Jock Webb writes: The ALP certainly deserved to lose Fowler (“‘Perfect storm’: what Labor got wrong in its historic defeat in Fowler”). Kristina Keneally is about as far away from reality as you could get in this seat. I’m not knocking Keneally who was an effective senator. It is a serious indictment of the miserable factions in both major parties that sees effective members lose preselection to dimwits. The ALP should be doubly damned for failing to keep Keneally in her Senate spot. Bloody idiocy.
Dennis Pratt writes: The ALP got away with imposing another silvertail, Andrew Charlton, on Parramatta, so maybe it won’t learn the lesson. The factions are resistant to learning. If only there were more Dai Le independents who really represent their communities, we could break the stitched-up deals the factions impose on the ALP candidate selections. The teals are doing it to the Liberals; we need the equivalent wake-up calls to the ALP.
Alan Robertson writes: The results in Fowler showed the grassroots Labor movement that the party has little or no regard for the normal person. Labor stands for government by the connected but without “U” — the labourer or normal worker. It governs from afar which does not help the local community other than the “entitled”. Dai Le has shown that the “U” factor is the most important and should never be dismissed. We are free.
Roy Ramage writes: Dai Le is entirely correct. Locals don’t like outsiders dropped in so political parties can benefit. Labor should have noted that when Liberal Alexander Downer tried to drop his Victorian-based daughter into the South Australian seat of Mayo. South Australians immediately chose one of their own. Australian communities prefer locals. Both parties have been taught a salutary lesson. I doubt the number-counters will learn.
Richard Creswick writes: Yes, Labor deserved to lose Fowler. It had an acceptable local Vietnamese candidate who would probably have won the safe Labor seat. The Keneally parachute move has lost Labor two good candidates and the seat. Lose lose lose.
Dai Le’s abstention on the Morrison censure and her reasoning indicate she remains a closet Lib.
Gary Gibbon writes: Yes, losing Fowler served Labor right. The blatant parachuting thing doesn’t work. But in Dai Le, did Fowler voters get a halfway decent politician? Well, judged on the basis of Anton Nilsson’s story, I’m not so sure. She abstained from censuring Scott Morrison because it was “too political”, but at the same time doesn’t want to be linked to the Liberal Party anymore. Yeah, right. Doesn’t she realise she is now a federal politician and gets paid from the public purse to make decisions not fence-sit over telling a hugely dishonest former prime minister how badly his unethical behaviour affected the Australian community and public perceptions of politicians? Sorry, Fowler voters, but I think you still may be missing out.
James Parker writes: The morning after the federal election I was at my local shop and bumped into Duncan Kerr, a former Labor justice minister and briefly attorney-general. (He lives near me.) I asked why Keneally — a genuine star in the political firmament — was running for a lower house seat when she had no ambition to be PM and was such a useful person on committees etc. She was also an obvious candidate for a ministry.
Duncan said that it was a simple problem of internal factional politics. Keneally had been dropped to an unwinnable position on the Senate ticket so, in desperation, she had been put into a lower house seat which a very likeable candidate, Tu Le, had a very good chance of winning. She had a margin of 18%. The fact that Keneally lost is very, very important. The Labor Party played it all wrong, but please, look at the idea of ethnic voting.
Dai Le won because she was Asian, and her Asian electorate identified with her. This, surely, is a failure of our supposedly wonderfully integrated society. We have not yet divorced ourselves from our origins. We still have ethnic tribes. And I suppose that is the way of the world. But if we are to become an integrated society, we should try to look at one another with clear eyes and try to see what we all need. And how to make that happen. Not in “silos” of ethnicity.
This is not to excuse the Labor Party in NSW — it got it all wrong. Both in putting Keneally, a real star of the Parliament, into an unwinnable position and thus denigrating a genuinely good (and appropriate) candidate. Forget the conservatives; the Labor Party is its own worst enemy. It’s about time it cleaned up its act.
Charles Klassen writes: Keneally is a former premier of NSW, and a confident and assertive parliamentary performer. Some colleagues say her confrontational political style is more suited to the dynamics of the House of Representatives than the Senate. When Keneally said she would seek preselection to run in the safe Labor seat of Fowler, she claimed she had been touched by the “enthusiasm and support” of local members who encouraged her to run.
The move sparked criticism from HSU NSW secretary, Gerard Hayes, Labor MP Anne Aly and Osmond Chiu, who has led a grassroots push to improve diversity in NSW Labor, on the grounds it would harm multicultural representation in politics. Hayes said the HSU would “stand alone”, separate from the left and right factions, as a result of a backroom deal to install Keneally: “We can’t in good faith go down this line that irrespective of where the candidate lives, they get put into seats where there are many candidates that can represent what is a culturally diverse community. Was there a democratic process? I don’t think so.”
Hayes strongly promoted a young lawyer, Tu Le, daughter of Vietnamese refugees, to succeed him. She ticked boxes on gender, diversity and local grounds. Keneally pushing her aside has caused outrage in some Labor circles. Aly told the ABC: “Diversity and equality and multiculturalism can’t just be a trope that Labor pulls out and parades while wearing a sari and eating some kung pao chicken to make ourselves look good”.
If you’re feeling pleased, peed off or piqued, tell us about it by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.
