Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

A caucus of Carmens?

By Jeremy Gilling, John Muscat and Rolly Smallacombe - posted Thursday, 18 May 2006


It may be heresy to say so, but without these officials and their allies in the federal and state caucuses, the party would lose a moderating influence that keeps it competitive in the crucial centre ground of politics, where elections are won and lost. Despite their faults, the Labor-affiliated unions remain the sole voice for routine workers in the higher councils of the party.

A diabolical dilemma

On the other hand, there is also truth in the claim that for the growing proportion of the electorate, including most routine workers, who have no interest in joining a union, Labor’s economic management credentials are compromised by the party’s organisational ties to the union movement. While routine workers (properly defined) represent at least 70 per cent of the workforce, only 23 per cent of all workers belong to a union today (and only 17 per cent in the private sector). So this is the diabolical dilemma facing Labor: transfer power to the branches and lose the centre ground, perhaps for decades; or retain the same union ties and struggle to win acceptance as an economic manager.

Is there a solution to this problem, or is Latham right after all? Unfortunately, there is no easy solution in sight, at least no solution that is readily acceptable to the powerbrokers. Such resistance is usually dismissed as a reluctance to surrender the levers of power, but there is also a more legitimate disincentive to internal reform. Focusing on internal matters simply nobbles the Opposition in its contest with the government, risking an even more damaging loss at the next election. That is why internal reform should only be tackled at the start of a parliamentary term; it is now too late in the electoral cycle to embark on the turmoil of organisational change.

Advertisement

For the long-term health of the party, however, key party leaders should seriously investigate a reform agenda to be released for discussion as soon as possible after the next federal election, whether Labor wins or not (realistically though, calls for party reform will evaporate in the event of a victory).

The challenge, of course, is how to align party structures with the great mass of routine workers. To some extent, this overlaps with an effort to align the party organisation with current and potential ALP voters, not just ALP members. Of all the proposals canvassed since the last election, the only reform likely to achieve such a readjustment is a bold option - something like a US-style primary process.

Joel Fitzgibbon and Barry Cohen have both recently floated this idea in the media. It may well be the best way to place Labor’s relationship with the union movement on a better footing while preventing a repeat of the 1960s and 1970s, when many branches were hijacked by middle-class activists.

As an item for discussion, we propose something analogous to the process followed in the US state of Iowa, the so-called “Iowa caucuses”. Branch members in each electoral division would invite the public to an open forum where candidates for preselection would be discussed and debated (of course, only ALP members would be entitled to nominate as candidates). At the conclusion of discussions all present would be eligible to vote, as long as they are registered on the electoral roll and are not members of a rival political party.

The process could be extended to selecting a proportion of delegates to state and national conference (again, only ALP members would be eligible to stand). The balance of delegates would continue to be nominated by affiliated unions. This system should at least produce candidates and delegates who are more in tune with the socio-economic priorities of the local population. As Cohen suggests, the process would be run by the Australian Electoral Commission, and Fitzgibbon’s idea that union members be allocated a more heavily weighted vote has merit.

When the Australia Institute’s Clive Hamilton argues, in the latest Quarterly Essay, that Labour “has served its historical purpose and will wither and die as [a] progressive force”, he is right. By no means, however, does that mean the party will wither and die as a popular force. It means Labor must now return to its true mission - fighting for the working men and women of Australia.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All

This editorial was first published in The New City in April 2006.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

12 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Authors

Jeremy Gilling is a co-editor, along with John Muscat, of The New City, a web journal of urban and political affairs.

John Muscat is a co-editor, along with Jeremy Gilling, of The New City, a web journal of urban and political affairs.

Rolly Smallacombe is a co-editor, along with Jeremy Gilling and John Muscat, of The New City, a web journal of urban and political affairs.

Other articles by these Authors

All articles by Jeremy Gilling
All articles by John Muscat
All articles by Rolly Smallacombe

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 12 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy