CRAIG COMMENTS

Print

When is close “too close”?

Freedom of association is one of democracy's pillars or ‘so I am told'. Yet is it healthy for our democracy that some associations and lobby groups are closely associated to political parties? I don't believe it is.

The Labor Party has consistently been under legitimate scrutiny because of its strong connection to the union movement, with calls coming for the breaking of this tie as the federal government is currently planning to overhaul industrial relations laws with its new found control of the senate. The union movement may rue the day it affiliated itself totally with Labor as it's unlikely that the current government will listen to an organisation that has such total links to the opposition side of politics.

How close is “too close” in political affiliation and is the union movement selling out its members by aligning themselves totally with one side of politics? In my view, the answer is yes. The union movement assists with the funding of the party; unions have compulsory membership and voting rites and unions provide the party with a large portion of its MPs and ultimately political leaders. To balance this situation, industry groups have arguably aligned themselves with the conservative parties to the extent that the majority of their support comes from industry representatives. Whilst this is clear, it is nowhere near as strong as the connection of the unions with Labor.

One of the interesting comparisons to Australian politics is the US farming lobby. In the United States , the farming unions hold influence over both sides of politics. This is because they do not overtly align themselves to either side of politics. This way they can (and do) use their vote and their voice as an independent lever on either side. The comparison in Australia is that the farm lobby groups are overtly partisan to the extent that a large portion of rural MPs from the conservative side of politics have served in the ranks of our farm lobby groups and use this position to gain the publicity to elevate themselves into Parliament. The silence of the Victorian Farmers' Federation (VFF) was deafening under the Kennett Government, when the slash and burn privatisation of public infrastructure was at it height. It should disappoint the VFF's grass roots membership that their faithful leader through much of that time has been rewarded for his compliance with a position in State Parliament representing the National Party. This behaviour is in stark contrast to the current modus-operandi of the VFF as they seem much more comfortable criticising a Labor state government than its predecessor. This is sometimes warranted, but some of the VFF criticism seems to be more politically generated and may not be in the best interest of legitimate farmers. Unfortunately, the VFF at times seems to be ignored by government because of its behaviour.

Why is this unhealthy in a democracy? Because all too often those organisations charged with representing their industry, or membership, or community have motives other than the best interest of those they are supposed to be working for. Namely, to promote themselves into positions of influence in the political party to gain the ultimate position as leader or as a Minister.