Should Kim Beazley find himself in government on November 11, what would he do? We know about his stand on Tampa, not to mention funerals, but how would he respond to those events and those constituencies that will knock on his, and his Ministers' doors, in the next three years? John Howard produced very little by way of a plan for the 1996 election, but he spent 20 years developing his thoughts. When in government, these came to the fore -- tax reform and industrial relations. If the same holds for Kim Beazley, the election promises will only be a shadow of what he actually does.
Cautious Kim has spent twenty years in parliament, 13 of them doing mostly what those around him considered good policy or good politics. In other words, Kim Beazley, more so than some leaders, will be hostage to the performance of his team. He is more likely to work within the bounds of the climate created by his Cabinet. Howard, by contrast has created the climate of his Cabinet. This is not a criticism of Beazley, Hawke worked with his Cabinet, often to great advantage. Keating sometimes worked without one, sometimes with dire consequences.
If Beazley is to depend on those around him, will the team be policy-minded, or a team of fixers? Former Labor Cabinet Minister Neal Blewett recalls, "[John Dawkins] bemoaned the fact that every one ... seemed to be fighting the battles of their own most vociferous interest groups, as though it was a minister's task to win these battles rather than to represent the national interest". The test of a Minister is one who can say no to their constituency.
Every Cabinet needs its fixers, machine men like Graham Richardson and Robert Ray, whose main interest was to deliver a win, often by delivering whatever a key constituency wanted. Having said that, Ray was one of the nation's best Immigration ministers. When it mattered, he solidly defended the national interest, rebutting the claims of the multicultural lobby and their party mouthpieces. But if a Cabinet consists of too many fixers, there is no room for what Blewett called the national interest. The national interest is not easy to determine, but when you sit in Canberra, you know the national interest has very little to do with what your constituents or a swag of interest groups say it is. Each politician has to have a sense of the national interest, whether conceived through a left or right or some other ideology. Not to have one, marks one down as a fixer.
Dawkins, Blewett, Evans, Walsh, Button, Willis, Kerin, Keating as Treasurer and the like, were policy people. They would pursue a line of reason and only accept a fix if they had no other option. Others always go for the fix. Their only line of reason is electoral advantage. The essential tension in a Cabinet is always between fixers and policy police, between the imperative to survive and to govern, between a populist view of democracy and an elite one.
Crean is a classic constituency man, always looking for electoral opportunity. Nevertheless, sometimes the job makes the man. As Treasurer, he may become more responsible. There are two curious portfolio allocations, which leave us wondering. John Faulkner presently speaks on public administration, which is fine for a bit of fun at Senate Estimates committees, but provides no clue to his real job in government. The other is Bob McMullan who speaks on Aboriginal affairs, which is not a Cabinet rank portfolio. He is sure to move. They are good policy people, it depends how they are used. Lawrence and Lee could rise to the occasion, the test for both is whether they can advance matters in the face of a party-base heavily weighted to manufacturing and public sector (especially teaching) unions.
The real story lies in the Left. Of those most likely to be the reformers in a new Labor government, they are from the Left. In addition to Faulkner, Lindsay Tanner, in Finance is a considerable talent. Jenny Macklin is a reformer, but she will be expensive. She still believes societies can spend their way to equality. That Martin Ferguson told the truth about Ansett not flying again, says a great deal about his integrity. Jennie George is formidable, and sure to replace Cheryl Kernot who, in the unlikely event she holds the seat of Dickson, will certainly not take a place in Cabinet. Mark Latham is the most cerebral of the Right and will take his place, in time. The remainder are fixers.
Look for a government that has neither the vision of Whitlam nor the market-oriented policy discipline of Hawke-Keating. My guess is a lot more gestures to the human rights, social justice, green agendas, which the Labor Right abhors, but are happy to run with. A lot more public sector initiatives in buying constituencies, more commissions, more statutory advocates. No progress on wealth creation, no further reform in industrial relations or industry policy. A cautious, left-leaning Labor government.
ADVERTISEMENT
No comments:
Post a Comment