Wikipedia

Talk:Australian Democrats

Latest comment: 7 months ago by Bjenks in topic Political soapboxing?
Learn more about this page

Untitled edit

Previous discussions: Archive 1 Archive 2

Time to end use of WP as dispute battleground? edit

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The shilly-shallying of two purported AD parties to establish their respective websites and officebearers under WP endorsement has tested our patience for over two years since Brian Greig walked out, and the latest competing edits can be seen here and here. It is not our business to go on hosting such a dispute when we can simply decide which of these two is the real party--and dispense with the bogus one. According to the official AEC registrar, the real party's correspondence address is in South Australia, and that is the only party that should be recognised in WP until such time as there is a change in the official public record. Therefore, take notice that I intend to delete links to the website of the unrecognised group in seven days' time unless valid reasons are presented to the contrary. I have no personal POV in this matter, having resigned from the party in 1993 when it was a completely different organisation. Bjenks (talk) 02:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

It might be good to add material to the article about the internal (and obviously now external) manoeuvring that has led to the present divided situation. Recent history about the party is very thin in the article. Anything we add would, of course, require excellent sourcing. HiLo48 (talk) 02:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
Encyclopedically, the infighting should be ignored as trivia. The recent history is naturally "thin" because there has been little or no public presence. Imho, a great deal of the "Electoral fortunes" content should now be pruned and replaced by one or two paragraphs covering the Kernot-Lees period and the GST hubris, followed by a short exposition of the subsequent electoral rejection and demise. To date, I've disqualified myself from this because of my past POV issues. If no other editor is interested in taking it on, I would see that as another reasonable signal to prune the whole content into a more digestible article. Bjenks (talk) 23:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

External links modified edit

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Australian Democrats. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Query edit

Latest comment: 7 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Friends:

The Wikipedia article is about the Australian Democrats, that is, the political party of that name. The opening paragraph alleges that the Democrats are "extinct". Not sure about that exact word - but let's put that to one side for the moment. If the Democrats are extinct, why is there a side box with the name of a President and Secretary? And indeed with a link to a current website?

AustralianEditor83 (talk) 23:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)Reply 

: <Comment : I have been a member since last century and can say that the organisation has changed over the years but it is the same organisation and this is its history. Why would you delete current references that are part of the organisation ? Registration of political parties is to do with government registers not Wikipedia, so if its registered or not does not make it extinct or another organisation>

Further to above comment, my suggestion is to remove the side box. Please comment here if you think this this is problematic. AustralianEditor83 (talk) 08:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC) <CommentReply

The only point of that action would be to mask the problem by blanking info about the deregistered party's current nature. The term 'extinct' cannot apply until all life has ceased. Even then, as in the case of the DLP, a party can be brought back to life. To my mind, as per the Democratic Labor Party (historical), we must now have separate articles for the defunct Australian Democrats (historical) and the present impotent yet active organisation. The two deserve to be wikilinked because of the apparent partial continuity of membership and policy ideals.Bjenks (talk) 01:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
The current AD is non-notable though. No sources, no registration - it may as well be five dudes in a shed. Should they become notable, as in the case of the revived DLP, then that is a possibility. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:15, 17 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
Agreed, notability is a problem for the non-parliamentary new brigade. However, a reading of their most recent journal shows there is still a thread of continuity, provided mainly by the support of 12-year Senate leader Lyn Allison (Vic) on p. 7. However, as they say, yesterday's rooster is today's feather duster. I note, too, that most energy is coming from SA and Victoria, the two state divisions which pushed for expulsions and suspensions of members they disagreed with--stamping out the foundation principles of democratic membership as extolled by Sir Mark Oliphant. (I found it ironic to see Sir Mark's words quoted in the journal.) I suggest, however, that continuity alone is a slender ground for notability. I'm for applying a cut-off (at 2008) of the historical Australian Democrats. The current organisation (which is NOT yet dead) could be mentioned either in a final section/paragraph or given a brief separate article with strict limitations according to notability and verifiability. Again I (alone in this forum) declare a potential conflict of interest as a former AD member. Bjenks (talk) 15:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
I agree with much of what BJenks has to say. However a question: does anyone have a reliable and independent source to support the assertion that D.Churchill and R.Howe are currently president and secretary, as is asserted by this Wikipedia article? I know there are Australian Electoral Commission documents. I don't think these don't actually assert that the above persons previously held these offices, but it can be inferred from the documents. However these AEC documents are now dated, and in any case these documents refer to the former registered political party entity, which no longer exists. There is also the Australian-hyphenated-Democrats website, but Wikipedia (see W:RS) cautions against relying on self-published sources, especially those of a self-serving nature. Thus my question. AustralianEditor83 (talk) 00:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
In the absence for any reliable source indicating that D.Churchill and R.Howe are indeed currently president and secretary, I propose to delete this in another 48 hours, in accordance with WP:RS. In the meantime, if anyone does become aware of any reliable source, please indicate here on this talk page. AustralianEditor83 (talk) 07:08, 15 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

External links modified edit

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Australian Democrats. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 14:50, 11 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

External links modified edit

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Australian Democrats. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 15:44, 1 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Proposed party "merger" edit

Latest comment: 5 years ago22 comments5 people in discussion

It is now quite clear that the "Australian Democrats" has proven unsustainable despite attempts to retain the name as an electoral foundation. The proposed merger with the "Country Minded" microparty will involve a new constitution and thus the establishment of a different party, even if the AD name is applied to it. I submit that for WP purposes, any purported continuation will require a new article, as was done to differentiate the Democratic Labor Party (historical) from the Democratic Labour Party (Australia). The present article will then be re-edited to remove a great volume of inappropriate trivia, as previously discussed on this page. Bjenks (talk) 18:24, 23 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, that makes sense. I think there should be one section succinctly documenting the various "Democrats" drama post-2007 but the whole history section needs a rewrite so it doesn't focus on trivia anyway. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:10, 23 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Bjenks:, @The Drover's Wife:, The Democrats were finished as a serious party in 2007. Everything since then has been the AD version of The People's Front of Judea/Judean People's Front. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 11:47, 24 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

What is the status of the actual organisation that is/was the Democrats? Has the party ever actually been dissolved? Obviously it was deregistered, but if there's a group of people still operating under the original constitution I don't think it would be correct for us to just decide that the party no longer exists. Deregistration ≠ not existing. Are there any sources (reliable or otherwise) that talk about the party's history post-2008, i.e. the competing factions that are mentioned in the article? Ivar the Boneful (talk) 14:06, 2 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

I think Wikipedia's treatment of the DLP is a bad example to follow. No other sources – media outlets, the parliamentary website – claim that the pre-1978 and post-1978 DLP are separate entities. The Democratic Labour Party (Australia) article states that the party was founded in 1955, and also states "The Australian Electoral Commission considers the current DLP to be legally the same as the earlier DLP". Wikipedia should be following reliable sources not ignoring them ... there should be a single DLP article covering the entirety of the party's history. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Ivar the Boneful:, @Bjenks:, @The Drover's Wife:, My grandfather sided with the DLP in the 1955 Split, The Sandringham News called him "Victoria's Chifley". He stood twice for the DLP in Flinders and in 1961 helped save the Menzies Government with his preferences. When the DLP 1978 national conference passed a motion of dissolution, he returned to the ALP. The AEC being dingbats doesn't mean we should treat the Continuity DLP as if it were the original one and likewise the little factional grouplets claiming to be the heirs to the pre-2008 party should not be lumped in with the parliamentary Australian Democrats. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 15:15, 2 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
The AEC, the Australian Parliamentary Library, election databases, election reference works, the ABC, other major media outlets, etc., consider them to be the same party. The APL's history of the DLP states "In Victoria, the vote passed by a few votes and 14 voters were found to be concurrently members of other political parties. Three-quarters of the Victorian branch’s executive rejected the vote and continued the party in that state." We need to be following what actual sources not ignoring them based on our own opinions of whether a party is legitimate or not. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 17:28, 2 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
I'm not sure the Democrats talk page is the place to be having this discussion - it's not the first time that it's been proposed at the DLP talk page, and it always fails not for opposition but for complete lack of interest, so perhaps better had there. As for the Democrats, there has been some newspaper coverage of the various factions but I'm not sure they could be said to still be operating under the original constitution given the nature of some of the struggles. I have no problem with documenting it here (given very limited weight amidst the broader history of the party) as some kind of "aftermath"-type section, and then in the unlikely event some kind of continuity-Democrat party actually gets re-registered or wins a seat we can cross that bridge when we get to it. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:14, 2 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
I fully agree with that approach. @Ivar the Boneful:—The ASC, AEC and other authorities are faced with dealing with an archived/once-registered "party name", whose successors have contrived not to change for that very reason. Like the DLP successors (who actually changed the spelling of the former name) they are cashing in on the name to pursue electoral hopes, but lack the notability of significant parliamentary status. In Wikipedia, we are surely not obliged to keep transferring the past notability to whatever purported successors take on the name. Bjenks (talk) 15:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
We are obliged to follow reliable sources not users' personal opinions. So you're arguing that the DLP candidates who ran at the 1976 Victorian state election and then again in 1979 were in fact members of two distinct political parties? It's ludicrous and totally contrary to media reporting, reference works, and common sense. Are there any other sources that take Wikipedia's path of declaring them to be separate parties? I haven't found any. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 15:53, 4 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
Why are you guys having an involved argument about the DLP article on the Democrats talk page? The Drover's Wife (talk) 16:53, 4 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
As this merged party is being registered under the AEC, once it is registered, should we create a separate page? Catiline52 (talk) 22:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
I think that's the best way to go. And then we can reinstate the infobox on the basis that this refers to the historical party. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:47, 6 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
I think this article, when it becomes Australian Democrats (historical) should draw a line at 2008, as the "Judean Peoples' Front" infighting of the non-parliamentary brigade afterwards isn't really notable or interesting. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 23:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
I think it needs some kind of "aftermath" section to explain what happened after the show was over, but agree that the article as a whole really needs to be refocused on when it was an actual party. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:03, 6 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
Why 2008 specifically? The last elected member resigned in 2009, and the party didn't deregister until 2015. Catiline52 (talk) 01:05, 7 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
I think it's probably reasonable to put the cutoff for this article at 2015 and use the date of deregistration, but it desperately needs all the post-2009 stuff to get constrained into one smallish section with appropriate weight rather than defining the article. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:07, 7 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
Unless sources actually refer to them as separate parties rather than a revival, then they should both be in this article. Creating a new article would be original research. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 04:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
As i think The Drover's Wife would agree, these "revival Democrats' are really just Countryminded using a (relatively) known name to try to win support for their own beliefs. "New lick of paint, same old car". Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 04:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
Paul and I edit conflicted. The point is that sources aren't clear: there are an awful lot of sources discussing the Democrats in the context of being defunct, and then occasionally the regional newspapers pick up a press release from a handful of people claiming to be reactivating the Democrats, much like Clive Palmer claims to be reactivating the original UAP but without the attention given to it. Which Wikipedia takes notice of is an editorial decision, and not an explicitly clear-cut one either way. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:00, 7 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
@The Drover's Wife:, @Bjenks:. Wikipedia should be extremely cautious about connecting the Australian Democrats when it was a serious parliamentary party (i.e. before it lost all its Federal Senate seats) with the Monty Python's Life of Brian-esque "Judean Peoples' Front"/"Peoples' Front of Judea" infighting and tiny grouplets in the aftermath. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 10:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
Considering there is conflict over the proposed merged Australian Democrats and the un-merged Australian Democrats of Queensland, I feel that there is sufficient evidence that the merger has created a new party that should be given a new article and treated similarly to any other party merger. Catiline52 (talk) 05:55, 8 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Reliable sources edit

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Ivar the Boneful is, of course, right in returning us to the principle of reliable sources, which is why our first step must be to establish the integrity of the article's present content, much of which is not well verified, and/or has been rendered trivial by the passage of time. Bjenks (talk) 02:58, 9 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

One Nation/ 1998 federal election edit

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

As seen on our page for the 1998 Australian federal election, One Nation got the largest share of the vote of all the minor parties that year, which means that they were the largest minor party in that election. That's certainly what Psephos said on his site. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 01:31, 4 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

One of those statements doesn't necessarily follow from the other. One Nation were not the largest minor party in parliament following the election, or in the amount of MPs elected at that election - the Democrats were, as they were across the entire stated time period. The sentence talks about the "largest minor party", not the minor party with the largest vote. That said, I don't object to a caveat at the end of that sentence along the lines of "...though One Nation polled more votes in 1998" to remove any confusion. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:09, 4 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Australian Democrats status edit

Latest comment: 4 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

Hi everyone, I wrote here a while ago asking why my edits were removed when they contained current references. It was deleted. I added the references and current news back and it has been undone. To the bet of my knowledge the Australian Democrats are a current political party who were deregistered in 2016 and are currently seeking re-registration with the AEC. If this is not the case I'm happy to talk about it but I can't see any evidence that it isn't. Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elswyth (talk • contribs) 07:34, 8 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Because the Life of Brian-esque multiple little factions, each claiming to be the "real" Australian Democrats, are a very different beast to the serious 1977-2009 parliamentary party. It is a matter of WP:UNDUE. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 07:38, 8 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
I've included references from multiple news articles about the current Australian Democrats attempts to be re-registered with the AEC as a continuation of the 1977-2009 party. As this is verifiable I'm not sure why you are deleting this. I can't see any evidence the Australian Democrats are not a current unregistered political party with active members who are seeking reregistration currently. Elswyth (talk) 07:54, 8 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
The AEC dispute has shown that there appears to have been two successor groups to the Australian Democrats. The Australian Democrats (Queensland Division) disagreed with the registration of the new party, the merger of other branches and CountryMinded. This, added with the creation of a new constitution post-merger (Mentioned by Bjenks, however, a source would be good before the decision is made) appears as a clear divide between the historical party and the recently registered one. I'd suggest a new page would be created for this incarnation of the party, however, I'd like other editors opinions. Catiline52 (talk) 07:19, 10 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
I'd like to add a source that I just found. It confirms that there was a split over who was the successor. (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-02/democrats-trying-to-restart-but-queensland-group-objects/10958726) Catiline52 (talk) 07:31, 10 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
Oppose creating a separate page, all the reporting that I've seen describes the recently registered party as a revival rather than an entirely new party. By all means note the dispute between the claimed successors, but we should follow reliable sources. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 09:26, 10 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

The new party, as it is on Wikipedia right now is registered with the AEC by original Democrats, and is thus the revived w as it is a direct continuation of the party that was deregistered in 2016. The Queensland group is more of a “splinter group” who left in 2014.... hope that helps!

I do believe the Queensland Democrats INC have a seperate Wikipedia page. So its been sorted a while ago. 

ThePolitix (talk) 08:39, 20 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
Hi, sorry for not indenting my previous comment. I do support Cataline’s addition of a “not to be confused” bar in regards to the QLD division. I am an insider and would be happy to answer any questions related to the state of some of the minor parties. Thanks guys!! And sorry for forgetting to indent. ThePolitix (talk) 07:03, 7 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Sank without a trace at the election edit

Latest comment: 4 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

This was entirely foreseeable and the attempt to link this Judean Peoples' Front grouplet to the historical serious AD parliamentary party should never have been entertained. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 11:03, 26 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Agreed, in the real world such comparison is laughable. However, WP has its own criteria, which involve us in awaiting a logically documented finality... Bjenks (talk) 15:01, 26 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
As someone with inside knowledge, the state of the party as it stands now, is indeed a continuation of the original party. The “friction” present was primarily between the Queensland State Division and the Federal and other State Divisions. As stated earlier, the Queensland group essentially “split” from the federal party in 2014. The state divisions and federal entity retained the status as an Incorporated Association, after Queensland split - and are thus continuations of the party. The party itself is in a stage of rebuilding, with many old members pre-2004 era reregistering. The party did not intend to win any seats this election and ran a limited campaign, as their primary focus is to rebuild. The merger with CountryMinded honestly didn’t change much, apart from establish a focus group for rural areas - the party itself essentially remained the same. The party, as it stands today is stable and is experiencing rapid growth - post election. Many members that have rejoined held membership in the 80’s-00’s. Essentially, the current party is a continuation of the previous party and continues to rebuild their base. I do hope that helps, feel free to leave a message on my talk page. ThePolitix (talk) 06:29, 7 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
Essentially, the registered federal party is an official continuation in every state, except Queensland. Old members and office holders pre-2009 are rejoining. There is no friction within the registered party in 2019. Once again, feel free to discuss this. I’m also aware of situations in other minor/micro parties as well. Thanks!! ThePolitix (talk) 06:40, 7 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
Since the AD Queensland Division predates the new "federal entity" and was bound constitutionally to the former national party, will you explain what you term the "split" of 2014? Is the new federal entity continuing the "unconstitutional" and "unlawful" [words of then party legal advisor Peter Finkelstein] top-down approach to state divisions which was established in 1993, to the abandonment of the former party's grassroot, or bottom-up founding principle? Bjenks (talk) 03:38, 8 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for your question, and In regards to the split, I intended to say that the Queensland Entity severed relations with the Federal Entity and other State Entities In 2014. I do am unsure, but I do believe the split was over the (and in what I agree to be unconstitutional and unlawful) “top-down” approach at the time. So essentially, the split involved the departure of the QLD state division from the other federal and state divisions. At the time of the split, the constitution of the party was the same as it was, pre-2009. Following the Queensland Split, all other State divisions(and the federal entity) remained the same(as it was preceding 2009), and continued to function. Thus, they were a continuation the same party. To answer your second question, the federal and state entities (post QLD split) maintained the same constitution, until 2019. *A side note, many members in 2019 were members before 2009. From 2016 to 2018, there were major developments within the party. Many members whom’ had left prior to, and during the 07’ defeat returned and demanded change. The members of the party then voted and agreed on a new constitution for 2019. The party merged with country minded, (which is now essentially the “Country Democrats” division) for rural representation. The new constitution was agreed on by the members in a vote. Following the 2018-2019 changes, there was a fundental change and the party’s “Bottum-up” grassroots principle was restored. All members vote for party policy, can submit suggestions, vote for leaders etc... and the party has returned to its previous stance as a participatory democracy. To answer your second question, the party no longer follows the “top-down” approach to state divisions, and the “bottom-up” principle has been restored. The party registered in 2019 is the official continuation of the party, and seems to be growing at quite a fast rate following the 2019 fed election. It’s undergoing a process of rebuilding, as many old members rejoin. I hope that helps!! Would be happy to clarify anything else. ThePolitix (talk) 09:42, 8 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
Apologies for the improper indent and spelling mistakes in my last reply, using a mobile phone. ThePolitix (talk) 09:45, 8 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
On a very quick note, I do believe a number ex-parliamentarians are still members, following the 2019 developments. ThePolitix (talk) 09:58, 8 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, the QLD Democrat’s have no official connection with the original AD’s apart from the fact that it was created by some former democrats 6 or so years ago. The real Queensland division was deregistered 6 years ago but continued to function within the party. When it cancelled itself on the registration of businesses, a renegade grouplet stole the name. The QLD Democrat’s INC have no connection with the real Australian Democrat’s as they are a completely seperate entity that was formed independently of the main party or the official Queensland division. ThePolitix (talk) 08:37, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Status: The Official continuation and Serious Again. edit

Latest comment: 4 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion

Hi,

I’m an insider on various issues in minor parties, particularily in the state of New South Wales. Upon discussion with current, former and members who are considering rejoining; The Australian Democrats, as it stands today is a continuation of the original party.

I understand, that there is a belief that the new AD is some sort of Judean People’s Front, this is not the case. Following the blowout at the 2007 election, the Australian Democrats remained as the same party until it merged with country minded in 2019.


  • Disagreements Between Federal and QLD splinter

I do believe it is time to clear up the confusion over supposed conflict.

In 2014, the Queensland State Division Executives decided to leave the Federal Entity, and sever relationships with other state divisions. This was over disagreements with party direction and a “top down” leadership approach(As Discussed with Bjenks). The Queensland Division, as stated in their objection and on their website, wanted to be the Queensland Representatives of the Australian Democrats. The Queensland Division is a splinter group of the Australian Democrats. Despite this, many members in Queensland remained in the federal Australian Democrat Entity.

Essentially, the only group that declares itself as a federal continuation of the party is the current, registered party. However, at state level there are two parties that claim to represent Queensland; The Australian Democrats and Australian Democrats INC(The Splinter Group). Since the AEC objection was not upheld, it seems as though the splinter group is not a continuation of the original party.

Currently, the state of Queensland is represented by the Australian Democrats registered by the AEC.

  • Status 2007-2016

The Party as it stands today, is a direct continuation of the party pre-2007. The NSW, QLD and VIC divisions retained the strongest membership levels, from 2007 onwards, however did experience significant losses following the 2007 defeat. The party itself, up until the loss of registration in 2016 did not change - the structure was still the same, as were the members. Excluding the QLD splinter group, there were no fractions(new groups) or factions within the party, in other states and nationally.

In 2016, a vote was brought to the table to officially dissolve the party; however it failed. Instead, members drafted a plan to rebuild the party. This would be a long process.

  • Major Developments In 2018

There were major changes undertaken in 2018. The unfair(and unconstitutional) “top-down” approach was removed. The party members began to vote on new clauses and policy direction. Talks began between the Australian Democrats and “Country Minded” to establish a Country Democrats division and to increase membership. This was agreed upon.

There were significant developments with membership in 2018, with many members rejoining.

  • 2019 Australian Democrats

In 2019, the Australian Democrats really started the process of rebuilding.

The members voted on, and agreed to a new constitution. The new constitution secured the “bottom-up” grassroots movement that was present in the party prior to 1993.

The merger with country minded did not have a significant impact on the constitutional change, where the only impact was the new country division, the country democrats.

The constitutional change reflected changes with technology - where all new changes to policy, direction or leadership are to be voted on by members online. The change means that changes to policy and leadership must go through the members first.

The Democrats stood a total of 7 candidates(6 senate and 1 house) and did not expect to win any seats. The campaign was very limited, and the party reregistered 4 days before the election.The primary objective was to spread the message and alert old members. This was successful, with a large increase in membership following the election.

Many members that rejoined were pleased to see the Party back, and favoured the return to the “bottom-up” democracy. The party as it stands today is very stable.

  • Conclusion

The Australian Democrats are a united party. There was always a continuation in membership and functionality since 2007. The party never “stopped” then “restarted” as it was always there, as were the people. Just because it was “unregistered” does not mean it did not exist.

For example, the NSW State Division(this can apply with all others, ex QLD) retained membership and had constant meetings pre-2007 and still up to now. The executives in the party were there before, and since the early 2000’s and were elected by the membership. There are a few new, young people that have signed up since 2007. There were no “splits” or fractures - there was only one united party that continued to function(QLD was the exception, as discussed earlier). Again, just to reiterate the only “separation” or “fracture” occurred with a splinter group in Queensland.

The party is preparing for the next federal and state elections, with a serious plan(as seen by their policy frameworks) and a united team.

I really do hope that helped. I’m happy to answer any questions. If you want to know anything about other minor parties in NSW, just ask.

Thank you all for your contributions, and the talk discussions too. ThePolitix (talk) 11:38, 8 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Just to clarify, the current AD is an official continuation of the party before 2019, as voted on by the members. The merger was really more of a creation of a new division than anything else. Personally, I would recommend that someone(I’d be happy to) rename the “Country Minded” page to “Country Democrats.” ThePolitix (talk) 11:41, 8 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
On a third note, I believe that the party is reverting to the participatory democracy it was prior to 1993, many members from that time in particular have rejoined and those members in particular have made major contributions to the party as of late. Personally, I’m not too sure what occurred in 1993 but am happy to see that the old “bottom-up” democracy has been restored. ThePolitix (talk) 12:08, 8 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
Country Democrats would need to be a sourced subsection of this page. CountryMinded was notable due to it being a political party, most party factions aren't notable unless it has substantial coverage. Catiline52 (talk) 12:12, 8 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
On the face of it, these statements (though they await due verification) provide a good indication that genuine and positive renewal is taking place and that the Australian Democrats party is at last owning and confronting its past disastrous leadership mistakes—and is thus creating a possibility of return to the principles espoused by its founding members. Many thanks to both of the above correspondents. I have recent personal knowledge of some original members in my state of WA who have retained their membership (much to my surprise} through and beyond the altercations of 1993 and the GST crisis. A return to the foundation principles may at last offer the electorate a realistic option of ending the parliamentary and governmental chaos of the past two decades. The country division, if properly constituted, is an excellent concept. It is to be hoped that the Queensland division instituted by Macklin et al can be reintegrated though, IMHO, the conduct of its former senators Kernot, Woodley and Cherry will have to be recognised as generally destructive to the party's principles. Bjenks (talk) 15:44, 8 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
Thank you. In regards to the country democrats question, I agree with Cataline52 in that we should have a sourced sub-section on the page. I’m happy to work on it. Thanks, once again. ThePolitix (talk) 05:07, 9 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
Update: QLD Democrats seem to have a minimal presence, apart from sporadic social media posts. No updates to the website since 2017 apart. The only event was an objection, which wasn’t sustained. QLD Democrats seem to have either “rejoined,”or “disbanded.” Unsure who the current leader/executive is, if there are any. So as this, decided to delete the header(that I believe I may have suggested) seeing as the division is quite irrelevant at this stage, but is indeed important to the history of the party in QLD. That aside, the AD’s seem to be doing very well from what I’ve heard. Thank you my fellow editors!!! (P.s. unsure if you guys cover US Politics pages, they may need some updating) ThePolitix (talk) 12:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
P.S. thanks for the civility, really appreciate the discussion on this talk page. Have been looking at Venezuelan Politics pages and the Wikipedia edit wars even have their own Wikipedia page... P.S. Edit wars really suck. ThePolitix (talk) 12:51, 30 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi, just as clarification - I was wrong about the Queensland Division. The Incorporated entity in Queensland actually has no connection with the current party. The old Queensland Democrats division deregistered a while back, and some opportunistic ex-Dems took the name. There was always a Queensland division, however the “incorporated” official division was cancelled for whatever reasons - and that can be seen on the register of companies.

There is a Queensland division, and they have been with the party since before this renegade group formed. Again, I’m not too sure around the circumstances of the registration of the new entity - but do know that the party has limited knowledge of where they came from - apart from the fact that they were ex-Dems.

Sorry, just spoke to some people who I know about it. Queensland Division INC is not connected to the former Queensland Division. A Queensland Division continues to operate in the Democrat’s, with many of the same people preceding the renegades registration.

No ex-parliamentarians are affiliated with the “renegade grouplet.” ThePolitix (talk) 08:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Sorry just to clarify; the Queensland Division INC is NOT a continuation of the party in Queensland. The people who were on the state executive in 2013/14 are still in the official AD’s or have left since then. There is an official Queensland Division but it is not that group. The AEC further rejected “Queensland Division Inc’s” objection to party registration.

So once again; the Queensland Division Inc. has no official link to it’s claimed predecessor and is not a continuation of the Queensland Division’s initial entity, as can be seen in the registration of companies.

Sorry, I got the constitution thing mixed up with something else.

Thanks!! ThePolitix (talk) 08:25, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Apparent POV/OR edits edit

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In a series of edits by IP editor 222.164.212.168 (talk) has suggested changes which imho require some discussion. and I reverted, requesting the editor to seek consensus on this page. The questionable edits were:

Apparently, the changes are intended to back up a "See also' link to this article inserted by the IP editor in another recently edited article, Aaya Ram Gaya Ram. The relevance of that article to Australian Democrats anD/or to Don Chipp is questionable. "Keep the bastards honest" was a popular electoral slogan but in no way a key principle of the Democrats.

My invitation to discuss the edits was responded to by counter-reversion, followed by an extraordinary attack on me at my talk page. I'm not into edit wars and have a declared personal and professional interest (up top), so must leave it to the group to sort this out. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 08:18, 13 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

New national president? edit

Latest comment: 4 years ago14 comments5 people in discussion

The infobox insertion of Lyn Allison as new president seems premature as there is no verification, not even on the party website. Bjenks (talk) 17:01, 8 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

OK, I now see the website announcement and update in Allison's WP article. Maybe somewhat notable, but not yet noted by news media. I'd like to know whether the old Queensland Democrats will be brought back in or continue to use the AD name independently. Bjenks (talk) 04:11, 24 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
Interesting question indeed! BTW, I've just made a minor edit regarding the history of the registration process earlier this year. The earlier entry refered to the "former" Queensland Division. Now, it could well be correct that the Qld Division has folded, but I think that in the absence of any reliable source for this, which is required under Wikipedia policies, perhaps it is prudent and simplest to refer to the Australian Democrats (Queensland Division). Sue2016 (talk) 01:20, 4 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
I don't think we'd be implying the former Qld Division has folded but finding some way to explain that it's the incorporated continuity of the party as deregistered in 2016. The thing is that, as there's no real evidence that the "new" Democrats have a Qld branch (they didn't run any candidates at the election and Google doesn't turn up anything besides the contact person on the website) and the "old" Qld Democrats have are an incorporated body with a clear and ongoing internet presence at least, I don't know that we need to get into it yet. The 2020 state election might clear up this issue a good bit if the ECQ has to make a decision between competing claimants to the name. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:54, 4 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi sorry for the late note, the Queensland Democrats actually have no connection with the party. The Queensland division deregistered and some opportunistic ex-Dems went in and took the name. A Queensland division does exist; and that’s part of the main party. The Queensland democrats incorporated one has no real connection with the party. ThePolitix (talk) 08:13, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for the improper indentation, forgot the syntax unfortunately. There are some rumours that the renegade grouplet in Queensland has folded. Just to clarify, I was incorrect in prior stating that there was an official link with this grouplet and the preceding QLD Democrats Division - there isn’t one. The Queensland Division’s company registration must have been cancelled at some stage, then this renegade group must have “stolen the name.” There are no talks between the parties - and there are a couple hundred members in the Official Queensland Division that is affiliated with the registered party. Once again, sorry about getting it wrong earlier. QLD Democrat’s have no official link to the former /co current official QLD Division apart from the fact that they were established by some disgruntled ex-members 6-7 years ago. Hope that helps!! ThePolitix (talk) 08:33, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
I think this best sums it up - if you look up the register of businesses, you will notice that this division is not the same entity as the Queensland Democrat’s from before. It was created in 2013 or 2014 and has no official connection with the main party. Hope that helps, and sorry for saying otherwise earlier - I was misinformed. ThePolitix (talk) 08:39, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
Still hard to know what to do about it given the lack of reliable sources - until the AEC or ECQ has to arbitrate the issue we're a bit in the dark. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:41, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
Agreed. I would say in a couple of months/ in the coming year there may be a development of sorts. If the official Queensland Division regains state membership - that’s probably our best verifier. The main “hard evidence” that exists is this - https://abr.business.gov.au/ABN/View?abn=61842409808 <- the current grouplet.

The official incorporated association there from before-> https://abr.business.gov.au/ABN/View?abn=95135496452 ThePolitix (talk) 08:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

As you can see, the Queensland Democrats INC are not a continuation, rather a new registration filed in 2018. ThePolitix (talk) 08:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
@The Drover's Wife:, @ThePolitix: I remain unconvinced that the Continuity Australian Democrats are notable without seats in any state or federal parliament and with a share of the national vote comparable to those British leftist grouplets that Monty Python skewered so well. PAustin4thApril1980 (talk) 08:51, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
Our opinions about their notability aren't really relevant in this context, where no one is advocating that they have their own article, and the extent to which they need to be referenced here in their current form (if at all) fundamentally hinges on these questions of verifiability. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
So what is ThePolitix going to do about the Queensland Democrats article which was started in 2012 and claims incorporation in 2011 and legitimacy since 1977? How is the general reader to distinguish one "grouplet" from another? Bjenks (talk) 05:22, 21 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
My search at ASIC indicates that Australian Democrats (Queensland Division) Incorporated is one of five registered AD entities (Regn date 29/5/1996). However, I was unable to find it in the Queensland register of associations. Bjenks (talk) 06:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Left or not? edit

Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

The latest intriguing attempt to swing the Australian Democrats towards centre-left needs to be assessed with caution. It depends on a citation from John Warhurst (1997): "...until their disastrous internal split, the centre-left Democrats had experienced more than 20 years of balance of power politics and policy-making in the Senate." At that time it might have been argued that leader Cheryl Kernot's literal love affair with Labor was leftist or that successor Meg Lees support for Howard's GST was rightist. However the avowed centrism of the party cannot be disputed since it was from the start enshrined in the AD constitution. It used to be common for left-wingers to taint the Dems as right-wing simply because Don Chipp had switched allegiance from the Liberals. Such taunts are derived more from the mutant politics of the day than from any real truth and I'm sure the same applies to present-day attempts to attach a left-wing smear to the party and its people. However, the present "Australian Democrats" party seems to be a very different kettle of fish than the betrayed organisation of 1997, so we should let its people reveal themselves to reasonable and reliable current reporters instead of depending on far-gone 1997 ideas. Bjenks (talk) 05:05, 21 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

I largely agree. I left it there because there were periods where it clearly was, even though it was better categorised overall across its history as a centrist party. The Drover's Wife (talk) 18:45, 23 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
Not sure why designations other than Centrist can't be applied. There was a period Powell where the Queensland Democrats were working with several socialist orgs and funding Green Left Weekly. If there are sources to say it was centrist, and sources to say it's centre-left, surely "Centre to centre-left" could be applied? Catiline52 (talk) 09:58, 24 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
You're offering a suggestion that variable POV can apply here, as I warned against above. That's not OK for WP, though may be fair game for canvassing in day-to-day media. I eventually found your GLW link to the interesting 1997 article by John Boyle which alludes to an AD "left tack" in "early 1990s" Brisbane City Council elections. OK, I believe every party has mavericks and behavioural variations, but rarely to a degree that can affect their encyclopedic ratings. Bjenks (talk) 03:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
I think it's a bit of a stretch to suggest that it's just mavericks: the left-wing of the Democrats has always had people who were centre-left, with the party basically being that when they were in the ascendancy in any given jurisdiction. I still agree with you overall (using multiple labels confuses people who don't realise it was only in specific periods, and centrist is a better one-word summation of their general stance), but it's not for no reason that a bunch of elected Democrats wound up in the Greens (and not necessarily on their right flank either). The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:50, 25 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
That "bunch" of AD senators who moved toward the Greens was in fact limited to two or three out of 26. Of them, Janet Powell was in pre-AD days a leading anti-nuke camapaigner and Coulter was always a Greens fan. Jean Jenkins remained loyal to the party for 10 years after expulsion before joining the Greens. Norm Sanders had strong Greens sympathies but went back to an academic career. Unless you have better information, none of the others had any connection at all with the Greens. Anyway, in those early days the fledgling Greens were quite different to today's more purposeful lot. Bjenks (talk) 16:15, 1 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

2022 federal election edit

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments1 person in discussion

In connection with the vanishing relevance of the reconstituted group, it can be recorded that "Australian Democrats" have contested NO House of Reps seats and only five Senate seats. In four of those seats, about one-fortieth (0.025%) of a quota was polled in first preferences. In the other state (Victoria), the result was 0.0526% --a little better than one-twentieth of a quota. Media recognition was almost non-existent, although The Guardian Aust included them in a list of "more than 30 minor and micro parties" and the Fin Review opined that the Teal Independents were "a reheated version of the now defunct Australian Democrats". Bjenks (talk) 03:35, 23 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Continuing progress of the Senate count in terms of comparative quotas is viewable here. Bjenks (talk) 04:16, 28 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Political soapboxing? edit

Latest comment: 7 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

@ IP editor 31.94.31.216. One of the problems with this edit is its self-sourcing to the website of the [rebirthed] Australian Democrats, a group which has yet to establish its notability. This surely stamps the edit as soapboxing. Then, the edit is placed in the historical context of the long-defeated parliamentary ADs where an independent reliable source would be more appropriate. It's a salutory reminder of how this article is being systematically tweaked to diminish important historical content in favour of promoting a separately constituted entty with very tenuous links to the famous old party which kept the bastards honest in Canberra. Bjenks (talk) 02:42, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Australian_Democrats&oldid=1199199085"