Talk:John Cornwall (South Australian politician)

Controversy
this section remains misleading and libellous in the way it represents Cornwall's actions and intentions and the finding of the courts. For example 'guilty' is not an appropriate term to describe a finding of liablity in a civil claim, Justice Debelle's decision was overturned on appeal, there were 10 other defendents, including four mainstream media outlets and the litigation was initiated by Rowan herself. While this is obviously a big issues for Rowan it is not appropriate to rate a mention in Cornwall's biography. Exhibition08 (talk) 06:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You need to provide sources for the above information please. The material in the article has sources and the material you are providing does not. The word "guilty" appears in the source used for the article. Thanks. -- Diannaa (Talk) 06:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a source for the overturn of the decision? Right now, the only source left standing in the article is a 2009 story from The Age, and it says that "Justice Debelle found that the accusations were a 'shocking libel' motivated, in the case of some defendants, by malice (which removed the defence of parliamentary privilege) and found Dr Cornwall guilty of misfeasance (releasing the report under parliamentary privilege knowing it was false)."[emphasis added] The story goes on to say that the verdicts were upheld on appeal. Per WP:Libel, the text may be allowed to remain, because it is backed up by a reliable source. —C.Fred (talk) 06:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This source http://www.abc.net.au/sa/news/200411/s1250534.htm from 2004 says Dr. Cornwall acted wrongly. Here http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/sa/SASC/2002/160.html is a copy of the decision in favour of Dawn Rowan. -- Diannaa (Talk) 06:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the appeal being mentioned is this one. In it, the findings in relation to Cornwall, from the summary of the conclusions, are:
 * 825 We have held that the trial Judge was correct in holding Dr Cornwall liable in damages to the plaintiff for misfeasance in a public office. However, we have reduced the component of general damages of the award of damages but have confirmed the Judge’s inclusion and assessment of all other components, including the assessment of the plaintiff’s economic loss. The judgment against Dr Cornwall will be reduced from the amount of $340,425.10 to an amount of $305,425.10. Both those figures include the award by the trial Judge of $25,000 by way of exemplary damages, which we uphold. There will be a further award of interest on the damages, excluding the component of exemplary damages.
 * 826 We have upheld the trial Judge’s finding that the report was defamatory of the plaintiff and that the imputations defamatory of the plaintiff were untrue. However, we have held that the finding of the trial Judge that there was an imputation that the plaintiff was guilty of sexual and physical harassment was incorrect, and that that imputation amounted to no more than that the plaintiff may have been guilty of such conduct. It is that conclusion which gives rise to the reduction of the component of general damages awarded against Dr Cornwall.
 * It doesn't seem to be the case that the Judge's decision was overturned, except in the case of the "imputation that the plaintiff was guilty of sexual and physical harassment". The misfeasance was upheld, as were most of the damages. - Bilby (talk) 11:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The only possible reason for including a reference to this case in the manner in which Diannaa is doing is to harm Dr Cornwall's reputation. That constitutes libel. Evidence of this intent is reinforced by you failing to mention the 12 other defedents in the case, making it appear this was a claim solely against Dr Cornwall. The intent is also clear from insisting on using the terms 'accusations' and 'guilty', justified only by reference to an abc news report that misrepresents the matter. As Bilby has pointed out, the court found Cornwall liable for damamges,not guilty of a crime as the language of Dianna's text leads readers to believe. As the comments from Bilby also point out, Justice Debelle's findings were reviewed on appeal to the full court of the SA Supreme Court in 2004 and again in 2005. The proper reference for the decisions of the Supreme Court are CORNWALL & ORS v ROWAN [2004] SASC 384 (24 November 2004) and again in CORNWALL & ORS v ROWAN (No 2) [2005] SASC 122 (1 April 2005). Bilby I think gave a link for the court's 2004 decision on the austlii website. Rowan sought leave to appeal to the High Court in 2005. The reference for the High Court's decision on that application is [Rowan v Cornwall & Ors [2005] HCATrans 601 (11 August 2005) ], and the transcript is available here. A full bench of the High Court dismissed the application. Wikipedia should not be used as a vehicle to push personal agendas. Rowan's claim against 13 defendents, which ran for over 15 years is not a signficant event in John Cornwall's career. If you insist on including a reference to this case in Cornwall's biography i suggest the following text is at least factual. 'Dawn Rowan, manager of the the Christite's Beach women's shelter in 1986 sued Minister Cornwall along with 12 other defendents as a result of a report by a Review Committee on the administraiton of womens shelters in South Australia in 1987. The Supreme Court of South Australia found Dr Cornwall liable for damages for defamation for publishing the report of the Review Committee.' [CORNWALL & ORS v ROWAN [2004] SASC 384 (24 November 2004)] Exhibition08 (talk) 06:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * A well sourced and cited reference to such an event is not libel. To cast such aspersions against other long standing editors is disingenious to say the least. It doesn't help that your account seems to have been created with the sole purpose of pursuing an editorial view point on the John Cornwall article. Looking at the user contributions of Bilby and Diannaa they seem to exhibit a fair and balanced approach to their Wikipedia contributions. Ozdaren (talk) 07:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

What an interesting blog. I have had reason to read the court reports of Ms Rowan's long running and very complex case against 13 defendants in the past. It is clearly difficult for most people to follow. The claims for defamation (against Committee members and media, not Cornwall)where not successful on appeal. In such cases it is best to use the authorised court reports. It is dangerous to rely on media reports some years later that are focusing on Ms Rowan's life and do not purport to be an objective report on the court's decisions. I suggest diannaa should remove the links to the abc and The Age stories if this entry is to retain integrity. I notice that one editor has commented that there were no newspaper reports of the case. Isn't that rather telling as to how much the case impacted on Dr Cornwall's public and political reputation - not much it seems.Historyjane (talk) 06:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Historyjane, and welcome to Wikipedia. Wikipedia uses secondary sources, not primary ones. That is our policy. Please refer to WP:Primary. "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." That is why we are using the reports from the newspaper articles as sources for the content. So it is not best to use the authorised court reports; that is not the way Wikipedia works. -- Diannaa  (Talk) 21:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice Diannaa. I've looked at those policies and I think you might have misunderstood. The Wikipedia policy on primary souroces is to prevent use of insider views or personal opinion to support a claim. The advice against using court transcripts and other court records to support assertions about living people is quite right, because such records are only a record of what was said in court. Official case law reports that record the decision of the judges are quite different. They are certainly published reliable sources, more reliable than media interpretation of what the court decided. So they are 'secondary sources' of the highest order. While reading those policies i noticed Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view particularly 'due and undue weight' and standards of notability[]. The latter requires "... significant coverage in reliable secondary sources such as mainstream media ..." I wonder how the whole 'Controversy' section is justified when there was no direct media coverage of the case at the time of the court decisions. The two media reports cited are stories about Ms Rowan that were publshed some time later, and only marginally mention Cornwall. I'm struggling to see how they are relevant to Dr Cornwall's political biography, which ended about 15 years earlier. The fact that a politician was sued as part of a wider defamation claim is not remarkable - it is not uncommon for public figures to sue or be sued in defamation. (if you would like a source for that i can point you to defamation law text books). Is there some other Wikipedia policy about relevance of material? Looking forward to your advice. Historyjane (talk) 04:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The content is sourced to two reliable sources, and is pertinent and even remarkable, as the subject of the article was a public figure. Additional sources were noted in a discussion at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, including:
 * JUNE 21, 2002: Supreme Court Justice Bruce Debelle finds the governments, Network Ten and the ABC guilty of defamation and awards Ms Rowan a total of $585,000. He finds Ms Roberts and two other review committee members acted with malice, and Dr Cornwall guilty of misfeasance. - Diamond Valley News
 * NOVEMBER 2004: The Full Court of the Supreme Court overturns Justice Debelle's finding of defamation against the television stations and the federal government. The ruling of defamation against state government defendants is upheld, but the finding of malice is overturned. - Diamond Valley News
 * The Advertiser, 2 April 2005, in relation to the second court decision "Although it upheld the earlier rulings against Dr Cornwall and committee member Judith Roberts, it dismissed the earlier finding the other committee members had acted with malice."
 * And The Advertiser, 25 November 2004, "Ms Rowan took legal action in the Supreme Court, which found Dr Cornwall had acted with misfeasance and the committee with malice. Yesterday, the Full Court of the Supreme Court upheld those findings, despite an appeal by many of the 13 defendants. However, Justices David Bleby, Anthony Besanko and John Sulan reduced the amount of damages for which Dr Cornwall was liable to $305,000."
 * The above are from smaller local papers and do not show up on Google search engines. -- Diannaa (Talk) 05:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

OK Diannaa, we'll have to disagree on this one. There is nothing remarkable about public figures being involved in defamation claims. In fact they are the only kind of people who can make such claims as it is all about damage to reputation, so you have to be a public figure. As for misfeasacnein publi coffice, once again it is a requirement that the person be in public office, so not at all remarkable. For me the remarkable thing about the case was the extraordinary number of defendants (as the local newspaper reports seem to highlight), but that's nothing to do with Dr Cornwall.Historyjane (talk) 06:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Diannaa can you please elaborate on your concerns about lack of neutrality? Is it the last entry by exhibition08 about the accolades for Dr Cornwall in the newspapers on the day of his resignation? That stuff is pretty standard for biographies and in this case fully referenced. I suggest exhibiton08 should reduce the amount of text but keep the references.115.130.1.125 (talk) 06:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * What I mean is that two people that are likely closely related to the subject of the article have been attmpting to polish the content to show the subject in the best possible light. This behaviour tends to lead to a slanted article and unencyclopedic content. I am going to do a little clean-up right now. -- Diannaa (Talk) 17:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Diannaa I noticed you removed the ref to the Father of the Year award. The award is discussed by Justice Debelle in the court report. He seemed to accept it as fact, and thought it was significant. I think it should be retained. The language in the awards section is from the sources so be careful not to create errors in your editing. For example, it doesn't make sense to say Dr Cornwall was simply 'invovled in' the Pt Pirie lead clean up. He led it in the face of strong opposition, which is what Mr Kosky's chapter in 'The Bannon Decade' says and its repeated in The Advertiser refs. Also, Mr Kosky's chapter specifically acknowledges Dr Cornwall as leading the nation on health policy issues in the 1980s. It would misrepresent the reference to say he was simply 'working on' issues. You will see 'The Bannon Decade' is a common reference in biographies of Ministers in the Bannon government so its a widely used and independent source. Hope this helps. 115.130.25.239 (talk) 00:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * If the source says he led it in the face of strong opposition, then that should go back in. But what does "leading the nation on health policy issues" actually mean? it just sounds like unsourced puffery to me, and hence I took it out, as we already said that he was minister of the government department. -- Diannaa (Talk) 01:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, the source for this is his own autobiography. If we had independent confirmation, that would be better. -- Diannaa (Talk) 01:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I really don't like the last batch of edits you have made to the article. You have reinstituted some of the peacock terms that I had pruned out and some of your additions contain spelling and grammatical errors. These are not encyclopedic edits and in my opinion they make the article worse, not better. However I am not prepared to edit war with you over this article. If you want it to be krappy that's your call. -- Diannaa (Talk) 17:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Dianna. point taken about the typos. I have fixed them. Not sure what you are calling peacock comments. The reference to national leadership is directly from The Bannon Decade. It means he did more than just administer the health system in South Australia. He came to the portfolio with a refom agenda an dhe led on those issues nationally, not just in South Australia. That is rare among health ministers. It's a difficult portfolio that most politicians avoid. I've removed that sentence given your objections but i don't understand them. What are the remaining things you believe compromise the quality of this article? I have not seen another biography on Wikipedia that is so heavily referenced so don't know how you say it is not encyclopedic.Historyjane (talk) 00:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sources: Sure, there are plenty of references but they are not of the highest quality. Sourcing to someone's autobiography is not the best. Letters to the editor are not the best. You source Father of the Year award to "Rowan V Cornwall SASR 2002, see below"; I have no idea what this means or how a person could verify whether the document actually contains this information. Books should have page numbers where the information can be found. Don't use "See above" or "see below" or "ibid" as because time goes on the content could be moved about and your citation will no longer make sense. I will format some of the refs for you but you are gonna have to get page numbers and ISBN numbers for the books; I can't access the books from here (Canada) and can't seem to find them on WorldCat.
 * Unencyclopedic: I would drop the father of the year award (in fact, I already did, but someone re-added it); you would not see this in a paper encyclopedia and it should not be included here.
 * Peacock terms: Some of this you have tidied; there are still too many quotations. These should be paraphrased and maybe one or two left in. The foreword to Dr Cornwall's autobiography, I would take that out. Of course they will praise him, who wouldn't at that point? But from an encyclopedic point of view it's meaningless. Words like "championed" should not be there unless it appears in the source. That's a classic example of peacock terminology. -- Diannaa (Talk) 04:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I actually located ISBNs for all but one: Health Policy in The Bannon Decade: the Politics of Restraint in South Australia -- Diannaa (Talk) 05:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I got that one for you - the book was "The Bannon Decade: the Politics of Restraint in South Australia", while the "Health Policy" was the chapter title. I might go grab a copy and see if I can do anything more with it. - Bilby (talk) 06:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This source http://ncpic.org.au/ncpic/publications/factsheets/article/cannabis-and-the-law does not mention Dr Cornwall so you cannot use it to source the claim that he worked on or introduced the legislation. The Hansard source is better but does not tell us where to find the information so that it is verifiable. We need more details if possible.
 * This source http://www.deltasocietyaustralia.com.au/home does not mention Dr Cornwall so the link cannot be used to support the information provided in the article. The newsletter is a better source, but impossible for most of us to access unless a copy is available online. -- Diannaa (Talk) 05:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Descriptions of Cornwall
I've removed from "Honours and awards" the following text:


 * 'One of the things he will be most proud of - and remembered for - is the merging of the Queen Victoria and the Adelaide Children's hospitals. … Generations of nurses will remember John Cornwall - he achieved a better deal for them than they have in any other State and many other countries. …
 * ‘He would like to have done more about Aboriginal health and under his leadership he identified a need for Aboriginal communities to run their own health services. … He supported community health and made primary care health services accessible to under-recognised areas, in the north and south, and community health is probably better developed in SA than anywhere else in Australia…'
 * ‘… it can be forcefully argued that Dr Cornwall has been the most innovative and effective Health Minister in SA history. He has attempted to put into operation reforms which few would have been courageous enough to suggest to a conservative and entrenched health bureaucracy.’


 * Foreword to John Cornwall's biography, Just For the Record, Hugh Stretton wrote: ‘John Cornwall was an active, inventive, interfering Minister like few others. He is driven by a passionate desire to leave the world a better place – more equal, more effectively compassionate than he found it … he deserves high acclaim…’


 * A letter to Dr Cornwall from Neil Blewett, the then Federal Minister for Health, ‘....I have for over five years valued your advice, support and constructive criticism. ...Despite the difficulties which have led to your present decision, you can rest assured that you have been the greatest reforming Minister of Health in South Australia since the Second World War.’


 * '[Dr Cornwall] applied as Minister considerable intellect, boundless energy and absolute dedication to his role. He was without question the most effective health or welfare Minister of any of the many with whom I have had dealings over the years.’

Some of this seems suitable to a "legacy" section, although I'd be inclined to paraphrase rather than use such extensive quotes (and we need to fix the referencing), but they are neither honours nor awards as such, so much as personal opinions as to his contributions. Thus they don't really fit into that section. They'd make good sources for other sections, though. - Bilby (talk) 05:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Bilby, I agree those quotes aren't Awards but i put them up to demonstrate widespread opinion about Dr Cornwall's achievements as Minister. Some editors kept refusing to accept anything could be said about him other than that he was Minister. I hope you will put them back in a Legacy section as you propose because they go to a fundamental point that he was regarded by colleagues and opinion leaders as the best Health Minister in South Australia for quite some time, a man of dedication, intellect and courage. It also reinforces some of his major acheivementsin health reform (as recognised in the references) - the hospital merger, aborignal helaht, commnity health services

The Bannon Decade ref and ISBN are as follows. Parkin, Andrew and Patience, Allan (1992). The Bannon Decade: The Politics of Restraint in South Australia. Allen & Unwin. ISBN 1-86373-366-3. Kosky is the author of the chapter entitled 'Health Policy'. I typed it up correctly the first time but it seems ot haev been edited. I will insert the page references when i get a chance later in the week.

As for my reference to the 2002 decision of Justice Debelle in Rowan v Cornwall - i thought Diannaa had fixed that. If you haven't you should. The Age story about Dawn Rowan is not the proper reference for a court's decision. The court report is the only appropriate source. Its available online so peopel can read exactly what the judge said. There is no justificaiotn for removing refernce the the Father of Year award. It is an award and it referenced by Justice Debelle. Obviously the Lions Club don't keep records of such awards online so many years later. The Delta Society does not keep their newsletters from 10 years ago online. its not reasonalbe to insist that every reference has to be available online. As for the Hansard refs, the SA Parliament do not keep hansards from as far back as the 1980s online so you can't expect a link to that. A researcher would simply need to look up the index to the legislation title in the relevant year to find the references for associated Parlt debates quite easily. It is not reasonalbe to expect every single page reference. The link I provided on the anti smoking legislation verified that South Australia moved first with a comprehensive legislative package. It doesn't need to name Dr Cornwall to be a relevant source.

Given the extraordinary refusal to acknowledge strong independent sources and the insistence on keeping in a link to Dawn Rowan, who has nothing to do with Dr Cornwall, i am very doubtful of the motivations of some editors. it looks too much like campaigning on Rowan's behalf.Historyjane (talk) 06:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, HistoryJane. I am most definitely not campaigning on Rowan's behalf. I am a Wikipedia administrator with over 26,000 edits to over 16,000 articles on this wiki. It will of course not be required to get all these things and all sources need not be online. But you asked how to make the article more encyclopedic, and that is your answer: the references need to be verifiable and reasonably easy for people to check. Articles are constantly being improved and one of the best ways to make them better is through improving the references. And the content needs to be presented using a neutral point of view. I am trying to help you to do that using my fairly large experience editing on this website.  All of the suggestions will not necessarily be fulfilled; no one is insisting that they must. It is bedtime here so I am logging off now -- Diannaa  (Talk) 06:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

February 2011

 * Hi, just as a couple of comments, I remember the time when Cornwall was Health Minister, although I had (and have) nothing to do with politics. :) He was, as I recall, the best part of the Bannon government, and some of his reforms were superb. In the past I've spoken to people in the health area, and they've praised Cornwall as possibly the best Health Minister that the state has seen - although given that he was a "reformer", there are also going to be those with a very different view.
 * That said, the strength of Wikipedia is in the ability to present things neutrally - it is a core pillar of the project. I've always found that to be a positive with people such as John Cornwall, because I've found that an accurate, complete, and neutral depiction gives people a chance to evaluate the person themselves, rather than being influenced or having to ignore the opinions of the author/s. And when the overall picture is positive, even when you balance all of the aspects that need to be presented, the impression is a good one. Thus I'm always dedicated to the neutral point of view policy, whether for someone I can admire or someone I can't - either way, a neutral depiction seems to me to be both the fairest approach and the most effective.
 * In this case, the Dawn Rowan incident was being given too much weight, and thus it was creating an unreasonably negative depiction of Cornwall. However, the article seemed to then become overly positive, with some significant events missed, and this doesn't work either. For example, I'd expect his forced resignation to be included, and yet there is no mention either of how he left politics or of the defamation case that led to it (even though Cornwall provides a good account in his autobiography). So what I'd like to do is to work towards a neutral version, although, as always, this is very hard to achieve and may not be possible. It will involve mention of Rowan and Peter Humble, but both should be presented, per policy, without undue weight.
 * I think you've find that neither Diannaa nor I want anything other than a neutral depiction, and Diannaa's distance from the events should help with that (I suspect it would be hard for anyone who remembers the Bannon government not to have an opinion of some sort, whether positive or negative).
 * In relation to a specific issue you raised about sources: one of the problems Wikipedia faces in developing a neutral account is in removing the opinions and interpretations of individual contributors. Thus one of the rules precludes original research, and that points to a preference for secondary over primary sources. Secondary sources tend to have done the interpretation themselves, while primary sources often require interpretation. Thus given the choice between a court document, which may require us to interpret it, and a secondary source such as a news report, Wikipedia leans towards the secondary source. That doesn't mean we need to add errors to the article where the secondary source has clearly made one, and nor does it mean that we can never use court documents, but it does mean we need to lean towards accurate news accounts over primary sources.
 * My apologies for the length. - Bilby (talk) 06:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I've had to remove the "Legacy" section, as it was too close in wording to the original sources. I'll look at how it can be reintroduced once I've got some other bits done. - Bilby (talk) 07:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added in a part about the end of his political career. I'm not sure my reference is up to scratch but it doesn't seem controversial. Ozdaren (talk) 01:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John Cornwall (South Australian politician). 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/20090726185119/http://ncpic.org.au/ncpic/publications/factsheets/article/cannabis-and-the-law to http://ncpic.org.au/ncpic/publications/factsheets/article/cannabis-and-the-law
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110122032319/http://www.deltasocietyaustralia.com.au/home to http://www.deltasocietyaustralia.com.au/home

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)