Continuing influence of the SDA union on SA politics.

[stumpjumper]

It's interesting to see how bulletproof Attorney-General Michasel Atkinson is. Rann has wanted him out for years, but Atkinson is backed by the all-powerful Shop Distributive and Allied Employees Association. Rann is only the junior partner in the SDA/Rann government, with former SDA boss Don Farrell still calling many of the shots.

In 2007, the Advertiser reported:

'The Attorney-General doesn't go anywhere, Premier, no matter what he does and no matter how many unions go public and say that this bloke is hopeless and that he should be got rid of.'

This still holds true. Atkinson has just cost the taxpayer over $200,000 in funding his pathetic, failed attack on magistrate Andrew Cannon. As a lawyer told me, 'Atkinson doesn't have a hope, but any lawyer will take his money'. Note, that's your money.

However, just as Tom Koutsantonis (another SDA-backed politician whom Rann can't stand) kept his Cabinet position despite being revealed as a (take your choice...), Atkinson isn't going anywhere, whatever he does. If the SDA deserted its men, it would have no business being in government.

The word, by the way, is that the SDA will not allow SA Progressive Business to be dismantled, whatever Rann and the electorate might want.

Meanwhile, another rumour suggests that a fourth relative or associate of new SDA boss Peter Manilauskas has been given a public service job at just over twice their previous salary. These 'jobs' by the way are not real jobs - they are staff positions with Labor MP's - media adviser, liaison officer, that sort of thing.

That person joins Peter's young brother Rob (new publicly-funded job at nearly 3 times previous salary), Peter's sister Elizabeth and his ex-girlfriend Elizabeth Hollidge on the public payroll. All three dragged from dreary, difficult jobs in private enterprise and now grazing peacefully on the sunny pastures of the land of the free lunch, fat government paypacket and not much work.

Peter Manilauskas, now one of the most powerful men in SA, likes to joke about the 'Greek mafia' and has boasted about the Manilauskas dynasty he is founding. Like the Labor government, the last thing he wants is transparency.

Come on in - there's still plenty of room at the trough, and the money's fine! Just leave your ethics at the door if you don't mind.

[cruel_world00]

Not that I know a heck of a lot about what your wrote? But, unless it's proven, isn't some of that a little defamatory? Just sayin'.

[cruel_world00]

Oh I see, most of what you posted was the article from The Advertiser. Apologies.

[Will]

The grip that the SDA union has on the ALP is alarming. What I find most disturbing is that the SDA represents the religious right of the ALP, and it pushes an agenda which is pretty much identical to that of the Liberal party. It is because of such influence that the ALP no longer espouses a progressive agenda.

[rev]

Ah, so rumours and heresay.

I'll put it bluntly..who do you work for?
You seem to have a lot to say about the government and specific individuals within the government.

My guess is you have some affiliation with the Liberals or Greens or some independent.

Don't just bitch and moan about how the government isn't being transparent, put it into practice...unless you've got something to hide.

[stumpjumper]

No rumours, no hearsay. Nor am I a member of or affiliated with any political party.

I have a strong interest in the way South Australia is governed. I follow the media, including reading transcripts which are available on the net from the media and other sources (eg the local government media monitoring service http://www.lga.sa.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=1391).

As to the article in the Advertiser, btw, I have read no such article, but anyone doing a bit of digging around on the net will easily find the same information. I also have a few 'reliable sources' of various political colours.

Further on Atkinson - Greg Kelton in the Advertiser on Saturday at the close of a piece on Atkinson says more or less that it will take an earthquake to shift Atkinson - the absolutely unsupportable waste of over $200,000 in damages and legal fees on an ill-advised, personal and quixotic campaign against magistrate Andrew Cannon not being enough. However Kelton does not go on to say why the Attorney-General is so bulletproof. The reason is Atkinson's connection with the SDA. Atkinson has a good law degree from ANU. but has never practised as a lawyer. After graduation, Atkinson worked as a political staffer and was recruited by Don Farrell's 'Shoppies'. As well as being politically Labor Right, the Shoppies - more correctly the Shop Distributive and Allied Employees Association - is Australia's largest union by numbers and is also very stable, having had the same management for decades until the elevation of Peter Manilauskas to the local throne, replacing Don Farrell who finally got his Senate seat. Another very important aspect of the SDA is that it carries the mantle of the late departed DLP - the formidable Democratic Labor Party, aka the Catholic arm of the Labor Party. Atkinson's father was the leader of the DLP in SA, which gives Michael Atkinson the same sort of dynastic protection as Liberal Di Laidlaw had as minister for arts and transport due partly to the revered position in the local Liberal pantheon of her father Don Laidlaw.

For example, most schoolchildren would see through Atkinson's bumbling defences against the accusations against him in the "Randall Ashbourne Affair" and in the Kate Lennon "Stashed Cash Affair", in the "Talkback Radio Affair", in the Atkinson versus Pallaras dispute, and now the Wasted Quarter Million affair.Generally, the charge against Atkinson is basically of lying and dishonesty. In no case has Atkinson been able to clear his name - the disputes have generally been 'closed down' by government action. Atkinson would be a huge liability for any political party, but as stated above, is famously protected by the SDA, so he really is bulletproof.

It seems to me that the SDA is too often an elephant in the room in SA politics. I am interested in writing a proper analysis of the pervasive influence here of the SDA when time permits.

Despite what anyone may suggest, I am motivated by a desire to see good, open, responsible government in SA. That is all.

Crooked behaviour and featherbedding by the Liberals is just as bad as the same by Labor, but naturally the serving government, the decision makers with access to the chequebook, are a bigger target than an Opposition.

As for 'putting it into practice', rev, I'm not 'in politics', and am not likely to be elected, so the best I can do is write and be published - which I am doing on the net and in print in the hope that others will be interested enough to ask a question or to take some action, even if it's only to direct their vote at election time.

[rev]

I also have a few 'reliable sources' of various political colours

I assume, wrongly but understandable why, you had some affiliation in some way to some political party, based on the thing's you have posted around. My apologies.

[stumpjumper]

Apology accepted, rev.

I’ve set out some of this information before, but here it is in expanded form:

The Shop Distributive and Allied Employees Association is Australia’s largest union., with about 230,000 members. It is the single most powerful voting bloc at ALP conferences.

The politics of the ‘SDA’ are conservative and it is happy to be called ‘Labor Right’. Historically, its leaders have been Irish Catholic, and the SDA has inherited the Labor Catholic Right baton from the demised Democratic Labor Party.

Joe de Bruyn, a Dutchman, has been the national secretary of the SDA for over 25 years, with the SA leader, Don Farrell, recently relinquishing his two decade hold on the SA leadership position to enter the federal Senate by taking over the ‘SDA spot’ (no 1) on the SA Labor senate ticket formerly held by Linda Kirk.

The powerful SDA is particularly strong in South Australia, where it has infiltrated through recruitment and appointment numerous government departments and committees, and has established relationships throughout the government and public service. It is clear that the strength of these connections transcends party loyalty or commitments to public service. For example, the SDA is trenchantly against extended shop trading hours, except for a few extra hours during the week. Therefore, SA continues to have restricted trading hours, despite the negative effect of such a policy on a 21st century society in a state which fancies itself as a tourist destination, and despite the wide public support for extended trading elsewhere in the community.

The SDA is socially conservative. It is anti-stem cell research, anti-abortion, against access to IV programs for female couples and against equal rights for homosexuals. In fact, Gough Whitlam called de Bruyn ‘the Dutchman who doesn’t like dykes’. De Bruyn is also against quotas for women in ALP positions.

After two decades as head of the SDA in SA, Don Farrell took over the SDA’s spot on the senate ticket by kicking out the incumbent, SDA senator Linda Kirk, supposedly because she voted against ‘union policy’ in a conscience vote on stem cell research. Additionally, Kirk in favour of trialling abortion drug RU 486. Farrell was also irate that Linda Kirk was refusing to pay Farrell’s wife, Nimfa, a staff salary despite the fact that Nimfa was not prepared to turn up regularly to earn it.

Senator Farrell is still a senior figure in the SDA, along with Attorney-General Atkinson and the member for West Torrens, Mr Koutsantonis, who is the factional convener.

Other ‘SDA’ members of the SA parliament include Kevin Foley, Jack Snelling, Trish White, Michael O'Brien, Carmel Zollo, Tom Kenyon, Lindsay Simmons, Bernard Finnigan (former SDA assistant state secretary) and Lea Stevens. There are more to come, obviously. For example, Michael O’Brien’s son Conor is presently being groomed by the SDA, the Advertiser and of course the ALP to take his place in the sun as soon as his degree is out of the way.

Federal SDA members representing SA include Nick Champion, Amanda Rishworth, Kate Ellis, Annette Hurley.

The SDA is increasingly well-represented across the state’s boards, agencies, departments and ministerial offices.

To repeat information posted on another thread, Peter Malinauskas, a rising star of the SDA, was appointed at the age of 27 to the board of WorkCover (a handy $50,000 pa). ?What is not known is that the Malinauskas family has done well out of the Labor Government, and not just Peter Malinauskas. Rob Malinauskas (Peter's younger brother) was in his early 20s and employed as a cadet journalist at The Advertiser when he was appointed to a position in Deputy Premier Foley's office with a salary of almost $90,000 pa, compared with around $40,000 pa at the Advertiser. Thanks, bro!

Elizabeth Malinauskas, Peter’s sister scored a job in Attorney-General Atkinson's office as a liaison officer.

The Rann government has become a very effective job network for the SDA.??In his office, Minister Foley has Daniel Romeo, who is tied up with the SDA. Daniel’s wife, Sonia Menechella, is the assistant state secretary of the SDA, and Michael Brown, the State Secretary of the Labor Party, was previously an SDA staffer to various ministers. Anna Bradley, an adviser to Paul Holloway, was a former organiser for the SDA. Elizabeth Hollidge, ex-girlfriend of Peter Malinauskas managed to find employment as an adviser in Michael Atkinson’s office (and a rewarding gig on the Development Policy Advisory Committee). Aemon Bourke, adviser to Racing Minister Michael Wright, is a former organiser for the SDA and at 23 was given pre-selection for Goyder. Michael Atkinson's wife is an employee of the SDA.

The SDA wields considerable power within the ALP. Here’s an example. In 2008, the ALP promised the retiring SDA MP Lea Stevens’ very safe Labor seat of Little Para to Kyam Maher, a staffer of Terry Roberts. Mr Rann welcomed Mr Maher to the seat and Mr Maher bought a house in the electorate and moved his family there. But the SDA had other ideas. Using the promise of preselection for the same seat (Little Para) the SDA wanted the seat to go to one of its own - Mr Lee Odenwalder, staffer to Lea Stevens and to Nick Champion (SDA). ??Naturally, there was nothing Rann could do, despite his own son David having been an organizer for the SDA. Kyam Maher was ‘hung out to dry’ and the seat is now the SDA’s.

Around the same time, April 2008, the SDA lured Brigid Mahoney from the ALP Left to the SDA’s Right, giving the SDA unprecedented power at the highest level of government.

Zoe Bettison, an associate director of the ALP’s principal spin consultant, is a former SDA organiser.

Peter Louca, a former SDA heavy, is now chief of staff to Michael Atkinson and was a candidate for Mayo in 1996. Shannon Sampson, a former industrial officer for the SDA, is an adviser to Michael Atkinson. Stephen Campbell, a former organiser for the SDA, is chief of staff to Rory McEwen.

My point is that the SDA has become so powerful that advancement in the state ALP almost depends on an aspiring politician’s standing with the SDA.

Moreover, the SDA itself is becoming characterized by an arrogance reflected in parliament by the behaviour of its affiliated politicians. Again and again, SDA MP’s have got away with things no-one else would.

Atkinson’s continual stuff-ups, most lately his influence over ‘his’ council, Charles Sturt, in the Cheltenham redevelopment (Rann: Atkinson can keep his job nut he should ‘be careful’); Koutsantonis’s driving record (Rann on April 29 when Koutsantonis had revealed 30 driving offences: ‘He can keep his job but he must never, ever, offend again.’ Rann after Koutsantonis is forced to admit a further 30 offences: ‘No comment.’ Koutsantonis is still a minister, of course. Rann may hate him, but he’s only the Premier and leader of the ALP. He does not run the SDA.)

The SDA seems to see the government as a job network. If you are close to the SDA, your chances of getting a comfortable, well-paid jobs within a Minister's office or on boards and committees is maximised.

However, we have all sorts of problems other than unemployment of friends of the SDA.

There are issues of water, WorkCover’s unfunded liability, country hospitals etc.

The main problem with a growth within a government of a body like the SDA is that its goals are not generally the same as its government host. The goals of the elected government are to do with public affairs. The goals of the SDA are to do with increasing its power within the government and in spreading the spoils among its members and friends.

Hardly an outcome for which people would knowingly cast their votes. The growth of the SDA is now at a stage where it is impossible for a Labor government to function without the support of the SDA.

The population can vote for the ALP, but it cannot vote for the SDA. Less than 20% of the workforce, let alone the electorate, is involved with any union, but it may not be too long before the SDA calls all the shots in a South Australian Labor government.

[cruel_world00]

Farrell was also irate that Linda Kirk was refusing to pay Farrell’s wife, Nimfa, a staff salary despite the fact that Nimfa was not prepared to turn up regularly to earn it.

Care to elaborate?

This is a fairly brazen comment on your behalf.

[stumpjumper]

The statement happens to be true. Here is an excerpt from "The Poll Bludger"s analysis of the 2007 Federal election:

Labor's ticket is headed by debut entrant Don Farrell, powerful state secretary of the Right faction Shop Distributive and Allied Employees Association. Farrell took his faction’s reserved position from Linda Kirk, the number two candidate from 2001, who fell from favour after backing Kevin Rudd’s leadership bid and defying the conservative union’s opposition to the RU486 abortion pill (though some put the rift down to the dismissal of Farrell's wife from Kirk's office).

In fact, Ms Kirk had dismissed Nimfa Farrell, whom Don Farrell had forced her to employ in the first place, for non-attendance as described. Linda Kirk said as much in an interview on ABC891 Mornings with David Bevan and Matt Abraham.

The vote on RU486 - effectively a vote on abortion - was a conscience vote. Linda Kirk voted for trials of the drug, and was immediately accused by Don Farrell of 'voting against union policy' (no matter that it was a conscience vote) and was therefore unfit to hold office. Don Farrell put a motion to the SDA executive that Linda Kirk be 'deselected' from her unloseable no 2 Senate spot, which would be taken by...Don Farrell.

It's interesting to tackle SDA MP's on abortion. By definition, they are all 'anti-abortion', in keeping with the conservative Roman Catholic base of the SDA. Even Kate Ellis will not be drawn on her views. I asked her at one of her 'kerbside meetings'; she refused to answer twice and ultimately I was approached by three of her minders and told that the question was not relevant and would not be answered.

[cruel_world00]

I don't doubt the SDA has a powerful hand in SA politics and I'm not denying that Kirk may have been dismissed from the ticket because of a rift between her and Don's wife. But nowhere in those statements does it refer to his wife as not willing to turn up to earn her pay. That's where my problem lies and why I asked if it was slightly defamatory on your behalf as you are insinuating something that you've yet to prove.

Just wondering is all. If you have the proof, I'm willing to believe, though.


P.S Thought of you today when I saw the article on Davina Quirke in the 'Tiser.

[stumpjumper]

(Warning - anti-SDA rant...)

Just thought I'd mention that the SDA has reared its ugly head again. The anti-progressive, backwards-looking union has instructed the government to close down any move to expand shopping hours in the CBD, regardless of whether the traders, the council, SA Tourism Commission, shoppers, tourists or shop assistants are looking for longer hours.

SDA boss Peter Manilauskas has decreed that the city will remain closed on public holidays. He is using the old line that 'shop assistants are entitled to Easter with their families'.

When asked whether casual, part-time or temporary staff might fill the gaps, as they do during the busy Christmas period, the ultra-conservative troglodyte answered 'Well, those staff simply don't exist. This is about a fair go for everyone. For Ralph Clarke to claim otherwise is a very low use of politics.'

Part of this intransigence by the SDA is their need to show how strong they are politically, given their falling membership.

The SDA also hates Ralph Clarke, and they can hold a grudge for years. Clarke was the popular Centre-Left Labor MP for Ross Smith between 1993 and 2002 and was deputy leader of the opposition, until he was deposed in SDA-led factional infighting. Clarke fought against the branch stacking which is one of the SDA's signature moves. Despite a secret ballot showing 60 of the 74 of the members of de-stacked local branches throwing their support behind Clarke for 2002 preselection, the SDA instructed the ALP state executive to preselect John Rau, a reward for Mr Rau who had defected from the Centre Left to the SDA controlled Right.

The fact that not just the CBD but the whole state suffers as a result of this archaic ratbaggery on the part of the SDA worries Mr Manilauskas not a jot.

[Prince George]

I am curious to know if a decade ago you were writing essays on "The continuing influence of the Adelaide Club on SA politics", or of the influence of the Business Council of Australia, or of the Productivity Commission.

Whatever the politics of this situation, I am yet to see any compelling economic reason for extending trading hours. My old friend, the Substitution Principle, tells me that there's an essentially fixed amount of money available within the state for retail spending and that the likely effect of changing trading hours is to shift spending from one time (or location) to another, but not to increase the total amount of it, with no net effect on the economy. Any growth would seem to rest on tourist spending - now, forgive me, but I don't understand the mindset of travellers that want to shop in largely the same department stores for largely the same products that are available where they came from. And that is what we're talking about here - the smaller stores, where you're more likely to find things that are specific to Adelaide, are already exempt.

[AtD]

Whatever the politics of this situation, I am yet to see any compelling economic reason for extending trading hours. My old friend, the Substitution Principle, tells me that there's an essentially fixed amount of money available within the state for retail spending and that the likely effect of changing trading hours is to shift spending from one time (or location) to another, but not to increase the total amount of it, with no net effect on the economy. Any growth would seem to rest on tourist spending - now, forgive me, but I don't understand the mindset of travellers that want to shop in largely the same department stores for largely the same products that are available where they came from. And that is what we're talking about here - the smaller stores, where you're more likely to find things that are specific to Adelaide, are already exempt.

It's not that simple. Putting the politics aside and diving into some hardcore microeconomics, I can think of a few simple arguments in favour of deregulated trading, but it's all basically irrelevant anyway.

- Restriction of choice leads to lower consumer surplus.
- On the flip side looking at producer surplus, you could point to the fact that those businesses that are permitted to trade after hours have higher overheads compared to their revenue
- Time preference. This is a big one IMO - people's value of time.

But that is not why there should be deregulation. It should be up to individual businesses and consumers to quantify the pros and cons of opening later or shopping later. It should not be a decision made by a bureaucrat. Shops will only open if the customers are about, and customers will only be about if they want to be.

If, as many people say, deregulated trading hours are not needed, no one would shop after hours, thus no businesses would waste money by being open after hours, so nothing will change. So what's the point of regulation then?

Let the market decide!

In Sydney it's quite common for shops to not bother opening until lunch time, because there's no business in the mornings. I don't understand why we require shops to be open early.

[crawf]

I agree with AtD it should be up to businesses when they want to open not the Government/SDA.

How on earth can it be justified that traders in Glenelg and Harbourtown are allowed to open on public holidays yet the main the economic hub of the state (Adelaide CBD) has to remain shut so 'working families' can have some time off. What makes it even worse is that shops in Mt Barker, Whyalla etc are allowed to open on public holidays and have better late night trading.

A major review is needed ASAP not just on public holidays but also weekend trading (5pm law) and possibly late night trading. Even Tasmania is more relaxed than us!

Its 2010, not 1950.