Honesty or denial?: Karl Bitar at the National Press Club

The recent National Press club address by Karl Bitar (ALP National Secretary) is interesting because it provides reasons for Labor's recent 2010 federal election victory (and near loss).

Some aspects of Bitar's speech were fair enough. For instance, Bitar noted how Labor struggled to sell its economic achievements given that Australia experienced less employment loss in comparison to other nations responding to the global financial crisis.

Similarly, Bitar acknowledged the problems caused by major campaign announcements such as a citizens assembly to discuss measures to address climate change, and the Parramatta to Epping railway line, which voters judged to be without substance.

Bitar also highlighted how Labor had to overcome many broken promises that tested public support, such as Fuel Watch and an emissions trading scheme (ETS).

And there was the damage caused by dumping Rudd, leaks to the media during the campaign, and the disruption that was Mark Latham.

Yet, much of what Bitar offered was nonsense (almost comical), and hardly worthy of fair dinkum analysis on behalf of Labor.

There was Bitar's cheap political jibe at the supposed intellectual superiority of Gillard over Abbott. Bitar refers to Gillard being smart and Abbott having no idea about economics; Gillard moving Australia forward and Abbott moving it backwards; and the Coalition doing well to hide Abbott's problematic personality traits in the face of supposed concern by voters.

But just which was the silly party? Given the importance of debate to any effective democracy, there was Bitar seeking to explain Labor's lack of debate under Rudd as being a product of not wanting to give the media any excuse to portray Labor as divided after 11-12 years in opposition. It is indeed laughable for any party to hold a National Conference and not debate one issue, but Labor did.

Whether one agrees with the Coalition's ETS policy stance or not, at least the Coalition debated the issue, changed leader, won the public debate, and almost forced Labor to back down.

Some of Bitar's other points also defy belief. He claimed that Labor promised too much in 2007, and now implies that Labor faced the same difficulties as other great progressives like Obama, Clinton, and Blair, when in fact the 2007 campaign was full of public relations statements masquerading as policy and centered on an economic strategy of portraying Rudd as no different from Howard.

After 12 years of the Howard government which had undertaken much policy reform, a half-decent party should have had many opportunities to implement policy change in line with its party traditions and expectations which should have already been discussed and constantly debated.

You've got to wonder about Bitar's political credentials when he argues that it is hard for political parties to communicate with people as most are not interested in politics and concerned with everyday challenges. Except in exceptional circumstances, hasn't it always been thus?

And most of what Bitar offered was not supported by evidence, and what evidence was offered was laughable. For example he argued that Labor outspent the Liberals on education, even suggesting that Howard tied education funding to raising the Australian flag.

In reality, the evidence complicates Bitar's claim that Labor, under Rudd and Gillard, still stand for ample life and education opportunities regardless of gender, age, income, ethnicity.

For instance, Dr Jim McMorrow, examining projected Commonwealth education spending between 2009 and 2013, concluded that private schools will have received $47 billion for computers, new buildings and general running costs, compared with $35 billion for government schools. Further, private school share of federal funding was predicted to increase to 64 per cent by 2013, and that an extra investment of $1.5 billion a year was needed to return public schools to the 43 per cent share of funding achieved under the last Labor government (Emma Macdonald, "Funding boost for private schools", Canberra Times, January 18, 2010).

And while Bitar suggests that the public should have applauded Labor's record investment in renewables, Commonwealth environmental spending declined under Rudd: $4.36 billion inherited from the Howard government in 2007-08, fell to $3.12 billion in 2009-10, including $1.13 billion spent on the disastrous "pink batts" insulation program.

Labor's appeal to battlers and so-called progressives is increasingly rhetorical, despite Bitar now calling for greater debate and community involvement, including via online sources.

While Bitar challenged an assumption that Labor relied too much on focus groups to devise policy, Labor's use of quantitative research and its focus on communication with MPs, journalists, caucus and cabinet, increasingly reflects a focused strategy to win the most possible seats rather than a commitment to its ideals.

Labor needs to ask itself again what it stands for in terms of its policy aims, and how can it anticipate likely trends to ensure greater fairness within its ongoing struggle to balance competitiveness and compassion.

While these are difficult economic times for Western societies, with the strong possibility of significant budget cuts in the future, the public does expect Labor to promote policies in line with its historical traditions. This is especially true in times when an increasing minority struggle with higher costs for housing, food and utilities.

This means that many of the issues that have come to be accepted as status quo, such as privatisation, deregulation, industry protection, should be debated much more in line with growing public concern.

At the end of the day, Bitar's National Press Club speech was ordinary, almost humorous rather than offering a serious appraisal of Labor's situation.

If Labor continues on its merry way with policies that make little difference on key issues, preferring to make excuses for Labor's near loss, or simply implying that things would be even worse under the Coalition, then many will look to other parties for hope on policy, including the Greens.