It's not factions or unions but flawed individuals

Lobbecke

FACTIONS aren't to blame for the mess in which Labor finds itself today in NSW, individuals are. Individuals who allegedly have engaged in serious wrongdoing.

And reducing the role of unions within the Labor Party certainly isn't the panacea to Labor's problems federally. If Labor does lose the next federal election, as the polls indicate that it will, the union movement will give the Labor Party a vital stream of resources and support at a significant time of need.

John Faulkner is a Labor elder statesman, a title he has thoroughly earned courtesy of years of loyal service to the party. But when he calls for reduced factional influence and a diminished role for trade unions within the party - the latter point implicit in his argument - he does so as a long-time factional leader of the Labor Left; that is, the weaker arm of the party that does not control the majority.

And it is this context that needs to be put up in lights when analysing his arguments. Faulkner, while greatly respected, is no purist. He is a factional advocate of the Left who makes recommendations that are designed to force debate that (hopefully, from his perspective) weakens his opponents. Those opponents are more often internal than external; that is, the Labor Right rather than the conservative Right, which doubles as the Coalition.

It may seem odd that someone like me jumps in and defends Labor's existing factional structure, in turn condemning someone such as Faulkner, who has chosen to criticise it. The rise of factions within the Liberal Party is something I utterly abhor. It stifles what should be a cornerstone of liberalism: the role of the individual. But Labor is a very different beast. It needs collective strength. It needs factions and unions that impose discipline. "The workers united will never be defeated" may be a slogan, but there is no doubt unity within the working class is its best chance of political success, including when it engages in internal battles.

Factions, and indeed formal affiliations by the Labor Party with the union movement, give Labor political muscle and discipline. That's not to say the union movement and the factional elders within the party don't have lessons they must learn. They certainly do. The present crop of factional leaders within the parliamentary Labor Party, for the most part, have shown themselves to be sub-par.

But that's no reason to overhaul the system. It's a reason to move on generationally and clean out the undeserving factional leaders in the caucus, who I will happily name.

The likes of Wayne Swan and Stephen Conroy, factional leaders of the Right in Queensland and Victoria, sat in cabinet with Kevin Rudd and did not have the guts to stand up to him when they believed he was losing his way. Doing so might have helped Rudd change his ways, rather than leaving it for others to remove him without warning. Instead Swan and Conroy sat silently, complained to junior colleagues (such as the next generation of Labor Right leaders, Bill Shorten and David Feeney) and did nothing.

Ironically Swan's and Conroy's weaknesses as factional leaders, rather than any wielding of their power, is what started the mess that now is federal Labor. The NSW Right did not have a senior member in the cabinet who should incur similar criticisms. Tony Burke and Chris Bowen were cabinet ministers, but they were part of the next generation who had already risen to occupy high office. It was not their duty to counsel Rudd, it was Swan's and Conroy's duty.

Mark Arbib, as the leader of the NSW Right, did try, but he was more junior in Canberra than people realise, arriving in 2008 and not yet in cabinet.

Faulkner's argument that factions must reduce their power and influence is compelling because the dominant faction - the Right - made a critical error when it removed a first-term prime minister. It has compounded that error by arguing ever since that no error was made.

The way that senior members of the anti-Rudd factional forces came out publicly and tore apart Rudd's character and competence in February this year during the leadership showdown was entirely unbecoming of parliamentary elders. Again, it wasn't the factional system that was at fault, or the power and influence of the union movement. It was the unfortunate reality that the present crop of senior players in Canberra are sub-par. Again the names Swan and Conroy sit front and centre.

Rudd may well have been difficult to work for, and he even may have presented an electoral risk, as the shopped-around internal polling from the time suggested. But the decision to remove him led to a chain of events that has crippled Labor's relationship with the electorate.

Because it took the younger generation of factional leaders to do the job on Rudd, intergenerational factional failure became apparent, which makes it easier for vested interests critical of Labor's dominant Right faction (such as Faulkner, or the Liberal Party) to make their arguments. This is a burden the likes of Shorten will have to bear for the rest of their parliamentary careers.

Calls to reduce the influence of Labor's factions and the trade union movement are as unlikely to succeed as they are unnecessary to make. But that's not to say the factional leaders of tomorrow don't have important lessons to learn. For too long factional leaders have believed they are serving their interests by supporting candidates into parliament who simply do what they are told. (This is a bipartisan problem.)

However, that approach lowers the standard of MPs, reducing the gene pool from which to select the A-team that must run a government. If those taking over Labor's factions want to seriously exercise power they must select candidates capable of maximising Labor's chances of winning office, even if those individuals don't always do what they are told. After all, power in opposition isn't really power at all.

As for the union movement, its links to Labor are more than simple history. They give the party of the working class the support mechanisms it needs, especially in opposition. But union leaders need to take their members with them on the path of economic development and economic interdependence, as the Bill Keltys of this world did during the Bob Hawke and Paul Keating years. The problem with some union leaders who exercise power over the Labor Party is that they are anything but modern economic realists. They hanker for a bygone era that ain't ever coming back.

Labor's problem is not its factional system and it certainly is not its union affiliations. The problem is the generation of leaders within the factions at the senior end of the caucus. What's important for the Labor Party now is that the next generation learns from the mistakes of its predecessors, rather than emulates their errors.

That is exactly what Hawke, Keating, John Dawkins, John Button, Peter Walsh and others did as they looked over their collective shoulders at the ruin of what was left of the Whitlam government. The result? The Labor governments from 1983 to 1996 played a crucial role in shaping modern Australia, for the better.

Peter van Onselen is a professor at the University of Western Australia.