Howard expected to win by exploiting latent hostility

On Nov. 10, Australians are going to vote to retain the present Federal Government, or bring in a new one. Whoever is going to win office will have to begin work on improving relations with Indonesia, which are in all-time low at present.

Dr Robert Manne, Associate Professor in Politics at La Trobe University, Melbourne, talked to contributor Dewi Anggraeni on the background and the prospects for political change should the present Coalition Party or the Labor Party win. His recent books are The Barren Years, John Howard and Australian Political Culture, and In Denial, both published this year.

The following are excerpts of the interview:

Question: Who do you think will win? Answer: On balance, I think Coalition is more likely to win than Labor. And because of the border control issue, it is not unlikely that they'll win very handsomely, as some opinion polls indicated. On the other hand, some opinion polls indicated that it could be a close win for the Coalition. Does that mean that most Australians agree with the Coalition government's stance on border control?

If you look at opinion polls going back for 20 years, you'll see that there has been unease about migration questions, that is, the extent and the composition of migration. There is a lot of hostility to certain parts of Aboriginal reconciliation.

So there has been a lot of potentiality for a long time for political parties to take advantage of popular moods in regards to immigration questions, and in relations to cultural things like reconciliation.

But I think what has happened is that all governments from the time of Malcolm Fraser (1975-1983, Liberal-National Coalition) to the time of Paul Keating (Labor), realized that there was no future for the country to try and stir up those latent feelings of resentment and hostility to the outsiders.

And I think with the refugee questions the Howard government has handled it in a way that it has stirred up those latent feelings that have been there for 20 years or so. Why did Kim Beazley (Labor Opposition leader) support the latest Migration and Border Control Bills in September? Wouldn't you expect him to be more sympathetic toward migrants and refugees?

I think by the time that it had all happened, on the eve of the election, he probably didn't have any alternative if he wanted to have any chance at all.

If the Labor Party had opposed those Bills, they would have been used overwhelmingly and mercilessly by the Coalition as the big issue of the election, to corner the Opposition. That is what's so depressing. So you think Labor was pushed into supporting the bills?

I myself think that Labor is to blame for being in that situation. For two or three years they have been going extremely softly on the questions of the refugee detention centres and the breaches of human rights that I believe have been involved, in the way that the asylum seekers have been treated.

And for two or three years Labor has in general underplayed things like multiculturalism, engagement with Asia, and Aboriginal reconciliation. By their silence, they've been rather complicit for the build-up of the the atmosphere which has been there, ready to exploit. I think they could have opposed the cultural drift much more strongly. Why have they been so reticent on those issues?

I think everyone in Australian politics got a shock, not only when the (Paula) Hanson phenomenon began, but when (her) One Nation Party did so well in the Queensland election in 1998, when it got almost a quarter of the votes.

That probably gave both Coalition and Labor a big shock, giving them a feeling that there was resentment and an ugly mood in a part of the electorate, so they believed that they couldn't win office if they alienated that part of the electorate.

My view is, that ever since that time, it has been common wisdom on both sides of politics, that you have to appease, to some extent, the mood of that part of the electorate. And they think because of that the Coalition had been able to gain and the Labor had been gradually losing. I think Labor has made a big strategic miscalculation, thinking that they could sneak into office without opposing the cultural drift toward greater xenophobia, and greater illiberalism. Relations with Indonesia are in the all time low at the moment. Would a Labor government do better in terms of engagement with Asia, particularly with Indonesia?

I agree entirely with you that relations with Indonesia are about as bad as I can ever remember. John Howard would like to say that it was entirely to do with East Timor. But I think that's untrue. There has been a lack of understanding, and a lack of ability to see things through the eyes of the Indonesian government and people. Indonesia sees Howard as being very off-hand about anything to do with Indonesia. He says publicly what he wants Indonesia to do, even before approaching Indonesia. Is this lack of respect in relations to Indonesia obvious to Australians in general?

I know the history of Australia reasonably well, and I can say this. We've never had a prime minister who has less understanding of foreign relations or diplomacy. Never. There has never been a leader so uninterested and so out of his depth, in foreign relations.

Another thing is Australia has not got a well-developed tradition of public discussions of foreign affairs. Our discussion of economic matters is 10 times more sophiscated than our discussion of foreign policy or foreign relations.

It is partly because we've been so isolated for so long from most of the world. And for a very long time we rely on the judgement of the British and later on, the Americans, for the fundamental understanding of strategic situations.

We have a very under-developed capacity for foreign relations, and also a very underdeveloped pulbic opinion. It's a terrible combination. People like Richard Woolcott (former Australian ambassador to Indonesia), or hundreds of other experts on foreign relations with Asian countries, are appalled by what's happening, but can't communicate effectively with the Australian people, to give them a sense of how much damage has been done.

To the extent that John Howard for example, can deny the significance of the cool relations with President Megawati at APEC (the recent Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation summit), blaming it on cultural differences. And the public are unaware of how mendacious it all is.

I get the feeling that in relations to the recent boatpeople issues, the Australian government is treating the Indonesia government with incredible condenscension, without the slightest understanding that it is a matter of showing respect when you deal with another country. That comes from a country without the rudimentary understanding of different cultures. Would Labor do better in foreign relations, especially in terms of relations with Indonesia?

I do think that because of the period of (former Labor prime ministers) Bob Hawke and Paul Keating, Labor now has a tradition in which it has a much more substantial relationships with Indonesia. Though things have changed post-Soeharto, there are memories, traditions and instincts to be drawn upon.

And the very fact that Labor did not associate itself with Howard in these issues, opens the possibility for a fresh start. And I think Jakarta would hope that a corner could be turned. At least that is one area of foreign policy that is not consensual. Labor has made it clear that relations with Indonesia have been unnecessarily frayed. What do you think of Beazley's stance on immigration?

I disagree with it entirely. But if he won the election, his government wouldn't repeal the border control legislation, but wouldn't necessarily use it. And I don't know what the chances are of it happening, but I would have thought they would get rid of the Pacific Island solutions. And I think they will make every effort to have constructive discussions with Indonesia, and realize that they have to make a generous offer about increasing the number of intake of Afghan and Iraqi asylum seekers, and overcome the people smuggler problems. If you think the Coalition would win this election, what do you think Beazley would have to do to make a big leap?

I don't think he could do anything now. As I said, it's a strange election, because many of the most of the important issues aren't discussed. The issues about the war and the asylum seekers have now been put into a corner. They're overshadowing the election but they're not really discussed during the election. The other difficulty for the Labor Party is that, because the Coalition has spent a lot of money on things like the petrol excise, first home buyers' scheme, and subsidy to the private health costs. Labor can't challenge those things without losing public support. On the other hand they have no prospective budget surpluses to make offers with.

By beating the nationalist drum, and by spending big in its last year of office, the Howard government has been able to box Beazley into a corner. That's why, I think, he can't speak about issues such as foreign relations, or make any big offers. The only thing he can hope for is an anti-Coalition resentment, which has been neutralized by the border control issue.