Interview

His Daily Fix

Interview with Peter Lewis

Graham Richardson talks of his transition from national politics to talkback radio and his ongoing jobs as a fixer.

	Richo at Work

Someone from the progressive side of politics working in talkback radio almost sounds like a contradiction in terms. How have you found being a commentator in this particular medium?

Having a Left perspective is unusual in this business. Almost unique. In commercial talkback they're all Right Wing demagogues. And I'm neither Right Wing nor a demagogue, so that gives you a bit of a lead weight in your saddle bag, but only because it hasn't been tried before. And I think over time it will work, so you're not worried about it, it's a badge of honour, and I'll just wait them out.

So how do you approach it?

Talkback radio is about talking about the news of the day. But you can also make continuing issues out of things that you see as important. I've done a lot of work on reconciliation - even when it's not fashionable. I was running the Republic when it was out of the news. I'm running a big thing on poker machines against Bob Carr at the moment because I think the Government is going to make a lot of money on the backs of working people, and I don't like it much, so I'm going to keep that running, whether it s news or not. So you have an opportunity to indulge yourself, if that's the right term, but certainly to get across your own views and your own point of view. But the format of this station is that of news talk, so what's news is what you have to cover.

I guess the objective wisdom in the past has been that progressive people listen to the ABC, and so there's no point having that sort of market out there in commercial radio. Are you finding you are getting a lot of new listeners?

Well I've upset a lot of the old, because a lot of the old 2GB listeners are conservative people and they don't like it much. But you're finding we get calls from the Western Suburbs where 2GB never had an audience. So yes, it's changing. It's just that in commercial radio it's painfully slow and so it's going to take a while.

The other string to your bow is working for Kerry Packer. How do you think working people would regard you?

How do I think working people would regard me?

Working for someone who's the archetypical boss?

I don't know. I mean, how do they regard Laurie Oakes. Is it bad?

Do you have any problems with it?

None whatsoever. I mean, Kerry Packer has voted Labor a lot more in his life than he's voted Liberal. He's had a problem with one Labor politician - and that was Paul Keating. Now Keating declared war on him and apparently everyone thinks that therefore that having been done, Kerry Packer has to sit back and say that's OK. Well he won't. That having been said, there's so much hysteria around about this that it is very disturbing.

Any idea that the 60 Minutes stories on Keating were Packer driven are absurd. I think that the thing that I like about working there is that never once have I been asked to restrain myself in an opinion. Never once! And the station still gets complaints about me on Saturday mornings being too pro Labor. Just like this station gets it.

But the Packers have never said to me "slow down". When I had a Bulletin column they never said to me "You can't write that". And no one bucketed Howard more than I did, and I actually say no one. And no one on radio or television buckets him more than I do either. But they never stopped me. So, why should anyone in the Labor Party care?

Do you reckon that the big media players have too much power?

Nup. Um, I think what's going to happen if we continue with our current set of laws is that our telcos, like Telstra, will finish up owning great chunks of the media. And as they are privatised, as they will be, I think that's more dangerous. You're going to have Telstra - well the Telstra board's already discussed buying Fairfax - , and so, you don't know where they'll go. But if you look at AT&T, I mean that is the way the world will go . is that telcos will buy cable and free to air television networks. That's inevitable. Now, we'll have to sit down and work out whether this is a good thing. I think maybe the Labor Party's problem at the moment is that they haven't worked out who the enemy is. They ought to give it a bit more thought I suspect.

Having worked in now, the media, politics and business - which has more influence?

Oh look, they all do. I don't know. They all do in a different way. I'm not powerful like I used to be. In the sense that for a lot of years I could get most people in the Labor Party and governments to do what I really wanted them to if I pushed hard. I can't do that anymore. So I'm not powerful, but that doesn't mean I'm not influential. You sort of exchange power for influence. You have an effect on a decision, but you're not the decision maker and that's different, but just as much fun. And because it's new, I guess it's more fun. Because you're not just trawling the same ground, which is what I did for a lot of years.

Is there a sense that polticis is about brokering deals rather than being the intellectual force behind them?

Well, that's certainly the fashionable view for those who always wanted to sort of write me down. I guess I kind of object to that a bit, but it's a fashionable view and it's not worth me fighting at the moment. But in 1990, I don't know if you call it the intellectual force behind decisions but I came up with a preference strategy that won us an election, which I didn't think was a bad effort. When we got 39% of the vote and still won, with an increased majority.

But, I mean the point is, if you apply yourself and you've got the power, then there's all sorts of things you can do. You can get through a decision on deeming that every pensioner hates but within 12 months they will adopt and now fight governments to keep it. I did that in 1990. And you can look back on tropical rainforests and 400 year old trees in Tasmania, I think I did OK. But I can't do that anymore. I can agitate towards it, urge someone else to do it, but I can't do it. Big difference.

Do you admire the alliances that Howard is building at the moment?

Oh yeah. I think he's being very clever. I mean we never got the Democrats in the cart the way he has. And we had several Democrats who were natural Left leaning Democrats, but they never had the force to opt for an alliance with Labor in the same open way that the Democrats are now. Largely because a lot of them were sort of Lefty type dissident people, rather than mainstream Left people. You know, the John Coulter's of the world. They just didn't like anybody and saw themselves as someone who was stood above organised politics. Now, you've got a fellow called Andrew Murray, who led them into the Liberal Party and has done it brilliantly. He's obviously got a decisive sway over Meg Lees and I think Howard has behaved incredibly well. He's played a blinder.

How's Beazley going?

Well, I mean, it's very hard for an Opposition leader at the best of times but when you get a period where it would appear the government could get through most of what they want anyway, it's going to be very difficult for Kim. But, as I said to Kim last week, that all changes from the 1st July next year. When the GST comes in, and it's going to be a shambles, I think Labor stands to get a lot more popular a lot more quickly.

I read silly articles writing Labor off. We are two to four points behind the polls .. it's anyone who you believe. At this stage of the electoral cycle, that's a very good effort and we are not swamped in the preferred leader polls either. Howard's in front as you would expect him to be, but nowhere near as in front as he should be. The mob don't like him. They're never going to like him. They do like Kim Beazley. So Labor's still got a big chance in the next election. I don't write them off. It's a big task but by no means a foregone conclusion. The last one was. We couldn't win the last one. The next one's different. We can.

In terms of new ideas in Labor what's your take on Latham?

I just find it takes out the compassion that makes the Labor Party what it is. And that really worries me, because it's very easy to go on with all that stuff. You just wonder at the end of the day, how it will impact on people. Wayne Swan made a great statement that I'll never forget - and he said that we've got to remember is that "we live in a society not just an economy". I'm not sure Latham understands that yet.

One of the other new ideas floating around, particularly in your old hunting ground of head office and Level 10 is the notion that the factions may have passed their use by date. What's your view on the notion that there should be a process of de-factionalisation within the Party?

My view is as irrelevant as everybody elses view on it. It isn't going to happen, so why have a view on it. How would you have resolved, as an example, who was going to be in the Ministry in the State without a total bloodbath if you didn't factions? And the answer is, you couldn't have. You'd have just had a total bloodbath.

Now, if people want to return to those days. Goodluck to them. I think that would be a terrible, retrograde step. What we need to do, rather than de-factionalising the Party, is to make sure that overriding nationally, the factions can get together, so that when a faction in a State goes overboard and does something monstrously stupid, or is totally incompetent, their own faction acknowledges it, and something's done to fix it.

We don't do that now. I mean, it's pretty obvious that the South Australian Labor Party is a joke. Now, sometime, somewhere, someone has got to do something about that. I don't think we have that mechanism yet and we need that. Because, in South Australia they came very close to winning an election - the last election which was what last year or something. I mean, how would they do if there was one now? It would be a disaster and clearly there's something really sadly amiss with the way that State's run. Now that means that the factions nationally have to come in and sort it out - and they're not going to. And that, I think, is disappointing.

But would you agree that there is not much of an ideological component in the difference between the Left and the Right anymore?

No, see, part of the great problem is that if you take a John Faulkner and line him up with Leo McLeay - they actually don't disagree about anything? I mean, what is the ideological battle ground of the late nineties. I don't know what it is. The only battle ground is who gets what job. It's all to do now with who gets what job. Really, the policy differences are so minor as to be indistinguishable.

So a faction's just become a means of how to get power?

Well, that's all they are at the moment, which is a bit sad. But as long as being civilised and kept within reasonable bounds, it means that you don't get terrible outbreaks of warfare, and I think that's pretty important. So, it serves a purpose.

And everything that goes with it .. the Branch stacking .. that sort of stuff?

No, no, it should be abolished. That's not necessarily just the fault of all the factions. There's a lot of very ambitious individuals and they think it's wonderful. And he'll fight to the death to preserve the system. If you were Paul Lynch, why would you want to stop branch stacking? It enables you to control vast areas of - not just where you live - but all around it. So you'd love it. But it stinks! Both sides have been in it. It's extremely bad. it gives the Party a rotten reputation - but more importantly - it browns off the backbone of the Party - the bit who've been there forever, who line up at polling booths and look after you - and let me tell, those stackees - you never see them on a polling booth. They turn up at three meetings a year, sign books. (The allegation being that many of them don't turn up at three meetings a year but sign books anyway) but you never see 'em on polling booths. They aren't Party activists. Most of them don't even know what Party they're in. And I find that just appalling! And if I was the Labor Party I would stamp that out completely. Forgetting all the niceties, it's not that hard to do.

How do you do it?

You refuse to accept in any Branch, any more than four a night. Just stop it. Just say "no". Bet you they don't, but that's what you've got to do.

What about the trade unions? Where do they fit in to the factional equation these days?

Well, I think they're the most important players in the factional equation. Without them factions wouldn't be what they are. I mean, how does an Albanese exist without the metal workers and a few of his mates. I mean, he can't. It's the same for the Right. I mean, if you haven't got the unions backing you up with numbers at conferences you are in all sorts of trouble. They still own between 50 and 60 percent of the stock of every State conference so they are vitally important. You know, they are a big part of it.

The problem with the unions is, how relevant are they. And in the modern era the answer is not very. And they will lose their grip on the Labor Party as a matter of certainty unless they can reverse this trend of falling membership. I mean, now when you look at it, in private industry their figures aren't a lot better than 20 percent. They only maintain their abysmal figures as high as they are because of there is a public sector. In the private sector with all the new service industries, the unions are falling way behind.

Now, unless they can reverse the trend and find a way to get real coverage in the service sector and build up their percentage of membership again, it's inevitable that they will lose their hold on the Party. Now, I don't want to see that, because I think that will mean a very different Labor Party to the one that I joined and that I love. So I wouldn't want it to happen, but it will..

What will become of the Labor Party if that happens?

Well, it just becomes an amalgam of like-minded souls who hopefully will retain some sort of social vision that in some way resembles what we have now.

The ACTU is struggling to find a President, so if we were to put you up for the job (a) would you take it? and (b) if you got there what would you do?

I can't take it, so the answer's no. But by the same token that wouldn't happen. I can't imagine a body with 2/3 of the Left putting me up for running anything ..

But let's just say you got there ...

The first thing you've got to do is look - it pains me to say it - but you've got to improve the standard of union official. There are just too many unions where the officials are hopeless. Who just don't do their job and there's going to need to be some sort of performance audit of union officials beyond union elections. If you run the show and you're popular and you are the secretary of the union you can keep winning elections, but it doesn't mean that you are doing a good job. You can really over-service brilliantly a declining number of people and keep winning elections. That doesn't mean that you've got a good union. And I think the ACTU has got to step in and find a way of getting a proper performance audit on union officials so that you know they are really out there trying to expand the movement, not - and I said - simply trying to over-service a dwindling group. It seems to me that's what more and more unions are doing.

So, you'd need to have some central body with some authority over the individual branches in effect...

Yeah. Well, how are you going to do it if you don't? See, the trouble is, everyone fights that notion. Says, oh that's terrible. And so the inevitable conclusion is you leave it as it is - and the longer you leave it as it is - and the longer in private industry numbers go down ... I mean, you've got to say within a decade the number of unionists in private industry is going to be 10 percent. How relevant are unions then? They just don't matter. And unfortunately, with Labor governments who open the door to enterprise bargaining, it's just killing them off. Now you've got individual contracts where workers have no power against big companies and they're signing them. They're signing them all over the place. We are losing this war.

If the ACTU doesn't step in and do something about it at some central level. ... I'm not talking about factional advantage. It isn't a matter about factions. We are now talking about the very existence of the union movement. Once you lose critical mass you get to a point where you are not relevant. And they are fast getting below that critical mass.

So, would you say that they should be pushing for a re-regulation of the labour markets?

No, it's never going to happen. That's my whole point. We need to be smarter and better than we are. And so the old style official, who as I said, over-services his mates. Who calls into the same factory every day because it's easy .. because they like him .. because you just keep doing it .. you've got to get rid of that bloke because that bloke won't ensure your future.

What worries me, if I can sound prophetically profound for a moment, is that I reckon that workers desperately need unions. And yet workers are increasingly convinced they don't need them at all. And that means that fundamentally we are failing in the job. It's very serious. And no one, it seems to me, is doing anything about it.

The ACTU have just released another survey - that's terrific. And then they get the unions here and say, we've got to do something about this. And they say "Yep, that's right". Then it fades. It dies, and the numbers continue to drop. Every year, year after year they just drop. It seems to me that what more and more people are doing is having a very big fight to see who can be the emperor in a smaller and smaller empire - or the empress in some cases - but I mean, that's all it is. If you are not going to expand the kingdom, then who cares who's the monarch?

  View entire issue - print all of the articles!

  Issue 32 contents

»	Public Servants Seek Leave For Timor
»	Goodbye Green Bans - Dumped by the Wave
»	Government Rules Nobble Public Sector
»	ACTU Pushes On With Privatised Portal
»	Powerful New Years Eve Deal for TransGrid
»	Banks Grill Staff on New Fees
»	Off the Rails - Workers Gagged
»	Staff Frustration Boils Over at Sydney Water
»	Kennett Nose-Dive: Botsman Picks It
»	Academics Fail Non-Union Deal
»	Nike in Indonesia: Military Employed to Intimidate Workers
»	The Laugh�s On Barry

»	Guest Report
»	Sport
»	Trades Hall
»	Piers Watch

»	Freeloader Push on Track
»	It's Worse in Detroit
»	Working Class Aesthetics
»	WorkCover Inspectors: Shaw Replies

Notice Board
- Check out the latest events

Latest Issue

View entire latest issue
- print all of the articles!

Previous Issues

Subject index

Search all issues

© 1999-2000 Labor Council of NSW

LaborNET is a resource for the labour movement provided by the Labor Council of NSW

[ Privacy Statement | Disclaimer | Credits ]

LaborNET is proudly created, designed and programmed by Social Change Online for the Labor Council of NSW