Talk:Order of Australia/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

accuracy of article

It states in the article that the Order of Austrailia has been distributed more liberally than the Order of Canada but on the official website it states that only Australians may be nominated for this order. [1] Dowew 23:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I got an e-mail responce. Turns out there are different nomination forms for foreigners Dowew 00:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Knights and Dames

I know that there is a brief outline of who and when the AD and AK were discontinued, but there isn't any mention of why. In fact that was the reason I looked up this article in the first place, and found it lacking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Bryce (talk • contribs) 07:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The reason was that Labor governments have traditionally had nothing to do with knighthoods and refuse to recommend such awards. Jack Egerton, Dorothy Tangney and William McKell were well-known examples of Labor politicians (or ex, in the case of McKell) who accepted knighthoods/damehoods, much to their party's displeasure. When the Order of Australia was set up in 1975, Whitlam did not include a knighthood or damehood level. Fraser added it when he beame PM. The last AK awarded under Fraser was on 26 January 1983, to Sir Roy Wright. Hawke became PM in March 1983 on a platform that included a promise to abolish AKs and ADs, and on 3 March 1986 the Queen removed the AK/AD level permanently. -- JackofOz 06:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Addendum: After Hawke became PM, a further AK was awarded, to Gordon Jackson, in June 1983. I can only assume this happened on a nomination made prior to March, and the government had no say once the committee considered it. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Honorary awards and Malcolm Williamson

We say nothing about honorary awards, made to non-citizens. There have been quite a few of these. The only mention of honorary awards I can find is at Orders, decorations, and medals of Australia, but that's just one brief sentence.

In particular, I'm interested in the case of the composer Malcolm Williamson. He was born in Oz, but lived the latter part of his life in the UK. He was given a substantive CBE in 1976, around the time he became Master of the Queen's Music. His Australian citizenship was a matter of note, being the first non-Briton to ever hold the post. Had he been a dual UK/Australian citizen, this would not have been the case. In 1987, he was given an honorary AO. I've confirmed with the Honours Secretariat that it was indeed honorary, and the [H] at his "It's an Honour" page is not a mistake. The Order of Australia's rules state that any Australian citizen who is appointed to the order is given a substantive award, and any non-citizen gets an honorary award. This leads me to believe that Williamson must have relinquished his Australian citizenship some time between 1976 and 1987. Yet to his dying day he was always referred to as an "Australian composer", and many of his works written after he became MQM in 1976 were performed and even premiered in Australia. I can find nothing about him ever relinquishing his Australian citizenship. Does anyone have any information about this? -- JackofOz (talk) 02:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Probably just a case of being a "non-Australian" on paper only, and kept doing his work in Australia. The article should probably just cite the relevant part of the order's statutes on the matter, like it is with the British honours articles or even the NZ Order of Merit. 118.90.110.36 (talk) 09:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
He was certainly an Australian in his heart, no matter where he lived or what his formal citizenship status was. No argument there. But why was his non-Britishness noted far and wide when he became MQM (the first non-British MQM ever), if in fact he had adopted British citizenship? Or if that happened after 1976, what caused him to relinquish Australian citizenship, and why is there nothing about this anywhere in print or in the internet? The only people who seem to be aware of it are Williamson himself (who's dead), and Government House. -- JackofOz (talk) 15:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Sir Roden Cutler

I asked this question on his own talk page but it's had no response so far. His knighthood in the Order of Australia was gazetted on 7 April 1981. Two months later, on the Queen's Birthday, Sir Garfield Barwick also got an AK. Any idea why Cutler's was given out of the usual sequence - Australia Day and Queen's Birthday. If Barwick was getting one on the QB anyway, why was Cutler's award made early? -- JackofOz (talk) 07:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

In case my question wasn't clear, consider this. The AK/ADs can be grouped as follows:

  • Date the category of AK/AD was established – Kerr (24 May 1976)
  • Date of appointment as Governor-General – Cowen, Stephen
  • Australia Day – Burnet, Lyons, Wright
  • Queen’s Birthday – Menzies, Syme, Hasluck, Barwick, Court, Jackson
  • Royal – Prince Charles.

That leaves Sir Roden Cutler, whose AK was gazetted on 7 April 1981. Does anyone know why his wasn’t awarded on Australia Day or the Queen’s Birthday? Barwick got his on the QB 1981, only 2 months later. I know that there was no law that says they could be awarded only on Australia Day or the Queen’s Birthday, but that was the usual, indeed universal, practice, apart from special cases. Kerr, Cowen and Stephen were all special cases, as their awards were in a sense ex officio, as the GG was the Principal Knight of the Order, and it would have been inappropriate for them to be in office without being AKs. Charles is in another special category. That still leaves Cutler in a category all of his own. Why was he special? Any ideas? -- JackofOz (talk) 14:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Well it appears that he held two knighthoods before the AK anyhow. I thought it may have been because he might have done a spell as Administrator ( acting Governor General ), but he retired as NSW Governor in January 1981 so he would not have been doing that in April 1981.Eregli bob (talk) 11:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

photo

this photo is free use File:Peter Cosgrove.jpg File:Angus Houston.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.168.3 (talk) 18:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Except that it's a photo of General Peter Cosgrove, not Air Chief Marshall Angus Houston. -- JackofOz (talk) 09:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Posthumous award?

This article claims the Order of Australia cannot be awarded posthumously, but didn't Graham Kennedy get one this Australia Day? Colonel Mustard 23:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

It was given retrospectively. Xtra 02:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Not quite retrospectively. I checked with Government House and nominations can only be received for a living person. If the person dies after nomination, then the award can still be made. The date of the award is not affected. --Dlatimer 00:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I think the award was actually dated back to his death when I read the Herald Sun. Xtra 10:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
There is a website called itsanhonour where you can search for all recipients of all medals. For Graham Kennedy it says Name: KENNEDY, Graham Cyril; Award: Officer of the Order of Australia (AO); Date Received: 26 January 2006; State: NSW; Suburb: Late of Bowral; Postcode: 2576. --Dlatimer 12:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I received an email as follows about this matter: --Dlatimer 01:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC) 

Dear Mr Latimer

Your email querying the date of effect of the award for Mr Kennedy has
been sent to me for reply.  The award was announced on 26 January 2006
and the appointment is with effect from 5 May 2005.

I hope this clarifies the situation for you.

Yours sincerely 

Judith Shackley
Assistant Director
Australian Honours Secretariat

That was what I thought. Xtra 02:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

What about Charlie Bell? His article states he received the award posthumously in June 2005. Atchius 18:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Not any more it doesn't. -- JackofOz (talk) 10:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Governor General

The GG is Chancellor and Principal Companion of the Order. I have seen photos of the Current GG and her predecessor Major General Jeffrey wearing the Star of the Knight/Dame. Is this something to do with their role as Principal Companion and Chancellor and do they continue to wear the badge after retirement as GG. As the Knight/Dame Grade has been abolished for some time the matter seems confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.106.190.91 (talk) 00:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I have seen photos of the Current GG and her predecessor Major General Jeffrey wearing the Star of the Knight/Dame. - Have you? I expect not. I expect you've seen them wearing the insignia consistent with being "Chancellor and Principal Companion of the Order". (But I could be wrong ... ) Pdfpdf (talk) 12:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
The Chancellor wears a badge similar to that of the Breast Badge of a Knight/Dame. It is usually only worn for Investiture ceremonies. 'The Insignia of the Chancellor of the Order is a Badge of the same material, fashion and size as the Breast Badge of a Knight or Dame of the Order but with such alterations and additions as The Sovereign approves.' www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/...nsf/0/.../Insignia+Ordinance_Comlaw.doc --Oliver Nouther (talk) 13:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to rename category

I have proposed on WP:Cfd that Category:Recipients of the Order of Australia Medal be renamed to Category:Recipients of the Medal of the Order of Australia to reflect the correct title of the medal. AusTerrapin (talk) 18:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The result of the discussion was to rename and the transfer of effected articles has been completed. AusTerrapin (talk) 04:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Numbers

Numbers of awards of the Order of Australia - by various categories

Nford has added the numbers he got from the relevant web page. Note that there numbers do not include honorary awards, and despite what the web page says, they are NOT as at the quoted date. (See List of Companions of the Order of Australia#Numbers awarded.)

The database can provide the total numbers of all divisions of the recipients who allow themselves to appear in the database, but it does not give a breakdown by division.
Again, despite what the relevant web page says, these are NOT total numbers - only totals of the number of people appearing in the database.

Award Statistics

If you don't have the URL, the Award Statistics table is almost impossible to find. The tree path is:
Home > Honours > Awards > A-Z of Australian Awards > Statistics
URL is: http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/honours/awards/statistics.cfm

On 20 August 2011 the page said:
Award Statistics Total number of awards presented as at 30th of June 2010:

Companion of the Order of Australia (General Division) 372
Companion of the Order of Australia (Military Division) 24
Dame of the Order of Australia 2
Knight of the Order of Australia 12
Medal of the Order of Australia (General Division) 16,521
Medal of the Order of Australia (Military Division) 1,089
Member of the Order of Australia (General Division) 6,725
Member of the Order of Australia (Military Division) 1,024
Officer of the Order of Australia (General Division) 1,930
Officer of the Order of Australia (Military Division) 238

Database counts

The "It's an Honour" search page is at http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/honours/honour_roll/search.cfm?show=advanced
In the Award/Medal list, it has (in the order it appears in that list)

  • Companion of the Order of Australia
  • Dame of the Order of Australia
  • Knight of the Order of Australia
  • Medal of the Order of Australia
  • Member of the Order of Australia
  • Officer of the Order of Australia

Selecting each individually, and clicking on "Search" finds (found, on 20 Aug 2011) the numbers appearing in the table below.

Honorary awards

Looking at Order of Australia#Honorary awards, we see that AusTerrapin isolated the Honorary awards on 11 July 2010:

On 11 July 2010, the Australian Honours website listed appointments for 34 Honorary Companions, 67 Honorary Officers, 86 Honorary Members of the Order of Australia and the award of 88 Honorary Medals of the Order of Australia.

Thus, in theory, we can get total awards at July 2010 by adding them to the Award Statistics. (Note, however, that the numbers in Award Statistics for AC are the numbers at Queen's Birthday 2011 ... see List of Companions of the Order of Australia#Numbers awarded.)

table

Key:

G = General Division
M = Military Division
H = Honorary award
Award Statistics
(see above)		 Search
11/7/2010		 July
2010		 Search
20/8/2011		 Not in
database		 Aug
2011
G & M G M H Total G&M&H Total Notes
AC 396 372 24 34 430 427 4 431 35 Honorary @ 20/8/2011
AD 2 - - - 2 2 - 2
AK 12 - - - 12 12 - 12
OAM 17,610 16,521 1,089 88 17,698 18,283
AM 7,749 6,725 1,024 86 7,835 8,012
AO 2,168 1,930 238 67 2,235 2,271

(See also List of Companions of the Order of Australia#Numbers awarded.)

So we can conclude that the Award Statistics probably includes ALL General & Military, but NO Honorary awards, whereas the database search includes ALL divisions, but only gives totals of people in the database.

Pdfpdf (talk) 01:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Ex-Australians

What happens to people who were appointed to the Order and later lost their Australian citizenship on becoming a citizen of another country? I'm thinking of Rupert Murdoch, who lost his Oz citizenship when he became an American in 1985. Does he get to keep his AC (because he got it when he was an Australian), or does he lose it (because he's no longer an Australian)? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 10:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Would he become an Honorary Companion of the order? When one receives an honorary appointment and then becomes a citizen of Australia, the appointment becomes substantive. Is the reverse the same if one gives up Australian citizenship? EricSerge (talk) 14:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Maybe, but the Rules don't seem to cover this situation explicitly.
* (5) Every Australian citizen appointed to the Order or awarded the Medal of the Order is a member of the Order, and every other person appointed to the Order or awarded the Medal of the Order is an honorary member of the Order
That says to me that a person who is an Australian citizen at the time of appointment is appointed substantively, and what may later happen to their citizenship is not relevant. Murdoch's entry at It's an Honour does not have an [H] after it, which would indicate it's been downgraded to honorary status.
I'm getting that honorary appointees who later become citizens do get translated upwards, but citizens who later lose their citizenship do not get translated downwards. Maybe I'll check with Government House about this, because we need to be sure. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 00:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Off of the order of aus mal.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Off of the order of aus mal.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 17 November 2011 --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Politicians and judges

Eligibility: All living Australians, except politicians and judges while holding office

Where did this come from? There's nothing in the Constitution of the Order about these exclusions. All the judges of the High Court were awarded ACs in 1988. -- JackofOz (talk) 09:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

--The Order of Australia is not given to politicians while they are in office (it might be different for judges). This is probably a convention, rather than being a rule in the Constitution of the Order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.158.114 (talk) 04:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Ribbon and badge Knight or Dame?

Is the badge of a Knight or Dame similar to that of the badge of a Companion of the Order? And how does a Knight or Dame wear the badge at the ribbon? Also around the neck? Or the same as the soevereign, like a riband worn over the shoulder? A pity, I couldn't find anything about that in the text. Dr. D.E. Mophon (talk) 08:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The Badge of the Knight or Dame is different to the AC in that it has the Australian Coat of Arms on Blue Enamel in the centre, the outer badge is the same. The neck decoration is worn the same as the AC, around the neck or women have the option of wearing it on a bow. The Breast Badge (or star) is worn on centrally on the left side of the jacket below the medal brooch bar or bow if one is worn (as per the Chancellor's and Sovereigns badge). Check out the links at the bottom of the page for images. --Oliver Nouther (talk) 09:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
I have added the info. Dr. D.E. Mophon (talk) 10:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Corruption

User talk:Laughton.andrew has added a new section to the article:

The entire awards system is done anonymously behind closed doors in perfect conditions for corruption to flourish. People awarded honours can have only their name shown on http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/honours/honour_roll/index.cfm , with a one line statement for the reason for the citation. No other details are available to the public, no way for the public to fact check the nominations and no chance of any corruption being exposed. Nominations and meeting are strictly private, with no information available to the public as to who attended these meetings or why a nomination failed to result in an award(https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/cancellation_or_termination_of_o), and even the original nominations are strictly private and are not covered by the Freedom of information act.(https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/terry_romaros_order_of_australia)

Despite several errors of fact, some points worthy of debate are raised. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

There are no errors of fact, and everything has been referenced. Why has this been deleted ?? Laughton.andrew (talk) 13:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
a) Why would I say "Despite several errors of fact" if there weren't any? What are you trying to achieve by that statement? Are you trying to piss me off? Well, you didn't succeed; you just damaged your credibility.
b) "everything has been referenced" - Another false statement.
  • "The entire awards system is done anonymously behind closed doors in perfect conditions for corruption to flourish." - Uncited.
  • "People awarded honours can have only their name shown on http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/honours/honour_roll/index.cfm , with a one line statement for the reason for the citation." - a) Uncited b) False. b1) I have no idea where your "with a one line statement for the reason for the citation" comes from. b2) "People" can choose not to appear at all. What's your point?
etc.
Those are SOME of the contributing factors for why it has been deleted. I could go on. Do I need to?
As far as I'm concerned, that's all irrelevant.
As I said: "some points worthy of debate are raised", and it is those that I am interested in. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:07, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
The references are dubious at best and are hardly encyclopaedic. There is no allegation of corruption just issues with the process. Leave the conspiracy theories for other sites! --Oliver Nouther (talk) 01:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
I am sorry, but I should have given a better edit summary, I fond corruption sections on pages such as this dubious at best without referecnce detailing the corruption. Your refs only linked to the official site about the Order. Nford24 (Want to have a chat?) 06:58, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


Regarding a)
I was not trying to piss anybody off, I simply do not know what you feel has not been referenced and what you think these errors of fact are.

Regarding b)

As far as corruption goes in general; if you take an imaginary scale, at one extreme the environment is totally transparent in such a way that everything is on display to anybody who cares to look. In this environment if somebody was to do the wrong thing it would be very easy for that person to be caught and measures taken to correct the problem.

At the opposite end of that same scale everything is hidden from view. If somebody was to do the wrong thing for whatever reason, they would never get caught out. It is this environment that leaves itself wide open to corruption. Corruption may or may not be a problem in this case, but the environment is such that it could very easily happen. In the specific case of the Order of Australia awards and how they are issued you may try this link; http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/honours/nominating/index.cfm or http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/honours/nominating/nominating.cfm#Order or possibly http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/honours/awards/medals/order_of_australia.cfm#coa

The statement "The entire awards system is done anonymously behind closed doors in perfect conditions for corruption to flourish." could possibly do with a reference, however it would need to be explained in more detail with references to each detail. How would you feel if the above statement was replaced with; A nomination for an Order of Australia award starts with somebody filling in a confidential form and submitting it to the Honours Secretariat at Government House in Canberra. http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/honours/nominating/nominating.cfm#Order This form will remain confidential at all times and cannot be verified by anybody else at any time. https://www.righttoknow.org.au/user/andrew_laughton/requests The form is given to the Council for the Order of Australia. http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/honours/awards/medals/order_of_australia.cfm#coa All Council for the Order of Australia business is strictly private and cannot be checked by members of the press or public. You need to read the explanation given as a reply to the requests at https://www.righttoknow.org.au/user/andrew_laughton/requests

While researching this I did find a list of names of people on the Council for the Order of Australia, which I did not find during my earlier research, so you are partly right, it is not as anonymous as I originally thought and wrote, however this list is five years old and may not be currant. http://www.directory.gov.au/directory?ea0_lf99_120.&organizationalUnit&e8ff9830-ea9a-40fe-b00a-cb17b2263dc8


While looking at the reference to the reason for the citations that is only one line long, you need to be aware that they are not going to state the obvious, you need to look at at least one example and see for yourself.

A reference I gave was http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/honours/honour_roll/index.cfm This is access to the Australian Honours Database of most people given an award. If you do a search for any name, even your own first name and the web page will return a list people with that first name. Click on any random name that takes your fancy, you will be shown a very brief list of things about that person, including one line for the reason for the citation.

Possibly I should of used http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/honours/honour_roll/search.cfm?show=simple, for the simple search or http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/honours/honour_roll/search.cfm?show=advanced for an advanced search. Possibly you would prefer it if I picked a single person from over 240,000 entries in the database. In my humble opinion the link giving the option of either type of search was the best, but given your confusion I may be wrong on this point.

If you still feel that there are any false statements I would appreciate a reference so that I may enlighten you.


Regarding b2) "People" can choose not to appear at all. What's your point?

The point is that, if for example person A decided for whatever reason they would like an award, and they paid person B to make it happen, person B would not need to fabricate anything that could be checked out, or proven to be false.

Person B could simply make an extremely vague claim and leave it at that. I thought that anybody reading something under a corruption heading would assume that it was relevant to the potential for corruption, however it appears that I was wrong, at least in your case. Would it be easier to understand if I added a few words after it, for example;

"Awardees can choose not to appear at all, making any corruption harder or impossible to detect."

Regarding; Those are SOME of the contributing factors for why it has been deleted. I could go on. Do I need to?

Yes please, it would be nice to see why my credibility may have been damaged.

Regarding; As far as I'm concerned, that's all irrelevant.

I guess there is some merit in working to the lowest common denominator so that nobody is excluded from using Wikipeadia because of comprehension difficulty's, and your input in this matter may benefit Wikipeadia, however I am not convinced that mass deletions is the best method to use.

Laughton.andrew (talk) 14:22, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Reinstatement of AK/AD and the creation of a list of appointments made under the Order

Hi there. In light of the reinstatement of the awarding of AK/AD, I have made some recent edits to this page and created the List of Knights and Dames of the Order of Australia. This list is modelled on the List of Companions of the Order of Australia. It is my understanding that significant input on the latter list has been completed by Pdfpdf; and he should be praised for his work on this list. However, in a very aggressive and argumentative tone, Pdfpdf has reverted two of my edits in the past 24 hours, that direct readers to the newly created list. It is not my desire to get into an edit war and, given the nature of the tone of voice expressed by this user in correcting my edits, I feel that I will take my bat and ball and play elsewhere. However, given that the precedent has been created for the establishment of a List of Companions external to the page on the Order, it seems logical to me to establish a List of AK/AD external to Order page as well. As appointment numbers to AK/AD grow, it will not clutter the Order page as well. The newly created list also includes highly relevant information, namely references to the appointment of each AK/AD that are omitted in the section that deals with AK/AD. It is also worth noting that the only other comparable list is the Living Australian knights and dames. This list is good, although lists knights and dames appointed under the Order of Australia and a range of other Orders; and lists only those alive. It's direct link from the Order of Australia page may imply that those on the latterly-mentioned list are appointed as AK/AD, when in fact, that is incorrect. Finally, throughout the Order of Australia page there is inconsistent styling of the words Governor-General of Australia. I have chosen not to edit, in view of the aggressive nature of the "corrections" made by Pdfpdf. Perhaps a user a little less emotially involved may wish to consider tackling. All the very best to you who give of your time and energy to compile WP. Regards. Rangasyd (talk) 19:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, all praise to User:Pdfpdf for his sterling work.
Now that AK/AD is back and the numbers will only increase, I fully agree with the creation of the separate page for AK/ADs, and I have already done some editing work on it.
I see no need to continue to include such a list in the main Order of Australia page. We need these details in one and only one place, otherwise we're creating unnecessary work for ourselves and exposing WP to the risk of inconsistency. I have boldly removed the details from here and added a "Main" template redirecting readers to the new page.
You may not be aware of the list of Australian knights and dames, which is designed to cover all such people from 1788 onwards, living and dead, under any and all orders, including latterly AK and AD. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Bunyip aristocracy

User Xtra removed the Bunyip aristocracy link from the See also section. I believe it is directly relevant as it is a catch phrase deriving from an 1853 speech in response to a proposal by Wentworth to introduce a NSW peerage system - a form of honours, albeit with titles not merely letters. As a result of that firm, early and popularly received response, I believe it took longer than it might have otherwise for Australian orders of recognition to be established. I have thus retored the link. --A Y Arktos 19:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Honours has nothing to do with peerage. Do not have anything to do with it in Australia. Do not have anything to do with it anywhere. Also, there is no mention of its relevance to the honours system on that bunyip page (I would argue that it would require a significant mention as the two articles have nothing to do with each other). Xtra 23:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
They are related concepts and the link to Bunyip Aristocracy should remain. --Centauri 00:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
How are they related? There is no evidence of this on either page. Xtra 00:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Peerage is a form of honours - albeit hereditary - see the peerage article and British honours system. The term bunyip aristicracy was in relation to the introduction of peerage, an heridatry honours system. This article, or an umbrella article, could do with expansion to cover the history of honours in Australia, including formerly granting of British honours to Australians and past attempts to introduce Australian honours.--A Y Arktos 00:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
At the moment there is no relevance in the link, and unless some sourced relevance is in that article soon, I will remove it as irrelevant again. Xtra 00:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
relevance asserted in see also section - refs in the Bunyip aristocracy article--A Y Arktos 00:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Ok, but it appears to be a speculation based on original research to me. Xtra 00:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
There's nothing speculative about it. It's demonstrably relevant to this article - end of story. --Centauri 03:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Given that the "Bunyip Aristocracy" referred to honours that involved ennoblement, I.e. peerage, and the honours system up to and including knights and dames does not confer ennoblement or peerage, the relevance of the Bunyip Aristocracy article is yet to be demonstrated. Simply put, a peerage title means the recipient becomes part of the nobility; the award of a knight or a dame or lower does not transfer the recipient to the nobility. (See the article on Peerage.) The recipient remains a commoner unless already part of the nobility. As such, user Xtra is correct. Attempts to link this article with Bunyip Aristocracy indicate POV and political bias, regardless of the merits or otherwise of the current PM's decision to restore knights/dames to the Order of Australia. Ptilinopus (talk) 14:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Sanitation (revisited)

I have issue with the sanitation of this issue by some editors. There has been significant and widespread criticism of this decision throughout Australia, most notably by current Liberal party members and former monarchist PM Howard, but any attempt to note it is almost instantly removed by people with I suspect monarchist agendas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.178.66.147 (talk) 23:21, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I can personally guarantee that there is no sanitation of current events here. There has been very little to no issue against the Order of Australia but the decision of the Prime Minister, as such that does not belong here but on the Tony Abbott page. Nford24 (Want to have a chat?) 23:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
There has been very little to no issue against the Order of Australia - well, not against the Order per se, but certainly there has been a great deal of (usually negative and derisory) commentary about the reintroduction of knights and dames to the Order. They were given a decent burial by Hawke in 1983, that's 31 years ago, before the internet was invented. Maybe we read different papers. Not all the commentary has been from the left side; John Howard, who could easily have reinstated them had he been so minded, did not, and has been far from positive in his comments this week. And Malcolm Turnbull, of course, has been biting his tongue so hard it's bleeding. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 23:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
These last posts bring up an issue I think needs to be addressed. As I see it, the role of an encyclopaedia, which WP professes to be, is to purvey factual information about the subject concerned. It is not to purvey opinion on the subject concerned. Whether or not public opinion is for or against the subject should be irrelevant to a presentation on the subject, UNLESS the subject is a news type item, or specifically about the public reaction to an issue. This article as presented is well written, presents the actual facts of the subject Order of Australia, and should not include public attitudes to changes in the subject matter. Such amounts to POV, and frequently seem to reflect the POV of the writer. I've seen a lot of this in various articles on controversial topics, including sections attempting to debunk or comment on a topic not generally agreed with, rather than simply presenting the information about the subject. Such should be "sanitised"! Ptilinopus (talk) 00:21, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Honorary Dames and Knights?

Does anyone know what the regulations have to say about Honorary awards of AD/AK? (If the regs allow it, I can see an award to SBY in the very near future! It would be an insult not to appoint such people to the highest award!)

(And while I'm at it, how long before David Hurley is knighted? And which former PMs? Surely John Howard?) Pdfpdf (talk) 12:59, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

And Prince Philip. Oh dear Tony Abbot, what further havoc have you unleashed upon us! Pdfpdf (talk) 13:04, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
SBY? I am not sure on the regs, however I cannot see it happening lightly, if Abbott started dishing them out he'll definitely upset the republicans. Nford24 (Want to have a chat?) 13:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry. Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono.
Yes, I agree, but I can see the Indonesians getting even more upset if SBY doesn't get one soon! Pdfpdf (talk) 13:48, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
(After all, the Poms made him a GCB - only KT and Order of the Garter are higher ... ) Pdfpdf (talk) 13:54, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/ There is a word doc 'Fact Sheet' about the the AD/AK, it does say that it can be awarded honorarily. Nford24 (Want to have a chat?) 20:39, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
See also User talk:Pdfpdf#Honorary AKs and ADs. I dug out the relevant Ordinance. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 10:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Ooops - I archived it! Here's a copy. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 03:12, 6 April 2014 (UTC) (But first:

I've seen some discussion about this, with people apart from yourself wondering if such a thing exists. My immediate thought was, why not? I've never seen anything that says honorary awards apply only to ACs, AMs and AOs. The fact that there have never been any honorary AKs or ADs doesn't mean there won't be.

Now I know we all like positive evidence of stuff, so I've managed to track down this (my bolding):

Designations of Members of the Order Of Australia and of holders of the Medal Of the Order of Australia
3 A member of the Order of Australia or a person awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia is entitled—
(a) in the case of a Knight or Dame—to use the title "Sir" or "Dame", as the case may be, before his or her name;
(b) in the case of a Knight or Dame, or honorary Knight or Dame—
(i) to have the letters "AK" or "AD", as the case may be, placed after his or her name on all occasions when the use of such letters is customary; and
(ii) to wear as a decoration the prescribed insignia for Knights of the Order or Dames of the Order, as the case may be;

This is from the Designations and Insignia Ordinance, which starts at p. 38 here.

So, the only question now is: Who will be the first honorary AK and honorary AD? Rupert Murdoch and Miley Cyrus, perhaps? Cheers. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 10:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

When did the AK/ADs come back?

See this from The Age, 2 April. Yesterday 3 April there was a follow up piece titled "It seems that Dame Quentin was actually nothing like a dame", that says the PMO has advised "the documents" were signed by the Queen on 19 March. Yet the first the outside world knew anything about it was 6 days later on 25 March. And as of yesterday, 15 days after the signing, Government House says it has not seen the Letters Patent or any copy of them. All very odd.

So, we need to see something to clarify all this. Was Bryce an ex-officio Dame from 19 March when the Queen signed "the documents", or did the re-establishment occur only wef 25 March, the day of the public announcement? Is there a Gazette notice or anything on ComLaw yet? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 00:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

So far, the only "official" document I've seen is the Abbott press release dated 25 March. (http://www.pm.gov.au/media/2014-03-25/new-honour-pre-eminent-australians)

On the GG's website, possible pages to watch:

  • New/Amendments to Regulations & Determinations (Last updated 8 January 2014)
  • Links (Last updated 4 March 2012)
  • The Order of Australia (Last updated 3 April 2014:
    • "In addition, the Governor-General makes appointments as Knight or Dame, in the General Division only, on the Prime Minister’s recommendation. Knights and Dames rank above the Companion level."
    • Quotas - Note: They have increased!
    • Knight or Dame of the Order – 4
    • Companion of the Order – 30
    • Officer of the Order – 125
    • Member of the Order – 300
    • Medal of the Order – no quota limitation
  • The Order of Australia booklet - Ninth Edition 2009
All sorts of stuff, but no answer to your questions. Pdfpdf (talk) 04:23, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Awards in both divisions

What happens if someone has awards in both divisions- civil and military? Are both postnominals listed after their names, for example, Dame Kelly Holmes, DBE, MBE(Mil.)? In the Order of the British Empire, a higher ranking civil award (eg, KBE) does not supercede a lower military one (eg, MBE). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.234.112 (talk) 04:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

This page is specifically about the Order of Australia. Your question seems to be about honours generally, nevertheless, I'll comment about its relevance to the Order of Australia.
My understanding is that a higher award in any division subsumes a lower award in any division. Thus, an AM or AO in the military division who is appointed AC in the general division, or vice-versa, is entitled to use only the highest postnom, AC. Sir Phillip Bennett was an AO (Military) but then, as far as I understand, an AC (General). I need to confirm this. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 05:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
I am saying that there might not be an actual rule for the Order of the British Empire, it might just be a convention. So, for the Order of Australia, it might be the same, where there is not an actual rule on the Constitution of the order. The Order of Australia replaced the Order of the British Empire in Australia, so you would have thought that conventions of the postnominals of civil and military would simply follow that of the previous Order. A military award (in the Order of Australia) is not the same thing as a civil award- it is approved by the minister of defence. Some wikipedia articles for Australians with both civil & military orders (eg Michael Jeffery) indicate that two ribbons are worn (civil and military). Why would people wear two separate ribbons but only use one postnominal. If it is true that an AC subsumes a military AO, then why do they wear two ribbons? The Order of Australia seems to have been partly modelled on the Order of the British Empire, where there is a different ribbon for military division awards. Also, the OAM is modelled on the BEM (The Order of Australia is not just modelled on the Order of Canada). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.234.112 (talk) 06:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
The Constitution of the Order of Australia, Insignia Ordinance Para 18 states - "A person who has been appointed at the level of Member or Higher in both the General Division and the Military Division of the Order is entitled to retain and wear the insignia of both Divisions." The Decorations and Insignia Ordinance paras 4 & 5 go on to say that Members in both divisions "may identify two awards by placing placing after his or her name ... for example AC, AO(Mil)" or " AM, OAM(Gen)". I will try and put this on the Order of Australia page, with proper referencing when I get time. I only have the hard copy of the Order Of Australia booklet which includes the Constitution and Ordinances. --Oliver Nouther (talk) 00:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Now you've raised my level of curiosity above threshold level! Pdfpdf (talk) 09:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

People with awards in BOTH divisions

Who does have awards in both divisions?
The http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au entries rarely state the division, but it is usually clear from the citations.

Who General Div Military Div Notes
Peter Arnison AC 2001 AO 1992
AM ?		 AM does not appear in "It's an Honour"
Michael Jeffery AC 1996 AO 1988
AM 1981
Kevin Scarce AC 2008 AO 2004
AM 2001
Peter Sinclair AC 1992 AO 1986
Phillip Bennett AO 1981
AC 1985		 Both have same citation!
(Gov of Tas 1987-95; CDF 1984-87.
Suspect quoted AO citation is wrong).
Others?

Pdfpdf (talk) 09:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Peter Sinclair,
Kevin Scarce,
Peter Arnison
That I know of... see the connection? --Oliver Nouther (talk) 11:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
A new one;
Who General Div Military Div Notes
Sir Peter Cosgrove AK 2014 AC 2000
AM 1985		 AK upon assuming office of GG
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nford24 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

People stripped of their awards

Is it worth mentioning that 22 people have been stripped of their Order of Australia?[2] Usually after being convicted of serious crimes. 203.9.185.136 (talk) 23:38, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

It is a good idea, however the article you link to only shows 22 revokations. There have been around 50 all up since the early-mid 80's. See - http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/achievers-stripped-of-their-australian-honours-after-disgrace/story-fni0fit3-1226805020770 Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 03:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Prince Philip's AC

Is Prince Philip an honorary AC (as he is not an Australian)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.158.114 (talk) 04:13, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Prince Philip's AC award was not marked [H] for honorary, and I'm not aware of any special arrangements that had to be made to ensure he got a substantive award. But that raises more questions than it answers.
If Prince Philip is an Australian citizen by right of being married to his wife (which is the only possible way he could ever have got his foot in the door, so to speak), then Prince Charles must also be an Australian citizen. But we know he's not. From the article:
  • Prince Charles was appointed a Knight of the Order (AK) on 14 March 1981. As he is not an Australian citizen, this would have required the award to be honorary. To overcome this issue, his appointment was created by amendment to the Constitution of the Order of Australia by special Letters Patent signed by The Queen. Hence, the Prince of Wales is a full member in the General Division, not an honorary appointment.
Yet a note at List of Companions of the Order of Australia says
  • Honorary recipients are denoted by [ H ] next to their name (with the exception of "PHILIP, Prince Philip"),
... which says to me that he is indeed a non-citizen, but just not explicitly marked as such. I suspect the note is OR by a well-meaning editor, and it needs a citation to back it up.
It's very odd. If special arrangements had to be made for Prince Charles, how did Prince Philip manage to sneak in under the radar? Compare this with the Order of Canada, which has a similar rule providing for honorary appointments for non-citizens. From Monarchy of Canada:
  • For example, the Queen Mother was appointed a Companion of the Order of Canada on only an honorary basis, though the Canadian Forces Decoration awarded to her was substantive.[199][200] Similarly, Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, refused honorary appointment to the Order of Canada on the grounds that, as the royal consort of the Queen, he was Canadian, and thus entitled to a substantive appointment,[201] as he had been awarded the Canadian Forces Decoration and Commemorative Medal for the Centennial of Saskatchewan.
From Honorary appointments to the Order of Canada:
  • The Queen Mother, as a member of the Canadian Royal Family, was a Canadian subject but not a Canadian citizen.
It seems the Prince got his way with the Australian authorities but the plucky Canucks held firm and offered him only an honorary appointment, which he declined.
There has to be more to the Australian story. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


The latest version of the Constitution of the Order of Australia makes it clear that the Order consists of
  • the Sovereign
  • the Governor-General
  • Prince Charles
  • other people by appointment: and we know that citizens get substantive appointments, non-citizens get honorary appointments.
There's no mention of any special rules or consideration for Prince Philip, who is just one of many "other people". -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
I thought permanent residents of Australia (as well citizens) could get the Order of Australia- you just have to be Australian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.234.112 (talk) 07:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
No, it's not enough to be an Australian by adoption or residency or whatever. You must be an Australian citizen to get a substantive appointment; if you're not, you get an honorary appointment. It's spelled out in black and white at Clause 1(5) of the Constitution of the Order:
  • Every Australian citizen appointed to the Order or awarded the Medal of the Order is a member of the Order, and every other person appointed to the Order or awarded the Medal of the Order is an honorary member of the Order. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 07:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
But Prince Philip was appointed to the Military Division, and notwithstanding clause 1(5), clause 20(1) states that "The following are eligible to be appointed to the order as members in the Military Division: (a) members of the Defence Force" (cf. clause 20(2) which states that "Members of the armed forces of a country other than Australia are eligible to be appointed to the Order as honorary members in the Military Division"). Prince Philip is a serving Admiral of the Fleet / Field Marshal / Marshal of the Royal Australian Air Force in the Defence Force, and therefore is eligible to be appointed a substantive member under clause 20(1). I know there is a conflict with clause 1(5), which would seem to applies to both divisions, but it would appear that the Duke got his way, otherwise he would have refused the honorary appointment, as he did with the Order of Canada in 1982: see [3] Andrew Yong (talk) 17:58, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Slight digression: You (and others) mention he is a Companion in the Military Division, but I have yet to find a reference that confirms this. For that matter, I have yet to find a reference which confirms the date of his award. Can you help? Pdfpdf (talk) 14:59, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
(BTW: I'm not completely comfortable with ANY statements about his Companionship that aren't supported by reliable references, or failing that, a reliable reference. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:59, 20 April 2014 (UTC))
I happen to agree with Pdfpdf. The royal website only mentions him as an 'AC' (not specifically military division) - http://www.royal.gov.uk/ThecurrentRoyalFamily/TheDukeofEdinburgh/Stylesandtitles.aspx Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 16:11, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

(Jan 2015) Can someone please protect this page?

Can someone please protect this page? Pdfpdf (talk) 10:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Pdfpdf, I've put in a request for page protection. Primefac (talk) 12:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

James Wolfensohn, honorary officer

James Wolfensohn is listed as an honorary officer. As he has reclaimed his Australian citizenship, is he now a substantive officer? Hack (talk) 05:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The official site still lists the award as honorary. Wikiain (talk) 23:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Elizabeth II, as a designator, is inappropriate in the Australian context

By an Act in 1953, Australia formally recognises the Royal Style, "Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of Australia and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth"; but not "Elizabeth the Second", nor "Elizabeth II". Therefore the page for 'Order of Australia' should not refer to "Elizabeth II". After all, she is not the second Queen Elizabeth in relation to Australia, just as James VI of Scotland was James I of England. It may be argued that 'Elizabeth II' is simply the Royal Style (as recognised by Australia) in abbreviated form. However, "Elizabeth, Queen of Australia", "Queen Elizabeth" and "Elizabeth" are even more succinct abbreviations; and Australia has no justification for any intermediate abbreviation.

P.S. I don't know who set up the link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth 110.143.242.138 (talk) 13:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I disagree, and so do others who have reverted your edits. I recommend you learn more about Wikipedia and Australia before you make further edits. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Feel free to disagree, but can you counter the rational argument I've presented on this Talk page? Whether you agree or disagree with a certain 'opinion', it's different from *defending* your own opinion against a good argument. (And it has nothing to do with skill at editing Wikipedia!) 110.143.242.138 (talk) 14:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
No it has nothing to do with skill - it has everything to do with behavior, and following Wikipedia policy and guidelines (e.g. WP:CONSENSUS, WP:BRD, etc.) Pdfpdf (talk) 15:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
What are you proposing and which reliable source are you using as justification? Hack (talk) 14:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Her title in Australia is "Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of Australia and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth": Royal Style and Titles Act 1973 (Cth), Schedule. (See Royal Style and Titles Act external links.) Then Australians abbreviate "Elizabeth the Second" to "Elizabeth II". Wikiain (talk) 22:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Although that abbreviation of the full Royal Style is traditional in Australia, it is more sensible, in the Aussie context, to take the abbreviation one step further, to simply "Elizabeth". However, I guess tradition trumps sense. 110.143.242.138 (talk) 23:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Please take notice of what Pdfpdf said yesterday. Wikiain (talk) 00:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
I took very careful notice of what PdfPdf said. Our opinions differ. Anyway, it turns out that the same matter has been previously discussed - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Monarchy_of_Australia#There_has_only_ever_been_one_Elizabeth 110.143.242.138 (talk) 00:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
The answer here is the same as there. The Queen is officially Elizabeth the Second. Hack (talk) 02:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
She is officially "Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of Australia and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth" - so you are in fact abbreviating! The issue is *how much* abbreviation is sensible in Oz as opposed to the UK; and we all have opinions. But hey, above I admitted that tradition trumps sense - so I'm no longer pushing for the change. Relax. 110.143.242.138 (talk) 02:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Prince Philip's AK

When his son Prince Charles was made an AK, the Constitution of the Order had to be amended to specifically include him as a substantive knight, because otherwise he would have qualified only for an honorary award, not being an Australian citizen. It seems to me that Prince Philip is in exactly the same position, yet I've seen no mention that his AK today is honorary, nor any mention of the Constitution of the Order being amended to accommodate him in the same way that Charles was. Does anyone know any more about this? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 12:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

See Prince Philip's AC thread above for relevant background to his AC. Note that the AK/AD level is not split into General and Military divisions like the AC and lower orders, so some of the above considerations do not apply here. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
The constitution of the order was amended for Philip: "His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, shall be a Knight in the General Division of the Order and shall have precedence in the Order immediately after the Governor-General." [4]. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Ah ha! Thanks very much for that, Mies. I knew I was right, one way or the other.  :) -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 19:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Prince Philip now ranks after the Governor-General, and before Prince Charles in the Order of Australia.
Yes, that's covered above. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 10:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I know that, but the main article doesn't have them in that order.
I wanted to correct it earlier today but the article was protected. And it still is. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 11:01, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Now fixed. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 02:40, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Order_of_Australia/Archive_1&oldid=1221491070"