Labor’s slight on the hill

Senator Payman’s departure from the ALP exposes a divide with the membership and challenges Labor’s direction.

The drama surrounding Senator Fatima Payman and her departure from the Labor Party is more than a personal or political narrative: it’s a reflection on the internal dynamics and ideological battles within the party itself. This situation has unfolded in a way that has brought significant attention not only to Senator Payman but also to the foundational principles and the operational tactics of the ALP, and the issues to the heart of party alignment, Caucus solidarity, and the broader implications for political representation of minority groups in Australia and contentious international issues such as the recognition of Palestine.

Senator Payman’s actions and the subsequent reactions from the ALP parliamentary leadership highlight a contradiction between the party’s proclaimed values contained within the Labor Platform and its actions, once it gets into office. Labor, historically a champion of the working class, social justice, and minority rights, has now sidelined a young, articulate Senator from an Islamic background because she took a stand that aligns with her constituents’ and her personal beliefs on Palestine, rather than strictly adhering to party lines. It also raises critical questions about the role of individual conscience versus party unity in parliamentary democracies.

Her choice to cross the floor and support an Australian Greens’ motion calling for the Australian government to recognise the state of Palestine was not a policy divergence – Labor’s Platform clearly calls for the recognition of Palestine as a priority – but a symbolic act loaded with implications for her role in parliament and for the Labor Party.

The official reason given for her suspension – a breach of Caucus rules – thinly veils the real reasons – adopting a position that is offensive to the lobbyists and supporters of Israel in Australia – and the mainstream media narrative condescendingly suggested naivety and susceptibility to manipulation by political rivals, painting a picture of a Senator who is out of her depth. However, such interpretations fail to recognise Payman’s agency and commitment to what she sees as a just cause, reflecting a broader pattern of political parties undermining or patronising their own members who come from minority backgrounds.

This incident also highlights the historical patterns of dissent within the Labor Party. The ALP has, throughout its history, experienced several splits based on deep ideological differences, from conscription and economic policy, to the role of communism in party ideology in the 1950s, with each split reflecting a tension between the evolving demands of the party’s base and the strategic directions chosen by its parliamentary leadership. The treatment of Senator Payman hints at a possible brewing of another such moment of reckoning within the Labor Party, as issues of global significance intersect with internal party politics and the representation of diverse Australian communities.

Senator Payman’s resignation and shift to an independent is not just a loss of a party member but a critical commentary on the ALP’s current trajectory. It also signals a shift in how minority representatives might view their roles and align themselves within Australian politics, especially when they feel that the party no longer serves as a platform for their advocacy or aligns with their principles. This could have significant electoral implications for the ALP, especially in engaging with a demographic that is increasingly aware and sensitive to issues of global justice and representation.

Recognition of Palestine and the divergence from the Labor Platform

The ALP’s Platform clearly supports the recognition of both Israel and Palestine within recognised borders, and highlights the urgency of addressing this issue as a priority for the government. Yet, despite this clear stance in the party Platform, there has been a lack of progress on the recognition of Palestine since Labor came into office in May 2022. This gap between the Platform and practice raises critical questions about the ALP’s governance and its responsiveness to the values and expectations of its members and supporters.

Senator Payman’s situation highlights the broader struggle within the party between adhering to Caucus discipline and staying true to the party’s foundational principles and promises. While Caucus solidarity is crucial for political strategy and unity, it also poses a dilemma when it suppresses significant voices within the party, particularly on issues that resonate deeply with the party’s base. The Senator’s decision to cross the floor reflects a courageous commitment to her principles on Palestine and the interests of her constituents, challenging the party’s leadership to align its actions with its declared policies.

This conflict within the ALP is reflective of a broader historical pattern where the party has often found itself at crossroads, torn between progressive aspirations and pragmatic governance. The divergences on issues such as the recognition of Palestine spotlight the ongoing tensions between the party’s rank-and-file members – who often hold more idealistic views on international justice and human rights – and the parliamentary party, which prioritises broader political and diplomatic considerations.

The comparison with Ireland’s recent recognition of Palestinian statehood highlights a contrasting situation where a similar act can be implemented in other countries with little controversy. Of course, Ireland’s history and political landscape allowed for a more straightforward acknowledgment of Palestine, a stark contrast with Australia’s fraught political machinations on the same issue. However, if Ireland can recognise the state of Palestine – with almost unanimous political support – why is it so difficult for Australia to follow? What is the Labor government so afraid of?

The threat of a split within the ALP over this issue is not just theoretical; it could have tangible consequences for the party’s cohesion and its future electoral prospects. History shows that political parties can endure only so much internal strife before they either transform or fracture. The unfolding situation around Senator Payman and the recognition of Palestine may serve as a critical point for the Labor Party, testing its ability to reconcile the demands of governance with the principles it purports to uphold.

The tensions between Caucus solidarity and modern political dynamics

It’s clear that the treatment of Senator Fatima Payman and her subsequent resignation, brings to light significant structural and ideological rigidities within Caucus that are increasingly at odds with the dynamic political and social landscape of today and it’s a schism that highlights a broader issue: the tension between Caucus solidarity and the party’s ability to adapt and respond to contemporary issues and the will of its rank-and-file membership.

This situation reflects not just a single issue of policy disagreement but a systemic rigidity that stifles individual voices and progressive stances within the party. Senator Penny Wong referred to her own experience of refraining from criticising the Caucus decision not to support marriage equality when a private member’s bill was presented in Parliament in 2012 as the correct method of dealing with personal issues that may conflict with decisions made by the Caucus.

But where is the merit in Wong’s actions at the time? Over 65 percent of the community – and 80 percent of Labor members – supported marriage equality in 2012. Wong’s initial silence and later support for marriage equality, which only came to fruition under a different government in 2017, serve as a potent example of how Caucus solidarity can delay or even derail significant social reforms. How did Caucus solidarity serve the public interest in 2012, or the gay and lesbian community that Wong is a part of? It didn’t: Labor had an opportunity to highlight its credentials on progressive issues – and a policy position on marriage equality that was firmly entrenched in the Labor Platform – but when the time came to actually introduce marriage equality, it couldn’t find the courage to support it and left it to a future Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, to implement it many years later.

In this context, the insistence on Caucus unity appears not as a strength but as a liability for the Labor Party, especially when it conflicts with the party’s publicly professed values and the expectations of its members. This rigidity is sclerotic in a rapidly changing world and this approach alienates not only party members but also the wider electorate, who may view the party’s inability to adapt as a failure of leadership and vision.

The influential factions within the party, such as the leadership of certain unions and conservative elements, exert disproportionate influence on Caucus decisions and this reveals a deeper issue – this influence often does not reflect the broader membership’s progressive aspirations, leading to decisions that may align with internal power structures but not with the party’s stated goals or the progressive ethos it claims to represent.

The paradox within the ALP, where the leadership appears to be at odds with the grassroots and progressive segments of the party, is not unique to this issue or to the Labor Party – the Liberal Party has had many MPs in recent years crossing the floor of parliament against the wishes of the Liberal party room – but it is symptomatic of a larger pattern. This disconnect raises fundamental questions about the nature of representation and accountability in modern political parties, and ongoing and significant internal conflicts, as the gap between the leadership’s actions and the membership’s expectations widens.

A crisis of conscience

This situation has not only stirred discontent within Labor’s rank and file – the Leichhardt branch of the Labor Party in Albanese’s own seat of Grayndler passed a motion of support for Senator Payman, adding that they share her “strong support for Palestine and respect the courage and integrity she has demonstrated on this issue” – but has also amplified the issue in ways that may have been avoidable, revealing deeper strategic and ideological flaws within the party’s leadership.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s response to Senator Payman’s actions seems to signal an attempt to manage party discipline and external perceptions simultaneously. By addressing the concerns of the Israel lobby while managing internal Caucus dissent, the Prime Minister escalated a policy disagreement into a significant political crisis. This approach contrasts sharply with historical precedents within the party, where figures such as Tom Uren, Jim Cairns, and Kim Beazley senior crossed the floor on matters of principle in 1968, and went on to serve as respected senior figures within the party. Their actions were eventually seen not as breaches of discipline but as expressions of deeply held convictions, enriching the party’s democratic and moral fibre.

The current party leadership’s handling of the issue has inadvertently spotlighted the inconsistency between the ALP’s stated foreign policy objectives – particularly its commitment to recognising Palestine – and its actions. This inconsistency is further compounded by the ongoing approval of military export permits to Israel and significant contracts with Israeli military tech firms – a $917 million contract was agreed to with Elbit Systems, a company which has supplied technology to the military junta in Myanmar and installed systems on military hardware which have been used to kill Palestinians – which starkly contradict the humanitarian values that many within the Labor Party advocate.

The decision to suspend Senator Payman could have been managed in a way that highlights the party’s commitment to robust debate and democratic values, perhaps even strengthening its image as a genuinely progressive force. Instead, the leadership’s actions have not only alienated a segment of its base – and the migrant community, especially those of Islamic backgrounds – but have also risked portraying the party as intolerant of dissent and resistant to the very ideals it purports to uphold. The issue of Palestine serves as a litmus test not just for the party’s foreign policy but for its internal coherence and fidelity to its own principles.

It also presents the ALP with both a challenge and an opportunity – the challenge lies in reconciling the demands of party unity with the imperative to remain true to its democratic and progressive values. The opportunity is to reframe the narrative around this incident from one of discord to one of diversity of thought and commitment to principle, revitalising the party’s appeal to a broader, more ideologically driven electorate.

While these opportunities are a long-term proposition – by which time, it may be too late – the ALP might consider embracing this episode as a catalyst for broader reforms within the party, particularly in terms of how it handles internal dissent and aligns its policies with its Platform. Failure to do so could not only diminish its credibility but also pave the way for a schism that could have long-term implications for its political future. The current situation could mark a significant turning point for the ALP, calling into question its capacity to adapt to the evolving political landscape and the expectations of its constituents. As the party navigates this crisis, the lessons it learns and the changes it implements could very well determine its trajectory in the coming years.

Public opinion and internal challenges signal critical turning point for Albanese

The resignation of Senator Payman is an issue that arrives at an unfavourable time for the Prime Minister, where opinion polls are suggesting a continuing dip in his approval ratings. Despite maintaining a lead as the preferred Prime Minister over Peter Dutton, Albanese’s net approval rating has dropped to its lowest point in the Essential Point – a net negative of 9 points – indicating public disquiet with his leadership. This decline is particularly telling because it suggests that the electorate is responsive not only to large-scale policy decisions but also to the manner in which the party handles internal dissent and adheres to its stated principles.

Opinion polls, while not definitive predictors outside of election periods, do offer a snapshot of public sentiment that can inform party strategy. They highlight a vulnerability for the ALP, stemming from perceived inconsistencies between its Platform and its actions, especially on issues like the recognition of Palestine. This situation illustrates the broader challenge facing the party: aligning its internal governance and its external policy commitments with the expectations of its members and the electorate.

The specifics of Senator Payman’s case reflect a wider issue within the ALP regarding its approach to international policy and minority rights, which has broader implications for voter perception and electoral outcomes. The controversy surrounding the suspension may seem minor in isolation, but it contributes cumulatively to shaping public perceptions of the ALP’s integrity and responsiveness. This is particularly relevant in constituencies with significant Middle Eastern populations in western Sydney and outer Melbourne, where the issue of Palestine resonates on a deep, personal level, transcending from simple political debates to touch on significant aspects of human rights and international justice.

This also serves as a cautionary tale for the ALP leadership, highlights the importance of foresight and sensitivity in handling internal disputes that have external political ramifications. But in this case, the Labor Party has decided that stalling on the recognition of Palestine as a state – and avoiding conflicts with Israel lobby groups in Australia – is more important than losing a valuable seat in the Senate. The loss of Senator Payman’s vote in the Senate – a crucial factor in future legislative processes – exemplifies the tangible consequences of internal party disagreements.

Albanese is an experienced politician, with 28 years in Parliament, and a lifetime in politics. An experienced politician should have been able to manage the process of recognising the state of Palestine, keeping the Israel lobby group at bay, and keeping a Senator whose vote is crucial to implementing the legislative agenda of the government. That Albanese has not been able to achieve any of these suggests that he’s not as clever at politics as was previously understood, or that the 28 years in Parliament has made him impervious to the issues that really matter to the community and, ultimately, the membership of the Labor Party.

The party’s ability – or inability – to reconcile its parliamentary actions with its Platform, manage internal dissent constructively, and uphold its commitments to both its members and the broader values it espouses will likely play a decisive role in shaping its future political fortunes. Its leadership would do well to consider not just the immediate impacts of their decisions but also the long-term implications for party cohesion, public trust, and electoral viability.