Continuing influence of the SDA union on SA politics.

[stumpjumper]

I've just heard that Peter Manilauskas has made a final list of ministerial positions in the new government he has decided we need and which he ids arranging for us.

Members will find out their ministerial roles in the new government when they return after the current break in sitting days.

Note: Under an ideal Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, ministries are assigned according to talent by the parliamentary party of the party elected to govern.

In practice in South Australia, the job is done by the secretary of the Shop Distributive and Allied Employees Association. The SDA secretary is not elected, but appointed, in this case by the outgoing secretary, Don Farrell. Ministries are assigned according to faction, gender, seniority, payback, reward, or failing those, 'talent'.

[stumpjumper]

In fact, what really p*sses me off is the lack of input into our political process by the humble voter, except where paying tax is concerned.

One day, Peter Manilauskas - a union secretary and a person well outside Parliament - wakes up and decides that SA needs new management. He makes a few phone calls, drops in to tell the Premier (taking with him Jack Snelling, an actual Parliamentarian to make it look a bit democratic, and the deal is done. The Premier has lost his job and a new bloke has been appointed.

Then Manilauskas sits down and draws up the new ministry by which we'll be governed.

Where are the people in these decisions? OK, it's internal Labor Party stuff, but then where are the faithful Party members?

Where's the transparency of political process at any level?

If you gave a swag of money to a decision-maker like Manilauskas, could you buy ministerial office for yourself?

There's at least one very well-heeled SA politician who could answer yes to that question. Many people know who this is, but no-one is allowed to say, just like the MP who has been charged with particularly nasty crimes and has been expelled from the Labor Party but who is still a member of parliament and who still collects his salary and perks.

Hypocrisy is alive and well on North Tce, and other places where the decisions of government are actually made in this state.

[SRW]

OK, it's internal Labor Party stuff, but then where are the faithful Party members?

This is the real problem, and it is true of both major parties.

Clearly, there is no failure of democracy in Australia, as you sometimes seem prone to suggest. But equally clearly, our strong party system is an affliction. In all comparable countries, political parties have undergone reform; it is well past time that Australia's followed suit.

[stumpjumper]

I agree absolutely. The Liberals are not immune in this - their factions are probably worse, being based on ancient family alliances rather than on politics.

[Nathan]

As I've said before, I don't understand why The Advertiser doesn't delve more deeply into this. They hint at it, but there's never any big expose or detailed analysis of the relationship the SDA has with the Labor party. Surely questions should be asked by the media about why the meeting with Rann about him stepping down involved Peter Manilauskas. It's one thing for such a meeting to involve a heavily aligned person within parliament, but it's another to involve someone who isn't in parliament or an "official" member of the party.

Surely something as sensational as this would be right up the Advertiser's alley?

[stumpjumper]

Four words, Nathan: Melvin, Mansell, Labor and Party. Over the years, the SA Labor Party (or the SDA's political wing, if you like) has embedded itself very well with the local paper.

Remember, among other examples, the instant agreement of editor Melvin Mansell to Labor's demand that reporter Michael Owen be sacked?

Someone (ie someone with nothing to lose) should take the plunge and expose the SDA/Labor machine for the anti-democratic monster it is. If I were an insider, I'd do it, but then if I were an insider I'd probably have something to lose. The SDA has built a very stable structure. A proper ICAC might be able to crack it, although it would undoubtedly face problems, starting with a wall of silence.

Meanwhile, Rann has reconsidered his initial shock and horror:

“I can assure you that I have no intention of resigning before the convention.”

has become (no doubt after he and his aides have given their phones a bashing to assess numbers)...

"I have always believed it is for the Parliamentary party to choose the leader," Mr Rann said.

What a laugh. That's exactly what didn't happen! Rann goes on. Note that he doesn't say who made the decision.

"A decision has now been made that Jay Weatherill is the person who will succeed me.

I think the party should be commended for coming to a consensus view about who is best equipped to lead the party into the future, unlike our opponents, the Liberal Party, who have been in constant turmoil over the question of leadership.

I decided that a seamless transition to a new leader was the most appropriate course in the interests of South Australia..."

'A seamless transition' is about all Rann could decide. A Labor Right premier of SA is only a puppet of the SDA, after all. Manilauskas' visit to and sacking of Rann shows that very well.

The new compromise, with Labor's dominant Right wing supporting a Left wing premier, is unusual.

Weatherill, who has vowed repeatedly that he would only challenge for the Labor leadership when there is a vacancy, is now saying that "Mike Rann has been a great leader and it's been a privilege to be a part of his team."

Classic.

The arrangement shows that the SDA is ready to put aside political philosophy if power is the prize.

Isobel Redmond could be Nathan's missing SDA/Labor biographer:

"By telling Premier Mike Rann that his time as Premier is up, the un-elected union power brokers have demonstrated who really is governing South Australia," Isobel Redmond said.

Meanwhile, Rann goes out signing an indenture for the expansion of mining at Roxby Downs. Ironically, he began his career by vehemently opposing the signing of the indenture to begin mining at Roxby Downs. An early backflip, this one in the interests of obtaining power rather than keeping it.

Now, it looks as though Rann has run out of tricks.

[rev]

What exactly is surprising about the Labor party and Unions having strong ties?
They've traditionally had strong ties.
Labor has supported the Unions, whereas the Liberals have sought to weaken and destroy them.

Labor isn't known as a workers party for no reason, ya know.

So essentially in your post above Stump, you are accusing them of corruption? That's a rather serious allegation to be making...
You might not like the way they operate, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are doing anything wrong.

I agree absolutely. The Liberals are not immune in this - their factions are probably worse, being based on ancient family alliances rather than on politics.

Would be a welcomed change for you to actually sit there bashing on the Liberals for a change. Would be rather interesting to see your take on them.


And, Rann has agreed to step down.

[stumpjumper]

Close ties between unions and the ALP are one thing. They're historical and perfectly legitimate.

But it is something different when a union secretary, eg Manilauskas, elected by no-one, not even the members of his own union, has the power to appoint and dismiss the premier and his ministers.

For example, the SDA, through Manilauskas, acts as if it were part of the executive government without being subject to the same overview, record keeping etc. Any citizen can read Hansard, and even Cabinet records are released eventually, but there are no publicly available records of discussions within the SDA.

Sure, the Liberals have their powers behind the throne, but for any political party such arrangements are basically anti-democratic and don't make for good government. It's not on that any one tiny non-transparent outfit, neither elected nor accountable, whether Labor or Liberal, runs the government.

[stumpjumper]

rev wrote:

...you are accusing them of corruption? That's a rather serious allegation to be making...

Of course I am! In the framework of a responsible parliamentary democracy, the idea that the power to appoint and remove premiers and ministers lies with a small, unelected group outside parliament and not responsible to it, is anathema, corruption, whatever you call it.

Historically, democracies have taken great care to minimise the chances of such things occurring. What has happened in SA, with the growth of the SDA as a 'power elite' can only have happened with the cooperation of, or at least the lack of resistance from, the Labor Party.

For the public to accept what they are given by the SDA doesn't help either.

It seems that the presence of unions in the mix makes the ALP more susceptible to the problem than the ALP. The Libs have their power elites - the Evans family, D H Laidlaw's group, but individuals and eventually families die out, while unions like companies can go on and on.

The point is that where this type of ultimately faction-based corruption flourishes, government suffers in quality. Look at the lousy NSW governments delivered by the NSW Labor Right group of unions. Look at the South Australian ministers appointed out of their depth in deference to the SDA's rigidly imposed factional rules. In truth, most of these were out of their depth as parliamentarians, only there because their preselection was ordained by the SDA backroom power elite.

Watch Mike Rann kow-tow to the SDA. He knows that he has only ever held his precious job as premier at the will of the SDA, and now he is happy to take whatever he is given. How demeaning and pathetic for any leader.

But in SA, it's the price to be paid for power, the ultimate prize of degraded politics.

[Nathan]

Four words, Nathan: Melvin, Mansell, Labor and Party. Over the years, the SA Labor Party (or the SDA's political wing, if you like) has embedded itself very well with the local paper.

Remember, among other examples, the instant agreement of editor Melvin Mansell to Labor's demand that reporter Michael Owen be sacked?

Someone (ie someone with nothing to lose) should take the plunge and expose the SDA/Labor machine for the anti-democratic monster it is. If I were an insider, I'd do it, but then if I were an insider I'd probably have something to lose. The SDA has built a very stable structure. A proper ICAC might be able to crack it, although it would undoubtedly face problems, starting with a wall of silence.

Well if not The Advertiser then (for reasons you've stated), why not other media? Michael Owen is stationed at The Australian now, and plus theres the ABC and commercial TV news outlets. You mention Isobel Redmond, but she's only making a few ineffectual comments. If I was the Libs, I'd be doing everything possible to blow this up as big as can be.

[stumpjumper]

Michael Owen is doing a fair job while at the Australian of sniping away at Labor in SA. Have a look at the story in today's Australian.

I reckon Redmond will do her best to discredit Weatherill, but you'd think the Libs in general would make more of the SDA's influence. It's well known - not just a figment of the imagination of rabid Liberals.

[[Shuz]]

Michael Owen is doing a fair job while at the Australian of sniping away at Labor in SA. Have a look at the story in today's Australian.

I reckon Redmond will do her best to discredit Weatherill, but you'd think the Libs in general would make more of the SDA's influence. It's well known - not just a figment of the imagination of rabid Liberals.

It seems to me that Isobel won't make too much of the SDA's influence (and as avid supporters of the Right faction of the Labor Patrty) as that would only serve to shine the light on the Liberal's own factional differences - which as you, or someone else mentioned earlier in this thread - are probably worse than Labor's own differences.

Consider that more people are asking questions about the leadership turmoil within the Labor Party and ministerial positions ever since Rann mentioned "Oh don't look at me, look at the Liberals leadership troubles." It only draws attention to themselves that they've something to hide. (What don't we know already, though?)

Isobel Redmond and the Liberals are probably just as guilty of the same crime, but at least they've been pretty good at keeping their business quiet, very, very quiet the last few months - and it's paying off for them in the polls.

[stumpjumper]

Well, the Advertiser has had a pretty good go at the SDA in today's edition.

The situation is the result of modern poll-driven politics. Labor Right (the SDA) must have some political philosophy, but it's flexible enough for the Right to back Weatherill, a member of Labor Left, for premier. Of course they know that if Labor wins the next election, the numbers will mean that in Caucus, Weatherill will be a puppet of the dominant Right. But the mantras of modern politics are 'Whatever it takes' and 'The end justifies the means'. If going into coalition with your opponents to get over the line, then do it. No need to explain or apologise.

It's probably not too cynical to say that for many MPs, the main object of politics is to keep your a*se on that leather seat on North Terrace, keep collecting the big salary and extensive perks and keep the super benefits racking up.

[stumpjumper]

4/8/11 4:18PM UPDATED Ben Packham THE Productivity Commission has called for an end to restrictive trading hours and productivity-impeding workplace laws to help retailers respond to changing shopping habits.

Good luck in SA...

[stumpjumper]

Update:

Treasurer Jack Snelling (ex SDA) announced today that the SA government would ignore the Productivity Commission, traders associations and consumer associations and maintain SA's trading hours as the most restrictive in Australia.

The Minister for Small Business, Tom Koutsantonis (ex SDA) said that he would not be considering the Productivity Commission report.

In case anyone was in doubt, Peter Manilauskas himself (SDA Secretary) confirmed that the government would be making no move on trading hours.

It should be remembered that the SDA is not about shop assistants and their conditions. It is about political power.

The SDA readily puts the interests of its members behind the pursuit of political power.

This is borne out by the recent negotiations with Coles (new agreement, Jul 4 2011), in which the SDA agreed to a considerable loss of work conditions won by Coles employees over the decades. In return, Coles has given the SDA free access to recruit members from among Coles employees.

The advantage for the SDA in acting against its members’ interests in this way is that each member signed up also, whether they know it or not, agrees to join the ALP as an SDA ALP member. The SDA takes the proxies of 20,000 members like these to the state ALP conference – enough to give the SDA dominance.

Coles benefits, the SDA elite benefits, and only the SDA’s members suffer, but from the point of view of the hard-headed SDA elite, maintaining political power is worth betraying and exploiting your members.

The SDA can then indulge in political theatre, like having its secretary visit the state premier to advise him that he is no longer required – the perfect expression of the SDA’s power.

It seems to me that Isobel won't make too much of the SDA's influence (and as avid supporters of the Right faction of the Labor Patrty) as that would only serve to shine the light on the Liberal's own factional differences - which as you, or someone else mentioned earlier in this thread - are probably worse than Labor's own differences.

Yeah, the Libs will stay away from it. Having the SDA running the Labor Party gives the Libs endless opportunities to bring up 'the faceless men' accusation which the Libs know unnerves wavering ALP supporters.