Here and at John Quiggin’s blog I have referred to the anti-environmentalist and socially conservative elements within the ALP Right and pseudo-Left as a New Right Fifth Column. In so doing I admit to having engaged in a degree of hyperbole, in that I did not mean to imply that these people were consciously doing a job on behalf of the New Right within the ALP. What I meant by the phrase was that some of these people are either espousing views very similar to those of the New Right and the Howard government (e.g. Michael Thompson and his supporters) or objectively assisting the election of Coalition governments by advocating unpopular and environmentally disastrous development projects (e.g. the idiots in the Goss government, including Goss himself, who caused that government to self-destruct in the 1995 Queensland state election by supporting the proposed Eastern Tollway in the face of massive community opposition).
However, yesterday’s column in The Australian by the Poison Dwarf, Glenn Milne, suggests that I would be justified in using the term in a non-hyperbolic, literal sense.
Milne reveals that six months before the 2004 Federal election, whilst Federal Labor was debating its own stance on the Tasmanian forests issue, CFMEU Forestry Division officials Michael O’Connor and Scott McLean had a secret meeting with Federal Forestry Minister Ian McDonald at which they gave undertakings that if Federal Labor adopted a strong pro-conservation policy on the issue, they would openly campaign against the policy. Neither O’Connor nor McLean reported their discussions with McDonald to Mark Latham or the ALP National Executive.
What this means is that, whilst continuing to argue within the councils of the ALP against a strong pro-conservation policy, and continuing to collaborate with Martin Ferguson, Paul Lennon et al in withholding cooperation from Latham’s attempts to achieve a united ALP policy on the issue, O’Connor and McLean had come to a premeditated position of publicly sabotaging ALP policy if it wasn’t to their liking, and gave crucial intelligence to the Liberals about their intentions, intelligence which was used to great effect in the final days of the 2004 election campaign.
Latham, in The Latham Diaries, describes the treachery of the pro-logging crew in some detail, and regrets that he did not come out earlier with a strong pro-conservation policy and take on the Lennons, O’Connors, etc., rather than vainly hoping that they would cooperate. Bernard Lagan, in his book about Latham (Loner), describes how Howard staffers, when they learned that Latham was on a flight to Tasmania two days before polling day, phoned the CFMEU Forestry Division officials in Tasmania to tip them off, with said officials promptly staging a demonstration against Latham over the issue, and a highly public rally to welcome Howard in Launceston the next day.
It says much about the sorry state of Federal Labor today that these rats have not only remained members of the ALP in good standing, but that they and their key allies like Ferguson continue to wield considerable influence within the party, and continue to make public statements helpful to the Howard government and contrary to the formal position of Federal Labor (e.g. Ferguson’s column in The Oz supporting the Asia-Pacific climate pact). Meanwhile, what does Kim Beazley have to say about all of this? Hello, Kim, helloooooo…
Finally, a letter in today’s Australian draws attention to the Poison Dwarf’s ethical deficit over the issue.
IF Glenn Milne knew all about the underhand deals going on in Tasmania before the last election (“PM out of the woods”, 30/1), he had a duty as a journalist to report this important information to The Australian ’s readers before the election, not wait until the Liberal minister for forestry Ian Macdonald got the sack. It seems he has let his loyalty overcome his journalistic principles.
John Doherty
Richmond, Vic
But, as Latham discloses in his Diaries, Labor’s anti-environment wing were in close harness with Milne throughout this whole episode.
Minor pedanticism but New Right is usually a term reserved for neo-liberals. Anti-conservation does not necessarily equal neo-liberal equal New Right, and social conservatism does not either.
Glenn Milne isn’t exactly the most reliable source.
That said, it’s no secret that elements of the ALP Right would rather bash the left than win power.
Ferguson is the Left, Bill.
I am not surprised. In my time when I was a member of the Victorian ALP Environmental Policy Committee there were members who were from pro-logging/woodchipping unions and where helped by the company where they worked (by giving them a vehicle and time off work so they could travel to the meetings in melbourne from the Latrobe Valley).
The environment – labour issue is one that will always plague the ALP. While the ALP was purely a ‘workers party’ the issue would not arise: You protect workers jobs and conditions and the environment can go and jump.
However after the 60’s and 70’s with the increase of tertiary-educated white collar left voters (and members to a lesser extent) Labor as the main party of the left took over the environmental issues, but by doing this has alienated a section of its traditional constituency.
This has happened again and again. With the Franklin in Tasmania, with the forests in Tasmania and Victoria, with uranium mining and even now here in Victoria on the issue of the dredging of Port Phillip Bay where the Unions and the Business councils are on the same side against those with environmental concerns.
The rise of the Greens is attributable to a large extent to the inability of the ALP to accomodate these two constituencies.
Was speaking generally; should have made that clearer.
Hey Comrades,
I think those leftistes salivating about a “New Right Fifth Column” in the ALP on green issues (mmm…Fifth Column…where do I sign?) should bear the following in mind:
* Michael O’Connor is no right-winger, sure he wants a timber industry but he is a full on lefty of the kind most of all of you think the ALP should be about
* Ferguson’s views are certainly a confused mix it seems of Rex Connor and Sir Les Patterson but he’s no right-winger either, heading a group in Victoria known as the Ferguson Left. In Canberra though, they are all part of the Left caucus.
* Latham clearly mishandled the politics of timber (and much else) in the lead up to the election costing Christian Zahra (McMillan) and Sid Sidebottom (Tasmania somewhere) their seats. I doubt Beazley will be as contemptuous of the timberworkers.
Yours in hyperbole,
Andrew Landeryou
Alright just a quick question as I am unfamiliar with the ALP’s internal political geography.
I am of the opinion that capitalism is to blame for our environmental woes. I’ll go into more detail later if you want.
Wouldn’t some kind of anti-capitalist appeal unite the workers and greenies? Or at least some appeal to mollify the harsher effects of caspitalism (ie. a fast buck at any cost)?
As was said in the last election campaign there are still heaps of jobs to be had if they moved the extremely wasteful wood-chipping industry to a better managed wood cultivation and logging, and value-adding by actually creating stuff with some of the rare woods in Tasmania – instead of, that is, shredding every last sliver of wood on that island and sending to Japan in a hessian bag.
My way or the highway was more Latho’s style, unfortunately.
“They are unionists first, ALP second. Latham sees it as treachery, but to whom did they owe their first loyalty?”
The treachery part comes from them remaining within the inner circle of the party, being privy to sensitive campaign information, and then using that knowledge against it. Absolutely their first loyalty should be to their members, but that doesn’t make it OK to treat the party in such a manner.
That said, I agree that Latham didn’t handle it very well.
Its strange to note that of the Industrialized nations, Japan has the largest forest : land ratio and Australia (IIRC) has the smallest… and yet we are mincing our trees for export to them! Our disregard for our own environment is effectively subsidizing Japan’s regard for its own.
Everything what Naomi has said.
With regard to the Ferguson faction and it’s political leanings: The terms “left” and “right” as used to describe factions inside the ALP has no real bearing on the actual policy outcomes desired by those groups according to most people’s traditional conceptions of the “left” and “right”.
Rather think of it this way: the “right” (collectively all the “right” factions”) control the NSW conference floor, and subsequently, Admin Committee. The “left”, do not. Whether either party supports the ALP platform (socialision of industry to the extent necessary and possible, etc) to any greater or lesser extent is basically moot (and typically only a tactical decision).
Whilst Latham’s way of doing politics can certainly be criticised, I think it also needs to be recognised that key players in and around the forestry unions and their supporters have also not exactly been the most reasonable people to deal with, and have also a long-standing history of parroting the industry line rather than attempting to stake out an independent union/worker position which could provide a basis for dialogue with pro-conservation forces. It is telling that the CFMEU Forestry Division official who was most interested and active in such a constructive dialogue (Craig Smith from the NSW branch of the Division) has been gagged by O’Connor.
Returning to the Tasmanian situation of 2004, Latham has provided a version of events in his diaries which details specific instances of inflammatory stances by O’Connor, Dick Adams and others, and specific failures and refusals by people such as Martin Ferguson, Mike Richards, Paul Lennon and others to contribute to and cooperate in formulating a policy which could have satisfactorily addressed both conservationist and forestry union concerns. To the best of my knowledge, no-one has come forward to contradict Latham’s account of these events.
Did I say that forest industry unions “have a long-standing history of parroting the industry line rather than attempting to stake out an independent union/worker position”? I do an injustice to Bill Ludwig and the Queensland AWU, who in 1999 staked out an independent union position in opposition to the Queensland Timber Board’s agreement with the Beattie Government and the peak conservation organisations to preserve south-east Queensland forests.
Naomi, what the Queensland AWU did was: (a) argue within Cabinet and the State Labor Party against a policy which would have preserved SEQ’s old growth and high conservation value native forests; (b) stage demonstrations in the streets of Brisbane, and at the relevant ALP State Conference, in alliance with the likes of Pauline Hanson and the National Party; (c) absent itself from the discussions which went on between the Queensland Timber Board, the Wilderness Society and the Rainforest Conservation Society, brokered by Beattie, to identify ways of providing sufficient wood to support the industry on a restructured basis without logging most of the high conservation value forests (some native forest logging will continue in the transition period); (d) condemn the final agreement between QTB, TWS, RCS and the government as “excessive”.
HOW DARE YOU REFER TO PEOLPLE WHO DO NOT NECCESSARILY AGREE WITH YOU IN A PARTY AS FASCIST SYMPATHISERS.
YOU DEMEAN EVERYBODY HTAT ACTUALLY FOUGHT FASCISM WITH YOUR CHILDISH “LEFT-WING-LIBERAL” FASCISM.
i AM ANTI ENVIROMENTALIST BECAUSE I ENJOY THE CLOTHES I WEAR AND THE COUCH I SLEEP ON.
I AM ALSO ANTI-ABORTIONIST BECAUSE IT INVOLVES KILLING GROWING PEOPLE.
I AM A LEFT WING MAN STILL.
YOU PRETENTIOUS PRIGS TRYING TO ACT AS IF ENVIROMENTALISM IS A LEFT WING ISSUE WHEN IT IS NOT.
ABORTION ALSO.
SILLY SOWS.
Don’t yell, please.
Who said anything about people being fascist sympathisers?
Also, I’m sure it is not difficult to obtain clothes and couches made from renewable resources grown, harvested and processed in an ecologically sustainable manner.
Finally, it is not polite to call people “sows” because you disagree with them. It also breaches our comments policy, and potentially renders us vicariously liable under anti-discrimination laws.
I agree with Paul. Patrick, you should be careful to stay within the comments policy, and keep your comments relevant and polite. You’re on notice – your ability to participate in discussion on this site may be reviewed if you continue to comment in this fashion.
Fith columnists were fascist sympathisers. Learn your history.
I do however apologise for the use of the word sow. It was entirely unconscious and aso out of character. I apologise to those I may have offended by calling them “silly sows” as they are obviously not so.
haha
Thank you for the apology, patrick. Please do keep in mind that we require everyone to stay relevant and polite.
That was not genuine, that was practice for when I become a Rugby-League superstar.
Well, if you’re incapable of making a genuine apology, my previous warning stands.
Hey patrick, it was slightly scary when you got an erection and could make a typewriter type whilst in a coma. It might be just me, but mastering a PC 20 odd years later doesn’t have the same bang.
Oh Mark it was genuine, I truly do not mean to offend anybody, I just thought it was a bit absurd to be offended by it. But each to their own.
Fair enough.
Okay Flute, in the words of Andrew Voss “I am struggling to find adequate superlatives” to describe that response.