by admin

Queensland might show Labor the limitations of a small target strategy

After the shock defeat of the Queensland Government over the weekend, there is a growing sense that the Liberals could lose the next federal election and that Bill Shorten may become Prime Minister.

While the overwhelming focus has been on what the Queensland election means for the Coalition, the implications of Queensland Labor winning with a risk-adverse, small target approach will be just as important for the ALP.

Queensland Labor ran a small target campaign, focusing on dissatisfaction with the Newman Government. Labor opposed their cuts to the public sector and asset sales and emphasised cost of living pressures. Rather than outlining a big-picture vision and detailed policies, new policy announcements were rather modest. The small target strategy got Labor across the line but it remains unclear what the implications of this strategy will be for Labor in government, particularly if it needs to propose anything contentious in its first Budget. It may act as a political straight jacket and limit what Labor is able to do.

It will be worth keeping an eye on how Queensland Labor does over the next year as it may show the political limits of a small target strategy in government and be a warning for federal Labor.

by admin

Labor and the Greens

The recent Victorian election has been seen as a historic breakthrough for the Greens in the Lower House, winning two seats. The Greens now hold Lower House seats in five out of nine jurisdictions and have held a Lower House seat in every jurisdiction bar the Northern Territory.

The upcoming New South Wales election will be another big test. Will they hold Balmain and win Newtown? It seems quite possible that they will continue to hold at least one Lower House seat and will increase their Upper House representation to six.

While unlikely that the Greens’ vote will come close to the Labor Party any time soon, Labor supporters must realise that they are not going away. Though their vote has not significantly increased since 2010, their vote is likely to stay around 10% and the concentration of their vote inner city areas has strengthened (on the back of heavily resourced campaigns). They also have not had the baggage associated with government at a state level in NSW or Victoria. In Victoria, any unpopular decisions by the new Labor Government may mean further seat losses at the next election.

The question is how to manage this divided centre-left bloc of voters. Labor and the Greens see one another as competitors, fighting over the same votes, particularly in the inner city. The nature of our electoral system combined with compulsory voting tends to mean that it is a zero sum game. However, not all Labor or Greens voters would prefer the other party. It is worth remembering that at least 10-15% of those who vote Green wouldn’t vote Labor which can be important in close contests (as shown in Prahran). In a sense though, they both need each other.

With Labor’s declining primary vote, they are increasingly reliant on preferences from parties like the Greens and the more outlandish ideas from the Greens also allow Labor to position itself as far more moderate and centrist. The Greens, on the other hand, rely on Labor being in Government to achieve reforms and to chip away at their vote to build their own.

Some suggest that they should work together more often as greens & social democrats do in Europe, however the experience has been that both Labor and the Greens take a hit when they are in coalition or have a formal agreement. Results in Tasmania, the ACT and the federal sphere all have shown this. Each sees more to gain electorally in going alone.

Overseas, social democrats have accommodated green parties. Both Sweden & France have red-green governments, as do many states in Germany. However in Australia, the Greens are treated more like the post-Communist parties than the green parties of Europe. For example, critics of the German Greens have described them as “neoliberals on bikes” and many segments of the radical Left perceive them to be a bunch of eco-capitalists. While there are radical left critics of the Greens, this critique is far less widespread. The lack of a “Left Party” with the Greens taking on that role of a Left oppositional party (especially in NSW) is a partial explanation.

A regular formal alliance of Labor and the Greens is unlikely in the short-term, unless necessary in parliament, but the two different experiences of Labor-Green Governments in Tasmania and the ACT illustrate the conditions needed for constructive co-operation. Shaun Crowe has highlighted that resource extraction and social issues as the two big divisions. The lack of industries such as mining and forestry as well as the socially progressive nature of Labor (across Left and Right) has meant that clashes between Labor and the Greens have been relatively minor in the ACT. It makes the ACT an exception rather than the rule.

The reality is that a competitive relationship is likely to continue, encouraged by our electoral system, with any co-operation at a parliamentary level on an issue by issue basis. While Labor should treat the Greens as an electoral competitor, it needs to rethink how it reacts to them. The antagonistic way that Labor treats the Greens won’t help Labor in the long-run. Attacks on the Greens as small l-liberals in disguise, NIMBYs or “watermelons” may dissuade a few voters from the Greens and make Labor supporters feel better but for many these critiques do not resonate and in the longer run will alienate many more. Victorian Labor MP Kelvin Thomson was right when he said:

…our attacks on to the Greens is short-sighted and counter-productive. It dismays our supporters and delights our opponents. It elevates the Greens to equal billing with us.

Rather than continue with its current strategy for dealing with the Greens, it might be good for Labor supporters to heed Thomson’s advice that:

…if we seriously, genuinely, want to…return to a time when we didn’t need to talk about the Greens at all, much less talk about them as an existential threat, then we have to be tough enough to wear a certain amount of childish name-calling from our political opponents, and humble enough to give the voters what they want.

by admin

NSW Labor’s leadership contest

The resignation of John Robertson months before the state election has thrown a spanner into the works for NSW Labor. Few expect Labor to win in March and even fewer expected Robertson to continue as leader post-election but a 2PP swing of 10% and the return of 15 seats seemed likely. Labor would have new MPs, elect a new leader and be competitive for 2019. All that is now up in the air.

While NSW Labor now directly elects its party leader, the new rules adopted ensured that it would only occur after the 2015 election and if there was more than six months until a state election. This Caucus only ballot will occur on January 5. Until the ballot, Deputy Leader Linda Burney will be the Acting Leader of the Opposition.

To date, two contenders have declared their candidacy: Michael Daley and Steve Whan. Both are from the Right and have been touted as potential leaders in the past. Linda Burney has also been suggested as a candidate. The main contender who has not declared his candidacy yet is Upper House leader Luke Foley.

The main barriers to Luke Foley becoming the leader have been the lack of a Lower House seat and his membership of the Left. With Robertson’s resignation and the need to quickly get a new leader, these barriers are disappearing courtesy of Head Office.

The emergence of a deal to let him take the state seat of Auburn through a National Executive intervention addresses the lack of a Lower House seat. The pre-selection there has not been finalised and it would be a solution to the reports of branch stacking that have dogged the Auburn pre-selection process.

Being part of the Left faction means being in the Caucus minority. Of Labor’s current Caucus, 14 MPs are from the Left, 22 are from the Right and one is unaligned. To gain a majority and become leader, Foley would need support for an additional five MPs, mainly from the Right. Who could those five be? The Right’s Walt Secord is on the record as a Foley supporter and with Head Office’s backing, it seems likely he will get at least four others if he decides to run.

While Luke Foley would be the best option, he does have baggage. He is a machine man, having been a union secretary and also been the NSW Labor Assistant General Secretary. There has also been a lot of controversy over his socially conservative views on marriage equality, however, he is clearly Labor’s most effective Shadow Minister. He cuts through and scored multiple hits on the Government in the environment portfolio. The same cannot be said of the other contenders.

If Foley does become leader, it seems unlikely that he would accept unless Head Office backed him in a the ballot post-election. It also might mean that the expected post-election direct election does not occur. More concerning is it may mean that leaders are torn down six months before an election to avoid a direct election.

Whatever does happen, the new leader needs to ensure Labor articulate a clear vision and plan for New South Wales. It has not outlined an alternative to the Liberal’s plan to fund infrastructure through privatisation which is a major weakness. There is only so much that a new face can do for Labor, the party needs a credible agenda. Opposition to privatisation will not be enough as the public remembers Labor’s attempts to privatise electricity. Whoever is elected Labor’s leader must show leadership and ensure that credible agenda for Government is developed and campaigned for over the next two elections.

UPDATE 28/12/14: Luke Foley has announced he will contest the NSW Labor leadership but will run in a rank-and-file preselection for Auburn.

UPDATE 29/12/14: Steve Whan has withdrawn from the leadership ballot & Linda Burney has ruled herself out.

UPDATE 30/12/14: Michael Daley has pulled out leaving Luke Foley as the only candidate for leader.

by admin

Lessons from Victoria

Labor’s victory in Victoria was a watershed. For years, it had been a political truism that Government’s always win a second term. The defeat of the one-term Napthine Government not only shatters that illusion, it gives hope to Labor Oppositions everywhere.

Then we saw the unprecedented results in South Australia’s Fisher byelection and the Queensland polls showing Labor is neck-and-neck with the LNP. We can now truly believe that Labor has turned a corner.

Victoria has blazed a trail for Labor. We now have a proven campaign model for Labor to embrace federally and in other states, a model that we can use to campaign and win.

Campaign tactics received a lot of attention, but the biggest lesson out of Victoria is the embrace of the broader grassroots labour movement by the Party. As Premier Daniel Andrews said:

There are some that wanted to it be all about unions and workers, and that is exactly what it was.

Victorian Trades Hall’s ‘We Are Union’ campaign electrified the election effort. Unions mobilised hundreds of firefighters, nurses, teachers and paramedics across marginal seats. These workers were instrumental in eliminating a one-term Coalition Government. Just as with the Your Rights at Work campaign, when organised workers are front and centre in a united campaign, we will not be defeated.

The other lesson from the Victorian election is the need to communicate a clear policy agenda. Incumbency was not enough to offset a muddled message from the Coalition. Labor, in contrast, made clear election commitments on the East-West Link, improving public transport and restoring TAFE funding.

Federal Labor must likewise present a clear policy agenda or face disillusionment and aimlessness. Rejection of Tony Abbott’s extreme agenda combined with a small target strategy may be appealing – but it will not be enough to win and consolidate power.

Shaun Wilson makes a strong case that the next federal Labor Government will face a new set of challenges more difficult to solve than those faced by its predecessors.

Those challenges will not be met by wallowing in nostalgia. Rather Labor must provide answers to the pressing problems of contemporary life. We must address the growing pressures on the balance between work and caring, and the need to reform our welfare state to reduce growing inequality and improve living standards. We must ensure quality and affordable early childhood education.

Avoiding these tough questions will do Labor no favours in the long run. We must carve out a new agenda consistent with Labor values.

Originally appeared in the Summer 2014-15 edition of Challenge

by admin

ACT Labor’s coming Senate preselection battle

Earlier this week, Labor Senator Kate Lundy announced that she would be stepping down as a Senator for the ACT after 18 years. It has led to frenzied speculation about who might replace her with no clear successor and competition likely to be fierce.

Unlike most other ALP branches, ACT Labor conducts all preselections by a 100% rank-and-file ballot. While the Left holds a majority on the Conference floor, this is primarily due to the size of union delegations. The largest union in the ACT, the Community and Public Sector Union is affiliated to the Left and larger unions that are traditionally in the Right elsewhere such as the Transport Workers Union are aligned to the Left Caucus or are relatively much smaller (AWU, SDA, NUW).

The recent ballot for ACT President gives an indication of the breakdown of active rank-and-file membership and potentially the results. Approximately 63% of party members participated in the ballot and the Left Caucus’ candidate Louise Crossman topped the poll on primaries with 214 (34%). The Independents faction’s candidate Tom McMahon can second with 195 (31%), the Centre Coalition’s Jennifer Newman received 157 (25%) and non-aligned candidate John Kilcullen received 56 votes (9%). No factional grouping has an outright majority so preferences will matter. For a candidate to be successful, they will need to appeal to the other groupings.

The eligibility to vote will be much tighter for preselection so there will be a smaller pool of voters. Anyone who was a member could vote for President while those voting in preselections will need to be a member for more than 12 months and attended 3 meetings in one year (or 6 over 2 years). The requirements are less strenuous for those who have been a member for a longer period of time with only 2 meetings required for between 5 and 10 years membership and only 1 if a member for 10 years or more.

A big unknown factor will be the timetable and process for preselection. Many inactive members are likely to attend meetings to get preselection rights and whether pre-poll and postal voting is available will affect turnout. For example, half of the voters in the Presidential ballot voted by postal ballot.

Whatever occurs, it is likely to be a vigorous contest between the three groups and the candidate each grouping backs will matter significantly.

UPDATE 5/12/14: Katy Gallagher has announced she will seek preselection for the upcoming Senate vacancy. Given that Bill Shorten and Penny Wong approached her, it’s likely she will have no or minimal opposition.

by admin

Issue-based organising in the ALP

One of the common themes in the party reform debate is the creation of a modernised party structure that reflects members. The argument goes that the current branch structure is a product of the 19th century and needs to be updated to reflect political realities.

The argument goes that politics is not necessarily geographically based and often focused on issues rather than a single cause. Many younger members are particularly turned off by branch meetings that can be very procedural and focus on local government issues. To address this, a structure that enables issue-based organising has been suggested as a way to revitalise the party structure.

There are three main proposals for formally incorporating issue-based organising in the ALP are: non-industrial affiliates, Policy Action Caucuses and issue-based branches.

Non-industrial affiliates

Unlike the British Labour, the Australian Labor Party does not have non-industrial affiliates. Part of that is due to the nature of the British Labour Party. It was formed by various affiliates including trade unions, the Independent Labour Party, the Social Democratic Federation and the Fabian Society and individual membership did not exist until 1918.

In the British Labour Party, there are currently over a dozen affiliated socialist societies (non-industrial affiliates) covering issues such as health, education, Europe, vocations and representing various communities and groups within the party such as Jewish members, LGBTIQ members and progressive Christians. In addition, there are a range of non-affiliated socialist societies

The proposal to allow non-industrial affiliates to the ALP is not new and has been made by various people. For example, Shadow Treasurer Chris Bowen suggested groups like the Fabians and ACOSS should be allowed to affiliate in his recent book in 2013.

The big challenge with a non-industrial affiliate model is that they are independent organisations in every sense of the word: financially and operationally. Affiliation also entails membership fees and a levy that the organisation pays to the party in return for voting rights. They will need to charge membership fees or raise funds which will makes it them far more difficult to establish.

Policy Action Caucuses

At the 2011 National Conference, the Policy Action Caucus model was proposed by the Labor Right and incorporated into the party rules. The Policy Action Caucus was aimed at allowing formal recognition to party members organising around a common issue but not at the expense of branches.

To become a Policy Action Caucus, a group needed:

  • 30 financial Labor Party members (or some other number as determined by the relevant State or Territory Branch),
  • a patron from both the state and federal parliamentary caucuses, and
  • a statement of its name, objectives and rules, approved by its Administrative Committee

PACs have the right to:

  • promote policy forums in Party publications and bulletins,
  • put motions directly to Party conferences, the National Policy Forum, and State and Territory Branch policy committees, and
  • convene meetings and functions.

While PACs are given administrative support and are listed on application forms for membership, they do not get delegates and are not independent entities.

A number of states have incorporated PACs into their rules. In NSW, they have been branded as Labor Action Committees and include:

Others groups that may seek that status in NSW include:

There are also a range of other organisations that exist including:

  • Labor Friends of the Kurdish People
  • Poliversity
  • Emily’s List

My main issue with PAC model is that they do not have benefit of independence that affiliates have, nor do they have the benefits of a branch status. They are a compromise to formalised and incorporate groups that have been informally established and seem to be response to the proposal for non-industrial affiliates in the National Review. I also question whether they will be able to engage and recruit non-party members. I completely agree with Tim Watts who has previously said:

In order to make PACs work, they need to be taken out of the party hierarchy and given the ability to directly achieve outcomes without the fiat of the Party organisation. Both the organisers of PACs and their members need to be given both individual agency to organise in the advancement of their issues and a genuine incentive to do so.

He suggested a subordinate class of Membership is created that allows individuals to join not the ALP proper, but a specific PAC for a nominal fee and that PACs are given the right to move a platform amendment at ALP Conference if they can sign up at least say, 5,000 members to their cause (subordinate or full ALP members) and agree a specific motion within the group.

Personally I think affiliate model would be better suited to achieve these aims as there would be the incentive to organise and they would be able to operate outside the party hierarchy.

Issue-based branches

One other proposal that has floated around for awhile has been allowing the creation of issues–based branches. A common argument is that many younger members of the party find their local branch meetings boring and the party loses their potential activism as a result.

In Western Australia, where there are no geographical restrictions on branch membership, direct branches can be formed around common interests. It has allowed the formation of vocational branches, a womens branch and Rainbow Labor branch.

The problem I have with issue-based branches is that it prioritises place or cause as the basis of party activism. Both are important to political success. While geography is not as strong as it once way in shaping our lives, formal politics is still organised geographically. Engaging with those who you live amongst but who you may not share common views is important and necessary. An either/or approach creates silos when both issue and geographically based organising is needed.

My own personal preference is allowing non-industrial organisations to affiliate. It allows them the independence to campaign both inside and outside the party and it means that individuals do not have to choose between geography or cause. There are drawbacks with an affiliate model, mainly operating and financing an independent organisation, however, it can be offset with the recognition of non-affiliated groups with the privileges that PACs currently get. The incentive of full rights that come with affiliation, including moving and amending ALP policy would be a good way to encourage potential supporters to join up (and hopefully become Labor members in the long-term).

UPDATE 07/08/2017: The Policy Action Caucuses in NSW have been quite opaque with no clear method of joining or participating. A recent Queensland Labor branch review issues paper gives a good indication of membership participation in Policy Action Caucuses. Branded as Labor Associations, membership numbers are:

by admin

Why does the Progressive Alliance exist when there’s the Socialist International?

A question I’ve heard a few times is, why have social democratic parties have formed the Progressive Alliance when the Socialist International exists?

The lack of knowledge about why this has occurred understandable. Rank-and-file ALP members have no engagement with the Socialist International or Progressive Alliance, only those in higher levels of the party bureaucracy do. There is also a historic connection to the Socialist International as it is seen as the global institution of social democracy, the successor to the Second International.

The simple explanation is the Socialist International has ossified and is stagnant. It has become essentially a junket, and attempts to reform it have been blocked. It had amongst its ranks, dictatorial parties in North Africa, until international pressure forced it to act. It is symbolic that the President of the Socialist International is George Papandreou, former PASOK Prime Minister of Greece, and the General Secretary, Luis Ayala, has been there for nearly three decades. The criticism of the organisation has been such that the Socialist International felt the need to publish an open letter in response.

The pivotal moment was the Socialist International Congress held in South Africa in 2012.  A pro-reform candidate, former Swedish Social Democrats leader Mona Sahlin, ran against the incumbent General Secretary.

Prior to the Socialist International Congress, a piece outlining the agenda that reformers sought to get adopted was published. The reformers were primarily from European social democratic parties but also included the youth wing of the Socialist International, the International Union of Socialist Youth, which endorsed Sahlin.

One of the main problems with the Socialist International is the lack of involvement from major global centre-left parties such as Indian National Congress, the Brazillian Workers Party and US Democratic Party. It was also a structure conceived in the mid-20th century, centred around parties. Progressive Alliance was conceived as a network that could have complemented the Socialist International and engaged groups (not just parties) outside its traditional sphere.

Despite the pro-reform push, Sahlin lost 36-46 and reform has not occurred. Pro-reform parties have not quit but have reduced their contributions to the Socialist International and/or downgraded to observer status. The pro-reform parties then joined the Progressive Alliance when it launched in Germany in 2013 at the 150th anniversary of the founding of the German Social Democratic Party.

Whether the Socialist International embraces reform is yet to be seen. The financial impact of European pro-reform parties cutting their contributions may cause some change but the Socialist International seems to be trying to offset it by admitting many more members, regardless of whether they are social democratic.

It seems doubtful that in the short-term there will be any reconciliation between the Socialist International and reformers and it is likely that pro-reform parties, such as the Australian Labor Party, will engage with the Progressive Alliance rather than the Socialist International.

by admin

Is opt-in union affiliation the future for the ALP?

In an address to the Light on the Hill Society yesterday, Senator John Faulkner called for a range of ALP reforms to be adopted. Along with Conferences being composed of 60% rank-and-file, 20% union and 20% Electorate Council delegates and the banning of binding, he called for affiliation to be an opt-in process by union members with all delegates to Conferences directly elected through proportional representation.

The idea of opt-in affiliation has been gaining traction recently. Greg Combet and Julia Gillard have both proposed opt-in affiliation in their recent books while Shadow Assistant Health Minister Stephen Jones MP previously wrote a piece for the Southern Highlands Branch newsletter advocating it and suggested it is inevitable.

Overseas, the British Labour Party agreed to move to an opt-in model in March with a transition period of five years. Irish Labour and the Canadian New Democratic Party also utilise an opt-in model. In the case of both those parties, the union member must also be a party member.

How does it work elsewhere?

Currently there are no unions that use an opt-in affiliation model in Australia. Some unions do not affiliate for their full numbers and at least one affiliated union has opt-out provisions. The main overseas examples of opt-in in Britain and Canada only provide some guidance for Australia as existing structures have been the product of particular historical circumstances.

British trade unions have separate funds for political activity (campaigning as well as affiliation). The existence of these separate funds are a legacy of Thatcher’s anti-union laws where unions are forced to ballot members every decade to continue funds for spending on political activities whether party political or not.

An example cited by British Labour leader Ed Miliband when he was making his case for opt-in affiliation was Unison’s opt-in affiliation model. It was created as opt-in because of the legacy of union amalgamations between affiliated and non-affiliated unions. Members tick upon joining whether they want to contribute to the affiliation fund, however, it is not always that simple in practice. Turnout in Unite’s recent ballot on its political fund was 18.6% which suggests the rate of opt-in affiliation might be around 15%.

In Canada, union affiliation occurred at a local level and unions never had the same role in the NDP as they did in the British Labour Party or Australian Labor Party. Founded in 1961 as a merger between unions and a social democratic party, the NDP gave the unions no block voting rights at party conventions or on the party executive and unions usually compromised 15-25% of Conference delegates. They are well-organised but very much a minority voice unlike British or Australian Labo(u)r.

Key issues

From a practical perspective, opt-in is doable but there a range of questions that will need be answered, most importantly, what are the rights of affiliated members? How will it be different to being a general party member? Should they get a say in who the leader or in preselections or officebearers? In Britain, affiliated members will get a say in the leadership ballot but not in preselections.

There would also be questions about directly electing union delegates under an opt-in model. For example, who will administer the elections, the electoral roll and what the rules will be around these elections. My guess is that it’s likely that delegates would be elected for multiple years and the elections would coincide with union election. The big question remains to who these delegates are ultimately accountable to. Are these delegates organisational representatives and should therefore be bound to decisions made at the union’s supreme governing body or are they elected as individuals? It is a broader question that will need to discussed.

Politically, a move to opt-in will be hard. Many unions feel that Labor only treats them as a cashcow and that this is primarily a attempt to weaken their influence. The move to opt-in in British Labour was agreed to on the provision that it would not reduce the overall union section of Conference. It suggests that any move to opt-in affiliation might only be possible if 50/50 was maintained.

Would maintaining 50/50 if opt-in affiliation is adopted be a bad thing? Not necessarily. It would rewards unions that put effort into organising their members. The fact that it is being phased in over five years does emphasise that any change will have to be gradual and there still are many issues to work through.

From the growing number advocates, it is clear that opt-in affiliation is a debate that will not be going away anytime soon and the ALP and unions will need to come to grips with it.

by admin

Portuguese Socialist Party holds open primary for Prime Ministerial candidate

Over the weekend, the Portuguese Socialist Party became the latest European social democratic party to experiment with open primaries. It held a primary on September 28 to select the party’s candidate for Prime Minister in the upcoming 2015 general election. The primary was adopted in June to address factional dispute within the party between the candidates after disappointing result in European elections.

The two candidates were Antonio Jose Seguro, the current General Secretary of the Socialist Party and Antonio Costa, the mayor of Lisbon. With an eligible electorate of 9,753,568, turnout was 174,516 or 1.8%, a similar figure to turnout in some of NSW Labor’s recent community preselections. Costa won the primary in a landslide with 67.88% (118,454) while Seguro received 31.65% (55,239). Following this result, Seguro resigned as General Secretary and an election will be held for the General Secretary’s position by mid-December.

In order to participate, voters had to pre-register to vote by mid-September. Voters who were not party members had to be on the electoral roll and had to sign a declaration supporting the values of the Socialist Party. Unlike other primaries in Europe, there was no fee to participate. The rules for the contest are available here.

Portugal now joins France and Italy as European social democratic parties that have used open primaries to select candidates. The next big open primary will be held by Spain’s Socialist Workers Party in November for its Prime Ministerial candidate. Given the lack of electoral success that many European social democratic parties have experienced in recent years, the increased use of open primaries is likely to continue into the future.

by admin

The contagious effect of directly electing the party leader

Earlier today, the ABC reported that the Tasmanian Greens are considering a series of reforms to democratise their party.

The Tasmanian Greens are notorious as the least democratic branch of the Greens. With no rank-and-file input into preselections, the Tasmanian Greens make the Labor Party look like a vibrant participatory democracy. This is in contrast to almost every other Greens branch where One Member One Vote rank-and-file preselections are the norm.

Amongst the reforms is a proposal for party members to directly elect the leader and have the ability to remove them. While no detail has been provided about the proposed model, the fact that they are proposing this change is important.

In their 2012 book, Politics at the Centre: The Selection and Removal of Party Leaders, William Cross and Andre Blais point out that almost all the established parties that have democratised leadership selection after a disappointing electoral result, something the Tasmanian Greens have just experienced, and that there is a contagion effect “inducing parties to converge in the way they select their leader.”

At the time, Cross and Blais concluded there was no clear indication of a contagion effect in Australia and New Zealand while they identified one in Canada, Ireland and the United Kingdom. Australia was cited as an example of the contagion effect in reverse with many politicians interviewed citing the example of the Australian Democrats as a reason why direct election would not be adopted.

This however seems to be changing. New Zealand Labour adopted direct elections last year while federally and all states (bar Victoria and South Australia to date) have adopted the direct election of the Parliamentary Labor Party leader.

The coming debate within the Tasmanian Greens about the direct election of leader suggests there is a contagion effect at play in Australia. The success of Labor’s direct election after a disappointing election result has meant that the idea of direct elections is being seriously considered across party lines.

If the Tasmanian Greens do adopt direct election of the leader, it is likely that other state branches will follow. It may also only be a matter of time before the Coalition joins in and directly elects their leader but it will all depend on electoral results and grassroots pressure.

UPDATE 15/9/14: I have been informed that other than federally, in Tasmania and in Victoria, there is no formal leader. It may be that direct elections are intertwined with the creation of a formal leader role in other states.