Jump to content

Talk:Australian House of Representatives

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 27 July 2020

[edit]
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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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

[edit]

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[1], 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)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Williams_(lawyer)#Politics_and_views

Image: Party representation chart

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

78 Labor Members (not 77)

[edit]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Australian_House_of_Representatives&oldid=1276312245"