Albanese celebrates caucus unity, but it can come at a cost

In the current furore about the fate of the ISIS brides, one would have expected we might have heard some strong advocates from the Labor left in caucus publicly arguing for their repatriation.

It’s the sort of issue that decades ago would probably have galvanised left wingers in the parliamentary party, who’d have been appalled at the Albanese government trying to prevent the return of Australian citizens. But the few Labor MPs being cited as concerned are strictly anonymous.

It’s the latest instance of how the caucus, and particularly the left, has mostly taken a vow of public silence. Unity and discipline are the watch words of the Albanese government, their importance reinforced in periodic lectures from the leader.

In face of such warnings, caucus members are afraid to rock the boat by public disagreement (Albanese wasn’t previously a left factional enforcer for nothing). On top of this, last term a very thin majority acted to keep people in line; this term, the massive majority has made backbenchers feel a special obligation to their leader. Many of the newer members are community-focused and not especially ideological. Also, there are still memories of the consequences of fractures in the Rudd/Gillard years.

Albanese boasts he has the most diverse caucus ever. More than half its members are women, and multiple ethnic backgrounds are represented. Presumably, there is a broad church of views. But in public the congregation doesn’t vary from the words on the hymn sheet – talking points regularly prepared for them.

The public silencing of the caucus, and its left in particular, has been gradual over the years. Under various leaders from the right, including Bob Hawke, the left was vocal; under a PM from the left, it is docile. Former senator Doug Cameron, still a left firebrand, says, “a left leader has neutered the caucus left, and left them mute and subservient”.

This has come as the PM and ministers flood the media. If Albanese misses more than a day or two in public, we conclude he must be hiding.

Behind the scenes the troops are carefully managed. Opinions are expressed at factional meetings. Albanese meets regularly with the factional conveners. He has two staff in his office whose jobs are to liaise with caucus members.

The changes in the media in recent decades have also made many caucus members risk averse. Internal division was always a good story for journalists. But now the 24 hour news cycle, with its elevation of the most trivial disputes, the growth of outrage as a lucrative journalistic brand, and the damage social media can do to a politician, all help the Labor party keep its people in line (it has been another story with the Liberal and National parties).

Of course there are exceptions to generalisations. The obvious one to the Labor backbenchers’ silence is former industry minister Ed Husic. Even as a minister Husic tested the limits, but now he speaks out whenever he wants.

But that’s against the background of having been dumped by the right faction in the post election reshuffle. Just as hopes of promotion can tie tongues, so demotion can loosen them spectacularly, as many a leader on both sides of politics has found.

There have been various minor instances of caucus members speaking out (such as right winger Mike Freelander) but they are few and far between.

Another big exception to Albanese’s disciplined caucus was senator Fatima Payman. But this was in a separate category because it involved crossing the floor (on a pro-Palestine Greens motion), which is a mortal sin under Labor rules. She was suspended and eventually jumped to the crossbench.

Labor’s rank and file is more radical than the parliamentary party. That means the party’s triennial conferences have to be carefully orchestrated, although the teeth of these gatherings had been pulled years ago. This year the party’s 50th national conference will take place in Adelaide in late July. It will be more a festival than, as claimed on the party’s website, its “highest decision-making forum”.

The lowering of dissident voices within Labor makes the government’s task easier, but may come with costs – beyond the obvious one of limiting public debate.

The sudden surge of support for One Nation is mostly hitting the conservative side of politics, but holds possible threats for Labor. A big factor in this growth is that people are increasingly disillusioned with the major parties.

In 2007 Labor had 43.38% of the primary vote; at the 2025 election it had 34.56%

People see the majors as professional political machines spouting lines. They come across as inauthentic, and the absence of transparent internal debate and differences is one aspect of that. This has contributed to the present popularity of disruptors, as varied as One Nation and teals.

A former convener of the caucus left faction, Julian Hill, now assistant minister for citizenship and multicultural affairs, this week delivered some pointed advice to the broad left of politics.

“Proudly embracing modern Australia means not shying away from love of our country, traditions and common symbols”, he said in his McKell Institute speech. “Inclusive patriotism helps to combat and blunt the rise and threat of right-wing authoritarianism and exclusive nationalism.”

He advocated “embracing Australia Day for as long as there is no consensus to change the date, as a day to reflect, celebrate and be proud of our country and our complex history.

"Accepting that the day will mean different things to different people. Many decent, good Australians love Australia Day and a public holiday before the school year kicks off. Many of us like to don Aussie garb and people don’t want to be sneered at for loving Australia.

"Why on earth would we cede our flag, our national day and institutions as propaganda for extremists and the hard right?

"We can all mark Anzac Day, and treasure our British Parliamentary democratic inheritance alongside Indigenous history and culture, and celebrate new people taking Australian citizenship as a welcome act of patriotism. And you can also disagree with anything I’ve said, agreeably.”

Hill’s advice to progressives sounds eminently sensible. But there is another point to be made. The political extremists in our community are not just on the right – there are plenty on the left too.

If left wingers on the caucus backbench remain silent in public on issues they care about, in the name of party unity, they may be ceding ground – for example among young voters – that extremists further out on the left flank are only too willing to occupy and exploit.