whose party is it?Exactly 40 years ago a disgruntled ALP delegate challenged his parliamentary leader with the question: “Whose party is it anyway – his or ours?” The delegate was the left’s hero Jim Cairns and the question was written for him by his then script-writer Phillip Adams. The leader was of course Gough Whitlam, who was attempting the crash-through-or-crash reforms to the party’s structure and policy which finally made Labor electable after 23 years in opposition. It is now a matter of history that Whitlam won, a win for which both Cairns and Adams became belatedly grateful. But he did so without providing a definitive answer to the question: does the ultimate control of the ALP rest with the rank and file membership or with the elected parliamentary leader? The vote against New South Wales Premier Morris Iemma’s move to privatise the state’s electricity industry at the weekend is another attempt to find out. The rules are clear enough: the ALP conferences, state and national, are the supreme policy making bodies of the party and all members of parliament are bound by their decisions. No ifs, no buts. But rules are made to be broken and strong leaders over the years have frequently interpreted conference decisions to suit themselves. Recognising this political reality, conferences these days usually try to restrict themselves to statements of principle and long term goals which leave the leader plenty of room to manoeuvre. But there are times when they assert themselves in an attempt to establish, as one delegate put it on Saturday, who has the biggest dick in the Labor Party. The current stand-off is one of those occasions. If he is to crash through Iemma will have to defy a specific direction from conference, and one with overwhelming support. The vote of 702-107 means that it was not only the union delegates opposed to the sell-off; nearly three-quarters of the branch delegates joined them. There are times when a leader can get away with a deliberate breech of party rules; Kevin Rudd did so when he announced that he alone, and not caucus, would appoint his ministry. But Rudd was a leader newly triumphant, the saviour who had led his party back to power after nearly 12 years in the wilderness. Iemma heads and old and tired government rampant with cronyism and suspected of more serious corruption. He himself is reasonably popular, but the leader of the privatisation push, treasurer Michael Costa, personifies everything the voters dislike about the Macquarie Street mafia. He has said in so many words that he is going ahead and his critics can get fucked: he doesn’t care if they expel him. This of course is the ultimate sanction. It has actually been used: Premier William Holman was expelled for breaching party policy by supporting conscription during World War I. Admittedly that was nearly a century ago, but the precedent is there. Iemma, more cautious than Costa, is still hoping to avoid it. He can point to caucus endorsement of his plan, and also to the finding by a committee headed by former Premier Barrie Unsworth – a much respected figure in the party – that it is in fact in accord with broad Labor policy. It also has the support of Rudd and the feds, not to mention the business community. But it has been decisively kyboshed by the representatives of Labor’s membership.
This is hardly a surprise; it was his clearly stated position throughout the election campaign and one thing Rudd has been absolutely firm about is keeping his election promises. The reforms certainly get rid of most of the practical discrimination about which the gay community has rightly complained, and for that they have been welcomed. It is true that they have not taken the final symbolic step, but symbols are surely pretty much in the eye of the beholder. Most of the gay couples I know couldn’t care less about getting a government document to formalise their relationship as long as it is recognised by law and society; for that matter, the same applies to most of the straight couples I know. There is more to be done – there always is. But at least we can report quick and decisive action, which is a lot more than the last government delivered. And speaking of the last government, was anyone really surprised when Colonel Mo Davis, the former chief prosecutor at Guantanamo Bay, finally blew the whistle on the David Hicks trial last week? Appearing as a witness before the same tribunal as he prosecuted Hicks, Davis testified that whole process of military commissions had been corrupted by politics and what he called “inappropriate influence”. He had never wanted to charge Hicks, he said, because the case against him was not serious enough and evidence against him had been obtained through prisoner abuse. However, the politicians had demanded a show trial and that’s what they got. Before the trial started Davis urged Hicks and his lawyers to agree to a plea bargain to short circuit the process; eventually, of course, this is what happened and Hicks agreed to plead guilty to a dubious charge in exchange for a light sentence worked out in what was clearly a political deal out of sight of the military commission which was supposed to be trying his case. Throughout this whole disgraceful process the John Howard, Alexander Downer and Phillip Ruddock assured us that everything was fair and above board and justice was being done. History will probably treat the Howard mob more kindly than they deserve, but they should never be forgiven for abandoning their own citizens to imprisonment and abuse by a foreign power; this is a denial of the first responsibility of a government. Lest we forget.
|