Talk:List of political parties in Australia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Australia / Politics (Rated List-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon List of political parties in Australia is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics (marked as Top-importance).
 
Note icon
Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia.
WikiProject Politics (Rated List-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Shouldn't this take into account state representation as well?

Family First already had representatives in SA, and the Shooters Party have a representative in NSW, for instance. There's also other represented parties that aren't even listed here. Ambi 03:26, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You are welcome to add a paragraph on state parties. Gangulf 20:32, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I note that parties like the Democrats and the Greens have been moved from the minor parties section into the significant parties. In the electoral division pages I have been editing (eg. Division of Brand), I have been noting the best result from a minor party, which I have defined as any party other than the ALP, the Liberals or the Nationals (or their predesessers) or any other party that has held government in its own right. Thus, for Brand I have noted that the best performance by a minor party was by One Nation in 1998 while for others it has been the Democrats. As the casual reader would now be somewhat confused when seeing these references and then seeing this pages definition of minor parties, can someone suggest a suitable term for me to refer to the non-major parties? --Roisterer 04:18, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Since One Nation is now without any represenation in Federal Parliament, I've removed it from the list of significant parties. --203.17.44.84 10:04, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Maybe they should be divided into Major Parties, Minor Parliamentary Parties, and Other Minor Parties, with Minor Parliamentary Parties including parties in state Parliaments such as the Shooters Party and the CDP. I've also moved AAFI from Defunct Parties to Minor Parties129.78.64.105 04:36, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Democrats[edit]

Ambi, I was bringing the description of the Democrats into line with what their main article says. --RaiderAspect 06:12, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • sigh* Electoral oblivion was to be expected for the Aus. Democrats - do they have enough representation at a state level to maintain their status as a second-tier party (along with Family First, Greens), or do we move them largely to the annals of historically significant parties (along with One Nation)? Blackjack4124 (talk) 07:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I'd probably keep them there for now, as they'll have four senators until the new Senate is sworn in mid-next year. At that point, I'd say we'd have to move them to the "currently registered with the AEC" section, as unlike the others, they'd have no federal MPs. Rebecca (talk) 11:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Family First[edit]

It's a party appealing to families, as it says in their own party policy - viewable on their own website [1]. To narrow their appeal to simply 'socially conservative Christians' is an huge error. They target both Christians and non-Christians who are supportive of their policies. For example:

Family First has been campaigning on family issues that many Christians and non- Christians are in agreement with..." [2]

"Many Christians and many non-Christians". Meaning that they do not specfically target either group, but social conservatives who agree with their policies, regardless of religious affiliation. They barely even mention Christianity in their policy or on their website - a google search of the site brings up a mere twelve results for the word 'Christian'. michael talk 09:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

They had candidates releasing pamphlets in 2004 arguing that mosques and synagogues should be burned. They're based out of the Assemblies of God, and half their candidates are active in the Assemblies of God hierarchy. Basically all of their policy comes from Assemblies of God doctrine. I really don't think this is that surprising a claim to make. Ambi 09:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry - but what point are you trying to make? While your complete opposition to the party is evident - you have not given a valid reason why they should be considered a wholly Christian conservative party instead of a socially conservative one. You have simply slandered them based on the behaviour of a minority of members. michael talk 09:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
(And your complete support for the party is entirely evident). I'm just pointing out that it's rather silly to take a party that's entirely based around the Christian churches and claim that they have nothing to do with religion. Perhaps we could note that they're based around the Assemblies of God, but aiming for broader conservative appeal (or something similar)? Ambi 09:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
The earlier 'Christian-influenced Conservatism' in the article seems to hit the nail on the head. I've changed it to "and the Family First Party, a Christian-influenced party appealing to social conservatives". michael talk 09:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Fine by me. Ambi 09:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Thankyou! michael talk 09:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The[edit]

I'd like to drop the word the from all political party names. -- Newhoggy | Talk 23:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Party system[edit]

I changed the modifier of 'mild two party system' to 'strong two party system'. Australia has a stronger system than almost any other country. Party discipline is absolute (headlines when someone walks for 1 vote). This is stronger than in the USA or UK.

Yes, but there are really THREE major parties. Labour, Liberal and Nationals. That's why it is mild. Because while you would call it a two party system, because of the coalition technically speaking it is not at all.121.210.30.41 07:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

National Socialist Party of Australia[edit]

The formal National Socialist Party of Austrlaia (NSPA) should have it's own article because it was a political party back in the 70's and it has more to do than Jim. --DePeRe 10:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Massive crack down needed[edit]

Fellow comrades. We realy need a crack down on political parties that are not real or are not registered. --DePeRe 04:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Most of them have wikipedia entries. If they've got a wikipedia entry, they should be listed here. Maybe some of these parties should be deleted though. Andjam 05:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
As far as I am aware, everything there has been registered at some time in the past. The "not currently registered" parties have virtually all been registered in the past and have contested elections. Frickeg (talk) 06:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a good source. (If the link doesn't work, try going here and search for parties by name). Timeshift (talk) 03:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

It would be helpful to clean this list up, I think - there's a few on this list that probably never did exist beyond a website. It would be really good to have another section for current state registration (encompassing groups like DS4SEQ), and mark the rest as specifically defunct, with sources for when they were deregistered. Rebecca (talk) 13:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Table contribution by anon[edit]

Comparison of Current political parties' policies[edit]

(Currently using data on nuclear stances... add more policy on other stuff please)

Name of party Opposes uranium exports to states possessing nuclear weapons Oppose nuclear irradiation of food Oppose uranium mining at Jabiluka Opposes the US Missile Defence Program, including ensuring Australian facilities are not used in this program Oppose nuclear power in Australia Support bla
Labor Party No No Yes Yes ? ?
Liberal Party No No No No No ?
The Greens Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes ?
Generic party insert here ? ? ? ? ? ?

Now for anyone familiar with wikipedia, this table has obvious issues. Per edit summary comments, I have moved it to this page for further discussion and/or development. Timeshift 09:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I certainly think it has no place on this page, and I'm really not sure about its usefulness. All of this information could be covered either in the parties' pages or on a page about nuclear energy (for example) in Australia. Frickeg 22:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Massive crack down needed[edit]

Fellow comrades. We realy need a crack down on political parties that are not real or are not registered. --DePeRe 04:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Most of them have wikipedia entries. If they've got a wikipedia entry, they should be listed here. Maybe some of these parties should be deleted though. Andjam 05:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
As far as I am aware, everything there has been registered at some time in the past. The "not currently registered" parties have virtually all been registered in the past and have contested elections. Frickeg (talk) 06:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a good source. (If the link doesn't work, try going here and search for parties by name). Timeshift (talk) 03:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

It would be helpful to clean this list up, I think - there's a few on this list that probably never did exist beyond a website. It would be really good to have another section for current state registration (encompassing groups like DS4SEQ), and mark the rest as specifically defunct, with sources for when they were deregistered. Rebecca (talk) 13:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I've gone and made a start on cleaning this list up by splitting off all of the parties that are registered at a state but not federal level, so we can actually start to split out those form the larger list that still exist from those that are dead, or never existed in any notable form in the first place.

What should we do about those that are no longer registered at any level (or never did in the first place) but are still marked on our list as existent? Rebecca (talk) 10:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I personally think that if they were never registered at any level they don't really deserve a mention unless there is some definite claim for notability. The main problem is with notability of micro-parties - does registration confirm notability? I'm in two minds on this, because it's unlikely that, for example, Aged and Disability Pensioners Party will ever be more than a stub, but it will still show up in election results tables and things, and red links make those templates very ugly. It also helps when we need to abbreviate the name (as in Senate candidates tables, i.e. here) and the link provides the full name. Perhaps we should have a merged article for all the micro-micro-parties who (a) never won a seat, (b) never really attracted any serious news, and (c) weren't around for more than about two elections? List of Australian political micro-parties or something, perhaps? Frickeg (talk) 23:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
As an aside, there was some guy who moved around Australia contesting by-elections under the label "Atokist" called Louis Phillips in about 1945. He apparently made up the word. Orderinchaos 11:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
How do other countries do it? Timeshift (talk) 01:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I think Canada does it much the same as we do now; I can't think of another country that has micro-parties which has as advanced a politics coverage as we do. I might start by killing those on this list which never contested an election, and we can work out the notability of those that remain from there. Rebecca (talk) 10:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Having looked through the list again, I'm starting to think that it might be better to apply some sort of higher notability requirement here: having been registered, contested elections, and have some sort of press coverage so we can know something about them. A number of our party articles are on "parties" that were just basically dodgy preference-driving ballot lines for the likes of Glenn Dreury and Malcolm Jones. Rebecca (talk) 10:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've been through and killed off the non-AEC-registered list; deleted all of those that didn't appear to have been registered and contested elections, and moved the rest to the defunct list. As far as I can see, these parties with articles don't meet that criteria:

Anyone have any objections to throwing these to AfD? Rebecca (talk) 10:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Or PROD. The Secular Party were represented by independent ticket "Q" in WA and got 271 votes statewide - and most of those probably would have had no idea they were voting for the Secular Party. Orderinchaos 11:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I do but on a case by case basis. Some of them are linked to at other articles. The Republican Party is linked to at two by-election articles for example. I'd prefer such articles to keep their links. Timeshift (talk) 11:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
That's fair enough. It would be nice if these are to be kept, though, if the references could be tightened up to at least state at a minimum a) when they were founded/registered, b) any elections they contested and c) when they were deregistered - since an awful lot of these microparty articles are a total dog's breakfast when it comes to context. Any chance you'd be willing to have a shot at digging that up? Rebecca (talk) 11:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
The Republican Party contested a fair few Senate elections as well, and was registered for 1996, 1998, 2001, and 2004. The rest, I think, can probably be deleted if there are no other reasons for notability. Frickeg (talk) 22:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Workers' Liberty used to be a part of the Socialist Alliance but have since left. They (WL) are very very small - word "microparty" fits them to an absolute tee. The Socialist Party, on the other hand, while relatively small (maybe somewhere between 30-50 members), and unregistered, probably deserves *some* mention, as they have had councilor re-elected to Yarra council in 2008, and have a fair degree of profile (if limited largely to that area). I also note that someone recently added Socialist Alternative to the page. I'm not sure what prerequisites we want to use for inclusion on this page, but as they have never been electorally registered and don't run in elections (except student ones), do they belong here?Friedrich Oswald (talk) 08:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Workers' Liberty and the Socialist Alternative are both too small to be included, and as neither are registered they both fail the first test. If the Socialist Party is the same as the Socialist Party of Australia then they used to be registered for federal elections and thus qualify. Parties don't automatically qualify by contesting council elections, or being elected to councils, although if they get significant media coverage they may qualify via standard notability criteria. Frickeg (talk) 22:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
No, the Socialist Party is this one: Socialist Party (Australia). They're a small affiliate of the Committee for a Workers International, as opposed to the old Socialist Party of Australia, which is now the Communist Party. Despite their councillor, they are pretty small, as indicated. I'll leave the question of their notability to others' discretion - I know too much about the far left to be fully objective.Friedrich Oswald (talk) 05:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

What about liberals for forests? OK, they are registered in WA, but the last election I can find, in which they participated was the 2004 Fed election. Their website has not been updated since 2001. Can they seriously be considered to be an active political party? Does anyone know what they've been up to in recent times?--Mrodowicz (talk) 14:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

They're not active *now*, but definitely were - they were a factor in the Richmond election in 2004 and they still have an MP in the WA Parliament (Janet Woollard). Orderinchaos 15:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
They did actually run in 2005 (http://www.waec.wa.gov.au/elections/documents/state/2005/LC%20Candidates%20pps155.pdf), but not in 2008 - presumably that's why they're still on the list, if probably not for much longer. Oh, and the MP in parliament thing isn't quite correct - just talking with OIC about it now - she was elected as an independent under that banner the first time, but has always sat as an independent. Rebecca (talk) 15:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Fielding was elected to the Senate in 2004 in part on lff prefs. Timeshift (talk) 21:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Speaking of liberals for forests, the page is currently at liberals for Forests (lower-case l, capital F), which is a bit odd. Could someone fix it? Frickeg (talk) 22:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
It's meant to be liberal. Timeshift (talk) 22:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but it's also meant to be forests (lower-case f). Frickeg (talk) 22:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Introduction[edit]

The first line of this article states that "Political parties in Australia lists political parties in Australia. " I'm not an expert on Wikipedia protocol, but what exactly is the function of this redundancy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.17.42.78 (talk) 07:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed table[edit]

Party Fed NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas ACT NT
  Australian Democrats YesY YesY YesY
  Australia First Party YesY
  Australian Fishing and Lifestyle Party YesY
  Australian Greens YesY YesY YesY YesY YesY YesY YesY YesY YesY
  Australian Labor Party YesY YesY YesY YesY YesY YesY YesY YesY YesY
  Australian Motorist Party YesY
  Australian Sex Party YesY
  Building Australia Party YesY YesY
  Carers Alliance YesY
  Christian Democratic Party YesY YesY YesY YesY YesY
  Citizens Electoral Council YesY YesY YesY
  Communist Alliance YesY
  Community Alliance Party YesY
  Country Alliance YesY
  Country Liberal Party (NT) YesY YesY
  Daylight Saving for South East Queensland YesY
  Democratic Labor Party YesY YesY YesY
  Dignity for Disability YesY
  Fair Land Tax - Tax Party YesY
  Family First Party YesY YesY YesY YesY YesY YesY
  FREE Australia Party YesY
  Gamers 4 Croydon YesY
  Liberal Democratic Party YesY YesY
  Liberal National Party of Queensland YesY YesY
  Liberal Party of Australia YesY YesY YesY YesY YesY YesY YesY
  National Party of Australia YesY YesY YesY YesY YesY
  Non-Custodial Parents Party YesY
  No Parking Meters Party YesY
  One Nation YesY YesY
  Outdoor Recreation Party YesY
  Pangallo Independents Party YesY
  Restore the Workers' Rights Party YesY
  Save Our Suburbs YesY
  Save the RAH YesY
  Secular Party of Australia YesY
  Senator On-Line YesY
  Shooters and Fishers Party YesY YesY YesY
  Socialist Alliance YesY YesY YesY YesY
  Socialist Equality Party YesY
  The Climate Sceptics YesY
  The Fishing Party YesY
  The Queensland Party YesY
  United Party YesY
  Unity Party YesY

What do people think of the this table? It's supposed to replace the "registered parties" section and combine the federal and state ones. It also shows the various federal parties' state registrations, which we aren't showing currently. Any suggestions/comments/condemnations? (The only slightly controversial thing I've done is to not include inactive South Australian parties that are listed on the ECSA website, but since it looks like it's been about ten years since a serious update I think I'm on fairly safe ground there.) Frickeg (talk) 12:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I actually prefer the present list - for me at least it reads a lot more clearly than the table. Rebecca (talk) 13:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I like it! Timeshift (talk) 21:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Rebecca - any suggestions for making the table more readable? And/or ideas on how the list could show the different state registrations, which is the issue that the table is trying to address. Frickeg (talk) 10:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
The thing I like about the split list (apart from it being clear) it sets out very clearly who has federal registration, and separately mentions state registration for those who haven't achieved it federally. It also makes sense to me on notability grounds; giving the same prominence to One Nation and the No Parking Meters Party in NSW is a little bit strange.
I appreciate what you're trying to do here, but I think it's too much information for one table - I see it and my eyes glaze over. I'm not sure we need to know in this article exactly what states the Socialist Alliance and the Shooters and Fishers Party are registered in; for me, the important fact is that they're registered, and that we list the highest level of registration. I'd prefer to see the details in the individual party articles. Rebecca (talk) 13:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I like the table, but it is a little hard to read, and I think the split list is probably sufficient. Some more thoughts, however: Perhaps a section on state registered parties (near that noting overall parliamentary representation) could be included on the page? Rebecca's question is also pertinent (if perhaps a can of worms) - do we want this article to include state parties, or only federal parties (in which case, what justification for including the solely state-based Queensland Party)? I think with anything short of "only federal parties" we should probably include state registrations in some way (but see below). Also, with regards to "highest level" of registration - obviously federal registration is a "higher" level in one sense, but some state registration requirements are equally or more (eg Victoria and NSW) difficult to fulfill than the federal provisions. Should this be where notability comes in (as it presently does, with only state representation mentioned)? Or should a separate, slightly more detailed section be added to include state reg parties? (I tend toward the latter). It should be noted, in light of the above, that - in NSW at least - election of a candidate to state parliament grants a party permanent electoral registration anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Friedrich Oswald (talkcontribs) 04:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I am the one who added the list of state parties to the list yesterday. I apologise for forgetting to the talk page for information about the issue. I agree that the parties with only state registration should be especially noted. However, I also think it needs to be shown which federal parties are registered in which states. I like the table idea in theory, but I agree that it takes a while to get your head around. Could we make the table bigger? Or could we have a list of federally registered parties, and next to the registration note which states they are registered in (and then have the state-only registered parties separate). I hope we can revive an old discussion. FiatLovers (talk) 01:43, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
I still like the table, but I accept that I'm in the minority there. Although possibly it could be divided into federally-registered and state-only-registered subsections? Otherwise I think FiatLovers' suggestion is quite good: essentially revert to the old list, but note in brackets or something the states in which the parties are registered. For example:
What do others think? Frickeg (talk) 02:12, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
I like the "states in brackets" proposal now I can see it. However we need to make it clear that the parties are active Federally and in the states in the brackets. Can anyone else put in their opinion? FiatLovers (talk) 07:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Position on the political spectrum[edit]

Both the ALP and Greens are labeled 'centre-left'. I'm not going to be bold and make a change in this particular instance, because I have no doubt that I'd be stepping heavily on some toes, but I will suggest that the ALP are centre-left and the Greens are discernably and demonstrably more left than the ALP, and 'left' in their own right. I also have no doubt that some see them as far left, but I'm not one of those, and I don't think it's a claim that's well supported.

I will also 'fess up - I haven't checked other green articles in wikipedia to see where they're pigeonholed. Still - centre-left they ain't. I'll change the Greens position on the spectrum in this article at some point in the future if there's no dissent. Colonel Tom 12:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

New parties in 2013[edit]

Seems like there will be a new range of parties for the federal election this year. On facebook, there is already two new parties going for reg that I have found so far, which are Australian Smokers' Rights Party and a new version of the Liberal Movement. Not sure if this is just for facebook purposes or these are real parties, so I will not post them yet but heads up wikipedia, we have new players on the way.--121.214.163.81 (talk) 11:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Liberals "left-centre"[edit]

Why is it being claimed that the Liberal party is "left-centre"?Eregli bob (talk) 11:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Nice catch, fixed. Frickeg (talk) 14:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Rubbish in "Federal parliamentary parties and their leaders" section[edit]

Discussion here regarding the meaningless and unreliably sourced rubbish in the first table in the 'Federal parliamentary parties and their leaders' section. Timeshift (talk) 04:24, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm wondering how Tony Standfield can be the parliamentary leader of Australian Motoring Enthusiasts Party when he isn't an MP. Surely if Australian Motoring Enthusiasts Party had a parliamentary leader it would be Ricky Muir, given that he's their only member. But then again it's probably a bit absurd to include Australian Motoring Enthusiasts Party as a force that would have a parliamentary leader. Alans1977 (talk) 13:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
and how can 1 person be considered to be a party? I think that where individuals are attached to parties outside of parliament but it is only them inside of parliament they should be considered to be independents, unless they have some sort of affiliation inside parliament (such as Muir with PUP, in which case he could be thought to be in the PUP parliamentary party. Having a parliamentary party of 1 person is pure nonsense. Alans1977 (talk) 09:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I think that would definitely be original research: while minor party senators without colleagues may have much more individual power than their major party colleagues, they're nonetheless members of a political party and, at some level, responsible to that political party. You can't randomly decide to consider them as independents without some source for that proposition. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
To consider them to be leaders of parliamentary parties makes a mockery of the definition of the word party. Alans1977 (talk) 09:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. I could care less whether we listed them as leaders (unless there are explicit sources referring to them as parliamentary leaders) but as a statement of plain fact they're parliamentary members of political parties. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
It's the 'leaders' bit I'm particularly referring to. Alans1977 (talk) 09:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I've cleaned it up here. There's a few things i've done, so if anyone disagrees I would be appreciative if they would bring it up here rather than change the article. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 23:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Great job, it looks much better. The only thing I would change is to split the Coalition - maybe like this:
Name Abbreviation Leader or sole member International association Seats in House of Reps Seats in Senate
Coalition Liberal Party of Australia LIB Tony Abbott International Democrat Union 58 23
National Party of Australia NAT Warren Truss 9 3
Liberal National Party of Queensland LNP none 22 6
Country Liberal Party (NT) CLP none 1 1
I just think this makes the whole thing much clearer and allows us to avoid the suggestion that Tony Abbott leads the National Party. Frickeg (talk) 23:24, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I like it :) Timeshift (talk) 23:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Me too. Now the same axe just needs to be taken to the minor/micro party dross. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
One issue at a time :) Timeshift (talk) 03:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC)