|
|
|
.jpg)
National Observer Home > No. 67 -Summer 2006 > Articles Mr Mark Latham and the Labor Partyby John Stone National Observer
John Stone analyses the published diaries of the Labor Party’s former federal leader.
Although only published last September, The Latham Diaries, by former Labor leader Mark Latham, has sunk almost entirely from public mention. Yet the book remains one of the most significant works published in Australia last year, and a “must read” for anyone interested in the future (or the recent past) of Australian politics. “To adapt Dr Johnson’s famous — though, in these politically correct days, no longer frequently quoted — dictum about a woman preaching, it is not so much that Mr Mark Latham’s book is well done, as that one is surprised to see it done at all.” You might think that this quote refers to The Latham Diaries. 1 In fact, it represents the opening paragraph of my Adelaide Review article, more than seven years ago, reviewing an earlier book of Mr Latham’s, Civilising Global Capital. 2 In preparing to review Mr Latham’s recent book, I turned up that earlier appraisal. “The increasingly well-known Labor member for Werriwa appears, at the [then] age of 37, to have been in politics all his adult life. After an Economics Honours degree at Sydney University in 1982, he served on ex-Prime Minister Gough Whitlam’s staff for five years before becoming, in turn, a Councillor and then Mayor of Liverpool Council (1987-94), and was then pre-selected for his safe Labor seat (held earlier by Mr Whitlam) in the January, 1994 by-election after the resignation of Mr Whitlam’s successor, Mr. John Kerin. … Mr. Latham is thus an example of that increasingly common phenomenon on both sides of Australian politics today — young men, and increasingly women, who enter Parliament without ever having engaged in anything much else than politics. With respect to all concerned, that is not a good training for presiding over the lives of ordinary Australians; and in this book, that shows.” 3 If there is one lesson above all from The Latham Diaries, it is encapsulated in that last sentence. Whatever else Mr. Latham’s career may have demonstrated, his diaries make it clear beyond all doubt that it was “not a good training for presiding over the lives of ordinary Australians”. And “in this book, it shows” over and over again. Yet this was the man whom, in December 2003, the Australian Labor Party elected to lead it; the man who thereby became overnight the darling of almost all our media; and the man who, but for the grace of God and John Howard, might well have become our Prime Minister in the 2004 federal election. I should acknowledge, however, that that earlier review did not divine — because we had not then been given the evidence for it, now so abundantly available — the wholly unsavoury nature of the man. When The Latham Diaries first appeared (foreshadowed by first a trickle, then a torrent, of “teaser” leaks from either Mr Latham himself or his publishers, Melbourne University Press), a frisson of horror ran through Australia’s commentariat, for two reasons. First, politically Left-leaning almost to a man or woman, they were appalled that “their” Labor Party should be under such savage attack by the man who, until eight months previously, had been its leader. After all, only a year earlier they had done their damnedest to press upon the electorate his claims to become Prime Minister. Second, as further details became available, the even more horrifying truth dawned that Latham’s attack was directed not only at his Party and almost everyone in it, but also (and to the commentariat even more importantly) at them! How could this be? How could loyalty be so bitterly — and worse still, in many respects so truthfully — rewarded? These, then, were the two aspects that concerned the commentariat. They rapidly led to the emergence of its more or less common “line” that the book was repellent (which in many respects it is), overtly dishonourable (again, true) and not worthy of serious attention (quite untrue, for reasons I shall come to). But while there is much in both aspects which is truly unsavoury, and which has opened its author to easily available attack by his former supporters in the Canberra Press Gallery, there is nevertheless a further aspect of the book. Encompassing a view shared by few among the commentariat, it is summed up in the title of that 1998 review, A Curate’s Egg. When I first read the more or less sensational press reports arising from The Latham Diaries, my first instinct was to feel that this was a book I would not bother to read. However, as it became apparent that so many of the critics were principally motivated (though this was never admitted) by their desire to protect “their” Labor Party, or by their own guilty involvement in the 2004 era of Latham worship, I changed my mind. Civilising Global Capital was a curate’s egg both of penetrating insights into the Labor Party’s then economic policy problems, on the one hand, and of much less than penetrating prescriptions for addressing those problems, on the other. Although the two books are poles apart in their nature, something of the same can be said of The Latham Diaries. Interspersed among all the hatred, the violence, and the sheer nastiness of the personality that the book reveals, there are many passages that shed valuable light on the inner workings of Australia’s oldest political party, and devastatingly analyse its present problems. Significantly, however, those passages provide no prescription (or at least, none that the Labor Party is likely to accept) for addressing them. Chief among those problems is the one to which, in 1998, Mr. Latham was already directing attention, namely: 4 “... whenever federal Labor has lost heavily at the polls it has had to fundamentally reinvent itself to regain office ... Labor, in attempting to deal with changed circumstances, has never actively pursued the resurrection of lapsed policies . . .”. While the latter part of that statement involved some gilding of the lily, its opening proposition is incontestable. In that 1998 review I said that “a more pithy description of Labor’s ‘back to the future’ policy formation process since its massive 1996 defeat would be hard to formulate”. The same can be said today of the policy formation processes in which Labor has engaged for almost ten years now since the Keating-inspired wipe-out of March 1996. In what follows I shall, therefore, focus on the three aspects mentioned: Mr. Latham’s attacks upon his Party; his opinions about the commentariat and its more prominent personalities; and his analysis of Labor’s problems in presenting itself, today, as a viable political party (not least among them, the problem of having Mr Kim Beazley as its leader).
Mr. Latham’s Attacks upon His Party These attacks take two forms, the general and the personal. The latter, in particular, are so numerous that a whole article could be devoted to cataloguing them. As to the former, consider this description 5 of “five big policy areas where Kim [Beazley] has gutted us” (178): • “We love the symbolism of the Republic, reconciliation and immigration … yet at election time we know these issues are uncampaignable. We treat them like a mad uncle in the attic.” • “We want more government spending on education, health and just about everything else, yet the fiscal well has run dry.” • “We look to the welfare state to solve poverty, yet it has no answers to the social dimension of the problem …” • “We want to plan and control industries, yet the complexity of the new economy makes this impossible. Our attempt ends up looking like “We want to run the country and modernise its institutions, yet our own structure is moribund — trade unions, local branches, Party conferences, preselection processes, plus our policy-making culture.” As to Labor’s National Executive: “If we win the next election, my first act will be to abolish that horrible, wretched thing called the National Executive” (251). He probably could not have done so, but as they say, it is the thought that counts. Or consider this general comment about his parliamentary colleagues (9 December 2004, after his re-election as Leader): “Sod them all. Mao Zedong was once asked about his party elite and replied, ‘They complain all day long. … They eat three full meals a day and fart’. That’s a good summary of how I feel about my colleagues. The only good news is that … I won’t have to look at them again until February.” Or this, from the May 2005 Epilogue (414): “These conversations further strengthened my view that the Labor Party is irreparably broken. It’s an organisation based on a corrosive and dysfunctional culture …” There is much more in this general vein. To move now to the personal, consider the following examples of the author’s views about his parliamentary (and other) Party colleagues: • Anthony Albanese (leader of Labor’s Hard Left faction): “Crean calls him a habitual liar, and I think that’s right” (252). • Jennie George (Member for Throsby; formerly President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions): “A big disappointment. … Too many visits to the Holy Grail” [a Canberra nightclub much frequented by journalists and the more foolish politicians] (251). • Jenny Macklin (Member for Jagajaga and Deputy Leader of the Opposition): “… totally ineffective … As useful as pockets in your underpants” (251). • Dr Craig Emerson (Member for Rankin): “… an untrustworthy piece of work” (250). • Kevin Rudd (Member for Griffith; often touted, particularly by Kevin Rudd, as a successor to Kim Beazley as Labor leader): “I’ve had a suspicion for some time now that Rudd has been feeding material to [Laurie] Oakes [of Channel 9 and The Bulletin]. Decided to set him up, ... Today, right on cue, Jabba [Oakes] has written in The Bulletin [what was previously fed to Rudd]. Trapped him. … Rudd is a terrible piece of work: addicted to the media and leaking” (280). • Julia Irwin (Member for Fowler): “… No, Julia, your innate sense of treachery comes first” (220-21). • Robert McClelland (Member for Barton and Shadow Minister for Defence): “... lacks character ... weak at heart” (250). Scathing though most of these, and many other such personal appraisals are, they are as nothing to those relating to the present Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Beazley. The index to the book lists some 162 references to him, and it would be fair to say that 80 per cent are critical, many of them highly so. For example: • “Gough’s right: this bloke is the worst former leader of the Party since Calwell” (219). • “… the compliant windbag from the West” (220).
Mr. Latham’s attacks upon the media Commenting generally on the ultimate cynicism of the Canberra Press Gallery, Mr Latham relates a nice bon mot about Talleyrand, who on hearing the news that the Russian Ambassador had died, is reported to have said: “I wonder what his motive would have been?” Like Talleyrand, the press gallery is “too cynical for its own good” (368). Reading this, I was reminded of the occasion recently when our media, led by the ABC, viciously attacked John Howard for introducing new anti-terrorist legislation, cynically accusing him of only having done so to take the heat off the government over its industrial relations legislation. A few days later, 19 alleged terrorists were arrested in Sydney and Melbourne, yet the absence of apologies from the media was striking. Mr. Latham got some things right, even if the media do not want to admit it. He was right again with this: “Another characteristic of media celebrities [like John Laws]: they are political players — the great luxury in life of having their opinions aired every day, and exercising public influence” (270). Mr. Latham’s most damaging shots are reserved, however, for particular media personalities. Again, only a selection can be given: • Shaun Carney (The Age): “Another snake in the grass ... When I was Shadow Treasurer he rang me to offer his services in ‘psychoanalysing’ Costello [whose biography, with Costello’s co-operation, Carney had previously written], identifying his weaknesses and exploiting them . . .” (287). • Alan Ramsey (The Sydney Morning Herald): “… [Barry Donovan’s book] is not much chop — a long series of quotes and speech extracts. It’s like an Alan Ramsey article in book form” (332). • Mike Steketee (The Australian): “... a fairly jaundiced piece by Creeping Jesus ... The guy’s not even thorough ... ten errors of fact that I can see” (204). • Glenn Milne (Channel 7 and The Australian): “... the Poisoned Dwarf” (311). • Phillip Adams (ABC Radio National and The Australian): The comments on Adams are so scathing (particularly at 165-66) as to be not appropriate for reproduction in this family journal. • Samantha Maiden (The Australian): “A barfly from the Holy Grail …” (311). • Elizabeth Jackson (ABC Four Corners program): “... the tedium of a Liz Jackson interview, the most self-obsessed, repetitive journalist I have come across . . .” (354). • Laurie Oakes: “A kindergarten commentator” (397). • Geoffrey Barker (The Australian Financial Review). Contrasting two articles by Barker, one of 9 October 2004 (the day before the election), the other of 22 October: “One week I was the Colossus of Canberra, the next a Galapagos Duck” (390). • Bob Ellis (described as “court jester to Bob Carr and Beazley”): “Trading in gossip and smut, he has sent us further down the American way, where all that is private is ultimately made public ... [He’s] a dangerous lord of political poison” (81, quoting from an article of Latham’s in The Daily Telegraph of 30 October 1998). Some might suggest that “trading in gossip and smut” and “a dangerous lord of political poison” would be suitable epitaphs for Mr. Latham and his diaries. However, there is more to his book than these excerpts would suggest.
The Labor Party and Its Problems As Mark Latham said in 1998, “whenever federal Labor has lost heavily at the polls it has had to fundamentally reinvent itself to regain office”. After having been out of office for 23 years, it did so (or at least appeared to do so) in the lead-up to the 1972 election. After another three terms in Opposition it did so again, and this time to a much greater degree in practice, in the lead-up to the 1983 election. Yet since its huge loss in 1996, when voters finally felt free to take their baseball bats to Paul Keating without risking, as in 1993, an equally unacceptable alternative (Dr John Hewson), Labor has made no attempt “to fundamentally reinvent itself”. The most important lesson to be drawn by Labor from the 1996 election was that the New Class policies of the Keating Government were fundamentally repugnant to its traditional support base. That earlier quoted passage about “the Republic, reconciliation and immigration” (178) says it all. Yet as Latham points out, since 1996 the electorate has been moving even further away from the style of government which voters then so unequivocally rejected. Thus: • “Consistently, throughout the year [2004], our polling showed that 60 per cent of people thought the country was headed in the right direction • “That’s the tragedy of our dumb Party. It gave away the best parts of the Hawke/Keating economic legacy under Beazley . . No wonder we lost on the question of economic credibility” (343). • “We gave away our economic credibility post-1996: we need to rebuild it ... appealing to the new class of free agents and entrepreneurs” (380). • “... we have lost the support of the economic force agents, the contractors and the consultants, the big winners in the new economy, who just want governments to get out of the way” (368). • “Australia’s economic and political base has been transformed and our future [as a Party] is far from assured. We either pull together and modernise our economic policies, or we will collapse as a political party” (368). What evidence is there of Labor today modernising its economic policies? To the contrary, as I write the current parliamentary session is chiefly marked by Labor’s last-ditch rearguard action (with, still, the fervent collaboration of most of the Canberra Press Gallery) against the government’s industrial relations measures and in defence of the interests of the trade union bosses. According to Latham, however, the trade unions, and particularly their bosses, are a major part of Labor’s problem. For example: • “... people have broken free from large, hierarchical organisations and become agents of their own economic future ... Workers are more discerning and self-reliant. Large, centralised institutions (that is, the unions) are less relevant” (374). A year or so earlier, over dinner with Sharan Burrow (President of the ACTU) and Greg Combet (ACTU Secretary), Latham records two propositions (254): • “I’m not opposed to unionism per se, just the idea of six union secretaries sitting around a Chinese restaurant table planning the future for everyone else.” • “If they want people like me to take unionism seriously, they need to give us better Senators and stop sending their rejects to Canberra.” Moreover, the matter of trade union representation in the parliamentary party goes beyond the quality of those it sends there, because “the trade union amalgamations have also added to the problem, entrenching union-based power blocks within the federal Caucus ... all of them shop stewards for their union’s interests” (399). In turn, this phenomenon is merely one part of the much more extensive problem of factional control of the Party: • “We have become a machine party, constructed around factions and yes-men . . .” (360). • “We need to change the way the Party operates ... We have 88 federal MPs and 31 of them are so-called powerbrokers” (380). In this connection see the fascinating Appendix 1, Who’s Who in the Factional Zoo (mid-2003). [They] aren’t interested in policy, only factions and patronage” [referring to Senator Stephen Conroy, of the Victorian Right] (367). And he sums up in these bitter words: “The so-called party of compassion, living off the spears it puts into its own people. None of it up front and honest — a secret society of slurs and personal attacks” (395).
Conclusion Bernard Lagan’s biography of Mark Latham, Loner: Inside a Labor Tragedy, was published some months earlier than The Latham Diaries. Its rear cover “puff” says that it “uncovers the bitter struggle and brutal realities of Labor’s inner crisis and the legacy of the man who was to be his party’s saviour”. It is of course nonsense to suggest that Latham ever looked like being “his party’s saviour” to anyone other than the Canberra Press Gallery. But the “brutal realities of Labor’s inner crisis” are real enough, both as displayed in Lagan’s book and, even more starkly, in Latham’s own diaries. It is important to recall how and why Mark Latham came to the leadership of his Party. First and foremost he owed his leadership to the machinations of Laurie Brereton, whom his long-time friend Paul Keating long ago christened “Danger Man”. Mr. Brereton’s own motivations appear to have chiefly derived from his personal hatred for the former Leader of the Opposition, Simon Crean, for having failed to support Brereton’s sister, Mrs Deirdre Grusovin, when her preselection in her State seat was successfully challenged in 2003. Still, the Brereton machinations on Mr. Latham’s behalf could not have been successful had Mr. Crean been an effective Leader of the Opposition; or for that matter, had there been any effective alternative to Mr. Latham in succeeding him (apart from Mr. Beazley, who lost that leadership contest by one vote). The lack of real talent within a Party that has now been forced to revert to another term of leadership by Mr. Beazley is itself an ominous portent for Labor’s future. One closes this book with conflicting emotions. If tragedy consists of the working out of flaws of character inherent from the outset in the protagonist, then Mr. Latham’s career was truly a tragedy. His diary is liberally sprinkled with self-serving passages, and soiled with personal nastiness, spite and paranoia. Yet it is also, as I hope to have shown in some degree, marked by keen observation and detached analysis. In resigning from Labor’s leadership, and from his seat of Werriwa, Mr. Latham says that he has “left the public stage for a private one, the intimacy of family life” — a sentiment that in fact runs throughout his book. One can only suggest, in that case, that nothing so much became him as his going, and express the hope that he, and his family, will indeed find the contentment that so long, throughout his political career, eluded him.
ENDNOTES: 1. Mark Latham, TheLatham Diaries (Melbourne University Press, 2005). 2. Mark Latham, Civilising Global Capital (Sydney: Allen and Unwin, 1998). 3. “A Curate’s Egg”, review of Civilising Global Capital, in The Adelaide Review, May 1998. 4. Civilising Global Capital, op. cit., p.xvii. 5. In what follows, rather than giving a multitude of footnotes identifying each quote, I shall merely provide a page number in parenthesis. Thus, (178) means that the quote in question is to be found on page 178 of the book.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Mr John Stone is a former Secretary of the Australian Treasury and Senator, and is the Honorary Secretary of The Samuel Griffith Society.
National Observer No. 67 - Summer 2006 |
