Why have an ALP conference?
BY SUE BOLAND
Why does the ALP hold national conferences? With almost all the votes sewn up before the conference and virtually all the delegates being MPs, party apparatchiks and union officials, it cannot be to involve rank-and-file party members in deciding Labor Party policy.
You could be forgiven for thinking that the primary purpose of the ALP national conference is to gather the most influential ALP figures in one venue so that they can more easily lobbied by large corporations. This year's conference, held in Hobart from July 31 to August 3, was attended by 88 corporate observers, including representatives from all of the big banks and big mining companies, the major telecommunications companies Telstra, Vodafone and Optus, and the media giants. They were charged $5000 for the opportunity to influence Labor policies.
Despite Labor leader Kim Beazley's boasts about the "democratic" nature of ALP national conferences, there is no democratic content. The Sydney Morning Herald's Alan Ramsey wrote on August 2 that the economic platform, presented by shadow treasurer Simon Crean, was dealt with in 10 minutes. Crean was the sole speaker. The platform on "fiscal responsibility in financing government" was adopted in 12 minutes. Only two people, Crean and the shadow finance minister Lindsay Tanner, spoke.
The primary function of the ALP national conference is to provide a four-day media event, increasingly in the style of the conventions of major US parties.
ALP conferences have been like this since genuine left-wing members deserted the party in droves after the election of the federal Labor government led by Bob Hawke in 1983. The mass desertion followed the government's flouting of the remaining progressive elements in its platform and its implementation of anti-worker economic rationalist policies.
The "left" faction adopted most of the dominant right faction's economic agenda to the point where there was no substantive ideological difference between the factions.
There are plenty of pro-business and anti-worker ALP policies that a genuine left faction could challenge. Instead, the only debate at the conference sparked by the "left" was on the issue of protectionism.
Protectionism
Doug Cameron, national secretary of the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union (AMWU), initiated the debate. He was supported by the national secretary of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, John Sutton, and Community and Public Sector Union national secretary Wendy Caird.
Cameron called on the conference to withdraw support for trade liberalisation and tariff reduction from Labor's platform, and to replace it with support "social" tariff barriers against imports from countries where inadequate labour and environmental protection laws and child labour persist. This was necessary in order to stem the loss of manufacturing jobs in Australia, Cameron said.
However, Cameron's commitment to reversing job losses is exceedingly limited. He did not call for sanctions against employers who destroy jobs with technology, force workers to do the work of several employees or enforce overtime. Neither did he call on the conference to support a shorter working week with no loss in pay as a solution to job loss.
Cameron's purpose in igniting the debate over "free" trade was to increase his support within his union as he manoeuvres to weaken the influence of the militant leadership of the AMWU's Victorian branch. The Victorian leadership has tackled job loss and improved working conditions and pay by using militant tactics and mass campaigns. This type of campaigning has been opposed by Cameron's national leadership group, as well as by the bosses.
Another motive behind the free trade debate was to provide a rationale for the continued existence of a "left" faction that refuses to challenge the Labor leadership's pro-big business policies. The internal disputes that blow up within the ALP from time to time are not ideological, but are instead over how to solve the contradiction for Labor governments of implementing pro-capitalist policies while retaining enough electoral support to remain in office.
Getting elected
NSW ALP right-winger John Della Bosca's statements about the impracticality of Labor "rolling back" the GST on some unspecified goods and services and about extending the GST to all food must be seen in this light. An experienced party number cruncher and political strategist like Della Bosca does not make idle comments to a journalist and expect not to be quoted.
Before the national conference, the main debate on how to get a federal Labor government elected has been between the NSW right-wing faction and Beazley's central leadership group.
The NSW right, which includes Della Bosca, Premier Bob Carr, former PM Paul Keating and federal MP Mark Latham, want Beazley to stop talking about "battlers" and instead court what it calls the "aspirational class".
They argue that Beazley should drop "old" and "backward looking" policies, such as rolling back the GST and opposing the privatisation of what remains of Telstra. Such policies, the right believes, raise the expectations of working people that a federal Labor government will defend the public sector, improve the welfare system and abolish the GST.
Instead, the NSW right want federal Labor to campaign openly for pro-business policies and win the support of voters who "aspire" to get ahead by going into business, buying shares, getting an education and getting promoted. The emphasis should be on self-interest and individualism, they say.
When he argued against Cameron's call for increased tariffs, Victorian Labor Premier Steve Bracks also called on the ALP to campaign on the politics of aspiration rather than fear.
Beazley's leadership group do not shrink from defending Labor's pro-capitalist policies, but they have sought to show concern for the plight of battlers by moderating some aspects of these policies. That is why Beazley promises to amend the federal Coalition's most unpopular policies without overturning them.
This approach has led the ALP into a trap which Coalition government ministers have begun to exploit by repeatedly asking, "How can you say that you oppose a Coalition government policy because it is unjust without promising to overturn it when you form government?".
Meeting the needs of business
Judging from newspaper editorials over the last few months, big business favours Della Bosca's approach. While the business chiefs know that a Beazley-led Labor government is no threat to their interests, they fear that Beazley will not implement their agenda aggressively. Big business, therefore, favours either a Coalition government or a Della Bosca-style ALP government.
The campaign by the NSW right and the capitalist press has had some effect. In policy statements at the ALP national conference, Beazley and Crean sought to lower expectations about how far and how soon the GST can be rolled back.
Another demonstration that it has the interests of big business at heart, the ALP right went in hard against Cameron at the conference to ensure that the party maintained a free trade position. The exercise also served to show big business that the trade unions hold little sway over Labor policy.
Despite vague commitments to increased funding for public health and education, platform documents indicate that an ALP government will not undercut private schools and private hospitals. Increased revenue from increased company taxes was ruled out. Any extra funding for Labor programs will come from personal income tax, the GST or more government cuts.
Labor's proposals to increase funding for health were restricted to promises to provide a real increase in health spending over the next 10 years. The proposal to resolve the conflict between the state and federal governments over health responsibilities by establishing a common pool of state and federal health funding is likely to get bogged down in squabbling over the division of the funds.
The proposal for special assistance for schools in Education Priority Zones allows Labor to provide increased assistance in some areas without increasing assistance to government schools across the board. Assistance under this scheme would be accessible to private schools as well.
These mild commitments nevertheless received the thumbs down from the August 1 Australian Financial Review editorial as being too "Whitlamesque" and "old Labor". However, by inserting a caveat that the implementation of its commitments to some increased government spending and the roll back of the GST is dependent on the state of the budget left by the outgoing Coalition government, a Labor government can argue that it has no choice but to dump its promises or implement them at a snail's pace.