"We’re not dead yet": connecting with the missing middle

The Australian Labor Party vision and our values are as relevant today as they were over a century ago when the labour movement first mobilised.

However, having lost three consecutive Federal elections, the last in an environment that was so conducive to a Labor victory, we must take stock. We’re not dead yet, but we have a lot of work to do.

The narrowness of Labor’s election loss tends to obscure a number of significant underlying trends that have been with us in the Australian political system since the early nineties. In particular, the widespread feeling across all social groups, all ages and across the city and country, that politics has no relevance for the future.

This alienation from politics is common throughout the democratic world. American Presidents for a long time have been elected by minorities and in the United Kingdom Tony Blair won the second time around with the support of only 25% of the electorate.

In an environment like this, wedge politics flourishes and in the Federal Election wedge politics in the form of Tampa and the fear of terrorism ultimately determined the outcome.

I want to be clear that without Tampa and September 11, I believe Labor under Kim Beazley would have prevailed in a hard fought campaign.

Some of the ‘Battlers’ – those predominantly blue collar workers on modest incomes and struggling to make ends meet – who were moving to the Labor Party or considering voting One Nation stayed with the Coalition after the events of September 11 and Tampa.

That said, we must also acknowledge the fact that before Tampa and September 11 there was a certain loss of impetus in our drive towards victory.

While Labor was attracting the ‘Battlers’ angry about the GST we had failed to convince enough of what I would term the ‘outer suburban middle classes’ of our credentials.

This is a very diverse group – some are teachers and nurses, some are sub-contractors and small business owners who have done well in life and want their children to do even better. The value of their home is important and they will often have a second investment property. There is a diversity of household incomes within this grouping.

They are the ‘Westfield Mallers’ because the shopping centre is the hub of their social interaction in the new and emerging suburbs. No longer is the town hall or even the local church the centre of their universe.

Like the ‘Battlers’ they want the Government to stand up to vocal minorities, vested interests and champion the view that rewards hard work. This means they are easily aroused by any suggestion of welfare fraud or queue jumping, accurate or not.

They view all levels of Government – federal, state and local - in a negative light – just there to take their taxes without delivering anything tangible to them in return.

Many have private health insurance and private school fees to pay and don’t readily see the benefit to them of greater public investment in these areas.

This middle class suburban voter is Labor’s great challenge. It's no good thinking they will come along for the ride out of curiosity – they have to be convinced.

Both the ‘Battlers’ and the ‘Westfield Mallers’ are what US social policy expert Theda Skocpol calls the ‘missing middle’ – families who live on modest wages or wages made modest by the cost of their responsibilities to their children.

They work hard but find themselves under financial pressure. They see themselves as struggling in the middle.

Often, in standing up for the weakest and most vulnerable, Labor is wrongly perceived to have neglected both the ‘Battlers’ and the ‘Westfield Mallers’ – the ‘missing middle.’

The way forward

We need to develop a bold, outward-looking, social democratic vision. If we do, I am confident the Australian people, including the two groups I have mentioned, will embrace us.

But people are sick of the "business as usual" approach to politics where politicians pay lip service to the concerns of the people and do what they want.

That is why we need to embrace political, constitutional, parliamentary and party reforms that confront people’s distrust head on.

Constitutional reform

Our approach to the republican referendum is an example of our lack of boldness.

People became sick of the long drawn out fizzle of the campaign in which their popular choice – a direct election republican model was sidelined by both John Howard and elite opinion.

In my view, we should have been absolutely clear from the beginning we would not participate in the Republican debate unless there was a balanced range of alternatives for the electorate to choose from.

The direct election of president ought to have been something that was offered to the people. In confining ourselves to the minimalist option we stuck to the ‘business as usual’ approach to politics that the cynical and disaffected are absolutely fed up with.

We should also examine fixed four-year Parliamentary terms.

The ‘business as usual’ approach to politics suggests we shouldn’t even try to convince people of the case for such a change. I think we must begin to be more ambitious for our country.

Parliamentary reform

There can be no question that the standing of Parliament and Members of Parliament in the community has never been lower than it is today.

I would like to suggest four initial areas for reform, which the Government and the Opposition should agree on.

First, we should strengthen the Standing Orders to make Ministers actually answer the questions they are asked in Parliament. Time limits should also apply.

Second, the Government should use the Parliament as the forum to announce and debate public policy rather than press conferences, as is so often the case.

Third, the independence of the Speaker should be increased. Labor has put forward a proposal to achieve this.

Finally, we need to look again at decisions such as the one to ban press photographers from capturing the detail of Parliamentary debate. In the 21^st Century, the current restrictions are quite absurd.

Rigid Factionalism & Party Reform

We also have to look at party reforms.

Some years ago in an article I co-authored with the late Clem Lloyd on the development of national factions in the ALP and its impact on the party we concluded that:

"the top has been strengthened while the base has been weakened, a circumstance as fraught with danger in politics as it is in architecture."

Nothing could be more true.

We should change the rules to make as much of Party activity and election campaigning open to mass participation and that includes getting the rank and file and affiliated trade unionists more involved.

There is a critique around that argues the broader trade union movement have been an impediment to a successful election outcome for Labor.

A significant number of Australian workers belong to trade unions. These men and women have a right to organise to protect their rights. Labor should not back away from its support via unionism for Australian workers and their families.

It is my contention that some aspects of factionalism are a far bigger impediment than any concerns about unions.

While factions are an important management tool, rigid factionalism combined with declining branch membership levels within the Labor Party presents more challenges for the connectedness of the Party with its grassroots than shuffling numbers on the conference floor.

Rigid factionalism has tended to make the party too inwardly focused – it has bureaucratised and distanced the party from the community.

Too much of the Party’s precious talent and energy has been diverted away from electing candidates and into just advancing factional interests.

Any senior member of the Party, me included, who has been involved over time knows how debilitating this can be.

In many of their public actions the factions are not seen to be driven by altruism or ideas, but just number crunching.

Many in the Party who could have made a contribution, but don’t belong to a faction feel they are ignored and so drift away.

I would like to propose three ideas for restoring balance within the Labor Party.

Firstly, in terms of Party reform as others have suggested, why not embrace direct election of some key organisational positions by Party members, like the Party President and the branch component of the National Executive? Secondly, Why not have fixed terms for some of these positions?

To my mind, part of the alienation from politics is the lack of connection between voters and their elected representatives.

In the longer term a third suggestion is to attack this disenchantment by moving to a primary system somewhat akin to that used in the United States but with some unique Australian features. For example if we had a two-tiered primary system, the Party could select a short list of potential candidates and registered Labor supporters could then vote for their preferred representative. Or why not give a weighting in the primary system to Party and trade union members while also allowing registered voters to participate?

The Policy Agenda

In a complicated globalising world we need fresh input, fresh ideas and new perspectives.

At the core of the differences between Labor and the Coalition is our belief that there is a strong case for Government to buffer market forces. But we must convince a skeptical electorate positive Government can temper the forces of a globalising free market.

This means finding a policy mix that synthesises modern realities with our labour tradition. Our policies must be bold to engage the electorate. They must focus on opportunity and help people to help themselves.

As a first step in providing opportunity we must restore the public’s faith in our ailing health and education systems. We need to continue to argue that poor health or sub-standard education makes it almost impossible for people to move forward.

But we must go further than decent schools and hospitals.

Labor needs to argue the case for creating training and educational ladders into jobs and fostering an environment for strong jobs growth.

At the last election Labor put forward a range of well-crafted policies the centerpiece of which were under the banner of the Knowledge Nation. This wasn’t just an education and training agenda it was a jobs agenda.

As a nation if we want to prosper in the new economy we must continue to argue for the investments in training, education and industry that Knowledge Nation offered.

Complementary to investing in opportunity is to make sure that people are rewarded for their efforts.

With the GST, low and middle-income earners in this country have had the tax burden shifted decisively to their pockets. The situation is even more acute for low-income families who may in fact be worse off the harder they work due to the withdrawal of family payments, social security and then tax. It is time we put some decent financial incentives into the system at the bottom and the middle to reward hard work and effort.

Beyond this we must further develop our thinking on the world of work, how it intersects with family life and how we can support communities.

We need to look at ways that provide financial means to allow a parent to study and upgrade their skills and knowledge to enter a career that has greater prospects for them and their family.

We also need to look at ways to enable parents to save and invest wisely for things like their children’s education. Ideas from overseas like Opportunity Accounts where the Government makes an up-front contribution on the birth of a child followed by contributions from parents warrant examination in the Australian context.

Conclusion

Labor must now re-build. We must go back to the community. This means re-engaging with the people who did not vote for us, particularly the ‘missing middle.’

Where the loss of a sense of community is greatest and the dog eat dog notion of everyone for themselves is strongest, politicians who practice divisive wedge politics will prosper.

The only effective way to counter the politics of division is to re-build community trust. And a bold, well-communicated agenda provides a bulwark against politicians offering division rather than solutions.