Beazley's Bullseye

Maxine McKew - The Bulletin

..One-in-four Labor voters prefer Kim Beazley to leader Simon Crean.

That's nice, but as Kim says, "I've had my chance." None­the­less, he will talk, on the record, for close to four hours ... about leadership, about the United States alliance and about beating Prime Minister John Howard.

He's already worked out his pitch. "If I was running a Labor Party campaign now, I'd run on the word 'respect'. Are we respected as a people? Do we respect each other? Do we show that respect in the way we treat people in nursing homes? Do we show respect in the way we treat youngsters at university who don't want to break themselves financially? Do we respect the parents who have no option but to send their kids to public schools? Do we respect ordinary middle-income earners when it comes to getting access to affordable health care? Do we respect ourselves as a people when we deprive ourselves unnecessarily of choice when it comes to defending the Australian national interest?"

..Simon Crean's unrecoverable electoral collapse means that a section of the Labor caucus is again looking west to Kim Christian Beazley to fulfil his potential as destiny's child; to have one more tilt at John Winston Howard. Another section of the Labor caucus is just as committed to making sure the two-time election loser is given the bird. And that's the polite way of putting it. The caucus is poisonous – less focused on who is best placed to beat Howard than on ­getting the numbers for the person they hate the least. What a party!

..No one in Australian political life can match Beazley for breadth, contacts and credibility when it comes to defence and foreign policy. "If I had a shot at being prime minister, I'd like to think that in the same way that Keating reckoned he educated the media to an economic debate that I could do the same when it comes to foreign ­policy ... to deepen and broaden the debate on foreign and defence policy."

..Beazley is just back from a trip to Israel. His head is full of information gleaned from a mix of political, military and intelligence briefings. He witnessed Baghdad's fall from Tel Aviv and talks, as expected, like a former defence minister. "What we've seen is a light-years advance in American tactics since the Gulf War of 1990. The guts of it is a hugely networked battlefield which essentially abolishes the traditional front-line."

But Beazley is more interested in ­zeroing in on the implications of Aust­ralia's involvement. "I guess there's been no period of time when I've been so disappointed at not being prime minister as I have been in the past few months because I actually see Australia's interests as having been very badly damaged. I'm sorry for our people. I'm really sorry for us. There is no doubt that participation in this war has not sat easily with the Australian people. They've not believed it to be in our interests. Howard has made us less secure and much less respected."

The repeat phrases are: "As prime ­minister, I would ..." or "If I was running a campaign now ..." He's hungry for one more crack at Howard at a time when he sees himself as uniquely advantaged ... a war in the Middle East, a rethinking of the role of NATO and the Western Alliance, and international relations in a state of flux not seen since World War II.

"I love these things. I want to get stuck into them. I think an active prime minister on the complexity of foreign policy is critical for Australian security. And I happen to think Howard has been a total failure in that regard. It's only a reflection of the shallowness of the analysis in foreign and defence policy in this country that Howard is seen to be effective. He should have been portrayed as someone who's been dragged along, sweating profusely, by the mischances of his own pronunciations."

.."I think ... I think that Simon has been more sinned against than sinning. Frankly, we've had nothing but a gang of claqueurs around Howard. That, as well as a bunch of dyspeptic lefties who've taken themselves out of the political debate while salving their own consciences."

..Beazley has both an intimate knowledge and respect for the role of the ADF. "I'm deeply proud of the Australian Defence Forces and their achievements in this conflict." Many of the servicemen and women now in the Gulf are from his own electorate of Brand.

..Most telling, for someone who wrote his Master's thesis on ALP attitudes to the US alliance, Beazley has a warning for the resurgent anti-American sentiment in his own party. "Giving a free character analysis and indulging in cartoon-like assessments of the Americans doesn't help. Your arguments with the Americans have to be disciplined. Our fellas have to understand that."

..Beazley wants to send a message to his colleagues on what has become a supercharged issue: Australia's relationship with its most important ally; the American alliance; ANZUS. Beazley knows that Howard is just waiting to trot it out to pulverise Labor at the next election. "Australians have to understand that there is nothing in the American alliance that deprives us of choice. Absolutely nothing. Nothing stops us from behaving independently. Now it would be moronic for us to pursue policy with the Americans on the basis that the US is always wrong and that they don't have serious issues to address inter­nationally. That would be cartoon-like. But equally, it would be cartoon-like and moronic for us to assume that our ­interests will always be the same."

And on Australia's involvement in Iraq? "It could have been managed differently. Of course the US would have preferred people to have taken a stand with them. But it's up to us to choose the right niche for us. We had plenty of flexibility on this issue. Are the neo-conservatives in Washington beating up on Canada for not being a part of the coalition of the willing? What nonsense!"

And on the home front: "There is a phalanx of votes out there for an anti-American position. Don't kid yourself. And they're not all voting Green. It's actually in the Liberal constituencies as well – you know, the leafy suburbs – where this issue has hit hard. The alliance has been badly damaged by this war. It's those who are mocked as the chattering classes on the North Shore of Sydney who were worried about the war. And that penetrates the minds of the business community, and it penetrates the minds of influential groups in the community. Over time, it can fundamentally undermine the character of the relationship with the US, a relationship which I see as absolutely vital to Australia's long-term security.

"But what did John Howard do? He saw a commitment to Iraq as an alliance stopper. He committed himself basically to humiliate the Labor Party. To say of us that our desire that the UN be involved was an act of appeasement. But what happened? Having joined the debate, essentially on the side of the neo-conservatives in Washington, and against the State Department types, he was locked in. Not to have stayed the course would have been a telephone conversation stopper to the maximum. The American alliance would have remained intact, but Howard's relationship with the Americans would have been dog-meat. They would have lost Howard's telephone number as quickly as they lost [NZ's] David Lange's."

This is a stark contrast to what Australian voters have seen from Crean over the past few months. Crean's abysmal 16% approval rating can be explained this way: voters are saying – you couldn't possibly send him off to the Bush ranch in Crawford, Texas, for security talks because he has nothing coherent to say.

This is the reason that Beazley is seen as having another chance. Security issues are centre stage for the long term, post-Iraq. And Beazley has the smarts to cut it in the critical "four-eyes" encounters with top American officials.

..On the possibility of an early double-dissolution election: "It would be a complete cynical outrage. And do I think Howard is capable of a complete cynical outrage? Yes I do."

The searing experience of the 2001 Tampa election is something that, paradoxically, could work for Beazley. No one overstates it, but some of his caucus colleagues sense an unease in the electorate that Beazley was "robbed" of his chance for the Lodge. Could guilt translate into victory? The psychology of the Australian electorate at the time of the next poll is unknowable. But what Beazley seems to have worked out is how to take the fight up to Howard. "We've become narrow. More easily frightened. I think we've reached a point where we've not allowed ourselves to listen to alternative explanations. And with Howard ... in their heart of hearts, Australians may at some level admire his political cunning, but it's a case of … you can't quite get yourself there with Howard … there's no respect. You have to be satisfied with something less."

..Where was this steel in either the '98 or '01 elections? "Howard found me tough enough. He was pleased to see the back of me. Don't you worry about that."

But key Labor figures don't necessarily see it this way. They remember instead a lack of policy boldness, the inability for sustained focus. Former party president Barry Jones has lamented that the ALP has been running on empty for years when it comes to clear policy alternatives. His conclusion about Beazley? "The most conservative Labor leader ever." Beazley laughs: "Guilty as charged. I'm just an old-fashioned social democrat. My starting point in politics is equality of opportunity and that sometimes means you have to deal with market failure. That probably does make me more conservative than my predecessors on a number of fronts."

One other question may be in the mix when caucus members consider whether to punt again on Beazley. The events of August 29, 2001, when Howard wedged Labor with its border-protection legis­lation in the wake of the Tampa drama, will loom large. Key caucus members remember a night of chaos in the leader's office where the right decision was made (to reject the bill) but where the tactical execution and public explanation were hopeless. So why didn't Beazley call Howard's bluff? Why didn't he say the obvious – that Australia was not threatened in any material way by 438 people on a Norwegian ship? "You may remember," says Beazley, "that's not how the country saw it at the time. And I'd have to say that the 'nay' case was not easily translatable into a 30-second grab. When we did have a decent run at an explanation, in the one TV debate of the campaign, we did a pretty good job. But there's no sense wailing about this."

You do sound as if you'd like another run against at Howard.

"I had the chance. So what do I do now? I get on with my life. As I said, I'm effectively back on the tools."

Yeah, sure Kim.