The future of the Left in Australia, indeed worldwide, has been much discussed in Webdiary since it began in July 2000. Now that Tim Dunlop has ripped into the Labor leadership’s latest ‘vision’ (The Third Way: Window dressing for capitulation), you might be interested in what the disenfranchised fringe of the Party is doing.

Carmen Lawrence and others in the Western Australian Labor Party have started a website called Labor 21 (labor21). It has a draft charter for a new Labor and invites ALP members past and present to contribute ideas on policy and internal reform.

Lawrence now sees herself and others on the ‘left’ as dissenters from both Coalition and Labor policy. On April 26, she gave a speech to the Labor Women’s National Conference on dissent, and how to increase dissenter numbers.

Take one example of where mainstream Labor is right now. Federal Labor has had nothing to say about the rush of the Labor States, with federal support, to wipe out rights of the victims of negligence by professionals, builders and the like. Why tackle the problem at the little end of town – and with a sledgehammer – with nothing done about the structures of the insurance industry and the lawyers who feed off it? (See Webdiarist Dell Horey’s analysis of medical insurance in Blaming the victim, again)

The least you’d expect from Labor is a holistic approach – alternative dispute resolution, perhaps, small claims courts, a reduction in legal costs scales, tax reform to encourage regular payments rather than lump sums, a clean-up of hospital work practices. It would be fanciful to hope they’d go for something more radical – pushing the insurers and the lawyers and their fat profits out of the equation and having a national insurance scheme, but surely SOMETHING. Nothing on policy at all; instead the usual political pointscoring against the Coalition. .

Today, Lawrence’s answers to questions on Labor 21 which I sent her late last month, and an edited text of her speech.

***

Question: How did Labor 21 begin life, who is involved, and what is its purpose?

Lawrence: Following the last election, a number of members (and ex-members) of the ALP here in WA got together to discuss the disappointing election result and the direction in which the Labor Party was headed. One described it as a meeting of the “shrieking Diaspora”. Labor 21 is the initiative which resulted and it reflects our belief that the time is right for a fundamental re-evaluation of the Party. Although triggered by the November 2001 Federal Election result, the initiative goes far beyond identifying what Labor needs to do to be elected in 2004. The objective is clarification of the raison d’etre and processes of the party to ensure that it is a powerful, progressive force in Australian politics in the years and decades ahead – Labor for the 21st century.

We believe that there is very little chance that any review of the party’s objectives and policies will succeed without such reform. Membership needs to be broadened, real participation facilitated and a genuinely democratic structure devised. Only a radical rethink of the ALP’s membership and procedures will produce the necessary long-term improvement in the Party’s political fortunes and in our democracy.

Our party was founded on the great struggle between capital and labour in the early 20th century and is responsible for most of the progressive social outcomes in Australia of the last century. However it is a new century and we need to evolve to meet the new priorities we confront. Only a broadly based, genuinely democratic party with strongly enunciated principles can begin to address these priorities and meaningfully re-engage the Australian public in the political process that is at the heart of our democracy.

We have devised, as a starting point, a Draft Charter that we have called Labor 21. It is a brief document that, we hope, distills the key principles that should guide our policy development and internal reform.

Labor 21 has no factional affiliations – it is a forum dedicated to an open and public dialogue leading to specific proposals for change – and welcomes participation from all party members and supporters.

The objective of Labor 21 is re-invigorate the Labor Party by engaging in a broad-ranging public debate about:

* The party’s principles

* Membership, party organisation and processes

* The major issues confronting Australia

The direction of Labor 21 has been formulated to date by small group of people who have pooled their resources to establish this website and to organize public events and discussions. We are keen to expand this group as the initiative develops. We also hope to contribute to the formal review of the Federal ALP that is currently underway. We want to reach as many ALP members and supporters as possible and encourage them to develop a Labor 21 group in each state/territory to progress the initiative, and of course make suggestions about future policy and party reform. We will also facilitate an on-line discussion forum and, if we can get support around the country, public meetings and forums as well.

Q: Is this the first attempt to seriously engage Labor members, supporters and former supporters in helping to define a new vision for the Party? How successful has it been so far, and, ideally, how would you see its role in discussion about the party’s future?

We believe it is. The Hawke – Wran review is, unfortunately, not particularly visible to the wider community and the process does not allow for discussion. Neither does it include former members or supporters from whom a lot can be learned both about the Party’s failings and what needs to be done to maintain our appeal in the wider community.

While we still need to publicise the site more substantially and engage a more participants, we are pleased with the initial response. The fact that it is largely a voluntary effort, however, does limit our capacity to keep it fresh and relevant. We’re working on it.

Q: What’s gone wrong with the Labor left, when did the rot start, and is it united in seeking to regain a strong influence on policy?

That’s partly what we’re trying to flesh out – and a number of contributors to the discussion forum have already posted some of their analyses. We have also invited a number of academics and policy analysts to contribute to the discussion. It is my belief – shared by many on the left, that a fairly fundamental reworking of the Party’s principles and processes is required.

Q: What percentage of Labor members and senators would you see as left, what subfactions exist within the left, and why is it so divided?

I’ve, personally, given up on trying to understand the factions and their arcane rivalries. They are increasingly Balkanised and revolve around personalities and ancient regional and union disputes rather than differences in philosophy. There are people in the Left who are right of the Right and in the Right who are left of the Left ad absurdum. This is one of the features of the contemporary Labor Party which most alienates branch members and potential members.

Unfortunately, the grip of the factions is so firm, that most new members quickly find that there future in the Party is pretty bleak unless they attach themselves to a faction to provide them with a support base. It’s one of the reasons that reform is so important.

Q: Does the left as a whole support the Labor 21 vision, and if not, which faction/s of the left is behind it and why do other factions oppose the concept?

We haven’t sought endorsement and there are interested members from all factions. A lot of the people who contacted us are trying to break out of the factional constraints.

Q: Is the party itself generally supportive of Labor 21?

We seem to be tolerated, as long as we do not purport to be an official Labor Party website – which we are not.

Q: If Webdiarists would like to contribute to Labor 21, what particular areas are you most keen to seek their views and ideas on?

We’d be delighted to hear from webdiarists. We are seeking structured feedback in the form of short papers or comments that address the key policy and organisational issues confronting the party.We would also like comment on the Draft Charter and suggestions for improvement. We regard it as a “work-in-progress” to be improved via the dialogue generated by this forum.

We will try to stimulate debate on a range of issues under broad headings then assimilate these, firstly to finalise the Charter, and then to formulate specific proposals that can be communicated to the Party. We would also welcome suggestions on which issues should be the focus of our discussions over the next few months.

Short papers/suggestions are invited. We will add to and expand over the next few months. We will also post papers/articles that are pertinent to the discussion in the Discussion Papers section.

We are committed to achieving:

A fair, just and cohesive Australian society, respectful and proud of its aboriginal history and cultural diversity, mindful of its responsibilities to the global community, and unified by a commitment to secure sustainable quality of life for all its peoples through an inclusive political and community agenda which integrates social, economic and environmental priorities.

We will work to develop a society that:

Creates a new, inclusive national identity built on the diverse cultures of its citizens;

Is built on the genuinely democratic will of its members;

Applies sustainability principles to align economic, environmental and social goals;

Ensures that all share fairly in the wealth and resources of the community;

Respects the human rights of its citizens and peoples everywhere;

Values and respects our indigenous people;

Encourages and rewards education and innovation;

Emphasises the well-being of its citizens and prevention of illness and disability;

Treats stewardship of the environment seriously and effectively;

Regards creativity and freedom of expression as essential components of everyday life; and

Ensures that the satisfaction and security associated with a rewarding job is within the reach of everyone.

***

Fighting the ‘fingers in the air’ brigade

By Carmen Lawrence

We need to ask ourselves – why we got involved in politics, why we joined the ALP or why we support it. I’m sure, like you, I did not get involved in politics simply to be a loyal foot soldier for the ALP no matter what it stood for or what it did.

I’m sure we did not agree to abandon our principles and passions.

It is certainly reasonable to ask for the majority views to be reflected in policy and strategy. But are they? The Party should be, after all, what its members agree it to be But is it? And in any case, should we always abide by the majority decisions without demur? Are there occasions when dissent is the only honourable course?

Have women fought so hard to become involved only to be engulfed by the lowest common denominator of decision-making, by the dealmakers and fixers, by those who regard themselves as hard-headed realists and the rest, presumably as softheaded idealists?

We are at risk of being overwhelmed by those who’re obsessed with process and not principle, for whom open and energetic debate is said to indicate division and to be avoided at all cost. By those who fear the community and would rather follow it, with fingers in the air to see which way the wind’s blowing rather than taking a lead and bringing out the best in us. The alternative is the Howard mode, as Peter Carey put it of “feeding on the worst”.

I believe we are at a critical juncture in Australia’s history and that of the ALP. We are in disputed territory where all transformation occurs. A lot of the certainties of the past are under challenge – it takes brave souls to ride the boundaries and dispute the certainties of Howard’s brave new world.

We need progressive women who:

1. Oppose and argue against equating our well-being solely with the acquisition of more and more material possessions, although for those who genuinely have little this may be important.

As Mungo MacCallum writes entertainingly about the discovery of the “aspirational” voter,

“Of course, all voters are aspirational in that they aspire towards something, in most cases, a better life for themselves and their children. But today’s commentators are talking about someone with narrower goals. This key inhabitant of marginal seats is assumed to have (wrongly, I think) only one real aspiration: to gain as much as possible as quickly as possible and to hell with everyone else. He is uninterested in community and contemptuous of altruism; if he had a theme song, it would be that of the old working-class favourite, “The working class can kiss my arse, I’ve got the foreman’s job at last,” performed with immense gust and not a trace of irony. The aspirational voter is in fact the old Up-You-Jack punter a couple of steps further up the ladder.”

We need progressive women who:

2. Assert that inequality, not just poverty, does matter; that it corrodes the sense of commitment we have to one another; that is makes us uneasy; that it produces social problems and poor outcomes in health and education.

3. Resist the push toward individual solutions for all our social and economic problems; who argue persuasively for the adoption of solutions which narrow the gaps between us; which, “shock, horror”, redistribute wealth.

4. Are not afraid to stand against what are said to be majority views on Indigenous Australians and on asylum seekers; who affirm decent human rights standards. And who are prepared to say unequivocally why we do so – it’s not about process but about principle.

5. Who recognise that part of our task should be to bring the Australian community with us; not to treat them as incapable of changing their views and of being terminally bigoted. If people hear their leaders telling them that it’s OK to be racially intolerant – as Howard has often done- they may well be encouraged to do so. Howard has often signalled in code that bigotry is natural, that it is not only expected, but accepted.

6. Who also understand just how determined Howard is to remake Australia in his own image.

If we are to develop good polices, consistent with our claim to be progressive, we need to start with as set of values, yes, of ideals, to which we aspire as political activists.

They should not be for decoration, the detachable preamble to our policy documents. Rather, they should underpin everything we do – and they should not be abandoned at the faintest whiff of grapeshot.

Yes, there will always be a need to compromise and sometimes we will get it wrong (and I’ve done both), but I know that there are many people on the left of the political spectrum (not the ALP) who are feeling rudderless, even abandoned by our Party.

This is not just some pathetic nostalgia, or baby boomers being totally unrealistic or lacking in pragmatism; it is, I believe, born of a genuine desire to do better.

Many of those most vocal in expressing their discontent are indeed the young – and we are losing a great many of them.

I’m sure none of you got involved in politics just to play the game, satisfied with being in power to oversee incremental change; to aspire to modest gains, barely distinguishable from those which might be achieved by our political opponents.

I know we are constantly told that when it comes to the economy and the role of government – there is no alternative.

There are alternatives.

I believe we should at least explore an alternative intellectual framework which gives due weight to the distribution of wealth and work, which advocates environmentally sustainable growth, which encompasses the special circumstances of our Indigenous people, which rebalances the shares going to wages and profits; which improves working conditions, which sees that the huge gaps between the wealthy developed world and the desperately poor billions is not sustainable – or just.

There are alternatives – one size need not fit all.

As I said earlier, progressive women need to reignite enthusiasm for the protection of human rights; to affirm basic decency in our policies for Indigenous people and asylum seekers.

We need to repudiate prejudice and hatefulness wherever it occurs.

Good policy development should be based not only on values and the collection of evidence, statistics and information, but, fundamentally, on an understanding of the experiences and circumstances of those for whom policy is developed.

We should not enmesh ourselves in abstract issues and deflect attention from individual experience.

Understanding begins with sympathy – recognition of the shared human condition. We need to employ empathic imagination- how would I feel? What would I do in these circumstances?

We need to piece together the circumstances of people’s lives; to infer the intentions behind their actions from our general store of knowledge about human motivations and responses.

We should not fall for the propagandist’s three-card trick, which as Aldous Huxley put it is to “make one set of people forget that certain other sets of people are human”.

We need to remind ourselves in framing our policies that luck, rather than virtue, is one of the great determinants of life. H.G. Wells and his socialist friends began their influential Declaration of Rights with the observation that “since a man (sic) comes into the world through no fault of his own” and they might have added and with no choice over where and in what circumstances

I believe we need to revive Labor’s position as a champion of Human Rights – we were energetic in framing the original U.N. declaration and influential beyond our size in pulling others with us.

This is all the more important because as Mungo MacCallum put it so vividly in his essay “Girt by Sea”, “Having discarded politeness, the Howard mob now seeks to promote a sort of Forrest Gumpish ignorance as the national ideal.” Add to that a big dollop of meanness.

Of all nations, we should be in an ideal position as a people to understand and empathise with those who come to our shores:

* Some of us are descended from convicts who were extruded from their homelands and abandoned;

* Many of us are the grandchildren and great grandchildren of the Irish, exiled by oppression and starvation;

* Many of us are the children and grandchildren of the post-war refugees who were fleeing loss and persecution.

It doesn’t take a giant leap of the imagination to understand the self destructive and irrational behaviour of those who are detained in remote, dehumanising camps in remote locations; people who are held without the support of family, with no knowledge of their likely fates; without hope.

And all this after fleeing destruction, persecution and trauma.

The responses of depression, frustration, anger and destructiveness of self and others are all predictable – and most of us would do the same in comparable conditions.

Through hunger strikes and self harm many of these people are actually trying to maintain a modicum of control – albeit perversely- over their own loves.

They are also resisting the exercise of absolute power over their lives.

To deal with these issues – and the many others we face as a nation – we need progressive women, brave women, women of purpose and passion. We need you.