Talk:Australian House of Representatives

message: Just out of curiousity why aren't members of the Australian House of Representatives referred to as Representative just like their US counterparts. For example why isn't John Howard referred to as Representative John Howard.--The Shadow Treasurer 02:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't top post; the correct talk page etiquette on Wikipedia is start new sections beneath existing ones, in chronological sequence. A probable answer to your question is that we already have a perfectly suitable reference for our parliamentarians, namely MP – inherited from the Westminster system on which the House was modelled.--cj | talk 02:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Representative 

message: I've deleted the reference to the Main Committee being a 'unique development in the Australian House', as I believe that the British House of Commons now uses Westminster Hall in a fairly similar fashion (that is, as a committee of the whole which meets in a separate location at the same time as the main house). I can't find a full description of how Westminster Hall works on the UK Parliament site, but the basics are confirmed here. I'd like to have more details on the link between the Main Committee and the establishment of Westminster Hall before changing the section regarding that. -Nasica (talk) 08:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main Committee unique? 

message: After he won the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1973, Patrick White "was invited by the House of Representatives to be seated on the floor of the House in recognition of his achievement. White declined, explaining that his nature could not easily adapt itself to such a situation. The last time such an invitation had been extended was in 1928, to Bert Hinkler.  
The source is Gavin Souter: Acts of Parliament, p. 516.
I'd like to make some reference to this occasional practice.  Is there a list of all such invitees, and dates?  --  JackofOz (talk) 22:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Notable people being invited to be seated on the floor of the House

message: To House of Representatives of Australia, as most governmental bodies have an article title in this manner.--RM (Be my friend) 05:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed name change

message: I noticed that the image in the infobox had 73 Labor dots including speaker. This obviously misrepresents the current composition. The uploader's account appears to have been used once only and i'm unable to locate an active talkpage for them. I took the 150px reduction image and did a quick fix on the dots, and i'm not sure if the temporary corrected layout is the best, it is inferior but it is a factual fix until someone can fix it properly. Timeshift (talk) 03:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If anyone does make a new version of this, the colours for the Greens, Katter and the CLP could use some differentiation from the Nationals, Labor and the Liberals respectively. Frickeg (talk) 06:17, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. But can I ask, if people have issues with either colour or parliamentary catagorisation of political affiliation, that they either discuss it here, or fix the image/infobox? Taking down the image does nobody, especially the article, any good. I've spent a little bit of time fixing up the infoboxes of both houses and for the whole Parliament. Timeshift (talk) 08:05, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

text: Katter's dot also needs to be changed back to independent. The Australian Party is not registered, indeed it was refused registration by the AEC and is not recognised by the parliament. He still sits as an independent. All parliamentary material still refers to him as an independent. Jmount (talk) 16:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

text: Whoops... I'm sure I double checked the number of dots - must have forgotten about the speaker when I added them up. I've tried editing the SVG to fix these concerns - . While I was initially trying to keep to the 'registered' colours, the only way I can think of disambiguating the Greens and Nationals, etc, is by using their secondary colours. In this case, the National's Gold from their logo, the Brownish-orange from the Country Liberals logo and nudging Katter back to a grey dot. As for the LNP, I think it's the best we can do. I resampled the LNP website for appropriate colours, but only got ones that were an even closer blue. --GoForMoe (talk) 11:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've also tried a Senate version at  --GoForMoe (talk) 16:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks better than the temps at Parliament of Australia... a couple of small niggles though... can we get a better differentiation for the WA Nat? A darker/lighter hue? Also, the removal of the Labor dot on the far right, the Liberal opposite doesn't have one, at a quick glance it looks like they have an equal number... can the placement be improved at all? And I just realised that I didn't notice the difference in the number of Labor/Coalition Senator dots lol... Timeshift (talk) 21:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The graphs in general are a bit more difficult than they need be, there's some tools to make them, but they focus on the European style semi-circle parliament layout, which isn't really in line with an Australian article. The difficulty with the senate one was trying to make a defined cross bench - all the other tries I did made it look too much like a Labor-Green coalition in the senate. I'm not sure about needing to differentiate the WA Nats by colour, they still claim to be the same federal party with one Nationals party room. Not sure what you mean about the far right Labor dot. --GoForMoe (talk) 05:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: On the right hand side, the Coalition ends with two dots, Labor only one dot, and it's a little hard to spot... Timeshift (talk) 09:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's because Labor's second dot is the speaker --GoForMoe (talk) 19:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I realise that, there's just something about the one less dot being hard to notice... Timeshift (talk) 23:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

text: Seconded. Also, I'm not sure I'm entirely happy with using different colours for the Nationals and the CLP - it's confusing and contrary to what we do everywhere else. Can we not use different shades of green and blue? In shading the candidate tables I used a darker green for the Nats and a kind of fluoro for the Greens; the CLP have generally been given a deeper shade of blue than the Libs. The LNP looks fine. Also - not sure if this is possible - but could the diagram be tweaked to make it clear how many seats are required for a majority? It would be helpful if one could draw a line across the middle and say "that's the votes you need to win a motion", if you get what I mean. Frickeg (talk) 00:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  There isn't much consistency across the site for colour usage, mostly it is just blue = coalition, occasionally breaking that into dark green for the Nationals. I'm certainly not a fan of using the colours I did use in the end, but considering we have two different sets of parties doubling up on official colours (Labor/KAP and Greens/Nats), there's little you can do to differentiate. I thought the Greens green and Nationals green in the original image were fairly clear. Most of the other problems are because of wanting to use a Westminster style chamber graphic, the European ones use semi-circles, allowing for a simple line of majority down the middle - but equally not demonstrating much of the make up of the parliament like the opposition, government and crossbench that this image displays. I don't know how to solve both those issues at once. I really suggest someone goes over to the relevant wikiproject and comes up with consistent hex codes for party colours and implements them across all the Aus politics articles, and chamber images. I'm happy to do the SVG editing once consensus is made, but it probably wastes everyone's time to fuddle about and change it without getting a solution to the problem of how we represent each party on graphics like this, and what design to use for them. --GoForMoe (talk) 00:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

text: Slipper can't enter parliament without taking up the speakership, which means he still on paper controls the speakership. The only suggestion I have for demonstrating that would be to put two blocks in the speaker slot. As for Thompson, with his pledge to support the Government's agenda fully and not vote as an independent, I'd think making his dot grey but showing him as if in Coalition with Labor would best demonstrate his quite different position in Parliament. Two ideas for representation --GoForMoe (talk) 09:04, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Definately Australian_House_of_Reps_April_2012_Rect.svg... Slipper on paper remains the speaker, so until the day he is no longer the speaker, he should remain as a grey speaker dot. Anna Burke remains deputy speaker. As for Thompson, he's on the crossbench, that appears to have been the only qualification used so far. I'll use that... thanks! One thing though... any reason the 72nd dot for each party aren't both on the inner or the outer? Timeshift (talk) 08:40, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a quirk with the auto-align function I was using in Inkscape. I've moved the last Nat manually to line things up. I've also tried to align the crossbench to vaguely indicate the confidence/supply agreement. --GoForMoe (talk) 11:01, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dot composition image fix needed 

message: Labor and the coalition being at 71 seats with 8 crossbenchers, the image requires updating. The problem is, Thomson's membership with the ALP is suspended but will sit on the crossbenches as an independent MP, while Slipper no longer has LNP membership, is an independent, and also remains speaker with Labor's Anna Burke remaining deputy speaker but acting speaker. How should it be done? Timeshift (talk) 03:23, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Slipper can't enter parliament without taking up the speakership, which means he still on paper controls the speakership. The only suggestion I have for demonstrating that would be to put two blocks in the speaker slot. As for Thompson, with his pledge to support the Government's agenda fully and not vote as an independent, I'd think making his dot grey but showing him as if in Coalition with Labor would best demonstrate his quite different position in Parliament. Two ideas for representation --GoForMoe (talk) 09:04, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Definately Australian_House_of_Reps_April_2012_Rect.svg... Slipper on paper remains the speaker, so until the day he is no longer the speaker, he should remain as a grey speaker dot. Anna Burke remains deputy speaker. As for Thompson, he's on the crossbench, that appears to have been the only qualification used so far. I'll use that... thanks! One thing though... any reason the 72nd dot for each party aren't both on the inner or the outer? Timeshift (talk) 08:40, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a quirk with the auto-align function I was using in Inkscape. I've moved the last Nat manually to line things up. I've also tried to align the crossbench to vaguely indicate the confidence/supply agreement. --GoForMoe (talk) 11:01, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: New update required

message: I'm not quite sure why some editors had changed independents to three and Labor to 70, but i've correctly changed it back. Feel free to comment why you believe this may be wrong. Timeshift (talk) 08:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  71 Labor, 71 Coalition, 5 independent, 1 Green, 1 KAP, 1 WA Nat. 

message: The WA Nat colour is minimally different from the Nationals' colour right now. You'd need to be 
Carson Kressley to spot the difference. Any objection to giving WA Nat a more distinct hue?
Ordinary Person (talk) 09:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've agreed with this for a long time. Timeshift (talk) 09:04, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: And I suppose now he is caucusing with the Coalition it is probably irrelevant ... Ordinary Person (talk) 10:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  WA Nat colour 

message: WA Nats are now a part of the Coalition. See here:  Jmount (talk) 08:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The chamber graphic needs to be edited to include WA Nats with the rest of the Nats. WA Nats should no longer be treated as a distinct entity (except in reference to the last election) 175.39.17.144 (talk) 09:16, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  You'll have to gain WP:CONSENSUS for that. Timeshift (talk) 10:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

text:  What? Are you saying that Crook is not part of the Nats? He is now, that's just a factual change i've made. (WP:Bold)There's no reason the WA Nats should be now separate. Otherwise you'd break it down to state divisions of all parties. Why is the NSW Nats not separate? Why not the Vic ALP? Why isn't it broken down to states in the senate either? Do we really have to go through getting consensus in advance of every factual change that needs to be made? That's not how wikipedia works. 175.39.17.144 (talk) 11:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Claiming it is a factual change does not make it a factual change. The CLP caucus with the Nats, should we roll them in too? The LNP while we're here? Timeshift (talk) 21:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm inclined to think this may eventually be a reasonable change, but I'd wait a bit first. In my view we'd need the Parliament to be listing Crook simply as "Nationals" rather than "The Nationals WA", which isn't happening yet. It is worth noting, though, that the AEC made no distinction between the two parties at the last election. (On a side note: does Natasha Griggs really caucus with the Nats? I know Scullion does, but Dave Tollner used to sit with the Libs and I would've thought the member for a largely urban seat like Solomon would tend to do that.) Interestingly, LNP members are listed by the parliament as belonging either to the Liberal or National parties, depending on with whom they caucus. Frickeg (talk) 02:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if it's something well represented on the chart but perhaps the identification of the party of caucus for the LNP might be worth going on the Members of the Australian House of Representatives, 2010–2013 page and its Senate counterpart. --GoForMoe (talk) 05:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed and done. Frickeg (talk) 06:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

text: This seems to suggest that while Crook has joined the Nationals party room, he hasn't joined the Coalition one. Thoughts? Frickeg (talk) 01:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tony Crook joins the Coalition 

message: Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that :File:Australian House of Representatives - Parliament of Australia.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on January 26, 2014. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2014-01-26. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:10, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:Australian House of Representatives - Parliament of Australia.jpg]] to appear as POTD 

message: Your diagramme has 150 dots and 1 square = 151 "seats", and hence is incorrect, and hence I withdraw my support for it. (It contains 59 dark blue dots and 1 dark blue square; the correct number is 58 dots and 1 square.) Pdfpdf (talk) 11:36, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Ack, good catch! Shouldn't be too difficult to fix, though. Frickeg (talk) 13:00, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: a) Agreed. b) I still have dots swimming around before my eyes ... ;-) Pdfpdf (talk) 14:20, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Accuracy

message: *The infobox contains the picture
:1)  :File:Australian House of Representatives, 44th Parliament.svg
:Although it has accurate numbers of seats, colours, and relative positions, several people would prefer a picture with a different layout, if an accurate picture was available. To date, no accurate alternative has become available.
*User:Andreas11213 has (so far) proposed 6 alternatives - every one of them inaccurate.
:The least inaccurate of these alternatives is
:7)  :File:Australian House of Reps 2013.png
:(The inaccuracy is that it contains 59 dark blue dots - the accurate number is 58.)
*User:Frickeg has expressed a preference for a corrected version of 7) over 1)
*User:Pdfpdf and User:The Tepes prefer the layout used for the last parliament.
:6) Example layout from 2011:  :File:Australian House of Reps June 2011.svg
:If an updated and accurate version of this picture for the current parliament became available, both users have indicated that they would prefer it over 1), but in the absence of such a picture, they have indicated that they prefer 1) to any other alternative proposed so far.
Others (in alphabetic order) participating in, or observing, the discussion include, but are not limited to:
*User:JackofOz
*User:MelbourneStar
*User:Timeshift9
Other participants in the 2011 discussions include:
*User:GoForMoe has made only one edit since February - not clear if s/he is still active or interested.
The current consensus appears to be: 
:a) As there is no accurate alternative to 1), let us retain 1).
:b) If/when an accurate alternative becomes available, we will consider it.
Pdfpdf (talk) 07:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary-to-date

message: The creator of image 1) is "LightSoup". Although there is a User_talk page at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LightSoup, s/he has not contributed anything to it. And I haven't been able to locate a "LightSoup" User page. Does anyone have any useful information? Pdfpdf (talk) 14:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  FYI 

message: Never heard of it, which says something. Why does it receive such prominent treatment? Tony (talk)  01:19, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: See the section headed "Federation Chamber" at ... why, this very article.  How surprising.  :)  --  Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 07:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Federation Chamber? What IS it? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Australian House of Representatives. 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/20060903232212/http://www.aph.gov.au/house/pubs/standos/chapter14.htm to http://www.aph.gov.au/house/pubs/standos/chapter14.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070831055552/http://www.peo.gov.au/students/fss/fss08.html to http://www.peo.gov.au/students/fss/fss08.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051202235603/http://www.aph.gov.au:80/HOUSE/committee/index.htm to http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/index.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Australian House of Representatives. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://australianpolitics.com/elections/features/preferential.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160905222537/http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseResultsMenu-20499.htm to http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseResultsMenu-20499.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) 03:39, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I think the number of seats currently held by parties is wrong in the infobox. Also the name of the parties may also be wrong. Please compare that data with the official parliament website and fix it if indeed it is wrong, as I didn't do it because I don't know the intricacies of the politics in Australia. Thinker78 (talk) 05:48, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can someone fix infobox data? 

message: I reverted Anonymous427 edits for unexplained change of info which results in conflict with info in body of article under section "House of Representatives primary, two-party and seat results". Please add an edit summary and add information in infobox that reflects the body of the article and doesn't conflict with it. Thinker78 (talk) 21:46, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Reversion of Anonymous427 edits

message: Recent unsourced edits by AnswerMeNow1 and Anonymous427 have resulted in conflicting data in the infobox and the body of the article. In addition, the added data is unsouced. Per WP:UNSOURCED, "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution" and per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, "When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored)." Thinker78 (talk) 01:01, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Conflicting and unsourced data in infobox

message: Why not "other crossbench"? cc: . Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:44, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the crossbench is not an indication of support for the government or otherwise, but rather just the designation of not being part of the government or opposition. KAP, CA and McGowan are all crossbenchers as much as Greens and Wilkie, it's just that they're being listed under differently. If they're designated as 'supported by', then the absence of that support from the Greens and Wilkie should be labelled as 'other opposition' in my view. I think that the way that House of Commons of the United Kingdom infobox is laid out is quite good, but it's ultimately up to whatever consensus we reach for this article, I don't really mind either way. --LeoC12 (talk) 22:42, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there anything that says the Greens and Wilkie are part of the opposition? We're also not the House of Commons. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:34, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think we should be splitting up the crossbench this much. What is wrong with simply "Government", "Opposition" and "Crossbench"? Frickeg (talk) 07:38, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes sense to me. Alliances and loyalties change frequently these days. Trying to keep the article up to date with all such changes would be difficult, and likely to lead to big debates. HiLo48 (talk) 07:42, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like it either. Is this allocation is based on informal, non-binding statements made by the minor parties or individual crossbench MPs? If so, it really means nothing outside of the context of an actual no-confidence motion being raised or a supply bill failing to pass. If either of these were to occur, the breakdown would of course be notable, but until then it means very little to the operation of parliament, can change on a whim, and I think it overstates "allegiance" to or against the government as well as allocating certain parliamentarians to an "opposition" status they do not hold. --Canley (talk) 08:07, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Frickeg, Hilo48 and Canley. It shouldn't be divided up beyond "crossbench". The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:53, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I also agree. Canley nailed it.  --  Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 15:04, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

text: I support "other Crossbench" if Phelps wins. From what I recall, MPs supporting the government in confidence and supply were noted in the Wikipedia infobox during the last minority government (Gillard). If she doesn't, I'm okay with leaving it as is.--Jay942942 (talk) 13:47, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You recall incorrectly, I'm afraid.  Plus, even if we had done it then (and I'm glad we didn't), those MPs gave formal undertakings to the Gillard government, whereas these guys have just said they have no inclination to vote down the government right now - it's not an actual deal. Frickeg (talk) 07:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other opposition 

message: Is it really appropriate to have a member of a governing party, essentially proclaiming they have moved to the crossbench, but still a member of the National Party caucus and still providing confidence and supply, as part of the crossbench? It would be very helpful if there was some sort of precedent for this and I would defer to those who can offer more insight on this. I don't think there was a conversation about that, and it may have been me who placed him in the crossbench in the first place. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:03, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kevin Hogan on the Crossbench 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:37, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: Until its repeal by the 1967 referendum, section 127 prohibited the inclusion of Aboriginal people in section 24 determinations as including the Indigenous peoples could alter the distribution of seats between the states to the benefit of states with larger Aboriginal populations.[5] Section 127, along with section 25 (allowing for race-based disqualification of voters by states)[3] and the race power,[6] have been described as racism built into Australia's constitutional DNA,[7] and modifications to prevent lawful race-based discrimination have been proposed.[8]
The "race power" is Section 51(xxvi) and should be referred to as such.
Also "have been described as racism built into Australia's constitutional DNA" is attributed to George Williams. 
Although Mr. Williams is a lawyer & professorhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Williams_(lawyer)#Politics_and_views, his involvement with the Labor Party brings bias to his assertion. Is there an academic citation that comes from someone unaffiliated to a political party?
120.156.248.33 (talk) 12:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Rephrasing of this section

message: The image currently (right) used in this article to show partisan representation in the chamber takes the representation of the layout a bit literally to the point where it is difficult to see how many are represented. 
 It is more conventional in the Westminster system (such as is used by the Australian parliament) to display them in straight lines (left). The image is also conveys the information displayed in a much more simple and understandable format. It is not literally what the Parliament looks like. It is just a chart to convey the information. --DilatoryRevolution (talk) 00:41, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Although your proposed chart would definitely make more sense, especially when the 'horseshoe' chamber looks uncertain due to slim majorities, Wikipedia appears to like using the literal version of the Legislature to not confuse anyone, so as not say a foreigner who when they look at your proposed image immediately believes that this is what the Australian Parliament literally looks like, for they may not read the rest of the article. Cambyses IV (talk) 10:18, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image: Party representation chart 

message: The "Composition of Australian House of Representatives" is incorrect and shows 77 Labor members, when it is 78. Can this be updated? Thanks :)
=== Jacsam2 (talk) 10:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  78 Labor Members (not 77)