What's Left?

Much has been said about the shift to the right of the two major parties over the past few decades. This has been particularly evident in the current election campaign, with Gillard and Abbott trying to out-Pauline Hanson each other on border protection. One of the major arguments for this eventuality is that the majority of the domestic “leftie issues” were fought for and won during the 60s and 70s. While racial and sexual minorities and women still face inequalities in society, overt discrimination has been legislated against in most cases. The only issues that mass numbers (I am talking hundreds of thousands) are willing to march in the street for now are the environment, international conflict and industrial relations. The Liberal party has always had right wing views on these issues. With the Work Choices election still fresh in the memory, it is unlikely that they will risk taking on the unions again. The might of the unions, however, is behind the ALP’s shift to the right in recent years.

The predominant left wing issue of the day is the environment, as evidenced by the rise of the Greens and the backlash against Rudd’s ETS back flip. The ALP has a fundamental conflict of interest when dealing with environmental issues; the biggest donors to the party, and the controllers of party convention are the trade unions. Some of the biggest trade unions in the party (and the most militant) represent workers in industries that rape and pillage the environment. The role of unions (apart from being incubators for fat, brainwashed yes men), is to protect the jobs of their members at all costs. While this is a noble cause, it often results in the militant protection of current workers, which is potentially detrimental to the plight of future workers, who may or may not be members of the particular union.

My brother is an employee in the motor trades industry, represented by the AMWU. This industry is not an industry that Australia should be pursuing into the next century, because emerging nations can manufacture at a much lower cost than we can. It would be wiser as a policy for the nation to re-train people such as my brother in industries that will flourish in the future e.g. renewable energy. While the AMWU is dying a slow death as a union, it still wields some clout. It is for this reason that ALP Governments pump cash into propping up failing car manufacturers instead of making tough decisions for the future. Why? Because future workers don’t have mortgages or mouths to feed. I am not saying that the job unions do is bad. What I am saying is that their main objective directly conflicts with the responsible and visionary development of policy for the benefit of future Australians.

Back in my days at ALP State Conventions, I would always see the bearded lefties (I am now one them, but I wasn’t then) standing up debating human rights in Zimbabwe or gay marriage. Every now and then, however, you would see the same lefties fervently arguing against the traditional “left wing” view, because they worked in the foundry that was polluting the environment. It was always amusing, I thought, that they were left wing on all occasions except when the issue impacted on their lives. A classic example of this is the CFMEU’s raucous welcome of John Howard during the 2004 election campaign, because Mark Latham had audaciously decided to protect the Tasmanian forests. The SA office of the CFMEU once housed a massive picture of Soviet revolutionary Lenin. Therein lies the ALP’s dilemma. While most unions promote left wing ideologies, this ideology does not extend to environmental issues that will cost their members jobs. This fact is one reason for the ALP’s shift to the “right” in the overall scheme of things.
Another obvious reason for the shift to the right of the ALP is obviously the influence wielded by the Catholic right faction within the party. While most of this faction consists of unions with non-environmental impacted employees (apart from the AWU), this faction is conservative on Catholic belief issues, such as gay marriage, abortion, stem cell research etc. The ALP, therefore, has unions opposed to progressive environmental change on their left flank, and unions opposed to progressive social change on its right. The union oriented structure of the party has imposed a right wing policy straight jacket. There are two more issues to discuss, racism and war.

The ALP has been a racist political party for much longer than it has been a tolerant party. Up until the late 60s, the ALP was still in favour of the White Australia policy. Arthur Calwell, former ALP leader, was famously quoted as saying “too Wongs don’t make a white”. I am not sure if Penny has a sister. The Whitlam, Keating, Hawke and Rudd eras were marked by a tolerant racial attitude, but this only consists of 40 years. Now Gillard has returned to the familiar fear mongering of floods of immigrants, as used by generations of pre Whitlam ALP leaders. While race and environmental issues have been traditionally classified as “left” issues, the ALP has not always adopted progressive views on these matters.

Protests against war are always inevitable. While some wars, such as Vietnam, advanced a right wing agenda, other wars such as World War 2 dealt with the very survival of Australia as a nation. The ALP is more left wing in its attitude towards armed conflict than the Liberal party, but both are wedded to the ANZUS alliance. I generally agree with this approach, apart from during the Bush presidency. No major party could adopt a radical left wing on national security and remain in office.

While it has been argued that no left wing issues remain, and this is the cause of the shift in party ideology, this is not the case. The main reason is that the trade unions, responsible for the operation of the ALP, favour stability and certainty when it comes to their workforce. My view of being “left wing” is being in favour of new and progressive approaches to social problems, rather than upholding the social norm. Society will always have problems. It could be argued that the environmental problems facing the world now are the greatest challenges of all time. The ALP will not be able to adapt effectively and respond to these problems unless the union movement starts to move forward in its thinking.

Fighting the battle of who could care less

The 2010 Australian Federal election campaign could be described by paraphrasing Winston Churchill; never has something so important meant so little to so many. In all my years involved in or observing election campaigns, I have never seen such a policy announcement vacuum. In a world facing some of the most difficult and pressing challenges in human history, both the Liberal and ALP leaders are pushing to for Australians to “take a breath” and be content with keeping things as they are. It is as though Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott have moved to that planet in Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy; you know the one where if you have an original idea, you are smacked in the face with a shovel. In this blog, I will explore the reasons behind this most mundane election campaign.

One of the key election battle grounds this time around has been economic management, which is not surprising given the Global Economic Crisis that engulfed the world in recent years. With Australians digging money holes in their back yards, Whitlamesque policy announcements are not to be expected by either side. While wads of cash are not required for all types of policy (what would gay marriage cost?), it sure helps. This is one of the main reasons we are seeing a miserly election campaign so far. Liberals are always in favour of cuts and economic conservatism. For the ALP, they are forced to play the same game because of the events of the past three years.

While the Kevin 07 ALP was able to convince the public of it’s fiscal rectitude, the Keynesian largesse of the recent term of Government has potentially spoiled this line of attack for the Labor party. The job for the ALP is to neutralise this issue by avoiding any major, expensive policy announcements and linking the Liberal parties economic strategy to Industrial Relations reforms. This brings us to another reason for the boredom of this 2010 campaign. The ALP and the union movement are relying on the spectre of WorkChoices to return them to Government, despite constant and desperate repudiations of the policy by Tony Abbott. This approach may be successful to some degree in this election campaign, but woe betide the ALP if they think this is a fail safe strategy for ever.

Electorates tend to have very short memories. They care about what is impacting upon them now, not what harmed them in the past. Look at the SA ALP’s election result following their disastrous State Bank election annihilation. The SA Liberals still try to use the spectre of the State Bank on occasion, but the electorate moved on quite quickly. The SA ALP was helped by the fact that Mike Rann was only a junior Minister in the Bannon Government. Abbott, however, is still linked to the Howard team, as is Joe Hockey. Under a Turnbull leadership, the WorkChoices line would not cut mustard. Unfortunately, under Abbott, we will be subjected to arguments about the past instead of policies for the future.

A final potential reason for the stark policy vacuum is the instability of leadership of both parties over the past election cycle. Gillard, in her three week Prime Ministership has spent the majority of the time rolling back or repudiating Ruddisms. Given that the majority of policy development by the ALP would have occurred over the past year under Rudd’s watch, it is possible that the contents of the policy war chest are all unappealing to the new Gillard team. It is also possible that Rudd, because of his domineering management style, ordered that all policy development go through him, rather than delegating it to the Ministers. As a consequence of his chop, all policy may have been chopped as well. For this reason, we are getting bizarre pronouncements by Gillard, such as we are developing an Global Warming strategy, but we will reveal it after the election. When has this ever been acceptable?

Abbott, on the other hand, is the third Liberal leader in the Rudd/Gillard era. Such instability, combined with the inferior resources of Opposition for policy development and the Libs penchant for budget cuts is the explanation for their boring campaign. Abbott has, however, announced the biggest paid maternity scheme ever proposed and massive increases in mental health spending. The unilateral nature of his parental scheme announcement, however, would have resulted in a major wing clipping of the Opposition leader. He would be loathe to embark on any more reckless of the cuff billion dollar pledges.

Well there we have it folks. Normally elections have a centrepiece e.g. a city stadium versus a hospital, reform of workplace laws etc. This time around, however, it is highly likely that the centrepiece will fortress Australia. Both parties are adopting the Pompeii approach, content with keeping the nation frozen as it is, ostrich necking the global challenges which we face. No amount of talk about moving forward will actually result in any momentum in that direction/

Seats of Power

While observing State Parliament question time on A-Pac (I used my Foxtel IQ and fast forwarded the Dorothy Dixes), a few things were quite apparent to me. Firstly, as I watched Kevin Foley nervously fiddling with his pen like a naughty school boy while answering a question, it was clearly apparent that he is a dead man walking. I had never seen the Treasurer show such apparent weakness and loss of direction. While he had regained his bluster by the third sitting day, the Opposition, and more importantly his own front bench, could sniff the blood in the water. It is clear that some time this year, probably following the Federal election and State budget, Foley will be tapped on the shoulder. Possible replacements include fellow front benchers Tom Koutsantonis or Jay Weatherill. The second observation I made concerned the seating arrangements of the various frontbenchers.

A curious observation that I made regarded the seating arrangements of the ALP’s Ministers, particularly the Attorney General John Rau. The portfolio of Attorney General is traditionally one of the most senior positions in any Government. At the very least, it deserves a position on the front row of the Government bench. Rau, however, is tucked away in the corner in between junior Ministers Grace Portolesi and Jack Snelling. Upon further examination, I determined that the only possible explanation for the seating arrangements was based on length of service in the Cabinet. This seems highly unconventional, and I believe is designed to prevent the perception that Rau was now within grasp of the top job. It could also suggest that Rann, Foley, Hill and Conlon didn’t want anyone else infiltrating their clique. Whatever the reason, the seating arrangements do not send the message of a united Government.

A few seats closer to the Premier sits Tom Koutsantonis. Having left working in political offices prior to Kouts’s appointment, this was my first real opportunity to see him in action. What I saw was the same old head kicker trying desperately to adapt his ridiculing, berating, wise cracking style to the functions of a Minister. During a DD, Kouts was interrupted by three points of order, which is possibly a first. DD’s are traditionally boring drones about Government achievements, primarily designed to suck up air time to limit the number of Opposition questions. Kouts however, couldn’t stick to his script, but rather attempted to engage in mudslinging and belittling of Opposition members. Foley, Conlon, Rann and Atkinson are masters of destroying the Opposition during question time, but there is an art to doing it successfully. Koutsantonis’s feeble effort showed that he is not yet ready for elevation to higher posts, although I sense he would disagree with this assertion.

Another Minister that is being groomed for big things is Jack Snelling. Jack is one of the nicest members of the Government. We have had many great conversations about the merits of home brewing. While Jack responded to both DD’s and questions without notice in a dignified and professional manner, it is clear that he is still finding his feet in his new role. I suspect that when Kevin Foley is tapped on the shoulder in coming months, this will trigger a ballot for the leadership. While Jack is spoken about within Labor circles as a future Premier, I don’t personally think that he will be ready for this role in the next 6 months. I will be keeping my eyes on Kouts and Jack over the next few months, as would the ALP backbench. If they fail to make considerable strides during this time, ugly ducklings Rau and Weatherill may become leadership swans.

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.

The Empire Strikes Back

Well it has been a historic day in Federal politics, or should I say infamous? Kevin Rudd’s political execution this morning stems directly from his unwillingness to play the factional game. While the factional war lords are claiming that his demise was due to his unpopularity in the opinion polls, the truth is they were baying for his blood from the very start. I remember a conversation with SA State Secretary Michael Brown soon after the 2007 election when he bemoaned the leadership of Kevin Rudd, and said something very similar to we need to get rid of him. So why were the factions so anti-Rudd from the beginning, and what does it mean for Julia Gillard?

Kevin Rudd was always an unlikely candidate for Prime Minister. It must be remembered that he came to power while the Federal ALP was in disarray, and it looked like John Howard would die in office some time around 2050. The absence of leadership material meant that Rudd, a factional outsider, was able to make it to the top job. Rudd’s amazing victory in 2007 stifled the leadership ambitions of Right wing “superstar” Bill Shorten. A long and prosperous Rudd era, followed by a seamless Gillard transition would stifle Shorten’s prime ministerial hopes indefinitely. Combined with his unwillingness to bow to factional demands regarding Cabinet positions and policy choices, Kevin was dead man walking from the very start.

The only thing keeping Rudd alive over the past four years was his popularity in the opinion polls. His leadership was similar to the movie Speed. As long as he kept approval above 50 %, he could continue leading. As soon as it dipped below 50 (and it did after ETS back flip, which was instigated by the NSW right), the knives came out. Granted, the did give him a few months to turn things around, but I suspect his was more Gillard’s hesitancy rather than Right wing lenience. Nothing sets of a leadership spill quicker than a disastrous by-election. Right wing power brokers sure have some gall using the Paramatta result to axe Rudd, however.

The weekend by-election result in NSW showed a 25% swing against the ALP. This was a State election, and much of this swing was a reaction AGAINST the constant execution of NSW Premiers by the Right faction. Not even Prime Minister Jesus Christ would have been able to turn the tide of this swing (maybe Moses is a better Biblical reference?). The NSW Government is the house that Arbib and the Right faction built. Using this as a justification to knife the PM is laughable. If anything, the NSW result shows what happens when the Right faction runs rampant. I am sure they are offering Julia some blonde hair die and a framed picture of the Virgin Mary as we speak. Therein lies Julia’s problem.

Julia Gillard was always destined to become leader of the Federal ALP at some point. Given this fact, the only question was which road she was going to take to that destination. Unfortunately for her, she has made a deal with the devil/s; Arbib and the un-wise men. Because of this ascension route, she faces only two possible futures. She can go against the Rudd model and bow to the Right every time they walk into her office demanding favours OR she can govern in the style that she sees fit, and face a similar fate to Rudd as soon as popularity begins to wane. My prediction is we will see a revolving door of PM’s over the next five years. The infection flowing through the veins of the NSW ALP has spread nationally. God help us all.

Should I stay or should I go now?

Yesterday’s Advertiser contained an article speculating about the imminent retirement of up to 14 ALP MPs throughout the coming term of Government, including big names such as Hill, Foley, Rann and Atkinson. Curiously, since the articles publication several of those named have come out to dispute those claims. Given this fact, one must ask where this article came from, at what were the motivations behind it?

South Australia’s mainstream political press is the antithesis of the Woodward and Bernstein investigative journalism. Kelton et al are highly unlikely to publish anything unless it is served to them on a silver platter via media release or confidential informant. For this reason, it is highly likely that the origins of this story emanate from somewhere within ALP head office on Gilles Street. Michael Brown was obviously aware of the story, and his quote was in favour of the concept of rejuvenation. Left faction counterpart Kyam Maher was also named in the story. The purpose of the story, therefore, was for the new guard to bluntly signal to the old guard that their time is almost up, and the wolves are at the door. Today’s puff piece about the former Attorney General and his garden, however, shows that the old guard isn’t willing to give in without a fight.

Following the Rann Government’s recent election victory, I heard whispers that some within the new guard of the ALP were a little disappointed by the result, as it would further delay their ascent into Parliament. It is possible that given the recent Weatherill leadership debacle and Pat Conlon’s defection from the left, the Right faction feels that it is now in a position to dictate terms in any pre-selection battle. The battlegrounds will be drawn over seats where there is dispute over the factional “ownership”. For example, Ramsay and Kaurna are both held by MPs that are factionally unaligned. Torrens and Lee are held by members of the Right, but when they were pre-selected they were members of the Left. The pre-selection of Bernard Finnigan (to replace Left aligned Terry Roberts) and Lee Odenwalder for Little Para (now member of the Right) instead of Kyam Maher has shown that the Right has no qualms in asserting its ascendancy in overruling conventions. It is my feeling that merry hell will break loose amongst the factions during the next round of pre-selections, although given the dominance of the Right, the battle may be swift and brutal.

With 14 MPs possibly facing the factional broom, it must be asked, who will be selected to replace them. It is certain that Tung Ngo will be elevated to the Upper House, which is a move that should be universally celebrated. Tung is a tireless worker and a worthy representative of the Vietnamese community and the community as a whole. Stephen Mullighan, Foley COS is a likely candidate as well, and it is rumoured that he is eying the seat of Lee, held by Michael Wright. Mullighan is an astute thinker, easy on the eye with photogenic smile, and above all else, he has endured a lengthy stint as Foley’s whipping boy. Michael Brown certainly has his eyes firmly fixed on an Upper House seat, but it may be the case that party figures do not think he has done his time in the State Secretary role yet. There is little doubt that he will be perched in the Upper House at some point, barring any scandal. Logic would suggest that Peter Malinauskas will be holding the reigns at the SDA for the foreseeable future, but given his impetuous nature, he may throw his hat into the ring if the seat is right. (or pre-select one of his siblings). Those listed above are ‘”locks”; we will be seeing them in Parliament soon. Beyond that, I have no further information at this stage. SDA employees such as Aemon Bourke and “Guy Smiley” Josh Peak are classified as “golden boys” and are certainly possibilities. Legal head honcho Donald Blairs would make a worthy MP Ministerial offices are also fertile recruiting grounds. At this stage, however, there is no point speculating.

Amongst the Left, the two certainties are Kyam Maher and Matt Pinnegar. Kyam has been stooged in his attempts before, but the sparseness of talent within the Left suggests that he will become an MP at some point. Pinnegar is Pat Conlon’s protégé, and so Porky Pig’s recent defection from the left may have some implications, but probably not enough to prevent his ascent. Left wing union officials are also likely candidates, including Katrine Hildeyard from the ASU, Joe Szacacs (I can never spell) from the UFU and maybe Justin Hanson from the AWU (if his father had his way). My knowledge of the left faction being minimal, all these suggestions could be completely wrong.

While there is certainly an army of willing candidates knocking on the doors to Parliament, some incumbent members will need to blasted from their seats. Atkinson, for example, seems like he is in for the long haul. Any attempts to remove him will cause conflict within the Right faction. Who knows when the first shot will be fired? I suspect it will all depend upon the outcome of a privileges committee hearing into the actions of our Treasurer.

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.