Talk:Australian Labor Party/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

White Australia Policy and the ALP

I wish you conservatives would stop deleting any reference to the White Australia Policy and the ALP. Like UGHHH? Why are you so worried about "Two Wongs don't make a White"? Why do you have to constantly rewrite history? --Ed

I think this is the paragraph in question:

The ALP was also committed to a platform of racialist political theories, as well: the White Australia Policy -- a political platform that discriminated against anyone not from a white, Anglo-Saxon background -- was one of the ALP's central political planks for more than 50 years, and prolonged and extended the genocidal treatment of Australian indigenous people for much of the 20th Century.

While I believe that this deserves mention, despite my anger that any policies like this were ever supported by a mainstream political party in Australia. However, I think a lot of the language (genocidal?) used is just inflammatory and understates the actions of Labor politicians in dismantling these policies (Gough Whitlam, Don Dunstan to name just two). The paragraph also fails to note that the White Australia Policy was bipartisan. I am not trying to alter history, just preventing it being "spun" in a way that suits the political persuasions of editors. I'm also unimpressed about being called conservative, but I'll leave that to another day. - Aaron Hill 08:31, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

In every single Australian State, ALP governments carried out assimilationist, genocidal policies against Australian indigenous people. If you care to examine any of the current claims lodged by indigenous people for their back wages that were appropiated by various State or Federal governments, ALP governments figure prominently.

Personally, I think that omitting the White Australia Policy from an 'encyclopedia' article on the ALP is remarkably like writing an essay on Adolf Hitler and neglecting to mention that he wasn't overly enamoured with Jews, Gypsies or Communists.

--Red ted 09:34, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm not supporting its omission, I just object to the current language being used. Provide proof of your claims, I do not doubt that they are true and I am ashamed of my party's heritage, but verify controversial claims first. - Aaron Hill 10:06, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

The entire process of 'assimilation' -- adopted by the ALP and other conservative governments -- fits the UN definition of 'genocide' to a tee. The breeding out of 'inferior races', the destruction of traditional cultural and familial identities, and the destruction of traditional labour patterns all fit the UN definition, however you care to examine it. --Edward 05:03, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

Personally, I think that omitting the White Australia Policy from an 'encyclopedia' article on the ALP is remarkably like writing an essay on Adolf Hitler and neglecting to mention that he wasn't overly enamoured with Jews, Gypsies or Communists.

And personally, I think hyperbolic mis-statements such as that blow your credibility right out of the water. That notwithstanding, I envision the article detailing the ALP's support for White Australia, as being part of a fuller section talking about the history and development of ALP social policy. What we are intrested in is having it stated dispassionately, however strongly we may feel about it personally. (Of course it was heinous; but I think John Howard's re-election was heinous too, and you don't see me seeking to describe it as such on the appropriate entries). A balanced representation of events lets the facts speak for themselves.

Major problems with the proposed paragraph are - (1) "Discriminated against" is so broad as to be meaningless. The best approach is probably simply to link to an article with a detailed history of the Immigration Restriction Act and its consequences. (2) A "central policy plank for more than 50 years", is, to say the least, an exaggeration. Support for the policy was extremely strong at the time of the ALP's inception; once implemented, it ceased to be an issue and steadily slipped from prominence. (3) "Prolonged and extended" - this is a huge claim that would require detailed substantiation, or, at least, proper attribution. As far as "genocide" goes, there needs to be some reflection that not everybody (rightly or wrongly) would agree to use such a word. Your strongly held views on the subject do not serve to change that. Lacrimosus 10:46, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sorry about the hyperbole, but studying Australian political history has gradually turned my sense of humour into the darkest shade of black.

Despite your protestations, Lacrimosus, the White Australia Policy was indeed an ALP political platform for more than 50 years: it remained in force until the early 1960s, when it gradually was pushed into the 'impossible to maintain any longer' basket. If you are foolish enough to want proof, I´d recomend reading virtually any of Arthur Calwell's speeches or writings on the topic: he was the author of the famous "Two Wongs don't make a white" dictum, that characterised the early post-war immigration debate. And that policy was indeed followed by the ALP. --Edward 08:50, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

I have now written a paragraph which discusses this issue in a balanced way and without imposing on it the ideological categories of post 1960s leftism. Incidentally, Ted, the CPA opposed immigration too. Adam 05:00, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Labor v Labour

What enlightened these folks to skip the inefficient spelling in their name? --Jiang 05:35, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

One of the members of the first federal Parliamentary Labour Party was an American called King O'Malley, who I have been meaning to write an article about. O'Malley was a spelling reform enthusiast, and persuaded his comrades that the "Labor" spelling was more "progressive" and would soon become the standard. By the time it became obvious that this was not going to happen in Australia, the spelling was an established tradition and is now maintained as a matter of perverse pride. Adam 05:59, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Does this article not cover the current importance of the party in the parliament or is it just that I am too blind to see it? Get-back-world-respect 19:23, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It is so spelled to honour of mr O'MAlley and the american trade unions who played a cooperative role with the australian trade unions and ALP in its early years.

I seem to recall it was the "Australian Labour Party" until some time in the late 1970s, when the spelling and the name were officially changed to "Australian Labor Party". Shouldn't the article reflect this fact of history? JackofOz 01:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• I don't recall it changing. I have a book on my shelf from 1974 called Labor Pains (Cecil Edwards) - so it would have been before that. Any factoid like this will definitely need a reference.--A Y Arktos\^talk 01:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It's been spelled "Labor" since 1908 as the article says, or did the last time I looked. Adam 02:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I rather suspect there's been a re-write of history about this. I'll do some research and see what I can come up with. JackofOz 02:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• The ALP itself states: "During the early years of the ALP, the Party was referred to by various titles differing from colony to colony. It was at the 1908 Interstate (federal) Conference that the name 'Australian Labour Party' was adopted. In its shortened form the Party was frequently referred to as both 'Labor' and 'Labour', however the former spelling was adopted from 1912 onwards, due to the influence of the American labor movement."[1] They don't mention O'Malley. It is my experience that actually many words were spelt with an "or" ending earlier last century that we now spell "our" - the most noticeable being World War I Honour Boards - many of which are in fact "Honor" boards.--A Y Arktos\^talk 03:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Factions

I've been hearing a lot about factional issues of the Labor party recently. What factions are there and what are the differences between them?

Thats a difficult question! Broadly, there is the socialist left and the labor right, but the actual factions differ from state to state. In South Australia (where my knowledge is centered), there is the Labor Unity faction which is part of the labor right and used to be led by Martyn Evans and David Cox (who both lost their seats at the election), the "Duncan Left" which was a centre to centre-left faction led in its heyday by the old member for Makin, Peter Duncan and the left faction which used to be led by Nick Bolkus who quit before the election. If that sounds complex, remember that SA's factional system is far far less complex than that in NSW and Victoria... -- Aaron Hill 22:41, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

The section about factionalism probably needs to be expanded; i might borrow out The Machine and get on to that. But the thing to note, as Aaron says, is that factions are overwhelmingly state-based: the National Right and the National Left are really (very!) loose coalitions of state groupings. In many states, the Right and/or the Left factions are split (for example, the Right in Queensland is divided into Labor Forum - Wayne Swan, Con Sciacca, Joe Ludwig etc, and Labor Unity - Arch Bevis and Kevin Rudd). The Centre Left (ie. a grouping between the Right and Left), whose most prominent member is Barry Jones, had prominence at a national level especially during the Hawke years but has since faded. Lacrimosus 20:41, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Union affiliations are something I believe might be wrong in the article. Dankru 06:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

People might be interested in reading this - http://www.abc.net.au/pm/stories/s347015.htm - although it is state based, it pretty much hits the nail on the head all round. I myself am quite disillusioned and disappointed with Labor and don't really know what they stand for anymore, IMHO certainly shifted to the right, however you won't find me voting Liberal any time soon. Timeshift 17:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

King O'Malley

Adam Carr deleted the following paragraph:

In its initial stage, the ALP was also significantly influenced by the American System school of political economy, as exemplified by King O'Malley, who proclaimed, "I am the Hamilton of Australia." The call for a national bank, as adopted by Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton in the U.S., was characteristic of the American System. King O'Malley was chiefly responsible for the adoption by the ALP of the American-style spelling of Labor.

I would like to know exactly what is being disputed. Adam, are you claiming that the O'Malley quote is illegitimate? That he was not American-born? That the national bank is not central to the American System approach? I know you are not asserting that O'Malley had nothing to do with the American-style spelling of "Labor," because I got that particular piece of information from you. To revert this material with the ad hominem attack "LaRouche nonsense" is simply avoiding responsibility for making the article accurate and complete. --Herschelkrustofsky 14:52, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am disputing that the so-called "American system" had any influence on anything in Australia. The idea of a state bank was universally held among left-wingers at the time, and no American influence need be postulated. Intellectual influences on the Australian labour movement at that time where overwhelmingly English. O'Malley was widely regarded as a fool and had little real influence in the Labor Party despite his endless self-promotion. Secondly, we all know that everything you write is LaRouche propaganda, so spare us your pious crap. I withdrew from editing non-Australian topics so I wouldn't have to waste my time arguing with fools like you, but I won't allow you to contaminate Australian articles. Adam 23:12, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

by the way, this is an article about the ALP. not o'malley's biography. Xtra 00:43, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Vandalism

I'll tell ya what always gets me thinking when it comes to this sort of vandalism..... it would have taken him (or her) a good 15 minutes to vandalise the page in such detail, and it took me about 7 seconds to revert it. Where's the motivation? - Borofkin 03:42, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Prominent Past Premiers

Call me ignorant if you must, but I really don't think Joan Kirner deserves to be listed as a prominent past premier. While she may have been the first woman premier of victoria, she never was elected to this position, having succeeded John Cain. If she had won in 1992, I'd be in favour, but since she never won an election in her own right, she is not really that prominent.

Evolver of Borg 14:51, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Once something that has some sort of claim to being on a list is put on it, I would be reluctant to remove it. Xtra 04:38, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'd remove the word "prominent" from the heading, and include all the Labor premiers we have articles on. Adam 12:26, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree. "Prominent" is inherently POV. Besides, one could argue that they are already sufficiently prominent by virtue of having been premier. I have been bold and started the changes: "Prominent" removed; Kirner reinstated; three Labour premiers of WA added; list reordered into descending chronological order of first taking office as premier. Hesperian 04:45, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Democratic Socialism"

From the social democracy article:

In many cases, those who merely want to improve capitalism have kept the name "social democrats" (by virtue of their majority position), while those who want to gradually abolish capitalism through democratic means are called "democratic socialists". In others, particular names are used solely by historical accident.

Clause 2 of the ALP consitution[2]:

The Australian Labor Party is a democratic socialist party and has the objective of the democratic socialisation of industry, production, distribution and exchange, to the extent necessary to eliminate exploitation and other anti-social features in these fields.

I would argue that despite the use of the words "democratic socialism" in the ALP constitution, the party is not and never has been, a democratic socialist party. The bank nationalisation battles in the late 1940s which could probably be considered as the high tide of the socialist tendency within the Labor Party were more consistent with social democratic thought at the time rather than democratic socialism. Furthermore, the Hawke-Keating Government pulled down trade barriers, embraced economic rationalism and governed in much of a "third way" social democratic mould. - Aaron Hill July 5, 2005 00:31 (UTC)

That is all correct, although it should be noted that the ALP still contains the SL, a large faction dedicated to retaining a "democratic socialist" policy, and which has so far successfully blocked efforts to remove "clause 2," which is otherwise a dead letter. Adam 5 July 2005 01:35 (UTC)

Though I'm basically a member of the SL, what Adam says is entirely true. The ALP is about as democratic socialist as the Liberals are small-l-liberal. Ambi 5 July 2005 09:50 (UTC)

So should we keep it in the article or not? I'd swing towards not. - Aaron Hill July 5, 2005 12:40 (UTC)

Ditto. Ambi 5 July 2005 12:48 (UTC)

Yeah, "Social democracy" is really more appropriate here. Slac speak up! 5 July 2005 20:03 (UTC)

Policies

I think that we need more on the current policies and beliefs of the party, but I'm not willing to put them in the page without a discussion on Talk first. Here's what I've got:

Labor tends to believe that government is generally a positive force in the community and that it is the responsibility of governments to intervene in the operation of the economy (and society in general) to improve outcomes. Labor believes that the government should ensure that all members of society receive a basic income in order to have a "decent quality of life". Labor also believes that the government should ensure that all members of society are able to access quality and affordable housing as well as education and health services [3].

Taking these objectives into account, Labor has, like most social democratic parties around the world, embraced more free market principles. For example, Labor supports (and implemented while in government) the dismantling of trade barriers and deregulation of industry. However, the party argues that he makes these changes more moderately and with greater concern for those made worse off from these changes than the Coalition would have. Labor's policy shift has had critics from both the left and the right. The left says that Labor has abandoned its traditional base and values and that it is indistinguishable from the Coalition. The right argues that Labor doesn't embrace enough neo-liberal economics and that it is sticking to a tired ideology.

Labor supports multiculturalism and generally is more likely to approve of higher immigration levels than the Coalition. Labor is the primary supporter of issues that affect indigenous Australians like land rights and supports a formal apology on the issue of the stolen generation. Labor is also more likely to support additional rights for gay and lesbian people and it is a stronger supporter of equal opportunity legislation than the Coalition.

Internationally, Labor generally believes in multilateralism and but is often more critical of Australia's relationship with large international powers like the United States and historically the United Kingdom than the Liberal Party. However, many members of the Labor Party (especially those affiliated with right-wing factions) are strong supporters of the alliance with the United States. This support is also offical party policy. In his welcome speech to US President George W. Bush, former leader Simon Crean said:

The Australian perspective is bound to differ, from time to time, with the perspective of the United States. Of course, on occasions, friends disagree, as we on this side did with you on the war in Iraq. But, such is the strength of our shared values, interests and principles, those differences can enrich rather than diminish, strengthen rather than weaken, our partnership. Our commitment to the Alliance remains unshakeable, as does our commitment to the War on Terror, but friends must be honest with each other.[4]

Labor also supports a greater level of Australian integration with Asia then the Liberal Party, but this distinction is starting to narrow with increasing Liberal Party support for stronger Asian relationships, especially with Indonesia.

- Aaron Hill July 7, 2005 07:20 (UTC)

Australian Young Labor

I don't know what the practice in other states is, but in Queensland, all under-25 ALP members are automatically members of Young Labor. Isn't this the case elsewhere? Slac speak up! 02:06, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

The edit I deleted said: "Most members of the ALP are also members of Young Labor, the party's youth arm," which is clearly not true. I would think the average age of ALP members is over 40. Adam 02:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Very true. That would need to be reformulated. Slac speak up! 06:46, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Hey, Just FYI, you may wanna fix the Picture of the Male Anatomy. I would but I lack the knowlage

Er, what are you talking about? Nothing like that shows up for me. Slac speak up! 01:53, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Now reverted vandalism. Ambi 02:06, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

New sentence.

• Labors are not conservative and their policies benefit working people, hence a lot of their political leaders are x-worker's union leaders.

I think the first half of that sentance is already covered.

Perhaps the second part is worth adding somewhere, but probably not in the intro.

Regards, Ben Aveling 01:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

oh dear - your lack of grammar would seriously degrade the article (yes i know im not using punctuation, im commenting, not suggesting content). The latter half of the sentence "hence a lot of their political leaders are x-worker's union leaders" isnt very neutral. this fact needn't be mentioned i believe. it would be more productive to mention that many of Labor's political leaders are oxford graduates and former rhodes scholars.--Evski 05:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Links at the end of the page

Why are these links on the end of the page:

• Labor coast to coast? Bloody hell! (critical commentary)

• Critics of political donations

The SMH link is to a newspaper article about what would happen if the Labor Party won the 2004 federal election. Isn't that a little bit outdated. It sounds like an anti-Labor editorial whinge. If you linked a feature article on the ALP or a website detailing the Labor Partys flaws thats okay, but not an outdated editorial.

Democracy for sale is not as bad as the first one, but I don't know why its on there. Its to do with political donations in general. Xtra you reverted a user who removed those links, what was your rational for that? Kyle sb 08:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• Hate to backflip but I re-read the article. It's not that bad so I withdraw all the comments I just made. Kyle sb 08:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

social democracy template

The ALP is social democratic right? So why was the social democracy template removed? The reasons cited "ugly, tendentious, inaccurate and disruptive of the text - get riddofit!" are all not applicable to the inclusion of the template: if the template is ugly, tendentious or innaccurate, please take your issues to the template's talk; whether it disruptive to the text, depends on the browser your using (probably) we can work on that. I want to include this template in the article, because I think every social democratic party should have this template, just like every communist party should have the communism template. - C mon 15:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Then it's your job to ensure that it is not ugly, tendentious, inaccurate and disruptive of the text. So long as it is I will delete it. (Hint - Leon Blum was not a social democrat, as I have already pointed out several times). Adam 01:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The Mark Lathem disaster

there should be a paragraph on it

The ALP has been around for 106 years, and Latham was leader for a little over 12 months. But if you wanted to add more detail, and verifiable sources, feel free. Slac speak up! 03:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

But don't feel free to vandalise the article as you just did. Adam 03:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Republic

Do any contributors know the ALP platform for an Australian Republic. Recently supporters of the change to Senior Counsel for QC's in South Australia were called Fenians by Michael Atkinson at the ALP convention (15th October 2006 ABC TV News). Is there an official national policy? Ozdaren 10:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The ALP national platform and rules commit it to supporting an Australian republic. Slac speak up! 23:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

National Conference 2007

"The next National Conference will be held in January 2007." Is this correct? Other sources (eg. http://www.asu.asn.au/calendar/; http://www.lido.com.au/conference/conference_book.asp?id=958; http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=68948) are listing it as occurring in April (namely on the 27th - 29th). To be honest I'm curious myself what the actual date is. 60.241.179.94 13:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC) Andy

Leader

The info box says Kevin Rudd is the "leader" of the party. That is true, but only in relation to the Federal Parliamentary Party. There is no one leader of the ALP - each state/territory party has its own leader and the federal party has yet another leader. I tried to amend the info box to make this clearer, but it didn't work. Any suggestions? JackofOz 02:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Liberal Party of Australia has the same problem. The whole infobox probably needs to change "Leader" to "Federal leader". I'll try to fix it later. Rocksong 03:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it would also apply to the Nats, Greens, Democrats .... as well. Thanks. JackofOz 03:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems someone else has gone and edited the template "Infobox_Australian_Political_Party". Unfortunately, I think it's a change for the worse, because now groups like Tasmanian Greens have a "Federal" leader. How does one edit the source of an Infobox? The Wikipedia help is useless, as is often the case. Rocksong 07:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I found it and changed it back at Template:Infobox Australian Political Party Rocksong 07:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

New Banner/Logo

Are we sure this is a new logo/banner for the party, or is it a once-off for the Federal Conference? I guess we will see within the next week. - Boochan 11:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The "old" logo still features in the ALP website's masthead, so I think this is a once-off. Although as you say, we shall soon know. Kewpid 12:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The new logo is here for good - its on the newest parts of the site like the Climate Change Summit subsite (http://climatesolutions.alp.org.au/) and its been referred to in the media as a new logo, http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2007/s1908071.htm, http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,21634111-5001021,00.html. Also, Labor gear and information has started going out to members with the new logo. - King Rod 14:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC) Thanks for the clarification. =] - Boochan 15:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

ALP pre-selection

I think the page needs more on this. It will be of interest to many readers.

ALP pre-selections have been in the news a lot over the years, especially over the previous week (http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,21673601-910,00.html?from=public_rss). In contrast to many democratic countries, Australia does not regulate party pre-selection (http://democratic.audit.anu.edu.au/papers/20060424_gauja_enf_dem.pdf). Could I please get some help making this point - I keep getting deleted, sometimes without reason. Student of Political Science, USA 68.49.186.67 21:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

you've been asked to provide a reference, this is the first time you've mentioned the democratic audit discussion paper... pretty simple. I haven't read the discussion paper yet but if it says what you say it says than there is no prob, although I doubt it does, ie, what do you mean by 'many democratic countries'? WikiTownsvillian 00:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

No worries, Alec. (I did provide an ABC news reference, but got deleted again, never mind. The rest of the page doesn't have references.)
I aim to make my contribution neutral, notable and verifiable. I'll hold off until you have had a chance to read. The article lists the countries which do regulate democratic processes, e.g. Germany is a democratic country and regulates processes such as pre-selection to avoid mistakes of the past (a centralised accumulation of power). Many emerging democracies also regulate these processes. There is another article on the Australian democracy audit which looks at the respective parties. I can't cite a convenient online version though - people would have to visit the library or pay a service. Some of the points I think I would like to put forward for discussion
1 Australian party processes such as pre-selection are only regulated in Queensland (reference found)
2 Australian parties suffer from undemocratic pre-selection processes such as branch-stacking (I think I have found a reference)
3 ALP has a mechanism to ignore branch pre-selections, and thus avoid the consequences of branch-stacking.
4 This mechanism also has a down side.
Note the Rodney Cavalier (former ALP Minister) 2001 quote about the ALP as "one of the most undemocratic and unrepresentative parties in the world of parliamentary democracy" (http://evatt.labor.net.au/publications/papers/136.html) student 68.49.186.67 01:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi student, could you cite it anyway (just like you would in an assignment), I have access to a pretty good tertiary library and am interested in the points you have raised, I've always thought the lack of information about preselection processes was significantly absent from the Australian political/government articles. now to address your points:

1. what is that reference? that would be good info for both the Politics of Australia and the Politics of Queensland articles.
2. Well that's pretty common knowledge and I wouldn't disagree, I know here in Queensland there was huge controversy on this issue in about 2001, the resulting Shepardson Commission of Inquiry made recommendations which lead to Queensland's current rules, although branch stacking remains controversial. Yet again I think that info belongs in the above two articles (with references cited).
3. I think that most major parties have that kind of mechanism, but would be happy to be proven wrong.<be> 4. well yeah, but that is a statement of opinion, you could say that this mechanism has been criticised by the following (notable and independent) source for the following (summarised) reasons.
Finally I would recommend you signing up to a user name, it makes discussions and editing easier and you have a lot to contribute to wikipedia. Thanks, WikiTownsvillian 02:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

1 (http://democratic.audit.anu.edu.au/papers/20060424_gauja_enf_dem.pdf), note table 1 on page 4.
2 Gary Johns, "Party Democracy: An audit of Australian Parties", Australian Journal of Political Science, 2000, Vol 35, pp 401-425
3 People do things because they can (my opinion, axiom and observation). People in other parties would do the same if they could. Many established and emerging democracies regulate these processes. I think the distinction is that while many Australian party executive bodies can veto a pre-selection, they don't have power to choose their own candidate.
4 There might be 1000 stories over the past 110 years. Perhaps that one is notable because it was made by a former ALP Minister. There might be 100 news references, but I haven't really found a good summary. I note that ALP Conventions have been addressing this in recent years. That might be the place to look.
5. Thanks, will give it a go. Hypothesis101 02:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Julia Gillard

I noticed that the article lacks reference to deputy Julia Gillard except in the caption for a photo of Rudd and Gillard. I suggest that as the deputy of the party she at the very least be mentioned in the main article, and thus a link from her name to an article on her be included. Tinkstar1985 11:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Julia Gillard is not the deputy of the ALP, she is the deputy of the FPALP. Alans1977 15:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection of page

Seems there has been quite a bit of vandalism of the page lately. Perhaps semi-protection is warranted. How does one going about getting the admins to apply it? Alans1977 20:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Normally at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. However, this article doesn't warrant protection currently. If the vandalism increases in frequency, then maybe.--cj | talk 05:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Alans1977 05:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Policy & National Conference

The current National Platform was adopted by the 43rd National Conference in January 2004.

This is out of date - should this now read "44th" and "April 2007"? --B.d.mills 11:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

reference to Liberal/National parties

I have just made the following change:

It is the only party to have been in continuous operation since Federation, and competes with the centre-right Liberal/National coalition.

to

It is the only party to have been in continuous operation since Federation, and competes with the centre-right Liberal and National for political office, particularly at the federal and state level.

I have made this changes to reflect the fact that the party runs for office at all three levels of Government, although focus is obviously more on the State and Federal level, with only a few LGAs being political. Also the Liberals and Nationals are traditionally in coalition at the federal level, but that is not necessarily the case at the Sate and Local government level, eg. Victoria and South Australia. I would of course be very open to discussion if this change is in any way objectionable. Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 04:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Communism

I told the admins on the request page that the ALP and Lib pages should be protected for the upcoming elections like Rudd and Howard have got, but noooo, they wouldn't listen would they. Just for a point of clarification, communism is seriously laughable. If they were a communist party, Whitlam wouldn't have led them to the 1972 election win and destroyed the Democratic Labor Party vote. Since then, the ALP has moved more and more to the economic right. And even an edit attempt at "extreme communism"! Rusted on Liberals... Timeshift 05:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit required

The admin who locked the page hasn't responded to my message left hours ago, so if another mod reads this can they please disambiguate Democratic Labor Party to Democratic Labor Party. TIA. Timeshift 09:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm just doing it now. I had no idea that you weren't an admin, though - is there any reason for this? I'd be happy to nominate you if you're willing. Rebecca 10:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to mix business and pleasure. Thanks anyway, that's quite the compliment :-) Timeshift 10:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Alp redirects here

Several pages referring to Alp (singular mountain in central europe) end up being redirected here. Can the links from those pages be changed to point to Alps? DavidRF 14:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

No Longer Centre Left

It has been a very long time since the Labor Party could be described as Centre Left, or in fact leftist at all. The policies of the Hawke/Keating Governments were so far right that the Liberal party was forced to take extreme stances to look any different and things have not changed. The Labor Party would now be accurately described as a Centre Right party. Passol42 00:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Economically, yes. But these days it's not a simple matter of left and right, as theres economic and social issues. Centre-left has information on it that relates to the ALP, and in relation to the Liberals they are centre-left as opposed to centre-right. The increasing centre-right economic policies are discussed in the article. This issue has been done to death. Timeshift 00:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Then it's time the description was removed from the article - it is contentious at best, inaccurate at worst 203.166.29.250 04:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It takes more than one random anonymous IP to get something like that changed. Timeshift 04:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The ALP supports collective organising, it supports trade unionism, it supports a welfare state, it supports public funding of public goods (health, education and so on). How that's 'far right' I'm really not sure - I didn't realise supporting Medicare entitled me to a brown shirt and a bad haircut...

If you're from the Libs, you'd probably sneer at the ALP for being socialist scum (and indeed, some libs do just this). If you're from the non-Labor left you'd probably fancy that the ALP is too far right (ah, the simplicity of life when you never have to deliver...). The ALP describes itself as Centre-Left, and the bagging it gets from all quarters puts it right about there, and its policy outlook is still Centre-Left. So in my opinion it should stay. Dibo ^{T | C} 05:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

At least some overseas news services describe Labor as centre-left (and Liberal as centre-right): http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/02/03/asia/AS-GEN-Climate-Change-World-View.php http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2006/12/05/2003339182 http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/08/08/ap3999595.html Peter Ballard 05:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

See. Again - this argument has been had many times, and has been done to death. ALP is best described centre-left followed by their ideology (social democracy) and the coalition is best described centre-right followed by their ideology (liberal conservatism/conservative liberalism), and where they happen to embrace non-traditional policies, it is mentioned within the article. That is the way they will stay until any mass consensus points otherwise. Timeshift 05:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Who likes games?

Who wants to play match the face? I've started adding names to the captions for

, if anyone else is familiar or is good at matching someone from historical Labor MP photos we have on here to those in the picture... that would be great :-) Members of the Australian House of Representatives, 1901-1903 was of some help, but limited. Timeshift 13:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Party Infoboxes

In an attempt to remove labels such as "centre left/right, liberal/social conservative/democracy" out of the intro but remain prominent, I noticed Labour Party (UK) and it has it all in the infobox... I tried adding "position = Centre-Left|" to Labor's infobox but it didn't add it... am I missing something? Timeshift 03:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Text

Does anyone else think the article needs a good re-write as it just doesn't flow well? And some of the POV/OR isn't all too good. I've made some changes. Timeshift 15:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Australian Labor?

Just because their logo doesnt say party it doesnt mean they've renamed themselves. Go to www.alp.org.au (note ALP) and note the title of the page - Australian Labor Party. I disagree with the page name change. Timeshift 14:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I've reverted.--cj | talk 15:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Labor/Labour

Why have the spelt it wrong? 82.3.18.24 22:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

See King O'Malley. Dibo ^{T | C} 23:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Andrew Fisher for GA

I've just nominated Andrew Fisher, 5th Prime Minister of Australia as a Good Article and would appreciate a few peer reviews. Also, are the rationales for the photos not good enough? Thanks for any comments/help provided. Timeshift 02:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Not Centre-Left

The ALP clearly does not fall in the category of a centre-left party. Someone tell me one policy of the ALP that is remotely left/socialist. The ALP is a centre party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.92.97.111 (talk) 04:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Paul Keating... read... he's the best example of an economic right social left, almost libertarian. As for current policies, you aren't really silly enough to base an Australian party's ideology on their opposition policies are you? Timeshift 05:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how they could be classified as centre-left when Kevin Rudd proudly and consistently proclaims that he is an economic conservatist 211.28.131.166 10:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC) BenS

Read the ideology links in the infobox and not just the position. Read the links, and indeed the article, to understand how their philosophy changed from democratic socialism to social democracy to the third way. Rudd, like Hawke and Keating, are adherents to the third way. It's certainly nothing new. Timeshift 10:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Moderation of images

I find it terribly inconsistent to remove any of the non-free (post-Chifley) images when those at Labour Party (UK) such as George Brown, Hugh Gaitskell, and Michael Foot remain and seemingly without objection. And I won't even begin to compare the quality of the rationales used... Timeshift 16:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible that they just haven't got to the UK ones? Rebecca 00:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

One of those was uploaded January 2005. I wish one of mine got as good-a run as that. And my point isn't their deletion, as the ones I uploaded aren't deleted either. My point is that if their page can have a picture of all leaders, I don't see why we can't have a picture of all Prime Ministers. Timeshift 04:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as copyvio goes, that's no longer an issue for a single Labor Prime Minister picture anymore :-) Timeshift 07:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Collective/enterprise bargaining

What is the difference between the two or am I understanding from what i'm reading that they're more or less the same thing? Timeshift 05:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Collective bargaining is any form of bargaining between a group and an individual. In an industrial sense it is typically the collective of workers that the name refers to, and the other party in the bargaining process may be one or many employers.

Enterprise bargaining is a particular kind of collective bargaining between an employer and their workers. It contrasts with industry-wide bargaining which involves all the employers within an industry and may or may not involve pattern bargaining (where the same deal is sought separately in multiple deals across an industry in order to standardise conditions). Dibo ^{T | C} 07:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

So is it correct to say that Keating Labor introduced enterprise bargaining, or collective bargaining? Timeshift 07:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Enterprise bargaining - though in reality over award payments have been negotiated and given on an enterprise level over many years. The Brereton reforms simply created a framework to facilitate the process. Collective bargaining is what unions have always done as long as they've existed - worked together to try to get a better deal. Nobody in particular 'introduced' that. Dibo ^{T | C} 03:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Any reason this page still has it as the Liberal page doesn't? Timeshift 08:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It's be protected for almost 3 months now, I think it's a good time to remove it (even during an election as minor vandalism isn't reason for protection) from this article and *maybe* WorkChoices. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 21:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

ALP and Coalition ideology

Do people think it's more precise to classify the ALP as social democratic, rather than center-left. By the same token do people think it's more precise to classify the Coalition as neoliberal, rather than center-right. If anyone has any input into this please see the discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Australian_federal_election%2C_2007#Description_of_ALP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alans1977 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

They are classed as both which is what they are. Also note the same classifications at Labour Party (UK). Timeshift 22:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Consistency of Am/Br-En

Shouldn't "labor/labour" be spelled consistently throughout the article, in accordance with Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English? The second sentence is different from the first sentence and the title, etc. Edit: I see the "etymology" section, but the article still needs to be consistent. Unimaginative Username (talk) 02:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

There's the worldwide "labour" movement, and the Australian "Labor" Party, which until 1911 spelled its name "Labour". It has caused confusion (and, dare I say it, frustration) previously, but I think the spelling in this article is correct at the moment. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

For a bit more fun and confusion, the ALP use the spelling "Labor" to refer to themselves and "labour" to refer to the concept of "work/workers". See the first paragraph of this policy statement for an example. Manning (talk) 02:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

New NT Chief Minister

I should say sorry for reverting those edits that included info on the new Chief Minister. I hadn't heard the news and saw the edits by an unregistered user and just assumed it was vandalism! My mistake. I'll be a bit more careful in future. Sting_au Talk 06:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Never mind - we've all been guilty of being over-zealous at some time or another. Cheers Manning (talk) 09:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

whats wrong with a timeline?

It gives a clear and representative indication of the length of period the respective leaders have served. Just because a couple don't like it doesn't mean everyone else doesn't. I say it is worthwhile. Nomadtales (talk) 08:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I say it provides no useful/additional information in addition to the list of leaders already there. Timeshift (talk) 09:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Well if you disapprove to having two lists then we can always just go with one, in the form of a timeline. The Prime Minister of Australia page does this already. The timeline can be centred and text made bigger. Nomadtales (talk) 20:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Nope, we (me and the user who first reverted anyway) don't want the timeline. It provides nothing additional, except clutter. Timeshift (talk) 22:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I like it, but it's a bit of a mess at the top. Rather not.--RoryReloaded 09:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

That timeline is nothing but clutter--RoryReloaded 07:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Added to the see also of the leader list. Timeshift (talk) 15:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Reminder

That image reminder stopped me from putting 1 there. Why?--RoryReloaded 09:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

"All levels?"

What does the phrase "Labor now governs at all levels of parliamentary government in Australia simultaneously" mean, exactly? Labor doesn't run all the state governments, does it? --Jfruh (talk) 18:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

They do. All of the State Governments are under the ALP leadership.--RoryReloaded 19:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Good lord, you're right. New intro makes that much easier to follow, thanks! --Jfruh (talk) 20:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

So monstrous a travesty

I bought a copy of the book today. If anyone needs clarification on anything to do with Chris Watson, let me know and i'll see what I can find. It looks quite interesting, as did "Australian Prime Ministers" by Michelle Grattan, and it had quite a lot of historical photos too. Perhaps next time. Timeshift (talk) 06:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Politicial ideology - democratic socialism

Do not touch these. This isn't just about the current Labor Party, but about the party since 1891. Democratic socialism has always been their official position in the party's constitution, and regardless of whether or not they still practise it is irrelevant. Timeshift (talk) 00:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The article says it, but the caption is wrong

Andrew Fisher served three terms and the party name changed during his second term, the article says it somewhere, but you have to fish it out.Gregorydavid (talk) 05:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, where is the issue? It changed in 1912 as it says in every article. Where is the inconsistency? Timeshift (talk) 05:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The issue is about as important as the missing 'u'. During the first term it was the Labour Party, not the Labor Party as the caption says.Gregorydavid (talk) 06:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Decline in membership

The article doesn't mention the decline in Labor Party membership, which shows an erosion of grass-roots support, and a heavier reliance on funding from corporations and unions to get things done.Lester 22:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that this page was the definitive source for anything and everything to do with the Labor Party. If you want to add it, do so in an NPOV, neutral, reliably sourced way. Timeshift (talk) 22:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Timeshift. Just thought I'd mention it here before doing it. Regards, Lester 23:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh ok then :) Timeshift (talk) 23:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Is it really notable? I don't mind the inclusion (and likewise for other political parties...assuming they have the same "problem") but it should be more than just a throw away line, or a quick quote with a reference. Something in the context of "In modern times the party has suffered from declining membership....blah blah" with an RS about some of the root causes etc (IMO). Shot info (talk) 23:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It does have a severe potential for WP:OR, so be careful about wording. Timeshift (talk) 23:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Labor is one of many parties facing the same problem, as people today are more cynical about the political process and even those who vote consistently one way are far less likely to join a party. The branch stacking going on (and the obvious decline in constitutional membership which made that possible) in the NSW Libs as documented on Four Corners last year, the hijacking of Greens branches in the Perth metro area by interest groups etc is evidence that similar problems affect other parties as well. All three are suffering from "mass party syndrome" which is documented in one of my political science textbooks - as parties move to compete in the modern era they become increasingly professionalised and grassroots support matters less (Politics One by Ward I. and Stewart R.G. (2006)) I think it belongs in Politics of Australia rather than a specific article about one party, although it can be noted in general terms in this article that Labor membership has declined over the years. Orderinchaos 08:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

That was very well said, Orderinchaos. I'd support all of those issues you mention being added to Wikipedia. No favouratism for any party. These are the issues they are experiencing, and the way those parties are changing. It has been covered in the media. I will start to look for references. But they are different issues affecting each party. Surely, changes affecting how a party functions belong in that party's article. I'll probably have some of the party members after me with knives (again), but this kind of information is what makes Wikipedia independent from the official party websites.Lester 12:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

While info on declining participation in political parties generally is interesting and important, the dramatic and continuing decline in membership in the ALP (and coalition) over the last 20 years is specifically relevant to this page. The decline is linked to lots of factors - the rise of poll driven policy generation, campaigns dominated by paid advertising not grass-roots campaigning, presidential style elections, deliberate "dumbing down" of issues debate and endlessly repeated "sound bite" sized messaging, etc., etc. The key impact is the one Lester identified - replacement of grass-roots members with corporate dollars and machine candidate selection. It's worth noting that Greens membership continues to grow with almost zero driven by stacking, so it's not a universal problem for Australian parties. Chrismaltby (talk) 13:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Position

Position edit: As this page says, content must be verifiable by reliable sources. To any international reader, the policies of the ALP are centre right, as evidenced by The Political Compass, a respected source that is international and unbiased. I have yet to encounter any equally authoritative source that says anything different, despite Australian opinion being popularly incorrect on this score. Happy to defer to a more authoritative source. 118.209.224.82 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:26, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

And what's your rationale for completely ignoring the Edit note immediately before the bit you changed? HiLo48 (talk) 09:49, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a policy of be bold and fix it yourself. The existence of an edit note is certainly not a valid reason to revert a valid edit.

118.209.224.82 (talk) 09:55, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

It's obviously a reason why you should never have made the change in the first place. HiLo48 (talk) 11:41, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

BBC calls the Labor Party centre-left:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-39841053 Micmicm (talk) 01:24, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

So does Radio New Zealand:

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/world/467365/australia-election-polls-show-race-tightening-in-final-campaign-stretch

And Germany's DW:

https://www.dw.com/en/droughts-fires-floods-could-climate-change-decide-australias-election-coal-renewables/a-61821853 Micmicm (talk) 02:51, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

And EuroNews (it also describes the Coalition as centre-right):

https://www.euronews.com/2019/05/18/australians-vote-in-closely-fought-federal-election Micmicm (talk) 03:25, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

RNZ again (both Labor = centre-left and Coalition = centre-right):

https://www.rnz.co.nz/programmes/the-detail/story/2018842103/australian-election-is-scott-morrison-s-time-up Micmicm (talk) 08:53, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

CBC:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/australia-election-call-may-1.6414928 Micmicm (talk) 09:04, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Labor is certainly not a Centre-Right political parties. It has Third Way factions, in the same way it has Democratic Socialist factions, but the party is broadly a pragmatic centre-left party, which favours SocDem economics over any Neoliberal or Third Way option.

Hawke and Keating were not neolibs either btw, they were pragmatists MrFluffster (talk) 09:34, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Labor is a center-right Political party, and this page needs to be updated to match this. Forcing the wikipedia page to centre-left doesn't make it true. The idea that oppositional parties such as Labor and Liberal need to be politically oppositional might look good on paper, but it is not true in action. How do we resolve this issue? I'm more than happy to write in a paragraph about the Labors shift from the left to the right if required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.121.95.54 (talk) 05:09, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

What you will need to do is show, using reliable sources, that that is the consensus among academics in the field. When you have gathered evidence that is the case, please bring it here for discussion. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me)<