Mike Keating is a Masters student in the Department of Political Science at the University of Western Australia and was a delegate from the UWA sub-branch at the WA Labor Party State Conference.

Only the next election will tell whether the '99 state conference was a turning point in recent state ALP history, but it will certainly be remembered as a moment of significant policy renewal. The conference was widely perceived as an affirmation of Gallop's leadership, and endorsed many of the policy positions advocated by the party's Broad Left faction. The media gave good coverage, in general, was particularly positive towards Dr. Gallop. I was one of two elected delegates from the UWA sub-branch, and I didn't miss a minute! I caucused with the Broad-Left faction, which met every morning at 7.30 (aaargh!!) and at lunchtime, but found out later on that we were the only faction which caucused at all! Anyway, here's my version of what went on, which focuses on the points of contention and the main policy decisions.

Background to the Conference.

In the weeks preceding the conference some stories broke in the West Australian which are important to understanding the background of the conference. It appears that while the party leader –- Dr. Gallop – was out of the country several 'factional power-brokers' got together and made some decisions about the future of the ALP in this state. Amongst their 'decisions' was a change in the leadership, apparently aimed at promoting Julian Grill, and a complete back-flip on Native Title which would take the form of passing in the Legislative Council Richard Court's Native title amendments. Two comments need to be made here: first, promoting Grill to the deputy leadership was widely perceived as a bad move for a variety of reasons; and second, Gallop was widely perceived to have invested his leadership resources into the full and total support of Native Title. Finally, in the midst of the environmental conflict which still continues regarding old growth forests, Dr. Gallop decided that he wanted the party to endorse a position which would end the logging, and seek to compensate the affected workers. Some unions in the party – particularly the AWU – and certain key members of the Right faction signalled their hostility to such a policy, and the battlelines were drawn. The stakes: Gallop's leadership, and the immediate electoral fortunes of the party itself.

Logging Old Growth Forests.

Perhaps the most important decision made at the conference was that of stopping all logging in old growth forests in WA upon return to government. This decision was not easily made by the ALP – it was an emotional issue, where people's jobs were at stake, jobs being a key concern of Labor. Gallop's motion – known as the 'leader's position'-- was fully supported by the Left faction in the ensuing debate, but, from my perspective, it was unclear how much support would come from the Centre-Left and Right factions of the party. Some of these delegates were clearly strongly opposed to the proposed policy. A highly emotional debate took place, with workers from logging industries speaking against the motion, and a good deal of media attention was received, in which these logging workers were often described as 'labor heartland' voters, and the motion as a 'betrayal'. However, from an electoral perspective, most of the electorates in which old growth forest logging takes place are safe coalition (soon to be One Nation?) seats.

The debate ended with extreme suspense, in the form of a recorded vote. Every delegates name was read out, and they answered yes or no. The Broad Left faction – including this delegate -- voted down the line for the motion, but more support was needed, support which came from two key unions in the Centre-Left faction, ensuring that the policy was approved. On top of this, many political delegates from the Centre-Left and Right factions, including the State party's leadership, voted for the motion. The policy was therefore approved by a reasonable margin. Interestingly, the forestry workers union voted for the motion, but this can be explained as Bunnings, the company which is now famous for destroying old growth forests in WA, does not employ a unionised workforce or appear to allow its employees to be union members. The unions which opposed the motion represented truckies and other workers related to the timber industry as much as loggers

Native Title

After the leader's position on logging had been endorsed, it seemed he could do no wrong, and the debate on native title issues which had been held in the warm-up to the conference did not even take place. The Indigenous Australians policy was passed essentially as drafted, again representing an endorsement of Dr. Gallop, a leader who was now seen to have successfully 'stood-up' to the factional powerbrokers and ensured that the party maintain an ethical stance which differentiated Labor from the Coalition government..

Compulsory School Fees

Another issue which was discussed in detail before the conference related to the Government's move to make school fees compulsory. The State parliamentary Labor party had approved the government's policy in the Legislative Assembly – although this contravened state policy – but had the opportunity, after the conference, to either support or reject this bill in the Legislative Council, depending on the position of the Conference Delegates. This was another difficult issue for Labor, as compulsory school fees was against principles of equity, but the Court government threatened to under-fund schools, such that areas where parents were less likely to pay voluntary fees, ie lower socio-economic areas, would suffer whereas wealthier areas would not. However, in the end, after debate, principle won out over pragmatism, and it was decided to reject the bill, and to let the Court government face the consequences of its education policies at the next election.

Nuclear Issues

Three issues were discussed in this regard, Nuclear powered or armed ships in WA harbours, uranium mining, and nuclear waste dumps. Some debate was held on this issue, as it related in important ways to the US-Australian alliance. It is still unclear to me what no Nuclear powered or Armed ships in WA harbours actually means, as it has been Labor policy before but pragmatism has reigned, and the Yanks don't tell which are and which aren't anyway. However, the motion was passed. It was agreed that no more mines, and certainly no waste dumps would be established under an ALP government.

Directly Elected Leadership

A small group inside the Centre-Left faction, calling itself the 'millenium group', comprised mainly of young students and ex-students of UWA, moved a motion calling for direct election of the party leader by State party members. This was not a very popular motion, which in essence called for us to be 'like the Democrats'. It also seemed contradictory to me that these same people were later on to vote for only a marginal improvement in grass-root preselection of parliamentary candidates. They seemed to want to give us a choice between a bunch of people we hadn't chosen. Anyway, this motion was trashed by both the Left and Right factions, and most of the Centre-Left as well.

Health, Education and Industrial Relations

These important aspects of Labor's policy, the basis of the election platform, were not really debated at all, but many impassioned speeches against the Court government were made. The multitude of cameras and large media presence was probably seen as an opportunity to point out the policy differences between the ALP and the Coalition which was not to be missed. Essentially, the ALP pledged to fully fund the health system which the government is starving of funds, address the collapsing public education system which the government is ignoring, and totally undo the IR policies of the Court government, particularly Keirath's 'third wave' legislation.

Preselection of Parliamentary Candidates

Interestingly, these policies on which debate had occurred were all passed in forms which corresponded to either the leader's and/or the Left's, position. At one point, Right faction leader Joe Bullock made a speech, but the microphone failed to work; when it finally came on he said that that pretty much summed up his conference so far, a comment which probably goes for the entire Right faction. However, it couldn't all go the Left and the Leader's way, and the conference ended with the Right and the Centre-Left, finally, gathering the numbers to swing a motion their way. The final debate related to changes in the rules for the preselection of candidates Several different versions of this motion were proposed, all of which improved the influence of the grass-root party members relative to State Executive by some degree. In the end, a position of marginal improvement, far less then that supported by the Left faction, was approved by conference.

In the Aftermath of the Centenary Conference.

Overall, however, the Left faction was very happy with the policy outcomes of the conference, which was also seen as a clear victory for Dr. Gallop and an endorsement of his leadership. It was clear that Gallop in particular had received very favourable media coverage over the weekend. The success of the leadership and the party's Left faction was of course mirrored in the apparent disorganisation of the Right faction. Still, many delegates from all factions, were, I'm sure, surprised to wake up on Sunday morning to discover the new, quite liberal cannabis decriminalisation laws, and the endorsement of heroin trials, which had become policy while the Right faction was apparently sleeping! Personally, I loved the conference, which compared very favourably with the last one (which you might recall as the "I love Brian Burke" conference of '92), and I even managed several great games of chess on the conference floor!