Gough Whitlam's task in the 1970s was to build distance between Labor and the "loony" left. Now Bill Shorten's task is distance the party from the more corrupt unions, writes Barrie Cassidy.

John Faulkner's right of course. He usually is. The former ALP Senate leader brings wisdom, decency and passion to most battles that he chooses to fight.

Having said that, his call on Tuesday for dramatic reform of Labor's internal structures will probably fall well short of his ambitions simply because it threatens the power and influence of faction leaders within the organisation.

Faulkner points out that the trade unions represent 17 per cent of the workforce and yet they have 50 per cent representation at ALP national conferences. Former leader Simon Crean put it all on the line to reduce that representation from 60 per cent. Faulkner now wants it reduced to 20 per cent. Imagine that, 60 per cent elected by the membership, 20 per cent by electorate councils and just 20 per cent by the unions.

That would come close to reflecting what party members want and think. And that's what scares the powerbrokers, particularly from the right, because they believe their own membership is out of step with broad mainstream opinion, dangerously so for a mainstream political party.

Faulkner too insists that reforming conference representation alone won't fix the core problem. He wants Senate pre-selections, and those in all upper houses around the states, to go to a full statewide ballot of all party members.

That would really break the back of union influence and put a stop once and for all to the unsavoury antics of a few who carve up pre-selections according to whose turn it is among the major unions.

Tinkering won't get the party there. Only Faulkner's big bang theory, or a series of incremental big bangs, will.

Hardheads in the Labor Party, partly out of self-interest, say the public has no appetite for the party constantly talking about itself. We'll see how much of an appetite they have for that conversation - the links between the party and the unions - when the Royal Commission into union corruption brings downs its findings on the cusp of a federal election. Tony Abbott is good at that kind of thing.

You can argue all day as to whether the Royal Commission was effectively asking for an extension. Even Bill Shorten conceded this week there was "conjecture" on that point.

And you can mark the Government down because it took days to accede to the union corruption extension and months to do likewise with the child abuse Royal Commission, but the fact remains both are doing essential work.

Commissioner Dyson Heydon said in his letter to the Attorney General:

... the inquiry ... has revealed evidence of criminal conduct which includes widespread instances of physical and verbal violence, cartel conduct, secondary boycotts, contempt of court and other institutional orders, and the encouragement of others to commit these contempts. Some officials appear to regard their unions as having immunity not only from the norms and sanctions of the Australian legal system, but also from any social or community standard shared by other Australians.

Give them more time, and you can be sure the commission will turn up even more evidence of wrongdoing that is ultimately embarrassing to Labor by extension.

Shorten has already taken baby steps, in particular his insistence that non-union members be free to join the party. But the Royal Commission must surely signal that a watershed has been reached. Dramatic reform is now needed.

Gough Whitlam's career is instructive in this sense.

What is often misunderstood about Whitlam is that he did so much of his best work well before he became Prime Minister. No single individual in the history of the Labor Party until then or since has done more to modernise the party - and he did that from opposition before 1972 - when leaders have limited clout.

Whitlam gave the parliamentary party increased powers over both the industrial and organisational wing, albeit from a low historical base. He did that by making changes to the National Executive.

To get there, he put everything on the line, even his leadership as he did in 1969 when he resigned as part of his push against the left of the party. He faced a challenge from Jim Cairns, and won, and that was a significant victory over the industrial wing and the hardliners, especially in Victoria. That's why he did it, and that's what he achieved.

Then in 1971 he led the federal intervention into the Victorian branch when supporters of his, like Bob Hawke and Clyde Holding, prevailed over the radical left as it was then. That was high risk stuff, every bit as risky as throwing his leadership open two years earlier. But he took it on and won, and right on the eve of an election victory. He transformed the party from one that the unions used as a protest organisation, to one that was a government in waiting.

Perhaps the need for reform in the late '60s and early '70s was more urgent. Perhaps not. Can Labor afford to wait until the Royal Commission reports to find out?

Whitlam's task was to build distance between the party and the "loony" left. Shorten's is to build the same distance between the party and the more corrupt unions.

Shorten said this week when commenting on the extension to the Royal Commission that "I think the government needs to be very careful that it's not playing politics here".

Why should they? The politics is all with them.

Barrie Cassidy is the presenter of the ABC program Insiders. View his full profile here.