Talk:Bob Carr

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

Any preference for disambiguation?[edit]

There is a US politician who is also known as Bob Carr. The article has not been written yet, but there are several mistaken links to this article. Is Bob Carr (Australian politician) and Bob Carr (US politician) acceptable? If there are no objections here in the next day or two, I'll move this article and create a disambiguation page. older≠wiser 17:49, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Erm, how about moving this back? The two aren't very equivalent - the Australian Carr is the equivalent of an American governor. Ambi 02:44, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'm with Ambi. Australian Carr is quite more known than U.S. Carr. A disambig note at the top should do. - Vague | Rant 23:23, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
I've brought Carr home back to Bob Carr. Ambi 01:58, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Update a few weeks after his resignation[edit]

I've gone through the text, but I think it will need another massage soon, to shift away from any topical focus. As someone said on the discussion page, Wikipedia is not the 6pm news. Tony 07:05, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- I agree, i hardly think speculation of Carr's motives for quiting (e.g., cross city tunnel)have a place in here. Else i could speculate that Carr quit because he wanted to pursue his life-time love of making Ice Cream.

upper/lower case[edit]

Needs a consistent approach. I prefer minimising the use of upper case initials. Tony 05:00, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

categories[edit]

  • I understand that as a Premier he maybe could be "promoted" to "Australian Politicians" but shouldn't he be in "New South Wales State politicians" instead? Garrie 02:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:LGBT people from Australia|Carr, Bob - is there a source for this or rv?
  • There is no source for this. It was occasionally alleged on the quiet by Carr's political opponents, on the tenuous grounds that he had no children, so there must be something "unnatural" about him. This says a lot more about them than Carr. It is also occasionally added to this article -- assuming good faith, the reason for this must be that people have heard the political sniping and were adding what they believed to be true. The take-home message - there is no evidence for the claim, and its genesis is as an attempted political slur. Jeendan 11:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In passing, I note that it was most recently added by User:Phatom007 -- the regular creator of a Wikipedia page endorsing the Liberal candidate for Coogee (and a suspected sockpuppet of User:JFlegg). This illustrates the point about this being a political attack and not a credibly sourced claim. Jeendan 11:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Say for example if the man attends mardi gras events with his long term partner, and if no one in the press is willing to report this (which is understandable because its hardly newsworthy), I would like to challenge you to recommend a way of "credibly sourcing" such a claim?59.167.13.118 08:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Lang reference re Government House[edit]

It has been claimed in the article that Carr said "This one's for Jack Lang!" when officially opening Government House to the public. I can find no source for this claim other than on the Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy website, a speech by colourful Opposition MP Andrew fraser and and a couple of anti-Carr monarchist pages. With respect, these are not reliable sources.

Can anyone provide a more definitive source forthis quote? Carr was never a Jack Lang enthusiast (unlike for example, Keating), and it seems unlikely that he would have expressed these sentiments. Does anyone know? Jeendan 22:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one? Jeendan 05:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously not. I have removed the reference - if anyone has a genine source, please discuss it here before readding it to the article. Jeendan 19:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The source shows at least that monarchists claimed Carr said something about Jack Lang - whether he actually did or not - though it seems unusual that this would be a blatant fabrication. I've added in the point, from Carr's words in Hansard, that the Governor agreed with the premier's recommendation re. the house as an official residence. --G2bambino 21:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I don't think Carr actually did say this, but the way its worded now makes it clear it was only alleged he was saying it. The paragraph needs a bit of cleaning up to make it read better, but I've reverted my own reversion. A victory for compromise? Jeendan 21:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Brogden-Helena Carr Incident[edit]

Since John Brogden's disgracefully pointed remarks about Asian women was a direct jab at Helena Carr, and not just at her personally but as a political swipe at Bob Carr, perhaps we need some information about this ugly affair in this article.

Maybe, though it is mentioned at Helena Carr and John Brogden (politician) so I'm not sure it has immediate relevance to this article as well. The incident also came to light after Carr had retired and he made very few comments on it. Do you have any wording in mind? Euryalus (talk) 00:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Financial management[edit]

His centrist, cautious government has been characterised by conservative financial management

Sorry - that just isn't borne out by what has been learned since he left Government.

If you have reliable sources to support an addition to the article, feel free. Euryalus (talk) 00:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Carr and The West Wing[edit]

Apparently Bob Car is a huge West Wing fan and is president of the Australian fan club. I heard this in a radio interview on radio national. How relevent is this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katana Geldar (talk • contribs) 22:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a transcript of the Radio National program here. Seems like an interesting tidbit of info, feel free to add it to the article. Euryalus (talk) 00:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further Reading[edit]

I've added Thoughtlines book but not really happy/familiar with wikipedias buttons for correct display on page.The book is Thoughtlines by Bob Carr, published by Penguin Group, via Viking,2002. Please take a look & fix /tidy up if needed,thanksErn Malleyscrub (talk) 02:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Appointed Foreign Minister"[edit]

This is nonsense. He will be appointed by the Gov Grl. after he has firstly been given his seat in the Senate. Emerson therefore is still "acting foreign minister". Oalexander-En (talk) 01:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Mark Arbib's Senate seat does not become vacant until 9 March. The NSW Parliament still has to ratify filling the Senate vacancy. Bob Carr is not Foreign Minister until he is sworn in. ShipFan (Talk) 01:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As always, Wikipedians suffer from premature ejaculation. However, under the Constitution, he can be sworn in as a minister without being a Senator. He has three months to become a member of Parliament. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 04:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's true. Media reports are the new Ministry will be sworn in on Monday. ShipFan (Talk) 04:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be some disagreement about who to list as Carr's predecessor as Minister for Foreign Affairs. My preference would be to list Kevin Rudd, not Craig Emerson. I don't think people acting in positions should be listed. --Canley (talk) 04:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Concur. People become acting Ministers, including acting PM, every time someone goes on holiday. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 05:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a difference is made when a minister acts in a vacant position (eg Emerson), as opposed to acting for the incumbent minister when he/she is on leave or out of the country (eg Swan as acting PM)? WWGB (talk) 00:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. The circumstances of exactly why there's an acting minister on a particular occasion don't matter. For the bureacracy, sure, they need to be aware that they reported to Rudd, then to Emerson, then to Carr. But as far as the general public is concerned, Rudd was succeeded by Carr. The short break in between, and who acted in the role in that time, is of little moment.
Btw, we're going to have to get used to the idea that there'll be two Senator Carrs now, both in the ministry. I suppose we'll see the jokes about Gillard running "a two-Carr family". -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 00:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh please don't start. The opportunity for jokes is just too obvious, and that one was appalling! HiLo48 (talk) 01:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Always happy to oblige.  :) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 01:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But I'm not alone - [1]. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 02:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"But as far as the general public is concerned, Rudd was succeeded by Carr." An encyclopedia is supposed to reflect verifiable facts, not what the public thinks is true. Saying that Rudd was succeeded by Carr is just plain wrong. Look at http://www.foreignminister.gov.au/ to see who holds the position. ShipFan (Talk) 02:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So, of all the probably hundreds of occasions on which Australia has had an acting Minister for External/Foreign Affairs, going all the way back to 1901, why is it that the one and only case worthy of mention is Craig Emerson? Hmm? Either they all go in, or none of them do. And if they all go in, then we have to do the same for all the other acting ministers in all the other portfolios we've had in the past 111 years. I'd have thought that recording all the acting Prime Ministers and their dates and details would be at least as significant as the acting arrangements in the FA portfolio, but we certainly don't do that. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 03:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. I think we have consensus to change it. StAnselm (talk) 03:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
More than that, I think for sure - I'm taking out all of the "Parliament of Australia" rows. Carr is not in the Senate until (and unless) the NSW Parliament says so and he is not the Minister (even acting, I would say) until sworn in. --Wikiain (talk) 04:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And I've just removed 3 crystal ball categories. He's not any kind of senator (not a senator-designate and certainly not a senator-elect). At best, he's a Minister-designate, which is what the article calls him right now. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 06:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot have a concensus to introduce something that is demonstrably incorrect. This is not like a Minister going on leave. ShipFan (Talk) 07:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked out the full official list of Ministry details. Here are just a few examples out of many more I could have mentioned:
  • In Foreign Affairs, Bill Hayden resigned on 17 August 1988 to become Governor-General. Gareth Evans was not sworn in till 2 September 1988. Presumably there was an acting Foreign Minister in the interim 16 days, but there’s no mention of it on the official record - for the same reasons that there shouldn’t be any mention of Craig Emerson in a table of Australia’s Foreign Ministers. An acting Minister for X does not have the same discretion as a substantive minister does to advance policy; it is just a temporary holding pattern, if you like, to ensure that essential work gets done, such as formal ministerial approvals for certain matters that cannot wait. The Governor-General is not involved in these acting arrangements (I'm sure she'd be advised as a courtesy, that's all). The Prime Minister has to power to make whatever interim acting arrangements she pleases, and in the vast majority of cases there's no public announcement and virtually nothing on the public record. The fact the this particular period of higher duties has attracted more attention than usual because of the circumstances of Rudd's resignation, does not alter how we treat the person who's acting, and does not mean we suddenly elevate him to a status that no previous acting minister has ever merited,
  • John Brown ceased as Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories on 18 December 1987. Graham Richardson was appointed in his place from 19 January 88, a gap of 32 days.
  • John Sharp resigned on 24 or 25 September 1997 over the Travel Rorts Affair. He was replaced by Mark Vaile, but not till 9 October 1997, a gap of 14 days.
  • Robert Hill ceased as Defence Minister on 20 January 2006. Brendan Nelson was not appointed till 27 January.
  • Graham Richardson ceased as Minister for Transport and Communications on 18 May 1992. Bob Collins was not appointed his successor till 27 May.
  • Were there acting ministers in all these and many similar cases? Almost certainly.
  • Are they mentioned anywhere publicly? No. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 09:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SOFIXIT. Newspapers are very good at reporting who was acting in those gaps. ShipFan (Talk) 00:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They certainly are not good at it. When I worked in the part of the bureaucracy involving these machinery of government matters, we had a lot of work to do to keep track of who was acting in which portfolio at any point in time, and making sure communications with ministers and their offices were appropriately worded etc. I can tell you it was most definitely the exception rather than the rule for any mention to get into the media of the substantive minister being offline and an acting minister being there in his place. Admittedly, the bulk of these cases were when the minister went on leave; but sometimes it was when they resigned. As I said above, the reasons are immaterial. It would make no sense to have a list of ministers showing the acting ministers when the minister resigned, but not showing the acting ministers in other circumstances. Also, no official lists of Australian ministers ever show any acting arrangements, and for us to do so would be OR.
So, the "fix" I propose we adopt is to remove any mention of Craig Emerson being the acting Minister for Foreign Affairs, except as part of his own biography in his own article. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 01:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So you want to ignore facts[2] and whitewash history? That's not encyclopedic. I suggest you take a break from Wikipedia for a while. ShipFan (Talk) 03:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone is aware that sometimes there's an acting minister for whatever. That is not the issue here. The issue here is that official lists of holders of ministerial portfolios do NOT show any details of acting arrangements. It's not a question of pretending such events did not happen; it's about showing who the officially sworn-in ministers were, not those who merely acted for short periods. If you accuse me of ignoring facts and whitewashing history, then you must also be accusing the Parliament itself of the same errors, because they have never shown such details in the Parliamentary Handbook or in the official List of Ministries I linked above.
Please confine your remarks to the issues at hand. Please do not make personal remarks about other editors, such as suggesting they change their relationship with Wikipedia. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 03:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) Come on, that's pretty impolite. Jack has done a lot of research to show why Wikipedia, and for that matter, the federal government, would generally not include acting ministers on official lists. All you have done is provide a single citation to a obviously temporary web banner (which appears to have been archived—I suspect we all know that once Bob Carr is sworn in as Minister for Foreign Affairs, it will be very difficult to find any reference to Emerson as acting minister on the DFAT, ministerial or government websites—not impossible as I know Emerson did do one media release). I think it should be mentioned on Emerson's article for sure, but acting ministers are not sworn in, not gazetted, and not officially listed by the government. I appreciate your input to the contrary (that's why I asked, rather than just changing it), but to accuse a fellow editor of "whitewashing the factsignoring the facts and whitewashing history" (apart from bearing a grudge against Emerson I can't see why someone would do that!) and suggesting they stop editing is unhelpful and unnecessary. --Canley (talk) 04:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is Carr almost unique?[edit]

So, I’m trying to think of any other case where a person has been sworn in to a federal portfolio before being a member of the parliament, and I reckon we have to go right back to 1 January 1901, when Edmund Barton and his ministry took office 3 months before the first election.

The only other cases that have even remote similarities (and they are remote) are:

  • John Gorton became Prime Minister in January 1968 while a Senator, and remained PM between resigning from the Senate on 1 Feb and being elected to the lower house on 24 Feb.
  • There would have been nothing to prevent Keating having Michael Lavarch sworn in as Attorney-General in March 1993 pending the outcome of the special election in the Division of Dickson in April, but he chose to wait for the outcome and kept the portfolio vacant. In any case, Lavarch was not even out of the parliament as it turns out, since he won the April election and was deemed to have remained a member continuously.

Anyone have anything else? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 01:58, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Parliamentary Library just posted an article on the eight cases where MPs have been appointed a federal Minister before or immediately after taking their seat in the parliament: the most similar case seems to be Bill Spooner who was made Minister for Social Services in the Menzies government two months before the commencement of his Senate term. --Canley (talk) 02:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, Canley. I’d say Bill Spooner is the only other case, then, as all the others entered the parliament first and were appointed ministers a few days later.
But I see it says that "Until [Carr] takes his place in the Senate, Craig Emerson will continue to act as Minister for Foreign Affairs". Which suggests he won’t be sworn in to the Ministry on Monday 5 March after all. Or is it that he’ll be sworn in but won’t assume the duties of the position until he formally becomes a senator? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 02:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The NSW Parliament is in session, so the procedure would be a joint sitting of the two houses. Both of them will next sit on Tuesday 6 March. I don't see the NSW government, which is Liberal, rushing to arrange the joint sitting. --Wikiain (talk) 04:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
However, it's only Saturday and he's already started work de facto: Sydney Morning Herald, 3 March 2012, 12:20h. --Wikiain (talk) 05:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. We're talking of a scenario where his swearing-in as Minister for Foreign Affairs precedes his being appointed as a Senator. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 05:35, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've just heard on TV that he will not be sworn in on Monday along with the others, but is waiting till after he's appointed to the Senate. The reason was given as "to avoid any potential embarrasment to the Labor Party". What would that be, I wonder? Mark Arbib changing his mind about resigning? (Remember, he hasn't resigned yet, he's just said he's going to resign on 9 March.) Even without that unlikely development, the NSW Parlt has to wait till they're officially informed there's a Senate vacancy, and that certainly won't happen before it happens, presumably no earlier than 9 March. So, Carr could be a minister-designate for a couple of more weeks yet. Crazy situation for a guy who's obviously itching to hit the ground running and has already held talks with his overseas counterparts and will be flying to NZ this week coming, before Arbib has even left the Senate. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 06:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I presume that it's to reduce the temptation for the NSW Government to play games with his appointment. I suspect that these days most of the public would have a dim view of someone who's not in parliament being sworn in as a cabinet minister, even if it is entirely legal and has happened before (the Daily Telegraph campaign against such a situation writes itself really...). Nick-D (talk) 06:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Senate now lists Carr as a Senator, which I suppose should be good enough for WP. It is at the very least a fact for WP to register. So I've listed Carr's Senate page (which is evidently written by Senate officers) as an external link and added the Senate rows into the table. The date of 6 March in the info box, when Carr was chosen by the NSW Parliament, is the same as that on the Senate page. Arbib is no longer listed, so his resignation must have taken effect. I haven't seen anything about swearing Carr in, which might not take place until Senate next sits, on 13 March. --Wikiain (talk) 02:45, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've never heard of a new senator (or member) being sworn in other than during a sitting of the relevant house. He has been entitled to be called Senator Carr since 6 March, as you say; the only purpose in swearing in is to enable him to take part in the proceedings of the Senate and its committees, which he can't do till it next meets anyway. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 10:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resignation Section Problem[edit]

Resignation section issue: By March of 2004, public support for Carr started to slip; Newspoll showed that for the first time more people were dissatisfied than satisfied with the Premier. The opposition were exploiting the fact that the lack of planning had not kept pace with a growing capital city where public transport, water and power supplies became increasingly neglected.[11] Even after series of announcements and re-announcements of more trains, and power stations, and a desalination plant, the public had seen enough of Carr. By June 2005, only 35%[25] were satisfied with his performance whereas his dissatisfaction rating had been over 51% since September 2004.


This doesn't actually seem to have any reference, and Reference 25 (the 35% figure) links to the Newspoll Wikipedia Article only and not any actual polling. "the public had seen enough of Carr" is clear opinion/commentary and not an actual fact. The wording needs to be changed I feel, perhaps to point to some actual polling and show that he was lagging in opinion polling or something but without the commentary/opinion/bias. The whole section seems to be a veiled sledge. I note as well that despite the apparent dissatisfaction with the ALP they won the 2007 Election easily with a different leader, so I'm not sure whether this works for or against the blurb above (ie. He resigned so ALP bounced back? Or his resignation was of no consequence, they would have won anyhow?). Obviously speculative, we clearly just need to look at tidying up the wording and citations of the section :) Pursey Talk | Contribs 02:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When did Arbib resign?[edit]

Regarding this reversion:

I believe he is now a Senator, as of today's joint sitting of the NSW Parliament. True, he hasn't been sworn in yet, but that doesn't alter his status. The parliament has elected him, end of story. Swearing-in is a pre-requisite for a senator to physically take up their seat in the Senate and engage in the business of the Senate; but swearing-in is not what makes them a senator.

No new member of parliament is sworn in till some time after they're elected, but members are entitled to MP after their name immediately the result is beyond doubt on or after election night, and senators-elect whose terms start on 1 July are called "senator" from that date, even though the parliament is usually in recess till August and they can't be sworn in till then. So, it's Senator Carr from 6 March 2012.

Strike the above: I misread the reversion It was about his appointment as Foreign Minister, not his swearing-in as a Senator.

The only question is: when exactly did Mark Arbib resign? What we've been told so far is that he announced he'd be resigning on 9 March, which is still 3 days away, but the wording of O'Farrell's announcement seems quite clear that a vacancy has already been created, which would have had to be the case for them to choose a successor. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 10:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that I saw a story stating that his resignation letter was officially received by the Senate at 2pm yesterday. I can't find it now though! Nick-D (talk) 10:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Australian Senate (@AuSenate) tweeted yesterday that the President of the Senate had received Mark Arbib's letter of resignation at 2:30pm on that day, and also some other details of the timing: "@AuSenate: At 2.30pm (Canberra time), the President received a letter from Senator Arbib resigning his place in the Senate". "@AuSenate: Under section 15 of the Constitution, the NSW Parliament may now choose a person to fill the vacancy caused by Senator Arbib's resignation." Then today: "@AuSenate: Joint sitting of the NSW Parliament will take place at 5.15 to select person to fill the casual vacancy." / "@AuSenate: The NSW Parliament has chosen Robert John Carr to fill the casual vacancy caused by the resignation of former Senator Mark Arbib" / "@AuSenate: It's expected he will be sworn in when the Senate starts at 12.30 on Tuesday" --Canley (talk) 10:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but is there nothing that non-tweeters can view? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 11:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did find an ABC reference that Arbib's resignation took effect on 5 March: Senate-bound Carr set to be endorsed by party --Canley (talk) 12:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bias?[edit]

Is it me or does this article read rather bias? The descriptions for Bob Carr's crowning achievements are all sourced from articles written by himself! It almost gives the appearance that he maintains his own wiki page. I think this article definitely needs a clean up and to source external articles because it currently does not look legitimate at all. -onebutters

The "Awards" section certainly needs proper referencing. But the best I can find is Carr's own blog. I would assume it to be accurate, since there is no reason to think that it contains any false claim and in any case a false claim would soon be found out and that would be disastrous. Maybe the man himself, since the blog links to this article, could assist? --Wikiain (talk) 06:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Strong Agree Did I miss the parody tag? It reads like an election flyer. But that guy certainly wasn't from the campaign office!: User_talk:123.243.76.19 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.91.96.107 (talk) 22:42, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - the quality of this article is dreadful, but any attempts to question are reverted by the ALP wikipedia patrol. In all it is a disgrace to Wikipedia to have such a lopsided account which is so completely out of touch with the actual legacy (i.e. mess) left behind in NSW by this man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.160.171 (talk) 21:55, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also agree - I see this so much on Wikipedia now. I don't know why but the quality is just so poor when it comes to entries for Australian politicians, especially Labor ones. You would think that at least you would get a glimpse of how bad Carr was and how much damage he did in NSW - but no, this reads like he is some kind of hero. This 'just include the facts and let readers judge' rubbish is a sad self-justification for the drivel that gets served up. To think that there are school kids probably using this stuff for assignments just makes me cringe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.78.32.21 (talk) 13:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]



Wikipedia's approach is to describe what someone did and leave it to the reader to decide if that was good or bad. It's certainly not our job to tell the readers whether a politician's decision was a good or a bad one. Voters decide that at elections. HiLo48 (talk) 00:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Readers should be given the facts and left to decide. What's been identified and questioned though is the complete lack of balance and neutrality to the article. Well sourced facts that don't support a particular (positive) POV are being promptly reverted. It's important that the article is respectful WP:BLP, but this article has just become pure WP:Advocacy. Bob Carr was active in public life, having both many supporters and critics. In my opinion, he also rarely, if ever, shied away from using criticism when appropriate himself. To have his biography become so clearly biased and appear censored this way is disrespectful to everyone and a mockery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.76.19 (talk) 10:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please suggest some specific changes to the article, supported by reliable sources. The article isn't protected, so you can make these yourself as well, though do please note WP:BLP. Nick-D (talk) 10:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe some other editor would like to salvage specific changes from my last [edit] and attempt discussion of concerns. I was already blocked twice for trying to discuss or seek consensus opinion on that and I've now given up hope for this article. Let me just leave with a quote found on admin Wehwalt's page - "No public official who conscientiously discharges his duty will desire to deny those whom he serves the right to discuss his official conduct." (The New York World, August 13, 1896). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.76.19 (talk) 03:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That seems a very poor and bad faith response to Nick-D's suggestion immediately above. HiLo48 (talk) 07:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestions were in the edit. It's clear that seeking explanation of how WP:BLP was violated will result in a call of disruption and a permanent block. No thanks. 123.243.76.19 (talk) 14:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have an obligation to add, that despite what comes across as heavily critical details, Bob Carr I think has demonstrated a belief in public service, is dedicated to his work and in my view deserves respect for being out there having a go. I should acknowledge to Nick-D that my initial edit, probably didn't convey that tone well (a serious public transport injury of a family member due to overcrowding and countless other horror stories probably overshadowed the tone). There are significant aspects of Carr's service record that unfortunately need to be recognised. His state government's performance on public transport, road and rail infrastructure is widely considered to have left the state in a mess, with enormous productivity costs. That would be an aspect to find supporting references for. Also, the subject of my edit, was Carr's high paid retainer from Macquarie Bank immediately after office. Macquarie had achieved outstanding accomplishments for capital market efficiency and I'm sure created many benefits for the Australian economy - however bankers objectives are generally to serve their shareholders, themselves and their clients. Just as separation between church/state & legislative/executive/judicial power is relevant to public office record; separation between corporate or personal & government interests is highly relevant to public record. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.76.19 (talk) 01:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"...widely considered to..." is a very non-objective measure of anything. HiLo48 (talk) 08:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He's been a Senator since 6 March 2012[edit]

How much longer will we have to endure the reversions from editors who assume, completely incorrectly, that Bob Carr became a senator only when he was sworn in on 13 March?

Let them consider these facts:

  • What happens every half-Senate election? A bunch of new people are elected. As soon as the result is clear, they are referred to as "Senator-elect".
  • Why only -elect? Because their term does not start till the following 1st July. But from that 1st July, they are and should be referred to as "Senator".
  • But when are they sworn in? Not till the middle of August, usually, when the Parliament first meets after the winter break.
  • Does that mean that their term doesn't really start till August? NO, IT DOESN'T.

Swearing-in is a constitutional requirement before a new senator can take up their seat in the chamber and participate in debates and be a member of committees etc. But swearing-in is NOT what makes a person a senator. In the case of a casual vacancy, it's the relevant state or territory parliament/legislature that decides, and once they've made their decision, that's it. Barry O'Farrell made a formal announcement on 6 March that Bob Carr had been chosen by the NSW Parliament. He has been a Senator since 6 March. If he had fallen under a bus late last week, he would have died a senator, not a senator-designate. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 08:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, see the third paragraph of this note: http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/odgers/chap0606. --203.129.56.72 (talk) 08:44, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I see I went a little too far. Senators can be appointed to committees before they're sworn in. Someone who isn't yet a senator cannot be appointed to a Senate committee. By analogy, only a person who's already a senator can be sworn in. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 10:08, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree with you, but I was thinking perhaps some of the confusion has arisen from reading articles such as this one in the SMH, about how Carr was not allowed to attend a Labor caucus meeting this morning "because [he] was not yet a Senator". By the way, that's an interesting rule I wasn't aware of, I wonder if it is just a Labor Party rule or a parliamentary one. --Canley (talk) 10:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it's a party rule. The Parliament cannot dictate who can attend party meetings.
I think there's been way too much focus on his senatorial swearing in. Everyone knows that new senators normally commence their terms on 1 July, and their swearing in about 6 weeks later normally gets the relatively little attention it deserves. In Carr's case, we've had the very unusual circumstance of a person who wasn't even a member of the parliament or even seeking to become a member, suddenly announced as the new Foreign Minister. The Constitution would not have prevented him being sworn in to the portfolio immediately, but I can understand why the government chose to wait till he had actually become a member of the Senate. That was a matter for decision by the NSW Parlt, which operates to its own timetable. That appointment happened on 6 March. By then, the other ministers had already been sworn in, the previous day, 5 March. I guess the govt figured, since we've missed that date, let's get both Carr's swearings-in (Senate and Ministry) done on the same day. The Senate won't meet till 13 March, so we'll organise Government House for the ministerial swearing-in that day as well. All very neat and practical. But that forced conjunction has had the unfortunate effect of confusing half the journalists, and almost all of the public, and apparently even his own party caucus officials, into believing he only became a senator when he was sworn in today. It's just not so. He's been a senator for a week already, and he certainly should NOT have been barred from attending any party meeting held after 6 March on the basis that he's not a senator. I hope you're reading this, SMH. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 11:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have little to say except to agree wholeheartedly with what everyone has already said, and to say that this kind of rubbish tends to happen with the HoR every election and it's infuriating. It would be nice if the press understood how our own legislature works. Frickeg (talk) 23:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is this an ad or a genuine article?[edit]

What is this rubbish? It is an out and out ALP ad for this man. Not one single mention of any of his faults, failures or shortcomings. Not one reference to anything critical. Considering the damage he actually did in NSW and the serious question marks over his performance in his current role, this is just unmitigated garbage. And Wikipedia has the call to run pop-ups asking me for money to support it??? WTF???? No way if this is what is being produced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.78.32.24 (talk) 02:25, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I srongly agreeShuggyg (talk) 08:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This Talk page is for discussing improvements to the article. We now know your opinion of it, but what would you like to see added or changed? Remember that this is a biography of a living person, and everything we include must be cited to reliable sources. {Or we could get sued.} HiLo48 (talk) 02:34, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unless it paints this guy in a positive light? what are you, an impartial editor or a Labor spin-doctor? This guy ruined NSW and this article reads like he is the saviour himself. At the very least he was contentious, he has been linked in many articles to the corruption of the right faction of NSW labor - the majority of his cabinet stalwarts, Obeid Macdonald Kelley Tripodi Costa, are under investigation from the ICAC and various others such as Kenneally, Orkopolus, Della-Bosca, Neal, they all stink to high heaven.Shuggyg (talk) 08:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Burying the Wikileaks/SMH revelations ("Washington's Man in Australia") smacks of bias. This information belongs in the section on his early career (when it actually happened), and should be linked to the events of the period (the Constitutional Crisis). --Nixin06 (talk) 09:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should the link to his blog be deleted from the main article? Bob Carr has stated that he neither writes nor reads the blog. http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/carrs-thoughtlines-are-not-his-own-20130605-2nqhk.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.61.208 (talk) 00:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it should go. HiLo48 (talk) 01:17, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some passing views:
  • Copyediting is definitely in order - sentence structure in some areas is confused and suggests the addition of individual events over an extended period rather than anyone writing each section as a coherent whole. I'm trying (unsuccessfully so far) to sort out the "nature conservation" content. Now that he's out of office I'll also expand the "Foreign Minister" part which seems a bit light-on.
  • Reading the Wikilinks article - it seems a pretty small-scale allegation and I doubt it needs more coverage in this article than the single sentence it has now. No particular view on where it is located.
  • Blog seems to be a collection of press releases and some old theatre and book reviews. Wouldn't hurt to have it in an "External links" section but not a die-in-a-ditch issue.
  • Re first couple of posts in this section, I agree with HiLo48: if anyone has reliably sourced additions to make to this (or any other) article, they should feel free to put them in. Euryalus (talk) 07:08, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Senate and ministerial appointment[edit]

I wrote the following which kept on getting removed: "Although Carr was sworn in as Foreign Minister after the approval of his Senate appointment, in theory under section 64 of the Constitution Carr could have taken office as a minister prior to his Senate appointment provided he took up his Senate seat within three months of his ministerial appointment." It is a valid point that have been made and did not need to be removed by stuffed shirts. Carr did not need to go through hoops with his Senate appointment before being sworn in as a minister. It simply wasn't necessary. Incidentally I do not want to be contacted at all. If I want to revisit an article I have edited I will do so on my accord and not be prompted by harassing messages. I would also ask specifically that Timeshift does not contact me again due to the threatening manner he has displayed towards me by having me banned if I do post the valid point I have made about Carr's ministerial and Senate appointment again. This was nothing more than an act of intimidation. It is just as valid as the article on Carr's Senate replacement Deb O'Neill in which it was stated that technically her appointment needed to be approved twice both for the remainder of Carr's term and the one that Carr had been elected for. In both instances it relates to the nature of Carr and O'Neill's appointments. 220.239.167.151 (talk) 23:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2012/03/bob-carr-and-how-senate-vacancies-are-filled.html
COMMENT: "Section 64 of the Constitution permits ministers to serve for up to three months without being a member of parliament. Carr was not appointed under this provision as a courtesy to the parliament of NSW." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.167.151 (talk) 23:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can cite that the sky was blue during one of Carr's press conferences but how is it noteable or relevant? And can the faux outrage. If an editor engages in disruptive editing they can expect to be contacted on their talk page (as you have been, many times) - it can't be helped if a disruptive editor is overly sensitive despite knowing better. Points to you at least for ceasing disruption and taking it to the talk page. Timeshift (talk) 23:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) What's the relevance of this material? Carr was not appointed under this constitutional provision, and I've never seen a report that the government was considering using it. Given that the process by which state parliaments appoint senators to fill vacancies is pretty straightforward and doesn't take long, there would have been no reason for the government to do this. All up, this material seems rather academic, and is not relevant to a biography of Carr. I agree that the posts by Timeshift can't really be considered "intimidating": this appears to be a tactic to try to win the argument through baseless attacks. Nick-D (talk) 23:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Timeshift (talk) 23:36, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality[edit]

Hi; I've put a neutrality tag on this article, as discussed above, it reads as if Bob Carr himself wrote it; ie, it's revisionist and written through rose coloured glasses. Personal opinions aside, rather than just delete huge swathes of writing such as this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bob_Carr&diff=604230447&oldid=604229491 improve it, and include sources. I agree that the part that was deleted looks like it was written by a fifteen year old political activist, but the content is essentially correct; therefore rather than just deleting it and pretending it didn't happen, edit it - you are afterall editors. Furthermore, it's amazing to see that there isn't a single mention of Eddie Obeid in this article, considering the lasting impact Eddie Obeid has had on Bob Carr's reputation and legacy as a premier, I think that it's a little suspect. This article looks very much like it has been edited by a PR person for Bob Carr, avoiding any of the many criticisms that have been leveled over the years at him. Until this is rectified, the article lacks neutrality. I'm afraid at wikipedia you must take the good with the bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shuggyg (talk • contribs) 00:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What changes, supported by reliable sources, do you propose to make? Nick-D (talk) 10:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some thoughts: I agree that there are some phrases in the article that could be less complimentary, but I don't think it warrants the level of complaint vis a vis neutrality that has been put up. First up, I'd suggest that article is fine up to the section headed "New South Wales state politics (1983-2005)" Later in that section I'd suggest some changes: "... Carr's performance as Opposition Leader gained approval in the party as he approached his task seriously." to just " ... Carr's performance as Opposition Leader gained approval in the party." Why? Because the bit about taking his job seriously is just opinion, and adds nothing to the rest of the article. The information about gaining approval within the party I'd retain only because it prefaces his later status within the party. I'd delete the next sentence: "He maintained a disciplined message, attacking Nick Greiner's coalition government for waste and mismanagement while releasing his own costed policies to present Labor as an alternative government." as it reads as applauding his strategy and acumen without telling me more than a journo's opinion. Putting it another way, it's just using that journo's piece as advocacy. The last sentence: "Carr ran a focused campaign in the 1995 election and won government with a majority of one seat." should be edited back to something like: "Carr won government with a majority of one seat in the 1995 election." And even then it reads like Carr did it all by himself. Perhaps "Labor won ..., elevating Carr to Premier of NSW"? I'm not going to go on with all the other sections untill people comment on these suggestions. But hopefully I've made clear what I think is going wrong with the article. Even though there are lots of references, much of the stuff is just journo's opinions, and too much of it is all warm and fuzzy. Not factually wrong necessarily, just too warm and fuzzy. And too many adjectives. Way too many adjectives. And really long quotes that don't add anything. And probably some other stuff, but I'll stop there. So ... if nobody voices any objections I'll come back in a few days and make those changes, then go on to the next section. Peace. Out. Wayne 15:09, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT: After 4 days there were no objections, so I've gone ahead with those edits. I'll leave those for a couple of days for comment, then move onto the next section/s. Wayne 07:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2nd EDIT On reading the final product, another sentence seemed to need similar treatment. So I snuck in another one: FROM: "Polling in the lead-up to the 1991 election suggested another heavy defeat. However, Labor performed strongly, regaining all but one of the seats lost at the previous election." TO: "Polling in the lead-up to the 1991 election predicted another heavy defeat. However, Labor regained all but one of the seats lost at the previous election." Aplogies if sneaking that in without listing it in the preview upsets anyone. All of the edits were done individually, so reversions can be done likewise if I've offended anyone's sensibilities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wayne aus (talk • contribs) 08:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So far so good. If this set of edits goes the same then I'll stop doing this tentative, bit-by-bit-in-Talk editing and resume normal edit processes.

I'd like to re-do the opening two para's of the next section as:

Following the narrow 1995 victory, Labor was re-elected in the 1999 poll with 55 seats out of 93. Labor was re-elected with the same margin in the 2003 elections.
Carr's centrist, cautious government was characterised by conservative financial management and the encouragement of market forces, and a "tough on crime" policy.[citation needed] It was also seen [by whom?] as having a pro-environment character and being committed to curriculum reform (especially history), testing and literacy initiatives in schools.[citation needed] Carr ventured into national policy issues, including environment, population growth, embryonic stem cell research, federal–state relations and support for a minimalist model of an Australian Republic. Carr's government, under State Treasurers Michael Egan and Andrew Refshauge, delivered ten consecutive budget surpluses. [citation needed]

Note that I haven't changed any of the info, just wound back some of the (real or perceived) emotive phrasing. I've inserted a [cit needed] tag to replace a book citation that seems to be broken. (#14: Clune, p.53) I'll go back through the article history and see if I can find the original citation. If somebody knows it you might message me or edit it in. I've retained an existing Cit Needed tag and added one. (EDIT: I removed two refs from the results in the first line as they were appearing at the bottom of Talk. They'll be back in if posted to the article)
OK, same as last time, I'll let this sit for a couple of days for comment, then if no obections are raised I'll edit it in. Wayne 06:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright ... those are in. If the sky continues to not fall and mobs still fail to take to the streets I'll continue doing similar things to the rest of the article. Shuggyg, are you satisfied that these changes are at least an improvement, such that the tag might be removed?
Wayne 19:41, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing. Done some minor copy-edits for neutrality. Then came across the Nature Conservation subsection. The 'citation' at #15 is:
Carr, Bob (27 July 2009). "Logging River Red Gums is Vandalism". The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved September 22, 2013.
... which is a newspaper 'opinion-piece' written by Carr. It is used as a reference 5 times in the subsection. It has no credibility as independent verification of the statements made. I intend to edit or delete several statements in seperate edits so they can be individually reverted. If anyone can provide independent references for any or all of the statements so effected feel free to revert them with those citations attached. Wayne 10:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quirky questions[edit]

There are a couple of things about the recent appointment of Deb O'Neill that I don't understand.

  • It's been stated that Carr became a senator once more on 1 July, and that his new period of service would count for retirement benefits etc.[3] This must mean that his resignation in October 2013 applied only to his then-current term, which would have expired on 30 June 2014. If that is true, and his service to the Senate recommenced on 1 July in accordance with the will of the people of NSW as expressed on 7 September 2013, then why was he not required to resign once more? Since he only ever resigned once, isn't he still a senator, and isn't the re-appointment of O'Neill invalid since there is no vacancy for her to fill?
  • Leaving that to one side: The NSW Joint Sitting took place on 2 July 2014, but they stated O'Neill was appointed for the term beginning 1 July. [4] [5] By what authority can a state joint sitting decree that the term of a replacement senator can commence before the joint sitting took place? Surely her service ceased on 30 June, and recommenced on 2 July, with a one day gap in between. No?

Any assistance would be appreciated. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 10:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Antony Green covered this in two posts a while back. I have nothing close to the legal expertise to comment intelligently on any of this (but, as you will see, I ended up doing so anyway), but for our purposes I would wait until the new parliamentary handbook comes out and follow their lead. Antony points out the John Barnes precedent; I would think that Heather Hill also applies, to a degree. The ABC article you cite actually doesn't say that this new "term" would count for service; it actually says that it would have had Baird & Co. decided to wait until August to fill the vacancy. I disagree with this (from my admittedly limited understanding), because from what I have understood from this reading, the decision was made that although the vacancies would have to be dealt with separately, Carr's resignation applied to both periods of service (in fact I believe he was required to specify this?). For O'Neill it may be more complicated and I suspect the one-day gap in service will end up being reflected in her term of service. I think that you have misunderstood what the NSW Joint Sitting said. It said that they were appointing O'Neill to the term that began on 1 July 2014 (i.e. the one that Carr was elected to), not that O'Neill's term began on 1 July. It's a bit like saying that when Arthur Sinodinos was appointed in November 2011, he was appointed to a term that began on 1 July 2008 (the date Helen Coonan's term began). Frickeg (talk) 12:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We're showing O'Neill as having been a senator continuously since November 2013. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 13:34, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know. I am suggesting we wait until the parliamentary handbook comes out and see how they list it. Frickeg (talk) 20:40, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Objectivity edits - I'm done[edit]

Following on from the Neutrality thread above, I've done a bucketload of edits trying to recast some of the somewhat gushy tone to a slightly more impartial, (dare I say objective) bio. I'm not suggesting that it is now perfect (it isn't, not by a long way) but I hope some of the article's former detractors will be at least a little placated.

I've left a note on Shuggyg's Talk page asking him to revisit his Neutrality tag. And with that I'm pretty much done here. Cheers all. Wayne 06:08, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Bob Carr/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Needs in-line citations in particular. Most of the current refs are dead (and none of them are in a format that allows the paper versions to be found).--Grahamec 06:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 06:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 09:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Family Life[edit]

Why no section on family life?Suastiastu (talk) 06:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article talks about his parents and wife but not in a discrete section. I think it is better that way. There is no requirement for a separate section, and the better bios on Wikipedia avoid it.--Mkativerata (talk) 07:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Premiers and Chief Ministers who went Federal[edit]

As Carr is a Premier who later went Federal, I am putting this here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Politics_of_Australia#Premiers_and_Chief_Ministers_who_went_Federal

I am hoping that someone would respond to this. 49.3.72.79 (talk) 15:57, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tort reform quotes attributed to James Spigelman[edit]

The article currently includes a number of quotes said to be from James Spigelman in the section Tort reform, that Spigelman said that the tort reform effectively "eliminates small claims" entirely, giving "people the right to be negligent and injure someone up to a given level before they become liable" with the reference [6]. Unfortunately nowhere in that paper does it quote Spigelman as using those words. While the referenced paper includes a link [7] - that link is dead but appears to be this speech [8]. which does not include the quoted parts. I have been unable to find any source for the quote that does not come from Wikipedia. Unless someone can provide a reliable source, the unsourced quotes will need to be removed. --Find bruce (talk) 00:07, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bob_Carr&oldid=1200660180"