Jump to content

Talk:Kevin Andrews (politician)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

Was it actually called the Andrews Anti-Euthanasia Bill? I don't think so. What was its correct title? Adam 07:08, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was simply called the Euthanasia Laws Bill 1996 (which amended the NT Self Government Act to explicitly revoke the power of the NT Legislature to make laws with regards to euthanasia, henceforth nullifying the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act). I've corrected the article. So much for self-government...--CJ | Talk 14:29, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

snippet of an article regarding Kevin Andrew's resume Australian Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews, who has been commenting on irregularities in the CV of Indian doctor Mohammed Asif Ali, has reportedly fudged his own resume.

Andrews's parliamentary and ministerial websites claim he was "co-author" of three books in the days before he entered Parliament. All appear to have been pumped out by the then Melbourne barrister in a remarkable creative outburst in 1990, according to Sydney Morning Herald report on Monday.

But the publishers do not see his role that way. They credit other authors and editors with assembling these collections. The name Kevin Andrews is not on the title pages. He appears to have done no more then contribute one paper to each. He does not even have top billing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.218.139 (talk) 11:40, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Life Decisions International

[edit]

What's an "advisory" board member? I checked out their website, looking to see if they make this distinction and I only found references to "a respected Board of Directors". If someone can show that this is a distinction that they make, then certainly show us here on the talk page and we'll put it back to "advisory". However, his own description while under media scrutiny is not objective enough to be used as it might be nothing more than his own euphemism. Nick 22:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I've just found a basis for this: [1]. I will readd the term. Oli Filth 23:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've rephrased it slightly but it says the same thing. Nick 02:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to Oli for this link showing that DLI is, indeed a religious group. I've put that link right next to the restored claim. (There's getting to be a lot of these references. We might want to introduce a footnote system when things die down.) I have also restored the examples of companies being boycotted. (NB Naming a corporation does not violate copyright by any stretch of the imagination. Get your hand off it, Michael!) I've rephrased the sentence slightly because boycott is not quite the word to use against individuals so it now read "campaign against". I might have a look at the list and choose some examples. Anyone interested in writing a non-vanity-page version of the LDI page? Nick 02:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Further to the question of whether LDI counts as religious, certainly it is religious in some way, but in what way is not clear. They say, "This project was implemented in obedience to the biblical admonition to pray for our adversaries as well as our brothers and sisters."[2] I'd say that this makes them Christian. I've heard Jews use the word "Bible" too, but I think here LDI is referring specifically to Jesus' "Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you" (Luke 6:27-28). Are there Old-Testament verses that they could have meant? Can anyone else think of a reason why we shouldn't change the current "religious" to "Christian"? Nick 20:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Whilst I agree with your interpretation, unless we can find a source that specifically describes them as Christian, I think it would be original research to put that conclusion in the article. Oli Filth 20:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason for the reference to Kevin being called a d**khead? The Daily Telegraph reference doesn't exist anymore, and politicians slinging off about each other isn't particularly noteworthy, is it? Is it even anything to do with the Life Decisions section? 203.33.160.251 13:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Morning Herald 27 August 2007: "KEVIN ANDREWS has fudged his CV" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.49.196.163 (talk) 03:27, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Publication fudging is a pretty serious matter amongst professional or academic peers. It is worth reporting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Larryjhs (talk • contribs) 21:33, August 27, 2007 (UTC) SMH Letters, 28 August 2007 is is replete with discussion on this matter, including a letter from Bill Mitchell, Editor of the MIT Press in the US.

Declaration of pecuniary interests

[edit]

Re this sentence:

He has also been criticised for his failure to declare his wife's membership on LDI's Board of Advisors on his entry in the Register of Pecuniary Interests, as legally required.

This is not, in fact, a legal requirement. There are 2 types of registers: one each for members and senators, and another one for Ministers.

The parliamentary registers were established as shown in this document (scroll down to "Register of Pecuniary Interests). Failure to report an interest results in a contempt of the Parliament, not a breach of the law per se. It could be argued that the powers of the House of Reps are creatures of the Constitution, which is of course a law, but it's hardly likely that a member or senator would be subject to legal proceedings for being in contempt of the house/senate. The worst they would experience is to be permanently expelled from the relevant house.

Ministers are required to make statements of interests in accordance with arrangements determined by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister writes to ministers outlining these arrangements. (see page 10 of this document). Failure to report an interest on the Ministerial register results in whatever penalty the PM determines.

The sentence in the article does not make it clear which register is being referred to. -- JackofOz 02:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NFA. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 09:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

article protection

[edit]
  • refactored comments that are about the person rather than the article but leave the following:
it is unfair that his profile can't be edited until September because of alleged 'vandalism'.
Ian Mack —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.135.106.89 (talk) 13:46, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Refactoring as per Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Others' comments : Removing prohibited material such as libel and personal details plus Deleting material not relevant to improving the article - see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#How to use article talk pages for more info --Golden Wattle talk 21:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haneef affair

[edit]

I've trimmed the judgement quotes from the Haneef affair section because it was rather irrelevant and excessive for a biography on Kevin Andrews. It'd be more appropriate to an article on the Haneef affair, if not Haneef's own article.--cj | talk 08:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speeches to right-wing organisation

[edit]

User:McDanger who made this edit, I've removed your comments regarding speeches Andrews has made to right-wing organisations. I'm sure he has, and I'm sure he's made these comments, but quoting a PDF made by a blogger isn't good enough reference. It also doesn't fit under the "Advisory Roles" heading. Shermozle 07:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you had read the pdf you would have seen that that blogger actually has rather good references. I've linked directly to the one newsletter that's still online and linked to Endeavour's own description. But I think the contents of that pdf do count as verifiable so I'll re-add it, only to support the other instances. Nick 15:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick81 (talk • contribs)
Thanks Nick for the fix-up. McDanger 09:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it really necessary to be inluded on this article? It doesnt matter where he speaks, but its what he sepaks that is more important, and on these occassions he said absolutely nothing contrary to his public statements on such social issues. After all, he has spoken no doubt at thousands of venues, they receive no attention on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozcontrib (talk • contribs) 07:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If he had spoken at a OneNation rally, would you feel differently? Probably. The venue where one speaks shows some affirmation or support of whatever they stand for. McDanger 08:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intro changes

[edit]

I believe an intro to an article should summarise the article. In Andrews' case, the intro previously encompassed his political achievements, and briefly mentioned the controversies. During this election campaign period, someone has removed any mention of Andrews' political controversies from the intro, while leaving Andrews' career highlights (some of it dating back to his job history before politics). I've got nothing against the inclusion of those events in Andrews' early life. But for the general public in Australia, he is most famous as the architect of Workchoices, the Sudanese refugee controversy, and the Haneef affair. The intro should summarise the body of the article, including controversial aspects that he is notable for. Thanks, --Lester 20:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poor performance in I.R.

[edit]

The Sydney Morning Herald says this about Kevin Andrews:
His lacklustre performance in the industrial relations portfolio caused Prime Minister John Howard to shift him sidewards to immigration in a reshuffle in January. Link (go to last sentence on page)
Should this be reflected in the article? The Herald explicitly says his poor performance in IR was the reason Howard shifted him sideways.--Lester 22:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

African Refugees

[edit]

A few times this article seems to have been edited to imply that African refugee intake was "cancelled" based purely on "integration problems". I'm no fan of Andrews but that's not what happened - the intake was reduced, partly on the basis of UN info regard Burma and Iraq and the need to adjust quotas, but, by his own admission, partly on the basis of aforementioned integration problems. Have edited and supplied link to radio interview transcript that clarifies this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wizofaus (talk • contribs) 06:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, humanitarian African immigration into Australia (or "refugee intake") was stopped completely. I agree that canceled is a strong a word but it's more accurate than reduced. Maybe reduced to zero? 220.238.65.242 (talk) 08:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be changing this to remove the UN justification. The reference supplied didn't support the notion that African refugee reduction was based on a UN directive. Also, I will replace references from the Department of Immigration website with news references, for reasons of independence and for longevity of the links (the Department will soon remove Andrews' statements from its website due to a change of government). Thanks, Lester 21:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where did anyone read that the African humanitarian intake was cut to zero? This article http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/refugee-cut-not-racist/2007/10/03/1191091178266.html says it was cut from 70% to 30%. It's true that this mean no more Africans until July next year, but the annual intake rate wasn't cut to 0. BTW, this statement (from google cache) does show that *part* of the reason for cutting the intake was consultation with the UNHCR:

http://72.14.235.104/search?q=cache:Y-r3wKEl0U0J:www.minister.immi.gov.au/media/media-releases/2007/ka07104.htm+%22high+commission%22+refugees+african+intake+andrews&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=au —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wizofaus (talk • contribs) 04:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fifteen Private Members' Bills

[edit]
  • As a backbencher, Andrews authored the Euthanasia Laws Bill 1996 to overrule Northern Territory legislation that legalised euthanasia (the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act 1995). It is one of only fifteen Private Member's Bills passed into law in Australian parliamentary history.
I don't dispute the number 15, but can anyone provide a reference for it? -- JackofOz (talk) 08:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No worries; I found it here (Table 16.1). -- JackofOz (talk) 08:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Leadership challenge against Malcolm Turnbull

[edit]

I edited this paragraph to make it clear that the Andrews challenge to Malcolm Turnbull's leadership did not happen on November 25 2009 because the vote in the party room was about whether to have a leadership spill not a vote on whether Turnbull or Andrews is to be the leader.--The Shadow Treasurer (talk) 07:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Kevin Andrews (politician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:37, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Kevin Andrews (politician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kevin Andrews (politician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:07, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bachelor degrees

[edit]

His bachelor qualification is likely to have been a five-year combined BA/LLB, graduating first BA and then LLB. The websites don't say. Wikiain (talk) 05:20, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:10, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kevin_Andrews_(politician)&oldid=1204857756"