A cosmetic change

A cosmetic change

The irony, of course, is that a large number of faction deals were necessary
to pull off an impression of a non-factional, unified party.

After the dust has settled, we are not left with much. The main issues
expected to cause debate — the proportion of union representation at state
ALP conferences and refugee policy — were both settled in favour of the
leadership.

The standardisation of affiliated unions' votes at state conferences
(which elect delegates to the ALP national conference) at 50% is a reduction
in only three states. It was opposed by a minority, including union militants,
in the left faction and a substantial number in the right faction.

Although it is likely that a majority of delegates opposed the motion,
it was passed because the left faction bound its members to vote for Crean's
“compromise”.

It would be foolish, however, to assume that this change represents
a move away from the integration of the union bureaucracy into the ALP
machine. The support offered to the motion by ostensibly left union leaders
such as Australian Manufacturing Workers Union national secretary Doug
Cameron indicates their awareness that the move is essentially cosmetic.

The battle for control within the ALP, as the conference more than amply
demonstrated, is not between unionists and MPs, but between different ALP
factions. And the factions are held together by career aims, not politics.

The most disappointing aspect of the conference was its complete failure
to discuss refugee policy. Although the review that promoted the conference,
headed by former NSW premier Neville Wran and former prime minister Bob
Hawke, was not designed to discuss policy, Hawke and Wran felt “compelled”
to comment on the party's refugee policy in their report.

Explaining that “no policy issue arose more frequently in our discussions”
with ALP members than refugee policy, Hawke and Wran implied that many
blamed the ALP's opportunist inhumanity for the party's defeat in the 2001
federal election. They even recommended a policy: maintaining mandatory
detention, while shifting asylum seekers from the Pacific island states
to Christmas Island.

The Hawke-Wran proposal would do nothing for asylum seekers. Since the
federal government excised Christmas Island from the migration zone, asylum
seekers there cannot appeal to Australia's court system against decisions
made by the immigration department. They do not have access to the protection
of Australian law. The Hawke-Wran “Indian Ocean” solution is a sick joke.

Members of Labor for Refugees were understandably outraged by this proposal.
Since the election, every indicator has shown that most ALP members are
unhappy with mandatory detention, and many deeply so. Several state ALP
conferences, including Queensland and NSW, have voted to end mandatory
detention of asylum seekers, and, consequently, many Labor for Refugees
members had felt they were close to a change in party policy.

But then, as it became clear that the Crean leadership faced a revolt
at the conference over asylum seeker policy, it announced that the topic
was not up for discussion.

In return for abandoning the discussion at the conference, Labor for
Refugees leader and NSW Labor Council secretary John Robertson scored a
place on a committee to discuss refugee policy, set up by the national
executive and chaired by ALP national president Greg Sword (Robertson's
initial proposal was for a more progressive committee, set up from the
conference. However, this was scuttled by the Labor right which forced
Crean to back down to a “safer” proposal).

Robertson is unlikely to achieve much. Crean has reiterated several
times since the conference that mandatory detention is “not-negotiable”.
Another internal committee is unlikely to change his mind.

Indeed, the committee is a sop to distract Labor for Refugees activists
from pursuing a more effective strategy: maintaining and increasing mass
pressure for policy change through public displays of opposition to mandatory
detention.

From Green Left Weekly, October 16, 2002.

Visit the Green Left Weekly
home page. 

From GLW issue 512