Secrecy over review of 2016 election against Labor tradition

It was one of the strangest meetings of the national executive of the Labor Party in recent times. The get together, on August 11, was to discuss the official review of the party’s election campaign last year. But what happened next stunned even veteran party figures.

No copies of the report were provided in advance. The report was available to read in an anteroom one hour before the start of the national executive meeting. All copies were named and numbered, and had to be given back. Two chapters, on fundraising and research, were not even circulated.

Only a few members of Labor’s shadow ministry have seen the report. Hardly any members of the parliamentary party or any candidates have seen it. A few trade union leaders have seen it. And forget about any rank-and-file party members. After all, they’re just members.

Labor’s national secretary, Noah Carroll, is ruling the party with an iron fist. He has refused to allow MPs, party officials and union leaders to have a copy of the report. Anybody who wants to read it — including shadow ministers — must go to the party’s national secretariat in Canberra to do so.

Understandably, several Labor MPs and party officials regard this as absurd and have made their views known. Labor is supposed to be a party that welcomes scrutiny, transparency and accountability. It not only makes for a healthy internal culture, it is deeply ingrained in the organisation. It is what members expect. It is what often sets Labor apart from others.

Every previous review of the party has been made public, no matter how difficult they have been to absorb. This includes the sweeping organisational review by federal secretary Cyril Wyndham in 1965, the comprehensive national committee of inquiry established by Bill Hayden in 1979, and the detailed national committee of review report prepared by Bob Hawke and Neville Wran in 2002.

Part of the 2010 national review of the party undertaken by former premiers Steve Bracks and Bob Carr and then-senator John Faulkner was released publicly. I then disclosed the rest of the report and its 97 recommendations in a series of articles for this newspaper. There were some tough assessments for the party.

The first section dealt with the performance of Labor in government and offered suggestions to improve co-ordination, consultation and cohesion. The second section dealt with the 2010 election and made recommendations on strategy, candidate selection, research, advertising, logistics and co-ordination. The final section addressed the party organisation and its membership, which they argued was “in crisis”.

After the 2013 election — which brought down the curtain on the Rudd-Gillard years — a campaign review was undertaken by federal MP Milton Dick and Victorian state MP Jane Garrett. That 25-page report was searing in its condemnation of Labor in power, marked by “acrimony and infighting”, and made 30 recommendations to improve campaign strategy and internal party operations.

Labor’s 2016 election review was commissioned a year ago. The effort that went into writing it was extensive. The terms of reference outline that it was to address strategy, logistics, candidate selection and policies. The report was to have 10 sections with 18 authors that included MPs, party officials and union leaders.

At the national executive meeting two months ago, Labor senator Jenny McAllister gave a detailed briefing of the first chapter providing a statistical analysis of the election results that she co-wrote with Reggie Martin, secretary of the party’s South Australian branch. A broader discussion of the campaign followed. But those who spent months working on chapters of the report have not been given a copy of it. They don’t even know if their contributions have been amended, let alone included. Many of these people regard the process as a farce. Their derision of the national secretariat is barely concealed.

What is Labor hiding? Last year’s result was, on balance, good for Labor. The party gained, in net terms, 14 seats. The Coalition was reduced to a one-seat majority. Bill Shorten out-campaigned Malcolm Turnbull and his future as leader was secured. Yet there has been internal criticism of the campaign that may explain why Carroll, formerly Victorian Labor secretary, is eager to conceal the review. Labor won seats in every state (including seven in NSW) but lost a seat in Victoria (Chisholm). The performance of Daniel Andrews’ government, especially the dispute between the United Firefighters Union and the Country Fire Authority, was damaging to federal Labor.

Labor’s left faction conducted its own review. It included the assessment that the party’s campaign headquarters was a “f..king disaster” and basic functions such as on-the-ground logistics, co-ordination with shadow ministers, candidate support, union liaison and the digital campaign were dysfunctional.

The Liberal Party’s campaign review found its way into the media. So did the Greens’ internal report. Neither made for entirely happy reading but at least they are taking lessons from the election. A review that examines policies, strategy and operations can only help Labor to do better next time. But it has all but vanished.

Denying Labor a chance to read its own campaign review will make winning the next election harder. Some think it’s clever to bury the review. But it runs counter to the party’s tradition, it avoids critical scrutiny and there is no accountability over the implementation of recommendations. It speaks to a culture that is controlling, secretive and contemptuous of its MPs, officials and members.