Welcome to The Friday Fight, our new weekly debate series where two writers make their case on a hotly contested topic.
Today’s question: should Labor ditch its caucus rules? The party’s internal machinations were thrown into the spotlight when WA Senator Fatima Payman last month crossed the floor to support a Greens-backed motion to “recognise the state of Palestine”. At the time she was indefinitely suspended for breaching caucus solidarity.
In the affirmative corner we have Rachel Withers, former editor of The Politics. Arguing in the negative is Crikey’s political editor Bernard Keane.
If one moment encapsulates how cultish Labor’s solidarity rules have become, it was Anthony Albanese’s response when asked on Tuesday whether he would consider relaxing the rules when it came to issues like Palestine.
“We have in the Labor Party a collective responsibility,” the prime minister said, citing the party’s trade union roots. “And I must say, our 103 members of our caucus are on exactly the same page on these issues. Exactly the same page.”
That, of course, is complete nonsense. By all means argue for the importance of collectivism. But when “solidarity” means denying the existence of internal dissent, of alternate views, we have in the Labor Party a collective problem.
Debate has been swirling about those rules ever since Senator Fatima Payman crossed the floor — defying the caucus, though not the party’s platform. A handful of figures have stuck their necks out calling for greater flexibility, from official-turned-pollster Kos Samaras to former ACTU vice president Michael Easson to Victorian Left assistant secretary Julijana Todorovic, pointing to the need to accommodate diversity. Unnamed “federal Labor MPs” told The Australian they too want change, with discussions underway “in a number of internal forums”. Quick, someone tell the PM — not everyone is on exactly the same page!
Others have been quick to defend The Rules, including party president Wayne Swan, who put out a statement entitled “Unity Matters,” arguing Payman’s defection would “empower Labor’s opponents on the far right and on the left” (que?). Long-time observer Chris Wallace made a compelling argument in The Conversation, saying it’s a culture of silence that is the problem, not the rules, with caucus and cabinet no longer spaces for debate or dissent.
Fixing that culture would go a long way indeed — as would addressing a culture in which a podcaster feels no qualms calling a Muslim senator following her conscience a “rat”. The party risks looking like it has lost its humanity, valuing rules over morals, in a way that is baffling to non-members; former MP Martin Pakula’s mockery of Young Labor for backing Payman implies disloyalty to The Party is the greatest of sins, with even the young expected to toe the line.
It seems unlikely, however, that this culture will ease under Albanese, who is said to have quashed his own Left faction, and internal debate with it, in his bid to exert “iron discipline” over the ALP. Many noted how especially “unified” last year’s national conference was, with the Left failing to use its majority to demand bolder policies. Not that what’s in the platform seems to matter; it’s the caucus that decides what laws come to Parliament and the circumstances in which they come.
It begs the question: are the rules meant to serve the membership, or the leadership? The best argument for keeping the rules is that they add a layer of certainty — you elect a Labor MP, you expect Labor positions. But the rules should then apply to the platform, rather than the caucus, which seems more driven by politics than policies.
Labor is entitled to cling to its inflexible rules. But if it wants to remain a party of majority, in an age of diversity, it may need to loosen them. Progressives have more options these days, as evidenced by the fact Labor is bleeding votes to the Greens. Young people feel no particular loyalty to Labor, amid scant evidence for “change from within”. Those who want an MP who reflects their values, as opposed to those of the parliamentary Labor caucus, can vote for an independent or minor party, as Australians are increasingly doing.
This risks turning into a self-reinforcing cycle for Labor: if it keeps losing left-leaning members who can’t speak for their voters, the caucus will be increasingly dominated by the Right (who already get all the conscience votes anyway). Labor need only look to the Liberal Party, whose diminished left flank has lost all influence, to see what can happen when you ignore swathes of your voters. These are not “identity politics”. These are the political realities of the 21st century.
Ironclad unity served a purpose for the ALP, particularly as it fought to become a major force in Australian politics. But it’s no longer possible to purport to represent half the diverse, modern electorate, while insisting on total adherence to a party line. As Payman said during her emotional resignation: “I see no middle ground.” She may not be the last to say so.
Labor can choose to carry on with its oppressive rules. But it shouldn’t be surprised if it finds itself a shrinking cult, demanding conformity from a smaller and smaller caucus, as voters turn to those free to use their position to fight for them. The centre-left cannot hold, not if it continues to claim, against — DING! DING! DING! CRIKEY EDITORS DECLARE WITHERS HAS OFFICIALLY PASSED HER ALLOCATED WORD COUNT — all evidence, that everyone is on “exactly the same page”.
Should Labor ditch its caucus rules? Who do you think won the debate? Let us know your thoughts by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.
