Talk:First Turnbull ministry

Is the Turnbull cabinet majority Moderate or Conservative?

I wanted to do some freehand math to see if the cabinet had changed from majority Conservative to majority Moderate, to the best of my knowledge. Please feel free to correct mistakes etc (cabinet has been expanded from 19 to 21). Ten Mods: Turnbull, Bishop, Brandis, Pyne, Payne, Ley, Birmingham, O'Dwyer, Hunt, Frydenberg. Eleven Cons: Truss, Cormann, Morrison, Joyce, Scullion, Cash, Porter, Robb, Dutton, Fifield, Sinodinos. If I have them all correct, what an interesting Liberal cabinet, it has the smallest of Con majorities... one! If true, methinks it's very unlikely to be a co-incidence. He needs to keep the dominant Cons happy. Timeshift (talk) 08:41, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not an expert in this matter so feel free to ignore this. However, it's hard for me to see Brandis as a moderate (for instance, he and Abetz seemed very alike in their predispositions). From what I know of Sinodinos, mainly from his TV and radio interviews, is that he always comes across as a moderate. Scullion comes across as fairly moderate for a National, I think. As for the rest of the list, I'm reasonably in agreement with you, although it's not an easy line to draw. Julie Bishop, for instance, could be viewed as a moderate or conservative depending on one's POV, although it appears she and Abbott didn't get long so well, which in itself doesn't necessarily say anything about her political perspective. --Mrodowicz (talk) 08:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I've consulted with what the majority of WP:RS says for the ones I wasn't sure of. Brandis and Bishop are definitely Mod. Sinodinos says he's on the Con wing of the party in a Lateline interview. Scullion I just assumed Con as after-all he's a CLP member but I stand to be corrected. Considering they're all economically dry though, they're certainly wrong about being the "broad church" party. Timeshift (talk) 09:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Without formal factions it can be hard to say. Furthermore, there are so many issues one can base that judgment on eg. climate change (although this not really a L-R or L-C issue), economics, refugees, republic, marriage equality...the list goes on. Then you get some generally hardline conservatives who will take a liberal stance on a particular issue eg. marriage equality. But sounds like you've consulted with those in the know, so perhaps your list is somewhat close to accurate. Nevertheless I would be very much surprised to learn that Sinodinos is a conservative (his closeness to J. Howard, notwithstanding) given that in his many interviews I've heard, he comes across as probably the most 'liberal' of any of his colleagues in the Liberal Party. --Mrodowicz (talk) 09:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

"Turnbull has created a new faction of cranky old white men from the Right who fervently believe in their ideology and who are already agitating".[1] :) Moreover the whole article is a refreshing view (in parts) from a News Ltd piece. No I haven't consulted with anyone. I've just taken what I know and what I don't and confirmed it via WP:RS (Scullion aside per above). I doubt you'll find a member of cabinet where Mod/Con is split anywhere near down the middle in WP:RS. All I see when I search Brandis or Bishop is Mod. No RS call them Con. If you can't find them and want me to show you the WP:RS to back up one or more, let me know. Timeshift (talk) 10:06, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I would't just assume Scullion is a conservative. He's a country Liberal who doesn't fit the mould of the inner city Right-Moderate spectrum. Outwardly he fits the picture of conservative country values. However, he has held some relatively moderate positions on things such as youth allowance reform and other government spending on social issues, which address much of the disadvantage in his electorate. Obviously its more difficult to characterise the spectrum of Liberal political factional views (there is less institutional structure around it than Labor). But Scullion comes a long way from the more purist wet-dry politics of the Sydney-Melbourne establishment. He's probably best thought of as a country independent branded as country liberal. He's politics is more linked to regiounal interests than tribal following so it seems wrong to strait up characterise him as conservative: he will vote against that cause if its not in the interests of his local constituency.--Fincle (talk) 03:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

According to this article, Frydenberg is actually a conservative, but is often mistaken as a moderate due to his support for marriage equality. Timeshift (talk) 09:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Republic/Monarchist divide

I'm interested in how the new 21 member cabinet aligns itself in relation to the republic? According to WP, Republicans are Turnbull, Bishop, Robb, Pyne & Payne. Monarchists are Brandis, Truss, Joyce & Scullion. Does anyone know anything about the rest? --Mrodowicz (talk) 18:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I can't find anything. The closest I came was this. You might need to google search the individual names with "republic" and/or "monarchy" and wade through the results, if you really want to know. Timeshift (talk) 18:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that Timeshift - it's a good starting point --Mrodowicz (talk) 02:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Assistant Ministers: double nomenclature

Turnbull changed the name of Parliamentary Secretaries to Assistant Ministers, because he said that the title was confusing..

Well, that's what he said when announcing the Ministry on Sunday, but at Gov House today they were all officially sworn in as "Parliamentary Secretary for ...". When introducing each new person, Turnbull said they would be "the Parl Sec for XXX, to be known as Assistant Minister for XXX".

So, we're going to have to come to terms with these double titles. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

...really? I'm not sure how going from one to two titles is meant to simplify things. Timeshift (talk) 07:51, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I suspect it's to do with the differing pay rates and perks: if he effectively promoted all of his parliamentary secretaries to a higher status, he'd be risking a serious backlash. So keeping them formally "parliamentary secretaries" but calling them "assistant ministers" allows him to call them the new label without the associated issues. I'm not fussed which we go with here: maybe using the formal title (because that's what'll be in the sources) and noting Turnbull's preferred usage. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

The Ministers of State Act makes a clear distinction between people designated by the GG as Parl Secs, and people not so designated (viz. all other ministers, not just those called Minister for XYZ but also Attorney-General, Cabinet Secretary and Treasurer; also Assistant Treasurer). I'm sure the Remuneration Tribunal determination of salaries and allowances would also use the "Parl sec/others" split. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:16, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

minor Defence ministers

People have done a lot of work on updating ministries and ministers in very short time. Well done and thank you. However I have found a confusing situation. At first I was going to propose an article merge, but that may be too simplistic. The articles in question are:

• Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Australia)
• Minister for Defence Materiel (Australia)
• The title Minister for Defence Materiel and Science which is included in lists in both of those
• Minister for Defence (Australia)#List_of_Assistant_Ministers_for_Defence
• parliamentary secretary to the Minister for Defence

There may be other sets in other portfolio areas where the mix and emphasis of responsibilities changes over time.

Does anyone have suggestions on how these should be merged, split or munged so that people are in exactly one list if they only have one job at the time. Mal Brough is neither the 10th nor 29th Minister for Defence Materiel and Science, but the lists currently suggest he is both. --Scott Davis ^Talk 09:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I really like the approach Siegfried Nugent has been taking with minor ministries in NSW (see Minister for Primary Industries, Lands and Water (New South Wales) for an example). It allows for a logical breakdown of portfolios over time without sprawling articles everywhere every time the leader makes some minor change to the portfolio name, and works well in cases like this where junior portfolios may be merged or held by the same person but may not be at various times. I'd really like to see it rolled out federally too. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

The Honourable

There has been some editing and discussion around whether assistant ministers (Parliamentary Secretaries) are granted the honorific "The Honourable" (I myself removed some last night from Anne Ruston and others while standardising the honorific formatting). Parliamentary secretaries have been granted it as members of the Executive Council, but new appointees such as Wyatt Roy did not appear to have it on the initial ministry list (perhaps because it was issued before they were sworn in?) and the APH biography pages had not (and still have not) been updated. However, the official ministry list on the Parliament website now does list Anne Ruston, Wyatt Roy, Peter Hendy and so on as "The Honourable". --Canley (talk) 11:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

In the initial ministry list released before the swearing in ceremony 'The Hon' did not appear in the names of those who at that point in time were not members of the Federal Executive Council (i.e all those those being appointed to the ministry for the first time). All Ministers, Assistant Ministers, and Parliamentary secretaries are appointed to the Executive Council and thus are entitled to the Honourable honorific after their swearing in. 203.110.146.116 (talk) ~ —Preceding undated comment added 17:01, 23 September 2015 (UTC)