Talk:Liberal Party of Australia/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

External Links

In the Australian Labor Party page, there is a link to Critics of political donations. I added a similar link to the External Links section of this article, but it was reverted because "link isn't properly contextualised & otherwise indistinguishable from any other-party criticism of Liberals". It's not a criticism of Liberals so much as an analysis of where they get their donations. Should the link also be removed on the ALP page, or added here?

I say removed on both - they're a bit generic as far as criticism goes. Slac speak up! 12:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Truly liberal?

Liberal refers to economic liberalism, or economic freedom. Homosexuality, abortion, etc are just issues made up to get votes from those who are victims of economic liberalism. If you can't appeal to their self-interest, appeal to religion or patriotism.

Knowledge-is-power 14:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I dispute the statement that:

Neither the present Liberal party, nor a previous Liberal party, the Commonwealth Liberal Party, has been "liberal" in the sense in which the word is generally used in most other countries

The Liberal party may not be liberal in the US sense, but it is in the sense used in most other countries. See liberal and the discussion there. - 207.218.87.162, 19:48, 11 Jul 2004

incidentally, do we need that smh article about "liberal's being anything but"?? As mentioned above, Liberal is consistent with traditional liberalism, as opposed to U.S. liberalism. Even though i know this country is americanising, do we have to even use the american meaning of political and ideological words?? Xtra 00:40, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The article actually refers to the movement from the Menzies era into the Howard era of the liberal party. It's balance for the Liberal website (which obviously supports Liberal POV). - Aaron Hill 03:48, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

The Liberal party is in no way Liberal in the US sense, but extremely conservative in nature, typically from a Christian view.

luckily, the liberal party is not a US party. Xtra 03:38, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I object to the complete fabrication that the Liberal party governs with "neo-liberalism." Their policies speak for themselves, and in any sense of the word, they are conservative. All of their policies, from reducing immigration, detention, abortion, and countless other issues clearly favour a conservative view point. How can a party that opposes abortion, stops immigration, and bans gay rights be any but conservative?

Perhaps because you are confused about what neoliberalism is: I suggest you take a look. Lacrimosus 10:22, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

i think you miss the point. and i think you are making unwarranted assumptione and false accusations. the liberals have in fact increased immigration, contrary to your misguided belief. the liberals have no policy to reduce abortion, there are factions within the liberals who believe abortion is too prevelant, but there is no push within the liberals to change party policy on that. detention was started by labor, not the liberals. there are an abundance of gay rights in australia under the liberal government. sure there is a large conservative group within the liberals. there is also a neo-liberal group, just as large. i dont know where you are coming from, but you certainly dont know where the liberals are coming from. Xtra 01:24, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wow. an insult from an encylopedia. Now we know your loyalties lay a little to the right. You're missing the point: the liberal government imprisons any person with an accent and a suspect passport for 10 months without help or consideration. Keep up with current events much?

Plenty of gay rights? That's why they created a man-woman marriage clause? And Howard banned gay marriage citing that he "didn't wan't the species to die out." Wow, so much progress...given this was the excuse to make homosexuality illegal in the first place in Europe.

Howard wants to open a discussion about abortion. Why would you need to an open discussion, or to make abortions less secretive, if you weren't planning on changing the laws? There is a difference between what they say, and what they actually do. Howard himself also said the GST was a dead Tax, then imposed it one term later. Just goes to a pattern of his habitual lying is all.

Finally, Howard gave his farewell message before Christmas for people to "be proud of their Christianity." Is that something a neo-liberal government would do?

Wiki is now akin to pravda and fox news channel.

Well thank you for that critique of our article. It's always refreshing to see there are still people out there who think their opinion is the only correct and fair one. I assure you this and other Australian politics-related articles have been scrutinised and edited by both experts in the field as well as a large number of ordinary Australian users, a majority of whom, from my experience, appear to lean more towards Labor ideologies. The aim of Wikipedia is to present a neutral point of view, not to place any "loyalties". - Mark 02:31, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

to the anonnomous user, i admit on my userpage that i support the liberals. furthermore, you appear to be misrepresenting the issues and are making false accusations. why dont you tell us where you source your rediculous claims and partial truths, taken out of context, from. i doubt you could find anywhere in my 4.5 months of editting here, a single example of me editing to push a liberal POV without regard for other's views. Xtra 02:54, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Is Xtra dening that Howard ever said that he banned gay marriage to stop the species dying out? How can you honestly say that Gays have plenty of righs under a labor government? He says the marriage is an institution to have children, to esire the species survives. Here is an ABC transcript of Howard/Costello (http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2003/s917985.htm) where he clearly states that a marriage must involve having children (which ignores any infertile or sterile couples too, but they're still allowed to marry), and shows more political hypocrisy. Why can infertile couples be married but gays can't if marriage = children?

or that he denied wanting to use the GST, then decided to use it? Those are facts.

"He issued a four-sentence statement saying, “Suggestions I have left open the possibility of a GST are completely wrong. A GST or anything resembling it is no longer Coalition policy. Nor will it be policy at any time in the future. It is completely off the political agenda in Australia.” Later that day, confronted by a clamouring press pack, he compounded the lie. Asked if he’d “left the door open for a GST”, Howard said: “No. There’s no way a GST will ever be part of our policy.”

“Never ever?”

Howard: “Never ever. It’s dead. It was killed by voters at the last election.” " It's linked everywhere, but for legitimacy, http://www.alp.org.au/features/lies.php. Even the ALP snagged this one. If you don't trust the ALP try a google.

To reiterate, the Liberals are clearly right-wing, conservative and not "neo-liberal," in any sense of the word.

To me, "Liberal" implies freedom i.e. Liberty. I would have thought it self evident that, in general, less laws = more liberty. So the Liberal Party, which generally has a philosophy of deregulation, low tax, and small government may rightly claim to be a liberal party in this sense. I am talking about the entire Liberal Party here, not any particular Liberal government. --Surturz 01:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Classical Liberalism (ie. individualist liberalism as opposed to the US Democrats' paternalist liberalism) is not just about economic liberalism, but civil liberties and social freedom too, but clearly this 'Liberal' government doesn't adhere to the latter two.

---

I think the idea that the Australian Liberal Party be classified as neoliberal be considered. A conservative is someone who keeps with tradition, so what is conservative depends on what tradition was and conservatism therefore can have different meanings depending on time and space. Liberal means free, and neoliberalism is freedom and liberalism applied to everything. The Australian Liberal Party may very well believe in the benefits of economic liberalism but the reality is that in politics it is pointless to believe in something unless you have the power to make changes. Therefore, a compromise needs to be made. Neoliberals cave into some conservative tradition, such as banning homosexual unions and not allowing abortion to win support so they can stay in power and spread economic liberalism. The forces of economic liberalism destroys conservative tradition anyway, so it the Australian Liberal Party, if it truly believes in the benefits of economic liberalism, can pay lip service to conservative tradition to win power to establish economic liberalism which will destroy conservative tradition and make society a neoliberal utopia. The empirical evidence seems to suggest this is happening. The conservatives or neoliberals in power do not allow homosexual unions but homosexual sex and expression is an integral part of freedom and so it is allowed and homosexuality is growing and with the Internet and all the freedom of information that comes with that homosexuality is thriving. As more and more people work and work and have the freedom to trade sexual services with prostitutes then the family, another traditional conservative unit, starts to wither away as divorce rates soar and children grow up with little exposure to their parents. With neoliberal/conservative promotion of capitalist free-trade, people become more and more materialistic. Focus towards materialistic wealth drives out spiritual wealth, and as such religion suffers, which is checkmate for another element of conservative tradition. Conservativism's association with economic liberalism, so etch in many people's minds, is what will lead to the downfall of traditional conservatism. When most people think of conservatism they think of capitalism as opposed to communism of the left. But the reality is that in order to maintain conservative tradition there needs to be government intervention. There needs to be government central control, i.e. elements of communism are needed to maintain conservatism, conservatism = communism. We see this not only in Australian conservatism but American conservatism. We see families breaking down under the might of the invisible hand while the government talks about the benefits of family. We see homosexuality spreading like wildfire on the Internet and quickly winning tolerance while the government talks about how marriage is only between men and women. We see church attendance drop as materialism and greed take over in the capitalist economy as the government talks about the benefits of religi0n but acts to destroy it with free-market policy. We see Howard act tough on a handful of refugees while flooding the larbor market with legal migrants to weaken unions and make the labor market for compeitive. And then he further destroys unions with IR laws. Immigration is highest under Howard's government at about 140,000 per year and in the US it is higest under Bush's government at approximately 1,000,000 per year. We see people growing greedy and self-interested as the capitalist culture promoted by the government rewards only those with an individualist mindset, thereby making community and patriotism juvinile and unproductive, and all this happens while the government promotes patriotism. The Australian Liberal Party, the Republicans are neoliberal or neoconservatism, whatever you call it, it's all the same. It's unlike anything you've ever seen before. It's market fundamentalism. As Thatcher said there is no alternative. Either way you vote you get the same thing dressed up differently. Democracy is deception. All values are nothing under the altar of economic growth.Knowledge-is-power 05:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Paragraphs. michael ^talk 06:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

in response to the annonomous user (again)

marriage has never been high on the "gay agenda". gays have many rights in australia. homosexuality is no longer illegal. the law specifically prohibits discrimination against homosexuals. has howard tried to remove any of this protection? no.

with reference to the GST. you must understand and accept, that the GST was only introduced after the liberal's went to an election on it. there was no deception of any sort. they said "a vote for us is a vote for the GST" and they were re-elected. on that point - ask steve bracks (labor premier of victoria) if he said that he would toll the scorsbey freway when he went into an election. there are many lies in politics. the GST was not one of them.

in conclusion, when you wish to stippulate what a word means, buy a dictionary first. Xtra 09:05, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In response to Xtra...again

You assume to know what gays want? If you even looked at public opinion, you'd realise that gays do indeed want gay marriage... it's called equal rights. Secondly, you act as if every gay person should be thankful that homosexuality isn't illegal anymore. You think homosexuals should be greatful their not imprisoned anymore for their lifestyle? and shouldn't dare ask for equal rights? Now that would be conservative, small minded "Liberal" thinking.

Oh, and bringing up Scoresby is weak. How does a small toll on an optional freeway compare to a permanent 10% tax on every item and service?

This will be my last post. This is obviously not about the facts anymore, because if you asked any person on the street, they would never consider using the term neo-liberal to describe the Liberal party. Never.

The GST is not a tax on everything. Bread is one example that comes to mind of an item not subject to GST. And I suggest you read Liberalism in Australia. As for the decriminalisation of sodomy in Australia, as a gay person I am pretty thankful it is legal now. And yes, I am grateful to the state Labor government in 1989 who repealed the law. - Mark 10:26, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That's only because the democrats had to force the Liberal Party to remove basic food from the GST, or else they wouldn't pass it. The Liberal Party had no plans to do so at all, and only conceded when backed into a corner.

About gay rights, it took a Labor government to repeal discriminatory laws, so what has the Liberal party done to give "many civil rights" to homosexuals, as Xtra put it.

Furthermore, are you saying as a gay man you wouldn't want equal rights when it comes to marriage?

Now This will be my last post.

I'm not too sure. Perhaps Xtra was talking about the sexual harassment or anti-discrimination laws enacted by the Federal government. - Mark 10:37, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Interesting, I just found out that Xtra was at the University of Melbourne, where I just finished my bachelor's degree. Now, this semester, I'll be at another unversity studying Law (LLB) myself. But I'm a lefty as some put it, and I'm sure he's out of place at Melbourne Uni with his conservative politics.

Now This will be my last post. Officially.

good. cause i am sick of replying to your distorted nonsense. Xtra 10:47, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Actually, from my experience studying law at UWA, the majority of law students are Liberal-leaning. And this is at the institution that educated former Labor PM Bob Hawke. - Mark 14:20, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Or - more honestly - you (Xtra) were scared of facing the truth, and like to pretend the Liberal party is neo-liberal

Even though I don't know if I actually believe he's at Melbourne uni, because I never saw that Melbourne Uni stuff on his page before, and according to his histroy he only added his "I'm at Melbourne Uni" line tonight, at 09:08, 7 Feb 2005. Hmmm, suspicious if you ask me.

get a life. i like to update details on my page regularly to make it better. i will resist the urge to make the same comment about your claim to be doing law. with regards to pretending the liberals are neo-liberal - many are. i myself am conservative and i made that point clear on your previous talk page. this is my last response to you as this is unproductive. Xtra 03:06, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

' If I were going to lie, wouldn't I say I was going to start my LLB at Melbourne? Why would I mention the fact that I'm attending a lesser uni?

Anyway, you think is unproductive?

What I find unproductive is how a liberal party member can admin the definition of his own political party! How can anyone consider what the liberals say about ther own party to be anything close to fair and neutral? Any Australian on the street would never use the term neo-liberal.

Once again, as I have now completely given up, you've shown to me that Wikipedia isn't about the truth anymore, but skewing the facts to trump up one's politcal party.

What's the point of an encyclopedia when the information on each page is false and misleading and not even remotely neutral?

The End.

Friend, it's not our fault that you're not willing to listen to us, or indeed understand what the term neoliberal means. Lacrimosus 08:05, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

And it's not my fault you can't see that anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-immigration and pro-war policies do not scream neoliberal.

i love arguments based on false pretences - don't you? :P Xtra 01:36, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

And I'm always surprised when people can claim to be "honest" and "independent" when they are actually misleading people with an encyclopedia. So By Xtra's logic, the liberals are pro-abortion, pro-gay (yeah right), pro-immigration (I won't dignify that) and anti-war (scoff). Xtra just proved to everyone that he is not only a liar, but fabricates information to push his agenda (of all places) through a misleading encyclopedia definition.

The Liberals are as conservative as their American counterparts. That's exactly why our policies CLOSELY resemble the conservative republican platform... and therefore, they are not neolibral.

i will no longer dignify anything you say with a response. however, if you edit any article to push your POV, i will revert on the spot. Xtra 04:06, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

How is that nay diffeent than you reverting the page to support your POV?

---

Guys take a break. At the end of the day "neoliberal" is just a word and all words have subjective meanings because there is no objective or absolutely authoritative definition. "Neoliberal" is just a word different people associate with different sets of stimuli and as such everybody has a different sense of what it means.

Furthermore, it is easy for political parties to change. New people enter the party, old people leave, and as this happens the political views change as well. But the name of the party usually stays the same, creating a misnomer. Liberal Party of Australia is just a name. It's like the Communist Party of China. There is considerable capitalist elements in China but the name sticks.

Knowledge-is-power 14:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

RFC

While I am by no means a support of Australia's liberal party, the current article spends too much time on what they are not, instead of focusing on what their policies are. Better organization and better coverage of the party's positions and membership would be appreciated. Stirling Newberry 03:46, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

this [1] may have info on policies. this [2] may have info on structure. i haven't read either. so go through it if you like. Xtra 04:05, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Probably a good idea to start, afterall, they have dominated the federal level of Australian politics for some time now. Stirling Newberry 04:34, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

this [3] is the federal constitution. each state (or division as the constitution refers to it) has its own constitution. they may be on the individual websites. Xtra 04:41, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC) - this [4] is the victorian constitution Xtra 04:42, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

PSYCH's idiosyncratic use of neo-liberal aside, the article really does need to have more detail about the ALP's policies and beliefs. Stirling Newberry 13:15, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Revert War

I am respectfully asking that PSYCH and Xtra stop this revert war. Xtra's usage of neoliberal is the prevailing one - namely economic liberalization, reduction in barriers to trade, selling off of state owned industries and so on. It does not mean liberalism in the early 20th century sense of the rational use of government to stabilize the economy and regulate commerce. Stirling Newberry 13:15, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

RFC Edits

-- I agree. The only external link in the links section is a Syd. Morning Herald article claiming that the liberal party doesn't value "liberal values" no where does this or anyother article linked offer evidence that the liberal party are "liberal." I mean, it had to come from somewhere, or else it should be removed, right? Lefty on campus 14:40, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Look, I'll level here. I don't think the Liberal party is liberal, and I think members of the Liberal party who think that they are actually liberals are fooling themselves. There. That's what I think. But for the purposes of writing this article, that doesn't matter. There is a substantial group of liberals, however, who *do* emphasise their small-l credentials (read their first speeches in parliaments if you don't believe me). And if you think about it, all the people who claim that the Liberal party *isn't* liberal have to be reacting to something. NPOV policy requires that we write with a "sympathetic tone" - we have to avoid the temptation to characterise an opinion as well as report it. If we run the line "well, some members of the party might say they're liberal but they're really not", the page becomes an exercise in tory-bashing, just as if, say, I were to question the Greens' environmentalist credentials due to their unwillingness to adopt immigration quotas. I'm free to do that elsewhere, just not within the article. Slac speak up! 23:06, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

NPOV policy most certainly doesn't require that we write with a sympathetic tone - it requires that we write with a neutral tone. I think the article states it quite well (conservative and neoliberal), but if you feel that it's worth mentioning those that do see themselves as small-l-liberal, then this may be worth mentioning. Ambi 06:46, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Sorry. I was referring to the bit of the policy which talked about characterising disputes in a sympathetic tone. In that context, I posit that we could basically assume there was some degree of support for the position that the Liberal party is validly liberal, without automatically assuming the contrary is the stronger position. Slac speak up! 05:31, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

IIRC, at their formation after the war, their official line was that they took the name after Liberals in the prewar British tradition, capitalist and anti-absolutist, as opposed to the Commies on the other side of the House. ;o) If someone who isn't up to their necks in university work right now could dig up a reference on this --- I think it was in Menzies' first speech to Parliament as leader of the party --- it would probably be worth a mention in the article. J.K. 04:26, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, probably. There was also another anti-Labor party by that name, sometimes known as the "Deakinite Liberal Party" formed around 1910. Slac speak up! 07:54, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I think it was actually an intentional link, from memory.. - Aaron Hill 13:52, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

For information on non-american-political, but rather traditional liberalsim read chapter 2 of "Law in Context" 1997 Ed by Stephen Bottomley and Stephen Parker. Xtra 03:54, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter what "liberalism" meant a hundred years ago, Xtra. What matters is what it means now. So I think your edit to "current" is fine so far as it goes, but there's no argument for suggesting that the Liberal party are "liberal". They're thoroughly conservative and anyone who lives in Australia and discusses its politics with outsiders has to add "but they're not actually liberals" when they mention them. As for the GST thing, Howard said there would never be a GST. Not that there wouldn't be one unless he changed policy and asked for a mandate. So yes, he lied on that score. Pollies lie, no big deal. Grace Note 05:04, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No. I would say that within the meaning of traditional liberalism. That liberalism in the traditional sense, not in a sense no longer used. As it is still held to mean that by many people. I suggest you read the book refered above by myself. It explains the real meaning of liberalism as oposed to the new american political meaning. And on your last point - that is old news - very old news. But as I said, I believe the liberal party is liberal and so do many other members as we se liberal in its meaning as espoused by the article mentioned above. Xtra 05:21, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mind you. When I have time, I will point this out in the article. Xtra 05:24, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So two people agreed that Xtra was wrong. Who'd a thought that reading a single chapter in a law textbook didn't make someone an expert! (added by 80.58.50.42 7:23pm 4 Jun 2005 -- J.K.)

Don't know if that's really necessary - that's what wikilinking (the liberalism series is a good effort at tackling a complex topic) is for. It kind of irks me that we need to explain the concept over and over again in every article referencing it (eg. "Treasurer" means "finance minister"). Slac speak up! 05:31, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

The statements below are written by someone with deep disgust for Liberal Party. Editor needed here with genuine NPOV. "Strong opposition to socialism and communism in Australia has long been a Liberal preoccupation and raison d'etre. Anti-communism was successfully exploited through the 1950s and 1960s by Robert Menzies and his political successors." User:Sydney2006

• Please put your comments at the foot of the page.
• Please sign your comments.
• The statements you quote are perfectly factual and NPOV.

Adam 04:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

In comparison to Adam's rather blunt and uncompromising response, I'd simply suggest changing "preoccupation and raison d'etre' to 'strength'. This article is subtly biased against the Liberal party, there is no doubt about it. - G^t 11:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

"raison d'etre" means "reason for existence." That Menzies founded the Liberal Party to oppose socialism and communism is a simple statement of fact, which he said many times himself. At least until the 1980s it was the party's principal policy platform. Of course the party had many other policies, but it is a perfectly true statement to say that "opposition to socialism and communism in Australia has long been a Liberal preoccupation". It is also prefectly true to say that "Anti-communism was successfully exploited through the 1950s and 1960s by Robert Menzies and his political successors." How is this POV or anti-Liberal? Adam 15:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Prinicipal policy platform? The anti-communism party? There was a lot more to the party than that (which that sentence suggests). I still stand by changing it, acknowledging your comments. - G^t 01:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The Liberal Party thing being opposed to communism has waned and should be noted as such. Howard is clearly now trying to court China, for example. The word "exploited" is somewhat loaded I feel. The "political successors" needs to be clarified as it may be a subtle thing to promote bias. Certainly I feel Howard is actively going out of his was to court China.Blnguyen 03:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I think I was clear that I was discussing the Menzies era, not the Howard era. The Liberal Party is still anti-socialist, but since the ALP has abandoned socialism this doesn't mean very much any more. I presume the Liberals are also still anti-communist, but since the end of the Cold War this has also lost its point. (I hate to tell you this but China has been a capitalist country for 25 years.) Adam 11:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello Adam - I fully acknowledge that China has been economically capitalist for the last 25 years Adam. If you mean communism as in economic communism then true, but I meant that Howard doesn't attack countries run by "Communist" parties. I don't think the Liberals have a very good view about Cuba and N Korea, for example, but I'm guessing if N Korea suddenly procreated to 1 billion people, then Howard might want to give Kim Jong-Il lots of hugs as well.Blnguyen 07:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Opposition statement

the final sentence of the main entry:

"In state politics, however, the reverse applies: the Liberals and Nationals are in opposition in all Australian states and territories."

is this really true? i don't think so. somebody delete it.

Er, they are. They are in opposition in every state and territory, and have been since 2002. Ambi 05:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

And long may they remain so.... oops. Adam 05:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Not if I have my way ;) . Xtra 06:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's obvious you're not going to win in either South Aust or Tasmania this weekend, and it's also obvious that you're not going to win in Victoria in November. So your first chance at cracking a state government will be in Feb-March 2007, when both NSW and Queensland are due to go. Nether Iemma nor Beattie is looking very healthy at present, but both have huge majorities, so I wouldn't put your chances at better than 50-50 in either. Adam 06:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

ah yes, sorry. i interpreted the sentence wrong. i thought it meant the Liberals and Nationals were on opposite sides of politics. disregard....

The early Liberal Party

I received the following email from the Manager of the Parliamentary Archives:

There were a number of conservative parties in NSW politics in the early days of political party formation (which can be said to have begun with the formation of the Australian Labor Party (ALP) in the early 1890s).

The first Liberal Party was formed in 1902. After its defeat in the 1910 elections a Liberal and Reform Association was formed to reorganise the party. In 1911 this became the Liberal Association of NSW, which merged into (or became) the Nationalist Party around 1914. The United Australia Party (UAP) came into being around 1926; and these two merged to become the present Liberal Party in 1944.

There is a short account (from which the above is taken) in Volume 1 of 'The People's Choice: Electoral Politics in 20th Century NSW', edited by Michael Hogan and David Clune (2001) (3 volumes) (pp. 132 - 133).

A book on the history of the conservative parties in NSW is also being published soon as part of the Sesquicentenary of REsponsible Government celebrations: 'From Liberal to Liberal', edited by Ian Hancock.

-- Newhoggy | Talk 10:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

We have a separate article on the Commonwealth Liberal Party of 1901-10. This article is about the party founded in 1944. Adam 03:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

"Policies" section

I already thought that the "Policies" section was too detailed, but in the last few days it has grown a lot, including detailed criticisms and quotes. I think that belongs on the John Howard page, not here. I propose chopping out all except their broad policies. Rocksong 03:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've chopped it all and replaced it with a single sentence and a pointer to Mandatory detention in Australia. I think that fits the tone of the article better, i.e. policy overview rather than detailed discussion. Rocksong 02:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

do you think we should put down specific policies of the liberal govermnet, as they are important and on the public record, and this would serve as a historical record seems to be something that should be done!!! WDYT? (what do you think?) JUBALCAIN 08:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

on reflection I think the policy section is misnamed. A policy seems to define something that eminates from a politcal perusasion, or politcal philosphy, or world view or something like that .What is being described under this heading seems to be a political stance that predicates policies.JUBALCAIN 08:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Specific policies don't belong in this article. Not only do they vary over time, but they also vary between the Federal and different State branches. Rocksong 11:25, 31 January 2007 (U

so do u think we should rename the section to something better, like political philosopy, I'm sure there is a correct word for this just can't dredge it up right now.

I think major polices can be include with dates when the started and were abandoned, this would serve as a historial encyclopedic record.JUBALCAIN 12:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

ok I took a look around at the candian liberal, uk labour and australian labour pages, they have varing degrees of policy inclusion a lot of policy in the canadain page, so I think policy concordant to era can be included, like white australia policy I think you would agree is important (but i dont know if it was liberal). So propose this article can have a policy section as long as it is referenced. On the previous issue where I suggested thatplocy for potocal philsopy be used, THis seem like the right idea. there is a quasi us e of platrom but this seem more linked to current policy, so I like the word you have chosen, Philosophy or political philosophy should be used.

JUBALCAIN 12:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Where is the policies section? I thought a article would at least have a basic outline of links to policy page or something, linking to policies. --Joewski 04:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Paleoliberal

As per Liberalism in Australia, "However, a valid argument could be made that the Liberal Party is a classical liberal party of the paleoliberal mold" - can anyone provide citation for this? Timeshift 11:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Well they're definitely more paleoliberal than modern/progressive liberal. But classical liberalism typically rests on the minimum of laws in regard to social issues too. The Liberal Party, like the ALP, is not especially dedicated to individual rights in the social sphere; the Liberals are quite socially conservative. They fall under the broad definition of liberal conservatism. From that article: In other countries where liberal conservative movements have entered the political mainstream, the terms "liberal" and "conservative" may become synonymous (as in Australia and in Italy). This is largely true I think. But it should be easy to find a citation that they are a classical liberal party. ~ Switch (✉✍☺) 07:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Names of state divisions

I think the following should be mentioned in the article;

• That the Victorian division was officially known as the "Liberal and Country Party" from 1949-1965
• That the South Australian division was officially know as the "Liberal and Country League" until 1974. (I know this is briefly mentioned, but its not explained).
• That the Queensland division was officially known as the "Queensland People's Party" (um not sure when exactaly, in the early days anyway).

I would add this but I am not sure where the best spot would be. All three were considered to be divisions of the Liberal Party of Australia. Indeed this article badly needs histories of the state divisions to be written. Or even maybe separate articles for each division. Suggestions? Teiresias84 09:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Malapportionment

In a number of states, extended Liberal predominance during the immediate post-war period was sustained by electoral malapportionment.

Ha! I've studied this extensively and its not true. Malapportionment existed in Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia and Queensland in this period.

This statement is accurate in regards to South Australia - the malapportionment was terrible and the LCL governed from 1933-1965.

However in Victoria malaportionment existed until 1953 and the Country Party benefited at the expensive of Liberal and Labor, to the extent the CP won government with around 10-15% of the vote. Bolte brough malapportionment back in 1965 (under pressure from the CP who held the balance of power in the upper house) and although the Liberals won every election until 1982, they won a 2PP majority in every election until they lost government.

In Western Australia the malapportionment didn't favour the Liberals as much as Labor won some country seats due to the mining towns etc. They (Labor) held government from 1933-45 and again from 1953-59.

In Queensland malapportionment was introduced by Labor and it intially benefited them. Later on it was adapted by the Country Party and it benefited them, the Liberals suffered more from its existance than Labor.

So that statement is only true in regards to South Australia, and the issue is well covered in the Playmander article. So I'm reverting the edit.Teiresias84 02:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I also have a general problem with this sort of comment in such a general article. The implication is that the Liberals didn't really have support or "deserve" government. But there have been other cases where the party with the highest vote didn't get government, such as a party winning the marginals despite a worse 2PP vote (as in the Australian federal election, 1998 or South Australian general election, 1989), or an independent member backing a party no one expected him to back (as in South Australian general election, 2002). So the malaportionment comment opens the floodgates for all sorts of comments and qualifications. So probably better to not mention it, at least not in such as general article as this one. Peter Ballard 07:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd remove it. It just isn't true. Rebecca 06:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Neoconservatism

Reading the three pillars of Neoconservatism, can someone explain to me how the Liberals under Howard are not neoconservative? I'm not trying to troll, this is a serious question looking for a serious answer. Timeshift 07:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I see five. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 12:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use

A gallery of head shots of former leaders is not a fair use. --Peta 00:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

How? And why is it only you that has come along and only you that's had the issue with the page? Do something constructive. Timeshift 00:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Do settle down, Timeshift. Fair use doesn't allow for decorative use.--cj | talk 09:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use? is this a USA legal term?--Polygamist times 4 10:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC) Why cant I ask this? Where does this term come from etc and how is it legally valid in the USA and other countries?--Polygamist times 4 13:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The reference you're looking for is Wikipedia:Non-free content. "Fair use" is shorthand for describing the limited conditions when non-free content, especially images, may be used in Wikipedia articles. —C.Fred (talk) 13:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Thats the whole point its a USA law. The internet is world wide so if it follows USA laws, that does not exculde its needs to follow the copyright laws of all countries that people can view the site from. Its a difficult problem because of the nature of the internet. The use of a specific USA law definately does not make the web site legal. Its just a point chossen as the right answer even thought it is not.--Polygamist times 4 13:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to debate this, however I will state the practicality. Do you REALLY think any political party is stupid enough to sue something like this over a few leader images? Imagine the bad press. Not going to happen. Timeshift 13:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Nothing to do with them sueing, they might even own the picture. So you are saying breaking laws are ok if nobody complains!--Polygamistx4 00:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Foundation policy is what it is. Yes, they happen to use US law as a baseline for the policy and made Wiki guidelines even stricter than US law. Discussion here is not going to change Foundation policy, though, so unless we're discussing specific cases of how to use images in this article within the guidelines, any further discussion is off-topic. —C.Fred (talk) 13:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The Foundation is incorporated in Florida. It's quite normal when you sign a contract, for example, with an overseas corporation that the contract specifies whose law is used in case of disputes. In Wikipedia's case, it is the law of Florida. Orderinchaos 14:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes if you have a contract and the contract states what laws it will be decided under. This has nothing to do with contracts tho. Its about the laws of the whole world.--Polygamistx4 00:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

A gallery of headshots is not fair use... well UK Labour is a bad page then isn't it... Timeshift 18:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

... The Soldat article has barely any references and yet it survives. Let's delete all this article's references. NO FISHING. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 12:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Continued discrimination against gay and lesbian citizens of Australia.

The Liberal/National government of Australia recently prevented the removal of discriminatory laws that would have allowed the partner of one of our High Court Judges getting access to a pension. The cabinet of the Coalition (Liberal/National Parties) then decided that any decision regarding halting the continued discrimination of Gay and Lesbian individuals could be postponed to an inderterminate date. This is something that obviously goes to the core of the organsation and should be reflected in the page. Grant

Discrimination is a point of view, they believe like the majority of Australians, that homosexuals should not be allowed to be classified as defacto relationships.--Polygamist times 4 13:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The majority? Most surveys indicate about 70% support in the community for gay law reform and while obviously this is a majority stance on the left, there are many on the right who share such views too. Their attitude would essentially be that in economic terms it is more efficient, and would clean up reverse inequities where two people in a gay relationship can claim equal Centrelink benefits, etc. In response to the original comment, what does this have to do with the "Liberal Party of Australia"? I personally know of gay and lesbian members of the Liberal party, I know of straight Liberals who have a belief that discrimination is bad while still holding pretty much every other belief you could attach to the economic and social right, and then you have people such as Warren Entsch, Malcolm Turnbull, Russell Broadbent, Judi Moylan etc who advocate a more sophisticated response to the question. Orderinchaos 13:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Some survey on "gay law reform" well we know about surveys. The majority of Australians do not want gays to be legally married. If 70% did want it, then it would have happened. There is all sorts of discrimination on a legal level against men, non natives, old , young, handy capped etc--Polygamistx4 00:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Radio National hindsight - liberalism from federation to today

Came across this interestingly enough - thought others might like to read. Timeshift 09:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

clarification request re the name "Liberal"

"stop being difficult for the point of it"? Hold on Timeshift9 and AGF please. You may know all about this subject but people coming to the article (like myself for instance) presumably don't or they wouldn't be reading it. Please read the text from that point of view and you will see it is still unclear. You say "(Menzies) chose the name in reference to the ancestry. Liberal Party of Australia/Nationalist/United Australia/Comm Liberal/Prot and Free Trade Party". As it is written in the history section of the article the first use of the word Liberal in this historical line of parties is in the name of The Commonwealth Liberal Party itself. In which case the use of the word "Liberal" has no ancestry at this point. If it is the first instance of the word's use, why was it chosen? I'd genuinely like to know. If this is not the case, please correct the article accordingly. Please don't assume prior knowledge of matters not set out in the text. Mutt Lunker 00:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair point, but the problem with adding those tags is they just sit there forever and degrade the quality of the article... I much prefer to see a rewording which I attempted, rather than unsightly tags. I don't profess to know everything about the subject either. Timeshift 01:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that you made an attempt but it's the lack of clarity in the article which degrades its quality not the tags which point the lack of clarity out. The tags should not sit there forever - either the section should be clarified or removed. Removing the tag without addressing the lack of clarity just sweeps things under the carpet. Again, thanks for having a go but it still doesn't make sense I'm afraid.

As the section stands it states that (as far as we know from the article) the first usage of the word "liberal" in the name of a successsion of related parties is "in reference to the party". Which party this is is not stated. The antecedents mentioned are the United Australia Party, the Free Trade Party and the Protectionist Party, none of which have "liberal" in their name. So, as it stands the phrase makes no sense or is at best an incomplete explanation. Rather than tag the sentence in question I'll remove it, pending an entry which is meaningful.

I was reading the article specifically to find out the reason for the usage of the word "liberal" in the party name as, with my limited knowledge of Australian politics, the party's stances seem somewhat different to many parties named or regarded as liberal elsewhere in the world. I'd be delighted to see the explanation (cited of course) appear in the text. Mutt Lunker 07:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any books with me but "Liberal" was chosen because when parties began to spring up in Australia the differences were almost purely economic, with no "social" policy to enact at that stage. The opposite to the socialism espoused by Labour and the trade unions at the time was traditional classical liberal economics. Hence, when the anti-socialists decided to set up they called themselves "liberals".

In modern times "liberal" has changed in meaning from the individual having his liberty protected by non-interference from the state, to the individual's liberty being protected by the interference of the state. It is the odd times we live in rather than than the Liberal Party that is truly out of step.

Should really find a book. Michael ^talk 10:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

If that's what helps you sleep at night mike :P Timeshift 10:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Michael, that's what I would have guessed may be the case but as there is such a wide disparity between various parties terming themselves "liberal", such an explanation in the context of the article would be very useful, if you can find that elusive citable source. Mutt Lunker 12:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

...and having antecedents called the Free Trade Party and, in seeming contradiction, the Protectionist Party warrants further explanation of the choice of "liberal" in the name of the subsequent party. Mutt Lunker 18:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Ryan tries to explain

Liberalism as a political doctrine is so vague it should almost be banned from the English language. At the most simple level, a Liberal is someone who fights to protect or further the liberty of individuals. Well duhhhh! Every political party in every democracy in the world claims to fight for the liberty of the individual! The not so subtle differences (say between Liberals in the US and Liberals in Australia) don't come into it until you look at FROM WHAT do said political parties claim to protect the liberty of individuals.

Liberals in Australia (except for John Howard and his cronies who has taken the Liberal Party and turned it philosophically on its head) believe the liberty of the individual must be protected from overbearing Governments. Liberals in the American sense believe that the liberty of the individual must be protected from their employer, from the poverty trap, from the upper classes, from not being able to reach their full potential as a result of poor education or health care etc etc.

Here in Australia we have gotten ourselves so confused about Liberals we have taken to calling them "small l liberals" and "big L Liberals". I blame John Howard, who does not really believe in Liberalism whichever way the word is used, and I blame the word itself which covers such a massive range of political points of view that it becomes almost useless.

Please bear in mind that anywhere I have used, or will use, the word "Liberal" or "Liberalism" i refer to the concept in political science and not the Australian political party. The modern Liberal party has little to do with Liberalism. If I mean the Liberal Party or Liberal Party Politicians/Followers I will say so.

So having made it though my lengthy prologue I want to suggest that where it says:

"Socially, the Liberal Party is a conservative party, although it has a minority socially liberal wing.

...it should probably link to a page about "Classical Liberalism" rather than "Social Liberalism". The "small l liberals" (as we so stupidly say in Australia) that form the minority wing of the Liberal Party are NOT social liberals. Peter Costello, Petro Georgiou, Judi Moylan (I assume these are the Liberal Party members referred to in the above line as social liberals) are "small government" liberals. They are the liberals I refer to in my second paragraph that believe that individual liberty needs to be protected from Government rather than from exploitative employers as do American liberals (Democrats and everyone to their left).

One might be inclined to want to think that these politicians are "Social Liberals" because they seem to be so far to the left of John Howard. But don't get confused. John Howard is not ANY kind of liberal in the political science sense. ANY Liberal following the principles of liberalism, whether they believe in big government or small, would apologies to aboriginals for the injury done to their liberty in decades past, allow gay marriage and treat refugees with dignity and respect. I don't mean to attack John Howard although I do quite dislike the man. I just mean to point out he is a conservative and a populist and not a liberal of any kind of philosophical tradition. Ryan Albrey (talk) 09:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a name. The Labor Party isn't about Americans or pregnancies is it? Also, the talk page is for improving the article, not discussing the issue. Now, while some of your rant addresses the actual article... yeah. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 12:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

How will you improve the article without discussing the issue? I wouldn't mind adding a section that discusses why Menzies gave the party the name Liberal, what he meant by Liberal, how the party has changed from what Menzies intended it to be and some mention of the fact that the philosophical tradition of Liberalism has been sidelined during the Howard Years. Nothing about what I have written is really a rant. Ok maybe it is a little bit. Perhaps I make my POV a little too obvious when I say that I dislike John Howard, but then again what is wrong with revealing a POV in the talk pages? It is only the article pages that need to be NPOV. Ryan Albrey (talk) 14:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Mmmmm, two week old vandalism

Nobody saw this for two weeks... Timeshift 06:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

2007 election result

I have changed "The party's current federal leader is John Howard who has narrowly lost the 2007 federal election on Saturday 24 November to the ALP's Kevin Rudd" to just "The party's current federal leader is John Howard" - I think it's a big assumption to say how close it was considering the votes are far from counted, and current projections are showing a vast majority of ALP seats. Perhaps it can be changed to something a bit less limiting at least until, you know, all the votes are in. Karlww (talk) 13:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

That seems fine. "Narrow" isn't NPOV and I wouldn't use it myself. Problem now is dealing with who will be leader: once (if) it's official that Howard loses Bennelong, then technically the Liberals will have no leader since the leader is determined by the parliamentary caucus (which implies that it must be someone in the House). The current situation is hard to write about from a Wikipedian perspective. Kelvinc (talk) 05:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

No picture of Costello

Yet we have a picture for all four possible leadership contenders. Hahaha. Timeshift (talk) 03:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Most senior Liberal in office

Is this for real, and if so, does it warrant a mention? Timeshift (talk) 04:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It is for real but I don't think it warrants a mention. The only people that mention it are those that have breathlessly preceded it with "The Liberal party is not in power anywhere in the country!". Better to avoid the caveat "Oh but they are in power in one local council" by using the more qualified and reasonable "The Liberal party now for the first time in their history, does not hold power in Federal Parliament or in any of the states". Ryan Albrey (talk) 03:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Deputy leaders

Is there a full list anywhere on Wikipedia? Timrollpickering (talk) 14:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Knighthoods and Doctorates

I don't see why the names of Liberal leaders past and present can't include the abbreviation of their title. Brendan Nelson was a medical doctor so he should be referred to as Dr Brendan Nelson on wikipedia. Same goes for past leaders such as John Hewson. Ryan Albrey (talk) 06:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Their wikipedia page should address them as such in the lead intro. Timeshift (talk) 09:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

If it is ok to put on their personal Wikipedia article why isn't it good to put on the Liberal Party article also? I think you are a bit too revert-happy Timeshift. Particularly when you sense the editor in question has a POV. But whether the editor who added Dr and Sir has a POV or not the fact is that adding Dr and Sir improves the article by making it more informative. Without increasing the number of lines in the article I might add. So I really can't see what your objection is to writing Sir and Dr. Is there a WP:Policy you can refer to? Ryan Albrey (talk) 12:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't know. But titles should go in their articles lead. Timeshift (talk) 13:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Factions and preselection

I would like to propose some additional information on the machinery of the party and how it differs from other Australian political machines. I would also like to table the lists of presidents and members etc - it just looks a little sparse at the bottom of the article.

thanks guys - tell me what you think.

Bluemorning32 (talk) 05:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The conservative Liberal party

Well one thing that can't be disputed is the fact that the Liberal party is conservative and right wing. I mean, who could dispute such a fact when the Liberal Party under John Howard was responsible for letting in record numbers of immigrants? Or the fact that it was the Liberal party that introduced Gun Control. Or the fact that the Liberal party was the self-confessed "best friend Medicare has ever had". Who could dispute such a claim that the Liberal Party is Conservative or right wing? Who I ask you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.69.86 (talk) 08:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I mean.. There's just so many clear examples of where the Liberal party of Australia has demonstrated its right wing tendencies... such as ......... ohh wait a minute, there aren't any examples are there? You know, aside from the fact that the Liberal Party CLAIMS to be right wing. In which case, I CLAIM to be the smartest person on earth and I need no qualification to be the smartest person on earth aside from my claim that it is the case. I say I am, therefore, I am!

The Liberal Party when it came to power slashed health/education/infrastructure funding, taking Australia from a high rank amongst OECD countries to a low rank amongst OECD countries. And let's not forget John Howard's "I'm the most conservative PM this country has ever had". And how many news cites would you like that quote the Liberals as 'centre-right'? If you feel self-conscious supporting a party that is conservative/right wing, that's your issue. You can spin it all you want but the facts are there for all. Timeshift (talk) 09:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I thought that the point of a wikipedia article was to provide unbiased information to the masses not to express your own ludicrous opinions. Gloryify (talk) 05:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Turnbull v Nelson

How many people were aware of this? Could be worth a mention. 6 votes swung Nelson's way apparently. Timeshift 16:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Liberals themselves using Adam Carr's images

[5][6] Is it noteable or non noteable to mention it in the article? Timeshift (talk) 02:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Hard right

This was Christopher Pynes description of current Liberal policies. There is no valid reason to revert my contribution without consensus. Timeshift (talk) 05:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

This is not a blog or messageboard where you can play games of political "gotcha" while mining quotes from politicians, looking for damaging material. This is an encyclopaedia where we are supposed to maintain some form of POV. If you want to fight ideological battles, go do it somwhere else, otherwise stick to some sort of measured opinion. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 05:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and this is Pyne, a Lib MP's POV. Libs open up about party troubles, first and introductory sentence - THE Liberal Party is signing its own death warrant if it stays with its hard-right policies, opposition frontbencher Christopher Pyne says. If you wish to dispute it, why are you not prepared to have the gall for consensus discussion rather than simply continuing to revert? Which part exactly do you dispute? That they have MPs who describe them as far right? Well I've given a WP:RS. Why not specifically state which bit irks you so we can work on it, rather than blind reverts that serve to disrupt rather than build on consensus. Timeshift (talk) 05:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

As is quite clear from my comment above, I dispute its inclusion at all and see the entire exerise as another example of bringing political disputes to wikipedia articles. To use the views of one MP in one article to make an assertion of any standing is well outside any boundary of WP:UNDUE. As for blindly reverting, my previous run ins with you leave me little confidence that this discussion will lead anywhere, and I have little patience for tortured discussion on these types of issues. Hence this is my final contribution. Note: raised at WP:AWNB. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 06:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

So the fact Pyne (and perhaps other small-l liberals) describe their party as hard right doesnt warrant any mention? We should be including all points of view on the party, not just the ones currently there. I would appreciate discussion instead of reverting. Also, what the hell is 'Australia is pretty leftist', especially from an admin? And minority views are excluded, majority views only? WP:WEIGHT? I'm surprised by the exclusion of this viewpoint of the party. Mattinbgn is showing no spirit of consensus, he is insisting on his way and his way alone, by thinking it is ok for wikipedia to contain some points of view but not other points of view within the Liberal Party. Timeshift (talk) 06:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

This article is an overview of the party and is not the place to air the occasional grumbling of party members, even important ones. Especially not on the day they first appear in the news. Peter Ballard (talk) 06:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

So does MP Christopher Pyne describing the Liberal Party as "hard right" not warrant a mention anywhere? Pyne and possibly other MPs speak for a section of the community, without a mention anywhere on Wikipedia I feel it is just another censure of minority views. Pyne is not the only small-l liberal, and he wasn't even one of the handful of rebel MPs during Howard's time in office. Senator Payne said to paraphrase, the Liberal Party was supposed to be a broad church but she and other leading moderates were shut out during the Howard years. Or does non of this warrant a mention anywhere? Timeshift (talk) 06:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The right vs broad church debate definitely belongs, absolutely. But that is different from picking up a single quote from Pyne. Peter Ballard (talk) 06:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The quote should not be mentioned in the right vs broad church debate? Isn't that in itself POV? All points of view should be represented. Is it the actual format quoting you don't like? It can be reworded. Any MP calling their party hard-position in modern Australian politics, and arguably as some would mention, is definately noteable. Timeshift (talk) 06:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Hence the mention of Mark Latham's criticisms in the Australian Labor Party and Kevin Rudd articles. Not. Peter Ballard (talk) 07:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

sofixit! Hard right is quite significant however. Timeshift (talk) 07:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Did Pyne actually use that term though? The part in bold looks like a subeditors headline, and reading through the speech I see no mention of that term. Auspoliticsbuff (talk) 23:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I support the calls to keep WP:UNDUE in mind. Andjam (talk) 07:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Would anyone object adding some sort of mention on Christopher Pyne? Timeshift (talk) 07:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

A discussion of thing's he said in his article would, to me, be appropriate, so no objections to that, however I agree that it doesn't belong in this article. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 09:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree that Pyne's opinion, if to be relevant anywhere at all, belongs in his article. Michael ^talk 09:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

If I may further elaborate, this is a case in point of why adding things straight to articles fresh from the presses is absolutely irrational. As far as I can see, Pyne did not use the term "hard right", it was a media invention, and he was merely making a case for the organisational reform of the Liberal Party. Read the article over. Pyne is not quoted as saying "hard right". Michael ^talk 11:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed for what it's worth that it doesn't belong here, it belongs at Christopher Pyne, if anywhere. Maybe Wikiquote, if it was an actual quotation, which it looks like it wasn't. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC).

Liberal/National merger

I'm thinking an article on this would be useful, perhaps Liberal/National merger. Any ideas/suggestions/comments/objections? Timeshift (talk) 08:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It's been proposed on and off over the years, and even though it may never happen it might serve a good purpose to have a history of the failed attempts/suggestions/proposals. Something like "Proposals for a merger of the Liberal and National parties (Australia)" might be a more suitable title. -- JackofOz (talk) 10:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

How about something like "Historical relationship of the Australian Liberal and National parties" that way it can be broader and cover not only the failed merger attempts but also the history of coalitions and three way split elections, etc. Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 10:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

What WikiTonwsvillian mentions belongs under the existing Coalition (Australia) article. (An article which needs a lot of work, BTW). While merger talk is just talk, I think the potential merger belongs as a section of Coalition (Australia) rather than a new article. Also, without wishing to sound too negative, I think the names proposed by J and W are too long. Just my opinion. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I think an article on this topic is needed - perhaps "Liberal-National coalition relations" or some such. The attempts by the Liberals in various states to annihilate the then Country Party between the 50s and 70s (and the Country Party's fightback, often through the personae of Doug Anthony or Sir Joh) would definitely make for interesting reading in that. Orderinchaos 16:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Classical liberalism

Regarding the revert: "In Australia the major conservative party is called the Liberal Party of Australia, where "liberal" was chosen to refer back to the old Commonwealth Liberal Party and also to distinguish it from the "socialist" Labor Party. However, because of familiarity with contemporary US usage, the term "liberal" can take on a variety of meanings ranging from member or supporter of the Liberal party, to classical liberal, to "liberal" in the contemporary American sense (i.e. modern liberalism)." Well I suppose Wikipedia got it right on that one. Timeshift (talk) 03:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Why am I being abused by Michael? I added that the Liberal Party of Australia is the only party of the name Liberal to be any form of member of the International Democrat Union, rather than Liberal International? There is no opinion or editorialising, it is simply stating fact. Search for the term liberal on both pages. There is a reason all, and I mean all overseas news articles refer to John Howard's party as the "conservative party", to the "centre left labor/labour party", from one to another to another. Menzies got the name from Deakin, despite "Deakin’s political legacy is more ambiguous. The present-day Liberal Party, which bears the same name as the party he led, claimed him in various statements and an annual lecture; but since the 1980s it has distanced itself from his form of communitarian liberalism and state activity. He occupies a lesser place in the Liberal pantheon, which is dominated by Robert Menzies." Source: APH[7]. Believe what you wish, but this is a worldwide audience, Australian liberalism is unique. I would appreciate discussion rather than reversion. Timeshift (talk) 03:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone will seriously deny that the Australian Liberals are more conservative than liberal, but the way to do it is to quote WP:Reliable Sources to that effect, rather than engage in WP:Original Research into the memberships of International Democrat Union and Liberal International. Peter Ballard (talk) 05:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

That's the thing. I've simply stated that they are part of the IDU (correct) of which there are no other Liberal Parties (also correct), and stated the typical Liberal int'l affiliation. I haven't said that because of this then so on and so forth, there is no argument put forth. Timeshift (talk) 05:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree. They are also the only Australian member of IDU. (And the Nationals aren't, strangely). They are probably also the only IDU member led by someone called "Brendan". Why are some facts significant but not others? That's what WP:RS are for. Peter Ballard (talk) 06:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The Nationals historically arent anywhere near IDU ideology. A party says something about itself, the first name of the party leader does now. The Liberal Party of Australia is the only party of the name Liberal to be any form of member of the International Democrat Union, with many being conservative in the list. Overseas media reports the party as conservative per the RS links above. After stating that it is not listed in the many liberal parties in Liberal International (are there 20 Brendans in this list?), it then goes on to state that Menzies chose it in reference to the CLP. Timeshift (talk) 06:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

"Overseas media reports the party as conservative per the RS links above" -- agreed, and notable.

"The Liberal Party of Australia is the only party of the name Liberal to be any form of member of the International Democrat Union" -- Probably true, but not notable unless you can provide a RS showing it is notable. Peter Ballard (talk) 06:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It's probably true that the 2007 election saw the lowest informal vote in the Senate since federation (actually it is, and cited). But just because I didn't find it out from a news article, doesn't mean it needn't be mentioned. It fits in with the party being conservative per those RS links, and links in to the fact that Menzies named the party after the CLP. It comes down to this: "Robert Menzies called the Liberal Party the 'Liberal Party' because he did not want to call it the 'Conservative Party'. So it was a political play. It was a line. And it probably worked. It's true that Menzies ran on an anti-Labor, anti-socialist platform whilst copying Labor's political structures."[8] Timeshift (talk) 06:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Peter for raising the point of notability. My "abuse" (note these " " things) was a simple way to state what Peter has said more politely and less concise: that you are adding this in order to contrast the party with others, and make it appear as something it is not (hence why when you first did it you had these little things " " which gave away your intentions). Regards, Michael ^talk 07:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that the party is liberal rather than conservative in a global view? Your "appear as something it is not" and classical liberalism would make it seem so. It is clear that without commentating, the sentence states they are the only Liberal Party IDU participants unlike LI where Liberal Parties are grounded, and goes on to explain Menzies chose Liberal in reference to Deakin/CLP. We really need to remember that this is a global audience, and one Liberal Party in the IDU might be a bit unexpected to some, because let's face it, globally the party is not Liberal, it is conservative - per the WP:RS links that Peter agreed with above. Timeshift (talk) 07:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

There is already a "philosophies" section, which goes over liberal / conservative / centre-right for the global audience. Michael ^talk 07:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

But not the affiliation. I note this (yes its a blog but its quoting a Policy article): Charles Richardson, former Kennett adviser, notes that "Australia’s own Liberal party is a member of the centre-right International Democrat Union rather than Liberal International". Why did a Liberal raise that point? Beats me. Unless they're the only Liberal Party in the IDU that is... Timeshift (talk) 07:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I find it interesting that is the only thing you can find it in. Revealing, to say the least. Michael ^talk 10:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Because journalists dont get involved in the irrelevance of international affiliations. But if we are going to have them, then the fact theres 1 in IDU and dozens in LI, where the name was derived from the CLP/Deakin. I still fail to see at what exact point you object - it seems to be a floating rationale. Timeshift (talk) 12:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

"Social Conservative" comments

The article says, "In recent years, during the Prime Ministership of John Howard, the party moved to a more socially conservative policy agenda, including tough stances on Mandatory detention in Australia and support for the Iraq War.". I would not call Mandatory Detention or support for war "social conservative" doctrines, nor does it match the definition in the Social conservatism article. Would others agree? I propose deleting the word "socially" from the sentence above. Peter Ballard (talk) 10:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. Apart from believing both are soc con, it is also just giving a few examples. If you wish to give other examples, what do you propose? Either way Howard did bring the party to the right socially, which is the point here. Timeshift (talk) 20:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Well Keating was the one responsible for mandatory detention so are we going to add a bit about his hardline social conservative agenda on his bio?70.189.154.83 (talk) 23:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

If it isn't mentioned, you're welcome to add it to his bio. But mandatory detention is one thing, the extent Howard took it to is completely another. Timeshift (talk) 00:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

"The extend Howard took it to is completely another?" Gee, editorialise much? You may not have put it in the article, but the fact that you're even willing to state such a blunt opinion in the comments section speaks volumes about your motivation with regard to finding convenient references of dubious relevance to slot it into an article.70.189.154.83 (talk) 16:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• How is support for the Iraq war "socially conservative"? The regime that was toppled was more conservative than the regime that replaced it. I have no problem with the assertation that the party moved to the right under Howard, but I think the Iraq War is not a very good example of it. I think "border protection" or similar would be a better example than "mandatory detention"... the "conservative" aspect is refusing refugees, not particularly the manner in which they are refused. --Surturz (talk) 02:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• I intend to remove the "Iraq War" example. Does anyone object? I have no problem with the inclusion of the line "In recent years, during the Prime Ministership of John Howard, the party moved to a more socially conservative policy agenda", but I think the Iraq war is a poor example. I also intend to replace "Mandatory Detention" with "Border protection". It is hard to make the case that detention is a "socially conservative policy", since the Keating government introduced it. An alternative to "border protection" would be something about making it harder for asylum seekers to gain asylum, but I can't think of a good phrase for that. --Surturz (talk) 05:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• "Border protection" as such, though, isn't inherently socially conservative. It's more the how than the what. The Iraq War however was an extreme social conservative position in the Australian context though and came down to an "all the way with LBJ" attitude, whereas social liberals tend to be far more accepting of Muslims and far less accepting of the United States's foreign policy objectives. Additionally, opponents from within the Liberal Party of the Iraq War were from the party's moderate or "wet" wing, whilst pretty much the entire centre and left opposed it from the start. While I realise I'm speaking utterly from OR here, it would take about 5 minutes to find a reliable source, I have a number of academic essays about the Howard era and foreign policy. Orderinchaos 08:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Family First are social conservative (by the definition in the second paragraph Social conservative article) and opposed the war (and voted against "border protection"). The definition in the Social conservative does not mention issues such as war or immigration. So I disagree with OIC that support for the Iraq War was "extreme social conservative". Peter Ballard (talk) 08:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

On a number of surveys they separate out moral and social issues on separate axes - I'd say FF are conservative on the first but probably agree more with Labor and the centre on general social issues. Should be noted even One Nation opposed the war in Iraq, on primarily nationalist lines (not our problem, spending our money on it). Orderinchaos 13:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we're all going to convince each other (even though I'm sure I'm right :)). But it occurs to me that the real problem with the sentence is that it is WP:Original Research. I'm not disputing that's it's true (give or take the word "social"), but someone has engaged in a little WP:SYNTHESIS. The real solution is to remove the mentions of policy from the sentence (the only mentions of specific policy in the entire article) which try to support the point, and instead support the point with a reference (which shouldn't be hard to find). We can then go with whatever terminology that reference uses, be that "conservative", "social conservative", or something else. Peter Ballard (talk) 03:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, let's ditch the examples for now. --Surturz (talk) 06:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Hunter Liberals

A new editor has recently created Hunter Liberals. It's poorly written, improperly referenced and at the wrong page. I was going to suggest it be deleted but I have no doubt somebody will disagree so I'm proposing it be merged here instead of prodding it. A merge here will correct the location and in the process, hopefully get the information written properly. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I was reaching for the speedy deletion button, but I think that there's enough of a claim of notability to make a redirect or merge the better option. Branches of Australian political parties almost never meet WP:ORG and are deleted if taken to AFD. Nick-D (talk) 11:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Hunter Liberals merger

I know I created the page and that doesn't mean anything but, the Hunter Liberals are independent from the Liberal Party itself and do not 'tow the party line'.

They are the representation of the Hunter on behalf of the Liberal Party and are only in local government, hence, it, hunter liberals, could have mention on the Liberal Party website, but do infact have right to its own artice. -Watchover. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Watchover (talk • contribs) 11:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

But they aren't noteable for wikipedia. Timeshift (talk) 05:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The Hunter Liberals are not independent of the Liberal Party. All candidates are members of the Liberal Party and were endorsed by the Liberal Party as Liberal Party candidates at the Local Government elections. Based on comments here, including those by the Hunter Liberals creator stating that they're only in local government, I'm convinced that the article doesn't meet WP:ORG. So far any notability achieved is really WP:ONEEVENT. I also don't see any reason now why to merge the information here after all. When I get a chance I'll probably withdraw the merge proposal and submit an AfD. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it is not a one-event. The Hunter Liberals banner still exists, and I believe that it is to be used at both state and federal elections. As I understand it, the idea is the raise awareness of the party being active in the region. --Athol Mullen (talk) 04:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Local branches of major parties are still almost never noteable enough for wikipedia. Timeshift (talk) 04:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The Hunter Liberals has just created a sister independent Liberal brand on the Central Coast, Central Coast Liberals, created by Chris Hartcher MLA. Both the Hunter Liberals and the Central Coast Liberals will be in effect at the 2011 State Elections where candidates will be standing in the State seats of Hunter: Cessnock, Maitland, Newcastle, Lake Macquarie, Charelstown, Swansea, Wyong, The Entrance, Terrigal and Gosford. -Watchover. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Watchover (talk • contribs) 12:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merge of List of Liberal Party of Australia leaders by time served

Any suggestions? it is plausable information Watchover (talk), 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Given the lack of information in List of Liberal Party of Australia leaders by time served I don't see why it can't be merged into the list of leaders here. Making the table sortable will allow display as required. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done --AussieLegend (talk) 07:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

anti-Lib POV contribution

The anon IP keeps re-adding his anti-Lib POV. He doesn't understand the difference between what's fact and what's POV. I can't be bothered removing it again. Timeshift (talk) 10:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

First current Lib leader to have no image coming soon...

Heads up... Timeshift (talk) 05:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)