Talk:Julia Gillard

---

NPOV WP:Weight mass-purge

A significant portion of the article was reverted to remove information relating to youth scholarships. As Julia Gillard is the Minister for Education and conducting the most significant change to youth allowance in a number of decades it is relevant, and I can see no clear NPOV or WP:Weight issue. If the editor would like to provide more information on their conclusion, that would be conducive to discussion Rotovia (talk) 00:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

From the article:

Gillard expressed her exasperation with the leading Right figures backing Kim Beazley's leadership bid, claiming that they were using the media to undermine her [1].

Unfortunately, there's nothing at that link, due to the fact that News Limited doesn't keep it's articles free for too long. Is there an alternate link to support this?

This is weird!

The photograph is flipped. This is unprofessional and obvious. The photograph can be used on the LEFT side of the article in such cases so that the subject is looking into the article. --Jumbo 06:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The image does not look right when it's flipped. I've previously mentioned this on the image's talk page. - Ivan K

motherhood career as a top-ranking politician incompatible

yeah, that source does not say that, so either fix the source or leave it out (BLP)... Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 12:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• That misquote has been in the article long before I ever looked at it.... --Peta 13:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

This interview gives a pretty good summary of her personal life and background if anyone is interested in fleshing things out a bit more; I'm certainly not. --Peta 13:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• • (edit conflict) - Why did you restore it then? I'm happy for it to be there if it's legit, but it seems like a pretty controversial statement for anyone to make, let alone such a high ranking woman. I'll put the reference to the relationship becoming public back in, didn't realise I got rid of it, sorry. WikiTownsvillian 13:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Many people have heard about the Bulletin interview, I assumed that the person who added it had cited it at least vaguely correctly; even if she insists that it's a misquote (as she does in the McCrossin article from April - and the version in this article certainly was) she did say

If Peter Costello genuinely thought about it, could he be the mother of three children, have been treasurer for more than a decade and be the next in line to be prime minister? Could John Howard have been a mother to his children, as opposed to a father, and be in the position the is in today? The frank answer is no. Julia Gillard, The Bulletin, 23 January 2007. --Peta 13:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• • • • Fair enough, lets add it to the article, although probably not in the personal section, it's a bit more significant than personal life when she's commenting on women in Australian politics, maybe it could be a section of it's own and we can also move the barren comments there? WikiTownsvillian 13:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Not Deputy Prime Minister Yet

She is not the Deputy Prime Minister yet until Kevin Rudd is sworn in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.233.86 (talk) 11:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Quite right.--RoryReloaded (talk) 07:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

"As a consequence of the Labor Party's victory [...] Julia Gillard became Deputy Prime Minister-elect"

There's apparently been a bit of a tussle over calling Kevin Rudd Prime Minister-elect. While PM-elect seems reasonably well-established, Deputy-PM-elect seems to be an awkward attempt to sound encyclopedic. I won't touch it, since it caused so much heat elsewhere, but wouldn't "Julia Gillard will become Deputy Prime Minister" sound better? -- PaulxSA (talk) 22:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Title and swearing in

She was sworn in this morning by the Governor-General as a Federal Executive Councillor. This confers her the title of "The Honourable". She was subsequently sworn in as a Minister of the Crown with additional responsibility as Deputy Prime Minister. 203.7.140.3 00:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Affirmation

Whether people being sworn in to federal office swear an oath or make an affirmation is entirely their choice [2]. It's absolutely non-controversial (except maybe for those folk who see a crown portfolio being somehow connected with God, possibly stemming from the Queen being Supreme Governor of the Church of England). I really see no point in mentioning that she made an affirmation. It's factual, but lots of people do this. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Two third of the ministers made an affirmation, so it is common. It is, however, also notable to non-Australians who don't realise how much of a non-issue religion is in Australian politics. Sad mouse (talk) 03:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. However, mentioning that any particular person - whether it be Julia Gillard or anyone else - took an affirmation almost suggests they're doing something out of the ordinary. Information about the relative proportions of ministers who choose oaths vs. affirmations might be suitable for Government of Australia or Cabinet of Australia. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Acting Prime Minister

From time to time, she will act as PM, as all deputies do. The present occasion is noteworthy, being the first time a woman has ever been acting PM in Australia; but future such occasions won't be notable. Altering the lead to call her the Acting PM etc is silly. We should make note of this in the body of the article, and perhaps a mention within the lead para, but not by going so far as to start off with titling her "Acting Prime Minister", which is a very temporary designation. Her principal and ongoing title is "Deputy Prime Minister" and Minister for X, Y and Z. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

She has now been Acting PM a lot. I have updated the article so it doesn't sound like she has been Acting PM for three days only. --Surturz (talk) 05:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The length of time she is acting PM is relevant to her bio as she continues to be touted as prospective replacement PM, and given the months she has spent in this role while PM Rudd has been overseas, during which several local political crises have occurred, her performance as A/PM is in the public interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.78.176.108 (talk) 01:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. Acting PM says/means nothing really. Timeshift (talk) 01:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Cf. Tim Fischer, John Anderson and Mark Vaile, all of whom acted for Howard at various times. We make no mention at all of these acting periods in their articles. Granted, there was - and is - nothing specially noteworthy about a deputy acting for the PM from time to time. That, after all, is what a deputy does. The only thing that sets Gillard apart from her predecessors is her sex. She was the first female to be appointed deputy PM, and the first female to act as PM. But once we cover those things they're done deals, and we don't need to keep on making the same point. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

British nationality

Someone's just added British to her nationality, which makes it look as if she's a dual national. I rather doubt that. The Heather Hill and other cases show conclusively that Britain is a foreign power for constitutional purposes, and members/senators have to demonstrate that they took all reasonable steps to renounce their former citizenship (which is just not possible in some cases, but the UK is not one of them). I appreciate that nationality and citizenship are different concepts, but Gillard migrated here at a young age and we'd need some proof that she still regards herself as a British national as well as an Australian national, particularly as she's the Deputy PM of Australia. Any objections to this being removed? -- JackofOz (talk) 02:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I would add, that in terms of British or Australian law, the terms "nationality" and "citizenship" are identical in meaning. Post Sue v Hill, I am sure she would have had to renounce her citizenship to be elected to Parliament. Thus, having renounced her British citizenship, she would no longer legally be a British national. Admittedly, there is a difference between "nationality" in terms of the law, and "nationality" in terms of identity. However, that distinction is not captured by the "nationality" vs. "citizenship". So, the claim should be removed. (Personally, as a dual Australian-British national who has no intention of renouncing either citizenship -- but then, I have no parliamentary intentions either -- I think Sue v Hill was a very stupid decision.) --SJK (talk) 11:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

However, by your standards, all MPs can be Australian and nothing else. And I don't think that's fair. Timeshift (talk) 15:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not my standards, its the standards of the High Court's interpretation of the Australian Constitution. As I have said, I think the High Court's interpretation is dumb. But, the law is the law, however dumb we may think it is. --SJK (talk) 06:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Would you have the same opinion if, rather than being born a Briton, Hill had been born a German or a Japanese, and the case occurred in 1942, say, rather than the 1990s? The fact that we're never going to go to war with Britain doesn't alter the basic principle involved: those who make our laws should have allegiance to one and only one country, Australia. If their country of birth simply won't let them renounce their citizenship/nationality, there's nothing anyone can do about that. But if they've done all they can within the limits of that country's law, that's all they can reasonably do, and they shouldn't be debarred from our Parliament in such cases. The issue with Hill was that she had never made any attempt to renounce her British citizenship. As soon as it became a problem, she wasted no time, so it was obvious that the reason she kept it for so long never had anything to do with some deep principle - but she did it too late to avoid being chucked out of the Senate. She could have avoided the whole problem by attending to the matter a little earlier than she did. But of course she didn't have the benefit of the High Court judgment at that stage. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Gillard can not be British - the Constitution of Australia does not follow any Member of Parliament to have dual citizenship. Gillard must had renounced her British Citizenship before she entered Parliament in 1998. According to Section 1, Part IV, 43-44 of the Constitution, 'A member of either House of the Parliament shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a member of the other House. Any person who 'Is under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or citizen of a foreign power;' [3] Scanorama (talk) 13:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that's the point of the argument, though. If someone were to come up with some evidence that she still has British citizenship, and she'd never made any attempt to divest herself of it, she'd be in exactly the same position as Heather Hill was. After Hill started serving in the Senatebecame a Senator-elect, it was discovered she was still a British citizen, and the High Court made it quite clear that the UK is just as much a foreign power as Mongolia or Uruguay are, so her election was deemed invalid and out she wentshe never became a Senator. You can't say that just because being under allegiance to a foreign power is not permitted under the Constitution, it's not possible for such a person to be elected. It is possible, as the Heather Hill case showed. Your argument is akin to saying that because murder is outlawed, it's not possible for anyone to murder anyone else. We all know that's not true. If Chris Watson were around today, he'd never have got to be Prime Minister or even an MP, unless he took steps to acquire Australian citizenship before being elected to parliament, because he was born to German parents in Chile. There are still doubts about King O'Malley being a British subject; he claimed to have been born in Canada, but there's evidence it actually happened on the US side of the border. He'd have some trouble today too. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Given her citizenship status affects her ability to hold her job, I think saying she is British without some fairly credible references is a WP:BLP violation. --Surturz (talk) 00:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I said at the start, just not so consisely. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

@JackofOz: in regards to your comment "Would you have the same opinion if, rather than being born a Briton, Hill had been born a German or a Japanese, and the case occurred in 1942, say, rather than the 1990s?". I would have no inherent problem with a dual German-Australian or dual Japanese-Australian citizen being an MP during the Second World War. Because, first of all, there is no reason why e.g. a German citizen could not support the Allies in the Second World War, due to opposition to Nazism. And, even if they hypothetically, a German-Australian MP supported the Axis side, you could then justify removing them from Parliament on the basis of their views, not their citizenship. Or, if we consider it undemocratic or illiberal to remove MPs on the basis of their views: we could simply either (1) let them remain an MP, but exclude them from any meetings of Parliament where war secrets were discussed, or (2) even allow them access to war secrets, but keep them under sufficient surveillance or restrictions to prevent them from conveying those secrets to the public or enemy agents. An important rule in war and intelligence, is that its not the people you suspect who are the problem, its the people you don't. A dual citizen MP would be such an obvious target of suspicion as to be harmless. --SJK (talk) 08:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh boy! Deciding which meetings/documents an MP should have access to based on their dual citizenship raises all sorts of other problems. That would really be the thin edge of the wedge. We'd have 1st class MPs, 2nd class MPs, and so on. And that discrimination would be quickly emulated out there in electorate land because it would now have official sanction. It would certainly breach all sorts of general anti-discrimination laws and I'd be extremely surprised if it didn't breach some rules about parliamentarians' rights in particular. They (whoever "they" are) couldn't just unilaterally decree that Joe Schmidt MP is now a 2nd class MP. And what if the Prime Minister happened to have dual citizenship that he/she was unable to renounce? All those laws/rules would need to be amended before it ever got off the ground, and the affected parties would have a lot to say about it during the debates. As would their supporters outside parliament, and the civil liberties groups. Even if it were somehow made legal, it would be utterly unworkable in this day and age. To Australia's shame, we interned a large number of Australian citizens (well, they were technically British subjects then, but Australian citizens in principle) who happened to be of German descent. Most of them weren't even dual citizens, but were born here. This happened during both wars. I'm almost sure Japanese-Australians suffered similar fates in WWII. It became generally known about only after the war, and those who were aware of it at the time probably felt it was justified in the circumstances, and it was better to err on the side of national defence even if it meant grossly violating individuals' rights. If we declared war today, though, I can't see a similar internment of Australian citizens happening. And if it did, there'd be a huge outcry. Those episodes were bad enough, but to try to limit the power of the people's own representatives would be asking for trouble. It wouldn't get past first base. The voters know about the backgrounds of their representatives when they elect them, and they give an unconditional "Yes" vote, not a conditional one that only applies while we're not at war. I don't know anything about your age, your background, or where you're from, but I have to say it really surprises me - almost shocks me - to hear such suggestions being made in 2008. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

As interested as I am in this discussion, I do not believe this is the correct venue for it. --Surturz (talk) 03:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Sue v Hill established that for the purposes of standing for Parliament the UK constituted a foreign power and therefore one cannot hold dual British and Australian citizenship, if they wish to be an MP. Julia Gillard therefore cannot be a British dual citizen or she would not be entitled to stand for election Rotovia (talk) 10:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't for a moment believe Julia Gillard owes a skerrick of allegiance to the UK, but Sue v. Hill does not, of itself, say anything about whether Julia Gillard or any other person currently in parliament is complying with or in breach of the law. Sue v. Hill does not physically prevent a person who is a citizen of a foreign power from standing for election or from being elected (just as the law against murder does not physically prevent people from murdering other people). -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 06:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Religion

Can someone provide a source that says Gillard is actually an atheist? I couldn't find anything that says what her religion is. Scanorama (talk) 11:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

While like many Australian MPs it is likely the Deputy Prime Minister is an Atheist, there is no source to confirm this and frankly the question would be considered highly inappropriate in the Australian media Rotovia (talk) 10:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Rotovia, I'm not sure I can agree with you on your contention that many Australian MP's are atheists. I've never done a poll, nor seen a break down or graph but there is a fairly consistent theme of high ranking Australian politicians being involved with churches.--Senor Freebie (talk) 10:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe all but five federal MPs don't attend the parliamentary prayer group - however Rudd is one of the five. Timeshift (talk) 12:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting a majority, nor can I provide a source for the reasons I expressed, but I know anecdotally the number is higher than many would expect. That aside, I don't see any compelling sources to list Julia Gillard's religion Rotovia (talk) 13:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Could it be the Prime Minister is too busy? Could it be that he is of a denomination that does not regard a parliamentary prayer group as useful? Could it be that religion of politicians in Australia is not a noteable issue, but instead a private issue given that it is rarely talked about, asides from the visits to churches?--Senor Freebie (talk) 14:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Highest ranking woman

The article says that at one point she was the highest ranking woman in the Australian Government. The Queen is the highest ranking woman in our government. Perhaps it should say that she was the highest ranking Australian woman in the government (as the Queen is not Australian). Jleonau (talk) 08:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

This is an interesting debate as the Queen is head of state, but not of government, and her position of commander-in-chief and queen of Australia are not government positions. This is further complicated by the fact another woman (Quentin Bryce) holds these positions in the Queen's absence, and that she is a part of Parliament, but again not the government. I certainly don't see any issue, though, with the inclusion of "Australian" Rotovia (talk) 10:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The Commander-in-Chief is the Governor-General, not the Queen (see s.68 of the Constitution). The Queen, and not the Governor-General, is part of the Parliament (s.1). Neither the Queen nor the Governor-General are part of the Government. Julia Gillard is indeed the highest ranking woman ever in any Australian Government. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 06:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

s61 makes the Govenor-General the government and s62 and s64 allow the GG to expand the government to include ministers through the FEC. So the GG is a member of the government. Rotovia (talk) 13:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Excellent parliamentary performer

Gillard has established that she has a reputation as a very good parliamentary performer. Does this rate a mention? This author of this article says that "Her speech on the Victorian fires last week was the best delivered in parliament, bar none". (I'm not sure, but I think he is referring to this speech). --Surturz (talk) 07:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Certainly the article could mention referenced quotes from reputable sources who calim she does hold those qualities, but obviously not in the context of opinion stated as fact Rotovia (talk) 10:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

This article has been vandalised. Is it possible a mod can revert those changes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PharaohKatt (talk • contribs) 13:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Sadly there seems to be fairly persistent vandalism of this article. Perhaps this article should be semi-protected as a number of the edits are by anonymous IP addresses.--Senor Freebie (talk) 10:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

RE: The protected Notice : "Editing of this article by new or unregistered users is currently disabled until June 24, 2010 because the article should remain reasonably stable until after the spill."

Can this be modified? The Labor Party does not have "spills" this is a Liberal Party procedure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.255.231 (talk) 14:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Challenge of Kevin Rudd for Prime Ministership

Julia Gillard is due to challenge Kevin Rudd for leadership of the Labor party, and the role of Prime Minister, June 24th 9am . Watch this space Ern Malleyscrub (talk) 12:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Urgent work required on this article

It's far too short. The personal life is two lines long, for example. Tony (talk) 13:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Who's got access to book or journalistic sources about her life and career? There are going to be a lot of visits very soon. Tony (talk) 15:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

small pickings but

Not vital at all, but some personal details for later...she's been with Mathieson since March 2006 ref is [4] The Herald Sun article "Julia Gillard's man", by Ben Packham, December 2006; and her previous partner was Labor MP Craig Emerson. 110.33.247.71 (talk) 15:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

A note on timing and protocol

If Gillard wins the caucus vote, this would make her leader of the party. She would not become Prime Minister until sworn in by the Governor-General. That could be some hours later. Take care not to preempt events.121.45.199.81 (talk) 16:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a nicety that might be hair-splitting in this very-much summary style. But thanks for pointing this out. Tony (talk) 16:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)