Talk:John Howard/Archive 1

CopyEdit
No offence but...

"Self-proclaimed as the "most conservative leader the Liberal Party has ever had", Howard's political vision combines a lassiez-faire economic policy, including tight reins on government spending, tight restrictions on welfare (including "work for the dole" schemes requiring the unemployed to participate in make-work projects) and demanding with highly conservative, even reactionary social views, being strongly supportive of stay-at-home mothers, unsympathetic towards multiculturalism, opposed to an Australian republic (Australia's notional head of state is the British monarch), opposed to an apology to Australia's indigenous people for the stolen generation, opposed to a treaty, or any formal document, between Australia's indigenous people and the government."

...is very difficult to read. I'm going to edit it for clarity, but I've copied it here in case anyone disputes my modifications. - MMGB

Asian Leaders thoughts
SJK - I'm no fan of Howard, but the statement "many asian leaders came to consider him a racist" is too inflammatory without suitable references to back it up (not that I actually disagree with you).


 * I'm fairly sure Mahathir and the odd Indonesian politician has said so. Mahathir, of course, is a paragon of ethnic tolerance, freedom, the rule of law, and is an all-round nice guy - NOT. I'll try to dig up a specific reference.  I didn't put the claim in the article, though.  --Robert Merkel

2001 Election Result
Congrats to the Libs, boo-f'n-hoo to Labor who could have won, but didnt. Not surprisingly, the ALP will once again be lead by a former ACTU presiden, crean. in 3 yrs crean vs. costello will be awesome.... - dh


 * I'm sure we've each got our opinions on the last election but could we please try and keep this directly relevant to the article? --Robert Merkel

Mabo
The characterisation of the Mabo decision is totally wrong.

Mal Colston
This article needs serious work. It is unambiguously POV at some points. And you cannot accuse a prime minister of 'bribing' someone, unless there is clear and unambiguous evidence. Has black and white evidence been shown? The most you can say is that he was accused of bribing someone. . . JTD 04:58 Feb 13, 2003 (UTC)
 * Ooops, sorry, I somehow hadn't watchlisted the article and so missed this. The facts go something like this:


 * Mal Colston had been appointed Deputy President of the Senate (against convention, which dictated that the Opposition should fill that role) in 1990.
 * Once the Liberals won government, Colston expected the ALP to support his continuation as deputy president. Instead, they nominated Sue West (they claimed they wanted young blood, but see this Crikey article).
 * The Liberals cut a deal with Colston, agreeing to elect him deputy president (again flounting convention) if he quit the ALP. Once sitting as an independent, he supported the government on all of the controversial senate votes. Seeing as he was elected as an ALP party list candidate, not as Mal Colston, this represented a massive breach of faith with the electorate.
 * The role of deputy president is the inducement which Colston received to support the government; it has both symbolic and monetary value (about a $10K per annum pay rise)


 * "Bribe" seems to me to be a good NPOV description of these events. --Pde 02:27 Mar 16, 2003 (UTC)

Using the term bribe is by definition POV because the allegation of bribery is one of the most serious allegations that can be made. Unless it has been demonstrated to 'anambiguous' legal level you cannot possibly state it - to bribe it is a criminal offence and you cannot state it in the absence of a criminal proesecution. All the evidence you quote is purely circumstantial. Don't get me wrong, I do think it amounted to a bribe. But no encyclopædia can state unambiguously that a prime minister bribed another politician unless it has been proven. What Howard did stinks to high heaven but still you cannot possibly call it a bribe in the absence of unimpeachable proof. All you can say, to match the basic standards of NPOV, was that allegations of bribery were leveled against him over 'x', while stating why such allegations were made. To state more than that in the absence of criminal prosecution is unambiguously POV and apart from opening wiki to the theoretical prospect of prosecution for libel, breaks the fundamental principles at the heart of NPOV. State the evidence and leave the reader to reach a conclusion. Don't act as judge and jury youself. (I know from personal experience of Irish polticians who tried to bribe people, but I cannot say that. All I can say is that the 'allegation' was made in view of the evidence.) It is an extremely delicate issue,  and no encyclopædia can say it. It wouldn't stand a chance of hell of being stated in Encyclopæedia Brittanica or the World book. We cannot exercise lower standards and expect be taken seriously. STÓD/ÉÍRE 03:08 Mar 16, 2003 (UTC)


 * OK, I think you're right. I've included the main facts; I might get round to writing up Mal Colston soon (he is actually facing criminal prosecution, though not for receiving bribes :). -- Pde 02:07 Mar 19, 2003 (UTC)

Details
Frankly, Australian politics bores my unmentionables off, but there seem to be two major problems with this entry that need to be rectified:
 * 1) Despite a lengthy and clearly anti-Howard section on the illegal immigration thing, it doesn't seem to bother mentioning the fake babies overboard scandal. This is ridiculous!
 * 2) It credits Howard with reversing the long-established East Timor policy. In this, he followed a long, long way behind Labor, in particular (of all people!) Shadow Foreign Minister Laurie Brereton.

I dread the thought of delving into names and dats and details of this stuff - if there is a subject that bores me rigid, it's Australian politics - so, please, can someone fix it? Tannin 06:53 Feb 13, 2003 (UTC)

Keep it Clean
One thing puzzles me. Most of the Australian pages I have visited are viciously POV. I know Australian parliamentary debates are notorious for their brutal language, but please don't let the low standards of Australian politicians impact on the standards used on Wiki. (So far, in trying to NPOV Aussie articles, I'm been accused of being a monarchist (by republicans), a republican (by monarchists) and other things! Obviously I'm a monarchist-republican, or should that be a republican-monarchist? Or maybe I'm just getting the balance right, and some on both sides don't like that.) So please, people, just because you hate Howard's guts, you adore the monarchy, you want to burn Buckingham Palace down and live, eat, breath and have sex while dreaming of an Australian republic, try to show some balance when writing pages on Wiki. JTD 18:17 Feb 13, 2003 (UTC)

One Nation
A summary by Pde when changing this page was "One Nation is NPOV-xenophobic (see talk)". Well, I haven't seen anything on talk yet, but I thought I might jump in anyway. Xenophobia implies irrationality, something supporters of ONP would certainly reject. It's not fair to call an entire political party irrational, and certainly not NPOV. BTW, check your user talk page, Pde. -- Tim Starling 09:19 Mar 15, 2003 (UTC)

Hi Tim, my edit wasn't quite finished when I had to fly out of the house ;). The justification I was going to give was:

On the subject of whether One Nation is xenophobic, or &quot;allegedly xenophobic&quot;: many definitions of the term are comparative; in the Australian political spectrum, One Nation expresses a greater distrust for foreigners than the other electable parties, and has a higher proportion of racist members (not all of their members are racist, of course). Describing an individual is xenophobic may be significantly more POV than describing a political grouping in this way; the claim about individuals involves putting thoughts in their head; the claim about political parties is statistical. -- Pde 02:27 Mar 16, 2003 (UTC)


 * You think just because a conclusion involves statistics it's automatically NPOV? It's your interpretation of the statistics which is under question here, not the statistics themselves. Australia has more diabetics than most countries, does that make Australia diabetic? China has a greater m:f ratio than most countries, by your argument does that mean China is male? ;) Of course the numbers are different here, but in order to make such a generalisation, you would have to show not just that a majority of ONP members are xenophobic, but that an overwhelming majority, including the party's leadership, is xenophobic, leading to a xenophobic party culture. Your "greater relative frequency" definition is counterintuitive when applied to the general case.


 * Also, you're confusing xenophobia with racism. Xenophobia is an irrational fear or hatred of foreigners. Racism implies no such irrationality, in the definition of the word at least.


 * I should mention that I'm not a supporter of One Nation -- my political views are left of centre. -- Tim Starling 06:22 Mar 16, 2003 (UTC)


 * Okay, I think you're right (and I wasn't going to suspect you of racism :). I think my objection to "accused of xenophobia" was really that it wasn't calling a spade a spade.  I've changed the wording to widely perceived as racist or xenophobic, which seems to be an accurate description of the situation. -- Pde 02:07 Mar 19, 2003 (UTC)


 * That sounds fine to me. And I'm still waiting for a reply from you on your talk page. -- Tim Starling 02:18 Mar 19, 2003 (UTC)

Tampa
Regarding the Tampa incident, some person is seeking to obfusicate the key issues of this affair by adding phrases attempting to show how nasty the assylum seekers were in "threatning the ship". This information is not relevant, even if true which is highly doubtful (references?). The key issues as they relate to Howard's term as Prime Minister (which is supposed to be the subject of the article) are:
 * Australian Government request rescue
 * Australian Government refuses permission to land
 * Australian Government uses military force to resolve situation

"Australian rescue services urged the ship to pick up the refugees, and then refused the Tampa safe harbour. The message now is that they couldn't care less and do not intend to adhere to international agreements," - Norway's Foreign Office press spokesman Karsten KlepsvikKlepsvik quoted in Aftenposten Interactive: http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article.jhtml?articleID=186143

Please spare me these pathetic apologies about how nasty the asylum seekers were and how they "should have been taken to Indonosia" - this is just rubbish and buys completely into the government's propaganda line the most famous example of which was the totally fictious "children overboard" incident.

For some related reading see: http://sievx.com/ http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article.jhtml?articleID=536750 http://www.susannassoapbox.com/nsattampa.html (satire)

-- Sydneysider.


 * I thought the summary of the Tampa issue was relatively unbiased and succint. You say only three issues related to the article should have been mentioned, but I would disagree: if we were to tell it the way you want it told, it would not be clear why Howard came out of it so popular. We say "by some reports, they threatened the ship" -- and indeed there were reports of that (whether they were true or not is another matter). But can you deny that those reports had some role in shaping public opinion on the matter? Overall, the tone seems to come out against the Government's action: for example, the attribution of public support to "distrust of asylum-seekers from Asian countries" alludes to the continuing xenophobia in the Australian public, which I would say is truly at the root of this issue. -- Tim Starling 23:50 May 14, 2003 (UTC)


 * Thanks. You make excellent points. I probably still feel that the paragraph lacks succintness - there are many other bits of information and mis-information that could be worked in to "broaden" the view of the incident - but we are missing the forest for the trees. Also if the reports were false they should be described as such. Anyway I will come back and have another look at it when I have more time. Thanks again - Sydneysider

Another aspect of the article which should be highlighted is the indication of the asylum seekers as being "illegal": "..Australians ... were hostile to illegal immigration.." As a counter-argument to this I would like to quote Boat-People.org:

"Under Australian Law and International Law a person is entitled to make an application for refugee asylum in another country when they allege they are escaping persecution. Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution."

''People who arrive on our shores without prior authorisation from Australia, with no documents, or false documents are not illegal. They are asylum seekers - a legal status under International Law.''

''Many Asylum Seekers are forced to leave their countries in haste and are unable to access appropriate documentation. In many cases oppressive authorities actively prevent normal migration processes from occurring.''

'''Illegals' are people who overstay their visas. The vast majority of these in Australia are from western countries, including 5,000 British tourists."''

--ozwegian 12:50, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Howard vs Peacock
Firstly, when the article mentions that, in 1985, Howard 'challenged' Peacock, what do we mean by this? Howard did not launch a challenge in the sense that he never contested a ballot against Peacock. Nor, as far as I'm aware, was Howard ever seriously considering running against Peacock. Peacock felt threatened by Howard and bungled an attempt to remove him from the Deputy Leadership position (he spilt the DL position, expecting Howard to challenge for the leadership - Howard simply recontested for his old position, putting Peacock in an untenable position and forcing him to resign).


 * It's slightly before my time, but if that is the true picture please edit the article to reflect it (I suppose I could get The End of Certainty and have a look...)

1998 Election
Secondly, about the financial figures in the 1998 election - again, I thought that the ALP actually outspent the Coalition (not particularly odd - it routinely happens in state elections nowadays), but that a tax-reform lobby group spent millions of dollars running a parallel campaign to the Coalition.


 * Dunno. I do remember "Australians For Tax Reform" (aka the Business Council of Australia).  Lexis-Nexis might be able to answer that one.

Work-for-the-Dole
Thirdly, I seem to recall Peter Reith and Tony Abbott saying at various times that the work-for-the-dole program was not intended to create new jobs (however, I can't back that up, so I'll have to dig out a quote from somewhere).

Merric

For edits like these, which sound reasonably uncontroversial to me (particularly if you can cite sources) just go ahead and make them. --Robert Merkel 06:09, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * I concur. Tannin 08:25, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Adam Rewrite
Hi Adam,

in your extensive rewrite, you took out a few aspects of the article which I'd written in. Inevitably, I'd like to discuss a few of these:

''The Liberal Party was in a precarious internal state before the 1996 election. Although the Liberals had once been the "natural party of governance" in Australia, ruling for all but three years from 1949-1983, they had at that point lost five successive elections. When Howard regained the helm in 1995, he was their third leader in two years.'' ''The strategy for the 1996 election was to moderate the harsh image which had harmed the Liberals at the previous (1993) election. They released policies and pledges which were significanctly more environment- and welfare- friendly than their previous election platforms. The incumbent Prime Minister Paul Keating, was perceived as lacking empathy with the broader public with his intellectualised "big-picture" approach to politics and combination of harsh political tactics and perceived elitist tastes.''

The rewrite doesn't seem to capture the fact that the Liberals were genuinely desperate, that the party was close to falling appart, and the fact that there was something brilliantly disingenuous about the '96 Liberal platform (note: someone who's read more than me might be able to shed some light on whether it is Howard, or his advisors, who deserve the credit for this).

The article now says:

''Soon after taking office Howard took control of the domestic political agenda, sometimes in unexpected ways. ''

This sentence doesn't seem very enlightening. Is this talking about anything other than the gun control issue? Did Howard "take control of the agenda" more than any other newly elected Prime Minister? How much of the agenda was due to Howard and how much to the rest of Cabinet?

The revised version no longer mentions some significant aspects of the government's first term - the importance of Mal Colston's vote (without which numerous pieces of legislation would not have been passed), the reversal of popularity after Cheryl Kernot's defection, or the fact that Australian universities were to start charging full fees for the first time since the 1970s.

That section of the article should probably also mention Brian Harradine...

You also removed the reference to database-driven campaigning in marginal seats. Can you confirm or deny that the Liberals gained a very significant advantage as a result of this? If, as I've heard, these Rovean techniques were in use, they would have been worth at least a few percentage points, thus being a major factor in the '98 election victory.

-- Pde 03:41, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Dear Pde: My feeling, after having either written or edited all the other Prime Minister articles, was that the Howard article was too long and too digressive and contained too much material which strayed too far from the biographical. Of course Howard's biography has to be placed in its political context, or it makes no sense to non-Australian readers, but an article on John Howard is nevertheless not a History of the Howard Government. That was why I pruned quite a lot of the discussions about policies and political events which (in my opinion) did not cast light on the central subject of the article.

You may feel I have gone too far, and if so you are free to work some of that material back into the text, but hopefully in a way which doesn't bog the reader down in side-issues.

On the particular points you raise:
 * I didn't think either the Colston saga or the Kernot defection was sufficiently relevant to Howard's biography. Foreign readers find the Australian parliamentary system difficult enough to follow, let alone trying to explain the balance of power in the Senate. In this article it is a distraction from the subject.


 * Well, maybe the two cases are very different. I think Colston should be included, because the affair was so central to the spirit (and outcomes) of the first term.  But I agree that there's a John Howard vs. History of the Howard Government issue.  Which is an aspect of the issue you pointed out before, on the structure of political articles...


 * The material about the 1996 campaign is I suppose more debateable, although I don't in fact think the Liberal Party was about to disintegrate, any more than the ALP is now. Part of the historian's job is to critically reassess short-sighted media overstatement with the benefit of hindsight.
 * I agree that the sentence you quote is weak, it was my attempt to lead into your discussion of the 1996-98 policy agenda. Feel free to replace it. :)
 * Both parties use database driven campaign techniques and there's nothing particularly sinister about them. In any case I don't think Liberal Party campaign tactics are relevant to this article unless Howard invented them himself, which he didn't.


 * Of course both parties use them now -- and whether they're good or bad for democracy is a question beyond the scope for this article (digression: I couldn't find an article on election campaigns, so I created a stub). The story I heard was that in 1998, the Liberals had started using databases, while the ALP had not.  If that was in fact the case, it may have been quite important to JH's career.

Finally I'm sorry if I have butchered your copy too severely. I'm still getting used to people doing it to me.


 * No problem, I guess the challenge of wiki collaboration is to move from the moment of "Oh no! They've butchered it" to agreement on a better text :) -- Pde 08:35, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Adam 04:31, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Working-class
"Many working-class voters backed the Howard line on illegal immigrants and asylum-seekers, while the party's middle-class supporters strongly opposed it."

Can somebody please clean this up? I really don't like any discussion of 'class'. It is wrong to make any distinction between socio-economic groups in such an obviously belittling manner. -- Mark Ryan 06:40, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Mark, it can be perfectly sensible NPOV commentary to describe things in terms of class (or race, or religion, for that matter), provided there is actually a statistical basis for the claim. I don't know enough to comment on the facts in this particular case, though.  And it's important to not confuse correlation with causation. -- pde 01:53, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * OK. Thanks for clearing that up for me. Anyway, I had interpreted the old paragraph wrong, thinking it was referring to working and middle-class supporters of the Liberal Party, not the ALP. It makes a whole lot more sense now. :-) -- Mark Ryan 02:53, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * The amusing thing is, I was under the same impression until I was actually trying to reword it. -- pde

Simon Crean
Simon Crean is no longer leader of the opposition. The page should be modified to reflect that. he kept his lead in the opinion polls over the new Labor leader, Simon Crean.. Reference: http://www.alp.org.au/


 * Done. - Mark 13:12, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Category
I have deleted the "Catgeory: Australian Liberal Party MHRs" for the following reasons: Adam 13:09, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * It is the Liberal Party of Australia, not the Australian Liberal Party.
 * They are MPs, not MHRs.
 * A "category" with only one person in it is useless - there are 68 Liberal federal MPs - are you going to tag all of them?
 * We already have a perfectly good List of members of the Australian House of Representatives - why do we need to duplicate this, in a less useful form?


 * To each of your points:
 * Then change it. Why delete?
 * Then change it. Why delete?  (I used MHR to refer to the lower house specifically; I didn't know if MP's referred to MHRs and senators as a group, or just MHRs)
 * Yes, past and present. It will never happen if people keep removing them.
 * In groups like this, categories are becoming a replacement for many (though not all) list articles.
 * The one thing I would change about what I have done, is have each person in separate categories: eg. John Howard, rather than in Australian Liberal Party MHRs, is a member of
 * Liberal Party of Australia politicians (includes all federal Liberal politicians, past or present, upper or lower house)
 * Australian MHRs (or MPs) (includes all federal politicians, past or present, House of Reps)
 * Current Australian politicians (may think of a better name) for politicians still in parliament.


 * Your habit of deleting things that you don't like isn't going to help Wikipedia. Fix, don't delete. Chuq 23:46, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Some things can only be fixed by being deleted. What is the point of creating "category" articles which merely duplicate, in an inferior form, what already exists? Go and do something original rather than trying to redo what other people have already done. Adam 00:36, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

East Timor
I find it astonishing that Adam Carr would revert my edit with the comment: "(rvt comments about Timor which are (a) matters of opinion and (b) not relevant to this article)". His version said:
 * Australia led pressure on Indonesia to uphold that country's offer to East Timor of a referendum on independence, and later contributed a significant peacekeeping/policing force to protect the inhabitants against pro-Indonesian militias. Most Australians and the rest of the Western world viewed this as a moral, principled stand. Howard reversed a decades-old bi-partisan foreign policy of appeasement towards Indonesia which had hitherto been followed by governments of both persuasions.

The formulation "Most Australians and the rest of the Western world viewed this as a moral, principled stand" is most certainly a matter of opinion -- for which no evidence is offered. My correction:


 * On the one hand, some in Australia and the rest of the Western world viewed this as a moral, principled stand. However, critics observe that the motivation for this intervention may have been less than altruistic: instead of negotiating with a relatively strong and determined government of Indonesia over rights to the oil and gas resources in the Timor Sea, Australia now is able to deal with a powerless and desperate government in East Timor. According to the British-based non- governmental humanitarian group Oxfam, Australia's thirst for petroleum poses a threat to East Timor's independence [http:// www.atimes.com/atimes/ Southeast_Asia/ FE22Ae02.html (Asia Times)]

-- is an attempt to balance the article with an opposing (and documented) view. If opposition to Howard's East Timor policy is "not relevant", than surely the dubious assertion that the whole world admires it cannot be relevant, either. --172.192.173.23

Just for the record, the line "the rest of the Western world viewed this as a moral, principled stand" was not written by me. I agree that it is too sweeping and could be deleted. However, the line "instead of negotiating with a relatively strong and determined government of Indonesia over rights to the oil and gas resources in the Timor Sea, Australia now is able to deal with a powerless and desperate government in East Timor" is even more sweeping, and much more tendentious. Many more people in Australia would subscribe to the former statement than to the latter. The correct solution is probably to delete all opinionated statements about Timor. This is not after all an article about Timor, and a statement of the fact that Howard did what he did will probably suffice here. Adam 04:24, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Newspaper Article
Hey, I e-mailed a Newspaper Article on him to the Canberra Sunday Times. User:Patricknoddy User talk:Patricknoddy 8:02 August 22, 2004 (EDT)

Letter
I got a letter from him. --Patricknoddy 21:14, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)User:Patricknoddy --Patricknoddy 21:14, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)User talk:Patricknoddy 17:14 August 31, 2004 (EDT)


 * What did it say? - Ta bu shi da yu 13:22, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Could we setup a temporary block on a specific network range?
I notice in the history there has been quite a bit of vandalisation from the following netblock:

inetnum:     211.26.0.0 - 211.27.255.255 netname:     INTERNETPRIMUS descr:       Primus Telecommunications descr:       Internet Services Network country:     AU admin-c:      jp21-ap tech-c:      rc35-ap mnt-by:      APNIC-HM mnt-lower:   MAINT-PRIMUS-AU status:      ALLOCATED PORTABLE remarks:     -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ remarks:     This object can only be modified by APNIC hostmaster remarks:     If you wish to modify this object details please remarks:     send email to hostmaster@apnic.net with your organisation remarks:     account name in the subject line. remarks:     -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ changed:     hm-changed@apnic.net 20030930 source:      APNIC

person:      Jeff Pace nic-hdl:     JP21-AP e-mail:      netops@primus.com.au address:      L3 1 Alfred Street address:     Circular Quay address:     Sydney NSW Australia address:     2000 phone:       +61-2-9423 2400 fax-no:      +61-2-9423 2410 country:     AU changed:      netops@primus.com.au 20030724 mnt-by:      MAINT-PRIMUS-AU source:      APNIC

person:      Richard Coombe nic-hdl:     RC35-AP e-mail:      netops@primus.com.au address:      Level 3 address:     1Alfred Street address:     Circular Quay address:     Sydney  NSW  2000 phone:       +61-2-9423 2400 fax-no:      +61-2-9423 2410 country:     AU changed:      netops@primus.com.au 20030724 mnt-by:      MAINT-PRIMUS-AU source:      APNIC

(from http://www.apnic.net/apnic-bin/whois.pl)

Could we block this for a while? (I may yet regret this as I may be in the same network range at work... still) - Ta bu shi da yu 04:36, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * iPrimus and Primus-AOL combined make one of Australia's largest ISPs. Are you suggesting blocking the entire ISP? - Mark 07:14, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Yup. Only for a short while. I was putting this out there temporarily to see what happens. Probably not practical. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:12, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No mention of Medicare
Didn't Howard vote against Medicare and brand it a waste? Why doesn't this article mention that? - Ta bu shi da yu 04:49, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Because, in my understanding, it is not realy relevant to this article. Xtra 09:54, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Actually, I disagree. In 1987, John Howard was recorded as saying that bulk billing will not be permitted for anyone except pensioners and the disadvantaged. Also, try the following quote from Margo Kingston' website:
 * JOURNALIST: But Mr Howard, you used to oppose Medicare.
 * PRIME MINISTER: Yes, I did.
 * See http://webdiary.smh.com.au/archives/000294.html.
 * So, perhaps this should still be added. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:48, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I think it is relevant, given that Howard has been posing lately as Medicare's best friend. The fact is that Howard doesn't beliece in universal health insurance and never has, and if he ever gets the chance he will abolish it (like if he should ever get control of the Senate, for example). Adam 06:50, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I think your being a tad cynical adam. I can guarantee you that Howard will not abolish medicare even in the event of a senate majority. it is irrelevant to this article, plus i doubt anything could be written on that topic that was not POV. incidentaly, what are these fake greens how to votes that i have been hearing about? Xtra 13:31, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Across Melbourne Ports and some other seats the Libs had a squad of teenage girls dressed in green t-shirts and caps handing out a green-coloured HTV saying "vote for a green Australia" or variants of that. This was clearly designed to deceive Green voters, especially first-time voters, into voting Liberal, and led to angry scenes at several booths. This is all photographed and documented, and will lead to legal action. Adam 02:26, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Menzies
That bit about 2012 being when Howard passes Menzies is wrong - Menzies was PM for a total of 18 years, 5 months and 12 days so Howard will pass him on August 24, 2014. PMA 09:17, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Excelled academically?
From the Sydney Morning Herald: Howard scored As in English and modern history in the Leaving Certificate and Bs in Latin, chemistry and economics. He failed general maths. These are reasonable marks but I wouldn't say Howard excelled academically as the article states. Is it reasonable to put these marks in the article or should the statement just be removed?


 * The statement should be removed. Adam 06:50, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

FTA
I guess there should be a sentence or two about the FTA with the USA, right in the middle of the current last paragraph of the third term.

Reverting edits
It appears that some people are reverting edits that aren't vandalism without giving any reason why they are doing this. The text was reverted "These criticisms came from conservative figures such as ex-Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser and political commentator Robert Manne, as well as critics from the military, public service and Howard's own personal staff." to "These criticisms came from conservative figures such as ex-Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser and political commentator Robert Manne, as well as the more usual critics on the left." Why was this done? No explanation was given! It's ironic that both statements are pretty POV and have unattributed critics though. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:12, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I must say I agree with your factual version more that the clearly POV original. Mark Hurd 15:45, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

ministries
those ministries seem a bit bulky compared to the article. could they be made their own article with a link here? Xtra 06:50, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * They're already in a list of Australian ministries that Adam just created. I also agree that they bloat the article. Ambi 06:58, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's not my fault that he has been in power so long or has appointed so many ministers. All the other PM articles now have similar lists. Adam 07:02, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I guess the point is that they bloat the article - if that's the case for this one, it's most probably the case for most other Prime Ministers, particularly those who have served more than one term. Note that I've not seen this repeated elsewhere (none of the US Presidents have their administration in their article, none of the UK Prime Ministers have their cabinet there, etc.) Ambi 08:26, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes they do. Adam 08:32, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

whether they do or not, adam. wouldn't it make more sense just to have a link to your article of the ministries. don't think that i don't apreciate your work, because i do, but it really looks silly here. Xtra 08:45, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That is an entirely subjective statement, with which I disagree, and I don't see why your opinion about what looks silly is any more determinative than mine. Contra Ambi, I am bringing the Australian PM articles into conformity with the US President and UK PM articles, which do indeed give Cabinet lists. Mine are just more comprehensive, which is what an encyclopaedia is supposed to be. Adam 08:57, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

that now looks much better adam. Xtra 00:37, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think the separate articles look good too. Also as the info isn't duplicated from the Australian Commonwealth ministries 1901-2004 article, theres no chance of the info getting out of sync. -- Chuq 01:11, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Freemason
We should mention somewhere that he is a Freemason. http://www.nobbys.net.au/~gumtree/mmma15.htm

That website makes it clear that he is NOT a Freemason. Adam 14:09, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

2nd longest serving
Howard will become the 2nd longest serving PM on 21 December. Adam 02:57, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

personal website
sorry, but i had to remove the link, because the spam filter wouldnt let me save it with the link still there. Xtra 13:14, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

John Howard misleads Parliament
Xtra has removed my new paragraph:


 * In 2003 it was revealed that Howard had misled Parliament in September 2002, when he had been asked whether any comminication had occurred between the government and any representative of ethanol producers prior to a granting Manildra, a major Liberal Party donor, with more than $20 million a year in subsidies. Howard denied in the house that any communication had taken place but it was subsequently revealed that he had met with Dick Honan, the chairman of the Manildra Group of companies, on the 1st of August, 2002.

He/she also removed references to support this paragraph:


 * Margo Kingston (August 12, 2003), Howard meets Honan: You be the judge whether he lied about it, The Sydney Morning Herald
 * Mark Riley (August 14, 2003), Ethanol uproar engulfs Howard, The Sydney Morning Herald

There is no reason why the above facts cannot be included in the article. Please provide an explanation as to why you think these facts should be included. It is a significant event in Howard's Prime Ministership.


 * i did not mean to remove those articles. but the paragraph promotes presumption based on speculation. Xtra 03:47, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * The paragraph is entirely factual. I also supplied references but you removed those also. The references contain extracts from Hansard which clearly support the paragraph. The facts are well known - Howard did deny in Parliament that he had had contact and it is know that he did in fact have a meeting. I can and will supply more references. Please re-instate the paragraph and its the supporting references. Please note that it is Wikipedia policy to cite sources "If you consult an external source while writing an article, citing it is basic intellectual honesty" --Wm 04:20, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You can only make the statement "Howard misled Parliament" if (a) he has admitted it, or (b) a court or equivalent body has found it proved. Otherwise it has to be described as an allegation. Adam 04:35, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Is this a Wikipedia rule? If so, can you please provide a reference? Obviously, this would be a good guide in a ambiguous case. However there is no doubt whatsoever that Howard misled Parliament. Please note the following additional reference: PM has misled Parliament Editorial (August 14, 2003) - The Sydney Morning Herald --Wm 04:46, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * A further reference is facsimile of the Record of Meeting: Manildra Group, 1st August 2002, The Sydney Morning Herald that was obtained by FOI request - this records the meeting that contradicts Howard's claims. --Wm 04:53, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many people accuse him of misleading Parliament, or how eminent they are. If the allegation is contested, it can only be described as an allegation. Has Howard admitted misleading Parliament? Has he been censured by the House for doing so? Has a court found that he did so? No. Therefore, while you can say he misled Parliament, and I may agree with you, an encyclopaedia cannot say so. Adam 05:04, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Let me repeat my questions. "Is this a Wikipedia rule? If so, can you please provide a reference?". It is a simple matter of fact that Howard misled Parliament. I have no doubt that the huge majority of facts presented in Wikipedia have never been proven in a court of law. If I say that the John Howard is Prime Minister of Australia, has that been proven in a court of law? Obviously not - the facts in this case are just as clear, Howard did mislead Parliament because he denied that he had had a contact when if fact he had. There can be no dispute.


 * Let me put in another way: If the wording becomes:
 * In 2003 after Howard denied when he had been asked in Parliament whether any communication had occurred between the government and any representative of ethanol producers prior to a granting Manildra, a major Liberal Party donor, with more than $20 million a year in subsidies, it was subsequently revealed that in fact he had met with Dick Honan, the chairman of the Manildra Group of companies, on the 1st of August, 2002.
 * In this (rough) re-wording, it is clear that Howard has misled Parliament, there are no mis-representations of fact. All that has happened is that the meaning has been buried by avoid using the M work (mislead) - but he did mislead Parliament, absolutely without any doubt. Note: there is a difference between lying and misled, the first implies intent, but the second is neutral in that it does not imply intent. --Wm 05:26, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * do you have actual evidence. if so present it. otherwise, say it was an accusation and shorten the paragraph - it is too long winded.
 * This seems a rather disingenous comment - I have already presented several references which include quotes from Parliamentary transcripts and a document facsimile and and editorial from the SMH that quite cleary states as its heading Howard Misled Parliament - the question is, can you provide any sources that deny that Howard misled Parliament? As to the length of the paragraph, I am quite happy to have other people edit (this is Wikipedia!) it if they can shorten it without removing any of the facts it contains --Wm 06:20, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, my suggestion is to make it:
 * In 2003 Howard denied when he had been asked in Parliament whether any communication had occurred between the government and any representative of ethanol producers prior to a granting Manildra, a major Liberal Party donor, with more than $20 million a year in subsidies. It was subsequently alleged by Margo Kingston in the Sydney Morning Herald that he had in fact met with Dick Honan, the chairman of the Manildra Group of companies, on the 1st of August, 2002.
 * This way you are stating who is making the allegations, and you don't remove any of your material. This is proper sourcing. If you do this, then make sure you add the reference to the References section, as per cite your sources. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:13, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your efforts. The major problem with this version is that it is make it sound like Kingston broke the story. I believe that if you read the source documnents, you will realise that in fact it was initially revealed in Parliament. Second, the use of the word "alleged" is unecessary and obfuscates the simple fact. If Howard made a statement in Parliament that he hadn't had such a meeting and in fact he had had one (which in demonstrated as true by the Parliamentary record and FOI documents) - how then can it be said that he did not mislead Parliament? --Wm 21:16, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * maybe:
 * In 2003 Howard was accused of misleading Parliament in September 2002, when he had been asked whether any comminication had occurred between the government and any representative of ethanol producers prior to a granting Manildra, with $20 million a year in subsidies to produce ethanol. Howard denied that any communication had taken place but it was subsequently revealed that he had met with Dick Honan, the chairman of the Manildra.


 * that may do, if that is factually acurate.
 * I will go probably go with a slighty modified version of this for now. However it is incomplete. Not only was Howard accussed of misleading Parliament, he did in fact mislead Parliament. It is a case of not being able to plainly state the truth. --Wm 06:20, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * many companies donate to political parties, manildra isn't in the liberal top ten. Xtra 05:37, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Not a helpful comment. What does it mean? - that they are in the top 20? --Wm 06:20, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * i dont know. i only know the top ten. Xtra 21:57, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Criticism from Valder and others
The article states:

Although some long-time Howard enemies in the Liberal Party such as former leader John Hewson and former federal president John Valder criticised Howard over Iraq, the great majority of Liberals continued to support his actions.

I have some problems with this:

The point that is being lost amongst a little obfuscation and wishy-washy "facts" is that very strong criticism of Howard has come from within very senior members of his own party and that this level of criticism is unusual. Particularly, it seems highly significant that such a senior Liberal as John Valder (former federal president of the party) should suggest that Howard is a "war criminal" (see reference).

By saying that this and other criticisms are coming from "long-time Howard enemies", this wording seems to suggest that somehow these criticisms are more motivated by personal animosity than any concern or relevance to the issues. Thus the passage strays from NPOV:


 * 1) To what extent can John Valder be regarded as a "long-time" enemy of Howard? Can we have some sources for this?
 * 2) Why has Malcolm Fraser been omitted from the list? Is he also to be regarded as "long-time" enemy?

The passage ssys: the great majority of Liberals continued to support his actions

What is a "Liberal"? - A member of the Liberal party or a person who voted for the government? If the former how does this account for a dramatic drop in the membershop of the party over the lifetime of the current electoral success? If the later, then it is rather misleading or at best ambiguous- better to say "continued to command strong electoral support"

Reference:
 * Howard is war criminal, says former colleague (smh)


 * John Howard is a war criminal (cpa.org.au but is quoting The Guardian)

--Wm 00:58, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

the passage as it stands it true. most liberals support howard. those who have attacked him, have tended to be factional enemies. Xtra 01:13, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * But you haven't answered the questions raised. First, what is meant by a "Liberal"? - is this meant to refer to members of the Liberal Party? - in which case the text should be made explicit. However, if this is what is meant it is is misrepresenting the situation to state this unqualified statement because membership of the party has (apparently) dropped dramatically: John Valder said that Liberal Party membership had dropped from an estimated 103,000 in 1983, to about 10,000 in both NSW and Victoria. Liberal Party members were walking away "in disillusionment". (see my second reference above) --Wm 04:36, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Also, we need to find support for this idea that Valder and Howard are "factional enemies" - I am very skeptical about this, I believe they are old friends: But John is a friend of mine in the past. I valued his support and his friendship. Even though he's very critical of me now I find it impossible to bear him any deep malice. (John Howard - Interviewed by Laurie Oakes on August 15 2004 - Transcript --Wm 05:03, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)