Come Back, Kim, We Need You

Greg Sheridan - The Australian

It is still too early to say whether Simon Crean's leadership of the Labor Party has reached terminal velocity.

Certainly Crean has had a poor first year as Opposition Leader, totally dominated by John Howard, languishing in the polls and unable to project any coherence into Labor's position on the war on terror and national security issues generally.

The real argument for Kim Beazley returning to Labor's leadership is the national interest argument. A former defence minister, Beazley is by a vast distance intellectually the best equipped member of parliament on either side in relation to defence, national security and foreign issues.

Crean is undoubtedly a decent person and a fair professional politician. But he has no authority, political or intellectual, on national security issues. When you talk to him it's surprising how little he really has his head around this stuff.

To take one example, you would need to be an ASIO cryptologist of exceptional virtuosity to work out what Labor's position is on the proposed free-trade agreement between the US and Australia.

You constantly have the feeling that when the discussion moves anywhere away from the prepared script on international issues, Crean is extremely shaky. His judgment is loose, as with his ridiculous call for Howard to apologise to South-East Asian leaders. And he is prone at any moment to lapse into Crean-speak, which is a species of ACTU dialect, derived from the old industrial relations culture, loosely constructed around process and absolutely impenetrable to the ordinary human brain.

Beazley, on the other hand, is almost genetically designed for leadership at a time of national security stress. He lives and feels and breathes this stuff deep in his bones. He knows it all.

And whatever his political weaknesses, people trust him. Specifically the Australian people virtually unanimously believe that Beazley is a decent bloke, someone they like.

It is easy to underestimate Beazley's political achievements. He won the two-party preferred vote in 1998. In 2001, a few months out from the election, everyone thought he was going to win. The twin impact of the Tampa incident and September 11 was a massive benefit to the incumbent. Beazley won the television debate and got Labor within 2 per cent of the Coalition on the two-party preferred vote.

A number of Labor's strategic thinkers fear they could lose significant further ground to the Coalition next time, especially if Howard is still PM. They don't believe that Crean is a disaster or an embarrassment but simply that he has been promoted one level above his ability.

It could be that events are conspiring to produce an eerie parallel between Beazley and Howard's own resurrection as leader and electoral triumph in 1996. The Coalition lost unexpectedly in 1993. Shortly thereafter it dumped John Hewson as leader for Alexander Downer. Downer's leadership was demolished by Paul Keating. He still had plenty to offer as a politician, but not as leader – so they turned back to the only figure of substance left standing in their party, namely Howard.

They did this even though Howard had lost the 1987 election and was travelling so badly in the lead-up to the 1990 election that he was replaced by Andrew Peacock. He had effectively been rejected twice, like Beazley.

Capable politicians often bounce into office after a series of rejections. Jeff Kennett led the Liberals to defeat twice in Victoria, then lost the party leadership but was finally brought back because the professionals believed he was their best chance. He was, too – he won and he changed Victoria.

Richard Nixon lost the presidential election in 1960, having been vice-president for eight years, but won in 1968. Ronald Reagan lost the Republican primary in 1976 but won both the primary and the presidency in 1980.

In democratic politics a leader needs some traction with the electorate or, as Howard used to say, he needs to have some money in the bank with the public.

Apart from Beazley the only possible contenders for Labor leadership are Wayne Swan, Kevin Rudd and Mark Latham. Of the three, Rudd has the best mind and probably the soundest judgment. But none of them has any money in the bank with the public. As leaders they would probably be destroyed by Howard. Then, in desperation, the party would turn to Beazley.

It is too early for Crean's leadership to end yet or for Beazley to come back as leader. Crean clearly has at least a few months to rebuild his leadership. One way he could start would be by inducing Beazley to come back to Labor's frontbench to take Carmen Lawrence's place. Even if you don't think Beazley is the answer in terms of leadership, his broad popularity and his deep expertise in security issues are undeniable. Most of Labor's front bench is totally unknown to the public. How is it that Labor can believe it is in such a strong position that it does not need to make any effort to use Beazley's great strengths?

As defence minister, Beazley pioneered the doctrine of Australian self-reliance. It led him into ferocious, private conflict with the Americans. At one stage he had a shouting match with US Deputy Secretary of State Rich Armitage – who comes to Australia tomorrow and was then a senior Pentagon official – that could be heard down several corridors and through many closed doors. But in the end the Americans came to have a profound regard for Beazley.

Everyone trusts him, everyone likes him and the Labor Party thinks it doesn't need him.

Strange things, political parties.