Wednesday, 22 October 2014
In 1972, the AWU, one of Australia’s largest union, then and now, officially abandoned its commitment to the White Australia Policy. If some find it surprising that the glorious AWU left its distinctly inglorious past, er, rather late, it perhaps shows how much we now view the past through the prism of the political settlement that followed, a political settlement that Whitlam had a leading role in making, but at the time of his death, is now unravelling.
There were three aspects to that political settlement that Whitlam had a hand in during his political heyday in the late 60s and early 70s. The first was international, especially Whitlam’s visit to China. The second was both international and domestic, the abandonment of the White Australia immigration policy and the impact it would have on Labor and its relations to the unions. The third was domestic, most notably the resolution of the “indigenous question”.
It’s perhaps best to start with the international situation, as that provides the context for what else happened. When Whitlam made his surprise visit to China in 1971 as opposition leader, it became the clearest indication that the Coalition’s 23 year period in office was coming to an end. The McMahon government’s attack on Whitlam for making the visit blew up in its face as Nixon followed shortly after, and for the Coalition, being out of step with the US is generally not an option.
The move towards China was not so much because of what was happening in China. Whitlam’s visit was during the height of the Cultural Revolution. While Whitlam was visiting cultural treasures, Mao’s Red Guards were busy smashing others up elsewhere.
More the trigger was a much bigger problem for Australian and US governments, the containment of Vietnam after the tide turned against the US military in the Vietnam war. The US setbacks in Vietnam resulted in a realignment of US and Australian foreign policy in the region with hopes that its neighbours could assist in the job. China obliged by supporting the anti-Vietnam Pol Pot regime in Cambodia, and then directly by invading Vietnam from the north in 1979, the year the US reopened formal relations with Beijing. In Australia this strategy of containing Vietnam reached its dismal low with Fraser sticking to recognising the murderous Pol Pot regime even after Vietnam invaded and toppled it.
The realignment forced by defeat in Vietnam, however, was part of a broader accommodation to rising strength of anti-colonial liberation movements in Asia and Africa that forced the major western powers to tone some of the more overt trappings of colonialism. The UK wound down the overt symbols of Empire and the US began dealing with segregation in the south.
For Australia, which like Rhodesia and South Africa, had formally racist policies in both in its treatment of indigenous people and the White Australia immigration policy, this posed particular problems, especially for Labor given that it was the union movement that was the bedrock of WAP. Fortunately, without the pressure of black majorities such as faced by Rhodesia and South Africa, Australia had more flexibility and avoid the ostracism they began to suffer from the 1960s.
Nevertheless, while the Menzies and Holt government were dismantling the White Australia policy, Labor and the unions were arguing over it. Attempts to remove “White Australia” from the ALP’s immigration policy failed in the 1957 and 1961 Conferences, finally succeeding in being dropped in the 1965 Conference.
The move to dump the White Australia policy was a key point of difference between then Labor leader Calwell and his deputy Gough Whitlam and others of the “New Guard”, who Calwell referred to as “long-hairs” in the party. But for Whitlam, dropping the White Australia Policy not only pitched him against the Labor leadership and much of the Federal Executive, but also against the unions, many of which, most notably the AWU, held on to the policy long after.
The WAP became one moral stick used by Whitlam to beat the unions with and reduce their power in the ALP after Whitlam took over the leadership in 1967. They weren’t the only target. While Whitlam is now lauded by the left, it is hard to think of any Labor leader that was so committed to eroding their influence in the party, most notably with his intervention in the Victorian party in 1970.
Eroding the influence of the unions and the left in the ALP, politely known as “modernisation”, was done to improve Labor’s electoral success given the growing social irrelevance of both. And it worked. It’s hard to remember now after the 1975 and 1977 election debacles, but electorally, Whitlam is Labor’s most successful leader behind Hawke, with what was called at the time the new “technocrat Labor” model.
Yet the Whitlam government showed the paradox of that technocrat approach. While modernising Labor helped broadened its appeal to get into government, eroding the union ties also undermined its rationale for being there. When economic turbulence hit in 1973-75, the Labor government was limited in its ability to use its relations with the unions to bring in a counter-crisis strategy. It is telling that Whitlam attempted to get powers over incomes through the failed 1973 referendum, rather than directly negotiating with the unions that were engaged in a wages push when inflation started to pick up in 1973-4.
By the Terrigal conference of 1975, Labor was on a program to cut spending that was reaffirmed in the Hayden Budget later that year. But in doing so, Labor had only managed to reproduce what the conservatives could do, and argued for, and so undermined its own case for government. It was something that was hidden behind the 1975 election, which Whitlam posed as being about Constitutional outrage but was really about the economy. The importance of the union relationship was a key lesson learnt by the next Labor government as the unions banded together under Hawke’s Accord to impose real wage cuts on its members in one last hurrah.
It’s become traditional now for Labor supporters to start to defend the Whitlam government’s economic record as not being bad as everyone claimed, a budget surplus every year (which no government has produced since), international factors etc. etc. and that responsible last Hayden Budget. It is true, conservatives do seem to have a special focus on the Whitlam government that seems all out of proportion to its actual record, and reforms that have generally had bipartisan support.
But to understand the role the Whitlam government plays for conservatives, and indeed the political class as a whole, it is perhaps worthwhile to look at the third side of the Whitlam program, the domestic, and the one issue that goes to the very heart of the political nature of the Australian state, the indigenous question.
As with the dropping of the White Australia Policy, it was international considerations that drove reform of the treatment of indigenous people. It was certainly the primary driver of the need for the Federal government to take over the powers to make laws specifically for indigenous peoples that had explicitly been excluded from the so-called “race powers” since Federation. It was the inclusion of indigenous people under these race powers that was the primary purpose of the 1967 referendum.
The 1967 referendum remains widely misunderstood as about equality, and rather disingenuously promoted by supporters of the Recognition campaign today, when in reality it was about the opposite, an extension of racially based laws by the federal government to apply to indigenous people that would allow Australia to comply with international obligations.
The basis of that settlement could be called a compromise, in that it didn’t give indigenous communities full equality, but removed the formal restrictions and replaced them with an informal one based on cultural differences.
Like all compromises it is contradictory. At one level it was supposed to be about removing discrimination, emphasised by Whitlam bringing in the Racial Discrimination Act in 1975. But on the other hand the settlement relied on the application of racially based laws under the race powers. It is why every time those race powers are exercised, such as they were in the 2007 intervention, the RDA has to be suspended. The RDA is a farce while we still have the race powers.
Unfortunately given that race powers are the basis of the political settlement around land rights, those who support land rights must keep the race powers. Hence all the slipping and sliding we have around the sometimes rather disingenuous recognition campaign, which poses as merely bland symbolism but in fact is not.
The second most important contradiction of the indigenous settlement is the one it presents over the very existence of the nation state. “Land rights” was imposed as a two state solution, of sorts, with the legal and constitutional logic working out over the years through the Wik and Mabo judgements and all the symbols that accompany it of the two flags, the welcome to country etc. etc.
In reality, of course, the two states solution is phoney and the result has been to effectively make indigenous communities wards of the one, Australian, state. But for conservatives, it epitomises the problem with the compromise of the political settlement, and if there is one thing that defines Australian conservatives is their attempt to attack and wind back that compromise.
It is this that has made Whitlam the bête noire of conservatives as the architect of this compromise, even if their own side played a part in bringing it about, born as it was out of necessity. It is why such a hoo-hah is made of his economic record even if it’s just a not really about that but the more politically sensitive issues behind the settlement that they are too weak to confront directly.
As for the left, they are largely trapped in that political settlement just as the defenders of the status quo in indigenous affairs end up defending what is hardly a desirable result. There have been New Thinkers, of course, on the Labor side, but this New Thinking usually comes when they are out of power and so not hindered by the institutions that would oppose any change to a political settlement they rely on.
Yet it is unravelling anyway. We saw that with the NT intervention when acceptance of cultural difference allowed the broad unquestioning of outrageous claims of widespread sexual abuse by indigenous communities of their children that was never proven. And we see it now where the prism of multiculturalism makes both sides of politics incapable of coming to terms with home grown terrorism that Australia has exported to Iraq, except to understand it as a foreign threat.
While it unravels, it is clear, as detectable in the plaintive tone in the obituaries over the last couple of days, that there is no one in the political class these days with Whitlam’s breath and scope of intellect to forge a new settlement, leaving the current lot to scramble around as best they can. It’s perhaps for the best that Gough’s not around to see the hash they’ll make of it.18 comments
Thursday, 28 August 2014
So I imagine that from time to time they would want a different captain but nevertheless, that’s what he said, that we’re all part of Team Australia and you’re our captain.
Captain Australia, 20 August 2014
A curious obliviousness has descended over the political scene and its commentary to the escalation of tensions over Iraq. Partly it comes from the desperation of a government thinking that it will solve its significant political problems. Partly it comes from the opposition’s fear it will as well, on top of the normal shutdown it has over anything to do with national security, especially under its current leader.
But it’s also to do with the complications behind the current escalation that neither side wants to see. Read more …11 comments
Monday, 11 August 2014
What this government is trying to do is trying to stop Australian Muslims travelling overseas to murder other Muslims. They’re going to Iraq, they’re going to Syria. There are Sunnis targeting Shiites. This is not an anti-Muslim attitude; this is an attitude that’s trying to save the lives of other Muslims from being attacked by Australian Muslims. Read more …
Thursday, 31 July 2014
We’ve got a situation where Tony Abbott’s become the strongest leader in the world on this issue.
Right now there could well be remains exposed to the European summer, exposed to the ravages of heat and animals.
As a prime minister of a country, how does a tragedy like this affect you at a personal level?
Context is all.
The last few weeks have reminded that in recent years something rather unpleasant has entered politics, and the commentary that surrounds it. It is not only unpleasant to watch but has caused politicians to fumble on sensitive issues and commentators to completely mis-read the impact on the electorate at home. Read more …15 comments
Tuesday, 15 July 2014
I’m determined to get on with governing
T Abbott 11 July 2014
I’m determined to get on with the job of governing,
J Gillard 31 January 2013
The Labor Party was formed to represent the workers, the Liberals to represent business, the Nationals to represent people in rural and regional Australia. But Palmer United was formed simply out of hatred for Campbell Newman.
Senior Coalition member talking to Laurie Oakes
We have got situation normal.
If this is situation normal, why doesn’t it feel like it?
As commentators have said, dealing with tricky players in the Palmer United Party isn’t new. Steve Fielding and Nick Xenophon weren’t exactly a barrel of laughs for the Rudd government either. Even the Australian Democrats on their high horse could give Howard headaches.
The difference is not so much Palmer, but the weak position of the government that is negotiating with him. Read more …19 comments
Friday, 30 May 2014
The South Australian Labor Party is so clearly out of talent it has to reach into the ranks of the Liberal Party to fill its Ministry.
Liberal MP Jamie Biggs’s response to Hamilton-Smith’s defection. Perhaps not quite thought through.
If Queensland continues to show with its latest product that it remains the home of anti-politics, on Tuesday South Australia showed, in fairly spectacular fashion, that it remains the home of its flipside, the political class’s response of technocracy.
Hamilton-Smith’s defection is, of course, not the first seen in Australian politics, nor is it the first time this state Labor government has had political opponents in the cabinet, with ex-Liberals like Rory McEwan and National MP Karlene Maywald in the Rann Labor Cabinet. Yet there are some features of not only the defection, but the response to it, that make it illustrative of the curious state of politics today. Read more …4 comments
Monday, 19 May 2014
If there is one thing that sums up the contradiction in the government’s position that is behind what is turning into a political disaster, is that a few weeks before the Budget came out, the Commission of Audit proposed one of the most radical overhauls of the Australian economy in fifty years – to one of the weakest governments capable of implementing it. Read more …37 comments
Tuesday, 22 April 2014
Cutting funding to ICAC would be a coward’s response to the most important accountability mechanism in the state.
John Kaye, Greens Upper House NSW MP
It’s perhaps understandable that an Upper House MP may be unaware, relying as they do on the benefice of party machines, that the “most important accountability mechanism” in NSW remains the electorate, which in the last election did a pretty good job of making a tawdry and corrupt Labor government accountable by removing not only the Premier, but the entire Ministry and over half of the government MPs from their jobs. Beat that ICAC! Read more …14 comments
Monday, 7 April 2014
There are some important issues arising from the government’s move to repeal 18C in the Racial Discrimination Act. Unfortunately they are obscured by posturing anti-racism on the left and posturing libertarianism on the right when in reality it is about neither. Read more …21 comments
Monday, 24 February 2014
This is a breach of our sovereignty and the Indonesians need to understand that, instead of a lot of pious rhetoric about the Australian Government breaching their sovereignty
Lord Downer, just a few months ago
We will decide.
From happier times.
The panic about asylum seekers is primarily a panic of the political class, that politicos on the left and right continually project onto the public, but for whom polls show it remains no more than a middling concern. It is a panic out of all proportion to its real impact because asylum seekers capture two concerns that the political class has no solution for: a declining social base (Labor) and authority and “sovereignty” (the Coalition).
During the Rudd-Gillard period we saw asylum seekers become a political football between Rudd and Gillard centred on Labor’s insecurities about its lack of social base. Under the Coalition, asylum seekers are now becoming a political football over an even more sensitive issue, sovereignty. Read more …26 comments