It was not the usual response from a Labor leader asked for his view on the potential loss of 4600 jobs.

But Luke Foley didn't hesitate when asked in January about the likelihood that positions would be shed from NSW electricity network businesses.

The Australian Energy Regulator had announced deep cuts to how much the businesses can charge customers over the next four years.

The powerful Labor-affiliated Electrical Trades Union was angrily condemning the prospective job losses. Foley, though, effectively washed his hands of the issue.

"I'll leave negotiations to the electricity businesses and the unions," he declared.

"For me, the aim of the state's energy policy has to be delivering affordable electricity to consumers."

The comments were particularly extraordinary given that they came on the eve of an election campaign when the ETU was the Labor party's strongest ally in the fight against the Baird government's plans to partially privatise the electricity network.

At the time, they were read as brutal but pragmatic, zeroing in as they did on the issue of spiralling electricity prices and their impact on household budgets.

But in the months since, with the election done and dusted, it has been increasingly clear the comments were also an indication of Foley's broader approach to the union movement and its role in the party he leads.

In his first extensive interview on the subject, Foley has detailed his determination to remain independent of the trade union movement, particularly where its goals are counter to what he believes are the interests of NSW citizens.

He believes that on questions of policy, "far more often than not, the public interest and the union interest will line up".

But he adds: "Where they are in conflict as they are on [the electricity job losses] issue the Labor party led by me will always come down on the side of the public interest."

For a Left wing leader in a Right-dominated state party, it's a significant position to take.

When he won the leadership after his predecessor John Robertson's resignation in December, he did so largely due to the support of the NSW party's general secretary Jamie Clements, the nominal right faction leader.

Clements had to sway many leaders of the affiliated trade union movement, who were suspicious of Foley's previous calls for party reform in areas that would reduce their influence, such as over preselection of upper house and Senate candidates.

Essentially, it means Foley relies on Clements' support to keep his job - a factor that made his reaction to the inaugural speech of the new Labor MP for Kogarah, Chris Minns, this month such a key moment.

Minns – who some see as a potential future leader – called for a reduction in the influence of trade unions in the Labor party. When asked for his view Foley said he agreed with everything Minns had said.

But Clements quickly declared that he would "fight any push" to reduce trade union influence in the ALP and declared Minns was "totally wrong".

The inaugural speech provoked an extraordinary backlash from the state's trade union movement.

Sixteen union leaders penned an open letter to state Labor MPs condemning Minns' call and accusing him of advocating the "undermining" of their role in the party.

But Foley is scathing of the union leaders' tactics.

"I thought the only thing missing was an edict that he be sent to a re-education camp," he says.

"I thought it was an over-reaction. A Labor MP in his or her inaugural speech is quite entitled to stand up and share his views about politics - including the role of his party- on the floor of the parliament."

The speech has even resonated federally, where a hard fought contest to become national Labor president is underway.

This week Victorian ALP minister Jane Garrett - herself a left winger - lashed out at Minns' comments.

Garrett suggested such comments advocate that Labor "distance itself from nurses, teachers, plumbers, factory workers, builders and over one million working Australians that belong to a union".

Where does this leave a fledgling leader of the NSW ALP who, it must be remembered, has only inhabited the job for a few months?

As a former assistant general secretary of the NSW ALP - and a former state secretary of the Australian Services Union - Foley is well aware of the delicacy of his position.

He acknowledges that despite his desire to "lead on questions of policy", the party structure means he is powerless to pursue policy not endorsed by an ALP conference controlled by the unions via their 50 per cent of the vote.

However, Foley says he is not seeking to endorse a particular new model, but will "seek to persuade the party" on divergent policy positions.

Pushed on whether this would necessarily require a reduction in the 50 per cent union vote, Foley says: "Structures are not set in stone".

"Structures evolve, structures change over time," he says. "And as society changes the parties' structures too need to change."

"That has occurred; it will occur again," he adds. "The question we've always got to ask ourselves is: do our internal processes and structures give us the best possible engagement with the community we seek to serve."

But asked if he believed that structure is optimal at present, Foley says: "No it is not".

As for his disagreement with Clements on reducing union influence, Foley says it simply means "we can have a respectful exchange of views. None of these matters are set in stone."

Foley insists that he doesn't "seek disagreement" with unions, and that he respects their role. But he also states he "won't go for fake consensus".

He says his challenge is to "craft an agenda" that will "appeal to middle class people in this state".

Indeed, in his first media conference as leader Foley raised more than a few eyebrows when he declared he was "not an ideologue" about privatisation of state assets.

His view is that Labor "has to get over, has to move on from an obsessive focus on state ownership of utilities."

Labor will continue to oppose in parliament legislation for the Baird government's plan to partially privatise the electricity network – and any possible attempt to fully privatise in the future.

But Foley declares that the likelihood the government has the numbers in both houses of parliament to pass its bill requires new thinking on an issue that has dogged the ALP for close to 20 years.

"The electricity privatisation war is lost and the Labor party has to accept that," he says.

"There are just so many other issues that Labor needs to reflect on, think about, develop policy on," he says.

The last eight years of Labor were "shockers".

The party needs to go from behaving over the past four years "like a classic first term opposition, which was negative about everything" to "become something a lot more serious in this term."

"Labor has to move on and develop our thinking and our policies in a range of other areas that respond to the priorities of modern voters in the modern world," Foley says.

"The role that's fallen to me is to renew its mission and sense of purpose in this state. And I intend to do that."