Talk:Table of precedence for the Commonwealth of Australia

message: I am about to delete from the article history those revisions whose content and/or edit summaries libel Xtra, per Wikipedia's libel policy. Selective deletion requires full deletion followed by selective restoration. Therefore this article will be deleted for a very brief period of time. Snottygobble 02:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Complete. Snottygobble 02:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Selective deletion

message: If this was the basis of their order, then Brisbane, with a population of 800,000 would surely rank first ?  All other Lord Mayors preside over relatively small municipalities ? 136.153.2.2 07:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ranked by the greater urban area. Xtra 07:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lord Mayors of capital cities in order of population

message: The order of the governors looks wrong to me — is it really in order of appointment? Ondewelle (talk) 15:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe so.  In the early 2000s, Tasmanian Governor Guy Green was stand in as Governor General.  He wouldn't have achieved this if it was in order of population or similar. -- Chuq (talk) 12:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

text: - Yes, it is the order of appointment.  See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor-General  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.22.237.33 (talk) 00:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Order of the governors

message: I didn't think it was appropriate to add this to the actual page, but interesting to note that the highest ranked male in the list is #4.  -- Chuq (talk) 12:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia

message: It is actually called the Table of Precedence for the Commonwealth of Australia. The most recent version was gazetted in Commonwealth of Australia Gazette No. S 206 dated Tuesday, 5 October 1982 (see scan).  It is worth noting that each State and Territory has its own Table of Precedence. 203.7.140.3 (talk) 04:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs correction 

message: How do the rules handle anyone who comes back into the same office later on? Do they go to the bottom of the list or do they regain their old position? For instance after 1966 did Robert Menzies rank above or below Fadden and Forde in the former PM section? Timrollpickering (talk) 22:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a guess, but I'd say it's interpreted as "in order of last leaving office".  That is, a former PM ceases to be a former PM if he regains the premiership.  --  JackofOz (talk) 23:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Replying to this 5 year old section -   - Does this mean the order of Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard on this list is incorrect? -- Chuq (talk) 11:53, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "in order of leaving office" 

message: Appeals from Australian courts to the Privy Council were ended in 1986. So shouldn't Privy Councillors be removed from the table?--Gazzster (talk) 20:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Appeals were to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which operates independently of the Privy Council as such.  Those listed in the Table are members of the PC as a whole, so no change is needed here. Errantios (talk) 13:44, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Privy Counsellors 

message: I have restored the information regarding Secretaries of APS Departments and their peers and the information that it is date of first appointment to this group that is relevant per CAG S206/1982. Consequently, the list of incumbents will need to be expanded to include the Secretaries - I don't have time right now. I have added a citation required tag for VCDF as the appointment didn't exist in 1982. It makes sense for VCDF to be included, but this needs to be referenced. It also begs the question of whether the other 3 Star/SES Band 3 members of the Department of Defence should be included here - again this would need to have a suitable reference. What is patently clear from other discussions on this page is that after 28 years, a revised Table of Precedence needs to be issued. AusTerrapin (talk) 21:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secretaries of Departments and VCDF 

message: Wikipedia does not present original research. This article is original research in that it updates a document that itself has not been updated since 1982. Foreign Affairs may continue to use the 1982 document but that document is out of date. It might have been the Table of precedence for the Commonwealth of Australia in 1982 but it is now the Wikipedia Table of precedence for Australia as updated by Wikipedia editors. Anthony Staunton (talk) 13:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a current version? We have no sources for putting HM at the top apart from how various Wikipedia editors personally feel about the matter. Giv en that this page is likely to be used by those planning events we really should have our ducks in a row, rather than whatever we think is a fair thing according to whatever consensus we have on the day. If we can't find a reliable source, we should scrap this or retitle it more appropriately. Order of Precedence when Fraser was King, perhaps? --Pete (talk) 23:30, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

text: Australia's still a commonwealth realm. GoodDay (talk) 23:35, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table of precedence for Australia is original research   

message: There isn't a section for the Royal Family, aside from the Queen, who's separate. For example on Will and Kate's tour, do they take precedence over the Governor-General, after the Governor-General, not rank at all? Anyone know? 74.69.9.224 (talk) 01:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, if the Royal Family member is performing official duties on behalf of the monarch, they would likely take precedence over the Governor-General in situations and occasions where they were performing those duties (the table does state that people acting "on behalf of any of the foregoing shall enjoy the precedence of the person"). --Canley (talk) 02:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

text: Yes! That's a good point too. The GG already represents the Queen, doesn't he?Gazzster (talk) 03:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Royal Family 

message: I noticed a few inconsistencies with the links to Executive Councils of states/territories.  NSW linked to the article about the executive council, but the others linked directly to specific ministries, almost all of which were out of date. On looking at Executive council (Commonwealth countries), some states don't have articles at all. Do others have a preference?  -- Chuq (talk) 00:14, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Executive Councils of states/territories