Talk:Division of Groom

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

Australia: Queensland / Politics Low‑importance

	Australia portal Division of Groom 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.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Queensland (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Queensland.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Eh? Cattle rights?

Do they vote? LessHeard vanU 21:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

McVeigh should not be noted as a Morrison minister

I made an edit removing the note that McVeigh was a minister under Morrison only to be put back by Thescrubbythug. I undo what he had done with the following edit summary: "Reasoning rejected. It is the same reasoning I made with Julie Bishop on the Curtin talk page and agreed by Frickeg"

It was only afterwards I realise that the edit summary I wrote looked confusing so I like to clear it up.

I was saying that I had rejected the reasoning given by Thescrubbythug that McVeigh had stayed on as a minister for the first four days of ScoMo's prime ministership.

"The same reasoning" I was referring to was one that I gave about Julie Bishop on Curtin talk page which I reproduce here: "Julie Bishop being a minister under Morrison is only in the technical sense.

When there is a change of prime minister with the same party in power, the new prime minister in the immediate period decide which ministers to keep and which ministers are to go. Also an opportunity for the ministers themselves if they like to stay or to decide to stand down on their own volition. For Bishop she took that time to decide that she didn't want to continue as a minister. Not every minister is able to decide instantaneously to quit when there is a new prime minister as in the case when Kevin Rudd made his comeback in 2013 and the new prime minister has to settle in the job before deciding who he or she wants in his or her ministry. Bishop should not be noted as a Morrison minister as she wasn't one in a real sense and she certainly isn't listed in the Morrison Ministry."

Neither McVeigh nor Bishop are listed in the Morrison Ministry. Leftover ministers under the previous prime minister who were either dropped or chose not to continue under the new prime minister should not be considered as being ministers under this new prime minister in any real sense. 49.3.72.79 (talk) 04:43, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above. Frickeg (talk) 12:55, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]