Kenyon 2 Fast, Weatherill 2 Furious

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mike gets a handshake, we get a shower

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

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

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

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

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