BY
DICK NICHOLS
Since it was initiated several weeks ago by the Socialist Alliance, the petition campaign to call on the opposition parties in the Senate to block the 2003 federal budget by voting against all its military provisions has gathered significant support.
That’s because tens of thousands of Australians who see PM John Howard for what he is — a war criminal — also understand that the ALP, Greens and Democrats senators could force him to face the people at an early federal election.
However, a number of political figures are already expressing doubts about this call. For example, Ben Oquist, spokesperson for Greens Senator Bob Brown, has rejected endorsing the campaign. Some wonder if it is wise to give Howard a chance to win an early election, especially when Labor leader Simon Crean's present rating in the polls is so pathetically low.
Here are some answers to the main objections to the proposal:
Objection 1: It will hurt the poor by allowing the government to block all spending.
The budget doesn't have to be opposed as a whole. The Greens, Democrats and ALP senators could move to excise from the budget all expenditure on military matters until Australian troops are withdrawn from Iraq or the government goes to the polls.
Objection 2. Cutting all military expenditure would bring the armed services to a halt!
That is precisely what should happen, until all Australian forces are withdrawn from Iraq. Then all normal expenditure could be resumed.
Objection 3. Blocking the military spending provisions of the budget does not automatically produce an election.
Although an election might not be held for up to six months, any delay would help the opposition parties. It would further dramatise the fact that the Coalition government (perhaps in collusion with the governor-general) was desperate to avoid accountability for its war policy. A double dissolution election, even if delayed, would still mean that the government would be made to face the people earlier than if it were allowed to run its full term. We would then have a chance to get rid of one of the vilest governments in Australian history.
Objection 4. The ALP will not support blocking the budget.
Of course, the ALP doesn't want to be put in the position of blocking the military provisions of the budget and Simon Crean's office has come out with a range of excuses as to why this is “impossible”. However, what the ALP will or won't do depends on how strong the campaign becomes. Don't forget how Labor's position on the war on Iraq shifted under the pressure of mass demonstrations.
Objection 5. The left has opposed using these powers since Liberal Malcolm Fraser and Governor-General John Kerr threw out Gough Whitlam.
Whitlam's 1975 budget was blocked for totally imaginary misdemeanours. In waging war on Iraq, the Howard government has committed actual crimes and is seen by many as totally illegitimate.
Objection 6. We can have no confidence that Howard wouldn't win such an election.
If Howard was certain to win now, then there would be no stopping him from winning the next election, whenever it is held. ItÂ’s not true that there is no way of creating an anti-Howard political majority, or that the only way the Coalition will be defeated is if it is overwhelmed by some domestic political disaster.
Just add up the people who oppose the war and occupation of Iraq and hate Australia's role as sidekick to US imperialism; oppose Howard's brutal and racist treatment of asylum-seekers; hate his cuts to health and education and handouts to the rich; rightly fear that his “anti-terrorist” legislation will strangle our democratic rights; and oppose his attacks on the unions. There you have the real “natural majority” in Australian society — if we all stood together.
Objection 7. But the ALP wonÂ’t lead the sort of campaign that would produce that result.
Probably not, but the Labor Party is susceptible to pressure. It is already losing votes to the Greens, most of whose preferences flow back to Labor. If Greens leaders were to champion the campaign to block the budget, and seriously contribute to building a movement against it, the shift to the Greens would be even greater. If there was a strong grassroots campaign for it, even if Howard managed to win, he would confront a strengthened mass movement and a strengthened left.
Objection 8. Many trade union leaders feel that the majority of their members supported the war, and are pleased that the “democratic” US-Britain-Australia coalition has got rid of Saddam Hussein.
The unions that campaigned against the war developed and deepened opposition to it. That was the case, for example, with the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union in Western Australia, which had a number of stoppages and demonstrations against the war. Of course, where union leaderships have done next to nothing to defend their members, they can hardly expect members to rally when they pose as being opposed to the war. In such unions, it's up to the rank-and-file activists to continue the fight against war and occupation.
Objection 9. The petition campaign is actually a dangerous diversion from the “real struggle”. The only way to get rid of Howard is through mass protest.
The “Make Howard face the people” petition campaign isn't counterposed to ongoing mobilisations. In fact, it makes these more likely because it gives protest and industrial action a focus.
The criminal and illegitimate government in Canberra, which is daily involved in crimes against the peoples of Iraq, can be removed. Why not organise to do it? What's the alternative?
[Dick Nichols is a national convener of the Socialist Alliance. Visit .]
From 91×ÔÅÄÂÛ̳ Weekly, April 23, 2003.
Visit the