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.