ALP constitution still lacks leadership buffer

Labor’s constitution lacks rules that would safeguard Bill Shorten from a future leadership challenge.

Opposition Leader Bill Shorten yesterday. Picture: AAP

Labor’s national conference does not have before it a proposal to ­incorporate into the party’s constitution rules that seek to safeguard Bill Shorten from a future leadership challenge.

The party’s constitution enshrines caucus rules stipulating Labor leaders “must be elected” by a ballot of party members and MPs voting in equal proportion. But there is no mention about the high-threshold vote of MPs ­required to remove a leader.

Caucus rules state Labor leaders can only be challenged if 60 per cent of MPs in opposition, or 75 per cent in government, support such a move. This is supposed to be a petition but Labor MPs say it could simply be a show of hands or a formal ballot in a caucus meeting.

This provision is designed to give the party leader a high degree of protection against a leadership challenge. It was introduced by Kevin Rudd at a special caucus meeting in July 2013 after he ­returned to the Labor leadership with the purpose of ending the ­instability that had plagued the party in government.

“Where at least 75 per cent of the members of the federal parliamentary Labor Party sign a petition requesting that an election for a leader be held when in government and 60 per cent when in opposition,” the caucus rule states.

But documents obtained by The Australian show there is no proposal to incorporate this provision into the party’s constitution that has been submitted to its constitution and rules committee ahead of the national conference in Adelaide next week. It was not incorporated into the constitution at the party’s previous conference in July 2015.

This means the high-threshold vote requirement for a leadership challenge remains only in the party’s caucus rules, which can be changed with a simple majority vote of MPs. This leaves the caucus rules in conflict with the party’s national constitution. Indeed, Labor’s constitution makes it clear that state and federal parliamentary parties are free to determine their own rules if they do not contradict what the party executive or conference has determined, and these caucus ­decisions only ­require a simple “majority”.

“On matters that are not ­subject to national platform or national conference or national executive decisions, or their state equivalents, the majority decision of the relevant parliamentary Labor Party shall be binding upon all members of the parliament,” the constitution states.

Any leadership tensions with Labor are buried deep, and the party remains united around Mr Shorten, who will lead it to the next election, but not including the strict provisions for challenging a leader increases his vulnerability.

The Liberal Party this week adopted a requirement that leaders in government can only be ­removed by a two-thirds majority vote of MPs. However, like Labor’s caucus rules, this provision could simply be overturned with a ­majority vote in the partyroom.