NSW political blood spilled

When New South Wales Ministers Joe Tripodi and Ian Macdonald tendered their resignations to Premier Nathan Rees they were obeying conventions established over decades in Westminster type parliaments. In reality, the Premier had asked the two for their resignations last weekend, effectively sacking them. Whatever the reasons that they were given and have since supplied publicly, the immediate political reading of the action was that Rees was moving against disloyal members of Cabinet.

In a state which has had an MP assassinated, a Minister suspected of murders here and convicted of a similar crime overseas, a factional leader bashed savagely outside his Sydney home, and whose parliament has a reputation as a ‘bear pit’, it is inevitable that commentators will describe political blood being spilled. Unfortunately, where NSW Labor is concerned, such events often invite reprisals.

While a Premier’s authority in Cabinet might be based in unwritten rules inherited from Westminster, a Labor Premier’s authority has traditionally been restrained by a firm understanding within the Party that Caucus, the party room meeting of Labor MPs, decides the membership of the ministry while the Premier allocates portfolios. In practice, as in many political meetings, the Labor factions will have met previously and decided their candidates for the ministry. Left, Right, Centre and various other combinations claim spots according to their relative successes at election, perhaps modified slightly by any previous agreements.

Liberal and National Party Leaders have always enjoyed a free hand in appointments, and more recent Labor leaders have been attempting to bypass the factions. Following their election victories, both Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and Queensland Premier Anna Bligh claimed the right to appoint their ministries. Addressing Labor’s State Conference on Saturday 14 November 2009, Premier Rees claimed a similar privilege. Conference supported the Premier, perhaps reckoning that the move might help the Government retain power in 2011.

A Premier must balance many considerations when deciding to sack a Minister. Ideally, a Minister should only be sacked for maladministration or personal impropriety, or perhaps when a stronger candidate is available. Often however, political factors are paramount. It is a firm principle of politics that while you want your friends close, you need to keep your enemies even closer. Former Premier Bob Carr recently advised John Della Bosca finally to put his leadership ambitions aside because continued speculation was creating instability. That instability only increased after Della Bosca’s resignation, because once he was outside the Cabinet ‘tent’, one imperative demanding his loyalty had been removed. Premier Rees has taken a risk, placing Macdonald and especially Tripodi, beyond the demands of Cabinet solidarity.

Former President of the Legislative Council Meredith Burgmann has suggested that the influence of formal factions was overrated. Rather, Labor is divided into informal groupings she called ‘shifting fiefdoms’. This might explain why Macdonald, originally from the hard Left, seems to be a Della Bosca supporter. While he might remain a disaffected presence in the upper house, taking on the factions in NSW really means taking on the Right. Fairfield MP Tripodi supported by Right heavyweights Della Bosca and Eddie Obeid could be an overt threat to Rees very soon.

Tripodi has in some respects led a charmed life. He might well have been sacked over an allegation of sexual harassment or over several allegations of attempting to manipulate development decisions on behalf of mates. A National Party MP had a go at strangling Tripodi in parliament, but he shrugged the attack off nonchalantly. The Right breeds them tough.

Following the sackings, Rees faces two further political problems. Both are matters of perception - one concerns the ethnic vote and the other, paradoxically perhaps, Cabinet solidarity. When the Coalition Opposition targeted Michael Costa, Della Bosca and Tripodi in the 2007 election campaign, Costa accused the conservatives of being against people of ethnic background. All three have now left the ministry, and while there have been no suggestions that they have been forced out because of their backgrounds, their departure could undermine Labor’s traditional edge in ethnic support. Certainly, there has been speculation that Rees retained another Minister accused of disloyalty Tony Kelly, because of a need to maintain contacts with rural people.

While Premiers claim that sackings are sometimes necessary for Cabinet solidarity, they do not automatically create stability. Premier Carr lost only one Cabinet Minister in his first term. At a time when several federal Ministers had to resign, this stability showed Carr’s effective administration. While Carr later had some trouble with factional appointments to Cabinet, his teams seemed well disciplined. Ministers will contain their personal ambitions if they believe that the Premier is a winner. They want to hold on to Government and its power and perks and recognise that disunity is self-defeating. When a Premier looks like losing, resentments fester and erupt.

Rees now hopes to get on with business in the hope of salvaging Labor’s electoral chances in 2011. By acting against two ministers, he has hoped to convey the impression that disloyalty was the source of the government’s problems, and that things will now improve markedly. Unfortunately, Rees now has an even more limited pool of experience on which to draw than he had previously. It is a gamble to expect that Government must now become efficient and popular. A Premier can play the disloyalty card only once. Premier Rees will have to hope that he has not thrown away Labor’s last chance.