Labor's caucus flexes muscles

THE Labor caucus has taken its fate into its own hands. It is restless, lacking faith in its leaders but unwilling to contemplate a further change of leadership.

The caucus was galvanised into action by the Four Corners program on live cattle exports to Indonesia. The torrent of emails from the public was like a cattle prod to backbenchers as the government appeared too hesitant in its response.

Agriculture Minister Joe Ludwig got a dose of backbench pressure and his performance was not confidence enhancing. His clunky public utterances about "supply chain assurances" confirm that he is not a Great Communicator in the Ronald Reagan mould. He is lucky his father is big Bill Ludwig of the Australian Workers Union.

Ludwig senior is a key powerbroker in the Labor Party. He slowed the rise of Craig Emerson, who has the potential to be the next Labor treasurer.

Having drawn blood, the caucus has developed a taste for it. More backbenchers are speaking out. Senator Doug Cameron, the Scottish shop steward from central casting, is leading the charge from the Labor Left.

Backbenchers feel powerless at the best of times. Their speeches in the house get little, if any, coverage. They can toil away diligently in parliamentary committees but their reports are quickly tossed into the dustbin of history. Backbenchers are there to make up the numbers. Often these numbers come into play only when panic sets in as a government struggles in the polls. Then backbenchers are enlisted for the ultimate solution: a change of leader.

Notwithstanding the talk that Bob Hawke gives Julia Gillard two or three months and has anointed Climate Change Minister Greg Combet as the next Labor leader, the caucus has no stomach for leadership destabilisation. The wiser heads know that risks repeating the NSW fiasco. They have cottoned on to the real issue, namely: what does the government stand for? Many backbenchers have strong views in that regard and are now more willing to share them with the world.

In future, cabinet ministers will not be able to take caucus support for important measures for granted. The Malaysian solution has had to run the gauntlet of caucus scrutiny. Within bounds, this should lead to better decision-making. Good backbenchers always have their finger on the pulse of the electorate. They are better and cheaper than any focus group.

This process breaks down when ministers who lose out in cabinet take their proposals to caucus in the hope of overturning the cabinet's decision. The breakdown of cabinet solidarity presages the demise of good government.

The Whitlam government ran into trouble when caucus flexed its muscle in this way. It also had an unwieldy arrangement in which the ministry was also the cabinet. This ultimately led to the rise of a kitchen cabinet consisting of a few insiders, sometimes only one or two. This resulted in little formal scrutiny of some key decisions. The best example was the Khemlani loans affair where the government tried to raise billions from the Middle East behind the back of Treasury. The Gillard government is not in that state of disarray but needs to find ways to channel backbench energy into a more useful role.

John Faulkner's Wran lecture last week was perfectly timed to play into this caucus unease. He puts his faith in strengthening the role of Labor's rank and file in party processes. He gave a plug for his recent report on democratising the Labor Party. Like Hamlet without the prince, he does not mention the central role of unions in controlling the party. That is the real barrier to opening it up.

Rather, he focuses on attracting activists back into the party fellow travellers such as GetUp! and, by implication, the Greens. He laments the loss of a generation of such activists and the passion and energy they bring to the policy debate. Remember the Vietnam moratorium movement?

Faulkner should be careful what he wishes for. One of the characteristics of activists is that compromise is a dirty word except if it is by their opponents. Every concession by others is only a further step along the road to their ultimate goal.

Activists nearly ruined the British Labour Party during the Thatcher years. Unilateral disarmament and old-style socialist rhetoric alienated the centre and gave Margaret Thatcher the room to revolutionise Britain's moribund economy. The Conservative Party was able to dine out on a constant diet of stories about the Militant Tendency and other groups that infiltrated Labour. Opposition leader Neil Kinnock fought hard to make Labour respectable again. Standing on Kinnock's shoulders, Tony Blair finished the job by reducing the unions' role and deleting the nationalisation clause from the party constitution. This culminated in the rebadging of the party as New Labour.

The key to Faulkner's focus on activists is his own background in the Left of the Labor Party.

As assistant secretary of NSW Labor, he put up for years with the Right's hegemony over that branch and, by extension, federal Labor. This was the era of Graham Richardson, Paul Keating and the other "mates".

Faulkner is wooing activists who are overwhelmingly to the left of Labor. His prescription will increase the left influence in the party. Caught between the inner-city higher-income earners and traditional blue-collar voters, he is asking Labor to choose the former.

Interestingly, it is the Left in caucus that has been the most vocal in recent days. The party barons will nod sagely in Faulkner's direction while ensuring that real progress is delayed or denied. The Gillard government should listen to all its backbenchers, not just the noisy ones who wish to take it further to the left.

The Liberals are happy to encourage Labor introspection as they woo blue-collar voters and Rudd's working families, formerly known as the Howard battlers.

But there are messages for the Liberals in Faulkner's speech. Importantly, when faced with a choice, always err on the side of greater openness and accountability in how the organisation operates. Also, polls have their place, but they are no substitute for values and character.

Faulkner still has a penchant for the collective over the individual. He draws the line at allowing parliamentarians to cross the floor on matters of principle. He justifies this in the interests of getting legislation through. Can you really tame activists in that way?