Ghosts of elections past haunt Libs
It was meant to be the big day when Liberal turncoat Martin Hamilton-Smith faced the ire of his abandoned colleagues for the first time – an opportunity to once again highlight his disloyalty and remind him of Labor’s many weaknesses.
However, it was another former Liberal leader who stole the attention in Parliament yesterday.
Isobel Redmond wasn’t in Question Time, but her absence was felt almost more keenly than Hamilton-Smith’s presence, squeezed as he was between Leon Bignell and Geoff Brock.
Maybe she was in her office preparing her case after Attorney-General John Rau asked Speaker Michael Atkinson to consider whether she had abused parliamentary privilege and should face a privileges committee.
Two weeks ago, Redmond made an extraordinary speech to Parliament, describing the mild-mannered SA Electoral Commissioner Kay Mousley as “utterly corrupt”.
Last night, Redmond was given an opportunity to outline her case or withdraw.
She didn’t really do either, repeating her allegation of corruption, based solely on her view that Mousley had sided with Labor on numerous electoral brouhahas, most notably the infamous “Put your Family First” gambit of 2010.
“Utterly corrupt, that is absolutely the term I used because it is utterly the term I think fits the commissioner,” Redmond told Parliament last night. “I do not resile from it at all.
“I want her to explain why it is that all these decisions have so consistently been found by her, in the face of all legitimate bases, to go against the Liberal Party.
You might like
“I think that can amount to corruption, but, on its best reading, I would think the corruption could only be that if a Labor government was displaced and a Liberal government got in she might not retain her position….”
Redmond made it clear she hadn’t completed her thinking on the matter – about, for example, exactly what definition of corruption she was using (colloquial or technical).
Apart from the enormous smear directed at Mousley – without anything of substance to back it up – it seems Redmond doesn’t understand how the commissioner is appointed.
It’s not a Government appointment.
It’s a recommendation to the Governor from the Parliament, based in turn on the recommendation of the Statutory Officers Committee of Parliament – a committee which is currently comprised of three Labor MPs, two Liberals, and one independent member.
What is Mousley’s supposed benefit from supporting Labor? Redmond didn’t make a case.
Liberal leader Steven Marshall would not be happy, although he too seems haunted by the ghosts of elections past.
He told ABC radio this morning that he didn’t endorse Redmond’s corruption accusation.
However, he did want a select committee tasked with reviewing the election – announced by the Government earlier this week – to examine Mousley’s performance.
Surprisingly, he also wants the committee to examine matters relating to the 2010 election.
“Well I would like to ask some questions specifically about the dodgy how-to-vote cards that were used at the 2010 election; why there weren’t greater sanctions against the Labor Party in that instance,” he said.
“I know Isobel Redmond’s got some other issues that she would like to raise. I think we all are raising questions about how long it took to conduct the vote count after this election where the electoral commission counted one day, then didn’t count for a couple of days. It seemed to most people observing it that this was inefficient.”
Stay informed, daily
The curious thing about all this backward looking is that the Liberals clearly decided yesterday to move on from the Hamilton-Smith defection and focus on matters of detail and substance.
It made for a dull question time, but it did make some broad strategic sense (and they did make Brock, in particular, uncomfortable with some of their questioning).
The Opposition, whose members looked uniformly dismayed in Parliament yesterday, must know that they need to move on quickly from this latest blow and establish a new agenda and identity.
However, Redmond’s contribution has flung them back into the deep past.
She’s fighting not the losing battle of two months ago, but four years ago – a time when Labor’s leadership at the parliamentary and organisational level was almost completely different.
And what’s Premier Jay Weatherill up to while all this historical rehashing is taking place?
As has become his habit, he is hiding his intentions in plain sight.
He read a ministerial statement yesterday – received with bitter Liberal countenances – about his agreement with Hamilton-Smith to “support stable and effective government”.
The most interesting line came at the very end.
“Mr Speaker, the addition of the Independent Liberal Member for Waite to the Cabinet continues the Government’s effort to make changes which reflect the results of the March election,” Weatherill said.
It was similar to a statement he made at an earlier media conference when announcing some new money to stimulate jobs growth in regional Australia – that it was “giving effect” to the state election result.
I think what he’s saying is this: that he sees the 53-47 two-party preferred lead to the Liberals as a weakness; that he accepts the Government needs to engage more closely with business and regional South Australia; that he wants to turn his Government’s political liabilities into strengths.
The Liberals should note this strategy carefully, and respond intelligently.
If the economic cycle turns by 2018 – and Weatherill’s agreements with Brock and Hamilton-Smith hold – the Liberals could find themselves without the benefit of their most powerful arguments for change.
The year 2010 is the last place for their focus to be.
Want to see more stories from InDailySA in your Google search results?
- Click here to set InDailySA as a preferred source.
- Tick the box next to "InDailySA". That's it.
