Rudd as local member...

I Spent Christmas jumping between the in laws and home, catching up with friends and family on both the Sunshine Coast and Brisbane. My father - in - law was telling me of his experiences with Kevin Rudd. Rudd used to drop in regularly to my father-in-law's service station on a Saturday and spend up to two hours talking, with his 'mobile office' parked across the road. It made me reflect on what a successful local member Rudd has proven to be.

In the 2004 election, Rudd secured 58.63% of the vote - representing roughly a 3% swing to Labor at each election since 1998. He has managed to do this despite being Shadow Foreign Minister since November 2001 - a job which had taken him overseas significantly more than the average Labor politician. His 'mobile office' has been a regular feature around South Brisbane, and Rudd gained favour and profile in his lobbying against increased aircraft traffic over his electorate.

There is no doubt that Rudd has a tenacity and capacity for work that is similar to John Howard. His perceived energy levels are much higher than any of his predecessors - Latham seemed drained, run down - and eventually self-defeating, Beazley was overweight and therefore 'lazy'. No one has been able to match 'little' Johnny and his daily power walks - but Rudd and incessant media tarting and 'listen tours' definitely matches Howard for drive and desire.

What will be most interesting is to see how Rudd deals with adversity - when the media that has for so long been Rudd's personal 'champion' turns against him, when the political fist fight starts to leave him worse for wear. We all know how Howard has risen up against adversity, beating the odds and all political commentators courtesy of a Lazarus triple bypass - but does Rudd have that same ability? Time will tell....

A painful way to learn the wrongs of drink driving...

A relative of Carla Zampatti's wraps his $300,000 month old Ferrari around a pole (in a rather public location on a Sunday afternoon) and then blows three times over the legal limit... priceless! Photo and full details from the SMH here...

You wouldn't read about it would you?!?

News today that another NSW Labor MP is in the spotlight for all the wrong reasons - Iemma must be taking years off his life at the moment with these stress levels. The MP has had assault charges level against him, after what he claims was a domestic split going very wrong;

"Steven Chaytor, the member for Macquarie Fields, says he is innocent of the charge, and that he was only trying to stop his partner from killing herself after he had tried to end their relationship." SMH 20/12/06

But what about the location - Macquarie Fields - if you ever wanted to build on a stereotype, Chaytor has managed to do it. Let's just hope the neighbours didn't try to lynch the police when they arrived to sort this domestic dispute on steroids.

Still, you have to feel sorry for NSW Labor - and shake your head at the calibre of candidates and MPs that state governments turn up. Mind you my favourite Labor family still has to be the Molloys - you know, Ivan 'milat' Molloy of 2004 infamy, and his lovely wife Cate. If you know Queensland politics, you would recognise Cate Molloy as the former Labor MP for Noosa who couldn't quite make a decision on whether to stick to her convictions about the Traverston Dam (which is not in her electorate of Noosa). In the end, after appearing to have a split personality disorder, she listened to the voices in her head and stormed out of the QLD Labor Conference in 2006, and was shortly after dumped as Labor candidate.

Dr Ivan Molloy was national news during the 2004 election campaign for his colourful past - a photo op with a machine gun while learning about 'political groups' in the early 80's quickly saw him dubbed Ivan 'Milat' by Mark Latham - including in a press conference.

The couple was also suspended from the Noosa SLSC and QLD SLSC after a heated battle with Noosa 'Clubbies' about a nude painting being hung in a Noosa surf club. The dispute saw Molloy face allegations of intimidation of Noosa suf club members, as well as some blatant media 'slutting' that Peter Beattie would be proud of. At least these two never struggled to keep the media interested; with bikini photo ops, nude sunbathing habits. Like watching a train wreck I guess....

It's called a conflict of interest, Combet!

News today that three union bosses, Greg Combet, Bill Shorten and Doug Cameron have run into an ethical situation. As trustees of the board of Australian Super, these three men are legally required make decisions that deliver the best return to their members. Guess which current Australian icon Australian Super has around $80 million worth of shares in .... Qantas. Guess which union bosses have been making loud protests against the sale of Qantas due to fears of job losses and contracting out services to overseas operators?

Cameron is already on the record saying that he believes it is his duty as a trustee to consider job losses and debt that Qantas may incur - well maybe if his super fund was going to hold onto the shares. It's definitely his duty as national secretary of the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union, who represent the Qantas maintenace engineers that could possibly lose their jobs in the future (not that this wasn't the case with an ASX listed Qantas either). Can anyone say conflict of interest!

If I was a member of Australian Super, I'd be asking why the board of trustees had three members who will so obviously have major conflicts of interest when it comes to making decisions that will affect Australian union members, and I'd be asking if the Australian super members would take priority.

The full details are reported in the Australian here....

Rudd's strategic considerations...

Kevin Rudd is an energetic, ambitious and cunning political operative - his short time in the spotlight has confirmed this. What interests me now is what are his long term strategic moves - what decisions he is undertaking with only his inner circle to solidify his leadership position and cut down his rivals.

As many commentators have mentioned, Rudd mounted a successful leadership challenge as part of a team, the 'dream team' pairing of himself and Julia Gillard. Gillard provided valuable support, particularly when rumours abound that Rudd is not well liked by his colleagues and has few close friends on the opposition benches. Gillard herself was in contention when leadership challenges were discussed by the media, but probably realised that she did not have the numbers to match Beazley, or convince Rudd to be the junior partner in the marriage of convenience. However this now leaves Rudd in a difficult place - his strongest rival is now in a high profile shadow ministry of her choosing, facing off against a much less talented member of the Government that in her previous job of health. Rudd must realise that if Labor fails to win the next election, he could face the very real possibility of fending of a leadership challenge from Gillard - something that many of her supporters who voted for Rudd (only because he wasn't Beazley) would welcome.

So how does Rudd subtly undermine Gillard's position in a way that doesn't damage his own leadership position and election chances? Paul Kelly puts forward the idea of backing down from Beazley's IR promises with less drastic changes like re-introducing the no disadvantage test rather than ripping up hundreds of thousands of AWA's (including Rudd's new staff who are all to be employed on AWA's - that's another story). This would sieze the iniative on I.R. from the coalition, who are currently sitting back watching jobs growth and wage increases, preparing to mount one giant counter offensive against Labor and their Union bedfellows. It would also put Gillard in the embarassing position of having to sell the backdown to both the media, Unions and Australian public - after going on record this week stating that no such backdown will occur.

I'm not sure that Rudd possesses the necessary political capital to achieve such a brave and potentially rewarding manouevre. The Unions are dead set on returning their power to levels not seen since the 70's and 80's, not just maintaining their current weak grasp on influence - this election represents perhaps their last chance to do so. Rudd would have to win the next election to have any hope of his leadership lasting - his enemies would be baying for blood even if Labor greatly improved their position but lost the election. Instead I beleive he will rely on Gillard being unable to perform under the pressure of the election - Abbott had her measure easily during her time in the shadow health portfolio, and I suspect many on the opposition benches think her opportunities have fallen into her lap simply because of profile and sex, rather than merit.

Julia Gillard faces a challenging scenario - win the election and she will be hailed a success... and then will face a long wait as PM Rudd seeks to become the longest serving Labor PM in history. Lose the election and the Unions will seek to blame her for being unable to shield them from the vicious blow of Work Choices. I'm sure Rudd realises this - he is most likely growing in comfort as his own proflie rises at a higher rate than Gillards. This makes specualtion of Rudd building a shadow cabinet without space that can be vacated for little Billy Shorten interesting. It points to Rudd already considering the longer term - planning to keep another potential messiah on the backbench for a little longer, buying his own leadership further time.

Now we have the opportunity to sit back and watch a very interesting stage in ALP history unfold....

Counting the cost of conservation...

The bushfire season is upon us. This years fires are shaping up as some of the most devestating in recent history, particularly in Tasmania and Victoria. It is undeniable that the extended drought has left bushland parched, but one of the major contributors to the severity of the fires is the massive amount of fuel for the fires to burn. State governments have failed to adequetly reduce fuel in national parks and state forests, leaving them fuel ladened and increasing the inensity of fires that engulf these areas. Despite state government inquiries clearly pointing to the need to reduce fuel, little has been done. Once again Australia faces devestating bushfires, and CFA members are forced to fight fires in conservation areas as well as trying to save homes and towns in regional areas.

Another factor to consider is the massive release of carbon and other pollution into the atmosphere. The environmental cost is particularly high - I want to see an comparison to Australia's annual carbon levels once the fire season has ended. It is particularly important given we seem to be on a path to a carbon tax - what good is reducing carbon emissions on one hand, while persuing a conservation policy that guaruntees huge carbon emissions every bushfire season on the other?

Asa Wahlquist has written on the topic in today's Australian, but overall this is an issue that the media seem to be missing. If we are so worried about carbon emissions, we should be addressing man made and natural carbon emissions, particularly bushfires.

The state and federal governments need to lead on this issue, ignoring the bleats of conservation groups and listening to the fire management experts.

Compassionate conservatism...

I've settled on a politicial 'label' that most aptly describes my beliefs - compassionate conservatism. Myron Magnet gives an excellent outline of the basic beliefs of a com-con, an ideology that fits my beliefs almost perfectly. Magnet sums up compassion for the poor in a brilliant fashion:

"Compassionate conservatives ... offer a new way of thinking about the poor. They know that telling the poor that they are mere passive victims, whether of racism or of vast economic forces, is not only false but also destructive, paralyzing the poor with thoughts of their own helplessness and inadequacy. The poor need the larger society's moral support; they need to hear the message of personal responsibility and self-reliance, the optimistic assurance that if they try —as they must —they will make it. They need to know, too, that they can't blame "the system" for their own wrongdoing."

This passage could so easily be applied to my own beliefs on what should be the driving thought behind welfare programs in Australia. Aboriginal Australians would benefit greatly from a com-con driven agenda to revolutionise the way we do welfare and service programs.

"The problem with welfare, they believe, is that instead of helping needy mothers raise sturdy children who go on to succeed in life, it perpetuates weak families, stuck in dependency for generations. As a way of life —which is what it has become —welfare degrades rather than uplifts too many of its supposed beneficiaries.
Work, by contrast, makes an individual responsible for herself and her family and thereby provides a road to self-respect and equal citizenship. So far, former welfare recipients forced out into the work force, even those who work very low-level jobs, tell reporters that they are finding it (does) just that."

I'll attempt to outline how compassionate conservatism applies to foreign affairs and security issues in future posts... I'm just thrilled to find an idealogy that I can champion so easily.

Rudd steals a march on.... Costello !?!?!?

I was reading the Australian article today on Rudd stealing from Howard's education agenda. It suddenly struck me that the Liberal politician who should be most worried at the moment is not Howard, but Costello. Rudd's 'Howard lite' approach would have Costello wondering who handed his playbook over to the Labor party! Rudd is definelty coming to the centre - take away I.R. and industrial policy, and you have an almost carbon copy of ideas that Costello has been trying to establish as his own agenda. Particularly in the earlier stages of the year when Costello was seen to trying to emerge from under Howard's shadow, he has shown a keen interest in fixing federalism. 'A bridge to far' could almost sum up Costello's approach to correcting the Liberal party path when he finally does take over from Howard. He will steer the ship back toward a slightly more little 'l' liberal direction, softening some of those hard right edges of the Howard years.
Costello has got to be worried - how on earth does he differentiate between himself and Rudd apart from I.R. and some other labor movement specials? Could be an interesting election sometime in 2010!!

What not to do - lessons from Labor

What will the coaliton do when the inevitable occurs and they return to the dreaded opposition benches? I hope for their sake they do not choose to follow in the footsteps of the Australian Labor Party, that is for sure!

The biggest single mistake that Labor has made in opposition is not to take advantage of the opportunities it allows. The opportunity to correct the corruption that will inevitably creep into any party that is Government for a lengthy period. Absolute power corrupts absolutely - so with the loss of power the coalition must quickly eliminate moral and ethical weaknesses and corruption.

Secondly is learning from defeat - studying what went wrong for the Coalition, and what Labor did right to defeat the incumbent Government. Appreciating their 'enemies' strengths will allow the Coalition to learn from their enemy, and plan more effecitvely for the next election. Underestimating the victors is inviting a long stint in opposition - take Labor's lack of appreciation of their own failings and inability to appreciate Howard's strengths and successes, particularly in the 1998 and 2001 elections.

Finally that disunity is death - limiting the necessary blood letting and purging that must take place after the inevitable loss is paramount. Then the coalition must quickly settle on new leadership and shadow cabinet / frontbench team - and stick by them! Internal fighting that can so easily flare up after the comforts of the Government benches are left behind must be avoided at all costs - just look at Labor's last five years!

If economic / environment / security disaster does not cut short the Government's reign, I'd expect that the inevitable defeat would occur after Costello's first election victory. Howard will hand over in about 2008, Costello will win in 2010 before losing in 2013....

7.30 Report gets a little fiesty...

Kerry O'Brien and Amanda Vanstone squared off tonight on the 7.30 report. The interview didn't even start on a civil note when Kerry led into the interview with a very damning spin on reports released by the Commonwealth Ombudsman today.

Vanstone started by posing an alternative lead in - to which Kerry snappily replied that she should answer the question because they didn't have much time. I haven't seen Vanstone on the 7.30 report before, but there has to be a history of fiery encounters for Kerry to respond so angrily - he was like an attack dog that wouldn't let go. Essentialy Kerry wanted an admission from Vanstone that she or Phillip Ruddock was responsible for the frequent mistakes that have plagued the department over recent times. Vanstone was particularly poor in her rebuttal to Kerry's ongoing demands that she state her responsibility for the errors. Probably a reason why so many are calling for her head in the name of fresh talent moving to the frontbench.

It made me stop and think - where do we draw the line of demanding 'responsibility' from our Ministers for errors / mistakes within their department? How on earth is Vanstone actually responsible for each of these mishandlings and mistakes in her department which occured at the coal face of the department, often in distant geographical locations to Canberra or her electorate.

How is Brendon Nelson actually 'responsible' for the many stuff ups in the handling of the Kovko saga? Too often in recent times have the media scrum bayed for blood of a minister when mistakes are made from a very junior level within their departments. I see the responsibility of a Minister once a mistake or error has been brought to their attention is to investigate, take advice and then act to ensure the problem is fixed. I do not see it as their responsibility to put their head on the chopping block when a platoon seargent fails to see the body of his soldier home, or when military police badly handle an investigation.

We want our leaders to be responsible, but that doesn't mean being the target for all criticism and abuse. Micromanagement is not something that encourages efficiency and good results within a Government department. A minister cannot be everywhere at once, and so the media has no right to expect them to be omnipresent, all knowing, responsible for every action or inaction of their department. Maybe we need to re-draft the expectations of our Ministers and the way they run their departments to accurately reflect realistic expectations....

Rudd is off to a shakey start...

Kim Beazley's woeful Labor legacy is surely on its last legs. Surely he will spare the party and more of his mediocre performances that have left a legacy of loss upon the party. After losing the leadership ballot, Beazley secured a legacy he'd rather forget - he has lost every contested leadership ballot he stood for, and every election as Labor leader. Perhaps his infamous 'roosters' will also have their talons loosened from the party's 'neck' to allow for some much needed reform.
I caught the last thirty minutes of question time today, courtesy of an early knock off at work. Rudd was looking very out of depth coming up against John Howard. Straight away you see that Rudd is going to have to sharpen up his image and presence within the parliament - he was coming across as a meek and mild, quietly spoken and lacking in aggression. There was no conviction in his questions to the Prime Minister, no emotion to show how 'outraged' and 'convinced' he is in the policies he represents. Rudd failed to land a punch on Howard while dancing around throwing weak jabs on Industrial Relations and climate change. Some of the loudest cheers in months were delivered from the Coalition benches as Howard replied will deft upper cuts, displaying a decisive, convincing demeanour. It was as if the Coalition could sense the beginning of a long route - a 'Waterloo' moment that begins a long offensive ending in victory in the polls in 2007.
One of the most telling comments in question time was delivered by Howard when addressing Kevin Rudd. He told the new leader that until the Labor Party ended the disproportionate control by the trade union movement, Labor would continue to decline in its ability to relate to Australia. He's right, and many Labor politicians would know it. The courage to face the bloody and painful 'divorce' of the union movement and Labor party is not yet present within any of the current or potential future leaders.

Whoever wins, Labor loses.

Peter Hartcher and the SMH have got their hands on polling information that indicates Labor under Beazley would secure a 41% primary vote, with Rudd at 48%. This is wishful thinking - the electorate as a whole is not going to reward Labor for either delivering them another 'risky' option in Rudd or tired (and lacking in support from his own party)old Beazley once again.
The only winner out of the ongoing leadership dramas is Howard and the Coalition. The problem that Labor faces is trying to get quality politicians out of its union powerbrokers - faction controlled party system. Union lackeys and career Laborites rather than community / business leaders are what Federal Labor has been recieving for years. Add to this the factor that they have to tempt recruits away from all - conquering state Labor governments to the hard yards of federal opposition. It is a difficult situation, and a situation that sees a weak shadow cabinet and weak opposition leader when compared to the Coalition.
I cannot see how Labor will be able to improve to an election winning situation by the 2007 election. Beazley has been mortally wounded, so even if he wins his chances of pulling off a surprise victory in his third attempt have greatly deterioted. Rudd will surely be targeted as a 'risky option' - with plenty of reminders of Latham, Labor's last 'risky option'. He is also yoked with the same dodgy policies and unhelpful situation - IR fading fast, AWB a non-issue and the economy still firing.
The unavoidable truth for Labor is that either leader will be heading to yet another Labor election defeat. The only question will be how this leadership battle and 2007 election loss will affect Labor in the medium to long term...

An inconvenient truth about AWB...

Greg Sheridan has highlighted what Australia's media has virtually ignored in the AWB 'scandal' and Cole Inquiry commentary. No better quote from the article than this;
"Let's get a few basic facts clear. The UN Volcker inquiry into the oil-for-food program found that 2250 companies from 66 countries paid commissions to Saddam Hussein's government as part of the program."

Why on earth has this level of detail on the real environment in which AWB paid commission to Iraq been ignored by the blanket media coverage until now? Shock jock Allan Jones was lauding Sheridan's comments on the Today Show yesterday, and I'm inclined to agree. We have levelled immense criticism and greatly weakened an important Australian company for simply competing on a level playing field where paying commissions were an unfortunate fact of life.

The criticism would be fair if AWB was the only or at least one of a small number of offenders. When 2250 companies are found to have paid commissions, the finger needs to be pointed in the direction of those responsible for the oil for food program, not the 2250 companies. The UN set up and was responsible for an imperfect program that encouraged corruption and delivered significant funds into Saddam's coffers.

This has been a self - defeating effort that has seen a strategically important (and internationally successful) Australian company almost destroyed, and Australian interests harmed. I am interested to see how many of the 2249 companies from the other 65 nations have been subjected to the same 'witch hunt' that we have seen in the Australian media and Cole report...

The real culprit here is the UN - which could have chosen to act as the middle man between companies and Iraq, but instead set up and presided over a greatly corrupted system that propped up a dictator.

The ghosts of the past return to haunt Beazley

Yesterday saw the inevitable occur - Beazley finally receiving notice that Rudd wanted his job. Beazley responded with what many tacticians may label a master stroke if he retains his position after Monday's party room vote; for the first time in recent years all front bench positions will be put to the vote. This would have sent the factions into hyper drive, and is of course designed to deflect some of the focus off the leadership challenge onto shadow cabinet ministers scrambling to retain their positions.

There are some inevitable positives for Labor out of this shadow cabinet party room vote. For once the factional powerbrokers do not wield all the power in deciding the position holders. Current Deputy Jenny Macklin will surely be dumped after years of non-existent influence in the parliament and public opinion. Peter Garret will surely be accommodated in a position where his public recognition and political potential can be harnessed. Despite these positives, Beazley's decision is destined to greatly undermine the shadow cabinet's performance in the lead up to the next election.

Beazley has all but guaranteed that if Rudd loses, he will also move from his current shadow foreign minister role, one that he has performed so strongly for Labor in recent times. If Beazley wins, his best performer in the last 12 months will then be licking his wounds rather than applying pressure in parliament and the press to the Coalition.

Whatever the result on Monday, the new leader will be yoked with an unstable shadow cabinet made up of competing interests and potentially destabilising rivalries. One of the most significant weaknesses within the Labor party is the inability of the Labor leader to choose their own shadow cabinet, forcing them to work with a less than preferred leadership team.

My own prediction is that Kevin Rudd will be successful in his leadership challenge. Rudd would not have acted without being confident of succeeding - his scheming ambition and conniving manner would not have allowed the possibility of a pre-emptive leadership challenge that derails his rise through the ranks. Labor will once again be the the loser in this leadership tussle - regardless of the result, the obvious weaknesses (soon to be increased in party room blood - letting ) of the opposition will once again set up another Howard - Costello victory in 2007.