Labor's command and control culture may come with a cost

Journalists covering the Labor Party conference last week lamented the absence of heated public debates, a stark contrast to previous years when contentious issues like same-sex marriage or boat turn-backs generated significant discussion. While media outlets may have been frustrated by the lack of "biffo" to fill airtime and column inches, the more significant issue for Labor is the potential cost of its "command and control culture."

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has cultivated a reputation for rigid discipline within the party. Insiders note his success in consolidating power, controlling not only his traditional left faction but also the rival right. This centralized approach meant potential debates on issues such as a gas tax, gambling reforms, AUKUS, and the Middle East were resolved privately before the conference.

The only public disruption for the prime minister was a minor incident involving an escalator. However, former minister Ed Husic voiced strong criticism, arguing that the Labor caucus felt "gagged" from expressing views that deviated from official government talking points. He described the party as "allergic" to disagreement.

“

Labor had become "allergic" to disagreement.

Husic's attempt to push for a tougher stance on Israel regarding the conflict in Gaza and the West Bank failed when the Maritime Union withdrew its support. He expressed surprise at the effort made to suppress his proposal. Senior Labor figures, however, dismissed his claims, stating he lacked sufficient support. They highlighted the adoption of a platform supported by MPs Josh Burns and Basem Abdo, who have personal connections to the issue. Despite this, Husic warned that a party stifling internal democracy risks losing touch with voters.

While Husic raises a valid point about democratic expression, it's important to note that the conference serves as a gathering for party members, delegates, and politicians, not a public policy forum. Furthermore, such centralized control is not unprecedented; Bob Hawke famously used a surprise conference in 1990 to rubber-stamp cabinet decisions on privatization. The key difference, according to the article, lies in the potential long-term consequences for Labor's connection with its base.

“

surprised