When this same vocal and culturally dominant elite within the ALP succeeded in getting the party to introduce restrictive membership rules to limit multiple recruitment, they celebrated their victory. But those celebrating the most were those who had already stacked the branches. Their turf was now protected from future multiple recruitment by any new or emerging groups wanting to contribute and perhaps gain representation in the ALP. Meanwhile, the unions had become concentrated into ''super unions'', so that probably as few as five union secretaries now control 80 per cent of the union component of the ALP conference, where crucial decisions are made and the preselection panel is selected. Paradoxically, however, these powerful unionists have also become trapped by the new rules. They may have more power, but they now have to accommodate the insatiable claims of the now protected local branch powerbrokers, who will support a factional ticket - but only if they are part of it. By the time the union bosses have accommodated these candidates, they are lucky if they can slip in the odd union candidate. I have noted the claim that up to 2000 new members signed up after the federal leadership ballot. But the truth is that most of these members have been shoved into a ''central'' branch, where they get few voting rights and no right to stand for party positions. No rights means they will not hang around long. Federal leader Bill Shorten is right to point out that it is too hard to join the ALP as a full member, and that the real answer to the existing stifling power structure in the branches is not to make it harder to join, but easier. People should be able to join online and, by making a modest minimum donation and ticking a box, get voting rights. But I think Labor has to go further. Not everyone is able to use the internet, especially non-English-speaking people. Surely, anyone who wants to fill in a form and send it with their donation to the ALP should be able to become a member. It should not be harder to join the ALP than the average AFL club.

These new members must be given full voting rights and the right to stand as candidates within a designated period of, say, six months. Voting in Labor ballots should not depend on whether you are accepted at a branch meeting controlled by existing power groupings, but rather on whether you turn up with your driver's licence to vote in a secret ballot for your favoured candidate. If unions and factions thought about what has happened with the restrictive membership rules, they would open up the ALP to new members. But this does not mean that only local members should decide preselections. Currently, the 100-member central preselection panel gets 50 per cent of the say. Consider a situation in which there are only 50 branch members in a relatively safe seat. Should they have more say than the people on the central panel, who represent more than 10,000 ALP members and thousands more unionists? It amazes me to see party elders such as Martin Ferguson defending the right of about 75 local members in the state seat of Macedon who voted for Christian Zahra to be their candidate, but who was happy to accept national intervention in his favour in the federal seat of Batman, where about 1000 members were eligible to vote. Labor should give consideration to a sliding scale so that if there are fewer than 100 local branch members, maybe they should get only a 30 per cent say in preselections. And where there are more than say 400 members, the locals would get a 70 per cent say. Now that would really encourage more members. Those screaming that the preselections for the Victorian upper house should be overturned because they did not produce an adequate gender balance seem to me to be the same people demanding that the party knock off a highly competent woman in Macedon because the wishes of local members were not adhered to. Has it occurred to these people that new local ballots for the upper house may actually result in fewer, not more, female candidates? The ALP's affirmative action rules were always unworkable because they pitted the principle of a democratic local choice against an obligation to meet quotas.

I think some of the candidates appointed by the national executive were outstanding but some were pretty ordinary, and new ballots are unlikely to fix this. It is always open to the national executive to revisit the issue and exchange some male candidates for competent females. But the best way for Labor to get more women into politics is to mentor and support good candidates, and to encourage factions and the central panel to achieve targets. Some of us have been doing this for years without the obligation of quotas. I also want to say that gender inequality is not the only form of inequality. Ethnicity, indigenous background, and the professional/non-professional divide are also dimensions of inequality that stretch from the society into the ALP. Emily's List is a case in point. It tends to promote mainly professional women from the dominant culture. Maybe it's time that a group of women started Harinishka's, Akuna's or Roula's list. The task of democratising the ALP to fulfil its historic role of representing all aspects of diversity and fighting against all dimensions of inequality is a complex one. It requires clear analysis, a welcoming approach to new members and an understanding of the legitimate role of factions, unions and emerging as well as existing cultural groups.

Let's hope this debate is not captured by the same dominant cultural elite. Theo Theophanous was a minister in the Kirner, Bracks and Brumby governments.