Talk:List of prime ministers of Australia/Archive 1

Infobox
I'm currently attempting to create an infobox for this and other pages. DPCU 23:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Images
So, did the person who added the fair-use images add another rationale to the image page? Timeshift (talk) 09:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)?
 * I'm afraid I didn't. Care to elaborate on what's actually required, and which images require it? Ackatsis (talk) 13:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've discussed this with an admin and they concur with me that as this is a list, fair-use images should not be used. Soon I will proceed to remove the images from this and the QE2 'list' pages. Timeshift (talk) 23:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As near as I can tell, every image down to Ben Chifley - in addition to John Howard - falls in the public domain. Many of the remaining PMs also have alternate photographs on their main pages that are in the public domain. Can you give me a day or so to try and replace all the fair-use images? Ackatsis (talk) 13:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've replaced most of the fair-use images with public domain replacements. The only PMs for whom I couldn't find suitable alternatives are Harold Holt, John Gorton, Bob Hawke and Paul Keating - can you help out with any of these?
 * Also, what's the copyright status on the Kevin Rudd image? Can we still use it in the list? Ackatsis (talk) 21:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Lists do not need images. I'll be removing all of them as it is pointless. Timeshift (talk) 22:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Aside from being aesthetically pleasing, photographs also promote recognition, and would prove useful if one were learning about the history of Australia's leadership. Besides, if it's good enough for the American Presidents, then it's good enough for our humble PMs. Don't be quite so hasty: I'll scramble about for the remaining public domain images (your help would be appreciated, since you're obviously skilled in such endeavours), and we'll see what we can do. Ackatsis (talk) 08:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Removed non-free fair use images from list pages. if it's good enough for the American Presidents, then it's good enough for our humble PMs - x should because y does is not valid. Timeshift (talk) 05:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, COULD I BE ANY MORE BLUNT in the text I added. If you do not understand non-free fair use images, DO NOT ADD THEM. It is plainly that simple. Timeshift (talk) 10:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Reverted a pointless secondary list
Reverted. If anyone apart from the original contributor objects please speak up. Timeshift (talk) 03:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Please be patient as another editor has already mentioned, I am about to make it more detailed by adding the days in office Watchover (talk) 04:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I just found out my data is wrong, back to the drawing board. Watchover (talk) 04:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Seconded, Watchover is adding time in office for each political party to the table. Although the table should be moved later in the article, possibly under the PM table. cantwejustbefriends 04:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * How can you second yourself Mr Sockpuppet? Timeshift (talk) 00:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

New Format
The current table, while highly informative, is convoluted and difficult to read due to its number of columns. I propose a new format, which shows all the information currently available in a more legible format and in fewer columns, as below. I have formatted the entire table in this fashion here, in an edit which has since been reverted (quite justifiably, as in my eagerness I had not discussed the new format). I feel that this is a significant improvement to the table. BartBassist (talk) 22:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

No objections? I'll go ahead with it. BartBassist (talk) 11:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Is there a better way of showing their dates of birth and death? Born 18 January 1849, Sydney — Died 7 January 1920 is too close to what we find in the lede paras of biographical articles, but badly formatted.  The words "born" and "died" are going to be repeated in every entry.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   11:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The basic problem with removing the words Born and Died is Holt's death, which requires at least some explanation. Simply removing the words themselves looks as follows:


 * If you want a more broad-ranging consensus for such a change, would you consider adding pointers to this discussion at Australian Wikipedians' notice board and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics‎? Not many people are going to have the Talk page of this article watchlisted, or check it regularly, which may be why there were no objections initially. --Canley (talk) 04:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * How is this superior to what's there now? I think it starts to make the table look cluttered, and I'm not sure the additional information is important enough to warrant inclusion here. Rebecca (talk) 16:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There neither any more, nor any less, information on the proposed format than on the current one: I have simply rearranged the existing information. The width of the current table causes problems on small screens (e.g. on netbooks), and its number of columns leads to convolution (it can be easy to mistake one column for another, most notably the columns 'Left Office' (as PM) and 'Left Parliament' (as an MP). The proposed format is much narrower and has far fewer columns, and is therefore considerably more legible. It also moves the table more in line with its British equivalent. BartBassist (talk) 18:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I'd support this, as I find the layout quite confusing, not to mention rather unusual for Wikipedia. I find this one rather more confusing than the current one, in fact. So I prefer the current one at this stage, although I admit it's not ideal. Frickeg (talk) 06:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * My thinking was that the information which ought to be immediately obvious is Name, Party and Term of Office. The other stuff (Birth, Death, Term as MP) is there for reference, but most people won't be looking for it. BartBassist (talk) 11:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It's a nice attempt, but I have to agree with Rebecca here. I think that this is not as clear as what we already have. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 12:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm confused why we need the date of birth and the date of death columns... the List of United States Presidents doesn't have this, and it's a comprable article. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 13:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It may be constructive to look at how some other countries do it. Neither List of Prime Ministers of Canada, Taoiseach, or List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom list dates of birth and death.  Of course, it doesn't follow that we must be the same, but if we can steal adopt best practice from elsewhere, so much the better.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC).


 * I can't see how it would hurt if the information for PMs with more than one term (including the photo) is repeated - instead of all this "see above" & "see below". Repeated info is used on both the US President and British PMs articles and I think it makes them easier to follow. For example, for Alfred Deakin's 2nd entry, you have to "see above" for some of the info, then "see below" for more of it.  It would be much easier to follow if all the info was available on the one line, even if it means repeating some it. I would change it myself, but would be interested on feedback first. Ozzieboy (talk) 09:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This is one of several issues (in particular relating to Deakin and Fisher) which I feel that my version, available here, resolves, or at least improves. The key information (PM, party, term of office) is available on any given line, and the information omitted due to repetition is all in the same place. Having said that, I am not averse to repeating the photos. The current situation for Hughes, where the photograph could easily be spread across three rows instead of being denoted "see above" in two rows, is simply daft. If the consensus is that dates of birth and death are not necessary on this table, they would not be difficult to remove from my version. The wide cell which I have created, currently containing dates of birth and death and term as MP, is a version of the general 'notes' cell in the British equivalent and the Canadian equivalent. BartBassist (talk) 17:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I have no particular opinion about repeating the information or not - I just loathe the cluttered and messy table. Kill the white box and your proposals might have a bit more merit. Rebecca (talk) 17:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The white box is the whole point of my proposal, the means by which I reduce the current table's forest of columns. Nonetheless, there are other means of achieving the same, such as the following (with dates of term of office as MP removed):


 * To me, this proposal has considerably less merit than the one with the white box, because the entries for party and term of office are much wider than they are tall: the white box is a means of reducing the height of these cells. In fact, I can't stand this proposal - the 'Birth & Death' column, for a start, is hideous. Nonetheless, as requested, I have killed the white box, although I like it. I take the point that the white box is misused in my proposal - I reckon that, ideally, it would contain notes on the PM's term of office, as in the British equivalent and the Canadian equivalent. Something like the following: BartBassist (talk) 17:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No objection to this one; this looks much better in my view. Rebecca (talk) 01:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Right. In that case, I am now seeking consensus or recommendations for the proposed table immediately above this message; ignore all other proposals. BartBassist (talk) 04:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry to clutter this page with hundreds of proposals, but thinking about it, dates of term of office as MP can be significant (e.g. for Bruce, who lost his seat and regained it). The following, which also removes that odd-looking 'Birth & Death' column', is therefore probably an improvement: BartBassist (talk) 14:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I quite like this one as well. Rebecca (talk) 14:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * In that case, I will get to work constructing this version at my talk page, pending broader consensus. BartBassist (talk) 15:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * A hand composing the notes for each term would be handy. Thanks. BartBassist (talk) 13:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Colo(u)rs
Why is the Liberal Party in this list purple and the Country/ National Party blue? Everywhere else the Liberals are blue and the National/ Country Party green. Any objections as to aligning actual party colo(u)rs to the party in question? I can't see why not. Wikistar (Place order here) 13:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅ Wikistar (Place order here) 04:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Mishmash of punctuation styles
We're wildly vacillating between:
 * A. semi-colons followed by words in lower case
 * B. semi-colons followed by words in initial upper case (Keating)
 * C. full stops followed by words in initial upper case
 * D. full stops followed by words in lower case (Hawke)

Can we please decide how this is going to be. B and D are offensive to me, for starters. The only contenders should be A and C. What's it to be, folks? Or maybe some mixture is acceptable in each case. --  Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   19:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The entries for Menzies 4-10, Fraser and Hawke seem to have been penned by some semi-literate editor with no understanding of punctuation, capitalisation or linking. The form is easy to correct; the content is less so. The capitals following semi-colons in Keating and Rudd (possibly elsewhere) are my fault - the passages were originally written with full stops, which later became semi-colons, without the requisite capitalisation alterations. BartBassist (talk) 18:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Gillard
I am not native to Australian politics, but my understanding is that, contrary to the British practice, a new ministry is formed after each election. This may occur even when the previous ministry has only been in place for a very short time, as with the Second Fraser Ministry, which followed the 1975 election and succeeded an extremely short-lived First Fraser Ministry. Surely Gillard has therefore led two ministries, separated by an election, as Keating did. BartBassist (talk) 18:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Not quite. Wait for 2 days and your wish should be granted.  Due to a hung parliament, our first for 70 years, we've had an unusually long period of sorting out just which side is going to be the government.  That finally became clear on Tuesday 7 Sept, 17 days after the election, when the 3 independents who had not made known which side they were going to support (because they didn't even know themselves until their consultations and briefings were completed), did so.  Two went for Labor, one for the Coalition - that gave Labor just enough support to command a majority in the lower house.  Then, we had to wait till yesterday 10 Sept to find out whether or not one of the independents who'll be supporting Labor (Rob Oakeshott) was going to accept a portfolio in the new ministry.  He's said thanks but no thanks.  Now, Gillard has the weekend to decide the final makeup of the new ministry, and it's expected to be sworn in on Monday 13 Sept.


 * You're right, that will be the Second Gillard Ministry, and the currently named Gillard Ministry will become known to posterity as the First Gillard Ministry. Pending that event, the (First) Gillard Ministry remains the government of the country (although it's been in caretaker mode throughout the election period and aftermath).  Let's let it all happen before we go around renaming things just yet.  There could be some delay, who knows.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   19:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * As the page now exists, and the Gillard Ministry now redirects to the Second Gillard Ministry, I shall make the relevant adjustment. BartBassist (talk) 20:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Should Gillard Ministry redirect to the Second Gillard Ministry, or be a disambiguation page, or maybe delete the current redirect? Howard Ministry and Menzies Ministry quite obviously need to be disambiguation pages, however we have none for Whitlam Ministry and Keating Ministry and Fraser Ministry, or Bruce Hughes Gordon Holt Chifley or Curtin. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Howard
The John Howard information section is a bit light on information. Should events like his introduction of the GST; Goods and Services Tax (Australia), the Pacific Solution, the Tampa affair, the Children Overboard Affair, and him taking Australia to war in the War in Afghanistan and the Iraq War be listed? Rump1234 (talk) 05:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

PM tenure comments - why do we need them?
Isn't this supposed to be a list? We have articles to talk about what they did, why are they here? The problem with it being here is that you can't condense all PMs down to two or three lines of text. As can be seen here, it's impossible to be balanced and neutral enough. The texts should be removed. Timeshift (talk) 05:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll give contributers one more chance to discuss before I remove them from this 'list' article. Timeshift (talk) 22:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I was surprised to see these lists included - no doubt they are controversial - but since they are here, I'd like to suggest adding the National Broadband Network onto the comments for Rudd's first term. -- Chuq (talk) 06:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I actually agree with Timeshift here. Such lists are prone to opinion as to what is/is not important as well as recentism (compare the length of the list for Gillard to that for either Keating, Howard or Menzies). Orderinchaos 17:16, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protect the page List of Prime Ministers of Australia
Please semi-protect the page indefinitely in response to an ongoing high risk of vandalism. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.151.219 (talk) 09:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

End date
Unless she formally resigned tonight - which I doubt given it was well outside Canberra business hours - the end date of Gillard's time of office should be 27 June, as although no longer leader of the Labor Party she is still Prime Minister until relieved of her commission by the GG, which I understand is going to happen in the morning. Orderinchaos 13:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's confirmed. The GG's office released the letter from Julia Gillard which stated that her resignation as Prime Minister was "with effect from Mr Rudd's appointment to the office", which was this morning. I have adjusted the article and another PM list with the term duration. --Canley (talk) 03:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Kevin Rudd is listed as only the 26th Prime Minister, he was actually said on the news to be the 26th AND 28th Prime Minister. But I don't know how to make that change in the table--Snowy66 (talk) 09:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't change it, it is being discussed at Talk:Kevin Rudd. 28th is certainly wrong—as you can see from this list, Menzies, Deakin and Fisher also served non-consecutive terms as PM and these have not been counted separately—if they were, Rudd would be the 31st and 33rd Prime Minister. One editor is citing the precedent of Grover Cleveland having two terms as US president counted separately, but others believe the practice in Westminster systems is to count the number of people, not the number of appointments. --Canley (talk) 12:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * By the way, I did send a message to ABC News about this as you're right, they have been referring to Rudd as the 28th Prime Minister. --Canley (talk) 12:22, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The Australian similarly referred to him as the 28th Prime Minister in their lead article yesterday. I also sent them an email regarding it. Shadow007 (talk) 04:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

2nd Rudd Ministry
Several editors have undone an edit I made regarding the 2nd Rudd Ministry. My edit was that Kevin Rudd was the first Prime Minister to have solely governed Australia from Brisbane. All other Prime Ministers either operated from Melbourne/Sydney or Canberra. I believe this is notable and should be kept.--Collingwood26 (talk) 13:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't. It's parochial trivia in a Queensland newspaper pandering to the psychological insecurities of (some) Queenslanders. No Prime Minister's entry in this article says that they governed from Canberra, Melbourne or Sydney. Why Brisbane should be treated differently is a mystery to me. It's nonsense to suggest that Rudd will govern from Brisbane alone anyway, despite a Murdoch paper's attempt to claim otherwise. That's not how government works. And, if you actually read the article, the claim, if it was to be made at all, would have been attached to the description of Rudd's first stint as Prime Minister. It wasn't. To include it now, connected to the second time of him (allegedly) doing this, is just ridiculous. HiLo48 (talk) 21:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with HiLo48. Collingwood26, the article you cite as a reference does not even say that Rudd is the "first PM to govern the nation from Brisbane", just that he is suggesting he will return to his home and local electorate whenever possible (such as when parliament is not sitting) which is not an extraordinary notion for any MP, even the PM and I'm sure many or all of them have done parliamentary or prime ministerial work at their home: Julia Gillard lived in Altona before the 2010 election, John Howard rarely used the Lodge and stayed at Kirribilli, etc. It is not correct to say that Rudd will "solely govern Australia from Brisbane"—the Courier Mail article says that he will reside in The Lodge or Kirribilli when on business in Canberra or Sydney which will be a significant amount of his time. I guess it would be notable if Rudd never used his office in Parliament House and did everything from his sun deck or flew back to Brisbane every evening after Question Time, but that is extremely unlikely. Finally, it is not correct to say that "all other Prime Ministers" operated from Melbourne/Sydney or Canberra: Andrew Fisher, for example, held cabinet meetings and plenty of other business of government from his Queensland home (granted it was in Gympie not Brisbane, but should we proclaim that Fisher was the first PM to "govern the nation" from Gympie?). --Canley (talk) 01:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

No because lots of PMs hold business meetings outside of the big 3 (Sydney, Melbourne, Canberra), and Fisher did not govern from Gympie. For over 110+ Years Canberra, Melbourne, and Sydney have been the defacto government centres. PM Rudd said he will not move into the Lodge and only operate there when visiting foreign dignitaries and so on. Otherwise, Rudd has stated he will govern from his home in Brisbane. This is very notable as it is the first city outside of the big three (Canberra, Melbourne, and Sydney) to have been a centre of government. To say otherwise is just ridiculous.--Collingwood26 (talk) 02:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Either you are reading a lot into that Courier Mail article that I just can't see, or you are privy to some other statements by Rudd that are not in that article. Firstly, there is no definition of official Canberra/Sydney business mentioned by Rudd or the newspaper, which will surely include residing in Canberra at The Lodge during parliamentary sitting session and almost all parliamentary business—I don't know where this "visiting foreign dignitaries" comes from. Secondly, it is hugely conflating the situation to call Brisbane a "centre of government" regardless of how much time the Prime Minister personally spends there. Short of moving Parliament House, the Cabinet, the ALP caucus and/or most of the public service to Kev & Therese's back patio, I don't see how Rudd can conduct much more government business from his actual home than any other non-"big three city" PMs. Once again, I agree with HiLo, Rudd is just making some rather aspirational statements, playing up to state pride by saying he'll spend as much time as he can in beautiful Queensland. Tell you what, how about we wait and see what and how much Rudd actually does at home or in Brisbane before mentioning it—I'm sure if there is anything unusual or notable, such as the Cabinet meeting regularly in Norman Park, we'll hear about it (probably due to the exorbitant cost and effort of "governing the country" from one's back garden rather than a purpose-built seat of government!). --Canley (talk) 03:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Pacific Solution
The claim that Howard introduced the pacific Solution and that it greatly reduced boat arrivals is unsourced POV. Please do not mak claims such as this as they affect the neutrality of the article.''' Flat Out   let's discuss it   10:59, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * No I would say that Howard was the architect of the Pacific Solution, and that it did in fact greatly reduce boat arrivals despite the mass of refugees created by the early invasion of Afghanistan and the Iraq War.--101.165.121.13 (talk) 23:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That's nice, now provided a source that supports your cause and effect argument. ''' Flat Out   let's discuss it   00:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The source most often provided is the "Boat arrivals in Australia since 1976" research document by Janet Phillips and Harriet Spinks of the Parliamentary Library (which is being touted as "proof from the Australian government"). Yes, the statistics in the document show a marked drop in the number of boat arrivals between 2001 and 2002, but at no stage does the document attempt to make the unequivocal causal connection to the introduction of the Pacific Solution as the statement being repeatedly inserted here does. Also, the UNHCR statistical report of 2002 indicates that the removal of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan resulted in a significant reduction in asylum seekers from that country and a high rate of returns by Afghans who had previously been seeking asylum from the Taliban, and that the number of global asylum claims to industrialised countries dropped by about 5 per cent—that seems to be the opposite to the (unsourced) assertion that global asylum seeker numbers increased during that period due to the siutation in Afghanistan and Iraq, and that the Pacific Solution achieved incredible effectiveness despite that supposed global increase. --Canley (talk) 00:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was the first to revert that claim from the article, and the absence of proof of any causal connection was my reason. I attempted to put that briefly in an Edit summary, and actually posted on the Talk page of original IP editor (almost certainly the same person), explaining the same thing. The point is clear. The mind of our over-enthusiastic IP editor may be less so. HiLo48 (talk) 08:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Whatever we say, and to whomever we attribute credit for anything, can we PLEASE not talk about "illegal boat arrivals"? These people have broken no Australian laws.  They cannot adhere to the orderly processes, because of their (usually) well-founded fear of persecution in their home countries.  If they waited for the standard process to get them here, many of them would never get here because they'd be long dead.  It is not illegal to want not to die, or to be prepared to take extreme and risky measures to protect yourself and your family.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  10:55, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * To clarify, the phrase I used was a repeat of one used in an edit I reverted. I agree that the term is incorrect and is used to vilify asylum seekers. ''' Flat Out   let's discuss it   11:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * All of this is quite correct, of course, but since those two posts I've seen at least three election advertisements on TV using the incorrect language. The IP editor's confusion is perhaps understandable. HiLo48 (talk) 11:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Did Abbott end "Australia's role in the War in Afghanistan"?
User:Collingwood26 added this claim to the content on Abbott, citing coverage of his recent visit there. I reverted, pointing out in an Edit summary that the process began ages ago, under the previous government. Collingwood26 reverted, telling me "If you don't agree with it, take it to the talk page." So I have. This is not Abbot's doing. At least it's certainly not his on his own. When will Abbott's fanboys realise that he is not the Messiah, solely responsible for all good things? HiLo48 (talk) 08:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I am not an "Abbott fanboy", and even saying that proves that you are biased in thinking here. Howard started the withdrawal from Iraq laying out the exit strategy and desired timeline for withdrawal, yet Kevin Rudd has received the recognition of withdrawing Australia from the conflict, is it so different?


 * Any chance you could sign and indent your posts? I'll assume you are Collingwood whatever . Anyway, so you say Howard began the process. Fine. So it's NOT Abbott's doing. OK? HiLo48 (talk) 09:25, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Collingwood26, I would be interested in seeing a source for the claim that John Howard started the withdrawal of Australian troops from Iraq. As I recall, Howard spent much of 2006 and 2007 denying that any such plan existed. In mid-2007, there were rumours that Howard planned to "ambush" Rudd by announcing a withdrawal from Iraq, but this was denied by the government. One of the Wikileaks cables  sent just a few weeks before the 2007 election stated that Howard was committed to keeping Australian troops there, with only the notion that he wished "to have combat troops in the Overwatch Battle Group succeeded by military trainers as soon as possible" as a mild aspiration towards ending Australian involvement. I can neither find nor recall any indication that Howard had in any way outlined or even considered an exit strategy and timeline other than making an aspirational "when-the-job-is-done" statements.


 * The timeline for withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan was outlined by ISAF and the Afghan government at the Lisbon summit in 2010, so while this would have been administered by the Gillard government commencing mid-2012, I wouldn't give Julia Gillard "credit" for the withdrawal, but just because Tony Abbott's election happened to coincide with the end of an 18 month transition process initiated under the previous government, it is certainly inappropriate to count this withdrawal as one of Abbott's "achievements" or actions as prime minister. --Canley (talk) 11:57, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Canley but Tony Abbott could simply say he wants Australia to stay on in Afghanistan if he really wanted to, I see your point but if you won't give credit to Mr Abbott then why does Mr Rudd receive credit for the Iraq withdrawal which was planned by ISAF?--Collingwood26 (talk) 14:01, 29 October 2013 (UTC) Oh and HiLo do not undo edits just because you do not agree with them, please discuss them here first.--Collingwood26 (talk) 14:01, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You fucking moron!!!! First you say Abbott did it, then you say Howard did it (which seems to be bullshit anyway), so you obviously DIDN'T think Abbott did it. But it clearly has to be a Liberal to please you. Your politics are obvious. Abbott DID NOT do it. I assumed when you said Howard did it you would be happy with removing the claim Abbott did it. Maybe we need to add that Menzies did it, fanboy! HiLo48 (talk) 20:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep your comments civil, HiLo. No matter what the background may be, remember our rule: No Personal Attacks.  As a senior Australian, and a teacher no less, you can do better than this.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  20:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I have little patience with blatantly biased, incompetent editors, especially when they ignore attempts at education. An old saying comes to mind - Ignorance is curable, but stupidity is permanent. HiLo48 (talk) 21:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Condemn their words as much as may be necessary. Leave the editor personally out of it.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  10:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Collingwood26, you seem to be confusing Iraq and Afghanistan: "why does Mr Rudd receive credit for the Iraq withdrawal which was planned by ISAF?" Um, ISAF has nothing to do with Iraq, it is a NATO security mission in Afghanistan only. So of course they had nothing to do with Australia's involvement in Iraq—the withdrawal of troops was a Rudd/Labor election promise which was carried out in 2009. And under that logic, are you saying Abbott could be given credit for DisabilityCare/NDIS, the NBN, and the "carbon tax" if he chooses not to rescind them? --Canley (talk) 00:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Did Abbot end "Australia's role in the War in Afghanistan"??? HAHAHA!!! Oh that's a good one! Timeshift (talk) 22:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Gillard announced the withdrawal back in March . WWGB (talk) 23:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The proposed wording is clumsy and a bit premature, but the point can be included as follows and in due course: "Concluded Australia's bipartisan commitment to Afghanistan war." or Concluded withdrawal of Australian contingent from Afghanistan war or Concluded closure of Australia's Tarin Kowt base in Afghanistan, depending what the final result of this withdrawal turns out to be (I believe, that like in Iraq, some residual forces will remain for a time). Obviously it hasn't actually happened yet, so the original addition falls. For clarity, we can add something to Gillard along lines of Scheduled withdrawal of Australian forces from Afghanistan. Gillard did propose it, but Abbott could have rescinded the order, and he hasn't, so it is still a point in history worth noting. Now as for user:HiLo48 - I agree with User:JackofOz, and thank him for making the comments he did above. If you want to start an online encyclopedia where there is no requirement of civility, you are welcome to do so. However, if you want to edit wikipedia, please adopt the requirement of civility. It is no good you listing the wikipedia policies you yourself agree with in order to justify your breach of the requirement of civility. Please alter your behaviour. Observoz (talk) 23:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * What rubbish. Being there when it's done despite having nothing to do with it does not equate to concluding it. Timeshift (talk) 23:50, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Being there when it is done means being there when it is done. But it aint done yet, so it's still academic crystal bally stuff. Observoz (talk) 00:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I said being there when it is done is being there when it is done! That is not misleading, the other 'attempts' above are. Timeshift (talk) 00:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * All that Abbott has done is choose to not interfere in a process that began before he was elected. Not notable. HiLo48 (talk) 02:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I think we should go with the proposal Observoz proposed such as "Concluded Australian Withdrawal from the Afghan Conflict" or something similar. Abbott could have quite easily decided he wanted Australian forces to stay in Afghanistan longer then ISAF's withdrawal date and so on, but he hasn't he has continued with the planned withdrawal started under Gillard. Which I also think is appropriate to include something in Gillard's biography stating that she "Began the timeline for withdrawal from the Afghan Conflict". --Collingwood26 (talk) 02:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * A bit too late when it's 99% complete when you come to power. Timeshift (talk) 02:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * All that Abbott has done is choose to not interfere in a process that began before he was elected. Not notable. (Didn't I say that earlier?) In effect, he has done nothing. HiLo48 (talk) 02:53, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Australia hasn't withdrawn yet TimeShift so it isn't 99% complete maybe 20% at least as they have begun shipping out Australian equipment.--Collingwood26 (talk) 02:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Given that your edit that first attracted my attention here was the addition of "Ended Australia's role in the War in Afghanistan" (note the usage of past tense), that's a quite weird position for you to now be taking. HiLo48 (talk) 03:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Timeline
Is it really necessary to have this newly-added timeline? As Timeshift9 said in a edit summary, its from the Prime Minister of Australia article and it doesn't really belong in a list article like this one. I don't really see a purpose of it here, and if other users agree I'll remove it. --Sundostund (talk) 12:33, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Too quick off the mark
Malcolm Turnbull will probably be PM tomorrow. He was elected Leader of the Liberal Party tonight but will need to be sworn in as PM by the Governor General tomorrow. It might actually be a few days if he waits until the swearing in of the whole Ministry. Anthony Staunton (talk) 12:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2015
Now that Malcolm Turnbull is confirmed as the 29th Prime Minister of Australia, it's required that he be listed with everyone else. FYIiamaspy162 (talk) 12:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: He is the Prime Minister-Elect as he hasn't been sworn in yet. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Labour prior to 1912
Prime Ministers belonging to the ALP should be styled "Labour" prior to 1912 when the party officially changed the spelling to "Labor". Agree/Disagree? Stuboy (talk) 01:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. Seems to have been changed in this edit by an anon IP in May but no-one picked it up. I'll change it myself now. --Canley (talk) 02:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

These PMs are now marked 'Labour' in the table, but the key indicates that they are Labor - which caused me some confusion until I read this comment (I did not know that the spelling had been changed after their time in office). Can someone who knows the details possibly update the key and/or table if this is the case. There should be either an indication of the party's change of name (presumably including date), or - if the parties are largely unrelated - those two PMs should be allocated a separate party and party colour.

While I am commenting on the key, is there an intended significance to the colour coding? Choosing red for the Labor party implies communist/socialist views, or if viewed by a US political observer may suggest an alignment with local parties. I cannot recall ever noticing that colours had been chosen by Australian political parties. Additionally, if there is ever a prime minister from the Australian Greens then one wonders what colour they will be allocated in this article.

In considering the colour issue, I suggest that there is enough sociological and political significance attached to particular colours that some other schematic should be used to indicate the party affiliation. Linear patterns (suck as cross-hatches) and shading, for instance (staying well away from Scottish tartans). 203.7.140.3 (talk) 23:09, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

the colours are strongly associated with both parties ie election night broadcasts ect.

does anyone know why some are listed as retired and others are listed as resigned?Kitten88.r (talk) 10:11, 9 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The colours used here are generally the colours used in the branding or logos of the parties themselves. Look at the logos of the Labor and Liberal Parties, and you will see the parties did in fact choose these colours themselves. No need for a different key or colour, it's the same party with a slightly different spelling. Same with the Ballarat/Ballaarat spelling which also keeps getting wrongly corrected. In answer to Kitten88.r, the difference between retirement and resignation is this: retirement is when a member of parliament chooses not to recontest their seat at an election; resignation is when they choose to leave the parliament mid-term, creating a vacancy which is usually filled by a by-election. --Canley (talk) 10:31, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

well would it be worth including that somewhere in the article- I'm a politics tragic and this is the first time i've heard that distinction.Kitten88.r (talk) 16:07, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Not in this article I think, as the distinction isn't specific to the office of prime minister, or even to Australia. It is currently mentioned in a footnote in Casual vacancies in the Australian Parliament. --Canley (talk) 21:35, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I was referring not to 'the office' as it technically doesn't exist but to the the manner they left the house -It's not a distinction abc uses ie. re: Rudd "Former prime minister Kevin Rudd announced his retirement from politics in an emotional speech to Parliament on Wednesday night"


 * Kitten88.r (talk) 15:27, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I hate the comments section...
Why must we include an inherently biased comments section for a list of PMs? Timeshift (talk) 00:12, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Proof is in the edits made by the anon IP. I'll remove the comments section in 24 hours if there's no consensus to keep. Timeshift (talk) 00:25, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with that proposal. HiLo48 (talk) 02:34, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I support the removal. Most of the comments refer to issues and achievements of the government, not personal achievements of the PM. WWGB (talk) 03:53, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I like the comments section. IMHO, its useful to have additional data about important events during a PM's term as part of the list. It looks great as a part of lists of British and Canadian PMs, so why to remove it here? Let it be clear, though, that I don't support any kind of biased, POV comments in the section. It should be a place to note historically verifiable events, not a battleground for supporters of opposing Australian political parties. I'd support ANY KIND of modification, rewording, etc of text in the section to make it politically neutral and historically verifiable, but not the complete removal of the section. Cheers! --Sundostund (talk) 13:11, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

So we're removing the comments then? And who wrote it anyway? 1975 is a landslide but 1943 is just a re-election? Timeshift (talk) 03:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd love to support Sundostund's position, but I've had too many bad experiences trying to manage that content. Admittedly the last editor to go too far on the POV front is now no longer with us (see above if you can be bothered), but such people cause a lot of pain and suffering along the way to those of us trying to keep this a neutral place. Wikipedia doesn't have the right tools to easily, properly and fairly control such content. So yes, kill it. HiLo48 (talk) 03:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Removed. If someone better than I with tables can get the comments area removed too that would be good. Timeshift (talk) 03:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * HiLo48, I completely understand that you (and other good faith editors) had many troubles in the past with people who tried to insert their POV in the comments section. I follow this page closely, so I witnessed myself that kind of behavior on numerous times... But, I still think it was possible to retain the comments section, by conducting a purge and removing all biased, POV stuff. Anyway, I fully respect consensus and I'll not go against it. Timeshift9, I just removed the comments area from the table. With all my experience with tables, it wasn't an easy thing to do, believe me. But, as consensus is to remove the comments, it would be perfectly stupid to leave the comments area as a part of the table. --Sundostund (talk) 21:56, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The problem of the POV pushers goes much deeper than just the content of this article. I'm one of those brave fools who takes on bigots and POV pushers in several areas. It upsets them a lot. They take the issues to AN/I. They do often end up victims of WP:BOOMERANG and, at least temporarily, end up with warnings and blocks. The problem, however, is that it's me who was the subject the the AN/I report, on more than one occasion. This allows similar editors to go again to AN/I, truthfully but misleadingly declaring "HiLo48 has been brought to AN/I before, so he is obviously a bad person". This allows even more POV pushers I've upset in the past to pile on with their own, often fictitious, stories about how evil I am. Administrators are often unwilling to properly research the history and depths of complex situations. Mud sticks. The history of me being taken to AN/I is never expunged. I'm proud of what I achieve against the bigots and POV pushers here, but the system doesn't protect brave fools well. HiLo48 (talk) 22:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry but there was not consensus for this rewrite. One or two said they hate comments. One said they like. For the record I add my 'like'. From memory a previous effort by time shift to delete comments was met with a couple of nays too? It was actuay useful to have this extended point of reference. It is a nonsense to say we don't have the resources to purge the POV pushers - we are wikipedia that's what we do. Maybe the way foreward is to leave the incumbent section blank and fill that in when it's historical and the party hacks have less interest in pre-writing history. Observoz (talk) 23:26, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * As I said before, I think we should keep the comments section and purge it of any biased, POV comment and leave just historically verifiable facts. Don't kill the comments section just because some people wants to misuse it. --Sundostund (talk) 23:51, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Honestly Observoz, stop misrepresenting. I gave it a full month and despite what you claim, only one said they wanted to keep the comments section (but admitted with the others that as it was it was not fit to remain). Three including me said remove. Repeat, I gave it a full month. Then less than 24 hours later you come here and say no consensus and "one or two said they hate comments". Anywho - even deciding what is "historically verifiable" does not assist in determining what is and isn't worthy of being listed. It is a minefield that is inherantly POV due to having to determine what is and isn't POV. We have an area for comments - it's called the PM and PM government articles. Is John Howard and Howard Government really not enough for you? Timeshift (talk) 00:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * For the record, I support the change. I actually agree with Sundostund that it would be a nice thing to have, but the trouble is how on earth you put together a list for each that doesn't violate WP:OR and doesn't exhibit obvious symptoms of WP:RECENT. Comment period for things is usually 7 days, this one had had 34 by my count. Orderinchaos 00:40, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Forget Howard (for once) - we don't actually have articles for every govt yet., which to me makes a sound argument for keeping, no? It's true we'll have to contend with eccentric views from time to time  - timeshift himself was adamant for years that Abbott would never be elected. And before that that we would never have a hung parliament. So good faith assessments can differ. And passionately held ones can be wrong What do others think? Observoz (talk) 00:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Anything placed on Wikipedia has to be reasonably expected to at some time meet Wikipedia policies. It's understandable if something doesn't in a current state, but when something is so poorly defined/constituted that it pretty much never can, then it shouldn't be done. That's the case with this. The lines of explanation can't be checked up against two reliable independent sources, their selectivity (by Wikipedia editors) - i.e. the editorial process by which some things are included and others omitted - can lead to unintentional bias, and there's the tendency to provide major historical events for older ones and every last little thing that made the news for newer ones. Orderinchaos 01:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:PA Observoz. Timeshift (talk) 01:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, people, Timeshift began this thread well over a month ago. How long is he expected to wait? And I still don't trust our processes to keep the bigots and POV pushers under control. They don't work. HiLo48 (talk) 01:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Can we please bring this feature back? It was a great reference point for those looking for a quick summary of Prime Ministerial achievements. I think its removal was a mistake. It also sends a poor message of Australians in general that we cannot list simple facts without getting so partisan a reference tool has to be nuked. (talk) 05:58, 17 OCtober 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.147.4.245 (talk)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2018
Scott Morrison is now the current prime minister of Australia. Please change this. ImTheRealSlayer (talk) 06:51, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * He is not. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:52, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2018
{{subst:trim|1=

! rowspan="2" style="background:{{party color|Liberal Party of Australia}}; color:white;" |30 DeclanLamon (talk) 07:18, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * - style="background:#EEEEEE"
 * rowspan="2" align="center"|Scott Morrison {{small|(1968–)}}
 * rowspan="2"|Scott_Morrison_2014_crop.jpg
 * rowspan="2"|Liberal {{small|(Coalition)}}
 * rowspan="2"|{{small|24 August}} 2018
 * rowspan="2"|Incumbent


 * He is still not PM yet. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 07:20, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

FYI
There is a discussion regarding this article at Talk:Prime Minister of Australia. - wolf 23:47, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:52, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Stanley Bruce - Stoneman.jpg

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Stanley Bruce - Stoneman.jpg

"Retired" vs "resigned"
Can anyone explain the difference between the "retired" and "resigned" listings for a Prime Minister's seat? For example, Julia Gillard is listed as "retired" (though she now has another job) but Kevin Rudd is listed as "resigned". Is the difference leaving at an election as opposed to mid-term? Is there sourcing for the use of these terms? Bookscale (talk) 10:28, 28 January 2020 (UTC)


 * That is the usual meaning for those words in politics. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 10:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The distinction between retired (served out term and did not nominate for next election) and resigned (left parliament mid-term) on Wikipedia is as used by the Parliamentary Handbook of the Commonwealth of Australia. --Canley (talk) 11:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you both. Canley - should we add that source somewhere? Bookscale (talk) 10:38, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

RfC on PM numbering
There is an RfC on numbering of prime ministers, which could affect this article, in Boris Johnson Talk. If you wish to contribute to that discussion, please do so there. Errantius (talk) 09:03, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That RfC has now been closed, with a strong consensus against any numbering. Therefore I would like to remove the numbering from the list here, but I can't see how to do it. Errantius (talk) 21:10, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * However, see this section in Talk at Prime Minister of Australia. Errantius (talk) 22:10, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You need to get a separate consensus. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 00:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 00:55, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. Errantius (talk) 03:13, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

yo do we really need the "ministry" section?
they were the PM... it's redundant. am I missing somethingh? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.200.91 (talk • contribs)
 * Of course it's not redundant; most PMs had more than one ministry, ie. Morrison's First Ministry and his Second Ministry. They're their own articles, which gives the reader further information. —MelbourneStar ☆ talk 10:57, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Many tags on the timeline are wrong
Hello. Hovering the mouse over many of the horizontal bars in the timeline reveals the wrong prime minister. For example, hover your mouse over Gough Whitlam's red bar and the text "William McMahon" is displayed. Hover over John Howard's blue bar and you see Paul Keating. There are many more examples. I tried to edit the page to fix these but I couldn't see any problem with the code. Could someone check these out and fix them? I can't. Thanks! CraigCanberra (talk) 07:30, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The links are applied to the name of the PM, not the bar, so when you hover over one of the bars within a certain threshold, the linked article will still be the one for the name above the bar. Not much can be done about it as it's within the threshold of the link on the name, not an issue of incorrect tagging which can be corrected. --Canley (talk) 09:11, 6 January 2020 (UTC)


 * currently the timeline is broken completely. (see below: ) Irtapil (talk) 13:22, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

timeline is broken
the timeline section is completely broken, so i have removed it and moved it to here. Irtapil (talk) 13:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Timeline
You could have just reverted the vandal who broke it. Why go to all this trouble?&#32;- Sumanuil (talk) 04:19, 26 November 2020 (UTC)