|
Contents
|
On a quiet sector of a quiet
front:
a momentous NSW Labor Party conference
By Bob Gould
The courageous English communist poet John Cornford, who had been
moving away from Stalinism, sent his companion Margot Heinemann a
moving poem from the Spanish Civil War, which began: “On a quiet sector
of a quiet front”, and a few weeks later he was killed in battle.
The NSW Labor Party conference, held over two days on the Queens
Birthday long weekend was a bit like Cornford's poem. I've attended
every NSW Labor Party conference, the whole 40 of them, since 1954,
many times as a delegate and for many years now running a bookstall of
labour movement books in the foyer of the impressive Sydney Town Hall
auditorium.
This was possibly the quietest conference I have ever
attended. Many of these events have been far more boisterous than this
one,
with demonstrations outside on the Town Hall steps and protests in the
gallery directed at the 900 delegates on the floor of the conference.
This conference was not like that, at all. It was all business. It's
the state conference before the coming state and federal elections, so
there probably won't be another one for two years.
Even at the big, turbulent conferences there are usually two events:
the one on the floor, in the gallery and on the steps; and the linked
event under the stage and in the caucus rooms on the other side of
the corridors, where pressure is exerted and deals are made.
In the relatively quiet, defensive atmosphere facing the labour
movement, the overt agitation was much reduced, but the pressure and
deal-making under the stage and in the caucus rooms was intense indeed,
reflecting the pressure from the whole trade union movement, which is
under the hammer from the Howard Government and the ruling class.
Industrial relations was the burning issue at the conference by a
country mile, and linked to that was the preoccupation of everyone in
the labour movement with the re-election of a Labor government at state
level and the election of a federal Labor government. Election of both
governments is seen as necessary to defeat the Howard Government's
attacks on the labour movement.
At the start of the conference Unions NSW secretary John Robertson drew
a line in the sand, clearly indicating that the whole of the labour
movement expected Kim Beazley to commit to the abolition of Australian
Workplace Agreements when a Labor government is elected.
AWAs, so-called, are clearly the preferred ruling class mechanism for
rewarding its very privileged servants, such as chief
executives and other senior managers, and using ruthless government
power to drive down the wages and conditions of most of the rest of
society.
When Beazley addressed the conference, he vigorously adopted the trade
union position on AWAs. In a remarkable speech, some of which may well
have been written by Bob Ellis (it was full of elegant and effective
Ellisisms) Beazley pledged his future Labor government to the abolition
of AWAs.
This declaration electrified the conference and Beazley received a
standing ovation. Subsequently this pledge, which comes down sharply on
the side of the working class and the trade unions and a necessary
collective bargaining process, has infuriated the whole of the ruling
class.
Both stables in the print media, the ultra-reactionary News Limited and
the ostensibly liberal Fairfax chain, are beside themselves with fury.
Labor leaders are not supposed, according to the rules laid down by the
ruling class, to display this kind of ticker in defence of the
interests of the base of the labour movement.
On the second day of the conference, the Sunday afternoon, the report
of the industrial committee, which always rivets the attention of the
conference, prompted several hours of enthusiastic and often militiant
debate and discussion that went well over time. There were 26
amendments, most of which were
accepted.
This discussion was interrupted by the lights going down in the
auditorium to show
the new series of ACTU advertisements against Howard's industrial
proposals, which
feature individual workers who've been disadvantaged by the changes.
These ads are very effective, and were greeted by great applause from
the conference.
As Michael Berrell, who I don't always agree with, said on the Green
Left list, both federal and state elections will clearly be fought on
industrial relations, and the basis has been laid for a substantial
mobilisation of Labor, the trade unions and the Greens.
Iemma's speech: the unions and the Iemma Government
NSW Premier Morris Iemma's speech to conference was workmanlike. He
announced a number of economic initiatives, spoke at length
attacking the federal government's workplace changes, and proudly
asserted the state government's role in appealing against the Howard
industrial laws in the High Court and passing legislation to protect
state employees from the federal legislation.
The response of the delegates was enthusiastic, but several trade union
delegates strongly challenged the Iemma Government over disputes their
unions were having with government bodies, and matters such as
so-called public-private partnerships.
Fairly typical was the speech of Nick Lewocki, the moderate but
industrially conscientious secretary of the public transport union. His
union is in ongoing conflict with Railcorp and the State Transit
Authority, and has been involved in industrial action in the past few
weeks. It's quite clear that the unions want the Iemma Government
re-elected for broad political reasons, but they are unlikely to modify
their increasing conflict with the state government on major industrial
questions.
Therein lies the contradiction embodied in state Labor governments
adopting fiscal policies that conflict with union interests. By and
large, however, the unions are willing to give Iemma a go and they hope
that the Iemma Government will adopt less pro-business economic and
industrial practices and in due course the unions may use their
industrial muscle to achieve this.
The Greens and industrial relations
Pressure from the Greens on social justice and environmental questions
is now an important factor in NSW politics, as the Greens have proved
capable of mounting serious electoral challenges in some inner-city
seats.
This pressure now extends to industrial relations, as the conflict over
the Howard industrial laws, and the beginnings of revival in the labour
movement, has begun to affect the Greens. The national organisation of
the Greens has been a bit divided about
industrial relations. While no one in the Greens supports Howard's
laws, more conservative Greens in some states regard industrial
relations as a Labor issue.
The serious left wing in the Greens, spearheaded by the NSW and WA
branches, have taken up industrial relations with enthusiasm, however.
The NSW Greens industrial committee had a very successful forum on
industrial relations addressed by about eight union leaders and a
number of Greens a week or so ago. It was attended by about 100 people.
Veteran unionist and environmentalist Jack Mundey and Greens MP Lee
Rhianon made rousing speeches in favour of a careful and deliberate
electoral united front in the coming elections between all progressive
parties, including the Greens and the Labor Party.
At the end of the meeting this was embodied in a resolution carried
almost unanimously, with a couple of dissenters.
Other issues at the Labor conference
At the Labor Party conference, other issues of importance included a
left proposal for the state government to legislate for basic
democratic
rights. This is a particularly important proposal in the
current climate of hysteria about terrorism.
This was strongly opposed by state government minister John Della Bosca
and others in the NSW Government, but it was supported by a substantial
section of the unions associated with the right, as well as the left,
and was carried by the conference. Despite Norm Dixon's recent dopey
post on the Green Left list about the
proposal being a Clayton's bill of rights, it's an important proposal.
If passed by the NSW parliament it could have more legal weight than
any constitution.
Obviously it will take a big struggle to get the NSW Labor Government
to do anything about this, but Dixon's throwaway remarks underline how
far removed the leaders of some socialist sects are from the real
political world.
Another important issue was the continuing battle over refugee policy.
The federal shadow minister for immigration, Tony Burke, has been
taking a good stand on many aspects of the refugee question. For
example, he has pledged that Labor will end the Pacific solution and
temporary protection visas.
A curious position developed in the run up to conference in discussions
within Labor for Refugees. A left sub-faction that has a slight
majority in the left as a whole was blowing smoke, asserting that
there was strong pressure from the right to modify the position adopted
in 2002 by the NSW conference, which was well to the left of federal
Labor policy on refugees.
In the event, an arrangement was negotiated by Burke with the left
leadership that he would support the left's resolutions on Iraq and
West Papua if the left would support his review of TPVs and bridging
visa arrangements. Labor for Refugees was asked by Burke to draft an
amendment to the international policy committee report.
Complexity developed when the proposed amendment appeared ambiguous as
to whether the 2002 position would stand as NSW policy while the review
was taking place, or would be replaced by the recommendation put to
conference by the Labor foreign affairs committee, which was to the
right of the 2002 position.
The ambiguity remained in the proposed amendment much too long for the
liking of a close friend of mine who is an activist in Labor for
Refugees. To resolve the problem my friend approached a senior person
on the right who has a civilised position on refugees, and he said he
hadn't heard about the matter and he would negotiate with Tony Burke.
After some discussion, Burke proved amenable to the 2002 policy
remaining in place while the review was conducted. The amendment was
eventually rewritten in that spirit.
During this process there was a lot of rather tick-tacking on mobile
phones by the left leadership, and it would be interesting to know from
which politicians' offices the pressure on the left leadership was
coming. The left leadership is well known to be rather close to Kim
Beazley's office.
If this account of the events is unduly complicated I apologise, but
the circumstances were complex and deserve to be described.
Tony Burke himself, while obviously an ambitious young politician of
the Catholic right, who holds positions on some questions, such as
abortion, that few socialists would agree with, is nevertheless very
humane on the question of refugees. He has proved open to argument and
proposals from Labor for Refugees.
He's clearly a bloke in whom his natural political ambition is tempered
by humanity and conscience and he's the right bloke for the job he has
in the current climate. He serves up opposition to the xenophobes of
the Howard Government in a calm and deliberate way and his public
persona on these questions is very effective.
The conference carried unanimously a proposition by Meredith Burgman
emphasising the rights of the people of West Papua. The resolution on
Iraq, however, was weaker and embodied the rather ambiguous and
cumbersome proposition for an immediate phased withdrawal of Australian
troops.
Another interesting development that was apparent at the conference was
a certain evolution of the right-wing majority in Young Labor in its
overall political outlook.
For many years the newspapers produced for conference by the right
majority in Young Labor have been dominated by crude factionalism and
anti-leftism. This all vanished from the newspaper produced by the
Young Labor right for this conference, which was again all business,
devoted mainly to the campaign against the Howard industrial laws.
The left in Young Labor, which is a significant force, is based largely
in the inner-city, while the right is more outer-suburban and
ethnically diverse.
The two factions seemed to coexist in a slightly more civilised way
than in the past, and it seems there has been a certain evolution in
the Young Labor right, which is a good reason not to treat them as an
undifferentiated reactionary mass, which the far left outside the Labor
Party tends to do.
This development on the right of Young Labor was first apparent on May
Day, when 50 or 60 marched for the first time, making them the biggest
political contingent, with vigorous slogans against Howard's industrial
laws.
Working on the bookstall
Sound and video from the conference floor is piped into the foyer, so
it's possible to work on the bookstall and follow the proceedings. For
many years my bookstall has been in the left-hand corner of the
foyer going in, with Johnno Johnson's official ALP stall selling a few
books and his famous ALP puddings to the left and the credentialling
counter to the right.
As always, my bookstall is a networking focus at the conference, the
other main networking place being Johnno Johnson's tea and pie stall up
the corridor.
I brought 30 copies of Mark Latham's diary to the conference and
explained why in a short review
in the book list that I always put on
the seats during the first lunch break, and it sold well.
The best-selling books were two major recently published titles on the
Labor Party split in the 1950s and John Edwards's book about the Curtin
government, Curtin's Gift.
An important book on Aboriginal affairs, The Way We Civilise, by
Rosalind Kidd, sold very well, as did Tariq Ali's book, Speaking of
Empire and Resistance. A new book from Ocean Press, Victor
Serge's
study of the archives of the Russian Okhrana, called What Every Radical
Should Know About State Repression, proved surprisingly popular.
Another point of interest was that a number of the histories of
particular unions were more popular this year, for obvious reasons.
These were mainly bought by the middle, hard-working layer of trade
union officials, a number of whom were pretty anxious to talk about the
problems of organisation and agitation that they face in the new
industrial conditions.
It appears to me that a certain differentiation is taking place among
people who work for unions. Many of the young extreme go-getters who
thought that a union job was an easy path to a political career seem to
have disappeared, either to the big end of town or into staff jobs with
politicians.
The union officials who remain, some young and quite a few older, are
the more conscientious and serious trade unionists, and this seems to
be the case irrespective of whether they're part of the left or the
right. The buildup of pressure from this middle layer of union
officials seems to be a factor in Beazley's more assertive stance on
workplace agreements.
These circumstances are a fair distance from the rather simplistic
model of the labour movement that sits uneasily in the minds of most of
the far left, whose interest in trade union matters is rather episodic.
The far left and the Labor Party
The striking thing about this conference, which turned out to be so
significant, is that the far left pretty well wasn't there. In most
past periods, revolutionary socialists such as myself, Issy
Wyner, Nick Origlass, Jack Sponberg, George Petersen and a number of
others, were well-entrenched at Labor conferences, intervening on major
questions.
The Stalinists, who had a very serious implantation in the labour
movement, always took the Labor Party state conference very seriously
and had considerable influence on the Labor official left. The
Communist Party newspaper, Tribune,
always had journalists at the
conference reporting it in detail.
These days, the much reduced far left makes almost a fetish of ignoring
the Labor Party conference, even a rather momentous one, such as this. Green Left Weekly wasn't anywhere
to be seen. In the week since the
conference, the GLW website, which is always quick to pick on any
negative features of the Labor Party, hasn't said a word about the
political upheaval that started at the conference and has continued all
week in the media about Beazley's pledge to abolish individual
workplace contracts.
One small indicator of the state of play in the workers' movement is
always the review committee report on admissions to membership of the
Labor Party. The ALP rules provide that people who have previously been
members of other electoral parties must declare that on applying to
join the Labor Party.
Few or none of these applications are rejected, but it's a
ritual that provides an interesting overview of who is moving where
politically. For many years the people joining the Labor Party with
previous allegiances were mostly from the Communist Party and the
Australian
Democrats. Over the past eight years or so there has been a steady
trickle of
people from the DSP, the ISO and the Greens. This year there were a
number from the Greens and the first crop of people who stated their
previous allegiance as the Socialist Alliance.
The old CPA, used to, after a period of initial irritation, try to
influence people who had left its ranks to join the Labor Party. That's
not the case with the DSP, whose constant anti-Labor rhetoric precludes
exerting influence on former members who join the Labor Party, or for
that matter the Greens.
To sum up the current political situation in the labour movement. A
rapid radicalisation of a rather defensive sort is taking place in
difficult objective conditions. It is expressing itself through a rapid
development of a more determined stance on basic industrial questions
in the Labor Party, the trade unions and the Greens, despite the
resistance of conservative forces in all those environments.
Driven by the objective interests of the left part of society and the
working class, political developments such as Beazley's stand on
workplace agreements are a product of the pressure from the middle
layers of trade union activists, including a very large number of union
officials, the general viewpoint of whom is reasonably summarised by
John Robertson, the leader of Unions NSW.
These developments aren't exactly spontaneous, but the pressure for
them is coming more or less spontaneously from the active people in the
labour movement, and the far left is marginal in this.
The viewpoint of the middle layers of activists in the labour
movement can be summarised
as cautious support for mass mobilisations and industrial action,
stubborn determination that the unions and the state governments should
take the necessary legal action in the High Court, and a set of demands
on the political leadership of the Labor Party that they do the right
thing in government, which is the precondition for energetic support of
Labor in the elections.
The guarantees on the actions of Labor in government have now been met,
so from this point on it's all systems go for varied mobilisations,
including the ACTU advertisements, periodic industrial mobilisations
and a vigorous election campaign. That's not a bad perspective in
current conditions.
Unfortunately, most of the far left is preoccupied with a fantasy about
replacing Labor and the Greens electorally, and a bit removed from the
general labour movement perspective, to say the least. (Steve Jolly's
Melbourne-based Socialist Party, which is usually quite sane, has
chosen this moment for a rather sweeping attack on Laborism as
propaganda for its proposed new electoral party. Its modest newspaper,
which isn't too bad in some respects, lobbed in my letterbox yesterday,
and one of the central pieces of its attack on Laborism, to persuade
the masses to support the Socialist Party's new party proposal, is
an assertion that Labor won't abolish individual workplace agreements.
Politics sometimes moves much too fast for people with abstractions,
schemas and fantasies in their heads.)
The way the battle lines in Australia are drawn up in general politics
is well summarised from the point of view of his industrial and
political masters by Matt Price in the June 17 edition of The
Australian in the Inquirer section, headed “Do
or die for Labor's union
connections”.
|