Anna Bligh’s Leadership: Doomed or Destined?

There remains speculation about whether the leadership of Anna Bligh will last until the next election. This speculation is no doubt being fuelled by the unions and members against privatisation. There is real disharmony between a number of unions including the Queensland Council of Unions and the Government over the Governments post election announcement of the sale of certain public assets.

The government claims it is the only way to continue the building program but unions either don't believe it or don't care. The Government however would not be surprised that it is receiving large scale backlash from the Unions and Labor Party members. Privatisation has been strongly opposed by the Labor Party and is a central component of Labor Party policy and their "DNA". Anna Bligh would be hoping that they can get these sales completed before the next ALP State Conference. Perhaps this is why there is talk of a special conference. Because you can't unscramble an egg so to speak!

But is Anna Blighs' leadership under threat? Are there any real alternatives? The Government appears to have a united front on the asset sales. All ministers appear to support the decision. This would then make any change irrelevant on the grounds of stopping the asset sales. Besides this major point there are only a few Members of the Government who could successfully step into the breach should a coup occur at George Street.

The names bandied about as potential leaders include Deputy Premier Paul Lucas, Attorney General Cameron Dick, Treasurer Andrew Fraser, and Speaker of the House John Mickel.

Since Paul Lucas was given the poisoned chalice that is the Health Portfolio he has managed it quite well. There has only been one incident of note, the overpayment of some staff, but most of this was during a period while he was not the Minister. He has been a strong performer over time and would be seen as a natural successor. But how would he distance himself from Bligh? To make a change in leader there needs to be a shift in the debate not just a different face sprouting the lines. I think the public would find it difficult to believe that there was a difference leader in Lucas.

John Mickel has had the benefit of being in the Speaker's job since the March election. This has seen him largely out of the public eye which has increased his image as a strong leadership contender. But the media would not let him forget the so called "gravy train" incident that occurred on his watch as Transport Minister.

Andrew Fraser has ascended the ALP and Government ranks quite quickly to be a 32 year old Treasurer. There is no doubt that he has the Premier's job in his sights one day but he will struggle to win over the public when has to be the public face of the Government's hard decisions. Fraser has been a controversial figure since he instituted the Local Government Amalgamations. But Fraser has shown he is as tough as nails and gets the job done. But I don't know how palatable he would be with the general public as leader.

First term Attorney General Cameron Dick has made one of the biggest splashes on the political scene in a long time. He was made AG only a couple of days after being elected to Parliament. Since then he has instigated long overdue reforms of the Criminal and Civil Justice System as well as actively appealing decisions that are too lenient by community standards. He also has the political advantage of not being around for the past 10 years of Labor rule and can distance himself, if only slightly, from any previous Government decisions. He is however a first tem politician and this would be exploited by the LNP to tag him as too inexperienced to be trusted with the reins of power, albeit incorrectly. He is extremely capable and intelligent and will be a future leader but probably not just yet.

With these four being the obvious and only choices when it comes to leadership alternatives the Labor party would be best to remain with the status quo. Anna Bligh has been a strong leader since taking on the job. She has acted as a Premier should. She is not a populist, pandering to her base (unions). She acts on what she believes will be best for the State. Now she may be wrong about what is best for the State but at least she has convictions and is prepared to stick by them. Unlike the LNP who support the privatisation of everything the State owns except when it will win points at the ballot box or increase infighting in the ALP. If the ALP are to go into the next election with any chance, Anna Bligh needs to finalise the asset sales quickly and sell to the public the increased convenience in their lives as a result of the infrastructure building.

But as a first step I am sure Anna will be making a Christmas wish to remain leader past the middle of next year!

I want the Federal Senate on my Jury!

With all the excitement of the Liberal Party spill it would have been very easy to miss that the Senate Committee looking into the Godwin Grech / OzCar affair handed down its report on the 25^th November 2009. And after reading it I want the any one of the Senators on Privileges Committee on my jury if I am ever charged with a crime.

Their conclusion was that they were "unable to arrive at a conclusion that a contempt was committed by Mr Grech" based on his inability to appear in front of the committee due to a medical condition. This is despite Mr Grech having given "to the Economics Legislation Committee [evidence] that was objectively false and misleading, and although the committee was also misled by references to an email later revealed to have been fabricated by Mr Grech."

The committee also made these conclusions from the evidence it received:

At [6.8]:

• Mr Godwin Grech gave a misleading impression to the Economics Legislation Committee about the amount of work involved in his advocacy on behalf of Mr John Grant.
  
• Mr Godwin Grech gave evidence to the committee about his dealings with the journalist, Steve Lewis, that was untrue.
  
• Mr Godwin Grech did not disclose to the committee that he had created a record of the email that he asserts he believed existed.
  

Collusive pre-arrangement of questions and answers for an undisclosed purpose

• Mr Godwin Grech suggested to the Opposition that the Car Dealership Financing Guarantee Appropriation Bill 2009 should be referred to a Senate committee for the purpose of getting his 'evidence' about alleged corrupt conduct by the Prime Minister into the public arena.
  
• Mr Godwin Grech met with the Opposition Leader, Mr Turnbull, and Senator Abetz in Sydney for the purpose of showing them the 'evidence' he had of alleged corrupt conduct by the Prime Minister.
  
• Unbeknown to Mr Turnbull and Senator Abetz, Mr Grech's 'evidence' of this alleged corrupt conduct had been created by himself as a record of an email that he asserts he believed existed.
  
• Apart from Mr Grech's recollection, which he asserted may be faulty or false, there was no evidence put before the committee that an email resembling Mr Grech's record of it ever existed.
  

So basically the Privileges Committee found that there was overwhelming evidence that Grech had concocted an email to allege the Government had asserted undue influence in order to bring down the Prime Minister. He was in effect a Liberal spy assisting the Opposition and although the Committee found no evidence of wrong doing on behalf of Senator Abetz he clearly had seen the email prior to questioning Mr Grech. This may not point to collusion on behalf of the Opposition member but it clearly shows that Mr Grech had developed a quite elaborate plan to bring down the Prime Minister.

Now, my blog is not about Mr Grech's involvement nor is it to denounce him for his actions as this has been done many times over. It is to highlight the weakness of this Committees conclusion.

This committee states that it "is frustrated by its inability to arrive at a conclusion as to Mr Grech's culpability, both because of the state of his health, and the practical difficulty of testing the claim of medical incapacity advanced by his treating doctor."

What practical difficulty? In Queensland (and I am sure every other state) we have a mental health tribunal. It assesses the person's mental state at the time of the offence and deems whether they are fit for trial. Why does the Federal Senate, with all the power and resources at its disposal, not have some mechanism to test the claim of medical incapacity? This is a cop out and the committee should be disgusted with themselves.

This committee has taken the easy road by brushing under the carpet a serious matter which caused great public scandal at the time. If fabricating evidence and lying in front of a Parliamentary Committee, to bring down a Prime Minister no less, is tolerated then what will be acceptable to the Federal Senate next?

Arrogance and Pride: The Downfall of Malcolm Turnbull

Malcolm Turnbull only lost the recent spill by one vote and watching his interview with Laurie Oakes on the Sunday program before the spill it is easy to see why he lost. Malcolm Turnbull basically turned into a quasi member of the Government. He could have been reading off the Labor Party talking points. He accuses Senator Nick Minchin of being a "denier" and ridicules his position of not believing in anthropogenic climate change. He even begins to (before pulling himself back) criticise John Howard as an autocratic leader.

How did he think that by ridiculing and abusing the powerful members of the Liberal Party including their revered former Prime Minister he could hold on to the levers of power? Although a lot of the punches thrown landed, this had the effect of emboldening the right and resulted in his own downfall. He did make some very salient point though. Sen. Nick Minchin (and as it turned out) Tony Abbott set the party up for the spill and are responsible for the turmoil that the Liberal party now faces. I believe that their current "do nothing" approach will hurt them at the polls. Especially if the rest of the world begins to make cuts. I think with Tony Abbott at the helm and Nick Minchin behind the curtain pulling the strings the Liberal Party will become as Malcolm so bluntly put it "a fringe party of the far right."

But could all of this have been avoided? Had Malcolm Turnbull chosen instead to vote down the legislation, not on the basis of being a denier but on the basis of waiting for a "worldwide coordinated approach" after Copenhagen. He initially used the line of waiting to see what the world would do but was bluffed by the talk of a double dissolution election. Mr Turnbull appeared so scared of going to an early election that he pushed for the passing of the legislation to his own political peril. From the time of his now infamous statement "I'm asserting my authority as leader" to his less than conciliatory announcement of the party rooms decision Malcolm Turnbull was on a borrowed time with a deeply divided party.

Malcolm Turnbull's pride stopped him from changing his position when the numbers didn't look favourable and his arrogance thought he could run roughshod over the more powerful members of the party. It remains to be seen what he intends on doing from here. There is a Lathamesk feel to his mudslinging in order to destroy at any cost his opponents but one thing remains certain, Malcolm Turnbull is not going to go quietly.

Why are world leaders shy about discussing internal politics of other countries.

This video shows of some appalling attitudes towards women and the resulting atrocities occurring in South Africa. Men in slum towns are raping women to correct there lesbianism as if it were a disease to be corrected.

Where are world leaders speaking out on these issues? Why have world leaders become so ignorant of world affairs and focussed only on domestic issues? Someone must help these women and many others in similar situations around the globe.

Well done to the Sky News reporter who reported the story.

Abbott: Politics before anything else

Only last week Tony Abbott was installed as leader of the Liberal Party in one of the messiest spill's in recent or even distant memory. Abbott appeared stunned by his selection as Leader, but I question his actual surprise. I personally believe he went into the party room with the full knowledge that he would spoil the hopes of Joe Hockey and perhaps win in a line ball vote with Malcolm Turnbull. And that is what happened.

But will Abbott work as Leader of the Opposition. Abbott is an opportunist with one objective in mind, winning elections. He has shown this year that he places politics above his convictions. He told a Liberal Party function that "the science [of climate change] is crap" but it must be supported regardless. This was not for some puritanical reason but for base political purposes of winning elections.

Tony Abbott cannot be trusted to put forward policies that honestly reflect what is best for our country but rather a position that will further enhance his own political needs. It is now quite humorous to watch previous interviews of Tony Abbott vehemently supporting Malcolm Turnbull and his own support for the ETS.

Tony Abbott has back flipped so many times and now has no position on climate change other than a 'Just Say No' attitude. This will embolden the base but will it mobilise the middle which he needs to win an election. I doubt it. Kevin Rudd will call his double dissolution election in mid next year and get the ETS he wants, potentially without the amendments of the Liberal Party. If this occurs Abbott will be held accountable for the mistake and then Joe Hockey will step into the breach at the time he always wanted.

Will the real Joe Hockey please stand up?

Since Tony Abbot announced he would challenge Malcolm Turnbull for the leadership if would not resign, Joe Hockey is the name on everyone's lips. Most believe that he is the right person to lead the party, but most believe he doesn't want to do it right now. Hockey is a realist and knows that even had the events of the past week not occurred, the Liberal party would not be strong enough by the next election to wrestle it from the Government.

Now however, as his name is bandied about as a potential leader, Joe Hockey has gone into hiding. He has made no public statements since the crisis started and when confronted by reporters he refused to be drawn on the issue. (Personally I don't blame him, they stalked him at home and propped him on the front driveway!)

Now my argument with Joe is that on any given week he will provide interviews for any show currently airing on television. But now when he will be seriously questioned he goes into hiding. This may be because on the ETS issue he agrees with Malcolm Turnbull and is trying to devise a plan to take the leadership while holding true to the same values as Mr Turnbull. Or is he hiding trying to work out how to reject the leadership because he knows that it is a poisoned chalice. Either way, if he becomes leader or dodges the bullet he needs to make a statement on where he stands. Leadership is about taking positions not hiding out for calmer waters.

UPDATE:
Joe Hockey now appears certain to run against Malcolm Turnbull in the leadership spill on Tuesday.  He is believed to be meeting with his proposed deputy Peter Dutton.  The way the Liberal Party has acted this week it is fairly clear that the face a steep climb up the political everest if they want to win back the confidence of the Australian people.  Surely Hockey doesn't think that he can turn around the Liberal party before the next election.  I think you made the wrong move Joe.  You have set yourself up for failure and once you do the political brutus' now supporting you (Minchin, Abbott and others) will knife you as well.

Malcolm Turnbull: Dead man walking

Malcolm Turnbull is facing a crisis of mammoth proportions.  He has frontbenchers resigning in droves, increasing speculation that either Tony Abbot and now Joe Hockey will run against him for the leadership.  Regardless of whether Malcolm Turnbull can survive the current political crisis swamping him, the party s in such disarray that they will not recover to be a viable alternative government.  And with this his chances of being prime minister are finished.  Unless of course he can do a Howard like return in a decade or so.  However, I don't think he has the stamina for that.

The Liberal party are deluding themselves if they think they can recover from this by November 2010 or worse early next year if there is a double dissolution election.  Turnbull will struggle to hold on past Monday and I think that we will see a new leader.  But if he manages to hold on until the next election, he will lose (and lose big) and after that loss he will be dumped.  Therefore regardless of whether he holds on now he is still a dead man walking.

The next big test for Malcolm Turnbull

Malcolm Turnbull has stared down detractors within his Party this morning after a vote on the calling of a spill was rejected 48-35. Three Parliamentary Secretaries have resigned, senior Opposition Ministers and party heavyweights have openly objected to both Malcolm Turnbull's style and approach and his stance on the CPRS.

Although this win on the spill motion will be great comfort to Malcolm Turnbull, it will do little if there continues to be open revolt within the Party. This revolt could result in enough Liberal Senators choosing not to go with the party line and follow their own path on a vote tomorrow. The Liberal Senators could still choose to vote against the CPRS. If this occurs they will have signed Malcolm Turnbull's political death certificate and reduced the Coalition to many many years in Opposition.

I think regardless of a vote tomorrow the Coalition is currently locked a deathroll that will not end prior to the next election whether that be early or late 2010. My bet is on late 2010.

UPDATE

Malcolm Turnbull has begun the ground work to strengthen his position by demanding Senators follow the party line.  He understands that every Senator that votes against the CPRS (and effectively him), weakens his position and adds to his political pain.  This will not be a good week for the leader.  Many will vote against him but the real test will be how many.

VIDEO: Liberal showdown

Dennis Shanahan from the Australian provides his view on the CPRS and leadership problems plaguing the Federal Liberal Party.


VIDEO: Liberal showdown

Democracy: Liberal Style!

Yesterday the Coalition party room endorsed the amendments to the CPRS and will pass the emissions trading scheme this week, or at least that is what Malcolm Turnbull has told us. This endorsement is based on Turnbull's counting the number of members who spoke for the issue during their 8 hour standoff.

It is strange that one of the tenants of our liberal democracy, that majority rules, is decided in the Liberal Party by just one man. Does this sound like democracy or something else? Surely a show of hands, division of the room, secret ballot or some other method of counting the numbers whereby everyone has faith in the outcome is the democratic thing to do. Turnbull's belief, and that of many of his supporters, is that they got a majority without the need for a formal vote. But the dissidents believe the opposite. We will never know.

Transparency in politics deflects all (reasonable) criticism. Secrecy and avoidance breeds uncertainty and speculation. What Malcolm thought might be his defining moment where he asserted his authority as leader has only loosened his grip on the leadership of his party.

ETS: Will they or won’t they?

The Emissions Trading Scheme (or as it is know in Canberra the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme) is currently before the Senate after being approved for a second time by the House of Representatives. The pressure is squarely on the Opposition and in particular Malcolm Turnbull to pass the Bill. The Government is also applying the blow torch by telling the public that the opposition will have more than enough time to debate the issue internally and decide on their position while also delay any possible deal until Tuesday. The Government have certainly being playing the politics right with help of course from the fractured opposition.

The Opposition have their leader in favour of it and "asserting his authority as leader" or at least trying to. Barnaby Joyce and the Nationals are oppose to it regardless. Nick Minchin, the third highest ranking Liberal, is on the Joyce bandwagon and doesn't really believe in Climate Change. Tony Abbot was originally for the Bill but for purely political reasons (i.e. to avoid a double dissolution election) but now he appears to have changed that position.

On Tuesday the Liberal/National party room will decide whether to support the Bill (in amended form) or oppose it and face a double dissolution election. Will they oppose it or will they come out the other side spruiking that they saved the country from the Rudd Government's failed scheme. Many in the coalition, Tony Abbot is one, believe that this Bill should not be passed until after Copenhagen. I personally believe that the Coalition will make the politically correct move and pass the Bill. The majority do not have the courage of their convictions to oppose the Bill on philosophical grounds.

Only time will tell.

Senator Fielding: why do it?

Senator Fielding won his seat in the Federal Senate with less than 2% of the popular vote in the 2004 Election. He relied heavily on preferences from numerous parties to get across the line. During his first term he was fairly invisible as far as his public profile is concerned.  The Howard Government held the majority in both houses and only needed his support on a few occasions.  It wasn't until after the 2007 election that he came to real prominence due to his balance of power position along with Senator Nick Xenophon and 5 from the Greens. Even then he hasn't been as smart a politician as his first term colleague, Xenophon, who held the Government to ransom to get more for his State out of the Stimulus package.

Sen. Fielding recently announced, after a bungled interview where he misspelt the word FISCAL, that he has suffered from a learning difficulty. Now at the time of the Rudd Governments apology to the forgotten people Fielding announced that he was the victim sexual abuse as a child.

Now the purpose of my blog is not to suggest that Senator Fielding is exploiting these two events (the first terribly unfortunate and the second horrific) for political purposes. I find that the abuse he suffered is abhorrent and should not be forced upon any child. Listening to his interview with Neil Mitchell on 3AW you can really feel the emotion and hurt that he feels. If he is to be believed, and I have no reason not too, he did not intend on revealing this fact but the emotion overcame him.

But is Senator Fielding revealing these very personal demons for no good reason. I don't think he has a good enough grip on his own emotions to be an advocate for victims or perhaps I am wrong. I don't however believe that this will catapult him to victory at the next election. Senator Fielding may act now as a beacon for other victims to either come forward to the police, as Fielding has done, or talk to someone about it. This can only be seen as a good thing. However, from listening to him speak about the issue, he is clearly not in a good place in terms of dealing with this. Is the national political stage really the best place to be talking about this under these circumstances.

I hope that some of the Forgotten People take some solace from Senator Fielding's revelations but I don't know that his recent revelations will do much to keep him in the Senate chamber. I only hope they help heal this sore wound or else it will have been done for no good reason.

Left to Think begins

This is my first post from my new blog "Left to Think".

I am a law student in Brisbane, Australia and will be writing about the state of politics in Queensland and Australia. I will be giving you my thoughts on relevant events that are in the media.

I hope you enjoy my perspectives and contribute to the debate. Ultimately I hope you are Left to Think about issues that affect us all.

If you want to contact me by email please do so by using this link.