Talk:Peter Garrett

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

Government decisions[edit]

It is irrelevant to Garrett. I don't think the last couple of paras should be there either. Your addition in particular carries undue weight. If you wish to add it, please seek consensus here. Should users agree with you, it can then be re-added. Timeshift (talk) 05:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is rejection by Garrett himself of a $5.3billion project in his capacity as Environment Minister (declared "a project of State Significance" and "Australia's largest coal project" by the Queensland government [1]) irrelevant to Garrett? Especially if this is headed to federal court? Frankly, lots of Queenslanders will find it relevant to Garrett, as much as approval of port dredging or an uranium mine is relevant to Garrett. Rudykruger (talk) 05:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Government decisions (made by ministers on behalf of the government) should not be in individual ministers articles, otherwise the articles just become a laundry list. Unless it's something groundbreaking, ie: Kevin Andrews/WorkChoices. I think the majority would agree with me. Timeshift (talk) 06:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I agree with Rudykruger in that policy decisions approved by Garrett are entirely relevant. Kaitwith talk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.217.196.205 (talk) 09:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Concur that its relevant. Peter Garrett is a man with a lot of community expectations about his conduct due to his past, and when those expectations do or do not align in newsworthy ways then its relevant because it tells us something about the underlying dynamics of his relationship to his government, as well as perhaps a bit about himself too 59.167.111.154 (talk) 11:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am really surprised that there is not more written regarding the HIP. Garrett may of written 500 letters to the PM, however he was the one responsible for implementing the program, as it was his department. While the Government may order a department to do something - like the defense department to ensure Australia can defend itself from external threats as an example - it is still the ministers responsibility to ensure that his department can achieve what the Government has set it out to do. He got the budget to manage the program. It wasn't like he had no reports from external consultants which informed him about the risks. This article is very poor regarding this issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.110.151.229 (talk) 02:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with you there, if the PM or Party Leader says jump, you say how high, no matter what or who you are. Any Minister does his/her best with the resources that he/she is allowed by their party/cabinet and in Garrett's case Rudd wanted to stimulate the economy and employment by starting HIP (one of many, many programs rushed out during the GFC). The Department that Garrett looked after is a policy department, not a program delivering department - that is Centerlink, etc. Garrett and the department did the best they they could do/was allowed but the before mentioned is why the whole program went south, no matter how many protests from Garrett and the Department.

Interesting reads: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/04/20/3197147.htm http://search.abc.net.au/search/search.cgi?query=Insulation&collection=abcnews_meta&form=news etc.

CheersCanberraBulldog (talk) 03:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ [1]

Page protected[edit]

I've locked down this page for two hours. Whoever was editwarring: settle down. Its always better if I don't have to start enforcing 3RR with personal blocks.--Tznkai (talk) 06:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Garrett's letter in the 2006 Victorian election[edit]

During the 2006 Victorian State election campaign, Garrett urged voters to vote not for the Australian Greens, but for his own Labor Party. This incurred the ire of Greens leader and former Garrett ally, Bob Brown who accused Garrett of having "sold out" and of going against the green movement, since joining the Labor Party.[8]

This is a whitewash and it misses the point. The point was not that Garrett urged voters to vote for his own party, which would be entirely reasonable. The point is Garrett joined in Labor's campaign to mislead voters into thinking that if they voted for the Greens they were in fact supporting the Liberals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cowrider (talk • contribs) 23:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC) Evidence:[reply]
Garrett's letter to Melbourne voters
SMH article
Crikey article
--220.253.115.246 (talk) 13:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC) I fail to see how this relates to an WP:NPOV WP:BLP. Timeshift (talk) 14:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The current text violates the NPOV because it misrepresents what happened:
  • During the 2006 Victorian State election campaign, Garrett urged voters to vote not for the Australian Greens, but for his own Labor Party. - true, but missing key information about the nature of Garrett's participation in the campaign, i.e. the part where he alleged the Greens were in an 'alliance' with the Liberals (see text of Garrett's letter).
  • This incurred the ire of Greens leader and former Garrett ally, Bob Brown who accused Garrett of having "sold out" and of going against the green movement, since joining the Labor Party. - this is a misrepresentation because it doesn't explain why Brown was angry, it implies he was angry about Garrett campaigning for Labor, when in fact he was angry that Garrett put his name to a campaign which tried to mislead voters into thinking voting for the Greens was supporting the Liberals.
The current text basically states: Garrett did something reasonable, then Brown acted unreasonably over Garrett's reasonable actions. This is a biased account of the situation.
I'm not sure how to best correct it, but the current article is wrong. --Cowrider (talk) 22:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here is my attempt:
Peter Garrett campaigned for Labor in the 2006 Victorian State election. There was controversy when he sent a letter to the constituents of the seat of Melbourne, where Labor and the Greens were embroiled in a tight contest. In the letter Garrett urged voters not to vote for the Greens, claiming they were in alliance with the conservative Liberal party. This incurred the ire of Greens leader and former Garrett ally, Bob Brown who accused Garrett of having "sold out" and of going against the green movement, since joining the Labor Party.[8]
It's factual. Am open to suggestions as to how it can be shortened, whilst still maintaining accuracy, or improved in other ways. --Cowrider (talk) 01:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christian?[edit]

The rather egregious and unwarranted graf about Garrett being a christian has been removed. I've personally followed all the links and found absolutely nothing to substantiate the claim. Simply mirroring another unproven claim in another source is not a citation. Not with less than a cite from the man himself. And although he's spoken in the context of christian circumstances (as he must as a politician) there is nothing to suggest this in any way applies to his own person. On the contrary: Garrett is very much a secular humanist, this judging him from his actions and not by weird mutually cancelling cross-references. My conclusion therefore is the section in question was peppered into the article to skew the tone and mislead the reader. Unless such matters are both convincingly justified and documented, I will remove the section again if our 'troll friend' attempts to replace it.

Not with less than a cite from the man himself - there, fixed that for you: Transcript from Garrett speaking on the Religion Report "If your perspectives and values are shaped by a Christian faith, as mine are, then that opens up far more possibilities than can be ever dreamed of by Strangelove and his cohorts." haydn_likes_carpet (talk) 04:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's still not enough. We're all 'shaped' by christian history - and many other things. Garrett is a politician - too much according to some - and he's not about to commit to a personal statement and alienate some of his constituency. He's building bridges, not burning them. Keep fanaticism at home and out of Wikipedia. - added by 82.253.181.124 (please sign with four ~'s)
For what it's worth, the infobox for religion is for a current belief, not a former belief. That text two posts above can easily and plausibly infer that Garrett's perspectives/values that he grew up with are on a Christian basis, from family and/or society. In that perspective, I would nominally be too, but i'm not Christian. Timeshift (talk) 07:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Garrett's Face[edit]

What happened to Peter Garrett to cause his facial disfiguration? He apparently didn't always look that way (the way of the photo on the article page), so what happened to change the way he looked? Regards Stevenmitchell (talk) 08:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Garretts always been a funny looking bloke. Plus the mans getting on in years (We all get a bit twisted in our years, alas). Its just the way of things. 59.167.111.154 (talk) 11:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking of Parts?!?![edit]

I can understand this discussion but I can't understand the blanking? Shouldn't the information STAY until new wording is created? Also, wasn't the four deaths and fires related to HIP because the householders only took up the insulation and the workers were only installing BECAUSE of the HIP program?

With Garrett's page - I'm putting this part back in - It was revealed in May 2010 that Mr Garrett had written to the then Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, on four separate occasions raising concerns about safety.[1] as it is fact.

This part - I can understand why it is POV - maybe it should be placed in Rudd's page but I still think it explains the demotion of Garrett under the HIP program so can you please inform me why you think it is POV and should be deleted?

And with the above discussion - I guess the agreed wording for Rudd's page should be included on Garrett's page Cheers CanberraBulldog (talk) 02:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the entire paragraph on the Rudd page explaining the insulation situation needs a proper overhaul, and can then be applied to this page. What I don't like seeing is continuing the News Ltd lie that the scheme caused deaths and fires - it actually had the opposite effect of saving lives and reducing fires.[3] Timeshift (talk) 02:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree i needs re-wording as the time has past and that the insulation program did help BUT was not those 4 deaths and housefires linked to the HIP program because the workers and fires contacted solely to HIP? CheersCanberraBulldog (talk) 02:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the article explaining how that whole line of attack is bunkus? The scheme saw the rate of fires and deaths drop with the introduction of the scheme. Timeshift (talk) 03:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, read that and knew all that before that crickey article. I also know that the 4 deaths and certain house fires are related to HIP because those certain situations occurred because of HIP - the householders got the insulation solely because of HIP and the workers were only there solely because of HIP. I'm not disputing any other fires or deaths. CheersCanberraBulldog (talk) 03:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're moving the goalposts. There is a rate of death and fire in any home insulation industry, government or non government supported. Timeshift (talk) 03:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, BUT these deaths and fires were specifically linked/related/tied/blame to HIP. CheersCanberraBulldog (talk) 03:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Linked/related/tied/blamed by News Ltd, not by truth. The number of homes that were done under the scheme, there was a lower incidence of fire or death than there had previously been - not more. Timeshift (talk) 03:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If News Ltd is the basis of your discussion then I should undo your edits as the part you have blanked only sites ABC and the Environment homepage. Also, nowhere within the article does it state or mention that every single death or housefires was HIP fault, it only states the deaths and fires related specifically to the introduction of HIP. CheersCanberraBulldog (talk) 03:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But is it noteable in such a risky industry where deaths and fires occur anyway? That is the crux. Timeshift (talk) 03:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I believe it is noteable as it is noted on ABC and the environment webpage and should be noted here. CheersCanberraBulldog (talk) 03:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying it shouldn't be. I'm saying that a para needs to be drafted that addresses the issues. At the moment it tells an extremely POV story that is completely out of context. Timeshift (talk) 04:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ [2] Rudd admits insulation scheme mistakes Australian Broadcasting Corporation 28 May 2010

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Peter Garrett. 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 to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 03:04, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Peter Garrett. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 22:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Peter Garrett. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 23:31, 6 December 2017 (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) 09:32, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aboriginal?[edit]

IN an article in the New Zealand Herald of 26/1/24 Garrett claims to be Aboriginal. "Here’s the good oil - Peter Garrett is an indigenous man for an indigenous Waitangi occasion". Is he? If so, what is his tribal affiliation? Why has he never identified himself this way before? It would have been positive for his mob if he had done so. Unusual to be claiming this so late in life, or is he, like several others, only claiming 'affiliation' with a particular tribe? 203.129.28.129 (talk) 04:28, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a link to that article? Is there a quote saying Garret claims to be Aboriginal (as opposed to the quote you supplied in which the NZ Herald claims that Garrett is indigenous)? Mitch Ames (talk) 04:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Peter_Garrett&oldid=1207222301"