Talk:Order of Australia

There seems to be a push for cluttering the info box & for inaccurate information to be suggested, and I had advised Safes007 to get a consensus, though that hasn't happened yet. The three points that shouldn't be listed are;

• 1, |eligibility = All living Australian citizens (non-citizens eligible for honorary awards) - There is no need to mention that honorary awards are made for the Order of Australia, every Australian honour can be made honorarily & no are similar orders article mentions this in the infobox, it is however mentioned in the lead and in several sections throughout the article.
• 2, "Also, shouldn't imply only Aus. are eligible." - The fact is that only Australian citizens are eligible. The order consists of two divisions, Military and General. There is no honorary division. Honorary awards can be made in either division for "permanent residents & non-citizens" with the additional requirement that "Approval of an honorary appointment or award may require permission from the person’s home country."^[1]
• 3, |founder = Elizabeth II on the advice of Gough Whitlam - Much like the first point, its not standard on any Australian medal article or on any similar orders articles. This point it also specifically discussed in the lead so is just clutter.

I would suggest that it would require consensus to make these changes considering they're not standard practice on WP and have clearly been challenged. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 21:17, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't quite understand your objection to talking about honorary awards in the infobox. You seem to contradict yourself by stating that honorary awards can be awarded to permanent residents & non-citizens, while also stating that only Australian citizens are eligible. Are you suggesting that honorary awards aren’t technically Orders of Australia? If so, I’d disagree with that as the letters patent state that order consists of ‘…members and honorary members’. If we don’t want to clutter the infobox with the distinction between honorary and substantive awards, I’d support deleting the "eligibility" parameter.

Secondly, I do think it’s needed to say that Elizabeth II received advice when founding the award. As the purpose of the infobox is to summarise the page, the fact that the information is already included in the page is besides the point. Also, the reason most other pages don’t include the source of advice to create an award in their infobox is that most other awards were created directly by the person listed. There is a significant difference between Napoleon creating the Legion of Honour as de facto ruler of France, or George V creating the OBE due to their own personal view and the Order of Australia, which was created without any de facto input from the Queen. It’s similar to how the infobox of the UK Government states that ministers are appointed by the King on the advice of the PM, as it would be misleading and suggest an autocracy otherwise. Safes007 (talk) 14:15, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, restoring it is blatantly Editwarring and goes against WP:BRD, and I can see no attempt to gain a consensus for going alternate to the current layout practices. Your first point I can respond to quite clearly, but I'm assuming you didn't even read the reference I provided? Do I really need to explain what honorary means? and therefore why honorary awards do not form part of the yearly quota? No Australian medal article currently mentions the fact that honorary awards and awards to non-citizens are available in the infobox, likewise on similar articles New Zealand Order of Merit, Order of New Zealand, Order of Canada, Legion of Honour, Order of the Garter, Order of the Bath, Order of Merit, Order of St Michael and St George, Royal Victorian Order etc. The same response also applies for the second point, every medal in the current suite of Australian honours were recommended either by the PM&C, DoD, the random decidedly honours reviews and by public suggestion. The reason the sovereign is listed only it because they create the specific honours through the instruments as the fons honorum. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 05:46, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand why you are asking a rhetorical question about whether I understand something when I explicitly asked you to explain. Specifically:

• Yes, I would like you to explain what you think honorary means. My reading of the letters patent suggests that honorary members belong to the Order of Australia alongside non-honorary members, the Sovereign and the Governor-General. Australian citizens are eligible for ordinary awards and non-citizens are eligible for honorary awards. In other words, eligibility for the Order of Australia as a whole (which is what the scope of the page is) is not limited to just Australian citizens. If you disagree with this, it would be much easier for me to figure out your perspective so that we could come to a solution if you just stated what you think instead of posing rhetorical questions or by making assumptions about what I have and have not read.

• In regards to your reference specifically, I don't understand how it's relevant to the eligibility section of the infobox that that some honorary awards require permission of the home country before being award. Whether or not another country's permission may be required doesn't seem to be to change the fact that non-citizens can be awarded honorary awards. If you could clarify what you meant by this, this would be greatly appreciated.
• I also don't see why it's relevant that there is no honorary division, with honorary members appointed in the existing general and military divisions. This doesn't seem to change the fact that they belong to the Order.
• I don't understand your reference to the quota. Section 14 of the Order Constitution appears to be the reason honorary members are excluded from the annual limits. This section doesn't appear to affect their eligibility to appointed as honorary members.

• While most of those pages you have listed don't make a distinction in the eligibility section, I don't think that by itself is that important to deciding what to do on this page. It is the reasons that other pages do things certain ways that is relevant, not just the fact that they do. Those pages may not make a distinction just because no one has clarified it in the infobox or because their honour system is different. If there has been previous discussions on the talk pages of those pages on this, that could be relevant and I'd be happy to read it. I would have to do more research on those other pages to before making similar changes, but many of those awards appear to be similar to the Order of Australia and would also benefit from distinguishing the eligibility requirements of honorary and non-honorary awards in their infoboxes. Specifically:

• The statutes of the New Zealand Order of Merit state that "The Order shall consist of the Sovereign, a Chancellor, and five levels of Membership ... Each of the five levels shall be composed of Ordinary, Additional, and Honorary Members." In other words, honorary members are members of the order. These just seem to rank lower that Ordinary and Additional members.
• Similarly, the statutes of the Order of New Zealand state that "The Order shall consist of the Sovereign and Ordinary, Additional, and Honorary Members." They have all the same privileges as other members of the order, including the use of post-nominals and are subject to the same criteria for appointment.
• Likewise, the Constitution of the Order of Canada states that "The Order shall consist of ... Members ... and honorary Companions, Officers and Members." They are entitled to post-nominals and to wear their award and don't seem to be treated differently from non-honorary members.
• I can't find the specific rules for the Order of Merit, but assuming that honorary members are treated exactly the same as non-honorary members, the above would also apply.

• However, the other pages you have mentioned either have a greater distinction between honorary and non-honorary awards or describe their eligibility section in the infobox differently or not at all.

• The Legion of Honour website states that "only French citizens may be admitted into the Order. Foreigners can be distinguished in the Order of the Legion of Honor, but they are not members." This is different from the Order of Australia and the above orders which explicitly state that honorary members belong to the order. The eligibility section also only states that the award is available to military and civilians and doesn't mention being limited by citizenship at all, so I don't think this is relevant to this discussion.
• The pages Order of the Garter, Order of the Bath and Royal Victorian Order don't include an eligibility section in their infobox, which is what I had proposed alternatively in my first response on this talkpage above.
• The Order of St Michael and St George page has its infobox section for eligibility read: "Typically Commonwealth realm citizens". This is another possible solution to avoiding the problem of the phrase "All living Australian citizens" implying that non-citizens cannot become a member of the order through an honorary award. Personally, I think it is less preferable than keeping the mention of the honorary awards or deleting the section entirely as it seems imprecise, but I'm open to this change if you would prefer it.

In regard to your second point, while bodies like the defence department or PMC may have suggested or lobbied for the creation of a particular award, they did not create or found any. Instead, the power to create this and all other awards belongs to the royal prerogative (as discussed by Greg Taylor here) and may only be made by advice to the governor-general or monarch by the relevant minister (in this case the prime minister). This is seen in the 1975 letters-patent for the award, which is countersigned by Whitlam, not any other body. I can't find any evidence by a quick google that this position is changed by the monarch being a "fons honorum" and acting alone or any mention of that concept in the Australian context. If you have a relevant source about this, I'd be happy to read it.

• Regardless of the specific legal position, I think mentioning the source of advice in the infobox is useful simply because it provides useful information that summarises the information of the page. Because Australia is a constitutional monarchy, knowing who the founder is only tells you that the Order was created while they were on the throne, as the monarch does not have any independent discretion in deciding to create awards (unlike other historical honours that were created by people or monarchs with more independent powers). Adding the source of the advice provides a "key fact" that I believe is more important that just listing the founder alone. It is also avoids giving the wrong impression to those unfamiliar to constitutional monarchies. In most other contexts, the founder is both the de facto and de jure creator of something, be it a company, a business or other organisation. Adding the source of advice ensures that the infobox doesn't give the impression that Queen Elizabeth II decided to create the award on her own initiative.

I am happy to discuss further on these two points and am open to other wordings or solutions involving footnotes or removing parameters. Safes007 (talk) 13:37, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I do have to apologise for the extremely delayed response, I was waiting to hear back from the Order of Australia Association on their position on honorary members, and they don't accept honorary members/non-citizens into the association. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 20:45, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

No problem. If they can provide further sources that would be great, but as they are a private body with a different purpose and rules to the Order, I don't think their practice would be directly relevant to this talk page discussion. However, more sources could be used to expand their section or spin it off into its own page. Safes007 (talk) 03:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

While the practice of informing the Sovereign of appointments before awards of the Order of Australia was discontinued in practice by the Keating government, the constitution of the Order remains remains unchanged: awards can only be validly made with the approval of the Sovereign. Such "approval" is now simply sought post-facto, but it does not alter the Sovereign's role in being the one formally granting the award. Regardless of the Keating government's actions, the official Letters Patent constituting an appointment to the Order still explicitly references the approval of the Sovereign[1]. This exemplifies even further that, formally, the award is granted by the Sovereign. The Governor-General simply administers the Order on the Sovereign's behalf. Lord Dim 1 (talk) 13:31, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

The constitution refers to the "approval of the sovereign". It does not refer to the sovereign being the one was "makes" the award. The Constitution is clear that the award is made by instrument signed by the governor-general. There is no way for an award to be made except with the actions of the governor general. To put another way, If I need my parents' approval to drive their car, it doesn't change the fact that I am the driving it.

Also "approval" is not sought post-facto. To directly quote the Australian Bar Review article, "she merely receives information about awards after the fact". Providing information is not the same as requiring approval. This is confirmed by the sources in that article: (David Smith p 76 "In the early days these recommendations were then submitted to the Queen for her approval, until Prime Minister Keating cut out that final step – but that is another story.")

Also, you have yet to provide a source for your key claim that the Sovereign is the "one formally granting the award" or that the governor-general simply "administers the Order on the Sovereign's behalf". This may be true, but you cannot make a claim on wikipedia without a reliable source directly supporting your claim. Safes007 (talk) 23:52, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Seems to me that the existence of 'Sovereign Head of the Order of Australia', which is held by the sovereign, where as the Chancellor of the Order of Australia is held by the GG suggests that Lord Dim 1 is correct. What I'm getting at is, regardless of who signs the paper, all awards appear to be made in the name of the sovereign head. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 05:52, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

It's unclear what the legal effect of the title "Sovereign Head of the Order of Australia" is. Even without the title, the sovereign would be "sovereign" over it in their role as monarch. Greg Taylor on page 355 seems to suggest the title reflects the monarch's sole role in issuing letters patent and making any changes to the structure of the awards.

Alternatively, it's certainly plausible that in a sense all awards are made "in the name of" the monarch, because of their position as sovereign. You could also say the same thing for all government bodies, who all ultimately exercise their authority as derived from the crown (complications arising from the constitution and popular sovereignty not withstanding). However the fact that ultimate authority derives from the sovereign doesn't change the fact that a separate person or body exercises that power. Traditionally, the monarch is seen as the fount of justice, but we don't say that court judgments are "made" by the monarch. Similarly, the monarch is vested with the executive power of the country, but we don't say that the monarch appoints every single civil servant. Instead, the GG, through to ministers to higher up civil servants exercise the power of the monarch that has been delegated to them.

Regardless, any specific claims about who makes awards must be supported by reliable sources making the specific claim. Thus far I have not found any that state that awards are legally made by the monarch. The only other source I can think of that may be relevant is the 1995 review of the honours policy and I'll try and get a look at it next time I'm at a library. Safes007 (talk) 07:36, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

"Approval" is a standard formal term used for the granting of awards by the Sovereign. The 2025 New Years Honours List uses the formulation multiple times, such as "THE KING has been graciously pleased to approve the award of the British Empire Medal (Civil Division) to the undermentioned:" Absolutely no one would suggest that the British Empire Medal is awarded by anyone other than the King. Likewise, the term is used in the appointment of the Governor-General: "His Majesty The King, on the recommendation of the Prime Minister of Australia, Mr Anthony Albanese, has been pleased to approve the appointment of Ms Samantha Mostyn AO, as the Governor-General Designate of the Commonwealth of Australia."[2] Again, no one would ever contend that the King does not make the appointment of the Governor-General but merely approves the appointment.

The practice of the Australian government in consulting with the Sovereign prior to the grant of an award or informing him afterwards is irrelevant. The Constitution of the Order still explicitly states the Sovereign must approve conferrals of awards, and the Letters Patent formally granting awards still references the approval of the Sovereign[3]. We are speaking about the formality here, and the formality makes things explicitly clear: the awards are formally granted in the name of the King, thus they are formally granted by him. All actions by the Governor-General are carried out on behalf of the King, whom he represents. As such, awards are granted formally by the Monarch of Australia and the page should reflect this.

You state that "you have yet to provide a source for your key claim that the Sovereign is the "one formally granting the award" or that the governor-general simply "administers the Order on the Sovereign's behalf"" but when i provided such an explicit source for the page of the Order of Canada you didn't care and instead made the page an even more convoluted mess.

I'll tag @Peter Ormond as someone with extensive experience with Commonwealth Honours. Lord Dim 1 (talk) 20:43, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I presume the wording is different for the BEM because according to the BBC "Those awarded the honour did not receive it from the monarch but from the lord lieutenant of their county or a local authority." The 1922 warrant states that medals "shall be awarded", while nominations and appointments to the order proper are made by the monarch specifically.

In regards to the governor-general, when considering what the legal meaning of "approval" means, what is relevant is legal documents, not press releases. The commission specifically states that the monarch is the one who makes the appointment.

I don't believe you provided a source that the sovereign of Canada is the "one formally granting the award". You did provide a source that the GG is acting on behalf of the monarch, but that doesn't imply that the actions of a person who has been delegated power are legally those of the delegator.

Now, it's possible that as you contend, the requirement in the constitution of the "approval of the sovereign" means that awards are formally and legally made by King. However, we don't have any sources that confirm that. Instead, the sources refer to the GG being the one who makes the appointments, with the (now dispensed with) approval of the monarch. Safes007 (talk) 06:41, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Referring specifically to the BEM statement, that is only presented by the Lord Lieutenants and councils In the UK (It never ceased as an honour outside of the UK). Queen Elizabeth II personally presented the Order of Australia on many occasions, she personally presented the AK to her husband^[1], the AM^[2] and AC to Peter Cosgrove^[3] and many more. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 19:05, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

@Lord Dim 1, Safes007, and Nford24:, I won't take sides here. But it is rather odd, to say the governor-general hands out this order, while the monarch hands out the Order of Canada. -- Either it's the monarch in both cases or the governor general in both cases. GoodDay (talk) 22:51, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Exactly. The literature is absolutely clear about the fact the Order of Canada is presented by the Governor General on behalf of the King, using delegated powers, not by the Governor General in any independent capacity. The same is then doubtlessly also true for the Order of Australia. More true even, considering the monarch actually formally retains far more involvement with the Order of Australia constitutionally than the Order of Canada. The Order of Australia Constitution still formally requires the Sovereign to personally approve all appointments (even if this provision is ignored in practice) and the Letters Patent of appointment to the Order of Australia still explicitly reference the Sovereign’s involvement. This is not the case for the Order of Canada, but it is still regarded as certain by the academic texts that the Order of Canada is formally presented by the Sovereign. I will therefore be editing the page to reflect this fact. Lord Dim 1 (talk) 23:03, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Claims must be supported by sources. Inconsistency between pages is irrelevant if it reflects an inconsistency in sources. Safes007 (talk) 11:55, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

@Lord Dim 1: I think an RFC is required for this article & the Order of Canada article. GoodDay (talk) 23:51, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

In Levels of membership it's 605 and in Award criteria in detail it's 365 Акутагава (talk) 14:08, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Good catch! Fixed it. Safes007 (talk) 01:16, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• The Queen of Australia.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:37, 4 September 2025 (UTC)