Talk:Speaker of the Australian House of Representatives

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Portal	Speaker of the Australian House of Representatives 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.
Start	This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-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 Honorifics 2 Revert 3 Honorific for Neil Andrew 4 More deputies 5 POV ahoy!

[edit] Honorifics

All the Speakers are shown with 'the Hon' or 'the Rt Hon'. This is fine during their term of office, but it does not necessarily apply in perpetuity.

My understanding is that Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries, once sworn as Executive Councillors, remain permanently on call and are thus 'the Hon' forever. However the Presiding Officers are not equivalent to Executive Councillors, so they do not automatically entitle the holders to 'the Hon'. This title is a courtesy title given to Presiding Officers who have not already acquired 'the Hon' by being Ministers or Parliamentary Secretariers, or 'the Rt Hon' by being Privy Councillors.

The courtesy title normally applies only during the Presiding Officer's term of office. However the title has also been extended to ex-Speakers Jim Cope, Leo McLeay and Bob Halverson. JackofOz 02:16, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Revert

It's interesting (well, at least to me), and relevant. But whatever, I'm sick of having to battle reverts. Dysprosia 01:40, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Honorific for Neil Andrew

Now that he's retired from parliament and has not (to my knowledge) retained "the Hon", should the article continue to show this against his name? His own article gives him no such honorific. JackofOz 04:38, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, didn't he gain the right to retain the title for having been Speaker for however-many years? Most people with the honourable title don't have that in their articles - indeed, putting it in has been actively resisted until lately. Ambi 04:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

If I remember from the Practice, past speakers get to keep "Hon" indefinitely. Dysprosia 10:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

No. It's not automatic. Some ex-speakers have requested permission for the title to be granted for life, but permission is not always granted. I'm not aware that Neil Andrew has requested, or been granted, the title. JackofOz 04:31, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

According your post above, the Hon title is acquired after being Speaker for more than three years. Andrew was Speaker for six. Ambi 06:56, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for that. What I meant to say was that, unless the person had been Speaker for at least 3 years, any request for a permanent honorific is rejected out of hand. But even for those with service as speaker longer than 3 years, it's still not an automatic thing and is very much dependent on the whim of the government of the day. Even for a Speaker who'd held the chair for 20 years, there is simply no "entitlement" to the honorific after retiring from the position. Cheers JackofOz 08:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

This is not a very pointful discussion. The table is a table of Speakers, not ex-Speakers, and they were all Honourables (even Leo McLeay) while they were in the office. Adam 08:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Unless they were Rt Hons, of course. Adam 08:56, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] More deputies

Adam, Bronwyn Bishop takes the chair occasionally. Should one describe this in the article, and how? Please do so if you think it necessary. Dysprosia 09:59, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

She is a member of the Speaker's Panel of Temporary Chairs, as are a number of other members. There is probably a list of them at the aph.gov.au website somewhere. I don't think it should be gone into at this article. Adam 10:06, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV ahoy!

"Because party discipline in the Labor Party is tighter, Labor Speakers are generally seen as more partisan, particularly Speakers Rosevear and Leo McLeay, but recent Liberal Speakers have been seen as more partisan than those in the past."

Unless someone can come up with an actual, reputable source for this, I'm just deleting it straight out. It's not just generalised, biased and POV, it's alleging a prosecutable legal offense.

--Furpants Tom 02:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The statement is perfectly true, but I agree it doesn't meet current standards of verifiability, so it should be deleted. (There is no prosecutable offence of being a partisan Speaker.) Adam 03:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

When a Speaker is sworn in, they take an oath to the Crown to undertake the duties of speaker in a non-partisan, evenhanded manner. Technically speaking, breaking an oath the crown is treason. I agree, it's never going to be prosecuted, because that would be very silly, but yeah, it's a criminal offense. I also disagree that it's a true statement on behalf of both the named Labor speakers, and regarding the contrast between past and present Liberal speakers, but since that's just my opinion vs. the writer's opinion, so it doesn't count for much.

--Furpants Tom 02:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)