Talk:Table of precedence for the Commonwealth of Australia

Chief Minister of the ACT?

Why was the Chif Min of the ACT left off? Is it because he has upset the PM on a few occasions recently? Or should he go somewhere between 17 and 19? -- Adz 08:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I came here to ask exactly the same question, and found it already here, unanswered. Anybody know where Jon Stanhope belongs?? JackofOz 00:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Ditto from me. My only guess is that the order of precedence hasn’t been updated since the ACT gained self-government in 1988? I note the New Zealand order of precedence article contains the comment:

13. “Mayors of cities and boroughs and chairmen of counties while in their own districts.” In 1989, boroughs and counties were amalgamated into district councils. District mayors, and the Chatham Islands mayor could expect to be accorded this same precedence.

so if that’s up-to-date, then obviously these things aren’t updated as often as they perhaps should be... I would guess Jon Stanhope has the same precedence as the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory.

The date of the source (1982) is before the ACT had self government, so I think we could assume that the Chief Minister of the ACT would have the same precedence as their NT counterpart, but it would be good to see an updated source. If anyone knows of one, please don't hold your silence. -Qsjet

My other question concerns Mayors and Lord Mayors. Do non-lord Mayors receive no position in this, even in their own city/shire? The article on Lord Mayors also mentions that three other NSW cities have Lord Mayors: Newcastle, Paramatta and Wollongong, and this article says ‘Lord Mayors of Cities in order of city populations’, not ‘capital cities’, but doesn’t list the Lord Mayors of those three cities. Do they have any precedence, within or out of their city?

—Felix the Cassowary 08:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

-Robauz (talk) 01:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC) I would think the Chief Minister of the ACT would have precedence over the Chief Minister of the Nothern Territory, as the ACT has a higher population than the NT and the order of preceedence is by population of the state.

Selective deletion

I am about to delete from the article history those revisions whose content and/or edit summaries libel Xtra, per Wikipedia's libel policy. Selective deletion requires full deletion followed by selective restoration. Therefore this article will be deleted for a very brief period of time. Snottygobble 02:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Complete. Snottygobble 02:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Lord Mayors of capital cities in order of population

If this was the basis of their order, then Brisbane, with a population of 800,000 would surely rank first ? All other Lord Mayors preside over relatively small municipalities ? 136.153.2.2 07:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Ranked by the greater urban area. Xtra 07:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Order of the governors

The order of the governors looks wrong to me — is it really in order of appointment? Ondewelle (talk) 15:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe so. In the early 2000s, Tasmanian Governor Guy Green was stand in as Governor General. He wouldn't have achieved this if it was in order of population or similar. -- Chuq (talk) 12:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

- Yes, it is the order of appointment. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor-General —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.22.237.33 (talk) 00:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Trivia

I didn't think it was appropriate to add this to the actual page, but interesting to note that the highest ranked male in the list is #4. -- Chuq (talk) 12:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Needs correction

It is actually called the Table of Precedence for the Commonwealth of Australia. The most recent version was gazetted in Commonwealth of Australia Gazette No. S 206 dated Tuesday, 5 October 1982 (see scan). It is worth noting that each State and Territory has its own Table of Precedence. 203.7.140.3 (talk) 04:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

"in order of leaving office"

How do the rules handle anyone who comes back into the same office later on? Do they go to the bottom of the list or do they regain their old position? For instance after 1966 did Robert Menzies rank above or below Fadden and Forde in the former PM section? Timrollpickering (talk) 22:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Just a guess, but I'd say it's interpreted as "in order of last leaving office". That is, a former PM ceases to be a former PM if he regains the premiership. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Replying to this 5 year old section - @JackofOz: @Timrollpickering: - Does this mean the order of Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard on this list is incorrect? -- Chuq (talk) 11:53, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Privy Counsellors

Appeals from Australian courts to the Privy Council were ended in 1986. So shouldn't Privy Councillors be removed from the table?--Gazzster (talk) 20:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Appeals were to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which operates independently of the Privy Council as such. Those listed in the Table are members of the PC as a whole, so no change is needed here. Errantios (talk) 13:44, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Secretaries of Departments and VCDF

I have restored the information regarding Secretaries of APS Departments and their peers and the information that it is date of first appointment to this group that is relevant per CAG S206/1982. Consequently, the list of incumbents will need to be expanded to include the Secretaries - I don't have time right now. I have added a citation required tag for VCDF as the appointment didn't exist in 1982. It makes sense for VCDF to be included, but this needs to be referenced. It also begs the question of whether the other 3 Star/SES Band 3 members of the Department of Defence should be included here - again this would need to have a suitable reference. What is patently clear from other discussions on this page is that after 28 years, a revised Table of Precedence needs to be issued. AusTerrapin (talk) 21:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Table of precedence for Australia is original research

Wikipedia does not present original research. This article is original research in that it updates a document that itself has not been updated since 1982. Foreign Affairs may continue to use the 1982 document but that document is out of date. It might have been the Table of precedence for the Commonwealth of Australia in 1982 but it is now the Wikipedia Table of precedence for Australia as updated by Wikipedia editors. Anthony Staunton (talk) 13:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Is there a current version? We have no sources for putting HM at the top apart from how various Wikipedia editors personally feel about the matter. Giv en that this page is likely to be used by those planning events we really should have our ducks in a row, rather than whatever we think is a fair thing according to whatever consensus we have on the day. If we can't find a reliable source, we should scrap this or retitle it more appropriately. Order of Precedence when Fraser was King, perhaps? --Pete (talk) 23:30, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Australia's still a commonwealth realm. GoodDay (talk) 23:35, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Royal Family

There isn't a section for the Royal Family, aside from the Queen, who's separate. For example on Will and Kate's tour, do they take precedence over the Governor-General, after the Governor-General, not rank at all? Anyone know? 74.69.9.224 (talk) 01:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The published Table of Precedence http://dfat.gov.au/about-us/publications/corporate/protocol-guidelines/Pages/appendix-22-commonwealth-table-of-precedence.aspx does not actually include the Monarch. Neither does the 1982 list used as the principal reference by this article. But as members of the royal family are usually sent on state visits to represent Her Majesty, it would be reasonable to suggest that they take precedence before the Governor-general.Gazzster (talk) 02:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree, if the Royal Family member is performing official duties on behalf of the monarch, they would likely take precedence over the Governor-General in situations and occasions where they were performing those duties (the table does state that people acting "on behalf of any of the foregoing shall enjoy the precedence of the person"). --Canley (talk) 02:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I know that in Canada, the Royal Family members other than the Queen rank after the Governor-General, on the theory that as the G.G. represents the monarch, they precede other members of the Family, just as the Queen would. 74.69.9.224 (talk) 02:48, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes! That's a good point too. The GG already represents the Queen, doesn't he?Gazzster (talk) 03:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Does the monarch belong?

An editor is challenging whether or not the Australian monarch belongs on this page. GoodDay (talk) 06:14, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

@Canley: I'm interested in your view on this. GoodDay (talk) 06:21, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

@Errantios: I believe you can help me with this question, too. GoodDay (talk) 06:48, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion, no. The Monarch of Australia is not on the table in the 1982 Commonwealth Gazette, and House of Representatives Practice confirms that: "The Prime Minister is placed third in the Commonwealth of Australia Table of Precedence, immediately after the Governor-General and State Governors. Looks like the Queen was added to the article in 2004 with no reference, and never removed (but sometimes questioned). --Canley (talk) 10:20, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Unusual, when compared to the other Commonwealth realms. Also, one would've thought the Prime Minister would be ranked above the Governors. You know, federal before states. GoodDay (talk) 13:57, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, interesting, that looks like how the Canadians do it (Lieutenant-Governors after parliamentary officeholders), so clearly there are some differences in various realms. I note the Sovereign does not actually appear on this list, but the note on the Governor-General does say "The Governor-General, under all circumstances, should be accorded precedence immediately after the Sovereign." --Canley (talk) 23:34, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Remove the Canadian monarch from Canadian order of precedence? Oh my, there's a Canadian monarchist (@Miesianiacal:), who I believe would protest. GoodDay (talk) 03:54, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I'd say that the issue is: what is the practice?

To begin with, is there an official statement of the practice to be followed? There is only one, a Table that is 40 years old and obviously out of date. But it is not for WP to revise it.

It is for WP, however, to then note ways in which the practice may have departed from the Table, as to:

• Respects in which the Table is out of date—for example, ACT self-government.
• Respects in which the Table is, one can assume deliberately, incomplete—that is, as to the monarch of Australia and other members of the royal family. When they have been present in Australia, what has been done? My recollection is that the monarch herself has always been placed first—which, in a State, seems to follow from or accord with Australia Act section 7(4)—and other members of her family have been treated as if they were her—although section 7(4) does not apply to them. My recollection is also that, when they have been present, the Governor-General, Governor or Administrator has also been present and playing second fiddle. (I think that once in Canada there was a livid GG who had been excluded, on the argument that HM could not be both present and represented.) Or has the second fiddle, at the same time the conductor, been the Prime Minister, Premier or Chief Minister?

If the Table and the practice don't add up coherently, that's just how it is.

Hope this may help. Errantios (talk) 00:03, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. It's the sourcing I'm concerned about. Unless there's some prorocol document floating around with an updated version, the official OoP for the Commonwealth excludes the monarch and someone has just snuck her in without a source. My guess is that the Queen has often visited with other members of her family and where do you slot in the junior members? They keep changing, the order of succession alters every so often - quite a lot since 1982 - and it would be a headache for staff to work things out.

GoodDay, you're watching this with an odd fascination. What does Canada do? Spell it out down to the last princeling?

My preference would be to remove the Queen for two reasons:

1. She isn't sourced, so without some official clarification it's OR, and
2. She's not likely to ever visit Australia again, given the increasingly fragile nature of her health and the ongoing pandemic

Once she leaves the room, King Charles III will become monarch, and it may be that Australia either does not agree, or commences a referendum to remove the monarchy completely, and unless the republicans screw themselves in the foot agaim, it's likely a referendum would pass and whoever mans the protocol department would have to draw up a new list with new titles and so on. Let's face it, it's forty years old and needs a revision. Anyway, we can revisit the matter than. --Pete (talk) 01:01, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I believe we should keep the monarch there, until the Australian monarchy is abolished. When that referendum happens, I sincerely hope the republicans win out. Until then, Australia is still a constitutional monarchy. One of many (15) Commonwealth realms. GoodDay (talk) 01:30, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I would also note that the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet specifically noted that this Wikipedia article "does not accurately reflect the Commonwealth Table of Precedence gazetted on 5 October 1982" in Budget Estimates in 2014 (unfortunately they didn't say how, but the Monarch seems to be the obvious difference—although there was also the ministerial order of precedence (has been removed as too difficult to maintain) mentioned which PMC indicates is not public information. --Canley (talk) 23:17, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Concerning the Commonwealth realms, it's an interesting concept overall. As the monarch of a country, one would assume the monarch would be ranked above his/her representative. There's no question that the UK monarch belongs at the top of the UK precedence table, as the UK monarch resides in the UK. However in the other aforementioned realms, the Canadian monarch doesn't reside in Canada, the Australian monarch doesn't reside in Australia, the New Zealand monarch doesn't reside in New Zealand, etc etc. Those countries' monarchs 'reside' in the UK, so would that have any bearing on whether they should be listed in non-UK commonwealth realm precedence tables. GoodDay (talk) 16:57, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Executive Councils of states/territories

I noticed a few inconsistencies with the links to Executive Councils of states/territories. NSW linked to the article about the executive council, but the others linked directly to specific ministries, almost all of which were out of date. On looking at Executive council (Commonwealth countries), some states don't have articles at all. Do others have a preference? -- Chuq (talk) 00:14, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Why does the Wikipedia OoP differ from the official OoP?

Looking at our ranking versus the Commonwealth's here, it looks like we have several differences which seem to have been plucked out of thin air. --Pete (talk) 23:34, 14 August 2023 (UTC) The most obvious one is the monarch in first place. I have restored the "Citation needed" template here. I notice that this had been here for some time previously, until removed by User:Nford24 without actually providing a source, nor any discussion here. --Pete (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Pete That's not true now is it. It had only been there since 11 September 2022 because it "Doesn't refer to Charles" as it refereed to Queen Elizabeth II in that position, on 3 October 2022 I removed the CN tag because that was the accession day in Australia and was inline with the actual long standing reference. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 21:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

The CN tag has been removed and the relavent reference has been restored.

It should also be noted that the official government position on the OOP shows just how different the wikipeia version is, it also referees to all spouses, which we don't. "The Commonwealth table of precedence provides the necessary information to allow seatings and introductions to be made in the correct order. Tables of precedence differ between the Commonwealth and the various states. South Australia and Western Australia do not issue tables of precedence - the Commonwealth table should be used as a guide. When a person is acting in any of the positions listed, he/she enjoys the same precedence but appears behind anyone at that level attending in their own right. Married couples enjoy the precedence of the spouse with the higher precedence." Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 21:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, but we still need a source. The reference you give does not go to the Commonwealth OoP. Has there been another gazetted since 2022? It seems as if you are using WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR to insert something that isn't actually sourced. We need WP:RS --Pete (talk) 06:14, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm glad that you agreed with my corrections to your profound suggestion. The source provided is essentially an updated source to the original used on the article which has been updated from QE2 to C3R, to which specially states the monarch is the HoS with the GG as the designated representative and goes further, though its never been in doubt that the PM is the HoG and likewise the same position with the state governors and premiers.

I feel like you're arguing over semantics, I'd hardly call DFAT an unreliable source, and in section 1.1 they clearly clarify both the position and relation between the Monarch as the HoS and the GG as the representative. The (1) could be swapped for a dot point with an attached clarifying note, which is very similar to what is currently on the same articles for Canada and New Zealand. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 21:12, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm talking about the Order of Precedence. We have one source - this one - as gazetted in Commonwealth Gazette C2022G00834 on Thursday 1 September 2022. A week before the death of Her Late Majesty, oddly enough.

If you check it, you will note that the monarch does not appear first (or at all). Yet you insist that you have found a source justifying your insertion. I suggest that you do not have a source. You are using a confected argument to have Wikipedia state something that no reliable source has said.

I bring our no original research core content policy to your attention. This states:

Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support the material being presented.

His Majesty's a pretty nice guy but he does not appear on the Australian Order of Precedence, despite your personal opinion that he should. --Pete (talk) 21:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I gave you an out by saying it can be removed from the numbering in the list, but left in position with a dot point and and a clarifying note along with the reference I added that you've since removed, something I feel would be accepted by most editors. It's presence in the article is long standing and there was no Conesus to remove it in the previous conversation about it. I'd argue that the source I added is reliable and the same as was previously there undisputed, and listing the monarch in it's present position is inline with similar articles, in either its present form or the dot point form I suggested. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 23:02, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not averse to a note - if a source can be found. I'm not sure you understand the requirement for sourcing. We can't just make stuff up. This is, after all, the official gazetted order of precedence, not whatever we personally think it should be. --Pete (talk) 23:06, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Best of luck getting a consensus then. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 23:11, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

FWIW @Nford24:. I'd recommend you open a RFC on this topic. GoodDay (talk) 23:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

GoodDay I'm washing my hands of this article, the conduct of this talk page is just not it.

Something along these lines is what I was suggesting that would work and most if not all editors would agree with. I'll leave it with those who seemingly know best to do with it what they want.

• The King of Australia: His Majesty King Charles III

The following is the Australian Table of Precedence.

1. The Governor-General of Australia: His Excellency General the Honourable David Hurley AC, DSC, FTSE

Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 23:48, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

The Australian noticeboard has been notified of this discussion. So, there'll be more input coming. Hopefully. GoodDay (talk) 00:00, 17 August 2023 (UTC

(EC) I think that any visiting members of the royal family should be covered by an appropriately-sourced note. What happens if (say) Prince Harry turns up to open something? I've initiated a discussion here for a wider set of editors than the regulars on this page. --Pete (talk) 00:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

References