Richardson: The Redmond diaries
From the diary of Isobel Redmond, Member for Heysen*
TUESDAY
12pm: Spending the afternoon holed up in my parliamentary office, pondering the many nuances of corruption.
True enough, there’s a mob of reporters and cameramen camped outside the door, with whom I have no desire to converse. But, having resolved to bide my time behind my desk, I begin to look on the bright side: this is the perfect time for me to particularise to myself the basis of my claim that the electoral commissioner is “utterly corrupt”.
After all, it was always my intention to go back into the house with chapter, verse and detail of each of the things I consider illustrate a profound bias on the part of the electoral commissioner, a bias so profound that it has a tinge of corruption. (Tinge of corruption, or utter corruption? Much of a muchness, really!)
I haven’t actually yet reached a concluded view on it though. I’m still gathering some information and there are some people I need to speak to first…
1pm: On reflection, I have decided there is no pressing urgency to particularise anything at all. It’s just the vibe of the thing…surely that’s enough? After all, we’ve lost several successive elections, and when we’ve complained about it the electoral commissioner hasn’t overturned a single one of them!
Why does the House need its so-called “evidence” with such damning happenstance?
You might like
Can still hear the shifty footfall of that verminous press pack outside my door. And soon the bells will ring for Question Time; no matter – I can outwait them!
I don’t have to go anywhere I don’t want to. Just like the time I decided I didn’t want to be Leader of the Liberal Party any more … so I stopped; just like that!
Why, once I even overturned the result of a party-room ballot because I didn’t like it; that proves I’m not to be trifled with. Now, back to that electoral commissioner and her continual rorting of democratic processes…
WEDNESDAY
9am: I can’t believe this is still a thing! I thought I made myself perfectly clear in the House last night: “Utterly corrupt” is absolutely the term I used because it is utterly the term I think fits the commissioner. I do not resile from it at all!
And I outlined such a strong brief of evidence! Sure, I may not have gone into the nuances per se because I don’t have enough detail in my head about it to even canvass it…but I’m pretty sure it was to do with the fact that a complaint was made (which I believe was completely legitimate) on the part of the Liberal Party and it was rejected by the electoral commissioner. I forget the specifics, I’ll need to talk to a few people. But that certainly proves corruption without the shadow of a doubt!
And what about all those other complaints that were always found against the Liberal Party and in favour of the ALP? Well, except for that one radio ad where we paid for a sex worker whose kids went to the school at the centre of the Debelle Royal Commission to insinuate that the Premier knew all about a cover-up when the report found that he didn’t, and the electoral commission said we should publish an apology but we didn’t and nothing happened. But apart from that, we’ve always got the rough end of the stick.
1pm: Think I’ll pop into Question Time today; I don’t think those media rodents are still hovering. I just ran away from a few of them and hid for a few minutes in the leader’s office. Why not? It’s still my office, really. It’s got my picture up on the wall and everything!
Stay informed, daily
I’ve been applying my mind as to all the ways the electoral commissioner is thoroughly corrupt. There’s the colloquial sense, of course. That’s really the main one, which is probably a bit vague and subjective. I think there might also be a sense under the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, but I should probably take advice on that one. And potentially an ICAC sense, too. I think I might write to the ICAC commissioner and tell him about my hunch about the electoral commissioner. After all, I invented the ICAC, so really he should do what I tell him.
THURSDAY
4pm: Furious. I’ve had to go in and withdraw. And apologise. Steven says it’s in the best interests of the House. And of me.
What would he know?
Still, at least I got to leave all my other insightful observations on the Hansard Record: “that the electoral commissioner, over a period of years, has made decisions which speak to someone who is approaching her position with a great deal of bias and favouring one side”. Poetry!
A few of the wet blankets in the party-room have suggested I should tone it down a bit. Cowards!
It wasn’t them trying to fight an election through all that bias and corruption… Well, come to think of it, I did get a bit of an armchair ride in the media before the 2010 election while Mike Rann was being pilloried from pillar to post over a relationship that he may or may not have had with that Chantelois woman. But that makes the electoral commissioner even more culpable for the fact that I lost!
And later on the media started asking me very impertinent questions: what is your policy on this and that and somesuch? How many public servants do you think we need in South Australia? Does that mean you intend to sack 25,000 people?
It was, to my mind, a complete and utter conspiracy to make me look silly. Come to think of it, I should really do a grievance on it…
* Some of the above isn’t actually in the Member for Heysen’s own words. There were a great many things I could have said of her performance this week; unfortunately, I don’t have the benefit of parliamentary privilege.
Tom Richardson is InDaily’s political commentator and Channel Nine’s state political reporter.
Want to see more stories from InDaily SA in your Google search results?
- Click here to set InDaily SA as a preferred source.
- Tick the box next to "InDaily SA". That's it.
