Talk:List of political parties in Australia/Archive 1

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

Family First already had representatives in SA, and the Shooters Party have a representative in NSW, for instance. There's also other represented parties that aren't even listed here. Ambi 03:26, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to add a paragraph on state parties. Gangulf 20:32, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


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

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


 * They had candidates releasing pamphlets in 2004 arguing that mosques and synagogues should be burned. They're based out of the Assemblies of God, and half their candidates are active in the Assemblies of God hierarchy. Basically all of their policy comes from Assemblies of God doctrine. I really don't think this is that surprising a claim to make. Ambi 09:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry - but what point are you trying to make? While your complete opposition to the party is evident - you have not given a valid reason why they should be considered a wholly Christian conservative party instead of a socially conservative one. You have simply slandered them based on the behaviour of a minority of members. michael talk 09:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * (And your complete support for the party is entirely evident). I'm just pointing out that it's rather silly to take a party that's entirely based around the Christian churches and claim that they have nothing to do with religion. Perhaps we could note that they're based around the Assemblies of God, but aiming for broader conservative appeal (or something similar)? Ambi 09:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The earlier 'Christian-influenced Conservatism' in the article seems to hit the nail on the head. I've changed it to "and the Family First Party, a Christian-influenced party appealing to social conservatives". michael talk 09:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Fine by me. Ambi 09:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thankyou! michael talk 09:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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


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

Comparison of Current political parties' policies
(Currently using data on nuclear stances... add more policy on other stuff please)

Now for anyone familiar with wikipedia, this table has obvious issues. Per edit summary comments, I have moved it to this page for further discussion and/or development. Timeshift 09:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I certainly think it has no place on this page, and I'm really not sure about its usefulness. All of this information could be covered either in the parties' pages or on a page about nuclear energy (for example) in Australia. Frickeg 22:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

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


 * sigh* Electoral oblivion was to be expected for the Aus. Democrats - do they have enough representation at a state level to maintain their status as a second-tier party (along with Family First, Greens), or do we move them largely to the annals of historically significant parties (along with One Nation)? Blackjack4124 (talk) 07:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd probably keep them there for now, as they'll have four senators until the new Senate is sworn in mid-next year. At that point, I'd say we'd have to move them to the "currently registered with the AEC" section, as unlike the others, they'd have no federal MPs. Rebecca (talk) 11:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Massive crack down needed
Fellow comrades. We realy need a crack down on political parties that are not real or are not registered. --DePeRe 04:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Most of them have wikipedia entries. If they've got a wikipedia entry, they should be listed here. Maybe some of these parties should be deleted though. Andjam 05:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As far as I am aware, everything there has been registered at some time in the past. The "not currently registered" parties have virtually all been registered in the past and have contested elections. Frickeg (talk) 06:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

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


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

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

Massive crack down needed
Fellow comrades. We realy need a crack down on political parties that are not real or are not registered. --DePeRe 04:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Most of them have wikipedia entries. If they've got a wikipedia entry, they should be listed here. Maybe some of these parties should be deleted though. Andjam 05:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As far as I am aware, everything there has been registered at some time in the past. The "not currently registered" parties have virtually all been registered in the past and have contested elections. Frickeg (talk) 06:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

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


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

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

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


 * I personally think that if they were never registered at any level they don't really deserve a mention unless there is some definite claim for notability. The main problem is with notability of micro-parties - does registration confirm notability? I'm in two minds on this, because it's unlikely that, for example, Aged and Disability Pensioners Party will ever be more than a stub, but it will still show up in election results tables and things, and red links make those templates very ugly. It also helps when we need to abbreviate the name (as in Senate candidates tables, i.e. here) and the link provides the full name. Perhaps we should have a merged article for all the micro-micro-parties who (a) never won a seat, (b) never really attracted any serious news, and (c) weren't around for more than about two elections? List of Australian political micro-parties or something, perhaps? Frickeg (talk) 23:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As an aside, there was some guy who moved around Australia contesting by-elections under the label "Atokist" called Louis Phillips in about 1945. He apparently made up the word. Orderinchaos 11:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * How do other countries do it? Timeshift (talk) 01:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think Canada does it much the same as we do now; I can't think of another country that has micro-parties which has as advanced a politics coverage as we do. I might start by killing those on this list which never contested an election, and we can work out the notability of those that remain from there. Rebecca (talk) 10:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Having looked through the list again, I'm starting to think that it might be better to apply some sort of higher notability requirement here: having been registered, contested elections, and have some sort of press coverage so we can know something about them. A number of our party articles are on "parties" that were just basically dodgy preference-driving ballot lines for the likes of Glenn Dreury and Malcolm Jones. Rebecca (talk) 10:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've been through and killed off the non-AEC-registered list; deleted all of those that didn't appear to have been registered and contested elections, and moved the rest to the defunct list. As far as I can see, these parties with articles don't meet that criteria: Anyone have any objections to throwing these to AfD? Rebecca (talk) 10:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The Secular Party of Australia (ran as independents in 2007)
 * Republican Party of Australia (doesn't seem to have been able to get enough members for registration)
 * Libertarian Party (Australia) (can't find any sources for this one even existing)
 * Workers Liberty Australia (they've got a website, but again, can't find any sources for them being registered/contesting elections)
 * Socialist Party (Australia) (not so sure about this one, but light on the sources for being more than just another socialist splitter group)
 * Or PROD. The Secular Party were represented by independent ticket "Q" in WA and got 271 votes statewide - and most of those probably would have had no idea they were voting for the Secular Party. Orderinchaos 11:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I do but on a case by case basis. Some of them are linked to at other articles. The Republican Party is linked to at two by-election articles for example. I'd prefer such articles to keep their links. Timeshift (talk) 11:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's fair enough. It would be nice if these are to be kept, though, if the references could be tightened up to at least state at a minimum a) when they were founded/registered, b) any elections they contested and c) when they were deregistered - since an awful lot of these microparty articles are a total dog's breakfast when it comes to context. Any chance you'd be willing to have a shot at digging that up? Rebecca (talk) 11:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The Republican Party contested a fair few Senate elections as well, and was registered for 1996, 1998, 2001, and 2004. The rest, I think, can probably be deleted if there are no other reasons for notability. Frickeg (talk) 22:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Workers' Liberty used to be a part of the Socialist Alliance but have since left. They (WL) are very very small - word "microparty" fits them to an absolute tee. The Socialist Party, on the other hand, while relatively small (maybe somewhere between 30-50 members), and unregistered, probably deserves *some* mention, as they have had councilor re-elected to Yarra council in 2008, and have a fair degree of profile (if limited largely to that area). I also note that someone recently added Socialist Alternative to the page. I'm not sure what prerequisites we want to use for inclusion on this page, but as they have never been electorally registered and don't run in elections (except student ones), do they belong here?Friedrich Oswald (talk) 08:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Workers' Liberty and the Socialist Alternative are both too small to be included, and as neither are registered they both fail the first test. If the Socialist Party is the same as the Socialist Party of Australia then they used to be registered for federal elections and thus qualify. Parties don't automatically qualify by contesting council elections, or being elected to councils, although if they get significant media coverage they may qualify via standard notability criteria. Frickeg (talk) 22:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the Socialist Party is this one: Socialist Party (Australia). They're a small affiliate of the Committee for a Workers International, as opposed to the old Socialist Party of Australia, which is now the Communist Party. Despite their councillor, they are pretty small, as indicated. I'll leave the question of their notability to others' discretion - I know too much about the far left to be fully objective.Friedrich Oswald (talk) 05:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

What about liberals for forests? OK, they are registered in WA, but the last election I can find, in which they participated was the 2004 Fed election. Their website has not been updated since 2001. Can they seriously be considered to be an active political party? Does anyone know what they've been up to in recent times?--Mrodowicz (talk) 14:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * They're not active *now*, but definitely were - they were a factor in the Richmond election in 2004 and they still have an MP in the WA Parliament (Janet Woollard). Orderinchaos 15:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * They did actually run in 2005 (http://www.waec.wa.gov.au/elections/documents/state/2005/LC%20Candidates%20pps155.pdf), but not in 2008 - presumably that's why they're still on the list, if probably not for much longer. Oh, and the MP in parliament thing isn't quite correct - just talking with OIC about it now - she was elected as an independent under that banner the first time, but has always sat as an independent. Rebecca (talk) 15:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Fielding was elected to the Senate in 2004 in part on lff prefs. Timeshift (talk) 21:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Speaking of liberals for forests, the page is currently at liberals for Forests (lower-case l, capital F), which is a bit odd. Could someone fix it? Frickeg (talk) 22:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's meant to be liberal. Timeshift (talk) 22:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it's also meant to be forests (lower-case f). Frickeg (talk) 22:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

Liberals "left-centre"
Why is it being claimed that the Liberal party is "left-centre"?Eregli bob (talk) 11:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Nice catch, fixed. Frickeg (talk) 14:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Rubbish in "Federal parliamentary parties and their leaders" section
Discussion here regarding the meaningless and unreliably sourced rubbish in the first table in the 'Federal parliamentary parties and their leaders' section. Timeshift (talk) 04:24, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering how Tony Standfield can be the parliamentary leader of Australian Motoring Enthusiasts Party when he isn't an MP. Surely if Australian Motoring Enthusiasts Party had a parliamentary leader it would be Ricky Muir, given that he's their only member. But then again it's probably a bit absurd to include Australian Motoring Enthusiasts Party as a force that would have a parliamentary leader. Alans1977 (talk) 13:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * and how can 1 person be considered to be a party? I think that where individuals are attached to parties outside of parliament but it is only them inside of parliament they should be considered to be independents, unless they have some sort of affiliation inside parliament (such as Muir with PUP, in which case he could be thought to be in the PUP parliamentary party. Having a parliamentary party of 1 person is pure nonsense. Alans1977 (talk) 09:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that would definitely be original research: while minor party senators without colleagues may have much more individual power than their major party colleagues, they're nonetheless members of a political party and, at some level, responsible to that political party. You can't randomly decide to consider them as independents without some source for that proposition. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 09:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * To consider them to be leaders of parliamentary parties makes a mockery of the definition of the word party. Alans1977 (talk) 09:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. I could care less whether we listed them as leaders (unless there are explicit sources referring to them as parliamentary leaders) but as a statement of plain fact they're parliamentary members of political parties. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 09:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It's the 'leaders' bit I'm particularly referring to. Alans1977 (talk) 09:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I've cleaned it up here. There's a few things i've done, so if anyone disagrees I would be appreciative if they would bring it up here rather than change the article. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 23:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Great job, it looks much better. The only thing I would change is to split the Coalition - maybe like this:


 * I just think this makes the whole thing much clearer and allows us to avoid the suggestion that Tony Abbott leads the National Party. Frickeg (talk) 23:24, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I like it :) Timeshift (talk) 23:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Me too. Now the same axe just needs to be taken to the minor/micro party dross. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 03:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * One issue at a time :) Timeshift (talk) 03:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

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


 * I actually prefer the present list - for me at least it reads a lot more clearly than the table. Rebecca (talk) 13:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I like it! Timeshift (talk) 21:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Rebecca - any suggestions for making the table more readable? And/or ideas on how the list could show the different state registrations, which is the issue that the table is trying to address. Frickeg (talk) 10:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The thing I like about the split list (apart from it being clear) it sets out very clearly who has federal registration, and separately mentions state registration for those who haven't achieved it federally. It also makes sense to me on notability grounds; giving the same prominence to One Nation and the No Parking Meters Party in NSW is a little bit strange.


 * I appreciate what you're trying to do here, but I think it's too much information for one table - I see it and my eyes glaze over. I'm not sure we need to know in this article exactly what states the Socialist Alliance and the Shooters and Fishers Party are registered in; for me, the important fact is that they're registered, and that we list the highest level of registration. I'd prefer to see the details in the individual party articles. Rebecca (talk) 13:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I like the table, but it is a little hard to read, and I think the split list is probably sufficient. Some more thoughts, however: Perhaps a section on state registered parties (near that noting overall parliamentary representation) could be included on the page? Rebecca's question is also pertinent (if perhaps a can of worms) - do we want this article to include state parties, or only federal parties (in which case, what justification for including the solely state-based Queensland Party)? I think with anything short of "only federal parties" we should probably include state registrations in some way (but see below). Also, with regards to "highest level" of registration - obviously federal registration is a "higher" level in one sense, but some state registration requirements are equally or more (eg Victoria and NSW) difficult to fulfill than the federal provisions. Should this be where notability comes in (as it presently does, with only state representation mentioned)? Or should a separate, slightly more detailed section be added to include state reg parties? (I tend toward the latter). It should be noted, in light of the above, that - in NSW at least - election of a candidate to state parliament grants a party permanent electoral registration anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Friedrich Oswald (talk • contribs) 04:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I am the one who added the list of state parties to the list yesterday. I apologise for forgetting to the talk page for information about the issue.   I agree that the parties with only state registration should be especially noted.  However, I also think it needs to be shown which federal parties are registered in which states.  I like the table idea in theory, but I agree that it takes a while to get your head around.  Could we make the table bigger?  Or could we have a list of federally registered parties, and next to the registration note which states they are registered in (and then have the state-only registered parties separate).  I hope we can revive an old discussion.  FiatLovers (talk) 01:43, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I still like the table, but I accept that I'm in the minority there. Although possibly it could be divided into federally-registered and state-only-registered subsections? Otherwise I think FiatLovers' suggestion is quite good: essentially revert to the old list, but note in brackets or something the states in which the parties are registered. For example:


 * Australian Labor Party (NSW, Vic, Qld, WA, SA, Tas, ACT, NT)
 * Building Australia Party (NSW)
 * What do others think? Frickeg (talk) 02:12, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I like the "states in brackets" proposal now I can see it. However we need to make it clear that the parties are active Federally and in the states in the brackets.  Can anyone else put in their opinion? FiatLovers (talk) 07:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Australian Sex Party should get a tick in Victoria, at least. They have a sitting member, after all. Myk (talk) 21:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Add Party Logos to Table
Now that party logos are listed on the AEC website and so publicly available, including them in the table would make it easier to visually locate a party and provide additional helpful information. Should this be done?

1.127.49.101 (talk) 23:37, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of political parties in Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140126004819/http://www.ecq.qld.gov.au/political_parties.aspx?id=86 to http://www.ecq.qld.gov.au/political_parties.aspx?id=86

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Position and Ideology in first table
I note there was a short discussion on this above, three years ago. The table now includes Position and Ideology. Just yesterday a new editor got himself into trouble by, among other things, arguing that if this article said the Greens are left wing, that should be in The Greens article. While there were other problems with his behaviour, I felt that on this issue he did have a (small) point.

I don't like seeing parties like The Greens (or any party, for that matter) placed anywhere on a simplistic, linear spectrum. I agree with the point said many times by others that the simplistic stuff of Infoboxes (and the table here) is much better left to detailed text for explanation.

In The Greens article, we don't list Position in the Infobox. Where does the Position information for this article come from?

I have other questions, but my main point is that those two columns are very problematic here. HiLo48 (talk) 00:13, 24 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I think you've said it all - if we are keeping these out of the party articles (which we should), they shouldn't be here either. Frickeg (talk) 00:27, 24 June 2018 (UTC)


 * No objection here if you want to cut it. The same endless arguments about which buzzword to use for each party apply just as much here as in individual party inboxes. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 00:29, 24 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I was involved with that editor yesterday, eventually blocking them, and extending their block (behavioural issues, I made no comment on their actual edits). That said, they did have a point. Can I ask why this information is omitted? What's the actual reasoning? Apologies if the answer is readily available. I admit I haven't looked back at past discussion. -- Longhair\talk 01:36, 24 June 2018 (UTC)


 * As I see it, the "position" and "ideology" of a party is something most parties themselves don't even agree on. They have policies on a range of issues, but even those change from time to time. Terms like left and right are fluid. Their meaning varies depending on the perspective of the observer (e.g. "Left" in the USA might be near the centre in other countries), and sometimes on whether the word is being used as a pejorative. Parties like the Greens have policies that don't really fit on a linear spectrum. Simply put, it's confusing. Far too confusing to be explained by one or two words in an Infobox. Infobox entries also tend to attract ideological warriors who like to assign simple, pejorative labels to parties they don't like. HiLo48 (talk) 01:54, 24 June 2018 (UTC)


 * As Hilo48 said, there are numerous terms by which the ideology of a particular political party might be classified, possibly depending on the standpoint of the observer. We started removing it entirely because otherwise infoboxes were getting changed and argued over every few days in a pointless waste of people's time. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 02:33, 24 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Fair points. I understand the fluidity of such labels and just wondered out loud what the position was here at Wikipedia. Thanks, I also agree, including them is not worth the bother. -- Longhair\talk 03:09, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Non-parliamentary federal parties section
The entire section was removed by in this edit. Were this a more obscure article, I'd likely have reverted it and left a note on QubecMan's talk page. As 20 of 103 page watchers have looked at recent changes, I'm asking here. Should the article have this section, or not? BlackcurrantTea (talk) 04:55, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It appears that the section has actually been refactored rather than removed - it's now "Parties registered for federal elections with the Australian Electoral Commission". I'd probably prefer "Federal non-parliamentary registered parties" or something similar but it's good to be more specific in the title. Frickeg (talk) 05:55, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * So it has. Thanks for pointing that out. Perhaps it was the lack of colours, and parties that caught my eye only in the earlier version (e.g. #Sustainable Australia at the top, now under S, and Flux, now VOTEFLUX), but I missed it. I suppose my question then is whether they should be in a separate section as they were. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 07:18, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Ideology and political position
Why have political ideology and political position been removed from the table of major parties?

I tried to bring it back and when it was removed kept questioning why and this is the response I got from Frickeg. -William4K3IbFy — Preceding unsigned comment added by William4K3IbFy (talk • contribs)

Australia's main political parties don't really have ideologies that can be summed up in a single word. The Liberals are a "broad church", as they're very fond of reminding people; there are people in there who would identify as "liberals" for sure, but also plenty of old-school conservatives, economic liberals, classical liberals, and even a few social liberals. The current Liberal "our beliefs" section does not mention the word "liberal" outside the party name. It has been decided, following long discussion at places like Talk:Liberal Party of Australia that attempting to describe the ideology of Australia's political parties in a single word is not helpful, and that discussion of party ideologies is better included in prose (as, you'll notice, the parties article does). Frickeg (talk) 05:41, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

The same can be said for the greens, a broad brush stroke of Green politics is insane, Adam Bandit (pun intended) was a hardline supporter of marxisim and activist while at uni and now he is the deputy of the greens, are we to believe that a leopard changes its markings ? Or is it convenient ? Dr pragmatists (talk) 11:28, 8 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Your personal opinion is irrelevant here. HiLo48 (talk) 11:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

The greens and the Hard Left
If the greens can be considered center left then one nation can be condsidered center right. Dr pragmatists (talk) 11:22, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * We don't base content on original research. HiLo48 (talk) 11:23, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The Greens' centre has moved rightward to fill the gap left by the self-immolation of the Australian Democrats (Peter Whish-Wilson was an investment banker, see, etc). There is still a hard-left contingent, though they've had limited support, and a strong internal reaction against them (see , etc). Given the Greens' range, I believe that a generic "left-wing" for Position (where the target section states that it "ranges from center-left to far-left") is both reasonable and sufficient. Ideologies are a clearer prism than a crude left-right spectrum anyway -- One Nation's "people's bank" policy was agrarian socialism at its finest, while opposition to immigration was once a core Australian Left position. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 14:19, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

To use the clock analogy, “If political the spectrum was a clock extreme capitalism and fascism would be 11:59 and extreme socialism and communism would be 12:01. Pure Democracy would be 6:00. This simple analogy gives us a guide to understand the further we remove people’s ability to self govern the closser we move left or right on the poltical spectrum. We need to look at the fundamental principles and actual outcomes not hypothised results. As the greens have gained seats within parliament they have initiated policy’s which are left of the spectrum, and to say they engage in green politics is more of a narrative and isn’t supported by the published data. Dr pragmatists (talk) 21:51, 8 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I believe it's it's wrong trying to put any party on a simplistic, linear spectrum. Have a look at the section two above this one - Position and Ideology in first table - where I gave my more detailed thoughts, and there was a discussion with others on the matter. HiLo48 (talk) 22:33, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Protected for a week
Work it out. I'd rather not get involved with looking at 3RR and blocking. Doug Weller talk 14:01, 8 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia censorship bravo bravoDr pragmatists (talk) 21:20, 8 July 2018 (UTC) Dr pragmatists (talk) 21:20, 8 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Rather than censorship, I'd call it giving you time to see others' views and, if necessary, discuss the issue further. The more common outcome of behaviour like yours would have been for YOU to be blocked. The Administrator's choice here allows you to continue discussing the matter, and to learn more about Wikipedia policies. They are not all trivial. It can take a while. Good luck. HiLo48 (talk) 22:37, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

It’s common political tactic to complicate and blur the lines of reality. You only need to look at there page to see they describe themselves as socialist. Why is it people are prepared to act in an aggressive way then accuse there opponents as acting aggressively because they don’t comply with there view. If you could take emotion and ideology out of your equation and look purely at the facts you would see the errors of your train of thought. It’s far more of a focus on maintaining a narrative rather than facts. Dr pragmatists (talk) 00:55, 9 July 2018 (UTC)


 * No, they don't describe themselves as socialist, and Wikipedia doesn't make the kinds of opinion leaps that you would like it to - please see Original research. You may have very strong opinions about this and appear to get quite emotional about it, but Wikipedia goes by reliable sources. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 01:13, 9 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Dr pragmatists - The Drovers Wife is correct. I actually did what you said. I went to the website of The Australian Greens, where they have a Search field. I searched for "socialist", and no, they don't describe themselves as socialist. If there was a site where they did that, you might be able to use it as a reliable source, but I haven't seen it yet. And can you please indent your posts in conversations like this. WP:INDENT tells you all about it. It helps everybody follow the conversation. HiLo48 (talk) 02:47, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Unregistered political parties
Should the unregistered parties be moved to the defunct parties? The definition under "defunct parties" says "A number of these may still exist as organisations in some form, but none are recognised as political parties.".

Also, are the Australian Corporatists a party? I can't seem to find any sources regarding its existence. Catiline52 (talk) 01:42, 6 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't have a problem if they were removed. Removing "Australian Corporatists" would be a good idea - this section fairly frequently attracts "five blokes in a shed who reckon they're going to create a party" entries that aren't remotably notable if they even exist, which would be a good reason to just chop the lot. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 02:30, 6 October 2018 (UTC)


 * They should be removed from the active tables if they no longer exist, and placed into defunct parties. Parties who claim to be registered, with no sources should also be removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by DominusVilicus (talk • contribs) 06:14, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Revamp of page
I know this is a big task, but should I redo the tables for the page? I was thinking of doing a wikitable similar to the federal one (with the inclusion of South Australia's 'federal division' column, with ticks and crosses rather than yes/no, so that each state wouldn't require two tables) for each state + current registered federal political parties. The tables are inconsistent between states and contain large walls of text and lack concise information. Catiline52 (talk) 01:20, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I've updated ACT to this system. I'll update the other states ASAP. Catiline52 (talk) 02:06, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Nice work - I think the ACT format is clearer and better-presented than all the other variants. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 02:27, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Good Job - I couldn't be bothered doing it for all of the other states when I made SA's Table. I see you or someone has removed the 2 color system. Some parties have 2 colors to differentiate from major parties (eg: Australian Conservatives, which use blue and red) DominusVilicus (talk) 08:52, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, why have you included nowrap on the party names. That causes issues in some other wikipedia themes. DominusVilicus (talk) 08:53, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I wasn't sure if it was a necessity for the format. I used most of the format from the federal representative table. Catiline52 (talk) 04:56, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Also, should I expand the format to include federal parties? I'm unsure, considering how many minor parties there are that lack information. Catiline52 (talk) 04:59, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Could you elaborate more? What exactly do you want to change? DominusVilicus (talk) 02:21, 9 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Just a note to say that getting rid of multiple colours for one party was the right move - they may have more than one but we don't have to, we just have different shades of their primary colour. I like the new format overall, but would like to suggest the removal of the "Position" column, which has given us nothing but trouble in party infoboxes and which we have generally agreed to leave out for that reason (some of the positions given in the tables are pretty dubious too - the CEC is definitely extreme but I wouldn't call them "far right"; plenty would dispute the idea that the Greens (or AJP!) are "centre-left"). I also think that the "ideology" column is really going to need citation (who says SA-Best's philosophy is "social liberalism"?). For non-parliamentary parties "leader" is difficult to define (is it the president? The chairperson? The secretary?), and absent clearly cited evidence I would default to leaving it blank for parties without a parliamentary leader.


 * Once this is done I would support expanding it to the federal parties. Frickeg (talk) 07:03, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed on all points. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 09:53, 9 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I also agree that we should remove the position part DominusVilicus (talk) 03:19, 19 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I should have been more precise earlier. I was thinking of implementing the format to the federal parties without parliamentary representation. However, I agree with Frickeg, the position column should be removed. It's hard to apply the position to a lot of parties outside of Labor and Liberals, and a lot of parties such as Flux or Katter work outside these traditional boundaries. Non-parliamentarian parties also seem to have iffy sourcing on leadership and should probably be removed unless there is a source explicitly stating them as a leader. Catiline52 (talk) 11:38, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Removal of "Position" from tables
There's been an obvious general consensus that the "Position" in the party tables is problematic and that it should be removed. Reasons for removal are:
 * 1) Hard to gauge, and many sources may conflict
 * 2) Doesn't provide valuable information, "Ideology" would provide a more concise, accurate political explanation
 * 3) Some positions have been removed from party political pages (eg: Australian Greens)
 * 4) Causes conflict between editors
 * 5) Makes tables a little more bloated

Collected comments on removal

 * I agree with Frickeg, the position column should be removed. It's hard to apply the position to a lot of parties outside of Labor and Liberals, and a lot of parties such as Flux or Katter work outside these traditional boundaries. Catiline52 (talk) 11:38, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I also agree that we should remove the position part DominusVilicus (talk) 03:19, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I like the new format overall, but would like to suggest the removal of the "Position" column, which has given us nothing but trouble in party infoboxes and which we have generally agreed to leave out for that reason (some of the positions given in the tables are pretty dubious too - the CEC is definitely extreme but I wouldn't call them "far right" Frickeg (talk) 07:03, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I have other questions, but my main point is that those two columns are very problematic here. HiLo48 (talk) 00:13, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No objection here if you want to cut it. The same endless arguments about which buzzword to use for each party apply just as much here as in individual party inboxes. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 00:29, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * As Hilo48 said, there are numerous terms by which the ideology of a particular political party might be classified, possibly depending on the standpoint of the observer. We started removing it entirely because otherwise infoboxes were getting changed and argued over every few days in a pointless waste of people's time. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 02:33, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair points. I understand the fluidity of such labels and just wondered out loud what the position was here at Wikipedia. Thanks, I also agree, including them is not worth the bother. -- Longhair\talk 03:09, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe it's it's wrong trying to put any party on a simplistic, linear spectrum. Have a look at the section two above this one - Position and Ideology in first table - where I gave my more detailed thoughts, and there was a discussion with others on the matter. HiLo48 (talk) 22:33, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * As I see it, the "position" and "ideology" of a party is something most parties themselves don't even agree on. They have policies on a range of issues, but even those change from time to time. Terms like left and right are fluid. Their meaning varies depending on the perspective of the observer (e.g. "Left" in the USA might be near the centre in other countries), and sometimes on whether the word is being used as a pejorative. Parties like the Greens have policies that don't really fit on a linear spectrum. Simply put, it's confusing. Far too confusing to be explained by one or two words in an Infobox. Infobox entries also tend to attract ideological warriors who like to assign simple, pejorative labels to parties they don't like. HiLo48 (talk) 01:54, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Any final comments can be made here DominusVilicus (talk) 07:00, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Editors may begin removing Ideology from party tables DominusVilicus (talk) 04:40, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Forking of Defunct Parties
I'd like to propose that the section about Defunct Parties be forked to a list labelled "List of defunct political parties in Australia". The content is notable, however, there are so many that it increases the size of the page significantly. At the moment with the inclusion, the list page length doubles in size. Catiline52 (talk) 02:23, 14 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Support (at List of defunct political parties in Australia) I had the same thought when I saw the size of the re-added content. It could perhaps also use a bit of a template rejigging (like what was done with current parties), and it particularly needs sourcing since (unlike the current parties list) it can't necessarily rely on the AEC/state party registers for basic details. The title of this article is a question for another day. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 02:34, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Given the scope split, suggest moving this one to List of registered political parties in Australia, and add a hatnote that List of political parties in Australia redirects here, with a pointer to the defunct list. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 03:36, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support I suggest creating a new page Historical List of Political Parties in Australia DominusVilicus (talk) 02:27, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I forked the page to List of historical political parties in Australia as a midground between the suggestions. However, the page has since been put into a draft stage because it doesn't have enough sources. I'm confused about how this list hasn't been put through the same process since it has the same amount. Catiline52 (talk) 10:45, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

What is unregistered?
I find the "unregistered" section confusing. If we are to keep it, it should have a better description & title. Otherwise they can be moved to the historical list of political parties (if applicable) DominusVilicus (talk) 06:52, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It was a section separated from historical parties since before I redid the page. I believe these are political parties that are still functional, and are involved in electoral politics, but are not registered. I think that was the main differentiation between putting them in the historical parties. Catiline52 (talk) 07:44, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I attempted to extend the list, it initially only had the Communist Party and the Democrats. It's hard though finding parties that are notable enough to have a page but aren't registered. Catiline52 (talk) 08:20, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

The Australian Mental Health Party
Is there a reason why the link to the The Australian Mental Health Party redirects to the List of political parties in Australia? Every other registered party has its own page. Catiline52 (talk) 02:53, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism: Socialist Alliance
The link for Socialist Alliance was changed to the page for genocide, this space should be watched for future vandalism 11893945AA (talk) 12:28, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Partys missing
Had a look through the AEC as of April 18th 2022 here are the parties missing on the main list, Australian Progressives, David Pocock, Derryn Hinch's Justice Party, Seniors United Party of Australia, TNL (Formerly The New Liberals), and The Local Party. Also, the Liberal Democrats currently have representation in the senate as Sam Machon joined them. Will start adding parties but help would be appreciated. Unless there is a reason these partys are missing from the main list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afropenguin (talk • contribs) 03:10, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism
This page appears prone to vandalism. Even making it so that you have to log in to edit it might help reduce the frequency.

If others agree, how do we go about making the page semi-protected? Micmicm (talk) 16:51, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Party membership numbers
Given how few parties we have membership numbers for and how out of date those values are, I propose that we just get rid of the party membership column. Micmicm (talk) 12:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

How come Derryn Hinchs Justice party isn't in federal non-paralimentary partys?
Derryn Hinch's Justice Party is still listed as registered on the Australian Electoral Commissions website and stood candidates in the 2022 federal election so why is it not in the federal non-parliamentary list? Bonesy.200 (talk) 02:06, 17 July 2022 (UTC)


 * The list is incomplete with regard to multiple parties, not, it seems, for any reason. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 06:43, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

What is a federal division?
In the state party section there is a box with a tick or cross which is labeled has federal division. What does that mean ? Bonesy.200 (talk) 10:25, 23 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Expanded does it mean the party can run in federal elections? Or just it just mean the party is registered federal and what does it mean if the party is de-registered federally Bonesy.200 (talk) 11:50, 25 July 2022 (UTC)


 * It appears to mean that the party is registered to run in federal elections. I agree that it is odd wording for that. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 09:26, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Should we change the wording to "Also registered for federal elections?"?
 * It's a bit wordy though.
 * TBH I wouldn't mind just removing that column completely. We already have the information about which parties are registered federally in it's own section. Micmicm (talk) 14:54, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair but i do think it helps people to better understand state party's and how there registered Bonesy.200 (talk) 02:51, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This page used to have a different table structure for every single state, and one template was picked because it was the best way of showing all the immediately relevant info (Party colour, name, leader, ideology). The federal division section was added solely because the template included it. The section isn't really necessary when the Commonwealth registered parties are listed on the same page. Catiline52 (talk) 04:31, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Changing names to be in line with officially registered names and abbreviations
I think we should be using the officially registered names and abbreviations for the parties, since this is what appears on ballots.

For example I think the Federal parliamentary parties table should look like this:

I've also removed leaders seats as it doesn't help understand anything about the parties.

Thoughts? Micmicm (talk) 08:07, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I think leaders seats helps the reader understand more about party leadership as a whole Bonesy.200 (talk) 10:24, 12 August 2022 (UTC)


 * How about this then?
 * {| class="wikitable"

! colspan="2" rowspan="2" |Party ! rowspan="2" |Abbreviated name ! colspan="2" |Members of the federal Parliament as of July 2022 ! rowspan="2" |Party leader ! rowspan="2" |Leaders Seat ! rowspan="2" |Ideology !House !Senate
 * Australian Labor Party (ALP)
 * A.L.P
 * Anthony Albanese
 * Division of Grayndler
 * Social democracySocial liberalism
 * Liberal Party of Australia
 * Liberal
 * Peter Dutton
 * Division of Dickson
 * Liberal conservatismEconomic liberalism
 * National Party of Australia
 * The Nationals
 * David Littleproud
 * Division of Maranoa
 * ConservatismAgrarianism
 * Australian Greens
 * The Greens
 * Adam Bandt
 * Division of Melbourne
 * Green politicsProgressivism
 * Pauline Hanson's One Nation
 * One Nation
 * Pauline Hanson
 * Senator for Queensland
 * Right-wing populismHansonism
 * Jacqui Lambie Network
 * JLN
 * Jacqui Lambie
 * Senator for Tasmainia
 * Tasmanian regionalismPopulism
 * Centre Alliance
 * Centre Alliance
 * No leader
 * Social liberalismPopulism
 * Katter's Australian Party (KAP)
 * KAP
 * Robbie Katter
 * Queensland electoral district of Traeger
 * ConservatismDevelopmentalism
 * bgcolor="#F8EF21" |
 * United Australia Party
 * UAP
 * Ralph Babet
 * Senator for Victoria
 * NationalismRight-wing populism
 * }
 * Micmicm (talk) 05:10, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Jacqui Lambie Network
 * JLN
 * Jacqui Lambie
 * Senator for Tasmainia
 * Tasmanian regionalismPopulism
 * Centre Alliance
 * Centre Alliance
 * No leader
 * Social liberalismPopulism
 * Katter's Australian Party (KAP)
 * KAP
 * Robbie Katter
 * Queensland electoral district of Traeger
 * ConservatismDevelopmentalism
 * bgcolor="#F8EF21" |
 * United Australia Party
 * UAP
 * Ralph Babet
 * Senator for Victoria
 * NationalismRight-wing populism
 * }
 * Micmicm (talk) 05:10, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Robbie Katter
 * Queensland electoral district of Traeger
 * ConservatismDevelopmentalism
 * bgcolor="#F8EF21" |
 * United Australia Party
 * UAP
 * Ralph Babet
 * Senator for Victoria
 * NationalismRight-wing populism
 * }
 * Micmicm (talk) 05:10, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * NationalismRight-wing populism
 * }
 * Micmicm (talk) 05:10, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Thoughts on including a summary table like this?
Parties with representation in federal parliament or any state or territory parliament: Micmicm (talk) 04:00, 9 November 2022 (UTC)


 * All that information is already on the page, this table is relatively hard to read and would just duplicate the information. If people want to learn the different states a party has seats in (rather than the parties within a state), it's visible on the party's page. Catiline52 (talk) 23:45, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

UAP Parliamentary Leader = Leader?
Who is leader of UAP?

Ralph Babet's parliamentary profile lists him as the "Parliamentary Leader of the United Australia Party"

Are there any good sources which state Craig Kelly is still the leader?

This article by the Guardian calls Craig Kelly the "former party leader".

In the absence of other sources, I would prefer we list Ralph Babet as the leader of UAP.

@Auspol4 just @ing you since you recently edited the UAP leader field. Micmicm (talk) 13:46, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * We should use the parliamentary leaders for these infoboxes. Albanese is the leader of the parliamentary Labor Party, not the Labor Party itself, which is headed by people like Wayne Swan. Craig Kelly was given party leadership from Clive, but under Westminster traditions that doesn't make him parliamentary leader.Catiline52 (talk) 22:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah i agree that was a mistake to change it to Kelly, i think Babet should stay, perhaps party leader should be changed to parliamentary leader? Auspol4 (talk) 01:30, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Proposing to put NSW Local government registered party on this wiki page
The party's on the local elections list are technically still apart of the NSW electoral commissions register and are treated as political party's the only difference being is they don't pay the fee to run in the state election, The local party register also includes some minor party's who either currently have or did have a state or federal division such as the Australia first party, Australian federation party, science party and the arts party. thought it would be respectful to get others opinions before just adding in the table. Bonesy.200 (talk) 10:44, 4 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I think that's a great idea, although it should probably be a separate section or at least a separate table to the non-parliamentary parties. Micmicm (talk) 13:40, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Why I'm reverting changes made on the 25-27th of April 2023
Hi @MarioBayo Thanks for your effort to improve this article!

I have a few critiques of the changes you made on the 25th of April and have decided to roll them back. My reasons are a bit long to include in the edit notes so I'm listing them here, grouped by section.

Membership requirement: While it is useful information to list the respective electoral commissions in this article, including them in this section doesn't make much sense. The membership requirements for party registration is set by the parliament of each jurisdiction, the electoral commissions merely maintain the lists.

A better place to mention the electoral commissions is in the respective sections. For example, just before the list of parties in NSW there is the line: "As of the New South Wales Electoral Commission:" (This probably could do with being linked to the NSWEC Wikipedia article if anyone wants to update this)

Federal Parties: 1. Acronyms: The acronyms used here are not official (to the the best of my knowledge), and in fact I'm fairly sure that they are not even standardised between different media groups. e.g. ABC and 9 News might use different acronyms for the same party. As such I don't think they belong on this page. 2. Logos: While I'm not opposed to including the party logos, I don't think they add much to the readability of the table given how small they are. 3. (Political) Position: I think we decided ages ago that including political positions for parties caused more trouble then it was worth. The ideology or objective of a party is usually debated far more intelligently (although that doesn't say much) and provides far more useful information for understanding what a party is about. 4. Political alliance: Domestically the only "alliance" which exists is the Coalition, so it doesn't make sense to add a whole column just for this. International alliances aren't particularly relevant to how Australians talk about our political parties. This information is on the party pages if people are interested in it.

Apologies if there is stuff you've added that I haven't mentioned above, which I've now accidentally removed. Micmicm (talk) 13:57, 27 April 2023 (UTC)