Talk:Treasurer of New South Wales

Was O'Farrell Treasurer

There is a dispute between myself and Siegfried Nugent about whether Barry O'Farrell was Treasurer during his two-man Cabinet with Andrew Stoner in which all portfolios were taken between the two of them. The O'Farrell-Stoner two man Cabinet is obviously based on the Whitlam-Barnard two man Federal Cabinet in 1972 and Treasury was among the portfolios that Whitlam took during this brief period. It is most likely that O'Farrell took on Treasury since it is not a portfolio that is given to the Nationals in which Stoner is its leader. After being sworn in, O'Farrell was briefed by NSW Treasury about the state of the NSW economy and it is more likely that this was due to his capacity as Treasurer rather than Premier. Therefore rather remove the reference of O'Farrell being Treasurer in this article he should try to disprove that he was never Treasurer. That is the only way I would be satisfied that Mike Baird indeed did come straight after Eric Roozendaal in the list of Treasurers. The Shadow Treasurer (talk) 10:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The office of treasurer is not a constitutionally required office at any time. The first swearing in was of O'Farrell as Premier and Stoner as Deputy, that's all. The office of treasuer remained vacant until Baird was sworn in. This was not modelled on Whitlam-Barnard's two-man cabinet nor is it contemporaneous to compare them so. If you read media reports of the time and the NSW Parliament profiles, there is no suggestion that O'Farrell was sworn in as Treasurer or indeed any other portfolio. SMH: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/state-election-2011/barry-ofarrell-sworn-in-as-nsw-premier-20110328-1cclg.html or try NSWParl: http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/members.nsf/0/275291281FA0F28E4A2567450001658A If you want to continue to argue otherwise I suggest you provide some proof. Regards Siegfried Nugent (talk) 10:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Colonial?

I thought the colony became a state in 1901. Why are "colonial" treasurers listed up to 1959? How bizarre. Tony (talk) 12:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I assume that it was retained for historical reasons, we can only speculate. Siegfried Nugent (talk) 16:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a glaring error; can it be fixed (for both Tr. and Asst. Tr. lists)? Tony (talk) 16:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Its not an error at all. 'Colonial Treasurer' was a title not a description of the status of NSW. Needless to say, the 'colonial' word was dropped in 1959 following the Ministers of the Crown Act 1959 (NSW). Siegfried Nugent (talk) 09:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, this point needs to be explained in a footnote attached to the heading or the first mention in the lead. It looks extraordinary to readers, and can't be allowed to remain unexplained.

My solution would be to disregard whatever technical hair-splitting is going on and remove the duality of colonial versus post-colonial. Why retain it when it confuses? Otherwise, we'd need to refer to most 19th-century Acts as "Private Acts". Tony (talk) 09:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Convention & trivia

I had removed the description of what was said to be a convention that the treasurer is from the Legislative Assembly - no debate that it is the usual practice, however convention, particularly in the context of a parliament, implies a formal practice that it is somehow improper not to follow - for example the convention that money bills originate in the legislative assembly [1]. To put it another way, while the list of treasurers shows it is usual that they are a member of the legislative assembly, I am not aware of any reliable source that describes it as a convention. @UncleTurner: appears to have a different view. They helpfully corrected the dates for Lewis & Askin, but keep inserting the trivia into the text that Egan is the longest serving. It is obvious & highlighted in the table but in my view is otherwise unremarkable. --Find bruce (talk) 08:29, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

It may be unremarkable in your opinion but I find that a strange attitude. It is surely worth noting who is the longest serving incumbent, as it is with the premier of NSW. Such facts are what Wikipedia is about. It is not easy to ascertain from the lengthy tables. It is by no means trivia. Many entries about a position state who is the longest serving incumbent. As to the convention, by definition a convention, such as a constitutional convention, is not a formal practice. It is accepted practice not a formal rule. As the lower house originates money bills the convention is that the treasurer is in the lower house. The breaking of this, as in the case of Egan, was controversial but not illegal, as the Hansard of the day shows. It is quite erroneous to say that the seniority of the Treasurer has anything to do with the position being in the lower house. I am reverting your edits and urge you to respect someone else's views. UncleTurner (talk) 23:34, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

You are entitled to your views, however Wikipedia is no place for your views or mine - the question is what do the Reliable Sources say? My issue is that there is no reliable source for it being a convention. My edit was a clumsy attempt to remove the loaded description. It would be accurate and uncontroversial to state that Egan was the first treasurer appointed from the legislative council. If there is a reliable source that says Egan's appointment was controversial then great, then cite it & put is in. Anne Twomey discusses most NSW parliamentary conventions in her excellent book on the NSW constitution, including on money bills, but makes no mention of any convention in relation to the treasurer. Similarly if being the longest serving treasurer is important, a reliable source will have written about it & you should have no difficulty in citing a reliable source that says so. In the absence of a reliable source it has no place in Wikipedia. --Find bruce (talk) 03:47, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Can I say to begin with I don't think your adversarial, point-scoring approach is merited or in accord with the spirit of Wikipedia? It is sophistical to say 'views' have no place in Wikipedia. I am dealing with facts not assertions or opinions. You were the one who replaced the term 'convention' - it is up to you to prove it is not a convention. However, in a spirit of good will, I have added a reference to the following article https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/lc/articles/Documents/should-upper-houses-have-ministers/Should%20upper%20houses%20have%20ministers%20by%20John%20Young.pdf

Your view that I need to find a reliable source to prove identifying the longest serving treasurer is important is even more sophistical and nonsensical. It defies logic and common sense to say such a fact is trivial. Surely, it is obviously worth noting who is the longest serving incumbent in such an important position. Many entries about a position state who is the longest serving incumbent, eg the articles on British and Canadian PMs. It is up to you to justify the strange assertion that stating who the longest serving NSW Treasurer is has no place in Wikipedia.

Finally, I would like to add that I made the changes I did in good faith and with the positive aim of improving an article. I don't intend to be drawn any further into controversy.UncleTurner (talk) 04:56, 8 October 2021 (UTC).

I accept that your edits were made in good faith & reject your personal attacks without responding to them. Your assertion that there is an obligation to disprove an asserted fact completely misunderstands the Wikipedia requirement that "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable". If you care to read that key policy you will see that an editor is free to remove unsourced material. Thank you for adding a reliable source for the convention. --Find bruce (talk) 08:34, 8 October 2021 (UTC)