Talk:Prime Minister of Australia/Archive 1

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

message: Does anyone know where we can get a photo of the most recent (forth Howard) Cabinet, a la the Second Howard Ministry photo provided by Adam? Lacrimosus 00:51, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To my knowledge, they're not.  In any case, any numeration is unofficial.  Slac speak up! 05:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cabinet Photo

message: Is there any reason why this page and the List of Prime Ministers of Australia by important facts couldn't be merged, this page would make a great featured list (see WP:FL) and I don't see why the comprehensive list isn't just included in this article?--nixie 4 July 2005 03:27 (UTC)
:I think the reason that the list was taken out was that it is too comprehensive:  there's too much detail.  A simple sequence, with information conveyed in the body of the text, would be better.  The list looks horribly cluttered to me currently. Slac speak up! 4 July 2005 22:05 (UTC)
::This page is pretty cluttered, I think that getting rid of the template (only from this page), and incorporating the images into the the table would tidy it up a bit. Moving the images aroung would help to.--nixie 4 July 2005 23:08 (UTC)
:::Oppose. There's too much detail on the important facts page to effectively merge into this one. --RaiderAspect 10:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Two lists for the same thing?

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

message: Here is a revised PM of Australia template that also intergrates the succession box. Just want to know what everyone thinks
 
Prime Minister of Australia                                                                                                                                                                                             	Prime Minister of Australia                                                                                                                                                                                             	Prime Minister of Australia                                                                                                                                                                                             	Prime Minister of Australia	
Preceded by:                                                                                                                                                                                                            	()                                                                                                                                                                                                                      	Succeeded by:                                                                                                                                                                                                           	                           	
Barton | Deakin | Watson | Reid | Fisher | Cook | Hughes | Bruce | Scullin | Lyons | Page | Menzies | Fadden | Curtin | Forde | Chifley | Holt | McEwen | Gorton | McMahon | Whitlam | Fraser | Hawke | Keating | Howard	Barton | Deakin | Watson | Reid | Fisher | Cook | Hughes | Bruce | Scullin | Lyons | Page | Menzies | Fadden | Curtin | Forde | Chifley | Holt | McEwen | Gorton | McMahon | Whitlam | Fraser | Hawke | Keating | Howard	Barton | Deakin | Watson | Reid | Fisher | Cook | Hughes | Bruce | Scullin | Lyons | Page | Menzies | Fadden | Curtin | Forde | Chifley | Holt | McEwen | Gorton | McMahon | Whitlam | Fraser | Hawke | Keating | Howard	                           	
M W Johnson 05:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, don't like it. IMHO, succession boxes should be uniform accross Wikipedia, not specific to one particular office.  Slac speak up! 03:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Would this work? 

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

message: :Below is a list of Prime Ministers of Australia by name, birth date, birth place, date first elected to the Australian parliament, political party, electoral constituency, date assumed office, date left office, date left parliament (where applicable) and date of death (where applicable).  
The only fields here are name, date assumed office, date left office, and political party, yet this paragraph heads the table.  Should columns be added to the table or the should the names of the fields be deleted from the paragraph?
Mal7798 03:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DOB, DOD? 

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

message: * These Ministers are ex officio members of the Federal Executive Council, the senior members of which constitute the Cabinet.
I keep looking at this sentence and wondering about it.  The Ex officio suggests, to me at least, that a person holds membership of EXCO solely because of their Ministerial office, and it's automatic as soon as they're sworn in as a Minister.  That's actually not the way it works.
Section 62 of the Constitution says "There shall be a Federal EXCO ....and the members of the Council shall be chosen and summoned by the G-G and sworn as Executive Councillors, and shall hold office during his pleasure".  Then s.64 says "The G-G may appoint officers to administer such departments of state ... as the G-G may establish. Such officers ... shall be members of the Federal EXCO, and shall be the Queen's Ministers of State for the Commonwealth".  Unless we've been doing something naughty for 106 years, there would seem to be required two swearings: one as an Executive Councillor the first time they become one, and another as a Minister every time they take on a new or additional portfolio.  Once sworn as an Executive Councillor, barring extraordinary circumstances, they remain an Executive Councillor for life, which is why it only happens once, and why they get to retain "The Hon" for life.  They don't remain a Minister for life.  
It's entirely possible to be sworn as an Executive Councillor but, for whatever reason, not chosen as a Minister.  This actually happened with Glenister Sheil.  Malcolm Fraser announced his choice of Sheil as Minister for Veterans' Affairs on December 19, 1977, but before Sheil had had a chance to be sworn in as a Minister, Fraser changed his mind about him two days later because of Sheil’s announced views on apartheid. It got a lot of press at the time (the headlines screamed "Sheil sacked!" etc - but he was never actually sacked because he was never actually appointed).  This tells us he had not even been formally sworn in – as a Minister - and the Parliamentary Handbook bears that out in not listing him as a member of any Fraser ministry.  But he had been sworn in as an Executive Councillor.  Gavin Souter’s “Acts of Parliament” (p. 624) says “Sheil’s appointment to the Executive Council without portfolio was terminated on 22 December, 1977, only two days after it had been made”. 
So, the situation is that a person is capable of being chosen as a Minister because they were first sworn as an Executive Councillor, not the other way around. Therefore, I think the "ex officio" is not correct, and should be removed.  --  JackofOz 13:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: EXCO and "ex officio"

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

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

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

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

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

message: I have an additional request to make. The summary box at the top indicates that the Prime Minister's style is "The Right Honourable". However this is incorrect. The style Rt. Hon. went with an appointment to the British Privy Council, which no Australian has been appointed to since the practice was abolished by Prime Minister Bob Hawke in the 1980s. Please rectify the situation. As a member of the Australian Executive Council (as are all Cabinet Ministers) the PM can be addressed only as "The Honourable".
Kevin Rudd is now PM. Please update. -- Whiteandnerdy111 (talk) 10:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, he is not. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you have to wait until he is sworn in. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  He is now our prime minster, just choose one of our TV stations, News Papers or Websites.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.231.176.175 (talk) 11:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

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

message: This page should not be changed until Kevin Rudd has been sworn in by the Governor-General. Anything could happen between now and when he is officially sworn in. The Australian Electoral Commission has to send the results to the Governor-General first. People need to stop rushing to change things. We have a few days yet. Mattrix18 (talk) 09:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yawn. Timeshift (talk) 09:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue is with the term "Incumbent". Mr Howard is no longer the "incumbent", he is the Caretaker. The infobox should be changed to represent that. I hereby apologise also for my political based remarks previously Timmah86 (talk) 10:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Incumbent" means the person actually occupying the office in question.  The office in question is that of Prime Minister of Australia.  John Howard is the Prime Minister of Australia until he hands in his commission, which won't happen till Kevin Rudd has chosen his ministry and they are ready to be sworn in.  That won't happen till Thursday.  Howard remains the PM till then.  His government is in caretaker mode.  There is no actual office as "caretaker Prime Minister" - it's shorthand for the Prime Minister who's heading a government that is currently in caretaker mode.  John Howard is the incumbent until Thursday.  (End of lesson.)  --  JackofOz (talk) 12:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no actual office as "Prime Minister" in Australia according to the constitution. I have never seen the term "Prime Minister" written within the constitution. The office of Prime Minister is simply part of the westminster tradition and protocol, an implied office, just like the caretaker role. Mattrix18 (talk) 13:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In both Australia and the UK the office of Prime Minister is now explicitly established in law. For a start, it's paid a salary in it's own right... 81.77.175.145 (talk) 13:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The term "Prime Minister" may not appear in the Constitution, but there have been 25 people who have been sworn in to and held a ministerial portfolio called "Prime Minister".  There will soon be a 26th.  Nobody has ever held a portfolio titled "Caretaker Prime Minister", because no such portfolio exists.  That's because it's not the PM who's the caretaker but the government he leads.  Terminology gets used loosely out there in the real world, often with good reason.  --  JackofOz (talk) 14:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The current wording in the intro at least explains why Howard's picture is still there and is unlikely to make anyone cough up their own skulls in horror. (Though constitutional trainspotters are spewing forth hairballs wildly ;-) Can someone find a solid reference where someone has already done all the working out we've tried to above? Then, even past the current time before Rudd is (almost certainly) sworn in, it'll be useful for the article - David Gerard (talk) 18:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kevin Rudd 

message: The numerous issues raised about problems with the infobox all stem from the fact that we are trying to use a template (being intended for reusability) for what is in fact a one-off requirement. We need an infobox which allows simply for desribing the position of Australian PM.
The infobox for individual PMs Of Australia needs the ability to allow for multiple terms, multiple appointments.
I will go and find someone who can design an infobox from scratch... Manning (talk) 11:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One of? In what way does the PM of Australia differ from, say, the PM of Canada? At least, in terms of the infobox. --G2bambino (talk) 18:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The style for Australian PMs is no longer "The Rt Honourable", but "The Honourable" (virtually always written "The Hon", and without a full stop).  I don't know enough about Canadian affairs and maybe you can educate me.  Maybe all Canadian PMs are automatically "the Rt Hon".  That has never been the case in Australia.  It was the general practice that the PM would accept appointment to the Privy Council, although some PMs refused (Whitlam and Hawke certainly, and I think Curtin and others).  If they accepted, they'd be "the Rt Hon".  If not, they remained "the Hon".  The last "Rt Hon" PM was Malcolm Fraser, who ceased office in 1983.  In the meantime, we've had the Australia Act 1986, which severed our connection with the Privy Council, so there will be no more "Rt Hon" PMs.  But as I pointed out at the top of the page, even "the Hon" is not something that refers specifically to Prime Ministers.  All Ministers and even now Parliamentary Secretaries must be members of the Executive Council, and once sworn in, they retain "the Hon" for life.  --  JackofOz (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I've always understood that, a caretaker PM was an emergency fill-in between PMs - Howard isn't an emergency fill-in, he's a Lame-duck. GoodDay (talk) 18:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That may reflect Canadian terminology, but not Australian.  Have you read the Caretaker Conventions document?  It's very educational.  But there is a lot of confusion out there, I must admit.  A lot of Australians, for example, refuse to accept that McEwen, Forde, Fadden and Page were "real" Prime Ministers, but insist they were only acting PM.  Not so.  They were indeed appointed on an interim, short-term (and in some cases, emergency) basis, but constitutionally they were as fully PM during their short tenures as Robert Menzies was during his long tenure.  It's correct to refer to them as "interim PMs", and in a very broad sense one could say they were "caretaker PMs", but in the sense of "caretaker" we're using here, they were not caretaker PMs.  That term here refers to an incumbent PM whose government goes into caretaker mode prior to an election, and remains in caretaker mode until they or their successor government is sworn in.  Currently, the Howard government is in caretaker mode (and would have been regardless of the outcome), so you could call him the "caretaker PM".  Because Rudd has won the election, Howard is also the "outgoing PM".  In relation to Lame Duck, he's only that (or was, going into the election) because he announced he'd be retiring some time during his next term, if re-elected.  If he had said that he would serve his full term if re-elected (and people generally believed him), he would not have been seen as a lame duck.  --  JackofOz (talk) 22:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, it is confusing. But, I've no intentions of changing things on the article. Interesting topic, though. GoodDay (talk) 23:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Infobox drama

message: IMHO, outgoing Prime Minister would be more accurate then caretaker Prime Minister. GoodDay (talk) 17:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've always understood that, a caretaker PM was an emergency fill-in between PMs - Howard isn't an emergency fill-in, he's a Lame-duck. GoodDay (talk) 18:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That may reflect Canadian terminology, but not Australian.  Have you read the Caretaker Conventions document?  It's very educational.  But there is a lot of confusion out there, I must admit.  A lot of Australians, for example, refuse to accept that McEwen, Forde, Fadden and Page were "real" Prime Ministers, but insist they were only acting PM.  Not so.  They were indeed appointed on an interim, short-term (and in some cases, emergency) basis, but constitutionally they were as fully PM during their short tenures as Robert Menzies was during his long tenure.  It's correct to refer to them as "interim PMs", and in a very broad sense one could say they were "caretaker PMs", but in the sense of "caretaker" we're using here, they were not caretaker PMs.  That term here refers to an incumbent PM whose government goes into caretaker mode prior to an election, and remains in caretaker mode until they or their successor government is sworn in.  Currently, the Howard government is in caretaker mode (and would have been regardless of the outcome), so you could call him the "caretaker PM".  Because Rudd has won the election, Howard is also the "outgoing PM".  In relation to Lame Duck, he's only that (or was, going into the election) because he announced he'd be retiring some time during his next term, if re-elected.  If he had said that he would serve his full term if re-elected (and people generally believed him), he would not have been seen as a lame duck.  --  JackofOz (talk) 22:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, it is confusing. But, I've no intentions of changing things on the article. Interesting topic, though. GoodDay (talk) 23:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Caretaker drama

message: Kevin Rudd will be sworn in on Monday the 3rd of December AD2007 , I suggest we leave any edits until monday night 121.210.212.4  —Preceding comment was added at 02:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Judging by the amount of times it's been changed already (and then wearily changed back by any one out of a whole group of us) I suspect it will be updated within seconds of it becoming fact.Manning 09:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Swearing In

message: Should it not be updated to reflect the fact that there is a different Governor-General? 220.239.227.179 (talk) 10:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this relates to the issue I raised above.  --  JackofOz (talk) 11:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Appointed By

message: Why is there a List of Prime Ministers of Australia in this article? All that's needed is a 'link' to the article List of Prime Ministers of Australia. No need to have the same list on 'two' articles. GoodDay (talk) 20:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The list here is a "raw" list (if you like), with only the basic details of terms and party allegiance.  The one in the separate article is more extensive, containing personal and other details.  But there should certainly be a link here to let readers know there is a more detailed list in another article.  --  JackofOz (talk) 02:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: List of Australian PMs

message: The table should be amended to the style here so the incumbent is self-updating. Timeshift (talk) 05:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length in office 

message: Per Talk:Frank Forde, is it correct that Forde was not a leader of the ALP in 1945? Timeshift (talk) 04:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I'd say it's correct.  The moment Curtin died, there was no leader in a formal sense.  It took them a week to choose a new leader, but in the meantime there had to be a PM, and the obvious choice was the deputy to the late PM.  Parliament wouldn't have been sitting in July; but what would have happened if Parliament had been in session?  Forde would have made a statement to the House that the GG had commissioned him as Prime Minister, but he would have stopped short of declaring that he was the parliamentary leader of the Labor Party.  In practice, he was obviously leading the party (exactly as Julia Gillard does whenever she's acting PM), but he wasn't the Leader of the party.  Important distinction.  --  JackofOz (talk) 04:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forde PM with ministry, but not ALP leader? 

message: I know this has been slightly discussed before, but I was having a re-think.
*The Prime Minister of Australia is the head of government of the Commonwealth of Australia, holding office on commission from the Governor-General. The office of Prime Minister is, in practice, the most powerful political office in Australia.
The G-G is above politics; his concern is the proper governance of Australia.  Hence his office is not a political one.  The whole structure is geared towards ensuring the G-G never involves himself in political matters; which is why, for example, when he reads out his speech at the opening of parliament it's important it be widely known that he didn't personally write it but the government did it for him, and the words he utters do not necessarily align with his private political views at all.  One could certainly say that the office of G-G is the highest office in Australia.  But the highest political office is the PM, not just in practice but in fact, because there simply is no higher political office.   Comments, anyone?  --  JackofOz (talk) 23:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Politics is about power. The G-G has a LOT of power according to the Constitution, which makes the office potentially very political, although the standard practice is for the G-G not to act in a PARTISAN manner. That doesn't mean the office is apolitical, as 1975 showed very clearly.  Mdw0 (talk) 03:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Politics is about power. Yes.  But does the reverse apply?  I'd say no, generally speaking.  Just because a person has power does not make their office a political one.  If a particular viceroy acted in a partisan way, then his/her actions, and he/she personally, would be worthy of condemnation.  Witness the removal of Sir Colin Hannah's dormant commission to become Administrator as punishment for making public statements critical of the Whitlam government.  And there was Kerr. But even with Kerr, one could argue that what he did was from the standpoint of ensuring Supply (well, that's certainly how he justified it), and not because he wanted to see a Liberal/Country coalition in power at all costs or because he wanted to get rid of the Labor government at all costs.  If the office of Governor-General was routinely abused, to the point where occupants regularly injected themselves into partisan political debates, then yes it would be rightly seen as a political office.  But what Kerr did, whatever one may think of it, was indisputably within the reserve powers of the Crown, which continue to this day, but without any of his successors ever getting anywhere close to contemplating similar action.  Of course, the circumstances that led up to 11/11 have never been repeated, and probably never will.  If you take the view that the existence of those reserve powers makes the office of governor-general an inherently political office, we could argue that proposition.  I would disagree with that notion, however.  The occasional exceptions to the general practice and the general expectation do not convert an apolitical office into a political office.  --  JackofOz (talk) 06:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The potential for a G-G to act, although it is rarely done, is always there - the ability to sack a government, prime minister. That power does have an effect on the behavior of governments and politicians. That makes it a political office, so yes, the existance of the powers makes the G-G inherently a political office. I wanted to make the comment that just because an office isn't partisan, it can still be political. Just because a G-G chooses not to, or is never forced to use their power during their tenure doesn't mean the office itself is merely ceremonial or apolitical.   Mdw0 (talk) 04:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see where you're coming from.  I've never seen it as just a rubber stamp, even if for much of the time it appears to be indistiguishable from one.  The GG would be stupid not to keep abreast of ongoing party political developments, just as the Queen does in the UK.  But he/she cannot make decisions that favour one side or the other, and the reserve powers are kept tightly locked away in a bottom drawer.  In this sense of "political", it's an apolitical office.  But every once in a while there's a need to bring them out and use them.  That's where it gets risky because it exposes not only the office of GG to criticism that some partisanship is involved, but also the relevant GG personally.  One would hope that partisanship would never play a part in their thinking, and that some higher principle would always be their motivation - but I agree this gets us into the other sense of "political".  So, how do we get across the idea that the GG is a non-partisan political office, and that the PM is the highest partisan political office?  Those words aren't suitable because they suggest the PM's main interest is in the success of his party, and the welfare of the people of Australia is a lower priority.  That may be true of certain PMs, but ...  The current wording isn't quite right either, because it could suggest the GG sometimes gets involved in party politics, which should never be the case under any circumstances.  --  JackofOz (talk) 05:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Expressing this in the article I think can be done by not saying who is the 'highest' power and just say what the powers are, without having to satisfy those who are obsessed with relative hierarchy. You'd say the Prime Minister is an elected politician with has little personal power, but because they lead the Government, the PM has power over the Parliament, the Cabinet and Government policy. The G-G is a non-elected non-partisan executive who holds particular executive powers of the Queen, powers rarely used overtly, but which can be used to sack Parliaments and Prime ministers in certain situations. That may indicate the odd balance between the two powers, that they can sack each other, highlighted in 1975 when Whitlam's colleagues were telling him not to dissolve Parliament and to sack Kerr, which he probably could have done if he'd had the will to resist, but that's a different exchange on a different article.  Mdw0 (talk) 05:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Most powerful political office - in practice

message: *While I think some of the material in the subsection on Prime Ministerial Births and Deaths is interesting and useful, other material is mere trivia and shouldn't be included.  Any views before I remove what I consider trivial and unencyclopaedic? --Matilda talk 23:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, whenever I see a trivia section it means that whoever added it wasn't a good enough writer to include it in the body of the article. Delete away. --Roisterer (talk) 03:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: just to clarify - the section isn't entitled trivia - just some of the contents are trivial --Matilda talk 04:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I wrote much of that stuff, but I don't have a problem if there's a good rationale for removing some of it.  It's a bit hard to comment on your proposal, though, without knowing what you consider trivial and why.  Can you identify the bits you want to remove?  --  JackofOz (talk) 04:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivial material in subsection on Prime Ministerial Births and Deaths 

message: (question originally posted at Talk:Deputy Prime Minister of Australia)
Is there a list anywhere of all the people who've acted as PM back to 1901?  In most cases it would amount to a list of the unofficial deputy PM before 1968, and the official Deputy Prime Minister of Australia from then on.  But there are some others who've acted (and not necessarily for short periods).  A case in point is James Fenton, Minister for Trade and Customs, who acted PM for 5 months (August 1930-January 1931) while James Scullin was overseas.  During this period Scullin was his own Treasurer, and Postmaster-General Joseph Lyons acted as Treasurer.  Frank Brennan was Attorney-General and was more senior to either Lyons or Fenton in the ranking, but he was for some reason overlooked for the acting PM role.  Then there was Senator George Pearce, who acted as PM at some stage.  --  JackofOz (talk) 23:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Acting prime ministers

message: The timeline colour-coding shows Chris Watson as a Protectionist Party Prime Minister. This is not the case; he was a Labor Prime Minister.  Also, there is a mistake in showing Billy Hughes' National Labor Party term. Hughes' second stint under the NLP was from november 1916 to Feb 1917 (the 1917-1917 stat makes no sense). And the National Labor Party colours are very difficult to distinguish from the Nationalist Party of Australia colours, but this might be nit-picking a bit. Australian Matt (talk) 02:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we know. Unfortunately, nobody can seem to be able to fix it. Timeshift (talk) 02:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

text: No, they can't. It cannot be fixed. But if you seem to think it can be done, be my guest! You'd be the first to successfully rectify it! Timeshift (talk) 08:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are not wrong. I just had several attempts and only turned it to gibberish. (I had assumed that people thought it couldn't be edited because the page is protected - I hadn't looked at the issue very closely). The coding seems straightforward enough and I can't see why it keeps screwing up. Manning (talk) 08:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome to the club. Everyone's had a go at it. Timeshift (talk) 09:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The timeline's resistance to editing continues to baffle me, but I will point out that the problem with Watson isn't that he is shown as Protectionist - he simply isn't shown at all, since his term is described as from:1904 till:1904. I think Matt must have thought Deakin's first bar was for Watson. JPD (talk) 16:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was aware Watson's issue is that he doesn't span from one calender year to the next, thus in the graph terms, he served 0 years. As for Deakin being CLP 1905-1908, that annoys me too. Then there was the original post's issue. I fear to think what adding Rudd would do to the graph *gasp* it needs fixing or removing. Timeshift (talk) 16:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The Watson issue was on of the original post's issues - that's why I bothered saying it, even though Timeshift was obviously already aware of it. I agree that it would probably be best to remove it from the article if we can't fix the problem. JPD (talk) 19:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There MUST be somewhere we can turn to for help with this bloody graph... Timeshift (talk) 04:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NICE WORK! The uneditable has become the editable! Now make Deakin's 1905-08 term protectionist PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE and i'll be happy! :D Also, does moving from National Labor to Nationalist make Hughes go from second time to third time as PM? Timeshift 08:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've fixed Deaking - it shouldn't be too hard for anyone to edit now. Nothing has actually been fixed, someone has just removed the links, which were the only part that was displaying strangely. I guess losing the links is a small price to pay for actually being able to update the thing. JPD (talk) 11:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Graphical timeline

message: ImageSize  = width:600 height:2000
PlotArea   = left:50 right:0 bottom:65 top:10
Legend     = columns:4 left:5 top:55 columnwidth:150
AlignBars  = justify
DateFormat = dd/mm/yyyy
Period     = from:01/01/1901 till:01/01/2021
TimeAxis   = orientation:vertical
ScaleMajor = unit:year increment:3 start:1901
Colors=
  id:canvas value:gray(0.5)
  id:LIB  value:blue             legend:Liberal
  id:UAP  value:powderblue       legend:United_Australia
  id:NAP  value:skyblue          legend:National_Labor
  id:ALP  value:red              legend:Labor
  id:NAT  value:skyblue          legend:Nationalist
  id:FT   value:limegreen        legend:Free_Trade
  id:CNT  value:green            legend:Country/National
  id:PRO  value:tan1             legend:Protectionist
  id:CML  value:dullyellow       legend:Commonwealth_Liberal
  id:WAR  value:gray(0.6)
Define $left  = align:right shift:(-25,-5)
Define $right = align:left  shift:(25,-5)
PlotData=
  mark:(line,white) fontsize:S shift:(25,-5)
  width:25
  
 from: 01/01/1901 till: 24/09/1903 color:PRO $right text:1901–1903_Edmund Barton 
 from: 24/09/1903 till: 27/04/1904 color:PRO $left text:Alfred Deakin_1903–1904
 from: 27/04/1904 till: 18/08/1904 color:ALP $right text:1904_Chris Watson 
 from: 18/08/1904 till: 05/07/1905 color:FT $left text:Sir George Reid_1904–1905
 from: 05/07/1905 till: 13/11/1908 color:PRO $right text:1905–1908_Alfred Deakin (second time)
 from: 13/11/1908 till: 02/06/1909 color:ALP $left text:Andrew Fisher_1908–1909 
 from: 02/06/1909 till: 29/04/1910 color:CML $right text:1909–1910_Alfred Deakin (third time) 
 from: 29/04/1910 till: 24/06/1913 color:ALP $left text:(second time)_Andrew Fisher_1910–1913 
 from: 24/06/1913 till: 17/11/1914 color:CML $right text:1913–1914_Joseph Cook 
 from: 17/11/1914 till: 27/10/1915 color:ALP $left text:(third time)_Andrew Fisher_1914–1915 
 from: 27/10/1915 till: 14/11/1916 color:ALP $right text:1915–1916_Billy Hughes 
 from: 14/11/1916 till: 17/02/1917 color:NAP $left text:(second time)_Billy Hughes_1916–1917
 from: 17/02/1917 till: 09/02/1923 color:NAT $right text:1917–1923_Billy Hughes (third time) 
 from: 09/02/1923 till: 22/10/1929 color:NAT $left text:Stanley Bruce_1923–1929 
 from: 22/10/1929 till: 06/01/1932 color:ALP $right text:1929–1932_James Scullin 
 from: 06/01/1932 till: 07/04/1939 color:UAP $left text:Joseph Lyons_1932–1939 
 from: 07/04/1939 till: 26/04/1939 color:CNT $right text:1939_Sir Earle Page
 from: 26/04/1939 till: 28/08/1941 color:UAP $left text:Robert Menzies_1939–1941
 from: 28/08/1941 till: 07/10/1941 color:CNT $right text:1941_Arthur Fadden
 from: 07/10/1941 till: 05/07/1945 color:ALP $left text:John Curtin_1941–1945 
 from: 06/07/1945 till: 13/07/1945 color:ALP $right text:1945_Frank Forde 
 from: 13/07/1945 till: 19/12/1949 color:ALP $left text:Ben Chifley_1945–1949
 from: 19/12/1949 till: 26/01/1966 color:LIB $right text:1949–1966_Sir Robert Menzies (second time)
 from: 26/01/1966 till: 19/12/1967 color:LIB $left text:Harold Holt_1966–1967
 from: 19/12/1967 till: 10/01/1968 color:CNT $right text:1967–1968_John McEwen 
 from: 10/01/1968 till: 10/03/1971 color:LIB $left text:John Gorton_1968–1971 
 from: 10/03/1971 till: 05/12/1972 color:LIB $right text:1971–1972_William McMahon
 from: 05/12/1972 till: 11/11/1975 color:ALP $left text:Gough Whitlam_1972–1975 
 from: 11/11/1975 till: 11/03/1983 color:LIB $right text:1975–1983_Malcolm Fraser
 from: 11/03/1983 till: 20/12/1991 color:ALP $left text:Bob Hawke_1983–1991
 from: 20/12/1991 till: 11/03/1996 color:ALP $right text:1991–1996_Paul Keating 
 from: 11/03/1996 till: 03/12/2007 color:LIB $left text:John Howard_1996–2007 
 from: 03/12/2007 till: 24/06/2010 color:ALP $right text:2007–2010_Kevin Rudd
 from: 24/06/2010 till: 27/06/2013 color:ALP $left text:Julia Gillard_2010−2013
 from: 27/06/2013 till: 18/09/2013 color:ALP $right text:2013_Kevin Rudd (second time) 
 from: 18/09/2013 till: 15/09/2015 color:LIB $left text:Tony Abbott_2013–2015 
 from: 15/09/2015 till: 24/08/2018 color:LIB $right text:2015–2018_Malcolm Turnbull
 from: 24/08/2018 till: end        color:LIB $left text:Scott_Morrison_2018–present
Good move. Manning (talk) 00:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Graphical timeline

message: Major kudos to whoever it was. (I know I could go and look, but I'm lazy.)Manning 10:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The timeline got fixed!

message: Why does the box at the right say the PM's style is "Right Honourable"? The last Australian PM to be a member of the British Privy Council was Malcolm Fraser. The correct style is "The Honourable". Does any one know how to change the box?
58.166.142.122 (talk) 10:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Style

message: Looks good now. One thing though, it's good to see Watson with his own red knobbly bit at the start, but what about Page and Fadden's knobbly bits? Page, fair enough, he was PM for less than a month. As for Fadden, he was PM for 6 weeks and even had his budget voted against before he lost office after independents crossed the floor to deliver government to Curtin and Labor. What barometer should be used to determine if they get their knobbly bits? Timeshift 06:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Any further corrections?

message: This section has a very similar graph, and has the same issues (neglects ALP in 1904, Prot 1905-08 etc). How can it be fixed? Timeshift (talk) 03:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Politics of Australia]]

message: This graph has the links restored and is updated with data from the current one.  The left side is a bit of a kludge to compensate for the align:right bug in EasyTimeline but it's a reliable one that will hold together if they ever fix that bug.  All you have to do for the left side is add spaces to make the text line up.  Aaron Walkhouse (talk) 04:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: I found a copy of this timeline in a user page and fixed it up

message: Is it just my browser, or is there something wrong with the coding of the table at List of Prime Ministers?  It's affecting the Took office and Left office columns.
Took office is blank for: Barton, Deakin II and III, Bruce, Lyons, Page, Curtin, Forde, Whitlam, Hawke and Rudd.
Left office is blank for: Reid, Fisher I, Hughes, Scullin, Lyons, Fadden, Curtin, McMahon, Fraser and Howard.
I've looked at the markup but there's nothing obviously wrong with it.  What's going on?  --  Jack of Oz  ... speak! ...  10:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Table glitch

message: Just a few notes:
* Julia Gillard does not become PM until the GG appoints her. At the moment she is just the leader of the ALP (and hence prime minister-designate).
* We need to make sure this article does not become a spinning wheel of all the details. It is about the office of prime minister, not the minute-by-minute turnings of the leadership spill. I.e., let's make sure any details about the change are kept in the appropriate article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by El T (talk • contribs) 00:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the input. Editors have been active in making clear she is not PM yet, so I'm not sure what the point was of stating that. On your second point, some explanation is necessary to explain how she became PM, and it is okay to err on the side of too much detain in the short term when this article is going to see increased traffic. It is particularly important that this article direct people to the appropriate article. -Rrius (talk) 00:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should continue to show the sitting Prime Minister and only be changed in about an hour when that changes. I know people are anxious, but let's have enough patience to allow reality to work itself out. -Rrius (talk) 01:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gillard 

message: The prime minister of Australia is no longer Kevin Rudd, it's Julia Gillard.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_Gillard
121.210.133.129 (talk) 02:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not yet. She's at Government House now; once she emerges, we'll change it. -Rrius (talk) 02:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sooner, actually, the swearing-in is going to be broadcast. -Rrius (talk) 02:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from 121.210.133.129, 24 June 2010 

message: Kevin Rudd is no longer AusPM.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.13.27.105 (talk) 00:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No news source is reporting that he has turned in his commission or that she has officially been appointed or taken the oath. That she has been elected party leader does not automatically change the Government. -Rrius (talk) 00:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Just thinking that perhaps "Prime Minister Julia Gillard won a party leadership election on 24 June 2010" is not quite correct as the leadership election never occurred due to Kevin Rudd not nominating himself. How can you win something that never occurred?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.50.152 (talk) 04:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: New prime minister

message: There is a small typo in the "List of prime ministers" table where it says Julia Gillard is a member of 'Lalor' instead of 'Labor'
Debenham (talk) 23:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Gillard represents the Division of Lalor in Victoria, not necessarily a typo. Whenbongoscollide (talk) 00:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct, see Division of Lalor. :)  Avicennasis @ 05:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from Debenham, 23 June 2010 

message: This has been edited:
All the others (excluding the three prime ministers who died in office and the most recent ex-incumbent Kevin Rudd) lasted at least 10 years.
It was "the most recent ex-incumbent John Howard". However, since John Howard is not dead it should read "the most recent ex-incumbents, John Howard and Kevin Rudd".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.207.146 (talk) 22:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Howard's only been out of the job less than 3 years so he has to be mentioned there.   Done.  --  Jack of Oz  ... speak! ...  10:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Longevity 

message: In response to our American friend - who seems to think that American English conventions should be treated as standard everywhere - in formal Australian English it is not considered correct to use certain positions, such as "prime minister", as titles.  Therefore it is considered correct to say "The prime minister, Kevin Rudd." or "The prime minister, "Mr Rudd." but not "Prime Minister Rudd".  Although examples such as "Prime Minister Rudd" can be found this does not mean that such use is considered correct use and that they should be used in encyclopedia articles. Afterwriting (talk) 12:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why are Australians doing it? This has not a thing to do with American conventions, and I would appreciate it if you would keep nationalist crap out of this. If your contention is that Prime Minister is never used before the name as anything other than an appositive, all I ask is that you prove it. Not just to me, but to the Australians who have also been using it. Keep in mind, "your American friend" (God, how condescending is that!) didn't write a damn line of that. -Rrius (talk) 12:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

text: In addition, if "Australian Standard English" is to trump MOS, then "Prime Minister" should always be capitalised, shouldn't it? -Rrius (talk) 12:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: A check of pm.gov.au and its latest archive revealed that Rrius' position is supported in this matter. I find it hard to believe that the PM's website would get it wrong. I'll take this opportunity to remind Afterwriting of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Concentrate on the issues, not the editor. I certainly wouldn't think it wise to criticise somebody for using American English conventions when you've spelled "encyclopedia"[sic] the American way. It's "encyclopædia" mate. (But we'll accept "encyclopaedia".) --AussieLegend (talk) 12:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, the Typographic ligature is hardly a hallmark of Australian English, mate.  I'd rather say It's "encyclopaedia", mate. (But we'll accept "encyclopædia".).  --  Jack of Oz  ... speak! ...  12:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

text: It is especially strange to attack in that way someone who tries mightily to use country-appropriate spellings even on talk pages and in edit summaries. Hell, I even do it on my talk page when the subject or even the main editor I'm conversing with is from a country with non-American spellings. -Rrius (talk) 13:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

text:  Is the Australian Broadcasting Company not Australian or not using AusEng here? Does Antony Green also have problems with Australian Standard English? -Rrius (talk) 12:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Correction ABC is Australian Broadcasting Corporation. ;) Bidgee (talk) 12:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I know, but I'm irritated. -Rrius (talk) 12:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Unlike some other countries, political positions in Australia ( prime minister, premier etc ) are not conventionally used as titles before names.  Therefore "Prime Minister Hawke" or "Premier Brumby", for example, are unconventional uses and therefore should, I would strongly argue, be avoided in Australia-related articles in favour of conventional uses such as "the prime minister, Mr Hawke" or the Prime Minister of Australia, Mr Hawke".  I recognise that some newspapers and websites etc use an "inhouse" style in such matters but this should not be confused as being the conventional or standard Australian English use. Afterwriting (talk) 16:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: A glance at this morning's papers shows that usages such as "Prime Minister Gillard" are commonplace. The usage is generally to capitalise the title when used to refer to a specific officeholder, and leave it uncapitalised otherwise. eg. "The Prime Minister promised that he would consult with stakeholders before announcing a big new tax on encyclopaedias" and "It is common practice for a prime minister to move into The Lodge after assuming the position." Of course, we often see counter-examples." --Pete (talk) 23:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It is becoming common to see that sort of use.  But "The prime minister, Julia Gillard" should not be spurned.  I wouldn't go as far as Afterwriting suggests, though.  "The prime minister, Mr Rudd/Ms Gillard" is too redolent of my 1950s' and 1960s' memories of "The prime minister, Mr Menzies".  Referring to the PM by their given and last names is perfectly fine these days.  --  Jack of Oz  ... speak! ...  10:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australian English and using positions as titles