Editorial:

Let's build the
real alternative to Labor and Liberal

The election of Mark Latham as the leader of the Labor Party, 
his personal performance last week at the ALP national conference 
along with the adoption of some fine sounding policies would 
appear to have improved Labor's electoral prospects.

The emergence of a younger Party leader who is skilled in 
rhetoric has seen the expectations and hopes of the Party 
membership running hot. At least that is the perception arising 
from the ALP National Conference. It remains to be seen how this 
is reflected among the Australian people.

The defeat of the Howard Government is imperative and would be a 
significant development. It would represent a defeat for the 
extremely conservative social and economic policies of the Howard 
Government and its role as US "deputy sheriff". It would signal 
the rejection of the Government's support for the Iraq war and US 
missile defence, Howard's lies about weapons of mass destruction 
and the attacks on public health, education and social welfare.

Mark Latham's policy speech to the ALP National Conference and 
the policy resolutions have to be seen on the background of the 
mass movements against US wars, in defence of Medicare and public 
education, in support of refugee rights, for Aboriginal demands, 
for Australian independence and on other issues.

Labor has not changed

This does not mean that the ALP has significantly changed its 
policies or basic position. It has not. It will not implement 
genuine, alternative progressive policies, at best pursuing 
moderate reforms entirely within the scope of the capitalist 
system and economic rationalist policies.

It should not be forgotten that the Labor Governments of Hawke 
and Keating started the process of privatising public enterprises 
and implemented a whole gamut of economic rationalist policies. 
Labor started the process of dismantling the award system and 
based its foreign policies on the US alliance. Hawke and Keating 
introduced university fees and failed to increase payment of 
rebates to doctors thereby undermining bulk-billing.

The ALP remains an out-and-out parliamentary party, meaning that 
it focuses on winning government and concentrates its activity on 
winning votes. It does not encourage its members and supporters 
to demonstrate on the streets or go on strike in support of its 
policies when in opposition or in government.

At this point in time the defeat of the Howard coalition 
government means the election of a Labor or Labor-led government 
with all its limitations. This does not rule out the important 
step of electing more people with consistent and progressive 
policies to both the House of Representatives and the Senate.

There is already a "balance of power" in the Senate which has to 
some extent restrained the objectives of the Howard Government. 
The Senate, for example, refused to be brow-beaten on the 
complete sale of Telstra, took a strong stand on Medicare and on 
some aspects of industrial legislation.

There is already one Green Member of the House of 
Representatives. If this could be enlarged by the election of 
other left and progressive MPs, it would be a step towards the 
break up of the cozy two-party system that has held back the 
development of Australia's political life for so long.

More progressive candidates could also be elected to the Senate 
acting not only as a break on the right-wing excesses of either a 
Liberal or a Labor government but also using the Senate platform 
from which to put real alternative policies to the Australian 
people.

These would be really significant steps towards the formation of 
a government made up of all the left and progressive forces in 
the community. Only then will we have a dependable government 
defending and implementing policies in the interests of the 
working people as a matter of principle.

A mere change from Liberal to Labor will not meet the needs or 
hopes of the people of Australia.