In a speech to the ALP's National Left Conference, the Leader of the Opposition, Simon Crean, has reiterated the need for the ALP to become a more inclusive party, to reform its links with the trade union movement, and to broaden its base by reaching out to new constituencies.
Crean called for the 60-40 link with the trade union movement to be reduced to 50-50, arguing that this is a "perception issue" for the ALP: "It is not that we won't have a relationship with the trade union movement but we have got to build relationships with other constituencies because we are about working and winning with them as well."
Crean also distanced himself from the "small target" strategy adopted by the former leader, Kim Beazley: "The other thing that I argued when I took on the leadership was that I wanted us in Opposition this time to be defined by what we propose not just by what we oppose. And I think that if you look at the raft of initiatives that we have put out there in the less than 6 months since the leadership has changed, we'll just go through some of them."
This is the text of the speech delivered by Simon Crean, Leader of the Opposition, to the National Left Conference.
Thanks very much, Kim, for the invitation to be here today to be amongst friends, current colleagues, former colleagues from both the industrial and the political wings.
I don't know what it is about the Labor Party in terms of organising our Saturdays but we always seem to do our communications on Saturdays. I don't think I have had a Saturday off in a long time and it looks like with the Labor Party conferences over the next three weeks I won't have many more off in the foreseeable future.
But at least in our case we choose to conduct our messages face to face on Saturdays, not like the Prime Minister. In the case of Peter Costello, didn't get the message last Saturday from Dennis Shanahan, that the Prime Minister was staying, the Prime Minister gave it again today but this time through Malcolm Farr. He's staying.
I think what he's trying to send is the message to Peter Costello, in terms of his leadership ambitions. Just like Howard said on so many things what he said before the election doesn't stand after the election. But we are a broad church, we will continue to have our dialogue face to face.
It's also interesting that this has been a week in which Tony Abbott has plenty to say about bagging a decision of $18 for low paid workers but he says nothing about billion dollar profits for a bank garnered of increases in fees and charges with high salaries paid to those who collect those fees and charges. Nothing about that contradiction.
We also have a circumstance this week in which the Prime Minister, so strong on border security, wants to kill off an Australian shipping industry that services it. And we also have the intergenerational report touted as the Treasurer's social reforms for when he becomes the leader but really is just code for cutting back on disability pensions, increasing prescription charges and also laying the basis to kill off Medicare.
Because that's what the sale of Medibank Private is about, if they go one step they will go the next. And so this is not an agenda to deal with key issues that must be addressed, such as an agEing population, and such as the intergenerational income redistribution that's happened under this Government, these are key issues that we have got to address but they won't be addressed by the Government. And that's the reason why Labor must win the next election.
I might just say in terms of the hypocrisy of Peter Costello talking about the need to address issues of ageing in the future wasn't he the same bloke that scrapped the co-payment in terms of superannuation that would have seen the continuation of Labor's superannuation implementation and would have seen us continuing to move towards adequacy for people in retirement incomes? So none of this hypocrisy from these people that claim that they're looking at these issues we know what they are looking at and they're looking at redistributing in favour of their own.
So, this is not an Australia we want and we have to be strong in challenging those values and in significantly putting forward what we stand for. My challenge to you today is to think big, think bold and think creatively and don't be afraid of modernising. Don't try to define what modernisation is by the negative, define it on our terms. Kim's made reference to the Blair/Right agenda, let me just remind people. That in the 80's it was the Labor Party of Australia and the Labor movement in Australia that stood against Reganism and Thatcherism. In terms of the direction they wanted to take the economies of the world. It was the reforming zeal of the Labour Movement that really gave the direction to what so many left of centre parties embraced and who subsequently won office in Europe and in the U.S. That was a Labor agenda. It didn't reflect, to the letter, everything that was in the platform and in the policy because it was something we had to adapt, we had to develop, we had to create and we did it together. That's what modernisation is about and we shouldn't be frightened of it. We've done it before and we should do it again. It will involve different issues because we are confronted with different circumstances but we should be bold, we should be creative, we shouldn't be frightened and we should embrace modernisation. Embrace it on our terms because if Labor modernises the country modernises. And if Labor doesn't get in, the country will go backwards, we've seen so many examples of that.
In the context of us modernising I've also indicated that my style of leadership is one that is genuinely about inclusion. It's the pattern that I pursue and I thank Kim for making reference to this. It's the way I conducted myself as President of the ACTU. It was an inclusive operation, it's the way I have always dealt with the various component parts of the Party in the 30 years that I have been actively involved in it. I'm not going to stop now. It's been important in the past it's crucial to the future. And there have been some important examples as to where those discussions have taken place on key issues. Such as our position in terms of the war on Iraq if that's where the U.S proposes to go. We have a lot of discussion about that internally and our argument is to make the case we're not going to blindly follow. And before we determine a position we will collectively determine that position.
I will also want to say something about the relationship with the trade union movement because this too has been in the papers today. I cannot imagine a Labor Party that doesn't have a relationship with the trade union movement. Why? Because we both represent working families and their aspirations. Everyone has aspirations. There isn't one aspirational class, everyone has aspirations. But who represents working people and their families? Who's consistently developed a policy for them? It's us. Both wings, industrial, political. And so we do have to recognise not only that but we also have to recognise that the work place has changed. And the claims that are being made on behalf of workers are different and differently pitched. And that there are workers out there who still struggle in terms of meeting family obligations who aren't members of unions. There are unions in this room who are seeking coverage of people that previously weren't their members. The self-employed, for example. If it is good enough for the trade union movement to represent them why not the Labor Party.
And this is what I am saying. It is not that we won't have a relationship with the trade union movement but we have got to build relationships with other constituencies because we are about working and winning with them as well.
Now, so far as the issue of the representation that conference is concerned I believe we need to change from 60:40 to 50:50 because we have got to deal with the perception issue of that. But I don't believe for one moment that simply changing to 50:50 is going to make us a more inclusive Party or a better Party. That will only happen if we reach out to the other groups in the community, make our party structure more inclusive, make it more connected, more in touch and more developmental in terms of the policy responses. So there is a raft of things that have to be done in terms of modernising the party and most importantly we need to look at broadening the national conference base.
So these are issues that together we do need to address. And I have never argued that simply changing the 60:40 rule was going to make us a better Party. But I think we have got to deal with it, that we have got to deal with it and more. And so, I will continue to argue the case for that type of reform within the Party structures. You have got the reviews, the Hawke Wran Committee is still hearing its submissions and conducting its inquiry. There will be ample opportunity for discussion, ample opportunity at the party forums. But I am serious about it and I will persist with it because I believe it is right and I think we have got to move with the times. Have a relationship with the trade union movement by all means but it has got to be a modern one, it's got to be a contemporary one, it has to move with the times.
The other thing that I argued when I took on the leadership was that I wanted us in Opposition this time to be defined by what we propose not just by what we oppose. And I think that if you look at the raft of initiatives that we have put out there in the less than 6 months since the leadership has changed, we'll just go through some of them.
The Asylum seekers change that we have embraced, almost from the beginning initially getting the kids out from behind the razor wire. Moving to the position in terms of the mothballing of Woomera. Putting the detention centres control back under the operation of the Australian Protective Groups. Arguing that in the context of mandatory detention we had to look at the timing and the condition, timing it took to process, condition under which people were kept.
These are initiatives that we have actually influenced the debate on. Because we have been prepared to go on the front foot. Julia has still got the inquiries and the consideration within the Party going on about the question particularly of mandatory detention. We will resolve that position. But I do not know anyone in the Labor party that argues that we do not have some form of mandatory detention. Of course you need it in the circumstance in which people arrive in this country without papers, without health checks and those sorts of things. No one argues against that principle. The issue that we have got to address in a Labor way because we are the only ones that argue and believe that you can be both tough on the border protection but compassionate at the same time. We've got to go though the debate, about the length of time it takes to process and the conditions under which people are held. And I am delighted that, that debate is progressing but we will determine our position and we will determine it in a Labor way. A way that recognises that we are a caring and a compassionate Party and that's what we want this country to also reflect.
Maternity leave is another issue that we announced. Our commitment to support paid maternity leave. That is a very important commitment on our part but it's not just it in isolation we also argue that if we are genuine about saying that we have got to give women more choice in terms of the workforce there need to be other flexibilities associated with the time in which women are bringing up children. And that's not just the period immediately associated with the birth of the child, it's the flexibility and the opportunities that people have to get that right mix between work, career, opportunity, their aspiration but also the raising of the families. So, it does go to issues like childcare and more flexibility in the workplace. These are things that we will continue to develop.
I mentioned before about our relationship with the trade union movement. This week you've had the national wage case decision $25 claim, $18 awarded, what did the government argue for $10. We know that even with the $18, particularly if you're a family with kids, that benefit is eroded significantly because it's not just tax that comes out it's family payment that comes out. I believe that we can address the living wage in a Labor way through the taxation system. I believe that combination of the national wage claim plus tax credits is a means by which we can actually secure a descent living wage in this country. And that's why we have put tax credits back on the agenda. But we have to give it meaning, it must mean improvement in the living wage. It must mean the widening of the gap between welfare and work. It's not just wage policy, it's good economic policy and it's good welfare policy.
So, we will continue to pursue that. I put it out there in the context of the issue that we have to consider over the course not just 3 years as we seek to win government but assuming we win it the period of our first term. The fact of the matter is that by the end of that first term if nothing happened to tax scales there would be collected $6 billion annually by the end of that term. That's a lot of bracket creep. Governments are going to have to give it back in some form. We should be agitating and developing the debate now as to the best means for reallocating and redistributing that. Redistributing it in a fair way. Not to the top end of town. Not like the family, the 'baby bonus' is paid where the biggest benefits go to those on the highest income but in a fairer way. A Labor way.
I've also said, and we've introduced legislation in the parliament for this, the securing of workers entitlements. This is absolutely critical in the circumstances we find ourselves in. So many disputes are still happening because that security is not given. It's a simple piece of legislation. Labor has put it forward in opposition we will implement in government but we will agitate during this period to get it implemented.
Also announced the other day a proposal for the protection of children. A positive initiative coming out of the Hollingworth affair. I mean, we had to make the call in terms of Hollingworth but the reality is what did that highlight? It highlighted the extent of the problem in our community. We do have a responsibility to protect children and we have a responsibility to provide safe frameworks for parents to be confident about the circumstances in which they leave their kids in the care of others.
We also announced the initiatives in terms of widening economic ownership. Why should we shirk from this? These have been Labor things. It was only Labor that opened up university education for all and that's an important asset spread in the community. No more an important asset for an individual than education and entitlement to it. We were the ones that spread superannuation to everyone in the workforce. Not just the chief executives, not just those in public sector jobs, but the whole of the workforce. And if it's true that wealth and redistribution is increasingly occurring not just through income but through asset why shouldn't we be looking at the ways in which that can be spread and available to everyone. Don't be frightened of it. Embrace it, but embrace it on our terms.
I also made an important speech about reengaging with Asia. Doing it through our partnership with China. Old friends new partners. This is the 30th anniversary of Whitlam's ground breaking visit to China and they are deeply appreciative of what a Labor Government, Labor Opposition, did for them back then. It's something we can build on, particularly, now that China has joined the World Trade Organisation. And, in particular, since it's the fastest growing economy in Asia and significantly so. Huge trade opportunities, huge opportunities for our industries for us to be able to develop off the back of. It's an initiative we have to embrace. But not through disengagement through actual engagement and in the process, what I have said also, is that we can continue to be a strong ally with the U.S and will be but we can also run an independent foreign policy at the same time. If we get the partnership with China right it's not only going to be important for trade and economic opportunity I think done properly it can also add to peace and stability in the region as well. And that's important, important for all of us.
I mention all of those things to underscore the point about the fact that Opposition and how we approach it will be defined by what we propose. We can all say no to something. And I think it is important, the other day, if you look at what Lindsay had to say in opposing the Government's proposal for cross and foreign changes, said that we needed to look at the broader agenda and look at the means by which we encourage diversity. These are debates that we do have to run and they are debates that we can run off their narrow, self centred, unfair agendas and give us the opportunity to put our alternatives forward. So every time you see us out there it won't be just us saying no, it'll be what we stand for. And I think it's important that you, because you do have the opportunity to contribute actively to these debates, you be looking for those opportunities as well. You be getting that information in to us.
One final thing that I would say is this: I've talked about some policy areas that we've already embraced and some initiatives that we have announced. But forming a government and developing solutions isn't just about what we stand for it's how we do it. It's not just the what of government it's how you do it, it's the process. Now I've been a believer because I've seen it work in the development of partnerships. I think we need to, in our approach to government and preparing for government, need to look seriously at the way in which we can use more effectively those partnerships to implement our agenda. One key one is the partnership with the States. We need a new federalism. We need a circumstance today because there are so many areas of overlap education, health, aged care, the environment. All of these issues require a whole of governments approach. Not just a whole of government approach at one level but a whole of governments approach and we'll only advance it if it's driven by the Heads of Government. And that's why I think the ability through a revitalised Heads of Government meeting, whether we call it COAG or not, I don't care, whether we call it new federalism or not, I don't care but it's the right direction to go in. The Medicare alliance that Jenny developed through the course of the last period of opposition is just that. It's a recognition of the fact that's it's both Commonwealth and States that are going to determine how well our hospitals and our aged care facilities are funded and serviced.
So, that partnership is important but the other partnership that's important is the partnership with our communities and that means we've got to go local. We're not a centralist, tops down government. We'll never function well that way. What we've got to be is a government that support programmes that are available that respond to the grass roots push. The community push. The bottoms up approach. And what we have got to do is to not just have the framework that delivers resources for education for schools and universities and hospitals and aged care facilities we've got to say what it means for the local community. What's it mean for the electorate of Lingiari? What's it mean for Ballarat? What's it mean for those communities? Where are the school needs? Where are the aged care needs? Where are the hospital needs? Those communities know what we've got to do is to provide the resources and the flexibility that meets them. And that's why our approach isn't just about announcing national policies and national frameworks it's about translating what it means at the local level.
And finally in relation to the programmes themselves we've got to ensure they have the flexibility that can adapt to what the individual chooses. One size doesn't fit all. People have different choice options, different aspirations, I use the word again. But we've got to have programmes that can flexibly operate and respond to them.
Now this is a challenge because it's not the way we've thought in the past. We've tended to think that we just have to announce the national strategy and everyone will understand what it means to them. We've got to think bold and creatively about those strategies but we've also got to think in communication terms as to what it means to the individuals and what it means to the communities.
Now I think that if we get that right we'll win because this mob doesn't deserve to stay there. This mob is one that has done a lot of damage to our society and has really dropped the ball so far as the economy is concerned. I've argued that we need to have a strong economy. Why? Because only through it can we have a fair society. But we can be a stronger economy if we invest in the drivers of economic growth. The big step up in productivity, in this economy, that's positioned us for where we are today, happened under Labor reforms. What we haven't done yet is to take the next big step up in productivity which comes off the applications of technologies. Not just the purchase of them, it means more than having a laptop and a mobile phone to be technologically competent, it's how you use the technologies, how you improve the productive base. It's not good enough for an economy to be just competitive it's got to be productive as well. And that's why investment in the drivers of economic growth is a terribly important part of encouraging and developing us as a modern economy. Strengthening the economy in a sustainable way for fair outcomes for Australians. Fairness, through prosperity.
I think we can win all of those arguments but we have got to keep repeating them and we have got to develop the framework against which it all sits. I hope today I've given you something of a flavour as to how I want to see it go forward and I hope you will join with me in developing the policy input that produces that message.
Thanks very much.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
