Talk:National Party of Australia

Miscellaneous
Why does the 2013 Reps seat count show 9, when they have 15 sitting members in the Reps, namely:

The Hon. Warren Truss MP   The Hon. Barnaby Joyce MP    The Hon. John Cobb MP    The Hon. Luke Hartsuyker MP    The Hon.  Darren Chester MP    Mr Mark Coulton MP    Mr Keith Pitt MP      Mr George Christensen MP    Mr Andrew Broad MP     The Hon. Michael McCormack MP    Mr Ken O'Dowd MP    The Hon. Bruce Scott MP    Ms Michelle Landry MP    Dr David Gillespie MP    Mr Kevin Hogan MP

??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.158.221 (talk) 03:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


 * QLD Nats are counted as LNP. Timeshift (talk) 03:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


 * and a groundswell of rural support for the Greens and independents on the other

The Greens don't take votes away from the National Party. They take votes away from Labor and possibly a few wet Liberals. If they are gaining support in rural electorates, it's from the "blow-ins", not the National Party's support base. The real threats to the Nationals are (possibly) the Liberal Party stealing their votes, indpendents stealing their votes, and (most serious) the gradual death (literally) of the small towns and family farmers who make up their core support base. Not the Greens. --Robert Merkel

Is there evidence that republican views are a minority in the Liberal party? is there a cite for that?

Your comment applies to the cities, Robert. Not the bush.

The Greens most certainly do take votes away from the Nationals. Look at the recent Victorian election results for the most recent example of this. In fact, the reason the original Bracks Government was able to gain power in the first place (after the previous election)was because of the support of the three independants. All three were quasi-green independants. Susan Davies (since defeated) was ex-Labour and won the seat from the Liberals. Both Russell Savage and Craig Ingram took former National seats. Craig Ingram's seat had been in National/Country hands for 80 years, and his primary campaign issue was the restoration of environmental flow to the Snowy River.

In fact, if you get out into the countryside, the awareness of environmental issues in rural Australia is quite astonishing now. I'm not just talking about city trendies or dissafected hippies, I'm talking about hard-bitten types who have been on the land for generations. Several issues are prompting this but the scourge of dry-land salination has been particularly important: the old-fashioned image of the farmer with his bulldozer key in one hand and a shotgun in the other still has significance, but there has been a massive reapprasial of land-use practices by people on the land. Get out and visit some land-care groups, look at the massive planting programs going on (and no, I'm not talking about plantation Blue Gums here), talk to farmers who are restoring wildlife corridors, reducing their dependance on monoculture crops, clearing gorse and blackberrries, and taking more care with herbicides, look at the Green vote in rural electorates of late, or just read the once arch-conservative but now semi-green farmers' paper The Weekly Times. I can't really comment on city trends, but out here in the bush, the environmental movement is vastly stronger than it was ten years ago, and it is no respector of traditional left-right boundaries. Right now, it's taking votes away from the Nationals, but my guess is that the Nats are smart enough to see which way the wind is blowing and before too long they will jump on board. (This last is pure guesswork, of course. The rest is plain, observable fact.) Tannin

PS: I restored "greens" just now, but as "greens", not "Greens". This is better, as the primary threat to the Nationals is not the Green Party so much as "green-tinged" independants of the Craig Ingram variety. Tannin

-

Well, this looks like an interesting point to discuss.

Firstly, whilst I've been in the city for a few years now, my family still has a farm in north-east Victoria, and I try to keep up with rural issues. So, while I can't see what's going on from the inside, I do at least keep a weather eye on things.

It seems that environmental awareness *has* been gradually seeping into rural Australia through Landcare groups and the like. Whilst I know many farmers do care deeply about the Australian bush (heck, why are they working on the land if they don't like the outdoors), I think that most of the renewed interest in the environment from farmers is due to pragmatic factors - basically, the realization that if the environment is not looked after their livelihoods will be jeopardised. I would contend that for most of the capital-G Greens, preservation of the environment is an end in itself - if not a totally different philosophy, at least much further down a continuum of environmental motivations and leads the Greens to advocate actions that require sacrifices unacceptable to the more pragmatic approach of farm environmentalism.

As to the question of what the new rural environmentalism means to the Nationals, that's a very interesting question. I'll take your word that it's costing them votes right now, though I find it hard to believe that they would allow it to happen. The one thing National Party MPs do well is keep their ears to the ground, even if their coalition with the Liberal Party stops them moving very far sometimes. If your theory is correct, however, I don't see any fundamental reason why they can't change with the times on environmental issues (Tim Fisher, to give him credit, recognised this quite a while ago) except where the interests of parts of their traditional constituencies collide - farmers and miners, for instance. How they resolve that kind of clash will be interesting, to say the least.

After that long digression, I'm basically happy with the article as it now reads, though I'd still like it made clearer that "greens" doesn't mean the Green Party (I'll leave the wording to you if you like). The whole issue "changing environmental attitudes and rural politics in Australia", however, would be an interesting one to examine further. --Robert Merkel 12:37 Jan 8, 2003 (UTC)

On the motivation thing, Robert, yes, absolutely. It sticks out like a dog's proverbial. Pragmatisim is what it's all about. There ought to be a term for it: "bottom-line greens" or "pragmatic conservationists" or something. The trend seems to be to look first at the long-term economic return of a given action (designed to reduce erosion, say, or preserve topsoil, or lower the water table), and then say "this is going to save me money ... and now that I stop to think about it, I feel good about seeing honeyeaters coming back to the property too." First the dollars, then the esthetics, but both play a part.

Will the Nats change to reflect this? A really interesting question. My own feeling is that, yes, they will, and indeed the process has already begun on particular issues. I don't have the expertise to bring much evidence for this (at least not without a lot of research) but my seat-of-the-pants feeling is ... well, strong enough that I'd bet money on it.

Digressing even further in my turn, in the medium to longer term, the ALP is either going to have to comprehensively reinvent itself and find both a new core supporter base and a sense of direction, or else give the game away. OK, people say that sort of thing about every major party every time they are out of government for a while, but this time ... What is the Federal ALP going to do? Wait for one of Howard's successors to really stuff it up Kennett-style and hand them a victory on a plate?

Bracks didn't win in '99, Kennett lost. (Aside from the usual schools & hospitals stuff, and the astonishing arrogance of the man, consider his secret-private-contract CityLink tollway that took one of the three major Melbourne freeways that had been open since sometime in the '60s and started charging a book-24-hours-in-advance-if-you-want-to-travel toll that no-one understood on it. Look at the Tullamarine Freeway on a map, then look at the list of blue-ribbon Liberal/National seats that fell in '99, starting in the middle-class suburbs and taking in the Deputy Leader's seat of Gisbourne and fanning all the way out to Ballarat and Bendigo. It wasn't just that Kennet put a toll on an existing public road, it was the sort of toll: you can't just throw some money in a basket, you have to stop, find a phone, and book by credit card! The Citylink fiasco alone cost six or eight seats in the western suburbs.) And in '02, Bracks ran a good, solid campaign, but the Libs handed him that one too.

(Notice my strictly Victoria focus - I'd be interested to learn a little of what the state of play is in the other states - I haven't followed it.)

Excuse me: back to the point. As I see it, unless the ALP can find a new direction, they are going to just fade away on the Federal level and, as always, something else will fill the gap. The Australian Democrats shot themselves in the head when Meg Lees did her GST backflip, failed to rally around Natasha, and proceeded to do the most spectacular political kari-kari act since the ALP split in '55. Scratch the Democrats. As credible opposition to the Liberals, that leaves the rump of the ALP, the Greens ... and, just maybe, the Nationals.

Now I am drawing a long bow. But there have been tensions between the Libs and the Nats for decades, right back to Black Jack McEwan's day. The Nats have a streak of almost socialist policy running through them: agricultural subsidies, joint marketing schemes, opposition to the sale of Telstra, and so on. Their traditional supporter base is shrinking because of changing demographics, and as the baby-boomers age, their replacements have different ideals. There is money in mining, but votes? Not many. Ditto with other extractive industries. Timber felling is shrinking fast because of the conservation movement (fewer votes there) and "green agriculture" and "green tourisim" are both expanding. (Lots of "eco-pragmatist votes there.) To me, it all adds up.

Mind you, having sampled a few Cascade Pale Ales tonight (which is not my usual habit), I could add 5 and 3 to get 17. I don't think I've answered your question. No matter. Tommorow. Tannin

I realise this isn't exactly on topic, but you make some good points and I think the future of the Nationals has to discussed.

The problem with a 'new opposition' is that it hasn't happened since 1904, and Australia has always stuck with 'what works best' in politics. Remember, no third party has ever taken power anywhere in Australia since the rise of the Labor Party, and that was simply as a result of the irrelevance of the original Protectionists and Free Traders once the tariff dispute was resolved. Labor's issues still have great relevance to Australia today, and as such I don't think any third party can ever get the groundwell of support to grow beyond a fringe minority.

[comment moved to talk by user:PMelvilleAustin ]

How can you talk about the National Party without mentioning Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen????


 * Yes, this does not belong in the article. It's a good point, just the same. (I took the liberty of tinkering with your layout just now, PMA.) Tannin


 * That's cool mate - i should be used to doing this stuff by now :)

PMelvilleAustin 14:19 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)

I don't have time to do it myself, but someone should go over this and rework it to reflect their latest rebadging (now "the Nationals"). PML.

First leader
According to information I just received William James McWilliams and not Earle Page was the first leader of the party.--The Shadow Treasurer 02:33, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

This is a somewhat ambiguous question. McWilliams was first elected in 1903 and was elected as a Nationalist in 1919. When the various country groupings which had won seats in 1919 decided to unite as the Country Party in 1920, they felt they needed an experienced leader, so they asked McWilliams to become their "interim leader", which he was from 5 January 1920 to 5 April 1921. Neither he nor the party found this arrangement satisfactory and in 1921 he stood aside and Page was elected Leader. McWilliams was elected as a CP candidate in 1922 but after that sat as an independent. Some sources describe him as the CP's first leader, some don't. I think the Nationals regard Page as their first "official" leader, but I haven't checked. Adam 02:58, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Trimed it
Hi,

I think mostly the changes I've made speak for themselves. Possible exceptions: The article should be mainly about the Nats. This is probably a good point, but only if it can be said in less words.
 * While John Howard, the current leader of the Liberal Party, opposes an Australian republic, there are many within the Liberal Party who support one).

The strength of independants etc etc isn't the problem. It's the symptom of the Nat's continually letting down their constituents. In my POV, anyway. :-). So I haven't actually said that, I've just stated that people are turing away from the Nat's without trying to explain why.
 * ... have been under strain in recent years, being caught between the populist economic and cultural demands of the more socially conservative part of its rural electorate (attracted to the One Nation Party), rising rural support for independents, and the growing strength of the Liberal Party in country areas.

Regards, Ben Aveling 10:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

The Nationals: name official or not?
In the article it says that the name 'The Nationals' is only a campaigning name, not an official legal name. However, look at page 5 of the latest House of Representatives Hansard and it definitely says 'The Nationals', not 'National Party of Australia'. What defines official? --ajdlinux 00:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * What your registered name with the AEC is. http://www.aec.gov.au/_content/who/party_reg/registered/index.htm Xtra 03:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * OK. I assume that the Nats will change their registration probably before the next election. However it's interesting that other govt. entities (e.g. the Dept of Parliamentary Services) refer to them as 'The Nationals' rather than the AEC registered name. --ajdlinux 22:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * it is still the National Party of Australia but just as you do not hear Liberal Party of Australia you see "Liberal" by itself, it is "The Nationals" - however in the states, the state branches are correctly described "(The) Nationals WA" or "SA Nationals" etc. DanielT5 10:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I just re-checked this. AEC official register of political parties says the full name of the party is "National Party of Australia", with abbreviation "The Nationals". Their constitution says "The Nationals". --Surturz (talk) 06:05, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

POV
This article is woefully POV and actually quite offensive. First of all it doesn't even address the differences between and within the Nationals in different states (particularly WA and SA vs the rest) and is overly centric on Queensland where the experience is very different from elsewhere. It claims the Nationals are "the most conservative party" on social issues yet I don't seem to recall any other conservative party affirming gay rights and gay civil unions. Also claims the Nationals are in decline when the experience has been the reverse since about 2005 when National parties in any states where they have followed a non coalitionist agenda have had considerable gains and attracted popular support outside their key base. Large parts are unreferenced and really need to be rewritten. DanielT5 07:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. ;-) Timeshift 07:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not very good at this one, I'm way close to it, I'd be better if I could just rip it up, research it properly and start again, most of it is POV anyway saying the Nationals are in decline. They may well be in NSW but that's their own bloody fault, over here in the West they're doing better than anyone out there and may even form the next opposition by themselves after the 2009 election if the Liberals keep scoring own goals the way they are now - did you read about Matt Birney and daylight saving? :) DanielT5 07:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Just like the ALP and LPA pages, this page is more in relation to federal than state. Federally, the Nats are in very dire straits. The 2001 and 2004 elections saw their primary vote at ~5% - the only election that comes close to this result is the 1943 election - and considering the circumstances of that election, that's pretty damn poor. That's not POV, that's fact :P Timeshift 09:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * why does it go on so much about Joh if it's not state? that should then be in a National Party of Queensland page DanielT5 10:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:The national party logo.png
Image:The national party logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Gun Laws
I think there needs to be more mention about the 1996 firearms agreement because this was one of the major reasons The Nationals lost many seats to Labour and Independents, and a considerable loss of membership. Goldfishsoldier 02:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Warren Truss
If someone can source a free pic that would be great. I can't find one. Timeshift (talk) 15:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

McEwen's "veto"
''Menzies retired in 1966 and was succeeded by Harold Holt, but in an unusual arrangement, McEwen was granted the right of veto over government policy. After Holt disappeared in December 1967, McEwen was thus able to veto the succession of William McMahon by saying that he and his party would not serve under him. As a result, John Gorton became the new Liberal Prime Minister in January 1968.''


 * This is not right. McEwen was a senior member of the Cabinet, and whatever influence he had he exercised there.  Cabinet decisions are announced as collective decisions of the government.  Is there any record that he held the Libs to ransom by threatening to walk out of the coalition if the cabinet didn't adopt this policy or change that one?  I've never heard of it.  If he really had a veto, he may as well have been Prime Minister, which would mean Holt was PM in name only.  The first time (and afaik the only time) he used any "veto" (a bad word in this context) was to stymie the accession of McMahon when Holt disappeared.  This was a huge surprise to everyone - except McEwen and McMahon themselves (they'd already had a private chat about it); and it had to do with their personal relationship, nothing to do with government policy.  McEwen detested McMahon for private reasons - he considered McMahon untrustworthy and had a very dim view of his ambiguous sexuality, which made him, in McEwen's eyes, unworthy of being PM, and he couldn't tolerate the thought of being deputy PM to such a person.  Anyone else the Libs chose would have been acceptable to McEwen.  I'm removing the erroneous wording.  --  JackofOz (talk) 03:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Johnmcewen.jpg
Image:Johnmcewen.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Deputy Leader in the House of Representatives
Current Deputy Parliamentary leader Nigel Scullion is a Senator and therefore he is also the Senate leader with the previous Senate leader Ron Boswell now his deputy in the Senate. With Scullion being a Senator I assumed that there must be a deputy leader in the House of Representatives after all Wal Fife was Deputy Liberal House leader in 1989 to 1990 when the then Deputy Liberal leader Fred Chaney was still a Senator.

However I don't seem to find any information that there is a Deputy Nationals House leader. So does the Nationals have a deputy leader in the House of Representatives or did they choose not to have one. --The Shadow Treasurer (talk) 05:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't anyone know the answer to the question that I have asked.--The Shadow Treasurer (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This Handard (page 5, bottom of page) says they have a Leader, a Chief Whip, and a Whip in the HofR, but no mention of any deputy leader. There seems to be twice as much flagellation as leading going on.  Maybe they should rectify that balance, and confine flagellation to their private offices and bedrooms. :)  As to why there isn't a deputy leader in the HofR, I cannot say.  --  JackofOz (talk) 04:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Which is interesting given that John Anderson was Deputy Leader the last time they were in opposition. He was elected to the position in 1993, and continued in that role after they won government in 1996, until he took over from Tim Fischer as Leader in 1999.  Maybe it's a question of interest and numbers.  Nobody even wanted the Leader's job and Truss had to be dragooned into it; having acquired a Leader, maybe the party thought that that was enough, otherwise they'd have too many chiefs and not enough Indians.  Just guessing here.  --  JackofOz (talk) 05:12, 13 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)


 * See my post over at the Liberal talk page. --  JackofOz (talk) 10:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Images
Multiple images pushing into succeeding sections will cause all the section edit links to display together in some browsers. In this article, there are multiple points at which links bunch (at one point there are four boxes on a single line of text) in my browser. I propose either putting the images of the leaders in a table with the names and years of service for each, putting the images in a gallery, or arranging them so that no more than one will spill over into a succeeding section. I am not active on this article, so I do not want to make the choice between those options. -Rrius (talk) 02:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I support any method that keeps the images running along the side in a row. Timeshift (talk) 03:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Deputy Leader of the Opposition
I removed a claim that the National Party leader is Deputy Leader of the Opposition when the coalition are in opposition. See Talk:Shadow Cabinet of Australia and the opposition leadership page of daily Hansard publications, e.g., page 12 of this PDF (p. viii of the actual document). -Rrius (talk) 02:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Liberal national
Do the Liberals and Nationals ever compete with each other in elections? If not, in what sense can they be two parties? BillMasen (talk) 10:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

No cite does not equal removal...
Does anyone else find this edit too extreme? Timeshift (talk) 06:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * agreed. true statements should not be removed for petty reasons. Adding was petty and uncalled for when dealing with non-controversial textbook-like material.  I added the citations Rjensen (talk) 14:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

concern over the article
The first section of the article starts with "The graziers who leased the sheep ranches were conservative. They disliked the Labor party, which represented their workers, and feared that Labor governments would pass unfavorable legislation and promote foreigners and Communists". I see three main issues... sweeping generalised statements, no cites except one at the end of the paragraph (and it's an offline ref so unable to easily check the neutrality and/or accuracy of the source), and poor sentence/language structure. I was going to remove it but I thought i'd take it here first. I do note that this article's body/structure has recently been changed quite a bit, perhaps the entire article needs a good collaborative copyedit? Timeshift (talk) 19:08, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * the text is a summary of a major scholarly article and is fully cited. The sweeping statements were made by the RS. I'll revise the sentence structure. Rjensen (talk) 19:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "According to historian B. D. Graham (1959), the graziers who operated the sheep ranches were politically conservative. They disliked the Labor party, which represented their workers, and feared that Labor governments would pass unfavorable legislation and listen to foreigners and Communists." - it may be a correct reading of a WP:RS, but that doesn't automatically make it ok for inclusion. The text is not balanced and is definately point-of-view. And what is "politically conservative"? Not all Country voters came from the conservative side, some solid Labor voters went for the Country Party because they kept on bribing cash for the rural areas as part of being in the Liberal/Country Coalition government. They were stridently anti-socialist until it came to their own backyard. Just because a source may be accurate, does not mean it's suddenly unquestionably ok to use wholesale. I do not believe the source on it's own, based on your extrapolations, is a sufficient source for that text in the article. At a minimum, the POV wording is atrocious. Do you agree with any of this? Timeshift (talk) 19:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Recent changes
Per the article history and per this, the changes recently made have been reverted for obvious reasons... clear-cut multiple policy violations. Disputed material, consensus required here before re-adding again etc. Timeshift (talk) 06:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The role of the CLP and LNP
As someone who deals with the organisational complexities of conservative politics in Australia every day I can say that this article needs a dramatic rewrite. For a start you need to understand that the Nats are a federated body of individual state parties, not a cohesive single entity like the Liberal or Labor parties. That's how the Nationals WA can sit independently yet the LNP and CLP also have ties with the Liberal Party.

There is little to no acknowledgement of the roles of the CLP and the LNP in the organisation. Although they campaign under a different name these two bodies are the equal of the other state National Parties in regards to the federal organisation. They have full voting rights within the federal council (in contrast, the CLP does not have voting rights within the Liberal Party). Any article that pretends in any way that they are not part of the National Party is factually incorrect.

In the case of the LNP the members and senators sit as Liberals or Nationals - officially there are no LNP Members of Parliament. Therefore in statistics that refer to seats in parliament members should either be counted as Nats or Libs. This doesn't effect the 2010 election page where I gather the consensus was to count seats for the LNP. That's fine, as they were elected as LNP members, but when they sit in parliament they sit (and caucus) as either Nats or Libe.

The CLP are different - they sit in parliament as CLP members and although they caucus with either the Nats or the Libs they should not be counted as such for the purposes of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.225.63.222 (talk) 01:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Affirmative action in candidate selection
Candidate selection isn't covered in the article. The process should be explained. My understanding is that neither the National Party of Australia nor the Liberal Party of Australia have affirmative action measures for women in candidate selection. Should this be included? - Shiftchange (talk) 06:59, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Political role section
Rereading this it feels a bit out of date and also as though it was written with an anti-Coalition POV (as do comments further up the talk page). In politics things are both absolute and relative and I don't think presenting South Australia with a near miss at a second seat in 2006 as a great success compared to north of the Murray - 2.1% may be great by the historic standards of the SA Nats but not so good in the east. And the recent WA results may have seen the party survive the end of malapportionemt and expand into areas not represented in many decades but on all results the NSW Nats look further ahead, perhaps never having lost the equivalent areas in the first place.

Also a trend since that section was written has been a reversal of the rural/regional independents with the NSW, VIC and WA Nats all making gains from them at the last state elections.

Before having a go at rewriting this section it needs clear sources on the whole issue of the Nats' direction and future, proper presentation of election results not cherrypicking, and a better sense of whether the position referred to in a given state are at state or federal level. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

National Party of Australia leadership spill, 2007
Can someone look at bringing this orphan page in here or linking to it? Gbawden (talk) 13:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on National Party of Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110511151037/http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24343802-1245,00.html to http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24343802-1245,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 00:55, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on National Party of 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/20110723145257/http://apsa2000.anu.edu.au/confpapers/wear.rtf to http://apsa2000.anu.edu.au/confpapers/wear.rtf

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) 15:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used in this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The file on Wikimedia Commons has been nominated for speedy deletion. View the deletion reason at the. Community Tech bot (talk) 13:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

"Political role" section
This section seems to be a grab-bag of random anecdotes, most of which are out of date and unsourced. Should it just be axed entirely?


 * It's been in the article for a very long time and as a result was never vetted for references. Some of the info such as the role in Coalition governments, broad ideology and long term decline is pretty core to understanding the Nationals. But details about who said what about proposed mergers in the mid 2000s or hoisting up particular election results in individual states as endorsement of the internal debate on greater independence or stronger Coalition are just a mess. Timrollpickering 12:48, 6 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I think it's useful to have the section for the reasons Tim notes, but basically everything in there is a car crash. It really needs to be rewritten from scratch with actual sources and a broad focus rather than a grab-bag of whatever someone wanted to throw in that week a decade ago. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 13:09, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Infiltration by neo-Nazis
Does that need an entire section of its own here? My understanding is that those engaged in entryism were solely within the NSW Young Nationals (possibly in the "senior" party too, not sure?). I would think it would be more appropriate to mention it at National Party of Australia – NSW (currently no mention) or Young Nationals (Australia) (basically the exact same paragraph has been copy-pasted there). I would say a sentence at most would be best for this article to avoid undue weight/recentism. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 06:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * When you have a former leader initially comparing it to McCarthyism before retracting https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/nov/02/barnaby-joyce-sceptical-of-neo-nazi-infiltration-of-nsw-nationals I think it warrants more than one line. I agree at the moment it may not warrant its own section (that may come in time), but due to the seriousness of the events and the potential impact on the future of the party the article should contain the reactions of its leaders and senior members. (Playlet (talk) 12:21, 14 November 2018 (UTC))
 * The National Party is a coalition partner, they form part of our current NSW state government and the federal Nats form part of our federal government, if Neo-Nazi's had infiltrated the youth wing of any party it would be significant news, but the infiltration by Nazis of the youth wing of one of the governing parties is huge. If that only warrants a sentence then half the page should be deleted. Sure, maybe it doesn't need it's own section, but a paragraph including responses from leadership is more than warranted IMO. We've come a long way down the wrong road if Nazi's entering mainstream political parties barely rates a mention.Bacondrum (talk) 23:32, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * An entire section on this is ludicrous, given that we're talking about a party with an 100-year history. It may well warrant mentioning - but as a sentence or two somewhere appropriate. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 02:04, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I think we can all agree that it doesn't warrant a section, but it does warrant a few sentences. Yes, the history of the party is long, and I doubt a group of neo-Nazi's have never been so bold as to try and infiltrate the party before, it's noteworthy. Bacondrum (talk) 09:41, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS
Once again, people are adding great swathes of stuff that would be absolutely notable for a "National Party of Australia in 2018" article, but is wildly undue weight in an article covering an organisation with a 100-year history. Seriously - ask yourself "is this significant in the entire history of the National Party?" Joyce probably is worth mentioning, considering that he was party leader (though absolutely not in its own section) - but Broad absolutely isn't. There have been many National Party backbenchers and junior ministers who have gotten into controversies over the last 100 years and are not mentioned here - for good reason. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 00:09, 18 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Again, I'm not saying it isn't noteworthy, I'm saying it isn't noteworthy here. Much as I'm really, really enjoying following the scandal, this article covers the entire history of the National Party: you need to ask yourself "is this significant in the entire history of the National Party"? "Broad's affair has been leading every news story and been on every front page for days now" is true - and that makes it relevant in many places (the players, the government, various "...in 2018" articles), but many things the National Party and its MPs have done have had that effect in the last 100 years, and the only reason there's any enthusiasm for this particular one is because it happened this week. As I pointed out in an edit summary, even the cut-down proposed section has more text than the entirety of the Blunt, Fischer, Anderson, Vaile and Truss leaderships - that will always be a wild case of undue weight. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 01:06, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The Party leader and deputy PM and the Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister had to resign, come on. I may have given excessive detail, but nothing is stopping you from making a constructive edit. I repeat: the leader of the party/deputy PM of Australia and the Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister had to resign over these affairs. Bacondrum (talk) 01:29, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Adding details about the Joyce and Broad's affairs and Leadership resignations
I propose adding details about the affairs that took out the deputy PM and the Assistant Minister to the Deputy PM.

I totally understand if what I propose is too much detail, but surely to argue that these major headlining national scandals don't belong on the page at all would be WP:ABIAS, in that it's trying to gloss over or hide unfavorable events. Andrew Broad has had to resign from his position as Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister and has announced he wont contest his ultra safe seat of Mallee as a result of the affair leaving it open to a contest from the Libs and independents (the formerly safe state seat just went to Independent MP Ali Cupper), Joyce had to resign leadership of the party and Deputy Prime Ministership of Australia, no small thing by any measure. Surely that makes the affairs noteworthy. As I've stated, the affairs took out the deputy PM.

I propose adding something like this:

In 2018 the party leader, Barnaby Joyce and the Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister resigned after revelations that they had been engaged in extramarital affairs. The Nationals party typically campaigns on traditional family values, including opposing same sex marriage and opposing abortion.[1][2]

On 6 February 2018, reports emerged that the National Party leader and Deputy Prime Minster, Barnaby Joyce was expecting a child with his former communications staffer Vikki Campion. At the time Campion became pregnant Joyce was married to Natalie Joyce. Joyce resigned after revelation that he had been engaged an extramarital affair.[3]

In December 2018, New Idea reported that Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister, Andrew Broad had used a "seeking arrangements" website to meet a younger woman. At the time Broad was married to Rachel Mellings. On a dinner date with a woman nearly 20 years his junior Broad was reported to have boasted about being "important" in parliament, and that he knows how "to fuck my woman". Broad resigned from the ministry on 17 December as a result of the scandal.[4]

Bacondrum (talk) 01:25, 18 December 2018 (UTC)


 * They're headline news in 2018, but they're not headline news in the overall history of the party. As I said to you on your talk page, if Broad had been an MP and done what he did in 1968, we simply wouldn't be having this discussion - it just wouldn't be here. People have the habit of trying to add whatever the controversy of the day is (this being very far from the first), and it just isn't the place for it - it needs to be a really big scandal to warrant even mentioning when you're talking about significant over 100 years. Joyce's affair is notable because his affair ended his high-profile leadership, but it needs to be in the context of content on his actual leadership, not in a random "affairs" section down the bottom of the page centred entirely on things in 2018. (I removed the references from the above text - no one is denying it got a lot of media, and the references were making the talk page source text incomprehensible.) The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 01:37, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree, the party is on the ropes, these scandals will be remembered in the decades to come. As much as anyone remembers the history of the Nats, I mean the average punter might know the names of Fischer and Truss, but the likes of Blunt, Anderson and Vaile are hardly household names, if being talked about in 60 years is the measuring stick then half the page needs to be deleted. "it needs to be a really big scandal to warrant even mentioning" So, with a diminishing base and a real threat to the party's very existence the fact that they lost the leader/deputy PM and the Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister isn't "a really big scandal to warrant even mentioning"? I think it is by any measure. Bacondrum (talk) 01:59, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * As I said, losing the leader/deputy PM to a sex scandal absolutely warrants mentioning (just not in an "Affairs" section), but the Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister not so much. Junior Nationals ministers have resigned over all sorts of scandals over the last century and aren't mentioned here for good reason. The issue with the diminishing base and the threat to the party's existence would make a great part of a rewrite of the modern section, but that's a long-term issue that has far more to do with the rise of rural independents than 2018's sex scandals. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 02:10, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Alright, I can agree with that. I'll add a sentence about Joyce's affair and resignation. We'll drop Broad in the forgettable sex scandal bin. Might get to work on the diminishing base over the holidays. Cheers Bacondrum (talk) 02:22, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks good. We really need to rework the whole post-1988 section of the article: it's bizarre that we have more on state parties that are practically nonexistent than we do on the Nationals' participation in entire federal governments. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 02:34, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I was thinking exactly the same thing. the 2000's early 2010's seem to have fallen off. Bacondrum (talk) 02:50, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Post-1988
Following on from the above discussion - any ideas about the "Countrymindedness" section of the article? It doesn't really seem to fit where it is (it's philosophy, not history, and it's plonked in the mid-1970s part of the history) but it seems like it should go "somewhere". What about if we put it in the Political Role section (which has other stuff about ideology)?

This would mean we could much more easily organise the rest along chronological lines: perhaps with subheadings for, say, "Foundation-1945", "1945-1970", "1970-1995", "1995-present"? Doing a concise history here properly might help us to eventually break this out into a History of the National Party of Australia, which would give us room to include more details along the way. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 03:45, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with that. What about moving "country mindedness" to the "political role" section, as you've suggested...keeping the rest of the history as is and adding a section about the post aborted Bjelke Petersen federal tilt called "Declining Base (1988 - 2018)" or Party Decline (1988 - 2018) or something similar? I'm working on four or five paragraphs regarding election results through the 90's and 00's Bacondrum (talk) 05:25, 18 December 2018 (UTC) Also, have you been following the news, looks like Broady is working on being noteworthy...hehehe :D Mallee has gone from moving 2 kms a year for decades to 300kms an hour in a few months, first Crispy, then Broady. Bacondrum (talk) 05:25, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, the "countrymindedness" bit is done. I think we should be careful about editorialising about party decline: for instance, the NSW Nationals won the same number of state seats in 2015 that they did in 1971, and the Victorian Nationals only one less state seat in 2018 than they did in 1976. They certainly face new challenges, but that's better to get into in prose - I'd prefer to just divide with years for now. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 05:50, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The Drover&#39;s Wife I've given it a crack, still needs work, but I've got it going. Bacondrum (talk) 07:43, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately the new text was a pretty straightforward copyright violation - I checked several different places and they were either exactly or pretty close to a word for word copy of Antony Green's text. It was also very selective about the language used in the bits that weren't copied from Green: although the Nationals had both an increase in votes and seats at both the 1993 and 1996 elections, it claimed they had a decrease in "proportion of seats" (presumably in the Coalition, because in the parliament that would be wrong)? We don't need to editorialise and write like an opinion piece for readers to get the gist of this part of history. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 07:58, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "Unfortunately the new text was a pretty straightforward copyright violation - I checked several different places and they were either exactly or pretty close to a word for word copy of Antony Green's text." Not true, show me matching text and I'll re-write it."It was also very selective about the language used in the bits that weren't copied from Green: although the Nationals had both an increase in votes and seats at both the 1993 and 1996 elections, it claimed they had a decrease in "proportion of seats" (presumably in the Coalition, because in the parliament that would be wrong)? We don't need to editorialise and write like an opinion piece for readers to get the gist of this part of history." So re-word it? I don't think you act in good faith, your actions suggest you don't. Help edit, dont just revert, that's supposed to be reserved for non-constructive edits, not so you can sit there acting like the grand puba. Bacondrum (talk) 08:38, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You know what, do what you want, act like you own the page, this is BS. I'm done with it. Bacondrum (talk) 08:58, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

- I had a go at reworking things based on your last edit, and I feel like we're getting somewhere. How would you feel about shifting some of this analysis somewhere else, perhaps into the "political role" section? It's absolutely important, but I'm struggling to integrate some of this long-term analysis in with the history section - I'm wondering if we couldn't fit a good explanation of their overall decline somewhere else. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 09:08, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That's great, you've done a great job, you're a much better writer than I am...look what can be done when you stop reverting and actually contribute constructively. Have a good one. Bacondrum (talk) 21:01, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Centre-right label
How are the Nationals called "centre-right" when they are described as combining "social conservatism with agrarian socialist economic policies"? Zilch-nada (talk) 16:25, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * They aren't centre right. They are right wing.  They didn't support same-sex marriage, they don't support action on climate change and they don't support the Voice to Parliament. - Shiftchange (talk) 04:27, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Would "centre-right to right-wing" be a more accurate label then? GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 21:41, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a classic example of a party that doesn't fit the simplistic and archaic concept of a linear left-right spectrum. The Greens are another such party. It's why I oppose such simplistic labels being used at all. Our job is to describe their policies and actions, not to synthesise a misleading label. I propose having no label at all. HiLo48 (talk) 22:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Political Position
The National Party should be listed as Centre-right to Right-wing given it is well known that it is more right-wing overall than the Liberal Party which is listed Centre-right to Right-wing as there were sources and consensus based on a strong right-wing control and overseas equivalent like Conservative Party (UK) and Conservative Party of Canada. Mhaot (talk) 02:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)