Talk:Scott Morrison/Archive 2

Multiple People questioing similar content- Scott Morrison being accussed of lying
I will begin by presenting the past comments/discussions.

Note, I had previously misinterpreted the request to use "talk pages", I thought the request was for asking me to respond on the users talk pages whereas I now know the request was to just use this page.

1st Change
TOPIC: RELEVANCE & SHIRTS

COMMENT

Comment made by

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DTH89 [User:DTH89]

 Not really relevant, and Twitter isn't really a reliable source 

MY RESPONSE

Hi DTH89, I am responding to your deletion of my content: You wrote "Not really relevant, and Twitter isn't really a reliable source"

1. Regarding: "Twitter isn't really a reliable source"

I think you may not be aware of who Bevan Shields is

·       The twitter reference was to Bevan Shields.

·       Bevan Shield is the editor of the Sydney Morning Herald,

·       Bevan Shield is a "Blue Tick" account.

·       Bevan Shield is the person in the video

·       Bevan Shield is the person asking the questions.

·       Wikipedia pages have many links to twitter pages.

If you would like, I can add further references to the content, I can suggest multiple news sites such as, The Sydney Morning Herald, The Age, The Guardian, The ABC, The BBC.

2. Regarding "Not really relevant",

·       AUKUS could not happen if Australia did not cancel the contract.

·       The breaking of the contract with France for the most expensive military purchse/contract is a very significant event

·       Both events are joined and neither event can be understood without the other event

Noting the concerns, you have raised are not related to accuracy or other significant concern, I am confident this can be resolved quickly.

While I know you deleted my content without first talking to me, I would prefer to wait a day before I reinstate my changes.

Regards

Harry

______________________

2nd Change
TOPIC: NEUTRAL & SHIRTS

COMMENT

Comment made by

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ohnoitsjamie [User:Ohnoitsjamie]

please discuss on talk page; this is not written in a neutral fashion, and we certainly don't need a bunch of t-shirt vendor sites

MY RESPONSE

Regarding your comments

Shirts

The links/citations provided are to substantiate the statement made about the phrase. I consider it important to provide examples to ensure the words can be verified. So I am clear, you are prefering no references to illustrate the statement?

Neutral

I am unsure how you believe my comments to not be neutral. Without any examples I am unable to agree and I am unable to know what you would like changed.

Can I please ask that you provide more details, as the amount of content you have removed is substantial.

______________________

3rd Change
TOPIC: RELEVANCE & SHIRTS

COMMENT

Comment made by

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Skyring [User:Skyring]

''This needs discussion here, not on user talk pages. WTF is this nonsense about t-shirts?''

My response

I have not responded

Given this is my first interaction with Skyring, I am uneasy about interacting with Skyring given his very uncivilised comment.

______________________

4th  Comment
TOPIC: LYING ALREADY COVERED

COMMENT

Comment made by

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ohnoitsjamie

MY RESPONSE

I am unable to see where lying has already been covered.

______________________

NOW/MOVING FORWARD


 * I have replied as best I can to the comments made. The comments have been very short and difficult to reply to as they were not very detailed.
 * I have explained the notable nature of the lying incident and how the accusation became bigger than the incident that caused it. This is shown by the many places who have taken the quote and included it on Merchandise. It is very rare for a Prime Ministers quotes to become merchandise.
 * I have explained the reasoning for using the reference of Bevan Shield twitter account, I added several more references/citations to allay any concerns about relying on a twitter account.
 * I am unable to find where the lying incident had already been included.

I am keen to work through any more questions or issues you have that would ensure people are confident that these significant & notable events are captured. I have included below the paragraph I am proposing to include.

The proposed paragraph which I feel has addressed previous concerns or comments

The AUKUS deal require Australia to purchase its future Submarines from the United States and consequently cancel the contract with France. President Emmanual Macron's was asked whether he "thought" Scott Morrison had lied to him with regards to the contract cancellation, President Emmanual Macron's response, "I don't think, I know"[172][173][174][175] when asked by Bevan Shields (Editor of the Sydney Morning Herald) whether Scott Morrison had lied to him, became famous. The "I don't think, I know" phrase was reported around the world, with news sites in many countries covering the story. The "I don't think, I know" phrase then overshadowed the breaking of the contract with multiple shops selling merchandise with the quote on it[176][177][178][179][180]. The extent of the overshadowing can be see when searching google for phrases like "Scott Morrison cancel France submarine contract", the pages return all include references to the accusation by President Emmanual Macron. President Emmanual Macron's statement that he was lied to by Scott Morrison was reaffirmed by Jean-Pierre Thebault (Ambassador of France to Australia) in a nationwide speech hosted by the National Press Club of Australia on November 4th 2021[181].

Regards

Harry

~
 * First of all, please settle down with the extraneous formatting and use standard Wikipedia discussion conventions; see WP:TALK and standard indentation. We don't need multiple sections for a single discussion; I've removed your section breaks. Bolding for emphasis is fine. If you look at any other talk  Secondly, the AUKUS section already mentioned the accusation of lying, and the backlash from it: ...and publicly accused him of lying during the 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference, which was seen as damaging to Morrison's public image. There's a main article for AUKUS that goes into greater detail. The additional content you added violated WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, and the bit about t-shirts is completely irrelevant, and t-shirt merchant sites clearly do not meet our WP:RS policy.  16:37, 2 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing the discussion here. ScoMo, as a head of government, has quite a few eyes on his biographical article. It's always a worry when a new editor brings material to a prominent article. Mostly because the material usually goes against various policies and upsets the balance of content that has generally been extensively discussed and worked on already. Realistically, this is pretty trivial stuff. All politicians lie to some extent. Quite apart from it being a normal part of party politics - ask any aspirant for the top job if they are totally loyal to the current leader; it's a rare polly who so much as demurs - national leaders are running a complicated enterprise of immense value and importance and being completely honest and open about significant defence and diplomatic strategies is not a recipe for success. Yes, it was a diplomatic misstep, and yes we have it covered in our article already. What's the point of adding it again, this time with adverts for t-shirts? --Pete (talk) 21:10, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Replying to your general comments
 * My use of formatting was an effort by me to try and make this clear, my previous comments/replies have not been referred to responded to, I am trying to make it as easy as possible to read and also to demonstrate that I have edited in good faith, while the comments/reasons I was provided were very vague and unclear.
 * You comment about leader the PM job being complicated is irrelevant, we are not meant to excuse mistakes because it is a difficult job. Can you explain how detailing facts should be altered to take into account the difficult job of being PM. My reading of the NPOV suggests that remaining or altering content in recognition of the challenges of doing the job to water down or omit mistakes would be an issue of "Neutral point of view"
 * My studies have include political economy, evolution of capitalism and both a Bachelor Degree and Masters Degree, my writing style and work is influencing the content I produce.
 * Me being knew, I am recovering from a Car Accident where a drunk driver has put me in a wheelchair. My contributions on here are my way of utilising and exercise my knowledge and brain. I have seen many errors in many pages and I would like to correct them.

My previous comments/responses largely cover the concerns you have raised. My responses to those concerns appear to have been accepted. From here, I will provide a response to your concerns to make it easier for you to read, rather than directing you to my previous comments.

Your response includes two concerns, one is the number of words used to include describe the lie, and two, the link to merchandise.
 * One, number of words;
 * The issue is not just about lying, it is the on going ramifications and the breadth of consequences that have arisen.
 * The following are my reasons for providing more explanation about the lying issue.
 * There has never been allied leader openly call another allies countries leader a liar single. This is an extraordinary event.
 * The issue is continuing, with Australia’s Foreign Minister to travel to France to continue the process of healing the damage done.
 * There has never been a foreign leaders quote become so prominent that it becomes a stand alone phrase and used on various Merchandise.
 * There has never been an ambassador give a nationwide press conference to reiterate the claim of lying.

Two, Merchandise; I provide the references purely to substantiate the statement, if not having references to substantiate that statement is OK, then I do not mind removing them.

Regarding violations,

A response to me began with WTF, how is this accepted? Can you please provide advice on how I should report this user as being uncivilised? Regarding your comments to me.

WP:NPOV = I have asked this of a previous person, what part/wording/phrase fits the "Not Neutral" category. I have re read the definition and I am unable to see how this is possible, or how it could be said to "Clearly breach the NPOV". How a claim can be made without any reference to support it seems very odd. To make this determination without first discussing the concern with me is simply not fair. Should you have told me what was causing this issue I could easily or deleted or removed it.

WP:UNDUE = As I have previously stated, this is an extraordinary event, I have provided the explanation of why the amount of words given to this ongoing diplomatic incident can’t be appropriately summarised with just those few words. Your labelling the comment as UNDUE without an explanation or responding to my reasons is simply not fair.

WP:RS = Again, I have provided an abundance of sources, when I was provided a concern about the reliability of a twitter post I replied and updated.

The twitter account is to the editor of the SMH, a Blue Ticked account for an award winning journalist who was the person asking the question and the person Macron responded to. To allay ay concerns I added more sources. To say my content does not have reliable sources without specifying which source is simply unfair.

Summary:
 * I have now responded to every person comments.
 * I have explained why tagging me or my writing in the way it has been is simply unfair and wrong.
 * No comments or issues remain unaddressed
 * I think the knowledge I have on this incident is likely greater than most people and this may be causing the issues regarding the content. For example, knowing Marise Payne is going to France tomorrow, the ambassadors nationwide speech etc.

If there are no other concerns needing to be addressed I will post the content later today. I am sure we are all wanting the same thing, to enhance Wikipedia content to give readers a chance to read factual and relevant content I also look for your advice regarding the abusive reponse I received I would also like to know what caused you to regard my content as NPOV, I do not want to make the same mistake again.

Thanks Harry HarrySullivan1968 (talk) 02:03, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * My goodness. I've never seen a discussion set up in this kinda format, before. GoodDay (talk) 03:00, 3 February 2022 (UTC)


 * It's pretty trivial, Harry. We've covered it already, we don't need any more coverage in the article. Suggest that you look through our policies, especially WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. Just because something is true and reliably sourced doesn't mean we cover it in great detail, or at all, maybe. We work as a team, and I strongly suggest that you gain consensus here for your proposed changes before implementing them.


 * Let me put it another way. Out of the material you want to insert and which will certainly be deleted if you try it again, possibly with consequences, what is the one sourced fact you'd like to include? Maybe we can work on this step by step? --Pete (talk) 04:41, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Seeking Consensus Hi Pete and All,

I have read this several times "Out of the material you want to insert and which will certainly be deleted if you try it again, possibly with consequences", this appears to be a threat. I have answered/responded to every comment/concern and have not had a single response. I have put considerable effort into responding to these concerns, with no outstanding concerns I fail to see why my content would be deleted. I agree about working as a team, however I have been on the receiving end of uncivilised accusations (e.g. "WTF"), false & unsubstantiated accusations (EDIT WAR, NPOV) and extremely discourteous responses (No reference included).
 * Can you please tell me why the content would be deleted?
 * Can you explain what "possibly with consequences" means?
 * How is reaching consensus among people who make false accusations and never respond to questions possible?

I fail to see how people deleting my content without explanation or reply to my requests is a 'team' approach.
 * Can you please confirm that deleting content with 10 word explanations is the preferred way to undertake changes?
 * Regarding the "WTF" response I received, can you let me know what the appropriate way to tag someone as uncivilised?

Not once has anyone conversed with me prior to deleting my content or making accusations. I am unable to find a reference in wiki guidelines that supports the "Branding" of a person without any consultation or reference to what the specific issue with.
 * Can you please point me to where the actions taken against me are supported by the wiki instructions/standards/guidelines?

I have not had any of my questions answered.
 * I have put considerable effort into writing clear explanations and clear questions, I have put considerable effort into seeking consensus and to work as a team.
 * How is ignoring my questions going to assist in establishing consensus?

With regards tp "this is trivial",
 * why has so much effort got into deleting the content and branding me with false accussations?

This process wold be made considerably easier if everyone was specific about conserns and replied to my reasons

Thanks HarrySullivan1968 (talk) 00:58, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Several editors have made it clear that the topic is already adequately covered, and why the additional content is inappropriate with policy links. No one is going to wade through your tedious questions and provide 10 word answers for each of them. The bottom line here is that you have failed to achieve consensus for your additions.  If you continue to attempt to add the material without a consensus, you will be blocked from editing. I hope that's clear. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 01:18, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Seeking Consensus-Topic "Ignoring both Justice Richard White ruling that National Cabinet is not a Cabinet as well as Senate Standing Orders"
Hi, I am keen to have make changes to what I consider are a few errors & omissions in this article about Scott Morrison. Some topics may be controversial, as such I will post the reasons for the changes here and invite feedback to either support the change or to cease any consideration of the topic This is a process I am using for the first time; I will use the "National Cabinet Controversy" as a test.

Reasoning
 * The article makes reference to the creation of National Cabinet and the ending of COAG.
 * Morrison claimed National Cabinet was a Sub Committee of the commonwealth cabinet, thereby justifying blocking any FOI requests.
 * COAG was not run this way, with no claim of privilege over the meetings.
 * Senator Rex Patrick led a challenge to the claim of Cabinet in Confidence and was successful, with Justice Richard White agreeing that National Cabinet did not have any of the characteristics of a cabinet.
 * Controversially Morrison has ignored this ruling and is maintaining that neither he or departments are required to release the documents requested.
 * No precedent exists for a Prime Minister to ignore a ruling by a ember of the Judiciary and Senate Standing Orders for requests of documentation.

Seeking input or disagreement If people are supportive of including this information; Alternatively if the owners of this page are not supportive I will cease any contribution/discussion on the topic of the "Ignoring both Justice Richard White ruling that National Cabinet is not a cabinet & Senate standing orders"
 * Does anyone not agree that including the information about National Cabinet not being a cabinet is something that should be included?
 * Does anyone not agree that including the information that no Prime Minister/Government has ignored a Judicial ruling and Senate Standing Orders should be included?
 * Are people OK with me making the changes, or,
 * Would someone else like to make the changes

Thanks HarrySullivan1968 (talk) 09:41, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Could you provide a reliable source consistent with our biographical article policy, please? Something like an article in a major metropolitan daily, the ABC etc. --Pete (talk) 04:58, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

My (Harry) Reply to Peter

Hi Peter, The link I provided was to the "Law Society Journal". Here is an additional citation to an ABC story (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-27/national-cabinet-foi-secrecy-exemption-bill-explained/100494880). I can include just the ABC article or both if you would like.

HarrySullivan1968 (talk) 05:27, 7 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Sounds like an issue that would be far more suitable for inclusion in National Cabinet (Australia) with the appropriate references, rather than a biographical article about Scott Morrison. --Canley (talk) 06:05, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

My (Harry) Reply to Canley Hi Canley, HarrySullivan1968 (talk) 05:27, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I see where you are coming from, however the significance is that this is the first time an Australian Prime Minister has ignored a judicial ruling and senate orders. The fact that is has its origin in the National Cabinet is just context/background information.
 * Your proposal seems to hinge on the claim that "this is the first time an Australian Prime Minister has ignored a judicial ruling and senate orders"—where is the reference for that claim (that this is the first time this has happened)? You have posted as references a Law Society Journal opinion article, an ABC explainer article and a Senate Hansard (not sure which part or what you are suggesting this reference supports, but I assume where Senators Patrick and Roberts speak about the AAT decision). Yes, these articles do outline the events as they happened in the AAT case Patrick and Secretary, Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet [2021] AT 2719 (Patrick) (and I'll get back to this but note that the case title is referring to Rex Patrick and the Secretary of PM&C), and confirm that an FOI request was refused but the refusal was overturned by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. What they don't seem to confirm is that (a) this is the first time a prime minister has ignored an AAT decision on an FOI refusal and/or a Senate order to produce documents; and (b) that Scott Morrison is liable/responsible for this decision or delay, as opposed to the Secretary of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet or an FOI officer or another senior public servant – it does not seem likely that the prime minister would be involved in FOI decisions by PM&C even if he is technically the responsible minister of that department.
 * According to Orders for production of documents, since 2017 the Senate has produced a compliance report of documents not presented, and there are dozens of such orders listed in each report, including several requested (and seemingly ignored) from PM&C (yes, Morrison would be technically "responsible" for these too but if the compliance reports were needed, clearly non-compliance with such Senate orders to produce has probably been frequent and long-standing before 2017, and this is very unlikely to be the first order to produce that PM&C have "ignored"). You make several references to "Senate standing orders" but these are different from orders to produce documents, although the standing orders do provide a mechanism for a senator to "request an explanation" for delay or refusal of the production order, but that seems to be the limit of the consequences of not complying with the order and again this seems to happen quite frequently. You also refer to a "judicial ruling"—yes, Richard White is a judge but the AAT is not a court and IANAL but my limited understanding is that a judicial ruling on an AAT decision would have to come from the Federal Court or higher.
 * Given the "arm's-length" relationship between ministers, the public service and the FOI process, and the quasi-judicial nature of the AAT, I'm not at all convinced that this material belongs in a biography of a living person, as some kind of extraordinary precedent when there does not appear to be any evidence that this is actually extraordinary or that the subject was responsible in some way other than a notion of ministerial responsibility. If your claims and proposed content are supported by the references you posted or others that you find later, please quote the relevant parts rather than posting links to long articles and 111 pages of Hansard and seemingly drawing your own conclusions. A section about the nature of National Cabinet and its [unfounded] secrecy is absolutely relevant, almost essential, to the article National Cabinet (Australia) and I fully support you including a neutral and referenced summary of these events there, but I oppose the inclusion in a biography where the subject's connection to what seems to be a common public service decision is tenuous at best. --Canley (talk) 12:20, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Do wish, you'd make your proposals more straight forward. GoodDay (talk) 18:13, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree regarding brevity, the other pages I interact with allow for this. I have however been told by the editors/administrators of this page that I must get consensus prior to making any changes, this is what is driving the need to create this process. If an alternative process exists that would allow consensus to be reached I am more than happy to use it. HarrySullivan1968 (talk) 05:27, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Lead image
Hello, I see there was previously some brief discussion about the lead image, but the 2019 image was only found quite late into the discussion and so only 2 editors commented on it. Personally I prefer the 2019 image; it is difficult to see his face/eyes in the 2021 image because he is squinting and his face is covered in shade, but reasonable minds could differ. Given the lack of discussion in the previous talk page post, I thought I would make a new one and see if other editors agreed or disagreed with me about the 2019 image. Endwise (talk) 08:51, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Pinging SymeonHellas and TheScrubby, as they recently changed the image to the 2019 one and then back, respectively. Endwise (talk) 08:53, 12 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the ping. My position as it stands is the same as it was when the discussion was held, which is that in my view the 2021 image is of sufficient quality for use as the lead image - I don't see the lighting/shade as an issue, and while there is a slight squint I don't think it's serious enough to remove the image from consideration or anything. Having said that, I'd be perfectly happy with the 2019 image as an alternative - and should definitely be regarded as the most appropriate image for articles relating to the 2019 federal election. In any case, either would be preferable to the outdated 2014 image that was previously in use. TheScrubby (talk) 09:27, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Suggest a new heading of 'Religious Freedom' under "Second term" for related text
'''The Commonwealth pursuit of Religious Freedom for the right of all Australians to basically ban others entering their own premises or land, based on their religious beliefs. ''' In 2022 it failed by direct proposed legislation but apparently simultaneously succeeded ‘De facto’ (and in part) with Commonwealth's acquisition of the Aboriginal flag. There is a bit more text to outline this with along with supporting references.Idisc3rn (talk) 10:42, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Definition of De facto - Existing or holding a specified position in fact but not necessarily by legal right.

In 2017 Aboriginal elders voted* to ban others (non-aboriginals) from entry on Ayers rock, (a sacred site under their religious beliefs), by October 2019 (with other sacred sites to follow).

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-australia-indigenous-culture-idUSKCN1UZ0J7 9 August 2019

In 2017 Commonwealth leaders dismissed a Bill* for the right of all Australians to do similar and repeat the dismissal in early 2022* as Aboriginals by then widely exercised* their religious freedom with its official approval* by the Commonwealth basically sealed or helped by the sale 3-weeks earlier of the Aboriginal flag to the Commonwealth after 3 years of talks.

https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1718a/18bd054#_Toc499302458 24 November 2017

https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/legal/submission/religious-freedom-bills 27 Sep 2019

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/feb/11/australian-religious-groups-say-shelving-of-discrimination-bill-disappointing-and-confusing 11 February 2022

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/not-just-uluru-traditional-owners-are-fighting-to-ban-climbing-on-other-sites/j279wplbr 30 Oct 2019

https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/wollumbin-mount-warning-australia-closure-intl-hnk/index.html 5 Nov 2019

In many cases the ardent supporters of religious freedom for Aboriginals were the same parties to block it for other Australians.Idisc3rn (talk) 22:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm not familiar with the detail of that aspect of the government's efforts on the "religious freedom" front, and don't have time to read all those links now. But I will say that the current government has nastily misused the term "religious freedom" to mean all sorts of things, including the right of some religious people to remove freedoms from people of different religions or of no religion. It's not a good name for a section. HiLo48 (talk) 23:18, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. I agree the freedom for one can impose on others and as one good example many people (non-aboriginal Australians and overseas tourists) now can't freely access Ayers Rock/Uluru or Mt Warning/Wollumbin, virtually in the same period that the 2018 ‘Religious Freedom Review’ (report) spawned things including the ‘Religious Discrimination Bill’ that failed in 2022.
 * In fact that Aboriginal “freedom to block others freedom to access the land” has been justified directly on religion  with an Aboriginal (Bundjalung) representative publicly stating to CNN, "It is equivalent to climbing on top of the Vatican (Catholicism)-it is equivalent to climbing on top of Muslim mosques (Islam)." https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/wollumbin-mount-warning-australia-closure-intl-hnk/index.html 5 November 2019
 * October 2019 – Public access banned to Ayers Rock/Uluru (Central Australia) owned by the Anangu since 1985 & jointly managed with the Federal Government.
 * Racial discrimination may apply in their ban if the Anangu use the site themselves for “ceremonies and initiation rites.” Also, gender discrimination may apply with “opposite sexes banned in certain areas,” meaning “Transgender” is probably ignored, despite Uluru jointly managed by the Federal Government/Director of National Parks and the Anangu. The latter would be inconsistent with the latest Religious Discrimination Bill failing after the Federal Government also wanted to ignore “Transgender.”
 * “The Aṉangu request that visitors do not photograph certain sections of Uluru, for reasons related to traditional Tjukurpa (Dreaming) beliefs. These areas are the sites of gender-linked rituals or ceremonies and are forbidden ground for Aṉangu of the opposite sex to those participating in the rituals in question. The photographic restriction is intended to prevent Aṉangu from inadvertently violating this taboo by encountering photographs of the forbidden sites in the outside world.[46]”
 * March 2020 – Public access banned to Mount Warning/Wollumbin, (North Eastern NSW). Not owned by the Bandjalung but jointly managed by them and NSW NPWS
 * Racial discrimination applies in their ban as the Bundjalung apparently use the site themselves for “ceremonies and initiation rites.” ”Wollumbin is a place of cultural and traditional significance to the Bundjalung people and contains sacred sites, where particular ceremonies and initiation rites are performed.[3]’’ 
 * Therefore, ultimately by 2022, basically the “Right to refuse entry based on Religious beliefs” did succeed for a few Australians (Aboriginals) but failed for many others.
 * Regarding the name of the section – It was meant to reflect the ongoing Commonwealth issue of Religious Freedom, Religious Discrimination etc. However, I agree that it’s probably not a good name for a section because it’s also not a good name with which to attempt a Bill. Idisc3rn (talk) 07:36, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Having read through the links, I am not certain there is a strong enough case for a section like this to be added. The link between the religious discrimination bill and the Australian Aboriginal Flag, and the closures of some sites is not really supported by the sources provided. Dauwenkust (talk) 04:42, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:52, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Scott Morrison LNP.jpg

ScoMo best way to introduce on the page
Qvenqin added to the lead the line - colloquially referred to as ScoMo, - which is well sourced, and already a nickname in the info box (as well as used by several people throughout the talk page!). However I am not certain how to best handle it in the lead. I can see for Boris Johnson and George W. Bush, BoJo and Dubya are in the article but not in the lead. Just wanted to get feedback if the nickname should go in the lead, and how best to handle it there. Dauwenkust (talk) 00:26, 19 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I think it makes sense in the infobox, and it should probably go somewhere in the body of the article as well (like "BoJo" is in Boris Johnson's article), but IMO including the nickname in the first sentence of the lead would make it unnecessarily prominent. Endwise (talk) 03:09, 19 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Unlike BoJo, for example, ScoMo is much very commonly used, even in mainstream media publications (Australians and their tendencies to shorten things...), as I'm sure the original user posted. Would suggest leaving it in the lead. Hentheden (talk) 12:10, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Engadine McDonalds rumour
There's a very common rumour, to the point where Scott Morrison himself addressed it, that he shat himself in the Engadine McDonalds in 1997. This has been discussed in multiple reputable media sources. and is showing up in popular culture. Would it be reasonable to add a few lines on this in the article? Hentheden (talk) 12:17, 10 April 2022 (UTC)


 * See WP:DAILYMAIL, and I don't think news.com.au is a reliable source. The Independent is fine though. This could possibly be mentioned (it is something of a meme), but I think per WP:BLPGOSSIP we should tend towards avoiding the mention of gossipy unsubstantiated rumours, unless it has been so widely reported that we have an obligation to mention it. That may be the case here, but I don't think these sources demonstrate that. Endwise (talk) 12:27, 10 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Please note this was discussed last year: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Scott_Morrison/Archive_1#Speculation_by_Anonymous_Sources_on_something_that_never_happened. --Jack Upland (talk) 05:45, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Given news.CoM.au is one of the most read news sites in the nation (and historically pro-conservative governments), it would be a worry if it’s not considered reliable. That precedent would basically rule out the Tele, H-S and Oz, which id suggest are more widely considered to be light on fact or balance, not least of all when it comes to politics. Polyshine (talk) 06:44, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

In regard to its worthiness of being in wiki, it is trash gossip, albeit it relatively mainstream (the birther nonsense became a thing after all). I tend to think it’s not necessary as it hasn’t impacted the parliament or campaign in the way, say, the birther conspiracy had. Polyshine (talk) 06:47, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Addition of information about Australia's economic recovery from the COVID-19 recession in the lead.
I think that information about Australia's economic recovery from the COVID-19 recession should be added to the lead of this article. Since the COVID recession was one of the key events in Morrisons term, information about it is completely relevant. There is no information about the Australian economy whatsoever in the lead, despite this being one of Morrison's most important responsibilities, and a key election issue. I suggest the following sentence be added:

"The Australian economy also rebounded from the COVID-19 recession much faster than other advanced economies, with unemployment falling below its pre-pandemic level and GDP rising above its pre-pandemic level in June 2021."

This is backed up by multiple reputable sources:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-06-17/unemployment-rate-australia-may-2021/100222456

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-06-02/gdp-march-quarter-economic-growth-covid-rebound/100184004

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/australian-economy-recovers-to-pre-covid-condition-20220302-p5a0w3.html

https://www.9news.com.au/national/federal-budget-2021-australias-economic-recovery-red-hot-in-wake-of-covid19-pandemic/4a8a1bfe-9b88-4c96-afc9-f7332282199f

I have tried to directly make this edit, but it has been reversed for apparently not being relevant to Morrison's term in office. I completely disagree with this, as the economic recovery from COVID is probably the most important responsibility he has had over the past 3 years. Government policies like JobKeeper, JobSeeker, HomeBuilder, etc were critical to ensuring that Australia's economic recovery was a success. All of these policies were directly implemented and designed by Morrison and his government. I am new to Wikipedia editing, and have never had an edit reversed before. Forgive me if i'm making mistakes or not disputing this correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hidwah (talk • contribs) 14:42, 15 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Content about Morrison needs to be cited to sources directly discussing Morrison. Contributors' personal opinions as to the relevance of government policies to economic recovery, and to Morrison's role in it, are simply irrelevant as far as Wikipedia is concerned. And furthermore, even if sources for content directly discussing Morrison in relation to recovery can be found, per MOS:LEDE nothing goes there unless it is discussed in the article body. The lede is a summary, not a dumping-ground for improperly-sourced boosterism. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:54, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I’m happy to write a section in the body about Australia’s recovery from the COVID-19 recession if that’s what i need to do. The sentence i wrote in the lead is 100% factual, and does not contain any opinions at all. It is a fact that the Australian economy rebounded faster than other advanced economies (see https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-06-02/gdp-march-quarter-economic-growth-covid-rebound/100184004). It is also a fact that Australia’s unemployment rate fell below its pre-pandemic level and gdp rose above it’s pre pandemic level in June 2021, well before many other advanced economies. These are factual statements, not opinions. There are some other statements in this article which i do think are opinions, but I’m focused on this particular edit for right now. Hidwah (talk) 15:12, 15 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Please read No original research. Australia's post-COVID rebound may possibly be 'fact', but what is needed to include content about it in this article are sources directly discussing Morrison's role in this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:17, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

What i posted wasn’t original research. What i added was a 100% factual statement. I think the only reason why you’re against this edit is because you don’t like Morrison. There is no other reason why you would be against it, since it improves the article. I’m not sure how wikipedia works, but there must surely be a way to bring in a third party to resolve this, because this is ridiculous. Hidwah (talk) 01:02, 16 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Whether the statement is factual or not is of no consequence as far as Wikipedia policy goes, since article content is required to relevant to the article concerned, and be cited to sources which directly support it. Which the sources you cite don't since they say nothing about Morrison being responsible for any post-COVID recovery. As for my opinion of Morrison, I don't really have one. Or need to have one since I live on the other side of the planet (London, England), and only had this article on my watchlist as a result of seeing coverage of Morrison being discussed on one of Wikipedia's noticeboards (WP:BLPN). Feel free to look into my editing history in this regard, and then tell me again what you think my motivations are when you actually have evidence to go on.


 * As for third opinions, I'm sure that others have this talk page on their watchlist, and they are free to comment if they wish to. Or you can see Dispute resolution for other options if you insist. Though I'd strongly recommend you take the time to find out 'how wikipedia works' first, rather than rushing headlong into things. Start with Five pillars, and go on from there. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:23, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hidwah - The ONLY source you used when you inappropriately just re-added this content that mentions Morrison only does so when describing him as claiming that his government is responsible for the economic improvement. It does not describe him as actually HAVING been responsible for it. HiLo48 (talk) 04:34, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * My proposed change doesn't claim that Morrison was directly responsible for Australia's strong economic performance, it just states that Australia's economy performed well during his term in office. Since the paragraph serves essentially as a summary of his term, information about how the economy performed is relevant and the sentence i added is completely factual. If you want to propose a different way to discuss the economy in the lede, i'm open to having a discussion. However, i absolutely believe that the economy needs to be mentioned in the lede. Hidwah (talk) 04:47, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This is the article about Scott Morrison, not his government, nor the economy. If what you want to add is not actually about him, only something that happened during his time in office, it doesn't belong. HiLo48 (talk) 04:52, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * So do you think it would be appropriate if i instead talked about some of the economic policies he was directly responsible for as PM? I could talk about JobKeeper, JobSeeker or other policies that he announced and oversaw. Hidwah (talk) 04:58, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Australia has a Westminster style parliamentary system, not a US style presidential system. Decisions are made by governments, not individuals. The Prime Minister isn't even mentioned in our constitution. The person in the job does not have powers to do much at all in isolation. I (and I suspect you ) have no idea whose idea JobKeeper, JobSeeker, etc actually were. They were actions of the government, not Scott Morrison. HiLo48 (talk) 05:03, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * So then by that logic the entire paragraph should be deleted, since he wasn't responsible for the bushfires, covid pandemic, climate change, foreign policy or defence policy. Other prime ministers have information about their term included in the lede of their articles (for example boris johnson). What i am proposing is not unusual, and is relevant to Morrison. Hidwah (talk) 05:06, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I've left a note on Hidwah's talk page that if this edit-warring to include inappropriately sourced content in the lede continues, the matter will be raised at WP:ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:36, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks ATG. You may or may not be aware that Australia (and therefore Scott Morrison) faces a general election in five weeks time. Political temperatures are rising. HiLo48 (talk) 04:40, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Pretty much as I wrote that, Hidwah transferred his attentions to the page of the opposition leader, Anthony Albanese. You may find it worth a look. HiLo48 (talk) 04:48, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Dammit, just as I was about to go to bed (its 6 AM here, and I may be a night owl/insomniac but that is stretching things too far). Someone clearly needs to deal with this, but I'd rather not do so myself right now, since it isn't really appropriate to start an ANI thread and then just walk away. If you (or anyone else) wants to do so, feel free to link my comments - they seem clear enough - and I'll chip in later if I need to. Seems clear cut though, and IMO Hidwah needs blocking from article space until they agree to cut out the nonsense. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:01, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * What is the correct way to add something to a wikipedia article? If i add something, it gets deleted. If i try to discuss it on the talk page, nothing happens. I'm a bit confused about what i'm supposed to do. Hidwah (talk) 05:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I want to be constructive and improve the articles. It seems that you guys are just blocking any changes that i try to make. Hidwah (talk) 05:12, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That's because the changes you try to make aren't compliant with the Wikipedia policies you have been repeatedly asked to read. This isn't Facebook. This isn't a forum. Wikipedia is an online encyclopaedia (or purports to be one), which has policies and guidelines arrived at over many years, in an attempt (albeit not always successful) to ensure that article content is properly sourced, and balanced in a manner reflecting the available sources. Individual contributors very often find their edits reverted, its how the place works. Merely wanting content to be included isn't enough. Not for you. Not for me. Not for anyone. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:21, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This article in its current form is extremely unbalanced. I am proposing changes that add information (not remove) and make the article more balanced. You want to keep the article in its current, unbalanced form. You haven't suggested any meaningful ways that my suggestion could be improved, you just don't want it to be added at all. That's not constructive, it's destructive and obstructionist. Hidwah (talk) 05:27, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I have explained policy. Your 'suggestion' has to be directly supported by sources that actually match the content. And cut out the crap please. I have already spent more of my time than I'd like trying to deal with a partisan Aussie editor from one part of the political spectrum trying to portray Morrison as some sort of bumbling halfwit (see here for the worst of it), and I'm none to happy to be insulted by one from the other end who can't seem to get it into his/her head that we aren't going to portray Morrison as an unrivalled economic genius either, without better evidence than a random collection of sources that either don't mention him at all, or merely point out that he claims to have done things. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:54, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm glad that you are dealing with someone else. I don't want this to be a hostile discussion, and I am not trying to portray Morrison as an economic genius. I am simply stating that under his leadership, the Australian economy performed well. I have included multiple citations that back up the factual nature of my proposed change. I am happy to have a constructive discussion on how my proposal can be improved, but simply stating that there should be no addition of information about the economy at all is not constructive. Maybe it would be better if a second sentence was added so that it reads like this:
 * The Australian economy also rebounded from the COVID-19 recession much faster than other advanced economies, with unemployment falling below its pre-pandemic level and GDP rising above its pre-pandemic level in June 2021. However, the government was criticised for failing to address stagnant wages growth and cost of living increases. Hidwah (talk) 06:02, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. The  GOVERNMENT  was criticised. Again, this is Morrison's article. Do you understand yet? Please stop ignoring and attacking editors with much more experience here than you.  HiLo48 (talk) 06:09, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Then by that logic, the statements "and for the Commonwealth's response to the disaster", "Australia received praise during 2020 for being one of the few Western countries to successfully suppress the virus" and " In foreign policy, Morrison oversaw the signing of the AUKUS security pact, increased tensions between Australia and China and became part of the international effort against Russia in the wake of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.", should also be removed from the lede. These are all things that the Australian government did under Morrisons leadership. These things should not be removed, and i don't see how my proposed change is any different to these statements. What i want to add is also directly related to how Australia and its government performed under Morrison's leadership. Hidwah (talk) 06:16, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I have better things to do than be ignored by a blatantly non-neutral POV pushing editor on a sunny afternoon. Bye. HiLo48 (talk) 06:21, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * How am i ignoring you? I've written a response to every single comment you've made. I have attempted to write from a neutral point of view. If you have any suggestions on how my suggestions could be more neutral (beyond just deleting them), please elaborate. Hidwah (talk) 06:24, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If you truly did attempt to write from a neutral point of view, you failed. Your point of view was 100% obvious. At the top of your User Talk page there is a formal, template driven, Welcome To Wikipedia message, from me, of all people. Please go back and read it, Follow the links it contains. I particularly recommend The Teahouse, our help forum for new users. In addition, have a good look at WP:NPOV. HiLo48 (talk) 07:03, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Your point of view is also pretty obvious, but that's ok. I'm willing to collaborate with you so that we can come up with something that we both agree is factual and accurate. Hidwah (talk) 07:07, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You may think you know my point of view (I suspect you'd be wrong) but I haven't tried to shove it in the article. This election is just one phase of Morrison's longish life. True balance means we will end up including far less about this election than you seem to be aiming for. HiLo48 (talk) 07:22, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Correction of climate policy in lede
I believe the following statement should be removed from the lede paragraph "resisted international pressure to implement policies to address climate change". This statement lacks any citations, and is not true. I suggest it be replaced by the following sentence:

Morrison committed Australia to a net zero by 2050 climate change target, however this plan was criticised for lacking detail.

This sentence is factual, and is backed up by two citations. It is balanced, as it mentions the fact that he was criticised for a lack of detail in his climate change plan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hidwah (talk • contribs) 05:23, 16 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Read Manual of Style/Lead section. It is generally not required to add citations for material in a lede if it is properly supported by citations for the relevant material in the article body. The lede is supposed to be a summary of content, as you have already been told. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:44, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * In the article body, it says that He committed Australia to a policy of net zero by 2050. It then goes on to detail criticisms of this policy. That is exactly what i have written in my proposed change. The current version says he "resisted" international pressure to combat climate change. This is simply not an accurate summary of the body of the article. Hidwah (talk) 05:47, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Does the article list "policies to address climate change" being "implemented" by Morrison and his government anywhere? I can't see it - though if you have sources that support such content (on 'policies' rather than 'pledges'), we can of course include it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:22, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It says in the body of the article (this is a direct quote):
 * Following the conference, Morrison's government pledged that Australia would aim to achieve net zero emissions by 2050, but did not introduce this into national law; Morrison said he believed market forces and not government regulation can address climate change.
 * His government's climate action plan has been criticised by journalist Phil Coorey as "lightweight", and by a Climate Council spokesman as "meaningless without strong action this decade".
 * My proposed edit is an exact summary of this content in the body. I have two citations. Hidwah (talk) 06:27, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * So Morrison 'implemented' a policy of not actually doing anything at all to bring about net zero emissions?
 * Whatever, I'm done here. Keep adding partisan crap to Wikipedia and you will end up being blocked from editing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:32, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * No, he didn't. He committed Australia to net zero by 2050 in 2021. The government released an official plan, which was criticised. That is what i have written.
 * https://www.minister.industry.gov.au/ministers/taylor/media-releases/australias-plan-reach-our-net-zero-target-2050
 * https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-10-26/government-commits-to-net-zero-by-2050-climate-deal/100565254
 * https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-59046032
 * https://www.wsj.com/articles/australia-commits-to-net-zero-emissions-by-2050-shedding-climate-outlier-status-11635245929 Hidwah (talk) 06:36, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You're doing it again. You say "He committed Australia...." and "The government released..." Morrison is NOT the government, and vice versa. HiLo48 (talk) 06:55, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Surely ScoMo is the head of government. The Morrison government? The distinction seems rather picayune. --Pete (talk) 09:50, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Exactly Hidwah (talk) 09:54, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks Pete, for pointing out that we have an article for actions by the Morrison government, rather than squeezing everything into Morrison's personal article. HiLo48 (talk) 10:04, 16 April 2022 (UTC).
 * If that's the case, why is there even a paragraph in this article about the things that happened in his term? Hidwah (talk) 10:15, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I consider the statement correct and backed up by multiple sources that directly reference international criticism about the gob’s resistance to take climate action, I.e

https://amp.abc.net.au/article/100087492

https://amp.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/jun/08/scott-morrison-digs-in-against-deeper-cuts-to-emissions-ahead-of-g7-summit

https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/7221033/when-is-not-the-question-anymore-morrison-resists-pressure-to-set-new-climate-target/

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/24/world/australia/covid-geopolitics-climate-change.amp.html Polyshine (talk) 06:41, 16 April 2022 (UTC)


 * gov’s Polyshine (talk) 06:42, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That's why i said that the plan was "criticised for lacking detail". Hidwah (talk) 07:03, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hidwah. Don't you have a Morrison government article, for such info? GoodDay (talk) 17:53, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Clearly ‘criticised for lacking detail’ is a softened version of ‘resisted international pressure’, which is both more correct and relevant. Someone should make a call on this, but my view is that one of the key notable parts of this prime ministership (probably the number one part for international relations) is the government’s recalcitrance on climate change action and criticism of this. Polyshine (talk) 10:24, 17 April 2022 (UTC)


 * @Hidwah Just because Scott says that he had pledged to resolve climate change (as if he cared). Those are just words and not real actions. That risks in misleading others in believing he actually cares about climate change but simply failed to do enough. When in fact, there is so much more about how he refuses to take action as he simply didn't care and saw it as a threat to the coal industry. This is someone who is very famous and notable within Australia for pushing and defending coal. He even went to parliament and mocked the crowd by carrying a lump of coal and telling others to not be scared of it. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/feb/09/scott-morrison-brings-coal-to-question-time-what-fresh-idiocy-is-this

He clearly didn't do enough for climate change because he didn't want to, as he saw it as a threat to coal industry. He is criticized because he NOT ONLY resisted much international pressure. But also resisted plenty of domestic pressure (Aussie schoolkids protests, opposition Etc) to reduce coal, and telling schoolkids to be "less" climate change activists. That's our prime minister right there. Saying it lacks detail is a total whitewash. He actively refused and resisted pressure to reduce coal and transition to greener policies. I think the article should also state that he resisted much domestic pressure as well, (schoolkids and independent greens plus opposition party.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/nov/26/scott-morrison-tells-students-striking-over-climate-change-to-be-less-activist 49.180.200.21 (talk) 05:58, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2022
was* prime minister 120.17.37.250 (talk) 12:52, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: Be patient, an official change of government will be after the election results are final.  — twotwofourtysix (My talk page and contributions) 12:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Wrong. It typically takes weeks, even months, to get final results in Australian elections. But Morrison has conceded. Even Rupert Murdoch's Sky News has declared Albanese the winner. There is no doubt about the result. This could easily be changed now. Please learn more about how elections work in Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 05:40, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure we wait until the incoming PM is sworn in to make this sort of change. Article currently already reads "Morrison will remain caretaker Prime Minister until the Prime Minister-designate, Anthony Albanese is sworn in by the Governor-General." Cannolis (talk) 09:43, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Engadine McDonald's.
Previously, attempts to mention how Scott Morrison has addressed rumours of an alleged incident where he defecated in his pants at a McDonald's in Engadine NSW were deleted. I believe that this noteworthy, and is more so than other information on this Wikipedia page. Recently, as I will link below, international media have begun to comment on Morrisons personal acknowledgement of the rumour. As it is something Morrison himself has addressed with substantial evidence of such, it does NOT violate Wikipedia's living person policy, as the assertion relates to his response to the rumours, not the validity or truth to the rumours.

https://vt.tiktok.com/ZSdX8cxe7/?k=1 Fighterofmisinformation (talk) 06:02, 22 May 2022 (UTC)


 * It's non-encyclopaedic trivia. I can't stand Morrison, but do not want this nonsense added to his article. HiLo48 (talk) 06:45, 22 May 2022 (UTC)


 * On the contrary you could say that about other aspects of the article like speculation he was in some random ad in the 70s. At least Engadine McDonald's does provide context of Australian political discourse, especially among younger voters (e.g the emergence of meme culture) Fighterofmisinformation (talk) 07:37, 22 May 2022 (UTC)


 * The speculation he was in some random ad in the 70s is trivia too. Should be removed. (Did you see how I indented your comment? Please try to do that yourself.) HiLo48 (talk) 07:44, 22 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree the Engadine claim is non-encyclopedic trivia.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:30, 22 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I have removed the speculation he was in some random ad in the 70s. HiLo48 (talk) 10:55, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Wait until he leaves office
Can we please wait until he actually leaves office? The 'outgoing' bit, isn't required. He's the incumbent prime minister until he resigns (which he'll do) or dies or is dismissed. GoodDay (talk) 20:36, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not like he will stay for a while but he already indeed stepped down as leader after losing the 2022 federal election. He conceded that he was defeated and he and his family have moved out of the prime minister's residential house (Kirribilli) today. He is only prime minister in a small time limited "caretaker sense". And it's important for Wikipedia to note that he is currently on his way to being (outgoing) or no longer being prime minister shortly. So see nothing wrong with the current article as is. 49.180.200.21 (talk) 05:48, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not important to know that he's on his way out, as the change over occurs on May 23. In the meantime, he's still the incumbent prime minister, so relax. GoodDay (talk) 21:02, 22 May 2022 (UTC).
 * It kinda is important. Considering it's the prime minister of Australia and not some insignificant role. And what is wrong with simply telling the truth that he is indeed the outgoing (leaving) prime minister? It's only temporary and a few extra factual words, so just leave article as is, until the change over is complete. Then you can call him "ex" Prime minister after that on here and no drama necessary. ;) 49.195.19.232 (talk) 21:50, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a pretty insignificant role so I don't think it's important. 178.202.82.89 (talk) 20:00, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * What a ridiculous comment. HiLo48 (talk) 02:30, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Image
I suggest the infobox image be changed to File:Scott Morrison Sep 2019.jpg as it has a higher resolution than the existing one. Thanks.  Peter Ormond &#128172;  10:23, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I prefer the current one as it is more natural...--Jack Upland (talk) 04:52, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Operation Sovereign Borders

 * he was responsible for implementing Operation Sovereign Borders, which requires all asylum seekers arriving in Australia via boat to be refused entry and escorted back to the county they came from.

This isn't exactly true. It's asylum seekers without visas, and they are not exactly "escorted back".--Jack Upland (talk) 06:24, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Investigation into self-appointed ministerial positions
Should this be be moved from 'Internal criticism' to a new section? Not sure it falls suitably under 'Internal criticism', and is receiving quite significant coverage in Australian media. Compusolus (talk) 03:42, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. Errantios (talk) 04:17, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Would it be better for the investigation to be placed chronologically?--Jack Upland (talk) 04:06, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * A Prime Minister supposedly failing to recall his secret ascension to multiple Cabinet positions seems significant enough for a new section to be made, possibly even a separate article if enough information is released donnellan Donnellan0007 (talk) 06:32, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The appointments were not to Ministerial positions. He was already a Minister (the Prime Minister).  Instead, as per the text of the section, he was appointed to administer various Departments of State.  He was not appointed Minister for Health or etc.  This should be clarified in the heading and in the bio information (i.e. the bios saying he was Minister for Health and etc are clearly and plainly incorrect - he was the PM only). Bigbadaussie (talk) 09:53, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2022
Please include all 5 ministries. It is a fact. Thanks 🙏 2001:8003:3253:B700:A19D:B67:3A73:5FF3 (talk) 10:14, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. &#128156; melecie   talk  - 10:22, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It is not a fact. As Prime Minister Albanese said today  - he was appointed to administer departments (https://www.pm.gov.au/media/press-conference-parliament-house-canberra-act-1).  This is not the same as being appointed as the relevant Minister.  He remained the Prime Minister and did not acquire any other additional Ministerial title.  The edits that should be made are to remove the Ministerial appointments as they are simply not correct. Bigbadaussie (talk) 10:28, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Further to the edit request
He was sworn in as head of those ministries. As PM, clearly he had legal advice, and so accordingly he held multiple positions simultaneously. Again, thank you 2001:8003:3253:B700:A19D:B67:3A73:5FF3 (talk) 10:17, 16 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Incorrect. He only held the title of Prime Minister.  As Prime Minister, he was appointed to administer various Departments of State.  He was not appointed as or given any other additional Ministerial titles.  The requested edit is wrong and the existing page is wrong to list him as being the various Ministers (such as Minister for Health) while he was Prime Minister. Bigbadaussie (talk) 10:29, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Purported New Ministerial Positions
The edits made here (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scott_Morrison&oldid=1104636467) are plainly incorrect. At no time was Mr Morrison appointed as Minister for Health, Minister for Finance, Minister for Home Affairs, and so on. He remained Prime Minister and was appointed to administer additional Departments of State. This is different to an appointment as a particular named Minister, which did not occur. These biographical Ministerial appointment edits should be revsersed. Bigbadaussie (talk) 10:48, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Ministerial roles during 2020-22
can you please explain your concern with the material in the infobox? It appears to accurately reflect the sourced material in the 'Investigation into appointment to joint ministerial positions' section. See for instance this story which confirms the dates (including that it appears that Morrison continued in the roles until he left office as PM) and that Morrison was the minister. The ABC also states that he was the minister for these portfolios:. The GG's statement notes the same:. Nick-D (talk) 10:53, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Being appointed to administer the "Department of X" does not equate to being appointed "Minister for X", which is a specific position. All ministers, assistant ministers and acting ministers are appointed to administer their departments. I have yet to see any sources that unequivocally state whether Morrison was actually appointed as "Minister for X" or as an acting minister in the way that the deputy prime minister becomes acting prime minister or e.g. Alan Tudge acted in place of David Coleman without ever being specifically appointed as minister. We should be waiting for confirmation from official sources as to the exact nature of the appointments, not using tabloid sources that don't understand the difference and making guesses. This is a situation best dealt with in prose until we get those confirmations. ITBF (talk) 11:01, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You might be right, but neither the Guardian or the ABC are tabloids, and they are explicitly stating that Morrison was the minister for these things. Michelle Grattan is also not a tabloid journalist and is stating the same: . Morrison was appointed to the roles by the Governor-General, who has confirmed this, so comparisons to acting arrangements aren't accurate. Nick-D (talk) 11:05, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Have to disagree with you here. The GG's statement did not state that he was appointed to the various Ministerial roles.  It said: “The Governor-General, following normal process and acting on the advice of the government of the day, appointed former Prime Minister Morrison to administer portfolios other than the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet,”
 * “The appointments were made consistently with section 64 of the Constitution.
 * “It is not uncommon for Ministers to be appointed to administer departments other than their portfolio responsibility. These appointments do not require a swearing-in ceremony – the Governor-General signs an administrative instrument on the advice of the Prime Minister.
 * “Questions around appointments of this nature are a matter for the government of the day and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Similarly, the decision whether to publicise appointments to administer additional portfolios is a matter for the government of the day.”
 * Clearly this says the "former Prime Minister" was appointed to "administer portfolios other than the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet" and that it is "not uncommon for Ministers to be appointed to administer departments other than their portfolio responsibility".
 * He was not appointed as Minister for Health or Minister for Finance. He was already a Minister and he was appointed to administer additional portfolios. Bigbadaussie (talk) 11:11, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed the former Prime Minister's public statement also confirms that he was appointed to administer departments, not appointed as a Minister (for which there was no need as he was already a Minister - the Prime Minister):
 * In addition I took the precaution of being given authority to administer various departments of state should the need arise due to incapacity of a Minister or in the national interest. This was done in relation to departments where Ministers were vested with specific powers under their legislation that were not subject to oversight by Cabinet, including significant financial authorities.
 * Given the significant nature of many of these powers I considered this to be a prudent and responsible action as Prime Minister.
 * It is not uncommon for multiple Ministers to be sworn to administer the same Department. However, given that such additional Ministers were in a more junior position in the relevant Departments, and would not be familiar with all the details of the pandemic response, I considered it appropriate that the redundancy be put in place at a higher level within the Government and not at a more junior level.
 * The major Department for which this was considered was the Health Department, given the extensive powers afforded to the Minister by the Biosecurity Act. This was put in place on March 14, 2020. The Department of Finance was added on March 30, 2020. Bigbadaussie (talk) 11:14, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That might be right, but is not in line with what high quality sources are saying (the Michelle Grattan piece stands out given the explicit language she uses and her stature). Morrison's APH page notes that he held a ministerial role while also being PM, so the two things aren't mutually exclusive - he was "Minister for the Public Service from 29.5.2019 to 8.10.2021". It's also quite common for the leaders of state and territory governments to also hold ministerial portfolios. Nick-D (talk) 11:38, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If he was appointed as the relevant Minister, the Governor General would have issued a notice in the Government Gazette.
 * For example, here the GG noted that Mr Morrison resigned as Prime Minister but does not mention resigning from any other Ministerial role (because he did not hold it) link
 * For example, here the GG notified the appointment of various Ministers, including Mr Albanese as Prime Minister and here he notified that he appointed the new Ministry
 * A further example, here the GG notified the appointment of various Ministers in the Morrison Government
 * As is clear from the GG's statement, "Similarly, the decision whether to publicise appointments to administer additional portfolios is a matter for the government of the day." This is very different from swearing-in ceremonies, where the GG appoints Ministers and then notifies them in the Gazette (i.e. at the GG's instigation, not the government of the day).
 * Indeed, you cite Morrison's APH page - it does not list any other Ministerial appointments, because there were none and simply because journalists don't understand the difference, is not really evidence to the contrary.
 * So you can cite Michelle Grattan as a journalist who is incorrect, or you can rely on the primary sources being the publication of notices in the Gazette. There is no notification of appointment as Scott Morrison as the Ministers listed in the article because he was not thus appointed.
 * As I have now said a number of times, the appointment as a Minister is completely different from the appointment to administer a Department of State. Appointments of Ministers are made via a swearing-in and notification.  Administration of Departments of State are not publicised (including in the current Government). Bigbadaussie (talk) 12:25, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you are mistaken about "the appointment as a Minister" being "completely different from the appointment to administer a Department of State." If you refer to section 64 of the Constitution, a Minister is defined as an officer who administers a department of state. Further, if you see the instruments themselves (tweeted by Samantha Maiden), the heading states itself that it is an appointment of a Minister of State. 2405:6E00:AC4:BE00:3411:4214:3693:C6AD (talk) 02:54, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Leaving aside the question of whether he was actually a Minister or not, I would question the value of listing all of these positions in the infobox. I feel the infobox should be a summary of the most relevant information about the subject. There comes a point when listing out all these offices (along with dates and all the associated details) is just too much and not very relevant to the reader. I note, for example, for Anthony Albanese we omit his stint as Minister for Communications, and for Gough Whitlam we don't list the 12 ministerial positions he held for two weeks in 1972. The scandal and controversy is definitely noteworthy and merits coverage in the article, but the individual offices that Morrison technically held as part of this is not particularly worth spotlighting - at least not at the same level as his 'legit' roles. Does it really make sense to prominently list him as being (for example) "Treasurer" during that period, when in practice he never acted in this role, no one even knew he technically held this role, and there was already someone actually doing this job? No one is truly going to look back and say that Scott Morrison was Treasurer during this period, they are going to say it was Josh Frydenburg - the fact that Scott Morrison may too have technically been Treasurer too is more of a sidenote; an oddity. Liguer (talk) 13:17, 16 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Why have none of these instruments of appointment ever made it into the Federal Register of Legislation, or the Administrative Arrangements Order? If they were valid instruments, someone has broken the law by not attending to this requirement. If they weren't valid instruments, a certain prime minister has mislead a certain governor-general. Either way, heads are going to roll. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  23:08, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think this is probably a good point. It's silly to list them all (and noting I don't agree they were even appointments that were made) and Mr Albanese and other Ministers held a number of portfolios for a week after the election until the full Ministry (the First Albanese Ministry) was actually sworn in. Bigbadaussie (talk) 00:31, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Albo didn't keep it all a secret. HiLo48 (talk) 02:20, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * https://www.pmc.gov.au/news-centre/government/instruments-scott-morrison-2020-21
 * The instruments of appointment.
 * Probably best to claim that you "don't believe they were even appointments that were made" rather than agree if they were made or not. Jufemaiz (talk) 03:44, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Each of the instruments seems itself to be contradictory. The header refers to appointment of a minister, but the text refers to an allocation of responsibilities of an existing minister.  Legally, I think that the text probably prevails and so I think that WP should go with that.
 * One still has to wonder whether the ambiguity is accidental. The issue may be addressed soon by a court, in the action brought by an energy company against a decision made by Morrison, which may have been lodged against "the Minister for ..."
 * I'm not sure that entry in the Federal Register of Legislation or the Administrative Arrangements Order (which itself should appear in the Federal Register) is actually a legal requirement, but it is at least an established expectation:


 * The approval of the Governor-General to the composition of the Ministry, the creation of departments, the allocation of portfolios and any ministerial and departmental change is notified publicly[73] and announced in the House.[74] The principal areas of departmental responsibility and enactments administered by the respective Ministers are notified publicly by order of the Governor-General.[75] Temporary ministerial arrangements may be made by the Prime Minister without reference to the Governor-General. (https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/House_of_Representatives/Powers_practice_and_procedure/Practice7/HTML/Chapter2/The_Ministry)
 * If, in those ways, these decisions should have been announced and recorded, who and in what capacity determined that they should not? Errantios (talk) 00:31, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

add to bio
Disgraced former prime minister. 175.39.114.105 (talk) 07:06, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia depends on reliable sources for its content. We will use the style of language you suggest when enough such sources are describing Morrision as such. HiLo48 (talk) 22:54, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Political offices
If his 5 ministerial appointments are kept in the article (and given the declaration by Solicitor General that they were valid, they probably will), they should also be added to the Political offices at the bottom of the page for consistency.212.79.110.148 (talk) 23:01, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * See topic "Purported New Ministerial Positions" above. In any case, the S-G's report advises on validity only of the resources appointment. Errantios (talk) 23:38, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * And the S-G isn't necessarily right.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:44, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Ministerial positions
If the ministerial positions are kept in the article, should we collapse all of the ministerial positions (including older ones) into a heading such as "Ministerial Positions" (example of this in infobox 1) or perhaps just the controversial ones in a subheading such as "Department Administrations" (example of this in infobox 2)? As it stands, the info box is a massive wall of text, and finding basic information such as seat or political affiliation is hindered. Kermanbob (talk) Kermanbob (talk) 12:07, 2 September 2022 (UTC)


 * As has been pointed out several times, he did not hold the positions mentioned in the infobox - refer e.g. his parliamentary profile . We have in fact invented a title "Minister for Industry, Science and Energy" which simply does not exist and is only found in wikipedia mirrors. It is disappointing that this original research is still in the article after nearly a month. GeebaKhap (talk) 14:25, 2 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Welcome to Australian Wikipedia.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:52, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I've added your proposed collapsing in infobox 1 to the article -- it is absurd how large this infobox was. It was basically unreadable due to the sheer volume of text, and extended down so far in the article it was pushing down images on my screen that were around 5 sections below the lead. No comment on whether it's appropriate to keep the self-appointments in the infobox in the first place, but the size was an issue regardless. Endwise (talk) 03:48, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

"The Morrison years" - SMH
A 3-part SMH series "The Morrison Years" begins today:  Parts 2 and 3 will be subscriber-only. Thin so far, IMHO, but there's a timetable today. Errantios (talk) 23:04, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The series didn't excite me:  There's more, about the ghost ministries, in The Saturday Paper—although I await the Bell Report. Errantios (talk) 07:05, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Censure
Given the former PM has now been censured by the House of Representatives - a first for a PM in Australia’s history - this surely rates a mention on the page, and possibly deserves its own section. Ted86 (talk) 02:16, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Robodebt
That the subject of Robodebt scheme is not mentioned here certainly shows how articles can be whitewashed. When your pet project causes suicides, and that is not allowed to be mentioned, only *then* do you look good. Shenme (talk) 17:01, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * (1) This is not a newspaper. (2) There is not yet a clear set of facts about Morrison himself and Robodebt. Errantios (talk) 22:51, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Infobox image
Why is the image in the infobox a crop of an impromptu group photo in the US rather than his from 2021 already uploaded to commons? Would anyone be opposed to changing it to this? RoadSmasher420 (talk) 23:47, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Has been changed to an official portrait. Errantios (talk) 22:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)