Labor may just be able to get on with governing before it's too late.
THE Prime Minister's new-found vigour was exemplified by her "settle in" comment at her victory news conference, which was followed by a sterling performance in question time. "Settle down" might be in order, too. The frisson surrounding the Labor leadership ballot was unprecedented, even though in many ways the events were not.
Journalists and spectators not only crammed the corridors of Parliament House, but their heavy use of technology sent Telstra 3G into a meltdown. The Labor Party is renowned for its discipline, so we all wondered who let the dogs out and to what enduring effect.
Leadership contests are a fact of life for political parties. Great parties can have great crises, and life goes on. Political parties have these, just as do most relationships. It is how you manage the upheaval that determines your success and longevity.
Not all parties manage it. Just because you get a comprehensive result in a leadership ballot does not mean you will succeed in uniting a fractured party room or caucus.
Similarly, sitting in the same room as, and working with, people who have attacked you is not easy either. But those MPs particularly former leaders who can put aside their hurt and bitterness and put their party front and centre are those who succeed.
When I left the Democrat leadership in 2002, like many Australians I was stunned when the members of my party room immediately took to the airwaves to publicise their narrative and display flagrant disunity. It was a time that called for quite reflection.
Until the past week, I thought the Democrats' behaviour and internal combustion extraordinary. Labor MPs, indeed ministers, sniping about the former prime minister's leadership style, using words such as "fraud" and "demeaning", defied any sense of Labor unity or discipline and, more importantly, further lowered the esteem in which politicians are held.
Yet the government has not been entirely dysfunctional when it comes to policymaking and implementation. The means testing of the private health insurance rebate (a Democrat initiative once opposed by Labor), changes to superannuation, the proposed disability insurance scheme and paid parental leave (once a Democrat private member's bill) are goals for Julia Gillard (there are policy failings too), but they are being "obscured", to use the Prime Minister's terminology.
Not unlike a previous royal marriage, this prime ministership always had an extra person in it. Monday's ballot surely must solve that. In many ways, it was democracy at work: fisticuffs weren't had nor were chairs thrown. Nobody spilt blood, despite verbiage about bloodletting.
The immediate display of harmony by opposing MPs (witness the joint media appearances after the ballot), the Gillard/Albanese tag-team in the suspension debate and even Senator Mark Arbib's resignation were all part of the "uniting" and "healing" process. This suggests they might just be able to get on with the business of governing before it's too late.
A crisis in a political party has implications for us all. When a party tears itself apart, there are consequences for the nation. As I watched this saga unfold, my heart was heavy. I can only reflect on how, 10 years ago, the demise of my party meant so much to the body politic.
Natasha Stott Despoja is a former leader of the Australian Democrats and senator for South Australia from 1995 to 2008.
Frequently Asked Questions about this Article…
How can a political leadership contest in the Australian Labor Party affect government policy and why should investors pay attention?
Leadership contests can create short-term uncertainty and distract from governing, but they don't always stop policy delivery. The article notes that despite internal Labor turmoil, the government progressed measures such as means testing the private health insurance rebate, changes to superannuation, a proposed disability insurance scheme and paid parental leave. Everyday investors should watch whether a party can re‑unite and continue implementing policy, because policy clarity matters for the economy and business planning.
Which specific policy changes did the article say were being advanced despite internal party upheaval?
The commentary highlights four policy areas moving forward despite the turmoil: means testing of the private health insurance rebate, changes to superannuation, a proposed national disability insurance scheme, and paid parental leave (originally a Democrat private member's bill). These were cited as examples of policymaking that continued even amid leadership tensions.
Did the article say the Labor Party showed signs of unity after the leadership ballot?
Yes. The piece describes an immediate display of harmony after the ballot — joint media appearances by opposing MPs, a Gillard/Albanese tag‑team in the suspension debate, and even Senator Mark Arbib’s resignation — all presented as part of a uniting and healing process that may allow the government to get on with governing.
What real‑world effect on technology did the article mention during the leadership coverage?
The article reports that heavy use of technology by journalists and spectators during the leadership events overloaded networks and sent Telstra’s 3G service into a meltdown, illustrating how major political events can strain communications infrastructure.
Who authored the commentary and what perspective did she bring on political crises?
The commentary was written by Natasha Stott Despoja, former leader of the Australian Democrats and senator for South Australia from 1995 to 2008. She drew on her experience of party collapse and internal disunity to reflect on how parties manage upheaval and the broader consequences for the body politic.
According to the article, what are the broader consequences when a political party tears itself apart?
The article argues that a party in crisis has consequences for the nation: internal fighting can lower public esteem for politicians and impact the country’s governance. The author reflects that the demise of her own party 10 years earlier had significant effects on the body politic, suggesting national implications extend beyond party rooms.
Can political parties recover from internal crises and continue governing effectively?
Yes — the article emphasises that ‘great parties can have great crises, and life goes on.’ Recovery depends on how the party manages upheaval, whether MPs (especially former leaders) can put aside bitterness, and the party’s ability to demonstrate unity and deliver policy afterwards.
What practical signals should everyday investors look for during political turmoil to assess potential policy and economic stability?
Based on the article’s themes, investors can look for signs that a party is healing and able to govern: joint media appearances and cooperative actions by key figures, resignations or reshuffles that resolve tensions, and continued progress on concrete policies (for example health rebate reform, super changes, disability insurance or paid parental leave). Those signals suggest policymakers may regain focus and reduce policy uncertainty.
Call 1300 880 160
Start a chat
Schedule a call
