A motion that would have returned the power to select the Labor frontbench to caucus has been put off until after the election, saving Prime Minister Julia Gillard from what could have been seen as a damaging vote against her authority.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
or signup to continue reading
Last month, backbencher Steve Gibbons lodged a notice of a motion to amend the way the Labor ministry was appointed.
It calls for the caucus to once again appoint the executive - the system that existed until March 2008 when, under Kevin Rudd's prime ministership, the power was given to the Labor Party leader.
The motion was due to be discussed at Tuesday morning's caucus meeting but Fairfax Media understands Gillard backer Don Farrell moved that it be deferred until after the election. Even though Mr Rudd introduced the reform in 2008, the optics of a caucus vote against the party leader's power would have been damaging at a time when Ms Gillard's leadership is under serious threat.
Had the motion been successful, it would have been touted as a sign of no confidence in the Prime Minister. During the February leadership challenge last year, Mr Rudd conceded that he had been wrong call for the leader to pick the ministry.
Mr Gibbons - the member for Bendigo - said on Tuesday that his motion was about ''correcting a mistake that I believe most rank and file party members would acknowledge''.
''It is based on a simple premise – that members of the parliamentary executive must be free to offer frank and fearless advice in the decision-making process if that executive is to function effectively,'' he said in statement.
''This is much more likely to happen if individual members of the executive owe their positions to the full parliamentary caucus as a collective, rather than to just one individual.''
Mr Gibbons said that of the 102 current members of this caucus, 88 participated in the decision to change the frontbench process ''in that post-election euphoria of 2008''.
''Some have argued that the change was designed to modernise our party's rules and bring the party into the 21st century. It actually took us backwards – not forwards.''
