Leadership trumps debate at conference.

Policy Innovation Hub

Published in

The Machinery of Government

6 min readJul 30, 2015

by Todd Winther

The ALP National Conference that took place last weekend was designed as Labor Leader’s, Bill Shorten’s political introduction to the public. As Shorten’s views continued to prevail on the conference floor over one issue after another, from immigration policy to same sex marriage, it exposed the contradiction between the original intent of the Conference, and the purpose that it serves now.

In essence the evolution of the Conference is a microcosm of how the party has developed over time. During its early years the ALP was a party that espoused traditional democratic and egalitarian values by promoting and developing socially progressive policies. But as the party has become professionalised with operatives working inside the party primarily concerned with winning elections, events like National Conference are designed to promote the leader’s best interest. As such, the first objective of the modern party conference is to portray its leader in the best manner possible.

The Evolution of the Conference

The ALP’s national conference, which is now held once every parliamentary term, is the party’s chief policymaking body. Therefore the decisions taken at the conference are theoretically binding. Due to this, both the policy debates and the resulting votes taken on individual issues are often highly contentious.

As historian L.F Crisp noted, when he published the history of the ALP in its first fifty years, the intent of the National Conference as it was first conceived aligns with the founding principles of the party:

As an institution, the Australian Labor Party- thoroughly constitutional and parliamentary in its approach to its aims- was built on a particular conception of democracy…all ALP members have a moral, and should have a constitutional right to a basic equality of voice in the determination of the aims and purposes of the party…

Though noble in its intent, these aims are difficult to achieve in the modern political environment that demands instant results and communication through sound bites. Instead of becoming a forum of party democracy the conference itself has evolved into a showcase for its leader to assert their authority. Shorten’s task as an ALP leader in a vulnerable position was not only to encourage this evolution of the conference, but to make the conference a referendum on his leadership credentials.

The Conference As A Referendum on Shorten’s Leadership

In this context the 2015 ALP National Conference could not have gone better for both Bill Shorten and the party as a whole. Bill Shorten challenged the conference to support his stance on a highly contentious issue: the party’s asylum seeker policy, and he succeeded. He was able to use this endorsement to help negotiate a position on same sex marriage, another policy debate that has been controversial for the ALP. Though such maneuvering does not resemble the Conference’s original intent when the party was founded, the ALP used the Conference to its advantage, and in doing so solidified Shorten’s leadership.

Prior to the Conference Shorten recorded his lowest-ever approval rating as leader of 27% in the last Newspoll. This was the zenith of a difficult period for the ALP leader, with numerous political commentators questioning his long term leadership viability over the last two months.

Immigration

Shorten’s decision to open the second day of the conference detailing his position on immigration policy represented a rare case where the leader placed himself in the centre of the debate. In doing so Shorten tied his leadership to the success of his position on immigration.

At the beginning of the speech Shorten appeared to be magnanimous by stating on the conference floor that there are ‘…different perspectives and deeply held principles…. “…I know that we do not all agree. But, undoubtedly for all of us, our motives and views are genuinely held” in an attempt to highlight the traditional values of the Conference as a forum for intense, but ultimately respectful debate.

Shorten ultimately triumphed. Yet behind the scenes, one of the party’s most senior figures, Anthony Albanese accused Shorten’s supporters of ‘verballing’ him, while another factional opponent of Shorten’s, Kim Carr accused Deputy Leader Tanya Plibersek of betraying her beliefs in order to support Shorten. These very public maneuverings were indeed a long way from Crisp’s description that members of the ALP have a ‘…right to a basic equality of voice’

The end result of this tense debate was that Shorten’s position as leader was significantly strengthened Michelle Grattan argued that

If it had gone badly for him, it would have seriously undermined his position. Now, thanks to rugged negotiation and a recognition by those involved about how high the stakes were for Labor, Shorten’s leadership has been boosted.

Note how the quote above discusses the outcome of the asylum seeker policy debate and contains a description of how it affects the participants, and especially Shorten, but gives no real context of the positions that Shorten’s or his opponents held until after Grattan had given a detailed assessment of the leader’s position in the party until later in the article. Grattan is not alone in covering the conference in these terms, but it speaks not only to how the purpose of the conference has changed, but how the media’s coverage of that evolution has sped up the process.

A similar challenge confronted the Conference during its debate relating to same sex marriage. Shorten had argued that Labor should not adopt a proposal to allow a conscience vote on same sex marriage ‘I’m of the view that you can have that strong position but be respectful towards people who, because of their faith, have a different point of view…’

As with the asylum seeker policy once again received strong opposition from senior members of his shadow cabinet. The strongest criticism came from the Party’s leader of the Senate and Finance spokeswoman, Penny Wong who gave an emotional speech to a standing ovation at the conference.

Ultimately, the Conference agreed to a policy in which Labor MPs are free to have a conscience vote on same sex marriage for the next two parliamentary terms, a position substantially different to the one that Shorten had canvassed initially. Despite this, the change in position was portrayed as a win for Shorten because he was able to engineer a compromise, and a loss for his deputy Plibersek, who also had to compromise from her initial stance as well.

The perceptions of Shorten’s strengthening leadership are enhanced by the delegates at the Conference because it is in their best interests to do so. The aim of the Conference was to ensure that the ALP could present Shorten as both an alternative Prime Minister and as a leader of a strong, united opposition party. At least outwardly the Conference achieved both of these objectives, but the public are no closer to learning if the internal disputes underneath the show of unity will be resolved in time for next year’s election.