The Adelaide Oval Blues

While Kevin Rudd is definitely having the worst week in politics ever, South Australian Treasurer Kevin Foley would have to be running a very close second. The entire Adelaide Oval debate is becoming a debacle for the Government, and big Kev in particular. Former Federal opposition leader Mark Latham was today quoted as saying (with regards to the National Schools program) “who would have thought you could throw money at schools and actually lose votes”. This same logic could be translated to the Adelaide Oval redevelopment. This project was meant to be a no brainer vote winner, just like the Marj. While the inability to sell major infrastructure projects is a flaw of the entire Rann Government, a significant proportion of blame over Adelaide Oval must be heaped on the Treasurer. Is Foley getting weary from 10 years in Government, or are there other forces at play.
Late last year, Kevin Foley featured in a puff piece in the Saturday Advertiser, which appeared to be designed at softening his image in order to make a tilt at the leadership. Swift on that article’s heels was Mr Foley’s revelation that he had been diagnosed with depression. Following that revelation, my initial reaction was that the second most senior (and therefore stressful) political post in the state is no place for a person who is battling their personal demons. I say this not out of ill-will towards the Treasurer, but as a person who understands depression and the consequences associated its treatment. The most sensible route for Mr Foley to take would have been to temporarily resign from the front bench so as to allow the full and proper treatment of his illness, and then return to his position when his illness was under control. The looming election, political reality and Foley’s “she’ll be right” attitude all conspired to ensure that this course of action was not pursued. It is my contention that his failure to adopt this course of action has possibly been one of the major reasons for his current circumstances.
When Mr Foley announced that he had depression, he did not specify the exact condition that he was diagnosed with, but he did rule out bipolar and manic depression. Irrespective of the nature of his condition, the main forms of treatment for depressive illness are a combination of cognitive therapy (lying on a couch talking over your problems) and medication. Mr Foley has admitted that he has been taking medication for many years. While these medications do vary in many ways, they do have some common shared side effects which could be impacting on Mr Foley’s professional life.
One of the major side effects of anti-depressants is sudden weight gain or weight loss. While Mr Foley has had yo-yoing weights over the years, his current physical appearance is in stark contrast to previous weight blow outs. Another side effect common with all anti-depressants is a “haziness of thinking”, which may or may not include memory lapses. While these side effects do not apply forever, and they may not occur in every case, they do take some time to adjust to during initial stages of treatment. This could perhaps account for his lapse during the infamous meeting with Leigh Whicker, although the stress of the election etc could also be factors. A third side effect of anti-depressants is that they do not react well with the consumption of alcohol. Even just a few drinks can cause strong reactions with the medication. The boozy political lifestyle, particularly amongst the Right of the party, is a difficult environment in which to limit one’s alcoholic intake. Someone with Mr Foley’s bravado would find such drastic lifestyle changes very difficult to achieve within his current circumstances.
The political spotlight is a harsh and unforgiving environment. The suffering of depression is not and should not be a reason to discriminate against any person within that environment. There is a difference, however, between a sufferer of depression that has successfully undergone a treatment program and brought their condition under control compared to a person who is still in the midst of their suffering. No other employer in the world would expect their employee to battle this illness while still undertaking their full responsibilities. It is bad for the worker and the business. Mr Foley needs to prioritise his health as his number one concern instead of trying to soldier on as though everything is normal.

Foley’s final showdown

The last two years in South Australian politics has been littered with political scandals of various degrees. There was the Turbo Tom “hoongate” affair, the internet censorship policy debacle and of course the infamous Chantelois affair. Despite the sensational nature of some of these scandals, the Liberal Opposition has been thus far unable to claim any political scalps. The current Foley incident differs from all the previous scandals in a significant way; this is the first time that Parliament has been misled. While the Rann Government has proven adept at riding out storms, no amount of spin will be able to save Big Kev if a Privileges Committee is established. The question to be asked is, how did the Government’s most capable Parliamentary performer ensnare himself in the most fatal of political traps?

Kevin Foley is feeding the media the innocent line of “anyone can make mistakes”, but it must be understood that while some mistakes are forgivable, misleading Parliament is not one of them. I once worked for probably the most cautious Minister in all of Government, Minister Michael Wright. Wrighty was always so careful that he would not say a word in Parliament that has not been written down, triple checked and cross referenced by his advisers. While this approach meant that he was not the most entertaining Minister to watch, he was always ensuring that his ass was protected against those looking to shove the proverbial pineapple. Foley’s mistake, I believe, stemmed from a variety of causes.

Kevin Foley in full flight during question time is a sight to behold. His ability to ad-lib, insult, belittle and perform in general is legendary. His tendency to depart from the script, however, is one reason why he has landed in his current circumstance. It is not the sole reason for his downfall, however. Foley has not survived for the last ten years by pure chance. His advisers, aware of his tendencies, have always been on guard, ensuring that the big man was reigned in before over stepping the mark. Advisers, armed with a pen and paper, have often done the mad dash to the floor of the House with scribbled missives seeking a change of tack, or a correction of statement. So while Foley was in blame in part, the ultimate cross must be borne by his advisers.

Much has changed in Foley’s office since the infamous February 19th meeting. While Foley’s Chief of Staff remains the same, much of the adviser team has been replaced. I am not certain which adviser was in attendance during the Feb 19th meeting, but there is every possibility that whoever it was is no longer working for the Treasurer. The misleading of Parliament has been blamed on a “memory lapse”. What should be remembered, however, is that while Ministers of the Crown are inundated with a torrent of information, they have a collective memory; their Ministerial staff. A failure to write down such an important piece of information, file it, enter it into the database etc. is unforgivable. I suggest, however, that the information proffered by Leigh Whicker was information that Foley and the ALP campaign team did not want to hear.

It must be remembered that February 19 was smack bang in the middle of election campaign season. An announcement of a cost blow out would have been a political cancer. In legal parlance, there is an expression known as “wilful blindness”. I suspect that Foley didn’t see the cost blow out, because he didn’t want to see it. Unfortunately for him, and the Government, he was so successful in blocking this from his mind that he has landed himself in the current dilemma. He is now a dead man walking, waiting for the Upper House to drop the guillotine.

The misleading of Parliament is the first nail in Foley’s coffin. The second nail is the return of Iain Evans and Rob Lucas to the front bench. Have no doubt, Lucas and Evans are nasty, vindictive pieces of work. Having said that, they are a key asset to the Opposition in the current situation. I believe that if this duo were in charge during the Koutsantonis debacle, Turbo Tom would be on the backbench rather than barking orders to DTED. The situation is worsened by Mike Rann’s sojourn overseas. The final nail in the coffin is the frosty relationship faced by the Government in the Upper House, with Family First MPs still seething over the how-to-vote debacle. Foley’s arrogance and bullying nature would have earned him no friends amongst the minor parties. (I believe Mark Parnell witnessed a drunken Foley abusing Xenophon during that infamous incident). My money is on the establishment of a Privileges Committee by the Upper House, followed by the resignation of the Treasurer. In my next blog, I will discuss the can of worms that will be opened when the party struggles with Foley’s replacement.

True believers of nothing

During the 90s, one of my favourite television shows was Seinfeld, the so called “show about nothing”. A central tenet of all of my blogs posts has been that the Australian Labor Party, and the Right faction in particular, is fast becoming a party which is “about nothing”. Gone are the days where the blue collar worker can sit his son down and say “Liberals are for the bosses, Labor is for the workers”. While I have been harping on about this loss of ideology for some time, this week I received an ally in the great 90s ALP Prime Minister Paul “Placido” Keating. Placido, in response to the Rudd betrayal of Morris Iemma, said the following;
I think the problem with Centre Unity in NSW (the Right) is that it lacks now an ideology. When I say an ideology, it lacks an ideology other than the sheer pursuit of power, Mr Keating says. It's clear enough about that, but power for what? And to do what? This is where the national party always depended on Centre Unity, its processes, its real-world touch. When the motivation of the machinery of the party is unfurnished as to policy purpose, it has nothing more to offer than to focus on marketing and polls. After a while the public becomes aware of this and they realise that marketing and spin have no basis. That is more the rule these days than the exception. This is not a winning formula.
So when I say that the ALP is now about nothing, I am being slightly inaccurate. The one thing they are about is power for power’s sake. The corporate boxes, the ministerial drivers, the prestige of sitting on the Government side of the Parliamentary floor. Gone of the days of Whitlam, Dunstan and Keating, where a Government was willing to risk its office by taking unpopular or risky decisions based upon ideology. I remember Senator Don Farrell belittling the Whitlam Government for its short term of office. He went on to say that following that Government, he decided to never allow ALP Governments to get booted out prematurely again. The ascendency of the right faction, led in SA by Don Farrell, has resulted in the abandonment of Whitlamesque reforming zeal, replaced by a reliance on governing through opinion poll. As Keating says, however, a reliance on marketing and polls will only work.
It is true that the Whitlam Government lasted for only 3 years. During that time, however, a substantial amount of ideological reforms were pushed through. While these reforms were unpopular, a high percentage of them are still in place today. The political cycle inevitably flitters between conservative and progressive Governments. The important thing for both sides of politics is to reform as much as possible according to their ideology during the years when they are in ascendency. Clinging to power by doing as little as possible will not work forever. The public tires of the faces as easily as they tire of policies. Spinning promises only work if you follow through on them. Not even the world’s greatest PR team can convince a member of the public that their personal experience of the world around them has changed for the better when it has worsened. When the “it’s time” factor arrives, and a new Government is elected, they will dismantle a proportion of the previous Government’s program and begin implementing their own. It is the duty of every progressive Government to reform in such a way that makes it difficult for future conservative Governments to roll back their achievements. By adopting a “no ideological” approach to governing, the ALP is ensuring the predominance of conservative ideology.
A useful example of the ALP’s abandonment of ideology is the Adelaide Oval debacle plaguing Kevin “Hugh Hefner” Foley. For a period of time before the last election, the ALP was espousing an ideological belief that a hospital was better than a stadium. The unpopularity of this position, partially due to the Marj naming balls up, had the Government reeling in the opinion polls. Instead of holding steadfastly to their original position, they abandoned ideology and cobbled together an ill-thought out proposal aimed at pleasing everyone. This policy was a clear example of an attempt to retain power. As time goes on, it is clear that the scheme proposed is not the best use of taxpayer’s money, nor is it the best way to build a stadium. While the short term spin of the announcement was enough to ensure the Rann Government’s re-election, the public is beginning to realise that “the spin and marketing has no basis”. While Foley and Rann will be the losers in the short term, the long term losers are the public and the supporters (former and present) of a once proud political party.