Although he is a national living treasure, Paul Keating has done himself no good by weighing into the war between Premier Morris Iemma and the NSW Labor Party over the privatisation of the state’s electricity industry.
The former PM has contributed an opinion piece to today’s Sydney Morning Herald with the clear intention of giving the embattled Iemma some ballast.
Characteristically, his arguments are made incisively and convincingly – with two important exceptions.
First, he delivers this throwaway line mid-way through the piece:
Critics will say that I am writing in these terms because of my association with Lazard Carnegie Wylie, a company chosen to co-advise the State Government on its privatisation proposals. But what motivates me is seeing the last block of the Keating government’s electricity reform program into place.
This declaration – more like the admission of a howling conflict of interest? – should have been made at the start of the article. And Keating is being uncommonly modest when he writes of his “association” with Lazard Carnegie Wylie – he’s the International Chairman for heaven’s sake!
And as Crikey financial whizz Stephen Mayne pointed out last week Keating’s fellow director John Wylie is “Australia’s leading energy sector privatisation exponent”.
Wylie led the $30 billion Victorian energy sell-offs for Jeff Kennett in the 1990s for his old firm CS First Boston which collected mouth-watering, Grange-stocking fees of $100 million. Wylie’s take-home from these transactions was well over $20 million, according to Mayne’s contacts.
Now let’s turn to the Latham Diaries, Tuesday, July 15, 2003: “A meeting with Keating and his business partner Mark Carnegie at their office in Park Street, Sydney.” That’s the Carnegie at Lazard Carnegie Wylie, which was formed last July, whose offices are at No 2 Park Street.
So let’s be clear: as the hired help to organise the Iemma Government’s power sell-off, Lazard Wylie Carnegie – that’s John, Mark and Paul – stand to collect tens of millions in fees.
Keating’s second error is the concluding flourish in his Herald piece in which he blasts ALP conference delegates who voted down privatisation by a thumping seven to one majority:
The irony is that it is Iemma who is seeing this important part of federal policy into place while the NSW industrial obscurantists are doing their best to retro-rivet the largest state to the 20th century. What is more, they are determined to do it by jettisoning the parliamentary seats of individual state MPs who won their places in difficult circumstances without much help from them.
This is inflammatory stuff, and also deeply ignorant of the 2007 state election campaign. The unwinnable election was won by Iemma because of the support of the NSW trade union movement.
There’s no question about it. It’s a matter of fact. In a novel electioneering approach, the unions mobilised rank and file members in a campaign on the ground in marginal electorates across the State to oppose the Howard Government’s WorkChoices legislation.
From Penrith to Wollondilly, from the Illawarra to the Hunter and the Central Coast, literally hundreds of volunteers gave out leaflets, letterboxed streets and worked shopping centres to secure Iemma his victory.
It proved to be a rehearsal for the union’s highly successful contribution to the federal election in November and the victory of Kevin Rudd.
To claim that individual state MPs were elected “without much help from them” (unionists and rank and file activists) is a gross distortion of history.
State MPs are entitled to accept Keating’s retro-analysis if they like, but they can also forget about any campaign help from the grassroots at the next state election in 2011.
Another beneficiary of “NSW industrial obscurantists”, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, might also pause before rubbishing the democratic decisions of the NSW Labor Party. He has an election one year earlier.
“Another beneficiary of “NSW industrial obscurantists”, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, might also pause before rubbishing the democratic decisions of the NSW Labor Party”.
This less than subtle threat gives credence to Howard’s warning that a vote for Rudd was a vote for unionists. This was emphatically denied by Rudd & Co. in November. Is Mr. Mitchell suggesting that he change his tune now? It will be a 1 term goernment if so.I agree with David Sanderson’s point below. Does Mr. Mitchell support Collingwood? I wonder because he seems one eyed….
Bring back the faceless men I say.
In a democracy political parties should be democratic as they are the conveyor belt between the masses and the government. If a government frees itself of a party structure, or an undemocratic unparticipatory party structure allows a government to become free of a party structure, who then is the government accountable to?
The electors one day every 4 years I hear the cynics say.
Well, that’s great, but if the government spends state resources to win elections and makes policy that reflects the donations of industry lobbyists we will soon be ruled by arrogant self perpetuating nincompoops.
Soon? The Liberals are a Party without a party or a government, and Iemma’s Ministers free float like hot air balloons beyond the community views mediated through a barely democratic party structure.
Bring back the faceless men and women I reckon; worst thing that Whitlam ever did!
For the record Michael Easson was on ABC 702 radio this morning in Sydney as a former secretary of the NSW union movement in the early 90ies. He was very concerned about the privatisation plan of Iemma “spinning out of control”. Neither he nor the ABC revealed this grotesque conflict of financial interest and to quote: http://www.pentaclefunds.com/directors.asp “Michael has professional experience across a broad range of industries, is the founder and chairman of the EG Property Group as well as currently a business consultant to Allens Arthur Robinson Lawyers. Michael’s directorships include ING Real Estate, InTech, Stadium Australia Management Limited, ACT Electricity and Water (where he is deputy chairman). Michael is a former director of Macquarie Infrastructure Investment Management Limited, the managers of the Macquarie Infrastructure Group.” And Alex Mitchell omits an even bigger howler in Keating’s sleazy opinion piece ….
I can just see the headlines when privitisation, live Victoria’s experiment, leads to lack of infrastrcture and transmission investment by companies intent on squeezing every dollar from the NSW public. Rolling black will be the end result – and the headlines – “It’s the black out we had to have…..” Courtesy of Paul Keating. Same old, same old….
Keating says in the SMH today: “[in 1997} the power stations were worth $35 billion. A decade later the price discussion for the same stations is about $15 billion. That is, $20 billion in lost value; $20 billion that could have been spent on education, health and vital new infrastructure. A vast sum even by national government standards.” John Kaye MP (Greens) and Phd in electrical engineering no less stated today this was “deeply misleading”.”Mr Keating has conveniently ignored the billions of dollars in the low and high voltage network that then Premier Carr wanted to sell off and was included in the $35 billion price tag. “He has wiped out the value of 12,440 km of high voltage transmission lines owned by Transgrid. “He has written down to zero the $10.9 billion assets of the state’s electricity distributors, including 2.2 million power poles and the 169 thousand substations. [end quote]. Legal advice follows …