
Issue No 119		16 November 2001

LaborNET	Ask Neale	Tool of the Week

Interview

Out of the Rubble

Interview with Peter Lewis

Michael Costa argues that Saturday's election result could have been much, much worse.


	Michael Coast MLC

****************************

It is being read as a disaster for Labor. What's your take Saturday's election results?

In the circumstances I thought it was a great result for Labor. Two weeks out there was no doubt that we had the potential to lose up to a dozen seats. I think Beazley has got to be congratulated on the campaign that he ran. I think it was a tremendous campaign. It positioned Labor so that we are in with a chance next time. Whilst people can be critical of some of the issues that Labor had to fight on, the reality is that we came fairly close in a number of areas, and maintained our position.

But the reality is that a lot of the seats that were marginal are now fairly safe Liberal seats.

All that shows is the volatility of the electorate. I reject this notion that if Labor had of taken a different position on the asylum seeker issue it would have won the election.

Even though I have an elite view about that issue - that is that I support additional places being made available for asylum seekers and a more humane treatment of it - the reality of it was that all the polling showed very clearly that issue was one that was biting in a way that was going to damage Labor.

The real issue here is that there should be a proper immigration debate. This issue was lost in relation to an immigration freeze when we didn't engage in a proper debate. In fact, this issue was lost when One Nation got on the scene and people didn't take up the issue of immigration and sought to pander to them. Any expectation that you could turn this thing around in the following campaign was illusion.

But can you understand hard-core Labor supporters being disillusioned with the way that Labor ran the line?

I was disillusioned that the election had reached the point where the defining issue, despite all of the efforts of the Labor front bench, remained the asylum seekers. That was a very disillusioning position to be in. But given that the events were out of the control of Labor, the result was then worse.

Lindsay Tanner in his wash up is saying that the problem that Labor faces now is that it has got two distinct constituents - middle class constituents and its blue collar working class constituents - and its challenge is to actually get a theme or a line - a reason for being - that cuts across both those groups. What is your take on that?

Labor has had two constituencies since the 70s, since the Whitlam era. I don't think it is something that has emerged in the last 12 months or five weeks; it has been around at least since the Whitlam period. Labor made a dramatic shift in policy towards what we now call aspirational voters. That began with Whitlam, particularly in education and some of those broader social questions.

The real challenge is that if there is an issue that you believe requires a defining of position, then it has to be done outside the context of an election. Effort has to be put in well before an election on an issue as sensitive as immigration.

But when you are leaving all your policies until the election campaign, surely that leaves you exposed?

I think it was a fundamental mistake not to engage in a debate on immigration. I think that has to be something that Labor puts forward in a sensible way in the next three years. We ought to have a debate about immigration in this country. That debate ought to be one that is based on a proper understanding of the benefits and costs of immigration - not one that has a focal point on particular events around the border. That is not an immigration debate, that is wedge politics at its worst.

Simon Crean looks like being anointed leader unopposed. Is that a healthy thing for the Labor Party?

I think it is healthy that Labor has a leader elected unopposed. That at least shows that the team is willing to work around one individual and not split in relation to leadership aspirations. Now that is healthy.

In terms of Simon Crean, he is a person of enormous talent, but I am one of the people that believe that he really does need to reinvent himself. I think he has got the capacity to do that, but it means focusing on those issues that really are important to the average Labor Party member, and Australian voter.

Crean is already saying that he would be looking at reviewing the influence of unions in the Party. Is that a healthy debate to be having at the moment?

I think it is a complete nonsense to raise the question of the influence of unions, particularly if you are a former ACTU president. The reality is the unions have played an important role in ensuring the stability of the Party. What he should be raising is the question of bashing the system, which is a different proposition altogether to the unions.

The problem with the Labor Party is not that it has got a trade union base, it has got a factionalised structure, and Simon would be better off focusing on the sorts of candidates that system brings up.

Looking around the various seats that Labor put a lot of effort in, it seemed a lot of the work was by default being done by trade unionists because there were very few other rank and file members around. Do you think the election did expose problems in the level of activism at branch levels?

I think that the unions, as always, played a critical role in being the core of Labor's network, and that is appropriate. I don't accept the view that there wasn't branch activism - there certainly was. But what is valid, is the criticism that that in some areas we have large branches that can't staff polling booths - one could ask about the level of activism.

I go back to what I have said on previous occasions, that the Labor Party does need to put some requirements on branch members, both in terms of their responsibilities to the Party, but also in terms of the obligations that the Party has to provide them with resources and education.

So you seem to be fairly relaxed about the result?

Given that the polls two weeks out had us in a position where we could have had an enormous disaster - one that would have meant it would have taken at least two electoral cycles to be in a position to win government - I think the result on balance is a good result for Labor. I would have preferred we won, but circumstances changed after September 11, and the Tampa issue. There is no doubt about that. John Howard played wedge politics brilliantly. That is no credit on him but it is certainly great credit to Kim Beazley and his team that we weren't decimated.

On wedge politics - doesn't it mean that Labor is always going to be vulnerable to this sort of attack?

Absolutely. And that is the point of the comments I am making. Unless we engage in a proper debate over a long period of time about the structure of our immigration policy, we are always open to being vulnerable on these types of issues.

That is the problem with this debate. You can't have an immigration debate in five weeks. It takes a long time to shift attitudes.

I think Labor has got a responsibility as the Party that by and large was instrumental in supporting post-war immigration, to take the issue up in an intellectual way and a political way, and ensure that we have a proper debate.

And what Labor principles should guide that debate?

The principles are quite clear. We stand for equality of opportunity. I think that is broader than our domestic borders. I think that this country will tolerate an influx of migrants that contribute to this country. But this country will also tolerate refugees, provided there is a proper debate about the consequences of that type of policy, rather than an attempt to create fear and insecurity.

View entire issue - print all of the articles!

Issue 119 contents

Interview: Out of the Rubble
Michael Costa argues that Saturday's election result could have been much, much worse.

Unions: Sixty-Forty Are Good Odds!
John Robertson argues that while there may be many problems with the ALP, union power is not one of them.

Politics: Wrong Way, Go Back
Labor's failure in the federal election is the result of more than bad luck. It is the result of a shift to populism that has left the Party bereft of core principles.

Campaign Diary: Week Five: All Washed Up
If you can stand it, relive the fatefull final week of a most remarkable election campaign.

International: Trade Piracy Unmasked
As the trade barons met in Qatar to chart out their agenda, George Monbiot looks at the machinations behind the scenes.

Factions: The Party's Over
Chris Christodoulou renews his call for a breakdown of the factional system to bring new life into the ALP

History: The Fall-Out
Neale Towart looks back to Labor's reaction to its loss in the 1954 'Petrov election' and finds warnings for today's post mortem.

Media: Elite Defeat
Rowan Cahill looks at the intellectual paucity in the PM's ongoing attacks on 'elite opinion'.

Satire: Crean 'Listens To Australian People': Will Sink Refugee Boats
Simon Crean, the most likely candidate to replace Kim Beazley as Labor's leader, says he will take heed of the message sent to the ALP by Australian voters at the Federal Election.

» Unions Call for Border Review

» Compo Fire Reignites as Bill Hits Deck

» Workers Unite Over Corporate Power

» Day Three: Telstra Privatisation Begins

» Primus Deal Marks New Era in Telcos

» Qantas Staff Cuts Condemned

» Bank Workers Seek Proxies for AGMs

» Blokes Stand Up For The Ladies

» Landmark Community Services Win

» Anger at Sartor's Power Grab

» Consumer Boycott Call for Sugar Co-op

» Apprentices Win Parity with Uni Students

» Competition for Nurses Hots Up

» CFMEU Launches Bunny Club

» ICFTU Reveals 250 Companies in Burma

» Activists Notebook

» STOP PRESS: No Democracy at Telstra AGM