Governor-General in Council may establish."

This is the point I am making, as supported by the APH reference given. The executive power isn't the power to do everything allowed by the Constitution, nor is it some power that overrides all else; it is a distinct power covering a grab bag of functions. It is one of several powers allocated within the Constitution. Making this distinction is important. --Pete (talk) 22:59, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Ch II is about the executive power. It begins with s 61 locating the power in general. The succeeding sections mostly specify uses of the power. Note that ss 62-63, providing for a Federal Executive Council, state that the Council is only advisory—that is, to advise the G-G in exercise of the power contained in s 61. If the G-G must accept the advice, that is only by convention. S 64 says only that the G-G "may" appoint ministers: formally, the G-G can exercise the executive power alone. This is still a "constitution" for a colony. Errantius (talk) 00:54, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Your contention that appointing ministers (s64) is a use of the executive power (s61) is bizarre. Do you have a source for this? --Pete (talk) 01:59, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

The High Court stated unanimously in Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation: "Sections 62 and 64 of the Constitution continue to provide for the executive power of the Commonwealth, which is vested in the Queen and exercisable by the Governor-General"—[1997] HCA 25; (1997) 189 CLR 520 at 558. Errantius (talk) 04:50, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

That's pretty thin and does not directly state your claim. The context is of responsible government and demonstrates that the people elect representatives from whom are selected ministers of state, some of whom form the Federal Executive Council who advise the Governor-General "in Council". Otherwise one might imagine that the Governor-Geneeal exercises his power alone. You may care to read through Winterton here. --Pete (talk) 05:37, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

The passage that I have quoted states exactly what I am saying. Nor does Winterton say anything different. Errantius (talk) 08:07, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Here is the full quote from the HC judgement:

Sections 62 and 64 of the Constitution combine to provide for the executive power of the Commonwealth, which is vested in the Queen and exercisable by the Governor-General, to be exercised "on the initiative and advice" [35] of Ministers and limit to three months the period in which a Minister of State may hold office without being or becoming a senator or member of the House of Representatives.

You only go half the distance, attempting to mislead the reader - and possibly yourself - by breaking off not just mid-sentence, but mid-phrase!

You are claiming that appointing ministers is an exercise of the s61 executive power. The passage you quote does not say this. In context it explains how responsible government is set out in the Constitution without being explicitly stated. s62 (Federal Executive Council) and s64 (appointment of ministers) effectively work to limit the application of s61 by establishing a council of ministers to advise the Governor-General. The Governor-General rarely acts without advice and those few instances where he does - 1975 is the most notable example - are subject to wide debate and criticism. Yet you appear to claim the opposite: that s61 in some sense overrides ss62 & 64.

Do you have a suitable authority - the full unanimous bench of the High Court would be an unassailable source - that states your claim directly? Winterton has written at length about the topic and he does not make your claim. I cannot find any authority that puts forward s61 as somehow pre-eminent amongst the powers of the Governor-General. It is an important power, but it is one among several, not the One Power to Rule Them All. I'm certainly willing to be proven wrong but you cannot do that by merely insisting without evidence that your view is correct no matter how forcefully you state that this is the case. --Pete (talk) 16:03, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Your habitual abuse will get you nowhere. The passage reads, unpacked a little: "the executive power of the Commonwealth, which is vested in the Queen and exercisable by the Governor-General" (s 61) is "to be exercised" in such ways as in ss 62 and 64. Errantius (talk) 22:55, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the judgement you reference at Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation, you quote from the section headed "Representative and responsible government". The whole sentence does not support your limited and selective interpretation above, and in context the paragraphs outline the concept of - surprise, surprise - representative and responsible government as applying to advice given to the Governor-General. It does not address any supposed primacy of the s61 power over any other power. Could you address this point, please?

Earlier you stated that "Ch II is about the executive power." This is not the case. Chapter II is headed "The Executive Government" and describes the operation of the Executive - as opposed to the Legislative (Chapter I: The Parliament) and Judiciary (Chapter III: The Judicature). These first three chapters describe the organisation and operation of the three branches of government, a standard format for many constitutions. Assignments of powers are sprinkled throughout the entire document, not just Chapter II. For example, in s5, the Governor-General is given the power to appoint times for sessions of parliament "as he sees fit".

The Governor-General may appoint such times for holding the sessions of the Parliament as he thinks fit, and may also from time to time, by Proclamation or otherwise, prorogue the Parliament, and may in like manner dissolve the House of Representatives.

This is clearly not in Chapter II, so I would be interested in your explanation of how you see this as falling under the executive power given in that chapter. --Pete (talk) 23:34, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I have made my point. Errantius (talk) 23:41, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

And it has been refuted. Your theory is erroneous and does not hold up under examination. --Pete (talk) 23:44, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

@Skyring: along with this discussion, you've opened up a discussion around this topic at Constitution of Australia and Governor-General of Australia. What exactly are you trying to get at? GoodDay (talk) 00:29, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

The truth. We don't want to mislead our readers, now do we? Our article on the Constitution states that the Governor-General's role as Commander-in-Chief is a reserve power, which is a bit of a worry. --Pete (talk) 00:32, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, the Australian monarch is the commander-in-chief of the Australian armed forces. The governor-general represents the monarch, which includes the commander-in-chief role. Or is there somebody else? GoodDay (talk) 00:35, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Caretaker or Interim

@Skyring:I'm not going to lose any sleep over this. But, I did notice in the bios of these short term prime ministers, they're called Prime Minister of Australia (including an ordinal) & not Interim Prime Minister of Australia or Caretaker Prime Minister of Australia. Also, they're being shown as serving concurrently as both prime minister & deputy prime minister. Anyways, it's an inconsistency I've noticed. GoodDay (talk) 18:01, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

It is commonplace for governments to be in caretaker mode, such as during an election campaign. Doesn't mean that they are not PM, just that they do not make significant appointments or legislation etc. Perhaps you should ask before editing on subjects where you have no detailed knowledge. --Pete (talk) 18:21, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Concerning your last sentence? don't be snotty. Anyways, I've noted the inconsistencies between this article & the office holders bios infoboxes, at Australian noticeboard. Either something is wrong 'here' or something is wrong at the aforementioned bios. GoodDay (talk) 18:37, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

It was I who made the edit which described John McEwen, Frank Forde and Earle Page as "interim"/"caretaker" (respectively) Prime Ministers in the 'Acting Prime Ministers and succession' section yesterday. I used those terms because they were the terms that the source uses. It describes John McEwen as an interim Prime Minister and both Frank Forde and Earle Page as caretaker Prime Ministers. I dare say, however, that the terms can probably be used interchangably: the crux of it is that all three were temporary Prime Ministers who held office after their predecessor died in office and until a long-term successor could be chosen and I thought that this was pertinent information to include, particularly in light of the section that the information was included in. I hope that this helps! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 19:00, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Very well, bu why isn't those terminologies being used in the intros & infoboxes of those individuals. I checked them over & they're shown as prime ministers, with the ordinals. A recent example, would be Malcolm Fraser concerning when he took office. GoodDay (talk) 19:16, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

The simple reason for that was because I was making my edits independently of those articles, which I hadn't even read until yesterday! I agree, though, that consistency is important and that it would be great to come to a consensus on one term to use. Let's continue our discussion in one place, here. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 19:29, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

They were fully Prime Ministers, albeit with an understanding that their terms would not last very long. (If this happened under a Labor government today, that process would take a couple of months, because the entire party membership would be involved in a vote; the Lib/Nats cut to the chase much more quickly.) They were certainly not "acting prime ministers", as they're sometimes inaccurately described. Interim or caretaker? Caretaker is the word used to refer to a government that goes into caretaker mode after the calling of a general election, so that shouldn't be used here. Interim is probably appropriate, except that "interim prime minister" comes across as a different animal to a straight "prime minister". McEwen et al could have summoned parliament, could have exercised any of the formal powers available to prime ministers via legislation or convention, and could have advised the governor-general to sack and appoint ministers. Just like any other prime minister. I'd prefer the word "interim" not to appear in any infobox or template. We can use it in the text where appropriate. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts, @JackofOz. You do seem quite the expert in this area! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 19:56, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Hardly, but hanging around the halls of government for quite a few years does give one a bit of an insight into the "machinery of government", as it's called. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:59, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Terminology and numbering

There is an ongoing discussion here about finding a consistent term to describe Earle Page, Frank Forde and John McEwen's premierships in their articles and beyond (acting, caretaker, interim etc). It has also touched upon how to number Australian Prime Ministers. It would be very much appreciated if any interested editors could join in and voice their thoughts on the matter! Thanks! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 19:52, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Don't forget prime ministers like Malcolm Fraser. Did he assume office as PM in November 1975? or as caretaker PM. Should we note in his infobox, the time period he was caretaker pm, between assumption of office & election. GoodDay (talk) 19:54, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Good point! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 20:02, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

If the Governor-General commissions a Prime Minister, that's it. He's Prime Minister from that day on, even if it is readily apparent that he'll only be a PM for a short time. We don't have "interim" Prime Ministers, though we certainly have "acting" PMs when the deputy takes over for a bit. --Pete (talk) 23:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

What about 'caretaker prime ministers'? GoodDay (talk) 23:53, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

"Former prime ministers"

I have some questions about this section because I do not think it should be in the article.

• Why are former living prime ministers so special that they need a separate section? Which former prime ministers are still living can be seen in Prime_Minister_of_Australia#List. Why should that information be duplicated?
• Is the "greatest number of living former prime ministers at any one time" anything more than a piece of trivia? If so, no reliable sources are cited to indicate that.
  • Ditto for the "greatest number of former prime ministers serving in Parliament concurrently at any one time".
  • Ditto for Ben Chifley's record of living "the least of all former prime ministers".
  • Ditto for Gough Whitlam being the "longest surviving former prime minister".
• Is this section anything more than a trivia section? Surtsicna (talk) 15:32, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I've no objections to deleting that section. PS - There's a lot of strange happenings lately. An editor is pushing at the governor of Tasmania & the governor of New South Wales articles, that those offices are Heads of state. I don't recall either Australian state becoming an independent republic. GoodDay (talk) 15:38, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for drawing attention to the Governor changes, which I have changed. A Governor's website has no authority. Errantius (talk) 22:50, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Surtsicna, thank you. I reverted your deletion simply because I thought such a substantial change should have the benefit of discussion. Now: I agree with your arguments for deletion. Errantius (talk) 22:13, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Some may call it trivia, but in virtually all artices on prominent presidents, heads of state etc, you'll find similar sections. If it's trivia here, it's trivia everywhere. If not, not. Don't attack this question piecemeal. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:13, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I've restored this section pending discussion here. It has been part of the article for a considerable time and should not be discarded lightly. As per JackofOz above the information on living former occupants of an important post is common practice on Wikipedia. Listing the old guys (and gal) in a convenient place seems encyclopaedic to me. --Pete (talk) 23:17, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

It is common practice because someone pasted it across Wikipedia without any prior discussion and nobody has bothered to ask why. Now I am asking why and the answer is "because it has been done for a long time". That is as crappy a reason as it can get for keeping unsourced trivia. It is embarrassingly unencyclopedic. I do not see how keeping crap in this article on the basis of crap being in other articles improves this article or the encyclopedia as a whole. Surtsicna (talk) 23:25, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

These types of sections have been deleted from the articles of US state governors & lieutenant governors. I wonder, would it be best to have a general discussion (or RFC) to cover this topic for all government office articles, federal-level, state-level, ah heck all levels? GoodDay (talk) 23:19, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Good idea. I've opened up a discussion at ANI here. --Pete (talk) 23:57, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, ANI isn't for content disputes. It's for reviewing an editor's behaviour. GoodDay (talk) 23:58, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

@Golbez: may be interested in this discussion. GoodDay (talk) 23:31, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

oh my god i am so happy right now you have no idea how long i've waited for someone to come along with this <3 Ok so. I agree so hard with this. I realized a long time ago that it's ultimately trivia - it doesn't educate anyone about the office. It's almanac material, and Wikipedia is specifically not an almanac. If it's that important for a random reader to know which ones are alive, it's a couple of clicks away, same as if they were wondering which ones were born in Sydney or which ones had other jobs. And I say this as the person who added those sections to most of the US governor lists - it was I who was the villain all along. And now I realize I was wrong.

THAT SAID, there is an important caveat here: For some reason, the United States really cares about this kind of thing when it comes to Presidents. We have multiple articles on how many Presidents were alive at a given time, how long their retirements were, etc. etc. And in that case, I would argue, yes, keep it around, but ship it off to another article, it doesn't belong in the main one. But that caveat only works if there's a long tradition of keeping track of this sort of thing. I can't speak for Australia to know if that's the case. And even if that were the case, it shouldn't stay here, it should be moved off to its own place. But I doubt that's probably true. --Golbez (talk) 02:25, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

@Surtsicna: I reckon the tide has turned toward inclusion. GoodDay (talk) 02:03, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Capitalisation of "Prime Minister"

@Deus et lex:@GoodDay: This issue was fought out at Talk:Governor-General of Australia#Capitalisation of "Governor-General" and the style police won. Errantius (talk) 01:00, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Indeed they did win out. I didn't like it, but I had to learn to get used to it. GoodDay (talk) 01:04, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

It's not correct though. The description at the beginning of an article is the title (which is capitalised). It's inconsistent with everyday usage and with the usage even by the holders themselves. Deus et lex (talk) 02:24, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Gentlemen, if you both can 'somehow' overturn WP:JOBTITLES (which also has ruined 'section', 'sub-section' headings & threatens to ruin Infobox headings & content)? I'll go along with it. PS - Save us from the lower-casing army. GoodDay (talk) 02:36, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@Deus et lex: If you want to have a go, that would be great—but you can see what you'd be in for. Errantius (talk) 05:54, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@GoodDay:, @Errantius: - at least we are one on that, thank you. The MOS and those who control it is the worst part of Wikipedia IMO. Deus et lex (talk) 07:15, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Things appear to being going in the correct direction at the Infobox government offices RFC, at least. GoodDay (talk) 07:18, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Hah, the decision at that RFC, is being challenged at WP:AN. GoodDay (talk) 05:11, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Given time, the WP:JOBTITLES army will try to change this article's name to Prime minister of Australia. Just wait & see. GoodDay (talk) 19:52, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Addition of “highest office in Australia”

The removal of the phrase or alike phrase “the prime minster is the highest office in Australia” is unjustified and unwarranted as it gives a clear statement to those researching Australian governance who the individual with the most power is, it is then elaborated on in the exactitude. A fact of such importance should most definitely be included in the synopsis. Jadamondo (talk) 12:01, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

that’s the thing, though: it isn’t a “fact” because it isn’t true. “Highest” doesn’t mean “most powerful”, and as Ivar pointed out, gov general is usually considered the highest office. If you don’t think that’s true, find an RS saying otherwise, but there’s no place for this unsourced addition to the lede unless you can find such a source. Wallnot (talk) 13:50, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

There are already "prime minister" and "head of government". Enough, methinks. Errantius (talk) 14:05, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Have a read of the below article, it talks about our gradual move to a republic but even if we do move to one it will be the same as the PM is already the leader.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=who+is+more+powerful+prime+minister+or+Governor+general&btnG=#d=gs_qabs&u=%23p%3D50n86eEcSpcJ Jadamondo (talk) 11:58, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Well in this context highest does mean most powerful, “usually” does not mean always. The constitution states executive power is vested in the Queen and exercised by the Governor General. Over time with changing values of the people wishing to become more democratic convention now dictates that the GG may only exercise such powers on the advice of the PM as the PM is a democratically elected and the GG is not. Further to this the PM chooses the GG and advises the GG to engage in various duty’s. The PM chairs all major executive bodies such as the NSC and cabinet. The PM post 1972 has become the highest office in the land as the intervention of a GG causes a constitutional crisis. Jadamondo (talk) 12:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Do I need to mention that the minister of defence (who is at the prime ministers pleasure) commands the GG as commander in chief of the defence forces? If that does not scream highest office then I do not know what does. Jadamondo (talk) 12:10, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Do you know what “screams highest office”? Finding an RS that explicitly refers to PM as the highest office. You’re extrapolating from references to the power of the PM in a way that reeks of original research. Find a source that refers to PM as the highest office (which you won’t be able to do, since it is not) or do not add the fact. P.S. learn to indent. Wallnot (talk) 13:15, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

PPS: by your reasoning the PM of the UK is a “higher office” than the queen simply because he is more powerful. Also, it’s worth pointing out that, if Australia does become a republic, the PM still won’t be the highest office in the land; that would then be the president as head of state. Do not make another unsourced addition to this article. Wallnot (talk) 13:19, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

There is no source that states this because there is never been a need to! I might even write in “highest ELECTED office” just to stick it to you. Is it not blatantly obvious that the person who has the most power is the highest office and the queen and GG are not offices they are Regal and Vice regal and cannot be won that is why I stated highest office referring to political seat. Don’t you understand that a head of state by convention is only ceremonial in a Westminster system! You are damn right the UK PM is highest and most powerful, you know why? Becase they are elected and they are able to freely exercise it! The Queen sits in prestige and ceremony as a historic reminder of the systems evolution she has powers allocated and written down in constitution to her and same with the Governor General but can they actually use them no! Not without repercussions, in order to be the highest or most powerful you need to wield the most executive power, head of state is nothing more than blunt ceremonial swords verses the modern machine gun of the heads of government. Jadamondo (talk) 13:35, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

This is all WP:SYNTHESIS and therefore impermissible, especially given the wealth of published sources referring to GG as the highest office. No, it is not “blatantly obvious” that most powerful=highest office; “high” in this context means “Elevated in status, esteem, or prestige, or in importance or development; exalted in rank, station, or character”. Also, use indentation. Wallnot (talk) 13:50, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Ok, How about this, the usage of the phrase "highest ELECTED office" ? Jadamondo (talk) 01:33, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Still unnecessary. Please accept that your proposal to add "highest" is not supported. Errantius (talk) 02:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Why is it unnecessary, people need to know which is the highest elected office, the office features regularly on overt power listings.

@Errantius@Wallnot Jadamondo (talk) 13:42, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

It's not an elected office. "Head of government" is sufficient. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 13:52, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

You did not seriously state that a Prime Minister is not an elected office... Let me explain to you, there is a thing called democracy where we vote for our leaders... in a westminster system we vote for our local reps who in turn vote for the leader of the party. why is adding additional information such an issue for you. Jadamondo (talk) 13:58, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I believe that Ivar was perfectly serious—don't patronise. There are public elections to the parliament but not to the office of prime minister, and party elections of a leader do not follow on from the parliamentary elections. This discussion is a waste of time: please stop. Errantius (talk) 14:40, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

You just admitted that the PM is an elected office via party elections. By unintional admittance consensus has been reached. Jadamondo (talk) 00:32, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

What nonsense! The Prime Minister is not mentioned in the Constitution, nor is that officer required to be elected in any fashion. Our first Prime Minister was not elected, and it would be perfectly legal to have a Prime Minister who is a Senator filling a casual vacancy, selected and appointed solely by a State Premier. Unlikely and impractical, surely, but quite legal. --Pete (talk) 00:40, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Unlikely because it's irrelevant; conventions and traditions are stronger, if you even suggested that a state premier appoints a PM you'd be called mad! and there was only like 2 occasions where the prime minister was not in the HOR, subsequently resigning from a seat in one of the examples and moving to the HOR. The status quo and convention play a strong role in politics they are not written down as that's what convention is. Taking this back to the topic the prime minister is the highest (infirectly) office in australia who has access to and is able to use the most executive power hence why it should be added into the article. Jadamondo (talk) 11:12, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

The prime minister is not the highest office in the land, nor the highest elected office in the land. The monarch & the governor-general are higher. The governor-general and prime minister are appointed. GoodDay (talk) 01:06, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2022

New Prime Minister. OpBlackout (talk) 14:26, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Q OpBlackout (talk) 14:26, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 15:18, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2022 (2)

Scomo is not the PM anymore. 122.105.125.158 (talk) 16:00, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: 2022_Australian_federal_election says the new PM will be sworn in on May 23. RudolfRed (talk) 21:32, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

But it was announced!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 112.213.218.72 (talk) 01:09, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Scott Morrison remains the prime minister until the Governor General swears in Albanese. This is expected to occur on 23 May. Nick-D (talk) 01:53, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

NEW PRIME MINISTER

Anthony Albanese has taken over the role of the Australian head/prime minister. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.213.218.72 (talk) 01:08, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Not until he is sworn in. pcuser42 (talk) 10:02, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Mixed up Year of Births

Scott Morrison was actually born in 1968 Anthony Albanese was born in 1963 121.200.5.100 (talk) 23:22, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2022

Change the year born of Scott Morrison in the table at the bottom of the article from 1963 to 1968, and the year born of Anthony Albanese from 1968 to 1963. They appear to have been swapped. Slightlyesteemedpelican (talk) 00:19, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

 Already done Cannolis (talk) 05:24, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

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

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

• Anthony Albanese portrait.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:09, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I've responded there. Its sourcing, copyright, and licencing status is unclear. We should be on very firm ground with this; it is an excellent portrait. I grow weary of editors trying to swap PM (and other political) portraits around for omnes that show the subject as goofy or in a bad light. The official Kevin Rudd one where he looks insipid and gormless is a good example. We should use the best possible images. --Pete (talk) 20:33, 30 May 2022 (UTC)