This level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Australia page needs updating, but I am not the person to do it!
Firstly, the Givernor-General of Australia is not longer Sir William Deane, but I do not know who the new guy is. I think he is the former Anglican Archbishop of Brisbane or something.
Also, the One Nation party is no longer headed by Pauline Hanson. Again, I am unsure who has taken over. - Mark Ryan
Corrected a couple of things: Social welfare policies most certainly don't "mostly date to the 1980s". It's difficult to tie them to any perticular decade.
There is not "broad bipartisan support" for the US alliance. There is broad support, yes, but also a long tradition of opposition. And the UK ties go back further and are still, perhaps, deeper. Then there is the trend to see Australia as part of Asia. And so on. This stuff should go back in, but suitably modified to reflect the actual mix of support - a task I don't feel like taking on tonight. Anyone game? Tannin
Social welfare policies can be tied to the 1940s, post WW2. The CES and the current social welfare system were established in 1946, and it was at this time that responsibility for 'welfare' passed from the states to the Federal Government. Mistertim
What has a list of government departments got to do with the politics of Australia? They belong in an article about administration. Adam 13:27, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Answer:
(1) This is the destination page of Government of Australia where such a list probably could go; and
(2) Ministers of government administer departments, and that generates 'politics'!
Hence, I say, put it back. Peter Ellis 04:27, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
There is an important distinction between government and politics which should should be maintained. If you want to write an article about the structure of government in Australia, which would be a good thing to have, then de-redirect Government of Australia, transfer the "Government" section of Politics of Australia into the new article, and put your list of departments there. Adam 04:39, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
This needs to be sorted out. It should not keep bunny hopping the single article back and forth. Two seperate articles definitely need to be formed. Politics covers all politics, not just federal government structure and issues.
I almost reverted this straight away when I saw it. The queen has absolutely zero to do with the Politics of Australia (apart from the fact certain politicians may voice their pro- or anti- republicanism views), and only barely has relevance to the Government of Australia (ie. in name only). I definitely don't think it should be on the Australia article either. Put it on Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy or Republicanism in Australia, or or whatever UK-related pages are deemed appropriate, but something about Australian government/politics should have the GG or the PM. I wanted to discuss this before I did it just in case I was in the minority here. -- Chuq 01:12, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Australia is an unconstitutional monarchy see www.basic fraud.com for relevent documentation to prove this.This article is fraudulent and should be removed.123.200.253.231 (talk) 13:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
What is the purpose of the Political data section in this article? Most of it is either covered in the Government section, or not relavent to an article on politics of Australia. The only part worth saving is the list of parties, which should be moved to the Political parties section. - Borofkin 01:13, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I agree. That "data" was copied from the CIA factbook in the early days of this article and is now mostly duplicated in Government of Australia. Adam 02:22, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Australia is a federation and a constitutional monarchy.
Shouldn't it really say:
Australia is a federation and it's government is a constitutional monarchy.
No. Adam 04:47, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Definitely not. Pandawelch (talk) 11:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Politics_of_Australia article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.
Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add ((User:LinkBot/suggestions/Politics_of_Australia)) to this page. — LinkBot 00:58, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
most politics of articles for other countries include a discussion of (or at least Main article: links) government. for better or worse, people expect a politics articles to include a discussion of government, and so the politics of article can be thought of as a "top-level" article, with more specialised material in more specific articles. with the wikipedia:summary style we can do this nicely with short summaries of the major articles in the area. please don't revert this without a discussion here on the talk page. thanks. clarkk 23:54, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I have suggested a new introductory section. Adam 02:24, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think we should remove the parties without representation in the Federal Parliament from the list of minor parties (One Nation and Fred Nile's lot). One Nation was important, but it's now irrelvant except from a historical point of view. Fred Nile's lot aren't even worth mentioning from a historical point of view, he's never got within a mile of getting in Parliament. --RaiderAspect 00:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
And... One nation has got itself into the senate thanks to double dissolution, the PUP rose and very quickly fell in the 42nd Parliament, Nick Xenophon has got a little party of his, and the crossbench in 2016 is just as large, if not, larger than the 2013 crossbench
But removing parties with representation - sounds like a good idea. Maybe exceptions can be if they have significantly swayed policy? Iamthinking2202 (talk) 07:12, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
The Federal Parliament operates according to the Westminster System of government, though the fact that it has an elected Senate (like the United States) rather than a House of Lords has led to Australia's federal parliamentary system being described as the "Washminster" system. (See Main article: Government of Australia).
Does the bicameral aspect make Australia like America? I thought the distinctive features of the US system was the president (an elected executive who also has non-token legislative powers), and that their cabinet cannot be from the legislature. If a bicameral system was a really big feature, then it'd mean that New Zealand (which I've heard did away with the upper house) would be miles apart from Australia. Andjam 13:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
The hybrid nature of the Australian constitutional system derives from the fact that Australia, like the US (and unlike NZ) is a federation, and the fact that the small states demanded constitutional safeguards against big-state domination when the Constitution was being drafted. That is why we have a Senate with equal state representation (an idea borrowed from the US), grafted onto what is esentially a Westminster system. Incidentally this is not the sense in which the expression "Washminister" is usually used. It usually refers to the increasingly quasi-presidential role of the Prime Minister and the centralisation of power in the hands of the executive at the expense of both the states and the Parliament. Adam 06:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
So, should the word be removed as inaccurately used and/or a neologism? Andjam 10:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Can someone please enlighten me on the correct naming convention for articles? I am looking to create some articles regarding politicians. Last time I did it, part way through my work the article was moved by someone adding "(Australian Politician)" to the end of the article name.
Is there a refernce for why this is correct? Most articles about people don't have (Profession) added to them unless there is a need for a disambiguation page.
Thanks,
Garrie 01:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I rated the article as "class=stub" despite its length, primarily as it has no overview of the relationship between federal, state and local politics. --Scott Davis Talk 13:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Why does Politics of Canada describe Canada as a constitutional monarchy, while the crown remains unmentioned in this article? Australia has a monarch, and surely the fact that its federal government exists within this context merits some mention. I'm going to mention it in the article, but if someone wants to provide some compelling reason it shouldn't be there, I'm all ears. Fishhead64 21:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
The content of the article covers Australian Federal Politics, not Australian Politics. Should this be moved to, "Australian Federal Politics" and be replaced with an article saying (in detail, and without flippancy), "Australia has 3 levels of government. Most of the time the whole show is between 2 big parties, and a few other chaps. Big party A is a set of raging commies who love unions, Big party B are raging capitalists who have farmers as side-licks, and the rest largely don't count, but are made up of Greenies, Rednecks and middle-of-the-road types. Also, some discussion of which party controls which Parliament". PfkaH 08:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Statements such as this "The Howard government has reversed the foreign policy of its predecessor, placing renewed emphasis on relations with Australia's traditional allies, the United States and the United Kingdom and downgrading support for the United Nations in favour of bilateralism." seem to come from a non-neutral POV.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.45.85.74 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 8 March 2007.
"During its first two terms, the government's most sweeping change was the introduction of a goods and services tax (despite a pledge by Howard as opposition leader that there would never ever be a GST under a Howard Liberal government) which also saw reductions in personal income tax and company tax." I think this statement, whilst true, glosses over the fact that Howard campaigned on the introduction of the GST in the 1998 election. As it currently reads, it seems to come from a non-neutral POV. Naedish 01:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I hope to make major additions, including eventually some referencing, to this article. This will alter it substantially, and I don't want to go off on tangents that others have already agreed not to go off on, nor do i want to duplicate other articles, so i'm happy to hear from anyone about anything i'm doing here. My approach to content is roughly 'how would i explain what is going on in political terms in this country to someone who knows NOTHING about the place. Thus the need to sketch the electoral system and other features of our arrangements and then discuss the consequences (egs. why do we have minor parties in our upper house, unlike (sort of!) Canada and the UK? Why doesn't anyone cross the floor in Australian parliaments?)This will take some doing, so pls be patient if it looks like i've kind of left a heading hanging etc - as well as of course adding, editing ruthlessly etc etc! With help maybe we can get this top-importance article to B-class one day soon hamiltonstone 13:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, the PM timeline was easy enough to fix as it was just a matter of adding another link and making the line a tad bigger. The problem with the timeline on this page is it shows more than one timeline, so it's harder simply to add a link in for 1904 federal Labor. Comments? Timeshift (talk) 23:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
The Republicanism in Australia page is being given a Canadian monarchist. Can someone take a look? --Dlatimer (talk) 18:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
The government section of the "Outline of Australia" needs to be checked, corrected, and completed -- especially the subsections for the government branches.
When the country outlines were created, temporary data (that matched most of the countries but not all) was used to speed up the process. Those countries for which the temporary data does not match must be replaced with the correct information.
Please check that this country's outline is not in error.
If you have any questions or comments, please contact The Transhumanist .
Thank you.
At the national level, elections are held at least once every three years.
That is the received wisdom, and I'm not quibbling with it too much. However, it's not technically true. The last election was on 24 November 2007. The next one must be on or before 16 April 2011. That's a potential gap of 3 years 4 months and 23 days. The "three year" period refers not to the electoral cycle as such, but to the maximum length of the parliament. It's counted not from the date of the last election, but from the date of the first sitting of the parliament after that election. The parliament may run for a full three years (it's only ever happened once), then it's dissolved (or expires by "effluxion of time"), then various steps happen, and then there's an election.
Am I being extremely picky here, or can we word this in such a way that paints the true picture of what actually happens? I acknowledge that all but one parliament have been dissolved earlier than 3 years, and in practice, elections are almost always actually held at least once every three years. But they needn't be. -- JackofOz (talk) 11:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
MoS breaches aplenty. Prose glitches. Awkward phrases such as "Australian government Crown ministers". Needs a thorough massage. Tony (talk) 16:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Richard asr (talk) 08:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Why is this article titled "Elections in Australia"??
It talks only about the Australian Federal election. Why is it not called "Australian Federal Election"??
There are probably millions of elections held in Australia every year. I would change it but I have no idea how to do a redirect for the dumb title. 121.44.36.86 (talk) 12:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi! I'd like to garnish some opinions about exactly what this article is about. The name suggests an exploration of the political landscape of Australia, such as the Labor and Liberal parties, and the power of the crossbench. On the other hand, the current article content explores the system of governance in Australia, with very significant overlaps with Australian Government in terms of the branches of government. If this article is about politics, then the article probably needs to be rewritten. If this article is about governance, then it needs to be moved to an article title that better reflects this (Governance of Australia?), and likely copyedited significantly. ItsPugle (talk) 14:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
I like to request that an article be created listing Premiers and Chief Ministers who went Federal, that is if there isn't one already.
There is already an article about Canadian provincial premiers who went Federal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provincial_premiers_who_have_become_Canadian_MPs
Frankly it is frustrating that there isn't one already for Australia, unless I am mistaken on this. 49.3.72.79 (talk) 11:59, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
I've noticed that the template extends a good amount off of the page, which is not ideal. Perhaps the timeline could be broken into two lines? I suppose that introduces its own problems.
Please reply with any thoughts; I'm not very knowledgeable in how such things should be formatted.
-- Parrotapocalypse (hello) 16:27, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
The timeline seems to only denote periods of time as short as one year, which is problematic. This has lead to errors, e.g. in Queensland the timeline indicates there was a new Liberal Premier between 1968 and 1969. The problem is there was a new Country premier beginning in Jan 1968 who remained in the position for several months, this was followed by a Liberal Premier who only lasted a week in the job, and was then followed by another Country Premier [1][2][3].
Even if it's not practicle to display very short premierships in the timeline I'd argue that the period 1968-1969 for Queensland should be coloured green for the Country Party. Chalk (Liberal) served 7 days exclusively in the year 1968, but Pizzey (Country) served several months exclusively in the year 1968. The Elysian Vector Fields (talk) 00:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)