Talk:John Curtin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Portal	John Curtin is maintained by WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
B	This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents 1 Greatest PM? 2 "Militant" youth? 3 'Iron' Curtin? 4 End of Ministry 5 Conscription question 6 Dates: Death vs. In office

[edit] Greatest PM?

Why is he Australia's greatest Prime Minister? If you're going to make the claim you really should provide some reasons (what did he do that was so great?) and attribute the claim. I suspect the Liberal Party is rather fond of Menzies, and baby-boomer Laborites probably have a soft spot for Whitlam (despite his well-acknowledged flaws).--Robert Merkel 08:05, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I didn't say he was the greatest - I said that he was regarded by many as the greatest (actually, I edited it to make the distinction). The various biographies I've read of him seem to agree. Further, Menzies and Whitlam are not generally referred to as the 'greatest PM' by members of the other side of politics, whereas John Curtin has been (for instance, Richard Court, former Liberal Premier of Western Australia). Even his contemporaries regarded him highly - eg. Forde and MacArthur (and these were long-held views, not just ones that cropped up after he died). The National Archives also cites him as being 'widely regarded as one of the greatest'. - Merric

The undeniable authority of the John Curtin Senior High School student diary concurs: he is, in fact, Australia's Greatest PM. (...and if only there were a way of marking up irony...) Sam 04:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, although it's true that many Australians regard him as 'greatest PM', you should still reference that ;)--Nervousbreakdance 03:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Militant" youth?

Why is the phrase 'militant youth' used? Wasn't he a copy boy for the Westrailian? Not even an army cadet, so far as I know. Sam Wilson 01:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

He was a militant socialist. Adam 02:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'Iron' Curtin?

Anyone want to shed some light on the 'Iron' nickname?

Yeah, it doesn't exist - that's why I reverted it. Slac speak up! 02:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

<edit conflict> I'm not aware of any such nickname. And I doubt that such a nickname was ever used in his lifetime, since it would almost certainly be a pun on Iron Curtain, which wasn't established until after Curtin's death. I suspect you've conflated Iron Curtain with "Pig Iron Bob". Snottygobble 02:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Could User:Diadora tell us more? (Sam Wilson 22:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC))

Sorry guys, my brother logged on as me and added the "iron" bit. It comes from the iron curtain building from the computer game Red Alert 2. Dont worry, I've changed my password so it wont happen again. -Diadora 01:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] End of Ministry

His ministers held office until July 6, but did he do so as well, given that he had died the previous day? Biruitorul 11:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

A person is legally a minister until their commission is terminated by the Governor-General, even if they are dead. Adam 11:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. Is that worth a footnote? Biruitorul 04:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it's more than a little dubious to have a dead person still formally occupying the office of Minister of the Crown. Not even Governors-General have power over death. According to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Handbook, Curtin's service as PM ended on 5 July 1945. [1] His Ministers stayed in office until 6 July, when Forde was sworn in as PM. It could be argued that his ministers were still part of the Curtin Ministry till 6 July, and therefore the Curtin Ministry survived till 6 July, but as for Curtin himself, he ceased being a Minister at the moment of his 5 July death, imo. JackofOz 05:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, it is still true that a person is legally a minister until their commission is terminated by the Governor-General, unless they resign. That was the case with Holt in 1967, and also with Lyons and Curtin. I think a search of the Commonwealth Gazette would reveal that the Parliamentary Handbook is wrong, and that Curtin remained PM until his commission was terminated on the 6th. Adam 11:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Could you point me to some reference that supports your position? I think that it would lead to absurdities. The GG is subject to the advice of his PM, but if the PM is dead how can any such advice be provided? How does the new party leader get to advise the GG to appoint him/her as PM, if the GG is still waiting on the deceased PM to advise him what to do? Surely the GG exercises a measure of common sense and decides independently that, as the PM has died, his/her commission has become null and void and must now be terminated. The Holt case was unusual in that hopes for Holt being found alive were still being held up to 48 hours after his disappearance. In other cases, where there is no doubt about the PM being dead, what possible purpose is served by delaying the withdrawal of the commission? In the Curtin case, he died on 5 July but as a matter of historical record his commission wasn't terminated till the following day. An overnight delay is perfectly understandable in wartime Australia where his family in WA would have needed to be informed before the general public was. But that's a different thing from arguing that his premiership somehow survived his bodily death. What's to prevent an addle-brained GG from appointing someone who's already dead as a Minister? JackofOz 01:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

GG's do not have to receive outgoing-PM's advice in order to commission a new ministry after an election. If you think about it, that would lead to absurdities, to put it mildly. In answer to your last question, a person must be a serving member of the House of Representatives in order to receive a commission from the GG. It's not a case of delaying the withdrawal of the commission, it's a case of actually terminating it and replacing it with a new commission. It would be impossible, constitutionally speaking, for a GG to legitimately refuse to commission someone, e.g. on the basis of being the new leader in the reps by virtue of the previous incumbent's death. Slac speak up! 04:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, in practical terms it's only ever serving members of the HofR who are commissioned as ministers. But technically speaking (and after all this entire discussion is about technicalities and nothing else), the GG can commission anyone at all, but they must become a member of the HofR within 3 months, or the commission lapses. That provision in the constitution permitted Barton to be appointed PM between January and March 1901, before the 1st Parliament was elected. And it permitted Gorton to remain PM after he had resigned from the Senate and before he was elected to the HofR.
• I would have thought that, following an election, the GG must be guided by the existing PM's advice. If the government loses, the PM would advise the GG to terminate his commission and appoint the Opposition Leader as PM. Sometimes there's quite a delay between the electtion and the new government taking office, eg. Howard was elected on 2 March 1996, but he was not sworn in as PM till 11 March (from memory) because it did not suit the administrative convenience of all the parties for the change-over to occur till then. What was there to prevent the GG from taking the matter into his own hands and swearing Howard in on Sunday 3 March? The advice of his PM Keating, that's what. Keating remained PM till 11 March. What happens in the case of a hung parliament? Does the GG rely on TV/newspaper reports, form his own opinion, and call in the person he thinks is most likely to head a stable government? No, he waits to be advised by his existing PM on the matter (and even if that advice is to discuss the matter with the relevant party leaders and come to his own conclusions, the GG is still acting on his PM's advice). But this is all beside the issue I'm mainly concerned about: what happens when a PM dies in office. I'd still like to see something authoritative that says the deceased PM remains PM until the GG withdraws his commission. JackofOz 05:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

To reply to all the above points in order:

• No I don't have a reference on this matter.
• "Surely the GG exercises a measure of common sense and decides independently that, as the PM has died, his/her commission has become null and void and must now be terminated." No: the GG, having been advised that the PM is dead (or presumed dead), then terminates their commission. At that point they cease to be PM. I'm sorry if that seems nonsensical, but law and commonsense no not always coincide.
• Obviously when a PM dies (or resigns) the GG has a personal discretion, within the conventions of the Westminster system, in appointing a successor.
• Yes, in theory, the GG can commission anyone at all. If (hypothetical case) Howard were to resign and the Liberals were to elect, um, Jeff Kennett as their new leader, the GG could commission him as PM and he would have three months to find a seat in the Reps.
• "Following an election, the GG must be guided by the existing PM's advice." Not if the PM has just lost the election. This was exactly what happened in Tasmania in 1989 when Robin Gray lost the election and then advised Sir Phillip Bennett to call another one. The Governor declined to take his advice on the grounds that having lost the confidence of the majority of voters Gray had no right to advise the Crown.
• Keating's advice would and could have played no role in the timing of the swearing in of the Howard Government. In 1972, Whitlam wanted to be sworn in at once, and Hasluck obliged him. Since then, transitions have been slower. This has been entirely a matter of the administrative convenience of the incoming government.
• In the advent of a hung parliament, the Crown has an element of personal discretion. Usually there is a coalition that can show the Crown that a stable government can be formed. In 1989 Bennett required the Greens to assure him that they would give consistent support to a minority Labor government. The same thing happened, less formally, in NSW in 1991 and in Victoria in 1999.
• Federally there hasn't been a hung Parliament since 1940, but in 1941 the GG played an active role in the transition from Fadden to Curtin. If (say) Andren, Windsor and Katter were to have the balance of power after this year's election, the GG would probably ask them for an assurance that they would give consistent support to one side or the other. Adam 07:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conscription question

The article reads:

This was despite Curtin furiously opposing conscription during World War I. The reason Curtin introduced conscription successfully is because he adopted a minimal conscription policy, where only those South of the Equator were conscripted.

Ummm... Isn't all of Australia below the equator? DarkSideOfTheSpoon 14:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone has muddled up their history. I'm in Thailand at the moment so I can't check, but my recollection is that when Curtin introduced conscription in 1942 it was with the proviso (to appease anti-conscriptionists in his own party) that conscripts would be used only for the defence of Australia, and would not be deployed north of the Equator. That was why the conscripts or "chockos" did most of the fighting in New Guinea, while the regulars were deployed further afield. Adam 16:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see Defence (Citizen Military Forces) Act 1943 for explanation. Lentisco 06:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

That article suggests that Menzies was PM in 1943, so it doesn't seem very reliable. Adam 10:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Well it 'suggests' that- possibly. But it doesnt state or infer it. What do you mean it 'seems' to not be reliable?. Lentisco 01:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I was being polite - obviously an article written by someone who thinks Menzies was PM in 1943 in not reliable. Adam 05:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes I agree whoever that bad reprehensible person is who believes that Menzies was PM in 1943 is worse than unreliable! Lets form a witchhunt. I appoint Adam Carr as Witchfinder-general. Lentisco 23:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I have already held that position for some time, but thanks anyway. Adam 07:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dates: Death vs. In office

According to this article, Mr Curtin remained in office as PM until the day after he died. As far as my logic goes, a man cannot hold an office once dead. True, no one was selected to replace him until that next day, but this just means the office was vacant until that time, right? --Xyzzyva 00:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)