Kim Beazley was the natural to take over the Labor Party leadership. This much was known from about 7.30pm on Saturday March 2. The only question was whether he would get elected in the seat of Brand. With that done, by a narrow margin, there was no-one in the Labor to challenge him. Perhaps this says more about the lack of leadership depth in the Labor Party than about the leadership qualities of Mr Beazley. Even so, Mr Beazley is well regarded by the public and has demonstrated considerable administrative and leadership skill in several portfolios and as leader of the House.
Imagine if the Liberal Party in Western Australia had not been so riven with factional strife that it could have saved the effort of battling disendorsed independents in three key seats and concentrated on campaigning in Labor seats. Mr Beazley could well have lost, and Australian democracy would have been the poorer.
Instead of Mr Beazley taking the leadership unchallenged, the leadership would have been contested by the two who contested the deputy leadership yesterday: Gareth Evans and Simon Crean. Neither would have been entirely suitable as leader, though each has something to contribute in a lesser role. Mr Evans represents the intellectual, socially liberal arm of the party; Mr Crean represents the industrial, pragmatic arm.
Mr Evans has considerable intellect, but has a short temper and is impetuous. His impetuosity seems to come from a conviction that he is right and there is no need for consultation or advice seeking before action. Thus the spy flights over Tasmania and the immediate, but badly misjudged, playing down of the French nuclear tests.
Mr Crean has been a diligent worker in the employment portfolio and a tireless digester of briefs, but seems never to see the wider picture. His public appearances seemed to be dogged statistical and bureaucratic defences of existing programs and the way things are. He never projected inspiration or imagination.
Given the choice, the Labor Party probably took the better of the pair as deputy leader. Mr Evans is far better equipped for a leadership role in an Opposition party than Mr Crean. Opposition is far more forgiving of the mistakes born of impetuosity than of the uninspired. Opposition needs people who are quick on their feet, rather than the dogged administrator.
Mr Evans has a great capacity for ideas and policy formulation, even if he lacks the personality to see the details through to fruition.
From the Labor Party perspective it is important, too, that someone like Mr Evans, rather than Mr Crean, takes on the role as shadow treasurer. The important task of keeping Treasurer Peter Costello on his toes will best be done on the plane of ideas and the broad picture, rather than detail. This is better done by Mr Evans than Mr Crean. Mr Evans has expressed a desire for the role and will therefore presumably get it.
That said, whether Mr Beazley achieves his aim of Labor being in Opposition only three years will be far more dependant on his own performance than that of his team. Whereas government tends to put the spotlight more on hitherto little-known team members, Opposition tends to highlight the leader’s role and repress the team’s role … as we shall see.