Editorial.

Shields, John

Last November, after considerable deliberation, the journal's Editorial Board approved a series of amendments to its Editorial Policy, last reviewed in 2004. This issue is the first to carry the text of the revised policy and you can find it on the journal's inside back cover. As you will see, the statement identifies a number of themes on which contributions are especially welcome. The list is neither exhaustive nor exclusive; the nominated themes are broad and indicative; the intent is not to construct artificial boundary conditions but, rather, to signal what we see as themes of central importance within the field.

The statement also articulates two key principles--both fundamentally important to this journal's raison d'etre. Firstly, it reaffirms the journal's founding commitment to applying historical knowledge to contemporary intellectual, social and political purpose. This is a journal seized of the view that historical inquiry, conversation and debate should have a reach far beyond the academy; that is to say, we believe that if inquiry is confined to the realms of either arcane antiquarianism or academic point-scoring, then it has no prospect of social agency or influence. While recognising the dominant discourse of research excellence, we choose to apply a construction of journal 'impact' that is far broader than the metrics of 'impact factors'. But this is not to gainsay the worth of historical scholarship of the highest conceptual and empirical standard--and this brings me to the second of the two key principles enunciated in the new editorial statement:

   Labour History is committed to publishing high quality
   peer-reviewed scholarship in Australasian labour history and
   international labour history with a comparative bent including
   Australasia and/or the Asia-Pacific region. We also welcome
   scholarship in labour-related aspects of Australasian and
   comparative social history. Our preference is for scholarship which
   applies historical methods and historically-informed concepts and
   perspectives to advance knowledge within these cognate fields of
   inquiry.

In essence, the aim here is to encourage our authors to engage explicitly with relevant extant literature, to relate evidence to findings reported in prior local and international research, to consider the worth of comparative method to their field of inquiry, and to show how their work is informed by, and informs, current conceptual and theoretical concerns. Most importantly, though, we wish to encourage our authors to reflect on and explain how their work might feed into current struggles and policy debates. In this sense, an equally apposite subtitle for Labour History might be 'a journal of committed historical inquiry'.

The 12 contributions in this issue exemplify the twin principles of contemporary purpose and high-quality scholarship. The issue also continues the journal's well-established tradition of combining a collection of contributions dedicated to a special theme--in this case the rise and record of the federal Fisher Labor government (1910-1913)--with articles on an array of topics.

The eight papers in the thematic section, guest-edited by Mark Hearn, Nick Dyrenfurth and Harry Knowles, do much to rescue the second Fisher-led Labor government--the first social democratic government elected in its own right anywhere in the world--from the relative neglect of labour historians. They serve to remind us both of the significance of Labor's electoral achievement in April 1910 and of the importance of its ambitious legislative program. Along the way, the contributors also offer a number of refreshingly revisionist interpretations of the government's ideological and social intent.

The opening piece, by Hearn and Dyrenfurth, provides vital backdrop, firstly, by locating the Fisher government's pioneering electoral and legislative achievements in a global context and, secondly, by examining federal Labor's emergence as a politically dominant force from the fluid alliances and ideological terrain that characterised Australian party politics in the decade following Federation. Dyrenfurth's own paper applies a culturalist interpretation to Labor's post-Federation mobilisation, arguing that much of the Party's electoral success in 1910 is attributable to 'the distinctive language, iconography and narrative tools wielded by early 'Laborites'--or what pundits today might refer to, many with a degree of disillusion, as the Labor 'brand'. Building on this, Hearn's sole-authored piece examines how the forces of fin de siecle modernity framed Labor's interventions in the public sphere, including its attempts to control trusts and combines, and how, in turn, the same forces were co-opted by capital in a manner that forced Fisher Labor into adaption and compromise.

Against this backdrop, the next four papers explore aspects of Fisher's influence on the 'Australian Settlement'. Marilyn Lake provides a robustly revisionist interpretation of the Fisher government's 1912 maternity allowance initiative. Challenging the white racist interpretation associated with the term 'baby bonus', Lake argues that the initiative should be seen as inherently radical; as a socially progressive response to women's new found political power following enfranchisement at the federal level in 1902 and the rise of women's activism within the labour movement. In a similar vein--and picking up one of Hearn's opening themes--Marian Sawer applies a gendered comparative lens to reinterpret Fisher's social policy initiatives against the backdrop of comparable developments under liberal-progressive administrations in the United Kingdom and New Zealand. Sawer argues that Fisher's approach to progressive taxation, aged pensions and women's rights reflected a process of historically-specific international 'policy transfer' in which governments in all three countries drew on a common fund of social research and progressivist policy discourse, and fed off each other's initiatives. Likewise, Ian Tregenza's contribution seeks to locate Fisher's reform agenda and its approach to statist solutions in the context of the New Liberalism of the period, arguing that Fisher's initiatives and attempts to reconcile class antagonisms were 'at one' with the earlier initiative of the Deakinite liberals. In a further application of comparative method, Alan Fenna juxtaposes policy developments in Australia, New Zealand, the United States and Canada, arguing that Fisher's initiatives were more the rule than the exception. Developmentalism, protectionism, and racial exclusion were common policy positions in all four countries. According to Fenna, it was only with respect to arbitration and aged pensions that Australia and New Zealand stood apart--a fact that Fenna attributes to their 'unusually strong labour movements'.

Ray Markey's insightful anchor piece to the thematic section affirms the importance of recognising both the full significance of the Fisher government's victory and the major contribution of its progressivist impulse to extending the Australian Settlement during the second Fisher government's three years in office. It might be added here that the success of this thematic opens the way for future centennial thematics on the transformation of the Labor Party and the broader labour movement in Australia during World War 1, including the travails of the short-lived third Fisher government and the consequent disintegration of federal Labor under Billy Hughes in 1916-17.

Although varying markedly in topic and temporal focus, the four articles in the non-thematic section also offer insights grounded in scholarship of the highest standard. The sharp-eyed reader will also detect resonances with the thematic papers, particularly regarding Labor politics and public policy matters. Michael Quinlan's study of pre-unionate shipboard protests over health and safety in Australian waters during the colonial era makes masterful use of newspaper reports to document both quantitatively and qualitatively the widespread nature of collective protests by ships' crews. Quinlan argues convincingly that examining both informal and formal organisation, protest and resistance offers a more rounded understanding of worker mobilisation during the colonial period. Those who suggest that labour historians have shied away from examining employment-related violence would do well to familiarise themselves with this fine piece. The theme of worker resistance also features in Dustin Halse's study of the evolution of political, legislative and regulatory attempts by successive Victorian government to coerce and demean public service employees in the first six decades of 'responsible government'. Ashley Lavelle returns to the lists with a provocative study of the ALP's policy volte-face on uranium mining in the early 1980s. Again, there are resonances here of Hearn's point about the Fisher government's ambiguous and ambivalent engagement with the forces of modernity and globalisation 70 years earlier. Finally, Katherine Ravenswood and Ann-Marie Kennedy's account of the factors shaping the development of legislative provision for parental leave in New Zealand, and particularly the introduction of paid parental leave in 2002, is both highly informative and instructive in demonstrating the value of viewing public policy phenomena through an historical lens. Here, too, there are resonances with the content of the thematic section, particularly Lake's treatment of the Fisher maternity allowance.

So, welcome to issue number 102. I do hope that these fine articles and the book reviews that follow prove to be of value to you in enhancing your understanding of the historical experience and agency of labour movements and those who labour. Equally, I hope that you will find the issue's contents useful in informing your advocacy and practice.

By way of conclusion, let me express my gratitude to those on whom the journal's survival and success depends. Labour History continues to receive funding from The University of Sydney Business School; funding that helps underwrite the journal's daily operations and is given without any expectation other than that of scholarly integrity and quality. I am grateful to my colleagues for their continued support for the journal, support that dates back to 1986. In essence, though, every issue of Labour History is a collective effort underpinned by unpaid and underpaid labour. By international standards the journal operates on a shoestring budget and our fee levels are set well below the real cost of journal production. Perforce, then, the journal depends for its existence on labour time and expertise given freely and cheerfully my many different supporters: the office staff, Carl and Yasmin, who work diligently and patiently to keep the journal going and for far less pay than their work warrants; the members of the Editorial Working Party, who give freely of their time each month to perform a vital gatekeeping role; the members of our Editorial Board, who provide guidance and good governance; our priceless referees, whose painstaking work is anonymous and hence unsung, but utterly invaluable; our book review team, Julie, Phillip and Stuart, who work miracles every issue to keep reviewers focused and have review copy at the ready; our readers, without whom there would be no purpose worth pursuing; our authors, without whom there would be nothing worth publishing; and our critics, who keep us honest and motivated. To one and all--this is your journal and this journal is you.