Prev
Next

Members deserve a say in party leadership

Sassoon Grigorian

by Sassoon Grigorian

24 Jul 05:40am

Must Reads

The Punch is moving house - this is a caption

The Punch is moving house

385

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this? - this is a caption

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

122

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming” - this is a caption

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

251

Filed under: Leaders, Leadership, Politics

38 comments

Nearly two years ago, I wrote in The Punch a piece that suggested the current way we select our political party leaders should change.

NSW Labor leader John Robertson and ex Premier Kristina Keneally might never have seen the limelight if the people in the cheap seats had anything to do with it

Under the present system, members of parliament in the major parties determine their own leader. However alternatives are being considered.

The recent NSW Labor Party state conference passed a motion to further consider how they select the NSW Labor State Leader. That decision, if implemented, has the potential to impact the entire Australian political system.

With the new age of openness and transparency in democracy, in part fuelled by the digital age, choosing our own political leaders will be the norm not the exception.

Immigration Minister Chris Bowen has said that MPs should have votes in leadership contests as well party members.

He argued earlier this year “In this era of transparency, it is important that the public also demand more of our political parties. Having an open process with a series of debates between potential party leaders, for example, will have its messy moments. But if the leader of the party is able to claim the legitimacy of a broad charter and a transparent process, this will give Labor an advantage over our conservative opponents.”

Comparisons can be made with the United Kingdom. The Labour Party in the United Kingdom is a membership organisation consisting of Constituency Labour Parties, affiliated trade unions, socialist societies and the Co-operative Party, with which it has an electoral agreement. Members who are elected to parliamentary positions take part in the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP).

The party’s decision-making body on leadership takes places at the Labour Party Conference. Delegates to the conference are elected by Constituency Labour Parties, affiliated trade unions and socialist societies. Currently, affiliated trade unions hold 50 percent of the votes at the conference. The PLP also have representation at Conference.

The Labor Party needs to be careful not to be drawn into the debate of the model, and proceed with an agreed principle, otherwise you could have a debate similar to the Republic issue. The focus then became the model not the principle.

The other overriding concern will not be the role of MP’s or party members in leadership votes, but the weight given to unions in determining leadership contests. At the moment their influence is not as transparent as it could be.

This is not only donations to the Party itself, but to individual MP’s which influences leadership votes when restricted to MP’s only.

It’s clear that by giving members an opportunity to vote directly in leadership contests, they are more likely to be engaged with that party.

Former NSW Minister Rodney Cavalier has said: “The structures that prevailed over 70 years are no longer serving NSW Labor. Structure is everything. The structure of the ALP has not changed and is not likely to change.”

Governance structure reforms need to be expanded to a national level as well.

If a successful model can be found, it has the potential to impact other Australian political parties as well. We will have to wait and see.

Most commented

38 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • marley says:

      07:17am | 24/07/12

      There are plenty of models out there.  The UK is one, Canada is another, where all four major parties have a democratic system for selection of leaders.  That the supposedly progressive ALP is only now getting around to dipping its toe in the waters of internal democracy is frankly mind-boggling.  Get on with it.  Give the members a say in the selection of leaders, the selection of local candidates, and the design of major planks in the Party’s platform.  God knows, the ALP needs some sort of renewal, and this would be a good way forward.

      Reply

    • Gerard says:

      04:14pm | 24/07/12

      “Give the members a say in the selection of leaders, the selection of local candidates”

      Local candidates yes, leaders no. Why should citizens of a neighbouring LNP electorate have influence over who my local ALP member supports as PM?

    • marley says:

      04:53pm | 24/07/12

      @Gerard - an LNP member wouldn’t have any say in who leads the ALP.  However you, as a (presumably) ALP member, would have.  As would your local ALP MP.  Isn’t that a good thing?

    • Gerard says:

      05:50pm | 24/07/12

      You’ve completely misunderstood what I wrote. I’m not talking about LNP members, I’m talking about ALP members in an LNP-held electorate. My point is that my local (ALP) member was elected to represent the interests of this electorate, not the interests of ALP members in other electorates. Their choice of PM should therefore be irrelevant to him.


      And no, I am not, never have been and never will be a member of the Labor Party.

    • marley says:

      08:33pm | 24/07/12

      @Gerard - you’re right, I didn’t get your point.  But I don’t think you got mine either.  If the ALP is a democratic organisation in and of itself, its members, all its members, ought to have a say in who leads the organisation and what it’s policies should be.  Not the definitive say, perhaps, at least on policy issues, but a say nonetheless.  And on leadership, a strong say.

      The thing is, you’re seeing this as the next door electorate ALP members influencing your MP, and that’s not what I’m saying.  I’m saying the next door electorate ALP members should have a voice of their own, independent of your MP Your MP can vote however he wants, but party members ought to have a say in the decision as well.

    • Mahhrat says:

      07:40am | 24/07/12

      I don’t really mind if they choose their own or we choose them.

      If I might steal your thunder though, I saw an idea yesterday - and I’m sorry to whomever that idea was, I forget the name - that I really really liked. 

      We should have the opportunity to deliberately vote for “nobody”.  On each ballot should be a vote that says, “I do not like any of these candidates, get some more”.  Government would then need to put up new peons for us to vote for, should that be the winning vote (or more than a certain %).

      I mean, Julia and Tony are both wallowing down in the mid-30s for preferred PM.  IIRC from the Today show, some 25% of people had a third option.  That’s cause for celebration in my book, because we should have half a dozen viable options to lead our country.

      Reply

    • Traxster says:

      12:03pm | 24/07/12

      We should have the opportunity to deliberately vote for “nobody”.  On each ballot should be a vote that says, “I do not like any of these candidates, get some more”.  Government would then need to put up new peons for us to vote for, should that be the winning vote (or more than a certain %)...........
      If the above should ever come about I might even decide to start filling in my ballot paper properly again !!

    • acotrel says:

      07:42am | 24/07/12

      It is pretty obvious that the system of electing a leader doesn’t work well in the LNP .

      Reply

    • JT says:

      08:56am | 24/07/12

      Back here in the real world it is working wonders;

      ‘the latest Newspoll putting the Gillard government’s primary vote at 28 per cent - two percentage points off its record low

      Coalition maintaining a commanding lead of 56 per cent to 44 per cent in two-party-preferred terms.

      The Opposition Leader, has extended his lead over Julia Gillard as preferred prime minister to four points - 40 per cent to 36 per cent.’’

    • nihonin says:

      08:58am | 24/07/12

      None shall see as clearly as the blind.  Love your work acotrel.

    • Alfie says:

      03:52pm | 24/07/12

      It ain’t too flash in the ALP either. Just ask Rudd, or Latham, or Beazley, or Hawke, or…....

    • gobsmack says:

      07:46am | 24/07/12

      If you want a good reason why the leadership of a party shouldn’t be decided by its general members, you need look no further than Kevin Rudd.

      His fake and smarmy demeanor made him very popular with Sunrise viewers but those who had to work closely with him (ie those in the Labor caucus) have a completely different. view.  Most of his support within the party comes from a belief that he is electorally more appealing than Gillard.

      Someone said that the degree of respect that anyone has for him is in inverse proportion to how close they are to him.

      A more “democratic” procedure for electing leaders would only result in these sorts of fakes and empty suits prospering.

      Reply

    • Borderer says:

      09:12am | 24/07/12

      Gobsmack
      Most of his support within the party comes from a belief that he is electorally more appealing than Gillard.
      Yeah, that’s not really any sort of achievement any more, I’ve got stuff between my toes that is more electorally appealling than JG. They need to do something though, the current model is a bust.

    • marley says:

      02:47pm | 24/07/12

      @gobsmack - sorry, but your argument makes no sense.  It was the inner circle of the party, not the general membership, that elevated him to the leadership in the first place.  He prospered very damn well under the undemocratic factional system that the ALP currently has.

    • Julia is a liar says:

      08:26am | 24/07/12

      The Union contolled ALP will never give its members a say, it is a undemocratic party, controlled by unions and the likes of Julia that stands for nothing but absolute reliance on focus group. Like Julia it will sell out anything and anyone to stay in power, just see what happen to the Carbon tax, that Julia promise that we will never have

      Reply

    • Carol says:

      08:27am | 24/07/12

      I would agree, all members of a political party should have a vote on it’s leadership. Just what is the point of being a party member if you don’t have a say in it leadership?

      Reply

    • daniel says:

      09:38am | 24/07/12

      More broadly, what’s the point of being a party member if special groups or associations command a larger vote in policy decisions.Too much focus is paid to who leads a party when it should be on policies that don’t take into account the whole population.

    • Michael S says:

      09:00am | 24/07/12

      Unless they had ambitions to be a politician, why would anyone join a political party?

      Reply

    • nihonin says:

      09:00am | 24/07/12

      ‘Just what is the point of being a party member if you don’t have a say in it leadership?’

      Julie, you get the chance to denigrate and name call members of the opposite party, as well as make unsubstantiated blanket statements about unaligned voters, because ‘they’re’ not a member of ‘your’ party.

      Reply

    • nihonin says:

      10:00am | 24/07/12

      Oops, sorry Carol I meant, and damn thought I hit the reply button.  Ah well, that’s life.  wink

    • Dan says:

      10:21am | 24/07/12

      Honestly, I think the idea of giving party members - or the public - the power to directly elect leaders would fail.

      It’s a wonderful idea. But a disaster in practice.

      If party members, or the voting public, were given the chance to elect the leaders of the Federal ALP and Liberal Party, they’d be very different beasts.

      Kevin Rudd would be Prime Minister. Despite being loathed by the majority of his parliamentary colleagues, he’d be leading the party and nation.

      Malcolm Turnbull would be Opposition Leader. Despite at least half of his parliamentary colleagues disagreeing with him ideologically, and thinking he’s not up to the job.

      Sitting MP’s are the most important members of any political party. They’re in the position to effect real change. They understand how the corridors of power are working at any given time, better than anyone else. It’s vital these sorts of decisions are left in their hands.

      Reply

    • Mouse says:

      11:20am | 24/07/12

      I have to agree with you there Dan!  :o)

    • marley says:

      02:56pm | 24/07/12

      I don’t agree at all.  The grass roots often have a better sense of what’s going on with the general public than their Parliamentary representatives do.  They know what their neighbours are worrying about, what the real issues are, and what at least some of the priorities should be.  They have a sense of the direction in which party supporters want the party to go.

      One of the biggest problems the ALP has right now is the disappearance of grass roots members who are frustrated with being used to man polling stations but denied any input into party policy or leadership at any level.  The lack of direction, the lack of grassroots input, the control of the party by unions and factions, is killing it.

      And knowing the ins and outs of Parliamentary powerplays isn’t going to help the ALP if it loses the support of the voters it has relied on.  Leaving these sorts of decisions in the hands of the MPs and power brokers is going to ensure that the only corridors some of them will be walking are the ones to the Centrelink office.

    • Dan says:

      03:46pm | 24/07/12

      @ marley,

      Curious you only use the ALP as a reference point. Obviously they’re in much more dire straits than the Coalition polling-wise, but their party structure is strikingly similar.

      Political parties should be run like corporations. It’s not up to the shareholders (or the employees) of a company like Woolworths to elect their CEO. It’s up to a select group of people, with a superior understanding of what’s best for the company.

      Both the ALP and Coalition know what the neighbours are worried about. They read the tabloids, and pay pollsters like Crosby Textor and Hawker Britton squillions to figure out the details.

      I agree the party members need a stronger voice. They shouldn’t be treated like chumps to keep the fees rolling in, and man the booths on polling day. But direct election of party leaders is a dangerous path. To be blunt, it rewards popularity and charisma over talent and knowledge.

      Gobsmack makes the point well above - the Rudd experience proves just where that path can lead.

    • marley says:

      04:56pm | 24/07/12

      @Dan - nothing curious about my focussing on the ALP.  First, this article is about the ALP and secondly, I’ve read the report by Messrs. Faulkner, Bracks and Carr, which makes at least some of the same points.

      And I’d have said that any system that can throw up Mark Latham as party leader needs a serious rethink.

    • Stephen says:

      10:25am | 24/07/12

      The whole principle of “political party” is an abhorrence. How they select their kahuna’s will not have any impact on the true breakdown of our system of government.

      Political parties, like all forms of social control, are by definition, divisive. They gather people around doctrines and dogma that are well past their use by date, and use nepotism as a means of organisational management. They pander to self interest, exist only to enhance their own power and influence, and give lip service to “for the people”.

      Surely, a system that can be manipulated by vested interests simply by offering “political donations”, or can be controlled by external influences such as unions and big business can no longer be seen to be acting for the greater good. Anyone who believes otherwise is blinkered and naive…or belong to a political party.

      Western democracy has been usurped by ideology. It has driven a great spike into our society, demanding that the plebiscite follow one road or the other, and we have fed this machine with our minuscule single vote every four years to validate it.

      We allow the faceless, the fools and the fraudsters to make decisions on our behalf, as long as they are on our team. We are told that politicians and their political machines know what’s best for us.

      We are told that Julia Gillard believes a carbon tax is a good thing for Australia. Why is her personal belief foisted upon us? Why do we allow ourselves to be dominated in this way? If its such a good idea, why don’t we get a chance to vote for it?

      Why is a politicians belief more valid than the demands of the populace?

      Why are bowing under the weight of more laws, more taxes, more complexity and ever increasing government controls over every element of our daily lives, and the stress is, quite literally, killing us. If we don’t do something about it, there is but one certainty.

      It will not get any better.

      Reply

    • Knemon says:

      01:27pm | 24/07/12

      I tend to agree Stephen with most of your points, problem is, what do you suggest we can do to improve or change the current system?

      Ban all political parties?
      Only allow independents to stand for election?
      Have a PM elected from a 2/3 majority of both houses?
      Become a republic with our head of state elected by referendum?
      Abolish the states?

      Our current system is not brilliant but it could also be a hell of a lot worse.

    • Gerard says:

      04:04pm | 24/07/12

      @Knemon

      The system itself is not the problem. The problem is the way the system is used by Australians.

      Banning political parties is not a solution, it’s an attack on freedom of association. However, voting all members of political parties out of office would be a step in the right direction. This does not require any change to the political system- just a change in people’s attitudes.

    • Gerard says:

      04:04pm | 24/07/12

      @Knemon

      The system itself is not the problem. The problem is the way the system is used by Australians.

      Banning political parties is not a solution, it’s an attack on freedom of association. However, voting all members of political parties out of office would be a step in the right direction. This does not require any change to the political system- just a change in people’s attitudes.

    • AJ from WA says:

      11:16am | 24/07/12

      While at Chartwell recently I made the comment that “At least Churchill was a statesman”. Another Australian overheard this and commented that “In Australia at the moment we just have two dogs fighting over a bone”. Can’t help but agree with him and sleep secure in the knowledge that no matter how the political parties decide on the leader, nothing will really change. For heavens sake Labor, Liberal, Greens etc etc give us a decent choice - not the current pack of mongrels.

      Reply

    • the moor says:

      11:45am | 24/07/12

      The decline in party memberships and the lack of engagement with ordinary people is the problem.  It amakes it too easy for cliques to gain control and dictate who will be leader and what policy will be.  Labor has this problem but the Liberals even more so.  The real power in the Liberal Party rests with Tony Abbott’s chief of staff Peta Credlin and her husband Federal Director Brian Loughnane.  They act for the Liberal Party’s ruling clique but precisely who that is and whose interests they are pursuing is not so clear.

      Despite his unpoularity Tony Abbott remains as Liberal leader simply because he follows his minders orders and is very effective at damaging Labor, thus maintaining the poll lead the Liberals currently have.  In reality he is just a puppet with his every move and statement carefully orchestrated by those minders.  They load the gun and he fires the bullets. 

      Whether he remains as leader after the next election will depend totally on whether he continues to do as he is told.  If he doesn’t its highly probable he will be replaced by someone who will.

      Reply

    • Adam says:

      11:59am | 24/07/12

      Sassoon if you can’t commemorate ANZAC Day with us then that makes you a non member of our society therefore shouldn’t have a say in party affairs which govern the country…

      Reply

    • vox says:

      01:05pm | 24/07/12

      Instead of crowing about Abbott having a lead of four percent, (which may or may not be true), would’nt it be more proper to say that 60% of Australians do not want Abbott as P.M.? And that 64% don’t want Gillard? That Abbott is almost as unpalatable as Gillard?
      Why would anybody, (especially those who mindlessly support Abbott in these columns), go on and on about democracy being presently thwarted
      and yet suggest that we should be happy with a Prime Minister that a vast majority demonstrably simply do not want?
      Say what you like, our system elected Labour to Government. Lies about deals with minor parties etc., just don’t wash. The Liberals, and ergo their leader’s right to lead the nation, polled less than Abbott’s present rating as preferred P.M. in the last election. Without the minor party, the Nats, the Liberal Party would rightly occupy the political wilderness. Remember, 60% of voters did not want them. Fact!
      Or are the apologists going to say that the policies of the Libs are the same as that of the Nats? It seems to be the basis of the protest against the Greens or the Indys lining up with the labor Party, that they have different policy bases. But not with the subservient, irrelevant nationals cosying-up for survival with the Libs apparently.
      And don’t come up with that juvenile argument that the Libs/Nats have a long “understanding”.
      Incidentally, if the members of Parties had a say in electing their leaders do any of the welded-on Libs out there, (Menzies called them that rather than the ignorant “rusted-ons”), think that Abbott would carry the day?
      Tell ‘em they’re dreamin’!.

      Reply

    • nihonin says:

      01:55pm | 24/07/12

      ‘Why would anybody, (especially those who mindlessly support Abbott in these columns), go on and on about democracy being presently thwarted
      and yet suggest that we should be happy with a Prime Minister that a vast majority demonstrably simply do not want?’

      And yet Julia Gillard remains.

    • Borderer says:

      02:04pm | 24/07/12

      Perhaps they just need to crow that the ALP has a sub 30% primary vote… Oh and it’s still falling…
      Semantics really, come the election they’re gone, no if’s buts or maybe’s, just gone and they did it to themselves.
      The question is no longer about turning things around but if there is anything salvagable after the election. By all means spin away, it actually increases the speed with which they head to the bottom.

    • mikem says:

      04:16pm | 24/07/12

      As ‘vox’ points out the Liberal propagandists have been a tad convenient with the truth when they have had their mouthpieces bang on about the illegitimacy of the Labor government.  If Tony Abbott hadn’t screwed up they would have been the minority government after the last election.  But of course that wouldn’t have been different wouldn’t it.  Hypocrisy knows no bounds.

    • marley says:

      08:41pm | 24/07/12

      Look, this is an article about reforming and modernising the ALP.  If you want to rabbit on about Abbott (sorry) and ignore the problems the ALP has, so be it.  Abbott wouldn’t be where he is today if the problems within the ALP had been addressed 10 years ago.  But they haven’t been - the unions, the factions, the vested interests - are killing the party and leaving the way open to the likes of Abbott. 

      Don’t blame Abbott - blame the troglodytes in the ALP who can’t see the obvious - they need to change the way they operate.  Maybe internal democracy is a step too far, but sure as hell, the present system isn’t delivering the goods.  Geez.  Latham, Rudd, Gillard….the ALP should have had at least three clear terms after Howard, and look at the mess.  And it’s entirely a mess of their own making.  Abbott may be taking advantage of it, but he didn’t create it.

    • melsyd007 says:

      05:23pm | 24/07/12

      unlike Liberal Party Members, the job and the role of Labor Party members is to see everything, hear everything, say nothing and write nothing

      Reply
 
Sorry, comments are now closed for this article.

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

by The Punch Team

385

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

by Hannah Harborow

122

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

by Sarrah Le Marquand

251

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter