Talk:Tony Abbott

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Politics and Government (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group.
WikiProject Politics (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Australia / Politics (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon Tony Abbott is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics (marked as Top-importance).
Note icon
Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia.
WikiProject University of Oxford (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Oxford, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the University of Oxford on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2014[edit]

The following does not make grammatical sense: "He served as the parliamentary secretary to the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (1996–98), Minister for Employment Services (1998–2001)..." Please change "He served as the parliamentary secretary to the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (1996–98), Minister for Employment Services (1998–2001)" to "He served as the parliamentary secretary to the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (1996–98), before being promoted to Minister for Employment Services (1998–2001), and subsequently served as..."

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: My understanding of British politics is mostly based on watching Yes, Minister, but I'm pretty sure that a parliamentary secretary doesn't get promoted to Minister. :) The current text doesn't seem confusing to me, and I read it to mean: "He served as the parliamentary secretary to several Ministers: the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (1996–98), the Minister for Employment Services (1998–2001)..." If you'd like to reword it more explicitly, please reopen this request. Thanks, Older and ... well older (talk) 19:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

"My understanding of British politics" is not totally relevant to Australian Politics. (talk) 03:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Scottish independence[edit]

Just wondered if it was worth mentioning something about this, perhaps as part of a wider international relations section. Abbott's comments on the forthcoming independence vote have been widely reported in both the UK and Australian media, and the BBC's Phil Mercer makes some interesting observations that could be worth noting here or in a related article. Any thoughts? This is Paul (talk) 12:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Like the Hockey comments on poor people and cars, and the Brandis comments on abortion and breast cancer, this just adds to the list of gaffes that make Abbott and friends look like the second President Bush and friends, but each on it own will ultimately be regarded as pretty trivial. I think WP:10YT tells us not to mention it. HiLo48 (talk) 19:27, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I think there should be a foreign policy section and it could be mentioned there. Commenting on the internal affairs of another country, particularly a close ally, is a major breach of diplomacy. There are sections, Charles de Gaulle#Vive le Québec libre! and Ségolène Royal#Canada: Support for the Quebec independence movement about French politicians who commented on Quebec independence. While one should not guess the future, expect further coverage of this story. TFD (talk) 19:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree that there should be a brief mention of this issue. The problem is, there are so many issues with Abbott, one has to prevent a laundry list of issues, while ensuring comprehensive coverage. A tricky feat. Gotta hand it to Abbott, he's good at creating headlines. For better or worse. But i'm sure he thinks he and his govt are going "just dandy". Timeshift (talk) 21:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, Abbott does it all the time. His instantaneous and widely reported declaration that pro-Russian separatists shot down MH17, so it's all Putin's doing, long before any certainty existed (in fact there's still none!) was another example. He's a shoot-from-the-hip kind of guy. Do we report all of the details? HiLo48 (talk) 21:56, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
No blanket yes, no blanket no. There should be something, but in what form and length/detail. He certainly doesn't make it easy for us. Timeshift (talk) 22:09, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


The top of the article defines his mother as "australian" and his father as "English-born", referring to someone as "English-born" generally means their ancestry isn't English, which is false in this instance as his father was born in England to two English parents, the "-born", needs to be erased. Stating an "Australian" mother doesn't say much about her ancestry or appearance, the article does however go into detail of his maternal ancestry as his first ancestors to arrive in Australia, but i think the article should refer to his Mother as a European Australian as it does in the article of Penny Wong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Reading the first section does put this into context. His father was born in England but emigrated to Australia. Perhaps there is a better way of saying it. This is Paul (talk) 20:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
How about "Abbott was born in London, England, to an Australian mother and English father, and emigrated to Sydney with his parents in 1960." This is Paul (talk) 21:02, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Yep. HiLo48 (talk) 21:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Not an Australian?[edit]

Just wondering if anyone is game to tackle the recently resurfaced issue of Abbott's citizenship where some researchers are claiming he never renounced his British citizenship prior to standing for office in 1994. This would make his election to the highest office null and void. One thing is for certain, British Government have not furnished his renouncement document, suggesting it does not exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Where did this issue surface? Sourcing is critical. And no, I won't play that game. I don't want to look like those Birther idiots in the USA. HiLo48 (talk) 11:42, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
It's alive and well on Facebook. I've explained to some people that there is no evidence Abbott is in breach of his constitutional requirements, and invited them to focus on stuff he actually has done wrong (of which there is no shortage), but they're quite happy to ignore that and judge him guilty till proven innocent. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 12:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Facebook, lol. IP conspiracy theorists, lol. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 08:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
It made The Guardian, 9 September. That story trivialises the issue, but some of the commenters insist that it be taken seriously. If Abbott has not renounced his British Citizenship, which he had through his British-born father and his own birth in Britain, he has never been qualified to be a member of the Australian federal parliament: Constitution section 44(i). (Or at least not since 1999, when the High Court in Sue v Hill defined "foreign power" to include Britain.) In addition, at every election he must have signed a declaration on the nomination paper that he is not disqualified by Constitution section 44. If that declaration was false, he will have committed a serious criminal offence, which itself would disqualify him: Constitution section 44(ii). Wikiain (talk) 23:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Your first two sentences are true. The rest is speculation. We don't do that here. Please take it elsewhere. HiLo48 (talk) 00:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
(e/c) That's all true, but where is the evidence he has failed to meet any of these requirements? Answer: There is none. Abbott has denied there's any problem, and that ought to be the end of it. Regardless of how much he may be disliked and people may wish him got rid of, he should not be exposed to this sort of misguided and wrong-headed witchhunt, and WP should not be a party to it either. If these critics were on the receiving end of a "you're guilty until you can prove yourself innocent" charge, they'd be howling "injustice" long and loud to every court in the land. If a serious question or doubt about Abbott's eligibility ever gets raised in a serious forum (like the Parliament of Australia, for example), then we should report it. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 00:12, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
My basic point was factual, hence appropriate for WP: to confirm that the story has indeed "resurfaced", in that it has been reported in The Guardian. Effectively the same story had appeared in Channel 9 News, 2 September. A petition for Abbott to publish his renunciation document has reached 12,000 signatures. So I think this is something for WP to pay attention to.
I have then identified the issues that are involved in the speculations that have surfaced. I am trying to assist in that direction, especially because some of the speculators are confused about the issues. What I am saying about the law is not drawn from anyone else but has been carefully checked. The speculations, so far as they are accurately aimed, are as to whether Abbott has breached the law in these ways. To note this is not to be a party to the speculations.
Since my previous contribution, I have seen the 9 News story, which quotes a response from Abbott's office:
Ninemsn contacted the Prime Minister's Office and the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet seeking confirmation that Mr Abbott has renounced his British Citizenship and were informed: "The Prime Minister is an Australian citizen and does not hold citizenship of any other country."
The Guardian's story, although drawing on and linking to the 9 News story, muddies the waters by stating superficially: "The prime minister’s office has dismissed Magrathea’s claims outright." But the response to 9 News is perfectly clear. Anyone who wants to pursue this should also look at the documents on Magrathea’s website, linked to in the 9 News story.
However, I don't think that this is down on the same level as the Obama 'birther' stuff. The 'birther' allegation was made with no evidence. The Abbott situation is pretty well the reverse. It begins with evidence that he was not eligible for election: that is, at birth he had British nationality. He has then been asked whether he has renounced it, which given his office is a reasonable question. He has answered the question and I agree, Jack, that he is entitled to be believed.
As to questions in Parliament, I suspect that the major parties have a "glass houses" understanding on the dual citizenship issue. As Eric Abetz seems to have found, it can sometimes be difficult to work out one's situation. But PUP and the Independent senators aren't playing by the conventions. Wikiain (talk) 01:38, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not do beatups and does not start conspiracy theories. Please stop using this talk page as a WP:SOAPBOX. Johnuniq (talk) 01:45, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Johnuniq, while I think that your comment applies to the original contributor here, I deny that it is applicable to me - there's nothing for me to "stop". The point that I am addressing, and which I think was a part of what the original contributor referred to when saying "resurfaced", is whether there is a soapbox out there in public discussion that has become so prominent that WP should mention it. For comparison, the "birther" controversy is ignored in Barack Obama but has its own article. I hope to have assisted discussion of whether the Abbott speculation ought to be mentioned in WP. I think I have stated plainly a view that, for the time being, it should be ignored. However, as Jack says, if it were to become prominent in some public forum such as the Commonwealth Parliament, the question should be reconsidered.
I'll add now that the original contributor (please sign your posts!) provides a good example of poor speculation when asserting: "One thing is for certain, British Government have not furnished his renouncement document, suggesting it does not exist." That is not only illogical but also factually incorrect, as can be seen in the letter that the British sent to Magrathea. On the other hand, the letter to Magrathea from Abbott's office confirms the existence of a renunciation document - it simply denies access to the document, within the ordinary statutory exception of personal information. Wikiain (talk) 02:39, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
You are giving air to political bullshit. Please don't. HiLo48 (talk) 03:58, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Didn't we discuss this already back in 2011? [1] --Surturz (talk) 04:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Did Abbott ever claim UK citizenship? His mother was an Australian, and if he returned to Aus. on her passport as a minor (most likely) then he is automatically an Aus. citizen. UK citizenship would not be granted unless it was actively sought. (talk) 07:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Tony Abbott's parents did not register him as an Australian infant born overseas or apply for Australian citizenship on his behalf when he was born. Twenty one years after immigrating to Australia, Abbott applied for his Australian citizenship in a document dated 19 June 1981. The application was marked urgent because he had been awarded a Rhodes Scholarship and was scheduled to leave for Queens College on 10 July 1981. It was approved on 1 July 1981.
This case is a little different from the Obama Birther conspiracy theory. Abbott was a 24 year old British citizen and staunch monarchist who had lived in Australia for 21 years and who did not initially want to be an Australian citizen. He only became an Australian citizen for monetary gain. An application for a confirmation of Abbott's renunciation of British citizenship under FOI was made to the British government by Tony Magrathea which turned up nothing and another application (not by Magrathea) on 18 September 2014 was made to the Department of the [Australian] Prime Minister and Cabinet. The reply was that all locations where "documents potentially relevant to the applicant's request would be held" were searched and that "no relevant documents were found." When asked, Abbott's secretary simply stated that he had renounced his British citizenship, however, she did not say when and therein lies the problem. If he renounced it before 1994 then there is no problem, but that then begs the question of why he refuses to confirm it. If he renounced it after 1994 then under Section 46 of the Constitution he must pay a fine of $200 per sitting day of Parliament up to the date that he did renounce his British citizenship which would be around $14,000 per year. Considering Abbott's behaviour over the $60,000 "gift", the fine would be enough incentive for him to keep quiet. Only if Abbott had never renounced his citizenship would he have to stand down. Being a Constitutional issue this is held as very serious in Australia. In 1996, Jackie Kelly was forced to stand down after being found to have been elected holding both Australian and New Zealand citizenship and Senator (he who must not be named) Eric Abetz was caught out having dual Australian/German citizenship in 2010. Both these politicians have this mentioned in their Wikipedia articles and as questions surrounding Abbott's citizenship have been mentioned in the mainstream media for at least eight months now I feel that at least a mention of a few sentences should be made in this article. Wayne (talk) 03:46, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Defamation case[edit]

There appears to be no mention of the successful defamation case Abbott and Peter Costello brought against Bob Ellis. I think it should be mentioned. For one, he made quite a bit of money from it, which I assume would be a significant amount of his income/wealth, but more importantly, it gives some light on Abbott's ideas regarding free speech. - (talk) 08:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Can you present more details of the story, or better yet, since all our content needs to be cited to [[WP:RS}reliable sources]], a link to just such a source which tells the story? HiLo48 (talk)
Here is some information. Basically, Bob Ellis published a book! which contained a single sentence where he quoted someone who claimed Tony Abbott, Peter Costello and their future wives were involved in something. Abbott et al sued, and a judge found the sentence was defamatory, awarding them $277,000 and having all copies of the book destroyed. - (talk),
That was quick. Thanks. Interesting story. Not sure if it belongs. I'll think about it. This is a pretty well watched article. Just wait a day or two I'm sure others will have opinions. HiLo48 (talk) 10:33, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's it. The story was published prior to the 2006 laws on defamation. Hints of sexual misconduct guaranteed a win. Even if the statements were true, and made in the political area, the defendant lost. Post-2006, stating the truth is an absolute defense, in any state. Essentially, the Vic laws and precedence relating to defamation were adopted by the other states. (talk) 07:14, 7 October 2014 (UTC)