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.