Australian Labor - a renovator's delight

The most fashionable explanation for Labor’s recent federal election loss is the Coalition’s "scare campaign" on interest rates and Labor’s failure to establish its economic management credentials.

Kim Beazley seems to have accepted this analysis. In recent months he has focused on Australia’s foreign debt and the current account deficit. He also defended Shadow Treasurer Wayne Swan’s performance on the basis that he had put these issues on the political agenda when criticism was levelled at Labor’s decision to oppose the Government’s recent tax cuts.

However the Forestry and Furnishing Products Division of the CFMEU (Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union) thought the problem was much more deep-seated than this and it commissioned an analysis of Labor’s federal election performance. This analysis, which we have called The Brompton Report (pdf file 215KB), presents a coherent study of cultural, social and economic issues. It:

• argues that being an economic liberal and social conservative is an oxymoron;
• asserts that Labor’s traditional supporters are conservative; and
• contends that there are not enough votes to be had by being liberal, economically or socially, for Labor to win elections.

While we do not necessarily agree with the analysis in its entirety, we think Labor has ignored its fundamental thrust for too long and is paying a heavy political price as a consequence. Labor must take up the challenge to address these fundamental problems. If it does not, the Liberal Party’s claim that it is the preferred party of the working class may become true.

The report argues Labor has been struggling to establish its identity since the end of the Cold War. Increasingly the party is divided between those who have succumbed to economic rationalism and those who hanker for the return of the welfare state. At the same time there has been an ascendancy of those who describe themselves as progressives over those who hold traditional views on social and cultural issues.

These divisions have also become increasingly evident in the electorate as the gulf between inner metropolitan residents and people living in outer suburban and regional areas has widened to the point that the co-editor of Arena, Guy Rundle, said last December that the Australian and US election losses "mark a final rejection of the 'suburban'-left coalition that has animated progressive politics for four decades in this country and since the New Deal in the US".

This development should not have taken Labor by surprise. Australians sent a clear message when they voted on the referendum proposal in 1999. Inner metropolitan electorates, Labor and Liberal alike, voted strongly in favour of the proposal but the further people lived from the central business districts of Sydney and Melbourne, the more strongly they opposed it. High Court judge, Michael Kirby, summed the result up as “the country against the cities. The small states against the big states. The high income earners against the ‘battlers'. The educated elite against those who had lost their economic advantages in the structural adjustments which had occurred in recent times in Australia and under successive governments.” This message was reinforced by the 2001 federal election and the Tampa affair.

Mark Latham’s election as Labor’s leader signalled the arrival of somebody who understood the "culture wars". Journalist Margaret Simons wrote that Mr Latham "speaks of 'tourists' and 'residents'”:

He says the insiders live like tourists in their own country. There is a sense in which they don’t live in Australia at all. “They travel extensively, eat out and buy in domestic help. They see the challenges of globalisation as an opportunity, a chance to further develop their identity and information skills. This abstract lifestyle has produced an abstract style of politics” … The outsiders, on the other hand - the people who live in the outer suburbs and the regions - are the residents of Australia. Their values are pragmatic. They cannot distance themselves from the problems of the neighbourhood and so good behaviour and good services are important. There is no symbolism and also no dogma in the suburbs, Latham says. The residents look for small, pragmatic improvements and they are not interested in “big pictures”.

Initially Mr Latham affirmed his identification with "the residents". In response to the Redfern Aboriginal riot in February last year, he asked where the parents were. At the same time he signalled his opposition to gay marriages. He talked of the alienation of people with politics and revived community hall meetings. While visiting Tasmania the following month, at Bob Brown’s invitation, he said, "experience tells us that if a mature-age worker with one set of skills loses a job, it is incredibly hard at that age to move to another industry. I say it is not social justice to put people like that on the dole queue, it’s just not on." He also said, "we’re not here to be fiddling with the RFAs or fiddling with the process that leads to job security". He ruled out monetary compensation and said, "I think you have to have a job".

Yet two months later he imposed Peter Garrett on the voters of Kingsford Smith. The report argues that for Labor it was the beginning of the end. Next came the decision to support the US free trade agreement. And then the Left’s rebellion over supporting the Government’s legislation banning gay marriages with Mr Latham’s commitment to examining "options to achieve more consistent national treatment of all de facto relationships". Labor Left MPs said the amendment moved by the Labor leader "opened the door" for gay unions to be registered officially if Labor won government but the compromise did not satisfy anybody.