Talk:Prime Minister of Australia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Portal	Prime Minister of Australia is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
B	This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Archives
Archive One

Contents 1 The Infobox 1.1 Appointed By 2 Page protection 3 Edit Request 4 Rudd won election 5 New sentence added to intro 6 Kevin Rudd 7 List of Australian PMs 8 Graphical timeline 8.1 Graphical timeline 8.2 The timeline got fixed! 8.3 Style 8.4 Any further corrections? 8.5 Politics of Australia 9 The Infobox drama 9.1 Caretaker drama 10 Swearing In 11 Malcolme01's edits 12 head of government 13 Most powerful political office - in practice 14 Length in office

[edit] The Infobox

I know next to nothing about infoboxes, but the one we have now is in need of change:

• The last PM to be styled "Rt Hon" was Fraser (1983), and since the passage of the Australia Act (1986), no Australian will ever again be appointed to the Privy Council, so there will never again be a "Rt Hon" Australian Prime Minister (unless, maybe, if one of the people in this list shows an interest in active politics; but they will all die eventually, and then there'll be none). The correct title is "The Hon" - but even then, it's not a title that is particular to the PM, but stems from the requirement in the Constitution that all Ministers be members of the Federal Executive Council.

• True, Howard was first appointed PM by Sir William Deane in 1996. But he was re-appointed after each election - 1998, 2001, 2004 - see Second Howard Ministry, Third Howard Ministry and Fourth Howard Ministry. These ministries were sworn in by Deane, Hollingworth and Jeffery respectively. Showing only the first Governor-General might suggest that once a person becomes the PM, they have the job as long as the electorate keeps on voting his party in - which is true in real terms (although not always - see Keating vs Hawke), but in theoretical terms he has the job at the pleasure of the Governor-General of the day, and the G-G exercises his pleasure after each election (barring Kerr-like circumstances).

Any assistance in correcting these problems would be appreciated. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The office of PM doesn't vacate because of an election (whether the incumbent wins or not), therefore there was no need for the GG to reappoint John Howard each time he won. He just continued in office uninterrupted. "At the pleasure of the Governor-General" means 'opened ended', i.e. there isn't any automatic end to the term of office. Mauls (talk) 13:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I refer you to s.64 of the Constitution: "The GG may appoint officers to administer such departments of State of the Commonwealth as the GG in Council may establish. Such officers shall hold office during the pleasure of the GG. They shall be members of the Fed Executive Council, and shall be the Queen's Ministers of State for the Commonwealth". This constitutional theory is circumscribed by convention. In theory, the GG could refuse to swear in a winning candidate for PM - but it's obviously unthinkable given the strong conventions we have. In theory, the GG could refuse to give Royal Assent to a bill that he finds personally unacceptable - but again, it's not going to happen. This all goes to the reserve powers of the Crown, which are rarely exercised (there was a rather notable exception in 1975). In practical terms, a winning incumbent PM obviously continues uninterrupted. Nevertheless, my understanding is that after every election that is won by the incumbent PM, he hands in his commission and is re-appointed by and re-sworn in by the Governor-General of the day. We still have to fix the Rt Hon problem. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

John Howard is still caretaker PM up untill the GG apoints a new one. See the media release from the GG on Monday and listed on the GG's own website:

"On Monday 26 November 2007, at Admiralty House, Sydney, the Governor-General, His Excellency Major General Michael Jeffery AC CVO MC, invited the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Kevin Rudd MP, to form a Government and requested Mr Howard and his Ministers to remain in Government in caretaker capacity until a new Government is sworn in." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Totalcomputer (talk • contribs) 14:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that, it's good information for our Caretaker prime minister article. But I can't quite see how it's relevant to the issues I've raised here. Nobody's denying that Howard is currently the caretaker PM. Shortly before the First Rudd Ministry is sworn in, Howard will hand in his commission. What I'm arguing is that even if Howard had won the election, he would still have handed in his commission in order to be issued with a new one; and the GG would have sworn in not only the new faces, but the entire new Ministry, led by Howard personally. That is, he would have been yet again re-appointed, as he was in 1998, 2001 and 2004. Maybe I'm trying to get too technical for an encyclopedia article, but having just Deane as Howard's appointee doesn't sit well in my brain. Oh, and we still have to fix the Rt Hon problem. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

There's also this reference, which is headed:

The following lists show each ministry and its term of office since 1901. The termination date of each ministry coincides with the date on which the Prime Minister submitted his resignation and that of each of his ministers to the Governor-General. In a number of instances, however, such resignations have been the occasion for the Prime Minister of the day to request the Governor-General for a commission to form a new ministry and thus remain in office.

The list shows Howard resigning in 1998, 2001 and 2004 and being immediately re-appointed each time. -- JackofOz 23:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there are more problems than that. We have a photo of the incumbent followed by the words Incumbent and his name. Then there's a line. What follows below the line might appear to be general info, not particular to the incumbent. The style (which should say The Hon), the first PM (Barton) and the formation of the office (1.1.01) are all general info - but the "Appointed by" (Deane) refers back to this particular incumbent, Howard. It should appear above the line, if anywhere. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Appointed By

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)

I think this relates to the issue I raised above. -- JackofOz (talk) 11:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page protection

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)

[edit] Edit Request

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".

Template:Protectededit Kevin Rudd is now PM. Please update. -- Whiteandnerdy111 (talk) 10:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Declined No, he is not. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not just tv media that are claiming Kevin Rudd as PM, Telstra Bigpond News are also saying that on their website. Check it out www.bigpond.com

News.com.au is also claiming Kevin Rudd's victory, as is The Daily Telegraph's website. So can you update it now please, or do we actually have to wait till he is sworn in?

Yes, you have to wait until he is sworn in. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

I think you should update it now. Rudd is the new PM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.43.170 (talk) 11:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we should make a note that he his outgoing 121.210.212.4 (talk) 11:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

John Howard conceded. I think it should be updated.Mithead

Also note Howard has conceded the election and named Rudd PM. NeoRicen (talk) 12:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Update this article now - it's lacking behind the WP policy. Josh the lad (talk) 12:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

He must be sworn in first! +Hexagon1 ^(t) 12:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Its on the Wikipedia current events, I think it is important. How stupid will Sam Blacketer if the community finds out he is the one delaying the article?

All of the above please note that the winner of an election does not immediately become the incumbent Prime Minister on election night. John Howard is still the Prime Minister of Australia today and tomorrow and until Kevin Rudd is sworn in to office by the Governor General approximately two weeks after the election. I've added a designate line for Rudd, but Sam Blacketer is correct that Rudd is not yet the incumbent. Our job on Wikipedia is to be accurate, not to reflect incorrect common perceptions. Bearcat (talk) 16:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Rudd won election

Kevin Rudd won the election tonight - we have a new PM. Benlisquare (talk) 12:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and it's frustrating that we cannot edit the article to reflect the circumstances!Doktor Waterhouse (talk) 12:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Please check above; you do not have a new Prime Minister until the Governor-General appoints one. If you wish to edit the page, you can use {{Editprotected}}. If you want to ask another administrator to review the protection, go to Requests for page protection and add the request to the appropriate section. However, as many editors still do not seem to understand the constitutional position, I would resist unprotection at this time. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. We should wait until Rudd is sworn in. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 13:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The article we are discussing, Prime Minister of Australia#Appointment, makes clear the process of transition of the prime ministership. Kevvy sure ain't PM yet! WWGB (talk) 13:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The article should properly state that rudd is at least PM-elect.

Yes, no new PM until formalities are done, but the article makes wikipedia look a little ridiculous by not even mentioning that we have had an election, so shoudl at least foreshadow the change. Sam, if you insist on keeping protection then you will have to make all relevatn edits to show that the reslt of the election will lead to imminent change in PM. JKW111 (talk) 15:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Imminent change in PM? While, in pracise, that may seem the case, in reality it is not. Please see WP:CRYSTAL. --G2bambino (talk) 18:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually folks, Rudd wouldn't be Prime Minister-elect (as nobody votes for PM), he'd be Prime Minister-designate. GoodDay (talk) 18:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

PS- we always have these problems in bio articles, whenever an election is held. All editors must understand, Republic office holders & Parliamenty office holders don't immediately take office upon election. I dread the days between Nov 4, 2008 & Jan 20, 2009 (between the next US presidential election and Inauguration). GoodDay (talk) 18:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

PPS- some countries do 'elect' their Prime Minister, but in those cases their Parliament does the electing (see Israel). GoodDay (talk) 19:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

PPPS- and then of course, that 'elected' PM is appointed by that country' Head of state. - Am I getting long winded?GoodDay (talk) 19:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Add that Rudd is prime minister designate? (It does say that on Kevin Rudd.) - David Gerard (talk) 19:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Scratch that - it appears to be a term the BBC happens to have used. See Talk:Kevin_Rudd#Proper_term_for_Prime_Minister_to_be.3F - the ABC used "Prime Minister elect". Is there in fact a proper term for the person who's going to be, barring extreme circumstances, Prime Minister? - David Gerard (talk) 19:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how Australia does it, but in my country (Canada) we you Designate. GoodDay (talk) 20:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The news media on Kevin Rudd seem to be almost unanimous in their use of "Prime Minister-elect". While this doesn't mean they are right, it does point to common usage with regards to an Australian PM in waiting IMHO. (and while the PM isn't directly elected, we do vote for his/her government)219.90.235.72 (talk) 23:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The facts are the following. Kevin Rudd is the Prime Minister-elect until he is sworn in. John Howard is no longer Prime Minister, as the Government and the Prime Ministership went into caretaker mode on the day the election was called. This is evidenced at www.australia.gov.au. It would appear to me that the person demanding the locking of this article is a fearful Liberal supporter not ready to let go. Fact remains Howard is no longer in a position of power and there is NO incumbent Prime Minister at present. The image and box should list Mr Rudd's image and the tag Elect, not Incumbent. I request this be changed as soon as practicable. Just because somebody locks an article, does not make their standpoint correct.Timmah86 (talk) 00:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

If this is the case, then Australia does things differently from (at least) Canada & the UK. Sorry guys, I assumed it was the same thing. GoodDay (talk) 00:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) The Prime Minister of Australia's website says: "A new Government led by the Leader of the Australian Labor Party, Mr Kevin Rudd MP, is expected to be sworn in by the Governor-General in the near future. .. Mr Howard will remain the caretaker Prime Minister until the new Ministry is sworn in." (my emphasis) Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) 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. As for Timmah86's "facts", Howard is still the PM until he hands in his commission to the GG. Howard was elected on 2 March 1996, but did not become PM till 11 March 1996. Paul Keating remained PM till 11 March 1996. It's true that Howard's not in a position of power right now, but that's always the case during an election campaign, no matter who wins. The caretaker period does not end until the new or re-elected PM is sworn in. Basically, there are many differences between our actual constitutional arrangements and the way they're generally presented in the media. We have to go by the former, not the latter. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

John Howard may not be in a position of legislative power, but he is still in a position of trust as the leader of the nation (after all, a leader is still needed). I can see how it could be very frustrating to maintain constitutional accuracy in the article when the media reports with the assumption that the majority of Australians are not familiar with the technicalities and simply report that we have a new prime minister. Shouldn't wikipedia be educating people then? Protection is probably warranted, not because someone's viewpoint is correct, but because the majority of edits are incorrect (in reply to Timmah86 [1]). However, someone needs to make all this clear in the article with references that everyone else can visit. For example, the explanation on pm.gov.au is a good one. SMC89 ^{( talk • contribs )} 01:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Can someone dig up references to how this process works? Then we can add a para (if agreed here) to the intro with the text "John Howard is the current Prime Minister. His party lost the 2007 Federal election, but he remains in office until the Governor General swears in Kevin Rudd, the leader of the ALP." or similar. Preferably with some references for the precise constitutional niceties - then we can have an up-to-date page, and it'll be the sort of little wrinkle of detail that makes people love Wikipedia - David Gerard (talk) 01:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

(note: pm.gov.au is informative, but not a fixed ongoing reference for this detail.) - David Gerard (talk) 01:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

If it will calm everybody down - call Howard Outgoing Prime Minister and Rudd Incoming Prime Minister. GoodDay (talk) 01:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the text in the article should do. So how's this for a para on the intro:

John Howard is the current Prime Minister. His party (the Liberal Party of Australia) lost the 2007 Federal election, but he remains in office until the Governor General has sworn in the next prime minister, almost certainly Kevin Rudd of the Australian Labor Party.

Any objections? - David Gerard (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• Accept, the prime ministership is certainly not vacant. GoodDay (talk) 01:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually I disagree - my consitutional understanding is that technically Australia is leaderless at the moment. (Added later - scratch that. The GG is the current leader and has been ever since parliament was dissolved.)

I'll need to dig into the constitution to confirm, but my understanding is that technically Australia has NO leader right now, and it will not have a leader until the Governor General invites the parliamentary leader of the victorious party to form a government. Likewise the posts of "leader of the Parliamentary Liberal Party" and "leader of the Parliamentary Labor Party" are both technically vacant at the moment.

Both leadership positions are automatically vacated on Election day and new elections will be held once the election results have been finalised and the new parliamentary members reconvene. Rudd will be elected to the position of "Leader of the Parliamentary Labor Party" this week obviously, and then the GG will invite him to form a government, at which point he willo become PM.

All the above demonstrates is that there is a big gap between the consitutional reality and the practical reality - Rudd is (for all practical purposes) the new PM.Manning (talk) 01:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

*facepalm* Oh, Lordy. If you can dig out something that has references and can form a concise sentence for the intro (to explain the Howard photo) and there's an admin handy to make the edit, please do so :-) - David Gerard (talk) 01:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Curious, when did John Howard resign as Prime Minister? GoodDay (talk) 01:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Howard technically "resigned" when he dissolved the parliament. I'm fairly certain that the Governor General is the current leader of the nation and has been since parliament was dissolved. I'll go verify this.

I'm an admin so I could make the changes. But I'm hesitant to do so, because (1) it will be complicated to get right (and I would need to pour over the consitution to make sure I've got every detail correct) and (ii) what is the actual value in regard to this article? The public, the press and the newly elected parliamentarians all act as if this is NOT the case anyway and it is really nothing more constitutional trivia. Manning (talk) 01:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Are these supposed vacancies between 'electon of new PM & his swearing in', reflected on past PMs bios & this articles list? GoodDay (talk) 01:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe so, but again what is the actual value? May an article which explains the exact technical process would be useful, but if we state that "Howard has not been PM since the dissolution of parliament back in October" we are going to be inaccurate on all levels except a very anal consitutional one. It could be handy to link off to a seperate article which details the consitutional specifics, but we should stick with the "practical" reality in terms of the main articles. Manning (talk) 01:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear. Would tagging the Howard photo "Outgoing" be sufficiently accurate? My concern at present is that the page appears "obviously" wrong and is locked, so looks silly - David Gerard (talk) 01:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to add another bio box for Rudd and tag him as "incoming" (and tag Howard as "outgoing"). We can finalise it when Rudd is invited to form a government by the GG. Manning (talk) 02:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Howard is still the PM for the time being. He did not resign, but his government went into caretaker mode. When he was elected on 2 March 1996, he was not sworn in until 11 March, and Paul Keating remained PM till 11 March. The GG never, but never acts as the leader of the country, because he is apolitical and has to be seen to be so, in all circumstances. If we were invaded by a foreign power this afternoon, it would be John Howard who'd be fully authorised to do somehing about it, including, if necessary, advising the GG to issue a proclamation declaring war. Such a proclamation would be counter-signed "John Howard, Prime Minister". I imagine he'd consult with Kevin Rudd, but it would be his call, not Rudd's. Unless it were decided under the circumstances to swear Rudd in as PM immediately and leave it to him to conduct the defence of the nation. An extreme example, I hope, but a telling one. Here are the full Caretaker Conventions that will answer these questions. This is a good short summary of them. Read them and learn about how we actually do things in this country at election times. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

You are correct - I'd just finished reading the caretaker provisions and was about to say the same thing.Manning (talk) 02:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

In complete agreement. GoodDay (talk) 02:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The Prime Minister's webpage should answer this "Canadian" guy's protests: http://www.pm.gov.au/ . We have a different system than in Canada, we even have an elected Senate. Mattrix18 (talk) 09:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

John Howard is still caretaker PM up untill the GG apoints a new one. See the media release from the GG on Monday and listed on the GG's own website:

"On Monday 26 November 2007, at Admiralty House, Sydney, the Governor-General, His Excellency Major General Michael Jeffery AC CVO MC, invited the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Kevin Rudd MP, to form a Government and requested Mr Howard and his Ministers to remain in Government in caretaker capacity until a new Government is sworn in." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Totalcomputer (talk • contribs) 14:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New sentence added to intro

I just added this.

"The current Prime Minister of Australia is John Howard. Howard was defeated in the Federal election of November 24, 2007, however he remains as 'caretaker' Prime Minister until the Governor General formally appoints Kevin Rudd (leader of the victorious Labor Party) to the position."

Comments? Are we happy with this? Manning (talk) 02:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Remove the caretaker tag, as it means acting. John Howard is not Acting PM. GoodDay (talk) 02:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

No, according to the caretaker provisions, "caretaker" does not mean "acting". Have a read of this.Manning (talk) 02:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

John Howard is still Prime Minister - Unless somebody can proove he has resigned. GoodDay (talk) 02:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

He's is not a caretaker government. GoodDay (talk) 02:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes he is. The rules and convetions are quite specific on this fact.Manning (talk) 02:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Where's the sources for the mass resignations of his cabinet & the appointments of a 'caretaker' cabinent? If you add 'caretaker PM'? then you must make that edit also on John Howard and all the other Australian PM bios. GoodDay (talk) 02:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Good Day, the caretaker period does not only operate up until election day, it continues until the new government is sworn in. Here are the full Caretaker Conventions that will answer these questions. This is a good short summary of them. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

In my country (Canada), a caretaker PM is the governing party's interim party leader; an emergancy appointment caused by an unexpected PM's (ie the governing party's leader) resignation or death. I suppose things are done differently in Australia. GoodDay (talk) 02:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

That's right, and there's no supposing about it. We have our ways and you have yours. This article is about the Australian PM, not the Canadian. -- JackofOz (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget to add the 'caretaker' tag to all the Australian PM bios (the PMs whose governments were defeated for reelection). The caretaker tag designates their service from election-defeat to successor swearing-in aswell. GoodDay (talk) 03:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a little unnecessary. The fact that the government of the day goes into caretaker mode prior to the election does not mean the PM stops being PM. He may be referred to loosely as "caretaker PM", but that's just shorthand for "a PM who is leading a government that is currently in caretaker mode". It's the government that's the caretaker, not the PM personally. He just heads that caretaker government and his name becomes attached to it for ease of identification. Your suggestion would apply not just to the PM, but to all Ministers in a caretaker government. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

This all seems like some relatively desperate Liberal-hanging-on to me. Status wise Howard can no longer be incumbent if the Labor victory means his term will end, especially considering he himself has conceded defeat. The photo should represent Rudd, with a term akin to "Elect" beneath it. Howard is not incumbent. Timmah86 (talk) 03:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

According to this article - all those past 'defeated' PMs need to have their office tenures amended. GoodDay (talk) 03:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm no Howard fan - I voted for Rudd. But I've spent all morning persusing the consitution, the caretaker provisions and the electoral act 1926 and the fact it that Howard remains the Prime Minister until the GG appoints Rudd to the position. Whether he is the "caretaker" prime minister or the leader of the "caretaker government" is really just semantics - I can't determine the actaul situation one way or the other. But he definitely IS the prime minister - even Rudd says so. Manning (talk) 03:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not Howard fan either. GoodDay (talk) 03:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the period of office of a defeated PM is from the date he was sworn in by the Governor-General to the date he hands his commission in to the Governor-General. The swearing-in and the termination of the commission, and only those things, define the terms of a Minister's commission - that's any Minister, including the PM. That's all there is to it. Howard was elected to office in the 1996 election, which was held on 2 March 1996. It took 9 days for the swearing-in to take place, 11 March. Paul Keating remained PM until then. His government was in caretaker mode, but he was still PM. The media described him in the interim period as "ex-PM" or what have you, but until 11 March he was PM in every sense except perhaps in the eyes of the public, who, with respect, in many cases aren't even aware we have a Constitution, or care, let alone have ever read it. True, the caretaker conventions prevented Keating from doing certain things, such as make major appointments or make major decisions likely to commit the incoming Howard government. (Well, not actually prevented him; but they are things that people in his situation agree not to do, and an agreement is an agreement). But all Keating's Ministers were still Ministers till 11 March, and he was PM till 11 March. Same deal for Fraser/Hawke, McMahon/Whitlam, Chifley/Menzies all the way back.

You mention status - well, of course Howard's public profile has withered overnight, and he certainly won't be having any more Cabinet meetings (not that he's prevented from doing so constitutionally, just that it would be pointless). But he's still the incumbent PM until Rudd's sworn in.

Rudd's photo does indeed have the "PM-elect" caption (I changed it from the wrong "PM-designate").

The "relatively desperate Liberal-hanging-on" comment is completely inappropriate - not to mention extremely wide of the mark. Please do not personalise this, but keep it to a civil discussion of actual constitutional arrangements and requirements, as I have been at pains to do. There are far too many editors out there who edit politics-related pages, who make their own personal political allegiances very clear. To me, this is completely out of step with the NPOV principles, not to mention utterly irrelevant. This is a place for discussing the content of articles, not for political point-scoring or revealing who votes for who. For that reason, I've never revealed my own politics on Wikipedia, and I never will. But you might be very surprised. I would be making exactly the same arguments as I have above had the situation been reversed. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Well said. Manning (talk) 05:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually I dont think PM-elect or PM--designate are accurate, but i dont think there is a real actual term. Maybe we can create a new one ... PM-presumptive?? As reflected above, the position of PM has nothing to do (technically) with the recent election. The election was for parliamentary positions, which is separate from executive positions. After the election, the Queen (in practice through her representative) 'invites' the leader of the winning party to form government, at which point executive positions are conferred. So John Howard is still PM (this is actually an unqualified title, there is no such thing as 'caretaker' PM, but rather he is the PM but under the conventions established throughout the history of the federation, he only exercises executive powers in very limited situations during the 'caretaker' period, which extends until a new government is invited to be formed. JKW111 (talk) 07:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Create a new term ???? I can't believe I'm reading this. Every newspaper in the country, every TV station, every radio station, every journalist, and zillions of websites are calling Kevin Rudd the Prime Minister-elect. Whether anyone thinks it's "correct" or not is hardly the point. That is the term that is used in this country in these circumstances. To use any other term would be just wrong. "Designate" is bad enough, but making up an entirely new one is ..... I'm lost for words. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The interesting thing about all this bickering? If it goes on long enough (until Rudd is sworn in), we'll no longer be concerned about it. GoodDay (talk) 16:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I hereby insist that from now on we use the term "Almost Prime Minister" and will fight anyone who opposes me to the death. Manning (talk) 22:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kevin Rudd

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)

Yawn. Timeshift (talk) 09:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] List of Australian PMs

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)

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)

This website; http://www.aph.gov.au/library/parl/hist/primmins.htm says that the length of office is off by one day. its obviously just whether they count the first day or when its starts and stops. seeing as its the official parliament of Australia site, it seems fairly reputable. wat u think? 121.208.64.145 (talk) 13:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC) james

i changed them 121.208.64.145 (talk) 14:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)james

I think the state they represent should be moved to the full list. It has no place in the summary list. Timeshift (talk) 00:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Graphical timeline

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)

Yes, we know. Unfortunately, nobody can seem to be able to fix it. Timeshift (talk) 02:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The template is located here Template:Timeline_Australian_PM. You can go and edit this template and the results will automatically be reflected in this article. Manning (talk) 08:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Welcome to the club. Everyone's had a go at it. Timeshift (talk) 09:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

If we can't fix it by the time Rudd is sworn in then it will have to be removed from the main article until we can sort it out. We can move it to the Talk page in the interim. I'm completely stumped by it though. Manning (talk) 16:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

There MUST be somewhere we can turn to for help with this bloody graph... Timeshift (talk) 04:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

[edit] Graphical timeline

Good move. Manning (talk) 00:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The timeline got fixed!

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

[edit] Style

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)

[edit] Any further corrections?

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)

[edit] Politics of Australia

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)

[edit] The Infobox drama

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Caretaker drama

IMHO, outgoing Prime Minister would be more accurate then caretaker Prime Minister. GoodDay (talk) 17:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Caretaker is the accepted term according to the conventions. Also see here Manning (talk) 18:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Swearing In

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)

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)

It's official - Rudd is now PM. We can stop having to check this page every five minutes!Manning 23:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Malcolme01's edits

(moved from User talk:JackofOz) As it stands, the article dwells more on the powers and role of the GG than it does the PM. The article uses as its template for the role of GG the conduct of John Kerr rather than the other impeccably behaved office holders of the position. The PM IS in fact the chief executive of the federal government. The constant use of the phrase "in practice" is largely superfluous since if something is "in practice" then it simply "is". Furthermore, the power of the PM is more than "in practice" it is known and bound by Westminster convention. Barring some exceptional circumstance the Deputy PM would always be sworn in on the death or incapacitation of the PM (Frank Forde after Curtin's death and the subsequent election of Chifley; McEwen after Holt drwoned and the election of McMahon) pending a party room ballot to determine the new leader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malcolme01 (talk • contribs) 02:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, let’s discuss Malcolme01’s edits and 60.234.239.46’s reversion of my reversion:

• Chief executive – where is this term ever used in relation to PMs?
• The G-G has constitutional power to appoint and dismiss ministers “at his pleasure”, so constitutionally the PM is subordinate to the G-G, and ultimately the constitution is what's important. But in practice the G-G acts on the advice of the PM, making the PM in practice the most powerful office. Just not constitutionally.
• You changed "In the event of a Prime Minister dying in office, or becoming incapacitated, the Governor-General can terminate the commission" to "... the commission is terminated and the Deputy-Prime Minister is sworn in as a "caretaker" Prime Minster". The termination of the commission is not the automatic thing your edit seems to suggest. Curtin’s commission wasn’t terminated for more than a day after he was known to be dead. Even though it was always obvious that Holt was a goner on 17 December 1967, his commission wasn’t terminated till 19 December. Casey could have waited even longer before acting; the timing was his to determine. We’ve never had a case of a PM being incapacitated, so we can’t say what would happen – but termination of the commission is a possibility, which is why "can" is appropriate.
• Deputy PMs have been sworn in in cases of sudden death, but again it’s not an automatic thing.
• There’s no hyphen in Deputy Prime Minister, and there’s a difference between Minister and Minster.
• The Governor-General's choice of replacement Prime Minister will be dictated by the circumstances. – I see no good reason for removing this.
• Kerr's actions are widely regarded as unconstitutional, since he ... – this is highly POV.
• Changing “choose” to “have choosen [sic]” is a retrograde step.
• You changed "John Howard made Kirribilli House in Sydney his primary residence, using The Lodge only whenever he was in Canberra on official business" to "Kirribilli House is the official residence when the Prime Minister is in Sydney". Yes it is, but your edit removed the point that Howard made an in-principle decision to base himself permanently in Sydney and only use the Lodge whenever he happened to be in Canberra. The intention was always supposed to be the reverse. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] head of government

I know I might seem pedantic, but I don't really care anyhow. Since the constitution states that the executive power of the Australian federal government is vested in the Queen (and the Governor-General as her representative) then strictly isn't she the official head of government? Surely the PM is only a de facto head of government since obviously the Queen and Governor-General do not actively exercise executive authority? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.28.135.2 (talk) 18:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Care - neither do we. We follow what the constitution stipulates. Timeshift (talk) 01:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The term Head of government should be not be interpreted by reference to who has formal authority over whom according to a literal reading of the Constitution, but by the meaning of the term as used by participants in, students of and commentators on politics and government. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The Constitution says a lot of things, but if you read it literally, there's no Prime Minister. Head of government is the leader of the council of ministers. This is why President Bush is the US Head of Government, but President Mary McAleese is not the Irish Head of Government. --Pete (talk) 02:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Head of government means the head of the executive branch. So Bush in the US is head of government since the US Constitution explicitly states that the executive authority of the federal government is vested in the President. And as for Ireland, well the Irish Constitution doesn't explicitly lay down the President as the head of the executive. The Taoseich and the Cabinet are labelled as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.3.178.50 (talk) 17:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The point is that a government is not the ruling party or even the mebers of that party sitting in Parliament. Nor is it necessarily the person at the nominal top of the tree, such as a head of state. A government is the ministry, the people elected or appointed to head the various departments of government, such as Defence, Foreign Affairs, Treasury and so on. We don't have to look at what a nation's constitution specifies - we merely look at who runs the nation's government to find the head of government. --Pete (talk) 20:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Most powerful political office - in practice

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)

[edit] Length in office

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