There's Security For Labor In A Domestic Blitz

Bruce Hawker - The Australian

IN a post-September 11, security-obsessed Australia, does a Simon Crean-led Opposition stand a chance against a popular Howard Government?

After all, Crean has had little chance in recent weeks to talk about anything but his leadership. And the only time he manages a front page headline is when the pollsters announce that he has yet again fallen well short on the critical "preferred prime minister" question. To compound his problems, history tells us that the ALP's task is all the harder when security issues dominate.

But it is also true that Labor does have a chance when it focuses on the "deep value" issues – especially health and education. In the 20 months since the last federal election, remember, Labor has won five successive state and territory campaigns on such a platform. So victory is possible when Labor fights on the right issues.

If security dominates the public's thinking today, federal Labor could find some answers to its woes by examining how politics played itself out 50 years ago – the last time security issues were so ascendant. Back then, Labor was in a position remarkably similar to the one it now occupies. Federally it was on the back foot, but it had never been so dominant at state level – for the first time winning government in every state except South Australia.

Consider the similarities.

In June 1953, Australia was in the grip of the Cold War. Today we are leading players in a self-proclaimed war on terror. In 1953, Australian troops were returning from fighting a communist regime in Korea. Today they are coming home from wars on regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Government is considering a naval deployment off the Korean peninsula.

In 1953, Britain was threatening sanctions and worse against Egypt, an anti-Western state. Today Britain, Australia and the US are tidying up in Iraq and threatening similar action in Syria and Iran.

Fifty years ago Australia bowed to Britain and allowed Woomera to be used for nuclear testing. Now consideration is being given to US requests for military bases on Australian soil. The US also is considering nuclear tests to enhance its military arsenal.

Despite a national preoccupation with security, in 1952-53 Labor waged successful state campaigns aimed at unpopular domestic decisions by the Menzies Liberal government. In 1952 there was a hiccup in the post-war boom, with an unpopular federal treasurer using tax hikes and a credit squeeze to deflate the economy and push unemployment to a post-war high. The political impact on the conservatives was devastating. During the 1953 NSW election, for example, the 12-year-old Labor government under Premier J. J. Cahill won a huge majority with 55 per cent of the primary vote.

This anti-Liberal voter backlash was also felt in Canberra. In May 1953 there was a half-Senate election. Robert Menzies hung on to a slim majority, despite Arthur Fadden's budget and a swing to Labor. The result in this election showed that, even under the unpopular leadership of Herb Evatt and in the middle of the Cold War, a Labor campaign that concentrated on domestic issues could be successful. Gallup polling from that period showed employment (31.7 per cent) and cost of living (38.1 per cent) were uppermost in people's minds in the lead-up to that election. Yet Menzies (54.7 per cent) easily won the crucial "preferred prime minister" question over Evatt (31.9 per cent).

Like John Howard in 2001, Menzies' campaign strategy was to divert attention from his government's unpopular economic measures and to concentrate on security issues. Liberal Party election material called on voters to "safeguard the future", a precursor to Howard's slogans "securing Australia's future" and "keep Australia in safe hands".

In 2001, when Labor swept the state and territory elections, Howard's domestic policies – similar to Menzies' 50 years ago – were extremely unpopular. The GST, Business Activity Statement and petrol pricing all contributed to the electorate's unhappiness with the Coalition in state and territory elections across the country. But after the Tampa asylum-seeker stand-off and September 11 terrorist attacks, Labor fell apart. Our new-found national preoccupation with security – or lack thereof – fundamentally changed the ground rules for Labor at state and federal levels.

At a state level, Labor was able to reflect community concerns. Security in its various manifestations played a key part in the recent electoral success of Bob Carr – policing, sentencing and even immigration were all part of the NSW Premier's campaign. His slogan – "securing NSW's future" – is unmistakably similar to Howard's and Menzies' electoral themes. But the strength of Carr's election campaign was that he broadened the concept of security to include the core Labor policies of health and education. Hospitals and schools as well as law and order were presented as part of the bedrock of a secure future.

Therein lies a lesson for federal Labor. To have any chance of success, it must neutralise the Coalition's advantage on security – despite the internal pain this causes. Then it can concentrate on the Labor issues that resonate across the entire country.

First and foremost is health. The time may have come for a high-risk ALP initiative. A big spending commitment on Medicare and hospitals – funded, if necessary, by a small increase in the Medicare levy – can put the party back in the game. Then, when Labor politicians talk about security, they can include the security of a national health service for everyone, not just some.

The events of 1953 demonstrate that even when security dominates the political scene and despite being pitted against a popular prime minister, Labor can make significant gains by focusing on the Coalition's domestic weak points. But 1953 also had a dark side for Labor. It showed that when the seeds of internal division are sown they can go on to reap a bitter harvest. By the 1954 federal election, internal splits involving the Catholic-dominated "Groupers" and the sensational Petrov affair blew away Labor's gains of 1953 – for another 18 years.

That is a sobering consideration for the ALP in 2003. With the Labor leadership issue resolved, it has the chance to sort out the internal schisms, redefine security more broadly and start concentrating on the key domestic issue of health. The alternative is to run the risk of ongoing political irrelevance.

Bruce Hawker, a former chief-of-staff to NSW Labor Premier Bob Carr, is managing director of public affairs firm Hawker Britton in Sydney.