Socialist Alliance Discussion Bulletin Vol 4 No 4, April 2004 $2.50
Notes on Making Our Campaign Stalls Work 2 By Dave Riley (Brisbane Central/Northern branch) Preferring Clover? 2 By Ken Davis (Sydney East branch), Michael Schembri (Sydney East), Phil Sandford (Sydney West), Barbara Goddard (Sydney Central), Greg Adler (Marrickville) Reply to Addendum to "Preferring Clover" 4 By Peter Boyle (Marrickville branch) A contribution to the debate around an Alliance newspaper 4 By Lalitha Chelliah, Fiona Roberts and Graham Matthews (Melbourne Northeast branch) Supporting class struggle unionism and experiences and challenges in the MUA 6 By Sam Wainwright (Fremantle branch & MUA member) Leadership Changes Proposals 8 By Michael Morphett (Sydney Northside branch and National Co-convener) SA national structure discussion points 9 By Riki Lane (Wills branch)
National Executive decisions
2004 National Conference preparations 10
Delegates' contact details 11
Anti-war campaigning 12
National finances 12
1 Notes on Making our Campaign Stalls Work By Dave Riley (Brisbane Central/Northern Branch) The pressure of time and the habits of routine have had an unfortunate impact on our stalls so I'd like to make some suggestions how we can improve them. #1 Fluro signs These stand out from a distance much better than the stalls themselves so we need to integrate these signs - produced for our federal election campaign - with our stalls. There are two types of campaign tables in use by the SA around the country: card tables and collapsible aluminium framed camping tables. To two sides of these (not the front or the back) you can affix the fluro signs with Velcro. For around $6.00 you can purchase about 2 metres of integrated Velcro self-adhesive tape from haberdashers (it comes in two separate rolls). One piece goes on the sign and the other on the table rim. After you set up your table you simply attach the sign. If you are using the aluminium picnic table which has a overhanging edge - build up the Velcro attachment to the table by raising up a section of the Velcro with cardboard pieces wrapped in masking tape or scrunched up aluminium foil. The signs rise above the level of the table but they will also serve to keep cross winds from blowing your literature away. #2 Protecting fluro signs Once you have attached your Velcro to your signs protect them against wear and tear by running black duck tape around the edges of the sign and criss-crossing the same tape across the back so that the sign is better protected against bending and won't dog ear at its edges. #3 Front fringes For the front of your stall you can cut down a fluro sign and attach it the same way to the edge of the table like a fringe. You'll need a scalpel blade to do this. The front fringe hangs down from the table edge. #4 No more tablecloths Often stalls are covered with tablecloths to set off the literature placed on top. This isn't at all necessary if you cover the stall table top with a primary coloured (eg bright red!)plastic contact sheet/lining. You can purchase this material - which you apply like wallpaper - for approximately $2.50 per metre (Nylex) from most hardware stores. You can also apply the contact sheet to the table rim but don't, of course, cover the Velcro. If yours is a card table, you have to take off the soft padding that covers the tabletop - that's designed for card playing and not much else. Strip back the table and apply the plastic sheeting directly to the Masonite underneath. #5 No more stones If wind is a problem and blows your literature away you can affix cross straps made from (underpants) elastic (preferably black). Hat elastic - the thinnest - will end up tearing your literature. You can buy this by the metre from haberdashers and either attach it to the side of the table with upholstery nails or loop the elastic under the table top like a rubber band. #6 Being seen in crowds Most stalls are lost in crowds as they gather for rallies and marches. To stand out you need to go UP. Unless you have an umbrella or gazebo it is difficult to hold anything aloft. But you may like to try old fishing rods or bike flag poles ($8.50 in K-Mart: 150 cm tall) and attach them to the side of your table with stretch rope. I'm trying to source a cheap supply of fibreglass rods which can be clicked together to make any number of poles for flag use - so that we can do away with the heavy and cumbersome dowel and broom handle width rods we use at the moment. Bamboo is great when you can get it but it won't fold up. Poles need to be very light so that the flags or insignias on top of them don't catch the prevailing wind and pull the table over.
Preferring Clover? By Ken Davis (Sydney East branch), Michael Schembri (Sydney East), Phil Sandford (Sydney West), Barbara Goddard (Sydney Central), Greg Adler (Marrickville) State and local branches of the Alliance have the right to make decisions about elections, even though running against the Socialist Party in Melbourne or against an indigenous candidate in Brisbane may impact on the national image of the Alliance. The controversial decisions by Sydney central branch to run for the Lord Mayor position and to preference independent Clover Moore (member of state parliament for Bligh since 1988) after the Greens but before Labor, may turn out to be not only unwise, but have wider adverse implications for the Alliance as a whole. Many inside and outside the Alliance, see preferencing Clover as a breach of fundamental socialist principles of not supporting ruling class candidates.
2 Clover, currently the leading candidate, is being pushed by the mass media and the gay media as an antidote to the Carr government's dismissal of the Sydney and South Sydney Councils, and their re-amalgamation. This process has certainly been undemocratic, and an egregious bid by the ALP state government to control the city, but the re- amalgamation is not in principle wrong in re-uniting inner city working class communities with high-rate paying CBD businesses and bourgeois suburbs. In fact the speed of the recent processes have meant that many businesses in Sydney haven't re-registered as voters, and the scales are tipped back towards the residents, both the apartment dwellers of the CBD and the rich and poor residents of South Sydney. Clover Moore, despite her cultivated socially liberal image, like most "independents" in local government is somewhat of a conservative representative of small business and gentrifying homeowners. Her electoral base is in some of the wealthiest suburbs in the country: Paddington, Centennial Park, Woollahra, plus those who have bought formerly working class homes in Redfern and Surry Hills and done well with rapidly escalating property prices. She has taken some progressive stands, particularly on urban environment issues, such as for preservation of Moore Park and the Showgrounds and against alienation of public lands for Fox Studios. She opposed the Carr government's workers' compensation "reforms". But in general she is not only anti-union, pro -"outsourcing", but anti-working class and anti-poor. Her slogan is against parties under thrall of both Big Business and Big Unions - and that doesn't seem to mean she supports small unions like MUA! Sometimes she even removes Big Business from the blame, substituting it with "Big Media" (speech 10 Aug 2001). When she was on the South Sydney and Sydney City Councils (1980-1987) she was in the same block of "independents"* with Sartor, who went on to become one of the worst Lord Mayors in terms of development and urban environment. Later, until the election of Labor in 1995, Clover was one of three independent members of NSW parliament that chose to maintain a Liberal/National government without its own majority. She backed up this government in its onslaught against unions and its build up of police and police powers. Unlike Green or ALP candidates, if Clover is elected, she is not accountable to any party structures, unions or activist campaigns for betraying her promises, non-specific though they may be. Clover is all style and little substance. Although always presented as a champion of the gay and lesbian communities, Clover has in fact achieved no substantial reforms in these areas. All significant changes in NSW legislation have been due to ALP concessions to activism. Further, the "gay/lesbian vote" in Bligh is very much split (mainly on class lines) between Liberals, Labor, Greens, Unity, Democrats and Clover. In this mayoral race, she is opposed by at least two conservative gay candidates. She opposes gay men cruising, sex workers, drug users and homeless people making the streets unattractive for the homeowners. Though she holds community consultations, unlike the Greens she doesn't promote activism, nor does she go further in democratic participation than the "open council" breakthrough pioneered a generation ago by the old Trotskyists on Leichhardt Council. The decision to preference Clover shows that we are running for Council without doing homework on policies, and without a coherent and clear position on elections in general. If we believe, as some in the Alliance argue, that there is no difference between Labor and Liberal, they are equally "reactionary", and both funded by big business, why would we preference Labor over the Liberals, or Unity or Democrats, or all the other independents whose platitudes about "community" are as valid as Clover's? The Alliance should make clear that we want the Liberals thrown out of government in Canberra and the Sydney Town Hall, and that we want to see Labor governments elected dependent on Green support, which we will support in making any progressive reforms, and fight in the streets and workplaces each time they move against the working class. We assert that we run in the Council elections to promote socialist policies and solutions, yet we find it hard to focus on any details of local issues, and in no way offer alternative socialist and democratic modes of local government. what about workers' control and participatory budgets/plans, rather than repeating the slogans about "community" used by the Greens and the independents? It would be better if we in the Alliance were ambitious first about developing socialist policies rather than ambitious about over-extending our electoral exposure without content. * Also elected in this block of "independents" was Brian McGahen of the Communist Party, who argued, quoting Dimitrov, in favour of a popular front of the working class with the "progressive" petty bourgeoisie and "national bourgeoisie", (such as the "independent" gay business owners), to "build the community", in this instance against what they saw as corrupt right-wing Labor domination of inner city politics and international "monopoly" capital. Addendum from Ken Davis 31 March 2004 1. The victory of Clover Moore in Sydney City doesn't change how we (5 signers) see this political question. I see Clover's victory as the replacement of one "independent" Lord Mayor a half-inch away from the Liberals with another "independent" Lord Mayor one and a half inches away from the Liberals. It is a victory for SUV-driving home-owners and shop-owners who want to create "village communities" in quaint recollection of the working class neighbourhoods they destroyed. (Many of the surviving inner city working class neighbourhoods were saved by the militant Builders' Labourers' Federation, genuine mass action campaigns, and concessions by the federal Labor Minister Tom Uren, not by the likes of Clover). Along with the CPA, some leaders of SA have been interpreting Clover's election as a big advance, "a reflection of the development of progressive community activism in the inner-city through a series of popular struggles against Lib-Lab neo-liberal attacks on community services, the urban environment and on the very right of these forces to have a say in running the community through local councils. This is why socialists should support this popular revolt and not the Sussex St attempt to squash it..." (Peter Boyle, 30 March). I can't see why the election of a 3 Liberal-allied "independent" with neo-liberal policies as mayor can be an advance for democracy, environment or workers. We'll soon see if her administration shows any sign of anti-capitalist policies, and I think the Greens would do well to stay in opposition. I would also contest statements in Green Left Weekly that Clover has "progressive social policies such as gay and lesbian rights, the liberalisation of drug laws and pro-environment policies", which is far too accepting of Clover's self-serving propaganda image. 2. The question here is about SA political support for Clover's generally conservative petty (?) bourgeois politics, cloaked in the rhetoric of "community", and not the perennial, but of course important, question of how socialists should relate to the Labor Party. It seems to me that some of the SA statements have slid towards Clover's line of "anyone but Labor". In relation to this I'd like to comment on what Peter Boyle said in the Green Left Discussion (an email discussion list in which none of us five signatories are active participants): "does this loyal ALP member (Bob Gould) imagine he has a little operation in the Socialist Alliance. I wonder what will other Socialist Alliance members think of such a call given Gould's role in all this?" (23 March). More recently: "Who was it who drew the "class line" in the Sydney City Council election and started making threats on this list? Wasn't it Bob Gould? Wasn't it the same person who then announced that some "small affiliates" had lodged a protest about the Sydney Central Socialist Alliance branch's decision to give second preferences in the mayoral ballot to the Green, third preferences to Clover Moore, and the next to the ALP? And then that same protest materialised... days later." (30 March). This is a bit like someone alleging that the ex-DSP leaders of the NAC are "operatives" of John Percy. I raised the issue of Clover at the last NE informally with Lisa, (discussing the fight within the Greens on the question) and spoke with Susan Price a week before the election. Both welcomed written discussion of this issue. My visceral hostility to Clover's politics has been overt since her election to the (then soon to be amalgamated) South Sydney Council in 1980. I don't need (and didn't have) any external stimulus to co-write and sign an argument opposing socialists giving support for Clover. That being said, I and others in SA have the right to talk with, agree or disagree with Bob Gould or others in whatever arenas we choose.
Reply to Addendum to "Preferring Clover" By Peter Boyle (Marrickville branch) I have never challenged the right of any member of the Socialist Alliance to consult, discuss or take the advice of anyone they like on what positions or actions they should take within the Socialist Alliance. The Socialist Alliance, a broad alliance of socialists, does not even exclude members of other parties and unaffiliated organisations from joining the Socialist Alliance. Its members are free to argue their political positions within the Socialist Alliance and in public. This broad freedom of expression also means that I, like any other member of the Socialist Alliance, have the right to criticise Bob Gould, a noisy campaigner against the Socialist Alliance, in any terms I choose, unless I am acting on behalf of the Socialist Alliance or a Socialist Alliance leadership body.
A contribution to the debate around an Alliance newspaper By Lalitha Chelliah, Fiona Roberts and Graham Matthews (Melbourne Northeast branch) Establishing a newspaper for the Socialist Alliance as it continues its journey to become a multi-tendency socialist party is crucial. A newspaper has a critical role in profiling the Alliance, in introducing the Alliance to new milieus and being a recruitment tool, and in organising Socialist Alliance members and supporters. In addition a newspaper also allows expression of opinion and debate by members and non-members. But what kind of newspaper would be best for the Alliance, at this stage of its establishment, in this political period in Australia? This is the nub of the question that Socialist Alliance has to answer. Historically, political parties have utilised various forms of media to build themselves, spread their message and organise their supporters. The mainstream parties use their automatic access to the mass media. Howard, Latham and others have no need for a newspaper, as their every utterance is uncritically repeated by television, radio and newspapers across Australia. Socialist Alliance does not have such automatic access. If we are to reach a broader audience, we need to find a way to have our message published independently. In his contribution to Alliance Voices Vol 4, No 1, David Glanz argues that the Alliance should have a paper that is “an explicitly socialist, campaigning and party paper which promotes the Socialist Alliance and our collective positions on key domestic and international questions and struggles.”(p7)The kind of paper that David advocates is not unknown in the socialist movement; in fact it is the most common. It is a line paper, or party organ, which expresses the positions of the party/organisation to its supporters. Such papers have a long history in the socialist movement. In Australia there are a variety of party papers, such as Socialist Worker, the Socialist Alternative magazine, the Communist Party of Australia’s Guardian, and the Spartacist League’s Workers’ Vanguard to name a few. Each of these party organs has it own style, and its strengths and weaknesses. However each is fundamentally an organ of the organisation it represents to put its (unique) views to its supporters. All are essentially aimed at a specific (socialist) audience, with the purpose of convincing/recruiting readers to the point of view of the owner organisation. Socialist Alliance could adopt the position that it needed a party organ, a paper that reflects its collective positions and is explicitly socialist in character. However in deciding what kind of paper Socialist Alliance needs, let us take David’s advice and consider “Who is our target audience? How does publishing a paper fit with our activity in the unions, movements and elections? Should the paper be a party paper (like the Scottish Socialist Voice
5 relationship to the paper. In this way we can keep the broadest possible audience for the Socialist Alliance while beginning a process that could transfer, in stages, of most of the main national party building assets of the DSP to a new united socialist party.” (AV Vol 3, No 10, p15; emphasis added) The ISO on the other hand, argued emphatically that the issue of a newspaper was not a pressing one for the Alliance, and that it should be deprioritised in favor of developing the Alliance election campaign: “At some stage a united weekly paper may be useful in doing this but right now it can only distract us from the main game for the Alliance — the federal election.” (AV Vol 3, No 10, p16) The above is not an either or situation. Elections come and go but the paper is an ongoing important part of the organization that needs to be looked at seriously in the long term. The result of this process to date has been the formalisation of the protocols of the Socialist Alliance-Green Left Weekly trial relationship, which makes clear that the paper will be financially independent of the Alliance, builds on the existing weekly publication schedule of Green Left Weekly, and sets out a basis for the guaranteed publication of articles that a majority of national executive/national conveners believe should be published. In addition Green Left makes a commitment to publish around four pages a week (i.e. one-sixth of the paper) for “discussion of broad political and social issues by Socialist Alliance members/affiliates and accessible to Green Left Weekly readers.” (AV Vol 4, No 1, p13) Obviously the question of a paper for the Alliance is an important one, and should be given due deliberation by the Alliance as a whole. The need for debate in the Alliance on the question of newspaper is real also, and it should be had in the most open and democratic manner possible. However it is not a debate that should be had on the false terrain of ignoring the process of development to date, the role of the integration of the assets and resources of the affiliates, or the direction being taken by the mass of those breaking from Laborism. With the proviso that the offer of another affiliate’s (say the ISO’s) newspaper resources to the Alliance project would necessarily alter the equation, we believe that Green Left Weekly newspaper will provide an important tool for the Socialist Alliance, particularly as it undertakes this vital period of transition to become a multi-tendency socialist party.
Supporting class struggle unionism and experiences and challenges in the MUA By Sam Wainwright (Fremantle branch & MUA member) Socialist Alliance members joined the many maritime workers and other unionists around the country that celebrated the success of the militant Rank & File ticket in the West Australian branch of the MUA. Context I want to begin by putting the WA MUA breakthrough in context, and in so doing refute some serious misconceptions in the piece by Socialist Democracy/Workers League comrades (Alliance Voices Vol.4 No.2). In their piece they claim that the Socialist Alliance in general, and the DSP in particular, have a misplaced faith in a “new cycle of industrial militancy” that does not exist. They cite figures demonstrating declining rates of unionism and a decreasing annual tally of days on strike. The comrades aren’t telling us anything new here. I have never heard anyone in the alliance dispute that the Australian union movement as a whole has been (and still is) in decline. What we have made a song and dance about is the fact that in spite of this general trend and the raft of anti-union laws brought in by the Howard government, a militant current that’s heading in the opposite direction has emerged and consolidated This current is largely but not exclusively centred on the Victorian AMWU and WA & Victorian branches of the CFMEU. These unions are prepared to take serious industrial action, are prepared to defy the anti-union laws and don’t subordinate their members’ interests to the ALP’s media image. Most importantly they are winning the best wages and conditions in their industries and not surprisingly have increasing memberships. While we shouldn’t get caught up on labels, I call these union class struggle unions to clearly distinguish them from the peace-at-all-costs class collaborationist approach of the mainstream union leaderships in this country. Powerful forces in this country are combining to crush the militant current; government, bosses, media and not least of all the same class collaborationist bureaucracy that has “led” the union movement’s historic decline. Fighting democratic unions that are actually winning improvements in wages and conditions without trade-offs threaten the mainstream bureaucracy because they expose as a lie all the shit shovelled down workers’ throats about how it’s all too hard and we just have to wait for a mythical pro-worker Labor government to save us. However all this barely rates a mention in these comrades’ contribution. They state: “The primary task is to build up union membership and to re-establish some basic union consciousness. Many union leaderships themselves, facing the prospect of going out of existence, have been forced to focus on these issues.” This assessment completely misses the point. The peace-at -all-costs approach of these union leaderships means they are incapable of stopping their decline. No amount of glossy brochures, “unions at work” schemes, discount shopping vouchers and organising on the internet is going to change this. It’s only by proving their worth in the battle for wages and conditions that unions will grow. Furthermore it’s only by defying the anti-union laws that they will be destroyed. It’s also no coincidence that the class struggle unions have done the most to support other unions and the social movements, not just in word, but in deed.
6 Meanwhile AMWU National Secretary Doug Cameron is very hostile towards the leadership of the union’s most successful branch. Do the comrades in Socialist Democracy/Workers League think we should go soft on this? The Socialist Alliance has proudly nailed its flag to the mast in support and defence of the fighting unions, not only because we support these unions, but because it’s the only way forward for the whole union movement. In our see-sawing battle to defend the class struggle unions there will be wins and losses. The victory of the Rank & File in the WA MUA along with the militants in the postal division of the CEPU Victoria and the printers in Queensland are significant because they represent a spread of the militant current precisely at a time when the reactionary forces are hoping to deliver their own blow against us through the witch-hunt of Craig Johnston and the Cole Royal Commission. WA MUA, the last eight months While the Rank & File supporters partied hard at the victory party, it soon became apparent what a huge job was ahead of the new team. The first job was to rescue from the fire the EBA processes that had been started but not finished by the old regime. At one workplace they had been prepared to sign an agreement that would have seen the permanent workers all take redundancies and come back as casuals ahead on the pick up of the existing casuals who had been waiting in the line for their crack at a permanent job! This complete betrayal of union principles typified the approach of the previous leadership. While the major tussles are still to come, the union has already fought and won a series of disputes with ship owners, stevedores and port authorities. The union has defied employers’ threats of 127 orders and repealing officials’ right of entry, something that we were previously told could not be done. In every dispute the new leadership have firstly consulted the members, promised them their unqualified support in whatever course they wished to follow and then delivered the goods. The days of officials cutting a deal with the boss then going to the workers to sell it are over and people love it. By contrast I can remember one of the officials in the Central NSW branch telling P&O wharfies during our EBA process in December 2002 that we had to become more flexible and give up conditions without even threatening industrial action (let alone taking it) because “Patricks are killing you for productivity”. This coming from an official who comes from the union’s nationally dominant MUSAA faction that calls himself a socialist! As one wharfie shouted out, “That’s not a worker’s argument, it’s a bosses’ argument”. There has been a surge of confidence and enthusiasm as workers in the industry see the union do what it’s supposed to do, fight for their rights. The facts speak for themselves. At Patricks union density has gone from 58% to 99% and the delegates committee that used to have three members now has thirty eight. Many members who were unhappy with the old leadership but were waiting to see whether the new team could do more than “talk the talk” have been convinced. In one month alone the union received $70,000 in dues including an average of $6,000 a week in back dues. Meanwhile the monthly branch meetings are often packed out. Consolidating rank & file involvement While the union has got off to a flying start, there will be big challenges ahead. The sort of attack being waged against the CFMEU will surely rain down on the WA MUA as well. Already we have heard of whispers about the “violence” of the Cain gang. The only way a union can weather such a storm is with a confident, ideologically prepared and active membership. A pressing challenge for the union has been the recreation of proper functioning delegate structures. Under the old leadership these had been allowed to waste away. At some workplaces there were no delegates and at others the “delegates” were hand picked by the previous officials. Proper delegate elections had not been conducted for over ten years. The immediate result of this is that the new team has been deluged by the workload. A reservoir of expectation been released and the officials have to chase up a myriad of issues that would traditionally been handled at the workplace level by the local delegate. Not only do delegate structures enable the union to spread the load, but they facilitate the training of confident workers who can think and act for themselves. The complaint about the previous Secretary Wally Pritchard was that he was never to be seen on the job (hence the line “Where’s Wally?” still to be found on many toilet walls). The same can’t be said about the new officials who are down on the job everyday keeping workers informed about what’s happening across the whole industry. To compliment this, the union has started producing a bi-monthly newspaper open to contributions from all members. While it’s still early days for the MUA WA and there are still many tests ahead for the militant union current in this country, the old adage “If you don’t fight you lose” still rings true. Surely it remains an obligation for socialists to support these workers in struggle. Leadership Changes Proposals By Michael Morphett (Sydney Northside branch and National Co-convener) Many of the people I have spoken to share the view that the proposals so far are highly unsatisfactory and that such profound constitutional change should have a far longer lead time to allow adequate discussion. At their worst the proposals are unwieldy, complicated, expensive and excessively bureaucratic and have overtones of a propensity to think and act inwardly instead of outwardly. Just the financial cost alone of up to three interstate trips per year (including conference) on top of membership, pledges, etc., etc., would be enough to deter most non aligned people from standing for leadership positions. The vacuum thus created would be filled by the major affiliates who have the resources to fund such travel. In this event the
7 Alliance would be dominated at leadership level by two revolutionary parties and would appear so to all outside the Alliance. This would be expressly against the stated aims for the Alliance. If the Alliance is to have an adequate pool of trained non aligned members from which to select leaders the present pro non aligned affirmative action must continue in some form. All of those I have spoken to would favour the simplest, fairest and most democratic changes to address the perceived problems of; (a) disconnection between leadership and membership (b) convenors doing most of the work, taking most of the decisions with the NE "rubber stamping" (c) those doing the most work not adequately represented on leadership bodies In regard to point (c); the implication is that those doing the most work are automatically represented at leadership level, that they have some right to this. This is simply undemocratic and if enshrined in our constitution would lead to entrenched leaders and competition for places on committees and working groups as a path to leadership. Surely the only worthwhile proposal here is that those doing the most effective job are able to garner the most votes on the conference floor by virtue of their efforts. Those comrades, mostly from the large affiliates, on the various working groups and committees already have a large influence on the Alliance ; what it's activities are, how much energy and resources are devoted to this or that and to a real extent the very direction and emphasis of the Alliance. The ingredients of the groups and committee's success are in part their informality, flexibility, capacity for innovation and their ability to form quickly and dissolve on a needs basis. All of the foregoing would be compromised if bureaucratic duties were imposed on them. At present they can table a report to the executive or make requests of it. The executive can ask for a written or verbal report from them. And further in regard to point (a) The disconnection could be largely fixed by three simple measures. Firstly, hold state conferences more often. Compared with a council gallivanting around the country they are inexpensive, involving for the most part only city wide travel for a day The conference arranged to facilitate exchange between executive and members. Secondly, make one of the duties of an NE member be that he or she travel to the branches throughout their region. Once again mostly local travel. Thirdly, ensure that greater use is made of the branches and members ability to put motions, requests and proposals directly to the NE by advising them that they have this right and suggest that this can be part of branch activity as the need arises. In regard to point (b). To rectify this in the suggested manner is fraught with difficulties not touched on so far. A non aligned NE member remarked that he has seen this process many times before, mostly in government departments ; the process of continual restructuring where new arrangements are barely gotten used to before a new restructure is instituted. Given that the present arrangements were arrived at after much thought and considered at the time to be comprehensive , who can doubt that difficulties will emerge in what is proposed especially given the complexity of the matter and the short time available for it's consideration. Something else not so far considered. If an office administrator is not to have enormous power, regardless of whether they are elected or appointed, the following will have to be addressed. At present the convenors meet weekly for 2 hours. If a larger body is to meet less often (fortnightly) to do the same work the time needed for the larger body's meeting is not 4 hours but 4 hours plus the ratio of increase in numbers, assuming all have an equal say. Obviously, if the administrator takes most of the decisions and the executive "rubber stamps" then we are back where we started except that the convenors is more representative than an administrator. For what it is worth if a new executive of 15 members is required it could be arranged so; 2 ISO --- 2 DSP (or one plus administrator)----- 7 non aligned------4 small affiliates. The non aligned arranged 2 Sydney---- 2 Melbourne----1 Brisbane----1 WA----1 shared between NT, SA and TAS The smaller affiliates to share between them 4 given that some don't believe they should have an automatic seat on the executive. To summarise; The two most objectionable features of what is proposed are their undemocratic nature and their bureaucratic nature. To some it is a trivial point when somebody mentions that the Alliance has to demonstrate that it is avoiding the mistakes of the past by being modest at all stages in it's bureaucratic structure. To many the point is absolutely vital. In what is proposed is a 5 layer structure (or 7 including state) with a powerful administrator at the top. What does that look like ? What is it ? In the ways pointed out and many besides, the major affiliates, particularly the DSP, actually run and control the Alliance. The DSP position formalises that. Why, when that is against their stated aims for the Alliance. To avoid a constant cycle of restructuring serious consideration should be given to augmenting, amplifying and fine tuning what we have. This contribution canvasses but a few of the considerations in what should be a long and careful discussion.
SA national structure discussion points By Riki Lane (Wills branch) The NAC-WG proposal has sparked many rounds of informal talks amongst current NE members and others. This discussion paper represents my views as a result of some of those discussions with Maureen Murphy, David Glanz, Judy McVey, Michael Morphett, Alison Thorne, Peter Murray and Carlene Wilson.
8 It seems that the NAC WG proposal means that "change is in the air", so something has to give. Some members have commented that this is like many an workplace re-organisation - change for change's sake. The first question we need to ask is: is the current structure broken? There are some problems with the current NE. It has always been a compromise between a structure representing affiliates and one representing members. There are differing levels of political experience. Some members have been unable to participate regularly. However, the structure has worked to get done the work of the alliance, while allowing a wide range of viewpoints to be represented. Any new proposal needs to balance the need for a working leadership group and a broadly representative body. Outlined below are some guidelines for discussion. 1. An NE of 15 people 1.1 A working body that meets by phone hookup fortnightly and replaces the existing NC. Members take portfolio responsibilities for (and be co-convenors of?): Seeing red EB, GLW/SA EB, TU cte, Elections Cte, Anti-war cte, etc. All working groups should have a participating NE member who has responsibility. 1.2 Explicit provision be made for job-sharing - in election two people can nominate to be responsible for one position. 1.3a Elected by national conference by proportional representation, subject to some requirements - no more than three (four?) from any one affiliate, at least four affiliates represented, at least seven (six?) non-aligned members, at least five (six?) women. OR 1.3b Elected by national conference by proportional representation, subject to at least 5 women being elected. Affiliates may only stand three (four?) members. OR 1.3c Elected by national conference by slate, subject to some requirements - eg no more than three (four?) from any one affiliate, at least four affiliates represented, at least seven (six?) non-aligned members, at least five (six?) women. 1.4 The NE membership should reflect the diversity of views in the Alliance. Non-aligned members of the NE should similarly reflect the diversity of views amongst non-aligned members of the alliance, rather than all being of like mind. In general, it should be a principle that strong bodies of dissenting views are represented Discussion There may be difficulties in getting enough (15) people to volunteer to take on a fortnightly NE meeting and a portfolio responsibility. The idea of job-sharing in 1.2 is to enlarge the pool of candidates. The numbers from any one affiliate etc are guidelines to ensure a range of views. Portfolios could include: Seeing Red, GLW, other publications (eg pamphlets, posters) all working groups/national committees, the national office administrator, finances and fundraising, membership, relations with other Australian parties, international relations, policy development, media and publicity. Election method PR can lead to horse-trading etc, as in the ALP. However, it is the best method to ensure that the NE has a diverse composition. PR with a lot of requirements (a) could get very messy and produce anomalous results, as candidates receive a quota, but are eliminated. Straight PR could result in domination by one affiliate, so (b) tries to avoid that by limiting the number who can stand, while retaining a gender requirement. It is very likely that four or so affiliates would be represented as a quota for a 15 person NE out of 140 delegates would only be about 9 delegates. Slate method (c) can result in minority views not being represented, as 50%+1 of the conference elect what they want. If a slate method is chosen, the principle that dissenting views are represented needs to strongly followed. Previous election methods have been cobbled together. A move to PR is the most appropriate long term method for a multi-tendency party. Overall, I think (b) -straight PR with a gender requirement, is the best method. 2. A National Council of 30-40 people 2.1Meets 4-5 times per year by phone hookup and sets general guidelines, decides on policy between conferences etc. 2.2 Meetings to be arranged well in advance (set for the whole year, subject to clashes with major rallies) with clear agendas of a few substantial topics. All members in a state (if possible) to be at an appropriate (quiet) single venue. These meetings to take priority over all state/branch events. 2.3 Method of phone hookup to be dialling a 1800 number (as per many union hookups). High quality cordless/speaker phones to be purchased where necessary to avoid current technical difficulties. 2.4a Membership to include NE plus reps from affiliates not on NE plus reps elected by state conferences. New affiliates are automatically represented. OR 2.4b Membership to include NE plus reps from affiliates not on NE plus reps elected by branches. Each branch that does not have a rep via NE or affiliates elects a rep. New affiliates are automatically represented. OR
9 2.4c Each branch elects a rep. Any NE member not so elected is added, as is one delegates from each unrepresented affiliates. Discussion A large phone hookup like this would need to be well organised, with procedures to put together a call list etc. A method that provides good quality phone lines and good speaker phones is essential. If these technical requirements are met, 4-5 hookups seems a more democratic (and cheaper) method than 1-2 face to face meetings per year. Election method - any of the alternatives results in broad representation. (b) and (c) are essentially different ways to achieve the same thing - each branch, affiliate and the NE is represented. Moving to branch representation instead of state representation ensures some level of proportionality. It also makes the delegates more accountable. The disadvantage is that there is no assurance of either diversity or an adequate representation of non-aligned members The advantage of (b) is that it will tend to produce a slightly smaller body. The advantage of (c) is that every branch gets to select its own delegate, rather than some branches having that choice taken out of their hands. Perhaps the best solution would be to amend (a) to say that state conferences must elect delegates from branches without existing reps (from NE or affiliates) and that there must be 50% non-aligned. 3. National office administrator Appointed by NE, either from its membership, or from without (no vote on NE). Discussion It would be odd to have one position, the NOA, elected directly by the national conference - this could result in a centralisation of political power. As the title suggests, the position is intended to be administrative - it therefore should be appointed. If at a future stage, SA has a number of full-time positions, having those positions elected may be appropriate. 4. Seeing Red EB, GLW/SA EB Elected by national conference with provision for co-option by national council/executive. Discussion These EBs are very important politically - they therefore should be approved by National Conference.
2004 National Conference preparations The Socialist Alliance National Executive meeting on April 2, 2004, unanimously adopted the following proposals in preparation for the Third National Conference, to be held in Melbourne, May 7-9, 2004: Conference theme Uniting to fight war and neo-liberalism Conference delegate ratio 1 delegate for 9 financial members or major part thereof, to be elected through branches. Delegate proxy policy a. Each delegate may hold only one vote. b. If they are absent, they may hand their delegate card to a financial member of their branch, or in the case of NE delegates to a member of the affiliate or state they represent. c. There is no absentee voting. Resolutions and delegate election deadlines a. The membership deadline for the purposes of calculating delegate entitlements be Friday April 16. b. The deadline for branches' payment of 25% of membership dues to SA national be Friday April 30. c. The election of delegates by branches be held by Friday April 30. d. Resolutions to be put to the conference be received by the National Conveners by Friday April 30. e. Amendments to resolutions be accepted up until the vote is taken on the relevant resolution at the conference. National Executive members' delegate status All NE members have automatic delegate status at the conference, and not be counted as branch delegates. Conference registration fees a. Non-delegate (public) registration fee: $10 (waged) and $5 (unwaged) per day. b. Delegate registration fee: to be calculated based on costs. Conference standing orders a. Presiding committee. That there be a presiding committee of five, to be composed of the National Conveners. b. Voting. Voting on reports, resolutions and amendment to be by show of delegate cards. Voting on resolutions and amendments to take place as soon as debate on the resolutions and amendments in question has ended; c. Majority required. Decisions to be by simple majority;
10 d. Procedure for selecting speakers. Delegates to have voice and vote. Non-delegate members to have voice but not vote. The speaking order to be formed of delegates and non-delegates, but session chairs shall ensure that all delegates who wish to speak get the opportunity to do so. The chair to take speakers in groups of five and aim to ensure balanced representation by gender, delegation and affiliates. Any delegate or non-delegate who has not spoken in the debate to have precedence over any delegate or non-delegate who has already spoken; e. Conduct of debate. After two speakers have spoken in favour of a resolution or amendment the next speaker to be a speaker against. If there is no such speaker, debate to lapse and the vote taken. Movers of resolutions or amendments not to have right of reply; f. Speaking limit. The speaking limit to be four minutes and speakers to be advised when they have spoken for three minutes. Speakers may ask the conference for extensions; g. Procedural motions and dissent in ruling of the chair. In the case of procedural motions and dissent in the chair's rulings only one speaker to be allowed for and against. Procedural motions do not require a seconder; h. Motion to gag debate. The motion to gag debate to be put without debate; i. Treatment and presentation of resolutions and amendments. Movers of amendments to be entitled to amalgamate and modify amendments at any time until the vote on the matter under debate is taken. All resolutions and amendments to be submitted to the conference presiding committee so as to be able to be projected on screen for delegates. j. Media coverage. Conference to be open to the media but any speaker who does not wish to be recorded by the media to so indicate and coverage to be suspended for the duration of the presentation of the speaker in question; Videoing conference. Art Resistance to be allowed to video conference, but under the same conditions as proposed for the media. Conference reports and reporters a. Australian politics and federal election - David Glanz b. Trade union work - National Trade Union Committee to discuss report and nominate a drafter/reporter c. Branch building - Lisa Macdonald d. Publications session - Seeing Red - SR Editorial Board to discuss report and nominate a drafter/reporter Newspaper - SA-Green Left Weekly Editorial Board to discuss report and nominate a drafter/reporter. The International issues session and Policy session do not include reports; for discussion and voting on specific motions submitted by members before April 30. Conference launch/public meeting Friday, May 7, 7.30pm, Trades Hall. "Uniting to fight war and neo-liberalism: the socialist alternative". Speakers confirmed: Sam Watson, David Glanz, Susan Price, Chris Cain. Saturday night social event "Defend Craig Johnston: Defend Militant Unionism". Format and venue to be confirmed. Union caucuses and candidates’ meeting Meetings of national SA union caucuses during the conference could be useful (plus a possible federal election candidates briefing meeting). These meetings to be "self-organised" through the caucuses, and could be held during the two lunch breaks or at the end of formal sessions on Saturday. Invitations Formal invitations to the conference shall be sent as broadly as possible, but for time reasons we will only request written greetings from international organisations and verbal greetings, presented by a representative if possible, from the other Australian left parties and key militant unions.
Delegates' contact details The Socialist Alliance National Executive meeting on April 2, 2004, adopted by majority the following: "As soon as delegates to an Alliance National Conference or any delegated conference are elected their names, their branch and their contact details are made available to any financial member of the Alliance that asks for them. That this facility be made widely known within the Alliance. While there is no compulsion for delegates to provide their details they are encouraged to take their position seriously and to make themselves available to hear a range of opinions."
Anti-war campaigning The Socialist Alliance National Executive meeting on April 2, 2004, unanimously adopted the following proposals: "That SA members continue, as a priority, to get motions and statements through the unions calling for `End the occupation - Troops out now', solidarity with Iraqi trade unions, and support for the next anti-war mobilisation. That SA branches aim to hold meetings around this theme, and invite local Greens, ALP and others to speak.
11 That SA members in the anti-war coalitions made a concerted effort to win broad support for the initiatives the movement takes. That SA support moves in the anti-war coalitions to make June 30 (the date the US has decided it will "hand over" Iraq to its hand-picked Iraqi Governing Council) the next rally date around the demand `End the occupation - Troops out now'. That SA members argue for the ALP-led coalitions to join forces with us on June 30 and make a broad appeal for unity."
National finances The Socialist Alliance National Executive meeting on April 2, 2004, unanimously adopted the following proposal on national finances: "That the billing of branches for the national pledge be deferred, and the pledge campaign re-launched out of the May conference, with billing to start from June 1."
12 13