As the Coalition government gears up to push its budget through the Senate, the strategy of the ALP in opposition is becoming clearer. The budget process has allowed an increased public profile for the ALP, attempting to win back some political ground and support as a stable "alternative" government.
Under cover of rhetoric about avoiding a "national crisis", leader Kim Beazley has admitted that the ALP will not block the budget outright nor oppose key bills. The ALP intends to let the Liberals have their budget, and has instead mapped out a list of cuts that it will oppose, totalling $7.3 billion over four years.
These include: changes to HECS and cuts to Austudy; increased nursing home and prescription charges; an increased Medicare levy for higher income earners; the merging of CES and DSS; tougher tests for unemployment benefits; and a two-year benefit wait for migrants.
Marked public opposition (up to 60%, according to opinion polls) to budget measures in education, health and welfare, undoubtedly influenced which cuts were singled out by the ALP. Those budget measures seen as worthy of opposition in the Senate are the most unpopular ones. Cuts to ATSIC, which face less generalised opposition following a concerted racist campaign by the Liberals in the media, are absent from the ALP's list.
$16.1 billion of the Liberals' cuts of $23.4 billion over four years remain unopposed. This is the ALP "alternative": cutting the same things by only two-thirds. And this in itself is an ambit claim.
ALP grandstanding around the budget is made easier by the defection of Labor Senator Mal Colston and by the Democrats, who so far have pledged to oppose only $1 billion worth of cuts over two years: since Labor's amendments to the budget are unlikely to be passed, it can promise more of them.
A poll published in the Australian found that 60% of respondents thought the ALP would not have delivered a better budget. The ALP in government would be pursuing exactly the same neo-liberal agenda as the Liberals. ALP leaders have already revealed that they would not reverse Telstra privatisation or even repeal the industrial relations bill if re-elected.
The ALP's only strategy is to lie low, make the right noises around the right issues and bank on people coming back to the fold at the next election. Meanwhile, the broader campaign against the Liberals is kept under control by the ALP's arms in the trade unions and peak bodies of the social movements, tailoring it to Labor's electoral needs.
The ALP has to support and give voice to the fight back to some extent, but not so much that it might raise expectations that the ALP will be fundamentally different when re-elected.
This strategy was a dismal failure for the Labor Party, and even worse for the majority of people, in Victoria, where Kennett was returned to office with an increased majority. Sitting on the campaigns, stopping people from defending themselves, means that people get demoralised and accept as inevitable the more rabid economic rationalism of the Liberals. Then, it is hardly surprising that at election time people don't jump for the lacklustre "alternative" offered by the ALP.
The only campaign against the Liberals which can win is one which relies on the mobilisation of trade unions, students and other community groups in opposition to all the cuts, without being held hostage to the ALP's needs. So, while pushing the ALP as far as it will go against the Liberals, it is necessary to continue to build up campaigns independent of Labor and its electoral strategy.