As part of PM Rudd’s push to reform the NSW branch of the Labor party, he has banned property developers from standing as candidates at the state or federal level.

While I welcome the move to stamp out corruption in the NSW ALP, this ban is indeed a very interesting move.

It suggests immediately that the problems of corruption in this ALP branch have a great deal to do with property developers. So I wonder; just what is the connection here?

I have said many times on OLO that our political parties need to make themselves much more independent of big business and the rest of the vested-interest continuous-rapid-growth-promoting fraternity, of which property developers are certainly a significant part. But to ban such a group from becoming ALP candidates and hence MPs seems highly improper.

It surely flies directly in the face of Rudd’s stated desire to make Labor more democratic.

Note the poll at the bottom of this article:

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/rudd-seizes-control-of-nsw-labor-in-bid-to-stamp-out-corruption-20130704-2pcym.html

The poll question is: Is Kevin Rudd right to ban all property developers from being Labor political candidates or being involved in Labor preselections?

79% say yes.

Your thoughts…..

Good morning Ludwig.
Property developers have been at the heart of ALP corruption in NSW.
More than reform he is every dream I ever wished for , racing in to it.
Later this month a little self interested grub, who used faults in the NSW ALP will draw our attention to just how bad things got.
Win lose or draw I see a great victory for my party in saying enough.
That grub, one of too many, but at its head, Obead is a land developer and criminal thief in one.
Land developers did great harm in Woolongong, including bribing sitting members and council members.

The elephant in the room is that the real source of the corruption is not the developers, but the ex union officials that were actively soliciting bribes.

He's impressing me with that & if he can stop Academics & ex Lawyers from getting into politics & then let competent people run the joint then he'll get my support.

I think the move to ban property developers from standing as candidates is plain terrific. It counters my negative feelings about Rudd.

On the face of it proscribing a group of people (property developers; and can't builders and tradespeople also be so classed, and what about anyone with bank shares?) seems essentially antidemocratic...

Plus, it deprives me the opportunity of not voting for them.

When Rudd makes moves to ban or greatly reduce political donations, then I’ll start to think that he is genuinely expressing a desire to make his party more democratic.

But at the moment, by singling out one little group, and only for one state branch, it seems as though he is trying to be seen to be doing something decisive while actually not doing anything of any significance.

The Queensland government has just moved itself closer to big business (if that is possible) by abolishing the $5000 cap on donations and halving public funding for political parties.

It presents a great opportunity for Rudd to denounce this and make moves in the opposite direction.

Ludwig I truly think I gave an honest answer to your question.
Can you Shadow Minister say that?
I am a contented man right now.
A rare event has taken place .
My dreams have been answered.
And too, in my view my open warfare on my party, its power brokers, and yes that is my union too.
Especially so in fact, not its rank and file, not its officials , but some who lead it!
Ludwig every union I ever knew had its grubs, *no greater crime can be committed against members than thieving from them*
The CFMEU is tainted, a crime organization masquerading as a union.
In that and 0nly that SM is right.
Like moths flying around a candle, some in some unions flirt with them.
Yet they more than work choices by their actions, do more harm to workers.
My sheer joy at day after day, being reminded by Kevin 24/7s endless charge toward the reforms I called plaintively for is the best feeling in the world.
But too I glee! laughing near crying happiness , at the fall of fools who opposed both him and party reform is electric.

<he (PM Rudd) has banned property developers from standing as candidates at the state or federal level>

What does he say about PMs with large property portfolios?

http://www.news.com.au/realestate/news/rudd8217s-luxury-property-portfolio-miles-from-struggle-street/story-fncq3gat-1226673021164

onthebeach,
but that's hypocrisy which the ALP doesn't object to. Anyone else it would be disgraceful.
I personally don't give a hoot how much property Kevin Rudd accumulates as long as he stops preventing us from getting ahead & as long as he doesn't use us to pay for all his silly failed policies like he did during his first term.

individual,

I am happy that he is successful and lives well.

In view of the political scandals affecting Labor, perhaps he would be better off banning ex-union heavies and their lawyers.

There are obvious dangers in making decisions on the run. Has Kevin changed? Sadly, maybe not.

Belly,

I am glad for you that you have Kevin 747 back again. Especially as you so roundly sang the praises of Juliar 3 years ago.

As property developers, I don't seem to recall Thomson, Williams, Obeid, or MacDonald being property developers. Perhaps someone could enlighten me as to why this profession is being targeted?

SM I can understand you having a shot at me.
Pain often brings out such in some.
You, not me, rebutted my charge against your NSW government.
That they, in granting the Obeid family rights to develop a parcel of land was in my view questionable.
Now you CLAIM? you know of no developers in my party!
Do you remember Wollongong? and the female member STILL of my ALP and her filthy assistance to criminal developers.;
And yes it will offend you BUT it remains truth!
You quote half my first opinion on Gillard, CONVENIENTLY leaving out my words I would never trust her.
SM is your need to put a slanted political view forward reason to ignore my years of saying here openly she is a dud.
Here in my view SM shows us the unbending Abbott style say anything to win unacceptable style that we must not ignore.
Ludwig mate and you are a mate you tilt at windmills, both sides need and get such donations, unions on one side big business no less self interested on the other.

Hi Luddie,

This is just another political Band-Aid from Kevin. After 30 years of corruption enabling distortions to the ALP, caucus, trade union relationship, does anyone really believe that Kevin can fix this in 30 days?

The “no property developers” mantra is just another admission that in the case of NSW there was corruption but Hey! it’s not our fault, it was big bad property developers.

I don’t suppose Kevin wishes to discuss the HSU branches, Williamson, Thompson, the current VicPol investigations into AWU, Wilson, Blewitt, Slater and Gordon and Ms Gillard? No, thought not. What a juvenile, unmitigated dork.

Surely, even the rusted on’s are not that gullible? Kevin will be gone if the ALP wins the next election and Shorten will shaft him.

Yes Spinny, the more I look at it the more disingenuous it seems.

Mind you, Labor being what it is and politics being what it is, even if Rudd did try to put in a genuine effort to reform democracy in his party, he wouldn’t be allowed to get very far with it.

His party, and their real owners and power-brokers; the big-business fraternity, would see to that.

So it will just be another edge-tinkering exercise… and the same old extremely undemocratic and corrupt system that we’ve always had will continue unabated!

Singling out property developers betrays the Marxist bias against those who deal or invest in property that runs deep in Labor's Left and particularly the Greens Protest Party.

The Left are forever ranting against property investors and developers.

Rudd’s move to single out property developers surely needs to be condemned. It is totally the wrong way to go about stamping out corruption or improving democracy.

It is a blatantly undemocratic thing to do. It brands all property developers as baddies, and it does nothing to address the bad elements in any other sectors.

Rudd is getting nowhere near enough flack over this.

It is just Kevin13 feeding the chooks. He can get back to his main love of cranking up thousands of nautical miles in the luxury VIP jet and strutting the world stage.

It is truly amazing how small Australia is for Kevin13's ego and anyway, he still has to line up that UN job for later. Mind you, ATM all politicians are flogging their travel 'entitlements' (as they see them). No sense in allowing the taxpayer any relief from their excesses.

It is government by politicians and for politicians, y'know. This tiresome feeding of the chooks to amaze and bewilder the 'punters' at election time is a ritual. It is B.S.

Dear Ludwig,

Banning property developers does not brand all property developers as baddies. There is ample precedent for that. It eliminates a potential conflict of interest. Governments make decisions on zoning and other property matters which affect the value of property. Various persons routinely are kept from making such decisions. Judges must recuse themselves if they have a personal or financial interest in a case. Lawyers cannot sit on juries as their interest in legal maneuvers may outweigh their interest in determining the validity of the charges. Developers are not all baddies, but all have a financial interest in decisions regarding property. Therefore to avoid a possible conflict of interest it is reasonable to keep them from serving on entities which make such decisions.

Property developers should be kept out of any local government to avoid potential conflicts of interest.

Just as judges remove themselves from a case where they could have a conflict of intereste so too should everyone on Council declare interests and remove themselves from decisions where that interest could be affected.

Our protections are freedom of speech and transparency of decision-making. Once some group is arbitrarily removed from the process and representation, democracy and freedom are weakened.

I would much prefer to have developers and other knowledgeable people like them on Council where their expertise can contribute to decisions and where they must declare interests and are subject to scrutiny, which many would welcome because they really do want to serve the public interest and contribute to their regions and Australia.

<< Banning property developers does not brand all property developers as baddies >>

Davidf, it certainly does give that impression.

No not all property developers are bad. So the ban includes good people as well, simply because they are employed in the field in which some operators have been shown to be shonky.

Sheesh, you could say the same for just about any sector.

Yes of course there is the potential for conflict of interest. But again this surely applies very widely with all sorts of professions.

I don’t particularly like property developers overall. There is a very strong pro-expansionist, population-growth-promoting vested interest amongst them, which is anathema to my sustainability philosophy.

But my desire to see much-improved democracy, and to definitely not see blatantly undemocratic impositions from our supposedly democratic government, takes precedence.

Kevin Rudd's 'Big Australia' demands property developers.

Isn't that why Rudd's over-enthusiastic migration program continually set new records? That and Rudd's relentless diversification of Australia to impress the UN in the hope of winning a job there one day?

One of the key promises Julia Gillard made when she took Rudd's place was that she would wind back Rudd's flood of migrants.

Dear Ludwig,

Banning developers does not give me the impression that all property developers are baddies any more than banning lawyers from juries makes all lawyers baddies. A property developer who holds public office will be in a position to help or hurt another property developer on every decision he or she makes concerning development. It doesn't seem to me much different from leaving one's keys in the car when parking in a public place.

It is not sensible to make such an opportunity available even though most people will probably not take advantage of such an opportunity.

Banning property developers from public office which makes decisions on zoning removes a conflict on interest.

<< Kevin Rudd's 'Big Australia' demands property developers >>

Yes OTB, you’d think that property developers would be Ruddy’s best buddies!

David f, the concept of banning lawyers from juries seems just as fundamentally wrong as banning property developers from entering parliament.

It is unbelievable! Where’s the conflict of interest there??

Yes, property developers in governmental positions of power could possibly work towards disadvantaging their competition. But again, you could say the same thing about all sorts of professions.

My main concern with bias and conflict of interest is that the vast majority of MPs are pro-growth, supply-demand-balance-blind and sustainability-blind expansionists. Indeed, to get elected, they virtually have to be strongly on this side of the political spectrum. For that matter, for them to become members of the Libs, Nats or Labor, they’d have to be like this… or very surreptitious indeed if they weren’t.

THIS is the bias that really matters! While property developers are fairly and squarely in this group, so are most other business people… and economists and lawyers… and just about anyone else in any respectable area of work….except some academics and environmentalists.

But of course, it is not this sort of bias that KRudd is setting out to cure. Far from it. I’m sure he welcomes it all the way!

I’ll try that last line again:

But of course, it is not this sort of bias or conflict of interest or corruption of democracy that KRudd is setting out to cure. Far from it. I’m sure he welcomes it all the way!

Dear Ludwig,

Property developers would be Rudd's best buddies if he was a systematic thinker and was aware of the implications of his 'big Australia' policy. However, although he is an intelligent man he doesn't always think things through. In fact I think he rarely does. Both Abbott and he are intelligent men with blinkered minds. They are capable of climbing the greased pole to the top but lack the sense to question. Both men are in thrall to religious authority and are believers in mumbojumbo. Rudd disregards the separation of religion and state which is necessary for democracy if it is not to be led by the nose following religious obscurantism. Rudd originated the school chaplaincy program in Queensland later copied by Howard. Since religious fundamentalists have taken over the program it is a great way to decrease scientific literacy. Abbott calls climate change 'crap' as that is in tune with the 'thinking' of his mentor, Cardinal Pell. Neither man is worth a pail of warm spit. Two men unfit for public office head their parties.

Dear Ludwig,

I have felt for a long time that property developers simply have no business making decisions on zoning and development. It is the fox guarding the hen house. I have never expected any politician to advocate that sensible step. Even though I have little regard for Rudd in other areas he has this one right.

David, what about my repeated point that the same sort of thing can be said of many professions for people in politics?

.

<< Two men unfit for public office head their parties. >>

Yep, I certainly agree with that!!

Dear Ludwig,

I agree that it is undemocratic to bar any group of people from public office. However, in the case of property developers in local government making decisions on property matters it is against the best interests of the community to be democratic. Free speech has its limits. One is not allowed to shout, "Fire" in a crowded theatre when there is no fire even though an absolutist for free speech would allow it. The potential for harm is simply too great. The potential for harm in allowing property developers to make property decisions in local government is simply too great to allow them to do so. Rudd is capable of using common sense on rare occasions. This is one of the rare occasions.

david f,

Sorry but your analogies are *bleep*. Arguing from analogy is almost always flawed.

Rudd's proposal is a political stunt. He hasn't changed.

Dear onthebeach,

Arguing from analogy can be most flawed, and Rudd is an ass. However, allowing property developers to make decisions for the government on property development is just plain stupid.

david f,

They would be obliged as any other to declare any personal interest and to step back where an interest could affect their advice or decision.

I share your concerns and what you would like to achieve.

From contract work I have seen instances of corruption, the most serious and common being by persons in senior positions of trust, senior managers and CEOs public and private. Without doubt, the tone of any organistion (or political party for that matter) flows down from the top.

The best defence in my view is random, independent and comprehensive review. There are Standards available to assist.

You have to smile, Kevin Rudd has more front than the northbound Greyhound bus out of Brisbane.

Kevin13 has recruited his young son as his advisor. He has superior merit for the job than all comers apparently.

But even if that were so, wouldn't it be prudent to have someone independent?

<Kevin Rudd's eldest son has been appointed to a senior role on Labor's election campaign team. Nicholas Rudd, 24, will act as a key adviser to his father and be a member of the Prime Minister's travelling party.>

OK, so it is Kevin13, the missus and son in that luxury VIP Boeing 737-700.

Noses to the grindstone you taxpayer 'punters'(sic) and never you mind.