Talk:Scott Ryan (Australian politician)

A Commons file used in this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The file ScottRyan PEO.jpg on Wikimedia Commons has been nominated for speedy deletion. View the deletion reason at the Commons file description page. Community Tech bot (talk) 13:06, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

2016 Senate electoral fraud controversy, and Australia's ongoing constitutional crisis

See discussion of similar edits on Talk:Derryn_Hinch#3_year_senate_term. Hinch was one of the 'victim senators' in the theft of two seats by the major parties. Oz freediver (talk) 21:24, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

It was neither fraud, crisis nor theft, and no reliable source calls it either. Perhaps you would get on better by avoiding such emotive and partisan language. --Scott Davis ^Talk 07:07, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps I would, but I am not willing to lie in order to make friends, no matter how keen certain people are to make this go away. It was the obtaining of goods or advantage unfairly by deception. By definition, fraud.

For convenience, I am discussing all four senators involved here: Talk:Derryn_Hinch#3_year_senate_term

The two victim senators:

Derryn_Hinch

Lee_Rhiannon

The two senate thieves:

Deborah_O'Neill

Scott_Ryan_(Australian_politician)

Also, I think we should link the two victims with each thief, so it is clear which seat went from which person and to who, as I do not think this is explicitly stated anywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oz freediver (talk • contribs) 04:19, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

@Oz freediver: WP:BLP applies to talk pages too (section WP:BLPTALK). Describing O'Neill and Ryan as thieves on multiple talk pages is pushing the boundary. Please stop. --Scott Davis ^Talk 06:03, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Can you suggest a more appropriate, but still convenient, term for O'Neill and Ryan?Oz freediver (talk) 06:21, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

"Senator". Specifically with respect to the decision about allocating terms, "beneficiary" would seem to be OK as long as they regard longer terms to be a benefit (Hinch seems to have, Rhiannon didn't even see out her full three years). --Scott Davis ^Talk 07:13, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

The Greens (and their supporters) are affected, even if Rhiannon isn't. If I can demonstrate that what they did constitutes theft, can I continue using the term? Also, did you suggest somewhere that Ryan and O'Neill would not have been brought into the conspiracy prior to the public announcement? That seems a bit far fetched, given how carefully orchestrated the public comments were. Oz freediver (talk) 08:35, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

You have to find a source that says they stole something. There has been no talk of criminal convictions (or even charges) against O'Neill and Ryan, so that seems very unlikely. What sources do you have for any of the four being in the meeting with Wong and Cormann? --Scott Davis ^Talk 09:11, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Here, in the ABC article, is Penny Wong revealing that the conspiracy extended to the Labor party in general: Labor's Senate leader Penny Wong said: "Labor will support the Government's proposal to allocate senators' terms of office according to the order in which Senators were elected in each state." There are various statements from both Labor and Coalition spokespeople to the effect that they were all in on it. Also, every time I mention fraud and theft, you equate that with a criminal conspiracy. However, as the wikipedia article on each attests, the term has meaning outside of the law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oz freediver (talk • contribs) 09:28, 19 April 2019 (UTC)