>Protectionism in economic sense are measures that inhibit international trade. Tariffs, selective subsidies and too restrictive immigration policies are good examples. Maybe in Australia they use the word differently

I'm not sure which part of the Australian politics I've described doesn't fit your definition of what protectionism is.

I've certainly gone into great length about restrictive immigration policies: in fact, one of the first pieces of legislation of the Barton government was the 1901 Immigration Restriction Act,[0] the passage of which was a condition of Labor's guarantee of confidence and supply for the minority Protectionist government.

The 1901 election itself[1] was straight from the textbooks: Protectionist vs. Free Trade vs. Labor. Protectionism (Protectionists and Labor) won that election, both in terms of seats and popular vote. You couldn't get a more literal election than that.

As for tariffs and selective subsidies, Australia has that too.[2][3][4]

>The function of unions is decidedly NOT to “protect the labour market”, but to provide organised market power to a group of labourers. A union fulfils its function even if it secures jobs for its members at the cost of say workers of another trade or those who are not unionised. Hence a union can satisfy its members but reduce the overall employment.

You're presuming a fragmented union ecosystem, which isn't quite the reality in Australia. The Labor party was founded as the political arm of the unions; this shows a high enough degree of co-ordination amongst the unions at the very least.

And once you have a party in parliament, you get the power to influence policy-making in such a way as to protect the labour market. A single union may only be able to protect its own members, but a well-coordinated group of unions is well-positioned to protect the entire labour market itself. Labor did that in spades in the early days of federation, and still does to this day.

>At first you claim that the 90s boom was due to protectionist policies. Now you claim that it’s because of personal computers. Which one is it then?

I did not. You wrote:

>>yet the productivity growth in the 1990s was followed by Labour winning majority in the parliament. What am I missing?

I pointed out that you missed the fact that Labor was in power from 1983 to 1996.

I then made the facetious statement that perhaps it was Labor's fault that the 90s boom happened: this was a joke because, clearly, nobody blames a party for a good economy.

I then went on to suggest that the productivity growth may perhaps be more reasonably attributed to the proliferation of PCs, and the attendant automation. There are other plausible factors for the boom: the economic rise of China must surely have been one.

In any case, it's simply not true that the 90s boom was due to protectionist policies. Labor during the Hawke-Keating years was uncharacteristically enthusiastic about reforms, and I think the success of their policies may have inspired the Third Way of Blairite Labour.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Restriction_Act_19...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1901_Australian_federal_electi...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_tariffs_in_Australi...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_import#Australia

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia_Tax