The old foes: political partnerships for business and labour

But in the immediate post-election period both are in the headlines again. Prime Minister Scott Morrison has linked the two (notably in a speech to business not union leaders), pushing a twin reform agenda for industrial relations and cutting business red tape.

This follows the negative attention on controversial CFMMEU official John Setka, which led to the new Labor leader, Anthony Albanese, denouncing him.

Both Morrison and Shorten took their apparent allies to task, showing how fraught these relationships can sometimes be. Morrison called directly on business leaders, in a speech to the WA Chamber of Commerce and Industry, to pull their weight in making the case for industrial relations reform. Such calls are something of a regular refrain from conservative politicians. Since Robert Menzies severed the direct business-party link in the 1940s conservative leaders regularly want business to assist them by doing more heavy political lifting, although objecting to business involvement in social policy debates, which they see as outside their brief. That was the case during the same-sex marriage debate in 2017.

Albanese can't speak with the same bluntness to the labour movement because trade unions have always resisted direct Labor Party involvement in their affairs, while not hesitating to involve themselves in party affairs when they choose. Recently some union leaders were outspoken during Labor's search for a new leader to replace Bill Shorten.

Albanese had to draw a fine line between calling for Setka's expulsion from the party, while conceding that Setka's union standing was not a matter for him. That line is hard to draw because any union leader expelled from the party is politically compromised and may well continue to be a thorn in the side of the party.

These skirmishes between allies call into question the general characterisation of politics as a battle between two enormous blocs, the Coalition and business versus Labor and the broader labour movement. At the heart of this characterisation are two competing partnerships that can warm and cool like any other long-term partnership.

They warm and cool because they are made up of myriad individual relationships between different economic sectors and the parties. The business lobby is notoriously fragmented into independent parts, while the labour movement contains many big independent unions under its peak body, the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU). This means there are major personalities, including ACTU secretary Sally McManus and Business Council of Australia CEO Jennifer Westacott bring their own political perspectives to bear.

These relationships/partnerships have something of a family quality about them because there are many personal links across the party-lobby divide, including many MPs with labour or business backgrounds, as well as examples of individuals still wearing more than one hat.

The parties must never forget that the business and labour movements have their own distinct interests and memberships/clients just as the parties have their own members and supporting voters. Business and labour must also represent those interests within the state and federal spheres (competing Labor and Coalition governments). Morrison made his call in a state with a Labor government.

These conflicting interests make the relationships more like contractual partnerships than family ties. As contractual partnerships they have collective interests in common as well as individual competing interests to defend. These partnerships must be managed carefully or they will cool off. For parties this means having the right individuals, who can build effective relationships, in ministerial and shadow ministerial jobs.

The Morrison government may feel it has the upper hand within its relationship with business. Not only has it won a miracle victory, but it did so without relying too much on business support. The business community also contains some sectors, like financial services, construction and aged care, which remain under a public cloud.

But Morrison and his Industrial Relations Minister, Christian Porter, should be careful not to overplay their hand by pushing the business community too hard in directions it doesn't want to go. Business generally has narrower objectives and longer-term non-partisan interests that it wouldn't want to jeopardise. So if there are certain risks associated with new legislation put forward by the government, business would see them primarily not its responsibility but the government's.

For his part Albanese continues to need enthusiastic union support. There are the usual reasons for this, including financial resources and preserving the historic party-movement links. Furthermore the union movement is the most important bridge that the party possesses as it reaches out to its traditional blue-collar community, including mining and forestry workers. The election wash-up suggests that neglect of this community's interests contributed to Labor's defeat. Albanese would want any consideration of the Union relationship to be included in the general post-election review.

Albanese must also repair relations with business which, although they are secondary, are important to Labor's wider community interests. So long as Albanese remains on firm ground, differentiating Labor's position publicly from Union positions and personalities never did a Labor leader any harm.

Morrison and Albanese also share a bigger challenge. When considering all their political leaders' partnerships and relationships the wider community demands that the public interest should not be corrupted by special deals with elite insiders like business and labour.