Talk:Australian Government/Archive 1

message: Just though I would drop off a list of Government departments I scavenged from the history of the Australian Politics page. Night be useful in the construction of a Government of Australia page here. Martyman 05:08, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: ***

message: The principal Government internet portal is www.fed.gov.au.
Ministers administer the following Departments. Look at each site for details of the Ministers and subsidiary organisations.
*  Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF)
*  Attorney-General (A-G)
*  Communications, Information Technology and the Arts (DCITA) 
** Australian Communications Authority
*  Defence 
**Royal Australian Navy (RAN)
**Australian Army (ARA)
**Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF)
*  Education, Science and Training (DEST)
*  Employment and Workplace Relations (DEWR)
*  Environment and Heritage (DEH)
*  Family and Community Services (DFACS)
** Centrelink
*  Finance and Administration (DFA)
*  Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT)
*  Health and Ageing (DHA)
*  Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA)
*  Industry, Tourism and Resources (DITR)
*  Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPM&C)
*  Transport and Regional Services (DoTaRS)
*  Treasury
** Australian Prudential Regulation Authority
I don't see the point in discussing this any more, so I've made a start on this page. It's just the paragraph on government from Politics of Australia, plus some lists I threw together. This is not my area of expertise, so be brutal in reorganising and expanding it. - Borofkin 06:19, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Departments (and major Authorities)

message: I have sent an email requesting permission to use the official Government Crest in the article. Martyman 07:14, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No response yet. Martyman 02:51, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crest / Logo 

message: Should they pop up in this article?--nixie 05:05, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The departments are already listed, and definately, yes they are part of the government. Martyman 09:27, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Commonwealth Public service

message: I've been tring to look for other "Government of..." pages. Most appear to redirect to "Politics of..." pages. Federal Government of the United States was on I did find. Should this page be Federal?--ZayZayEM 05:06, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Since Australia has multiple levels of government, I think that describing this page as Federal government of Australia would be best --nixie 06:01, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Assuming no one wants to add information about state governments to this article. Martyman 06:07, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps a diambiguation (this appares to be Politics of Australia--nixie 09:26, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly what I was thinking --ZayZayEM 12:07, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: So are we going to have a vote or something?--nixie 05:27, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No voiced dissent, move going ahead.--ZayZayEM 12:49, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: There is a discussion further up the page. No one seemed to have a problem with it. I am fine with a move to Commonwealth Government of Australia. I do beg to differ that Federal government is not a valid term for it as well. But will accept that Commonwealth is better as official name.--ZayZayEM 01:06, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Agree with this idea Adam. A short link Australian governments shoudl be palced at the top of Government of Australia which should be extended include a link to Parliaments of the Australian states and territories --ZayZayEM 12:03, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Where would the article Parliaments of the Australian states and territories fit in? - Borofkin 22:26, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title of Article 

message: I have edited this article to bring it into line with recent changes to other articles.
Some may be surprised to see Australia described as a republic but that is the case, as unlike the United Kingdom where Parliament is sovereign, in Australia sovereignty resides in the people by virtue of s128 of the Constitution. The Queen neither possesses nor exercises any significant power.
There are several opinions as to whether Australia has one or two heads of state and who occupies that position. As the term is not defined in the Constitution, nor has the High Court been asked that question, I have removed anyt reference to the term, save to point out that the Governor-General exercises the powers of a head of state, which he does, those powers having been given to him by the people in the Constitution. The Queen's role has diminished over the years since Federation and her sole remaining function of any importance is to appoint the Governor-General, which is essentially a rubberstamp power exercised on the sole advice of the Australian Prime Minister.
I have clarified the paragraph on the 1999 referendum. The proposed president was to assume the position and powers of the Governor-General, not the Queen. Skyring 06:01, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 2. a. A state in which the supreme power rests in the people and their elected representatives or officers, as opposed to one governed by a king or similar ruler; a commonwealth. Now also applied loosely to any state which claims this designation.--nixie 03:23, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Current debate on whether Australia is a republic

message: Shouldn't the divisions of goverment into three tiers be mentioned in this article? We don't seem to have anything on the distinctions between Federal, State and Local government. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:57, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing information 

message: Hi, all, an explanation for why I edited a protected article: we had an obvious typo in the lead paragraph of what I expect is a relatively important article; not exactly a good mark for the project. So I elected to go ahead and fix just that (missing " i", turning "centuryt" into "century it"), hope that's OK. Noel (talk) 13:46, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Typo in lead graph

message: I got parlimentary research note on the Australian head of state in the mail yesterday, it goes over the agrument about whether the Queen of the GG is the head of state, making no conclusions. It may be a useful source for summarising the argument here. If anyone wants a copy leave a note here or on my talk page and I'll scan it and email it to you.--nixie 23:05, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Source material

message: I feel it is nessecary to reorganise certain parts of the Government of Australia portal as to make it more functional. Take a look at the Governments of New Zealand page, it has lists of each government by a collective (ie. Fifth Labour Government of New Zealand). I think this could be applied to past Australian governments, ie. Howard Government or Keating Government. The good thing about the way the New Zealand article is organised is that the policy, issues, major events, electoral success can easily be placed together and centralised making it far easier for the reader to find. Information on the policy and actions of past Australian Governments must be currently found in pages relating to subsequent elections and the articles of the prime ministers themselves (eg. Bob Hawke or John Howard). I feel this is not a very productive organisational system. --Waynekruse (talk) 22:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can the 2nd level header "Federalism" be cut out, or converted into a 3rd level header? And I mean we know its about the "Federal Govt" now why do you have to teach us that its also known as "Federalism"?? Its unnecessarily redundant. -- Tomjenkins52 (talk) 05:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for reorganisation 

message: The section on "head of state" needs a rewrite to make it neutral. Right now, it reads as if Wikipedia is advocating the view that the Queen alone is Australia's head of state, however this is controversial, since many people recognise the Governor-General as a de-facto head of state within the Commonwealth - see , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , etc. This is against the WP:NPOV policy: Wikipedia is not a forum for advocacy of any political view, cause or person.  Note that Wikipedia does not say that evolution is a fact, only that 95% of scientists agree with it (and 99.8% of biologists). Pwqn 9 July 2005 17:17 (UTC)
:At most, we should note in one sentence that some monarchists claim that the GG is head of state.  That's it.  Pwqn, please read the extremely volumninous (and occasionally rather heated) talk page discussion on the topic.  --Robert Merkel 09:23, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Head of state section needs a rewrite. 

message: I will assume for the moment that Pwqn is a good-faith editor and not a Skyring clone, but I remain suspicious. For Pwqn's benefit, the situation with this question is this:
*Matters of fact
*The Constitution, for historical reasons, does not nominate a head of state - Australia was part of the British Empire in 1901 and shared a common head of state with the rest of the Empire. The Constitution contains numerous references to "the Queen" which in 1901 were obviously references to the Queen of the UK.
*Since the Statute of Westminster, Australia has been a sovereign state, and must have a head of state. The High Court, the government and all other authorities now hold that the Queen of Australia is Australia's de jure head of state, and the references to the Queen in the Constitution should be read as references to the Queen of Australia, a title which was fornmally accorded to Elizabeth II in 1973.
*Under the Constitution, the Queen's powers are almost entirely delegated to the Governor-General, and it is not disputed that the Governor-General acts as a de facto head of state.
*Nevertheless, a de facto head of state is not a de jure head of state. The Governor-General is formally appointed by the Queen and takes an oath of alliegence to the Queen, as do government ministers, judges and other officials. The Governor-General himself has said that the Queen is Australia's head of state.
*Matters of process
*This question has been exhaustively argued for many weeks. The view of every editor who has taken part in this debate, except Skyring, is that the Queen is head of state, and that the article should state this as a matter of fact and not just of opinion. It should of course be noted that a small minority of people dissent from this view.
*Skyring has been banned from editing this article as a result of his persistent refusal to accept the majority view of what this article should say. 
*This question having been exhaustively argued and decided by a near-unanimous opinion of those participating, there is absolutely no way this question can be re-opened and re-debated because a new editor has come along and wants to reopen the whole process. I suggest that Pwqn read the discussion pages if he or she is really interested in this subject. Alernatively, Pwqn should go and find one of the many Australian articles which need work, and do something useful for Wikipedia by editing some of them. In any case, Pwqn should note Skyring's fate. Adam 09:49, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The current situation

message: From Talk:Citizens Electoral Council:
:The question of what powers the Queen wields, how much influence she has over Australian domestic politics, and whether or not she can dismiss a Prime Minister are *entirely* irrelevant to her position as Australia's official head of state.  This remains the case, no matter how many Skyring clones wish to obfusticate this point. (emphasis added). Slac speak up! 22:08, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be worth doing a sockpuppet check on User:Kangaroopedia to check whether Skyring has violated his ban. I still think Pwqn is a bona fide editor, though, perhaps one coerced by Skyring (as he threatened to do). Further to that point, Skyring has made note of the events unfolding here (though, thankfully, he cannot partake).--Cyberjunkie | Talk 11:05, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Does Skyring's ban on editing this article include a ban on participating in its Talk page? Adam 11:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: He's banned from editing all pages for 2 months, following that he is banned from editing in this area for a year, I assume that the ruling includes talk pages.--nixie 11:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would assume so also. It would defy logic if he were permitted to, given the talk-page is where he was most frustrating. --Cyberjunkie | Talk 11:37, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Showcasing Adam Carr's Doublethink

message: I'd like to move "Opposition" below "Executive". Any objections? It seems quite odd to skim down the page and find photos in the order 1) Queen, 2) Governor-general 3) Parliament house 4) Leader of the Opposition 5) Prime Minister. --Scott Davis Talk 09:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section order 

message: Do we have an official Australian picture of the Queen, the one we have is the official Canadian one and has her with the Canadian insignia as Soverign of the Order of Canada and the Order of Military Merit, its not a biggie but something we might want to fix -- Tawker 23:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was one floating around somewhere, but it was pretty old. She still had brown hair. Xtra 00:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I found this which I think is the one you're talking about. There is this which is used on a banknote and this on the Royal Family Website but I can't find an picture other than the Canadian one.  If anyone has one, please, let me know, it is nagging at me! -- Tawker 08:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The only official portrait of the Queen of Australia that I'm aware of is one painted by William Dargie in 1954 that was commonly called the 'Wattle Painting' because its spledid use of the Golden Wattle. A quick web search brings up this decent web page showing and explaining the portrait. As Dargie died in 2003, I don't think the work is in the public domain. However, if the Commonwealth owned the copyright, then we could use it under provision E of .--cj | talk 16:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture of the Queen 

message: Why was there a picture of the Leader of the Opposition in the article, and why there? 
* The leader of the opposition is not part of the Government of Australia, so belongs in an article on parliament, not government. 
* It was absurd to have a picture of the leader of the opposition before that of the head of state, the governor-general and the prime minister? That is visual POV-pushing. I've removed the picture. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 21:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opposition leader picture 

message: What does this paragraph mean?
"The Commonwealth Constitution also provides that the States can agree to refer any of their powers to the Commonwealth if they choose. This may be achieved by way of an amendment to the Constitution via referendum (a vote on whether the proposed transfer of power from the States to the Commonwealth, or vice versa, should be implemented). More commonly powers may be transferred by passing other acts of legislation which authorise the transfer and such acts require the legislative agreement of all the state governments involved." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 190.30.60.14 (talk) 20:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Australia is a federation. The six colonies became States, but kept their powers (such as police, education and so on) save for those specifically given to the new federal government, such as defence, posts, etc., mostly listed in s51. So if the Commonwealth is to gain total control over (say) education, it can only do so if the States give it the power. If you have an alternate wording in mind to make this clearer, then we can kick it around a bit. --Pete 03:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusing paragraph

message: I have included a "References" section to accommodate cites, sourcing material from the Governor-General's website to correct and update some unsourced statements. I would appreciate it if other editors took the time to familiarise themselves with the material. I have used the "press release" template, but welcome any comments on style. --Pete 22:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding references 

message: Hi what's a shire in an Australian context? We don't have them in South Australia. Is it like a district council? Ozdaren 12:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As it suggests in the "Federalism" sectin of the article, "shire" is one of the names that a local government area might have. The article doesn't mention some of names used in South Australia or recently in many places. In NSW at least, shires have typically been more rural than municipalities or cities, but now the distinction is in name only. JPD (talk) 13:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shire 

message: "Australia's other territories that are regularly inhabited (Jervis Bay, Christmas Island and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands) are not self-governing. Instead, these territories are largely governed by federal law, with Christmas Island and the Cocos Islands also having local governments."
What about Australian Antarctic Territory (it is almost as big as mainland Australia)? Should this link to Australian territories?
--RobBrisbane 23:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australian External Territories 

message: The opening paragraph says Australia was created through a series of referenda. Was there not also an Act of British Parliament involved? Has this been omitted for a reason (or am I just completely wrong to begin with...) Manning (talk) 00:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The Constitution, which we think of as an entity in its own right (and it now is), was technically created as a schedule to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900, an act of the UK Parliament.  The Constitution is mentioned in the next sentence.  --  JackofOz (talk) 01:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

text: The Constitution was based on the terms drawn up in a constitutional convention and it was ratified by the people in all Australia colonies. We mention these to show that this constitution was not forced upon the people. The British Parliament simply passed the Constitution to make it an Act of Parliament so it would have a proper legal status. It is a technical aspect of law making, and I don't think it is worth mentioning for the purpose of Wikipedia readers in this context. The Constitution of Australia article does mention that it is an Act of British Parliament.--pyl (talk) 06:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Act of British Parliament? 

message: I came to this entry (simply as a user) to try to clarify whether "Australian Government" and "Commonwealth Government" are synonymous in a report that I'm editing. I find that the words are confused in this Wikipedia entry as well.
The introduction section is very clear: "The Government of Australia, also known as the Australian Government, is the administrative authority of Australia."
But in the Federal Government section, the proper noun "Commonwealth Government" is used without definition or declaration.
Obviously, I am no expert on Australia and its system of government. But a suggestion for improvement would be in that introductory sentence. It could be altered to: "The Government of Australia, also known as the Australian Government, is the administrative authority of the commonwealth of Australia."
Then the term "Commonwealth Government" can simply be replaced by the term "Australian Government".
Tabua-scass (talk) 13:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The term Commonwealth Government is not defined in the Federal Government section 

message: This article ought to be moved to 'Australian Government', as that is how the institution is most commonly refers to itself and is referred to by others. 60.242.48.18 (talk) 08:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your contribution. Do you have a reliable source for your information? --Pete (talk) 20:45, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move > Australian Government 

message: A formal title for governments of Commonwealth realms is "Her Majesty's Government of..."
It is therefore appropriate for the introduction of this article to read:
"Her Majesty's Government of the Commonwealth of Australia, also referred to as the Australian Government, Commonwealth Government or the Federal Government, is the federal democratic administrative authority of Australia."
Or for the introduction to at least acknowledge this aspect within the other titles.
Thank you.
:Thank you for your contribution. Unlike the United Kingdom, in Australia ministers and members of the Executive Council are appointed by the Governor-General alone. The Queen has no say in the matter, nor any ability to over-ride the Governor-General, as was demonstrated in 1975. So it is not "Her Majesty's Government". --Pete (talk) 20:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formalise the article's introduction 

message: Looking at this edit, I'm not seeing consensus her for such a large change. That's what WP:BRD is for. Bold edits find opposition, are Reverted, and the material is Discussed, rather than edit-warring. I reverted to a stable version, and consensus should be gained before a significant revision. This article has a number of regular editors who should be given the opportunity for input. I note that, as per the info box at the top of this page, "this article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics (marked as Top-importance)". Thanks. --Pete (talk) 21:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I have restored the sourced view, consistent with the weeks of discussion at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics talk page, but retained some aspects which are still under discussion at Talk:Australian head of state dispute. This is because it helps show the way. Travelmite (talk) 19:34, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite frankly, this is undue weight for this article. I am really surprised that you think Kevin Rudd's words were worth mentioning here. It is, of course, much better to have this in a separate article. StAnselm (talk) 19:51, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't. Thanks for your contribution! Travelmite (talk) 03:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monarch's role in government 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Government of Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110406055241/http://www.peo.gov.au/faq/faq_3.html to http://www.peo.gov.au/faq/faq_3.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130505041504/http://australia.gov.au/directories/australian-government-directories/government-departments to http://australia.gov.au/directories/australian-government-directories/government-departments
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Government of Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110312124621/http://www.aph.gov.au/house/info/infosheets/is20.pdf to http://www.aph.gov.au/house/info/infosheets/is20.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110313221139/http://www.apsc.gov.au/about/exppsreform3.htm to http://www.apsc.gov.au/about/exppsreform3.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:09, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Page needs many amendments as a result of new Prime Minister Scott Morrison being appointed and a new ministry due to be sworn in next week.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Licksattar (talk • contribs) 07:33, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs amendments 

message: There is an open Request for Comment at Talk:Monarchy_of_Australia#Request_for_comment_on_terms on whether Queen Elizabeth II should be described as the monarch or the head of state. One term is undisputed, the other not so much. --Pete (talk) 21:39, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the problem right there. Nobody disputes that the monarch is the monarch. On the other hand, anybody who took part in the republic referendum some time ago would be aware that there was and has been considerable debate over the term "head of state", and there are consequent NPOV factors. --Pete (talk) 22:33, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I would also suggest 'Sovereign' may be appropriate. Her Majesty is frequently referred to in formal terms as 'Our Sovereign Lady'.Deonyi (talk) 05:56, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC on terms: "monarch" or "head of state"? 

message: In Australia, the term "Australian Government" refers to the executive authority entrusted to execute laws - i.e. Prime Minister, Cabinet, Ministers, government bureaucracy. The current arrangement, listing the executive, legislature and judiciary all in one article is using US convention, where the term "government" refers to the entire political structure. 
I would therefore propose that everything not related to the executive be incorporated into Politics of Australia if not already.
--LeoC12 (talk) 07:51, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Sources? - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 08:29, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's a pretty self-evident statement within a Westminster parliamentary system, but:
*House of Representatives practice (6th edition): "With its membership drawn from the Parliament, the Executive Government is required to seek the Parliament’s approval of new legislation, including financial legislation. Thus, as many of the more important executive actions are subject to parliamentary approval, the Government is responsible to the Parliament and through it to the electors. In this lies the distinctiveness of the Westminster model—the interrelation of the Executive Government and the Parliament. It is the essence of what in Westminster terms is called ‘parliamentary government’." - https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/House_of_Representatives/Powers_practice_and_procedure/Practice6/Practice6HTML?file=Chapter2§ion=01
*Australian Parliament House: "Under Australia’s system of parliamentary government (see Infosheet No. 20 ‘The Australian system of government’), the Executive Government (the Prime Minister, Cabinet Ministers and other Ministers) is drawn from Members of the parliament. However, although the government and the parliament have overlapping memberships, they are established by the Constitution as separate institutions, referred to respectively as the Executive and the Legislature." - 
https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/House_of_Representatives/Powers_practice_and_procedure/00_-_Infosheets/Infosheet_19_-_The_House_government_and_opposition
*Australian Politics: "The Government comprises the group of ministers, led by the Prime Minister, who form the executive government of the nation." - http://australianpolitics.com/democracy/key-terms/parliament-and-government
Even the logo used in the infobox is one of the Australian Government (the executive authority) - it does not represent the Parliament or the High Court in any way.
LeoC12 (talk) 09:57, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganisation 

message: Sir Peter Cosgrove's term has finished, with David Hurley's appointment commencing on the 1st of July 2019. Can someone please help change the portrait and name in the "The three branches of the Australian Government" box? I seem to not have access to do so, as I can't find it in the Editor view of the whole article. Tytrox (talk) 11:32, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update Governor-General portrait (2019) 

message: Some information on the page may need updating e.g. under the Legislature section it is stated that Bill Shorten is the opposition leader - this has not been true for over eight months at the time I am writing this --The Elysian Vector Fields (talk) 07:10, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I just updated the Bill Shorten reference, but I can't find anything else in the article that isn't up to date. I have a question though. Is this information too specific for the scope of this article? The stuff about the recent departmental shuffle under the Executive section also seems not in scope. (Wikipedia:N?) Realtable (talk) 22:55, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs updating 

message: Should this article cover just the executive government or the executive, legislature and judiciary (as current)? Not sure about in academic sources, but in common parlance it refers to the former. This explainer draws a distinction betweeen government in Australia (three branches) and the Australian Government (the executive). Possibly Government in Australia would make a good article and this title could be left for the executive. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 10:39, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey! I totally agree with you, this article should be left for the Australian Government (the Executive). The Australian Government (in terms of the Department of Health etc) is separate from Parliament, and this article seems to basically just be an explainer of the entire system of parliament. I think the remaining content outside of the scope of this could be broken into two other articles though: Federal Legislature in Australia (House of Representatives and Senate) and Federal Courts in Australia (High Court, Federal Court, Federal Circuit Court and Family Court). This article could then be left to describe the actual Australian Government in terms of its departments, powers and responsibilities compared to the states. ItsPugle (talk) 05:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

text: Other note, I think it might be worth renaming this article to Australian Government, to help clarify. If you're talking about governance of Australia, it's a bit ambiguous about what you're talking about - there's three layers of government in Australia, so having this article explicitly named after the federal government ought to clarify the content of the article. I realise this would break the pattern of "Government of xyz," but I think it's an important distinction nonetheless. ItsPugle (talk) 06:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope of article 

message: Hey! As just a bit of an oversight from the move to Australian Government, I think the  section needs some tweaking and may need to be moved across to Politics of Australia. It currently describes the entire government system, down to the election of councils etc. I think it might also need a bit of condensing: it seems to include a lot of technical details about constitutional policies, when that really isn't necessary in understanding the basic structure. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 13:59, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi - sounds like a good idea, though personally I still feel there should be a structure (probably condensed) section acknowledging the federal nature of Australia, even though the page does refer to the federal government rather than all governments in Australia. Seems fine to just split and move it. --Iamthinking2202 (talk) 01:43, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I totally agree, we do need to establish the general structure of government in Australia in this article. How do you feel about having an article called  or something along those lines that outlines the structure of government in terms of executive, legislative and judicial, then all three divisions (federal, state/territory, local)? That would then also leave Politics of Australia for well... the politics - the actual parties, ideologies etc, not the entire governing and democratic system, which is what it currently is (which is misleading imho). ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 02:11, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sounds good, a separate page outlining government structure of Australia, that can then link to politics, federal, state and local government. Its seems like a big change with making a whole new page, but would be a better fit than trying to house it in Politics of Australia or the Australian Government page (which is meant to be federal) iamthinking2202 (please ping on reply) 02:46, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perfect. I'll start working on a draft article at Draft:Government in Australia. Btw, don't forget to indent your talk page messages :) ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 04:06, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting of some content from #Structure to [[Politics of Australia]] 

message: I agree with the Australian Government Page being merged with The Australian Political Parties Page as they're very similar.
121.212.141.8 (talk) 08:08, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey there! There currently isn't a merge discussion for merging this article with List of political parties in Australia, but it's also worth noting the difference between the system of government/political landscape in Australia and the Australian Government. The latter is one distinct part of the system of government, that is, it is the executive branch (to use American terminology). If you still think there's room for the list of parties in this page, feel free to start a merge discussion :) ItsPugle (talk) 09:43, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge? 

message: I am a former Afghan government police colonel and I worked with the Australian Advisory Team in Kabul in the KJC Kabul Division, so I am threatened with the same cooperation. I need your help. 203.171.96.209 (talk) 09:59, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry but Wikipedia has nothing at all to do with the Australian Government, and articles related to Australia are not edited or monitored by Government officials.  You may be able to get information and contacts by looking at the Australian Government's Afghan Update.  Aoziwe (talk) 12:13, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Act like other countries 

message: Should we update the Head of State of Australia from Queen Elizabeth II to King Charles III due to the Queen's passing?
Sincerely, 49.192.44.178 (talk) 12:48, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, yes, it needs updating. The process in Australia is that the new monarch is proclaimed on the death of the last by the Governor General, and this happened on the 11th September 2022. Edit: looks like this is being worked on, but unless I missed it, there isn't an easy way to edit the image for the three branches of government. Timeousbeastie (talk) 19:42, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update Head of State 

message: , I have to agree with  concerning the Australian monarch, being a part of the Australian government. Saying the monarch isn't, would sorta suggest that Australia were a republic. GoodDay (talk) 22:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what the correct answer is TBH. British sources seem to distinguish between the government and the monarch i.e. its the Queen and her government and the Queen asks who can form a government and can dismiss the government. If the monarch was part of the government, that would imply she could dissmiss herself. My instinctive view is that the monarch has a role in "governance" and "governing" but is not part of "the government". But the current page is correct, so I'll do some research before changing anything. Safes007 (talk) 22:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. The monarch is formally an integral part of the Parliament, but their role in the government is less well-defined. Laws can't be passed without the GG's assent, but that springs directly from the King being an equal part of the Parliament along with the 2 Houses. The GG is empowered under a wide range of laws to make all sorts of appointments, terminations, proclamations, determinations, dissolutions, prorogations and the like, but all such decisions are the subject of "advice" from ministers, all of whom the GG appointed in the first place, but again on "advice" from the Prime Minister. Sure, the GG can ask questions, and can ask for more documentation before being satisfied that the action proposed by the government is appropriate. So, the GG is heavily involved in making decisions formal, and to that extent they're part of the government. But they play no role in coming up with government proposals in the first place, and to that extent they are no more part of the "government" than you or I are. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 00:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Though he wouldn't likely do so, as he'd prefer to be above politics. The king can (reserve powers) dimiss the governor-general, prime minister & cabinet. GoodDay (talk) 01:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monarch being a part of the government  

message: Footnote one doesn’t support the figure provided. It appears government expenditures are more in the nature of AUD 684 billion. 98.97.8.153 (talk) 18:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Feel free to be WP:BOLD and change things like that in the future. Safes007 (talk) 01:51, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Budget