Breaking Point

When political commentators predicted that the SA ALP leadership would emerge from this weekend’s State Conference with a “bloodied nose”, I suspect they were speaking in metaphors. While Rann and Foley’s bodyguards ensured they were left untouched by irate unionists, Foley was apparently on his lonesome when danger truly struck. On the facts released, it appears the Big Kev was the victim of an unprovoked attack, but one could argue that he was exposing himself to that very risk as a high profile identity stumbling around the city during the wee hours of the morning. His headache from the king hit, however, pales in comparison to the head aches facing the party and leadership in the coming months.

Big Kev’s stoush outside the Marble Bar is not the only high profile confrontation that he has been involved in during the week. His Parliamentary encounter with Agriculture Minister Michael O’Brien differs markedly because it is suggested that it was provoked, and metaphorical punches were thrown by both parties. O’Brien, it is claimed, instigated the dispute by privately canvassing a leadership coup with Education Minister Jay Weatherill. While he has since denied the Weatherill component of that claim, he has confirmed his belief that it is time for a leadership change. While Foley’s Marble Bar attacker will face the maximum of a low level assault charge, party sources suggest that O’Brien will receive a political death sentence at this week at the earliest.

Speculation of O’Brien’s Ministerial sacking following his Timber-gate gaffe fest seemed puzzling in isolation, especially given the survival of fellow Right wing acolytes Atkinson and Koutsantonis following much greater scandals. When viewed in context of the claimed leadership coup, however, his imminent demise makes much more sense. While Rann is definitely on his “victory lap”, he isn’t gone yet and the Right is still undecided about who will replace him. Allowing a Minister who has publicly undermined the leadership to remain on the front bench is an untenable proposition. Rumours are circulating that he will be "sacked" by the Premier this week, making way for another Right hopeful, most likely Leesa Vlahos. I suspect O’Brien knows his end is near(or he should) and his public pronouncement on the weekend could at least make him appear prophetic when Rann’s time comes. It appears, however, that he has been caught backing both horses (Weatherill in private, Right faction candidate in public) and neither Koutsantonis, Snelling or Rau will take this betrayal of faction lightly if the attain the top job. His cross-factional scheme, however, is perhaps evidence of a rift emerging within the Right faction.

While I am no longer privy to all of the internal machinations of the Right faction, I suspect there may be two camps with differing viewpoints on leadership succession. One camp will fight Weatherill’s ascension to the death, even if internal polling or logic suggests that this will lead to political suicide and defeat in 2014. The egos of Koutsantonis, Snelling and Rau would never countenance that their leadership would be a failure, so the anti-Weatherill camp will mainly consist of friends and allies of those MPs and devout Right wing ideologues. The opposing camp of Right faction members would consist of realists that are willing to swallow their pride and acknowledge that Jay is the most likely candidate to deliver a victory to the ALP in 2014. This group would consist of people that are concerned more with self-preservation than factional ideological purity. Michael O’Brien potential falls within this camp, although I suspect that the idea of “leapfrogging” other Right faction rivals for the Deputy position also were motivations. The left faction will come out of this year’s State Convention feeling emboldened, and the metaphoric and actual bruises born by Rann and Foley will only serve to encourage party disunity and agitation. It will take much more than “rousing” speeches by Malinauskas and “contrite” apologies from Michael Brown to reverse the SA ALP’s breakneck momentum towards oblivion. With a competent and united Brumby Government careening towards defeat, the SA ALP can't afford to spend much longer preoccupied with internal division.

Can’t see the forest for the protestors

Governments have much in common with battle ships. In their glory days, both are usually air tight and impervious to the daily stresses placed upon their hulls. During periods of strength, only the strongest torpedo can breach the sturdy exterior. As they age, however, leaks begin to appear, allowing trickles of water inside. The good ship Rann has now reached the point where there are not enough collective fingers to plug the numerous holes that have transformed the lower cabins into aquatic wonderlands. It has reached a point so dire that the majority of the sailors should be eying the life rafts. Party office, however, believes that a mutiny on the Bounty will suddenly breach the voids. There is ample evidence, however, suggesting that this will not be the case.

Various events throughout the life of the Rann Government have been major causes of disenchantment within the rank and file and the union movement. The WorkCover debate, for example, tore a massive hole in the Governments defenses. The recent budget cuts to public sector entitlements served to accentuate this gaping hole, and if not mended will continue to swamp Rann and Co’s every action for the next three years. The union movement has begun to realize that symbolic protest is no longer effective in influencing key Government decision makers. Their attempt to push for “generational change” at this weeks State Convention is not worth the paper it is written on. Soon they will realize that the need to hit the Government where it hurts; the hip pocket and on the ground volunteers during election campaigns. While the Government is facing damaging leaks from the union movement, the seriousness of this pales in comparison to the leaks emerging within the public service.

While union members to have a seat at the ALP table, and are privy to important information gleaned from party functions and internal party events, their access to information is dwarfed by that available to the public service. Also, while the unions may agitate for change within the party, they are less inclined to leak information capable of sinking the Government. (At the end of the day, it is not in their interests to see a change in Government). The recent Michael O’Brien debacle and the Sustainable Budget Commission leak show the damage that a disenchanted public servant can cause. It is hard to say what the motivations of the individual leakers was, but I am sure the arrogant and bullying attitude of Government members and media team operatives is partly to blame. Slashing the entitlements of those responsible for the day to day operation of the Government is also obviously a factor. A change of leader will have a minimal impact on the relationship between the ALP Government and the public service. It is also doubtful that it will improve internal party stability.

The calls for “generational change” at this weekends ALP State Convention are not merely aimed at removing Rann and Foley. The generation that the unions want to take the reigns is the Weatherill generation, which is entirely different to the Koutsantonis/Rau/Snelling generation. MPs from both sides of the factional divide are using Mike Rann’s “victory lap” to discredit contenders from the other side of the factional divide. Rob Lucas had the following to say recently in Parliament;

One cannot walk the corridors of this place, or take a telephone call, without running into some Labor source wanting to leak damaging information against another government MP, wanting to damage first the Premier or the Treasurer and then the leadership contenders as well. The sources from the left are leaking against the Premier and the Treasurer, and any of the contenders from the right, whether it be Messrs Koutsantonis, Snelling or Rau; the sources on the right, of course, are busily trying to undermine and damage the reputation of minister Weatherill.

While Mike Rann, as an unaligned member of the old “Centre Left” has been a foil to factional rivalries, his imminent departure will cause the opening of Pandora’s Box. When Rann does go, his replacement will continue to be plagued by damaging leaks. Forces within the left (and the Union movement) will be unsatisfied with any outcome other than Premier Jay. Even if Jay is appeased by placing him in the Deputy position, it would be in his interests to cause the dethroning of the Premier. If, by some amazing twist of fate, Weatherill does reach the Premiership, the Right wing dirt squad will start working in overtime. The O’Brien/Foley brouhaha this week is evidence that there are even differences of opinion within the Right faction. If there is a way to avoid all out factional guerrilla warfare, I certainly can’t see it.

The gift that keeps on giving

A few months ago when some wily public servant leaked a confidential State budget document outlining potential savings measures, the cynics suggested that said leak was a clever “spin” tactic by the Rann Government. While this may have made some sense in the short term, a Government will never benefit from the public disclosure of such an extensive and explicit costing document, especially in the context of a “horror budget” scenario. The Opposition, by having access to said document, is able to highlight any perceived extravagance that was spared the knife, and contrast it to any number of harsh measures implemented in the previous budget. Even the laziest opposition can do a Mary Poppins and thrust their arm into this bag of tricks and pull out a scandal. The current Puglia debacle engulfing the Premier is an example of such a scandal.

At the outset, let me say that I have no idea how beneficial the Puglia-South Australia trade relationship will be. One thing I can say, however, is no electorate will take kindly to being treated as second fiddle to a bunch of “outsiders”. Why should our taxes be spent on the abstract doodles of some I-talian when you are making me redundant? The Premier has always been a fan of his high-profile “gimmick” policies, such as bro-mance with Lance Armstrong. In a comfortable budgetary environment, such indulgences can be tolerated. As public sector unions quietly sharpen their daggers in darkened rooms, however, publicly funded ego stroking is not on. When you add the ingredients of improper motives to the pot, you have one spicy meatball.

The two biggest scandals to have stricken Mike Rann during his term in office have involved his sexual partners, alleged or otherwise. The factor that transforms the Puglia affair from standard Government wastage to high blown scandal is the fact that the Premier’s wife hails from the region. While I sincerely doubt that Rann was operating under any improper motives, the political judgment made in this policy initiative calls into question whether he has completely lost touch with the community he professes to serve. This will be the question that the faceless men within the party are asking.

Internal ALP figures are undoubtedly united in the view that Rann will not be the leader taking the party to the polls in 2014. The question about who will replace him has been fertile grounds for discussion in this blog in the past and can be summarized by the following; nobody knows and we’d prefer not to think about it for now. They would prefer put off this decision for a year or so, but the current Puglia affair may accelerate their thinking. The Right knows that they won’t support Weatherill. By adopting this stance, the faction is following in the foot steps of the NSW Right, who bypassed the obvious successor (in the public’s mind) and installed Iemma. If this action is taken, it will ensure that the anointed will be saddled with the baggage of their ascension from day 1. This is only the beginning of their problems.

In an environment where there is no clear successor (or the clear successor is ignored), the anointed leader will be bedeviled by a caucus and/or cabinet room rife with ambition. By promoting mediocrity, you encourage the mediocre. For example, if the Right appoints John Rau as leader, any number of cabinet members would feel that they are equally as capable. Ensuring unity and loyalty will be difficult, especially if the new leader is struggling. Loyalty from Weatherill can only be achieved by appeasing him with a deputy position, which places him one step away from the throne. The complexity of life after Rann is the very reason why the faceless men don’t want to act yet. Continuing to allow Mike to rot from the end of a rope tethered to the lamp post, however, may cause such a stench that even the freshest smelling leader won’t be able to clear the air.

Debating about debating

Karl Bitar, National Secretary of the ALP, today gave a woeful account of the ALP’s woeful 2010 election campaign to the National Press club. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explore every flaw in Bitar’s logic, so I will focus my ire upon one particular failing that he admitted that the ALP suffers from; a lack of internal debate within the ALP. Both Bitar and Howes have tried to link the lack of debate within the party to the tyrannical reign of King Rudd. While Rudd was undoubtedly a control freak, the lack of debate within the party’s root cause is structural.

When examining the structure of the ALP, there are theoretically a multitude of opportunities for robust and lively debate on policy issues. There are sub-branch meetings, State Council and State Executive meetings and an annual conference. As an attendee at these meetings, however, I can assure you that they are plagued by the rhetorical equivalent of tumbleweed. Debate never occurs, because all involved are aware that somewhere in a dark back room, the decision has already been made.

The skill of oration has always been a fundamental talent required to succeed in politics. It is a skill developed through a rigorous trial by fire, with the speaker endeavouring to persuade the sceptical. Not even history’s greatest orators such as Malcolm X or JFK would be capable of swaying an ALP State Conference, however. The vast majority of delegates at State Conference have allegiances to one of the major factions, with a clear expectation that all will toe the factional line on a given issue. Every issue on the conference agenda has been discussed and decided prior to the first speech taking place. This all encompassing power, exercised largely by a handful of Union officials, drains the fire from the bellies of all delegates. The power exercised by the union extends not only to the voting decisions of delegates, but also to who will speak on a motion.

State conferences are designed to be forums in which the “rising stars” of the particular faction are groomed in preparation for their ascent to Parliament. As Cavalier stated in Power Crisis, promotion within the factions and the union is determined largely by loyalty rather than talent. For this reason, those selected to speak at Conference are not necessarily the most skilled orators but rather the lobotomised, faithful work horse. As delegates listen to the spluttering and clichés of the chosen few, their eyes begin to roll back into the back of their head. The merits of the arguments advanced are never questioned, for the only delegates with the gumption to rebut or speak against a factional acolyte are the crazy bearded lefties, remnants of an age passed.

Re-invigorating the ALP and instilling a spirit of debate is not possible within the current party structure. The power to control outcomes and groom the next generation of clones is too valuable for the unions to throw away. If there ever was a debate on the restructuring of the power within the ALP, the outcome would be pre-determined and the speakers pre-selected. Reform, I fear, will only be possible when the party is in such disarray that the power being fought for is no longer sought after.

Strange Bedfellows

When Joe Public visits their nearest Borders to purchase the latest celebrity chef cook book and a mochachino, they will be greeted by shelf upon shelf of political commentary spawned from the 2010 election result. The outpouring of commentary is unprecedented, especially given that this year’s poll was universally considered to be banal and bland. Much of the commentary emerging from the press gallery can be explained by the emergence of the Greens, the knifing of Rudd and the “new paradigm”. Of more interest is the entering into the fray by active political operatives, such as Paul Howes.

The 2010 Australian election will be viewed as historically significant for a number of reasons; hung parliament, ALP leadership, rise of the Greens. The rise of the Greens, however, has been at the expense of the ALP, and this fact could be the most significant trend to emerge from the poll. The period between now and the next election (whenever that may be) should be viewed as a fight for the future of the “left wing vote”. The message sent to the ALP by those in the trendy inner city electorates is one that has been heard loud and clearly by the wiser heads within the party. They realise that they must act during this window of opportunity before the left vote is lost forever. The challenge for people like Howes, parasites reliant upon the health of their host to survive, is convincing the lumbering beast that they are headed towards the cliff.

The recent Road to Damascus conversion of Howes and Arbib to the cause of gay marriage has been a curious occurrence. Cynics would suggest that this change of heart was not dictated by some fundamental change of beliefs. To succeed in the modern ALP, factional warriors such as Arbib and Howe have learnt that survival is much more important than strength of belief. They realise that if they continue to be outflanked by the Greens on important social issues such as gay marriage, those that switched allegiances for the first time in 2010 may be lost forever in 2014. The structure of the ALP, however, is not equipped to react to these realities.

The Right faction of the ALP, which Arbib and Howes are a part, may be devoid of beliefs in many policy areas, but gay marriage is certainly not one of them. Within the power broking positions of the Right there exist two distinct classes of people; win-at-all costs careerists and devout Catholics. The Catholics have lost the abortion battle, and they will be damned if they will roll over on gay marriage. The gay marriage issue is a perfect example of the flaws of ALP’s structure in reflecting the prevailing sentiment of their traditional voters. By obtaining control of a few unrepresentative unions, a few Catholics can veto policy initiatives that have overwhelming public support. I challenge the Shop Assistant’s union to poll their employees on the question of gay marriage.

Any debate about the future direction of the ALP will be futile unless it addresses the fundamental failing of the party structure. Even if Arbib and Howe do achieve a change to party policy on gay marriage (highly unlikely, and will only occur over lengthy and bloody battle) the party will continue to be behind public sentiment until there is reform which ensures that decisions are in the hands of a representative majority, not an unrepresentative few. By vesting ultimate power in the hands of the trade union movement, a movement with limited relevance to modern society controlled by careerists with no connection to the community, the ALP will continue its descent into mediocrity.