Talk:Abbott government

Timeline

Talk:Abbott Government/Timeline - subpage for accumulating WP:RECENT links, which we can then pick over for actual article content. --Surturz (talk) 06:40, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Labor stopped the boats, not the Liberals

What a striking graph! Timeshift (talk) 23:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The analysis ignores monsoon season. You can see a drop in arrivals at the same time of year in each of the preceding years. --Surturz (talk) 04:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Only 20,568 illegal boat people last year under Labor the highest number in recorded history... strange idea of stopping the boats. Next you'll be telling us of that massive budget surplus Labor delivered. 203.206.82.91 (talk) 12:55, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

It would seem that you didn't actually look at the graph. HiLo48 (talk) 21:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Mundine - "a personal friend of Abbott"

I made this edit to the Indigenous Affairs section:

Abbott's promised Indigenous Advisory Council was announced in November. The council was to meet three times a year with the Prime Minister and senior ministers to advise the government on policy implementation. Aimed at sparking "new engagement" with indigenous Australians, the 12 member council was headed by former Labor Party president and personal friend of Abbott Warren Mundine.

on the grounds that:

• The ref says Mundine is "reportedly" a friend of Abbot - not that he actually "is".
• There's no indication as to why the friendship is relevant, so I don't believe it needs mentioning.

Nick-D reverted, on the grounds that "it's a bit misleading to present Mundine only as an ALP figure given that he's moved away from the party to some degree, and appears to have decided to take up his current position largely due to his good relationship with Abbott", and added another reference. Unfortunately the new reference is behind a paywall, so I can't see all of it - only the first two paragraphs, which do not mention the friendship.

Nick-D, could please quote the relevant part of the new reference, ie which states that Mundine is a personal friend of Abbott's, and why it is relevant to Mundine's position as head of the council. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:32, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Regarding paywalls, put the URL in to news.google.com.au and open it from there :) Timeshift (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Googling the headline has the same effect as well. The story in The Australian says "Mr Mundine has been talking to Mr Abbott for years, but a friendship between the two men blossomed in 2008", "The Opposition Leader - who has pledged to place indigenous affairs directly under his control in the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet if elected - has been grooming Mr Mundine for months as a key adviser and is likely to offer an executive position to the former Labor stalwart if a Coalition government is elected" and "His steadfast view that commercial development offered the only chance for indigenous communities to escape poverty has long stood in opposition to the rights-based agenda of the Labor Left. But an Abbott government promised a return to the Hawke-Keating model of leadership, offering a vision in indigenous affairs which Aboriginal people could share, Mr Mundine told The Weekend Australian. "One thing I have noticed about Tony, unlike the government, is that he has actually grown. You could see him grow in his thinking, while I think the government is looking tired," Mr Mundine said." The story also notes that Mundine is no longer a member of the ALP. As the relationship is a significant element of Mundine taking the role and he's not accurately described as an ALP figure at present I think that it's relevant: presenting him only as the former ALP president carries the suggestion that this was a deliberately bipartisan act, when it seems that shared views on the topic of Indigenous affairs and a good relationship were more important (which is fair enough given that this is Abbott's personal advisory body). Nick-D (talk) 09:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I think our article's statement that "member council was headed by former Labor Party president and personal friend of Abbott Warren Mundine" implies a degree of causation between the friendship and the position that is not directly supported by the news article.

Regarding your point that "presenting him only as the former ALP president carries the suggestion that this was a deliberately bipartisan act" - perhaps the solution would to remove "former ALP president" as well and simply say that "the 12 member council was headed by Warren Mundine".

As always, other editors' opinions are also sought... Mitch Ames (talk) 11:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

In the absence of any other feedback, I updated the article per my most recent suggestion. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:58, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Recent bias?

The last few days have seen quite a lot of new material added to the article, mostly negative. I'm not a subject-matter expert here, but I suspect that perhaps it's not as neutral as it should be. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:16, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I've just modified the Asylum Seeker part. For clarification here are the reasons why. Firstly there is a claim that the Coalition Government refused to let the family of deceased Asylum Seeker Leo Seemanpillai go to his funeral. This is not the full story. While they were indeed refused visa's to attend his funeral in Australia, there was no requirement for him to have a funeral here as the government was willing to pay the entire cost of the deceased return back to his family in India(which seems like a much more appropriate place to be buried than on the other side of the world). SMH News StoryWhy you would want your family member buried on the other side of the world away from every single one of your family members is only something his family can explain. For whatever reason this was missing from the paragraph in the wiki article so it's been added. Secondly there is a claim that 2 other asylum seekers lit themselves on fire because they were going to be "Sent back to Sri Lanka". Of course this is speculation which is not very wikipedia like. Maybe they lit themselves on fire because they missed their families... maybe they lit themselves on fire because they could adapt to Australian life. We don't know and we will never know. What we don't do on wiki however is speculate on WHY.203.206.82.91 (talk) 12:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit needed to make 1st sentence clear.

The 1st sentence doesn't read clearly:

"The Abbott Government is the federal executive Government of Australia of the Liberal-National Coalition, by the Prime Minister, Tony Abbott."

The phrase "by the Prime Minister, Tony Abbott" needs clarification. Perhaps it needs "...headed by the Prime Minister...".

The phrase "the Liberal-National Coalition" would read better as "a Liberal-National Coalition".

There are too many ofs, implying the Abbott Government is the executive of both the Government of Australia and the Liberal-National Coalition, and that the Australia is somehow of the Liberal-National Coalition.

136.153.18.102 (talk) 04:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Unpopular budget mentioned in lead

Shouldn't the Abbott Government's first budget, its unpopularity and slow process through Parliament be mentioned in the lead or should we wait? Its description as unfair is also a key fact which should be carefully included. - Shiftchange (talk) 05:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

"Its description as unfair is also a key fact" - That sounds like a personal opinion to me, not a "key fact" 203.206.82.91 (talk) 23:32, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

It is however, mainstream thought backed up by many WP:RS. Whether it is fair is disputable. However the key criticisms of the budget, observed in WP:RS, is that is seen as unpopular and thought of as unfair by almost all advocacy groups and many of the wider population. Perhaps Shiftchange could have worded it better than "unfair is a key fact". Timeshift (talk) 23:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

It's certainly fair and factual to say that the budget has been described as unfair by an awful lot of commentators, and not just the government's usual detractors. HiLo48 (talk) 01:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. The 1996 federal Liberal budget was a walk in a socialist park by comparison. Polls put this budget as the most unpopular budget in polling history - and not just by a little, a long way. I think part of the reason is that it hits a voter in a few ways - they weren't told of such drastic changes at the last election, their intelligence is being insulted by the Libs refusing to acknowledge cuts are cuts, but most of all, the hypocrisy that galls me is that everyone needing to pay money to see a doctor is apparently to balance the budget, yet the vast majority of the co-payment will go toward new spending. All things being equal they should at least make an effort to not let it look like a plain and simple Americanisation of our healthcare system... honestly. Timeshift (talk) 03:16, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Partisanship

Hello all,

I have removed two sections from the article that seemed to be written in an unnecessarily vitriolic, partisan and inflammatory manner. They seemed to perform a political analysis of the government's actions from a particular viewpoint, rather than provide an unbiased overview of events. Please do not add the sections back in without a discussion here first,

Thank you all!

Similiarly, there is little/nothing positive in the article at all. There are no mentions of the Abbott government's handling of MH370, MH17 and other major foreign policy issues during their time in office. I will endeavour to add these in at a later date to improve the coverage of the 'foreign affairs' sections.

Firstly, can you please sign your posts on Talk pages in future by typing ~~~~ at the end.

Regarding your changes, I think an argument could be made that, given the Abbott government's poor standing in the polls, there simply is a lot of negative coverage, so I'm not sure that those bits you removed were necessarily partisan, but I do agree with their removal, because they were very poorly written. Happy to see an enthusiastic new editor here, but don't be too quick accusing others of being partisan. It's inevitable that in the political sphere some will be, but accusing them of it never really helps. But welcome aboard, and keep up the good work. HiLo48 (talk) 10:28, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks, for the tip about signing, I thought my comments did look a bit 'bare' in comparison to others, couldn't quite work out what was missing!

I was perhaps a bit too hasty to use the label 'partisan', so I'll refrain from such terms in future. I hope to add some content to this and other pages over coming days. Thank you for your advice HiLo48, Valiant Patriot (talk) 10:41, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Material being poorly written is not an argument for removal, it is an argument for rewording/rewriting the material. Valiant Patriot, please do not mass remove the same content again without discussing it here and gaining consensus. AlanS (talk) 10:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

@Valiant Patriot:, I was just about to look at a bit of rewriting when you removed the material again. Please do not engage in un-constructive edit warring. AlanS (talk) 10:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

@Valiant Patriot:, I have just done a bit of rewriting. I can't claim the be the best writer in the world but I think it is looking quite a bit better. If there is anything you think can be put in a better way please rewrite before removing. If there is anything you think still needs removing, please do so in sensible chunks at a time and if any of those removals have been or are reverted then you have a sure sign that you don't currently have consensus and that you will need to discuss it here. AlanS (talk) 11:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Valiant Patriot:! I hope we haven't gotten off on the wrong foot following our discussion yesterday, I think over the coming days I'll propose some more extensive changes here. I'm hoping to really clean up this article and a few other related ones as I feel the style of writing and content is in parts rather lacking. Best wishes, Valiant Patriot (talk) 10:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@Valiant Patriot:, I agree with you that the article definitely needs a clean up. Too many sentences/paragraphs starting with "The Abbott government ...". It's very robotic and doesn't make for pleasant reading. Best wishes also. ps. I don't think you had the effect you desired by pinging yourself. Use the user-name of the person you wish to get the attention of. AlanS (talk) 10:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

'Social Policy'

This heading seems to group together a variety of things that really should belong by themselves, mainly immigration/asylum seekers.

Thoughts on moving Immigration/Asylum Seekers to its own section out of 'Social Policy'?

Valiant Patriot (talk) 10:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Given it is one area of this governments policies that gets quite a bit of media/public attention I would agree. ps I don't have any strong opinions on how the article ought to be organised, it was mass removal of pertinent material that I objected to. AlanS (talk) 10:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Weird usage

"The Liberal-Nationals"—surely it's not standard usage. Tony (talk) 14:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

It is a shorthand that exists, but it isn't particularly clear or pleasant to the ear. I've replaced it with the phrase "Liberal-National coalition". RGloucester — ☎ 16:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Many caps are inevitable in such an article; but there are far too many, going by the style guides, including WP's. I've done some downcasing, which makes it a little more readable, but there's more to go. Tony (talk) 12:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Is this article a joke?

Where's all the proposed changes, controversial and unpopular reactions, and fallout of the 2014 Australian federal budget in this article? Or is this article a bastion for editors of the Liberal bent? "The 2014 federal budget was released on 13 May. In 2015, the Department of Treasury released an intergenerational report, assessing the long-term sustainability of government policies based on demographic projections of Australia's population. In April, Peter Costello published an opinion piece in the Daily Telegraph describing proposed tax changes as a "morbid joke"." That's it! Seriously, what...?! Timeshift (talk) 22:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Dog whistling and wedge politics - would it be removed?

If I reliably source that critics refer to the Tampa affair as the start of Lynton Crosby's dog whistling and wedge politics from Lib govts, and that this impression has been reinforced by current Liberal govt actions, would anyone revert? Timeshift (talk) 20:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

See Also

Just a note. Scrolling down to the bottom of this article, it looks pretty good except the "See Also" heading which looks aesthetically not as nice as it could be. Just a suggestion for how to improve this article a little. Not sure how I would go about doing it though... Good work on the rest of the article!Joshua.parris (talk) 07:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

A lot of text has been removed.

Removed by User:Ozhistory. Can this user, and other users, give an input as to whether the real issue is as claimed: insufficient WP:RS, or is it a stalling tactic for "I don't like it"? I'd like to know before I fetch the WP:RS. FTR I have no real issue if content is placed in either/both the PM or the government article. Timeshift (talk) 08:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

User Timeshift you also removed a lot of text with a considerable amount of citations. I am not sure the author of the previous text, but as per my edit notes, I took away the non-cited opinion bits. The text read more like a politically aligned newspaper op-ed than an encyclopedia. Such opinion will need to be cited to the source if allowed to stand at all. Ozhistory (talk) 08:37, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

It's a stretch to call anything I added opinion. Would you argue the 2014 budget did not have a perception of being non-poorly received? Give me an example of something I added recently that you believe is based in opinion and even with a WP:RS shouldn't be in this or the PM article? 08:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't followed which text is yours and haven't been watching Abbott page, so can't answer that, I am merely working on this page as and when I come to it, as I have before. The text was inadequate as outlined in edit summaries, but also made no reference to the plotters, nor to shifting poll results, declaring only that Abbott had failed to take his chances. That's one version of events, but certainly won't be the version we get when the ABC do their "Killing Season" series on the Abbott-Turnbull tussle. Ozhistory (talk) 09:22, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Did Abbott Government stop the boats? Should discussion of this be in this article?

There has been some analysis on whether the Abbott Government did actually stop the boats. Up until recently, the following was in the article:

An analysis by former Immigration Department chief John Menadue and Australian National University migration expert Peter Hughes regards the downturn in boat arrivals to have begun after the Second Rudd Government announcement that asylum seekers would not be settled in Australia, and other measures undertaken by the Rudd Government to resettle refugees elsewhere.

References

Is analysis of whether the Abbott Government did stop the boats appropriate for this article? If so, why was it removed? Should it instead be on the Rudd Govt page? --211.30.17.74 (talk) 05:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Cleansing and whitewashing

If users, particularly Ozhistory, could stop whitewashing the Abbott legacy, that would be really appreciated. I understand the truth hurts but there comes a time when one has to accept reality. Timeshift (talk) 08:44, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Please don't make personal attacks. I can't hope to understand the basis of your complaint on such vague terms, though your continual partisan comments on this page lend a clue. Ozhistory (talk) 14:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

The article revision history speaks for itself. Timeshift (talk) 14:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Abbott Government. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140515203023/http://www.smh.com.au:80/federal-politics/political-opinion/tony-abbott-in-china-shows-skills-beyond-his-years-20140410-zqsd6.html? to http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/tony-abbott-in-china-shows-skills-beyond-his-years-20140410-zqsd6.html#ixzz2ywk6dzQM

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:46, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Abbott Government. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150626015104/http://www.skynews.com.au:80/news/top-stories/2015/06/25/-heads-should-roll--at-abc-over-q-and-a-rerun.html to http://www.skynews.com.au/news/top-stories/2015/06/25/-heads-should-roll--at-abc-over-q-and-a-rerun.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed 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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:19, 2 October 2016 (UTC)