Talk:Parliament of Australia/Archive 1

Misc
According to the picture on this page, the Parliament of Australia meets under 4 pieces of metal that support a flag. Do parliamentarians get wet when it rains? Perhaps a better picture is in order? --Csnewton 19:57, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


 * actually they do meet under that as it is the roof. :P Xtra 07:30, 10 May 2005 (UTC)


 * It's a MAC/PC gamma issue. The building is so dark on the Mac you cannot even tell it's there.  Might be worth finding a brighter photo. --Csnewton 20:51, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

-

Ah, I thought it looked wrong as it was. ;) -- Oliver P. 15:23, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * ... :) Dysprosia 15:31, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Committees
Would anyone be willing to write about the committees of Parliament (select, standing, joint etc)?--cj | talk 13:10, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Territory Senators
I've noticed this elsewhere. There seems to be a furphy in some people's heads that the 4 non-state senators are elected at large to represent all the territories including the external territories. Both of these beliefs are completely untrue. The ACT elects 2 senators, and the NT elects 2 senators. That's it. There is NO senate representation for Norfolk Island, Christmas Island, or any other external territories. JackofOz 12:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * NT and ACT are entitled to 2 senators each. Any other territory that is entitled to at least 2 members of the House of representatives is entitled to a senator per 2 members. Cocos Island and Christmas Island are considered part of NT until they are entitled to representation on their own (Commonwealth Electoral Act, Sections 40(1),(5),(7)). Xtra 12:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * (After edit conflict) Christmas Island and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands are considered part of the Northern Territory for Senate elections (see here), and they are also part of the Division of Lingiari for House elections. The Division of Fraser includes the Jervis Bay Territory, but as far as I am aware people there don't vote in ACT Senate elections. Also, as far as I am aware, Norfolk Island residents aren't represented at all (although people living on the island can be considered residents of a state, and not Norfolk Island). --bainer (talk) 12:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That is about the gist of what I said. Xtra 13:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually Jervis Bay residents do vote in the ACT Senate elections: . And Norfolk Island residents have no separate representation, but can enrol in the division they last lived in, or the division their next of kin is enrolled in, or the division where you were born, or the division where you have the "closest connection" (if you weren't born in a state). If none of those apply, then they can enrol in the Division of Canberra or the Division of Solomon. Enrolment is not compulsory for Norfolk Island residents. (Source is this PDF document from the AEC: .) --bainer (talk) 12:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, Cocos and Christmas residents get represented in the Senate via NT. But let me get this other thing straight.  To qualify for a seat in the HofR, the population of a territory would need to approach the average electorate size of 86,808 (ie. 13,021,230 divided by 150).  Cocos currently has 629 inhabitants, and Christmas has 1,500.  We're talking a population increase of 5,687% (Christmas Island) and and 13,701% (Cocos).  Then, to get their own Senator, they'd need to have a second HofR seat which means doubling that population.  Is this ever going to happen?  In a word, NO.  What a pointless bit of legislation.  JackofOz 14:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Those provisions are more for the ACT and NT at the moment - the legislation provides for at least two MHRs and two Senators for each, but if their population grows big enough (which is plausible) the formula kicks in. --bainer (talk) 01:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It is actually quite a scary clause cause it means that if Australia takes on say New Zealand as an external territory, they would be entitled to 51 senators. :o Xtra 01:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * When the constitution was written it was anticipated New Zealand would likely join, and there are provisions written in specifically. If that were to happen, they would not be considered an external territory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.251.12.62 (talk) 00:57, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I was looking at clauses (4)-(7) of s.40, which are specifically about territories other than the ACT or the NT
 * ''(4) Subject to subsection (5), a Territory (other than the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory) is not entitled to separate representation in the Senate.
 * ''(5) Where 2 or more members of the House of Representatives are to be chosen in a Territory (other than the Australian Capital Territory or the Northern Territory) at a general election, that Territory shall, on and from the day of the general election, be represented in the Senate by one senator for every 2 members of the House of Representatives to be chosen in that Territory.
 * ''(6) Where the number of members of the House of Representatives to be chosen in a Territory (other than the Australian Capital Territory or the Northern Territory) at a general election is an odd number, subsection (5) applies as if the number were reduced by one.
 * (7) Until the Territory of Cocos (Keeling) Islands or the Territory of Christmas Island becomes entitled to separate representation in the Senate under subsection (5), this section has effect as if the Territory of Cocos (Keeling) Islands or the Territory of Christmas Island, as the case may be, were a part of the Northern Territory.

Clause (7) anticipates the possibility of Cocos and Christmas Islands becoming entitled to separate representation in the Senate, which in turn by virtue of clause (5) relies on them becoming entitled to seats in the House of Reps. The only way this could occur is by virtue of a massive increase in their population as I calculated above (no less than a 27-thousand percent increase in the case of Cocos Island). And Norfolk Island has only a slightly larger population than Christmas Island. They certainly weren't thinking about New Zealand, for the very reason that Xtra pointed out. It just seems to be a nonsensical part of the law that will never apply, so what was the point? JackofOz 02:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Senators are not elected on the basis of population - that's why Tasmania and NSW have the same number of Senators. The Constitution says that all original states much have the same number of Senators. But if the NT or the ACT or Cocos Is or the Ashmore and Cartier reefs were to become states, they would have whatever number of Senators the relevant legislation chose to allocate to them. Adam 08:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * But the law I cited above says that the hypothetical Senators from the external territories can only be elected on the basis of population. First, they must have sufficient population to qualify for not one but 2 House of Reps seats, and then and only then would they get one Senator.  This is a hypothetical possibility, but it is never going to happen in reality.  The law applies to these territories only while they remain territories, because different constitutional provisions automatically cut in the moment they ever become states.  JackofOz 11:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

This seems a remarkably stupid piece of legislation. When was it passed? Adam 12:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, ha. Somebody finally sees what I've been on about.  No idea, mate.  JackofOz 12:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

OK. This was inserted by the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Act 1989 (No. 24, 1990). From Stewart West's 2nd reading speech of 22 December 1989:


 * This Bill provides fixed formulae for the representation of Territories in the Federal Parliament. The Joint Standing Committee examined this issue, following concern that it would be possible for a government with a majority in both Houses to increase the representation of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory out of proportion to their populations. The Government has accepted the Committee's conclusion that fixed formulae for the representation of Territories should be prescribed. Accordingly, this Bill provides for the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory to be entitled to be represented by at least one member of the House of Representatives, and that representation thereafter be in proportion to its population. Other Commonwealth Territories will be entitled to separate representation [in the House of Reps] when their population exceeds more than one half of a quota as determined by section 48 of the Electoral Act. The Bill also provides that where the numbers of members of the House of Representatives to be chosen in the Australian Capital Territory or the Northern Territory is six or more, that Territory will be entitled to representation in the Senate on the basis of one senator for every two members of the House of Representatives. However, each will be entitled to a minimum of two senators. Other Commonwealth Territories will be entitled to representation in the Senate on the basis of one senator for every two members of the House of Representatives..

So, it seems it was put in for establishing what rules would apply if an external territory ever reached a certain population, without regard to the extreme unlikelihood of that ever occurring. Rules for the sake of rules. What politicians do best, really. JackofOz 03:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Salaries/allowances?
Does anyone know the remuneration rates for MPs? It'd be great as part of a list. - Htra0497 01:56, 6 Spetember 2006 (AET)

Queen in the Parliament
I dont know that the Parliament contains the Queen, I'm sure it contains the GG and the two houses. The Governor General is mentioned in the Constitution... the Queen has no actual power in the Parliament unless she appoints herself as GG. Can anyone confirm/disagree? --Crazycrazyduck 11:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * See section 1 of the Constitution: the Parliament "shall consist of the Queen, a Senate, and a House of Representatives". --bainer (talk) 12:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the rest of the Constitution makes it clear that in Australia "the Queen" always means "the Governor-General acting as the Queen's representative." Adam 13:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course, and I think the current wording ('parl consists of Queen, HoR and Senate, Queen normally represented by G-G') conveys that sufficiently. That is, officially it's the Queen and the houses, in practice it's the G-G and the houses. --bainer (talk) 13:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

"The Queen is normally represented by the Governor-General." The consitution is a bit vague on this point but section 2 states "A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty's representative in the Commonwealth." Which seems to imply that the Queen must appoint a G-G, but can limit his powers "shall have and may exercise ... such powers and functions of the Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him." See also Section 61, "The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen's representative" (my emphasis) This seems to imply that while executive power is possessed by the Queen it is only exercised by the Governor-General. I would propose changing the above sentance to: "The Queen is represented by an appointed Governor-General, who is assigned executive power by the Queen subject to the Constitution. Davidovic 01:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC) In fact, the Governor-General is not assigned executive power by the Queen. The Constitution does that.  It is not within Her Majesty's power to remove functions from the Governor-General which the Constitution grants to him.  When s. 2 refers to the powers Her Majesty may grant to the Governor-General, it refers to those residual parts of the Royal Prerogative which exist under s. 61 of the COnstitution, not powers which the Constitution already grants to him.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.133.128 (talk) 12:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

What is the Australian Parliament modelled on?
Walrusbeatle has changed this paragraph: "The Parliament of Australia is modelled on the Parliament of the United Kingdom and, to a lesser extent, the Congress of the United States."

To this paragraph: "The House of Representatives is modelled on the Parliament of the United Kingdom, whilst the Senate is modelled on the Congress of the United States."

This is incorrect. The Australian Parliament as a whole, in its structure, function and relationship to the Crown, is modelled on the UK Parliament. The only significant difference is the Senate, made necessary because Australia is a federation and has no peerage, which is modelled in structure, though not in function, on the US Senate.

Even in Walrus were correct in his general assertion, his paragraph should read: "The House of Representatives is modelled on the House of Commons of the United Kingdom, whilst the Senate is modelled on the Senate of the United States." Adam 07:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all, there is need to put me down like that, I'm not wrong, I'm just trying to make the paragraph more defined. Please be more mature!


 * The paragraph reads "The Parliament of Australia is modelled on the Parliament of the United Kingdom and, to a lesser extent, the Congress of the United States."


 * I beleive there needs to be a distinction between The House of Representatives and the Senate.


 * I'm not disputing what the Parliament of Australia is modelled on, so don't make wrong accusations!


 * What I'm trying to clear up is the Australian House of Representatives is modelled on the UK House of Commons, which is the Westminster system, and the Australian Senate is Modelled on the US Senate. The paragraph needs to be re-written to express this point and make it more clear, rather then just say "The Parliament of Australia is modelled on the Parliament of the United Kingdom and, to a lesser extent, the Congress of the United States", as there are two houses in the Australian Parliament.


 * I apologise for not proof reading my edit, I will take care in the future.

Walrusbeatle 07:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Saying someone is wrong is not "putting them down." People say I am wrong about ten times a day, and sometimes I am. Get over it. In this case, however, you are wrong. The "Parliament of Australia" is an entity, and the authors of the Constitution modelled it as closely as they could on the UK Parliament. The only significant difference is that there is a Senate in place of the House of Lords, which in its structure is modelled on the US Senate (equal number of Senators per state). But it does not serve the same function as the US Senate - functionally it is a Westminster-type upper house like the House of Lords. This is explained in paragraph three. Please refrain from the common Wikipedia error of trying to stuff everything into the first paragraph. Adam 14:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You were putting me down, you're edit summary read "why walrus is wrong" (nobody asked a question), and you mentioned my username in an attempt to defame me.


 * I can see you're point though, although I still believe seperating the House of Representatives and the Senate is needed. I will leave the article...........for the time being.


 * By the way, there isn't anything mentioned in the third paragraph about this.


 * It's a shame that there are immature and self absorbed users like you on wikipedia. Telling me to "get over it" just proves my point. Grow up! Wikipedia is a place to have a mature and civil argument, not sound like a little spoilt schoolgirl like yourself. Please refrain from acting like you have in the future.
 * Walrusbeatle 03:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Features of other countries' systems (eg Britain, the United States etc) were taken into account when designing Australia's Parliament. Functionally the Senate is a mix of Westminster system and an American-style system. The Australian Senate is different to the House of Lords (and some other Westminster upper houses), as it has the power to block supply, and to block legislation (and it is a democratically elected house). The United States Senate can block revenue bills (ie. block supply) as well as block other legislation- these are likely influences on the design of the Australian Senate.

At the time when the Australian parliament was designed, the House of Lords still had the ability to block supply (and other legislation). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.49.158.160 (talk) 09:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The Australian parliament was also designed tso hat it could modified to a system that more resembled the American system, if the Australian people were to decide they wanted to go that way. Personally I consider the American system to be a more resilient democratic system (in many cases) than the Westminster system, which has shown its limitations in recent years.

Prime minister's role not otlined.
Did I miss something? I scanned the article for an overview of the Prime minister's role and didn't find it. Maybe I missed it? SauliH 15:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

This is an article about the Parliament, not the Prime Minister. In the context of this article, his role is that he is a Member of Parliament. He performs various roles as a Minister, but they don't really belong in this article. Adam 07:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Term of Office
Am I completely blind or does this article fail to mention what the standard term is for a parliament? The dates would seem to indicate a three-year maximum, but I don't see this stated anywhere. 74.234.19.73 18:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, there is no such thing as a standard term for the "Parliament". The parliament consists of 2 houses (and, technically, the monarch as well).  The House of Representatives has a maximum term of 3 years (although the way this is worked out is not as simple as 3 years from the date of the last election); the majority of parliaments have not lasted the 3 years.  The Senate theoretically has an indefinite term.   The only time it ceases to function is when there's a double dissolution, and there have only been 6 of them in 106 years, the last one being in 1987.  So it's not as simple as what you suggest.  Cheers.  --  JackofOz 05:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

This is when parliaments get feisty.24.166.7.9 (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)I am apalled by what is writen on this page24.166.7.9 (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Stages of a bill
A section like this (click) would be a great addition to this article. Where would I find out about the different stages a bill goes through in the Australian parliament? --Surturz (talk) 03:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

anon attack
How noteable is the Anon DDoS attack on the Parliament website?--Senor Freebie (talk) 23:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Not noteable enough for this article. Timeshift (talk) 23:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Up to date Table
Hello.

I made a table, I think it looks a lot tidier than the numbers currently on the page. Not sure if or where I should add it, but here it is should anyone find a use for it. I was inspired to do it after seeing how neat and tidy Parliament of Sweden looks, but I am too new at Wikipedia to try and change anything drastically, well without it looking like a train wreck so I will just leave it here in case someone wants to use it, if you do or you want to edit it, could you just let me know? I would be interested to see if anyone can find a use for it.

Ts9lk (talk) 18:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Seeking Advice for an edit
Today, I decide to add colours and make a distinction between Opposition and Government as this is how most Parliamentary pages appear to work (see: Hellenic Parliament Parliament of Sweden United States Congress Parliament of Germany Parliament of Hungary etc ) but I don't know whether I should add this or not, I would really appreciate some input from a more experienced Wikipedian.

| political_groups1 = Government The Opposition | political_groups2 =
 * Labor 72
 * Greens 1
 * Independent 3
 * Coalition 72
 * Nationals WA 1
 * Independent 1
 * Labor 32
 * Liberal 32
 * Greens 5
 * National 4
 * Country Liberal 1
 * Family First 1
 * Independent 1

Thanks Ts9lk (talk) 09:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Since the hung election in 2010, it has not been possible to say that members other than Labor or Coalition members are in government or in opposition. The Labor government has remained in office only by continually negotiating sufficient support from other members. Only one vote has to change, for the government to fall, and the distribution that you note could change at any time, especially among the Independents. The alternative of identifying "government", "opposition" and "other" would not help a lot, I think, since the "others" are diverse among themselves - some would say, they are more different among themselves than the government is from the opposition. So, mate, I'd leave things as they are. --Wikiain (talk) 02:57, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

"federalist senate of the United States Congress"
This desperately needs to be reworded.

The Australian Senate does share its basic make-up with the US Senate, each having an equal number of representatives for each state. However, in other respects they are substantially different. Whereas the US Senate has special powers over treaties and the appointment of judges, ambassadors, etc., the Australian Senate is fundamentally just a relatively strong incarnation of a Westminster-style upper house.

Even when considering the basis of representation in the Senate, one must be much more careful in suggesting that Australia's Senate copies that of the United States. At the time of Australian Federation, US Senators were appointed by the States. Australia, by contrast, has always had Senators directly elected by the peoples of the States. (Copying the US model of appointment was suggested by Andrew Inglis Clark in the draft he brought to the 1891 Convention and it was adopted in essence as part of the 1891 draft. This, however, did not survive the reworking of drafts of the Convention of 1897-8, where the more directly democratic method was adopted.) It was only after Australian Federation that the US amended its constitution to have Senators directly elected.

Thus, whilst it cannot be denied that in some respects the Australian Senate was modelled on that of the US, it is absolutely wrong to suggest that a key element of the Australian Parliament is a 'federalist senate of the United States Congress.'

--24.114.252.230 (talk) 02:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

How about 'federalist senate influenced by that of the United States Congress'? Saruman-the-white (talk) 05:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

That could be okay.

Alternatively you could simply say 'a senate in which all states are equally represented.' (Although, of course, under the Australian constitution there are no guarantees that any new states would enjoy equal representation with the original states - another important difference from the US Senate. However, this could be clarified later in the article.)

A larger alteration would also be possible by replacing the whole sentence with something along these lines 'It is bicameral, combining a lower house constituted on a system of representation by population and an upper house in which all original states are equally represented. As a Parliament in the Westminster tradition, there is a system of responsible government in which ministers are drawn from and responsible to the Parliament.'

24.114.252.230 (talk) 13:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

"world's sixth oldest continuous democracy"
The "democracy", I would think, is the country itself, Australia - the federal parliament being the principal instrument of the Australian democratic system. However, the claim of "sixth oldest" still needs to be verified. And it should be noted that there was democracy in the Australian colonies, long before Federation. --Wikiain (talk) 22:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Bryce's term start date
Quentin Bryce's term commencement date is correctly coded as 5 September 2008 but it comes out in the infobox as 21 August 2010. What's going on there? --  Jack of Oz   [Talk]  09:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Both her election date and that of the Houses were coded "election2": fixed by changing latter to "election5".  Possibly incorrect style, but it works. --Wikiain (talk) 03:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Current seat image needs updating + HoR should come before Senate in infobox.
Per title. Timeshift (talk) 08:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The ordering of Senate and HoR seems implicitly to follow the outdated yet still entirely current idiom of referring to "upper" and "lower" houses. It seems to be standard in WP - compare Parliament of Canada and United States Congress, although Parliament of New South Wales is the other way.  I think it's a matter of what likely readers would expect, so I'd let this sleeping pup lie.  Wikiain (talk) 11:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Likely readers would expect HoR before Senate. And all state parliaments in Australia have lower house first. Timeshift (talk) 03:35, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You are correct about the states apart from Queensland which has only one house. I'm not fussed either way. Wikiain (talk) 18:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I've fixed it. Timeshift (talk) 00:47, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * , Sorry for bringing this up again but I think we should follow the international Westminster standard on all Australian Parliaments.Superegz (talk) 12:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The Australian federal bicameral structure follows the US, not the UK. The article United States Congress has the order both ways around, Senate/HoR and then HoR/Senate, as does US Constitution art 1.  The Australian Constitution has only Senate/HoR.  However, the order of mention is surely less important than the powers, and what both the US and the Australian constitutions say about money bills makes it plain that the HoR is the senior partner.  In addition, Australian constitutional convention follows Westminster in providing a fused executive that is predominantly in and responsible to the HoR.  So I'm content with Parliament of Australia having the order both ways around as with United States Congress. Wikiain (talk) 20:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 02:18, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Parliament of 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rn/1997-98/98rn42.htm
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5o8rxA8US to http://www.comlaw.gov.au/comlaw/comlaw.nsf/440c19285821b109ca256f3a001d59b7/57dea3835d797364ca256f9d0078c087/$FILE/ConstitutionAct.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Should article not discuss the role of the Governor General?
While the content includes a link to the GG article, this article should at least briefly mention his role.

A useful source: (Not all of this should be included, but a condensed paraphrased section would be useful.) http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/House_of_Representatives/Powers_practice_and_procedure/00_-_Infosheets/Infosheet_20_-_The_Australian_system_of_government

THE AUSTRALIAN SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT

The role of the Governor-General

The Governor-General performs the ceremonial functions of head of state on behalf of the Queen. While Executive Government powers are exercised by the Governor-General or in his or her name, such actions are carried out as advised by the Prime Minister and Ministers.

Under the Constitution the Governor-General: Appoints and dismisses Executive Councillors Appoints and dismisses Ministers to administer the public service departments and agencies Appoints judges (the dismissal of judges can only be initiated by the Parliament) Is the commander in chief of the defence forces Decides when the Parliament meets (subject to some constitutional requirements), and may prorogue (suspend) or dissolve it Issues writs for general elections Initiates government expenditure by recommending appropriations to the Parliament Converts proposed laws to Acts of Parliament by assenting to legislation that has been passed by both Houses May block or propose amendments to any law passed by the two Houses of Parliament

The Governor-General also has executive powers under many Acts of Parliament—for example, the power to proclaim legislation (that is, bring it into effect) and to make regulations and other kinds of delegated legislation (that is, legislative powers that the Parliament has delegated to the Executive Government). Most of the executive actions taken by the Governor-General are of this kind.

In practice, except when reserve powers are involved—see below—these functions are exercised as advised by the Prime Minister and Ministers.

The Governor-General’s reserve powers

In some matters the Constitution gives the Governor-General powers to act independently. These include the power to dissolve the House of Representatives and, in certain situations, both Houses (see Infosheet No. 18 ‘Double dissolution’). However, in other than exceptional circumstances, the Governor-General will follow the advice of a Prime Minister who retains the confidence of the House. The powers that the Governor-General has to act without advice are referred to as ‘prerogative’ or ‘reserve’ powers and are not clearly defined in the Constitution. Constitutional experts do not agree on their precise extent or on the nature of the exceptional circumstances in which they may be exercised. Peter K Burian (talk) 16:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * above is too much text, that's why Wikipedia relies on linking to other specific articles. LibStar (talk) 02:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Greens or Green
,, ,

Lets debate and vote on this once and for all. Should it be Greens or Green in the info boxes?

I vote for greens. It is the current practice throughout the Australian Wikipedia pages, state and territory Parliament pages, within the text of articles ect, ect. Not only would such a change be pointless and time consuming it is inconsistent with the party name the "Australian Greens" and how it is most often called in Australian media and public discourse. Superegz (talk) 23:52, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Support "Greens". Wikiain (talk) 01:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Support "Greens". it's what they use on their own official website. http://greens.org.au/mps LibStar (talk) 01:59, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Support "Greens" obviously. I would extend this to use beyond the infobox across Wikipedia, and would be quite prepared to make that case should it be required. Frickeg (talk) 10:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Support "Greens". In the discussion on 's talk page, there are four examples cited of The Greens themselves using "Green Senator". They are the only four that show up using the search functionality on The Greens website.  In comparison, there are 902 instances where they use "Greens Senator".  Alaric004 (talk) 03:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * after a week, a clear consensus is emerging here, it's pretty obvious Timeshift is trying to do things unilaterally. LibStar (talk) 03:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks to me like there is a consensus for 'Greens'. Wikiain (talk) 07:24, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Parliament of 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/20160905222537/http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseResultsMenu-20499.htm to http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseResultsMenu-20499.htm

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) 13:18, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

History
It is odd that the "History" section is mainly the history of Parliament House.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

COV-19
Should we have something on the operation of Parliament in this time?--Jack Upland (talk) 05:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)