Kevin Peoples, secretary of Labor For Refugees in Victoria, assesses the Labor Party after the federal election.
I have let two weeks go by since the election to ensure a degree of objectivity and calmness in what I have to say.
I have stayed with the ALP since the Tampa for two reasons. One is the certain knowledge that only one of the two major parties can form government and an ALP government was always going to be better than a Howard government — not just for refugees and asylum seekers but on a range of issues.
Since last January's ALP national conference in Sydney, when the party firmly rejected the initiatives of Labor For Refugees and adopted policies that pandered to the irrational and xenophobic fears in our community, I have continued that support, torn between a realisation that I share virtually nothing in common with the federal Labor leadership and on the other hand the absolute necessity to defeat Howard.
The second reason why I have stayed with the ALP is the support from the membership of the party. The Labor people who have joined and worked for Labor For Refugees represent what is best in the party. They deserve so much better. In the moral vacuum that is now federal Labor they are an embarrassing paradox — people who have not lost the vision of a better world, who are appalled at Australia's involvement in the illegal, immoral and unwinnable war in Iraq (the ALP was weak on the war at the time and still is), the treatment of refugees and the failure to distribute equitably the gains made in the economy, yet they remain in a party that has moved so far to the right it no longer knows what it stands for.
As a disillusioned Labor voter said to me as I handed him a how to vote card: "You know what ALP stands for mate?" I said "No". He replied: "It stands for Another Liberal Party".
Lindsay Tanner is right to question the identity of the ALP. Barry Jones is right when he says we now have two right-of-centre major parties in Australia. Jones is right when he argues that if Australian voters have to chose between a serious conservative party over one masquerading as one then why wouldn't they go for the genuine thing. The current leadership of the ALP has chosen the worst of all possible responses to the challenge facing all Labor parties in a global economy dominated by the US model of capitalism. Voters on the right do not trust it and it has alienated its supporters on the left.
Our party is dying under the strain of the compromise it has made with the new economic orthodoxy. A primary vote of 38% after three losses is a disaster. The central problem is that the ALP has failed to present a genuine economic alternative. We should be looking to Europe, not the USA or Tony Blair's Britain for new models. Supporters of economic rationalist ideas would have us believe we have no choice. They are wrong.
The ALP is now embarrassed about its trade union history. It has turned its back on the trade union movement, which despite decreasing numbers, is still a significant group in our community. Instead, our leaders seek out the new "aspirational" voters in the lower and middle classes whose individualism and materialism is at odds with the old inclusive and cooperative values that drove "old" Labor.
Hawke and Keating crossed the centre to the right and destroyed whatever philosophical underpinnings Labor had with their "reforms" of the Australian economy in the 1980s. Those "reforms" inevitably led to a weakening of Labor's traditional ties, especially with its core constituents. Who does this party now represent? When the answer to that question is not immediately obvious, then any party has little choice but to turn to focus groups, to the media, to what is being said on talk-back radio, to "expert" advisers, to influential groups, especially business whose values now dominate our society. The party must hear what people are saying. You then cut your cloth to those who will buy. Weathercocks.
It is not surprising then that our leader in the recent election had nothing to say about the economy. It's Labor's sort of economy. They have no other model. Of course he was never going to speak about the two million Australians who live in poverty or the 800,000 Australian children in poverty. He had nothing to say about the 65% of Australians who earn less than $600 per week and the growing pressure on families where unpaid overtime has become the norm. He had nothing to say about the growth of casual work and the real levels of underemployment and unemployment.
The Labor vision is now so narrow that our leader was never going to say anything about international inequalities, about the developing world with its debt and abysmal poverty. This is now a party that votes annually in favour of free trade over fair trade.
There was not a word about the scandalous Labor acceptance of the US-Australia Free Trade Agreement. What can you say when your policy is the same as the government?
Importantly, the ALP has failed to take up the challenge of defining the so-called "war on terror". The "war on terror" is open-ended nonsense. The ALP has taken over the absurd notions of a fight between "good" and "evil". We have allowed Howard to frighten Australians with these nonsensical notions. Howard and Bush's only solution is a fight to the death. This is no solution. We know that it is impossible to generalise about "terror". We know that at the heart of "terror" is politics and real issues. We know that politics is about solving problems not waging crusades.
The ALP is undemocratic and secretative. Members are work-horses who are trotted out around the streets during campaigns. New policies are developed by a small clique for campaigns. Sitting candidates learn of new policies when they are announced to the press. And factions run the show. How unsightly it is to watch the current manoeuvrings for positions of prestige.
I am not prepared to continue as secretary of Labor For Refugees (Victoria). Laurie Ferguson, an implacable opponent of refugees and asylum seekers, is the new shadow immigration minister. We can expect nothing from the party in the future. I no longer feel any loyalty to the current party. But for the sake of those who have joined with us and who I know agree with much of what I have said above, I am willing to join in discussions with them at our meeting in November to see what they think both about our future and the future of the ALP.
We could adopt a far more aggressive stance to the current leadership and structure of the party. We could join with like-minded groups and become outspoken critics of the party and its direction. We could sponsor seminars, discussions and debates about the challengers facing Labor. We could look at European models of parties of the left and how they have coped with the challenge of the US model of globalisation.
It seems to me that we would be involved in a struggle for the heart and mind of Labor. It would be unpleasant and will take courage and time. I'm not sure if I am up to it.
From Green Left Weekly, November 3, 2004.
Visit the Green Left Weekly home page.