The Unelectables

I will commence this blog post with a quote made by the Hon Rob Lucas in the Legislative Council last week.

Labor MPs are openly discussing in the corridors that the Hon. Mr Holloway has been told that he has one or two years left as minister and Leader of the Government in this chamber and that, at the end of the one or two year period, the constant companion, the St Bernard dog, the Hon. Mr Finnigan, will be taking over as the Leader of the Government. Heaven help this chamber and heaven help the government if indeed that were to occur!

He went on to say that this was in a breach of a deal that was made with Minister Holloway prior to the election. When I read Mr Lucas’s matter of interest, I immediately pictured the image of a pack of young wolves gnawing at the bones of their former pack leader. While this may be acceptable behaviour in the animal kingdom, it marks an immense lack of respect for the contribution Paul Holloway has made to the party.

The recent election result must have sent a shock through the young pack of Labor wolves, especially those on the brink of pre-selection. Given that the ALP appears to be on the downward slide in the election cycle, on both the Federal and State levels, the spoils of Government could potentially disappear over the next four years. Factional warriors will now be greedily eying the limelight. What these power hungry pack fail to realize, however, is that the spoils they are fighting over wouldn’t exist without honourable servants, such as Paul Holloway.

In the Legislative Council, Paul Holloway plays the role of the kindergarten teacher, babysitting powerful party figures that would be un-electable in a lower house election race. The Upper House should be home to intellectuals like Holloway, members capable of poring over piles of reports and enduring hours of committees. Members of the upper house should be driving policy development while the lower house members sell it to the public. The above the line voting system, however, means that the Upper House is the home for those that are powerful but unappealing to the public. Holloway, who has the memory of Rain Man without the autism, has done a masterful job over the past ten years managing the Governments business in the Upper House with little support. Now that the wolves are at his door, I suspect that he may allow them in and allow the feeding to commence.

Paul Holloway has become increasingly disenchanted with the “dumbing down” of the Right faction over recent years. Labor Unity, the boozy boys club of 2010 bares very little resemblance to the faction he helped form decades ago. Pessimistic at the best of times, Holloway would be meeting the current threat to his power with gloom and immense disappointment. It is reasonable to suspect that he will jettison this pack of ingrates and head for the hills for a well earned retirement. When he does, the Government of this state will be the weaker for it. Let us see how Bernard Finnigan copes under the stress and fire of the role, especially given the Government is in its dying term.

Another tasty morsel offered by the Mr Lucas regards the recent affairs of Russell Wortley. Paul Holloway isn’t the only upper house member under threat of dethroning. At the Federal level, Dana Wortley, the unlikely Senator, may be staring down the loss of her seat. Wortley, it should be remembered, was a surprise winner as third member of the ALP senate ticket. She gained that spot after Frances Bedford forced Wortley out of the candidacy for Makin in place of Tony Zappia. It must be said that the SA ALP Senate team is incredibly weak, with underachievers in Anne McEwen, Annette Hurley and Wortley. Don Farrell has a quiet public profile, but undoubtedly pulls many private strings. Penny Wong is the only Senator that your average SA voter could name. This needs to change.

I am not opposed to the knifing of Dana. I still recall a ludicrous speech she made to a Young Labor meeting, which verged on embarrassing for all involved. What it shows, however, is that the young stallions are champing at the bit, and willing to engage in cloke and dagger endeavours to force their way into Parliament. The inevitable consequence of these actions is the splintering of allegiances, wounded prides and then ultimately profoundly damaging leaking from within the Government. The ALP SA 2014 death march continues rolling on.

Starting a Rau

Last Friday State Parliament whirred into action for another term. Perhaps whirred isn’t the proper term. What noise does a mouse running on a wheel make? Pitter-patter? The point I am trying to make is, since the March 20 poll, the apparent silence emerging from Government mouth piece Mike Rann has been deafening. Of course he has been tweeting (I suspect the only way this will ever stop is when the blackberry is pried from his cold, dead hands). Upon checking the Government propaganda website, I scrolled through quite a number of Premier’s office media releases. So clearly Mike is still talking. When a Premier holds a media conference in the woods, and no one turns up, does he still make a sound?

Through my perusal of the SA Government website, I noticed that lower tier Government Ministers Snelling, O’Brien, Koutsantonis, Rankine and Portolesi were pumping out media releases ad nauseum. They are clearly still enamoured with their portfolio areas and are beavering away, eying a promotion in the next reshuffle or two. Of course Mike Rann had a smattering of pressers, but the only one that I can recall making any public impact was his response to the Federal Health package. This, however, was an issue where the media was actively seeking his view. This in contrast with the other new name in the list of Government media releases was the new Attorney General, John Rau. Every word he has spoken since his swearing in has been given extensive media coverage. Does the media in this State have a new darling?

Before delving into the significance of the emergence of John Rau as the media’s choice to take as Premier, I should discuss the lame duck, the dead horse, the monkey in the room, Mike Rann. His relative silence (bearing in mind silence for Mike is still a cacophony of noise to the normal man) could be explained for a few factors. Firstly, the 2010 election campaign was particularly bruising. He could simply be tending to his wounds and developing a plot to re-establish his public popularity. Maybe he thinks that the public just needs a break, and when he returns, he will be welcomed back like a relative whose flight had been delayed due to volcanic ash. On the other hand, it is possible that the arrows flung during the 2010 battle lodged too deeply for repair. Certainly towards the end of the campaign, his famous endurance seemed on the wane. Whatever the reason, the gap in the airways has now been filled by the new AG, John Rau.


I met the news regarding the elevation of John Rau to Attorney-General with delight. As a matter of fact, I had called for his elevation well before the March 20 poll. Michael Atkinson’s resignation and Rau’s elevation, however, came as a complete surprise. Never in my wildest dreams did I believe Michael Atkinson had the self-awareness and humility to acknowledge that he was a liability. Atkinson’s fall, jump or push, forced the Right faction to elevate Mr Rau, despite his wide spread unpopularity within the faction. He never turns up to factional fundraisers or social events, and seems to walk apart from the pack. Although he keeps his distance from the pack, he is still a member of the Right, which may cause all sorts of problems in the foreseeable future.

In a recent fluffy Advertiser profile piece, John Rau was touted as a future Premier. Messrs Koutsantonis and Foley would not have been pleased by this media anointment. I remember the outrage when Government staffer Stephen Mullighan was mentioned in the same lofty terms. Whether it be Medieval England or modern South Australian politics, there is always intrigue and threat of war when a new contender for the throne emerges. This is especially the case when the contender resides within the same palace as the king-in-waiting.

The problem that Foley and Koutsantonis face in warding of a John Rau tilt at the leadership is that Rau is baggage free whereas they are carting around the equivalent of Emelda Marcos’s travel luggage. The media sees Rau as a fresh face and voice, whereas Foley’s tricks are old hat. Koutsantonis is still reeling from his Turbo Tom alter ego. Weatherill and Conlon are going to be engaging in trench warfare for the foreseeable future. John Rau, of course, is a slave to the “numbers” and it is unlikely that he will get factional support. On the other hand, if his public appeal continues to grow, factional fat cats may have no other choice.

Backflop

3:43 PM, 4/5/2010 .. 0 comments .. Link

It is with much dismay and sadness that I commence writing my first Federal politics blog. Although in recent times I had become severely disenchanted with the SA Branch of the ALP, the lingering hatred of John Howard had kept me clinging to the hope of a bright future under the Rudd Government. The last few weeks of “deck clearing” by Rudd and colleagues, however, has amounted to a fundamental breach of trust with the Australian people. In my opinion, the ETS backflop will be fatal to the Rudd’s leadership, but hopefully not the ALP Government as a whole.

In politics, backflips are not always harmful. In some instances, it can signal that a Government is listening to public sentiment and humble enough to acknowledge its’ mistakes. This ETS backflip, however, is a whole other kettle of fish. Normally a back flip results from wide spread public outrage in response to a given policy. With the ETS, the usual suspects (coal industry, business groups etc) were outraged and vocal in their opposition. The quiet remainder, however, was either confused as to the implications or accepting that action was needed on Climate Change. I assert that well over 50 per cent of the population would have been in favour of the ETS if it was explained in Keating English, not Rudd bureaucracisms and Wong legalese. What was the purpose of this back flip? Such action would never win over the sceptics, who prefer to support Abbott, who is one of their own. To the uninformed swinging voter, the only message they get from the whole debacle is that Rudd doesn’t follow through. To those passionate about climate change, however, every syllable from this day forward carefully uttered by Kevin Rudd will ring hollow.

The Government has various arguments which they can advance in defence of their back flip. They can point to the obstructionism of the Opposition and minor parties. Senate obstructionism is as old as the Federation itself, however. In order to govern in Australia, the Senate is an element of the system that must be dealt with. Usually this is through compromise, not wholesale abandonment of principles. They also had the choice of running an election campaign on action for climate change, a battle that I believe would have been won. Why then, did the PM opt for the path down which lies inevitable political ruin?

I cannot begin to fathom the reasoning behind the ETS back down, but I will endeavour to speculate. Clearly Rudd was frightened of the “great big tax on everything rhetoric”. He will find any opposition leader capable of over simplification or neat sound bites difficult to counter, as every public uttering he makes comes in three pillars, with numerous caveats. Perhaps the Government is relying on the culpability of the Opposition in stalling the legislation. Maybe they think that believing in Climate Change but not having the guts to do anything about it is better than not believing in it at all. I suspect that the ultimate motivation, however, was freeing up 2 billion dollars in cash to hurl at the electorate in the upcoming election campaign.

If the ETS backdown was designed to free up cash for pre-election spending spree, it is perhaps an unwise move. Any big spending Government programs will be faced with two major dilemmas; 1. Will this end up like your Government insulation scheme? 2. Are you going to back down from this after the election like with the ETS/Child care etc? In addition, the Liberal Opposition is already trying to paint the ALP Government with the traditional high spending/high taxing brush. A hefty pre-election spending program will play directly into their hands.

The ALP’s saving grace at this point in time is the unpalatable nature of the Opposition leader, Tony Abbott, and the unwillingness for many in the community to return to the days of Howardism. The ALP at both State and Federal levels is fast becoming the “lesser of two evils” party. They continue to govern not because of their merits, but because of the lack of merit in the alternative. This is an unfortunate position for the country to be in, and augers well for the emergence of a third force that is perhaps less extreme than the Greens. The most likely outcome in the coming election is the narrow re-election of a Rudd Government, followed by the swift guillotining of the PM, to be replaced by either Julia Gillard (ballooned by public sentiment) or whomever the fat Catholic power brokers decide. In any event, this election will force voters to decide; do you prefer someone who believes in things that are different to you over someone that believes nothing at all?

Cornes still on the ALP’s side

3:35 PM, 19/4/2010 .. 0 comments .. Link

Well the Rann Government has a new mining adviser in WAG, law graduate and former candidate Nicole Cornes. Oh I forgot to mention that Nicole is a mum, which apparently is an important consideration when determining who is best qualified to steer South Australia’s mining policy. The fact is, however, it is extremely unlikely Nicole will be “steering” policy at all. She doesn’t come from a background in the mining industry, and the only “mining law” she would have studied would be a couple of court cases in Constitutional Law. I may be wrong, but I don’t think Fairy Bay was a large multinational coal exporter. The portfolio of mining is extremely ironic given her extensive knowledge of the ALP’s Uranium policy following her pre-selection. It should be noted however, that few political advisers have a background in their portfolios, and their role is to provide political advice. Readers can decide for themselves the degree of political astuteness possessed by Mrs Cornes. Of course the appointment was not a popular PR exercise, but the ALP could care less at this stage. The gravy train is still rolling for at least another four years. This bodes well for fat cats and associates, but not for the good Government of South Australia.

Before examining the implications for the State as a whole, some time must be spent examining why Nicole was promoted to a higher post. It is widely acknowledge that the responsibility for the spectacular failure of the Boothby election campaign rests with bovver boys Kevin Foley and Tom Koutsantonis. Nicole was a metaphorical lamb to the slaughter, and I have much sympathy for the manner in which she was treated, particularly with reference to the legal matters stemming from her childhood. With balls ups like this, the right tends to make amends by assisting the victims rather than punishing the perpetrators. The debacle most probably harmed Nicole’s prospects of legal work in this State, and so it would be considered probably fair enough that she be compensated. Also of consideration is the fact that Don Farrell is to the Adelaide Crows what John Howard was to the Australian Cricket Team. He is a Crows tragic, and continued friendship with Cornsey would be highly desirable. Evidence of his Crows fandom is the fact that a prior choice for Boothby candidacy was Mark Bickley! Come on! What about Wayne Weidemann? He would rough up the Liberal front bench. Neil Craig might be looking for a job soon, so keep your eyes peeled. While this farcical method of pre-selection has appeared to be redressed for this election, invisible roles such as advising continue to be a fertile play ground for nepotism.

A few months ago, I was watching the excellent Labor documentary “Labor in Power”. The documentary featured interviews with various Government advisers, most of whom wore glasses, sported brown patches on their jackets and had Dr and phD attached to their names. These are the kind of advisers that steer policy, implementing the significant financial and social reforms of the Keating and Hawke eras. The philosophy of the SA Right is starkly different when appointing advisers. They believe that anyone that is able put on a suit and tie, drink coffee and cash fat pay cheques is qualified enough. For example, the current Sports Adviser for the State Government worked at “Crows Travel” as a travel agent. See the link to sport? Good. Oh he plays footy too. Appointing advisers in this manner is flawed on two levels. Firstly, they lack the qualifications to understand and then adapt policy for the purposes of achieving ALP party ideology. Secondly, in many cases they are lacking a background in the ALP completely, so even if they do understand the issues, the policy they develop or approve may not accord with what is expected of an ALP Government. Is it any wonder that ALP voters abandoned the party in droves at the last election?

The situation doesn’t improve at the upper echelon of Ministerial staffers. Every time Nick Alexandrides attends a COS meeting, he will be greeted with a flock of new Chiefs of Staff, the majority of whom are well under the age of thirty. The Malinauskas flock continues to thrive under this Government, with Peter’s younger brother Rob picking up the COS spot in Turbo Tom Koutsantonis’s office. Another Malinauskas chum Nick Lombardi has taken the long sought after post of Paul Holloway’s COS, which was vacated by long serving Kevin Gent. While it may not be a case of the blind leading the blind, it is most certainly the inexperienced leading the inexperienced. Senior party figures would be relishing another four years of power and could care less for now. I am sure they will deal with the fall out of the 2010 election at some point before 2014. But for now let the gravy train roll.

T-t-t-t-that’s all folks

12:47 PM, 9/4/2010 .. 0 comments .. Link

Today we were greeted with the shock news that SA Parliament’s Porky Pig, Pat Conlon has deserted the Left Faction. This is not the first time that he has done this, but it is the first time that he has done so publicly. Conlon first stormed out of the left a few years ago, when his attempts at going Federal were stymied, probably by the new guard, or Weatherill-Wong Left. For some reason, he then reconsidered his move, and returned cap in hand asking for their forgiveness. While the Left faction accepted his vote, they probably never forgave him for this impetuous move. The crushing of his Canberra ambitions may have been part of the falling out, but a few other factors would have played a role.



Pat Conlon has long been a member of the SA ALP leadership quartet which also consisted of Rann, Foley, Atkinson. Two of his three leadership allies are members of the right, and Rann is unaligned. Being a member of the leadership team has two consequences. Firstly, due to necessity, Conlon would have been jointly involved in many decisions etc with Right members. This may have given the appearance within the Left that he was in cahoots with the Right. The Foley-Conlon relationship, in particular, blossomed due to a shared love of power and boozing on. Readers may recall the infamous Xenophon Parliamentary Bar incident, where a heavily intoxicated Foley and Conlon abused Mr X in unsavoury terms (or at least one of them did). The Right Faction in general has a boozy culture, which I freely admit to partaking in; too much on many occasions. The personalities of members of the Right have much more in common with Mr Conlon than the left.



Politics, and factions in particular, have changed over the years. Once upon a time they were all about ideologies, whereas now they are mainly concerned with personalities. Sure, the hierarchy of the Right is still predominately Catholic, and the hierarchy of the left wore Che Guevera t-shirts in their youth. At the grass roots level, however, it is more about indoctrinating the new recruits into a pack mentality; us versus them. It is more about the battle than the cause. In SA in recent years, factional allegiance is more about survival than ideology. For example, I remember being at the meeting which announced that Michael Wright had joined the Right ( I believe it was the same meeting as when Kate Ellis was announced as candidate for Adelaide). He hadn’t changed his opinions on the class struggle or preferred economic model. He was at risk of being booted from the Ministry by the Left, and sought refuge or asylum within the Right. Wright broke the barrier, and many more were soon to follow. Traditional enemies, such as Lea Stevens, the Wortley’s, John Camillo and Robyn Geraghty (and staff/supporters) began turning up at Labor Right fundraisers. This was done purely out of self interest. I remember the shock of a leftie meat workers trade unionist when I told him Russel Wortley was at a Makin School (right) Dinner. He proclaimed “But he was more left wing than me”. Wortley now has a standing order on corporate box soccer tickets at Adelaide United, where he can sip chardonnay and cast his gaze down upon the huddled masses. Survival doesn’t explain Pat’s departure, however.



In a previous blog, following the reshuffle, I noted that Conlon has been in a stagnant cabinet position for some time. It appeared that he had reached the pinnacle, the highest point available to a left wing minister. The positions of AG, Treasurer and Premier seemed out of reach. With Jay Weatherill stealing the left’s support as their preferred choice for future Premier, Pat didn’t really have any reason to remain in the fold. While Conlon has never been mentioned in newspaper predictions as future Premier material, that doesn’t mean he doesn’t envision the possibility in his little pink head. His defection from the left means that he is positioning himself for one of two options. He has either accepted that he has achieved as much as he can, and is preparing to bow out OR he is positioning himself as a middle ground option in a future leadership ballot. Time will tell what his strategy is.



One final question to ponder is the loyalties of Conlon acolytes Leon Bignell and Paul Caica. Paul Caica strikes me as someone of strong left wing beliefs, and I would lose much respect for him if he chose to defect. Bignell, on the other hand, started out political life as a Conlon adviser, and his ideologies probably followed on from there. He is an even money bet on switching with Conlon in my view, although I am not an expert on this area.

Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic
1:52 PM, 25/3/2010 .. 0 comments .. Link

Yesterday the Liberal party finally conceded defeat, paving the way for the first cabinet reshuffle of the new Government’s term. The size of the margin is yet to be decided. I would prefer for Chloe Fox to hold on in her epic struggle for Bright, but a one seat majority will make the next four years that much more interesting. What are the implications of this reshuffle? With Jay Weatherill lurking in the shadows while Rann swings lamely from a poll like a gruesome piñata, it is highly unlikely that this will be the last of the Government’s term.

Anyone that has read my previous posts would realise that I would have greeted the news of John Rau’s elevation to the AG position warmly. The portfolio of AG plays an important role in determining the overall conservatism of the Government. Mr Rau, as a distinguished lawyer, should display a little more respect to established legal principles than his predecessor. His elevation did, however, come as somewhat of a surprise considering his relatively unpopular status within the Right faction. I suspect that the power brokers were aware that with the resignation of Mr Atkinson, Rau was the only remaining member of the right with the qualifications for the job. A failure to elevate Rau could have resulted in the handing of the portfolio to one of the lawyers in the left, such as Pat Conlon or Jay Weatherill (although his challenge made that unlikely). It is too early to get a gauge on staff movements within the Ministerial offices, but it will be interesting to see whether John Rau takes Mr Atkinson’s entire staff holus bolus. There will obviously be some leakage due to the Veterans Affairs and Multicultural Affairs split (maybe they didn’t want a Sykes and Rau in the same Ministerial office given the Charles Sturt Local Council connection). With the eccentricity of Atkinson, it is safe to say that the two offices will operate in starkly different manners.

As expected, Jack Snelling was also promoted to the Ministry. Amusingly, he has taken on the Road Safety portfolio. I can guarantee that whatever baby wagon Jack drives would be incapable of hooning around the streets of Adelaide clocking up speeding fines. His elevation has not been as meteoric as Rau’s, gaining more mid level portfolios, such as Further Education and Training. These portfolios were given to Caica and O’Brien immediately upon their elevation to cabinet. I predict that Jack will be a safe pair of hands that will not cause any Ministerial scandals, but at the same time, his portfolio areas give him little opportunity to make a massive public impact in the short term.

The elevation of Grace Portolesi to the Ministry is an interesting development. During the previous term and during the election campaign, Grace has shown her proclivity to produce the occasional media clanger. She has also exhibited a willingness to engage in unilateral policy announcements/recommendations, such as when she was a spokeswoman on a report into paid maternity leave. In that instance, she made a public announcement suggesting that the State Government pay for maternity leave, only to receive a swift wrap on the knuckles by Treasury I suspect. It is too early to tell whether these mistakes are a result of inexperience. Time will tell.

Another interesting development was the shifting of Paul Caica out of IR into the water portfolio. Caica appears to be the new Michael Wright, as he appears to be given the “shit sandwich” portfolios that nobody would want to touch. A possible reason is both these Ministers are considered “nice guys” as far as public demeanour, so they probably get away with more than others would. Caica would probably be thankful to get away from IR, where his previous history as a union official and factional orientation would have caused him no end of grief. His only previous experience with water was being on the end of a fire hose. If he manages to keep his garden taps off, he should fare quite well. The shifting of the IR portfolio from the left to the right is incredibly interesting. If firstly means that IR adviser former ASU Secretary Andy Dennard may need to go back to union, cap in hand or start learning about salinity. I suspect something more sinister, however. I wouldn’t be surprised if the left was given IR to appease the union fanatics post WorkCover in the lead up to the election. Now that another four years is secure, the portfolio has swung back to an economically conservative and capable Minister in Paul Holloway. Maybe it was also a whack to the left arising out of Weatherill’s challenge?

Finally, the stagnancy of Pat Conlon is curious. He appears to be stuck with Transport for all eternity. Arguably, he can only go higher with AG or Treasurer, and those are off limits. Poor Fix it Pat will be a fixture for another four years. Michael Wright also retained his portfolios, aided by the loss of Maywald and Lomax, and the retirement of Atkinson. He has more lives than a cat with an immunity bracelet, but will be the first right minister to go if (or when) Foley ascends to the leadership. I get the feeling that before the year is out, I will be discussing at least one more Government reshuffle.

Jay and the silent mob

12:20 PM, 23/3/2010 .. 0 comments .. Link

This afternoon the SA ALP caucus will meet to vote on a new Cabinet, despite the final election result being up in the air. In normal circumstances, the victorious leader would have made his victory speech, the dust would be given a few weeks to settle, and then the Ministry would be established. Jay Weatherill’s bold move has thrown the entire Government-to-be into a raging chaos. Senior right wing power brokers would be furious that he had the temerity to even consider such a venture. Doesn’t he know that they run the show? Yes he does, and that is precisely why he has done it.

Before I examine the whole Weatherill saga, I want to applaud a few of the movements in the ALP cabinet. It appears that John Rau MP will finally be promoted to the Ministry, which will add intellectual weight to the Government, although it may not help stave off claims of arrogance. This was the very move that I suggested in a previous blog. Another welcome addition to the Ministry is rumoured to be Jack Snelling. Jack has all the makings of a fine Minister, although the Premier will need to choose his portfolio areas carefully. Jack has some very conservative views in a few social policy issues, but is overall a very humble and compassionate man. The Premier will want to make sure that Jack doesn’t become Atkinson Mach Two purely because of unfortunate portfolio selection. I feel it is a mistake to promote Grace Portolesi prior to her formally being elected. While it is assumed that she and the Government will be returned, acting so pre-emptively sends a message of arrogance once again. Why the hurry then?

The rushed caucus meeting is in direct response to the Jay Weatherill challenge. Right power brokers will argue that they need to nip the challenge in the bud etc. Any hopes of restoring this genie to the bottle are ridiculously misguided. The Rann leadership question was asked by Kerry O’Brien on election night. It was always going to be an issue. As I said yesterday, Weatherill is merely laying the ground work for a future challenge. It doesn’t matter if he is defeated today or next week, his ambitions will be a constant factor for the next four years. Given the impossibility of nipping this bud, why the rush?

The Labor right prides itself on being in control of every minutia of the SA ALP’s party operations. Over the past few years the Right has had such a dominate control over the numbers in the SA branch that they had no reason to doubt that anyone of note would challenge them. They assumed that internal party control, through union delegates etc, was enough to dictate the direction of the party as a whole. Weatherill knew that he never had a chance of ascending to the top through the normal party channels. The left is unlikely to gain “the numbers” over the next four years. For this reason, he has made the choice to introduce a third party into the debate; the public. His bid for the leadership was destined to fail internally, but at this stage it appears to be succeeding externally. The reason that the caucus meeting was called so swiftly was because the right powerbrokers are frothing at the mouth as a result of such public insubordination. They want blood, and they want it NOW.

I can’t see Jay staying in the Ministry after his defeat this afternoon. His movement to the back bench, along with the loss of Maywald, Lomax-Smith and Atkinson means the front bench stocks of the Government will start to wear thin. Kenyon, Bignell and Finnigan are really the only remaining possibilities. It appears that Ministers that were destined for the chop, such as Michael Wright, will now survive. Odenwalder and Vlahos are also possibilities, but they have only just been elected to Parliament. The Government will find that the cupboard will be quite bare if any newly promoted Ministers flounder and require sacking. Another worry for the Government is that Weatherill is unlikely to sit idle on the back bench.

Even before the election, cracks were appearing in the left/right factional relationship. Rob Lucas, for example, cited disenchanted Government advisers as the source of his media release regarding Daniel Romeo’s wage hike. This was clearly an attempt by members of the left to smear the right. Over the next four years, we are likely to see an escalation in this war. Both factions will need to be on their best behaviour, because any misdemeanours will probably be funnelled directly to the media, or to the Liberals as an intermediary. The right will probably go out of its way to discredit the character of Mr Weatherill in an attempt to destroy his leadership ambitions. The ultimate victor in this battle will be the side with the least skeletons in closets. Neither side is likely to emerge unscathed, however.

The worst aspect of this whole saga is that because of the timing, the new Government will find it almost impossible to re-establish a positive agenda for its third term. The next six months at least will be dominated by questions of leadership, and this question will not go away until Rann is ousted. Even if Rann is ousted, the questions won’t go away while Weatherill is not leader. The right of the party really needs to find a viable alternative to Kevin Foley if it wishes to squash Jay and his enormous ambitions.

Election hangover

2:24 PM, 22/3/2010 .. 0 comments .. Link

Ok so the State Election is over, and the blog posts will continue. It looks like I will need to come up with a new name, however. State Election 2010 seems a little dated now, much like Mike Rann’s leadership. In my opinion Jay Weatherill has made a carefully considered move, which will ensure that he ends up the leader of the ALP eventually. There is much water to go under the bridge before then, however. A discussion of the election result is required first.

A few of the outcomes of Saturday’s election result may have emboldened Jay Weatherill. Firstly, members of his left faction performed surprisingly well, notably, Leon Bignell, Tony Piccolo and probably Grace Portolesi. On the other hand, the right lost Lindsay Simmons and may well lose the star candidate in Chloe Fox and fail to win Mitchell. This gives the left an improvement in their caucus numbers, although ultimately not enough to give them the advantage. The AMWU’s failure to gain anything out of its alliance with the right (another lost opportunity) may result in recent right converts (e.g. Robyn Geraghty) to jump ship towards Jay. The loss of J-Lo as a potential leadership rival was also key in forcing Jay’s hand. I want to point out that I predicted her demise last week. Irrespective of any of these factors, the right will not allow Jay Weatherill to roll Foley in the upcoming leadership dispute. He has, however, made a very crafty political move, which the ham fisted right clowns will respond to in their overbearing and typical manner.

Jay Weatherill will lose the upcoming challenge, and I am sure that he knows it. What his challenge has done, however, is shown his clear intention to lead the party. He has assured that he will not challenge Rann, an assurance I would love to hear Foley make. He knows that at some point during the next four years, someone is going to try to bring Rann down, most likely a member of the right. Before that occurs, the ongoing Rann/Foley team will continue its downward spiral towards electoral oblivion. As the next election draws near, and the new Rann Government staggers from scandal to scandal, internal conflict to internal conflict, nervous backbenchers will look for a saviour. Jay has made sure that he will be the first place that those backbenchers look. He always knew that he would never be ALLOWED by the right to take the leadership. He was forced into his risky venture this week. The unpalatable nature of all the right leadership contenders, however, will ensure that they will have to go to him eventually.

This all assumes that the ALP will ultimately win Government. The enormous number of postal votes could mean, however, that seats like Hartley, Bright and Newland still will fall to the Liberal party. This is increasingly unlikely, especially with Newland. The most likely outcome is the ALP will emerge with a one seat majority. This is a particularly risky position to be in, especially in the environment where by-elections are an outside possibility. Atkinson has already resigned from front bench. Who knows what kind of movements we may see, caused by scandal or rejuvenation. With a Government on the slide, we may see a hung parliament at some point over the next few years.

Another possible outcome is a challenge to the election result on the grounds that the ALP were misleading with their “Put Your Family First” election how to vote cards. At first glance, there seems to be some very strong grounds for this challenge, despite the fact that the Electoral Commission had already approved them. Chloe Fox, on 891 radio today, clearly gave her opinion on her view on the integrity of the plan. The fact that she is on the verge of losing AND she didn’t use them, and other seats with smaller margins are on the verge of winning AND they did use them could suggest that the role they played was important. Only time will tell. With the ALP on the verge of a full blown factional war, however, no dirty tricks will help in four years time.

Crystal Balling

9:15 PM, 19/3/2010 .. 0 comments .. Link

Ok so it is election
eve, a night that always has filled with me with dread and fear. In the past, it has been a fear that the public would return the Liberals to power. This time, I don’t really care which side wins, as long as the election results reflect the growing public discontent with the styles of political leadership in this State. With an ALP victory likely tomorrow, I will look at what this means for the next four years.



It is looking increasingly likely that the ALP will be returned to power. Party sources are confident of holding onto Bright and Newland, and regaining the seat of Mitchell. This is backed up by Advertiser polls. In my view, the seats of Hartley, Mawson, Light, Norwood, Morialta are gone. This means that the Liberal party would need to win some real upsets, such as the seat of Adelaide to win Government. I will now examine some of these seats.



Mitchell is a seat that the ALP regrets losing last time. It looks to be within the grasps of the party this time, oddly due to the resurgence in popularity of the Liberal party. It is amusing to me that Liberal voters are so unaware of the impact of their votes. Maybe the article in today’s tiser may shift some anti-Rann voters to Kris Hanna. If the polling figures are reflected in tomorrows polls, however, Alan Sibbons will be elected. Mr Sibbons, from what I have seen, does not appear to be Ministerial material, but I am sure he will make a dedicated local member. The AMWU will at last get something out of their alliance with the Right. Mitchell, however, should correctly be viewed as a safe ALP seat. As such, the caliber of candidate pre-selected should be one capable of being a front bencher. For example, Paul Holloway was once a member for Mitchell. Alan Sibbons will do nothing to rejuvenate the Rann front bench in my opinion.



Tom Kenyon and Chloe Fox will be viewed as the heroes of the ALP if they manage to hold onto their seats tomorrow night. Chloe Fox, in particular, will likely be given a Ministry in a post 2010 election cabinet reshuffle, probably at the expense of Minister Michael Wright, who is also in the right. She will probably be given some good news portfolios, such as Sport and Recreation (imagine the photo ops with Kate Ellis) and Minister for Youth. Kenyon probably won’t gain anything in a Rann Ministry, but maybe a Foley Ministry some time in 2011 or 2012. If Grace Portolesi holds her seat in Hartley, she will probably gain a Ministry at the expense of Gail Gago.



If Mike Rann does retain his job as Premier this weekend, his approach to the reshuffle will be incredibly interesting. It is quite clear that the unpopularity of the Government has been caused in large part due to Rann being on the nose. Senior Government members would realize this, and in my opinion they will be looking for his head within the first year and a half of the new term. This will especially be the case if Rann is unable to regain momentum following the victory. Key members of the Right, particularly Tom Koutsantonis, would have much to gain from a Foley leadership. It would be easy to imagine Kouts wanting the Treasury portfolio. All of this is speculation at this stage of course, but the question of leadership is undeniably going to be an issue. How can Rann overcome this?

Rann is a political survivor. He looks like he is going to cling to power despite a sex scandal, which is quite an achievement. He would definitely be aware of the sharks circling his boat. He will try to cut this off at the pass with some crafty maneuver. If anything, he may try to place booby traps around his leadership, so that when he is knifed, he triggers some cluster bombs. My personal view is he will try to promote those that have displayed the most public loyalty, such as members of the left like Pat Conlon and Jay Weatherill. He could even try to anoint Weatherill as his successor, which will aggravate the right (but they are already probably plotting his demise). Rann is smarter than I am at such plots, so we will wait and see. He won’t go down easily.



Ok so we have seen that the ALP will probably win tomorrow, with a one or two seat majority. Although this is the conventional wisdom, I wouldn’t completely rule out some major upsets. Look at the collapse of the Labor vote in the seat of Mitchell. The ALP vote dropped 8 %, while the Liberal vote raised 6%. On the face of this, it is a 14% swing, although the preferential system means that in reality, it would be much lower. Having said that, 8% of ALP voters have felt they can no longer support the party. The seat of Adelaide sits on a 10% margin. The ALP hasn’t put “marginal seat” focus into Adelaide, and given that J-Lo may be on the nose due to portfolio issues, means that an upset could be possible. There are no doubts there are going to be MAJOR swings in safe ALP seats, but this will ultimately mean diddly squat in the end. It will just mean that Mick Atkinson will spend another four years pestering his electorate on his bicycle, asking why they turned on him.



Well folks, looks like another four years of a “Labor” Government. I will write a blog some time on Monday analyzing the results. At least another four years of ALP, means four more years of angry blogs.

Voice for the Voiceless

1:43 PM, 11/3/2010 .. 0 comments .. Link

Yesterday, with great sadness, I heard about the untimely passing of Dr Paul Collier, lead candidate for the Dignity 4 Disabled party in the Legislative Assembly at the 2010 State Election. I had the pleasure of knowing Paul during the years of 2002-2005 (approximately), when we were both members of the ALP. Paul was an immensely intelligent individual, who through an unfortunate accident, was deprived of the use of his legs, and severely impaired use of his arms. I distinctly remember the difficulty Paul had in completing simple tasks, such as writing and drinking a drink. He never complained though. Nor did he allow his disability to prevent him from completing his doctorate at Oxford, or from being a passionate voice on disabled issues. Alas, after a short period of time, Paul realised that the ALP was no longer an effective vessel for achieving outcomes for the vulnerable. It must be asked, if the ALP doesn’t speak for people like Dr Collier anymore, who do they speak for?

Over my years of involvement in the ALP, I have witnessed the coming and going of many passionate, compassionate, intelligent people. They arrive bright eyed and optimistic, before being indoctrinated and then ultimately disillusioned. The speed of the cycle varies, depending upon the individual circumstances of the member. My cycle only came to an end mid last week, when I dropped my resignation off at party headquarters, after years of threatening to do that very act. Paul was much quicker to see through the lofty rhetoric of lights on hills and so on. I suppose he had much more tangible evidence of the failings of the ALP to make a difference to his life. Having strong beliefs in any particular area does not bode well for lasting in the ALP for the long term. It is only a matter of time before one is faced with the decision, compromise or quit. For this reason, the cohort of members that actually reach the promised land of Parliament generally tend to be the bottom dwellers, the yes men, the careerists. If they haven’t abandoned all they believe in before taking their Parliamentary oath, then they soon will. There are exceptions of course. I would cite Nick Champion and Amanda Rishworth as MPs who slipped through the net. Overall, however, the Parliamentary population is filled with people who prefer the pursuit of power over the fulfilment of an ideal.

Given that the majority of ALP members of Parliament (it is probably same with the Liberals) have compromised their beliefs to get to where they are, it is no surprise that they don’t hesitate in continuing such behaviour once they have gotten there. There are some restrictions on their behaviour, such as factional or union loyalties and the feeble toothless tiger that is ALP State Convention. Some might say that I am being overly harsh. To those naysayers, I would ask this; when was the last time you saw an ALP member put their own beliefs before their career? Look at the WorkCover debate in South Australian Parliament. For all the hurly burly and huffing and puffing, no one was willing to cross the floor, despite many MPs spending their entire lives before the vote campaigning against the changes they were voting on. One could argue that industrial relations are to the ALP what the Virgin Mary is to Catholicism. If you are not willing to crucify yourself for that, when will you? I am sure that many MPs felt extremely conflicted about their decision, but ultimately, not conflicted enough. One could argue that the Keating reforms of the 80s were the first nail in the coffin of the ALP’s traditional beliefs. Irrespective of when the ALP stopped being the voice for the voiceless, it cannot be disputed that there are growing numbers of traditional supporters that now feel disenfranchised. It could be argued that neither of the major parties really stand for anything, but are merely different teams playing the same sport. Personality of leaders is now the main consideration, along with the effectiveness of whatever policies each side cooks up from the ether based on statistical analysis of electorates and phone polling.

What we have seen in recent years is the emergence of the Greens as a major political force. I think there emergence is a result of a number of causes. Firstly, the ALP has abandoned much of its left leaning policy, in return for obtaining a slice of the Liberal voting pie. They have accepted this trade off because Green preferences return to the ALP anyway. In coming years, however, the Greens may garner such a big slice of ALP pie that they are no longer a minor party but rather a third force. Secondly, there is no disputing what the Greens stand for. Everyone knows they are the crazy environmental party, and they make no bones about it. As of yet they have not needed to compromise their beliefs one iota. They are unlikely to form government in the foreseeable future, and so it is unlikely they will have to compromise any time soon. The third reason for their popularity is the obvious increase in importance of environmental issues, and the perceived Government inaction on climate change policy. Over the next ten years, the two major parties are going to have to consider what they truly believe in, or risk being overtaken by coalitions of Independents and Greens seeking to make their voices heard. It is only a matter of time before the public asks; if the ALP and Liberals both stand for the same thing, why do we need both of them?

11:02 AM, 9/3/2010 .. 0 comments .. Link

The Murdoch press has sent an icy chill through the corridors of power in South Australia today, with the publishing of their revered News Poll. While there have been various other polls of ill repute, such as the Advertiser polls, which have suggested that Mike Rann and his Government are on the nose, this is the first definitive public poll to place the Liberal Opposition within grasp of clinching Government. There are some pundits, particularly the dishevelled and husky Bob Ellis (I bet his appearance wasn’t approved by Mike’s media unit), who question the accuracy of the poll. One of the main reasons for this scepticism is the fact that the poll was taken over a three month period, including the holiday month of January. I think the numbers require much more detailed analysis than that given by the gruff Ellis, probably only made hurriedly upon awaking from a red wine hangover.

One of the undeniable truths to be lifted from the polling figures is that the Rann Government has been on a consistently downward slide towards oblivion, commencing mid last year. It was commenced this descent down the rabbit hole before that time, but they clutched to the branch clumsily offered by the inept MHS. I assert that when a Government is in free fall, as appears to be the case now, the pace at which they descend towards the splat on the pavement increases as the election nears, spurred on by desperation and associated blunders. I will speak more about these blunders at a later date. Why then, is it assumed that the Liberal lead is overstated because of the lengthy polling period (January to March) of the News Poll. I would argue, based upon the prevailing mood that is thick in the air, that if anything the popularity of the Government is lower now than in January. There is much cause to worry about within the lofty towers of Rann HQ.

Another concern for the Government is that, based upon the News Poll figures, a large percentage of voters have already decided on which party they will be casting their vote for. Such early decisiveness does not bode well for the ALP in my opinion. It is analogous to the mood in the 2007 Federal election campaign. Over the past decade I have stood post on many a polling booth, but never before had I seen such a mood as in 2007. The masses were lined up, eager to vote, up to half an hour prior to the commencement of voting. They were sick of the Government, and they couldn’t wait to boot them out. The final few hours of polling had the inevitable stragglers, but overall the execution of the Howard Government was swift and surgically precise. The resoluteness of voters, as displayed in the News Poll figures, is more likely the result of a “it’s time” vibe than a “Izzy sucks” vibe.

So as we can see, the Rann Government is definitely crouched down in a bunker, receiving heavy fire from the opposition outposts over yonder. It has been said that in these situations, soldiers rediscover their faith in a higher power. For the SA ALP, their higher power over the last decade has always been Mike Rann, campaigner extraordinaire. Highlighted in the figures, though, is that Mike Rann is one of the dominant causes for the mammoth fall in Government popularity. In the past Mike was the shining light which blinded the populace of the outright unpalatable nature of much of the Government front bench. Now that the light has dimmed, Atkinson, Foley and Conlon have been revealed in all their glory, like the opening of the curtain at a freak show. Today’s News Poll is merely a statistical reflection of the voting public’s collective gasp of despair and disgust.



One of the other possible arguments against the accuracy of the News Poll is the traditional argument that incumbent Government’s improve their status during the election campaign. This may tradition, but I would assert that it has not been the case in the current circumstance. As an intimate observer of the ALP over the past ten to fifteen years, I have been shocked by the inability of the Government to sell its message to the public. Every day I read the tweets of the Premier touting the daily policy innovation, and every evening I view the news broadcasts, which paint an entirely different image of the day’s proceedings. Having not been close to the campaign this time, I can’t comment on the slickness or organisation of party HQ. Given the funding and the resources of the ALP, however, I have no reason to doubt that the campaign is just as strong at the source. The campaign, like a ripple, seems to be dying out the further and further one gets from the pebble, whilst every squeak Isobel makes resonates throughout the entire community like a roar. This has not been a strong campaign, and so the social experiment of going to a poll with a leader embattled with a sex scandal appears destined for failure.

Previously in this post, I referred to how a Government in free fall tends to result in blunders caused out of desperation. I would argue that this is particularly the case with this Government. I remember sharing a beer at Distill on Rundle Street with several high level powerbrokers the evening of a negative opinion poll during the ascent of MHS. I remember calls for Mike Rann’s head, despairing remarks about the mortgage and so on. One can only wonder what discussions are going on in the trendy Adelaide watering holes this evening. In the panic of the campaign, several blunders have been made, mainly by the media team in an attempt to control events in the same way they had over the past eight years. Examples are the Matthew Abraham debate scandal, the Tom Koutsantonis Road Safety policy launch debacle, the Grace Portolesi sparked blanket ban on backbencher radio debates. The irony of the matter is, the more the media team tries to control public opinion, the more that public opinion turns against the Government. You can’t teach an old dog new tricks, especially when it has gotten fat and lazy on treats for eight years.

The one last ditch hope that the Government would be clinging onto is that the swing against the Government won’t be uniformly translated across the marginal seats. The Newland Tiser poll would be particularly heartening. Their major concern, however, would be the fact the unpopularity of Mike Rann, which would be a factor in EVERY seat. As the campaign rolls on, and panic begins to take hold, I can only see things getting worse for the Government. On election night, I am going to take particular notice of the results in safe ALP seats such as Croydon and West Torrens, where the local members have endured scandals over the past years. In a campaign like this one, I think we will be dealt a fair share of surprises, and it may take a few weeks to piece together our Government for the next four years.

And the winner is……..

1:11 PM, 4/3/2010 .. 0 comments .. Link

At 5:30 last night, the great debate between Isobel Redmond and Mike Rann was beamed into the living rooms of the small percentage of South Australians that are actually home from work or study at that time. Political tragics like myself had to make do with snippets of the debate on 891 ABC spliced in between self conscious commentary by Matthew Abraham about the tastefulness of his suit selection. Having missed seeing the debate in person, I must rely on second hand reporting and the reactions of both parties for my analysis. There is much to discuss even from these meagre pickings.

Mike Rann was immediately tweeting his readiness to engage in another debate upon emerging from the Thebarton television studio where the debate was filmed. Everything Mike Rann does has a political objective behind it. What was his objective behind offering another debate, when in previous weeks he had ruled out doing so? There are various possible explanations. Firstly, he could have been trying to exude confidence in his performance and thus skewing the public’s perception of the outcome in his favour e.g. “ I have seen what Isobel has to offer, and I am not threatened. I can handle that any day of the week”. All the commentators, however, have scored the debate as a draw. Given this fact, I think it is likely that there were other motivations behind his call for further debates.

One of the major concerns of Labor commentators prior to the debate was that Mike Rann (a proven media performer) would be so dazzling in his debate performance that he would appear condescending or bullying in comparison to Isobel Redmond. There would have been concerns that this disparity in performance would garner sympathy for Redmond, and distract viewers from the substantive issues of the debate. As it turned out, it was something else that distracted viewers and the press from the substantive issues; the Michelle Chantelois apology. The vast majority of post debate coverage has focussed on this one issue. I suspect that the Rann media team anticipated this fact and were desperate to force another debate, which would allow both sides to explore the holes in each others policies. Rann, by changing his tune after the fact (possibly because his performance did not appear as overbearing as feared) has played into the Opposition’s hands.

Isobel Redmond has always stated her willingness to engage in more than one debate, whereas Mike Rann was always of the view that one would be sufficient. This fact gave the Opposition the moral upper hand when determining the format of the second debate (although technically the incumbent always has the power in this respect). The Liberals have used this advantage to bolster their “Labor is anti Country” message. Their call for a “town hall” debate in the Riverland would certainly resonate throughout rural SA, which will be useful in the crucial seats of Chaffey, Mt Gambier, Frome and Light. It also puts the Government on the defensive in the crucial policy issue of water, which is one of its biggest policy failings. I am quite sure that the chances of a rural debate are extremely slim. Mike Rann will never accept a debate on the Opposition’s terms. If he was more confident in the lead up to the first debate, however, and expressed a willingness to engage in multiple debates prior to the fact, he would never have had these problems.

It is not necessarily in the interests of the Opposition to take part in a further debate. The Opposition must overcome two hurdles if it wishes to take Government; they must prove that Isobel is a capable leader, and they must prove that they have the policies to improve the wellbeing of the State (or avoid the Government proving that they are incompetent). As stated earlier, Isobel battled the media savvy Mike Rann to a closely contested draw in the debate. A draw in a television debate is often a victory for the Opposition leader. The incumbent has all the perks of office, while the Opposition has none of the baggage of governing. When a Government is on the nose like the current Rann Government is, all the public needs is the assurance that they will be safe if they follow their instincts and boot them out. Isobel managed to prove that in the debate. She also managed to avoid detailed public scrutiny of the detail of her party’s flimsy policies. She has emerged in an ideal position. All she needs to do now is stand firm for her desire for the second debate to be held in the country, wait for the inevitable refusal, and then use this reason to deny any further debates. Mike only wanted one anyway.

Another talking point out of the debate is the appearance of Mike Rann. It is clear that he has aged markedly over the eight years of Government, and this is inevitable. Rann is notoriously a hard worker, and as such, he should wear the bags under his eyes as saggy badges of honour. As Richard Nixon found out all those years ago, however, politics is a visual medium and appearances matter. If the Premier looks drained and haggard on tv, it further reinforces the message that the Government is haggard and drained. Of course these superficial factors are not enough in themselves, but when they reinforce existing perceptions, they can become immensely powerful. Another interesting point that came out of the debate is the respective slogans of both sides. Mike Rann only had “South Australia Labor” on his lecturn, whereas Isobel had “Redmond is Ready”. Perhaps the Labor party is trying to distance itself from Federal Labor with this strategy. It is curious, however, that they didn’t use the “keep South Australia moving forward” slogan that they spruiked at the start of the campaign. This slogan is certainly wordy, and I suggest that whatever PR firm the ALP engaged should not be used in the future. In modern politics, the ability to “cut through” with your campaign slogan is often a vital sign as to the effectiveness of the campaign as a whole. Rann Gets Results, Kevin 07 and Yes We Can are striking examples of this. That brings me to the central dilemma of the ALP’ s campaign. No matter how hard they try, in every forum, the message they are trying to sell is getting lost amongst peripheral matters. This means that voters will enter the polling booth with two possible points of view; either the point of view advanced by the Liberal party, or the point of view they have arrived at based on the Government’s performance over the past 8 years. The ALP may not lose Government in this election, but they will certainly lose the campaign.

What would you do if I sang out of tune?

4:10 PM, 2/3/2010 .. 3 comments .. Link

Here I sit in the Adelaide University Law Library, amongst the dusty yellow law journals and buxom blonde trust funders, killing time before attending choir practice. It recently struck me that the Labor Unity faction of the ALP is analogous to a choral society in many ways. In both groups, it is expected that all members sing the same tune, note for note, without any deviations or creative riffs. Each has a conductor who signals which direction to take. I argue that while in makes sense for a choir to sing in unison, such uniformity is to be discouraged in political parties.

My recent blogs posts have not been looked upon favourably amongst the State Labor fraternity, and of course this is to be expected. I have lost approximately five friends on facebook, including a few people I would have considered “real friends”. In many ways I feel akin to a member of a religious cult that has been ex-communicated. I am sure that many within the faction feel that this is an entirely reasonable course of action, especially given the volatile political environment of the times. At the end of the day, however, the following question must be asked; what are my motivations, and what have I done to warrant such treatment?

In a previous post, I quoted my girlfriends observations regarding my feelings towards the ALP, which were along the lines of; “you are acting like a spurned ex-lover, hiding in the bushes trying to catch them rooting your best friend”. This observation reveals two important points; 1) I once loved the ALP 2) I now feel betrayed by them. As such, my motivations have always been to try and alert the public to some of the failings that I see with the party, in the hope that by exposing them, some sort of change will be achieved. The reader may ask, if I had concerns with the party, why didn’t I raise them within the party? There are various problems with this approach.

One of my major problems with the ALP is the concentration of power into the hands of a very small number of people. Five to ten years ago, one could say that the majority of the power in the SA ALP resided in the hands of two people; Don Farrell (secretary of the SDA at the time) and Mark Butler (secretary of LHMU at the time). Any contentious issue at public forums, such as State Convention, were sorted out between these two power brokers beforehand. These two power brokers were privy to the details of the WorkCover legislative reform proposals months before the party as a whole. Delegates to ALP forums are reduced to sheep, looking for the cattle dog to herd them in the right direction. At the 2007 election both Farrell and Butler got sent to Canberra which, if anything caused a minor relinquishment of the South Australian ALP reigns. While at the end of the day anything major still would need to go through them, administration issues such as staffing etc. may have passed to the new generation of ALP power brokers. I will now argue that these new powerbrokers have not necessarily acted in the same manner as their predecessors.

It is often said that the true merit of a teacher is the quality of their pupils. I am not really privy to the goings on in the Left following on from the departure of Mark Butler, who is now in Canberra plotting his future Prime Ministership. I can say, however, that Don Farrell was replaced as Secretary of the SDA by Peter Malinauskas. This was not always the plan. Originally the heir apparent to Don’s throne was intended to be Bernard Finnigan MLC. Three or four years ago, something must have happened to alter this plan. Peter M was then thrust into the powerful role. In the words of Spiderman’s uncle, “with great power comes great responsibility”. Comparing the Don with Peter M is like comparing chalk with cheese.

For such a powerful man, Don Farrell is very softly spoken and unassuming when you meet him in person. I think of him as an introverted Napoleon. Peter M, on the other hand, is an outspoken extrovert who has clearly modelled himself on a hybrid of Paul Keating and Tom Koutsantonis. One thing Keating and Kouts have in common is their profound dislike of criticism (constructive or otherwise) or disagreement of any sort. My second blog post attracted Peter's ire for a slightly ambiguous comment about the SDA. This draws me to my central point. There is very little freedom in the ALP, especially the Right, to speak freely about almost any matter. As members, we are expected to be showered with wisdom from above. In my personal experience, it is not wisdom that I have been showered with. Any deviations from the status quo are squashed like an Orwellian boot to the face. On occasions meetings are held where the Labor Unity position is put forward, followed by a mandatory “does anyone have any problems with that?”. Very few members would have the desire or the inclination to go down that path, which would only end in a stern talking to or a tirade or abuse depending on the severity of the disobedience. This kind of approach may be desirable in a military environment, but it is terribly dangerous for a political party to squash internal debate.

I mentioned earlier that ALP State Convention is merely a PR exercise, where all decisions are determined prior to commencement. As such, it becomes a very boring experience as a delegate. The days of Young Labor, where members can freely stand up and speak their views, are long gone. This absence of debate has several negative aspects to it. Firstly, it does not give emerging ALP members an opportunity to show their debating wares. (Labor Unity has a token debate at Convention lunch which showcases the hand selected rising stars). It also leaves delegates feeling disempowered. It could be argued that these disadvantages are preferable to a public stoush on policy issues, but this happens anyway. What is the worst that can happen? A motion gets passed that the Government doesn’t agree with? That happened with WorkCover, and the Government has just chosen not to act on it. At the end of the day, it is all about the power brokers exerting their influence and control on the party as a whole.

The concentration of power into the hands of a few, combined with the removal of traditional “proving grounds” for up and coming ALP members has resulted in the arbitrary and sometimes nepotistic appointment of political staff and pre-selections. For example, both Malinauskas siblings are employed as political or media advisers under the current Government. (I am not impugning their capabilities. I sat on one of their interview panels). Another Government Adviser was a high school colleague of the esteemed SDA Secretary. Exercising power in such a way sends a negative message to all those loyal members (such as myself- I admit that I am cheesed off) that have slaved their guts out for decades or more for a cause they believed in. Once you abandon merit as a criterion, it is a very slippery slope. When combined with no proper means to question or debate the merits of these activities or Government direction as a whole, there is little wonder that the opinionated eventually seek other outlets to vent their displeasure. That is merely what I am doing. If I am booted from the party, lose friends or receive abuse, it is a fate much more pleasant than remaining silent while the party you once loved begins the slow and unnecessary descent into Opposition.

Losing the unloseable election…and without a GST

6:44 PM, 28/2/2010 .. 0 comments .. Link

Today’s opinion poll in the seat of Morialta has revealed a ten percent swing against the Government, raising the possibility of a political defeat just four years after the greatest victory in SA ALP history. While this is based on an Advertiser poll, and the seat of Morialta is traditionally heartland Liberal, this poll raises some serious questions especially given the fact that the Liberal opposition is mediocre at best. Where does the blame lie for this extraordinary turn of events?



The night of the 2006 election result, Labor hacks like myself were celebrating 8 more years of Government, not four more years. The enormity of the victory made any defeat in 2010 unimaginable. It is perhaps this mindset, which pervaded the entire SA ALP, that is perhaps at the heart of the recent down turn in popularity. The Rann Government between the years of 2002 and 2006 was required to govern with the assistance of Independants, and as such was humble and consensus based in its approach. The fragility of the Government kept the arrogance and gloating of the Government in check to some degree. The 2006 massacre freed the bridles that were holding back the arrogance of Rann, Foley, Atkinson, Conlon, Koutsantonis et al. Faced with a feeble opposition, and the prospect of at least two more terms of Government, Rann’s team begun to behave like a cat toying with a mouse. It appears that they had never watched Tom and Jerry cartoons. The arrogance of the Government played various roles; it distracted the public from the actual achievements of the Government and also angered the media. This election, at this stage, appears to be more about who the public likes rather than what each side is likely to achieve. The arrogance of the Government has had some other major consequences, which I will now discuss.



In the 2006 election, the Labor Government was returned to power by all sections of the community, not just traditional ALP voters. The size of the swing was enormous. Perhaps it was for this reason that the Government felt comfortable in alienating its base, through industrial pay disputes and the passage of the WorkCover legislation. The Government, through these actions, alienated the traditional base of the ALP. It can be argued quite strongly that these decisions by the Government were required for the long term financial security of the State. (I am also of this view). The biggest mistake the Government made was the manner in which it treated the union movement during these debates. The attitude was kind of “we don’t need you, we have the support from the business community etc” or “you guys have to support us anyway”. At the end of the day, it is unwise to rely on the support of strange bedfellows. It is also unwise to make enemies of former allies, who are privy to all your weaknesses. I will now discuss one of the Government’s major weaknesses; rigidity in Cabinet selection.



Over Mike Rann’s entire term as Premier, he has been held captive by the factions when it comes to determining his Cabinet. Throughout his term, only four Ministers have been left Cabinet; Steph Key MP, Trish White MP, Carmel Zollo MLC, Lea Stevens MP and the late Terry Roberts MLC. It is interesting to note that no Labor Unity male has been asked to resign their Cabinet position. The largest beneficiary of this fact is the State’s Attorney General, Michael Atkinson. Normally a Government Minister in Australian politics has one or two lives, can endure a few scandals (depending on their size) until they are forced to resign by overwhelming public opinion. The sacking of an unpopular Minister often acts as a release valve, removing pressure from the Government. Mike Rann has never had this option available to him, despite the inordinate number of scandals that the Attorney has gotten himself into. The hatred within the community of the Attorney (having read various online comments etc, I think hatred is an appropriate word) is now intrinsically bonded to the Government as a whole. Perhaps if Don Farrell had granted the Premier more freedom in this regard, the AG could have been set adrift a long time ago, sparing the fortunes of the remainder of the Government. (The Attorney is kind of like a fat guy on a life raft with limited food provisions. He should have been shark food a long time ago). I personally feel that the mood of the campaign changed drastically around the time of the latest of the AG’s scandals- internet censorship. That certainly was the last straw for me.



Ok, the fifty foot blonde American gorilla in the election campaign is the Chantelois issue. Mike Rann has long been termed the SA ALP’s greatest electoral asset. He was also a counter balance to the public perception of the womanizing Foley et al. When Rann got tarred with the same brush, the front bench begun to look like the cast of some low brow American-Pie-esque slap stick comedy. The Government was already viewed as being macho and bullying before the scandal broke. Combined with a female Opposition leader, the Chantelois scandal became dynamite. The ALP’s poor succession planning when it came to replacing the Premier became a potentially fatal error. It certainly wounded the Government, only time will tell whether it was a kill shot.



The election campaign is by no means over. If the public seriously examines the policies of both sides, I feel that the ALP has the best chance of victory. The danger is that the actions of the Government, both publicly and privately, over the past 8 years have rendered the policy debate null and void. It would be a terrible shame for Government to change hands purely because of deep seeded dislike of the personalities of the incumbent, not the outcomes achieved for the State. If indeed, this is the case, however, the party only has itself to blame.

When winning is losing

3:57 PM, 26/2/2010 .. 0 comments .. Link

The recent uproar regarding the “great leaders debate” between Isobel Redmond and the Premier, Mike Rann, has shed light on one of the ALP’s greatest dilemmas in this election campaign: being slick and polished may not be a positive for media Mike. Labor sources have referred to the debate as a no-win situation. If Mike dominates, he will be accused of being overbearing or a bully. If he loses, he has lost his touch or is distracted by the Chantelois scandal. This no-win situation could potentially apply to all aspects of the election campaign, with traditional rules of campaigning losing relevancy. It must be asked: how did it come to this?



When history books are written about the Rann Government, the prevailing theme will not necessarily be its achievements, such as defence jobs or green energy (both of these are commendable, however). I believe that the prevailing legacy of the Government will be the manner in which the Rann team dealt with the media and the public when spruiking those achievements. The Government’s strategy for interaction with the media and the public has thus far had two prongs: carefully managed, slick media spin and arrogant bullying and intimidation. These should be carefully examined.



The first prong of the media strategy is the “spin unit”. The importance of the media in modern politics dictates that every political party is required to have a media strategy and focus. Mike Rann, however, as a former journalist, is perhaps the most media savvy political leader in Australian history. Every peep in the media made by a Government Minister must go through him and his pack of media advisers. Every Ministerial Office
has a media adviser (they are the most entertaining staff members by the way, I wasted many hours chatting with Sammy the Seagull), who is employed by the Premier, not the Minister. Every morning, they discuss media strategy at Rann Towers, reporting on upcoming events within respective Ministerial Offices etc. The main problem, in my opinion, is that any media strategy they employ should be akin to a puppeteer operating his puppet; the audience should never see the strings. Unfortunately for Mike, the crude way in which the Government has treated the media over the past few years has resulted in the exposure to the crowd of the puppet master. The mechanism of the spin has become the issue, not the announcement being spun.



The second prong of the Government media strategy is the bullying approach. Many scribes and talking heads have publicly stated that they have been on the receiving end of torrents of abuse from media adviser head-honcho Jill Bottral for publishing any slight against the Government. This kind of approach is fine when there is an overwhelming majority and public support, but when the tide has turned, as it has now, it is akin to having bitten the hand that feeds for the previous four years. Complaints by ALP spin doctors of bias by the media are merely the result of prolonged retribution.



The success of Isobel Redmond as an alternative leader has nothing to do with her policy ideas or competence to govern. I posit that her success is a direct consequence of her “no-nonsense, plain talking” approach. The public appears to be warming to a politician who doesn’t only talk in sound bites at designated media conferences. Even her ramshackle appearance is a breath of fresh air compared to the cavalcade of suits and ties that make up the Rann Government. Ironically, and herein lies the Government’s dilemma, it appears that the public prefers lack-of-style over substance.



Before writing this instalment I briefly looked at both of the major parties’ websites. The ALP website is vastly superior to the Liberal website - it is easy to navigate, has a brilliant colour scheme and every candidate can be found with ease (even the Young Labor hack candidates have beautiful campaign photos). The Liberal site looks incredibly cheap by comparison. I have no doubt that this disparity would be reflected in all areas of campaigning e.g. television advertisements, mail outs etc. Traditionally, the slickest campaign will result in victory on election day, or at the very least an improvement in primary vote. It is my view, however, that this will not be the case in this election; due to the prevailing public opinion that Rann has used spin to dupe the public in the past, the low-budget, “straight talk express” campaign of Isobel Redmond is having more success than it normally would. The only traditional rule that seems to apply in this election is that Australians still love an underdog; this is going to be the most closely contested election in some time.

Hail Mary

5:58 AM, 20/2/2010 .. 0 comments .. Link
Hello all. Sorry I have been a little quiet over the last week. I have been having a wonderful holiday in Sydney, and so the SA Election campaign hasn't been top priority. I have been taking a keen interest in the developments of the week, however. Today marks the start of the "official" election campaign. The Government will enter into this period buoyed by the victories of the previous week, and the knowledge that they possess a sack full of cash- garnered from four years if corporate fundraisers- to splurge on carefully crafted Government adverts. In this post, I will discuss the politics behind the Government's main victory of the week, the Southern Expressway expansion, and the over arching theme of the advantages of incumbency. On Wednesday last week, the Rann Government announced the doubling of the Southern Expressway, a road that has been a national laughing stock ever since it was built. The largesse of this announcement surprised me for various reasons. Firstly, I can clearly recall attending ALP functions over the past 10 years at which the idea of doubling the expressway was always ruled out categorically on the grounds that it would be too expensive. What has changed? The Premier this week admitted himself that the extension of the road would be even more expensive now than it was in years previous. What about the economic climate? Has that improved? Certainly not. It seems like only yesterday that Kevin Foley was prophesising the end of the financial world as we know it. I remember listening to KFol speak through the tinny speakers of Parliament House, and thinking, gee there won't be any buckets of cash to spend in the 2010 election campaign. Given these facts, how can the announcement be justified? I will admit from the outset that I haven't examined the costings behind the Southern Expressway project. Despite this lack of knowledge, it is my belief that the announcement has all the hallmarks of a Hail Mary play. The American Super Bowl is only a few weeks past, but I will explain the origins of this term anyway. A Hail Mary is a very risky play utilized by gridiron teams in "last ditch" circumstances, where all seems lost. It is the "nothing to lose", despairing attempt at victory. The Government, probably armed with internal polling data, realises that Mawson and Bright are vital seats to hold onto, and Mitchell must be won. They couldn't afford to be trumped by a Liberal Southern Expressway announcement. This time the hail mary play seems to have resulted in a touch down. The fragility of the Liberal party was exposed this week in the fall out of the Southern Expressway debacle. There are now serious questions to ask about whether their readiness to govern. One of my pet peeves arising out of the whole debacle, however, is the Government's arrogance regarding their ability to get costings and develop policy through Government departments. It is an advantage of incumbency, and a terrible flaw in our democratic system. It doesn't prove anything apart from a superiority of resources, The access to Government Departments, combined with the fundraising advantages of incumbency, results in an uneven playing field. I believe that there should be an independent Government policy and costing agency, which both major parties can access 1 year out from a general election. This is only a pipe dream, however. For now we have to live with what we have got. So what can we expect from the coming week? I think that we will witness an elaborate, targeted and systematic campaign from the Labor party, backed by intimidating financial resources. My major problem with the ALP is that it has abandoned much of what it once believed in, in exchange for winning elections. The argument is, you can't change much in opposition. Irrespective of the merits of this argument, the ALP now is VERY good at winning elections. The Liberal party is a pauper in South Australia, and will probably be badly beaten in the election campaign, in a technical sense. No amount of advertising will help, however, if the faces and voices in the adverts no longer appeal to the voters. It is my view, based on the past weeks events, that the Government, aided by its resources and campaign team, will scrape back into Government, with the loss of 3-4 seats, despite considerable public disenchantment in its performance. The problem with Australian politics is that there are really only two options, ALP or Liberal. This causes a dilemma when neither side seems worthy of governing. Rann has admitted in the media, however, that this campaign is about "finishing" the job. He of course will not be around come 2014. Hopefully the Liberals will have there act together by then, so they can take advantage of the shambolic Government which is destined to emerge over the next four years. Well. i am off to enjoy my birthday, doped to the eyeballs on cold and flu medication. As Big John McCarthy would say, Let's Get it On!

Will a hung Parliament send the Government to the gallows?

1:53 PM, 19/2/2010 .. 0 comments .. Link

One of the jokers in the pack in the upcoming State election is the role that could be played by Independents in determining the identity of the Government. If the Rann Government were to lose 5 seats (which is perfectly feasible), Independents such as Bob Such, Karlene Maywald (National, I know), Kris Hanna and Geoff Brock will come into play (assuming they all hold their seats). This is of course what happened in 2001. Much has changed, however, and I am betting on a different outcome if history repeats. Before discussing the role that Independents could play in determining the Government, we should examine their chances of re-election. We will start with Karlene Maywald, who is the only “Independent” to be a Government Minister. Not only is she a Minister, but she is the Minister for Water, which is the number one issue facing her electorate. She can try to sell the “I am working for you” message all she wants, the drought ravaged electorate ain’t gonna buy it. Conservative voters will see her as a sell out. The Rann Government’s main water policy, a desalination plant, will be little comfort to voters kicking around in a dust bowl in regional SA. I personally think Karlene will lose to the Liberal party. If she does hang on, and is faced with a hung parliament scenario, I don’t necessarily think that her loyalty to the Rann Government is guaranteed. Geoff Brock is responsible for hammering the first nail in Martin Hamilton-Smith’s coffin. His surprise victory in Frome was a devastating blow to the Liberal party, but I don’t think all hope is lost. Country Independents generally build outback empires, and are virtually impossible to unseat. Mr Brock has only had 18 months to dig his moat and stock his garrison. Coupled with resurgent Liberal party popularity, I think that Frome will go down to the wire. If Brock does hold on, he has a tough decision to make. Support the Liberal Government and therefore become a proxy Liberal, and ensure that he holds his seat in the long term. Or support the ALP, whom he is more ideologically close to, and potentially lose his seat in the 2014 post-Rann holocaust election. One only needs to look at the manner in which ALP members voted on WorkCover legislation to see what wins out when self-interest and ideology collide. Speaking of WorkCover, we move on to Kris Hanna, who was outspoken in his opposition to changes to that legislation. Although I live in an electorate adjacent to Mitchell, I haven’t seen any of his election material. If I were him, though, I would be pushing a “More Labor than Labor” campaign slogan, as Mitchell is traditionally a strong Labor seat and the WorkCover debate alienated many traditional supporters. Hanna would be wise to use this as his central campaign strategy perhaps combined with a few strategic photo shoots with Nick Xenophon. Hanna’s main opposition is Alan Sibbons, another beneficiary of the AMWU’s deal with the Labor Right. What is unfortunate for the AMWU (who ironically enough share Kris Hanna’s views on WorkCover), is that this looks like another example of ‘close, but no cigar’ as it is unlikely that he will win the seat. Hanna, who has ratted twice before, on the ALP then the Greens, should hold, and would relish any opportunity to sink the dagger into his old Labor enemies. Since it seems that Isobel Redmond has the potential to be more left wing on some issues than Rann Government, such as law and order, I would not be surprised to see Hanna forming some sort of coalition with the opposition to form Government. The final Independent to discuss is Bob Such. Good old Suchy - he is my local member, and a tremendously popular one at that. As Amanda Rishworth’s campaign manager in 2006, I witnessed first hand how much time and effort went into trying to unseat Bob. We door knocked on 40 degree days, letterboxed, direct mailed etc. Although Amanda received the biggest two party preferred swing in the State, Suchy still won comfortably. The only way that the ALP could win this seat is to push Such into third spot, and then receive the majority of his preferences. Fisher, however, is notionally a Liberal party seat. Indeed, Bob Such was a former Liberal party Minister, before being stabbed in the back by the party. An important factor in the outcome of any Independent coalition is whether the wounds of this back stabbing have healed. I may be wrong, but I don’t think Isobel Redmond had anything to do with Suchy’s disenchantment with the Liberal party - I think he can be talked into supporting a Redmond Government. If we do get into a situation where there is a hung Parliament, I would put my money
on the Liberal party for several reasons. Firstly, there are the backgrounds of the Independents likely to form any coalition, as discussed it is not in the interests of any of them to support the Labor Party. Secondly, for a hung Parliament situation to arise, there would need to be a relatively large swing against the Government. Liberal party negotiators would paint this as a sign of voter disenchantment, and a mandate for a change in Government. Independents are always wary of making decisions that could jeopardise their seats. If there was a swing against the Government, there would be colossal voter backlash at the next election against all who were responsible for returning them to power. The Rann Government will carry with it 8 years of baggage, the sneering cat calls as Kris Hanna would rise to his feet on Private Members’ Business etc. Suchy might think his raft of Private Members Bills will get better attention under a new Government. Independents could also be wary of making any deals with Rann, as they may not be sure if he will serve an entire term as Premier. Lastly, there is no Randall Ashbourne to broker a deal. Rann and team certainly pulled a rabbit out of the hat in 2002, but the magic is all but gone now, and we are all wise to the sleights of hand behind the illusion.

Playing the man, I mean playing the woman, not the ball

12:14 PM, 11/2/2010 .. 0 comments .. Link

There have been interesting developments in the South Australian 2010 Election campaign. While the 2006 ALP slogan was “Rann gets results”, a positive message spruiking the achievements of the Government over the previous 4 years, it appears that the 2010 slogan will be “Redmond won’t get results.” This is a definite change in tactics, and I question the effectiveness.



I believe one of the major reasons behind the record breaking 2006 State Election for the ALP was the positive message sold to the public, and the relative cleanliness of the campaign. The Opposition Leader was “Mr Nice Guy” Rob Kerin who, being perceptibly non-threatening, caused left spin doctors to conclude that any attack on the poor bugger would be counter-productive. In 2010, the Government obviously feels quite differently.



Two of the three main Rann attack dogs have been let off their leashes, having been given the scent of one of Isobel Redmond’s unfashionable dresses. Rann and Foley have both come out attacking the readiness of the Opposition team to govern, with Foley even going so far as to call Isobel “arrogant”. If the Government truly feels that way about her, surely they should have given this line of attack to someone else in the Cabinet room rather than deeming the Treasurer the proverbial pot addressing the kettle? I assert that this strategy of attacking the Opposition Leader personally, instead of the Opposition as a whole, is fatally flawed.



The Rann Government, it appears, believes it was the Opposition that cast the first stone (as do I, by the way) and that the Liberal party is behind the Michelle Chantelois media machine, amongst other dirty tricks. It is for this reason that the Government feels justified in playing the man, not the ball. Isobel Redmond has been very careful, however, to distance herself from the Chantelois scandal, and has not sought publicly to gain any mileage out of it. Unless the Government can prove that the Liberal party is behind the dirt machine, and that Isobel personally approved of such tactics, the public will form the opinion that the Government initiated the dirty election campaign. This will give the media free reign to examine the skeletons in both parties’ closets, which I do not think is a game the Rann Government should be playing.



There have always been two schools of thought on the negative election strategy. There are those who think that the public are turned off by negative campaigning, and that only positive messages should be sold. On the other hand, there are those who believe that negative campaigns are an essential part of politics. I am of the opinion that it all depends on the resonance of the negative message; it is ok to have negative advertisements as long as they reinforce beliefs that the public already has. One need only look at the 2004 Federal Election campaign for evidence of this – the Liberal party’s “Labor can’t be trusted with interest rates” was incredibly effective, and heightened further when combined with the loose cannon leadership of Mark Latham. The same campaign did not work against a “safe pair of hands” like Kevin Rudd.



The problem with attacking Isobel Redmond’s character is that the public doesn’t really have any strongly formed opinions of her yet. The Government should, by all means, pursue the line of “she is an unknown quantity”, but should refrain from calling her arrogant especially when that is a trait they themselves have been accused of having. Further to this, they should not be seen to send out their two biggest bullies to push around a female candidate especially when there is already public perception of their chauvinism. I believe that Isobel’s success has taken the Government by surprise, and that the personal campaign against her is a slap-dash, cobbled together strategy with limited chances of success.



A more appropriate strategy for the Government would be to attack the policies, costings and experience of the Opposition. Indeed, there are traces of these arguments within the comments of Foley and Conlon. The problem is, the media will always run with the juicy anti-Redmond sentiment first - it is more appealing to the readership. Many within the ALP believe that the media is biased towards the Opposition, yet seem to go out of their way to provide it with ammunition.



Election campaigns require almost military-style discipline. It has been said that Kevin Rudd, during the Kevin 07 campaign, was as disciplined as a Purple Hearted Marine. Discipline, however, has always been a problem for Foley and Conlon, especially when they sense the opportunity to poke their forked tongues into a gaping Liberal wound. If the campaign continues along the current track, and evidence of Liberal involvement in dirty tricks remains undiscovered, the results Rann will get in 2010 will be vastly different to those celebrated four years previously.

Protected Species

8:20 AM, 9/2/2010
Greg Kelton in last Saturday’s Advertiser referred to our State’s Attorney General as a “protected species”, despite Mr Atkinson being the cause of most of the major political scandals which have marred the Rann Government. The political neutral may ask: why is the AG given the same privileged status as the Arakan Forrest Turtle and the Brazilian Merganser? It is a story that goes back many years.



The ‘Labor Unity’ or’Right’ faction is the biggest and most powerful faction in the SA ALP, however its founders will talk fondly of its humble beginnings. From my recollection of this campfire-side tale, it all started with four people: Senator Don Farrell, Michael Atkinson MP, Paul Holloway MLC and Michael O’Brien MP. As a cynic, I don’t worship this sacred meeting in the manner of some within the party, so my details may be a little blurry. O’Brien may not have been there. It may have been at a Chinese Restaurant or an Italian Restaurant, I don’t know. The point is, the faction started small.



Loyalty in politics is prized above all else, (which is why I will never be Guest speaker at a Makin School dinner), so whilst the Beatles had no problem exchanging Pete Best for Ringo Starr before making it big, the Unity Fab Four have exhibited unstinting loyalty during the growth of the faction. It would take a scandal of monumental proportions for the removal of the AG from cabinet, or even from his prized portfolio. Who knows what Mike Rann’s views on this may be? Greg Kelton seemed to suggest that Rann is stretched to his limit - indeed he must be extremely envious of Kevin Rudd and his pronounced flexibility in choosing his own cabinet. If he did have such open slather, then I am sure he would do some things differently.



Michael Atkinson is undeniably a strong parliamentary performer and based on his quiz night prowess is blessed with a near-photographic memory. There certainly is a place within the Cabinet for someone of such abilities. The State ALP, however, contains a raft of gifted legal thinkers; John Rau, Pat Conlon and Jay Weatherill would all give their right arms for a crack at the prized portfolio, and a re-shuffle would surely supply a fresh set of eyes and some new solutions to portfolio issues. However I get the sense that the AG wishes to be known as a career AG - only the public will be able to blast him off his Cabinet Seat. I would suggest that maybe the Transport portfolio would be a good fit for him - he has a love for all things relating to locomotives etc. Whilst the resolute loyalty exhibited by senior right power brokers is perhaps vital for the strength of the faction, it doesn’t necessarily make things easy when it comes to re-invigorating the Government.



Any cabinet reshuffle after the election may be tricky, depending on the number of seats that the ALP loses. Chloe Fox, Leon Bignell, Grace Portolesi, and Tony Piccolo
could all either be Ministers or lose their seats. Lee Oldenwalder and Leesa Vlahos are Ministerial material, but they would need to serve their time, one would think. One of the best speakers and deepest thinkers in the ALP, Bernard Finnigan, would also make an extremely competent Minister, though whether he fits within the Premier’s future plans is debatable. It is difficult to see Paul Holloway MLC continuing beyond the 2014 election, so a new leader of the upper house will need to be selected at some point.



Most of the members residing in safe ALP seats are either already Ministers, or not in the running. It is highly unlikely that Frances Bedford MP, Robyn Geraghty MP, Steph Key MP, Lyn Breuer MP will come into consideration. If the Rann Government is returned, Mike will have to survey the battlefield, send out the triage doctor, and consider who is still fit to fight on. The Upper House, of course, is stationed well away from enemy lines. Bernard Finnigan and Ian Hunter are perhaps the only options for promotion, although Ian Hunter’s outspokenness on gay rights/religious issues may work against him. John Rau may finally be a winner, Steven Bradbury style.



An election victory by the Rann Government will be cause for much celebration within ALP ranks, at least for a week or so. The hangover will be a doozy though, as the 2010-14 term will be dominated by many questions which will be difficult for powerbrokers to answer. The Rann leadership issue, discussed in a previous blog, will be the headliner. Finding a way to rejuvenate a Cabinet within the confines of factional gridlock will potentially be just as important.



Til next time,



Murph