Talk:Peter Dutton/Archive 1

Archive 1

Alan Joyce

The details about Alan Joyce need to be related to the CEO letter. At present, there is no connection between then two. Cyeks5Om 11 May 2017 —Preceding undated comment added 01:59, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Opposition to same-sex marriage

Re: these edits: [1][2][3][4] - given that the title/headline of the reference cited is "Peter Dutton working behind the scenes to legislate same-sex marriage before CEO spray" I think that only saying "Dutton opposes same-sex marriage" is misleading. Mitch Ames (talk) 10:48, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Equally I think the text as it currently stands (your bit) is misleading as well as it suggests that Dutton is working to bring about same-sex marriage - BUT this is not actually what he says or does publicly. In the cited article[5] it says that Dutton "privately" revealed his belief that it will happen, however his public stance - which is better documented - has been strongly against same-sex marriage.

People who support same-sex marriage are dubious about how conservatives are handling this issue - the plebiscite - as it carries no weight under our legal structure and even if the majority of Australians voted for same-sex marriage, numerous conservative politicians have said they still wouldn't vote for it in parliament (which means it would not achieve any change in legislature).[6].

The article saying that Dutton is privately working away at something and wants to solve the issue before the next election doesn't actually address these key issues about how he is going to get conservative politicians like himself to vote for same-sex marriage. It is just as possible that Dutton wants to skew the results of the plebiscite in the conservatives favour to "deal" with the issue by killing it.

As such, I think an improvement on the current text should include clearly that while Dutton may have "privately" said what you wrote, publicly all his actions and words have been against same-sex marriage.Powertothepeople (talk) 01:34, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I've expanded the quote slightly to include "said privately".

I think the text as it currently stands (your bit) is misleading as well as it suggests that Dutton is working to bring about same-sex marriage — Neither my earlier wording nor the current text suggests any such thing - it states (now with inline citation) his personal opposition to same-sex marriage and quotes the source on his belief that it is inevitable. The Wikipedia article makes no mention of Dutton working to bring it about - although the reference does say that explicitly, so perhaps Wikipedia also ought to say it explicitly.

... even if the majority of Australians voted for same-sex marriage, numerous conservative politicians have said they still wouldn't vote for it in parliament (which means it would not achieve any change in legislature).[7] ... — That may be the case, but ABC news article you cite does not mention Dutton at all, so carries no weight here. (At best it is WP:SYN.)

... I think an improvement on the current text should include clearly that while Dutton may have "privately" said what you wrote, publicly all his actions and words have been against same-sex marriage. — That may well be the case – if you can provide some references to support the statement that "publicly all his actions and words have been against same-sex marriage". Mitch Ames (talk) 07:02, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the word "privately." Regarding the rest of your comments... I thought this section was meant to be a brief summary of his political views. There is already an earlier section under the sub heading "2017 same sex marriage" that has more detail of his strong public stance against same-sex marriage. I don't expect you want me to be repetitious by reposting all of that?

As is currently stands, it is a selective quotation of the source material that *infers* that Peter Dutton is working behind the scenes to achieve same-sex marriage, even though the article itself also mentions his recent public opposition "The forcefulness of Mr Dutton's attack on corporate chief executives last week - in which he told them to "stick to their knitting" - has aroused suspicion among some colleagues who believed he was committed to achieving a breakthrough on the issue." 99% of what has been reported in hundreds of articles indicates that Dutton is strongly opposed to same-sex marriage, but then this one article that claims he has said something else privately is selectively quoted.

The overwhelming weight of evidence is that peter dutton is against same-sex marriage and opposed to those who support it, and as such this should be clear in the "political views" section. As mentioned earlier I could add in some more quotes and citations in this section to even out what is already written, but this would add bloat and repetition (and I don't like to mess with someone else's work when they are still active on it). How would you like me to proceed? Powertothepeople (talk) 22:22, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

There is already an earlier section under the sub heading "2017 same sex marriage" that has more detail of his strong public stance against same-sex marriage.  – As far as I can tell most of that section, and the references, is about Dutton's view that CEOs ought not express an opinion on same-sex marriage, not about Dutton's own view on same-sex marriage.

The "Political views" currently explicitly says "Dutton personally opposes same-sex marriage" - it can't be much clearer than that. Is there some reason you think that the SMH reference is incorrect when it says that Dutton thinks it is inevitable? Is there a reliable source that says that Dutton does not think that same-sex marriage is inevitable or does not think the Coalition should control the process? Bear in mind that someone can think something is inevitable independently of whether that person supports or opposes the idea.

If you have appropriate references that explicitly support the statements "opposed to those who support it" perhaps the simplest would be just add that, eg:

Dutton personally opposes same-sex marriage and those who support it, but has "said privately that it was inevitable that same-sex marriage would become law in Australia so it would be better for the Coalition, rather than Labor, to control the process".

Another possibility (which could be combined with the above) is to delete the word "personally":

Dutton personally opposes same-sex marriage, ...

to remove any implication that he opposes it personally but supports it publicly. (I don't think the Wikipedia article currently makes that implication, but deleting the word might stop readers making an unintended inference.)

If you have a reliable source that says "all his actions ... have been against same-sex marriage", you could add something like:

Dutton personally opposes same-sex marriage, but has "said privately that it was inevitable that same-sex marriage would become law in Australia so it would be better for the Coalition, rather than Labor, to control the process". However he has been publicly working against same-sex marriage.

References

I'm not satisfied that this suggestion is suitably accurate or neutral in communicating Dutton's political views or actions on the subject. I don't quite understand why it is written in such a manner that could lead people to believe that Dutton is more open to allowing same-sex marriage than the evidence suggests. Originally it was short and succinct "Dutton opposes same-sex marriage" and now it has turned into this. Below is my suggestion, which is now way longer than I would like but meets your requirements while seeking to be more accurate.

Dutton opposes same-sex marriage.[8] In March 2017 it was reported in The Sydney Morning Herald that Dutton "said privately that it was inevitable that same-sex marriage would become law in Australia so it would be better for the Coalition, rather than Labor, to control the process." However Dutton's actions publicly have been in opposition to same-sex advocates and "the forcefulness of Mr Dutton's attack on corporate chief executives this week - in which he told them to "stick to their knitting" - has aroused suspicion among some colleagues who believed he was committed to achieving a breakthrough on [same-sex marriage]."[9] The following month the Daily Telegraph reported that Dutton was asked by a lesbian for clarification on his position, and he "told her he had been clear that he was against same-sex marriage."[10] In his political career Dutton has voted "very strongly against same-sex marriage."[11] Powertothepeople (talk) 07:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

OK, that seems reasonable. A couple of minor points:

• The quotes need to be accurate: eg "he said privately it was inevitable", not "he said privately that it was inevitable" (if "that" is needed so it reads sensibly, but it in square brackets); "The forcefulness of Mr Dutton's attack on corporate chief executives last week ... "
• Move the full stops out of the quotes (which are not full sentences), per WP:LQ.

Mitch Ames (talk) 11:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, I have made those changes now on the main page as per your recommendations. Powertothepeople (talk) 06:37, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

OK. BTW, I recommend getting in to the habit of using copy and paste for quotes and titles, to reduce transcription errors. [12][13]. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:58, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Peter Dutton. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071112140132/http://www.aph.gov.au/Library/parl/41/mpsbyage.htm to http://www.aph.gov.au/Library/parl/41/mpsbyage.htm

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) 10:38, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Section 44

Please add the semi-protect lock symbol to this article.

Please also add the following in a section called "Section 44" just prior to the leadership spill section:

Doubts surrounding Dutton's eligibility to be elected to parliament emerged on the grounds of section 44(v) of the Australian Constitution, and Labor had sought legal advice on the matter in April 2018. The section prohibits those with a pecuniary interest in an agreement with the Commonwealth from running for office. The family trust owned by Dutton operated a child care centre that received over $5.6 million in funding from the Commonwealth Government. A similar scenario with a Commonwealth-funded building company saw Senator Bob Day effectively disqualified by the High Court in 2017. Although Dutton has received legal advice stating that he is not in breach of the constitution, Attorney-General Christian Porter referred the matter to the Solicitor-General of Australia.

References

(The above text is adapted lightly from the Wikipedia article Liberal Party of Australia leadership spill, 2018, please don't forget to note that in the edit summary.)

Thank you. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 23:02, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

 Partly done: Added {{pp-vandalism}} - FlightTime (open channel) 23:14, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

 Note: This article is no longer Semi-Protected, so you can now edit the article yourself, but please ensure that any additions are properly sourced, to reliable sources and you maintain a neutral point of view - Arjayay (talk) 12:12, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Three au pairs or two?

When the news of the au pair visa linked to AFL CEO Gil McLachlan broke, it was reported as a third visa case. But later reporting seems to only be talking about the Italian and French au pair cases, rather than those two plus a third unknown one. Is it possible that the McLachlan case is just the original November case? --James (talk) 04:39, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Two seems correct. A good summary of the state of affairs (plus some more criticism) is here - http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-04/immigration-insiders-slam-peter-duttons-au-pair-interventions/10200990 HiLo48 (talk) 22:33, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Slightly partisan

In the article, it seems that there are lines of quotes specifically praising Dutton's policy announcement whilst it a) Wasn't something that Dutton himself did, said or made but was part of Coalition worked policy and b) seems to violate wikipedia's non-neutrality position. Aneditor (talk tome) 08:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

There are some passages that seem to have been inserted to praise Dutton, but there are negative points as well. It could do with some editing to be more neutral.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:27, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

It would be interesting to know what kind of business he ran in 1999. No reference of this on the internet, though his property portfolio is apparently quite large. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.214.1 (talk) 03:10, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

FYI I have added some info about his business - Dutton Holdings - which traded under a number of names. Involved in building renovations, property development, and childcare centres. This was registered in 2000, so I am not sure what other business he might have had prior to that (one article I read mentioned he was working with his dad on a business while he was still a cop - ie before 1999 - but I don't know if it's the same business, or a different one, or changed names, etc). Powertothepeople (talk) 08:56, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

The content under "Violence" needs attention. It reads as though all of Melbourne ridiculed Peter Dutton. Ridicule on social media should be described as such. I don't think such a thin line warrants its own heading. User: LyndellaLee — Preceding unsigned comment added by LyndellaLee (talk • contribs) 00:51, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Merge 'personal life' section into 'early life'

It seems to me that the info in the last section of the article titled "personal life" would best fit under the earlier section "early life" as the information about his personal life only goes to 2003, which is before and slightly overlapping in timeline with the next section "Howard Government" from 2001-2007. And/or to split the information in "early life" between the personal and "early career" as the two are currently mixed under one section. How do others feel about this? Powertothepeople (talk) 07:39, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Defamation

There have been at least high profile court cases where Dutton has sued someone in the last few years. There is nothing on this page about any cases. I was seeking information because I couldn't remember if Dutton had been involved in another case or not, and came to Wikipedia, but found nothing at all about defamation cases. E.g. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/jul/29/awarding-248000-in-legal-costs-would-be-a-windfall-for-shane-bazzi-peter-dutton-warns "Awarding $248,000 in legal costs would be a ‘windfall’ for Shane Bazzi, Peter Dutton warns" is a recent article about one case. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-24/peter-dutton-wins-defamation-case-against-shane-bazzi/100645832 is another article on the same case. Please consider adding information to this article about this (and any other) cases. 202.14.131.60 (talk) 01:52, 29 July 2022 (UTC) Or it's possible that I just didn't see it on my first look at the article... 202.14.131.60 (talk) 01:55, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2023

The Prasser family had multiple perminent residencies long before the Dutton family & their first (perminent residence) home was built by the Prasser family. The Prasser family owns the sovereignty of Queensland Australia which was established in 1919, then in 2014 We gave the land back to it's original owners the "Sovereign Yidindji Government" The current Government of Queensland is false & will be dealt with accordingly.

PLease fix this as now it seems like a media take over as opposed to the rightous truth ! 2403:580B:605A:0:50AE:F006:67F1:78DB (talk) 05:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 05:46, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Image

It is my view that the image used on the Wikipedia page of Peter Dutton is just not very appropriate. I highly recommend we use the image below as it is clearer and more appropriate compared to the current one.

File:Peter Dutton May 2018.jpg SymeonHellas (talk) 10:31, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Whether to add position on Gaza refugees to "Political views"

Dutton's comments insisting the inadmissibility of Gaza refugees have persisted for quite some time and have been the subject of newspaper discussions. We should probably add a sub-section on it. Y. Dongchen (talk) 09:57, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Multiple sections on the same topic

This article has a few issues - coherence being the major one - but I'll start with one thing that jumps out. Why are there two separate sections on South African farmers? Is this intentional, are we trying to separate out his views from his actions somehow? Or did someone just not notice there was already a section in the article - any objection to combining? Ivar the Boneful (talk) 14:32, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi there @Ivar the Boneful - just noticed your comment and, yes, coherence is a massive problem on this article. Lots of items that deserve one or two sentences are 200 words. And, yes, two separate sections on South African farmers! Odd. Would happily support you in making relevant improvements. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 03:54, 6 February 2024 (UTC)