Ian Foster writes: I first joined the Labor Party in 1970 and am very proud indeed of my certificate of life membership. I feel sympathy for Senator Fatima Payman but appreciate the challenge that her identity and conscience present to the party’s powerbrokers.
From time to time all political groupings have to deal with internal stresses, sometimes by total expulsions, formal splits, the formation of coalitions (or secret agreements) or simply respect for differences (remember when PM Turnbull was laughed at by fellow Liberals when he stated that his party had no factions?).
Those of us on the left of politics who wish to join the Labor Party are presented with the choice of joining one of the “factions” — the membership of which, over decades, has become very codified and rigid and involves penalties for disobedience to the directives of the leaders of the factions. It is not compulsory to join and be obedient to your faction’s directives, but it is undeniable that “independent thinkers” face an uphill battle if they intend to stand for office or election.
In my experience most Labor members are not active members of any faction, apart from the Labor Party itself, but still maintain their party membership to work diligently for the return of a Labor government, and not the advancement of just their faction. Over time, the factions have fought to exercise greater control over preselection and now the vast majority of elected members are members of the dominant factions.
Senator Payman may well sense Labor membership sympathy for her views, but it is far less likely to be shared by those folk who exercise their power through the factions present in caucus. Factions have been shown to be a useful way of managing Labor’s internal stresses, but the complex nature of the emerging electorate(s) means that Labor leaders may need to make space for the legitimacy of non-faction activities and commitments. This will require sensitivity and experience, not just greater discipline.
Labor is part of my identity — a source of both pride and anguish.
Hasan Ehdeyhed writes: Speaking as a Palestinian Muslim raised in Australia, the media framing of Senator Payman has been extremely poor and one-sided, so much so that I (and many friends and family) have completely tuned out mainstream media. We get news from directly from social media and publications like Crikey — I subscribed for the first time just last week due to your balanced coverage on this and detailed analysis on this and many issues.
As a note, the Muslim Votes initiative is not aiming to instil Sharia or religious law into Australian politics — I know this as I have sat in a number of its presentations. The aim is to empower and educate a Muslim voting bloc that has previously been apathetic to politics in Australia.
A lot of Muslim voters are first- or second-generation voters who have come from countries without functioning democracies and this mentality has carried on. The group’s focus is to educate people on their duty and power as Australian citizens to vote and how they can actually make changes to issues that have deeply affected the community, such as Palestine.
Senator Payman represents the thoughts of a significant proportion of the Muslim population that has been largely marginalised in Australia to date. Instead of the media and politicians approaching us to get this feedback and understand how they can bridge the gap, they have gone the opposite approach and isolated us further.
Marilyn Lake writes: Bernard Keane is spot-on in his suggestion that the political class and associated media — epitomised by David Speers — are fuelling a resurgence of the politics of whiteness.
Labor’s endless invocation of the imperative of “social cohesion” attempts both to diminish and deflect from the outrage of Israel’s war on Gaza and enforce a new version of assimilationism at home. And then on top of that, for Albanese to assert that we’ve never had faith-based politics in Australia is to confirm how historically illiterate and/or hypocritical our politicians really are.
Donald Maclean writes: On Senator Fatima Payman crossing the floor, the issue is how and when to implement ALP policy for recognition of a Palestinian state, given Hamas sparked the predictable Israeli overreaction in Gaza, and is in conflict with Fatah that governs the West Bank.
Payman took the bait, a stunt offered by the Greens who are more concerned with playing divisive politics and stealing Labor seats than dealing with realities and practicalities. She could have abstained.
Neil Dwyer writes: The only reason the Senator Payman issue has not prompted my resignation as a rank-and-file member of the ALP is that I had already resigned by then. I did so in April specifically because of the Albanese government’s ongoing failure to call Israel’s actions in Gaza for what they are: genocide. Had I not done so in April, I would most certainly be resigning now.
Allan White writes: What is the issue here? The Labor Party rules are what they are. Life is complex and nothing is perfect but the rules have worked okay for 120 years and that’s why the party keeps them. Senator Payman joined the party knowing the rules. End of story.
