BY
DICK NICHOLS
Since it was initiated several weeks ago by the Socialist Alliance,
the petition campaign to call on the opposition parties in the Senate to
block the 2003 federal budget by voting against all its military provisions
has gathered significant support.
That’s because tens of thousands of Australians who see PM John Howard
for what he is — a war criminal — also understand that the ALP, Greens
and Democrats senators could force him to face the people at an early federal
election.
However, a number of political figures are already expressing doubts
about this call. For example, Ben Oquist, spokesperson for Greens Senator
Bob Brown, has rejected endorsing the campaign. Some wonder if it is wise
to give Howard a chance to win an early election, especially when Labor
leader Simon Crean's present rating in the polls is so pathetically low.
Here are some answers to the main objections to the proposal:
Objection 1: It will hurt the poor by allowing the government to
block all spending.
The budget doesn't have to be opposed as a whole. The Greens, Democrats
and ALP senators could move to excise from the budget all expenditure on
military matters until Australian troops are withdrawn from Iraq or the
government goes to the polls.
Objection 2. Cutting all military expenditure would bring the armed
services to a halt!
That is precisely what should happen, until all Australian forces are
withdrawn from Iraq. Then all normal expenditure could be resumed.
Objection 3. Blocking the military spending provisions of the budget
does not automatically produce an election.
Although an election might not be held for up to six months, any delay
would help the opposition parties. It would further dramatise the fact
that the Coalition government (perhaps in collusion with the governor-general)
was desperate to avoid accountability for its war policy. A double dissolution
election, even if delayed, would still mean that the government would be
made to face the people earlier than if it were allowed to run its full
term. We would then have a chance to get rid of one of the vilest governments
in Australian history.
Objection 4. The ALP will not support blocking the budget.
Of course, the ALP doesn't want to be put in the position of blocking
the military provisions of the budget and Simon Crean's office has come
out with a range of excuses as to why this is “impossible”. However, what
the ALP will or won't do depends on how strong the campaign becomes. Don't
forget how Labor's position on the war on Iraq shifted under the pressure
of mass demonstrations.
Objection 5. The left has opposed using these powers since Liberal Malcolm
Fraser and Governor-General John Kerr threw out Gough Whitlam.
Whitlam's 1975 budget was blocked for totally imaginary misdemeanours.
In waging war on Iraq, the Howard government has committed actual crimes
and is seen by many as totally illegitimate.
Objection 6. We can have no confidence that Howard wouldn't win such
an election.
If Howard was certain to win now, then there would be no stopping him
from winning the next election, whenever it is held. It’s not true that
there is no way of creating an anti-Howard political majority, or that
the only way the Coalition will be defeated is if it is overwhelmed by
some domestic political disaster.
Just add up the people who oppose the war and occupation of Iraq and
hate Australia's role as sidekick to US imperialism; oppose Howard's brutal
and racist treatment of asylum-seekers; hate his cuts to health and education
and handouts to the rich; rightly fear that his “anti-terrorist” legislation
will strangle our democratic rights; and oppose his attacks on the unions.
There you have the real “natural majority” in Australian society — if we
all stood together.
Objection 7. But the ALP won’t lead the sort of campaign that would
produce that result.
Probably not, but the Labor Party is susceptible to pressure. It is
already losing votes to the Greens, most of whose preferences flow back
to Labor. If Greens leaders were to champion the campaign to block the
budget, and seriously contribute to building a movement against it, the
shift to the Greens would be even greater. If there was a strong grassroots
campaign for it, even if Howard managed to win, he would confront a strengthened
mass movement and a strengthened left.
Objection 8. Many trade union leaders feel that the majority of their
members supported the war, and are pleased that the “democratic” US-Britain-Australia
coalition has got rid of Saddam Hussein.
The unions that campaigned against the war developed and deepened opposition
to it. That was the case, for example, with the Construction, Forestry,
Mining and Energy Union in Western Australia, which had a number of stoppages
and demonstrations against the war. Of course, where union leaderships
have done next to nothing to defend their members, they can hardly expect
members to rally when they pose as being opposed to the war. In such unions,
it's up to the rank-and-file activists to continue the fight against war
and occupation.
Objection 9. The petition campaign is actually a dangerous diversion
from the “real struggle”. The only way to get rid of Howard is through
mass protest.
The “Make Howard face the people” petition campaign isn't counterposed
to ongoing mobilisations. In fact, it makes these more likely because it
gives protest and industrial action a focus.
The criminal and illegitimate government in Canberra, which is daily
involved in crimes against the peoples of Iraq, can be removed. Why not
organise to do it? What's the alternative?
[Dick Nichols is a national convener of the Socialist Alliance. Visit
<http://www.socialist-alliance.org>.]
From Green Left Weekly, April 23, 2003.
Visit the Green Left Weekly
home page.
