Friday, 25 March 2011

The reason the Labor Party expelled Stuey Traill

Desley Boyle, MP for Cairns, has acknowledged that there is concern amongst some members of the Labor Party about the expulsion of ETU organiser Stuart Traill, and his Brisbane colleague, Peter Simpson.

In a statement this afternoon, circulated by Tim Grau, Desley Boyle said Traill was expelled from the party because he talked about running opposing candidates.

"The reasons for this serious step were not to curtail free speech but rather because Mr Trail [sic] spoke publicly about proposing candidates to stand in opposition to endorsed ALP candidates at the next state election," Desley Boyle said.

"The full and proper process whereby this was considered by the ALP, is detailed in [a] document as are the reasons for the unanimous decision of the Disputes Tribunal to recommend expulsion."

Here's the "Party Office Brief" in full, from Labor's state secretary, Anthony Chisholm:
  • In early December 2010, Mr Peter Simpson and Mr Stuart Traill outlined in various media articles plans for a new political party and that "the party would be called the Independent Labour Party.

    Further comments were made by both Mr Simpson and Mr Traill in relation to the seats identified in which either candidates from an "independent Labour party" would run against endorsed ALP candidates or support would be given to other independent candidates rather than endorsed ALP candidates.

    The Administrative Committee Meeting of Monday, 13h of December 2010,
    unanimously referred both Mr Simpson and Mr Traill to the Party's independent Disputes Tribunal after considering the above statements and correspondence exchanged between the State Secretary and Mr Simpson and Mr Traill. The charge for which they were referred to the Disputes Tribunal was engaging in conduct severely harmful to the best interests of the Party and having been disloyal to the Party.

    It is fact that over the preceding 18 months, Mr Simpson and Mr Traill were very vocal advocates in the campaign against the Queensland Government's decision to sell public assets. It is also a fact that the dispute initiated by the Administrative Committee had absolutely nothing to do with the anti-privatisation campaign.

    The Party understands and respects that all affiliates will, from time to time, run campaigns in opposition to Government policy in order to protect the interests of their members. In the same vein, the party has the right to regulate its internal matters in order to ensure its electoral success - the very reason for the formation of the ALP, 120 years ago.

    T
    his dispute was initiated because of the explicit threat made by Mr Simpson and Mr Traill against the electoral success of the Labor Party in Queensland. For the Labor Party there can be no more serious a threat than to run against endorsed Labor candidates, history has proven how damaging this can be to our Party.

    Disputes Process and Recommendation

    Following the Shepherdson Inquiry, the party disputes process was significantly reformed to ensure that the deliberation of any dispute was conducted at arm’s length from the Party. Under the party rules, different panels are established in order for disputes to be considered by different panels throughout the different phases of mediation, arbitration and appeal.

    Disputes Tribunal members are made up of eminent party members who have no day-to-day dealings with the ALP.

    The Queensland ALP process calls for a first panel of three eminent Party members to convene and attempt mediation. This process was unsuccessful as no fault was conceded, no conciliatory statements proffered and no offer of support for the Labor MPs of the Party made.

    The arbitration phase was conducted by a different panel and this phase was held over two sessions with adjournments being granted in order to accommodate requests from Mr Simpson and Mr Traill.

    At no stage during mediation or arbitration, did Mr Simpson or Mr Traill deny the quotes presented in the media or repudiate the articles as represented. Further, during the arbitration phase, Mr Simpson articulated that he "did not support the re-election of 49 of the 51 Labor MPs."

    All parties were legally represented during the arbitration phase and numerous submissions were put and exchanged between the Disputes Tribunal and the parties.

    At all times, the principles of natural justice and due process were adhered to as were the rules of the Party.

    The Disputes Tribunal heard final submissions on Monday, 28th of February and found the complaints established and unanimously recommended to the Administrative Committee that the Respondents (Simpson and Traill) be expelled from the Party.

    The Party's rules provide that decisions of the Disputes Tribunal can be appealed to another panel. In this instance, Mr Simpson and Mr Traill did not take up their rights of appeal and, whilst not agreeing with the findings and recommendation of the Disputes Tribunal, consented to the Tribunal's report going to the Administrative Committee for final determination.

    Administrative Committee 18th of March 2011

    A special meeting of the Administration Committee was held on Friday, 18th of March and the recommendation of the Disputes Tribunal was considered carefully and dutifully by members through reasoned debate.

    The motion to ratify the decision of the Disputes Tribunal was carried, thus formalising the expulsion of Mr Simpson and Mr Traill from the ALP.

5 comments:

Vaughn said...

If these bastards were worried about Stuart Traill and Peter Simpson damaging the party, they must be shitting themselves over what Bligh, Fraser, Kaiser and Co. have done.

Vaughn said...

Oh and another thing, this bullshit about a new "labour" party came about from a News Limited source. Yeah, that's right, the same media organisation which the Labor Party itself has accused of mis-reresentation in the past. It just goes to show, you can't believe everything you see and hear in the media. The fight to save State Labor from the idiots infesting the party now, will go on and gain momentum, even if Bligh does somehow win at the next election.

Bryan Law said...

Vaughn, it's our job to make sure the ALP does NOT win the next election. Imagine if this kind of behaviour (privatisation, expelling unionists, and shitting on the membership) were rewarded with continuing office. The bastards would get so far up 'emselves they'd disappear from view.

The hiding Christina Keneally gets today is going to change the face of NSW politics. We need to do the same here.

I'm quietly hoping that Anna B. Liar goes for an early election. My baseball bat is ready. Eager even.

knrhill said...

Comrades, they will learn. Unfortunately it will most probably be just as NSW Labor has learnt their lesson.

YOU CAN NOT TURN YOUR BACK ON THE WORKERS, AND THE PUBLIC ARE CLEVER ENOUGH TO KNOW THAT PRIVATISATION REALLY MEANS SERVICE AND JOB LOSES.

Gurugirl said...

Well really is there any valid oposition to the ALP in FNQ - NO

So how can you even think about wining when there is no one to contest.

Even my dog would be a better candidate then the tossers preselected by the LNP

Even with cant do - they are a loosing battle with NO crediability..

At least the ALP has the credabili8ty for being a pack of dead shits towards members...

VOTE [1] Sexisam cause no one else is worth voting for