Talk:Australian Labor Party

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flag Australian Labor Party is part 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.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics.
WikiProject Australia To-do:

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. Drew Devereux 04:45, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Links at the end of the page

Why are these links on the end of the page:

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/u/s/Talk%7EAustralian_Labor_Party_94d4.html"