Talk:Peter Debnam

Untitled

Why on earth is the member for Vaucluse the Shadow Minister for Western Sydney? Slac speak up! 10:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

It's generally considered to be the responsibility of the Premier, so to present himself as Shadow Premier of sorts Debnam has been made Shadow Minister for Western Sydney. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.36.133 (talk • contribs)

The above is incorrect. The portfolio of "Minister for Western Sydney" (and therefore "Shadow Minister for Western Sydney") was created in 1995. No Premier or Opposition Leader has ever held the portfolio before Peter Debnam.

A more likely reason is the lack of Liberal seats in Western Sydney (the Liberals currently hold no Sydney seats outside the North Shore, Cronulla and Vaucluse), and a recognition by Mr Debnam that his party must win western Sydney seats to form government. Jeendan 01:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

So what did he do in the Navy and at Dalgetty ? Cabin boy ? Captain ? Janitor ? CEO ? Why so little information ?

He was a lieutenant in the Navy, serving on a number of ships in the first few years and then as a schools recruitment officer in the remainder of his tour. He served a total of 7 years (one tour of duty) before resigning his commission and going into business. I think he was a director of Dalgety - I don't know what actual day-to-day role this involves.

Why haven't I added this to the article? I can't be bothered with the footnotes, at least tonight. Maybe another day. Jeendan 10:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Debus allegations

I have added a few lines regarding the Debus allegations last year. Is it notable enough for a mention? I believe so. It received substantial media coverage, derailed what had hitherto been a successful Opposition focus on the sacking of Scully and Orkopoulos, and remains relevant to the current election campaign in a similar manner to the Labor scandals of Chaytor, Scully and Hickey (but not Orkopoulos, which is a bigger scandal than any of these).

It also reportedly had a substantial impact on the Opposition Leader's popularity, which ahs not yet recovered to pre-Debus levels. And lastly, it raised questions about Debnam's judgement which Labor has and will continue to exploit in the election.

Sources are provided in the article, but a quick Google search and a read of the opinion columns and news pieces from November-December last year will back up the blanket coverage this received.

It may be argued that this section would be better placed in New South Wales general election, 2007. I have placed it here because it relates specifically to Debnam and was not a wider campaign by the Coalition, but would welcome any alternative views.

I won't particularly welcome reversion without explanation, which is something of a common theme when anyone adds less-than-glowing information to Liberal Party articles. If you don't agree that this deserves to be in the article, then let's discuss. Jeendan 02:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

This belongs here, but could probably use a brief mention in the election article - the pre-election advantage delivered to the Libs by the scandals was somewhat squandered on the Debus attack. And don't worry, Jeendan, I'll help to defend you against the vast right-wing conspiracy. ;) Joestella 02:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Ha! You actually made me smile. Did you detect a defensive tone in my post above?

P.S. I still don't agree on Nola Fraser, but thanks for the above :) Jeendan 03:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 01:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Electorate article in infobox

An editor has been removing a section of the infobox concerning the electorate of Debnam, claiming that the information is elsewhere. This is less discerning as specifically dates and parliament info are placed there.

The examples Here show the proper title of the elected position in the infobox. I would also refer to this page: Dick Healey and this page: Nick Greiner as a precedence. I just wanted to let you know my reasons. Cheers. Stravin (talk) 10:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The information is elsewhere; it's in the footers, where it's much easier to read and navigate, and doesn't result in one of the longest userboxes I've ever seen on the project stretching the length of the article. If you must have the dates in there, stick them in the footer. The two articles you cite are non-standard; these epic userboxes aren't standard anywhere I've seen on the project, either in Australia or any other country. Rebecca (talk) 10:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

To answer your statement, there are many long info boxes in the project, perhaps you haven't looked hard enough? You don't put dates in footer boxes and the reason that this box is not standard is because, simply put, state politics pages are not as well developed as that of federal politicians (See John Howard or Bronwyn Bishop for some good examples). This box is used for almost all the federal politicians' pages (as shown in the previous examples), where it is standard, this can also be used for state politics.

The only other example of NSW electorate infobox boxes is here: Bob Carr. I believe my current use of the box should be standardised, but of course the intransigence of some gets nothing done. So if you do some research you may see where i'm coming from. Stravin (talk) 12:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

These epic userboxes are not used anywhere else on the project, and you haven't provided one single reason why they're worth cluttering these articles. That someone has evidently added them to five or six NSW articles and not been noticed is not grounds for spreading them everywhere else without a consensus. Rebecca (talk) 10:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)