Why are we doing it?
- because there still remains hope that we can restore integrity of internal governance to the ALP;
to restore Our enduring Labor values so clearly set out in Chapter 1 of the the current ALP platform.
All that is needed is for enough people to speak out against the corrupt governance processes within our erstwhile democratic party - we must demand those responsibile for ensuring proper internal ALP governance standards explain their actions - or perhaps more appropriately their inaction.
Corporatism is the arch enemy of Australian sovereignty.
Corruption is its most effective tool. By JohnB 2/10/2015
We cannot expect to win the fight against corporatism without first eliminating identified vulnerabilities within the governance structure of the ALP.
The ALP’s National Executive must deliver on their fiduciary responsibility to ALP members to safeguard ‘our’ political organisation from infiltration, if not takeover, by corporate vested interests.
They have prime responsibility to apply R&F entrusted due diligence to the issue of institutional risk – the raison d’être of the ALP is under dire threat from extreme capitalism’s proponents.
If nothing is done, stalwart ‘true believers’ in the egalitarian and compassionate Labor movement will be robbed of their heritage - and an effective political voice that earlier generations have shed blood, sweat and tears to preserve.
Are we to just stand and watch while myopic self enriching political/union careerists quietly embrace and employ the corporate ethos of blatant unfair manipulative internal governance practices - shamelessly reliant on undemocratically gained/retained factional control? - as erstwhile Labor associates move effortlessly in and out of corporate boardrooms, guiltlessly wielding ALP derived power and influence.
We observe almost daily those who blithely traverse a fading, widening, almost indistinguishable line that separates pragmatism from appeasement with wily ease – attempting to be all things to all people, but always intent on preserving their own safe trajectory to wealth and career security.
Many of us watch in dismay as 'our ALP' morphs into an amoral cousin of LNP – through populist ‘me-tooism’ that so often looks more like appeasement, if not feeble capitulation, to extreme capitalism.
As widely reported, there are too many incidents of high profile Labor and union figures aligning themselves publicly with corporate interests; the ebb/flow of Labor identified figures through boardrooms, together with not so recent ICAC revelations re lobbying and speculative investment should be sufficient indication that the ALP is faced with an existential threat - it may well not survive as a membership based/controlled political party intent solely on furthering our nation's interests.
Our National Executive must act to restore and ensure a proper Rank and File based democracy - as set out in ALP Platform Chapter One.
Only by diligent minimisation of temptation and removal of opportunity for high level ALP/Union management corruption can we hope to repel the insidious infiltration of democracy by wealthy corporations – and I think the only way to achieve that end is by ensuring transparent accountable democratic processes are embedded firmly in the party structure wherever practicable.
Democracy is an investment in equality and fairness. It will cost money, but it would be money astutely spent.
Power derived through undemocratic means is the evil power of corruption - corrupt power, knowingly derived through exploitation of unsound rules, the very same rules that ruling factions collusively, deliberately quarantine from reform.
Reliance on corruption is in fact a demonstration of undeniable weakness. They are not strong enough to win on their own merits, nor on merits of issues expounded through proper open discussion and argument - they must cheat and deceive loyal trusting party supporters to attain and retain ascendency.
Corporatism thrives on corruption; it is core to their business model.
An inconvenient and unpalatable truth is that it is core to the continued dominance of factional control.
Ambitious self-serving careerists have thoughtlessly invited the insatiable corporate devil called 'corruption' into OUR party.
Welcome to the world of Corporatism !!!
Don't be surprised when it demands and extracts its pound of flesh - that pound of flesh will be taken from each party members' heart.
Power corrupts. - Absolute power corrupts absolutely - the age old saying fits well.
That is yet another reason why we are doing it!
Why I am sticking with the ALP …… for just a bit longer.
It is not yet a lost cause. By JohnB 3/10/2015
– With Rank & File and popular support we can win this fight for democracy !!
Some impatient dissatisfied ALP supporters, and evangelising members of narrow based/single issue minor parties are suggesting that the answer to Australia’s political dysfunction lies in electing their particular minor party (which presumably is entirely composed of incorruptible humans); or that we should elect a multitude of ‘independents’ to thus prevent formation of majority government by either one of the ‘majors’.
I agree that the LNP is in its present corporate aligned/corrupted form is unfit to govern Australia, and is beyond any hope of divorcing its corporate sponsors.
However I maintain that the Labor party has not yet reached that dire stage, and with some effort we can pull it back from the brink of corporate sevitude.
There is still hope for the ALP to live up to its long and noble tradition of being the party of the people – but time is running out.
We must insist on democratic reform to ALP governance, such that avenues for secretive corporate alliances and compromising sponsorship arrangements are shut down – we must ensure that factional power brokers and their appointed puppet delegates are accountable to rank and file membership – autocratic rule through contrived manipulation of flawed (and closely guarded) undemocratic party rules must be brought to an end.
The throttlehold on party peak conferences currently held by unaccountable ruling factional overlords is a corruption of democratic process.
Such corruption is ‘manna from heaven’ for corporate lobbyists, a wide open door through which to quietly proffer their rich and seductive fare – and provides a valuable product to be exploited and sold by myopic self serving quasi despots;
willing to trash ‘Labor’s enduring values’ – and everything fair and decent that the ALP has represented and fought to retain for over 120 years.
Their prevailing philosophy is 'the ends justifies the means'.
2015 Party Platform: Chapter 1,
Clause 2.
We are a movement in service to the nation we love, a country built on fairness, equality, justice and inclusion.
Clause 12.
We stand for integrity and transparency in government and honesty in Labor, with no tolerance for corruption.
Chapter 1 above is mere window dressing for a gullible and naïve R&F - the ruling factional cabals, by their actions, are contemptuous of such values – and our National executive stands on watch, mute, while the blatant perversion of proper internal governance process proceeds unchecked.
The unacceptable reality described above is that which we ‘true believers’ must fight to change – and we need all the help we can get.
Until this fight is fought and lost I stay with the ALP- it is a tried and seasoned party vehicle/structure -and with relatively minor democratising rule reform and insistence on the diligent application of the ideals and values of National Platform Chapter 1 it can be restored to the egalitarian party of the people that, and many others have long supported.
The party is not the exclusive property of autocratic collusive factions - it is not their launch tool to acquire future boardroom careers, or use to bargain with, or to exploit for personal advancement and wealth.
Power should not be retained by virtue of undemocratic contrived control, it should not to be held 'because it can' for powers sake, that is the role of the dictator.
Legitimate power is bestowed democratically by the members.
Now is not the time to abandon 'OUR' Party – it is time to act to reclaim it for the R&F and the people of Australia.
Proper democratic governance, by the people, for the people, is our best defence against the takeover of our sovereign governance by wealthy trans-national vested interests.
Join us in our fight to reclaim the ALP from undemocratically installed factional autocracy.
Editorial "We must empower Union and Branch Members" by Joshua Roose:
"...A key question revolves around the relationship between party branch members and the role of unions in the party. Local Labor celebrates working people in branches and the trade union movement as the lifeblood of the Labor party in equal measure.
We argue that reform to empower union members and branch members is desperately needed to revitalize the party. This extends beyond factions and cuts to the heart of Labors future success. However the debate has become the proverbial ‘elephant in the room’ – we all know it exists, yet noone wants to talk about it..."
A familiar sight at the party’s conferences is factional operatives requiring delegates to show one another their completed ballot papers in order to ensure that they have voted in accordance with factional instructions. Alternatively, delegates are required to hand over their blank ballot papers to be completed by the operatives on their behalf. Also to be seen at the early stages of conferences is queuing up by nominal delegates who attend for the sole purpose of receiving ballot papers, which they then turn over for completion by the operatives before leaving the venue and taking no further part in the proceedings.
A common complaint by delegates is that they have been coerced by factions into voting for candidates other than those of their choice. Behaviours of so abusive character are compounded by the use of mobile phones, which enable factional bosses absent from voting places to convey instructions to the operatives, and directly constrain members in the exercise of their secret ballot entitlement.
The surrender of ballot papers in circumstances where plainly it is not voluntary defeats the whole point and purpose of a secret ballot, which is to make sure that the person entitled to vote can do so without fear of consequences if they vote in a way which is not agreeable to another person. Such interference would not be tolerated in the conduct of any parliamentary election.
Any parliamentary election Returning Officer shown to have failed to intervene in the face of it would be sacked.
Likewise it is a flagrant breech of both the letter and intention of the party’s Rule 4.3, which reads: “Election’ means election by secret ballot using the optional preferential system of proportional representation provided in Schedule D”.
No ‘ifs’. No ‘buts’. No ambiguity.
Factions are entitled to seek compliance by their members with their directives through their internal processes.
There is no right on their part to do so at the expense of the party’s integrity and adherence to the secrecy requirements to which its rules so plainly give expression.
The party would be ill-advised to sit on its hands collectively, in the hope or expectation that it will be delivered from its present predicament by a new Whitlam, as occurred in 1970.
The secret ballot is a hard-won right and crowning achievement, secured through untiring and frequently embittered struggle by successive generations of Labour Movement activists. Its adoption in Australia ahead of all but a handful of other countries has caused it to be known widely as ‘the Australian ballot’.
It remains for the current generation of ALP members to secure its reinstatement within the party and ensure that it is passed on unimpaired to those who come after us.
Meanwhile, rules changes seeking to target on a case-by-case basis the infringements through which the secrecy of party ballots is rorted and subverted were submitted for debate at the Victorian ALP’s Special Rules Conference on 28 March.
That the item was not reached is a sad commentary on the cynical and self-serving factional ploy of limiting of the conference proceedings to a single day, when at least two and ideally three days were necessary to properly complete the agenda.
Factions have a legitimate role to play in the Party – so long as they remain ‘on tap but not on top’."
.... Many of the party’s problems and the solutions to them have been identified in the reports of successive post-election reviews, and Bill Shorten has committed to specific reforms in the course of the leadership contest and subsequent statements, but the outcome remains in doubt. The party faces stark choices at the National Conference in July.
It may choose to fulfil the hopes and aspirations of members and supporters committed to party democratisation and social democratic reform Or it may acquiesce in the continued control of its affairs by tiny coteries of self-serving factional bosses, who depend for their power on a blatant and shameless disregard for the secret ballot provisions of the party rules that enables them to predetermine the results.
Rampant trashing and subversion of the secret ballot rule has become a cancer, rotting the foundations of the party’s democracy and entrenching in its place a so-called ‘democratic centralism’ reminiscent of that which rendered us unelectable from the middle 1950s until 1972 federally and until 1982 in Victoria.
THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY --
REFORM HOPES DASHED AT ALP [2015] NATIONAL CONFERENCE
27/7/2015 By James Button
The 2015 ALP National Conference will be remembered for historic decisions on affirmative action and marriage equality, for an intelligent and at times moving debate on asylum seekers, and for the Labor Environment Action Network's well run grassroots campaign that influenced the party's decision to set a target of 50 per cent of power being sourced from renewables by 2030…
But alongside these signs of a party open to pressure from its members, the debate on internal democratic reforms was mostly a depressing failure.
The Conference adopted one significant change: ordinary members will now directly elect at least 150 delegates, the equivalent of one for every federal electorate, and a little more than one in three of all Conference delegates. States can go further if they choose: it is open to next year’s Victorian conference, for example, to adopt a motion giving ordinary members 50 per cent of votes for National Conference delegates.
Yet Conference overwhelmingly voted down a motion to give local members at least 50 per cent of votes for Senate preselections.
Another, to increase the vote of ordinary members in preselections for House of Representatives seats by 20 percentage points was put up, then withdrawn, and not revisited by the time Conference finished.
A motion from former NSW Minister John della Bosca to create a members charter of rights, including recourse to the justice system when they feel the party's National Executive has infringed these rights, was shunted off to a committee for further analysis. There it will probably stay until the next National Conference in three years time. ...
Leaving the Melbourne Convention Centre it was hard not to feel disappointed.
...Mark Butler had called on the party to hear the “clamour for change” among Labor members and supporters. It did not.
Bill Shorten said last year that “if we are to renew and rebuild the Labor party, we must rebuild as a membership-based party, not a faction-based one.” There was little sign of that – and even less sign of Bill, who was absent from the hall during the party reform debate, only entering once it was completed.
Yet all is not lost.
The delegates not aligned to a faction – a tiny platoon of six or seven in a room of more than 400 – nevertheless provided a glimpse of a future Conference that is far more open to more voices and democratic debate. The Victorian Independents say that for the first time the factions consulted them on every motion and amendment – because for the first time they potentially held the balance of power.
Why is it allowed to continue ? Why does no one stand against it?
There are many obstacles in the way of successful challenge to undemocratic ALP governance rules and practices – and the powerful factions jealously guard and exploit those obstacles used to effectively isolate them from R&F intervention.
Time is their friend and servant – they use plenty of it to dull and deflect attacks – to suffocate debate by tightly controlling time allocated for discussion/debate, or simply defer the matters to languish in some obscure stacked committee.
Professional manipulators know very well that amateur challengers usually need only be deflected/repelled once or twice - time passes, and inevitably other distractions intervene to overtake or neutralise that particular push for reform.
Legal action under common or industrial law is precluded by virtue of “The Rules” (see below).
So what are the members expected do when their calls for democratic reform are repeatedly treated with dismissive contempt by collusive ruling factions?
Wait 3 years til the next conference so their claims can again be dismissed or deferred?
Apparently so, as that has indeed been the effect of various action constraining rules to date.
"The Rules" - From the ALP 2014 National Platform:
National Constitution not enforceable in law [Page 249]
19 (a) In this rule ‘National Constitution’ means all national constituent instruments of the Party, and includes the national Objectives and Principles, the national Rules, the National Principles of Organisation, and all resolutions of National Conference and the National Executive relating to the structure and organisation of the Party.
(b) It is intended that the National Constitution and everything done in connection with it, all arrangements relating to it (whether express or implied) and any agreement or business entered into or payment made or under the National Constitution, will not bring about any legal relationship, rights, duties or outcome of any kind, or be enforceable by law, or be the subject of legal proceedings. Instead all arrangements, agreements and business are only binding in honour.
(c) Without limiting rule 19(b), it is further expressly intended that all disputes within the Party, or between one member and another that relate to the Party be resolved in accordance with the National Constitution and the rules of the state and territory branches and not through legal proceedings.
(d) By joining the Party and remaining members, all members of the Party consent to be bound by this rule.
Union delegations [Page 252]
10 Subject to rule 10(b), it shall be the right of each union to determine the criteria and procedures for selection of its delegates, subject to those delegates being financial members of that union and of the Party
Part E—Register of Conference decisions [Page 259]
Members initiating legal proceedings (decision of the 1955 Conference)
1 This Conference [1955] resolves that as a general principle it cannot concede the right of any member of the Party to initiate legal proceedings for the purpose of establishing the constitutional behaviour of the Labor Movement. We emphasise that, with a few isolated exceptions, the history of our Party discloses we have functioned on a basis of complete determination in accordance with our own rules and our own interpretation of them. We insist we must continue to create our own procedures, taking care of our own business without the introduction of lawyers and law courts.
Union elections (decision of the 1963 Conference)
2 Conference believes that industrial legislation should provide for trade unions to properly determine their own internal policies in accordance with their rules and constitutions and deplores interference in trade unions activities by any government, outside individuals or organisations. Conference accordingly calls upon all trade unionists to refrain from interference in the internal affairs of another trade union.
Grievance procedures (decision of the 1979 Conference)
3 That Conference believes that the procedures of the Party at state and national level provide adequate opportunity for people who are dissatisfied to seek redress of grievance and calls upon all members of the Party in respect of matters in dispute to refrain from making comment outside the Party.
From practical experience over the last few decades it is apparent that significant reform is near to impossible while ever reformists diligently adhere to rules that specifically restrict or prohibit effective counter action.
It is insisted that reformists follow rigid rules, while conference 'executive' conveniently ignore rules intended to ensure fair and proper democratic governance process is delivered to the general membership.
Rules are selectively applied to advantage those in control - the spirit and intent of Chapter 1 of the platform regarding enduring values of fairness and openness are ignored - proper application of democratic governance practice is routinely abandoned.
Under what rule is the overseer of conference ballots operating when delegates are allowed to collusively manipulate and monitor a delegate's vote?
Why is both the spirit and intent of the following rules (extracts) ignored?
.e.g. Chapter 10
7 Labor is committed to democratic and accountable government. This means upholding the highest standards of transparency and probity in the conduct of government and public services. [Page 180]
8 Elections and voting are at the heart of a functioning democracy, and ensuring that the democratic franchise is able to be exercised by all Australians regardless of social class, race or background is an enduring Labor value. [Page 181]
19 Labor remains committed to constitutional reform that: ● entrenches the principle of one vote, one value for all elections, to ensure equal participation for all regardless of place of residence [Page 183]
Bill Shorten in his 'Towards a modern Labor Party' speech in April 2014 said:
"...But everyone needs to have a say in this process – and we should start with Chapter One.
Chapter One contains Labor’s enduring values.
We need a new Chapter One, a democratically-drafted statement that captures what modern Labor stands for..."
What point is re-writing a Chapter that is universally ignored?
We desperately need the spirit, ideals and intent of the current Chapter One (and Chap.10) to be properly applied and implemented.
Why aren't it's provisions of fairness and democratic ideals applicable to ALP peak conference governance?
What is achieved in re-writing platform Chapters whose inconvenient fairness value provisions are already widely ignored ?
When were the proper democratic principles so explicitly expounded in the National Platform deemed optional or inapplicable to internal ALP governance?
Suggestion 1:
Following the recent deferment of the motion by John Della Bosca at 2015 NatCon (as reported by James Button of OpenLabor):
“..A motion from former NSW Minister John della Bosca to create a members charter of rights, including recourse to the justice system when they feel the party's National Executive has infringed these rights, was shunted off to a committee for further analysis. There it will probably stay until the next National Conference in three years time… “
Given the ALP platform states:
“Grievance procedures (decision of the 1979 Conference)
3 That Conference believes that the procedures of the Party at state and national level provide
adequate opportunity for people who are dissatisfied to seek redress of grievance and calls upon all members of the Party in respect of matters in dispute to refrain from making comment outside the Party”….
Suggested action is for GPL to write to the National President, voicing our displeasure that the important John della Bosca motion has been deferred requesting a prompt review of the decision; emphasising that R&F rights deferred are R&F rights denied.
In the event that this matter is not speedily reviewed, it will be further conclusive evidence to R&F members that the so called 'Grievance Procedures' (of 1979) are ineffective in delivering timely recourse of R&F membership grievances.
R&F members, despite ALP platform rules forbidding such action, would then be left with no alternative other than to pursue their rightful and proper representation through the only remaning effective avenue available – the industrial courts and/or legal system.
Suggestion 2:
GPL follow up on the report of Race Mathews and of Jim Bright (OurALP).
Race Mathews: of OPEN LABOR "Labor's Not-So-Secret Ballot Process"
“…Any parliamentary election Returning Officer shown to have failed to intervene in the face of it would be sacked. Likewise it is a flagrant breech of both the letter and intention of the party’s Rule 4.3, which reads: “Election’ means election by secret ballot using the optional preferential system of proportional representation provided in Schedule D”.
No ‘ifs’. No ‘buts’. No ambiguity.
Factions are entitled to seek compliance by their members with their directives through their internal processes. There is no right on their part to do so at the expense of the party’s integrity and adherence to the secrecy requirements to which its rules so plainly give expression….”
Jim Bright: of Our ALP "The ALP in New South Wales; who controls it and how?"
The very high degree of control that union officials are able to (and do) exercise over the appointment of conference delegates also extends to the manner in which those delegates then vote at Conference.
Many of the matters (such as party policy, rule changes, etc.,) that are determined at Annual Conference are decided by a public ‘show of hands’ of all the conference delegates. (One can probably safely assume, given the high degree of ‘flexibility’ that exists under union rules in relation to a union delegate’s appointment and dismissal, that any delegate displaying a pattern of non compliance with the voting directions of their union’s officials is likely to be dealt with in short order.)
In relation to the crucial Conference ballots for positions such as General Secretary, Assistant General Secretary, National Conference delegate, Admin Committee member, etc., additional ‘quality control’ procedures have been put in place by the unions to ensure that these ballot outcomes are 100% in accordance with their officials’ inter and intra factional commitments and agreements.
These particular procedures are often referred to as the “show and tell” or “buddy system” techniques. This involves the union delegates being required to show their completed ballot papers to other union delegates to ensure that those papers have been completed strictly in accordance with the instructions of their union’s officials.
In light of the evidence from Mr Mathews and Mr Bright lodge claim with the ALP 'National Appeals Tribunal' challenging the propriety of undemocratic voting practices on the conference floor.
The National President should be asked to obtain a report from the chief Returning Officer on the validity of voting practices observed and reported at the 2015 NatCon; and in the event that it is ascertained that proper processes were not followed, those matters determined by improper voting be set aside or annulled.
Suggestions 1 and 2 above are intended to encourage debate, thought and discussion as to how GPL can advance democratisation of ALP governance - the intention of GPL is to be an active catalyst for change.
There may well be other more effective actions suggested - please feel free to contribute your ideas in the blog section.
We are dissatisfied with the slow progress of reform and are determined to bring about change.
However, even if both these suggestions were pursued successfully, it would not eliminate the root cause of R&F disenfranchisment; specifically, control of ALP conference through undemocratically appointed and controlled Union conference delegates.
Again, quoting from Jim Bright's excellent report: "The ALP in New South Wales; who controls it and how?"
It is Rule B.20 [Page 21] (which guarantees majority control of the Annual Conference to the leaders of the affiliated unions) that is the corner-stone of the set of practices and arrangements that presently give absolute power within our Party to the union/faction power-brokers. (We should all clearly understand that Rule B.20 also empowers that small ruling clique to reverse, at any time of its choosing, any or all of the recent concessions that the rank & file members have been granted.)
It is clear to me therefore that any membership deliberations on the question of fair dinkum reform and democratisation must be focussed on this particular provision of the Party rules – that is, on the (so called) ’50/50′ rule.
It should be noted that rule/s similar to NSW B.20 also generally apply to the 'union delegate' appointment of other state annual conference/s. The provisions of National Platform Chapter 12, PartC, Rule 10 Union delegations aids and abets the current undemocratic provisions of Union / ALP State Branch rules.
Resources
