Labor’s only way is up

I voted Labor from the time I was eligible to vote, in the late 1950s, until 1972. Since 1972 I have voted Labor only once at Federal level and that was at the last Federal election when I voted for Dick Adams in Lyons because I believe he is an excellent constituency member and because I think more highly of him than I do of his Liberal opponent.

In 1972 we were living in Melbourne and we had a party on election night to usher out that awful little twerp Billy McMahon and to usher in Gough who — in his behaviour, his presence, his intelligence, his promises, his apparent vision — seemed to offer so much more. History records that, along with many thousands of fellow Australians, we were duped and, looking back, the most entertaining event of that night was that a prominent member of the Melbourne medical fraternity locked herself in the lavatory.

Gough betrayed us because he couldn’t count, he couldn’t manage and he couldn’t control his rampant ego. Labor then disappeared from the scene during the Fraser years until the party’s renaissance under Hawke and Keating who, while certainly not without egos, could count and manage immeasurably better than Gough who still totters across the stage from time to time pretending that he was a champion player out of luck.

Lazarus with a triple bypass

We are now entering the second decade of John Howard’s dominance of Australian federal politics, a situation that would not have featured in the wildest political fantasies back in the 1980’s and early 1990’s, when he was indeed “Lazarus with a triple by-pass”. However, beyond Howard’s undoubted political skills, prudent management of the economy, a reasonably good Cabinet team and a good deal of luck, there has been one single over-riding factor in Howard’s dominance and longevity and that has been the abject state of the Australian Labor Party at the federal level. Good government is only truly available when there is a very good opposition — a strong, intelligent, probing, persistent, creative opposition. There is presently no such thing at the federal level and, notwithstanding the ever-present surprises in politics, there seems no prospect of an imminent policy and operational renaissance on the part of the federal Labor Party. All that can be said of a positive nature is that they are so far down the only way is up!

Why is it so? Clearly, a superiority in talent is one factor. They may have their deficiencies — Costello being a case in point, as I have commented elsewhere — but the Liberal Party team is a much more talented, vibrant team than anything Labor offers or indeed has looked like offering for many years. Costello, Abbott, Nelson Minchin, Robb, Dutton, Turnbull and others make the Labor team look tired and pedestrian by comparison. True, it is not easy to look good in opposition but, to steal a phrase used by a friend in a different context, the ALP’s federal parliamentary team has a smell of defeat about it. I took the trouble recently to “Google” a list of the ALP’s federal shadow cabinet. There is some genuine talent in the top half — notably people like Tanner, Rudd, possibly Gillard, perhaps Macklin, McClelland and a couple of others; the middle group would mostly be unknown to most people, possibly deservedly so in some cases; and the rest are a mix of time servers, honest electorate toilers and a residue of fruit cakes and strays who wandered into preselection meetings after the pubs closed. And Anthony Albanese.

This situation must surely have its roots fixed firmly in the dysfunctional state of the party at the organisational level. Whatever the original objectives of the factional system — presumably to formalise the pseudo-ideological-cum-powerbroker arrangements that evolved a few decades ago — it has become a cancer that is consuming the party’s capacity to attract, nurture and promote genuine talent. What it means is that a lot of critically important decisions are based not on genuine collegial dialogue and informed decision-making by the leadership but on the trade-offs and associated machinations that occur in unrepresentative, but officially sanctioned, cabals of factional leaders. It is all about egos and pecking orders and organisational marriages of convenience. It is certainly not about substantive policy development and nor is it about creative collegial debate.

High farce, but without the funny bits

All of this is apart from the mockery and derision that the factional system — along with the antics of its warlords – often evokes in the media and among the public at large, as well as in the conservative side of politics and the Labor Party itself, especially at the grass roots level. It is high farce but without the funny bits. Take, for example, Stephen Conroy who is widely acknowledged as one of the key players in the factional system. Who is he? What has he ever done of note? For which lofty policy initiatives has he been personally and directly responsible? What do the people of this nation owe him for his policy productivity on our behalf, his wisdom in parliament and elsewhere, his lucid speeches, his national and international renown as a key figure in the Australian parliament. In one respect of course he is a key figure but, alas, for all the wrong reasons, much to our private regret and public embarrassment. He is a key figure due to the influence he wields on those whom Australians elect to the highest parliament in the land. And some would wonder why people have allegedly been turning away from politics at an increasing rate. This must be due in part at least to the factional gorillas who manipulate the all too passive primates who fall in behind them.

Let us be quite clear about this — the factional system in the Australian Labor Party amounts to showing two fingers to the voting public of Australia. We did not elect our senators and members of the House of Representatives to tug their forelocks to some shadowy creep whose only claim to prominence is that he or she is a key player in some extra-parliamentary cabal. The Liberal Party may also have their sneaky types and some tricky ways but who does what and who doesn’t is ultimately for the leader, at present also the Prime Minister, to decide. As a voting citizen or as a member of the Liberal Party or as a Liberal member in Canberra — and, of these, I am only (sic) a citizen — I would like it that way. I would like it because I would know who he is and where he is and that he carries the ultimate responsibility. I could thus join with others — parliamentary colleagues or fellow members or the voters of Australia — to toss him out if I am unhappy with his performance or his behaviour. This is less readily achieved in the ALP because Conroy and his mates have no responsibility at all and, in any event, they doubtless also shelter in “safe” seats thanks again to their power and well honed manipulative skills.

The recent round of ALP pre-selection processes have also drawn attention to the factional system with various people — notably Simon Crean — flexing some verbal muscle against the factional warlords. Of course we dills out here in voter land who listened to this piety were supposed to forget that the complainants were happy to live with the system while it suited and rewarded them.

It is not a fully or even modestly balanced background

Then we have the leadership in which context I took the trouble to check out what Kim Beazley has been up to over the past few decades. Basically, he has been up to very little, nearly nothing in fact, apart from politics. He was born in 1948 and has been the member for Swan since 1980 prior to which he was educated at school in Perth and at the Universities of WA and Oxford. He then spent some four years tutoring and lecturing at Murdoch University.

Kim Beazley is clearly a highly intelligent, widely read and travelled man with impressive academic achievements behind him. Basically, however, he grew up, studied and lectured for his first thirty two years and has been in politics since that time. It is not what one would describe as a fully — or even modestly — balanced background. And it shows. He knows a lot about defence and related matters and perhaps a good deal about a few other areas of activity but it is all “received” wisdom. He has never worked in a public service for a decade or so; or managed his own business or run a hospital or a farm or a trucking business or a major company; or taken out a pair of tonsils or snipped off a foreskin; or headed up a trade union or a business lobby. Kim Beazley has in fact led a very sheltered life and it shows. It shows in a tendency to side-step or brush off economic and financial issues; it shows in a certain verbosity, to prefer the broad brush rather than a keen attention to important detail.

I recognise that there is a similarity here between Beazley and John Howard in that Howard, after graduating and spending a relatively short time in a legal office, has spent thirty years in politics. That, however, is where the analogy stops. Beazley is still the elegant amateur who, if he played football, would help an opponent get up if he had been savagely ironed out. Howard would ignore the opponent on the ground until he got up — and then iron him out again. Howard is a tough, skilled, relentless politician and, if you like that sort of politician, then Howard is your man. Howard has never given up; Beazley’s career, on the other hand, has been an amble in the park. Howard seizes the moment; Beazley waits for the call.

Paucity of talent

I think Beazley is most probably a good, amiable and intelligent man but he is surely not the man to lead the ALP out of the wilderness. Nor of course was Mark Latham who was the victim of an appalling misjudgement by Simon Crean and others.

Calculated punts may often come off but, if that one was calculated, then they must have used a faulty abacus.

I suspect that the factional system has been one of the contributing factors to the paucity of talent in ALP ranks in Canberra. It is certainly not a pretty sight up there at present. So, notwithstanding some government stumbles it seems that John Howard could well be still firmly in the chair after the next election but, alas, still without a virile opposition to keep him honest and otherwise on his toes.

Our democracy is not working well and the Labor Party at federal level does not seem to comprehend that the factional system is an important part of the problem. The party has a long and respected history. It has produced some of our greatest leaders, in both peace and war; it has led the way in innovation and policy creativity at important points in our history; it has been among the first at the barricades when notions of truth, justice and equality have been under threat; it has invariably been the first to stand up for those who can’t help themselves or when our fundamental values are threatened.

It is about time that the Labor Party revisited those values and gave John Howard a run for his money. Australia and our national government would be the better for it.