Talk:List of post-nominal letters (Australia)

Setup of this page ?
I think we really ought to come up with some formula for how this page will be set up ? The current problem is that many commonwealth countries still have a place for British Honours on their Order of Precidence. For one thing, I think every country that recognizes Queen Elizabeth II still uses the Royal Victorian Order as the queen's personal gift - in fact I read a document on the Australian honours site that strictly says the Government will not interfere with an Order which is the queen's personal perogative. - So do we list the RVO, LVO, and MVO (as well as the RVM) on every list ? Should the lists be in the order of wear or should they just be a list like

For example : if we simply did list the Canadian one would look something like this

{| border="1" cellpadding="3" ! Office !! Post-nominal
 * colspan="2" | Meritorious Service Decoration
 * Meritorious Service Cross || MSC
 * Meritorious Service Medal || MSM
 * Meritorious Service Cross || MSC
 * Meritorious Service Medal || MSM
 * Meritorious Service Medal || MSM

whereas if were to list them is the correct order it would be

{| border="1" cellpadding="3"
 * colspan="2" | Canadian Decorations
 * Meritorious Service Cross || MSC
 * Medal of Bravery || MB
 * Meritorious Service Medal || MSM
 * Medal of Bravery || MB
 * Meritorious Service Medal || MSM
 * Meritorious Service Medal || MSM
 * Meritorious Service Medal || MSM

I have been beefing up the New Zealand section based on the official order of wear but I didn't include any "British Orders" including the Royal Victorian Order - mostly out of Lazyness. I just want some feedback before I continue. Dowew 22:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Dowew, the Imperial British Royal Honours are an essential item to list in every British Dominion orders of wear, however, Canada is a notable exception, given their funny attitudes towards titles, especially knighthoods & damehoods. The South African & Rhodesian orders of wear should also include British Royal Honours, as there are still a few holders of these alive. - (Aidan Work 23:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC))


 * I agree that Canada's postition on honours is a little fuzzy. I should point out that there are a couple of Canadian citizens who hold British Honours (mostly Knight Bachelor) - for more information see Nickle Resolution. Dowew 05:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * There is one living canadian who is also a companion of honour : John de Chastelain, although he is a dual citizen Dowew 09:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Australian "Members of Parliament"
''"Member of Parliament" is used in Australia and other Commonwealth nations to describe members of the lower house of Parliament only. In Australia, members of the House of Representatives are described as Members of Parliament, but members of the Senate are not.''

JackofOz 00:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced about this. In Australia, "Member of Parliament" is a generic term that includes Members of the House of Representatives and Senators (or in the State parliaments, members of either house).
 * There was a Cabinet decision during (I think) Andrew Fisher's premiership. The decision was that Senators would have the title "Senator" but no postnominal, and MHRs would have the postnominal "MP" (following UK practice for Members of the House of Commons).  This has led to a lot of confusion even amongst MHRs themselves.  I think there is a good case for changing the postnominal from "MP" to "MHR", but that's the government's call.  The point is, it was never suggested that only MHRs are Members of Parliament.
 * In Britain there were historical reasons why peers would not be included in "Members of Parliament". Due to the inherited nature of the peerage, in many cases a peer's duty/role as a legislator was the very last thing on their minds, and they never attended the House of Lords at all.  But in Australia (unlike UK and Canada), the Senate has always been popularly elected (except for casual vacancies), and Senators have attendance requirements.


 * I've now removed the offending footnote. JackofOz 09:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * And here's the relevant source. --  JackofOz (talk) 23:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Government endorsement
A number of people have deleted various postnominals because the organisation isn't 'officially recognised' or 'doesn't have the authority' to confirm postnominals... and then someone went and deleted the whole academic section on the same basis! So let's be clear: with the exception of the first category (which is endorsed by the Governor General), there is no government department or body that regulates postnominals; it is all just a matter of convention. So if you want to delete one because it's not a notable organisation, is rarely used, or has just been added to Wikipedia by a local club who holds meetings of their five club members in a someone's shed as an excuse to drink beer, then knock yourself out... but don't modify the page based on some imaginary government regulations! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monobeg (talk • contribs) 16:58, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Australian Public Safety League
I have deleted reference to the Australian Public Safety League. An internet revealed that the organisation was essentially a small community based organisation that appears to have folded (it's website has closed and a new one can't be found and previous presence in community forums has been removed). This makes it highly unlikely that it was ever in a position to award widely accepted post-nominals. Whilst there is a case for peak professional bodies to award post-nominals in the context of their industry without it necessarily being backed by legislation, royal charter, etc, APSL do not appear to have ever had sufficient stature to argue this position with respect to their organisation. AusTerrapin (talk) 15:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Prime Minister PM
I notice someone recently added to the UK section PM to mean Prime Minister, and someone else (correctly) removed it. I would like to point out, however, that Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper has recently been billing himself on leaflets (dare I use the words propoganda) as The Right Honourable Stephen Harper PM. I will make a reference notes of this on the Canadian section. Feel free to reword it to be better. Dowew 23:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * A lot of parliamentarians (and others) use incorrect postnominals.  In Australia, members of the House of Representatives are often referred to as MHRs, which is fine, but the only correct postnominal is MP.  Nevertheless, many of them have letterheads that call themselves, eg. "The Hon Joe Bloggs MHR".  Whenever I see one, I just wince, cringe, weep, shrug, sigh  ... and then move on.  JackofOz 04:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The distinction in Australia is that the Australian Federal Parliament uses the postnominal MP for the House of Representatives, but some State Parliaments use other postnominals depending upon the title of the respective chamber of parliament. For example, in Victoria, members of the House of Representatives (lower house) use MHR, whilst members of the Legislative Assembly (upper house) use MLA. AusTerrapin (talk) 08:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Quite some confusion there, AusTerrapin. The Victorian Legislative Assembly is the lower house of the Victorian Parliament; the upper house is the Victorian Legislative Council.  Members of these chambers have the postnominals MLA and MLC respectively. The only House of Representatives in Australia is the lower house of the Federal Parliament, which sits in Canberra.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   08:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I stand corrected on the technicalities - I've clearly been living out of the state for too long :b - that'll teach me not to double check before posting. Notwithstanding, the essence of my point still remains, ie that there are a variety of different postnominals in use depending upon which house/chamber of which parliament. AusTerrapin (talk) 01:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Post-nominals from more than one country
Is it good practice to list post-nominal military awards from countries other than the bearer's home nation? If so, presumably the 'home' honours take precedence over foreign honours. Are there rules/guidelines for such cases? The specific case I have in mind is John Cyril Porte, who, in addition to British honours, was awarded the Distinguished Service Medal (United States) posthumously.


 * The guidelines would differ from country to country - in Australia, unless the post-nominal is in the Australian Honours Order of Precedence, then the 'foreign' post-nominal is not used. Having said that, if the individual was being referred to in a country where he had earned a foreign post-nominal, then it may be used. For example: Peter Cosgrove AC, MC would be the format generally used, however in a New Zealand newspaper or media release, you may see him referred to as Peter Cosgrove AC, MC, CNZM. PalawanOz (talk) 07:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * PalawanOz, both Australia and New Zealand are Dominions, so the use of the post-nominal letters from one Dominion's honours system by a citizen from another Dominion is perfectly legitimate - (203.211.73.209 (talk) 01:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC))


 * Australia and New Zealand are now referred to as Commonwealth realms rather than dominions. Honours are awarded by the Sovereign, not the state, so they are recognised wherever the Queen is Sovereign.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 15:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * PalawanOz was correct about the use of post-nominals by Australians. CAG S548, 22 December 1997,Guidelines Concerning the Acceptance and Wearing of Foreign Honours and Awards by Australians explicitly states in sub-paragraph 9 that
 * "Foreign awards which provide for the use of post-nominals or titles in their country of origin may only be accepted on the understanding that the use of the post-nominals or honorary titles by Australians in Australia will not be recognised officially. Foreign awards are to be worn in accordance with The Order of Wearing Australian Honours and Awards."
 * Imperial awards granted prior to 05 October 1992 are considered Australian and so post-nominals may be used in these circumstances. The same is not true for awards post 05 October 1992. (See here and Michael Maton, The National Honours & Awards of Australia, ISBN 0 86417 679 1, Kangaroo Press, Sydney, 1995, pp 31, 33) Cheers, AusTerrapin (talk) 01:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

2 or more in one Order
If one is awarded membership in an order, say, as a Commander, and then subsequently is "promoted" to a Knight Commander, for instance, do you get to use both post-noms, or just the highest? 209.92.136.131 21:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Although there are a few anomalies, for example I think if you are awarded the Royal Victorian Medal and subsequently made a member of the Royal Victorian Order they are considered seperate awards, and you keep both. I think the same used to go for the British Empire Medal before the statues  were changed to allow full status to those holding the medal.  Usually however, member in an order is not just an "award"...it is a position within a group.  To use the Royal Victorian example, those holding the medals hold a decoration, while those who are in the order hold an appointment in the group.  You cannot hold more than one position in the Order at the same time.  For example, when Elizabeth II succeeded she stopped being a Knight of the Garter, and became Sovereign of the Garter.  When Adrienne Clarkson was made Governor General of Canada she held the rank of Officer in the Order of Canada.  When she was installed GG she was made a supernumerary (not counting towards the quota) Companion of the Order, and simultaneously held the status of "Chancellor" of the Order.  When she was replaced, Michaelle Jean became Chancellor, but Clarkson remained a Companion.  In the 70's Princess Anne was made a Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order.  She held this status until very recently when The Queen appointed her the position "Grand Master" of the Order.  As such, she is still holder of a Grand Cross, but now has a higher position than others in the order.  So, basically...the answer is no.  If you are a lower rank in an order and are subsequently promoted you must surrender your previous appointment before receiving you higher appointment.  Dowew 22:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You'll sometimes see multiple awards in the same order appended as separate postnominals, e.g. in death notices for senior people, where it might appear as "Gerald Smith MBE OBE CBE". This is quite wrong; the only correct reference would be "Gerald Smith CBE".  Showing all the ones they acquired along the way is the equivalent of referring to a general who came up through the ranks as "Private Sergeant Lieutenant Major Colonel General Jones".  --  Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   09:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria
I suggest restricting the list to only those "professional" postnomials that are awarded by notable organizations, with the usual criteria of either the organization having an article or there being independent sources for the content. Right now this list looks to me as if every three guys with a website who declare themselves a "professional organization" could get "their" postnominals listed. Of course that's hyperbole to some degree, but is, for example, "PAqna" really beyond the realm of trivia? A Google search for that one seems to give more "astronumerology" results than anything else. Huon (talk) 20:41, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

FINSIA is missing. I think this ia a significant organisation in Australia and meets the criteria, so adding it in.Supcmd (talk) 21:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * If professional organisations are to be included, would supporting limiting inclusion to chartered institutions with some sort of recognised regulatory role or government patronage, such as a Governor-General as Patron, the prefix of “Royal”, or a former regulatory role, like the Pharmaceutical Society. Mere “professional societies” for networking or lobbying do not seem notable enough for post-nominals to be recognised by official sources. Steepleman (t) 04:35, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of post-nominal letters (Australia). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151118221432/http://pianoteacher.wysiwyg.net.au/AMEB-Exams/ to http://pianoteacher.wysiwyg.net.au/AMEB-Exams/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)