Talk:2013 Australian federal election/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Centre-Left vs Centre-Right?

Very few, if any, policies adopted under the Gillard government are centre-left. This isn't supposed to be a criticism of her policies because whether or not it is correct to be left or right wing is a matter of opinion. However, the matter of whether someone is left-wing isn't. Can this reference to "centre-left" be removed from the lead? It would probably be more controversial to say that it is a "centre-right minority government" versus a "right-win opposition coalition." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vision Insider (talk • contribs) 01:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Copy pasta

Here is the previous 2010 election article before the election was announced. It could be a bit of a template. --Surturz (talk) 11:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Hung Parliament section

I hope everyone agrees this is a useful addition. I have used a "blog" entry from Antony Green's election blog. I would argue that this is equivalent to a WP:RS as it is well researched, factual and is not an opinion piece. --Surturz (talk) 12:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Leaders

This discussion has been hidden for space reasons. Click show to view

I dont think that the leaders (names and photos) should be included in the infobox until such time as the next campaign commences. Else we're crystal balling. Opinions? –Moondyne 15:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Who are you kidding?! Timeshift (talk) 21:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC) I agree with Moondyne that it is crystal balling. We can wait for a while before mentioning leaders. Barrylb (talk) 23:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC) We've always put the current leaders up for the next election. It is all the more important now considering how potentially fragile the current makeup of parliament is. Timeshift (talk) 23:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC) If true, that's a poor argument. –Moondyne 00:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC) For much of the time the current election article was named Next Australian federal election, and it looked something like this[1], which is better, IMHO. You changed it here[2], without discussion as far as I can see. –Moondyne 00:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Hardly WP:CRYSTAL. Both leaders have been recently re-elected by their respective parties. The wonderful thing about wikipedia is that if the leaders change, we can change the photos! How about that! Awesome, eh? --Surturz (talk) 23:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Are you prepared to make a statement like the following in the lead paragraph: The opposition centre-right Liberal/National Coalition led by Opposition Leader Tony Abbott will be the main challenger to the incumbent centre-left minority Australian Labor Party led by Prime Minister Julia Gillard. -- Barrylb (talk) 00:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Why do you want to make original research stagements with such words as "will"? All we do is like we did after 2007 and state the facts. Who the current leaders are, what the parties won at the last election, various dates, etc. AND not to mention I believe other countries also have their current leaders pictures up in an infobox for the next election like we do/did. Timeshift (talk) 00:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC) One interpretation of the infobox is just as I wrote. It looks to be saying who "will" be contesting the election. Being so prominent on the page, the infobox screams out to me "this is a contest between these two people". If people want to know the current leaders of political parties they can find that on other pages. -- Barrylb (talk) 02:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC) It's who would contest it if it were held at this point in time. It's the way it's been done for a long time, other countries do it for their next pages do. As it is the status quo here on Australian election articles for federal and state next elections, only a new WP:CONSENSUS could see the infobox with pictures removed... and there is too much opposition for it's removal it seems. Timeshift (talk) 02:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC) The article is about an event which is potentially 3 years away. How can we say who the leaders will be at that time? Remember that this is an encyclopaedia and should only be recording event son the public record. When we start talking about future events weneed to be more circumspect. I'm waiting for a good argument why they should be so prominent in this article. –Moondyne 00:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC) See above. Timeshift (talk) 00:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC) If we break this right down, we can never say with 100% certainty who're going to be the leaders on election day. Not even a week before polling day; because heart attacks, fallings under buses, assassinations etc can and do happen. Unlikely, but possible. The closer we get to the day, the more likely it becomes that the current leaders will still be the leaders, that's the best we can ever say. Anyone with half a brain realises this, and knows there's always an implied assumption about these sorts of future-focussed statements. Who would be willing to wager $1000 that Gillard and Abbott will both be leaders of their respective parties in 2013? Not that many people, I suspect. But that doesn't stop us saying the current leaders are assumed to be the ones who'll be in charge next time around. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 02:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC) I suspect the real issue here is that one of the dissenting editors dislikes the two-party emphasis of the infobox. Given the current state of the parliament, I am forced to admit that it is a valid concern. However, I very much doubt that we are going to see a minor party Prime Minister any time soon. As such I would support the inclusion of photos of the other party leaders (e.g. Bob Brown) in the body of the article. Perhaps in the hung parliament section. --Surturz (talk) 02:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC) There is never 100% certainty about leaders but the infobox essentially portrays certainty. We are too far away from the election for it to be credible. I am asking for us to "wait a bit". Yes that is subjective but so is putting up the infobox, for the reasons just stated. Incidentally I just noticed that the lead paragraph at Next Western Australian state election says "The incumbent centre-right Liberal minority government, currently led by Premier Colin Barnett, will be challenged by the opposition centre-left Australian Labor Party (ALP), currently led by Opposition Leader Eric Ripper." and no infobox so we have some inconsistencies between articles here. Barrylb (talk) 02:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC) I tend to agree that it does tend towards WP:CRYSTAL given how far off the election is (potentially) and how volatile the leaderships of Prime Minister and Opposition Leader in Australia can be mid-term. You only need to look at the number of leadership changes to the Coalition in recent years to see that who the leaders will be at the next election (whenever it is) is now uncertain. Certainly, when by the time an election is called, we can be much more certain than we are now. It seems to fall somewhere being reporting on a certain event (an election will happen, similar to the example that we can be reasonably certain that the Olympics will be held in 2012, 2016, 2020, etc.) and reporting speculative facts (like the line up in a sports team for a future game — to borrow examples from WP:CRYSTAL); the leaders at the election fall somewhere in between, as it is not pure speculation (it is based on current facts) although certainly not certain. I note that the current leaders are shown at Next Danish parliamentary election (to be held by November 2011), New Zealand general election, 2011 (to be held by January 2012), and Next United Kingdom general election (by 2015), as three examples. Constrast with United States presidential election, 2012, where the combatants are not named as they must first go through pre-selection by their parties, which has not happened yet. It does appear that current WP:CONSENSUS in parliamentary democracies akin to Australia favour including the current leaders, as Timeshift has said. —sroc (talk) 02:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Regardless of what overseas does, the status quo here an infobox for the major party leaders and images. There is not anywhere near enough support to form WP:CONSENSUS to remove it. So it stays :) Timeshift (talk) 02:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC) "So it stays :)" What is that? Why the aggression? Why the rush to close this discussion. –Moondyne 03:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC) What I would like to know is why a different template is being used? For that matter, why is there a different template at all?! —sroc (talk) 02:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Because it allows us to display two-party and preferred PM Newspolls. It's our choice. Timeshift (talk) 02:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC) On a procedural matter, let's have a proper discussion rather than trying to end debate by saying "there is no consensus", which as far as I can tell means "this is the way it is done in other articles". Unilaterally declaring "there is not enough support for changing consensus" before the debate has sufficiently evolved is not helpful. --- Barrylb (talk) 03:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC) We have had a proper discussion, you've made your points but not convinced anyone. There is evidently no consensus for change at this time. As Shifty says, all the WP:RS newspapers report on TPP and Preferred PM ratings, which supports the current infobox. You'll need to provide stronger evidence that either 1) the current leaders are unlikely to contest the next election, and/or 2) The ALP and Liberal leaders are unlikely to be either PM or Leader of the Opposition. Abbott has come as close as possible to winning an election without actually doing so, so he has a strong claim for another chance. After the knifing of Rudd, it is unlikely Gillard will go the same way. If the cross-benches bring down the government then either Abbott will become PM, or there will be an election, likely between Gillard and Abbott. Just because it is possible that one of the leaders will change, does not mean it is likely. And even if it were likely, it is not misleading the reader to show the current leaders; we can always change the pictures if need be. Just because you have not got your way does not mean that the discussion needs to continue. --Surturz (talk) 04:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC) I agree with your synopsis but its all WP:OR. You show me WP:RS supporting the current infobox. Noone here has said that changes are possible (or likely), only that we don't know. And I ask again, what is it with the need to stop a bit more discussion? –Moondyne 04:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC) It is preposterous to put the currently party leaders pictures up in this article. And in other future election articles where the election has not been set or be considered imminent by some reliable source. To justify doing because we've done it before make it sounds like we are slaves to a silly tradition. Donama (talk) 06:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Every anglophone country except for the US is moving on from the strictly binary political competition that has dominated the past 50 years. WP risks being POV by sticking with iconic images of the leaders of only the dominant parties in the govt and oppn coalitions. I would favour a picture of parliament house, or of the government crest (if not copyright), or of the inside of one of the houses. Tony (talk) 07:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Let's take a step back and consider this: Who has a reliable source to show that Gillard and Abbott have declared that they will contest the election? If there is no source, then it is not a fact. Newspapers and pollsters may assume, for lack of any indication to the contrary, based on today's information, that Gillard and Abbott will contest the next election, whenever it may be held in the next three years. That does not make it a fact. It is not for anyone to prove that it is likely that the leaders will change; it is certainly possible. Anyone may speculate as to the probability whether Gillard and Abbott will stand at the next election — maybe they will, maybe they won't — but WP is not the place for such speculation (per WP:CRYSTAL, WP:OR) All content in articles on the WP main namespace must be supported by reliable sources (per WP:RS). There is no reliable source to verify that Gillard and Abbott will face the next election. Q.E.D. Timeshift, you have said that there is WP:CONSENSUS in Australia to support retaining Gillard and Abbott in the infobox, but have provided no evidence for this. Clearly, this is the only article that now exists for the "Next Australian federal election", so if you had any sources to show where the consensus is, you should do so. Nonetheless, I have attempted to support your argument my pointing to relevant examples overseas, although you have dismissed these as irrelevant anyway. Now, will everyone please stop trying to close the conversation and stifle civil discussion until everyone has had a chance to have their say. Saying "case closed" (etc.) does nothing to help others feel like they have been heard and can relax with a nice cup of tea. Thank you. —sroc (talk) 14:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC) This has already been discussed [the 2010 article] recently and the result was KEEP. Please stop flogging the horse. It is dead. --Surturz (talk) 16:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Surturz, indeed, but there simply is no talking sense and logic in to some. Timeshift (talk) 17:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Saying "This has already been discussed" is one of the rudest and most arrogant things to say to newer editors and to those who do not contribute as frequently as those obsessed with a topic. We must NEVER assume that all wisdom has been previously expressed here. And now, having done the deep philosophical stuff, my own view is that we should diminish any emphasis on the current parties and leaders. Including it is POV. Some will inevitably see it as politically biased. It leaves out smaller but growing forces such as The Greens. We don't know who will be there at the next full election. We do know that a lot could change - leader ballots, by-elections, coalitions, etc. Just stick to the facts about dates, processes, etc. I don't care how the last one was done. Let's make this the best it can be from scratch. HiLo48 (talk) 22:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Yes, I agree. The fact that the leader details had to be changed three times(!) over the life of the post-2007 version of this article indicates why it's not a great idea to include the leaders, as we have no way of knowing whether they'll still be there for the election. Nick-D (talk) 23:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC) And before the changes are defended because we CAN make them, the fact they had to be made at all means that all those earlier versions of the article were actually wrong. They didn't help anybody know who was actually going to be leader at the next election. They were just plain wrong. Current leaders go in the articles about the current situation, and can change. Putting leaders in an article about future elections is WP:SPECULATION, and unacceptable. HiLo48 (talk) 23:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC) "The fact that the leader details had to be changed three times(!) over the life of the post-2007 version of this article indicates why it's not a great idea to include the leaders" - yes, your point being? The next election article stated who the current leaders were, not the leaders at the next election. Your argument is as silly as saying we should not publish any polls because during the term of parliament they were all over the place and nothing like the actual result! What ludicrous reasoning!!! Timeshift (talk) 01:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC) I honestly don't know how to make this any clearer. All other wikipedia 'next' pages have it, we've had it for ages, and there is no WP:CONSENSUS to remove it and make us unique. It is that simple! It stays! Bazinga!!! :) *awaits a barrage of accusations* Timeshift (talk) 01:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC) That logic says that we will never change anything. Please respond to the arguments of others. "We've always done it that way" on its own is not a rational reason for doing anything. HiLo48 (talk) 01:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Your desparation shows by the fact you've only selected one point. The other points you conveniently ignore is that all 'next election' pages on wikipedia have one including us, and as you have no WP:CONSENSUS to remove it... it stays! *awaits more accusations* Timeshift (talk) 01:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Not accusing you of anything. (Except slightly less perfect logic than mine ;-) ) Obviously "We've always done it that way" has an equally shallow parallel in "Everybody else does it that way". When my year 9 students do something wrong I often hear but never accept as an excuse "But he was doing it too." Please try to address the actual points made by others rather than reverting to your current classical conservative position. (A bit of a surprise coming from you!) HiLo48 (talk) 02:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Because it usefully adds to the page in my humble opinion. And I justify this by saying all other wikipedia 'next election' pages have one so obviously others find it useful too. And I don't feel I need to justify this because I feel it's usefulness is obvious. If others do not then I feel for them, but it's not worth my energy. I rest easy knowing that it won't be removed as there is no WP:CONSENSUS for such a base change to such an article. I plan to respond no further. Good day. Timeshift (talk) 02:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC) I agree with Timeshift. This argument is profoundly dopey - the information is helpful as currently presented, and the counter-arguments are nonsensical. Rebecca (talk) Hmmm. Another thing my less literate students say quite often is "But that's just stupid". (Sometimes they revert to "That's gay".) That too fits those last two posts. Generalised condemnation, with no real content. I'd love to know where my logic is faulty. I don't feel dopey or nonsensical. HiLo48 (talk) 02:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Your arguments are unconvincing. You have failed to make a convincing case for why the present leaders do not belong in their present prominent position, when in the event of a change those pictures can also be changed, as has always occurred in the past. You propose losing useful information for no apparent purpose besides contrarianism. Rebecca (talk) 02:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC) The faulty logic HiLo talks of is pushing for something that there is no consensus for :) Timeshift (talk) 02:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Again, absolutely no attempt to address the specific points I and others have made. HiLo48 (talk) 02:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC) I'm sorry if you feel that is the case. However, no consensus for such a base change = no change. You stamping your feet up and down that people haven't addressed your points, quite simply, will not change that. Timeshift (talk) 02:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC) This page is headed Discussion. Ignoring my points and yelling No consensus is not a discussion. In fact, it makes me feel even more certain that I have made valid points, because nobody has refuted them after quite some time. HiLo48 (talk) 03:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Are you accusing all of us who disagree of ignoring your points and yelling no consensus? I'm over these mindgames of yours. Others can continue this discussion, but I will contribute no further, and will revert any removal of said subject that has not come about through WP:CONSENSUS. Over and out. Timeshift (talk) 03:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Determining the current consensus is the whole point of this discussion. –Moondyne 03:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I would like to reiterate to Timeshift, and for others, that it does not help the discussion if you do not give reasons. If you just throw your hands up and say, "Status quo, form consensus!" then others do not know why you are resistant to change. If one editor has reasons for wanting a change and you do not give a valid reason then you are just stonewalling and not providing any useful discussion at all.

I would also like to respond to Surturz' comments earlier, which I have just seen (I've had other things on this weekend):

"This has already been discussed [the 2010 article] recently and the result was KEEP. Please stop flogging the horse. It is dead."

The earlier discussion was on a different issue, namely, whether Gillard and Abbott should be shown as leaders of their respective parties in the current (2010) election, which you will not I supported retaining. The current discussion regards a different issue, namely, whether Gillard and Abbott should be shown as leaders going into the next election, which may be as much as three years away. It is a different issue with different arguments, so please do not try to equate them as a way of killing this discussion. —sroc (talk) 13:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

And you can't change from the status quo without consensus, so oh what a bind we're all in! Oh wait, i'm not, because the status quo remains without new consensus. *thumbs nose, sticks finger up, does whatever else to offend all and sundry because quite obviously some can't see that their changes aren't wanted and all they can do instead is stamp up and down* I'm not going to be sucked in to a vacuous reasoning contest. Views cannot be diminished by others saying they aren't valid because in THEIR minds they haven't given reasons. MOVING ON! Timeshift (talk) 22:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I draw your attention, again, to:

• Wikipedia:Don't revert due to "no consensus"
• Consensus is not unanimity
• Wikipedia:I just don't like it
• Consensus can change

—sroc (talk) 04:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Who are you referring to? a) nobody is reverting anything, this is all discussion. b) precisely, there is no consensus for change from the status quo. c) both sides have put their points across. d) refer to b. Timeshift (talk) 04:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Attempt to close

I've reverted the {{hat}} template. I hate to vote count but if I must its 7-4 in favour of removing the leader images (FOR: moon, barry, jack, donama, tony, hilo, nickd. AGAINST: timeshift, surturz, rebecca, sroc.). There's no grounds for hiding this discussion. –Moondyne 00:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Certainly not consensus, especially for something that is on all next election pages on wikipedia. Timeshift (talk) 00:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Since you don't like hat/hab, I've used the more general collapse template. This section is taking up too much space, and a roll-up is better than archiving, if you want the discussion to still be available. --Surturz (talk) 03:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thats priceless! You guys make me laugh. –Moondyne 03:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Why me? It is a perfectly reasonable position to be against the removal of something I feel to be useful to the reader, and something which is on all "next election" pages on wikipedia, and in doing so note that so far no consensus has been formed to change from the status quo and looking at the discussion does not appear that a consensus could be a possible that would be it's removal. These are the basic facts. Discuss forming a consensus away to your hearts content but isn't hopes of a consensus for such a move futile...? Timeshift (talk) 03:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Leadership spill coming up?

Well, here's one reason it might be worth hiding it for now...

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/the-pulse-live/politics-live-21-march-2013-20130321-2ggsv.html

That said, a benefit of Wikipedia is that we can change the information is it is updated. I think there's nothing wrong with just having the current leader as the assumed candidate and changing it accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vision Insider (talk • contribs) 02:30, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Latest possible election date

We now know the current parliament is meeting on 28 September 2010.

• Latest possible expiration date = 27 September 2013.
• Last day for issue of writs = 7 October 2013.
• Last day for nomination of candidates = 3 November 2013.
• Last day for poll = 4 December 2013, but that's a Wednesday so the last date is brought forward to Saturday 30 November 2013.

Anyone disagree with these figures? Do we need a cite to include them or can we just work it out ourselves? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

AGREE. The calculations to use are specified by WP:RS. Doing the calculation ourselves is mathematically verifiable, so is therefore not WP:OR. --Surturz (talk) 00:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Surturz. I've put the dates in. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 03:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Redistributions

Can someone succinctly detail which states are due to have redistributions in the next three years? Once we get final information we can add a list of notional changes. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to use standard election infobox template

Above, Timeshift9 said:

"Because it allows us to display two-party and preferred PM Newspolls. It's our choice." Timeshift (talk) 02:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

In fact, the Template:Infobox election has space for several additional fields that can be used to display this data. We can, in fact, use that template and include this information, which will then present it in the same style/format as the infobox on all of the other election pages.

This is no reason to use another infobox that has a different style from that used on other elections when the same template could be used to show whatever data we decide to include. —sroc (talk) 04:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

If the template does allow us to display all the required information, then by all means we should use it; there's no point deviating from the standard for no reason. The various historical/state elections use about six different templates anyway and it would be nice to standardise them. Frickeg (talk) 07:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. There are spaces for extra fields which I have set up in the source code for a poll and 2PP figures, but I have blanked them so that they don't show until there is actual data to include. I think you can have up to six rows of miscellaneous data. —sroc (talk) 13:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

As long as the new infobox has all the fields that the old infobox had such as prior election 2PP, current 2PP polling, Preferred PM polling, seats won at the last election, seats required, and swing required, I have no qualms about it. Timeshift (talk) 04:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

New one looks okay to me. I started this article by copying it from a pre-election version of Federal Election 2010. I didn't realise the infobox template had changed. --Surturz (talk) 04:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Election speculation vs. WP:CRYSTAL

I would like to add some "early election speculation" based on this ref. Basically, some text about what might trigger an early election and what sort of election might occur if this did happen. I would argue it is NOT a WP:CRYSTAL violation, because we are describing the ACTUAL LAWS about elections, rather than speculating about the likelihood. I think readers of this article might very well be interested in what conditions are necessary to trigger an early election.

In my mind, something like "Abbott will try to force an early election by using the mining tax to split the independents from the ALP" is a WP:CRYSTAL vio.

However, something like "If the government is defeated on a supply bill and the G-G believes no other parliamentary grouping is able to gain the confidence of the house, then an early election would be called. If it is an early election, then it will be a House only election" is not a WP:CRYSTAL vio - it is informative. Thoughts? --Surturz (talk) 04:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. Much more useful than pics of current leaders. ;-) HiLo48 (talk) 05:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

In your opinion. But the beauty of wikipedia is that we include both!! :) (support Surturz' (what seems a rather uncontrovserial) proposal) Timeshift (talk) 05:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

But when is an early election an early election?

Technically, any election held after the dissolution of a parliament that doesn't run the full three years is an early election. Every election we've ever had, except for 1901 and 1910, have been technically early. Thinking slightly more realistically, if the parliament goes for 2 years 350 days, nobody's going to bothered about that. Same for 2 years 325 days. But only 2 years would meet most people's definition of "early". Somewhere in the middle is an undefined dividing line. I raise this only to remind my colleagues that if we talk about "early elections", we need to have an idea of exactly what that means. Can anyone confidently state what the practical definition of an early Australian federal election is? I certainly couldn't. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Before 1 July 2013 would be a workable definition for this election since it would require separate house and senate elections. I know, circular definition, but a reasonable one I think. --Surturz (talk) 13:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Double dissolution discussion?

Is it worth putting in some text about a possible double dissolution? Since the balance of power in the Senate shifts to the Greens, the reader might be interested in the possibility that the current (presumably more Coalition-friendly) Senate triggers a double dissolution by rejecting a bill twice. Antony Green[3] reckons it is unlikely that the G-G would grant a double dissolution without the new Senate voting on the same bill first. He also thinks that it is the House vote, not the Senate vote that will be of interest. I suppose Senator Fielding's bizarre comments have raised the issue. It's an unlikely scenario with no definite conventions, which would normally knock out notability, but OTOH it is possibly something that a reader might want to know about. Thoughts? --Surturz (talk) 08:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll give it a bit more time, but I'm going to claim WP:SILENCE and put some text in, if no-one objects. --Surturz (talk) 12:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

New Newspoll - how to add?

September 10-12 Newspoll. How to add to the new infobox? For what it's worth, 2PP unchanged with both primaries down, dissatisfaction down for both leaders, Gillard PPM steady Abbott down 3. Interesting non-vote/leader questions and responses too ;) Timeshift (talk) 20:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Not notable unless you're barracking. There is no election in sight. Interesting to addicts maybe but irrelevant. HiLo48 (talk) 21:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't saying the non-vote/leader questions were noteable, that bit was just a talkpage comment. 2PP and PPM like the last election. Timeshift (talk) 22:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

"no election in sight"? Hardly. There is a much higher chance than usual of a very early election (not saying it is probable, but there is a definite chance that the minority government won't work). --Surturz (talk) 22:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

For that to happen, it would involve someone changing their currently declared position. That would inevitably change the views of voters on that person, and probably others. That would immediately make this poll result irrelevant. HiLo48 (talk) 23:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

What do you fail to understand? Without consensus, the status quo stands. There is no consensus to change. Especially if the change is removing something that is standard throughout wikipedia. Timeshift (talk) 00:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. WP:CRYSTAL allows verifiable speculation. Opinion polls definitely count as such. I'm not a big fan of opinion polls in WT:AUSPOL articles, but I think this article is an exception. --Surturz (talk) 12:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I think we should confine opinion polls to a table in the article, not singling out single polls by one pollster for inclusion in the infobox. Polls by their nature must be read in context alongside other polls in the series, not read in isolation. It's the trend that matters. Having it in the infobox ignores this. An opinion polling section with all major opinion polls in a table is more than adequate. Jmount (talk) 12:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Technical matter re adding to infobox

I'm not commenting on the merits (or otherwise) of adding this info, but if the question is a technical one of how to add this info to the infobox, here's the answer. The infobox currently contains this code:

<!-- rating -->
| 1blank          = <!-- Leader rating -->
| 1data1          = 
| 1data2          = 
| 2blank          = <!-- [[Two-party-preferred vote|2PP]] rating -->
| 2data1          = 
| 2data2          = 

Each set of data contains a heading (e.g., 1blank) and two data fields, one for each party (e.g., 1data1 for Labor, 1data2 for the Coalition). For multiple rows, just change the number at the start (e.g., 2blank, 2data1, 2data2). I think that there are up to 6 sets of data that can be used (i.e., up to 6blank, 6data1, 6data2). Purely as an example (with made-up figures):

<!-- rating -->
| 1blank          = Preferred leader (Newspoll, Sep. 2010) [http://resources.news.com.au/files/2010/09/13/1225921/545947-100914-newspoll.pdf]
| 1data1          = 48%
| 1data2          = 52%
| 2blank          = [[Two-party-preferred vote|2PP]] rating (Newspoll, Sep. 2010)
| 2data1          = 55%
| 2data2          = 45%

would produce the table shown at right.

Next Australian federal election

On or before 30 November 2013

Leader Julia Gillard Tony Abbott Party Labor Liberal/National coalition Leader since 24 June 2010 (2010-06-24) 1 December 2009 (2009-12-01) Leader's seat Lalor Warringah Last election 72 seats 72 seats Seats needed 4 4 Preferred leader (Newspoll, Sep. 2010) [4] 48% 52% 2PP rating (Newspoll, Sep. 2010) 55% 45%

Incumbent Prime Minister Julia Gillard Labor

—sroc (talk) 14:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

What about the last election 2PP for the infobox? Timeshift (talk) 22:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The labels (blank1, blank2, blank3, etc.) can be customised to whatever data you want to include. —sroc (talk) 10:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Opposition passing bills

RE: this ref. If the Greens really did team up with Abbott to pass the Coalition's paid parental leave scheme, wouldn't that be seen as a supply motion? The Menzies government fell in 1941 because the independents sided with the opposition to adjust the budget by one pound... --Surturz (talk) 12:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Probably not. The conventions in hung parliaments are that the government must survive defeat on supply, control of parliament and explicit confidence motions. Defeat on day to day legislation, whether initiated by the government or opposition, isn't considered a loss of confidence unless the government of the day has declared the legislation to be a confidence matter, usually on a flagship part of its programme.

The real issue with the scheme wouldn't be the legislation itself but a subsequent vote on the appropriation of government funds for implementing it which is a supply & thus confidence issue. But there are any number of possibilities if the legislation did get passed - it could just wait for a government to fund it, the sitting government could agree to adjust the budget to accommodate it, the government could dare the Greens and independents who supported the legislation to vote it out of office by supporting the funds and so forth. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

This is all theory. I'm telling you now Surtz, the coalition will not team with the Greens to pass their parental leave scheme. Every last person knows this policy was released in attempts to leapfrog Gillard. The Coalition lost the election, they may very well take the scheme to the next election. They think they're on a winner with it... why would they throw it away and enact it from opposition? Makes no sense. Timeshift (talk) 22:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, if it affected confidence/supply then they would support it, wouldn't they? That's why I asked the question. --Surturz (talk) 06:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

It wouldn't affect confidence. The crossbenchers are free to pass or reject legislation as they wish, and will only move against Labor for maladministration or corruption. All the crossbenchers want their power for as long as they can, Gillard Labor will definately want to go for as long as they can, Abbott has played every single hand wrong so far since the election. He's playing to the community, not the crossbench - nobody is used to this yet. Abbott and the Nationals are the reasons confidence won't move. As for supply, the government does not have to appropriate all funds. And even if somehow they were forced to (?) it would be useless for Abbott... why give away what he believes is a drawcard he could use at the next election? Not to mention the opposition managing to pass legislation that would blow out the government budget would remove any last skerrick of economic credibility they have and null any debt argument they mount from thereon. Getting back on track to your original question, appropriation bills are completely seperate from general legislative bills. Timeshift (talk) 07:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

"...only move against Labor for maladministration or corruption". Hmmm. I recall those words being thrown around pretty freely in the latter days of the Whitlam govt. Naturally, not everyone agreed on their use. HiLo48 (talk) 08:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Labor has far more friendly crossbenchers now than back then. Timeshift (talk) 08:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

One wonders if Rob Oakeshott likes prawns... --Surturz (talk) 10:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

It's failure to ensure an appropriation for the ordinary annual services of the government, not any bill requiring an appropriation. 122.104.49.21 (talk) 11:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Polling

I've added polling to the page. Should anybody feel they can remove the polling and deviate from the status quo for all next election pages including the prior Australian ones, they will need to form a solid WP:CONSENSUS to do such a thing. Until then please respect wikipedia's status quo in this particular subject/area. Timeshift (talk) 22:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Is there any reason that the polling section includes Newspoll only? Almost all other countries include all the major pollsters. DPF (talk) 02:22, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Because it polls all the states, is the most regular, and the only one with any decent historical online record of their polls. No other polling company comes within cooee of Newspoll. It's also generally excepted as the poll of polls by journalists. Also, have a look at the link in the next talk section below. Timeshift (talk) 06:56, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

The chart at the link you point to from the section below has an absolute error table that suggests the Galaxy poll has been quite good since it started, and Newspoll hasn't always come in tops. The issue of having a large archive of past polling doesn't seem relevant. So long as enough details are reported for us to republish, that's all that matters. Some of the other polls are also quite regular, and differing frequencies of poll release is not seen as an important issue for elections in other countries in the world. What difference does it make if one company polls twice a month, but another polls once a month or every six weeks? So that leaves the question of state polling and Newspoll's acceptance as the "poll of polls". Since we are not dealing with state-level detail, can we be sure that really matters? Most of the other polls seem to have reasonable methodologies, are respected and are widely reported in the media. Which brings us to reputation. So what? Even if virtually all reporters think Newspoll is the best, what difference does that make? First, they could be wrong. Second, any single poll issued could be wildly wrong. Publishing the other polls gives context to help readers to decide if it is merely an outlier or is picking up on a change in opinion. Finally, excluding the polls based on your statement that the poll is the most respected is not the best way of dealing with the situation. Far better would be discussing the differing methodologies employed and noting that journos like Newspoll the best, with a citation to a reliable source and, preferably, an explanation of why. If the other polls were all total crap and more or less dismissed by the press, that would be one thing. But these polls are reported, discussed and relied upon in commentating, which makes it difficult to understand why we ignore their existence. -Rrius (talk) 01:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Is there any chance we could do something with that monthly segment on Insiders analysing all the polls? Do they put that analysis online anywhere? --GoForMoe (talk) 11:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Dare you question the allmighty Newspoll?

Interesting read. Timeshift (talk) 04:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Opinion polls have a sampling error. Newspoll simply got lucky, as have past 'winners'. All polls were within the Margin of error. Jmount (talk) 05:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh really? I suggest you look at the last few years worth of state/fed elections... Newspoll is very accurate these days. Timeshift (talk) 05:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't this have a date?

Shouldn't this have a date? Would we be changing this article everytime a new election comes up? I'm confused... Jmanfffreak (talk) 16:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

What date? This article is full of dates. The name of this article is recycled for use for the next election until it's date is confirmed, at which time the page is moved to Australian federal election, xxxx (xxxx=year), and the title of this page remains dormant until that election has passed. Timeshift (talk) 21:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, by definition we don't know the date of the next one because it's not fixed in law, unlike some of the state elections and the US elections. The best we can say is the latest possible date. But historically speaking there's only a 2% chance of that being the actual date of the next election. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I guess it helps if I read the article in greater detail. Here in the US we have set dates for elections. I know, I'm a damn yank. Thanks for pointing out my carelessness to read in detail. :) Jmanfffreak (talk) 16:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Greens before the Coaltion in polling table?

To gain consensus, I ask why an editor would place or prefer a third party before a major party in polling [5]? Or prefer the change indifferent to every other polling table on Australian related political polling tables on Wikipedia? See: NSW and Qld for examples. Possibly the editor is trying to distinguish left and right in the table? Романов (talk) 07:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The Greens are in the middle as they are a balance of power party (with representation in both houses). Second, 80% of Green preferences go to Labor. Third, this is not about a highest to lowest level percentage, as the parties and other will always change. Timeshift (talk) 07:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

In response: The Greens do not hold the balance of power, the Independents Oakshott, Katter and Windsor do. The Greens sided with Labor within days (the next morning from memory) after the election and were and are not ever predicted to prop up a conservative or center right government (2010 Victorian preference saga for example). Secondly, representation in the house is 100% correct. Presently in the House of Reps its 72 all ALP/ Coalition than Independants (or as individuals 1-4), Greens than others. In the Senate the numbers go ALP, Coaltion, Green, Others. With Greens always the third party. Always will be. Preferences have nil to do with primary vote polling, thats what the 2PP section is for, after preferences are distributed. Lastly, your right they will always change, but the Greens will always be in a third (bar Tas/ ACT). Романов (talk) 07:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The polls order as follows:

• Newspoll and Galaxy: Coalition, Labor, Greens, Other.
• Morgan: L-NP, ALP, Green, Family First, Other.
• ACNielsen: Labor, Coalition, Democrat, Greens, Independent, Family First, Other

It would seem justifiable to follow the mainstream polls to put the ALP and Coalition first. Since the numbers are from Newspoll, it makes sense to follow their order: Coalition, ALP, Greens, Other. (Personally, however, I think the order should be: governing party, opposition party, third parties, other parties) --Surturz (talk) 07:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

As it has always been. Романов (talk) 08:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with this. Labor, Coalition, Greens, Other seems the most usual - Greens second is just strange, and this doesn't have to be a graphical representation of parliament. Frickeg (talk) 09:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Going to have to agree also. The two majors should be first. That's how they are normally reported. Jmount (talk) 10:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Infobox broken?

The infobox is broken at the bottom but I can't figure out what caused it or where the error is located. Can anyone help? Timeshift (talk) 10:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

There have been some edits to the template recently (which were reverted, and then reinstated with someone complaining that they were causing problems(, but it seems to be working fine in the articles I randomly selected from the list of those which use it... Nick-D (talk) 11:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The infobox in this article looks fine to you? Timeshift (talk) 11:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Judi Moylan retiring?

I could swear I heard a radio report the other day that Moylan won't be recontesting next election, but I can't find any evidence of this. Who am I getting her confused with? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 13:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I see I'm not the only one who's heard this. Mal Washer is also supposedly going. Their retirements were reported in a small piece in The Age last week, but I can't track down any online verification. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 03:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

It was on 27 July, on page 6 of The Age, "WA Liberals to retire". I've found online verification for Washer. Still looking for Moylan. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 12:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

And here is an announcement. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 12:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Pendulum

Post-election pendulum for the Australian federal election, 2010 is really more related to this election that 2010, so now that this article is well established, should it be made a subarticle of this rather than 2010. -Rrius (talk) 03:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

We need one for results for the election, so that article needs to remain with the 2010 election article. A new article needs to be created for use and linking with this defacto 2013 article. Timeshift (talk) 03:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Just to add - shouldn't the ALP and Coalition numbers stay the same as the 2010 election results - regardless of who joins, leaves or crosses? A result is a result! I feel the Coalition should go back to 72, even thought Slipper has left, he was still voted in the 2010 election as a Coalition member. I agree the number on the floor have NOW changed but not the 2010 election result. That is why I have changed it back to 2010 election result numbers.

What do others think? CheersCanberraBulldog (talk) 08:35, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

No, we do what we've always done. 2010 article, result articles, and pendulum reflect the 2010 results. We have the next election article and it's own pendulum to reflect the current status. Timeshift (talk) 08:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, got you, so shouldn't @010 election (in the info box be chaged to current seats - as 2010 election means 2010 election results!?!? CanberraBulldog (talk) 08:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Further - just doesn't make sense - last election means last election, you can't win 72 seats at the last election but then win 71 seats at the last election - they won 72 seats at the last election. I know Slipper is on the cross-bench now but at the last election he was Coalition and they won 72 seats at the last election not 71.

What do others think? CheersCanberraBulldog (talk) 08:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it shouldn't read last election but it can't be changed, but it has been disregarded previously (ie: after Oakeshott's by-election) because this article should inherantly reflect the current situation. 2010 is for 2010, next is for next/current. Timeshift (talk) 08:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I understand now, but just doesn't look right, looks silly but I understand. CheersCanberraBulldog (talk) 08:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Katter's Australian Party

Something which some idiots have changed is saying that KAP has one seat in parliament. Bob Katter has one seat as an independent; not as a member of the aus party. someone should probably change this, but it's on multiple pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.205.92 (talk) 09:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

No, it's quite valid to say the party has the seat. If a member changes from one party to another (it used to happen a lot), that party obviously has an extra member. HiLo48 (talk) 10:39, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

HiLo is correct. Timeshift (talk) 10:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

We want to be careful here, though - when we're talking about members, which we are here, then obviously it's fine to say that Katter is a KAP member, because he is. But when we're talking about seats, that would be different - Kennedy is not a KAP seat, it's an independent one. But the usage currently on this page is fine. Frickeg (talk) 22:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

That's like saying despite Slipper resigning from the LNP, his seat is still LNP and we should be showing the speaker dot as LNP. This article talks about the next election, KAP will be taking a seat into the next election on the current position of the parliament, likewise the HoR article also should reflect current composition. It was independent at the last election, but the member has since joined a party. --GoForMoe (talk) 14:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I also don't get that distinction, Frickeg. Kooyong is currently a Liberal seat solely by virtue of the fact that it's currently held by a Liberal member. Likewise, Kennedy is currently a KAP seat solely by virtue of the fact that it's currently held by a KAP member. Do we need to to make it any harder than that? Katter is regarded as an independent by the parliament because there are not enough KAP members in the parliament for it to qualify for party status. But if (heaven forbid!) enough more KAP candidates were elected, it would change from independent status to recognised party status. Regardless of any of that, however, the seat of Kennedy remains a KAP seat unless something changes. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 22:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, that isn't the reason Katter is listed as independent by the parliament - as far as I can tell, that reason is negligence. (Oh, I see below that the parliament has finally updated. They can take quite a while on these, even after they leave office - I remember in Queensland it took that long for Stuart Copeland's party status to change.) John Madigan, for example, the parliament's only DLP member, is listed as DLP. Same for Steve Fielding in the last parliament. Meanwhile, Kooyong is a Liberal seat because the Liberal candidate won the most votes at the last election; if that member defected to Family First tomorrow, we could hardly say that Kooyong was held by a party that won 1.56% of the electorate's support last time. It's held by Frydenberg, sure, but as a Liberal. Family First or any other party would require a swing to gain the seat. Secondly, Fisher is absolutely an LNP seat, even if Slipper is now an independent member. At the last election, Fisher was won by the LNP. That's all there is to it. If Slipper wins at the next election as an independent (an unlikely prospect, but not impossible) Fisher will be a gain for the independent. If, as is more likely, he retires, the seat will be an LNP hold. We've always dealt with seats this way - consider McPherson in 1998, when it was certainly a Liberal hold rather than a Liberal gain from the CDP. Likewise with Kennedy. The KAP has never contested an election yet and thus cannot hold any seats, even while Katter is a KAP member. (I notice the NZ parliament formalises this in a rather interesting way, refusing to recognise membership of a new party until the member has resigned and won a by-election.) This is all a very academic distinction anyway and I have no problem with either the graphic or the way the article currently stands. Frickeg (talk) 00:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course, but that only comes into play for the pendulum article, where it would be a nominal LNP/IND seat; but that's the same with redistributions creating nominally lost seats. --GoForMoe (talk) 10:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

It'll also come into play after the next election, when Katter holding Kennedy would in electoral terms be a gain for the KAP, but that's looking a little far ahead for our present purpose. Frickeg (talk) 13:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the important thing to remember is what the threshold was for KAP inclusion - official registration with the Australian Electoral Commission. Timeshift (talk) 08:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the AEC profile of Kennedy was last updated in February and lists Katter as an independent. I don't know what their rules are about updating things like this though, and they're likely to take a very conservative approach. Katter's profile on the APH website identifies him as a member of the KAP and was "last reviewed" on 9 December. Nick-D (talk) 22:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Article lead

The second paragraph of the intro seems very clunky, can't we just defer to another article to explain the electoral system - perhaps just a line in the info box. At the very least, a change to the future tense along the lines of 'The election will be held with compulsory voting, with a preferential system for the House of Representatives and a Single Transferable Vote with optional group tickets for the Senate'. --GoForMoe (talk) 12:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Disagreed based on the fact this is for an international audience. Timeshift (talk) 05:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I just don't think the article is enhanced by the history of when we introduced particular systems. Sure the information is useful, but I don't think it's important enough to be the lead, at least not to the current degree of detail. There's higher level articles about the broad concept of elections in Australia that can cover the detail better for those interested. --GoForMoe (talk) 12:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

It really isn't much detail. Originally it had what it had without the "since 19xx" bits. It's a significant increase in quality while not significantly expanding the paragraph. Timeshift (talk) 05:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Timeshift. The ground rules for the election are important for understanding the election. Aside from the fact that there is probably no way to provide "just a line in the infobox", what good would that actually do? -Rrius (talk) 06:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

primary/tpp/seat results since 1937

Is anyone against having this table at the end of the article, which takes up a minority of space compared to it's section? I think it's an excellent concise wrapup of history and is definately relevant to future elections. To know where you're going, you need to know where you've come from. Timeshift (talk) 23:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I object to it, and the Polls sections. None is actually part of the next federal election. It's all just short term fodder for political junkies. As the politicians themselves say, at least publicly, the only poll that really matters is the next election itself. HiLo48 (talk) 23:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I have issues with it too. I think the polls section is probably OK, although it might be better moved to its own page, but the past election results is definitely well beyond the scope of this page. This is about the next election, not the last seventy years' worth of elections. The only result that should even be discussed on this page at the moment is the 2010 one, and that only in relation to how it affects what happens here. Frickeg (talk) 23:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. Timeshift (talk) 23:57, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Mid term Senate replacements

For my two bobs worth the table below shoud be included on the main page. After all it was a casual senate vacancy that was the spark that lit the fuse for the 1975 drama.

Senator	State	Party	Cause of vacancy	Replacement Senator	Term expire
Mark Arbib	NSW	ALP	Resigned 5 March 2012	Bob Carr	2014
Mary Jo Fisher	S.A.	Liberal	Resigned 10 August 2012	To be preselected	2014
Nick Sherry	Tas	ALP	Resigned 1 June 2012	Lin Thorp	2014
Helen Coonan	NSW	Liberal	Resigned 22 August 2011	Arthur Sinodinos	2014
Bob Brown	Tas	Greens	Retiring 30 June 2012	Peter Whish-Wilson	2014
Judith Adams	WA	Liberal	Died 31 March 2012	Dean Smith	2017

Purrum (talk) 01:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Senate replacements don't impact the next election unless they aren't replaced. Indeed two of the four don't even impact the next election at all and that's presuming the next election will indeed include a half senate one. Unlike someone retiring at the election, those replaced mid term in the senate will contest the next election as a sitting member and are therefore not notable. On the other hand they are relevant to the article for the current parliament because they represent a change since the last election. --GoForMoe (talk) 10:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Unless one of the replacements actually does trigger an election (or the loony speculation about Bob Carr replacing Julia Gillard comes to something) none of these should be mentioned because they aren't relevant. Even the two terms ending in 2014 are equivalent to by-elections happening during the life of the parliament preceding the election. -Rrius (talk) 11:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Greens announce Whish-Wilson as repklacement for Brown Purrum (talk) 02:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Dean Smith sworn in May 2012 Purrum (talk) 00:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Nick Sherry is also resigning in the next few days, I believe. --Canley (talk) 07:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The Arbib/Carr entry looks wrong - Arbib was elected in 2007, so the term end should be 2013. There seems to be confusion on a number of articles over when Senate terms will or did expire. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't sound right. Arbib was indeed elected in 2007, but his term did not start till 1 July 2008. It was due to end on 30 June 2014, and that determines when Carr's term will also expire. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Lin Thorp will be Sherry's replacement. Purrum (talk) 02:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

An equivalent list to this is actually already maintained at List of Australian Senate appointments. I agree that I don't think it belongs on this page. Frickeg (talk) 10:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Then can we have an end to the updates to the table above, which is useless and violates the purpose of a talk page inasmuch as updating the table has nothing to do with discussing improvements to the article? -Rrius (talk) 03:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Australian federal election, 2013

At what point given lead-in times can we safely assume there won't be an election in 2012? Timeshift (talk) 03:04, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

33 days before 31 December, I think given how tight the numbers are. Nick-D (talk) 03:06, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Thirty-three days before the 29th because polling day must be a Saturday. Thus, if the writ doesn't drop on or before 26 November, the page should move to "2013". -Rrius (talk) 03:25, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! On a somewhat related note, regarding Sydney state by-election, 2012#Dates, can anyone fill in the gaps or can't the rest be determined yet? Timeshift (talk) 03:40, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

As best I can tell, the nomination date will be set in the writ, and the party nomination date will be one day before. -Rrius (talk) 04:02, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

That's as much as I figured. Timeshift (talk) 04:10, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Poll tables

Would it be possible to make the poll results tables collapsible? As these tables show the results for every 2-3 weeks they have become very long, require unnecessary scrolling to go past the section and do not display properly on mobile devices. My suggestion is that only some of the most recent polls be shown while the remaining past polls be placed in a collapsible section similar to the Tour de France general classification standings. If there are no arguments for not doing so, I'll start the conversion process in a few days time. Rubaisport (talk) 22:06, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Thoroughly support. These pages unavoidably end up with a metric ton of tables, and anything we can do to reduce that visual overload should be encouraged. Frickeg (talk) 23:19, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't support the hiding of information. I support what's invariably happened late in the previous terms, someone is willing to create a graph chart of all the pollsters and is willing to be there to update them as polls come out. Timeshift (talk) 23:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be more appropriate to split them off into a separate page? I believe this is fairly standard. Frickeg (talk) 00:42, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think its really hiding information, its still there and anyone that is willing to view them has the option available to them. This is what I thought it could look like. But I support both your and Frickeg's ideas of having a separate page for polling and replacing the table on the main page with a graph which will definitely give more room to include other polls as well as other measures when they are available.

I actually don't mind that, but I think it should display the last 12. To show trends, 5 isn't enough. I've changed that on your sandbox, feel free to revert, but I like that. One issue is that every time a poll is released, a chunk of text has to be moved down a poll. Also, can it be written to still include the 2010 result/poll below 'past polls/show'? I've made an attempt in the sandbox, though the columns aren't flush. Thoughts? Timeshift (talk) 01:57, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Another common practice, probably more common, is to split off the polling, make a graph, and leave only a copy of the graph at the main article. -Rrius (talk) 10:15, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

Next Australian federal election → Australian federal election, 2013 – Unless an election is called before this Tuesday, the election cannot be held in 2012. The title should be updated to reflect this. 124.184.87.215 (talk) 06:25, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. Using of 2013, instead of comma 2013 allows the title to be made bold. Apteva (talk) 19:33, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what that means, but the standard form for these articles is Australian federal election, 2010, Australian federal election, 2007, etc. There's no reason to name this one differently. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:36, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

There is not really any easy way to write a sentence that includes the title if a comma is used. It is very natural to write Australian federal election of 2013. Therefore it would be logical to use of instead of a comma. See WP:BOLDTITLE. Apteva (talk) 02:14, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

This the convention for all election articles for all countries. The fact is, it would be exceedingly rare for you to write "Australian federal election of 2013". What you'd actually write is "2013 federal election", "2013 election", or the like. -Rrius (talk) 02:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

If your concern is really just the iteration of the title in the first sentence, that is a meaningless objection as it is unnecessary restate the name of the article verbatim. -Rrius (talk) 02:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support. There's virtually no chance an election will be called in the next 4 days, and the only possibility left is 2013. But maybe it would be prudent to wait till Wednesday before making the change. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:36, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support but we should wait until Wednesday. The opinion polls have changed in favour of the govt recently so I wouldn't rule out an election this year. --Surturz (talk) 22:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support 100%. Makes amazing sense. No matter the theoretical possibilities, it won't happen this year. But I can wait until Wednesday to keep everyone happy. HiLo48 (talk) 22:25, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
• Wait till Monday Support The cutoff day is the 26th of this month. (See #Australian federal election, 2013, above.) Convention for non-fixed-term election articles is to wait until the moment it becomes impossible for the election to be called in any but the last calendar year of the parliament. Is it really such a problem to wait until Monday? -Rrius (talk) 22:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Who says there's a problem? There's already a consensus (see above) that we wait till Wednesday. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:54, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

That's what I get for just reading the nom and skimming the first vote. But Wednesday is the wrong day. Monday is the last day a writ can drop that would cause 2012 election, so at midnight Canberra time of Monday night/Tuesday morning, the 2012 possibility is gone, meaning the article should move then. -Rrius (talk) 00:21, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

There's no reason, theoretically, why the writs could not be issued in Western Australia if the governor-general happened to be there. Given the 3-hour time gap, is there any reason why AEST must always govern the timing? If the writs were issued in Perth shortly before midnight WA time on Monday night, who could say that this missed the deadline merely because it was already shortly before 3am Tuesday morning in Canberra? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 08:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I have my doubts, but very well. If the GG's events calendar has her out of Canberra on Monday evening, then by all means let's wait. -Rrius (talk) 19:21, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Damn it, Jack, now you've got me genuinely interested in this. Fuck, fuck, fuck. -Rrius (talk) 19:33, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, my best guess is no, I don't the WA scenario holds up. The GG "causes the writs to be issued", but the times apply from when the writs are issued, which is to say given out. Since that would happen on Tuesday in the east, it would be impossible for them to follow a schedule that would give them a 2012 election, but it would be entirely possible for the west to have nominations close on the same day as the east, bringing the two parts of the country back together for the polling day calculation.

You're probably right. But let's not get our knickers all twisted out of shape by this angels-dancing-on-pinheads discussion. Constitutional deadlines are one thing, but they don't translate to Wikipedia imperatives. No harm would be done if we did not move this article at the precise moment of 12:00:01 am on Tuesday 27 November. Leaving it with its present title right up till the day the election is actually called would not be a problem. Not that I'm advocating we wait that long, but it would certainly avoid getting into crystal ball territory, of which a move any time before then runs (an admittedly very slight) risk. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:57, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Except at 9 pm WA time, I don't think it is crystal balling to make the move, especially if the GG spent the day in the east. Nor unseemly haste. It's beyond the realm of reason that this stuff will happen in that three hour span. Not least because they wouldn't want to figure out what it means if the writ drops while it's different days in different parts of the country.

And I say this as someone for whom it will be 10:00 am when midnight Perth time rolls around versus 7 am when the ACT's new day starts.

I was merely commenting on Rrius's "But Wednesday is the wrong day". It's not the wrong day. We could move the page as early as Tuesday, but it's perfectly acceptable to do it on Wednesday. Or Thursday, or Friday, or ... -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

But it seems that unseemly haste has turned out to be the order of the day after all. It was moved at 8 pm Monday night. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 10:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Ha! I told you my haste wasn't unseemly! -Rrius (talk) 12:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Graphs!

Someone mentioned a while back that it might be a good idea to graph the opinion polling - I've given this a shot and would like views on whether it's worth including and where.

The script I wrote for it is available here. My main suggestion for it would be to tighten up the chart view, but I'm not sure how to do that yet. --GoForMoe (talk) 07:33, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Love it. My only concerns are that we should also plot sat/disat, bpm etc, and that you'd need to be readily available to update the chart when a new poll comes out... Timeshift (talk) 00:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure - though I wasn't sure how to chart the others - should there be a graph for each leaders satisfaction, graph the net satisfaction or both? As for my availability, part of that was hoping that by posting the script for generating them, a few people involved could set up the relevant software for charting it in case I was unavailable on the particular day. I can add more detail on that in the page I put up. --GoForMoe (talk) 07:45, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd do a sat/disat graph for each leader. As for the actual numbers, what happened to the idea someone floated about collapsible tables? Rather than remove, should we change the tables to collapsible so if people wish they can see the numbers rather than lines? Timeshift (talk) 05:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Graphs look good, though it would be better if the x-axis was graduated. Thumbs up from me re: collapsible tables. We're not a paper encyclopedia. --Surturz (talk) 07:08, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

More of the graphs - I've also done a bit of extra work on the previous two (and updated for the current newspoll).

Not sure if the graph of net satisfaction is appropriate, though I'd suggest it is relevant. --GoForMoe (talk) 10:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Graphs and raw data since the last election, and historical polls/results, all wrapped up in a nice little package. Apart from the opinion I removed, this is one hell of an outcome. Love your work! Timeshift (talk) 06:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I think there's call for a section adding a bit of context to the polling, or at least better direct readers to where information is available (do we have a timeline of this parliament as an article?) - this article is very devoid of the setting the election takes place in. Particularly, I think it is relevant that Rudd and Turnbull outpoll on the leadership question - I don't think a graph showing both leaders with deep net negative approval should be shown without context. A section on election issues earlier in the article might be sufficient for both. --GoForMoe (talk) 09:21, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd say you're right. The issue is that if it is created too long before the election, it becomes a hodge-podge laundry list and not encyclopedic. But it's not as if we don't have enough information on it at, say, Gillard Government. Timeshift (talk) 09:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest we try and summarise the key events that reasonably might be considered 'election issues' - particularly where we can highlight a firm policy difference - things the Coalition pledged to repeal for example, or if they exist, new policies announced by the parties. While I suppose it's easier in an article on the past, the background section of the Irish general election, 2011 article seems to be a good template, which seems to have been in a good state prior to the election itself. The article currently doesn't say much beyond the procedurals of the election, which needs changing as we draw nearer. --GoForMoe (talk) 11:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Give us a draft here. Timeshift (talk) 12:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Another (rather small but nevertheless important) thing i've noticed is that the oppn comes before the govt for leadership satisfaction, and the opp leader comes before the govt leader in the legend for BPM and net satisfaction ratings. Can these be fixed please? Timeshift (talk) 01:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• The current format essentially hides the polling. If we really think they are taking up too much space, then why not move the data and graphs to a sub called Opinion polling for the Australian federal election, 2013, and leave behind a copy of the 2PP and Primary graphs? In the "Opinion polling" article, we could have separate sections for 2PP/Primay, BPM, Leader satisfaction, and Polling for prior elections. Thoughts? -Rrius (talk) 13:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

That had been why I'd summarised the polling when I added them to the page as they were, including mentioning the most recent figures in text above them. I've now restored that, because I see no reason why it isn't appropriate to do so. I'm also in favour of a dedicated article - especially as the polling data is duplicated in several articles. --GoForMoe (talk) 14:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I've updated the graph for today's poll and switched the order around on those things - seems like Wikipedia is caching the old image too long though so it hasn't updated in the article yet for me. --GoForMoe (talk) 09:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Just making the observation that if the graphs weren't here, the latest Newspoll would have been added by now. Timeshift (talk) 06:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Are there updated graphs? Timeshift (talk) 08:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah. ?action=purge. I forgot that this is one annoyance of polls via images. Timeshift (talk) 09:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Can anyone else get ?action=purge on the end of the image URLs (Wikipedia:Purge) to keep the updated graphs? I can't seem to for some reason. (This is wikipedia server cache, not end-user cache). Timeshift (talk) 09:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Do the graphs look outdated to others too? The first 2013 result still isn't appearing in the article's thumbnail images... the wikipedia server doesn't appear to be refreshing them. Timeshift (talk) 07:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, the net leadership satisfaction graph has a 2013 update but Abbott's is missing. Timeshift (talk) 07:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I think what I did was put both Gillard and Abbott's new poll numbers on the same part of the graph. I've fixed that now, though I likewise have an issue with the thumbnails - they all display right when I put the purge thing on the end, but only when that happens. Perhaps someone could try the steps here [6] --GoForMoe (talk) 10:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Two things: First, I renew my proposal to put the data in a new page called Opinion polling for the Australian federal election, 2013 and leave the graphs and {{main}} link here. Second, the updating issue is a Wikimedia software issue being dealt with at the moment. -Rrius (talk) 06:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I support that proposal but the suggested page should include all polling not just from one firm. It's fine to limit things before a campaign starts but not now Rsloch (talk) 17:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Since the only responses I've received the two times I've brought this up have been positive, I've gone ahead and moved the data, leaving behind four of the six graphs. I agree that Essential and Galaxy should also be included. There is no reason why we can't set out the methodologies and let the readers decide which polls to put their trust in. I don't see how more information is a bad thing. -Rrius (talk) 08:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Earliest Possible Date

I see a lot of mention here about the latest possible date for the election, but no mention of the earliest possible date it can occur. Or is the prime minister just allowed to call the election whenever she likes as long as its before the maximum date? Rikeus (talk) 14:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

She can recommend dissolving the House whenever she likes. However the fixed terms for the Senate mean the writs for that can't be issued until less than one year before the curret term expires. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The note below the table reads:

• Note that Section 28 of the Constitution also allows the House to be dissolved earlier than the maximum term. The Prime Minister may advise the Governor-General at any time to dissolve the Parliament and issue writs for a new election.. (my highlight)

Of course, that assumes the Parliament is still in existence. If Gillard does nothing, the Parliament will expire on 27 September and then the matter's substantially out of her hands, although she still gets to dictate the precise timing of the issue of the writs, closing date for nominations, and the election date itself, all within the limits set down in legislation. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Just for the sake of completion, if the parliament is allowed to expire by effluxion of time on 27 September, the earliest possible election date would be 26 October. There'd hardly be any point in letting the parliament go as late as possible, but then hold the election as early as possible. Still, anything's possible in politics. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Criticisms from sections of Australian communities

My edit, shown here Formal Announcement of Election date was recently removed from the page. It shows how a mistake has been made when the date was chosen. It was a valuable part of the page, showing reactions from several parts of the Australian community. This edit captures the feelings of a majority of the Australian community. They need a voice too. Springyboy (talk) 09:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

"This edit captures the feelings of a majority of the Australian community." LOL. You will need to do better than that. HiLo48 (talk) 09:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

All AFL fans complained about the date? And a majority of the population are unhappy? What nonsense. I agree with Hilo - there's not a good reason to include this; PMs are always criticized by some people for whatever date the election is called for (eg, it's always too early for some people, too late for others and clashes with something or other). Most people don't give a fig one way or the other. Nick-D (talk) 09:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

As for anyone being "disenfranchised", such as Jewish people commemorating Yom Kippur, there are not only pre-post ballots but over 7 months in which to organise them. There has been no mistake; the date was carefully chosen. The AFL or the NRL are certainly not cancelling any of their fixtures for that day because of Yom Kippur, and I don't hear anyone accusing them of cultural insensitivity. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 09:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is meant to be an unbiast website. By saying these comments, you are turning into biast Labor supporters who have decided to change Wikipedia's rules. Wikipedia is a place for most comments and criticisms. This is a valuable point that shows how other people around Australia, (not just Labor supporters) are reacting to these comments. Springyboy (talk) 03:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Look, these comments from various people were just immediate knee-jerk reactions to an extremely unexpected and unprecedented announcement. They will be forgotten next week. Gillard wasn't putting this out there as some sort of national discussion paper, so that we can collectively come up with a date that suits more people than any other date. She was using her prime ministerial prerogative to choose the date. People who don't like it will get over it, well before the election, and it will not even be a footnote to history after that. Australians deal with inconveniences like that very well. (Btw, it's "unbiased".) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 03:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Springyboy, the date is the second week of the four week AFL Finals Series. It won't matter. Every Australian state and federal election has been held on the Jewish Sabbath. Most Jewish folk seem to have coped perfectly well throughout our history. It simply isn't notable content. HiLo48 (talk) 04:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Still, it's always good to set up an issues section on an election page, like here Election Issues to highlight the issues facing the choice of date and other challenges the government has faced. This issue can just be a minor sub-topic under the Pre-Election Issues heading.Springyboy (talk) 06:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not even that. It is not an election issue, in the sense of a significant matter that is the subject of ongoing community debate and discussion or of party policy or legislation. Nobody's vote will be governed by their reaction to this "issue". Nobody expects their complaints will cause Gillard to now announce a different date, so all they're doing, effectively, is whinging. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 07:34, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Congrats to editors of this article

Respected ABC Psephologist Antony Green recently posted in comments to his blog:

There is a list of retiring MPs on the 2013 election Wikipedia page. It looks as good as any list I could produce[7]

Hearty congrats to all the editors who have contributed to that section, you should feel proud! --Surturz (talk) 12:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll second that. And isn't there a talk page template for articles that have been mentioned in the news? -Rrius (talk) 13:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Wikipedia:Press coverage 2013 HiLo48 (talk) 16:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I meant the template that goes near the top of the talk page itself. I haven't seen it in a while and have no recollection of where I've seen it before, so I can't check if it is still a thing. -Rrius (talk) 01:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah yes, I know what you mean. No idea where or what it is. Sorry. HiLo48 (talk) 04:34, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

It's Template:Press, but I don't think this quite qualifies. Being mentioned in a reply to a blog comment is hardly "mentioned by a media organisation". On the other hand, it would be nice to get this template more widely used around Australian articles. Frickeg (talk) 08:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)