Shorten squibs it on socialism

A year after Labor set up a committee to modernise its central mission statement, it has not held one meeting and the review process is flagging and may be sunk.

Bill Shorten backed Labor’s national conference decision two years ago to review the 1921 socialist objective, which he believes should be replaced with a new set of principles that better reflects the party’s contemporary values. But the Opposition Leader has done nothing to revitalise Labor with a new philosophy for the modern era.

This was an opportunity to invest the party with new purpose. It could have been the high point of his leadership. Instead, Shorten squibbed it. He is too frightened to take on the left faction, including senator Kim Carr. He is unwilling to rewrite the objective that many members cling to. But Shorten had the authority of the conference to review the objective; it was an opportunity to make his mark.

In October last year, Labor’s national executive established an eight-member review committee chaired by federal MP and party vice-president Tim Hammond, from the right faction. A co-chairman from the left has not been nominated, another sign that progress has stalled.

The committee has held no meetings and has not consulted with any party members, MPs or unions. Neither has it called for “input” on a new statement of belief, as it was directed to do. It was asked to lead an “active discussion and consultation” process. And it was to “circulate draft proposals” to put to the national conference next year.

The committee appointed to review the objective comprises Hammond and Carr, former senator Ursula Stephens, former state minister Linda Lavarch, former National Union of Workers national secretary Greg Sword, United Voice national secretary Jo-anne Schofield, academic Anna Yeatman and party activist Adam Clarke.

Labor’s 2015 national conference reopened debate on the ancient creed with a view to developing a new philosophy and statement of principles to guide the party in the 21st century.

The resolution moved by NSW Labor leader Luke Foley and union leader Tony Sheldon required the party “to commence a review of our socialist objective, with a view to replacing the existing language with the most appropriate and modern set of principles and objective”.

The socialist objective defines Labor as a “democratic socialist” party that supports “the democratic socialisation of industry, production, distribution and exchange, to the extent necessary to eliminate exploitation and other anti-social features in these fields”. This is meant to be Labor’s animating purpose in politics.

Labor was founded in 1891 but did not formally commit to socialism until 1905. The objective was later amended and qualified but the present language dates primarily to 1921. The previous review of the socialist objective was undertaken in 1981. In 2014, the NSW Labor conference voted to abolish it.

The case for rewriting the socialist objective could not be stronger. It is almost a century since Labor adopted the objective when the party had skewed left after the split during World War I. It has never been uniformly supported within Labor or practised in government.

Nothing is more important than what a party stands for, and Labor can do much better than recommitting to the socialisation of the commanding heights of the economy. Socialism is an antiquated and discredited ideal, and it is absurd to think that Labor would recommit to it. But that is likely.

This is not about self-indulgent naval-gazing. Every political party needs a guiding philosophy that articulates its values. Parties are about beliefs, principles and ideology. Without a clear sense of what a party stands for and whom it represents, its policymaking can often be shambolic.

There is support across the parliamentary party for rewriting the objective. Chris Bowen and Tony Burke, from the right, have long supported change. Mark Butler from the left and Andrew Leigh, who is unaligned, also think the party can define itself better. There is opposition to change, however, from Tanya Plibersek, Doug Cameron and Stephen Jones.

Labor elders are signed up to replacing the socialist objective with modern principles. Gough Whitlam supported a new objective, as do Bob Hawke, Paul Keating and Kevin Rudd. So do former premiers Bob Carr, Steve Bracks and Peter Beattie. What is Shorten waiting for?

The thing is that Shorten also supports replacing the socialist objective with principles that more clearly articulate the party’s modern aims and ambitions. He previously told this column that the objective was “as useful as a 100-year-old street directory”.

Labor’s next national conference is in Adelaide next July. It is unlikely the party can conduct a wholesale review and settle on a new form of words by then. It is not too late but it will be exceedingly difficult and would require the kind of leadership Shorten has rarely demonstrated.

The national conference would be a perfect opportunity for Shorten to demonstrate that he has modernised Labor and is ready to lead the nation. It will be the only one before the next election. Instead, Labor looks like going to yet another election with democratic socialism as its goal. How stupid is that?