By Karen Middleton
Karen Middleton is The Saturday Paper’s chief political
correspondent.
CFMEU Victorian secretary
John Setka (left).
Refugee advocates
handing out flyers in the foyer of last weekend’s Victorian Labor Party
conference were surprised and thrilled when the Industrial Left’s hard man,
John Setka, expressed his support.
Not realising who he
was initially, one of the Refugee Action Collective’s volunteers engaged the
state secretary of the militant Construction, Forestry Mining and Energy Union
in conversation about asylum-seeker policy. His response was so pleasant and
supportive that she offered him a sticker. It read: “Unions stand for refugees.
Bring them here”.
Setka not only
accepted it, he stuck it on his jacket and insisted she give one to each of the
dozen or so of his members standing nearby, who all dutifully did the same.
She and others were
shocked to hear later that Setka had backed a move to shut down the conference
early and ensure an urgency motion to “bring them here” – along with several
other motions, including one to recognise a Palestinian state – was not
debated.
Afterwards, Setka
tweeted his reasoning: “Why the hell are Labor people prepared to use a STATE
Labor conference against the election of a FEDERAL Labor government? Our best
chance for a more humane approach and community is a Labor government and
that’s what we’re fighting for.”
When journalists
tried to ask him about the shutdown, he simply grinned and said: “Democracy at
work.”
Some senior Labor
figures argue that shutting down debate and enraging Labor’s green-inclined
left-wing supporters risked far greater political damage than letting the
debate proceed and potentially giving ammunition to the Coalition.
But The
Saturday Paper has been told the right-wing Australian Workers’ Union
moved the sudden shutdown motion – which Setka’s left-wing CFMEU supported,
along with other members of the breakaway group of Victorian unions now known
as the Industrial Left – because it looked as though the pro-refugee motion
might actually have enough support to be adopted if it was moved.
Delegates from other
unions in the Industrial Left were among those prepared to support the refugee
motion. Some say the sudden shutdown was sprung on them. And some say they
believe, despite John Setka’s statements defending the move later, that it was
sprung on the CFMEU, too.
The Industrial Left
voted for it as instructed, but some are now calling that “a mix-up”.
Adopting a motion to
bring refugees to settle in Australia would have put the Victorian ALP at odds
with federal Labor’s policy platform – which is to resettle them but not to
specifically “bring them here” – and emboldened those who want to change it
when they get the chance at the party’s now-deferred national conference.
But at the same
time, The Saturday Paper has been told there is not the
appetite within the federal parliamentary Labor Party – including in the Left –
for having the sort of big public fight on asylum seekers that they did three
years ago.
Unlike in 2015, many
in the parliamentary Left no longer want to oppose turning back asylum-seeker
boats, provided it is safe.
They want something
done about the situation in the offshore detention centres on Manus Island and
Nauru and want people resettled, not held indefinitely. But many are not
insisting resettlement be in Australia and are willing to wait until after
Labor wins government to thrash out the details.
Asked for her view on
Sky News, left-wing frontbencher Linda Burney supported some kind of time limit
or time line on detaining people.
Few of her colleagues
support an arbitrary time limit for fear would-be refugees could be encouraged
to get on boats if they knew how long they were to be detained. Burney was
later embarrassed when a staff member issued a transcript that omitted her
comments.
The new draft
platform opposes indefinite detention but does not advocate time limits. It
does contain much more detail on Labor’s policy direction than previously.
The platform promises
to work towards improving processing arrangements in transit countries and to
reinstate the 90-day rule for processing applications. It says those found to
be owed protection “will be given permanent protection under the Migration
Act 1958” but does not say where, leaving that to be determined by the
parliamentary party in government.
Speaking on ABC
TV’s Q&A program this week, new Labor MP, Victorian
left-wing former union leader Ged Kearney, reiterated her opposition to
indefinite detention. But she would not commit Labor to bringing confirmed
refugees from offshore detention centres to settle in Australia.
“Look, I think that
we would hope that we could get them off those islands as quickly as possible –
people off Manus, off Nauru and settled as quickly as possible. And I’m sure
that that would be the intention of a Labor government.”
Pressed to clarify
whether she was insisting on resettlement in Australia, Kearney said: “Well,
not at this point.”
She said her first
thought would be to get rid of the Coalition government. But she also revealed
the pressure some Labor MPs are under from constituents who do not want
refugees brought to Australia.
“There are people
that have anxieties, they are angry for whatever reason, and they can’t see
that bringing refugees here helps them,” Kearney said.
“You know … when I
talk about refugees, they say: ‘Yes, but the schools are full. The hospitals
are falling apart. There’s one road to town – it takes me four hours to get to
work. Rents are high. My kid has never worked. I’m in insecure work.’ You know,
these are real fears and real anxieties and they make people angry. Or they say
to me: ‘I’ve been trying to get my brother here from India on a family reunion
visa for five years. Why should I let someone come on a boat?’ They’re hard
questions and they’re hard things to deal with and I think we have to
acknowledge that those things are real and we have to deal with them.”
Within the
parliamentary party, views have shifted on the asylum issue since the 2015 ALP
national conference.
Then, the factional
argument was over whether to insert a clause in the party’s platform to actively
reject one of the Coalition’s anti-people-smuggling tools – turning back boats
on the water.
The party’s Right
faction won out – backed by the Victorian Socialist Left and the CFMEU. The
platform did not specify a view on turnbacks, an effective authority to engage
in the practice if necessary.
Three years on, while
there may still be a push to change that from some sections of the wider party
at the next conference, it’s not looking like winning much support.
Deferred from July 28
due to its clash with the newly announced date for five federal byelections,
the conference has now been rescheduled for mid December.
There is still strong
concern about detaining people offshore and particularly indefinitely, but the
issue of turnbacks has lost its potency.
The looming federal
election, due sometime between August and next May, has dampened the appetite
inside Labor for another big public factional fight.
Nevertheless, there
is some deep unhappiness, especially within the party’s Left faction, at the
way things were handled last weekend.
Labor regularly
boasts that the sometimes-difficult policy debates at its conferences are held
in public, in contrast with the Greens, who do not allow media access to their
equivalent conference debates.
After the weekend conference,
the convener of Labor’s federal parliamentary Left faction, Victorian MP Andrew
Giles, issued a statement on his Facebook page praising the state platform with
one qualification.
“It is beyond
disappointing that some delegates chose to shut down debate on important
issues,” Giles wrote. “On Palestine, on women’s retirement incomes, on live
exports, on the right to strike and on asylum policy. In Labor we pride
ourselves on our culture of debate – of working through tough questions
respectfully and openly, not hiding from these or from scrutiny of our
positions. We can’t take this for granted. This goes to the heart of our
challenge, which isn’t just to set out an alternative policy vision, but to
reject cynicism towards politics by building a movement in which all of us can
have a say in shaping our future.”
Rather than closing
the detention centres, the AWU and CFMEU combined to close down the conference
and decree that all remaining motions be debated instead by the party’s
administrative committee, later and behind closed doors.
In his address to the
Victorian conference, Shorten had vowed to take a tough approach to asylum
seekers arriving by sea.
“A Labor government
will stop the boats,” Shorten said. “The current government would like to say there’ll
be another policy. There won’t be and I’m very committed to make sure the boats
don’t start again. We also just happen to think we shouldn’t have kept people
in semi-indefinite detention for five years in order to achieve this.”
Refugee advocates argue
there is nothing “semi” about indefinite detention and that Labor should commit
to something concrete to end it. Even some in the Industrial Left don’t trust
the power dynamic at the top of the Labor Party to deliver change once in
government if it hasn’t been locked in.
One told The
Saturday Paper: “They feel if Labor doesn’t commit to something before they
get into government, they’re not going to do anything after.”
But the appearance of
division on the asylum issue – with the controversial John Setka involved – is
fuelling Coalition attacks.
Home Affairs Minister
Peter Dutton used parliament to attack Shorten not for opposing the
government’s position on border protection but for supporting it – and having
his union backers silence those on the Left who wanted to unwind its policies.
On Shorten’s support
from the CFMEU, he said: “What did he have to do to get that deal? What did he
have to promise the CFMEU? We will never know … unless he is elected as the
next prime minister.”
The move by the AWU
and CFMEU at the Victorian conference is casting a shadow over the party’s
carefully negotiated draft national platform.
It was a very public
reminder to the wider Labor Party – and a vivid illustration to those watching
on, who may not have grasped it – that the two unions combined carry
considerable sway and intend to use it.
The CFMEU’s backing
of the shutdown is being seen within the wider party’s Left– and parts of the
Right – as much more about power than policy and an alarming portent of how
things might work in government.
The union is firmly
backing in Bill Shorten as Labor leader. Along with the AWU, which Shorten
formerly led, the CFMEU is acting as his Praetorian Guard against any threats
to his leadership.
What it is being
promised in return is not clear, although the abolition of the Australian
Building and Construction Commission and greater work rights are high
priorities.
In the run-up to an
election, the Coalition seeks to weaken Shorten enough to make him wobble but
not so much that he can be knocked over and replaced.
The Coalition does
not want to face a newly elected Anthony Albanese, who, according to this
week’s Newspoll, is more popular than either Shorten or Turnbull.
Although there is at
least as much despair in some parts of the Labor Party about Shorten’s
persistent unpopularity as there is about his union connections, there is no
active move to replace him with Albanese or anyone else, and even if there
were, very little time left to do it.
This article was
first published in the print edition of The Saturday Paper on Jun 2, 2018 as
"Inside Labor’s refugee strategy ". Subscribe
here.