tag:theconversation.com,2011:/global/topics/alp-national-conference-1967/articlesALP national conference – The Conversation2023-08-23T07:32:28Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2121132023-08-23T07:32:28Z2023-08-23T07:32:28ZWord from The Hill: Date for Voice referendum to be announced on Wednesday<p>As well as her interviews with politicians and experts, Politics with Michelle Grattan includes “Word from The Hill”, where she discusses the news with members of The Conversation’s politics team.</p>
<p>In this podcast Michelle and politics + society editor Amanda Dunn discuss the news that the Prime Minister next Wednesday will reveal the date for the Voice referendum. They also canvass the Intergenerational Report, which gazes into the 2060s, as well as Labor’s national conference, that endorsed AUKUS. During the conference Anthony Albanese emphasised the importance of the party staying in office to bed down a long term agenda, with the message to the rank and file not to rock the boat.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/212113/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>This week on Word from The Hill, @michellegrattan and @amandadunn10 discuss the coming date for the Voice referendum, the Intergenerational report and Labor's national conferenceMichelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2117402023-08-17T10:03:11Z2023-08-17T10:03:11ZGrattan on Friday: Albanese is determined to keep Labor’s eyes firmly focused on a second term<p>Labor is less than halfway into its first term, but Anthony Albanese is focused, laser-like, on its second one. Securing it, that is.</p>
<p>His message to delegates at the party’s national conference on Thursday was, in essence: be patient, don’t rock the boat, you shouldn’t expect the government to do all you want all at once. </p>
<p>And, above all, realise that if this is just a short-term government, what it achieves can be quickly negated by the other side.</p>
<p>“Each of us understands that winning and holding government is not only true to our principles, it is essential to fulfilling them”, Albanese said in his keynote address. “Equally we know what we have begun can be undone, unless we are there to protect it.”</p>
<p>Underlining his point, Albanese spelled out the differences between a short-term and a long-term Labor government. </p>
<blockquote>
<p>The difference between a moment of progress – or a lifetime of opportunity.</p>
<p>The difference between laying the foundation – and finishing the build.</p>
<p>The difference between taking the gender pay gap to an historic low. And making the gender pay gap history.</p>
<p>The difference between writing an emissions reduction target into law. And seeing it achieved in new jobs and clean energy and a healthier environment.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>It all amounted to whether Labor shaped the future - “or the future shapes us”. To be there for the long term depended on “bringing people with us” and “earning and repaying people’s trust.”</p>
<p>Albanese acknowledged that “this approach mightn’t suit those who prefer protest to progress, who imagine grand gestures and bold declarations are better than the patient work of ensuring lasting change.”</p>
<p>The prime minister’s pragmatic sentiments were a million miles from those the youthful Albanese would have expressed. Then again, this Labor conference is a far cry from those of decades ago when then prime minister Bob Hawke and treasurer Paul Keating had to fight for their policies against critics on what was a tough and vocal left. They won but the fights could be hard. </p>
<p>So far, this conference has been docile, compliant, and highly managed with approved speaking lists. Even though the left has the numbers (for the first time in decades) the government is firmly in the driving seat.</p>
<p>Remarkably – or perhaps not – when the party’s economic platform was discussed on Thursday morning, issues such as the need for comprehensive tax reform were not front of mind. </p>
<p>Stage 3 tax cuts actually didn’t even get a mention, despite being hotly contested in the public discussion.</p>
<p>The CFMEU had earlier floated a push for a super profits tax to provide money for housing, but the air was taken out of that balloon in negotiations. </p>
<p>The wording of the final motion said blandly: “Labor will increase government investment in social and affordable housing with funding from a progressive and sustainable tax system, including corporate tax reform”.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-albanese-unveils-boosted-housing-target-and-incentive-payments-ahead-of-labor-national-conference-211673">View from The Hill: Albanese unveils boosted housing target and incentive payments ahead of Labor national conference</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>CFMEU National Secretary Zach Smith said “a permanent solution on social and affordable housing requires us to be more bold” while admitting the amendment was “not everything that the union is demanding”.</p>
<p>On the eve of the conference the government had unveiled initiatives to try to speed up the construction of housing, including increasing the target build from one million new homes to 1.2 million over five years from mid next year. It also announced ongoing work to strengthen renters’ rights. </p>
<p>The Grattan Institute has strongly praised Labor’s plan, saying every extra home will increase supply and so ease rental pressure. Its calculations suggest the extra 200,000 homes could reduce rents by about 4%. But it also notes that while it’s a good plan, “the devil will be in the detail”, to ensure the incentives work properly and there is adequate skilled labour for construction. </p>
<p>It’s not clear whether the housing crisis will do serious damage to Labor as it looks to the next election. The Greens, seeking to seize the mantle of the party of renters, have been predictably critical of the government’s measures. And there is still no resolution of the standoff over the government’s proposed housing fund.</p>
<p>The government is right to resist the demands by the Greens for a rent freeze or caps, but there is little doubt it is vulnerable in the battle for votes among many of the now large renter constituency, especially younger voters.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-labor-president-wayne-swan-on-the-partys-coming-national-conference-211342">Politics with Michelle Grattan: Labor president Wayne Swan on the party's coming national conference</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The Labor conference’s economic debate saw delegates from unions given an extensive speaking role.</p>
<p>Basically, they were happy with the Albanese government, not looking to cause any trouble or stir the pot. The economic debate neither reflected discontent nor was a forum for forward thinking. </p>
<p>Treasurer Jim Chalmers, who kicked off that part of the conference, would be happy with the smooth run the party gave him. However, he often proclaims he is anxious to have “conversations” about important issues for the future. </p>
<p>Next Thursday at the National Press Club, Chalmers will launch the government’s Intergenerational Report, which examines what will happen to Australia over the next four decades.</p>
<p>This one will be the first to attempt to properly incorporate the effects of climate change, and the first of a more regular series of such reports. Chalmers has promised they will be prepared every three years (in the middle of each electoral cycle) rather than every five years as they have been since 2002.</p>
<p>It remains to be seen how willing he will be to grapple with the really tough questions the report is likely to point to. </p>
<p>More immediately, back at the Labor conference, the arm-twisting continued to finalise wording on the AUKUS section of the platform, to be considered on Friday, that is acceptable to the government.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/211740/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The Prime Minister’s message to delegates at the Labor national conference was, in essence: be patient, don’t rock the boat, you shouldn’t expect the government to do all you want all at once.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2113422023-08-10T04:43:37Z2023-08-10T04:43:37ZPolitics with Michelle Grattan: Labor president Wayne Swan on the party’s coming national conference<p>Next week the Labor Party will hold its national conference in Brisbane. It’s the first face-to-face conference in five years. These conferences don’t have anything like the bite they once did, but there’s still a chance for the party’s rank and file to have a shout about issues. More than 400 delegates will be there. Most of the delegates are aligned to a faction, and for the first time in decades the left will have the largest slice of the numbers. </p>
<p>AUKUS and the Stage 3 tax cuts are expected to be among the hot topics, but the conference will be carefully managed – there will be no defeats for Prime Minister Anthony Albanese. Ahead of the conference, we have already seen the government change its stance on Palestine, a sensitive subject among the left and right factions of the party.</p>
<p>In this podcast we talk with Wayne Swan, the Labor Party National President. Swan was treasurer and deputy prime minister in the Rudd and Gillard governments. </p>
<p>National conferences have “enormous power” Swan claims, denying they have lost clout, and casting the conference as more of a “partnership” between the party and the parliamentary caucus: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Of course the parliamentary caucus does operate within the confines of the platform. And on one or two occasions in history there have been fundamental conflicts between the two. But for most of our history, Labor parliamentary caucuses, Labor prime ministers, Labor leaders of the opposition have worked within the confines of the platform and that’s where we are today.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Recently, Labor assistant minister Andrew Leigh strongly criticised the stranglehold the factions have on the party. Swan is in complete disagreement with Leigh: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>It’s true to say that people mix and vote differently on different issues from different backgrounds at different times, which doesn’t always coincide with the story that Andrew tells in his recent essay. The factions are nowhere near as monolithic as Andrew presents them, and many more people get involved in the party who don’t come from the sort of backgrounds that you would imagine if it was just two big monolithic groupings. Our party is very much representative of the general community.</p>
<p>Yes, factions are organising groupings in the party, but they are much more diverse and free flowing then the presentations Andrew [presented] to people.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>On the conference issues, Swan says:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I certainly think there’ll be a debate over AUKUS and I hope there is. As we’ve been through the history of this party - it’s 132 years [old] - national defence has always loomed large in our party conferences. Indeed the party split during the First World War over these sorts of issues. </p>
<p>People are passionate about the very big issues. That’s why the Labor Party has been around so long and why it’s the oldest social democratic labour party in the world.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Swan as treasurer went through the global financial crisis, when Australia managed to avoid a recession. Swan’s former chief of staff, Jim Chalmers, is now in the economic hot seat. Swan believes Australians now are much more accepting of government intervention, using COVID as an example: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>One of the great differences between my period and Jim’s period is that the inadequacies of trickle down economics and the use of fiscal policy not only to promote growth but to promote equity is now much more strongly supported in our community than it was when I was last treasurer, simply because it was demonstrated through COVID in particular.</p>
<p>The intervention by government to massively support the economy and to produce social and to, if you like, produce desired social and economic outcomes was entirely legitimate.</p>
<p>One of the reasons the Liberal Party is floundering so much is that it’s in denial about this one important fact about our nation, that government must always intervene to protect people, to protect their jobs, and to distribute income throughout an economy, particularly when an economy is under threat from something like COVID or an international recession. During the GFC, we did precisely that. We were opposed all the way by the conservatives, they were forced to take similar steps during COVID, and now it is much more established that government has a fundamental role in intervening in the economy to protect people, to deal with insecurity and inequality.</p>
</blockquote><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/211342/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>In this podcast we talk with Wayne Swan, the Labor Party National President. Swan was treasurer and deputy prime minister in the Rudd and Gillard governments.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1085022018-12-12T00:03:13Z2018-12-12T00:03:13ZHonouring the dead: Alex Seton’s stark, moving protest sculptures carved from marble<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/249882/original/file-20181211-76986-1o3bujl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Detail from Alex Seton's A Durable Solution? - a series of memorial plaques naming the 12 men who have died under our 'care'.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Sullivan & Strumpf</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Alex Seton’s sculpture A Durable Solution? is <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/dec/07/marble-tombstones-at-labor-conference-reminder-of-alps-role-in-offshore-detention">concentrating the minds</a> of some delegates as they approach this weekend’s ALP national conference in Adelaide. It is the key work in <a href="https://allwecantsee.com/">All We Can’t See</a>, an exhibition in the foyer of the Adelaide Convention Centre. </p>
<p>No delegate will be able to avoid this visual response to the Nauru Files, the records of life on that island first exposed by <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/news/series/nauru-files">The Guardian</a>. With exquisite timing, the show’s opening reception will be held at the centre on Sunday, the evening before the Labor Party debates its refugee policy. </p>
<p>Seton has a carved series of stark, minimalist memorial plaques, naming the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/ng-interactive/2018/jun/20/deaths-in-offshore-detention-the-faces-of-the-people-who-have-died-in-australias-care">12 men who have died</a> under our “care” on Nauru and Manus Island. There is no compromise, no gloss. The white Carrara marble, the same material used by Michelangelo, has been pared back, muted. Its surface is bereft of texture, the only incisions are the names of the dead and the dates they died.</p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/249885/original/file-20181211-76965-f7c2j6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/249885/original/file-20181211-76965-f7c2j6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/249885/original/file-20181211-76965-f7c2j6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/249885/original/file-20181211-76965-f7c2j6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/249885/original/file-20181211-76965-f7c2j6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/249885/original/file-20181211-76965-f7c2j6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/249885/original/file-20181211-76965-f7c2j6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/249885/original/file-20181211-76965-f7c2j6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Detail from Alex Seton, A Durable Solution?</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>A Durable Solution? is the third time this relatively young artist has made work that can be described as a collective memorial. Even though each of these sculptural installations commemorate the lives of a specific group of people, they also focus on the individual, to allow private grief. Seton has described his approach to memorials as “capturing those moments that are a test of our humanity”.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/249886/original/file-20181211-76986-gkw817.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/249886/original/file-20181211-76986-gkw817.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/249886/original/file-20181211-76986-gkw817.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/249886/original/file-20181211-76986-gkw817.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/249886/original/file-20181211-76986-gkw817.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/249886/original/file-20181211-76986-gkw817.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/249886/original/file-20181211-76986-gkw817.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/249886/original/file-20181211-76986-gkw817.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Alex Seton: Insert Grievance Here (2011).</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>He came to memorials via his series of sculptures of flags. Seton is an artist passionate about one material, marble. While this may be the great classic stone for monuments, it is very unfashionable in the 21st century. But his childhood home was near the Wombeyan Caves Marble Quarry, and he was fascinated by those rough blocks of veined rock that could be transformed beyond recognition.</p>
<p>So while studying a Bachelor of Art Theory degree, Seton began to carve. His passion for the precise craft of manufacture melded with his understanding of subtext and symbol. He learnt to carve stone so that it was easily mistaken for fabric. He looked at the ultimate symbolic use of cloth – in flags.</p>
<h2>Carving folded flags</h2>
<p>Flags may be ironic, but more often they are patriotic. They are the symbols soldiers fight under, and when they are killed a flag will drape their coffin. Seton is the same age as some of the young soldiers who first died in Australia’s longest war in Afghanistan. As part of coming to terms with the deaths from his generation, he began to carve folded Australian flags to honour the dead – one for each soldier. </p>
<p>These are made of pink, pearl marble from Chillagoe in north Queensland. Its flush suggests flesh and blood. Each is “bound” with a cloth halyard, creating confusion as to where the stone may begin. Twenty-three flags were first exhibited in Lismore and Brisbane. More have been added with each death. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/249883/original/file-20181211-76962-1q15vzz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/249883/original/file-20181211-76962-1q15vzz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/249883/original/file-20181211-76962-1q15vzz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/249883/original/file-20181211-76962-1q15vzz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/249883/original/file-20181211-76962-1q15vzz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/249883/original/file-20181211-76962-1q15vzz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/249883/original/file-20181211-76962-1q15vzz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/249883/original/file-20181211-76962-1q15vzz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Alex Seton, As of Today, marble with halyard.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Sullivan + Strumpf</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The title of these works, As of Today, reminds the viewer that more deaths may be on the way. The Australian War Memorial purchased the flags, with a commission to add more when necessary. There are now 42. Seton has <a href="https://www.awm.gov.au/visit/exhibitions/seton/statement">said</a>, </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Initially I thought this work was about us – how easily we forget – but it is not about us at all. It is about those who gave their lives and whose memory we now preserve.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>At the same time as the Australian War Memorial was preparing to show his work, Seton was completing a rather different memorial. Dark Heart, at the 2014 Adelaide Biennial, can be described as a dive into the <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-2014-adelaide-biennial-contemporary-art-as-it-was-meant-to-be-23033">dark night of the national soul</a>. Much of the art was confronting, pricking the national conscience as a Jeremiad against the follies of modern Australia. </p>
<p>Now owned by the Art Gallery of South Australia, Someone Died Trying To Have a Life Like Mine was made in response to a particular incident in the sorry history of the many boat people who have died at sea. </p>
<p>In May 2013, 28 empty lifejackets were found washed ashore on Cocos Island. There is no official record of who the voyagers may have been, but one jacket contained a small amount of Iranian money. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/249884/original/file-20181211-76980-18m4cxj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/249884/original/file-20181211-76980-18m4cxj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/249884/original/file-20181211-76980-18m4cxj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/249884/original/file-20181211-76980-18m4cxj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/249884/original/file-20181211-76980-18m4cxj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/249884/original/file-20181211-76980-18m4cxj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/249884/original/file-20181211-76980-18m4cxj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/249884/original/file-20181211-76980-18m4cxj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Alex Seton Someone Died Trying to Have a Life Like Mine, Wombeyan marble, polyester webbing, stainless steel, varied dimensions.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Adelaide Biennial</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Seton began his work to honour these dead, and to give an answer to the question many ask – why set off in an unseaworthy boat across hostile waters? The answer is that these people want what we take for granted, a life like ours.</p>
<p>Each carved jacket manages to quote elements of the western canon of art. One is burst open like Michaelangelo’s <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dying_Slave">Dying Slave</a>. Two are together, as intimate as a quattrocento Madonna and Child. Others are placed in an arc, like flying angels.</p>
<p>The power of Someone Died Trying to Have a Life Like Mine comes from its evocation of empathy, the realisation that the people Seton is commemorating were like us. They wanted to walk in our shoes, so we are drawn to don their lifejackets.</p>
<p>It is this empathetic approach to honouring the dead that gives Alex Seton’s memorials their power. He moves beyond the studied factionalism of party politics and asks the viewer to consider the shared humanity of those who have died.</p>
<p>It does not matter whether they are soldiers or asylum seekers, lost at sea or imprisoned on land. They are us, and we are them.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/108502/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Joanna Mendelssohn has in the past received funding from The Australian Research Council. Many years ago she taught Alex Seton at the College of Fine Arts, UNSW.</span></em></p>Alex Seton’s sculpture A Durable Solution? dominates the protest exhibition at the forthcoming ALP national conference. He has also created an official memorial to Australian soldiers killed in AfghanistanJoanna Mendelssohn, Honorary Associate Professor, Art & Design: UNSW Australia. Editor in Chief, Design and Art of Australia Online, UNSW SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/46972011-12-13T00:56:23Z2011-12-13T00:56:23ZGillard’s reshuffle isn’t about ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ – it’s how party politics gets done<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/6336/original/2fjc89c3-1323736732.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=1096%2C0%2C3229%2C2202&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The public isn't told how ministerial performance is assessed.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Alan Porritt/Julian Smith</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>In the coverage surrounding Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s cabinet reshuffle yesterday, the media rushed to decide which ministers had won or lost. But the focus on who trumped whom in the political stakes ignored the nature of ALP party politics, and belied a misunderstanding of how ministerial performance is really assessed.</p>
<p>A Labor government will always struggle to reconcile its public message with the inevitability of its factional wrangling. This dilemma has been thrown into the spotlight by both the cabinet shakeup and the recent ALP National Conference.</p>
<h2>The ALP National Conference: what the public didn’t see</h2>
<p>The most striking thing about attending the <a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/alp-national-conference">ALP National Conference</a> earlier this month was watching the party grapple with itself. Labor struggled to present a strong political face to the public while at the same time managing the internal conflict that inevitably surfaces at an event billed as the party’s supreme decision-making forum. </p>
<p>Electoral considerations, pressure from external groups and sections of the rank-and-file, personal ambitions and factional interests all played out over the three days in two very different forms: what the public was allowed to see and what it was not. </p>
<p>The presentation of policy platform and the mantra of “growth, fairness, jobs” took a prominent place on the public stage. Observers also witnessed a series of lively and passionate debates on contentious policy issues such as the <a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/mrrt">mining tax</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/its-politicians-not-punters-who-lost-their-nerve-on-gay-marriage-183">gay marriage</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/asylum-seekers">asylum seekers</a> and the <a href="https://theconversation.com/alp-national-conference-where-was-the-arms-control-debate-over-uranium-exports-to-india-4566">sale of uranium to India</a>. </p>
<p>What the public did not see was the furious negotiation played out in factional meeting rooms, where the outcomes of the votes on these issues were decided. The final decisions and the policy debates were also shaped by months of drafting, consultation and the creation of a conference agenda. </p>
<p>The end result was a rather disjointed set of proceedings, in which the contentious and often emotive debates did not really reflect the inevitability of the final vote on conference motions and amendments. </p>
<p>The 2011 National Conference once again illustrated what we already know about the ALP: the inevitable domination of the “faceless men” of the Labor factions and the often precarious position of the party leader. But it also revealed some of the more interesting indicators of political success. </p>
<h2>Mixed messages</h2>
<p>Julia Gillard’s announcement of the changes to her ministry yesterday similarly highlights many of these considerations and expectations, and also the crucial distinction between public and private objectives of political management. </p>
<p>Consistent with the “growth, fairness, jobs” slogan, the very public message the reshuffle is trying to sell is one of a stronger focus on industry, innovation, productivity and participation. Gillard has created a new Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education, which will be overseen by two Ministers: Greg Combet and Chris Evans. Jenny Macklin has been appointed the new Minister for Disability Reform, charged with overseeing the implementation of Labor’s National Disability Insurance Scheme. </p>
<p>Gillard’s new cabinet also sees a record number of women in senior government positions. In her press conference announcing the changes, Gillard promoted these appointments as a positive step in improving the representation and involvement of women within the ministry. </p>
<p>But the message behind the reshuffle becomes more ambiguous when it begins to intersect with considerations of both electoral accountability and party management. Here the rhetoric of “ministerial performance” is often used to justify the promotion or demotion of individuals to and from particular cabinet positions. </p>
<p>In this round of changes, Kim Carr, Robert McClelland and Peter Garrett were seen as the “losers” or “underperformers”. Carr was moved to the outer ministry, McClelland was demoted from Attorney General and Brendan O’Connor was brought in to assist Garrett with education. </p>
<h2>What makes a minister?</h2>
<p>While the media are quick to label MPs as either “winners” or “losers” in cabinet reshuffles, what we never see is a considered evaluation of how we gauge good or bad ministerial performance. Accountability for policy decisions and their implementation, relationships with key stakeholders and the public, performance within budgetary constraints, working with colleagues and the management of government departments should be key criteria, but more often than not such decisions are reported in terms of political strategy and shoring up the numbers. </p>
<p>Gillard’s authority as leader has <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/pms-moves-have-a-whiff-of-weakness-20111212-1oquz.html">already been questioned</a> due to her decision not to remove Carr and McClelland from the ministry altogether. But apart from any objective consideration of performance on the public side of political debate, what seems to have been forgotten is that the practice of a Labor leader appointing her ministry is a relatively new invention. Factional dynamics have always been used within the party as a mechanism of controlling conflict and distributing positions, previously undertaken by a vote of the parliamentary caucus. This is the private reality of a Labor government. </p>
<p>Contrast the reporting of the reshuffle as a series of backroom deals with a prime ministerial press release that pitches these changes as positive and necessary for the government to focus on its priorities, and there is little wonder the public views party government in Australia with a high degree of scepticism. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, and perhaps inevitably, the strong, coherent policy message the government needs to sell in order to meet social expectations obscures questions of ministerial performance and accountability, which should be much more central to how these matters are reported. The reality is that Gillard must also consider the management of personalities, of legitimate internal political conflict and the institutional and electoral pressures that structure political decision-making in Australian party politics.</p>
<p>What we have instead is a scenario similar to the disjointed outcomes of the Labor conference vote. This is a situation in which the public feels as though it is only seeing, or being told, a very small part of the overall picture – one that will only hinder public debate about party government in Australia. </p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/4697/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Anika Gauja does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>In the coverage surrounding Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s cabinet reshuffle yesterday, the media rushed to decide which ministers had won or lost. But the focus on who trumped whom in the political stakes…Anika Gauja, Lecturer, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/45662011-12-04T22:23:23Z2011-12-04T22:23:23ZALP National Conference: Where was the arms control debate over uranium exports to India?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/6118/original/8413a0c225a7ac19-1322997790.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Foreign Minister Stephen Smith congratulates Julia Gillard after the vote changing ALP policy on the export of uranium to China was won.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Dean Lewins</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>On Sunday, the Australian Labor Party voted 206 to 185 in favour of changing one part of the party’s longstanding and non-negotiable platform on uranium exports: that recipient states must be members of the <a href="http://www.un.org/en/conf/npt/2010/npttext.shtml">Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty</a> (NPT).</p>
<p>The express intention of the change in policy platform is to lift the ban on uranium sales to India, who are among those three states globally that remain outside – and have no intention of joining – the NPT. </p>
<p>With the Coalition having been in support of such a move for some time, the vote is expected to have immediate policy ramifications. </p>
<p>Of little consequence now, the Greens do have a well-known <a href="http://greens.org.au/policies/agriculture-natural-resources/natural-resources">policy position</a> on uranium that clearly states: “The Australian Greens will […] prohibit the exploration for, and mining and export of, uranium”.</p>
<h2>Misrepresenting India’s record</h2>
<p>Quite apart from what I have elsewhere labelled the “moral syncretism” and undue domestic orientation of the perceived benefits <a href="http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/11/20111124133339485415.html">initially provided</a> by Prime Minister Julia Gillard – arguments irresponsibly <a href="http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/11/2011112414232543488.html">taken further</a> by lobbyists in the immediate days – it is a grave error to cite India’s nuclear weapons record – which is sub-optimal, not “exemplary”, as is often recycled – as evidence in support of a policy change that is predominately driven by political, commercial and diplomatic pressures.</p>
<p>Indeed, according to the Australia and Japan-led International Commission on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament report in 2009:</p>
<p><em>“10.5… One criticism – frequently voiced since the India agreement – is that [Nuclear Suppliers Group] members may be driven by commercial incentives to be less rigorous in their approach to countries not applying comprehensive safeguards or not party to the NPT.”</em></p>
<p><em>“10.7 The main substantive problem with the deal is that it removed all non-proliferation barriers to nuclear trade with India in return for very few significant non-proliferation and disarmament commitments by it. The view was taken that partial controls – with civilian facilities safeguarded – were better than none.”</em></p>
<h2>Driven by dollars</h2>
<p>Two years after these dire warnings – incidentally by an International Commission co-chaired by our former Foreign Minister Gareth Evans and instigated by then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd – Gillard also appears to be primarily “driven by commercial incentives” and a perceived diplomatic dividend.</p>
<p>Indeed, proponents of the platform change generally made no acknowledgment that India were the first and only state in the world to acquire nuclear weapons as a result of international cooperation on the basis of it being for peaceful purposes – nor her belligerent testing in the mid-1990s; her rather public nuclear arms race with Pakistan; her failure to fully comply with international safeguards and monitoring initiatives; her problems with the US despite a comparable bilateral agreement in place concerning technology and expertise. Nor the rather significant point that none of the cited measures are enforceable under international law – they are considerably difficult to monitor, verify and enforce.</p>
<p>It is worth noting, that six years later, some <a href="http://krepon.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/3153/six-years-later-ii">prominent arms control experts</a> in the United States are still lamenting the lack of international security and arms control benefits to have flowed from the US-India deal: </p>
<p><em>“[…] nonproliferation norms took a hit from the U.S.-India civil nuclear deal and, at best, will take time to reinforce. The deal has added to the IAEA’s woes and has made the NSG a weaker institution.”</em></p>
<p>And sadly for Gillard and those favouring uranium exports, among the five pitfalls and misnomers of the US-India deal has been that the: </p>
<p><em>“[…] the arc of U.S.-Indian relations has improved, but with far less loft than the Bush administration’s deal makers conceived”.</em></p>
<h2>The power of lobbyists</h2>
<p>There are numerous lessons to be learned from the US experience, particularly since the similarities in the way the matter was <a href="http://krepon.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/3147/six-years-later-i">debated there</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/6119/original/79cf0eae06b850f7-1322998120.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/6119/original/79cf0eae06b850f7-1322998120.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=673&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/6119/original/79cf0eae06b850f7-1322998120.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=673&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/6119/original/79cf0eae06b850f7-1322998120.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=673&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/6119/original/79cf0eae06b850f7-1322998120.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=846&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/6119/original/79cf0eae06b850f7-1322998120.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=846&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/6119/original/79cf0eae06b850f7-1322998120.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=846&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Protestors attempted to disrupt the vote on exporting uranium to India.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Dean Lewins</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>There as in here, well-funded and resourced lobby groups successfully denied Australian’s of a debate, and a complacent and shameful standard of media proliferated falsehoods and empty rhetoric as if reasoned evidence such that even Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd – who as recently as last month strongly opposed any deal with India – begrudgingly toed the line of the party leader given the announcement was made whilst he was in Dehli. </p>
<p>For instance, following the vote, Nitin Pai, editor of <a href="http://pragati.nationalinterest.in/">Pragati</a> – The Indian National Interest Review, and Fellow at The Takshashila Institution tweeted that:</p>
<p><em>@Rory_Medcalf And let me say that the consistent policy advocacy by a certain Sydney based think tank surely played an important role.</em></p>
<p>Expectedly, Rory tweeted back to the effect that Lowy staff have all reached independent views on the matter - but given the hive of activity from the Institute in favour of relaxed uranium controls, Pai’s assertion was a reasonable one to make. </p>
<h2>Arms control considerations </h2>
<p>For India has repeatedly and consistently stymied arms control and international security norms in recent times – including abstaining from both the UN Security Council decisions to take “all necessary measures” against Gaddafi’s Libya, and the IAEA’s recent efforts to sanction Syria for noncompliance. </p>
<p>And more importantly still, despite having now changed party platform, as yet Australia have made very few inroads that improve security outcomes in return for access to its uranium. </p>
<p>For instance, it remains unlikely India will sign the <a href="http://www.ctbto.org/">Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty</a> (CTBT) or cease production of fissile material for use in nuclear weapons. Similarly, whilst India remains outside the international Missile Technology Control Regime for instance, since 2005 it had voluntarily adhered to some of its guidelines, albeit without the same standards of verification. India has, at governmental level, openly suggested that it seeks to import uranium in order to free up domestic supplies for its nuclear program. One obvious downside to India’s supposed strict separation of its nuclear energy and weapon programs is that whilst some IAEA inspections are permitted at the former, none are carried out at the latter. </p>
<p>Contrary to the taunts of lobbyists, these are not just single-minded concerns held by those wishing to preserve out-dated or discriminatory arms control mechanisms. For instance, according to <a href="http://www.icanw.org/files/ICANW%7ELegal%20Opinion%7EFINAL.pdf">an academic</a> out of Australian National University, a strict interpretation of Article 4 of the South Pacific Nuclear Weapons Free Zone – to which Australia is a signatory – would prohibit Australia from trading with India until and unless comprehensive or “full-scope” safeguards are routinely carried out on all of their nuclear research and production facilities. </p>
<p>In the <a href="http://www.icanw.org/files/ICANW%7ELegal%20Opinion%7EFINAL.pdf">words of</a> then Foreign Minister Alexander Downer when that Treaty was signed in 1996: </p>
<p><em>“Article 4 (a) of the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty imposes a legal obligation not to provide nuclear material unless subject to the safeguards required by Article III.1 of the NPT; that is fullscope safeguards.”</em></p>
<p>So there is much for Gillard’s government to do before a deal can be done. </p>
<p>What is <a href="http://blogs.crikey.com.au/this-blog-harms/2011/11/28/australias-recent-record-on-arms-control-may-harm-un-security-council-bid/">clear to me</a> is that Australia’s prospects of being awarded a seat on the UN Security Council next year are bound to have suffered already.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/4566/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>N.A.J. Taylor does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>On Sunday, the Australian Labor Party voted 206 to 185 in favour of changing one part of the party’s longstanding and non-negotiable platform on uranium exports: that recipient states must be members of…N.A.J. Taylor, Honorary Research Fellow, Centre for Dialogue, La Trobe UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/45622011-12-04T19:36:14Z2011-12-04T19:36:14ZALP National Conference: Party reform the empty seat at the table<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/6117/original/e31682d28ab0bf2b-1322982673.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">First among equals - Julia Gillard votes on a policy issue at the ALP national conference this weekend.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Dean Lewins</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Potential reform of the Labor Party’s internal structure has been substantially limited, as the Right faction asserted its overall dominance of the weekend’s national conference. </p>
<p>Prime Minister Julia Gillard brokered a deal between the Left and Right factions over party reform, with the issue being sidelined off to a party review committee. This is likely to delay any significant reforms for at least a year.</p>
<h2>The ALP in decline</h2>
<p>Since 2007, an estimated loss of around 12,000 members (from a membership of nearly 50,000), has seen hundreds of local branches folding. There is presently little incentive, other than sorely tested party loyalty, for ordinary people committed to social change, activism and ideas, <a href="http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/11/30/labor-state-sec-gillard-rudd-miss-the-point-on-membership/">to join, and remain in the Labor Party</a>.</p>
<p>To address this <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-12-03/labor-to-tackle-ageing-membership/3711326">sclerotic ageing and decline</a> of the ALP, in their 2010 election review, party elders John Faulkner, Steve Bracks, and Bob Carr recommended a number of reforms to invigorate the party membership. These included trials for community pre-selection “primaries” for candidates; encouraging online forms of membership; a national rank and file forum for policy formation; and the membership electing the national president of the ALP for a three-year term.</p>
<p>It remains to be seen how many of these recommendations will be approved by the review committee. Currently, each state branch of the ALP selects conference delegates, half of them from the unions. The Left faction proposed to have 50% of delegates to the national conference directly elected by branch members, with the other 50% appointed by affiliated unions. </p>
<h2>Breaking factional power - easier said than done</h2>
<p>This proposal threatens the traditional dominance of the Right’s factional and union power brokers, since the Left tends to have higher representation among grass-roots branch members. The Right’s counter-proposal was to increase the number of conference delegates from 400 by 150, with these extra numbers made up of a rank and file delegate from each federal electorate. In another counter-proposal, the Left wanted yet 150 more delegates, to be appointed by the unions, which was opposed by the right. </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/6116/original/af71e2b6f5179cb8-1322982591.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/6116/original/af71e2b6f5179cb8-1322982591.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=881&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/6116/original/af71e2b6f5179cb8-1322982591.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=881&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/6116/original/af71e2b6f5179cb8-1322982591.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=881&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/6116/original/af71e2b6f5179cb8-1322982591.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1108&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/6116/original/af71e2b6f5179cb8-1322982591.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1108&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/6116/original/af71e2b6f5179cb8-1322982591.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1108&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Factional heavyweights like Senator Stephen Conroy wield immense power in the ALP.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Dean Lewins</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In the <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/rank-and-file-push-stalls-20111203-1ocii.html">deal brokered by Gillard</a>, there is finally agreement that some proportion of conference delegates will be elected by the membership. The size of this proportion and other details will be determined by the review committee, <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/in-depth/faceless-men-prevail-on-labor-party-reforms-claim-opponents/story-fnba0rxe-1226213339419">but its findings will have to be approved by the national executive</a>, which remains dominated by the Right. </p>
<h2>As go the polls, so goes the party</h2>
<p><a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/in-depth/labor-says-yes-gillards-address/story-fnba0rxe-1226212075633">Gillard expressed a desire</a> to see reform implemented before the next party conference, announcing a goal of recruiting at least 8,000 new members next year. </p>
<p>She would be hoping any reinvigoration of the rank and file membership could begin to play some part in improving Labor’s primary vote, which remains <a href="http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/files/2011/11/Essential-Report_281111.pdf">far behind the Coalition in the polls</a>.</p>
<p>Otherwise, Labor faces the likely prospect of holding its next party conference in Opposition.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/4562/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Craig Mark does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Potential reform of the Labor Party’s internal structure has been substantially limited, as the Right faction asserted its overall dominance of the weekend’s national conference. Prime Minister Julia Gillard…Craig Mark, Associate Professor of International Studies, Kwansei Gakuin UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/44822011-12-01T19:22:44Z2011-12-01T19:22:44ZALP National Conference: Talking about the issues that really matter<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/6063/original/666bf67a8f635543-1322713741.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=222%2C125%2C4033%2C2708&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Prime minister Julia Gillard faces challenges from all sides at this weekend's ALP conference.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP Image/Alan Porritt</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>After surviving a brutal political winter that many thought would be her last, Prime Minister Julia Gillard can be forgiven to looking forward to the summer holidays.</p>
<p>But she shouldn’t let her guard down just yet. Despite having faced down fanatical opposition to the carbon tax (and having passed the mining tax for good measure), Gillard now has to take on the most lethal opponent any Labor leader can meet: her own party.</p>
<p>This weekend’s bi-annual <a href="http://www.alp.org.au/australian-labor/national-conference-2011/">ALP National Conference</a> has the potential to upset the fragile Labor recovery. What are the issues that matter? Have the deals to sort them out already been done? And can Labor overcome the stranglehold of the factions and unions and introduce reforms that will make the party more attractive to prospective rank and file members, or at the very least staunch the bleeding of existing members?</p>
<h2>Conference in a nutshell</h2>
<p>The <a href="http://www.alp.org.au/getattachment/australian-labor/national-conference-2011/2011-Draft-National-Platform.pdf/">draft platform</a> has about 160 issues or policies that need to be voted on or endorsed. The most hotly debated - or at least of media interest - will be on <a href="http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/pm-under-pressure-over-gay-marriage-push-20111201-1o80k.html">gay marriage</a>, the <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2011/s3380701.htm">increase of refugees</a> and <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/national/conroy-to-vote-against-uranium-sales-20111130-1o76t.html">uranium sales to India</a>. </p>
<p>The reality is most of these issues will have been settled beforehand in the proverbial backroom. It is very unlikely Gillard will get any nasty surprises.</p>
<p>That gay marriage and refugees will dominate the conference is indicative of Labor’s general shift away from their grass roots toward concerns that are more lofty and less fundamental to traditional Labor values. There is undoubtedly a conflict between the Labor “chardonnay socialist set” that tends to adopt issues that would be at home on the Greens’ platform. </p>
<h2>Party reform</h2>
<p>Reforming the internal structures of the Labor party is a hot topic at the moment. Unsurprisingly Kevin Rudd is not a <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/national/rudds-dig-at-labor-factions-all-power-to-the-rank-and-file-20111127-1o10i.html">big fan of the factions</a>. And even a true believer like Paul Keating recognises the current system is anti-democratic and deeply unattractive to voters. It is also proving to be deeply unattractive to party members, who are leaving in droves.</p>
<p>But all parties are forever saying they need to go back to their grassroots and they talk about going back to their grassroots, they talk about being more democratic in their policy formation and those wonderful things that happen in political fairyland. In reality, by the time these reports are completed, the political climate has changed. </p>
<p>And so the parliamentary wing of these parties forgets – often quite deliberately - about the reports and so they’re left to be implemented by the organisational arm of the party, which means they are just shelved and forgotten about as they’ve moved on to something else.</p>
<h2>What reforms SHOULD Labor make?</h2>
<p>It’s the factions that are tearing the party apart as Rudd says. There’s too much emphasis placed on them and they have too much power. They are also becoming an electoral liability. </p>
<p>But in some respects Labor is much more democratic than the other parties in that what is voted on at conference has to become party policy. That doesn’t happen with the the Liberal or National parties. So it’s not so much the actual organisational structure that needs reform, rather the party needs to weed out factionalism and start generating policy ideas from the grassroots.</p>
<p>What Labor should really look at is their shift towards adopting the policy platform of the Australian Greens. They’re moving away from their core values of representing working class and middle class interests, and adopting the “inner city” perspective which is self-defeating in the long term.</p>
<p>They need be seen as a distinctive party that represents working and middle class interests. And that’s where the Australian Labor Party it has, since it’s inception, done its best work. That is the best reform they could make.</p>
<h2>Healthy debate or damaging PR?</h2>
<p>Are same sex marriage and the difference between onshore and offshore processing of refugees the issues that fundamentally concern the voters Labor needs to attract to maintain government?</p>
<p>The offshore that really matters to these voters is when their jobs are moved there. The processing they care about takes place in a rapidly shrinking manufacturing sector. Gay marriages and refugees matter to an urban elite and they don’t translate to the rank and file where Labor is losing its anchor.</p>
<p>It is particularly strange that they would be re-opening the refiugee debate so publicly now. Labor really doesn’t have a good refugee or even boat people policy in place. Voters don’t see the difference between a boat person and another refugee. Voters think: “How can we have more? Are we even properly managing those we have?” The policy is confused enough as it is without adding more debate.“ </p>
<h2>Do we really need party conferences?</h2>
<p>Party conferences are the ultimate political beast: when they work well they can provide a huge boost but when they go wrong, the negatives can be terribly damaging.</p>
<p>The reality is that Labor is structured in such a way as to make these conferences a necessity. And even if the party does undergo major structural reform, it is unlikely it would elect to move to a set-up similar to that employed by the Liberals or the National party because that would simply make the ALP even more undemocratic than it already is.</p>
<p>At the risk of tempting fate, Gillard can still look forward to her summer holidays. This National Conference is more a maze than a minefield and she’s already worked out the path through it.</p>
<p>Which is good because as long as the summer may be, it always has winter waiting on the other side.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/4482/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Troy Whitford is affiliated with The Page Research Centre</span></em></p>After surviving a brutal political winter that many thought would be her last, Prime Minister Julia Gillard can be forgiven to looking forward to the summer holidays. But she shouldn’t let her guard down…Troy Whitford, Lecturer in Australian History and Politics, Charles Sturt UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/45212011-11-30T19:42:38Z2011-11-30T19:42:38ZAustralia’s opportunity to develop an ethical uranium trade<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/6033/original/pic-nuke-lead-tsar-bomba-andy-z-jpg-1322626774.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The Tsar Bomba nuclear test is the largest ever nuclear explosion recorded, measuring 50 megatons and generating a 64km high mushroom cloud.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">flickr/andy_z</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>As the Australian Labor Party <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/environment/energy-smart/alp-left-concedes-defeat-on-uranium-ban-20111115-1ngrt.html">contemplates opening sales of uranium to India</a>, it would be wise for our policy-makers to think more broadly about the long-term possibilities for Australia as a provider of uranium. </p>
<p>There are a number of problems of selling uranium to anyone, let alone a non-signatory to the <a href="http://www.un.org/en/conf/npt/2005/npttreaty.html">Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty</a> (NNPT) and one that has nuclear weapons capability. One is the disposal risk of spent radioactive fuel, especially in countries of high populations, high population densities and geological instability. </p>
<p>Another is the risk of fissile material falling into the “wrong hands.” Yet another is radioactive material being processed for use in nuclear weapons. Moreover, our “safeguards” against these things are left to an out-of-date, virtually unenforceable and deeply discriminatory treaty and its derivative instruments. </p>
<h2>If India is OK, why not Pakistan?</h2>
<p>At the same time, India’s huge population and large pockets of severe under-development are in desperate need of high-intensity energy sources with low carbon emissions. Nuclear probably fits the bill better than anything else. </p>
<p>India is not alone in facing this need. Pakistan, another state armed with nuclear weapons is in the same boat. Yet for all the problems listed above, it is hard to imagine Pakistan becoming a customer of Australian uranium exporters. </p>
<p>However, these problems are not insoluble. The re-thinking of our uranium policy is the time to consider alternative approaches and the potentially enormous economic opportunity such approaches might present for Australia.</p>
<h2>Value added uranium</h2>
<p>Instead of trying to manage the risks of yellow-cake sales to more or less desirable customers with more or less capacity to securely process, monitor and dispose of the material, Australia could become a whole-of-life provider of fissile material for power generation. </p>
<p>Instead of selling stuff dug out of the ground, Australia could become not only the miner but the processor, transporter, custodian, marshal and disposer as well.</p>
<p>More to the point, by controlling the whole uranium lifecycle we would be virtually eliminating the possibility for misuse at any point in the supply chain. It would be feasible to provide the processed and monitored fuel to any country with nuclear power generation capability, such as Pakistan and Iran. </p>
<p>In fact, if nuclear energy programs in the countries less trusted by the West are purely about electricity production, it is likely that both they, and countries like the United States, would welcome the service as demonstration of good intentions. </p>
<p>Further, it has the potential to make nuclear generated electricity more accessible to developing countries with inadequate energy supplies because of the dramatically reduced upfront investment required for processing and disposal facilities. It also vastly increases the return to Australia on our uranium assets. </p>
<h2>Cleaning up after ourselves</h2>
<p>While there is an emotional argument against storing of the waste in Australia, the reality is that we are one of the most geologically stable land masses on the planet, one of the least populated and certainly have huge areas of minuscule population density – and we have the technical capacity and levels of governance to do it better than probably anyone else. There is also a moral issue here. If we are to sell the dangerous goods do we not also have responsibility for how these “goods” eventually end up? </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/6032/original/pic-uranium-olympic-dam-alan-porrit-jpg-1322626587.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/6032/original/pic-uranium-olympic-dam-alan-porrit-jpg-1322626587.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=903&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/6032/original/pic-uranium-olympic-dam-alan-porrit-jpg-1322626587.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=903&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/6032/original/pic-uranium-olympic-dam-alan-porrit-jpg-1322626587.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=903&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/6032/original/pic-uranium-olympic-dam-alan-porrit-jpg-1322626587.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1135&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/6032/original/pic-uranium-olympic-dam-alan-porrit-jpg-1322626587.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1135&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/6032/original/pic-uranium-olympic-dam-alan-porrit-jpg-1322626587.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1135&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Olympic Dam mine in South Australia holds huge uranium reserves.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Alan Porrit</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>There are wider issues that would have to be addressed with such a policy, over and above convincing the NIMBYs (Not In My Back Yard) that disposing of the waste in Australia is the least bad of all options. First and foremost convincing our neighbours of our benign intentions. Especially since we have for so long eschewed nuclear power generation in Australia. </p>
<p>The recent announcement of our closer-than-ever security co-operation with the United States almost certainly won’t help in that regard either. Nevertheless, the prospect of assistance with clean and efficient power generation to help meet their booming energy demands must count for something positive. </p>
<p>Perhaps the bigger question that should be put forward at the Labor Party Conference next week is not whether we want to sell uranium to India but whether we believe in the future of nuclear energy for developing countries—if not for ourselves too. If the answer is “we do”, then we should seriously consider the opportunity presented by changing the paradigm of the uranium trade for the better of all parties. </p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/4521/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Benjamin Shepherd does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>As the Australian Labor Party contemplates opening sales of uranium to India, it would be wise for our policy-makers to think more broadly about the long-term possibilities for Australia as a provider…Benjamin Shepherd, Researcher in the Food Security Program at the Centre for International Security Studies, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.