This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Errantios (talk | contribs) at 13:44, 26 July 2022 (→Privy Counsellors). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 13:44, 26 July 2022 by Errantios (talk | contribs) (→Privy Counsellors)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Australia: Politics Start‑class Low‑importance   | ||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
wikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.Chief Minister of the ACT?
Why was the Chif Min of the ACT left off? Is it because he has upset the PM on a few occasions recently? Or should he go somewhere between 17 and 19? -- Adz 08:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- I came here to ask exactly the same question, and found it already here, unanswered. Anybody know where Jon Stanhope belongs?? JackofOz 00:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
- Ditto from me. My only guess is that the order of precedence hasn’t been updated since the ACT gained self-government in 1988? I note the New Zealand order of precedence article contains the comment:
- 13. “Mayors of cities and boroughs and chairmen of counties while in their own districts.” In 1989, boroughs and counties were amalgamated into district councils. District mayors, and the Chatham Islands mayor could expect to be accorded this same precedence.
- so if that’s up-to-date, then obviously these things aren’t updated as often as they perhaps should be... I would guess Jon Stanhope has the same precedence as the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory.
- The date of the source (1982) is before the ACT had self government, so I think we could assume that the Chief Minister of the ACT would have the same precedence as their NT counterpart, but it would be good to see an updated source. If anyone knows of one, please don't hold your silence. -Qsjet
- My other question concerns Mayors and Lord Mayors. Do non-lord Mayors receive no position in this, even in their own city/shire? The article on Lord Mayors also mentions that three other NSW cities have Lord Mayors: Newcastle, Paramatta and Wollongong, and this article says ‘Lord Mayors of Cities in order of city populations’, not ‘capital cities’, but doesn’t list the Lord Mayors of those three cities. Do they have any precedence, within or out of their city?
- —Felix the Cassowary 08:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- Ditto from me. My only guess is that the order of precedence hasn’t been updated since the ACT gained self-government in 1988? I note the New Zealand order of precedence article contains the comment:
- -Robauz (talk) 01:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC) I would think the Chief Minister of the ACT would have precedence over the Chief Minister of the Nothern Territory, as the ACT has a higher population than the NT and the order of preceedence is by population of the state.
Selective deletion
I am about to delete from the article history those revisions whose content and/or edit summaries libel Xtra, per Misplaced Pages'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)
- Complete. Snottygobble 02:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Lord Mayors of capital cities in order of population
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)
- Ranked by the greater urban area. Xtra 07:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Order of the governors
The order of the governors looks wrong to me — is it really in order of appointment? Ondewelle (talk) 15:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- - Yes, it is the order of appointment. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/Governor-General —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.22.237.33 (talk) 00:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Trivia
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)
Needs correction
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)
"in order of leaving office"
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)
- 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)
- Replying to this 5 year old section - @JackofOz: @Timrollpickering: - Does this mean the order of Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard on this list is incorrect? -- Chuq (talk) 11:53, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Privy Counsellors
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)
- 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)
Secretaries of Departments and VCDF
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)
Table of precedence for Australia is original research
Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages Table of precedence for Australia as updated by Misplaced Pages editors. Anthony Staunton (talk) 13:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
- Is there a current version? We have no sources for putting HM at the top apart from how various Misplaced Pages 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)
- Australia's still a commonwealth realm. GoodDay (talk) 23:35, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Royal Family
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)
The published Table of Precedence http://dfat.gov.au/about-us/publications/corporate/protocol-guidelines/Pages/appendix-22-commonwealth-table-of-precedence.aspx does not actually include the Monarch. Neither does the 1982 list used as the principal reference by this article. But as members of the royal family are usually sent on state visits to represent Her Majesty, it would be reasonable to suggest that they take precedence before the Governor-general.Gazzster (talk) 02:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- 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)
I know that in Canada, the Royal Family members other than the Queen rank after the Governor-General, on the theory that as the G.G. represents the monarch, they precede other members of the Family, just as the Queen would. 74.69.9.224 (talk) 02:48, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
- Yes! That's a good point too. The GG already represents the Queen, doesn't he?Gazzster (talk) 03:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Does the Australian monarch belong?
An editor is challenging whether or not the Australian monarch belongs on this page. GoodDay (talk) 06:14, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
@Canley: I'm interested in your view on this. GoodDay (talk) 06:21, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
@Errantios: I believe you can help me with this question, too. GoodDay (talk) 06:48, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- In my opinion, no. The Monarch of Australia is not on the table in the 1982 Commonwealth Gazette, and House of Representatives Practice confirms that: "The Prime Minister is placed third in the Commonwealth of Australia Table of Precedence, immediately after the Governor-General and State Governors. Looks like the Queen was added to the article in 2004 with no reference, and never removed (but sometimes questioned). --Canley (talk) 10:20, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- Unusual, when compared to the other Commonwealth realms. Also, one would've thought the Prime Minister would be ranked above the Governors. You know, federal before states. GoodDay (talk) 13:57, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'd say that the issue is: what is the practice?
- To begin with, is there an official statement of the practice to be followed? There is only one, a Table that is 40 years old and obviously out of date. But it is not for WP to revise it.
- It is for WP, however, to then note ways in which the practice may have departed from the Table, as to:
- Respects in which the Table is out of date—for example, ACT self-government.
- Respects in which the Table is, one can assume deliberately, incomplete—that is, as to the monarch of Australia and other members of the royal family. When they have been present in Australia, what has been done? My recollection is that the monarch herself has always been placed first—which, in a State, seems to follow from or accord with Australia Act section 7(4)—and other members of her family have been treated as if they were her—although section 7(4) does not apply to them. My recollection is also that, when they have been present, the Governor-General, Governor or Administrator has also been present and playing second fiddle. (I think that once in Canada there was a livid GG who had been excluded, on the argument that HM could not be both present and represented.) Or has the second fiddle, at the same time the conductor, been the Prime Minister, Premier or First Minister?
- If the Table and the practice don't add up coherently, that's just how it is.
- Hope this may help. Errantios (talk) 00:03, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. It's the sourcing I'm concerned about. Unless there's some prorocol document floating around with an updated version, the official OoP for the Commonwealth excludes the monarch and someone has just snuck her in without a source. My guess is that the Queen has often visited with other members of her family and where do you slot in the junior members? They keep changing, the order of succession alters every so often - quite a lot since 1982 - and it would be a headache for staff to work things out.
GoodDay, you're watching this with an odd fascination. What does Canada do? Spell it out down to the last princeling?
My preference would be to remove the Queen for two reasons:
- She isn't sourced, so without some official clarification it's OR, and
- She's not likely to ever visit Australia again, given the increasingly fragile nature of her health and the ongoing pandemic
Once she leaves the room, King Charles III will become monarch, and it may be that Australia either does not agree, or commences a referendum to remove the monarchy completely, and unless the republicans screw themselves in the foot agaim, it's likely a referendum would pass and whoever mans the protocol department would have to draw up a new list with new titles and so on. Let's face it, it's forty years old and needs a revision. Anyway, we can revisit the matter than. --Pete (talk) 01:01, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- I believe we should keep the monarch there, until the Australian monarchy is abolished. When that referendum happens, I sincerely hope the republicans win out. Until then, Australia is still a constitutional monarchy. One of many (15) Commonwealth realms. GoodDay (talk) 01:30, 26 July 2022 (UTC)