Labor's lost youth vote

The devastation of the Queensland election will leave many Labor supporters wondering what is happening. It only seems like yesterday that Labor held all governments and the Coalition did not win a single state or territory election for a decade. Today, the only majority Labor Government left is South Australia, there is no guarantee of victory in the territories and Labor’s primary vote seems stagnant in the high 20s/low 30s.

A recent Fabians event in Canberra examined voting trends in Australia over the past decades and its implications for the ALP with Professor Ian McAllister. Professor McAllister runs the Australian Election Study and used data from the studies to identify voting trends. Notably, the talk examined some of the voting groups that swung against Labor since the high point of 2007.

In 2010, the previous edge Labor had with ethnic voters disappeared and double digit swings from Labor were recorded amongst government employees and union members but most stark was Labor’s youth vote. Between the 2007 and 2010 elections, there was a shift of 18% of 18-24 year olds from Labor. This should sound alarm bells for Labor and its MPs. It is a growing problem as there is an increasing trend of minor party or non-party identification by each generation. It was 37% for Generation Y in 2007 compared to 27% for Generation X and 20% for the Baby Boomers. Given trends over the past decades, this is likely to have increased.

What makes this more dangerous for Labor is, as Professor McAllister noted for the first time, the Greens had a high vote retention rate. They retained 55% of their vote from the previous election whereas they had not before. In contrast, the Australian Democrats had a churn of 60% of their vote at each election.

There are massive implications as it creates a base from which the Greens vote can grow, primarily at Labor’s expense, chipping away and slowly growing, particularly if a large portion of this Generation Y’s vote is won and kept.

Why has this happened? In part because of the decline of historical social bases but it doesn’t explain why Labor’s primary vote held up as it did until it was in Federal Government. During a Howard era, Labor at least maintained its monopoly as “the left-wing of the possible.” It was the alternative where pragmatic opponents rallied to.

When it formed government and disappointed its base on a range of issues, most notably refugees, marriage equality, climate change and quite timid changes to industrial relations laws, and allowed the Greens to seemingly exert influence, it lost this mantle and any sense that it was committed to values or ideals. In the pursuit of an idealised centre, it took its base for granted.

Labor’s current problem is best summed up by Sheri Berman who noted in the Primacy of Politics that:

It is possible to win elections without proclaiming any commitment to ideology or a desire to change the world. But over time, the parties that do so become dead men walking, losing momentum, enthusiasm, and the ability to weather difficulties.

This is the challenge that Labor like many other social democratic parties must now confront. How successfully it can is yet to be seen.


***

A podcast of the ACT Fabians event: “Voting Trends and the ALP” is available here. Corresponding slides are available here.

Read more »

Posted in: alp,elections

A conscience vote will set back marriage equality for years

f you support marriage equality, you should not support an ALP conscience vote. A conscience vote will not change the Marriage Act, it will only set back the cause for a decade. The only way to bring about marriage equality is a bound vote and I'll explain exactly why.

In 2004, John Howard brought on legislation to define marriage as being a union between and man and women excluding all others. The ALP Platform was silent on this issue. The ALP Constitution dictates when the ALP Platform is silent, the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party (FPLP) will caucus, decide on a position and bind. Anthony Albanese, Penny Wong and Tanya Plibersek, leading voices for progressive changes and advocates of same sex marriage, were bound to vote with their party and the caucus in support of those changes.

At the 2009 ALP National Conference, it turned to the broader party to define a position. It was decided that there would be no votes on the floor of conference. While reforms to remove discrimination between same sex couples were adopted in the Platform, the following was also inserted:

These reforms are to be implemented consistently with Labor’s commitment to maintaining the definition of marriage as currently set out in the Marriage Act.

This was a binding position on every member of the FPLP with no exceptions. Since then, countless motions have been put up in the Senate in support of Marriage Equality or motions recognising community support for marriage equality. Every member of the FPLP has been bound to vote against this. 

Over the years, the Prime Minister and other members of the Government have received a growing number of community questions about the issue of marriage equality as Spain, South Africa and New York all adopted the reform. Most times they said it is up to conference to change that decision. Now those words are beginning to backfire. 

Rainbow Labor has been working across the country to build support at state conferences for marriage equality with almost every state and territory now calling for a change the National Conference. With the Labor Left binding in favour of a platform change and a large chunk of the Labor Right now supporting a change, things are looking positive. A conscience vote could change all that though.

Currently, the only issue which is granted an automatic conscience vote is abortion. It comes from a decision of the 1984 ALP Conference. The resolution was that:

Conference resolves that the matter of abortion can be freely debated at any State or federal forum of the Australian Labor Party, but any decision reached is not binding on any member of the Party.

There is a push by some to have a similarly worded resolution passed to ensure that support of marriage equality is not a binding position. If this happens, the cause of marriage equality will be significantly set back.

As ANU Professor John Warhurst has pointed out, almost no conscience vote has ever passed the Parliament without the support of the leaders of one of the two major parties. In the case of marriage equality, Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott are both publicly opposed. 

If there is a conscience vote on marriage equality in the 43rd parliament, there is a strong likelihood that at least fifteen Lower House Labor MPs vote against marriage equality with strong pressure by those opposed to marriage equality from within the ALP. There is also not a chance that fifteen Coalition MPs will defy the orders of Tony Abbott to make up for those losses. In the Senate, similar numbers are likely to vote against marriage equality.

With a bound vote, the FPLP will vote as a bloc along with the four Coalition MPs that would cross the floor and marriage equality will become a reality. Without it, marriage equality will remain out of reach.

Ultimately a conscience vote makes marriage equality go the way of the Republic. We tried, we failed and it moves to the back burner, until in this case we elected enough ‘queens’ to the parliament.

Mustafa Masalkhi is a Canberra-based marriage equality activist

Read more »

Posted in: alp,conscience votes,equality,marriage equality

O’Farrell’s donations cap could lead to a radical shakeup of political parties

You wouldn’t know it from the coverage but the proposed changes to electoral donations in NSW could lead to the biggest shake-up of political party structures we have seen in a long time. Its impact could extend well beyond NSW and across the country.

The Election Funding, Expenditure and Disclosures Amendment Bill 2011 is the first attempt in Australia to restrict political donations to individuals. The rationale for the Bill is that it closes loopholes left by the Keneally Government when it introduced caps on donations to political parties and restrictions on electoral expenditure.

Under the proposed amendment, donations for political purposes will be restricted to individuals on the electoral roll and party affiliation fees will be banned. Electoral expenditure by political parties and any affiliated organisations will also be grouped together under a single expenditure cap.

It will severely limit the capacity of organisations with an affiliate structure that engage in third party campaigning. Groups such as Unions NSW, peak business and environmental organisations are effectively banned from receiving funding from affiliates for political activities. It also effectively legislates against political parties have affiliate members. A membership structure, based on individuals is practically mandated.

The amendments create a disincentive for affiliation to a political party. Affiliated organisations will be forced to choosing between participating in political parties as an affiliate or being able to campaign electorally as a separate organisation. It is an absurd situation. Political parties and their affiliated organisations are not one and the same and often disagree. Andrew Norton provided a good example where both would be penalised:

The ALP will be guilty of an offence if the spending of one or more of its affiliated unions pushes the collective union/ALP spend over $9.3 million. Yet presumably the ALP cannot control the unions. To take an example from the previous NSW Labor government, if Unions NSW campaigned against electricity privatisation during the restricted campaign period (from 1 October the year before the election) not only would the Labor Party have an unhelpful campaign, they could also be punished for something that did not do and did not want.

Understandably, Unions NSW has threatened to take the Bill to the High Court and challenge its constitutionality. However, if the challenge does not succeed, there may be massive implications, particularly for the ALP.

Unless ruled to be unconstitutional, an amendment that restricts donations to individuals is likely to pass both houses of NSW Parliament. Support may come from the Greens as their policy position is to prohibit “donations from corporations and other organisations to political parties, candidates, associated entities or elected representatives.”

The proposal to group electoral spending by affiliates with political parties may not necessarily pass. NSW Greens MLC John Kaye has indicated that the Greens would move amendments to exempt third party issues-based campaigns. However, it is likely that restrictions on affiliates advocating election votes would be maintained as Kaye indicated that the proposal to restrict donations to individuals is ''tough on Labor, but creates a level playing field”.

Furthermore, the adoption of restrictions in NSW may encourage similar legislation elsewhere. Agreement by the Greens and Liberals to restrict donations to individuals and effectively ban affiliation fees is very possible in other states and territories. Both may see a relative electoral advantage by weakening links between Labor and its affiliated unions. It will gradually close any loophole that allows transfers from other state ALP branches.

The ALP will, as a result of these actions, become more reliant on individual members and supporters. They will become the only source for money and campaigners. Unless membership levels turn around, the situation will necessitate far reaching party reform. What was suggested in the ALP National Review will not be enough. The debate about party reform will shift to being about electoral survival and having the resources to run an election campaign.

The reforms that will be adopted is hard to predict. There are a number of possible outcomes and most are likely to involve root and branch changes to party structure. Changes may include:

1. introduction of a rank-and-file component in the election of party leader at state and federal level;
2. a reassessment of how the formal trade union link operates, including a push to dilute the influence of unions;
3. lowering of barriers to participation in the party (whether through making party membership easier or including “supporter” participation); and
4. a greater say by rank-and-file members over administration and policy (more direct elections/rank-and-file preselections).

The main purpose of the changes would be to encourage more members. There will be a greater need to rally the party base to get donations and campaigners needed to win elections. Despite the objections of some, self-interest and the desire for electoral success will drive these changes.

These changes won't only be isolated to the ALP. Any electoral success and substantial growth in membership is likely to encourage other parties to adopt similar changes. The gradual acceptance of One Member One Vote in leadership ballots by all political parties in Canada is case in point.

It may not have been intentional but party reform might be coming sooner than expected, courtesy of the NSW Government. The question is whether any of Australia's political parties will be prepared for what may be coming.

Read more »

Posted in: affiliated organisations,alp,barry o'farrell,donations,elections,freedom of association,freedom of speech,new south wales,omov,party reform

Why Australian Young Labor reform matters

Across the world, the declining electoral fortunes of social democratic parties have led to discussions about the need for internal party reform. In Australia, the National Review has framed the ALP’s debate about party reform, to be had at this year’s National Conference in December.

Since the Review’s release, there have been many discussions across the ALP about the merit of primaries, direct election of President and National Conference delegates and the role of trade unions within the party. There has been one glaring omission from ALP reform debate though. Absent from the National Review was any mention of the role of young people currently within the ALP or how to keep them in the party. In particular, nothing was said about the current or ideal role of Young Labor.

Young Labor has a mixed reputation depending on who you talk to. Some think of Young Labor as a joke, others highly regard it as providing the on-the-ground campaigners that help win elections. Whatever one thinks of it, excluding Young Labor from the reform discussion ignores an important fact. Young Labor shapes a large section of the party membership. Many future parliamentarians, ministers and party leaders are a product of Young Labor. How people learn to operate in Young Labor, what they experience and what behaviours are normalised often shape how they act in later years. Some of the worst behaviours within Young Labor have been highlighted in the media in the past and it isn't hard to infere its future impact.

While the National Review spoke about the "need for a change to long established patterns of behaviour and culture," it did not recognise that much of that culture and many of those behaviours are shaped and reinforced by people's experiences in Young Labor. Changing the culture of Young Labor is likely to lead to change elsewhere in the party. The best catalyst to bring about that change that in culture is by reforming of Young Labor through the adoption of direct elections by rank-and-file members at all levels.

By introducing direct elections, individuals running for positions will need a platform and talk about what they will deliver if elected. People will need to present their case and convince people to support them on the basis of merit. It will encourage a shift towards debates about ideas and values and being active on issues that matter to young people such as improved education policies, marriage equality, abolition of youth wages rather than whether you have the votes of a handful of aligned delegates.

Such a shift from an insular behind-the-scenes approach towards a more outward approach of engagement and campaigning should be encouraged within the ALP. It will encourage a culture of greater accountability to members and in the long-run, the party will be better off for it because those important political skills needed during election campaigns and in Government will be developed.

Direct elections for Young Labor must be conducted under one member one vote (OMOV). A vote should be given to every member under the age of 27 who has been a member for at least a year so they all have a say in who their local, state and national Young Labor Executives are, who their Young Labor delegates to Young Labor, State and National Conference are and who the President is at a state and national level. The move by the NSW ALP to adopt an online vote for the newly established Policy Forum provides a model of how direct elections for Young Labor could be conducted, addressing concerns about the financial cost of direct elections.

Young Labor reform is far from impossible as it is easier than reforming the rest of the ALP. The ALP National Executive has the power to reform Young Labor and bring about this change. Everyone needs to realise the importance of reform and to seriously consider it. The future electoral success of the Labor Party might just depend on it.

Read more »

Posted in: alp,labor,party reform,young labor