This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
David Smith (public servant) is within the scope of 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.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
What exactly he accuse Whitlam of misleading the Australian public about?
I saw his ACA interview, and all that came across was that he didn't like Whitlam, and did like Kerr. Ambi 05:55, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
An article may be found here. I am rather puzzled at the statement in the article that Whitlam "vehemently rejected" Sir David's claims, as to the best of my knowledge he has not commented.
Smith's knighthood was one awarded by the British Government in recognition of his personal services to the Queen, as he spent a year or so at Buckingham Palace after he retired from his position as Official Secretary to the Governor-General. The Commonwealth government ceased recommending knighthoods when the Order of Australia system was introduced by Whitlam. Presumably the British Government could continue to award knighthoods to other Australians in the same way that knighthoods are occasionally awarded to non-British citizens like Bob Geldof. Skyring 11:11, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It seems to me that David Smith is totally correct in requesting Whitlam to apologise to the Australian people about the incompetence of the Labor Party during his term in office.
Nothing could illustrate this more than the circumstances surrounding the appointment of Albert Field to the Senate in 1975, the event that enabled the opposition to pass resolutions deferring supply.
Premier Bjelke-Petersen had made a conciliatory gesture on the death of senator Bert Millner by agreeing "that it was a genuine death, not a contrived death", and that all he wanted the Labor Party to do was what they had asked the non-labor parties to do when the first casual vacancy occurred, that is, to provide three names of Labor Party members, with Petersen being able to choose from the three. Instead of providing the name they wanted, and two lesbian feminist marxists, so that Petersen had no choice but to turn the handle, they said they would only submit one name, and then Petersen said he would find another Labor man. Of course the biggest laugh in the whole affair was the name of the man for whom the ALP were prepared to risk deferral of supply - Mal Colston! I tell you australian politics is the best free show in town.
Of course the best bit every three years is when all the committed republicans on both sides swear on oath that they will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty. plerdsus 15/01/2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plerdsus (talk • contribs) 01:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit late but what the hell.
Smith's knighthood was KCVO, the Royal Victorian Order, which is in the personal gift of the sovereign. The British government had nothing to do with it.
He wasn't the last Australian to be knighted - that was Sir Robert May, who got a Knight Bachelor in 1996.
The British government cannot award knighthoods or any other imperial awards or honours to Australians without the agreement of the Australian government. But the Australian government's stated policy is that it will not agree to knighthoods.
I guess theoretically the British government could award an honorary knighthood or other honorary award to an Australian, which would not require the Australian government's approval. But that would be considered very bad form, given the Australian government's clear position on knighthoods. I think it would never happen in practice.
However that still leaves me wondering how Robert May got a Knight Bachelor in 1996. That could only have been awarded by the British government. I've seen nothing to suggest he has British citizenship, so how come an Australian citizen got a knighthood (and since then, a peerage as well) unless the Australian government waived its normal policy? I've asked some pertinent questions on Robert May's talk page. JackofOz10:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would suspect that the policy of not allowing foreign awards and titles to be conferred on Australian's may not be an actual policy of each incumbent government. If memory serves me correctly Gough Whitlam has been conferred a knighthood by the French government at one stage. 150.101.166.21822:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to the It's an Honour website any Australian citizen may accept an honour from the Queen or her government, see http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/honours/our_honours/index.cfm it clearly states on this website that an honour from the Queen herself can be accepted without permission being sort after. However permission does need to be granted by the Governer General for all other foreign awards.
Is this the case even where someone is a citizen of both countries? It seems similar to the case of Lord Conrad Black, where there were problems caused by the fact that he was also a Canadian citizen. Apparently the Australian government didn't try to stop Robert May from taking up a peerage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.49.167.131 (talk) 10:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified 2 external links on David Smith (public servant). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to trueorfailed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
It's been brought to my attention that the date of the Canberra Times article is dynamic according to readers' time zones. So it said the 16th for me, but it's actually the 17th. So maybe the Executive Council of Australian Jewry is correct after all - is that a reliable enough source for us to use? StAnselm (talk) 14:02, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On a side note I am sorry to hear this. Certainly the most charming man I have ever met. Courageous, gracious, self-effacing. He began a levture once by saying that he had just been introduced as an expert, but an "ex" was a has-been, and a "spurt" was a drip under pressure. A public servant of the oldest school, his years of service to and genuine love of the Commonwealth were a model of duty and loyalty. A gentleman ever. --Pete (talk) 21:28, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The ABC's report is fairly useless for our purposes, as it just says he has died. That just establishes a latest possible date. The ECAJ's report is the only I know of that actually states when he died. I'm more than happy to accept it as a source for the 17th. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries]21:38, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have confirmed with a close relative of Sir David Smith that he died on Monday 15 August 2022. I have amended the article accordingly. I do not have a reference at present because, as the above discussion shows, there is a degree of confusion owing to the Canberra Times not mentioning a date and the J-wire article quoting the erroneous ECAJ statement. Action has been taken by the relative to have the date added to the Canberra Times article and corrected in J-wire.
Normally, in order to use only published references, one would wait – of course – until the right date turned up in a reliable publication. However, Sir David Smith's high public profile, and the article's editorial changes made in good faith but erroneously in the past few days, lead me to think that it is very important to have the right date in the article now. The date could be deleted, but I believe the public interest factor prevails; at present there is no authentic source. Cheers, Simon – SCHolar44 🇦🇺💬at10:54, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not establish what Smith's working relationship with Bill Hayden was like.
I think this working relationship is somewhat significant since Smith read the proclamation of the Whitlam dismissal and Hayden was Treasurer in that government.
The Whitlam Government's dismissal arise from the blocking of Supply in the Senate and Supply was certainly under the purview of then Treasurer Hayden. 49.3.72.79 (talk) 14:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
