The campaign for Labor Party democracy continues

Yesterday afternoon, the ALP National Executive met and imposed new rules onto NSW Labor. These changes come just before the month long intervention into the NSW branch ends.

The key changes to NSW Labor are:
· The scrapping of the Disputes and Credentials committees, and their replacement with an independent committee. The new five member Internal Appeals Tribunal will be selected by a three-quarters vote of the Administrative Committee.
· The Review Tribunal now being an independent five member panel, also selected by a three-quarters vote of the Administrative Committee.
· A new Administrative Committee, with two ballots to be conducted at Conference: one to elect union members, and one to elect an equal number of rank and file members of the Administrative Committee.
· Rules to support zero tolerance of corruption.
· Banning property developers from standing as Labor candidates.

As I have previously stated, while these changes are an improvement, it is not the fundamental change that NSW Labor requires. It fixes some procedural issues but it does not change the balance of power, nor make internal elections more competitive or democratic.

Most importantly, there will be no direct elections to the Administrative Committee. The separation into rank-and-file and trade union does not democratise the election of Administrative Committee. It will still be elected by Conference and rank-and-file is likely to mean staffers, former staffers, MPs or former MPs or other political professionals who do not work for a union.

Unsurprisingly, the Left has vowed to campaign for the direct election of rank-and-file members of the Administrative Committee. Without direct election, a “rank-and-file” component is meaningless.

A call for a plebiscite of all members may be worth pushing as part of a broader campaign on party reform. Tony Sheldon has already called for a plebiscite of members regarding direct election of the leader so why not ask all rank-and-file members about broader party reform? NSW Labor has already invested in online voting systems for the Policy Forum and community preselections which could be used to allow members to express their views on options for party reform.

NSW would not be alone in trying to gauge members’ views through a plebiscite. At today’s ACT Labor Conference, it was announced that party reform would go to a plebiscite of members next year.

Whatever happens, it is clear that the campaign for party democracy in New South Wales is far from over and must continue.

ELSEWHERE: Luke Whitington has a ten point reform plan for the NSW ALP

Left takes the lead on Australian Young Labor Reform

One area in desperate need of reform that does not receive enough attention is Young Labor. I have previously written about the need to reform Young Labor. It operates in a way that is detrimental to our movement and shapes a toxic, machine driven culture within the Labor Party. It has been treated as a sandbox for far too long and been ignored when party reform is discussed.

Positively, the National Young Labor Left is showing signs that it wants to take a national Young Labor reform agenda seriously and have recently published a discussion paper on how to reform Australian Young Labor.

Proposals include direct election of all positions through a One Member One Vote (OMOV) postal ballot, consistent eligibility across the country, autonomous elections of Women’s Officer and other positions, reforming the structure of Australian Young Labor conference and making Young Labor a more independent entity.

There are some healthy Young Labor branches. It is no surprise that healthier branches such as Tasmania have used OMOV for a considerable time. Others that have recently adopted it such as Queensland have seen higher turnout, attempts to engage non-aligned members and a more proportional outcome.

Victoria has also attempted to reform Young Labor, the move to reform it only failing because there was no absolutely majority at the last Victorian Conference due to SDA opposition.

NSW Young Labor unfortunately appears to be the major hold out. It is absurd that members are able to directly elect the ALP National President (and soon the party leader) but not the NSW Young Labor President or the rest of the NSW Young Labor Executive. They continue to be elected through a Conference modelled on ALP Conferences based on equal branch delegates and affiliated unions, something no other Young Labor branch does. It is effectively a rigged system (established after the NSW Right takeover in the early 90s) that removes possibility of the Right losing power.

It is a good sign that Victoria and Queensland, states where the Left does not have a majority, have accepted the need for Young Labor reform. New South Wales and the national body will not be able to hold out from the tide of OMOV forever. The sooner that OMOV and reform is accepted, the better for Young Labor and the ALP more broadly.

Labor embraces the direct election of leader

Kevin Rudd appears to be on a party reform kick. Last week, he announced an intervention into the NSW branch and today he announced the direct election of party leader.

I’m actually surprised that it happened this quickly. I did not expect it until after the Federal Election and thought it would be protracted change happening state by state. Rudd has taken advantage of the situation to force it through, like many other reforms that are likely to be announced over the coming month.

I have previously written about the clause in the National Constitution that only allows the caucus the power to elect of the leader and the Ministry. It appears that Rudd will attempt to change the Parliamentary Labor Party rules to allow the direct election of leader.

A two section election college where 50% of the vote would be from the Parliamentary Labor Party and 50% from rank-and-file members was announced. This model was previously proposed by Chris Bowen.

The election of parliamentary party leader could be called after the resignation of the leader, at the request of the leader, or if 75% of caucus members signed a petition calling for an election ”on the grounds that the current leader has brought the party into disrepute”.

A better model

I do not deny that the 50/50 model is an improvement on the current process, however, it is not the model that I personally support. The 50/50 model is in contrast to the three section electoral college in operation in New Zealand and the United Kingdom (and adopted in Tasmania).

A three section model is better because it acknowledges that the party is a partnership between rank-and-file members and affiliated unions. Leaders must have the support from the different wings of the party. It also makes a leadership contest less inward looking and more representative as candidates need to appeal to members of the wider community who are outside the party but share our values. The exclusion of affiliated unions raises broader questions about their role within the party.

I also disagree with the eligibility to vote being the same eligibility to vote for the ALP National President which is over two years of membership. Members should be given a vote as soon as they join. Ideally, after an election loss where leaders tend to resign, a contest should be announced and those who join before a cut off date should get the right to vote in the leadership election. 45,000 joined the Canadian NDP and 32,000 joined British Labour because they could join and vote after an election was announced. Imagine how many may join here.

What else will Rudd be announcing?

I would not be surprised if a broader set of reforms will be announced over the coming week. My guess is that some recommendations from the National Review will be adopted, an attempt will be made to reduce the influence of affiliated unions and that primaries will be adopted.

I am also guessing that Treasurer Chris Bowen will play a significant role in shaping many of these changes, particularly given his 50/50 model was adopted by Rudd. His new book Heart and Minds does not come out until next week but would be worth reading to get a sense of what else might be pushed.

Regardless of the election result, one thing can be guaranteed, the Australian Labor Party will not be the same party that it was three years ago.

How will we know if primaries work?

Every day the list of ALP figures advocating “community preselections” aka primaries seems to be growing. Today, former Victorian Secretary Nick Reece became the latest to publicly urge community primaries as part of party reform.

I have previously written about my concerns about community preselections and those who have spoken to me know I do not believe that Labor should institute primaries for the sake of it.

Considering how resource intensive primaries are (and the limited resources that exist for party organising), it is essential that the success of community primaries can be measured. The lack of discussion as to what those measurable outcomes are, beyond greater numbers of people participating, concerns me.

Isn’t greater participation a good thing?

Turnout is not a good measure of success for community primaries. It is inevitable that primaries will have more far people involved when barriers to participation are low. The involvement of 5,000 residents out of 100,000 enrolled voters in the City of Sydney community preselection seems like a lot until you learn that all electors were mailed about the primary and realise that student elections, at the University of Sydney for example, get a few thousand voters out of approximately 33,000 undergraduate students.

What outcomes should primaries be measured against?

In my view, the success of community primaries for Labor should be measured using three tangible outcomes:

1. increased party membership;
2. increased primary votes; and
3. increased number of volunteers involved in a campaign.

It is unclear if any of these outcomes were met because of the City of Sydney community preselection trial. To my knowledge, there has been no assessment of whether the trial met any of these outcomes.

What are other outcomes of primaries?

If none of these outcomes were met, the question must be asked: why are we adopting primaries? It only leaves three other plausible reasons:

1. Voter self-identification;
2. Greater transparency and openness; and
3. A wider variety of candidates preselected.

Voter identification was flagged as a reason for adopting a primary model for electing the NSW State Parliamentary Leader in NSW Young Labor’s submission to the party commission on direct election of leader.

Greater transparency and openness was raised by City of Sydney councillor Linda Scott during a session at the SEARCH Foundation’s Left Renewal Conference. This is understandable given NSW Labor’s current public standing and the scandals being investigated by ICAC.

The shrinking pool from which candidates are preselected has been widely discussed for the past decade and continues to be an issue across all parties. Recently, Tim Soutphommasane suggested that primaries may be one way of ensuring our parliamentary representatives are more diverse and representative.

Will primaries achieve these other outcomes?

It is unclear if a community preselection would achieve these other outcomes. There are also questions about whether a primary is a good use of scarce resources.

At 43 cents per letter for pre-sorted mail with approximately 100,000 enrolled residents in the City of Sydney, it would have been a considerable expense to mail every person enrolled in the City of Sydney to inform them about the primary. An online portal to allow electronic voting and polling booths to vote in person were also established, adding to the cost. For that same amount spent on a primary, it is likely you could hire a call centre to do voter ID work and identify an equivalent number of people.

There is a need for greater transparency and openness to regain public confidence but it is difficult for that to be measured other than by an improved electoral outcome.

Ensuring a diverse and representative range of preselected candidates is important but it is unclear whether community preselections would do that. A successful candidate would still need to have strong links in the local branches and be able to cobble together a campaign machine pretty quickly. The resources and time required would limit a realistic chance to be preselected to those who have been active party members for a considerable period of time and/or political professionals.

I am open to a discussion about community preselections but will remain sceptical until these concerns about scarce resources and measurable outcomes are addressed. Avoiding these issues will do the Australian Labor Party no favours in the long-run.

NSW Labor takes babysteps towards reform

Yesterday, for the first time since 1970, the ALP National Executive intervened into the NSW Branch of the ALP. The intervention will dismiss the Administrative Committee, place the branch under administration for 30 days and allow the branch rules to be rewritten.

Personally I’m surprised that the intervention into the NSW ALP has happened this quickly. Most assumed it was going to happen after the Federal Election. The return of Rudd and the possibility of victory may have hastened it.

There is no denying that the NSW ALP is electorally toxic and needs fundamental change. What is needed is a Clause IV moment. The reforms announced, however, are not the revolutionary change that is required but rather babysteps towards genuine reform.

What are the reforms?

Five reforms have been announced so far. They are:

1. A zero tolerance approach to corruption, allowing the Party to immediately expel those found guilty of corrupt conduct;
2. A ban on property developers from becoming Labor Candidates;
3. The introduction of judicial oversight on internal Party matters;
4. Ensure the Administrative Committee is made up of 50% rank-and-file Labor members; and
5. The establishment of a Charter of Rights and Responsibilities.

Do the reforms go far enough? The quick answer is no.

The first two “reforms” are primarily aimed at perceptions about the tolerance of corruption within the party and how cozy NSW Labor has been with developers.

The third reform will abolish the Disputes and Credentials committees and replace them with an Independent Appeals Tribunal chaired by a retired judge. While it may affect some outcomes and address concerns about “fairness”, it will not tilt the internal balance of power within the party.

The fourth reform is less clearcut. It appears to mean that 50% of Administrative Committee must not be union officials. It is likely to mean more staffers, councillors or former MPs on Administrative Committee rather than genuine rank-and-file representatives. What is really needed is direct election of Administrative Committee members by rank-and-file members.

It is worth noting that most of these reforms were proposed by Senator John Faulkner late last year:

All machinery committees in the NSW Branch should be abolished. They should be replaced with a NSW ALP Appeals Tribunal comprised of eminent, ethical people, independent of the factions, to be the arbiter on internal party disputes.

Such an approach was recommended nationally in the Hawke/Wran Review in 2001, but was watered down by the factions. The existing National Appeals Tribunal is weak and poorly resourced, and ultimately only makes “recommendations” to the National Executive, which is then able to make a final decision on a factional basis.

I propose a NSW ALP Appeals Tribunal of, say, 5 members, chaired by a retired judge, who hear cases as individual members determined by lot, with an appeal right to the “full bench” of the Tribunal if required. After that process has concluded I would favour no right of appeal to the Annual Conference – with decisions only open to review by the courts.

Thirdly, the NSW Branch must establish a “one strike and you’re out” policy for any Labor Party member found guilty of acting corruptly either within or without the party. A culture has developed in the NSW Branch where, for some, being caught out at sharp practices is worn almost as a badge of honour. Our party would be immeasurably better off without such people.

Senator Faulkner also called for a Charter of Rights for members which was the fifth reform:

Fifthly, we must develop a Charter of Rights for members to ensure the integrity of the workings of the ALP. The charter should include:
A clear statement the Rules are binding on all party members

• Members have a right to equality before the Rules
• Members have a right to be heard
• Members have a right to stand for office
• Members have a right to seek redress of grievance before the NSW ALP Appeals Tribunal
• Members have a right to be respected by the leadership, elected parliamentarians and Party officials

But aren’t these reforms a good thing?

There is no denying the reforms are a good first step. Fairer processes will help clean up the NSW ALP. What it does not do is challenge the main barriers to cultural change.

The way to change NSW Labor’s corrupt, factionally driven, machine culture is by changing the internal balance of power through greater party democracy and competitive internal elections. The NSW ALP needs democratisation that makes it possible to end of the Right’s absolute majority on Administrative Committee and on Conference floor. Until the Right loses its guaranteed absolute majorities, change will not occur.

It is telling that the two reforms Senator Faulkner proposed that were not included (he proposed seven) were the banning of factional binding and rank-and-file preselection of the Upper House and Senate tickets. These two reforms would have the greatest impact on the balance of power within the party and help break the culture of wheeling and dealing.

Battle for control of the NSW Right

While I agree with Alex Mitchell that the intent of this announcement is to create a perception that Rudd is taking on the NSW ALP and to inoculate him from it, there is something being missed in all the analysis of why this has occurred.

What has been missed is that this appears to be a deal done with the pro-reform part of the NSW Labor Right (Centre Unity) at the expense of more conservative anti-reform elements within their faction. The General Secretary is still in charge and has been given free rein to change the party.

The NSW Labor Right is split on reform. There are some such as the General Secretary and Leader of the Opposition who support reform such as the direct election of leader. They understand NSW Labor must reform or will perpetually be in Opposition. They understand that they can reform on their own terms or have it forced on them. There are others within the Right who oppose reform, though they are far less publicly vocal.

What the intervention does is sideline anti-reform opponents within Centre Unity faction. The General Secretary will not have to negotiate with them to get the changes he wants. It is his way of stamping his authority on his faction. It is also a way of preventing more holistic reform but conceding enough to prevent the control the Right has over the NSW being threatened.

What next?

While the NSW ALP Left has welcomed these changes, it has been clear that it will make a concerted push for more reforms. NSW ALP Assistant Secretary John Graham has been forthright in saying that more democratic reforms are necessary.

There is no denying these reforms are an improvement but it does not go far enough. Party members can only hope that more democratic reforms announced while the NSW Branch is in administration. Only time will tell if the NSW ALP will truly be democratised.

ELSEWHERE: Luke Whitington argues reform must be about growth, inclusion and democratic accountability.

UPDATE: I have been informed that contrary to media reports, the Administrative Committee has not been dissolved.