News

I am writing with respect to your article in The Australian of 14th November.

I should first make it clear that I have no difficulty with your statement that "membership needs to broadened, participation facilitated and a genuinely democratic structure devised." I do not think however that removing union affiliation and representation from the party is the means to do this. As I understand it, your proposal isn't just an argument about whether the 60% representation that unions have at some party conferences is appropriate. It is a proposal to remove completely separate union affiliation. This would in fact mean that the ALP is no longer a labor party but rather a vaguely progressive organisation not unlike the Democratic Party in the United states.

You argue that the current structure of union affiliations is a denial of democracy and that it prevents the exercise of "one vote one value." You also say that the system of union affiliation "robs us of the active commitment and participation of ordinary union members and also disenfranchises ordinary branch members who are active in their own right".

I would like to make a number of points about this position:

1. Whilst I appreciate that this has been your view for some time, it would be extraordinary to take a step which changes the total structure of the party when this hasn't been an issue at all in the recent election defeat. This point was made very well by ACTU Secretary Greg Combet in his article in the Australian of 19th November. Whatever may have been the reasons for the party's defeat I have seen nobody argue that it arose from the relationship with the trade union movement. Indeed the trade union movement and its members were an important part of the Labor campaign on the ground and in relation to key issues, eg. aged care, Ansett, Telstra etc.

2. The union movement is the only link to a large grass roots membership base that the ALP has. It facilitates input into the party from a diverse cross section of industries and occupational and geographical groups. Surely one of the main reasons for the decline in the party's structure at branch level has been the way in which Labor governments have made decisions contrary to the party platform and the decisions of the party conferences. Without the structural link to the union movement MPs would be less constrained to follow party policy or to act in accordance with the democratically arrived at decisions of party forums.

3. Your argument about denial of democracy ignores the fact that trade unions are democratic organisations. Trade union leaders, at both branch and national level, are democratically elected and are answerable to their membership and union governing bodies. This structure does not deprive the party of the active participation of union members. In fact unions do encourage their members, especially delegates, to be involved in political activity.

4. The Unions@Work document which was prepared by a cross factional delegation under the leadership of the now President and Secretary of the ACTU has, as one of its central themes, increased participation of union members at all levels of the organisation. This is integral to the organising agenda which is now the central preoccupation of all unions under the leadership of the ACTU. Encouragement of participation in the political activity is part of this process. In the last election campaign our union focussed on involving members in a range of campaign activities. The union movement isn't just campaign fodder for the Labor party. It is integral to the ALP's policy process and its ability to present and argue a case to the Australian electorate.

5. It needs to be recognised that the union movement and leadership has significantly changed. The largest affiliates to the ACTU now represent unions in the service sector who have, if not a majority, then a significant proportion of their members who are women and from NESB backgrounds. The union movement reflects the nature of the workforce. This in turn is fed into the Labor party at state and territory level. Labor is in fact a beneficiary of the policy and campaign activity that the union movement brings.

6. The level of union influence is grossly overstated. Although unions may have a majority of the conference in a number of states the examples of Labor governments being constrained from following policy initiatives is non existent. In fact, if anything, the reverse is the case.

It is true to say that the Labor party does face a crisis because of the decline in its membership. This is a crisis however which largely exists at branch level. Substantial steps need to be taken to reinvigorate the branch structure of the party. The suggestions that you make about widening participation and making that participation more meaningful are valid. The extent to which members are disenfranchised by Labor governments taking actions which are directly contrary to their views and the policies that have been adopted in party forums, has been directly reflected in the decline in active membership in the party.

These issues should be addressed. We do not however need to tamper with the fundamental structure of the party in order for this to happen. Over the last few years the union movement has taken many positive steps to seek to address the decline in union membership. It is about time the party did the same. It shouldn't do this, however, by tampering with the one thing that it has going for it.

Yours faithfully

JEFF LAWRENCE

NATIONAL SECRETARY