Community branches are better than one branch per state electorate, but the ALP factions seem intent on changing membership to one branch in each state federal electorate; so members must join the sole branch in the state electorate in which they live says Independents’ convenor Eric Dearricott.
Their motivation is not about creating more effective local branches that increase Labor membership and support and its local vote. No! It’s inward looking, about internal oversight and making and regulation of branches less onerous.
It stems from branches being the sole entry point and attendance verifier for members to qualify to vote in internal elections – having all factions in the one room would, the argument goes, provide the oversight needed to impede stacking. If other or additional requirements for voting eligibility are introduced, branch structures designed to more effectively engage existing and new members and boost Labor’s support at the local level and more broadly could and should be adopted.
Would one branch per state electorate work? I doubt it as:
- if the attempt to rid the party of stacks is not entirely successful, it runs the risk of overwhelming good active branches with members (and their masters) whose only motivation and activity is voting as instructed in internal ballots;
- some active and effective branches whose members currently live in two or more state seats will be torn apart by the change
- a state redistribution must take place before the 2022 state election, therefore immediately after the disruption from relocating to a new branch based on your state electorate, their boundaries will change and many members will be forced to change branch again;
- the number of members in some state electorates will be a problem – some are too big and some too small;
- the size of some state electorates, especially for country areas, is too big for just one branch;
- the connection that branches give the party to local communities and groups will in many cases be severed;
- where Labor holds a state electorate the Member would be likely to be regarded by themselves, State Office and others as owning that state electorate’s branch rather than it being the members’ branch
Community branches are better – and they don’t change after every redistribution
Because the rules require that members must join a branch in the federal electorate (probably soon the same state electorate) in which they reside, every time electoral boundaries change about 20% of members have to change their branch. As a result of that process, many members are lost and the connection of the local Labor branch with its community, and members connections with what they regard as their branch, is often severed.
In Victoria there are 38 federal electorates but 88 state electorates. A change to state electorate based branches will result in even greater post-redistribution removal of members from their branches.
In an ideal world every community, regardless of state or federal boundaries should have a Labor branch with strong engagement and identity with it, to connect the party to that community.
Many branches already seek to work in this way. They set up street stalls and tables at the local market, they are involved in community groups and issues – they even contribute financially to local causes.
These works contribute to the party’s standing, membership and grow electoral support in their community.
There is much more to winning seats than the central and the candidate’s campaign in the run up to an election. Over time hard working community connected local branches can significantly build Party support and membership in their town or suburb.
For example, when I first shifted to my town in 1981 ALP two party preferred support was 37% but with a strong and active local branch by the 2019 Federal election our vote had grown to 64%.
The party’s local parliamentary representatives (for those lucky enough to have any) are important but will change from time to time but the community’s local Labor branch should be the constant.
We need to preserve and develop party members’ connection to their local community by establishing stable community branches whose members don’t have to change branches after every state or federal redistribution.
If we do need to regulate membership of such branches perhaps the rule for membership could be that a member has to join a branch which is in at least one of the same municipality, the same state electorate or the same federal electorate in which they reside. Given municipal boundaries rarely change this would add significant stability to branches and their membership.
NB Whilst local community connected branches are essential to build electoral support on an ongoing basis other forms of membership entry with no geographical requirements, especially via policy based groups such as LEAN, Rainbow Labor, Labor for Housing etc, must be introduced to attract and bring into our party new members especially younger members.
Related readings
Macklin-Bracks discussion paper – ideas & options – by Eric Dearricott & the Independents Sept 2020
Macklin-Bracks hand over administration of VIC ALP to Interim Governance Committee – June 2021
A review of all the ALP reform reviews – 50 years of soul searching – 1964 on – by David Barda, Open Labor, Oct 2020
Is the current ALP branch structure fit for purpose? Submission to Macklin-Bracks review from Sarina Greco, Open Labor, Oct 2020
ALP branch reform – the NZ Labour membership model – by Pauline Brown, Open Labor, Sept 2020
Eric Dearricott, Kyneton branch member, born, raised and lives in Central Victoria; is the indefatigable sole independent member of the Victorian Administration Committee, along with his wife Marg Dearricott awarded ALP lifetime membership in 2016; convenor of the Independents; a former teacher, advisor to Premier Joan Kirner; organiser at ALP Victorian Branch; and inveterate activist for transparency and democracy (Victorian Supreme Court rules activist Eric Dearricott may keep ALP membership records 11 Dec 2015).
Terry McMeekin says
1 large state based electorate will mean that the meetings will be too big and many people will not get a say or a chance of being meaningfully involved.
No choice of Day/date of meeting within an electorate means that some people are never available due to work/ sport etc.
Cost of large meeting places. I do agree that FEAs need to run regular social or joint branch meetings/forums so that members of different branches can interact.