Student politics — the springboard into many notable political careers — can be hostile, exploitative and hierarchical, as brutally demonstrated by last month’s revelations of former Victorian Labor MP Adem Somyurek’s alleged branch stacking.
But when young party members are involved in repeated scandals, what habits are our future politicians forming?
The recent Age/60 Minutes investigation into Somyurek’s alleged orchestration of branch stacking on an “industrial scale”, based on dozens of phone and video recordings obtained by Nine, implicate him and others.
Although widely condemned by ALP members, Somyurek’s actions reflect a broader culture that sees sexism and corruption reinforced by such behaviour being tolerated at a student politics level.
Somyurek seemed to use young political staffers not only to assert political domination over the Victorian Labor Party, but also as collateral in the power struggle of factional politics.
The footage revealed two former La Trobe University student union presidents, Jacob Cripps and Nathan Croft, were involved in Somyurek’s efforts to branch stack and consolidate power.
(As well as their involvement in the student union, Cripps and Croft hold top positions in the National Unions of Students.)
Although often under-reported, factional formulations at a student politics level are integral to understanding ideological party divides in state and federal politics. Many current and former MPs have succeeded in politics as a result of the factional partnerships forged in their student politics days.
The Somyurek scandal is not the first time Young Labor members have been caught breaking party rules.
In 2017 Jesse Cuthbert and Ivan Xie were accused of stealing Victorian Greens election data and voter details after posing as party volunteers. In March that year, Young Labor members linked with Bill Shorten were fined $1000 each after vandalising Greens material.
Along with corruptive activities, the blatant sexism and bullying uncovered in the Somyurek scandal can also be seen in Labor’s youth branch.
In February last year ACT Young Labor members Nick Douros, Niall Cummins and Francis Claessens were accused of bullying a female member to force her out of the party. Messages between the trio referred to the member as a “rat” and that they were going to “bully the fuck out of her”.
After an internal party investigation, Douros resigned as a staffer for Senator David Smith. Yet seven months later Douros was nominated as national secretary of Young Labor.
The Somyurek scandal clearly demonstrates the abuse of power between politicians and young political staffers. Young party members are expected to undertake the legal dirty work of campaigning — handing out leaflets, doorknocking, recruitment and working long hours for MPs — all in the hopes of gaining the experience and connections needed to make it in the upper echelons of the party.
But the extremes to which young members of all political parties are expected to perform coercive tactics is unclear.
The power imbalance can leave them open to allegations of misconduct without the shield of a PR team that’s often afforded to politicians.
In a period of declining political party membership, and in a culture that often tolerates bullying and exploitation, can we really accept that young politicians are just unfortunate casualties of factional warfare? Or is it time for political hopefuls at universities to be held accountable for their immoral actions?
How do we fix Australia’s student politics? Are young hopefuls being exploited by the political establishment? Let us know your thoughts by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication in Crikey’s Your Say section.
Kate Clayton is a casual academic in international relations at La Trobe University.
Emily Foley is a PhD candidate in politics and casual academic at La Trobe University.
I hope that the use of the present tense for these people’s casual academic status is correct.
Great Insight Emily Foley !
Best way to stamp out stupidity in youth wings of political parties is to get rid of the youth wings. The youth and grown-ups should be able to play together as equal members of society. We’d probably end up with a few less egotistical upstarts running for political office on the back of the youth wings of parties without life experience as well.
Life experience?
Good grief.
That is automatic debarrment in the political world; including that of political reporting and analysis.
I’ve long thought that many of Australia’s political problems, caused by the misbehavior of the political class, stem from vicious factional student politics. This first became evident with Tony Abbott who came to prominence as a destructive force in Sydney Uni’s SRC, but has continued on both sides in both state and Federal jurisdictions.
Previous experience in student politics and/or youth wings of political parties should be regarded as a reason for excluding aspiring parliamentarians.
As an act of pure chance, some time ago, I found myself watching a TV news item where a reporter was strolling about a campus looking for groups of students and soliciting opinions as to the BA in ‘Western Civilisation’ that was mooted by Abbott, Howard etc. No student was in favour of the initiative but equally no student had the least clue as to the life, customs, linage or ethos of ancient Greece and Rome. What was exposed (unintentionally, I suspect) was decision-making in an environment of pooled ignorance.
Abbott’s flirt with theology and then politics ought not to be overlooked; both vocations are predicated upon telling people what to think and do. For a century or three, as the article conveys, political careers are formulated at university; at least for some.
As to fair-mindedness, it is interesting to observe that the “free speech zones” have been removed from university (UCLA) that established them almost 50 years ago as the Free Speech Foundation (1974). An academic career can be trashed merely by expressing the “wrong” opinion nowadays. So much for the principles of The Enlightenment and defending (qua Voltaire) free speech. Not being able to express an opinion on a non-politically correct subject is (re: Jordan Peterson) NOT free speech. Free speech is unqualified in order to be free. That much is axiomatic.
The influence of post modernism needs to be mentioned yet the premise that all viewpoints are equally germane becomes hijacked into ‘particular expressions are deserving’ and others are to be expunged. One short step for mankind from the previous paragraph materalises as bullying and political breeding grounds.