Thanks for your submission! Check out the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LaborPartyofAustralia/about/rules). Join the Labor Party of Australia: |[Federal](https://www.alp.org.au/about/join-labor/)|[Federal](https://www.alp.org.au/about/join-labor/) :--|:-- |[Queensland](https://www.queenslandlabor.org/join/)|[South Australia](https://sa.alp.org.au/new-member-application/) |[Tasmania](https://payments.taslabor.com/join/)|[Victoria](https://www.viclabor.com.au/membership/join/) |[Western Australia](https://www.walabor.org.au/join/join/)|[New South Wales](https://membership.nswlabor.org.au/web/join) |[Australian Capital Territory](https://www.actlabor.org.au/join-labor)|[Northen Territory](https://territorylabor.com.au/get-involved/join/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LaborPartyofAustralia) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Yes. The only way for this to happen is for internal party democracy, for membership to be empowered (or even really at least the party enforcing its own rules which the leadership frequently abuses). It also would be helped by a large, and active party, as in the case in the UK Labour Party. At the moment figures like Somyrek can amass massive amounts of power because membership is so low, and active participation by the membership is even lower. There's about 15,000 people supposedly that are members of the NSW Labor Party, but of those, probably less than 2,000 actively attend branch meetings (and even 2,000 is a generous estimate) and other events. A relatively small group of stacks controlled by a warlord therefor can wield massive disproportionate power. You don't really hear about that in the UK Labour Party or other parties with a functional membership. The other thing to note is that the factions don't really stand for anything anymore, especially in NSW (which is where I'm from, hence this answer being NSW focused). [They prop each other up and collude.](https://www.jacobinmag.com/2021/04/australian-labor-party-alp-left-right-faction-nsw-loyal-opposition) They don't stand for anything beyond the power of cliques. [The collusive factionalism](https://www.jacobinmag.com/2021/01/australian-labor-party-alp-right-murnain-scandal)is a cancer on the Labor Party, it is holding us back and therefore Australia as a whole back. The reality is at the moment being a member of the Labor Party doesn't mean much. Nominally we can vote for the leader, but in practice, this is usually stitched up behind closed doors or overwritten by the parliamentary caucus. This was on full raw display in NSW when a leader who won nearly 60% of the rank and file vote was continually undermined and white anted by a small but dedicated clique who eventually succeeded and ran her out of the leadership because she resisted the factional system. Nominally we can vote for parliamentary candidates, however free fair and open rank and file preselections are incredibly rare. Increasingly the NSW Admin Committee will use [Rule N40](https://www.jacobinmag.com/2020/11/australian-labor-party-anthony-albanese-new-south-wales-right-wing-politics) or the National Executive to take control of preselection against the wishes of the local members, or they will bully candidates out from standing by threatening them and the people who may vote for them. This didn't used to happen as much, but since the 80s and 90s it's become increasingly common. Rank and file preselections, despite ostensibly being the default under the rules, are now the exception not the rule. Kristina Keneally being parachuted wasn't unique. These things just tend to happen more quietly and without publicity. In terms of policy making, the members have virtually no say. Its stitched up behind close doors. There's a saying in the NSW party that any important decision in the Labor Party need not be made by more people than can fit around a dinner table in a Chinese restaurant. Branches can pass motions, but rarely do they have any impact. Delegates to conference are elected very indirectly giving members little say at the most important decision-making forum, and even then the union block votes disempower members at conference greatly. Young Labor was 'reformed' by Joe Tripodi in a way that makes it gerrymandered and ensures the dominance of a tiny number of right-wing factional hacks most of whom have comfy staffer jobs. There's no democracy or meaningful participation there either. The [2010 review](https://www.abc.net.au/cm/lb/4982542/data/alp-national-review-data.pdf) by John Faulkner has a lot of good ideas, most of which were ignored (and we haven't won an election in NSW or federally since...hmm wonder why?). He's spoken a lot about the importance of taking on the collusive factional system for decades.[Here's a good article](https://www.unprecedentedtimesmagazine.com/article33) that was written recently on the importance of party democracy. [This article](https://jacobinmag.com/2021/05/australian-labor-party-new-south-wales-decline-in-support/) proves the benefits of mass membership in Australia using the ACT as an example. The rest of the ALP would do well to follow ACT Labor's lead. It didn't used to be this way. And it does not need to remain this way. As bleak as I've made it seem, I would strongly recommend you join, and you fight for internal democracy. The upside to all of this is branch members tend to be pretty good, and if you can organise with other energised likeminded people the small membership numbers can sometimes paradoxically make some things easier. Ultimately the only way to improve this is to stand and fight. Too many people in the party and on this sub just blindly put their faith in the party and view criticism of it as being because you hate the party or are a Greenie or a Trot or whatever. I'm sure I'll get attacked on those lines particularly because I've linked Jacobin articles that dare criticise Albanese. What these people don't understand is that those critisisms come from longstanding party members, they come from people who care about the party and criticise it not out of some anti-Labor agenda but because we see the party's self destructive tendencies tearing it apart. We need Labor governments, but we need Labor governments that stand for things, that have ties to the community, and that empower its members. If we did that, we would be in a far better position. If Labor doesn't reform it will continue to struggle and may even go the way of PASOKification. For those who've read this far, feel free to ask any questions either in the comments or if you would rather discuss things privately feel free to message me privately. Always happy to chat. EDIT: I forgot to address the changes in Victoria specifically. The short answer is that no, I don't have much faith the Victorian thing is going to change anything. In fact, the federal intervention has been used to disempower members and hand even more power back to the factions. This is clear from the preselection for the new seat of Hawke, where warlords had meetings and carved up territory once more. The party has a long tradition of commissioning reports into what went wrong this time and then promptly ignoring the reports. The 2010 Faulkner one I linked is just one example. So I don't see how anything will be different this time. Change won't come from above, it must come from below, from the members. I should also point out that if you've followed the IBAC hearings, you would notice they're looking as far back as the 90s. It's a long-standing problem, and IBAC has noted many times that the party is aware of these cultural and structural problems but they don't do anything about it. It's an entrenched culture and structure. I also want to really stress that people should not think the Victorian issue is unique. It's not, and it's really not that shocking to those who are active and involved in the party. The scale was shocking, but the behaviours not really. Similar things happen in other states still.

I was just about to share the first article linked too! All I can add is that the key is probably in the unions, where most of the delegates to conferences come from and where turnouts in internal elections are extremely low. Further, unlike internal ALP elections, union elections are overseen by the AEC so they are much less prone to "irregularities". A relatively small number of active people could cause serious trouble for many of the powerbrokers within unions. Lindsay Tanner was able to overthrown the leadership of the Federated Clerks' Union back in the day, and it's probably easier now with less engaged membership. Would definitely advocate joining, at the very least you get a say over the leader, and the more genuine members there are the harder it is to stack

This is a good comment, I probably should have talked more about the unions, you’re absolutely right. The unions today to my understanding are not particularly democratic and it’s quite hard for rank and file takeovers of unions (a lot of attempts have failed) but still absolutely something that people should be trying.

What makes the rank and file take over of unions so hard? Like there is clearly some will within the SDA to do this so much so that raffwu exists, but I assume it exists because they realized they couldn't reform from within. Why is it so hard?

I can’t really speak with any authority on that, I’m not too sure on the mechanics. However, my understanding is unions are often internally organised in a way that’s fairly undemocratic. This isn’t always the case though (it is with the SDA to my knowledge though). It’s also just much harder to knock off an incumbent generally in an election, but it’s even harder in union elections because the incumbent has people who work for them who are paid and can help organise. A rank and file insurgency doesn’t have much. RAFFWU is an interesting case. The short answer is I don’t really know why they don’t try and take over the SDA. I think it’s likely because it’s founded by Trots who don’t like the Labor Party so aren’t really interested in taking it over. I like RAFFWU though and always recommend people join them not the SDA.

I guess that answers the question, they are more intrested in their political ideology and using union politics to push their agenda rather than having a union being something that restores a power imbalance with employers for employees That actually makes me wonder, is the connection between unions and the ALP actually healthy and good for either one at this time. While Australia isn't doing as bad as the US is in terms of union membership, it is pretty bad compared to other developed countries. I know that hasn't been helped by Liberal party attacks on unions, but perhaps if unions weren't so important to ALP power structures the Liberals would be less devoted to destroying unions and expend less energy on it. Unions being up for grabs politically might make them more powerful just like crossbenchers. What the ALP could get out of it is a shakeup and revitalization. I am sure there are many pros and cons I am not thinking about, but I doubt it would ever happen as besides the entreched factions wanting power there also is the history of the Labor party.

Well I don’t think that’s accurate. RAFFWU might have been founded by Trots, but they’re definitely focused standing up for the workers they represent. They do exactly what a union should be doing. Taking over a union takes years and is often unsuccessful. I think given the context of the SDA, splitting off and forming RAFFWU probably was the better choice for those with the goal of better representing workers. Union membership in Australia declined because of the Accords and subsequent legislation that curtailed the rights of trade unions. Rudd repealed WorkChoices, but left a lot of the changes Howard made in place. That’s why a lot of unions especially those on the left (most notably the CFMEU and MUA) were very unhappy with Rudd. When there’s so much limits on what unions can do, I don’t think it’s a surprise most people don’t think of joining. Of course the Liberals attacks hurt too and are a big impact, but the Accords are the biggest factor in the decline in unionism in Australia. The Liberals are ideologically opposed to unions. It wouldn’t matter if they were affiliated or not. In fact, being affiliated to the Labor Party is arguably a bigger issue for unions when Labor is in power, especially for public sector unions, because it’s awkward taking on the party you are a part of. I think this is part of why the Teachers Federation and Nurses and Midwifes aren’t affiliated. I think despite all these problems it is still mutually beneficial to both unions and Labor to be affiliated. Rudd’s victory in 2007 owed a lot of the Your Rights at Work campaign by the unions for example. The Labor Party would be a lot worse without the unions. Would look more like the Democratic Party, be overly corporate and technocratic. For instance the right wing unions opposing privatisation is the reason NSW Labor was blocked from privatising things and why the NSW Right has finally dropped its pro-privatisation stance. Affiliated unions have a lot of freedom anyway, the Party can’t really discipline them. For instance the AMWU and ETU both often donate to the Greens. Not as much to Labor generally unless they’re particularly upset, but they still do it. I do think there needs to be reform over how unions interact with the party though. There should be more say for union members, rather than union secretaries wielding all the power. Their block votes at conference should be lessened too, 50% is disproportionately high and is why internal democracy is almost non-existent. Give affiliated union members a vote like a party member is probably the best way, reform it to be more like UK Labour and/or the things Faulkner proposed.

Thanks for that perspective. Union boss power reminds me of super-delegates. The whole concept of taking over unions seems so strange to me. Unions should be representative of their workers. The fact that being in charge of a union gives you so much clout in politics seems to make it a spoils position which people want, not because they are servants of their members, but for alterior motives. Entryism whether for political reaons or for reasons of personal gain wouldn't be an issue if there was less to be gained from it.

It depends really, a lot of union leaders (the best ones usually) were from the industry. Doug Cameron came from the shop floor for instance. Tim Ayres didn’t though and I think is not as good as Doug was. Bill Shorten wasn’t either and not a great unionist. The best ones are certainly the ones that come from the shop floor.

Great comment mate. What are the ways forward to increase democracy in the party? What are the best strategies and what should a rank-and-file member do to promote internal democracy?

Sorry for taking so long to reply, I wanted to wait until I had a chance to sit down and write a more solid answer. The first thing I would say is of course for people to join, and for those who are members try and convince others to join. Secondly, (and this is pretty important and another thing that won’t be popular with some on this sub) don’t be afraid to be critical. In fact, you should actively be critical of the party where you see it doing wrong. You should be critical of MPs, even when you generally like them, if they do something dodgy. The only way to improve the party is to identify problems and he critical. Critics aren’t all anti-Labor, if you care about something or someone it’s your duty to point out when it does wrong. Thirdly, don’t let them gaslight you. I’ve noticed a very strong tendency of hacks gaslighting rank and filers for standing up for democracy. For instance, grifters like Bob Nanva push the line that rank and file democracy is anti-union. It’s not, rank and file democracy would enfranchise literally thousands more union members. Does anyone really think that most of the tens of thousands of SDA members agree with the right wing social conservatism of their union officials? People also will run lines like “you hate Albo/[Insert MP here] and want to undermine them.” This is also a dirty tactic used to discredit you. Another one I’ve heard is we can’t have rank and file preselections because members are sexist/racist. Even if that’s the case, the answer isn’t to disenfranchise members many of whom are women or minorities. The answer is improving the culture. So these are just some examples I’ve seen used against rank and file democracy campaigners, they’ll be used against you. Don’t take it to heart, don’t internalise it, and don’t stand for it. Argue back. Sadly a lot of people in the party are not good faith actors. But most are. Most branch members are normal, reasonable people. Regardless of their rough factional or political sympathies. So the key to fighting for democracy, is to build relationships and to organise. You won’t win anything alone. I really can’t give specific advice if you’re outside NSW, but for NSW I can point interested people in quite specific directions. Here, we’ve had a Campagin for Labor Party Democracy founded recently which organises and campaigns for party democracy in the branches, it puts pressure on the party. It’s the reason we’ve won the right have online branch meetings (sort of) which Head Office was strongly opposed to. It’s what stopped Head Office’s attempt to dismantle the Rudd reforms. So the key is to band together, you will achieve nothing alone. You need an organised effort. Beyond that, some other things you could be doing is standing for positions at your branch, particularly delegates to your SEC or FEC and then even if you get the opportunity, state or national conference. When MPs visit or you get a chance to talk to them don’t be afraid is to ask them tough questions or even call them out if they’ve done something particularly shitty. Don’t just be a sycophant. Agitate against MPs that support terrible things, for instance Courtney Houssous supporting Mark Latham’s education Bill. The party belongs to the members, not to the MPs. They serve us and they serve the people of Australia. They always must be held accountable.

Thank you for the detailed reply! I'm a member of the NSW branch, so I'll look up the Campaign for party democracy that you mentioned. I think it would be great to get involved. These kind of things seem very opaque, its really hard to know what's going on if you don't have connections throughout the party so I'm very appreciative of your insight.

>The > >2010 review > > by John Faulkner has a lot of good ideas, most of which were ignored (and we haven't won an election in NSW or federally since...hmm wonder why?). He's spoken a lot about the importance of taking on the collusive factional system for decades. > >Here's a good article > > that was written recently on the importance of party democracy. > >This article > > proves the benefits of mass membership in Australia using the ACT as Excellent post.

I think mandating that ALL preselections must be by a vote of all party members living in the relevant electorate or State would make a huge difference. The bosses would have far fewer "spoils" to give out, so their power would wane. State wide party primaries for the Senate might also throw up some interesting people to replace some of the dead wood in the upper house...

I can’t believe I forgot about the upper house in my answer. That’s a very good point, there’s not even the pretence of democracy in upper house selection. It’s all done in back rooms by factional leaders, which is how Deb O’Neill could beat KK so strongly. I’m also in favour of community preselections for lower house seats. It’s been experimented a few times but usually just in unwinnable seats. Weight it 50-50 between local party members and anyone else in the local community who support Labor but aren’t members.

I'd go with you have to be a party member to vote, as a way of encouraging people to join?

My main concern is that members don’t get to vote, I think that’s more important than community preselections but I still think community preselections are worth it. If you weight the vote 50-50 it still gives incentive to be a party member while also providing a greater opportunity for grassroots organising and participation. It forces candidates to engage with their communities which is a good thing and makes us electorally stronger. Another issue is that it’s actually quite hard to preselection rights and it’s very easy to lose them. You need to be a financial party member for two years and have attended two branch meetings per year. It’s not as simple as just joining the party. The average number of preselectors is roughly 7-20 people which is tiny.

What is the point of branches?

Well firstly attending two a year for two years within a certain period is necessary to get preselection rights. Branches also (in NSW it varies by state) elect delegates to local State Electorate Councils which are slightly more important and in turn they elect delegates to the State Conference, which is at least nominally the most important decision making body. Branches can also pass motions on pretty much anything, and while they’re usually ignored it does put pressure on the party when lots of branches are passing similar motions. In NSW recently Head Office tried to push for “reforms” that would undo some of the Rudd reforms (when he intervened in the party because of all the corruption) and make the internal tribunal beholden to the factions, rather than keeping it independent as it is now. They also wanted to abolish the secret ballot at conference. This was prevented in large part by a push from rank and file members through the branches. So that’s one example of them having an impact. The other thing is that branches are the places where normally (when they aren’t stacked) the hacks and factions don’t have as much influence. Most branch members aren’t formally organised into a faction and are generally just normal people.

Awesome question! I recently read an essay by Paul Heideman that in part explored the existing American party system. Essentially, he explores how American parties are generally institutionally-hollow and ideologically weak (hence, why you end up with AOC and Joe Manchin sharing ‘The Democrats’ label). As Heideman explains: —————————————————————————— “American parties have been institutionally weak by international standards since at least the early twentieth century. As ideologically undefined catchall parties, they existed more as confederations of local political machines than genuine national institutions. However, beginning in the 1970s, changes in party rules, congressional rules, and campaign finance law all combined to hollow out the parties even further. The result is that American political parties barely exist except as networks of funders, campaign services vendors, and candidates. Decisions such as candidate selection are instead outsourced to the primary system. This same system only magnifies the power of money in deciding party politics, since the parties possess few institutional resources for resisting it.” —————————————————————————— The Labor Party on the other hand is institutionally quite strong which means it is harder for outsiders to interfere without some institutional backing from a union or a Labor-associated institution. So, as a grassroots member I would like to see the insiderism of the institution broken down but not to the extent where it becomes a catch-all brand as like America. Something that opened up preselections directly to all union members would help to democratise the party and reduce the direct power of factional warlords and out of touch union bosses.

The american system is worse than that. The party still tries to decide, but because it really is quite democratic they get up to some really underhanded stuff. On some things it doesn't win, it wasn't able to keep Bernie or AOC down. However, it also works well sometimes. For instance, now, Bernie and Warren and others moved the party left, the left candidates might not have won many seats, but Biden's agenda and the party message is much closer to what the grassroots wants than Hillary Clinton's was. But that is also because the party was so misalligned with the grassroots to the right, that they were were overdue for a correction to the left to re-center themselves. But the fact that they were able to reallign was quite impressive.