Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics

Voting Systems

I've noticed a growing inconsistency in how the articles are labelling the preferential voting system when mentioned and especially when abbreviated. For one example the Electoral systems of the Australian states and territories article includes,

'The New South Wales Legislative Assembly has 93 members elected for four-year terms using optional preferential voting, (also known as instant run-off voting).'
'The Victorian Legislative Assembly (lower house) has 88 members elected from single-member constituencies (districts) under the Alternative Vote system of preferential voting.'
'Like New South Wales, Queensland uses the optional preferential form of the Alternative Vote.'
'The 47-member South Australian House of Assembly is elected under the preferential Instant-runoff voting (IRV) system.'

As well as having a table listing the systems all as 'AV', all while election results are listed under headings like 'House of Representatives (IRV) — Turnout 93.21% (CV)'.

I'd suggest, though can't prove that AV is the most foreign term to use in an Australian context, though appreciate the recent UK debate has popularised that description of the system. 'Preferential Voting' is probably the most common term in practice for it, though probably too vague to use. Which probably leaves IRV as the best balance between being accurate and being understood by most readers, helped by the fact a link to 'AV' ends up at the article titled Instant-runoff Voting (though I recognise there's an argument to move that article). That said, that article also cites an AEC document that mentions 'The Alternative Vote is known to Australians as Preferential Voting and to Americans as Instant Runoff Voting.' [1]

Either way, a single consistent term, and ideally not a need to write an AKA message next to every mention of the system, would be better than the current practice. The AEC citation would be a strong argument to standardise behind 'Preferential Voting', 'PV' and 'OPV' - however they aren't specific terms outside of the Australian context. I'd suggest that IRV is slightly more known than AV in the Australian context, and that is used more often in Australian articles than AV is.

Thoughts? --GoForMoe (talk) 16:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

A lot made out of a little. Both are correct. Timeshift (talk) 22:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Both being correct doesn't make using both correct, the point I was making is that at the very least a single consistent term should be used, and the examples cited of one article using a different way of describing the same voting system in each mention is not the best way to give a clear article to readers. --GoForMoe (talk) 13:08, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Part of the problem with "AV" is that it has been used with mixed meanings - Antony Green wrote a number of pieces during the UK referendum and did consistently use it to mean just the optional preferential version [2]. IRV is not entirely accurate - literally the Contingent Vote fits that description more. I think it would be best to use "compulsory preferential voting", "optional preferential voting" and "[whatever term is used for the inbetween version used for the Tasmania LC]" and have links to the IRV article rather than trying to divine the best known alternative term when few other countries use the system. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:18, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree, AV jumps out to me to be referring to what I'd usually call OPV. The VEC uses 'Full Preferential Voting' [3], the QEC calls theirs 'Optional Preferential Voting' [4] as does the NSW EC [5]. The Electoral Council of Australia also follows the Full/Optional preferential descriptions [6]. In fact, the only mention of the term 'Alternative Vote' I can find from one of the Electoral Commissions is buried in a WAEC document [7] in reference to a 1907 act. Likewise, every search for 'compulsory preferences' in relation to the Alternative Vote usually is either actually talking about Australia's compulsory voting or contrasting AV with Full Preferential Voting, making the Antony Green usage of AV in strict reference to the optional preferential form backed up fairly well by overseas usage (dominated by the UK issue), as well as the WA example cited. --GoForMoe (talk) 13:08, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Eden George

As part of my effort to get a decent page up for every Mayor of Christchurch, I have greatly expanded the article for Eden George, who also spent a few years in the New South Wales Legislative Assembly. The article is now a bit out of balance, and his Australian period should be expanded. I don't have the right resources to do this, though. Can somebody from this project help? The article will be heading to DYK soon. Schwede66 20:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Have a look at Trove's archive of newspapers from the period. There's a couple of interesting items regarding his time in Australia there:

• Stood for the Australian Senate (1901)
• Prosecuted for employing a girl without paying wages (1902)
• Sold all his racehorses after 90 races without a win (1902)
• Raised a motion calling for New South Wales to secede from the Commonwealth of Australia (1902)
• Sued for libel by a government official (1903)
• Defects from the Ministerialists over policy reform (1903)
• Lost ₤800 when war broke out while attending his daughter's wedding in Germany (1914)
• Suffered exposure while manning an ambulance in France during World War I (1916)
• Son Leslie killed flying for the air force in England (1918)
• Sued two newspapers for defamation (1926)
• Damages reduced on appeal in defamation case (1927)

--Canley (talk) 00:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Sweet! I tell you what the plan is from here:

1. Eden George meets DYK criteria already, so I'll leave him for the time being.
2. Expand Henry Thomson (New Zealand politician) so that the article also qualifies for DYK.
3. Write article for User:Schwede66/mayors/Aaron Ayers and publish once it meets DYK criteria
4. By Friday evening (NZ time), put triple hook up at DYK (all three mayors contested the Christchurch South electorate in the 1887 election)
5. Bring the latter two mayor articles up to a better standard.
6. And then, if nobody from the Australian politics task force hasn't done it already, work the Australian history into the Eden George article.

I'd be most grateful for others helping with article expansion. DYK credits and kudos are the rewards. I appreciate the above help already. Schwede66 08:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I've made a start on expanding on the Australian part of Eden George, and I'll add more gradually over the next week or so. Interesting guy, seems to have been involved in plenty of libel, defamation and other legal cases, and seems to have constantly made headlines for some reason or other! --Canley (talk) 12:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, an interesting chap. Comes to Christchurch as a rather young man and goes into business with a big bang. He made a name for himself almost immediately and was not shy to put his name forward for Parliament aged 24! Thanks for expanding the article! Schwede66 18:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Notable?

Hi, just noticed that Bjelkemander had been PRODed. Looks like it might be notable to me (like the Playmander, which I had heard of), but this isn't really my area of expertise. Hoping someone who has a good grasp on what makes an Australian political term notable could take a look. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 03:22, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I could put something decent together but definitely don't have the time right now. Offhand, it would need an introduction describing the 1940s Hanson changes to the electoral system which enshrined malapportionment, how they initially worked to Labor's benefit, the impact of the 1957 split, and the series of changes made under Bjelke-Petersen's premiership to the system from 1968 until 1987 and their actual effect upon the vote. (It is a bit of a myth that the system was left unchanged, there were at least three very major changes). The aftermath would be the unwinding of the system under Goss and the EARC, and the enshrinement of one-vote-one-value as a principle. There are at least two books about it and several journal articles. Orderinchaos 05:24, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Surprised to see it PRODed as I had always seen it as one of the most notable voting systems in Oz, at least on par with the Playmander. I'm currently in a different state to my hardcopy resources (and am not going to have a lot of time once I get back) but I can work with someone to put something together. --Roisterer (talk) 04:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Absolute majority of 76 MPs required?

Can someone clarify this for me? Why is an absolute majority of 76 required? What other motions does this extend to? Timeshift (talk) 10:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Section 47 of the Standing and Sessional Orders – Motions for suspension of orders: If a suspension motion is moved without notice it: (i) must be relevant to any business under discussion and seconded; and (ii) can be carried only by an absolute majority of Members. --Canley (talk) 11:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. How does this have ramifications for other types of votes that affect government stability? Timeshift (talk) 11:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Notably, the standing orders defines "absolute majority" as "a majority of the membership of the House (including the Speaker)", hence the requirement for 76 supporting votes, not just a majority. The only other mention in standing orders of an absolute majority is that one is required to agree to a third reading of a bill altering the Constitution. If an absolute majority of the House does not agree, the bill "shall be laid aside immediately and may not be revived during the same session of Parliament." --Canley (talk) 11:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean votes such as censure or no confidence motions? I think standing orders have to be suspended for the Opposition to move those, so I guess that requires an absolute majority as well. Not sure about this though... --Canley (talk) 11:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Fascinating. Would love to hear from someone who might know the answer to that... Timeshift (talk) 21:44, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I've looked into the House practice and procedures a bit more: yes, to raise a motion without notice, the Opposition would need to suspend standing orders. If a motion/amendment of censure or no confidence is raised on notice, it takes precedence over all other business until disposed of by the House. As for why this isn't done, it looks like the motion has to be "approved by a Minister" before it can be included as such on the Notice Paper—which presumably they're not going to do. --Canley (talk) 23:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Is this noteworthy as an addition to Australian House of Representatives? Timeshift (talk) 09:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Tasmanian Legislative Council periodic elections, 2012

I've created this page to fill what is really the only remaining significant void in our coverage of Australian elections at state level. I'd like to go back a few years as well, but first I'd like input into the layout, etc., of these pages, as they're rather unique in Australia. (Incidentally, I would anticipate including by-elections that take place on the same day as the periodic elections within the same page (e.g. Derwent 2011), with a redirect obviously.) Frickeg (talk) 02:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Great work, I was thinking about this myself when I was updating the lists of LC members last week. I think the layout looks fine, as is the inclusion of the elections held on that day. I'll help you out on the redlinks over the next few weeks. --Canley (talk) 03:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of the LC, we have two sets of member lists going at the moment. It seems to me that the ones corresponding to the House terms are the ones to keep; any objections to merging the two lots of lists? Frickeg (talk) 05:16, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

No, not at all, I think I proposed that a few years ago too. The MLCs have six year terms but only two or three of them will correspond to the year in each six-year list! I prefer the ones which match the House terms too. -Canley (talk) 05:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

It's going to be a big job, though, since the six-year ones go all the way back to 1856. I might try and make a start this weekend. Frickeg (talk) 02:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's probably why I proposed it and then didn't do it! Saw how many there were... --Canley (talk) 03:25, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be easier just to flesh out each seat's page with the history of results rather than yearly articles? Perhaps then breaking out into specific articles where there's enough content or a milestone that would make a particular election notable and sources for detail on the candidates. --GoForMoe (talk) 03:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'd say in the long term we should do that too. While initially it might seem like duplication, the fully expanded articles (should we ever get there) would be quite different. The election articles would focus on the electoral situation as a whole (and would eventually involve background too; so the 2012 one would talk about the Labor government's current troubles, and the statewide issues at the time). It's much the same reason we have by-election articles. Frickeg (talk) 09:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Downer move request

Can I suggest Alexander Downer, Sr. be moved to Alec Downer? He's generally known by the latter. Frickeg (talk) 08:49, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd always seen him referred to as Alexander but happy to have him moved to Alec. --Roisterer (talk) 04:07, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Craig Thomson affair

Could I ask for some attention on the Craig Thomson affair article, please? There's some really uncivil behaviour there, and I'm particularly concerned at allegations being thrown around, such as that Craig Thomson himself is editing the article. Removal of well-sourced material (described in edit summary as vandalism) Is a worry. I'm going to be requesting admin intervention if this sort of thing keeps up, but I'd like some editors familiar with the subject to look over what's going on first. --Pete (talk) 17:14, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't think Craig Thomson is editing the article. But it is being edited by someone who has no idea what discussion and seeking consensus means - You! Your approach appears to be - Tell people what you think on the Talk page, then change the article. What others say on the Talk page makes absolutely no difference to what you do. That's where the real problem lies. Your behaviour is identical to that of those desperate to get rid of the Labor government, and willing to do almost anything to achieve that goal. One thing I asked you to do last night was to pause, wait, and think about things for at least a short while. You didn't. Can you? HiLo48 (talk) 20:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Done nothing but, HiLo. Looking at the article, I'm on my way to calling for an RfC, but i thought I'd stop by here first. Looking at this diff, we've got some slo-mo edit warring going on, and rather than continue that sort of thing, I want to open it up. The statement in question alleges that the HSU union membership called for an inquiry into the finances of the Victorian No. 4 branch, which is supposedly supported by an article in The Age. But if we look at the source, we find this:

HSU Victoria No. 4 branch represents medical scientists, hospital pharmacists and psychologists.

The branch's petition of 268 members in June 2009 followed an April call the same year for a full investigation of the national union's financial administration between 2002 and 2007, the period when Mr Thomson was federal secretary.

However in a response that stunned Dr Kelly's branch, Fair Work official Terry Nassios said that as the national union did not itself have members, it was only treated as a union branch for the purposes of financial reporting.

It's the branch calling for an investigation of the national union, not the other way around! Would anybody like to take a look at it? --Pete (talk) 06:16, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Legislative Assembly of Queensland

Is the proper name the Queensland Legislative Assembly or the Legislative Assembly of Queensland? Currently the main page and the one for the Speaker are at the latter, with all the members pages at the former. After a brief look around the Parliament website it seems to use them interchangeably. What's the official name? Frickeg (talk) 04:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

A quick search of officialdom seems to suggest QLA - most notably the titles of the Hansards, NLA author record and APH. Orderinchaos 10:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)