Talk:John Howard/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Not PM

Can you change his political status?--RoryReloaded (talk) 10:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Until Howard officially speaks it can't be done. As of 21.57 AEST he has not spoken yet. But man I can't wait until he does. Seeya later Johnny, don't forget the seat of Bennelong on the way out! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.150.170 (talk) 10:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Why does Wiki state my time as an hour ahead? I havn't hit 88miles per hour for ages. Hell I don't even know how fast 88mph is as I study distance in kmph! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.150.170 (talk) 11:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It may be something to do with daylight savings time detection not working. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphamone (talk • contribs) 11:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

He just gave his defeat speech on Ten news, give me a sec. --Chris 11:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

He remains (Caretaker) Prime Minister until the swearing in of Rudd in about a week's time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.28.166 (talk) 11:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately theres a lack of intelligence in the Australian people so we got Krudd Richardson j (talk) 12:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately Richardson this is a discussion page on the article and not a place to form your own opinions. Who would you have voted for, Sailor Moon? (Yes, I see the irony in this statement, do you?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.150.170 (talk) 16:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, please keep your comments civil; secondly, please read and heed the talk page guidelines; and thirdly, please sign your messages. John Howard is the incumbent PM until Kevin Rudd's appointed by the GG. Qwerty (talk) 08:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

wow what an Election Rudd good on ya Kevin. good buy mr Howard! lets get rid of them IR laws and give us battelers a go. NO WAY WILL I VOTE FOR ANYONE WHO TAKES PEOPLES RIGHTS IN THE WORKPLACE AWAY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.69.26 (talk) 12:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Bio Infobox incorrectly states a terminal date for his commission as Prime Minister (24 Nov 07)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Updating this page post-election

Please amend entries referring to Mr Howard as the Australian Prime Minister to the past tense; this is because he lost the election. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keffiwiki (talk • contribs) 13:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

See below. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Can we change the page now?

He is no longer the PM, when do we modify the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.48.254 (talk) 13:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

He is still the PM until he hands in his commission to the Governor-General, which I would expect would occur late this week. In the meantime Kevin Rudd is generally described as "Prime Minister-elect". Since we don't have a presidential system, that is not technically correct, but it fits the bill. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

{{editprotected}}

All these late updates prove the point that this page only needs semi-protection now. Also, about the intro sentence: "Howard failed to win a fifth term in the 2007 election on Saturday 24 November, against the Australian Labor Party led by Kevin Rudd." That should read "...losing to the Australian..." , not "against".-DMCer (talk) 13:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info on this, I had no idea sorry! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.48.254 (talk) 14:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

If the page is protected, can the proper template be used to indicate this, please? On seeing the page, I tried to update the succession box. And I couldn't. Talk about disappointment; the Australian PMs' succession boxes are like children to me. Is it so bad to want to take care of them? Is it?! (throws a fit and storms out of the room, slamming the door behind)

(returns to pick up top hat, then slams door again) Waltham, The Duke of 14:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, it still says "semi-protected". If full protection is to be maintained, then at least please someone replace the template. It is confusing to the editors. Waltham, The Duke of 09:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I've taken the protection down to semi but please discus any major changes on the talk page BEFORE you make them and please don't turn this into another edit war, I will block if people start WP:3RR, consider this your warning. --Chris 11:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I partially reverted User:Brendan: basically everything related to successor I didn't touch, but changed back the tense of his status as PM to present tense. I also left a comment on this on the article above my revision: feel free to remove the comment once Rudd's sworn in. Kelvinc (talk) 09:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The known inescapable facts are that Howard in the very very near future will no longer formally be the Prime Minister of Australia, his party having lost government and he having publically conceded defeat as well as declaring the Liberal party leadership up for grabs. But if this means waiting a few more days before correcting the tense on those inescapable facts, so be it. --Brendan [ contribs ] 09:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not a question of correcting the tense. He remains the PM, despite losing the election, till Monday 3 December. The media may have good reasons for portraying events the way they do, but what the media says doesn't determine when the PM's term starts and ends - the constitution does. -- JackofOz 22:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

1988 error requires admin to change

In the Opposition Years section, the article currently says the following...

During the 2001 election campaign, Howard stated:

I don't think it is wrong, racist, immoral or anything...

He actually made that statement in 1988, as the reference indicates. Maybe the lead-in line should just say: "During the same month, Howard stated:" As the article is locked, I can't change it. Requires an Admin. Thanks, Lester 14:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I just made that change. Thanks, Lester 12:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Minor changes needed.

Just a couple of minor points need changing, but the page is protected, so I can't do it myself. Perhaps an administrator may like to do it instead.

1. The table at the bottom showing political offices and the like needs updating to reflect that John Howard is no longer the incumbent in some of these offices, and his successor for a couple of the offices is now known.

2. In the section near the end, "The 2007 election campaign", in the text reading "The Australian Prime Minister", the word "The" should be lower-cased to "the": it is not the beginning of a sentence, and the word "The" is not part of the name of the office.

Thanks. M.J.E. (talk) 15:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed #2. My understanding is that Howard is PM until he returns the Letters of Commission to the GG - see Prime Minister of Australia#Appointment, so I'm incline to leave things as they are until all is official. Banno (talk) 21:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Bennelong

Since Howard was defeated he legally ceased to be an MP on October 17 - the day the parliament was dissolved. PMA (talk) 17:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

He hasn't yet been defeated. McKew hasn't claimed, Howard hasn't conceded. With three quarters of the vote counted and still pre-poll and absentee votes to go, McKew on 51.1 percent is still ahead, not home. Although some websites might like to claim otherwise. Timeshift (talk) 17:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

If, as seems likely, he is defeated, his term as member for Bennelong will end on 24 November, not 17 October. This is the difference between a retirement and a defeat. Sitting members who chose not to contest the election ended their terms on 17 October, and that's when their parliamentary salary stopped. Those who contested it but were defeated end their terms on 24 November. Their parliamentary salary is paid right up to election day.

It's a feature of the system that's often been exploited (I mean that in the general sense, not necessarily negatively) by sitting members who had little chance of being re-elected, such as where a sitting member is disendorsed by their party and fights the election as an independent. They still get the extra month-or-so's salary because they chose to contest the election rather than bow out -- JackofOz (talk) 22:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Nice link to the history of Bennelong elections at the division's page. It would appear a myth that it was simply due to redistributions that Howard lost his seat. I'm quite surprised at how close some elections were, especially decades ago, in Bennelong. Timeshift 15:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

What is this link? Lester 21:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I already said it's on the Bennelong page! Sheesh! Division of Bennelong -> Electoral results for the Division of Bennelong Timeshift (talk) 04:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Star of the Solomon Islands

Does Howard use the “SSI” postnominal? I’ve never seen it used apart from here. The only thing I can find about the award is this, which tells us next to nothing. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Nor I. Off it comes. --Brendan [ contribs ] 07:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I've re-added it, at least provisionally, since there's a citation in the article saying that he and Helen Clark of NZ both got them for their work in restoring law and order in the Solomons. The fact that there's no article on the award itself is a bit of a shame, but he does appear to be one of the people who have received it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it again. No-one is questioning whether or not the award exists, but whether or not "SSI" is a formal post-nominal for that award. In the absence of supporting evidence, the post-nominal (not the award) should be removed. --Brendan [ contribs ] 06:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Maxine McKew has claimed victory

Maxine McKew has formally claimed victory for the seat of Bennelong. (Sydney Morning Herald). I think it is now appropriate to reflect this in the article's introduction.--Lester 22:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

If you read that article, you'll see she has stopped short of formally claiming victory. She did appear to claim victory, but later corrected herself to say it was still too close to call. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Records set

If Howard loses his seat, which seems likely at this point, he will have set the record as the longest serving PM to be defeated. However, does anybody know, if will have set the record:

• as the longest ever serving member to be defeated?
• as the longest serving member of the same seat to be defeated?
• as the oldest member to be defeated?

etc. Cheers -- Ianblair23 (talk) 11:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I would hazard a guess that the answer to all three questions is Sir Earle Page. He was second only to Billy Hughes in the longest-serving stakes (and Hughes was never defeated); he held Cowper for his entire 42-year parliamentary career (a record for holding a single seat); and he died at age 81, having just been defeated in the 1961 election (although he went into a coma before the election and died a couple of weeks later, never knowing he'd been defeated). I'm not 100% sure about the last one; there may have been older members than 81, but I doubt it. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Billy Hughes held four seats from 1901 to 1952, as well as 7 years prior to 1901 in colonial parliament. Timeshift (talk) 04:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Workchoices dead

This is text someone else added to the article (not me) but it was recently deleted, and I think it's at least worth discussing before deleting. The text:

After the Howard Government's 2007 Federal election defeat, former workplace minister, Joe Hockey, conceded that the Work Choices legislation went too far with its reforms. He said:

"The problem with Work Choices was we just went too deep. It was a mistake. That's one of the reasons why, when I became the minister we started the fairness test. We should never have got rid of the old no-disadvantage test in the original package, that was a mistake."

Here's a reference, in case anyone needs to copy & paste it:
<ref name="SMH_deep">{{cite news |title=We went too deep on Work Choices: Hockey |url=http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/11/28/1196036933980.html |publisher=''[[The Sydney Morning Herald]]'' |date=2007-11-28 |accessdate=2007-11-28 }}</ref>

The comment in the edit box from the deleting editor said: "I don't think this is a fair criticism. Obviously everyone in the Liberal party is blaming each other for the election defeat. Wait for historical perspective b4 analysing the meaning of the electn".

Anyone care to comment? Is Hockey's criticism worthy of inclusion in the article? --Lester 05:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Well "concede" is definitely not NPOV. I think it probably emphasizes one element excessively, though: interest rates, climate change, international relations, and a general "mood for change" were definitely also factors. Better off collecting verifiable sources that suggest all of the above. Plus also it may be more relevant in the Australian federal election, 2007 article, though obviously some mention here is worthy. Kelvinc (talk) 06:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't only Joe Hockey who said Work Choices was a mistake. I think about 3 prominent frontbench MPs have said similar things since the election defeat.Lester 20:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Needs ultimately to be included in some form, but rather than attribute specifically to Hockey, it might be better to indicate that "members of the defeated government and analysts of the 2007 election loss argued that the introduction of the Work Choices legislation package was probably instrumental in the Howard government's defeat..." or similar, Then cite the Hockey source, but also others as appropriate. And yes, "conceded" is definitely not NPOV. While it may take a while for a full analysis of the defeat to emerge and become 'stable', there seems no doubt that Work Choices will be central to that analysis, so I do think it is appropriate to include some observation re this at this stage. Yes, as per Kelvinc, 2007 election page is main location for this material, but must be some mention here, particular re factors explaining defeat over which PM had some control (such as Work Choices, stance on climate change) hamiltonstone (talk) 23:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

John Winston Howard - a timeline

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/11/24/2098414.htm?site=elections/federal/2007 - interesting page that might serve a purpose as a source. Timeshift (talk) 12:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't look very accurate to me. It claims the Tampa came in 2000. Wasn't it 2001? --Lester 20:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes indeed, 2001. But on a quick read I couldn't see any other errors. -- JackofOz 21:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Could we trial the removal of all page protections?

Timeshift 07:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe in a week or so? Banno 08:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Economic management

The Economic Management section previously contained both praise of the government's economic policy as well as criticism of the policy. Both arguments were presented, as Wikipedia policy encourages. However, recently the criticism was deleted, but the praise retained. Here's the diff. The reference attached to the criticism was from conservative commentator Paul Kelly writing in The Australian newspaper. Would other editors care to comment about this deletion?.Lester 21:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

If the section is imbalanced, it needs fixing. There is much that could be written (see Talk:John Howard/Archive 7#Economic Management section for references and further discussion). I agree it must not be allowed to be reverted back to a "glory statement", and that an emphasis on (demonstrated relevance to) Howard is essential. If that cannot be achieved, deletion of that section would not be objectionable. --Brendan [ contribs ] 13:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Protection no longer necessary

With Rudd sworn in and Howard no longer Prime Minister, protections are no longer necessary. Please have these removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.178.83 (talk) 01:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Howard

I thought you would win —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.236.239.98 (talk) 07:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I know you would loose. good on ya Rudd well done Kevin know Australia is in good hands. now the battlers will get a fair go. and somthing will be done about Global warming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.69.26 (talk) 13:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Should Howard be called a "former politician"?

I see the article now opens with the line that John Howard is a former politician. Is this appropriate? Other former prime ministers are still referred described as "a politician" (not a former one). Lester 23:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I recommend following established styles and if other PMs follow this practise, than I agree. Also it makes more sense when you think about it. Shot info (talk) 23:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Pauline Hanson is still described as "a politician". Why not Howard? That's his profession. Someone is still an author, even though they may not have written any books for years. Lester 23:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, and I agree with your arguements and I agree with your recommendations, just in case you missed it :-) Shot info (talk) 23:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It's only an issue with living former PMs. Looking at the other living Australian ex-PMs: Malcolm Fraser is described as "a politician", Gough Whitlam is "a former politician", and Bob Hawke and Paul Keating make no mention of it at all. (I haven't checked on the dead ex-PMs but I assume we say "was", which is fine.) If we're going to make these consistent, I'd prefer "former politician". I don't like the analogy with authors. Authors, composers, painters and others never retire - they go on till they die. But politicians do retire; they might not leave public life entirely, but they're certainly retired from politics. If an ex-PM decided to run for Parliament again (Gorton and others tried; and Bruce was re-elected), then they'd resume their status as "politician" or "parliamentarian". Howard is certainly not a parliamentarian any longer, so how can he still be a politician? -- JackofOz (talk) 00:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I think "former politician" is appropriate because he has retired. Pauline Hanson is a special case because she keeps re-running unsuccessfully for office. I'm not sure how to describe Hanson, but that doesn't affect the fact that Howard is definitely "former" (or soon will be once he's cleared his office out). Peter Ballard (talk) 01:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

JackOfOz mentions (above) that the Hawke and Keating articles don't start by saying "he is a former politician". Maybe that information is redundant for Prime Ministers. I guess if the article says "he is a former Prime Minister of Australia", we don't need to also say "he is a former politician". Maybe the answer is leave it out altogether! Lester 01:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd support that suggestion. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. Leave it out. Same goes for the postnominal 'MP' after the name in the lead sentence of BLPs for active politicians. It just aint necessary. That context is already sufficiently clear from the lead narrative. Also don't need to use the qualifier "former" if the tense is correct (eg. was a politician). --Brendan [ contribs ] 12:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. Shot info (talk) 02:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The Pauline Hanson case raises the question of what we mean when we describe someone as a "politician". Is it a synonym for "parliamentarian", or does it mean someone who's active in politics in whatever capacity? Despite her various attempts, she hasn't actually been a member of any legislative body since 3 October 1998, over nine years ago. But she has certainly remained active in the political arena. But that is also true of the Michael Krogers, Warren Mundines etc, who work in the public arena for the electoral success of their parties but are not in parliament themselves - and they're never described as "politicians". I have no issue with calling Pauline Hanson a former politician. The fact that she's a frequent candidate would come out in reading her article. If she ever gets elected again, we can restore her status as "politician". -- JackofOz (talk) 22:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's a definition of the word politician from dictionary.com. A seeker or a holder of public office. So, the person's intent plays a role. Hanson intended to hold public office. I would say that fits the common accepted meaning. However, that dictionary also says "an expert in politics", which could mean anyone! Lester 22:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Our politician article says much the same thing. Does this mean we have to now apply the label to Kroger, Mundine et al? Take a person like Greg Combet - he's a politician now, but prior to him being endorsed for Charlton, would anyone have called him that? He certainly publicly supported Labor and publicly worked against Howard's Work Choices and other issues, while Sec of the ACTU, so he'd meet the criteria we use ("active in party politics"). I think there's scope here for misleading our readers. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It might be the case that a person doesn't get the label "politican" in the eyes of the public until they've been elected; even if they're later defeated, but keep on trying to get back in, they would still be considered one - Hansen is the classic case. Lots of people tried and failed before their first successful attempt - Hawke, Howard, and Barry Jones come to mind. They were never described as politicians until their first successful attempt to be elected. Which would explain why Michael Kroger, who's had a few goes at getting pre-selected but has never got past that point, is never described as a politician, despite meeting the criteria in our article. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

PNG

Ah... those New Guinea plantations that the Howard family had interests in. Discussed before, it's time to have a fresh look at this issue, now that the election has been and gone, and John Howard is no longer in politics.

Reference articles:

• PNG Post Courier feature article
• Island Business magazine
• David Marr
• Hamish McDonald
• Stay In Touch
• Prime Minister responds to copra allegations
• Joel Gibson
• 2007 Biography:John Winston Howard
  

There are lots of long articles on this subject. Lester 01:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Still not really notable in the context of John Howard. Remember BLP still applies. Shot info (talk) 02:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

A lot of Howard articles (above) cover it, for something that was "not notable". Others must have thought it was notable to dedicate so many articles to one little fact. The front cover of Fiji's Island Business Magazine looks awfully like John Howard. Lester 03:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It's amazing what newspapers will devote time and energy too, I would think that your "so many articles" would be beaten by anything on Paris Hilton or Britney Spears dress sense. For discussion, see all the arguements in the archieve(s). Shot info (talk) 03:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

<sigh> this again. I would have thought that a serious biography of an individual (or a biography of a serious individual?) would where possible contain information about the subject's background, particularly her or his parents' lives and work. See, for example Gerald Ford and Theodore Roosevelt, and for a sketchier example see Don Dunstan (all chosen as they have FA status in WP). Even these, i would have said, are sketchier about family background than a solid biography could be, but they provide a wikipedia exemplar suggesting this sort of information be left in. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Take it all back out, Lester. I can't see any change to the consensus established last time. You want to put it in, gain consensus first. --Pete (talk) 07:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

While I maintain my position of a small amount of information included, I do note with some embarrassment that once again, Lester has readded information without consensus. No doubt he would have run off and complained to ANI were anybody to remove it. I wish he would at least make an attempt to gain consensus at least... Shot info (talk) 08:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the wikisin is fairly blatant this time. A good faith editor works as part of a team and accepts concensus. Waiting a couple of months and having another go, hoping nobody notices, is evidence of bad faith. We thrashed this out most comprehensively last time around. --Pete (talk) 08:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Rather than engage in similar behavior (ie/ by reverting), it seems he is offline at the moment, so I think it's prudent to give him the opportunity to seek some consensus here. Incidentally I didn't mind the edit, which is why I didn't revert it, but I did refer him to previous discussions (above), which I note where given due consideration by him :-) Shot info (talk) 08:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. No point in an edit war if he doesn't accept that he is in the wrong. Sterner measures required. He gives "the election has been and gone, and John Howard is no longer in politics" as his rationale for inserting material without consensus, but I can't see how that applies. --Pete (talk) 09:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Why is information on his family's background not relevant? And why do people seem so against it's inclusion? --Merbabu (talk) 09:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has standards of accepted behaviour. Inserting material against consensus is not accepted. You understand this, I trust? --Pete (talk) 10:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I understand each of your three sentences above, and that you believe the editor known as Lester has "wikisined" - these are clearly very obvious points. However, perhaps you, or another, could answer my actual question "Why is information on his family's background not relevant?". --Merbabu (talk) 10:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Please don't be a dork and waste everyone's time. For ease of convenience we can accept that all editors are using the same arguments and making the same points and have the same positions as last time, and that the previous discussion may be referred to for those who are unfamiliar with the case, or who are short of memory. There. Your question has already been answered at great length and in great detail. As you know already. It is Lester's behaviour that is the problem. As you know. --Pete (talk) 10:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

"Sterner measures", "wikisin", "Lester's behaviour", Skyring? I don't see anyone stampeding to agree with those typically idiosyncratic (and irrelevant) judgements of yours. Read WP:CON. Consensus is not set it stone. It can, does, and may change over time. Now is as valid a juncture as any to re-examine editorial sentiment towards this small factual well-referenced piece of content (that appeared not only in newspaper articles but a biography on the article subject). The content itself is within relevant Wikipedia policy. I agree with a minimal factual inclusion of the copra plantation involvement. --Brendan [ contribs ] 10:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Obviously your opinions haven't changed since last time this was discussed at length, a relatively short time ago. And, if I make Lester's behaviour an official issue, it's not you who gets to decide. Lester's history of disruption and POV-pushing is easily demonstrated. There is no apparent reason to revisit the issue. --Pete (talk) 17:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

If you consider Lester's behaviour an issue, take it to the appropriate places which you well know exist for that purpose. Otherwise all we're left with from you on here is a pointless hot air and bluster. Not only did Lester add the disputed content after establishing this talkpage topic, your insistence that he should have followed that process demonstrates a misconception on your part of the documented consensus process and the principle of WP:BOLD which underpins it. See the Wikipedia consensus process flowchart on the Consensus policy page. Edit first (ala WP:BOLD) then, if reverted, take it to the talkpage. Per your advice to Lester below, verbatim, "What does it take for you to get the message?" (note to Shot info: good faith is what good faith gets). --Brendan [ contribs ] 05:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. I don't know how many rounds this thing's gone - and couldn't say how many I was even around for. I tested my patience reading some of the archived discussion this evening. For what it's worth: suggesting there was consensus for omitting reference to the plantations seems to me an... ambitious?... interpretation of the discussion. Dissent was evident throughout. As material that illustrates the work and family background of the subject it seems non-controversial, and in terms of verifiability, it seems adequate to raise no issue with WP:BLP. I would have thought a passing reference should be maintained. The thing my background reading for this highlighted most of all was how we could all do some work on political bios in WP - they've a long way to go... hamiltonstone (talk) 13:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Notability & Consensus: Users 'Skyring (Pete)' and 'Shot info' (above) argue for exclusion on the grounds of 1. Not notable, and 2. No consensus. Notability is proven by the 8 references, including cover stories on 3 major news publications in 3 different countries. These cover stories are not just about John Howard, but specifically dedicated to the plantations issue in relation to John Howard. Also, the newest biography on John Howard includes the plantation issue. How can it possibly be argued that the issue is non-notable with this weight of publications about it? Question: What is the reason this criteria about notability is not applied to other parts of the John Howard article? What other single facts in the John Howard article have so many feature/cover stories written about them? As for the consensus argument, to claim consensus for exclusion is to disregard the opinions of the numerous editors who have stated their preference for inclusion.Lester 00:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Lester, I've skimmed through the previous discussions and there is certainly no concensus either way - claims here that there are, as Hamiltonstone puts it, "ambitious". I certainly don't see a BLP issue here if the entry is limited to stating the fact that they had an interest in plantations, and I would support it. That changes as soon as anyone wants to go into detail about any apparent "controversy" or dubious/unethical dealings. I wouldn't support that information, and make consensus for inclusion less likely. (in fact, i haven't actually counted, but it appeared that a majority actually support a minimalist version that didn't mention any controversy).

The word "consensus" is getting thrown around a lot here, with editors (ocne again) "offering" to explain to others what it means. Let me suggest what I think it doesn't mean: it doesn't mean unanimity, and thus, it is not a tool for a minority of editors to keep their preferred version. --Merbabu (talk) 00:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS tells us what to do. Normally the accepted thing is, ask on the talk page. See what the consensus is. Make the edit. Not, tell on talk page, make edit anyway, ignore consensus. Also Lester, you should probably read my position on this info in the archieves and above [1] rather than assuming my position. Shot info (talk) 01:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:CON does not say that. See the Wikipedia consensus process flowchart on the Consensus policy page. Edit first (ala WP:BOLD) then, if reverted, take it to the talkpage. --Brendan [ contribs ] 10:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course the minor fact that it was added earlier in the year, then reverted escaped your attention? Now we are at the phase of discussion, per WP:CONSENSUS. Shot info (talk) 05:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Nope. That discussion some months ago reached the end of the consensus process (namely, "Find a reasonable (if temporary) compromise", which at that time was non-inclusion). We are now at the beginning of a new consensus cycle. --Brendan [ contribs ] 05:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

You know as well as anybody here that without initial discussion on this talk page, we would end up where we end up. Sure you can wikilawyer all you want, have fun winning a barn star for that. It is just possible that had Lester waited, even say a day or two, we wouldn't be here. But at anyrate, give yourself a medal for winning this wikipoint. Well done. Shot info (talk) 05:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Well done yourself, Shot. Nothing like a graceless admission of error. Is there a star for that too? Makes all your bluster over at ANI about WP:AGF look so convincing...--Brendan [ contribs ] 06:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Nothing as flattering to see one's material repeated. Well done. Give yourself a barnstar for that as well :-) Shot info (talk) 06:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Apologies, 'Shot info', as I failed to recognise that you support inclusion, as long as it is minimalist. I think the sentence that existed in the article on 10:20, 10 December 2007 was minimalist. It just briefly states what is a pretty well known fact. Personally, I always thought the Howard family acted completely lawfully with their plantation dealings. Lester 03:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec). Thanks Shot Info. I think it is now time to move beyond Lester's transgression of process, and focus on the merits or otherwise of the recently removed text. --Merbabu (talk) 03:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it's time to look at what else Lester has done recently and start building a case for sanctions. I had hoped that he'd learnt to work as part of a team, but no, he still doesn't get it. Look at how he opened this section - because nobody will be voting for or against John Howard, the rules have changed. What rubbish. Wikipedia is NOT a political battlefield to sway votes. It's an encyclopaedia, and people come here looking for information, not propaganda. --Pete (talk) 03:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. If, for example, you were to stop commenting on talkpages thus, the volume of propaganda to which people find themselves unfortunately subject would be instantly and dramatically reduced. Try talking about article content on the article talkpage, and less about the long-running chip on your shoulder that you've had towards Lester. You, Pete/Skyring, who was once banned by Jimbo Wales himself for prolific sock puppetry, are the last to lecture others on team play and behaviour. --Brendan [ contribs ] 10:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest you take your own advice? Or were you genuinely trying to be funny? --Pete (talk) 00:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to suggest as you please. You don't need my permission. Just don't expect anyone to take your suggestions (nor your grandstanding and soapboxing) seriously given your sock puppet history. I'll leave the humour to you too, hit-and-miss though you tend to be. I'm more interested in knowledge and fact. Brendan [ contribs ] 03:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Great - it's good to see we all agree that we should now stop commenting on behaviour and seek consensus based on "teamwork", collaboration, and good will. --Merbabu (talk) 10:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You can walk into a bookstore and pick up the 2007 biography John Winston Howard and pretty close to the front, on pages 7 & 8, it gets into the New Guinea plantation issue. John Howard himself cooperated with this biography, spending time with tha authors to provide interviews and anecdotes for the book, which indicates he is at ease with it. It concerns me that this article's coverage of the same PNG info has been deleted, even though it was already proportionately briefer than the space devoted to the issue in the book. We need to be able to include interesting anecdotes like this in the article, as is found in the book, to prevent the article becomming a replica of what can be found on the Parliament House website, Lester 17:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

We discussed the book last time round. There have been no new developments, yet you unilaterally decided to insert something that you had repeatedly been told not to. I'm wondering what else you've done recently in similar violation of community agreement. What does it take for you to get the message? --Pete (talk) 17:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

With respect, this discussion was started about a day before the content was added. The previous discussion was mainly centred on whether the facts were true, and whether a David Marr article was an "attack piece" or not. Later, numerous other articles were cited, including the Papua New Guinea and Fiji press reports, and the John Winston Howard biographical book was released around that time. These other non-David Marr articles were not discussed in depth. The previous discussion didn't achieve consensus one way or another, so it was sent to a Mediation Committte hearing, but that was shut down when a couple of people didn't wish to participate, which is in their right to do so if they choose. My point is that we have a reasonably well known fact about the Howard family that many people who have read the book and the newspaper stories already know about. This article's previously lengthier account of it was reduced to a mere mention, which is probably not possible to reduce further without deleting it altogether. I don't believe the brief sentence editorialises whether the event was good, bad, or otherwise. If we are going to omit a well known fact from an article (carrying 10 references), we need to discuss in-depth reasons to justify such an exclusion. Thanks, Lester 21:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The book was discussed last time. The material was in a section of the book devoted to JH's father. There is no relevance to JH except through his father. We have no sources saying he even knew about it until decades later. There is a WP article on JH's father which includes the material, and naturally the JH article links there. We've been through all this in tedious detail to the point where there was nothing new in the points being raised. There is nothing new in sources or discussion, and may I suggest you go and find something useful to do now?

Your behaviour is an issue, because it looks to me that you noticed that my WP participation had dropped, Prester John is out of action for a few weeks, and you thought that you could sneak this stuff back in without gaining first gaining consensus for a knowingly controversial edit. --Pete (talk) 00:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, I started this discussion thread on 6-Dec, added the content on 7-Dec, and Prester John began his vacation on 9-Dec. 'Skyring(Pete)', you said you feel it is controversial. I'm interested to hear your reasons why you think it is.Lester 00:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the details of Prester John's affairs. I've only poked my nose back in here in the last couple of days. It may be that you are not quite the weasel I implied above. Nevertheless, reinserting controversial material without prior consensus is definitely a wikisin. As for whether it is controversial, we can all see the history of edit-warring since you first inserted it. Do we have to tie you down and bang on you with a croquet club before you grudgingly accept reality? --Pete (talk) 01:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

If there's edit warring going on, it only shows that there are people on both sides of the debate. It doesn't prove that either side has a mandate to do it. Letting content remain or get deleted according to who can conduct the most successful edit war isn't a good way to find consensus. Which is why I try to find out from you,your reasons for finding it controversial. Regards, Lester 01:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

See here, Lester. It seems that you and I are in agreement. It is controversial. You may retire your crop, Dobbin is late. --Pete (talk) 01:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

<--- moving back

The issue of plantations has one question thats unanswered again what part of Lyalls ownership had an impact on John Howard thats relevent to John Howard. Before it gets thrown around, this is the difference between the plantations and War service in that Lyall War service had an impact on JH and he frequently referred to it when addressing Australian service personal. The Plantations ownership and the questions raised about it are covered in Lyall's article were it can be given appropriate weight and discussed as per WP:NPOV where as its inclusion here is/has always resulted in implied illegalities on LH specifically and JH in general thats undue weight and not neutral. Bring forth new reliable sources that show JH had an involvement beyond speculation that he may have seen some paperwork after his fathers death, and you'll find that people will be receptive to discussing inclusion. Gnangarra 07:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Gnangarra. Did you see brief version that existed recently? In that minimalist form, it doesn't accuse anyone of wrong-doing. There were new references, such as the PNG Post Courier article that were introduced at the end of the previous discussion, which were not debated. The references are all about John Howard himself, so the other media articles all draw that connection. The Fiji Review put that cartoon on their front page. There are quite a number of editors who feel that a brief, minimalist inclusion is justified. How can we justify omitting it, when the news media and biographical books include this well known fact? Lester 22:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Darling, if you keep banging on and on about the same old stuff, nobody will love you any more. On the other hand, if you thumb through old records and find out that JH was a copraholic and spent his weekends pumping copra oil on his father's vast plantations, we'll fall over each other to tell the story. Include a photo of a smiling young John outside the copra shop. In all earnestness, may I suggest that unless you find something new in this, something that includes actual relevance to the subject of this article, you devote your energies to something else? --Pete (talk) 00:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Skyring (Pete), I sent you a very polite message to come and join a discussion at the Mediation Committee Hearings, but you turned it down, which in turn resulted in the Committee hearing being shut down. The committee hearing would have been an excellent way for everyone to get to voice their views in a civil environment, as the mediator would have made sure that no editor used incivility to deter others from the debate. It was in your rights not to join that hearing, but at the same time I take that to mean you do not wish to get involved in such negotiations to find consensus. The previous discussions in no way found consensus in either direction. The fact that the Mediation committee was shut down in no way means a consensus was found to delete the information and end discussion.Lester 00:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

If you don't understand the political process, why do you presume to write about it? Cease your whining. Please. --Pete (talk) 06:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

There is always WP:RFC. Failing that, there is WP:DR. Shot info (talk) 06:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I acknowledge that some editors don't believe the plantation issue has anything to do with John Howard. However, whether anyone here agrees or disagrees, we must admit that the media in Australia, PNG and Fiji all draw that connection. The PNG Post Courier says The Howard Plantations form an interesting link between Papua New Guinea and the present Prime Minister of Australia. The Pacific Island Business magazine draws a link between Australia's colonial past and Howard's past. The Joel Gibson article indicates the plantation affair has affected Australia's image in the Pacific. David Marr and the Biography John Winston Howard indicate it was a source of income for the Howard family that would have been helpful to them financing petrol stations. I'm not saying we should take the colonial line that Island Business did, but I'm just pointing out that the media have drawn a connection between Howard and the plantation investment of his father.Lester 20:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Newspapers are in the business of selling newspapers, usually so as to be able to sell advertising, which is the real revenue stream. They do not always have the nice regard for the facts that we do, and if they can make a story sound better than it really is, there is little stopping them. Using journalistic standards as a basis for our encyclopaedia is a path we don't really want to follow.

When we examine the sources, there are only three links, all of them tenuous to the point of irrelevance:

1. Lyall Howard was John Howard's father. This is not, in itself, enough for us to include material relevant to one but not the other, especially when Lyall has his own article.

1. The income from the plantations aided the Howard family, of which John was a junior member. Sure, but we don't usually mention income streams from other sources, such as shares or child endowment. Why mention one and not others? We mention Lyall's petrol stations because the young John had a part time job there. That's direct relevance.

1. John Howard may have seen or signed a paper decades later. Other than that, we have no source showing that he even knew about the copra plantations.

To include the copra material, interesting bthough it is, in the John Howard article, we really need a solid link. Otherwise it belongs to the Lyall Howard article, where it is relevant. We link to the Lyall Howard article from John Howard. The story is given there in full with references. It is not suppressed in any way. Perhaps you could explain why this is not enough for you? --Pete (talk) 21:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

On one point: the question of how to weigh the fact that some media have attached significance to the connection between John Howard (through his family) and the plantation 'dummying'. The connection made by the media is itself a fact that may be worthy of description and discussion. If we examine biographies of historical figures, the analysis of those figures may include how they are portrayed and understood. In political life, one could even argue that the popular portrayal and understanding of a leader is more important to their trajectory through public life than might be some 'facts' that might reveal a different figure. This is not to say that one should be preferred over the other. On the contrary: an historian or biographer will want to ensure both pictures are revealed. Perhaps an additional sentence needs to be added, either in the 'early life' section, or in a later chronological section when the story became 'news', outlining the media's interpretation of the link.

On a second point: what is the scope of the material we include regarding a person's background? Skyring/Pete queries what income streams get discussed. One should include material that helps one understand either the subject of the article, or the major viewpoints (either contemporary or historical) about the subject of the article. There are at least two ways in which the 'dummying' matter is relevant. First, it may have been a significant source of economic benefit to the family (the magnitude of the leases involved suggests this to be possible), and second it is a significant factor in subsequent analysis, both 'serious' and 'popular', of the milieu in which Howard grew up (see previous para). Put another way, we do not include the Howards' running of a petrol station just because Howard worked there. Had he never worked in that shop, it should still be included because the working life and income of the family is almost always regarded as significant to understanding a person. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

In all the tens of millions of words written about John Howard by the media, how many concern copra plantations? Not a lot. I agree that the relationship between the media and John Howard is worthy of examination, but not in the context of copra plantations.

Second, Lyall Howard (and his brother) didn't own these vast plantations. The income and profits went elsewhere. They were paid for lending their names as ex-servicemen so that the repayments could be made over a longer period. If you have any information on the amounts involved, compared to the ongoing income from the petrol station business, we can look at it. But speculation is not what we do in our encyclopaedia. --Pete (talk) 00:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

To 'Hamiltonstone', you made some interesting points there, and very eloquently put.Lester 02:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Monarchy added to infobox

There's been a bit of edit warring, after the Monarchy was placed in the infobox window. Rather than conduct another discussion here, I point people towards 2 existing discussions, at Talk:Kevin_Rudd and Talk:WikiProject Australian politics. Thanks, Lester 04:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Include Wikipedia: WikiProject Biography aswell. Also, will the edit-war over inclusion/exclusion please stop (for now), we don't need this article locked, do we? GoodDay (talk) 17:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Records - no quote

The article states that Coalition loss was the equal third biggest electoral defeat by an incumbent government. Where is the reference for this? Even if it is true, I question the significance of this statement as federal governments change very rarely, particularly in modern times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Traveller12 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Surely the very rarity of these events means that, when they do happen, they are inherently notable and significant? -- JackofOz (talk) 21:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually it's the 5th largest, and then only by number of seats. I suspect there may be bigger ones pre-1949 when there were less seats. In fact, it's the smallest electoral defeat of an incumbent government since 1972. IOW, it's not very notable. Peter Ballard (talk) 06:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

If you're looking at 2pp, then yes the Howard, Hawke and Fraser governments achieved higher. However if you look at the 2pp swing, it was the largest since the dismissal, and 1969. This is the third largest since formal 2pp records began in 1949. Timeshift (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 09:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Then it should be reworded in terms of swing in the 2PP vote. Currently it is worded in terms of seats. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Even then it should be noted the Latham effect on prior results. Allowing for this is was only a 3% swing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardflude (talk • contribs) 02:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Controversy

How much of http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22895466-7583,00.html and http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22850588-5013871,00.html can be added without reverts and cries of POV? I think it's rather informative. Timeshift (talk) 14:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

One thing about elections, you get a lot of people telling the truth as they see it, because the votes have been cast. It might not necessarily be the factual truth, but it's their opinion. As it happens, I agree with a lot of what Downer says. The contrast between Howard at retirement age and Rudd with a decade or so left in him was pretty stark.

In the context of a biographical article, giving a huge amount of space to Downer's views wouldn't wash. But he was a senior minister and his opinions carry a lot more weight than those of even an experienced political journalist. I think if we can find one or two juicy quotes and label them as opinion, it's worth putting in. --Pete (talk) 17:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The meeting of Liberal frontbenchers in the Quay Grand Hotel seems to be a decisive moment of the final weeks of the Howard government. A story worth telling. Lester 21:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

What I find interesting and of potential addition is that they knew for most of the year that they were going to lose this election, and positioning themselves in ways that won't stick them between a rock and a hard place in opposition while still giving them wiggle room to move, should Kevin Rudd have done a Latham. Timeshift (talk) 21:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Howard always maintained that he would “stay as long as his party wanted him to stay”, and he stressed time and again that the job was not his but within the gift of the party. Now, it appears he was never willing to go just because his party wanted him to; he always wanted it to be his decision and his alone. It could be interpreted that his formula was a lie all along, and that his primary interest was always a personal one - to be the only PM other than Menzies to successfully fight more than 4 elections. On the other hand, if his overriding concern was the success of his party, and if he really believed that the party would stand a better chance of winning under him than under Costello – probably a realistic assessment, and one that many of his colleagues shared – then his decision to stay could be justified. But if that was the case, why did he put it in terms of having to be forced out, rather than accepting the party's own wisdom? Maybe he was saying that the views expressed to him did not represent the view of the whole party. Or was he really saying that he knew better what was best for his party than the party itself did? Sure sounds like it – which is as far as you can get from his old formula, ie. the party decides these things, not any individual, including himself. Maybe we can point out the contrast between his publicly stated formula and what he really seemed to believe. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Before someone comes along and removes it however... like Prester. Oh wait, he got banned for a month :-) Timeshift (talk) 22:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

He did!? You've made my day. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 00:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes :P Timeshift (talk) 00:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a source for the above speculation (about Howard, not Prester John)? --Pete (talk) 00:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I won't deny I got a cheap LOL from the above line :) Orderinchaos 14:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Ditto ;) Ah schadenfreude. --Brendan [ contribs ] 03:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The articles pretty much say that. Of course it didn't come from Howard's own mouth though, as these sorts of things never do. Timeshift (talk) 00:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The articles claim a Downer speech at an event as the source, and the fact Downer or other Liberal sources have not contradicted in any way (as they have been quite unhesitant to do when they believe they've been misquoted before) suggests to me that it is at least their view, even if not necessarily accurate to the facts as they are. My view re Wiki is it should contain a note about it, no more than one or two sentences, and attribute it to Downer via Shanahan/Milne. Nothing has come out to contradict, but if it does, that can be noted afterwards to balance it. Orderinchaos 14:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Just updating this thread - this piece by Paul Kelly appeared in this weekend's Weekend Australian. Orderinchaos 08:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It never came to the party making a decision. Cabinet isn't the Liberal party, and crucially it didn't contain many of those most at risk in marginal seats. Even if you take cabinet as being the deciding body, they still didn't press the issue. --Pete (talk) 10:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

When did Howard's parliamentary career cease?

G'day all, can anyone tell me officially at point did Howard's career come to an end? As it stands, the infobox states that Howard was the Member for Bennelong from 18 May 1974 to 24 November 2007. I believe that this is incorrect, as the seat was decleared on 12 December 2007.[2] Please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that one is a member of a House of Representatives until such time that someone else is officially decleared in one's seat. I am fairly certain that this does not back date to the day of the election. -- Ianblair23 (talk) 04:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I am more than fairly certain you're mistaken. Maxine McKew has been the member for Bennelong since 24 November, even though the result was not officially announced until 12 December. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

That can't be right. Because Rudd didn't replace Howard as PM until he went to the GG. Else your argument implies that Howard was seatless PM for about 10 days the election. Of course, I am not at all an authority of consitutional matters.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but being PM and winning a seat can be mutually exclusive, as Rudd without being PM is an MP in his own right. However doesn't the "AEC" publish something or make a press release. Surely it is the RS in this matter? Shot info (talk) 05:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah well doesn't the constitution say that the PM must be a MP in the HoR? If that's the case then Howard can't be outgoing/transitional PM if he was tossed out of his seat "instantly". Of course, Rudd can be MP but not PM, because PM is a subset of MP. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Not sure. I just thought the AEC would be the RS suitable for answering this question (ie/ on when did Howard actually stop being an MP)??? Shot info (talk) 05:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

On page 2 of today's Daily Telegraph (online version) it quotes the Divisional Returning Officer stating that "after a full distribution of preferences, the final vote was John Winston Howard: 42,251, Maxine McKew: 44,685 ... Accordingly, under the provisions of Section 284 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act, I declare Maxine McKew duly elected as a member to serve in the House of Representatives in the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, the division of Bennelong." So I would gather from that, that Howard was the Member for Bennelong up to the time of the annoucement. -- Ianblair23 (talk) 07:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Not so. His term as MP ended on 24 November, regardless of the date the AEC announced the result. Anyone - anyone at all - can be appointed a Minister (ss. 62 & 64 of the Constitution). The only condition stipulated is that the person must become a member or senator within 3 months (s. 64). This provision allows Ministers who lose their seats, or retire from parliament prior to an election, or where the government is defeated, to retain their portfolios until such time as the new Minister/government is sworn in. This has been used in dozens of cases in the past. It also applied when Stanley Bruce was defeated both governmentally and personally - he ceased being a member on election day but he remained PM for 12 days until Scullin was sworn in. It also applied when PM John Gorton resigned from the Senate and nominated for a seat in the Reps at a by-election; in the meantime he remained PM. It also applied when the Edmund Barton government was sworn in on 1 January 1901 but the first parliament wasn't elected until late March. The AEC has precisely nothing to do with who's a Minister or not; its sole concern is who's elected to parliament. The Governor-General alone decides who's a Minister or not. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

OK Jack, I accept your point regarding the holding of portifolios and that the change over occurs only when sworn in by the Governor-General, but where, in any official document, does it state that a term of an MP commences as of the day of the election and NOT when the seat is officially declared by the Divisional Returning Officer? -- Ianblair23 (talk) 11:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

OK. I’ve actually been anticipating that question and I’ve been looking at the Constitution but it isn’t spelled out there (at least not that I can see; but then, I’m no constitutional lawyer). It must be implied somewhere. Nevertheless, there are other things:

• This from the Parliamentary Handbook shows the chronology of parliaments; take a look at the one elected in 2004 – the date is 9 October, the date of the election. If the parliament was elected on 9 October, then how can any individual member not have been elected (or re-elected) on the same date?
• This is a page from the same Handbook. It shows various members, the seats they held, their entry and exit dates, and their reason for exit. The only entry dates shown are the dates of a general election or a by-election. No mention of any declaration dates by the AEC.
• This from "House of Representatives Practice" is about Members’ Remuneration and Entitlements. It says: "A Member is paid salary and allowances from and including the day of the election, to and including: the day of dissolution, if not seeking re-election; or the day before the election, if re-nominating but defeated at the election. A Member who is re-elected is paid continuously." The payment of salary from the date of election suggests very strongly that they are a member from the date of the election; otherwise they'd be getting paid out of the public purse when they were not members of parliament - somewhat illegal and reprehensible
• Finally, consider a sitting member who is re-elected. Are you saying that his/her term ends on the day of (or the day before) the election, and starts again on the day the poll is declared – with a break in service in between? Nowhere I've seen is that suggested to be the case. -- JackofOz (talk) 11:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Jack, in regard to your final point, no I am not suggesting that there is any break in service. Simply that Howard was officially the Member for Bennelong from the date when the seat was declared after the 1974 election up to the date when the seat was declared in the 2007 election, ie 12 December. Perhaps it is a case of one is elected on election day but one officially becomes a Member of Parliament when the seat is declared.

As a side note, as not all seats are officially declared on the same day, this would presumably mean that MPs who are first elected at the same election but whose seats are declared on different days have different official parliamentary start dates. This would be the same for end dates.

I know it's seems "cleaner" to say that everyone starts and ends on election day but in Howard's case how can McKew officially be the member until such time that the seat is officially declared? Unless, of course, as you suggest that this back dates to the time of election. In which case, this must be outlined somewhere in official documents.

So, let's examine the material that you have put forward. The first link that you provide from the Parliamentary Handbook does indeed state in the 41st Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia was elected on 9 October 2004. But again, perhaps it is a case of one is elected on election day but one officially becomes a Member of Parliament when the seat is declared. The second link definitely has some weight as the header of the fifth column reads "Date ceased to be a member" and gives the dates when the MP either retired, resigned, died (all which is not in dispute) or was defeated. With the date of defeat given as the date of the election. Now this is swinging me a little however, I would still like to see more evidence supporting this. The third link regarding the payment of MPs also has some weight. I was already aware of the fact MPs are paid from election day to election day. However, if there is any evidence that would help in settling this debate, it would be whether of not if MPs who are defeated are paid up to the time of when the seat is declared.

The answer must lie in Section 284 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act as this the legislation under the Divisional Returning Officer makes the declaration. If, as you suggest, MP officially take office as at the date of the election, then what, if anything, does the official declaration mean? -- Ianblair23 (talk) 22:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Surely there is an RS (in Australia?? Gov't??) that will tell us when the former leader of a country stopped being a member of that countries parliament? Without having to resort to us becoming constitutional lawyers? Shot info (talk) 23:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this all stems from the fact that we don't have instantaneous formal results of elections and there's a period of uncertainty until they're known. In most cases, for practical purposes it's clear on election night who's won what seats; there are usually only a handful where it's truly uncertain. Which is why concession/victory speeches occur that night, and, more importantly, why a new government is almost always sworn in prior to the declaration of the polls. But when it comes to the formal results in individual seats, there's a process to be gone through. That takes however long it takes. When seat X is finally declared, the declaration means that the winner was elected on election day, and all their rights and obligations as a member are retrospective to that day.

However, given that they don't know until the declaration of the poll whether they've formally won their seats or not, they can't exercise any of their formal rights or obligations as an MP in the interim - which is a different thing from saying those formal rights and obligations don't exist at law (however academic they may seem in the interim). For example, an incoming member Joe Bloggs doesn't call himself "Joe Bloggs MP" in the interim, even though it turns out he was actually entitled to the postnominals from election day. I note, though, that Maxine McKew was sworn in as "the Hon Maxine McKew MP", prior to Bennelong being declared; and, on reflection, this may also have happened with Simon Crean, who was elected on 24 March 1990 and became a member of the Fourth Hawke Ministry 11 days later on 4 April, almost certainly before Hotham was formally declared. I can only assume the Governor-General of the day would permit such postnominals to be used in official Government House proclamations only after having received assurances from the AEC that there was no real prospect of the Minister not having been elected. In Crean's case from memory there was never any doubt; in McKew's case it was a lot closer, but both she and Howard made statements on election night agreeing that she had probably won; she formally claimed the seat on 1 December, 2 days before the swearing-in; and it never looked remotely likely that postals would all go Howard's way. The declaration of the poll finally happened on 12 December, 9 days after she started using her officially-sanctioned "MP".

If the sitting member Billy Brown MP turns out to have been defeated, nobody objects to him calling himself "Billy Brown MP" up until declaration of the poll, even though it will become apparent that he actually ceased being an MP on election night. This is merely a courtesy extended to sitting members during this period of uncertainty. Later records will show him being "Billy Brown MP" up until election day, and plain "Billy Brown" thereafter.

Re John Howard - this tells us he was officially Member for Bennelong from 18 May 1974. The date of the 1974 election was 18 May.

Re As a side note, as not all seats are officially declared on the same day, this would presumably mean that MPs who are first elected at the same election but whose seats are declared on different days have different official parliamentary start dates. This would be the same for end dates.

• This is not the case. Official parliamentary records show that MPs' starting dates are always either the date of a general election or the date of a by-election. No other dates are relevant.

Re I was already aware of the fact MPs are paid from election day to election day presumably again because it's cleaner

• It's got nothing to do with being cleaner. The government has no authority whatsoever to spend a single cent on any grounds other than via an appropriation of the parliament. Parliament has no power to appropriate parliamentary salaries for persons who are not members of the parliament. The fact that salary is paid with effect from election day must mean that the person is a member of parliament from election day. But again, that's logic talking and not the clear documentary reference you're seeking. I'll keep on doing some digging and see what turns up. (Btw, I worked for almost a decade in the Parliamentary and Ministerial Services area - it moved between various departments - and I know that the salary payments for all sitting members who are recontesting are stopped as of the day before the election. When the polls are declared, salary for re-elected and newly elected members is (re)commenced, backdated to election day. I know this doesn't rate as an authoritative source, but I assure you it's the case (and I never lie - well, hardly ever).  : ) -- JackofOz (talk) 01:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see a concrete source on this. I hunted through the CEA without finding anything positive, and I imagine that the answer lies in some piece of legislation or other. However, pending or lacking that, I think that we may safely use the Parliamentary Handbook as a source for dates. On the subject of dates for ministers, the date of swearing in is what counts, as ministers (even prime ministers) don't actually have to be MPs. Some excellent examples were provided earlier. --Pete (talk) 01:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Still not a legal source, but this says:

• A Member’s status as a Member does not depend on the meeting of the Parliament, nor on the Member taking his or her seat or making the oath or affirmation. A Member is technically regarded as a Member from the day of election — that is, when he or she is, in the words of the Constitution, ‘chosen by the people’. A new Member is entitled to use the title MP once this status is officially confirmed by the declaration of the poll.

That is, they become an MP on election day, but their status has to be officially confirmed by the declaration of the poll before they can start operating as an MP. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to thank you for the excellent scholarship here. This question confused me at first, but it looks like you've found as definitive a source(s) as we could wish for. --Pete (talk) 03:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've also just contacted the House of Reps and had a good long chat. They referred me to s.48 of the Constitution: "...each senator and member shall receive an allowance of four hundred pounds a year, to be reckoned from the day on which he takes his seat". They said the highlighted words have always, since 1901, been interpreted in this context to mean election day because that's the day on which the member was "chosen by the people"; there's no record of it ever being questioned (until now, apparently). "Chosen by the people" is relevant to s. 24 - "The House of Reps shall be composed of members directly chosen by the people ...". People elected to the Senate do not become Senators immediately, but wait till 1 July; in the absence of any such provision for members of the House of Reps, they become members immediately they are chosen, and that choice is made on, and only on, election day (or by-election day), regardless of how much time it may take for the poll to be officially declared. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

"A good long chat"! I nominate you for a research Barnstar for that. This is pure gold. And yes, looking at the wording of the Constitution, it makes perfect sense. --Pete (talk) 03:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

And there I was thinking that the Governor General had something to do with it. Maybe that just has to do with swearing in the new Government or something.petedavo (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep, that's what he does. He has no say about who's elected to Parliament. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank very much Jack!! I am now 100% totally satisfed that an MP's term commences on election day. I have always wondered though if the declaration of the polls was when the offical term commenced, however I can now see that it is simply a public declaration of the result and it took effect as of election day. Well done! -- Ianblair23 (talk) 04:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. And thanks for providing the opportunity for this interesting question to be examined. It's fine to be certain that X is the case, but knowing exactly why it's the case is not always so obvious. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

May be worth incorporating into Elections in Australia? --Brendan [ contribs ] 03:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Photo of JH as a boy

I'm just curious to see where this pic is actually from as currently there doesn't seem to be any source information for it. After all, it could really be of anybody without the references to back it up. Lester? Anybody else? Shot info (talk) 00:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm wondering about that too. Has Lester been rummaging through the bins at Kirribilli House? Or did he just photoshop something up? Even if the story isn't quite as exciting as that, it still needs to be told. --Pete (talk) 00:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't really mind where it did come from, but really the photo could be of anybody unless there is an RS to tell us it is JH. PS: Pete, chill with the sarcasm for the moment...ok? Shot info (talk) 00:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It's obvious it will be removed unless the source is stated, so i'll add to the image what the uploader informed me of. Timeshift (talk) 00:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

probably a scan from the recent Bio-book Lester referred to still needs to state the source. Gnangarra 00:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I've added what Lester told me. I don't know if theres an archived version of the site somewhere. Timeshift (talk) 00:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

PM infobox

If (at talk: Kevin Rudd) we're not going to come to a conclusion on PM infoboxes content, we may aswell put them back as they were (for now). There's no need for this article & the Kevin Rudd article to be different from the rest of the Aussie PM infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 23:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Consensus seems to be non-existant when it comes to Australian Prime Ministers (well, consensus that everyone recognises). Timeshift (talk) 23:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, there's certainly a stalmate. GoodDay (talk) 23:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It's even worse when there is consensus, but one side doesn't seem to want to accept or recognise it which makes the consensus pointless and goes back to square 1. Stalemate indeed. Timeshift (talk) 23:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Which would imply that there isn't a consensus :-). FWIW, I'm starting to see that consistency is something the Community is reluctant to adopt, so in lieu of that, my default position is simplicity - ie/ keeping the infoboxes to a minimum relevant to the subject of the article rather than the position (ie/ PM) the subject occupies. While this isn't my preferred position, it allows for the maximum wriggle room for everybody :-) ie/ lets just get consensus on an article by article basis - like what we do throughout the project. Shot info (talk) 23:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Liberal Party Leadership and dates

OK, it is very well documented that one is not officially the Prime Minister of Australia until one is sworn in by the Governer-General of Australia. As such, John Howard was officially the PM from the time he was sworn in (9 11 March 1996) to the time that Kevin Rudd was sworn in (3 December 2007). OK, also Jack two threads above also established that one is officially a Member of the House of Representatives from the day that one is chosen by the people, as per section 24 of the Constitution of Australia which taken to mean election day. As such John Howard was officially the Member for Bennelong from the day he was first elected (18 May 1974) to the day he was defeated and the day that Maxine McKew was first elected (24 November 2007). Jack also pointed out that according to section 64 of the Constitution, the only condition stipulated one anyone being a minister is that the person must become a member or senator within 3 months. To quote Jack "this provision allows Ministers who lose their seats, or retire from parliament prior to an election, or where the government is defeated, to retain their portfolios until such time as the new Minister/government is sworn in." He then gave some examples when this have been used.

OK, this only leaves the position of the Leader of the Liberal Party of Australia.

As I understand it, Alexander Downer was elected leader in 1994, then later resigned. Howard then took over the leadership some time January 1995 and at the same time became Leader of the Opposition. He then goes on to win the 1996 election and becomes PM. Fast forward to election day 2007. On 24 November 2007, Howard loses the election and loses his seat. Hence he ceases to be Member for Bennelong but remains PM.

Since Howard lost his seat he therefore ceased being a parliamentary member of the Liberal Party. Thus, if he is no longer a member he could obviously no longer be the leader. So at what point did Howard cease being the Leader of the Liberal Party? Was it election day on 24 November, was it the day of the leadership ballot on 29 November 2007 or some other time in between?

Now, assuming that Howard was no longer the leader after 29 November (this is, Brendan Nelson immediately became the leader after the results of the leadership ballot was declared) this means that from 29 November to 3 December Howard was the caretaker PM without being the Leader of the Liberal Party and without being a Member of Parliament?

Also, since the Liberal Party were still in government up to the swearing in of Rudd and his ministers, that would mean that Nelson did not become Leader of the Opposition until 3 December.

So, on Sunday 2 December 2007, John Howard was the caretaker Prime Minister of Australia, was not the Leader of the Liberal Party of Australia and was not the Member for Bennelong, Kevin Rudd was the Prime Minister elect, the Opposition Leader of Australia and the Leader of the Australian Labor Party, and Brendan Nelson was the Leader of the Liberal Party of Australia. Is this correct? -- Ianblair23 (talk) 03:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Fascinating question, Ian. (Btw, I corrected a date in your post; hope you don't mind.) I was hoping for some guidance from the table at List of Australian Leaders of the Opposition, but it’s inconsistent. It shows:

• Howard ceasing to be Opposition Leader (OL) on 11 March 1996, the date he was sworn in as PM (the election was on 2 March; Beazley wasn’t elected OL till 19 March, so there was an 8-day gap where there was no OL); and
• Hawke ceasing to be OL on 11 March 1983, the date he was sworn in as PM (the election was on 3 March), and Peacock becoming OL the same day; BUT
• Whitlam ceasing to be OL on 2 December 1972, the date of the election, although he didn’t become PM till 5 December; and Snedden becoming OL on 2 December even though he was still Treasurer till 5 December; THEN back to
• Menzies ceasing to be OL on 19 December 1949, the date he was sworn in as PM (the election was on 10 December), and Chifley becoming OL on 19 December.

In the Stanley Bruce/Jim Scullin case in 1929, where Bruce lost his seat, the table has Scullin staying as OL until 22 October, the date he was sworn in as PM. The next leader of Bruce’s party was John Latham, who wasn’t elected till 20 November. While this means Australia suffered for almost a month without an Opposition Leader, it also avoided the issue you’ve raised. The fact that Nelson was elected OL while Howard was still PM and before Rudd had been sworn in (and was still, technically, OL himself) – this is unique in our political history, I believe. The table shows Nelson becoming OL only on 3 December, not 29 November, which is wrong but it may have been done that way because of the very issues you’ve raised.

The PM has the job by virtue of the G-G swearing him in. He has to be elected by his party first, but the G-G is what formally makes him the PM. Whereas the OL is decided purely by the party concerned, and the G-G has no say. What I think you’ve got me focussing on is that neither of these jobs has any real significance outside of a parliamentary context. If 35 ALP members were to defect to the Libs today, Rudd would stay PM until such time as the parliament meets and there’s a vote of no confidence in his government. He’d be perfectly entitled to delay the meeting of the parliament until the last possible day allowed by the constitution. In the meantime, Nelson would remain OL despite having the support of the majority of MPs. So, there's a difference between the constitutional arrangemnents and their public manifestation,

Let’s consider two hypothetical scenarios:

• (A) the government is defeated, but the PM keeps his own seat. He is planning to stay in parliament, continue to lead his party and be Opposition Leader. Two days after the election, he drops dead. The next day, his deputy is elected as party leader. The victorious OL still hasn’t been sworn in as the PM yet. The former deputy is now what?
  • PM? No, because the GG hasn’t commissioned him to form a government, and he’d be hardly likely to given the election result.
  • Acting PM? Doubtful; the GG has no power to ask a person to act as PM, afaik. When the PM goes overseas or on leave, he simply asks his deputy to take over the reins for a few days; it’s done formally in writing, and the GG is informed of the arrangements as a courtesy, but the GG is not otherwise involved.
  • Party leader? Yes.
  • Opposition Leader? Maybe, in the eyes of the public. But the PM-elect is still technically OL until the swearing-in, so there can't be 2 OLs at the same time.

• (B) The government is defeated but the victorious OL hasn’t been sworn in as PM yet. Two days after the election, the PM-elect drops dead. The next day his party chooses a new leader. Between now and the swearing in, what is he?
  • PM-elect? No, because he wasn’t the one who led the party to victory.
  • Opposition Leader? Technically, probably.
  • Party leader? Yes.

I also note that between 11 November 1975 (when Whitlam was dismissed) and after the December 1975 election, he refused to call himself the Opposition Leader, preferring Leader of the Majority Party. But that was a somewhat unusual circumstance.

I don’t know whether any of this helps. I’m thinking more about this and I’ll be back. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)