Randolph Churchill, the father of Winston, had a simple rule about how political parties out of power should operate. He said, "the duty of the opposition is to oppose". It seems that Kim Beazley, not having had much success proposing any new policies, has reverted to this dictum.
Before the Labor leader goes too far in following the advice of 19th century politicians he might consider the course of Randolph Churchill's fortunes. He had a meteoric rise and by the age of 37 was both leader of the Conservative Party in the House of Commons and Chancellor of the Exchequer. In a matter of months, he lost both positions and his political career petered out, ending in ignominy. According to the leading historian of the British Conservatives, Churchill's colleagues quickly saw through him and they recognised his single biggest failing -- which was that "Churchill had no real policy".
Whether the Australian electorate will see through Beazley's promise to scrap Australian workplace agreements (AWAs) and realise it is the policy Labor has when it can't think of an alternative, is one of the key political questions of the year.
At face value, the ALP's new position not just to abolish the AWAs but to place the entire industrial relations system in thrall to the ACTU might appear to be bad policy but good politics. On a moment's reflection, though, it becomes obvious that Labor's stance is both bad policy and bad politics.
It's true that the public is yet to be convinced about the merits of Work Choices -- it is confused by it, and the coalition hasn't done a brilliant job of selling its benefits. When combined with effective union advertisements against the legislation, and the blanket publicity given to the supposedly extreme actions of a few employers, it is no surprise that there is widespread unease about industrial relations.
By saying he will eliminate AWAs, Beazley might feel that at one stroke he has exploited the community's disquiet, appeased a restless union movement and kept himself in a job.
If only it were that simple. But there is one problem: Labor hasn't taken account of the intelligence of Australian voters.
Australian voters understand that an unemployment rate of 4.9 per cent is not an accident -- it is the product of a more flexible labour market. They also know the accuracy of what the head of the International Monetary Fund said in Canberra on Wednesday, "... the labour laws of not only the 1970s, but even the 1990s, are probably not the ones we need in the 21st century".
Of course, voters are not above appeals to self-interest and the ever-growing demands of welfare for the middle class are the proof of this. However, the ultimate objective of the electorate is to ensure the country's future prosperity and it appreciates that sometimes the interests of the 11 million voters who are not members of a trade union outweigh those of the less than two million voters who are.
Until 1998, it was an article of faith in Australian politics that no party proposing a new tax could win a federal election. Voters didn't necessarily like the concept of the GST, they didn't understand it, and many felt that they themselves or others might be worse off under it. But this didn't stop them voting for it anyway. They knew it was in their long-term interests to improve the country's tax system.
The argument about Work Choices and AWAs is not very different from the GST debate. Nearly a decade ago, Beazley's grab for votes put him on the wrong side of good policy -- and politically he was punished for it. He risks making the same mistake again.
The GST was an important issue not just because of what it actually did, but also because of what it represented. One political party supported reform and the modernisation of the economy, and the other didn't.
Likewise with AWAs. That a relatively small proportion of workers are employed under them is irrelevant. AWAs symbolise the ability of employers and employees to negotiate for flexibility and higher wages. The fact that there aren't more AWAs is evidence that industrial relations in this country has yet to adapt to the new realities of the international marketplace for labour, goods and services.
In a moment of candour, Randolph Churchill once revealed the primary motivation behind his biggest political decisions. He admitted it was "mostly opportunism". Right now, it looks like the same thing is motivating Beazley.
ADVERTISEMENT
No comments:
Post a Comment