CAMERON MILNER: ‘Rudd rules’ no shield for incompetent Albanese

There’s only one number that matters to Anthony Albanese’s survival as Prime Minister.

Sixty-three.

That’s the number of an absolute majority in the Federal Labor caucus — the group which determines the party’s leader.

Despite the mythology that surrounds them, the so-called “Rudd rules” which were designed to raise the threshold needed to replace a leader, simply don’t apply unless the caucus wants them to.

I am grateful to the MPs who had the courage to supply me with a full set of the rules — marked “Private and Confidential”. They set out all the powers and processes contained within the constitution of the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party.

The power rests not with the 50,000-plus rank and file members, but with the 124 members inside that caucus room.

It’s an exclusive, members-only club with its own rules, and it is them who have total control over who is prime minister and the manner in which they are chosen.

Rule No.2 in that document, “Amendment of Rules” lays out the mechanism that caucus could use to axe a PM without reaching the 75 per cent threshold instated in Rudd’s parting gift to the party.

It says that any of the rules can be changed by an absolute majority.

That’s the same power that was used by Rudd — with Albanese’s backing — on July 22, 2013 to install that threshold.

They can use it again to change the process, reverse the Rudd rules and save the great Australian Labor Party from being trashed by Albanese. All it would take is an absolute majority — half plus one — that magic number 63.

It’s worth noting that the constitution has amendments dating back to 1977. Exercising this power isn’t new.

Doing so would circumvent the months of disruption to running the country that would likely be caused by a challenge to Albanese under the present rules, which say that even if that ridiculously high bar of 75 per cent is reached, a contested leadership ballot would be decided 50:50 by both the caucus and rank-and-file membership.

Invoking the complexity of the Rudd Rules is no excuse not to act in the best interests of wider party and the interests of the dwindling number of voters who still say they will vote Labor at the next election.

While an absolute majority is required to change caucus rules, the threshold for calling a special meeting is considerably lower — just one third.

That would mean it would take just 42 members to call a meeting to vote to end the Rudd rules — and potentially Albanese’s prime ministership.

But as I counselled Bill Shorten in 2016, the actual number needed to force the issue could be even lower.

At the time we were facing down our second leadership challenge from Albanese. He’d failed to get the numbers in the final sittings in 2015, and was working on a late February push to oust Shorten. He’d already secured the support of Graham Richardson and courted Wayne Swan and Jim Chalmers over a dinner in Brisbane.

Shorten cited the strength of the Rudd rules and said he’d threaten a ballot if Albanese challenged. But as I told him then, if just 25 members of caucus sat in his foyer and alerted the press gallery what was going on, it didn’t matter what the rules said. He would be finished.

That’s why the Rudd rules are all smoke and mirrors. If you’ve lost the support of caucus, your days are numbered.

Numbers matter and Albanese, as a master of past leadership challenges, knows the following immutable facts.

Sixty-three members change the rules. It takes 42 to call a special meeting.

It would’ve only taken about 25 MPs to roll Shorten before the 2016 election and make Albanese leader.

And that’s why the 19 formal members of the NSW Right hold in their hands the fate not only of Albanese but of the wider Labor Party.

Nineteen is a solid bloc on which to build to 63, and end the destruction of our economy and social cohesion.

And end Albanese’s false belief that the Rudd rules make him untouchable.

Cameron Milner is a former Queensland Labor State secretary