Labor National Conference: A balance of ambition and low expectations

The Labor National Conference that recently concluded marked a significant event for the Labor Party, being the first of its kind as the government since Julia Gillard’s prime ministership in 2013. However, this conference, like its predecessors, has faced criticism for its perceived lack of open discussion and genuine debate. These concerns underscore a broader question: How effective are such conferences in shaping party ideology, policy, and long-term political goals?

One of the central issues raised pertains to the controlled nature of the conference, with concerns over the scarcity of open debate and the closure of discussions behind closed doors. The conference ostensibly serves as a platform for Labor delegates to voice their concerns on a spectrum of critical issues including AUKUS, nuclear weapons, asylum seekers, tax reform, education, health, human rights, and workers’ rights. However, much of the decision-making and negotiation occur outside of the public eye. How can it be a genuine avenue for members’ voices to be heard and for open ideological discussions to take place if most of the events are simply for presenting a unified voice to the media and Australian public, if there’s much dispute bubbling below the surface?

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s statement that Labor seeks to “shape the future” rather than allowing the “future [to] shape us” underscores the party’s aspiration for long-term governance. While aiming for sustained power is reasonable, it inevitably leads to the challenge of balancing immediate achievements against the prospect of enduring change. The Labor Party’s commitment to addressing Australia’s critical issues, as demonstrated through policies related to national security, emissions reductions, and social welfare, is commendable. However, the debate remains on whether these actions reflect a genuine endeavour to make meaningful changes or a strategic play for long-term power.

The conundrum of the long game versus short-term impact is evident in the Labor Party’s approach. The desire for extended terms in office necessitates a careful pace in policy implementation, avoiding the pitfalls of superficial gestures. While critics may argue that previous Coalition governments fell short by prioritising re-election over effective governance, the Labor Party’s current efforts to engage with at least some substantial reforms and significant initiatives demonstrate a commitment to breaking this cycle.

The conference’s achievements are mixed, reflecting both commendable progress and areas of concern. Notable accomplishments by the Labor Party in government that were outlined in the conference include the establishment of the National Anti Corruption Commission, resolving geopolitical issues and re-engagement with China and the Pacific nations, and climate goals of 43 per cent emissions reduction by 2030 and net zero emissions by 2050. These achievements, along with policies aimed at childcare, parental leave, aged care, and energy price stabilisation, indicate the party’s active stance on pressing matters. However, the Labor Party has also faced criticism for a range of contradictions, such as supporting more coal mining and logging alongside its progressive environmental initiatives; support for AUKUS and nuclear submarines; increasing funding for private schools; support the Stage 3 tax cuts for higher income earners, due to be introduced on 1 July 2024.

The complexity of governance, particularly in a diverse nation like Australia, necessitates a balanced approach, but it’s questionable whether the correct balance is being achieved. The challenges faced by the Labor Party resonate with the broader political landscape, where achieving sustained governance while meeting immediate demands remains a struggle. The dichotomy between effecting rapid change and ensuring comprehensive, well-considered reforms adds another layer of complexity.

Labor’s dilemma: Navigating media, ideology, and public expectations

The art of political management goes beyond day-to-day decision-making; it encompasses both the present and the past. A Prime Minister’s role is not only to manage the current political landscape but also to explain past actions and articulate a vision for the future. The delicate balance between leveraging political capital, handling scandals, and making strategic decisions shapes the party’s image and electability.

However, this task is not symmetrical for all parties, as Labor seems to be held to different standards compared to the Liberal–National Coalition when they are in government. Labor faces heightened scrutiny and is often expected to display professional competence at all times, while minor errors are amplified, and significant achievements minimised by a mainstream media that has been historically hostile to Labor Party interests. This is not new, but a situation that Labor governments always need to manage.

While both all political parties aim for long-term governance once they get there, the Labor Party is often expected by its membership – and the Labor movement – to be more reformist, progressive and engage in policies and actions that are in the interests of working people, an expectation which stems from its history as a party rooted in social and economic justice.

The 2022 federal election outcome highlighted the electorate’s desire for change and the acknowledgment that, after nine years of incompetence by the Liberal–National Coalition, Labor was entrusted with the responsibility to enact meaningful reforms. This reflects the broader trend that usual occurs after a “change” election, where the new government is granted a mandate for change and transformation and perform in a different and better way to the government it has just replaced.

An intriguing contrast emerges in how the two major parties are treated in the media. The Liberal–National Coalition seems to enjoy more latitude to enact divisive and contentious policies, often attracting praise for their ideological stances. In contrast, the Labor Party faces skepticism and the need to tread cautiously, potentially stifling its ability to be forthright about its policies. This imbalance in media coverage has led to a question: Are the constraints faced by the Labor Party due to a fear of media backlash or a fear of alienating the electorate? Striking the right balance between pleasing the media and satisfying the party’s core values becomes a delicate task.

The Labor Party needs to embrace a more assertive stance and to engage with members’ concerns. The party’s recent reticence in addressing certain issues has sparked discussions about its authenticity and its commitment to its core values. A comparison to former Prime Minister Paul Keating’s forthright approach is drawn, emphasising the value of candid communication with the media and the public. It is argued that a bolder approach could yield better results, even in the face of media backlash.

And the mainstream media was quick to be cynical about the Labor conference – criticising the “stage management” and lack of debate – but all conferences, regardless of party affiliation, require a high degree of stage management and despite the nostalgia of Labor conference “brawls” from the 1980s and 1990s, these conferences were “stage managed” and sedate affairs, as they usually are. While media attention might portray past conferences as tumultuous ideological battlegrounds, they, too, followed a formal order.

The primary purpose of the national Labor conference is to ensure the party platform remains relevant and up-to-date, and that’s primarily what it achieved. However, there has to be open dialogue and engagement with the rank-and-file membership, even when opinions diverge from party leadership. Suppressing dissent can lead to member disillusionment and attrition, which are not in the party’s interest.

While the controlled nature of the conference raises concerns about transparency and inclusivity, the Labor Party’s aspirations for long-term governance are not inherently flawed. Striking a balance between short-term achievements and enduring change is a formidable challenge, with both rewards and risks. The party’s achievements and missteps reflect the complexities of modern governance, underscoring the need for a pragmatic approach to policy implementation and a sustained commitment to engaging with the concerns of a diverse citizenry.

The Labor Party’s historical legacy and role as a party of progressive reforms create both opportunities and obligations. As Australia’s political landscape evolves, the Labor Party’s ability to address these challenges will determine its success in presenting a coherent vision, managing media portrayal, and connecting with its members and the broader electorate.