Talk:Second Gillard ministry

Swearing-in date

To all those people who over the weekend changed dozens of articles with stuff like "Joe Bloggs was sworn in as Minister for X on Monday 13 September" - read this and weep. The swearing in has been scheduled for Tuesday 14 September.

Just shows the folly of not playing by WP rules that prohibit stating future events as if they'd already happened. Which has always seemed to be an extraordinarily sensible rule to me, and one not flaunted without significant risk to one's credibility and general reputation. In future, please just hold off, or if you absolutely have to say something, say that such and such is expected to occur on whatever date. Then, if it doesn't happen on that date, you're not in the position of having told a lie. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

What to do with split/merged ministries

Whenever there is a new cabinet announced, there's a bit of confusion regarding article titles, infoboxes and succession boxes, especially where ministries have been split, merged, created or abolished. Just wanted to get some of these issues on the table so we can discuss, edit, move, merge or delete as necessary.

So, for example, there's the issue of the Education portfolio. The portfolio has been split into Schools, Early Childhood and Youth (Peter Garrett) and Tertiary Education (Chris Evans). The article Minister for Education (Australia) lists Garrett as the incumbent, however before I saw this I moved Minister of Youth (Australia) to the new ministerial title of Minister for Schools, Early Childhood and Youth (Australia), also listing Garrett as the incumbent. Note that these edits may pre-date this morning's restoration of Tertiary Education into Evans' title, so it may have appeared that Garrett was the only minister with a clear Education responsibility. Anyway, what do folks think we should do here? Should Minister for Education (Australia) remain a list up to Crean, with notes that the portfolio was split into two other ministries? --Canley (talk) 05:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, a lot of the minister infoboxes in these articles say the style for a federal ministry is "The Right Honourable" which is totally wrong! Fix 'em if you see 'em please. --Canley (talk) 06:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I've now done a sweep of all the ministries (I think) and changed them all. I'd like to wring the fucking neck of whoever made them all Right Hons. I'll be keeping a close eye on potential reversions. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I found a swag more. God knows how many other obsolete portfolios our "friend" has been active in. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Suggested merge with Third Gillard Ministry

I have suggested merging the new article Third Gillard Ministry into this article. I'm not positive, it seems to be an unwritten convention, that we would list it as a separate Ministry list only if the government had won an election, or if the Prime Minister otherwise changed (such as Rudd to Gillard). Have sought more feedback and consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics#Third Gillard Ministry?. I know it can get messy to list all the changes taking place in a reshuffle in a single article, but take a look at the Howard ministries: there are only four, although he changed his cabinet around many more times. --Canley (talk) 00:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Timeshift (talk) 05:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

You might be right that outside of Wikipedia there is another convention, but if you're going to make that a convention here, you've got a lot of articles to merge, as suggested by the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics#Third Gillard Ministry?... Mark Hurd (talk) 10:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I was actually referring to convention on Wikipedia, not the parliament's convention. I was merely enquiring if there is a standard or a threshold by which a cabinet reshuffle becomes a new ministry list on Wikipedia, i.e. "how we do it". Personally I don't think we necessarily need to adhere to the parliamentary naming/numbering convention, particularly if it is not consistently applied in Canberra, but we should be consistent. I'm more than happy to merge or split "a lot of articles" if that's what the consensus is. --Canley (talk) 22:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to know that, too, and I wonder if this has ever been the subject of a decent discussion. I was quite surprised at how many differences there are between the official list of ministries shown in the Parliamentary Handbook (see link @ Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics#Third Gillard Ministry?) and how Wikipedia determines them. As a general rule, I think we ought to stick to the official line. But that's a little problematical when we look at Menzies having the same ministry between 1951 and 1956, during which time there were 2 general elections and he did have a mini-reshuffle on 9 July 1954, after the May 1954 election. We very sensibly separate this into a new ministry (Sixth Menzies Ministry), but officialdom doesn't, and I'd love to know why not. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 01:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed to merge. Where the elected leader has not been to an election, or is no longer leader (eg Rudd), I prefer to use 'First arrangement, Second, etc' for any reshuffle, and then only highlight those Ministers / Parliamentary Secretaries that have had shifts in their portfolio responsibilities as per the Second Iemma ministry in NSW Govt. Rangasyd (talk) 04:42, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

A bit late, but I've effected the merge, and done a fair bit of fixing up while I was at it. The official list clearly refers to it as the "Second Gillard Ministry", so I've treated it the way we handle state ministries when they change by starting a new section in the article, so that the order of precedence is correctly rendered. (Not that there was much change - apart from the demotions/promotions between levels of Cabinet, Sherry's exit from outer cabinet and Sidebottom's appointment as a parliamentary secretary, only Arbib and Feeney actually moved in order.) Orderinchaos 16:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Well done! A great result and layout. Let's hope that future arrangements of ministries, both state and federal, adopt this model. Rangasyd (talk) 11:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

March 2012 reshuffle

Does this deserve an entirely new table, as was used for the December 2011 reshuffle? I'm inclined to say yes, for two reasons: firstly, it greatly improves readability (in the older ministry lists I'm forever glancing back and forth to work out what changed when, especially when there were significant reshuffles during the term), and secondly, I really like the option of having a brief summary of notable changes before the table. Frickeg (talk) 07:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. A third table should be established showing the third arrangement, with the other two sections renamed as First arrangement, Second arrangement, etc. Rangasyd (talk) 09:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, as it was not a reconstitution. The ministry continues with two resignations from the ministry, one appointment and one promotion from the outer ministry, and two appointments to the outer ministry. By reshuffle standards, that isn't terribly significant. Critically, unlike the December changes, no changes were made to the order of the ministry (even Brendan O'Connor didn't change, as he was previously the highest-ordered outer cabinet member). The main reason for changing the tables would be a change in the order, as there would be no way of correctly displaying both at the same time without having two tables, but it's unnecessary in this case, and also people viewing the table would have to do quite a bit of work to determine the effect of the reshuffle. I do actually want to revisit the old ministries once I get the time to do so. Orderinchaos 12:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

What defines a reconstitution, though? To my mind this was a fairly significant reshuffle, even if order wasn't necessarily changed. If we are going to have these subheadings we need to be consistent about it; I find it rather odd seeing Bob Carr listed under a heading that says "December 2011 reshuffle"; if we keep this heading the same we'll need a new name for that. The explanatory notes at the start would deal with people wanting to know the effect of the reshuffle. These kinds of pages are pretty inconsistent at the moment and it would be great to get some solid guidelines along which to organise them. Frickeg (talk) 23:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The headings aren't very reliable and probably need to be rethought - the problem is officialdom hasn't actually given us a non-OR name to use. There are two types of reshuffles. One is called a reconstitution, and that is where the order is abolished and reinstated. The other has no particular name and is just an alteration - usually when someone leaves and someone else is appointed in their place, or whatever. With suggestions of "significance" I think we risk falling foul of WP:RECENT - we would need like 7 or 8 tables for some of the Fraser ministries on this basis once those are gotten onto if we do a new table for every ministerial change. Orderinchaos 10:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with this. I don't think we should measure whether a reshuffle happened by whether the full ministry resigned and was reappointed. That could happen regardless of the significance of the reshuffle (and by "significance", I mean size, not historical importance). The measure of a reshuffle should be how much change there is. And the changes at the March 2012 reshuffle touched 20 ministers and parliamentary secretaries. Dividing the information into two lists would be much simpler than having a one chunk of names with either "from 5 March 2012" or "until 5 March" and another chunk of names with either of those after their portfolios. -Rrius (talk) 23:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I am going to make the change. Three people supported it, and one opposed it. The reshuffle was important both in terms of its cause and effect. It was caused by a significant event, the 2012 spill, and it resulted in 11 ministerial revocations and 12 appointments, and two new Executive Councillors were sworn. Also, despite what the table says, the 2 March resignations were announcements, and the ministers involved actually left post on 5 March. -Rrius (talk) 03:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh look, another reshuffle.

Yay, more work. [1]Dengero (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Wow, very out of date—Rudd and McClelland still listed as ministers. I will work on it now... --Canley (talk) 01:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

No, whoops, didn't see the reconstituted version lower down... --Canley (talk) 01:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Parliament House have updated the Current Ministry List on their website, I have re-ordered this list based on that one + I had left out Mark Dreyfus! Be warned: there are some errors in the "official" list however (as of 6 February): the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship is not listed and there are two Parliamentary Secretaries for Trade listed. The PDF attachment seems to be correct, so I used that where there seemed to be an error in the web page. --Canley (talk) 22:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Second Gillard Ministry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100922052909/http://www.aph.gov.au/Library/parl/43/ministry/ministry.htm to http://www.aph.gov.au/Library/parl/43/ministry/ministry.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:32, 13 July 2016 (UTC)