Australian Labor Party

Australian Labor Party
The Party for all Australians

Friday, 1 August 2014

What Should Labor Do? - The AIM Network

What Should Labor Do? - The AIM Network



What Should Labor Do?














The State of Play


The LNP are on the eve of their first year in office. In terms of
performance, how will they be judged? They have shown contempt for the
very constituency that elected them in good faith, the Prime Minister
has been proven to be a liar of catastrophic proportion, and secrecy has
been at the centre of its tenure.






‘’When a political party deliberately withholds
information that the voter needs to make an informed, balanced and
reasoned assessment of how it is being governed. It is lying by
omission. It is also tantamount to the manipulation of our democracy.”



JL




They have governed with an ideological intensity not seen in this
country for a very long time;every decision seems to have the stamp of
American Republicanism. The Treasurer has brought down a budget of
incredible unfairness that has received universal disapproval, and on
top of that a biography about Joe Hockey reveals he felt it wasn’t tough
enough.



So draconian and punitive has been their treatment of those seeking work that they have opened themselves to ridicule.





Try this, for example:


“Miraculous job creation scheme.


100,000 youth producing 40 applications per month means 4 million
applications per month. The remaining 620,000 unemployed (20
applications per month) would deliver a further 12.4 million
applications each month, giving a grand total of around 16 million
applications per month.



With those kinds of numbers each month, the private sector and
government will urgently need more staff to process, sort and respond to
those applications, as well as keep records in case of Centrelink
checking on the individual unemployed. It’s a veritable miracle of job
creation.



We can expect the vacancy rate to increase markedly as these
requirements hit the private and public sectors. Furthermore if all
applications (or even most) were required to be sent by mail, Australia
Post and the pulp & paper industry could be saved overnight! If
electronic lodgement was used then that would represent a huge business
boost for the NBN. By a stroke of Kevin Andrew’s pen.



To review, 16 million applications per month is 192 million
applications per year (remember the actual number of vacancies doesn’t
matter, what’s important is that there are plenty of unemployed to send
applications). If we allow that one person could reasonably review 50
applications per day (less if replies had to be written) or 12,500 per
year that would result in a need for over 15,000 people just to process
the applications!!! Each of them would need supervision, management,
training, quality assurance, safety and human resources leading to total
employment of around 25,000!”







It’s simple. If the PM would come good with all the jobs he promised
there wouldn’t be any need for the draconian work for the dole measures
he is undertaking (sarcasm intended).






In terms of policy implementation their performance has been abysmal.
In a corresponding period, Julia Gillard’s hung-parliament passed 127
pieces of legalisation. To date, Abbott’s has passed approximately 8,
with much legislation not even written. It has been a Government of
punishment and undoing rather than doing.



It has lied about the state of the economy, painting it in terms of a national disaster when in fact it isn’t. To top it off,


in an interview last weekend with the New Zealand political current affairs show, The Nation, Joe Hockey had this to say.





“There is no crisis in the Australian economy, nor is it in trouble.”




He also made no mention of the “budget emergency” he and his
government refer to when justifying their unpopular budget to
Australians;






“The Australian economy is not in trouble.

There’s no crisis at all in the Australian economy.”




All this of course has been reflected in the polls.


Crikey’s “Poll Bludger”, which aggregates all major
opinion polls, records that a large and persistent shift in the
two-party preference occurred as budget details began leaking in about
April this year. It seems clear that voters don’t like the budget. The
Abbott government has never explained why the “lifting” must be done by
people who are already missing out, while it continues giving tax
concessions to wealthy individuals and profitable businesses.
Entrepreneurs and economists are calling for the government to tighten
these concessions rather than raise the top marginal tax rate – which is
effectively what it did with its levy on high-income earners earlier
this year.

And as work becomes more insecure – there are now ten jobseekers for
every vacancy, and many in work are on casual or short-term contracts –
the government intends to impose a strict and punitive regime for the
jobless, as if their unemployment is their own fault. Despite its drive
to “cut red tape”, the government intends to make Newstart recipients
apply for 40 jobs every week on top of their work-for-the-dole
obligations. The Business Council of Australia’s new president, Telstra
chair Catherine Livingstone, makes the obvious point that this would
most likely inundate prospective employers with masses of unwarranted
applications. Senator Eric Abetz admitted the same on Lateline last
night.



- Russell Marks, Politicoz Editor, The Monthly, 29/07/14



What should Labor do?


Where did all the voters go, and why?





Indeed, where did they go? Mysteriously, 3.3 million eligible voters
went missing at the last election. That is a whopping 15% more than the
previous one.






There is something fundamentally wrong when, despite a huge
recruitment drive by the Australian Electoral Commission, 1.22 million
citizens failed to enrol to vote, and 400,000, or one third of the
non-registrants, were aged 18 to 24. Additionally, 760,000 House of
Representatives ballots were informal – about 6 percent – up more than
0.3 percent from the 2010 election.



Who carried the loss? Our democracy did.


Unlike the US and the UK, who both have voluntary voting systems, we
have a compulsory one. We shouldn’t need to entice voters to the polling
booth, but something has changed. It seems that in increasing numbers
our citizens are walking away from their obligation.



Are they just morons who we should ignore anyway, or are there other
reasons? I don’t in the least subscribe to that moronic theory. I
believe that most of these people made a conscious decision not to vote
because they have become disenchanted with the system. Who can blame
them?



In 2010, 93% of eligible people voted in Australia. In the US, about 60% of the population vote, and in the UK it is about 65%.


What would happen if the lost voters returned? Recent analysis of the
election result suggests that fifteen of the Coalition’s new seats are
held on very thin margins. Eleven seats have margins of less than 4000
voters. In essence, the election was a lot tighter than was first
suggested. Effectively, this means that it would only take about 30,000
people to change their vote to change the government.



Answering the ‘’what if’’ question may be complex, but simply put, it
lies in a worldwide dissatisfaction with the practice of traditional
Western politics – left vs right. People who once saw politics as tuff
but with an ability to compromise now see it as tuff but indecent. It is
now an institution of power that drives self-interest and ignores the
common good. If we look around the world, wealth has become the measure
of success and the rich are becoming weather at an alarming rate. In the
history of this nation the rich have never been so openly brazen.



Something will have to break or there will be a revolution. Even
Americans no longer believe the dream that has been instilled in them
since birth, that they all have an equal opportunity of success. It
simply doesn’t exist.



Before going further we need to establish why Labor lost the
election, but I don’t propose to elaborate on this point. They lost
firstly because of infighting over leadership and the perception of
dysfunction. Secondly they lost because of a right wing dominated media
that was under instructions to get rid of them, and thirdly because the
then opposition had the most negatively persuasive liar of a leader the
country has ever known.



What should Labor do?


There is no doubt that the Australian political system is in need of
repair but it is not beyond it.Labor has taken a small but important
first step in allowing a greater say in the election of its
leader,however it still has a reform mountain to climb. Besides internal
reform that engages its members, it needs to look at ways of opening
our democracy to new ways of doing politics: ways that engagethose that
are in a political malaise so that they feel part of the decision making
process again.



Some examples of this are fixed terms, and the genuine reform of question time with an independent speaker. Mark Latham even advocates (among other things) its elimination in a new book. In fact he has many suggestions of considerable merit.


Labor needs to promote the principle of transparency by advocating
things like no advertising in the final month of an election campaign,
and policies and costing submitted in the same time frame. You can add
reform of the senate into this mix, and perhaps some form of citizen
initiated referendum. Also things like implementing marriage equality
and a form of a National ICAC. Perhaps even a common good caveat on all
legalisation.



Labor has to raise itself above and overcome its preoccupation with
faction power struggles. These struggles preoccupy, and erode the
ability to be creative. In a future world dependent on innovation it
will be ideas that determine government, and not the pursuit of power
for power’s sake.



If the Labor party is to convince the lost voters who have left our
democracy to return (and I am assuming that most would be Labor), it has
to turn its ideology on its head, re-examine it, and thenreintroduce it
as an enlightened opposite to the tea party politics that conservatism
has descended into.



It must promote and vigorously argue the case for action against
growing inequality in all its nefarious guises, casting off its
socialist tag and seeing policy in common good versus elitist terms. The
same fight must also be had for the future of the planet.



It must turn its attention to the young, and have the courage to ask
of them that they should go beyond personal desire and aspiration and
accomplish not the trivial, but greatness. That they should not allow
the morality they have inherited from good folk to be corrupted by the
immorality of right wing political indoctrination.



It might even advocate lowering the voting age to sixteen. An article
I read recently suggested the teaching of politics from year 8, with
eligibility to vote being automatic if you were on the school roll.
Debates would be part of the curriculum and voting would be supervised
on the school grounds. With an ageing population the young would then
not feel disenfranchised. Now that’s radical thinking; the sort of thing
that commands respect. It might also ensure voters for life.



Why did the voters leave?


How has democracy worldwide become such a basket case? Unequivocally
it can be traced to a second rate Hollywood actor, a bad haircut, and in
Australia a small bald headed man of little virtue. They all had one
thing in common. This can be observed in this statement (paraphrased);






“There is no such thing as society. There are only
individuals making their way. The poor shall be looked after by the drip
down effect of the rich”




Since Margaret Thatcher made that statement and the subsequent reins
of the three, unregulated capitalism has insinuated its ugliness on
Western Society and now we have an absurdly evil growth in corporate and
individual wealth and an encroaching destruction of the middle and
lower classes.These three have done democracy a great disservice.



Where once bi-partisanship flourished in proud democracies, it has
been replaced with the politics of hatred and extremism. Where
compromise gets in the way of power, and power rules the world.



3.3 Million Australians have tuned out of politics because of the
destabilisation of leadership,corruption on both sides, and the
negativity and lies of Tony Abbott. The propaganda of a right wing
monopoly owned media and the exploitation of its parliament by Abbott.
Somehow the lost voters must be given a reason to return. A reason that
is valid and worthwhile. A reason that serves the collective and engages
people in the process, and a politic for the social good of all – one
that rewards personal initiative but at the same time recognises the
basic human right of equality of opportunity.



We need a robust but decent political system that is honest, decent,
and transparent, and where respect is the order of the day. A political
system where ideas of foresight surpass the politics of greed and
disrespect, and truth, respect, civility and trust are part of vigorous
debate and not just uninvited words in the process.



“The right to vote is the gift our democracy gives. If
political parties (and media barons, for that matter) choose by their
actions to destroy the people’s faith in democracy’s principles and
conventions then they are in fact destroying the very thing that enables
them to exist.”



JL

“The misuse of free speech may have contributed to the decline of our
democracy but it is free speech that might ultimately save it”






Monday, 28 July 2014

Newspapers’ troubles are also bad news for a robust democracy – Opinion – The Weekend Australian « anthonyalbanese.com.au

Newspapers’ troubles are also bad news for a robust democracy – Opinion – The Weekend Australian « anthonyalbanese.com.au


Jul 27, 2014
 
ANTHONY ALBANESE ARTICLE






Newspapers’ troubles are also bad news for a robust democracy – Opinion – The Weekend Australian






LIKE many Australians I’m worried about the quality of media coverage of politics in this country.

My concern has little to do with bias, the usual and often
predictable complaint of politicians, who are often the least qualified
to judge on the issue. But in my 18 years in parliament I have never
seen fewer journalists covering the political beat in Canberra.



It’s a real worry for the quality of our democracy. The phenomenon
was underlined to me in stunning fashion recently when I happened to be
in Canberra on a Sunday. When I ventured into the parliamentary press
gallery — home to Canberra-based journalists who cover politics — the
­offices of a several major daily newspapers were empty.



On weekdays, it is not unusual to see Parliament House newsrooms
empty by 7pm. Such staffing levels would have been unheard of as little
as two years ago. When I was first elected to Parliament in 1996,
newspaper ­offices were seldom vacant.



There was always someone around looking for a story; always a range
of reporters covering the same issues and fighting hard to beat each
other to the scoop. Several reporters would be working on the same
story, providing readers the chance to access a diverse array of reports
of the same events so they could form their own views, rather than
relying upon only one version of events. But that’s all gone.



Now as few as three or four ­reporters cover one story for all daily newspapers in this country.


My time in parliament has ­coincided with the collapse of the
traditional business model of newspapers and with a corresponding
decline in rigour in political reporting.



Rigour, like bias, is in the eye of the beholder. But numbers mean something. Circulations are in freefall. The Sydney Morning Herald, for instance, lost 20 per cent of its sales in the year to the April-June period in 2013. The Australian’s circulation declined by 9.8 per cent in the same period, while TheAustralian Financial Review dropped 6.8 per cent of its weekday circulation and 14.7 per cent for its weekend edition.


Advertising revenue is also down. According to advertising industry
sources, market analyst Standard Media Index has found that in the year
to December 2013, the value of advertisements in newspapers that were
booked through advertising agencies plunged by 18.1 per cent compared
with 2012.



On top of this, it is more common than ever for newspapers to
artificially boost circulation figures with giveaways to hotels,
military personnel, airports or sporting events. The consequences of
reduced incomes are thinner newspapers and fewer journalists. The Media
Entertainment and Arts Alliance estimates that in 2012 and 2013, a total
of 1500 journalists were made redundant in this country. The union says
that between 3500 and 4000 journalists are still working in newspapers —
down from 6500 five years ago.



In the area of political coverage, the number of journalists working
in the press gallery in Canberra’s Parliament House has fallen
dramatically. At the same time, the community seems to be increasingly
divided by cultural wars about media coverage of politics.



The Abbott government has reignited its attacks on the fairness of
reporting by the ABC, while the former Labor government of which I was a
member engaged in conflict with News Corp Australia publications and
proposed to introduce a new media regulator.



The News Corp Australia flagship, The Australian, devotes vast
amounts of space to attacks on its competitors at Fairfax and the ABC,
­attracting tit-for-tat responses from the Fairfax publications.



It may be that newspapers are following this approach as a marketing
tactic — to maintain the loyalty of a certain demographic by appealing
to its existing biases or cultural preferences. These exchanges create
heat, but no light.



After all, the media is about shining light on what is happening in
the community. In Canberra, the shining of that light is critical
because media reporting is the basic resource for voters wanting to make
decisions about what ideas and politicians they want to support. There
is also an increase in the amount of comment in newspapers. Worse still
is comment dressed up as news.



These days, journalists seem to be crossing the divide between being
reporters and activists with increased frequency. Newspapers have always
had editorial and opinion pages. But they came with many pages of news
coverage.



The collapse of advertising means fewer news pages and, in the case
of some publications, a worrying trend towards presenting extreme
commentary as though it were news.



Whatever is leading to these trends, it’s not good for democracy. I
don’t have the magic answer to the decline of this critical industry.
The first step to finding a solution is acknowledging the problem and
this requires a more sophisticated response than identifying goodies and
baddies.



The only good news is that the decline of newspapers comes with the
rise of internet-based news organisations, which have shunned paper and
do all their reporting online. However, because these are largely
start-up operations, the trickle of new online reporters in Canberra is
being dwarfed by the exodus of old hands taking voluntary redundancies
as their employers downsize.



The media industry is clearly in a state of transition, with editors
fighting hard to maintain quality with diminished resources.



To my mind, there is a danger that while newspapers are changing,
their readers are unaware of the scale of the change and are yet to
adjust their expectations about the depth of their coverage and their
reliability.



Those who previously built their understanding of public events
solely around newspapers need to broaden their sources of information.
Social media now provides individuals and organisations with a means
through which they can communicate ­directly and immediately with
others. While this is an opportunity, it is often undermined by those
who seek to simply gain attention through adversarial, poorly
thought-out commentary, which at its best is annoying and at its worst
is offensive.



This also means that far too often quantity swamps quality.


The rise of social media has also triggered a decline in accuracy as
journalists and others ­repeat rumours they hear through social media in
the rush to be first with the “news”. But in their haste, they fail to
check the accuracy of rumours. In some cases this push to anticipate
events ends up influencing outcomes as political figures and others act
on rumours being reported as facts. When this happens, reporters shift
from being impartial to becoming part of the political process. This
balance is an ongoing issue for newspapers as they transition to mixed
­methods of reporting.






This article was first published in the July 26/27 edition of The Weekend Australian.





Shorten urges climate issues be a priority at G20

Shorten urges climate issues be a priority at G20






Shorten urges climate issues be a priority at G20

ter Tony Abbott over climate policy to an international…









Bill Shorten has reaffirmed Labor’s commitment to action on climate change.
AAP/Lukas Coch






Opposition leader Bill Shorten has taken his battle with
prime minister Tony Abbott over climate policy to an international
stage, saying the issue should be a priority for the G20 leaders'
meeting in Brisbane.




Addressing the Peterson Institute for International Economics in
Washington, Shorten said Australia had gained “regrettable” worldwide
attention for moving backwards on climate change, in a reference to this
month’s carbon tax repeal by the Coalition.




Reaffirming that Labor remained committed to “effective action” on
climate change through policies like an emissions trading scheme, he
said opting for inaction was environmentally and economically reckless.
It was “another form of false economic protection – a damaging economic
isolationism”.




Shorten said that President Barack Obama had made his preference for
an ETS clear, but the political dynamic in Congress meant the United
States would focus its national efforts through heavy regulation and
intervention.




“As the world moves to take action, it will not be long before a lack
of climate policy is an obstacle to finalising trade deals,” he said.
“In fact, it is entirely possible that trade negotiations will mandate
an effective price on carbon to ensure a level trading field.”




Shorten announced Labor would remain committed to an ETS immediately
after the Parliament repealed the carbon tax last week, ensuring that
carbon pricing will be a central issue for the 2016 election. It is not
yet clear whether the government will be able to strike a deal to get an
amended form of its direct action policy through the Senate.




His speech highlighted a touchy issue in relation to the G20 – the
government is anxious to have minimal attention on climate change in
that forum.




Shorten said that because climate change was an economic, environmental and security issue it belonged on the G20 agenda.



“Just as global growth, global free trade and multinational tax
avoidance require international consensus, climate change is a global
problem that demands a global solution,” he said.




“Just as the 2015 Paris Climate summit will give world leaders a
chance to formulate their emissions targets, the G20 offers the
opportunity for stronger, deeper economic links in the emissions
market.”




The benefit of emissions trading was that it created economy-wide incentives for clean energy and more efficient use of energy.



“Effective action on climate change provides a strong price signal to diversify the national and global energy mix.



“Reliable renewable energy acts as a shock absorber for the
unforeseen natural disasters and sudden geopolitical shifts that can
imperil conventional energy supplies.




“For G20 governments, energy security depends on creating an
environment of regulatory certainty and encouraging innovation and
investment in renewable technologies.”





















Friday, 25 July 2014

Faulkner's reforms will fail as NSW Labor refuses to change

Faulkner's reforms will fail as NSW Labor refuses to change



Faulkner’s reforms will fail as NSW Labor refuses to change





Labor senator John Faulkner does not anticipate that his moves
to reform the party’s preselection processes will succeed at this
weekend’s NSW State Conference. Faulkner is hoping to have the rules
changed…
















It seems things are not yet bad enough in the Labor Party to
make significant reform, such as John Faulkner’s proposed changes to
preselection, likely.
AAP/Daniel Munoz







Labor senator John Faulkner does not anticipate
that his moves to reform the party’s preselection processes will
succeed at this weekend’s NSW State Conference. Faulkner is hoping to
have the rules changed so that candidates for upper house elections in
NSW and federally will be chosen directly by party members, rather than
by the ALP’s Administrative Committee, where trade union delegates are all powerful.




The relationship between trade unions and party rank-and-file members
has been strained from the Labor Party’s birth in the 1890s. In the
early years of the 20th century almost every state ALP conference saw
protests by either unionists or local members that one or the other was
being sidelined.




Today, trade union delegates dominate state conference, which is the
policy-making body of the party, so they are unlikely to give up their
power voluntarily.




A long history of conflict



The first NSW Labor Party – the Labor Electoral League – was created
by the trade union movement in the 1890s precisely to defend its
interests in the parliamentary arena. The unions still regard the party
as theirs.




However, it is unwise to rely too heavily on history to justify
present-day policies, since both the Labor Party and the trade union
movement have been utterly transformed since the late 19th century. The
NSW party has been virtually recreated many times since then:




  • by William Holman in order to make it electable to majority government in 1910;
  • by the Australian Workers' Union (AWU) creating a rigid faction
    system in order to get rid of supporters of conscription (including
    Holman) in 1916-17;
  • by Jack Lang to create his own personal political machine in the 1920s and 1930s;
  • by William McKell in the early 1940s to restore sanity and to foster the values of postwar reconstruction of Australian society;
  • by Neville Wran to further the principles of Gough Whitlam’s social agenda, and;
  • most recently by Eddie Obeid and Joe Tripodi to outdo Lang in using the party for personal profit.


Eddie Obeid and others recast the NSW ALP in a bid for personal profit.
AAP/Paul Miller

Click to enlarge


Not surprisingly, many party members are hoping for a modern-day McKell to restore sanity.



The union movement also bears little resemblance to the Trades and
Labor Council of the 1890s. It is now called Unions NSW and very few of
its leaders have ever worked at the coalface or spent half a lifetime
recruiting members among shearers or stonemasons, as was the typical
career path for union leaders until the 1960s.




Now, most union leaders hold their positions because they have
university degrees and management experience, irrespective of the craft
or trade of their members.




What chance is there for genuine reform?



Calls for the Labor Party to reform are nothing new. Every election
defeat at federal or state level brings an official inquiry and report
explaining that further effort should be made to stop the decline in
party membership and to introduce structural changes to the party to
make this possible.




Occasionally there is a more formal inquiry, as with Bob Hawke and Neville Wran’s report after the party’s loss at the 2001 federal election. However, its modest recommendations disappeared without trace.



In his first stint as prime minister, Kevin Rudd tried to reduce the
role of large unions by denying a role for left and right factions to choose his ministry. The present leader, Bill Shorten, talks up the need for modest party reform but, as a former union leader himself, it is unlikely that his words will lead to firm action.




In previous eras, federal intervention could force reform of corrupt
state branches. The party’s federal executive has intervened in the NSW
ALP at least half-a-dozen times and leaned rather heavily another three
or four times. The most important occasions were to get rid of Lang in
1939, to disband a pro-communist state executive in 1941, and to sort
out the problems of the DLP split in the 1950s.




However, it is difficult to see federal intervention forcing the NSW
party to introduce internal democracy. Trade unions are also dominant at
the federal level. A very strong party leader, with unchallengeable
electoral support, could force the federal conference or executive to
intervene in this way, but such a leader is not currently in view.





Federal Labor leader Bill Shorten has talked up the need for modest party reform.
AAP/Dan Himbrechts

Click to enlarge


In one sense, the current political climate is not favourable for
such reforms. At the next NSW state election the ALP should improve its
position markedly, although it is unlikely to win. At the federal level
the reaction against prime minister Tony Abbott is so strong that there
is a genuine possibility that Labor could win the next election, even
led by a lacklustre Shorten. Party minders will be saying that now is
not the time to rock the boat.




The alternative that will become more likely the longer nothing is
done is the complete reformation of the party. Robert Menzies
accomplished this in the 1940s when he helped to create the present
Liberal Party from the ashes of the previous United Australia Party
(UAP), which had imploded over leadership and policy issues.




Gough Whitlam completely transformed the federal Labor Party in the
late 1960s, although the party structures and name maintained
considerable continuity. But such leaders do not come along every day.




A final caveat



Giving power over preselection to local members does not guarantee genuine party democracy.
Especially in a party where membership is declining and apathetic,
local branches can very easily be stacked, as has been demonstrated time
and time again. And stacked branches go with faction-driven
preselections.




In the 1922 state conference, for example, AWU branch stacking was so
all-pervasive that a motion was debated that all preselections be
abolished and any candidate should be allowed to present at election.
That is even less likely to be supported in 2014 than in 1923.




Perhaps the better alternative is to allow candidates to contest
primary elections open to a vote of non-party members, as in the US, and
as happened recently in the selection of Verity Firth
for the state seat of Balmain. But primaries can become very expensive
and the need for electoral funding becomes even more pressing – along
with its temptations. And in a tight contest, it is open for members of
opposed political parties to penetrate the process in order to block a
candidate whom they fear.




All in all, the lesson seems to be that things are not yet bad enough in the Labor Party to make significant reform likely.





Tuesday, 22 July 2014

NSW Labor must change as well as apologise: John Faulkner

NSW Labor must change as well as apologise: John Faulkner



NSW Labor must change as well as apologise: John Faulkner





Labor party guru senator John Faulkner has called on the NSW ALP to “front up and apologise” for the corruption that has…















Senator John Faulkner is a voice for Labor Party reform.
AAP/Daniel Munoz







Labor party guru senator John Faulkner has called on the
NSW ALP to “front up and apologise” for the corruption that has tainted
state politics – and embrace reforms to prevent it ever happening again.




In a tough speech ahead of the weekend state conference in which he
will fight for rule changes, Faulkner said the NSW party “must take
responsibility for the rotten practices and systemic failures that in
the public mind have come to symbolise our party in NSW”.




The NSW right-wing machine has backed Faulkner’s proposal to write a
commitment to integrity into the rules. But his push for Senate and
state upper house candidates to be chosen by the rank and file – rather
than by the factions with the state conference ratifying the choices –
is doomed before it is even debated, with the right faction opposing it.
The left supports the move, but left members will not be bound.




Former NSW ALP general secretary Sam Dastyari, from the right, now a
senator, told The Conversation: “Reform shouldn’t be at the expense of
our traditions, of weakening the conference, and of our relationship
with the trade union movement.”




The conference is expected to endorse giving the party members a 50-50 say in electing the state leader, as operates federally.



Opposition leader Bill Shorten has called on his party to embrace
changes to make it more open and inclusive. But he faces an uphill
struggle, in the run up to next year’s national conference, to get
reforms that are more than token.




Faulkner ran though a list of corrupt figures, including former state
MLCs Eddie Obeid, Ian Macdonald and Tony Kelly, former federal MP Craig
Thomson (on whom the party had spent more than $348,000 for his legal
bills) and former ALP national president Michael Williamson.




“We have to take steps to stop corruption in our party happening
again – the only way to do that is to change the mechanisms that allowed
these corrupt individuals to prosper.”




But the response to all this was “no substantive change in the party rules. Just business as usual.



“I do favour change, and let’s start with those who represent us in
parliament. I say open up the upper house preselection process,” said
Faulkner, addressing the launch of the NSW group of Local Labor, a body
devoted to party renewal and empowering the membership.




The weekend conference will endorse the Senate ticket for the 2016
election, including a replacement for Faulkner who has announced he will
not recontest. It will also approve NSW upper house candidates.




The preselection ballot to be held at the conference was a “fix”,
Faulkner said. The candidates chosen by the factions had already been
reported in the media.




“The conference ballot will be window dressing. Everyone knows it is a rubber stamp. I say, end the farce.



“Let’s have a real ballot, not just contested by the small number of people who have won factional endorsement,” he said.



“We should aspire to the best possible candidates selected through
the best possible process. Instead, we have at times produced the worst
candidates through a profoundly flawed system.”




A full membership ballot might not be the perfect solution “but it is incomparably better than what we have now”, Faulkner said.



“I have much, much more faith and confidence in the membership of the
party to preselect upper house candidates than I do in the factional
machines, particularly given their abysmal record.”




Faulkner said the recommendations of the inquiry conducted after the
2010 federal election, of which he was a member, had been largely
ignored.




Labor must re-establish its standing as a party of reform, “pursuing
its goal of a better and fairer Australia”, he said. “We must reject any
attempt to use focus groups or research to influence or decide the
direction of party policy”.




The membership needed to grow, but declining membership had followed a declining say for members.



“We cannot expect members to join or remain in the Labor party if
they have no meaningful role or say in it – including in candidate
selection, and the policy and direction of the party,” he said.




“We must open up the party, reach out to supporters, include them in
the development of our party and encourage their more active involvement
in it.




“We should broaden our policy processes to allow more voices to be
heard, and we should involve party supporters in candidate selection in
local areas.” Trials of “community preselections” (or primaries) had
worked – “let’s have more of them”.




Faulkner, who for many years was a major factional power broker on the left, said factions had often played a positive role.



“But factional interests must never be placed above party interests.
Unfortunately in recent years putting factional interests first is
standard operating procedure. We need a new culture of inclusion that
always puts the party’s interests and its future above that of any
faction or sub-faction.”






Tuesday, 15 July 2014

About Anthony « anthonyalbanese.com.au

ANTHONY ALBANESE OUR NEXT LABOR PRIME MINISTER

About Anthony « anthonyalbanese.com.au


















About Anthony






Anthony grew up in a public housing community in Camperdown and
recognised early on the need to fight for social justice so that there
was equal opportunity in society.



That is what led Anthony to joining the Australian Labor Party. He
developed his political activity working for former prisoner of war and
legendary Whitlam and Hawke Government Minister Tom Uren.



In 1996 Anthony was elected as the Member for Grayndler in Sydney’s inner west, where he has lived his entire life.


In Anthony’s First Speech in Parliament he said



I will be satisfied if I can be remembered as
someone who will stand up for the interests of my electorate, for
working class people, for the labour movement, and for our progressive
advancement as a nation.”

Anthony continues to be a progressive Member of Parliament and is a
passionate advocate for the environment, workers’ rights, refugees and
equality for all members of the community regardless of gender, race,
age, sexuality or religion.



He believes in opportunities for all through education and training,
universal health care and the need for Government to invest in local
communities.



He works hard for his constituents.


Among his achievements for the people of Grayndler:



  • $2 million for the Cooks River to help manage storm water, reduce river pollution and improve water quality;
  • Expansion of child care services including 50 new childcare places at the Infants’ Home in Ashfield;
  • $2.2 million to upgrade Mackey Park in Marrickville
  • $3 million to upgrade Leichhardt Oval
  • $2.3 million for the Ashfield Civic Centre
  • $14.5 million for noise insulation at Fort Street High School
  • Upgrades to all local schools under the $16.2 billion Building the Education Revolution program;
  • Funding of $150 million for a new integrated cancer treatment and
    research facility at the Chris O’Brien – Lifehouse, at Royal Prince
    Alfred Hospital; and
  • Providing help and support for new migrants and those trying to reunite with their families.

Anthony has played tennis at Henson Park for 30 years and is an avid
supporter of the South Sydney Rabbitohs and the Newtown Jets.



Following the election of the Federal Labor Government in November
2007 Anthony became the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and
Leader of the House of Representatives.



Anthony was named Infrastructure Minister of the Year for 2012 by London based publicationInfrastructure Investor.


In June 2013, he became Deputy Prime Minister, and also took on
additional responsibility as Minister for Broadband, Communications and
the Digital Economy.



Anthony was re-elected the Member for Grayndler in 2013 and is now
the Shadow Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, and the Shadow
Minister for Tourism.