Talk:Australian House of Representatives

New colours

Key

	#ff0000	Labor
	#0000ff	Liberal
	#3cb371	National
	#f5f5f5	Independent
	#ffd700	Democrat
	#10c25b	Green
	#ff69b4	Family First
	#daa520	One Nation

House of Reps

Australian House of Representatives, 2004-2007

↓

Senate

Australian Senate, 2005-2008

↓

Australian Senate, 2002-2005

↓

Old colours

House of Reps

Table 1

Australian House of Representatives, 2004-2007 ↓

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

Table 2

Australian House of Representatives, 2004-2007 ↓

Table 2.1

Australian House of Representatives, 2004-2007

↓

Table 3

Australian House of Representatives, 2004-2007 ↓

Senate

Table 1

Australian Senate, 2005-2008

Australian Senate, 2002-2005

Representative

Just out of curiousity why aren't members of the Australian House of Representatives referred to as Representative just like their US counterparts. For example why isn't John Howard referred to as Representative John Howard.--The Shadow Treasurer 02:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Please don't top post; the correct talk page etiquette on Wikipedia is start new sections beneath existing ones, in chronological sequence. A probable answer to your question is that we already have a perfectly suitable reference for our parliamentarians, namely MP – inherited from the Westminster system on which the House was modelled.--cj | talk 02:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if the top post was annoying--The Shadow Treasurer 04:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC).--

Main Committee unique?

I've deleted the reference to the Main Committee being a 'unique development in the Australian House', as I believe that the British House of Commons now uses Westminster Hall in a fairly similar fashion (that is, as a committee of the whole which meets in a separate location at the same time as the main house). I can't find a full description of how Westminster Hall works on the UK Parliament site, but the basics are confirmed here. I'd like to have more details on the link between the Main Committee and the establishment of Westminster Hall before changing the section regarding that. -Nasica (talk) 08:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Notable people being invited to be seated on the floor of the House

After he won the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1973, Patrick White "was invited by the House of Representatives to be seated on the floor of the House in recognition of his achievement. White declined, explaining that his nature could not easily adapt itself to such a situation. The last time such an invitation had been extended was in 1928, to Bert Hinkler.

The source is Gavin Souter: Acts of Parliament, p. 516.

I'd like to make some reference to this occasional practice. Is there a list of all such invitees, and dates? -- JackofOz (talk) 22:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed name change

To House of Representatives of Australia, as most governmental bodies have an article title in this manner.--RM (Be my friend) 05:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Support: Oppose:

Dot composition image fix needed

I noticed that the image in the infobox had 73 Labor dots including speaker. This obviously misrepresents the current composition. The uploader's account appears to have been used once only and i'm unable to locate an active talkpage for them. I took the 150px reduction image and did a quick fix on the dots, and i'm not sure if the temporary corrected layout is the best, it is inferior but it is a factual fix until someone can fix it properly. Timeshift (talk) 03:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

If anyone does make a new version of this, the colours for the Greens, Katter and the CLP could use some differentiation from the Nationals, Labor and the Liberals respectively. Frickeg (talk) 06:17, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. But can I ask, if people have issues with either colour or parliamentary catagorisation of political affiliation, that they either discuss it here, or fix the image/infobox? Taking down the image does nobody, especially the article, any good. I've spent a little bit of time fixing up the infoboxes of both houses and for the whole Parliament. Timeshift (talk) 08:05, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Katter's dot also needs to be changed back to independent. The Australian Party is not registered, indeed it was refused registration by the AEC and is not recognised by the parliament. He still sits as an independent. All parliamentary material still refers to him as an independent. Jmount (talk) 16:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Whoops... I'm sure I double checked the number of dots - must have forgotten about the speaker when I added them up. I've tried editing the SVG to fix these concerns - . While I was initially trying to keep to the 'registered' colours, the only way I can think of disambiguating the Greens and Nationals, etc, is by using their secondary colours. In this case, the National's Gold from their logo, the Brownish-orange from the Country Liberals logo and nudging Katter back to a grey dot. As for the LNP, I think it's the best we can do. I resampled the LNP website for appropriate colours, but only got ones that were an even closer blue. --GoForMoe (talk) 11:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I've also tried a Senate version at --GoForMoe (talk) 16:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks better than the temps at Parliament of Australia... a couple of small niggles though... can we get a better differentiation for the WA Nat? A darker/lighter hue? Also, the removal of the Labor dot on the far right, the Liberal opposite doesn't have one, at a quick glance it looks like they have an equal number... can the placement be improved at all? And I just realised that I didn't notice the difference in the number of Labor/Coalition Senator dots lol... Timeshift (talk) 21:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The graphs in general are a bit more difficult than they need be, there's some tools to make them, but they focus on the European style semi-circle parliament layout, which isn't really in line with an Australian article. The difficulty with the senate one was trying to make a defined cross bench - all the other tries I did made it look too much like a Labor-Green coalition in the senate. I'm not sure about needing to differentiate the WA Nats by colour, they still claim to be the same federal party with one Nationals party room. Not sure what you mean about the far right Labor dot. --GoForMoe (talk) 05:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

On the right hand side, the Coalition ends with two dots, Labor only one dot, and it's a little hard to spot... Timeshift (talk) 09:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

That's because Labor's second dot is the speaker --GoForMoe (talk) 19:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I realise that, there's just something about the one less dot being hard to notice... Timeshift (talk) 23:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Now that Katter's Australian Party is registered with the AEC, can we get a second image uploaded with a Katter-specific dot? The reason i'd like a second one is that the first one should remain as is for Australian federal election, 2010. Timeshift (talk) 06:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. Also, I'm not sure I'm entirely happy with using different colours for the Nationals and the CLP - it's confusing and contrary to what we do everywhere else. Can we not use different shades of green and blue? In shading the candidate tables I used a darker green for the Nats and a kind of fluoro for the Greens; the CLP have generally been given a deeper shade of blue than the Libs. The LNP looks fine. Also - not sure if this is possible - but could the diagram be tweaked to make it clear how many seats are required for a majority? It would be helpful if one could draw a line across the middle and say "that's the votes you need to win a motion", if you get what I mean. Frickeg (talk) 00:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

There isn't much consistency across the site for colour usage, mostly it is just blue = coalition, occasionally breaking that into dark green for the Nationals. I'm certainly not a fan of using the colours I did use in the end, but considering we have two different sets of parties doubling up on official colours (Labor/KAP and Greens/Nats), there's little you can do to differentiate. I thought the Greens green and Nationals green in the original image were fairly clear. Most of the other problems are because of wanting to use a Westminster style chamber graphic, the European ones use semi-circles, allowing for a simple line of majority down the middle - but equally not demonstrating much of the make up of the parliament like the opposition, government and crossbench that this image displays. I don't know how to solve both those issues at once. I really suggest someone goes over to the relevant wikiproject and comes up with consistent hex codes for party colours and implements them across all the Aus politics articles, and chamber images. I'm happy to do the SVG editing once consensus is made, but it probably wastes everyone's time to fuddle about and change it without getting a solution to the problem of how we represent each party on graphics like this, and what design to use for them. --GoForMoe (talk) 00:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

New update required

Labor and the coalition being at 71 seats with 8 crossbenchers, the image requires updating. The problem is, Thomson's membership with the ALP is suspended but will sit on the crossbenches as an independent MP, while Slipper no longer has LNP membership, is an independent, and also remains speaker with Labor's Anna Burke remaining deputy speaker but acting speaker. How should it be done? Timeshift (talk) 03:23, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Slipper can't enter parliament without taking up the speakership, which means he still on paper controls the speakership. The only suggestion I have for demonstrating that would be to put two blocks in the speaker slot. As for Thompson, with his pledge to support the Government's agenda fully and not vote as an independent, I'd think making his dot grey but showing him as if in Coalition with Labor would best demonstrate his quite different position in Parliament. Two ideas for representation [1][2]--GoForMoe (talk) 09:04, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Definately Australian_House_of_Reps_April_2012_Rect.svg... Slipper on paper remains the speaker, so until the day he is no longer the speaker, he should remain as a grey speaker dot. Anna Burke remains deputy speaker. As for Thompson, he's on the crossbench, that appears to have been the only qualification used so far. I'll use that... thanks! One thing though... any reason the 72nd dot for each party aren't both on the inner or the outer? Timeshift (talk) 08:40, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Just a quirk with the auto-align function I was using in Inkscape. I've moved the last Nat manually to line things up. I've also tried to align the crossbench to vaguely indicate the confidence/supply agreement. --GoForMoe (talk) 11:01, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

71 Labor, 71 Coalition, 5 independent, 1 Green, 1 KAP, 1 WA Nat.

I'm not quite sure why some editors had changed independents to three and Labor to 70, but i've correctly changed it back. Feel free to comment why you believe this may be wrong. Timeshift (talk) 08:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

WA Nat colour

The WA Nat colour is minimally different from the Nationals' colour right now. You'd need to be Carson Kressley to spot the difference. Any objection to giving WA Nat a more distinct hue? Ordinary Person (talk) 09:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I've agreed with this for a long time. Timeshift (talk) 09:04, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

And I suppose now he is caucusing with the Coalition it is probably irrelevant ... Ordinary Person (talk) 10:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Tony Crook joins the Coalition

WA Nats are now a part of the Coalition. See here: [3] Jmount (talk) 08:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The chamber graphic needs to be edited to include WA Nats with the rest of the Nats. WA Nats should no longer be treated as a distinct entity (except in reference to the last election) 175.39.17.144 (talk) 09:16, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

You'll have to gain WP:CONSENSUS for that. Timeshift (talk) 10:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

What? Are you saying that Crook is not part of the Nats? He is now, that's just a factual change i've made. (WP:Bold)There's no reason the WA Nats should be now separate. Otherwise you'd break it down to state divisions of all parties. Why is the NSW Nats not separate? Why not the Vic ALP? Why isn't it broken down to states in the senate either? Do we really have to go through getting consensus in advance of every factual change that needs to be made? That's not how wikipedia works. 175.39.17.144 (talk) 11:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Claiming it is a factual change does not make it a factual change. The CLP caucus with the Nats, should we roll them in too? The LNP while we're here? Timeshift (talk) 21:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm inclined to think this may eventually be a reasonable change, but I'd wait a bit first. In my view we'd need the Parliament to be listing Crook simply as "Nationals" rather than "The Nationals WA", which isn't happening yet. It is worth noting, though, that the AEC made no distinction between the two parties at the last election. (On a side note: does Natasha Griggs really caucus with the Nats? I know Scullion does, but Dave Tollner used to sit with the Libs and I would've thought the member for a largely urban seat like Solomon would tend to do that.) Interestingly, LNP members are listed by the parliament as belonging either to the Liberal or National parties, depending on with whom they caucus. Frickeg (talk) 02:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's something well represented on the chart but perhaps the identification of the party of caucus for the LNP might be worth going on the Members of the Australian House of Representatives, 2010–2013 page and its Senate counterpart. --GoForMoe (talk) 05:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed and done. Frickeg (talk) 06:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Frickeg for advising on the Parliament reference. Timeshift (talk) 08:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

This seems to suggest that while Crook has joined the Nationals party room, he hasn't joined the Coalition one. Thoughts? Frickeg (talk) 01:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Title

Back in July, this was moved from Australian House of Representatives to House of Representatives (Australia), with the edit summary correct name, without adjective. Same for the Senate.

Looking at the list at House of Representatives, the usual format is

• House of Representatives of <country>.

The sole exception is United States House of Representatives, which is the format we used to have.

No country except Australia has the format:

• House of Representatives (<country>),

So, I don’t really see what's "correct" about this format. Can we not be an outlier here? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:48, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I now see that on 20 July, straight after the move, User:Frickeg queried the moves directly with the removalist but has not yet had the courtesy of a reply. (Interesting to note that User:Gryffindor is an administrator who advocates kindness, etiquette, good behaviour and respect etc.).

Given this void, I'm rather inclined to move it to the standard format House of Representatives of Australia. Any comments before I do so? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:00, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Me again. My apologies to Gryffindor. He/she did respond promptly to Frickeg, on Frickeg's talk page.

But I still don't accept their reasons. Readers will not know that one legislature is officially called the "Balzanian House of Representatives" but another is officially the "House of Representatives of Slobovia". There is a standard WP format for all these articles. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:17, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I dislike the disambiguation within brackets as fairly untidy, but I'd really prefer it if someone more well-versed in the constitutional issues could discover if there is an official way of referring to it. I believe at the time Gryffindor was making some other changes along these lines in other polities (e.g. National Council (Monaco), Council of States (Switzerland), Federal Council (Switzerland), Federation Council (Russia)). A similar move was made to Senate (Australia), which should be kept in mind here. Frickeg (talk) 23:47, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

My 2 cents - Australian House of Representatives is what it has been on wikipedia from day dot. If it's not broken, don't fix it. I wonder how many pages will now redirect when linked to it? If it needs fixing, it needs to be done on a much more planned consensual and a less ad-hoc basis. Timeshift (talk) 00:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

This is a very good point, and also brings to mind the many related pages like all the many "Members of the Australian House of Representatives ...". Do they need changing too? I'm not rigidly opposed to any change, but it really needed to happen in a much more organised way than it did, if it is indeed necessary. Frickeg (talk) 00:09, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

The most "official" title is that given in the document that created it, the Constitution. Section 1 says "The legislative power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a Federal Parliament, which shall consist of the Queen, a Senate and a House of Representatives …". I’ve never known it to be referred to by any other title, e.g. House of Representatives Practice.

The disambiguatory model that seems to have been chosen for all the others except the USA is the "House of Representatives of Australia" version, and that's the one I prefer at this stage. The "House of Representatives (Australia)" version is OK in itself, but it lacks commonality with the titles of any other similar articles. Our original title format was common with only one other article.

The "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" argument doesn't apply just because something on Wikipedia's been a certain way since the day it was created. Otherwise, nothing would ever change here, and that's not exactly our experience of this project. ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 05:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

What is to gain vs the redirects, and if the gain is worth more, then it needs to be done in a planned consensual non ad-hoc basis. If it ain't broke don't fix it does apply in a balanced considered discussion. Timeshift (talk) 06:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, it certainly was broke. So it was fixed. There is no "of Australia" in the name of the body, it is simply called the "House of Representatives". Now there are multiple ones in this world, therefore the disambiguation is in brackets. If the country's name was part of the official and proper name, that would be a whole different matter of course. Gryffindor (talk) 16:42, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Why doesn't a single one of the 28 chambers listed at House of Representatives have the name of the country in brackets? I can't believe the official name of all 27 others includes the name of the country. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 18:38, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

And why is it Parliament of Australia and not, as the Constitution has it, Federal Parliament (Australia)? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 18:42, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

@Jack of Oz: I just followed some of the links in this list and approx. half of them redirected to different names; I think two others also were in the brackets-version.

I think, a planned edit that follows a uniform naming convention for all of the entries respecting

1. the official title of that specific house and - if this is ambiguous -
2. uses the normal wikipedia standards for disambiguation

would be the right thing. However, as should be normal for moves, the mover should correct the links using the "what links here"-feature (I know, that is plenty of work for a popular article). Best wishes, --Arno Nymus (talk) 01:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I would also be of the opinion that until such discussion takes place to get a consensus on what to change it to, that we keep the status quo, the Australian House of Representatives, to preserve linkings. Timeshift (talk) 07:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Parliament of Australia needs to be moved as well, what would be the correct title? There are many cases already where the proper title is used, such as National People's Congress (and not National People's Congress of China, or Parliament of China (PRC), Central Legislative Assembly (and not Central Legislative Assembly of India), even Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, etc. The overriding factor is the correct name and not some Wiki format that is factually wrong. The name "House of Representatives (Australia)" is correct. The name United States House of Representatives is correct (see seal) however that format does not apply to the Australian one. Gryffindor (talk) 05:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

As you would know if you went to the front page of the website, Parliament of Australia is correct. Frickeg (talk) 06:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Which re-raises the question I half-alluded to above: Who is the horse's mouth about the names of our legislative entities: The Constitution, or their own websites? The House of Reps has that title in both places. But the Parliament as a whole is called "Parliament of Australia" on its letterhead and website, but "Federal Parliament" in the Constitution. So, who do we take our marching orders from, and why? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 07:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I would normally tend towards the constitution, but what is mostly used, "Parliament of Australia" or "Federal Parliament"? or "Australian Parliament" even? Gryffindor (talk) 07:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

It has many names in many contexts:

• the Parliament
• the Parliament of Australia
• the Australian Parliament
• the Commonwealth Parliament
• the Federal Parliament
• the Australian Federal Parliament
• the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia
• maybe more. -- Jack of Oz (Talk) 07:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Could you please give us the number of Google hits for each term? Gryffindor (talk) 13:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

What is wrong with the current name? It's by far the most concise and removes the need for bracketed disambiguation. We should not be deciding the name based on a Google search anyway. Frickeg (talk) 20:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Australian House of Representatives - Parliament of Australia.jpg to appear as POTD

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Australian House of Representatives - Parliament of Australia.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on January 26, 2014. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2014-01-26. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:10, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the day

The chamber of the Australian House of Representatives, one of the two houses of the Parliament of Australia. It is referred to as the lower house, with the Senate being the upper house; the consent of both houses is needed to pass legislation.Photograph: JJ Harrison

Picture

The image Australian House of Representatives, 44th Parliament.svg should not be used to depict the Members of the House of Representatives because 1. It does not portray the true shape of the Parliament, and two, it is messy and untidy. The photo Australian House of Reps 2013.png is neater and provides a clear example of the true shape of the Parliament. Most other pages on wikipedia have this format representing the seats of the government.

The options

1) File:Australian House of Representatives, 44th Parliament.svg	2) File:Australian House of Reps 2013 -v1-March2014.png	File:Australian House of Representatives - Parliament of Australia.jpg
Pro: Accurate numbers, colours, relative layout	Pro: Accurate numbers, colours
Con: Not a horseshoe, not 5 rows	Con: Back-to-front, no speaker, not a horseshoe
Summary: The ONLY one (so far) with accurate numbers & speakers chair
3) File:44th Parliament of Australia.png	4) File:44th Parliament of Australia.svg	5) File:44th Parliament Composition.svg
Pro: Accurate relative layout	Pro: Accurate numbers, colours	Pro: Has speakers chair
Con: Wrong numbers, wrong colours, not a horseshoe, not 5 rows	Con: Back-to-front, no speaker, no crossbench, not a horseshoe, not 5 rows	Con: Wrong numbers, no coalition parties, no crossbench, not a horseshoe, not 5 rows
Summary: Colours!	Summary: The worst - steps backward from 2)	Summary: Still too many problems
6) Example from 2011: File:Australian House of Reps June 2011.svg	7) File:Australian House of Reps 2013.png	8) File:Australian House of Representatives 2013-2017.svg
Pro: Layout	Pro: Accurate colours, relative layout	Pro: Accurate numbers, colours
Con: Is the previous parliament	Con: Wrong numbers, not a horseshoe	Con: No speaker, no crossbench, not a horseshoe, not 5 rows
	Summary: The best of the wrong ones (sad about the wrong number of seats)	Summary: Only one less problem than 4)

Discussion

Please sign your posts.

Neither 1) nor 2) portrays the true shape of the Parliament

it is messy and untidy is an opinion, not a fact.

is neater is an opinion, not a fact.

provides a clear example of the true shape of the Parliament. - No, it doesn't. It's not a semi-circle, and where's the speaker's chair? Also, doesn't the government sit to the right of the speaker, in which case it's back-to-front. Further, the chamber has 4 rows of seats, not 5.

Most other pages on wikipedia have this format representing the seats of the government. - Do they? Could we have some examples please? And anyway, are they relevant to the shape and layout of the Australian chamber?

Personally, I don't like either, but until something better comes along, the "rectangular" layout is more accurate. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Yep, current image thanks. Timeshift (talk) 12:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

44th Parliament of Australia.svg should be used because, almost all other wikipedia pages use this format. Examples? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundestag https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Assembly_of_South_Africa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_National_Assembly_of_Turkey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_People%27s_Congress https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Duma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenic_Parliament https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Representatives_(United_States) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Representatives_(Japan) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assembly_of_Albania https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Assembly_(Angola) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentine_Chamber_of_Deputies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Council_of_Austria https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chamber_of_Representatives_of_Belarus

I can't be bothered listing 95% of Parliaments, but this is what basically all other Parliament's do, so so should this one. Andreas11213 (talk) 05:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

We have progress. You're nearing WP:BRD. You're discussing. It's a start. We've got the B, we've got the D, now we just need you to understand the R. You are advocating a change away from the status quo so you are the one required to gain consensus on talk, not the other way around. Do you understand this simple and fundamental concept yet? Another thing you struggle with is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Stop listing other articles and say "so should this one", because it doesn't work that way. Timeshift (talk) 05:44, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. 2) and 4) are functionally identical and just plain inaccurate. If 3) used the correct colours, I might be interested, but 1) still remains more accurate than the others. Pdfpdf (talk) 06:56, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I actually quite like 3), although as Pdfpdf says the colours need adjusting before it would be acceptable. I think it gives an easier view of what constitutes a majority than 1). 2) and 4) are, as previously pointed out, not suitable. Frickeg (talk) 06:59, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I concur with Pdfpdf. 1 over 2, 3 or 4. Also, Andreas11213 this discussion ain't over till the fat lady sings, so be patient until we get consensus before changing the image. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 12:52, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I changed 3 so the correct colours are used. What is wrong with it now? It has the Speaker's chair. The rectangular composition is not "accurate", if anything the one I am proposing is. The rectangular one is untidy because there are two different sized rectangles and it looks unbalanced and awkward. The one I am proposing also gets rid of the many confusing colours of the Coalition parties, and replaces it with the main colour of the Coalition, which is blue. This is neater and avoids having to use 4 different colours. Andreas11213 (talk) 13:27, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Goodness gracious me! "What is wrong with it now?" Well, here goes.

Major problems:

• (Yes, govt to the right of the speaker, opposition to the left), BUT everyone else in the middle. They sit on "the cross benches", (not at one of the ends).
• What happened to the make-up/break-down of the Govt?

Also:

Looking harder at File:Australian House of Representatives - Parliament of Australia.jpg, are there 4 rows of seats or 5 rows?

• There are 4 or 5 rows of seats - not 6 or 7.
• The seating is U shaped, NOT semi-circular.

i.e. If you took 2), reversed it, added a speakers chair, made it 4 or 5 rows as appropriate, and checked that there are the right number of dots of the right colours in the right places, you might be getting close to something I'd be interested in. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:45, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm actually not sure the U-shape is necessary. In my view the main advantage of this type of thing is that it more clearly shows at what point a government reaches majority, which the U-shape distorts; I don't view it being an accurate representation of what the chamber actually looks like as essential. On the other hand, I would not support any option that does not include separate colours for the Nationals, LNP and CLP. It's not confusing, it's the way it is. Frickeg (talk) 6:44 am, Today (UTC+10)

What you have just said goes against everything you said before. The one being used now IS NOT U-Shaped, it is a rectangle. The one i am proposing is the closest thing to a U-shape. File:Australian Parliament.png is everything you asked for above; I reversed it, added speaker's chair, made it 5 rows as appropriate, and there are the right amount of dots with the right colours. Are you "interested" now? What more do you want. (This posting has presumably been made by Andreas11213 (talk), who hasn't yet grasped the concept of signing his posts.)

I am tentatively prepared to support this latest version. Frickeg (talk) 08:08, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I am tentatively prepared to support version 7). Pdfpdf (talk) 12:33, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Jeez, Andreas11213, you like to annoy people, don't you. I really don't understand why - your contributions to this discussion have been very useful and helpful, almost in spite of your unpleasant and aggressive tone!

What you have just said goes against everything you said before. - No, it doesn't. (Your contribution has been worthy. I will not proceed to crucify you by explaining the inaccuracy/ies of your statement.)

File:Australian Parliament.png is everything you asked for above - Yes, it is. You asked me what more I wanted; I told you; you addressed those points. I have to admit that I'm quite impressed by your response.

Are you "interested" now? - Yes, I am. Thank you.

What more do you want. - Well, given that you asked ... I would like you to better acquaint yourself with Wikipedia procedures and behavior. Clearly, you are quite capable, but your manner/approach needs ... "work".

Thank you for the end-result of your contributions to this discussion (if not for your modus operandi). Pdfpdf (talk) 12:33, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Gaining consensus

According to MelbourneStar, I need consensus to add version 7. I already have consensus from Pdfpdf and Frickeg. What more consensus do I need? Andreas11213 (talk) 07:10, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Pdfpdf's edit summary might shed some light, for you. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 07:14, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Two users have said "I am tentatively prepared to support version 7)." No one has yet objected. I see that as consensus. Andreas11213 (talk) 07:37, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Given that no one has raised any objections, you can move my tentative support to full support. I see option (7) as an improvement over (1). Frickeg (talk) 07:39, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Dear me Andreas11213, you really are very keen to get blocked again, aren't you!

I already have consensus from Pdfpdf and Frickeg - Not even vaguely close!

I posted a link to WP:Consensus and I asked you if you could please do me the favour of reading it. Quite clearly, you haven't.

(BTW: I see from your talk page you continue not to use edit comments, and people continue to ask you to do so.)

When you have read WP:Consensus, it will become obvious to you that consensus is a "group thing" - individuals CAN not, and DO not "give" you consensus.

Two users have said "I am tentatively prepared to support version 7)." No one has yet objected. I see that as consensus. - a) Hmmm. To mis-quote Mandy Rice-Davies, "well, you would, wouldn't you". b) It doesn't really matter what YOU see as consensus, particularly when it bears no relationship to the actual definition in WP:Consensus ...

In short, and unambiguously, YOU DO NOT (yet) HAVE CONSENSUS. I'm afraid I don't know how to be clearer, or more accurate. Pdfpdf (talk) 08:53, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Also BTW: As it was Timeshift who initially raised the objection, if you want consensus, at a minimum it would be polite if you asked him to contribute to this discussion. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:09, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Accuracy

Your diagramme has 150 dots and 1 square = 151 "seats", and hence is incorrect, and hence I withdraw my support for it. (It contains 59 dark blue dots and 1 dark blue square; the correct number is 58 dots and 1 square.) Pdfpdf (talk) 11:36, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Ack, good catch! Shouldn't be too difficult to fix, though. Frickeg (talk) 13:00, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

a) Agreed. b) I still have dots swimming around before my eyes ... ;-) Pdfpdf (talk) 14:20, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

More discussion

8) File:Australian House of Representatives 2013-2017.svg

I think this structure is better than the one currently used. Most other, if not all wikipedia pages use this structure as opposed to the one used on this page currently. It may not be a perfect interpretation of the shape of actual Parliament, but it's better than the one being used now. Also, the speaker's chair should not be added because then it is implying there are are 151 seats, not 150, and that can be confusing. I of course have to gain consensus, so I will wait. Andreas11213 (talk) 11:17, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Seeing as there was no opposition, I changed the structure to the one I proposed. Andreas11213 (talk) 08:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Once again, Jesus Christ, wait. Especially given that this question wasn't even visible for most of yesterday, THAT IS NOT ENOUGH TIME FOR CONSENSUS. Most people probably haven't even seen this yet. Oh my God.

As for the picture itself, I still like this layout better. But of course we should show the Speaker, and obviously you would take one of the Liberal dots out of the "floor" so that there are 149 + Speaker. Frickeg (talk) 09:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, looking at it further, it would be better if the crossbench were actually, you know, on the crossbench (i.e. between Labor and Liberal) rather than on the end. Frickeg (talk) 22:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the changes proposed by Frickeg The Tepes (talk) 06:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I think this structure is better than the one currently used. - Yes, I know you do. You've said so before. AND, by-the-way, several other people have said they don't.

SUGGESTION: Read ALL of the above postings on this talk page.

Most other, if not all wikipedia pages use this structure - So what? You have said that before, and several other people have said why that is not relevant.

Also, the speaker's chair should not be added ... - I disagree.

Seeing as there was no opposition ... - Hmmmm. There was no support, either.

SUGGESTION: Read ALL of the above postings on this talk page. When you have done so, you will deduce that I am likely support a version of

7) File:Australian House of Reps 2013.png

that has 58 dark blue dots rather than the 59 dark blue dots in 7). Pdfpdf (talk) 01:30, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Also:

Also BTW: As it was Timeshift who initially raised the objection, if you want consensus, at a minimum it would be polite if you asked him to contribute to this discussion. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:09, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Also:

8) has 7 rows of "seats"; 7) has 5 rows; The chamber has 5 rows. Pdfpdf (talk) 01:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I really don't see any need to change it from what is currently used. The current image has always clearly presented the relevant information in my opnion. The Tepes (talk) 11:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm confused.

On the one hand you have said: I agree with the changes proposed by .

On the other, you have said: I really don't see any need to change it from what is currently used.

Do you have a particular preference for any one of the alternatives over the others? Pdfpdf (talk) 14:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

(As it happens, I have the same pair of opinions. However, my personal preference is for an updated version of 6). Pdfpdf (talk) 14:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC))

I am in agreement with Frickeg for keeping the speaker separate, and placing the cross-bench in between the government and opposition if a new model is to be chosen. As for which alternative I think would be ideal, my preference is for option 6 in the previous discussion. However I'm not convinced by any argument Andreas11213 has made as to why changes are needed in the first place.

Looking at the arguments you made under Picture, I don't disagree with your arguments, but I would only support a change is it is to option 6.The Tepes (talk) 05:08, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I hope I make sense.The Tepes (talk) 05:10, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarifications. Pdfpdf (talk) 07:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Summary-to-date

• The infobox contains the picture

1) File:Australian House of Representatives, 44th Parliament.svg

Although it has accurate numbers of seats, colours, and relative positions, several people would prefer a picture with a different layout, if an accurate picture was available. To date, no accurate alternative has become available.

• User:Andreas11213 has (so far) proposed 6 alternatives - every one of them inaccurate.

The least inaccurate of these alternatives is

7) File:Australian House of Reps 2013.png

(The inaccuracy is that it contains 59 dark blue dots - the accurate number is 58.)

• User:Frickeg has expressed a preference for a corrected version of 7) over 1)
• User:Pdfpdf and User:The Tepes prefer the layout used for the last parliament.

6) Example layout from 2011: File:Australian House of Reps June 2011.svg

If an updated and accurate version of this picture for the current parliament became available, both users have indicated that they would prefer it over 1), but in the absence of such a picture, they have indicated that they prefer 1) to any other alternative proposed so far.

Others (in alphabetic order) participating in, or observing, the discussion include, but are not limited to:

• User:JackofOz
• User:MelbourneStar
• User:Timeshift9

Other participants in the 2011 discussions include:

• User:GoForMoe has made only one edit since February - not clear if s/he is still active or interested.

The current consensus appears to be:

a) As there is no accurate alternative to 1), let us retain 1).

b) If/when an accurate alternative becomes available, we will consider it.

Pdfpdf (talk) 07:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Further discussion

I do want to thank Pdfpdf for the succinct and accurate summary above, which helps distill what has become quite a convoluted conversation! One I am about to convolute a bit more, I'm afraid. Looking at 7), the basic layout of which I still prefer, I can't see the CLP. I assume that it is the orange dot in 6). Is this perhaps the reason for the 59 blue dots in 7)? If this is the case, it should be laughably easy to adjust 7) accordingly. Frickeg (talk) 10:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I do want to thank Pdfpdf ... - Thank you. It's nice to get positive feedback.

Is this perhaps the reason for the 59 blue dots in 7)? - No. The initial reason for the 59 dots is that when andreas added the speaker's chair, he didn't remove a dot from the ... "semi-circle". Thus, his useful addition of the square had the consequence that 7) shows 151 seats - not 150.

If you are stating/implying/suggesting/whatever that 58 of the dark blue dots should be 57 and that one of them should be orange, then you have identified a new additional problem with 7). However, why are you suggesting that a CLP dot should be Orange?

Have another look at 1) - The single dark blue square on the bottom right is the CLP seat.

To reiterate/clarify/explain/justify/whatever:

• Liberal + CLP have 58+1=59 seats
• In 1), these are (accurately) represented by:
  • 1 Speaker
  • (14x4=56 + 1) = 57 non-speaker-Liberals on the bottom left. (57+1=58 Liberals)
  • 1 CLP on the bottom right (58+1=59 seats)
• In 7), there are 59 dots + 1 square = 60 seats. 60 is NOT 59.

is the CLP the culprit? - No.

If this is the case, it should be laughably easy to adjust 7) accordingly. - Yes, it would be! How sad that it's not. (C'est la vie.)

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Not suggesting the CLP dot should be orange, just that it should be different from the Liberal dots. And that is, indeed, an additional problem with 7), which I could not support until the CLP was distinguished. Thanks for clarifying. Frickeg (talk) 19:44, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm. Something I'd not noticed. Thanks. Yes, I agree; CLP should be (more) distinguishable. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:16, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I prefer option 1. Timeshift (talk) 10:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

(Thanks for the response. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC))

FYI

The creator of image 1) is "LightSoup". Although there is a User_talk page at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LightSoup, s/he has not contributed anything to it. And I haven't been able to locate a "LightSoup" User page. Does anyone have any useful information? Pdfpdf (talk) 14:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Federation Chamber? What IS it?

Never heard of it, which says something. Why does it receive such prominent treatment? Tony (talk) 01:19, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

See the section headed "Federation Chamber" at ... why, this very article. How surprising.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Other ministers answering Question Time questions that were addressed to the Prime Minister

I've noticed this in the House of Reps since Turnbull came to power - the opposition asks the prime minister a question but someone else like Morrison is the one that stands up and answers the question. I note that at least since Weatherill's ascention, questions to the Premier in SA's QT have sometimes been answered by other ministers so this is not a new practice. However, to me at least, it appears to be a new practice on a federal level in the House of Reps. I have a few questions. Is it indeed the case that the first time it has happened in federal QT is during incumbent PM Turnbull's time and if not, when. Second, does anyone know when and with whom it happened first on a state/territory level. Third, if it is the case that on a federal level this is new since Turnbull, has there been any media coverage on it? Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 04:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

It's certainly not new. I seem to recall it happening under Bob Hawke. QT was not televised under earlier PMs, but I wouldn't be surprised if the practice went back a very long way. I'll see what I can find. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh really? Wow. Most times QT has been during work hours but when i've been home I caught QT when I could, and over the past two decades I must say I never at any time saw this practice occur under Abbott, Gillard, Rudd or Howard. Keating probably too - he would never have given up an opportunity to deride the opposition :) Timeshift (talk) 06:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh no, I definitely saw Abbott waving away the question to another minister on quite a few occasions. And Howard too. I don't remember Gillard, Rudd or Keating doing it, but Hawke definitely did.

House of Representatives Practice, 6th Edition says:

• A Minister may refuse to answer a question.[69] He or she may also transfer a question to another Minister and it is not in order to question the reason for doing so.[70] If a question has been addressed to the incorrect Minister, the responsible Minister may answer, but a Member has been given an opportunity to redirect the question.[71] In many instances the responsibilities referred to in a question may be shared by two or more Ministers and it is only the Ministers concerned who are in a position to determine authoritatively which of them is more responsible.[72] It is not unusual for questions addressed to the Prime Minister to be referred to the Minister directly responsible.[73] No direct statement, request or overt action by the Prime Minister is required to indicate that another Minister will answer a question addressed to the Prime Minister.[74] The Prime Minister may also choose to answer a question addressed to another Minister.[75]

Note 70 suggests the practice goes back at least as far as 1962.

But what I did find new and interesting is that QT has only been an organised part of proceedings since 1950. I always assumed it started in 1901. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I never once saw a question to Abbott or Howard answered by another minister... from your memory how often would they do it approx? One in every ten/fifty/hundred/thousand questions? Turnbull does it every QT, and again, never once did I notice Abbott or Howard (or Rudd or Gillard) do this. Would you say Turnbull does it more than any PM in recent history? Has done it the most since <insert name> PM? Do you know what year the above quote (QT question allocation) or similar incarnation was included in the HoR practice, or was it always there? And thanks for the other info. Especially that QT was official from 1950. Would be interested to know how long QT occurred but was unofficial for. I would think it would have been similar to the title of Deputy Prime Minister of Australia being official from 1968 but unofficially existed far before that. Timeshift (talk) 07:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Now you're asking. I've been retired for the past 3-odd years and rarely miss QT, which is why I'm certain about Abbott. Before then, my experience varied depending on circumstances too boring to go into, but there were a few times during my working life when I was based at home for quite long periods and could regularly catch QT.

Maybe I'm not as focussed on this detail as you are, but I wouldn't have said Turnbull deflects questions to other ministers significantly more than his predecessors did. Not that I've noticed, anyway. If he in fact does, well, he was pretty new (as PM) for a while there, so maybe it's just a sign of not yet having full confidence in talking about any topic he might be asked a question about. (Of course, that was also true of every one of his predecessors in their early days as PM.) But probably more to the point, he does go on about leading a fully consultative government, and giving his ministers the freedom to run their portfolios without close supervision from him, so giving a minister the chance to shine in QT would be consistent with that, particularly if he judges they could give a better-informed answer than he could.

As for H o R Practice, I really couldn't say how long the bit I quoted above has been there. But the book has been around for a long time. As I say, in 1962 the Speaker ruled that it was in order for a minister who was asked a question to refer it to another minister. I would hazard a guess that the practice - as distinct from the guidelines/rulings about the practice - goes back quite a long time before that. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Australian House of Representatives. 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/20060903232212/http://www.aph.gov.au/house/pubs/standos/chapter14.htm to http://www.aph.gov.au/house/pubs/standos/chapter14.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070831055552/http://www.peo.gov.au/students/fss/fss08.html to http://www.peo.gov.au/students/fss/fss08.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051202235603/http://www.aph.gov.au:80/HOUSE/committee/index.htm to http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/index.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Australian House of Representatives. 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://australianpolitics.com/elections/features/preferential.shtml
• 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:39, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Can someone fix infobox data?

I think the number of seats currently held by parties is wrong in the infobox. Also the name of the parties may also be wrong. Please compare that data with the official parliament website and fix it if indeed it is wrong, as I didn't do it because I don't know the intricacies of the politics in Australia. Thinker78 (talk) 05:48, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Reversion of Anonymous427 edits

I reverted Anonymous427 edits for unexplained change of info which results in conflict with info in body of article under section "House of Representatives primary, two-party and seat results". Please add an edit summary and add information in infobox that reflects the body of the article and doesn't conflict with it. Thinker78 (talk) 21:46, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Conflicting and unsourced data in infobox

Recent unsourced edits by AnswerMeNow1 and Anonymous427 have resulted in conflicting data in the infobox and the body of the article. In addition, the added data is unsouced. Per WP:UNSOURCED, "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution" and per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, "When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored)." Thinker78 (talk) 01:01, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Other opposition

Why not "other crossbench"? cc: LeoC12. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:44, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Because the crossbench is not an indication of support for the government or otherwise, but rather just the designation of not being part of the government or opposition. KAP, CA and McGowan are all crossbenchers as much as Greens and Wilkie, it's just that they're being listed under differently. If they're designated as 'supported by', then the absence of that support from the Greens and Wilkie should be labelled as 'other opposition' in my view. I think that the way that House of Commons of the United Kingdom infobox is laid out is quite good, but it's ultimately up to whatever consensus we reach for this article, I don't really mind either way. --LeoC12 (talk) 22:42, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Is there anything that says the Greens and Wilkie are part of the opposition? We're also not the House of Commons. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:34, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I do not think we should be splitting up the crossbench this much. What is wrong with simply "Government", "Opposition" and "Crossbench"? Frickeg (talk) 07:38, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. Alliances and loyalties change frequently these days. Trying to keep the article up to date with all such changes would be difficult, and likely to lead to big debates. HiLo48 (talk) 07:42, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't like it either. Is this allocation is based on informal, non-binding statements made by the minor parties or individual crossbench MPs? If so, it really means nothing outside of the context of an actual no-confidence motion being raised or a supply bill failing to pass. If either of these were to occur, the breakdown would of course be notable, but until then it means very little to the operation of parliament, can change on a whim, and I think it overstates "allegiance" to or against the government as well as allocating certain parliamentarians to an "opposition" status they do not hold. --Canley (talk) 08:07, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Frickeg, Hilo48 and Canley. It shouldn't be divided up beyond "crossbench". The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:53, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

I also agree. Canley nailed it. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 15:04, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I support "other Crossbench" if Phelps wins. From what I recall, MPs supporting the government in confidence and supply were noted in the Wikipedia infobox during the last minority government (Gillard). If she doesn't, I'm okay with leaving it as is.--Jay942942 (talk) 13:47, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

You recall incorrectly, I'm afraid. [4] Plus, even if we had done it then (and I'm glad we didn't), those MPs gave formal undertakings to the Gillard government, whereas these guys have just said they have no inclination to vote down the government right now - it's not an actual deal. Frickeg (talk) 07:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Kevin Hogan on the Crossbench

Is it really appropriate to have a member of a governing party, essentially proclaiming they have moved to the crossbench, but still a member of the National Party caucus and still providing confidence and supply, as part of the crossbench? It would be very helpful if there was some sort of precedent for this and I would defer to those who can offer more insight on this. I don't think there was a conversation about that, and it may have been me who placed him in the crossbench in the first place. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:03, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

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:

• Peter Cosgrove with Morrison Ministry 2018.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:37, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 27 July 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

---

House of Representatives (Australia) → Australian House of Representatives – At this title as the result of a move request, which was inappropriate given that a previous discussion on this page had not resulted in consensus for that move. Given the recently unsuccessful attempt to move Australian Senate to Senate (Australia), this page should be moved back to its original title to agree with that result (and per WP:BRD). Extensive further reasoning found in the Senate move discussion, although WP:NATURALDISAMBIG should be especially noted. Frickeg (talk) 08:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. OhKayeSierra (talk) 20:57, 12 August 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. —I would have closed this as no consensus, but the last !vote was placed today; therefore, I don't consider the discussion to be stale yet. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:52, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• Strongly support per nom (especially to be WP:CONSISTENT with Australian Senate). Neutral. LeoC12's argument is convincing and so I no longer have a clear preference. Supernova58 (talk) 23:06, 27 July 2020 (UTC); edited 22:03, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose – House of Representatives (Australia) for once means we have a clean and precise title for this article. This chamber is virtually never refer to as the 'Australian House of Representatives' in sources, with House of Representatives sufficing in an Australian context. Where international clarification is required, the overwhelming norm with legislative body articles, from Chamber of Deputies (Italy), National Assembly (Serbia), House of Representatives (Thailand), National Legislature (Sudan), or alternatively with the House of Commons of the United Kingdom or the House of Commons of Canada, is that common terms for legislatures be internationally differentiated with either the state name in parentheses, or with a 'of xxx' designation. I wouldn't mind either for this article, but since House of Representatives (Australia) is the status quo, I would strongly support it. The precise name of this body is the House of Representatives, and in my opinion, international differentiation is much cleaner and precise being represented parenthetically rather than with a preceding adjectival form.

As an aside, I would say that the situation with the Senate is different, because it is commonly expressed in this adjectival form – e.g. Chamber of Deputies (Brazil) being used in conjunction with Brazilian Senate.LeoC12 (talk) 04:13, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Virtually never referred to as the Australian House of Representatives? Blatantly untrue. Compare, for example, with House of Representatives of Australia. I also strongly reject the notion that the current title is the status quo, given that it is the result of an out-of-process move against prior consensus. Frickeg (talk) 22:37, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. I have sought further input at WP:AWNB. Frickeg (talk) 07:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment we've got House of Commons of Canada & United States House of Representatives, so not sure which to choose. GoodDay (talk) 20:40, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support for consistency with Australian Senate, to follow a natural disambiguation rather than an awkward parenthetical, and because the article was moved away from the proposed title without sufficient consensus in the first place. – Teratix ₵ 04:56, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support per Teratix, and my own !comments at the Talk:Australian Senate RM. No such user (talk) 14:55, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support. The demonym is used as a natural part of the name by the institution's official accounts in social networks (Facebook, Twitter), so it would fully comply with WP:NCGAL. Impru20^talk 20:02, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
• tentative Support. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:47, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rephrasing of this section

Until its repeal by the 1967 referendum, section 127 prohibited the inclusion of Aboriginal people in section 24 determinations as including the Indigenous peoples could alter the distribution of seats between the states to the benefit of states with larger Aboriginal populations.[5] Section 127, along with section 25 (allowing for race-based disqualification of voters by states)[3] and the race power,[6] have been described as racism built into Australia's constitutional DNA,[7] and modifications to prevent lawful race-based discrimination have been proposed.[8]

The "race power" is Section 51(xxvi) and should be referred to as such.

Also "have been described as racism built into Australia's constitutional DNA" is attributed to George Williams.

Although Mr. Williams is a lawyer & professor, his involvement with the Labor Party brings bias to his assertion. Is there an academic citation that comes from someone unaffiliated to a political party?

120.156.248.33 (talk) 12:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Image: Party representation chart

The image currently (right) used in this article to show partisan representation in the chamber takes the representation of the layout a bit literally to the point where it is difficult to see how many are represented.

It is more conventional in the Westminster system (such as is used by the Australian parliament) to display them in straight lines (left). The image is also conveys the information displayed in a much more simple and understandable format. It is not literally what the Parliament looks like. It is just a chart to convey the information. --DilatoryRevolution (talk) 00:41, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Although your proposed chart would definitely make more sense, especially when the 'horseshoe' chamber looks uncertain due to slim majorities, Wikipedia appears to like using the literal version of the Legislature to not confuse anyone, so as not say a foreigner who when they look at your proposed image immediately believes that this is what the Australian Parliament literally looks like, for they may not read the rest of the article. Cambyses IV (talk) 10:18, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

78 Labor Members (not 77)

The "Composition of Australian House of Representatives" is incorrect and shows 77 Labor members, when it is 78. Can this be updated? Thanks :) === Jacsam2 (talk) 10:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)