Talk:Mal Brough

Indigenous Affairs

To date, Brough's defining legacy of his Indigenous Affairs portfolio has been his startling and at some times hyperbolic statements made regarding the state of indigenous people in Australia.

Mention needs to be made of Brough's controversial statements and surrounding media coverage. These include:

"Everybody in those communities knows who runs the paedophile rings", the Aboriginal "showcase" scheme, and the $1 million cash allegedly found in an outback community —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vermifuge (talk • contribs)

This may be a good source for his time in Indigenous Affairs. Ten pages of Brough's controversial statements and surrounding media coverage. Bringing back the Brough: 10 of the worst things Mad Mal did in office. It's a news website run by the NSW Aboriginal Land Council reporting his return to politics which explains the plain language and frequent use of the terms "whitefella" and "blackfella". Wayne (talk) 18:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Above NSW Land Council article now seems only available on the journalist's own blog, so not so good as a source, but I link it here for the record. 180.216.2.240 (talk) 04:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

References

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 23:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Aboriginal ancestry

The link supporting this claim no longer points to an article about Brough. Ordinary Person (talk) 12:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The link now does, In the eye of the storm, SMH, 30 June 2007. BUT, and it's a big but, the article states that Brough himself is unsure of his ancestry. He says, "Don't know for sure, no real way of ascertaining it, but I'm proud of who my family are and what they are - we are Australian,". I'm going to amend the article accordingly. Adpete (talk) 04:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

The above discussed change made 20 Jan 2017, seemed accurate and relevant, given Brough's own uncertainty around his heritage. Adpete (talk · contribs)'s edit was removed and replaced with this without any explanation or edit summary.

I have re-editied to reflect the reporting in various sources of the situation. If editing the article to exclude the relative tentativeness of the Brough's ancestry, please explain the reasons in edit summary, rather than just removing. Better yet, please discuss here! 180.216.2.240 (talk) 12:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. That's much better worded than my version. Adpete (talk) 04:05, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Alma Mater?

Why list an Alma Mater but not say what he studied there? 144.136.192.18 (talk) 04:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

This page is as much as mystery as is the question where the drive of the Coalition comes from to re-install Brough into Parliament. I have never seen such efforts behind the scenes and in the open to arrange someone's presence in Parliament. What's that guy got that makes it so important that he gets back in? Why not give him a safe Senate ticket - or is anyone planning to install him as PM? As this is so unusual the reasons and people or organisations who have this strong desire that he gets back in should have a place on this page

And why is he still called "THE HONOURABLE" when he's been out of Parliament for 5 years? Is this a lifelong title? 144.136.192.32 (talk) 00:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Mal challenge for PM?

"With Mal Brough said to be considering a crazy brave challenge to Abbott in order to wound him"

http://www.crikey.com.au/2015/02/01/after-queensland-abbott-needs-a-howard-style-miracle/

"Resignation"

https://www.pm.gov.au/media/2015-12-29/ministerial-arrangements

According to the above, Mal Brough is "stand[ing] aside... pending... inquiries" and other ministers will "act" in his place. That is to say that he has not actually "quit the Turnbull ministry and moved to the backbench" as the article states; instead, he retains his position but will cease to discharge his functions until the police inquiry is complete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.225.174.82 (talk) 04:34, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

It's still a resignation regardless of the nomenclature used. Timeshift (talk) 04:36, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

That's not the way I understand it. If a minister retains their position how can they be considered to have resigned, much less moved to the backbench? By way of precedent, I'd like to refer you to the case of Arthur Sinodinos. The article's lede refers to Sinodinos as having "stepped aside" as Assistant Treasurer on 19 March 2014 but "still formally [holding] the position until he officially resigned on 19 December". This nomenclature is repeated in the body of the article and is reflected in the infobox. It's therefore clear that there is a distinction, and that this distinction has been recognised in the past. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.225.174.82 (talk) 08:07, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mal Brough. 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/20130904174023/http://tracker.org.au/2012/08/bringing-back-the-brough-10-of-the-worst-things-mad-mal-did-in-office/ to http://tracker.org.au/2012/08/bringing-back-the-brough-10-of-the-worst-things-mad-mal-did-in-office/

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) 10:11, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mal Brough. 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/20160307101701/http://malbrough.com.au/announcement/ to http://malbrough.com.au/announcement/

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) 20:38, 13 January 2018 (UTC)