… Now Robert Gottliebsen at Business Spectator has one.
The thrust of this allegation is that Julia Gillard produced a very business friendly draft of the Fair Work Act, and Greg Combet and Kevin Rudd intervened to make it more favourable to unions.
Gottliebsen, of course, is over the moon that Gillard didn’t want the “former ACTU boss” to have his way. If it’s true, Labor supporters will be less so.
I wonder if there’s going to be a drum beat of this stuff every day. The end result is not just to destabilise the Labor campaign’s progress and allow the opposition to talk up a narrative of “government instability”, but also to instill doubts about Gillard’s beliefs among a raft of different segments of the electorate.
It’s diabolically clever.
I’m starting to wonder if a certain departing Cabinet Minister, who’s refused to repudiate his earlier characterisation of the PM as a “conservative careerist”, has a hand in all this, particularly given Wayne Swan’s comments that the leaks weren’t coming from where people might expect.
I can’t imagine Lindsay would be so willing to risk the election of an Abbott Government. That would just be insane.
a certain departing Cabinet Minister
Sabotage is not really Lindsay Tanner’s style, I would have thought, notwithstanding that he has loathed and detested Gillard for a long time.
Kim, whatever ‘Business Spectator’ is it’s not avalable for we plebeians, it’s behind a subscription/’free trial’ wall.
I can’t keep up with this. Who was it that said that about Gillard? A member of the Left?
I’m wondering if there is a coordinated strategy here to make Gillard look more ideologically ruthless than she really is. A pro-Gillard strategy.
Let’s face it, the idea that there are votes in slagging off paid maternity leave hasn’t been refuted, has it? Particularly as Abbott is now more associated with the Liberals’ version than Gillard is with the ALP government policy.
Perhaps he thinks that it is ultimately the best/only way to reform the Labor party.
There must be so much going on behind the scenes of which we are unaware, maybe it’s much worse than we imagine. Remember Hartcher claimed that it was multiple sources.
Whatever, it just highlights how reckless, stupid and unecessary Rudd’s overthrow was.
This behaviour of leaking to discredit Gillard is an ultimate stupidity. Can’t the person concerned they might be paving the way for an Abbott Government. I know hatreds traditionally run deep in the ALP, but this is becoming ridiculous.
@3 – Nickws, you should be able to see the stories if you register, which is free. But there’s not much more there than what I’ve summarised, aside from Gottliebsen’s rotund rhetoric.
The theory that the leakers came from the Gillard ranks had some currency early on, but it’s now becoming far too much of a distraction and feeds into too many negative memes for it to be Gillard supporters unless they are truly, truly stupid.
it just highlights how reckless, stupid and unecessary Rudd’s overthrow was.
Actually it highlights how tissue paper thin the apparent solidarity and discipline of the Rudd government was.
I’m still inclined to rely on that old journalists’ adage that if you have to choose between explaining extraordinary events as the result of a conspiracy or explaining them as the result of a fuck-up, you should go for the fuck-up.
From the NSW experience of journalists and leaking from Cabinet, you should also factor in the high possibility of simple fabrication on the part of journalists.
adrian @ 7: like that ALP loon in the red speedos earlier in the campain?
Not much of a bombshell I wouldn’t have thought … it was fairly common knowledge at the time the Act was being redrafted. As it is, the retention of the ABCC with its extraordinary powers to compel witnesses to give secret evidence is testimony to this government’s attitudes to workers’ rights.
Its sounding more and more like its Rudd. I know this site is pretty pro-Rudd and anti-Gillard, but the other possibilities are exhausting themselves.
@Terry, I’m not “anti-Gillard”.
It’s not a matter of being pro or anti anyone, it just doesn’t make sense for it to be Rudd IMO.
Besides Alan Jones claimed that his Labor sources said it was Tanner!
I still think it’s more than one person, anyway.
@15 – Oakes says there’s more than one source.
Liam #10, I wouldn’t be completely surprised if that was true.
Alan Jones has Labor sources? Hmmm…
Yes, as I said elsewhere, that’s a worry if true.
Alan Jones claimed that his Labor sources said it was Tanner
Even if Jones is telling the truth, his Labor sources would be speculating that it is Tanner. The circumstantial evidence is (a) he hates Gillard (b) he was in the kitchen cabinet so was there when all relevant conversations took place (c) he hates Gillard (d) he is retiring, so feels free to have a parting shot and, last but by no means least (e) he hates Gillard.
Whatever, Sam – it’s all speculation, and will probably remain so. Just can’t see it being Rudd, and as I said before he’s denied it, so you’re calling him a liar I guess.
BTW, Joe Hockey reckons he’d be amazed if it was Rudd, knowing him as he did!?
Sam, I know I’m going to confirm your prejudices about me, but I suspect that Tanner has been unimpressed with Gillard ever since she broke an ALP Left Caucus decision at the 1981 AUS Annual Council to speak against the Caucus position in the debate on student financing policy in which Tanner was one of the speakers for the Caucus position (I was on the same side as Lindsay in that debate, and Julia came in on the side of the CPA students who initiated the move to water down the policy).
Paul @22, have you told Laurie Oakes about this?
If there’s a pattern to the content of the leaks, they seem to be about making her look more and more right-wing, which is in itself one clue to who might be doing it. But as a strategy it’s just dumb. Making her look more right-wing will attract as many swinging voters as it will repel. That’s if what they’re trying to do is humiliate and destroy her by making Labor lose the election.
Or are they not looking even that far ahead? Is this about wearing her down in the hope that she will somehow implode before August 21? Bad judgement of character if so; I have never seen anyone look less susceptible of being worn down, at least not by this kind of stuff. And you’d think, given how skilfully she used yesterday’s leak as a platform for the strongest performance she’s given so far, that they’d be thinking twice about going on with it. This leaks campaign is looking stupider and stupider all the time.
It’s not Tanner. Try Rudd’s Praetorian Guard.
Paul 22, I’m always impressed by your first hand knowledge of the players, from way back when. Tell me, is the Prime Minister a natural read head?
Adrian 21, the George Constanza principle needs invoking here. It’s not a lie if you believe it.
Well PC, if the point is to make her look more and more right wing then maybe the source is from the Gillard camp.
I think the point is to make her look like a hypocrite with no convictions, but maybe you are right.
It’s stupid alright, but that’s been Labor strategy for a while now. It was pretty stupid to leak against Rudd of course, but now it’s an election campaign it’s even stupider, unless you have another agenda entirely.
Sam #26, the future PM was not a redhead from 1981 to 1984, and was still not a redhead at the 1986 Broad Left Conference in Sydney. This was, however, the period when she was accused of being a red under the bed.
Terry #23, I haven’t told Laurie Oakes about it yet, but I have informed a Courier-Mail columnist who shall remain nameless.
If there’s a pattern to the content of the leaks, they seem to be about making her look more and more right-wing, which is in itself one clue to who might be doing it. But as a strategy it’s just dumb. Making her look more right-wing will attract as many swinging voters as it will repel. That’s if what they’re trying to do is humiliate and destroy her by making Labor lose the election.
PC: I’m going to take a wild punt here and guess: the leakers’ goal may be to destabilize the ALP by causing votes to be lost to the Greens, not the Liberals. The sources of the leaks know that making Gillard look right-wing will damage her 2PP, but not enough to lose the election. (She’ll lose votes to the Libs, of course, but she’ll gain as well – and most of the votes she loses to the Greens she’ll regain on preferences.)
The thing that concerns me is that more leaks will make the ALP not left wing or right wing but conflicted. The only winners out of this would be the Liberals.
It’s Godwin.
“I’m starting to wonder if a certain departing Cabinet Minister, who’s refused to repudiate his earlier characterisation of the PM as a “conservative careerist”, has a hand in all this, particularly given Wayne Swan’s comments that the leaks weren’t coming from where people might expect.”
Yep Kim. Thats been my theory for a day or so now.
@32 – Might be worth observing that this stuff cuts through, Lefty E, because no one is particularly sure what the ALP *does* stand for these days. Might be a good idea if they got on the front foot and actually told us, and released some subtantive policy.
Just sayin…
Can confirm Paul @#28. I was in the same ALP Branch (Carlton) as Julia between 1982-1984. I can also say that Lindsay came to my house to join me into the ALP (in his capacity of North Carlton secretary in 1980) and he had a full crop of hair.
Yes @ 33, it’s damaging precisely because it coincides with existing or developing perceptions.
Absolutely Kim.
The ALP is practically begging for these sort of distractions and leaks in their perpetual Hamlet-like state of indecisive fence sitting, and Janus-faced all things to all people state of near paralysis.
As I said earlier – get on the front foot, sell the pension increase and the parental leave. Turn your weakness to strength. DARE them to make it an issue: draw them into the Kessel and fire from all sides. Dont let the debate be diverted into who did what when. Point is its been done – and wasnt under the coalition for 11 years.
That said – this is ALL born of the plotters M.O., and corresponding blowback, repaid in kind. Why its happened is a no-brainer. Q is what theyre goign to do about it.
Meanwhile, Judith Sloan at Catallaxy has apparently joined the credulous throng who have accepted as settled fact the unevidenced assertions about what was said in Cabinet on parental leave.
I can finally bring out my word again.
Devastating.
I think Laurie Oakes and a good number o’ journos who claim to have “reliable sources” are full-of-shit-liars. They don’t ever have to verify what they claim they’ve been told. In any event it is the policy on the table that counts not who said what behind the scenes in formulating the policy. I am, for example, much more interested in the final RST effective rate of 22.5% compared to Rudd’s desired 40% even if that 40% was an ambit claim. That’s where the real power is, in that 22.5% rate. The rest is peanuts.
Laurie Oakes and the rest of the media pack are telling the truth. Must be taking the truth.
What on earth would their motive for lying be?
There’s no reason to believe that Oakes and others are making it up.
Sloan is writing for Catallaxy? Good god, I remember when she was considered a semi-serious scholar.
Mind you, Joe Cambria did predict in comments there in 2007 that Gillard would replace Rudd before the next election. Gotta give him credit for that.
I didn’t know that Gillard’s first pro-business draft of the FWA was a secret. It was certainly talked about openly at the (ASU) union meetings I attended. The blame was placed on Julia’s IR advisors who were headhunted from some godawful law firm – can’t remember which now – maybe even Clayton Utz. I thought that was dubious at the time – I couldn’t imagine Gillard being bamboozled by her advisors…
I remember our union poobahs saying that a lot of tub-thumping happened to improve the legislation.
Its wishful thinking to blame this on the Libs.
The leaks reinforce the Liberal meme ‘no one knows what Gillard really stands for’ and make Gillard and the ALP look clueless. Libs are benefiting, not JG.
Rudd is enjoying the carnage. While I agree he probably didn’t leak I will bet my last packet of Dinosaur Jellies that he knows who is doing so and could stop it if he wished. So I’m with the ‘Praetorian Guard’ theorists.
Rudd will get his Cabinet post if ALP is re-elected then promptly rack off to whatever plum posting he cares to nominate to JG a la Peacock getting his Ambassador to US posting.
He better put the lid on the leaker swiftly though because he’s imperilling ALP electoral chances by allowing it to continue and thus his comfortable future career in the UN or Ambassadorial corps.
I don’t believe for a second that Rudd is at the source of the “leaks”?—?assuming these are indeed “leaks”. I rate the possibility of them being fabrications as quite high. Someone, possibly an over eager journo or some miffed MP is circulating scuttlebutt. Oakes could simply be lying of course. He loves the game to be about him.
Paul Norton #29: Did the Courier-Mail columnist listen?
They don’t seem to listen if you’ve got information about the Liberal Campaign.
The information was relevant at the time – but not so relevant now.
Fran as Angela @ 45 and I @ 12 have both noted, this was neither a leak nor a fabrication. It’s just Gottliebsen beating up an old story that was never a secret.
Mark Latham will be on the Paul Murray show tonight on Sky for the full half hour.
Not good.
Ken said:
In which case thisstory wasn’t a leak.
tssk: “What on earth would their motive for lying be?”
Are ya’ kiddin’?
Tssk is always kidding Anthony … He/she likes to Poe …
Why is there so much concentration here on who the leaker might have been?
Surely the real issue is not about idle speculation on who hates whom most in the Labor Party; it is what these events tell us about likely standards of governance and integrity in a re-elected Gillard government.
We know for example that Gillard when the first leaks surfaced swore that she could not and would not comment on them because that would breach Cabinet confidentiality. And that only 24 hours later Cabinet confidentiality was ditched in order for a carefully crafted version of what went on in Cabinet to be aired. So much for sticking to her statements, and so much for the integrity of the Cabinet process.
We know that that Gillard alleges that the only thing on her mind when questioning parental leave and pension rate rises was a concern for fiscal discipline. And we know that as Minister in charge of Building the Education Rorts, fiscal discipline was entirely and demonstrably absent from her approach. So much for the credibility of the carefully crafted obfuscation.
We know that Gillard consulted with business on the basis of one version of the Fair Work Bill, then dudded them by introducing an entirely different and much tougher on employers version. So much for the integrity of consultation processes. Or, alternatively, if it wasn’t her fault because she was rolled by unionists in Cabinet, the old “who’s really running the country under Labor?”, fuelled also by the circumstances of Rudd’s assassination, comes into play.
Etc.
Yep. The Libs control the narrative and Labor is copping a smacking at the minute.
BTW, in any Abbott government, what portfolio will Barnaby Joyce administer?
Surely Joycey deserves another crack at finance.
Agreed, Katz. Senator Joist (the plank in the Coalition platform) would make an excellent Finance Minister.
The revelatins would be no surprise to teachers who have felt Gillard’s anti union attacks first hand. Does anyone else see how hilarious it is that the left faction can produce someone like Gillard. Gillard could quite easily be running on a Liberal ticket.
Lian @10, I’m more inclined to subscribe to your theory on all these “leaks”.
All named John Howard, Tony Abbott, Nick Minchin…….?
Wozza @52, do we in fact know that Gillard did any such thing? You’re relying on “leaks” alleged to have been made by anyone from the cleaning lady to Kevin Rudd.
I think they are more likely to have been manufactured by OO hacks probably based on an email from Godwina Grech!.
There’s a report of a so-called damaging leak today, only to find it has sunk without a trace tomorrow and a brand new “leak” is doing the rounds.
@Spana: The reverse could be said of some Liberals as well.
At the end of day, they are all politicians, and most would gladly sell their mothers for a chance at the top.
Most could quite comfortably nest with the opposition.
It’s quite well known that Brendan Nelson and Malcolm Turnbull approached Labor about pre-selection with them – they both went to the Liberals because Labor didn’t want them.
DC,
Yes, was just talking the other day about how a Gillard v Turnbull election would see a more left wing moderate Liberal taking on the right wing Gillard. That would be a very intertesting setup.
Susan Ryan told Nick Minchin today:
FYI. Oates “senior labor sources” might be what he reckons is a reliable report of a cabinet minister from a staffer.
Ryan also said that she wouldn’t like to have heard in the media some of the remarks she made to Peter Walsh in cabinet.
Have the Libs ever funded anything without looking at the electoral impact?
Oates’ intervention in Gillard’s National Press Club appearance was so overtly political that you can’t seriously regard him as just the messenger.
The real problem is that it is taking the oxygen out of Labor whilst adding to negative narratives about unity and competence.
Tingle today was suggesting that the Coalition’s costings of all the promises will deserve very serious scrutiny, which they won’t get while all this shite is going on.
It’s pathetic listening to the sound bytes when Gillard is trying to talk policy and the baying press pack only want to talk Rudd and leaks.
Spana, just remember that it was under Turnbull that the Libs walked away when Chris Evans thought he had bipartisanship on asylum seekers. It was the dreadful Sharon Stone who started to head in the direction of turning boats back.
Turnbull just said vaguely, we’ll stop the boats, actual policy on how to do it will be revealed later.
In what was a pretty funny interview on Sky, Latham said he is certain it’s Rudd saying he has always been a serial leaker especially to Laurie Oakes and basically called him out for not having the guts to put his name to it:
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/in-depth/latham-lashes-unmanly-rudd/story-fn5rhbh5-1225898709949
Just imagine if you will that Rudd was still prime minister. The whole progressive movement in this country, energised by his descent from the poll stratosphere to the territory inhabited by mere mortals, would be focused on preventing the horror of an Abbott Government. Progressives would be united in their efforts to ensure the re-election of a Labor government. MSM and online discussion would be about the Coalition’s hopelessness, Abbott’s dishonesty, Hockey’s manifest unfitness for any ministerial position let alone the Treasury, and so on.
Instead of that, we have the government revealed as a bunch of bumbling clods without a coherent idea of why they are in power. Julia Gillard, instead of being perceived as an outstanding talent in waiting for whenever Rudd decided to retire, is damaged goods already discredited as incompetent. The MSM and online community are preoccupied with furious internecine warfare over such vital issues as who is leaking to whom and the awfulness of gender bias in human history.
To an outsider, it seems a peculiar way to run a political party. However I’m sure the Gillard supporters are correct and the removal of Rudd was a master-stroke.
It was indeed a masterstroke because secret polling revealed that Rudd was going to lose and everyone hated him anyway, and they were probably doing him a favour because didn’t he look awful before it happened.
And of course they knew there’d be no payback after the event, particularly when the leaks about how awful Kevin was began trickling out.
And now the same intellects that engineered all this are begging Kevin to assist them in the Queensland election campaign. Apparently Kevin needs time to consider.
It’s no use blaming the feral media, as no one associated with this mess would be under any illusions how the media pack operates in this country. What the hell did they think would happen? Did they pause for a moment’s reflection?
You really don’t get it, do you.
Much as I would love to believe that this is true, Brian, don’t you mean Sharman?
PC, thanks, growing old means names are increasingly a problem and I’ve always had a problem with names.
Remember the slip that possibly cost Beazer his leadership?
Jacques @ 61, I liked Latham’s proof that it was Rudd. He said that when you hear the rain on the roof you don’t need to look outside to see that it’s raining.
The man’s an embarrassment.
Fair enough, adrian, but it still doesn’t exonerate the media.
What I said here.
Mark Latham, The Latham Diaries, p. 280.
Lest we forget.
PC are you seriously suggesting that the MSM and online discussions are NOT ‘preoccupied with furious internecine warfare over such vital issues as who is leaking to whom …’?? I mean it’s a simple empirical issue, not a statement of philosophy. Just look at the number of comments at LP over Rudd’s ejection from office, leaks to the media, treatment of Gillard by the MSM etc and compare them to the comments about substantive issues such as climate change and the occupation of Afghanistan. It is blatantly obvious that most attention is focused on the former.
The current lead national news story on the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ site is headlined ‘Save us: ALP’s desperate plea to Kevin Rudd’. The ‘Daily Telegraph’ top story is headlined ”Snake’ Rudd behind poll leaks’. If you believe this is terrific news for the ALP you’re right, I don’t get it.
Agreed Brian. As someone said on ABC radio yesterday, they’ve got a hide, when the emphasis is always on slipups or backflips or any trivial error blown out of all proportion, to then complain that the election campaign is bland and stage managed.
Bernard Keane:
@66 –
Brian, I agree with adrian. Changing leaders and rushing to an election made it inevitable. As Mark said in his post at the ABC, this is exacerbated by the “bite sized policy” factor.
PC are you seriously suggesting that the MSM and online discussions are NOT ‘preoccupied with furious internecine warfare over such vital issues as who is leaking to whom …’??
No.
I was referring very specifically to this little bit of dismissive sarcasm: “and the awfulness of gender bias in human history”.
As I am sure you know perfectly well.
Several fingers are being pointed at other senior ministers so far not mentioned in dispatches.
Albo? Garrett? Conroy? Smith? Wong? The mind boggles.
All of those scenarios are a bit scary, actually.
By the way, I’d join others in expressing extreme scepticism that Mark Latham actually knows anything about what’s currently happening in the ALP caucus.
But van Onselen in Howard’s End says that Gillard was more pro-union than Rudd in the drafting of the policy before the election. Too much reliance is placed on third and fourth hand rumours
@75
I think anything PVO says about the Labor Party can be taken with a truckload of salt. He wouldn’t know how the party works.
And more leaks – today allegations that Julia Gillard failed to return phone calls from the Presidents of Nauru and China and the Prime Minister of Japan.
“Changing leaders and rushing to an election made it inevitable.”
yep – I quite agree we should focus attention on the media’s use of gendered stereotypes against JG; some of which is truly appalling and neanderthal.
But as for the media focus on internecine strife: oh FFS quite whinging and take on the chin. The ALP has practically BEGGED for it to be sole focus of attention.
They’re just going to have to try harder. And frankly, if they’re going to serve up consitutionallly meaningless and eye-rollingly unimaginative stuff like yesterday’s “tough on crime” pissing contest, I’m not surprised the media is chucking spitballs in class.
Its dull, irrelevant and dispiriting fare for a federal election campaign.
Oh, and I agree Latho knows squat. Agree also that Albo is not out of the frame – he was a very late, and clearly reluctant addition to the Gillard tilt.
The best way to avoid this sort of stuff was to go to an election in October or November as was anticipated – but the fear seems to have been that internal disunity would have broken out in the meantime. It has anyway. It certainly doesn’t look like the seamless leadership transition touted.
Kim,71, the great hOakes is distracting the public away from consideration of real issues, surely we’ve had enough of a beating from it?
Kim @ 71, I’ve always doubted that Rudd could win the election and have had a more negative view about his administration than some others. Moreover, I’ve got a more positive take on Gillard than some, in her potential as PM rather than on her record in Education.
But my bottom line has always been that while Gillard broke no laws or party rules it would have been better to leave Rudd in place for this election.
I’ve spent a fair bit of effort trying to understand what went on in the coup and why.
I’m accepting what adrian said.
But although the commercial MSM will always be driven by what draws eyeballs and dollars, I expect the ABC to take an approach to journalism which serves the national interest. Falling in behind Oakes’ political interventions and amplifying their effect doesn’t, IMHO.
Now I gotta go. Seeya tonight.
I’m leaning to Susan Ryan’s thought it’s really a staffer or staffers. She said that even if you know who they are you can’t finger them right now, because then they’ll really spill their guts.
It’s like when you have a tick in your butt, something I know about. If you swab it with a cotton ball with kerosene or metho in it to make it lose it’s grip the first thing it does is vomit.
Logging off now.