Talk:Elliott Lewis (politician)

Untitled
On the Template showing Tasmanian Premiers. Neil Elliott Lewis is shown twice. Once as "E. Lewis" Elliott Lewis and again ast "N. Lewis" Neil Lewis. This confused me while editing but I have checked the parliament website, they are the same person and are listed here twice. The "N. Lewis" article is a stub and should be deleted. --User:Kyle sb

Query
He was Premier of Tasmania between 1899 and 1903. In January-March 1901 he was simultaneously Minister without Portfolio in the Federal Government. This seems odd. I knew about his membership of Barton's ministry, but was not aware he was also the Premier of Tasmania at the time. How could he lead one government, while being a minor member of another government in another jurisdiction? If he had chosen to stand for Federal Parliament in March, he certainly would have been constitutionally required to resign from the Tasmanian Parliament. Since he didn't want to continue his life in federal politics, this wasn't necessary. But it still seems --- how can I put it --- bizarre, or at least improper. JackofOz 02:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The first Barton Ministry was understood to be an interim ministry pending the election of the first Parliament. As a matter of form all the state premiers were offered ministries - Lyne of NSW, Turner of Vic, Dickson of Qld, Forrest of WA and Lewis of Tas. (Holder of SA either declined or was unacceptable as a Free Trader, so Kingston got the guernsey instead). This made it easy to avoid making difficult choices and left Barton's hand free to form a real party ministry after the election. Adam 03:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Adam. Did the Premiers take leave from their parliaments and governments for this period, or did they in fact fulfill all three offices (state member, state premier, federal minister)?  I guess, being based in Melbourne, they could hardly have conducted their other business simultaneously in those days.  JackofOz 03:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, you'd have to check the relevant dates. I assume those who were intending to stand for the federal Parliament would have had to resign their state seats by the close of federal nominations in February, but not necessarily their state portfolios. Anyway, the federal portfolios wouldn't have entailed a lot of work before March, because there was no parliament, no federal legislation, no federal departments to administer and very few federal public servants. Only Deakin as Attorney-General would have been really busy. Adam 03:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)