Bernie’d Out

Jay Weatherill’s impending reshuffle, and the apparent proverbial pineapple-ing (urban dictionary it) of the Right faction has attracted much commentary, the majority of it very good (Nick Harmsen, Tom Richardson, David Washington (I don’t pay for the Australian, sorry), and I haven’t felt the urge to add much to it. Today, as I was driving home from the gym, I had one perspective that is relevant. It probably hasn’t been raised/discussed because of its sensitivity. Of course, I am talking about the departure of Bernard Finnigan from the Cabinet a few years ago, and the dramatic impact that it has had on the morale and power of the Right faction in South Australian Parliament.

From the outset, I want to say that I am not going to speculate on the guilt or innocence of Mr Finnigan, and will stick to the following facts; he was a pivotal member of the Right faction; he was a member of the Cabinet and intended to be the replacement of Mr Holloway as senior member of the Right in the Upper House; by being charged with criminal offences, he was forced to resign from Cabinet and the party. These are facts, based upon what is publicly available and also based upon my years of experience within the Right faction. These facts have much relevance to what is happening this week.

Jay Weatherill, by all indications, appears to be set to strip significant power from Ministers from the Right faction, whilst centralizing significant portfolios into the hands of a few. Whilst I am not privy to any internal discussions, I assume that his reasoning must include the argument that existing Cabinet members are either not senior enough or not capable enough to handle the lacuna created by the departure of John Hill, Pat Conlon, and in previous years Carmel Zollo, Michael Wright, Trish White and Paul Holloway. Whilst on the topics of lacunas, let us discuss the massive Bernard Finnigan shaped lacuna within the the Right and the ALP.

It is no doubt that Bernard Finnigan is a big man, in stature, and this mirrored the size of his former influence within the Right faction. He was, to the best of my recollecton, at the time of his arrest, the Convener of the Right faction, and with the support of Don Farrell, was set for a big future within the party. I personally knew Bernie, and leaving aside all other traits, he was a man of great intellect and verbal prowess. If his Ministerial career had followed its natural arc, one would consider that at this point in time, he would be in line for a promotion, to one of the more senior portfolios (probably not Health, because the taunts from the Opposition would have been too easy to script). Given the nature of Cabinet in his absence, however, the pickings for the Right are slim, especially in the Upper House.

It is quite arguable that the caning that the Right is about to receive at the hands of Weatherill is their own doing, by pre-selecting people due to favours and promises made, rather than their capacity to ascend to the Ministry (and stay there). If Ageing was a state portfolio area, Gerry Kandelaars would have been a great choice, but he was most likely an example of a Parliamentary elevation made because of the Right’s deal with Left faction refugee unions (AMWU etc). That deal is worthy of a blog on its own, and will potentially haunt the Right faction for years to come. The Wortley duo (Dana and Russell) also came over to the Right from the Left, although I am not privy to what was promised in that arrangement. The facts show that both Dana Wortley and Russell Wortley have been members of Parliament however, since shifting from the Left. So whilst the Left has spent years pre-selecting people capable of meritorious Ministerial service (Dr Susan Close, Kyam Maher etc), the Right has taken the eye off the long game in favour of short term expediency. The loss of Bernard Finnigan as part of their calculations has had a big impact on the faction as a whole, because he was one Parliamentary pre-selection designed for the long term.  

Emergency Surgery

For any political leader, a reshuffling of the Cabinet is a most delicate process, in which they must sensitively deal with the egos and factional tensions within their party, whilst at the same time assembling a team capable of forming a competent and united face of the Government. As a former staffer in a Ministerial office, hours and hours, months and months were spent speculating about where on the chess board our boss would be moved, and what this meant for us. The only reshuffle I experienced was swift and surgical, where only the select few knew the details before the plug was pulled, leaving the rest us to crouch around the crackly Parliamentary radio, straining our ears to hear our future. The current Jay Weatherill reshuffle could be only described as being surgical in the MASH sense.

Matthew Abraham, today on twitter, described the use of the resignation of Pat Conlon and John Hill as impetus to initiate a reshuffle as “clever politics”. The departure of senior ministers who will not be contesting the 2014 election is indeed a worthy justification for reshuffling a Cabinet, approximately 1 year out from the election. A joint media conference, held with Conlon, Hill and Weatherill, announcing the resignations and the replacements would have been superb politics. This is not what has happened, however.

The duo of resignations in the last 24 hours of Hill and Conlon has been instigated by the leaking of a story to the News Limited press, foreshadowing their departure from Cabinet. Whilst it is possible that this was all part of a “cunning plan” to get the ball rolling, this makes no sense for multiple reasons. Firstly, Weatherill is not ready to announce the shape and make up of his new cabinet. Secondly, Conlon’s resignation press release was dropped in the dead of night, after a day of speculation, whilst Hill’s was dropped shortly after Jay had been on radio refusing to rule in or out whether John was going. This is in stark contrast to the happy families press conference in which Michael Wright and Paul Holloway bowed out from Cabinet. Finally, Pat Conlon, along with much of the political media and staffers, is on his annual leave. No, the story was leaked with hostility, and it has brought the issue to a head well before intended.

There are two main possibilities for why the internal machinations of the ALP have been leaked to the media. Firstly, it is possible that somebody (either currently in Cabinet or someone wanting to be) has been told they are not going to receive the outcome that they wanted, resulting in a dummy spit leaking. The other possibility is that the woeful and angry performance of Pat Conlon on the “hot busses” story, combined with the heightening crisis in the health system prompted party tacticians to initiate some political euthanasia. I think the first option is more likely, especially given the breaking revelation that Jay Weatherill plans to arrange his Cabinet based upon his own considerations, rather than those of the factions.

It is my fervent belief that one of the major reasons behind Kevin Rudd’s downfall was his failure to appease the factions when it came to Cabinet selection. I recall Don Farrell seething when Rudd dumped SA Right darling Annette Hurley from Cabinet. Jay Weatherill is playing with fire if he chooses to follow this path. Of the four ministers tipped to go, one is unaligned, one is from the Right, whilst Conlon was a member of the Left, but not anymore. A shrinking of the Cabinet by two spots means that there are two new positions, and given the nature of those leaving, the Right would expect to land at least one of those spots. Jay has a problem, however, caused by the quality of the Ministers that are leaving.

John Hill and Pat Conlon have undoubtedly been two of the shining stars of the Rann era, occupying the more difficult and senior portfolios. Jay’s dilemma is he must either find someone within the existing Cabinet to foist these portfolios onto, or he must find someone else outside of Cabinet to give them to. His dilemma is that perhaps the two most capable backbenchers are Dr Susan Close and Kyam Maher, both from the Left, and both cleanskins without existing portfolios. If Jay were to appoint them to senior positions, he would offend existing Ministers (Kenyon, Koutsantonis etc) who would feel that they are ready for bigger tasks, people elected at same time as Close (Bettison) whilst also offending the Right for ignoring their backbenchers. With existing front benchers, John Rau and Jack Snelling have both been strong media performers, but I guess that they would view any movement in portfolio as a downward step. The media has speculated that Rau may get a super portfolio, but again, this may offend some of the junior ministers hoping for more. Michael O’Brien has taken his foot out of his mouth for an unprecedented period of time, so it is possible that he can get a promotion too.

Mike Rann had the luxury of being a factional neutral, whilst any unilateral decisions made by Jay will be seen as an act of factional warfare. Selecting two Left wing backbenchers for promotion would be trouble, and I will be surprised if he goes this route. He will probably say “I am making my own decisions”, and then adhere to the factional ratio that is required. Another dilemma stemming from his Left wing affiliation is what to do with embattled Grace Portolesi. With the impending Debelle inquiry looming overheard, Jay is damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t. He can dump Grace in the reshuffle (he has stoutly defended her thus far), which would result in her losing face OR retain her in the portfolio, and face the risk of a damning report requiring her to stand down, triggering further reshuffling. A third option is to promote her, which is the biggest risk of all given her failings in a mid tier portfolio. This is all complicated, of course, by her factional allegiance and also her history as Jay’s Chief of Staff.

Finally, Russell Wortley, tipped to be dumped on performance grounds, would undoubtedly feel a little miffed if someone like Grace is not also punished on performance grounds. They both have been hammered by the media, for both travel expenditure and ministerial inadequacies. Some within the Right may feel that it is one attitude towards the goose, whilst another for the gander. If Jay missteps, it is very likely that his goose is cooked. 

Kenyon 2 Fast, Weatherill 2 Furious

Another month passes, another embarrassing Tom Kenyon scandal emerges. When Mike Smithson tweeted yesterday about “Kenyongate”, I responded by asking, which one? Kenyongate has more sequels than the Fast and the Furious franchise, and each new instalment is more ludicrous than the last. While none of the scandals are of the smoking gun in the cookie jar variety, the more appropriate metaphor is a death by a thousand cuts. The Prado gaffe, in itself, raises some interesting questions, which will be examined first. Following that analysis, the dilemma that faces the new Premier when dealing with gaffe prone Ministers will be analysed.

Initially, when hearing about Tom’s turbo charged Prado, I pondered what the big deal was. Two important facts make his car choice a big deal; a) the future of the Australian car industry is the biggest issue in Australian politics at the present time; b) Kenyon is the Minister in charge of training the very workers who are facing a perilous employment future. It is conceivable that Tom decided upon his people mover prior to the explosion of the manufacturing issue into the public consciousness. This is no excuse however, because success in politics is all about foresight. One must truly question the soothsaying abilities of Kenyon’s staffers for letting this matter slip beneath the radar.

Kenyon, when initially challenged with the appropriateness of his vehicle cited the size of his family as justification. My first response to that is, what kind of Ministerial car does Jack Snelling have? If anyone needs a Tarago, it is Jack, who makes the Brady Bunch parents look like empty nesters. Snelling doesn’t need a hummer, though, because it would be very rare for him to cart his entire family along to Ministerial functions. In my experience, the Ministerial car was mainly used to chauffer the Minister, his COS, an adviser and media adviser, maximum. The question that must be asked is, if Kenyon needed a car that transported his entire family, how regularly was the car used for non-Ministerial purposes, and is this justifiable?

The biggest problem arising out of Kenyongate 3, and medium level gaffes generally, is that it distracts and blunts the primary message that the Government wishes to deliver. The day prior, Premier Jay fronted a seemingly successful Port Adelaide public forum. In Ramsay, the Government had a positive campaign argument regarding the Opposition’s apparent disunity over Holden’s future. In a blink of an eye, the agenda can be shifted by acts of poor judgement by Government ministers. How does Premier Weatherill react to these?

In the overall scheme of things, Kenyon’s Lizardgate and Pradogate and Portolesi’s travel rorts scandal are low level issues. In many ways, this makes them harder for Jay to deal with. Both Kenyon and Portolesi are factional acolytes, and their place in Cabinet is protected by this. If they were becoming mired in acts of overt corruption or misconduct, Jay would be able to rid himself of their presence in Cabinet without worry. As it stands, however, they just pop up on regular intervals to poison the Government’s agenda. Jay has made much of his desire to distinguish himself from the Rann era. Given this fact, the attitude to Ministerial misconduct under Rann should be examined.

It has been a long held belief of mine that one of the main issues that plagued the Rann Government was the lack of accountability of senior Government ministers for acts of alleged misconduct. During Rann’s Premiership, there were various Ministerial scandals but no Ministerial sackings. Kevin Foley and Michael Atkinson, in particular, survived allegations that would finish most politicians. As mentioned earlier, their survival was largely due to factional protection. The question that must be asked is, will Jay afford bungling (or worse) Ministers the same level of protection. If he does, he is simply allowing a small melanoma to spread throughout the body of his Government.

Mike gets a handshake, we get a shower

Golden handshakes are never popular. This is the case in both the corporate world and the political world. When a CEO receives an overblown retirement present, however, the only thing the populace can do is shake its collective fist and bemoan the greed. In politics, however, the public has a chance to speak via the ballot box. Given the impending by-elections in Ramsey and Port Adelaide and the perilous state of the global economy, it must be asked why Premier Jay Weatherill and his cabinet decided upon making such a poisonous policy decision.

While the Premier perks policy was announced in the guise of applying to “all people that have led the State for more then four years”, it is clearly designed purely for the benefit of Mike Rann. (I wouldn’t be surprised if Jay backflips on the policy in six months time, citing community disquiet). Some aspects of the policy are justified based on Mike’s particular circumstances e.g. the security detail is required because Rann introduced new bikie laws. Does it make sense to apply a policy, potentially in perpetuity, based on the individual circumstances of a particular Premier? The only logical reason for this policy announcement is that it was part of a deal struck between Mike Rann and Jay Weatherill as part of transition agreement, probably through factional intermediaries.

Last year, much of the bloody leadership transition from Mike Rann to Jay Weatherill was played out in public. This does not mean, however, that we, the public, were privy to all the sordid details. We have to assume that there were hours of brutal negotiations between Rann, Weatherill, Malinauskas and others regarding the exact terms of the transition. Given the bizarre Premier perks announcement yesterday, we must assume that this was one condition required for a bloodless handover. What else is there? How can we have any faith in the leadership of Weatherill until we know the exact nature of the hidden tethers that bind him?

When Jay Weatherill took the reigns, he went to great lengths to distance himself from the Rann style of leadership. For example, in the initial period of his leadership, he would hold regular press conferences immediately after cabinet, in which he would announce the decisions made during the meeting. It is interesting, is it not, that this Premier perks decision was made in December last year, and only comes to light now? It is quite evident that Jay’s new era of transparency lasted for a blink of the eye, and was clearly an act of spin worthy of his predecessor.

This Premier perks policy has only served to once again place Mike Rann at the centre of the South Australian political debate. With by-elections looming, the SA ALP needs the voting public to forget all about Rann and Foley, not have them splashed on the front page again. Did Jay promise any more goodies to Mike in order to get him out the door? Time will tell.

Why MPs shouldn’t tweet.

Today in South Australian politics, member for Finniss Michael Pengilly became embroiled in controversy when he called the Prime Minister a dog in a tweet. This is the second Twitter instigated scandal in recent months, following Tom Kenyon’s night out at the lizard races. Social networking technology is a relatively new phenomena, and the great potential and possibilities of this new medium are yet to be fully understood. Some celebrities, such as Conan O’Brien and indie-songstress Amanda Palmer have utilized social media deftly. It is my argument, however, that politicians would be much better served by ignoring this media outlet, for the following reasons;

1. Followers are not fans

Generally speaking, a public identity will be followed on twitter by people that are either fans of their work, or fans of what they have to say. Justin Bieber, for example, would be followed predominately by pre-pubescent girls, whilst pro fighter Wanderlei “The Axe Murderer” Silva would predominately be followed by men between 18-34 with a penchant for syndicated violence. Politicians, however, are different, because a very high percentage of their followers are likely to be “hostile”. I guarantee that every SA MP with a twitter account is followed by almost the entire SA media contingent, as well as staffers from rival political parties. These people are looking for slip-ups, and they will pounce on them, with haste.

2. You are not Kanye
One of the great draw cards of Twitter is that it can give you an insight into the personality and mental state of a public figure. By letting us into their crazy lives, we feel like we understand them more completely. Kanye West was notable in the early days, with his emotive, obsessive compulsive, narcissistic and controversial tweets. Controversy is not necessarily a bad thing for rock stars. Publicity sells records. Infamy can be as good as fame sometimes. Eccentricity and controversy, however, for politicians is death. So while there is no great harm in John Hill MP letting us know about the trials and tribulations of his vegetable garden, a sister’s birthday, with accompanying lizard racing, caused a fortnight long headache for Tom Kenyon. I guess the point of this section is, it is fine letting the public into your private life if you can guarantee there is nothing in there that they shouldn’t see. Determining where that line lies can be difficult, especially given the capacity to tweet thoughts immediately, 24/7.

3. The middle man is there for a reason
One of the great criticisms of modern politics (and perhaps one of the areas that social media is attempting to address) is that everything is media managed and sterile. The spin doctors and advisers, however, do serve a purpose, especially given the modern decline in merit based pre-selection. On both sides of politics, there are people elected to Parliament that are well over their heads, intellectually speaking. Without middle men and women checking, scripting, coaching and planning their MPs and Ministers, there would be chaos. Twitter basically removes the middle man, giving the public an unencumbered view of the inner workings of an MPs mind. This is not always a good thing.

4. The only way is down.
Social networking can be a wonderful medium for an artist, band, or public figure seeking to build their career. It allows access to a wider audience than would otherwise be possible. I also foresee that it could be a very useful tool for political candidates to gain greater exposure. I question, however, what an elected MP has to gain from use of social networking websites. Sure, they may argue that it allows them to better interact with their electorate, but do they need this added layer? Between an electorate office, mail-outs, street corner meetings, door-knocking and so on, there are a multitude of ways in which a member of the public can raise their concerns with an MP. Unlike international rap stars, MPs are amongst the most accessible people in public life. Most of these alternative methods of contact are private, and can be acted upon in due course, upon advice, without the risk of controversy or balls up.

5. The Dalai Lama’s Twitter is Dalai Lame
When I clicked the follow button on the Dalai Lama’s twitter account, I had a brief giggle at the thought of him pulling his iPhone out of a specially stitched pocket in his robe, ready to tweet. But of course, he doesn’t write his own tweets. This, I predict, will be the eventual path that most politicians take; delegation to PR department. I never read Julia Gillard’s tweets, because it is the same message delivered in every other medium. It isn’t personal, it isn’t providing any insight, it defeats the entire purpose of twitter. Tweeting in this way provides no political benefit. If people have tuned out, they will tune out from this as well.

Some MPs, notably Mike Rann and Kevin Rudd, have made excellent use of Twitter. Both of these men, however, are 24/7, obsessive professional politicians. Whenever they speak, they are on message. They never let anything out into the public sphere which could convey an adverse or unintended political message. This requires an excessive amount of self-discipline, which most MPs are not capable of exercising on any long term basis. It would be my advice to any curious MP to set up an account under a false name, and just play the voyeur. They won’t lose out on any votes that way.

Age of Entitlement

Jay Weatherill, as the new ALP spearhead, has made a very strong start to his leadership of the State Government. An army is only as strong as its weakest point, however. The Liberal party strategists have wisely identified Jay’s close factional ally, Grace Portolesi, as Jay’s Achilles heel. As the scandal grows from a measley $7,000 mole hill into a full blown mountain, Jay is forced to weigh loyalty with political reality. In this article, I will argue that the general attitude towards Parliamentary entitlements is responsible for the current affair.

Members of Parliament are granted various entitlements, including travel and printing allowances. Each member, obviously, has a maximum amount, above which an MP is not able to spend. Using a bastardization of accounting terminology, there are two ways one can approach such an issue; the top down method or the bottom up method. An MP can adopt the bottom up method, where they do their job, spend as they feel is necessary, keeping an eye on how much they have spent to ensure that they are not running out of funds. This is the approach that most members of the community adopt to their house hold budgets.

A top down approach, however, begins by viewing the maximum amount of funds available and assuming that they MUST be spent. I call this the spoilt child approach. Billy got a fire truck, so I WANT my fire truck. But Jonny, you don’t like fire trucks. I don’t care, I am ENTITLED to it. An MP, hypothetically, getting towards the end of the financial year, could view the balance of their printing entitlements and realize they still have funds to print reams and reams of crap to flood the electorate with. Or they could just shrug their shoulders and let the money sit unspent, resolving to be more productive next year. I argue that an MP should use the necessities of their job as the governing principle, rather than the amount they are able to spend. If they adopt this approach, they will never get into trouble.

Grace Portolesi, in her horrendous interview this week with Matt and Dave, appeared to imply that with respect to Parliamentary travel spouse allowance, she adopts the top down approach. (I make no inference that this applies to her attitude to entitlements generally). Certainly, it cannot be argued that it was necessary to take her daughter to India. She said, to the effect, that because other MPs are entitled to the money, why should she miss out? She can’t take her husband, because of his employment, so she must take her daughter away, lest she be deprived of her metaphorical fire truck. It was my impression that her worship of the Parliamentary Entitlements deity was such that it was all out of her control. It has been written, we shall receive such funds each year, and thou shalt spend it, lest ye be ridiculed in the Blue Room for being a sucker. She would not be alone in this approach. When it comes to travel, many MPs squeeze every last drop out of their entitlements. Unfortunately, for her, the following of this commandment has landed her in political purgatory.

It must be said that, as far as ‘travel rorts” go, the amount that Portolesi spent seems piddling. To understand her current predicament, you must listen to her confrontational, remorseless, self-righteous interviews in the media. A simple apology would have sufficed, I am sure, despite the myriad of other controversies that have enflamed her in recent months. But of course, it is clear that she feels she has done nothing wrong. Her inability to see what she has done wrong could be the end of her, and by extension, her patron Jay.

Mike Rann Comes Out

This weekend during a speech at my alma mater, Flinders University, outgoing South Australian Premier Mike Rann publicly pronounced his support for gay marriage. During this speech, he said he formed these views during conversations in the 1970s with the late, great Don Dunstan and former High Court Justice Michael Kirby. This seems to suggest that he has held these views for almost his entire public life, but has only chosen to voice them now. This, ladies and gentlemen, is a very long time to remain in the closet. Why has he waited until now? There are various possibilities.

To completely understand Mike Rann’s actions throughout his premiership, you must be aware of the influence of the Right faction on the security of his tenure. To ignore this fact would be akin to reading DH Lawrence’s Sons and Lovers without the knowledge that Lawrence was gay. Rann would not be Premier without Don Farrell and the Right. They supported him when nobody else would, through opposition, Chantelois and onwards. While I am not suggesting that Rann was the Right’s puppet (he certainly had a degree of autonomy), he was certainly restricted when dealing with certain policy areas. I will call them the holy trinity; stem-cell research, gay marriage and shop trading hours.

This morning, Catholic Right faction warhorse Michael Atkinson apparently (I am interstate) went on 891 ABC and spoke against the concept of gay marriage, saying they were statistically more likely to end in divorce. Leaving aside the fact that Atkinson’s own marriage didn’t last, I cannot see how this statistic is relevant, even if it is true. In a way, such a statistic makes sense, because many marriages/long term relationships stay together for the sake of the children. Gay relationships would clearly have a much smaller incidence of children. Accuracy of any such research aside, the main motivation for Atkinson and Co’s opposition to gay marriage stems from another, more famous text; the Holy Bible.

The only real reasons to oppose the union of gay people in marriage are religious. As an agnostic, therefore, I have no objection to a policy that would reduce the suffering of and prejudice against a significant percentage of our community whilst creating no adverse impact on those in society with no vested interest in the issue. With the majority of society moving towards this view point, it is less controversial for a political leader to come out in support. Rann could point to the passing of motions at ALP state conventions around the country as his reason for finally voicing his position. I wonder, however, if there was perhaps a more sneaky motivation.

As I write, we are one week away from Jay Weatherill’s ascension to the position of Premier. When he takes over, he will need to make some overt and dramatic changes to signal to the party and the public that it is not a transition, but a transformation. With the Treasury cupboards bare, however, he will be restricted to symbolic and attitudinal changes. As a long term supporter of a gay marriage, Jay perhaps was planning to use this issue to signal a changing of the guard. Mike Rann, however, got there first, just as he did with the new police station etc. Not only did he beat Weatherill to the punch, he also poisoned any potential State action by saying that only the Feds can take meaningful action. Rann seems determined to suck every single gust of wind from Weatherill’s sails, like some cosmic political vacuum cleaner. While it is a very Machiavellian scenario, it is certainly not a plot beyond the capabilities of the maestro, Mike Rann.