The ALP may have won the Federal election had the tragic events of September 11 and the arrival of Tampa's cargo of illegal immigrants not occurred. Then we would not be having this debate about the future of the ALP. Mind you, the fact that Labor refused to pass laws denying "asylum seekers" unfettered access to judicial review, was asking for trouble. The Government had lost control over who could come here, and under what circumstances they stayed. The Prime Minister moved, on behalf of the electorate, to use other means to put Australia back in control of its own borders. At the same time he exploited the perception that Labor served particular interests, those of economic refugees and human rights activists.
Having failed to deal with border protection in the parliament, Labor had no option other than to back the Prime Minister in the election campaign. As former state MP, Mike Kaiser said, if Labor had the Greens policy on illegals, it would have ended with the Greens vote! As for Roll-Back, my local butcher used to laugh. He really looked forward to no GST on his funeral! Labor was spending four times the amount on removing taxes on minor items such as Tampons than it was prepared to spend on Knowledge Nation. If you do not believe in your own policies how do you expect the electorate to believe in them?
Knowledge Nation was just a sop to the secondary and tertiary teachers' unions. Labor indulged in class-bashing over funds to private schools. It was not enough to save its education spokesperson, Michael Lee, who lost his seat. Parents of modest income are sending their children to private schools in great numbers. Current policy is designed to support those parents who, out of the same income, decide to invest a greater part of their money on their child's education. These are aspirations Labor had better acknowledge, or suffer the consequences.
What to do? Some Labor governments have been good, some have been bad, sometimes with the same party structure and many of the same players. So it is not obvious that party reform means success in government. Nor is it obvious who is a quality candidate. Democracy does not prejudge these things. It is clear however that the working class do not elect or even preselect people in their image. Above all, candidates require time and money, hence the prevalence of lawyers in the parliament. This need not be a particular burden for Labor. The blue-collar workforce is declining, and it needs a champion. The trouble is, economic rationality will not go away.
Labor must once again join with the workforce to create a new future, not just cling to the privileges of the old protected one. Labor did this successfully in the era of award restructuring. The era did not help the union movement hold its members, but it did save many jobs and create new ones. The health of the labour force and the health of the union movement are not always the same.
The whole public sector ethos is a challenge for Labor. The party is struggling with some deep philosophical issues. Government is not life, governments sets some rules to allow us to get on with life. Too many in the Labor party think that the answer to life's problems lies in government programs. This is what has caused such distress in the Aboriginal community. Government takes over people's lives.
Labor needs the strength to hold out against the feral elements in the electorate, and the wisdom to know what is feral and what is not. It needs to keep its focus on decent mainstream policy, not just bribe the activists and professionals who want to visit more of their bright ideas on an unsuspecting electorate.
Labor should think about loosening, not cutting the ties with unions. Proportional representation in party ballots will help modify union power. At the same time, major political parties need to recognise that they are no longer the only vehicles for political activism. There are more exciting forums in the new non-government organisations, like Greenpeace and Amnesty International. The challenge for parties, here Labor is particularly vulnerable, is not to be led by the nose by NGOs. In government, mainstream parties must make NGOs prove their standing: who do they represent, what is their expertise? Remember, every time a party deals with an NGO, it displaces the voter. The voters resent this.
Major parties provide stability, they have an ability to resolve the differences within the electorate. The major parties are valuable synthesisers. Independents, interest groups, NGOs and the media are very good at voicing problems, they are not so good at providing solutions, or at least convincing the electorate that their solutions are acceptable.
Both the Coalition and Labor have to think about their place in the world. They are virtually instruments of government, rather than instruments of their members. Their membership is few, their links with the community weak. Policy comes from organised civil society, NGOs and interest groups. A large slice of their income is from the government. They may have to open their procedures to greater scrutiny in order to retain the privilege of running government.
ADVERTISEMENT
No comments:
Post a Comment