The Four Secret Squirrels

Sydney Morning Herald

Friday May 31, 1991

Peter Smark

If the ALP is fair dinkum about a leadership vote, surely Bill Kelty and Sir Peter Abeles should be voted on as well.

It's now plain that for years we have had a collective national leadership of four, rather like Yugoslavia's, holding secrets not even the rest of the Cabinet was allowed to know.

The Labor Caucus, though, only gets to vote on half of the collective. Even given Caucus's apparent willingness to put up with extraordinary humiliation at the hands of the leadership, that seems rough justice.

Mr Kelty and Sir Peter are distinguished Australians.

But in a democracy it's customary for those placed above the Cabinet either to hold office under the Constitution (like the Governor-General) or to be subject to democratic sanction.

That's not the case here. Many Australians must wonder what other secrets Sir Peter and Mr Kelty hold but of which Cabinet, Caucus and the public are ignorant. Mr Hawke may deny there are more secret deals. But how are we to know?

He went to the polls a year ago vowing to serve a full term even after the Four Secret Squirrels had made their pact.

While Mr Keating nodded approval, Mr Hawke made his vow knowing he would have to break his word either to Mr Keating or to the Australian public.

No blame attaches to Sir Peter or Mr Kelty. They merely observed their vow of silence.

Offered the sort of power and influence Messrs Hawke and Keating were willing to extend to them, why wouldn't they accept cheerfully?

But it says much for the opinion that Messrs Hawke and Keating hold of their elected colleagues that they felt they didn't need to trust the colleagues with the truth.

Also, it says much for the opinion those colleagues must hold of themselves that many don't seem to realise the scale of the insult. They have lost their capacity for outrage.

Whoever wins this leadership fight, it will be a man who has already told his colleagues by implication that they don't matter enough to be told of an agreement fundamental to their party's future.

It's an odd way of asking the general public to put trust in these same people.