Fitzgibbon to Albanese: ‘No one is bigger than the party’

Joel Fitzgibbon in Parliament House in November after resigning from the Labor frontbench. Picture: NCA NewsWire/Gary Ramage

The ideological and policy schism in Labor has reached exist­ential proportions. Joel Fitzgibbon’s resignation from the front­bench in acrimonious cir­cum­stances in November laid bare the divide.

In an interview last week, the former opposition agriculture and res­ources spokesman is adamant the Right faction must step up to its traditional role of steering Labor to the centre because Labor has “only really been successful post-World War II when we were guided by the right wing of the party”.

“(Anthony) Albanese assured me he was no more left wing than me and he would take the party back to the centre, but sadly he has been too dominated by left-wing members of his faction,” Fitzgibbon adds.

The Opposition Leader is a long way from Fitzgibbon’s view that Labor should adopt the agreed Paris target on lowering emissions by “accepting 28 per cent (of 2005 levels) by 2030 and focusing on (Scott) Morrison’s failure to meet the target”. Fitzgibbon’s reasoning is that instead of Labor making itself the target it should hold the government to account for failing to reach emissions targets it has agreed to.

“Oppositions are not in a position to set medium targets without expert advice from depart­ments,” he says, and if Labor adopts its own unachievable targets it is a recipe for electoral failure because “it may get you a 20 per cent margin in Albanese’s electorate (Grayndler in Sydney’s inner west) or Ged Kearney’s electorate (Cooper in Melbourne), but it doesn’t do you much good if it costs you seats in central and north Queensland”.

But climate targets are just part of a deeper divide — that of a failure to support its traditional base.

Labor’s comments are “all too qualified and always nuanced”, Fitzgibbon says. “Stop saying we do not oppose and start saying we support.” When I point out the Right in the ALP in principle has the numbers in caucus to shift Labor to the winnable centre but that it’s hopelessly divided, Fitzgibbon says: “That’s true, unfortunately. We are the largest faction but there are members of the Right who combine with the Left.” He laments that he “used to be able to go to the leader and say this is the view of the Right”.

It is these internal divisions that lead Fitzgibbon to say, “I fear one day the right-wing faction (if not the party) could split.’’

We discuss the many groups that traditionally have supported Labor but are drifting away: mining workers, trade unions and their members, regional voters, blue-collar workers, manufacturing workers, people of faith and self-funded retirees. To these Chris Bowen and Wayne Swan have added Australians struggling in the suburbs.

Is Labor losing support from among all of these groups? Fitzgibbon replies bluntly: “Yes.” Will Albanese ever take on the Left and start fighting for these groups? “If he remains on his current trajectory he will lose the next election,” is Fitzgibbon’s response. Is it therefore incumbent on Fitzgibbon to bring the leadership question to a head? His response is menacing but cautious: “None of us is bigger than the party. I am hopeful Albo will get the message.”

But Fitzgibbon has clearly thought about the mechanism for a change of leader, including the Kevin Rudd rule requiring 60 per cent of the caucus. “It’s a myth to say the rules prevent us from having a leadership change. With 51 per cent you can change the rules or bring on a spill motion.” He adds: “No leader could survive by not accepting the motion as that would indicate the leader does not have the majority support of the caucus.”

It seems Fitzgibbon and other members of the Right are giving Albanese a chance to change course. But most don’t think he will and, while they do not wish to telegraph their actions, it’s clear they are putting Albanese on notice. Fitzgibbon has not spoken to his leader since he walked away from the frontbench. Asked if Albanese had given any indication that he may want him back, the answer is a flat “No. And I would not go back under the current trajectory and policy settings.”

So there you have it: a standoff of monumental proportions within Labor as it struggles to accommodate its progressive and traditional bases. As the latest Newspoll analysis revealed on Monday, Labor is failing to sway blue-collar workers, and without a recalibration to woo them back Labor is unelectable. That’s what makes the stakes so high.

Fitzgibbon says the res­ources export sector should be supported openly by Labor while there is overseas demand. But in the coal power sector he agrees there will be a need to transition as coal-fired plants are decommissioned. The transition will include renewables, but only if they are “firmed up” with pumped hydro, batteries and especially gas. That’s why we have to strongly support gas.

Gas is not emission free and Labor’s commitment to net-zero emissions by 2050 is deficient unless it can say how it also will replace gas eventually. Other countries are ramping up their nuclear options to fill this gap. Fitzgibbon’s response on this is straightforward: “I support nuclear power generation.” He says a clear level of support would have to be built and he is “happy to start the discussion right now with the Australian people”. Again, I doubt Albanese is up for it.

The Prime Minister is adopting a tough stance on China to “harvest domestic votes” and Labor is going along. Fitzgibbon has been strident in his criticism of Morrison’s handling of the China relationship and his failure to mend it. “We have kicked sand in their face for a very long time.” We did this partly as an ally of the US but “the US continues to benefit with an improving trade relationship with China while we are being kicked up the arse”.

With so many intense personal, strategic and policy differences it’s hard to see how the schism in the Labor Party will not be brought to a head.

Theo Theophanous is a commentator and former Victorian Labor minister for energy, resources, industry and trade.