Labor’s treatment of Fatima Payman, combined with their handling of the genocide in Palestine, is driving away Muslim voters in droves, a demographic already disillusioned by the party’s milquetoast calls for a ceasefire and steadfast refusal to take important, material action. Labor has become complicit in this genocide by refusing to acknowledge Palestinian sovereignty and statehood, impose sanctions, or even readily accepting refugees from Gaza. Their immediate vilification of Payman both in political circles and in extensive, almost defamatory, media coverage alienates Muslim communities and electorates.
To understand Labor’s reaction to Payman, one must understand the political context and importance of “caucus solidarity” to the Party. Labor rules prevent its MPs from crossing the floor except on rare matters of conscience in order to adhere to caucus solidarity, which is viewed as an important political tool to ensure a unified front and reinforce the importance of collectivism to the workers movement.
Foreign Minister Penny Wong has criticised Payman’s decision, remarking “I voted against same-sex marriage to maintain unity within the party”. Her restraint may have worked to maintain the status quo and party stability while Labor was in government but did not achieve anything important to voters or members of the LGBTQ+ community. Rather, it was the coalition in power, with a plebiscite in 2016, who legalised same-sex marriage. Wong’s claims directly prioritise caucus solidarity over morality — a decision which has rewarded her with the role of Foreign Minister and political power.
In the context of Labor’s rules, individual senators do not represent the people, they only represent the party. Labor politicians may often be required to vote against the interests of their specific constituents in order to align with the broader caucus platform. What Wong forgets, however, is that her focus on power and party politics does not appeal to many as a legitimate alternative to Payman’s conviction-minded decision. Many disillusioned Labor voters see caucus solidarity as unimportant in comparison to contentious, deeply personal topics such as genocide. The Muslim community sees Payman crossing the floor as an act of bravery in line with not only her personal convictions, but theirs as well.
Political vilification of Payman exceeded individual comments from politicians and extended towards substantial media coverage which promoted quasi-racist and Islamophobic tropes and ideals. Alongside typical media tactics such as clickbait headlines, several news outlets ran fear mongering stories about how Labor politicians expressed concern over claims her decision was “in God’s hands”. It is more likely than not that Payman uttered the simple Arabic phrase inshallah, and it is notable that many politicians before her have attributed their actions or beliefs to God — former Prime Minister Scott Morrison being one of them. Papers reported on the possibility of Payman platforming other “Islamic propositions” and portrayed Palestine as a uniquely Muslim issue despite the crux of Payman’s decision being on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. The media’s decision to blow up this simple, common phrase into a discussion worthy of multiple thinkpieces and questioning loyalties speaks to the deeply Islamophobic undercurrents of Australian politics, where any deviation from the Judeo-Christian norm is heavily othered and scrutinised.
More articles, allegedly prompted by concerned Labor politicians, questioned Payman’s loyalty to Australia due to her dual citizenship, as an Afghan by birth; this is despite the fact that it is impossible to obtain the necessary cooperation from the Taliban to revoke her citizenship, and she was already vetted and cleared for Labor preselection to appear on the ballot. The trope of “disloyal immigrant” and the idea that Muslims must always have secret, traitorous loyalties to other nations, was amplified tenfold during the Payman incident, echoing in the minds of thousands of Muslims and immigrants throughout Australia.
Labor’s emphasis on caucus solidarity above all solidifies that their alleged “commitment to multiculturalism” is performative, leaving Muslims communities angry and cementing Labor’s difficulty in connecting with important electorates by punishing someone who reflects their values. Payman resonates with immigrants across the country who feel the pressure to be a perfect representation for their communities, and there is no doubt that this pressure was only exacerbated by being the first hijab-wearing Australia senator. Her experience is a familiar one to those with marginalised backgrounds: genuinely wishing to ‘change the system from within’ has once again proved impossible when the system wishes for you to be a diversity token without any substantial diversity in morals, identity, and actual politics. She summarises this best herself: “I was not elected as a token representative of diversity, I was elected to serve the people of Western Australia…”.
Payman has since left Labor to become an independant and sit on the crossbench. This has occurred recently in a similar incident of a woman of colour leaving a political party after disagreements on personal convictions, with the notable example of Lydia Thorpe resigning from the Greens after due to her opposing perspective on the Voice to Parliament referendum. Labor has claimed in the media that Payman only has the requisite votes to be a senator because of her place on the ALP ticket, noting that she has received more ‘above the line’ (voted in as a Labor MP) than ‘below the line’ (voted in as an individual candidate) votes and thus owes her seat in the Senate to the party.
However, it is worth noting that apart from this singular instance of Palestine, Payman has voted with the Labor caucus on every other issue and has explicit policy priorities which are Labor-aligned, including addressing “housing, the cost of living and the climate crisis, the high incarceration rates of Indigenous peoples…”, all of which remain within her ability and public convictions despite forfeiting her place within the Labor party itself. Thus, voters expecting a ‘Labor’ politician from Payman will largely receive this in terms of her voting record and commitments. More importantly, voters agitating for action on Palestine can be assured that there exists at least one politician who has, in crossing the floor and leaving Labor, exemplified her commitment to serving the people and standing her ground on this ongoing genocide our political establishment is complicit it.
Payman articulates this best herself, in her address to the media: “I walked with the West Australians, who stopped me in the streets and told me not to give up. I walked with the rank-and-file Labor Party members, who told me we must do more.”
