BEFORE the advent of Gameboy and PlayStation, children might entertain themselves with a simple game that consisted of several lettered or patterned tiles locked into a frame, but with one space empty. The aim was to arrange the tiles to spell a word or complete a picture, using the space to “park” a tile while you shifted others. The problem always was that you only wanted to move one tile but inevitably had to shuffle the lot.

The game, and the restrictions that shape how it is played, came to mind when contemplating the recent Cabinet reshuffle. According to the Premier, the reshuffle was not undertaken because anybody had noticeably failed, or because of any crisis, or the need to address a new agenda. Rather it was to “enliven interest, stimulate ideas and bring a fresh approach to certain portfolio responsibilities”. Behind the scenes, within the bureaucracy, there were concerns with the management style of some individuals but no show-stopper issues.

At least none that were public at the time the Premier made his announcement. An independent report of the Department of Family and Youth Services has just been released. The report is highly critical of the level of funding to the Department and draws attention to problems it says are “deep and systemic”. A new minister in this area will obviously find it easier to answer the questions raised.

Still, after only two years in office, was such a Cabinet reshuffle needed? It is politically smart, even politically necessary. The intensity of modern media, with its insatiable demand for something new and different for every bulletin, has effectively “foreshortened” the way politics is practised and the life span of a minister in a particular portfolio.

Also, for any government the perception of complacency, lack of attention, or lack of energy either in terms of policy development or presence in the community is political death. It is to be avoided at all costs and it is a problem that four-year fixed terms makes worse. A new face on TV or voice on radio to discuss key issues will not replace new or sensible policies. It does, however, hold the media at bay and helps make redundant the clippings files that they keep up to date almost solely in the hope of discovering a ministerial “contradiction”, a “U-turn”, or a “back flip”.

A reshuffle also reminds the electorate that the Premier is in charge of events, which, given the modern presidential style of electoral politics, is no bad thing. Certainly a party without a leader seen by the electorate as “strong” has problems, regardless of how good the individual members of Cabinet may be.

The reshuffle may be good politics but is it good public policy? The answer is less clear; most probably it’s not.

At a minimum it disrupts and distracts the public service. In many cases, particularly for the senior echelons, it can represent sudden and far-reaching cultural change, particularly if the reshuffle is accompanied by re-organisation. This can be hard to bed down in any organisation, public or private. It may also mean that particular projects or initiatives will be delayed. The State Transport Plan was apparently ready to go to the Minister for endorsement but is now on hold while the new Minister gets her head around her portfolio.

The reshuffle is the second time that the Premier has changed the allocation of cabinet responsibilities. The first series of changes came in May, 2003, in response to the recommendations of the Economic Development Board. In some respects, these latest changes contradict, even reverse the effect of the reshuffle in 2003. At that time the important Industry and Trade portfolio passed from Treasurer Kevin Foley to Rory McEwen. Now it is moving to Paul Holloway, Labor’s leader in the Legislative Council. Holloway is one of Cabinet’s better performers, so the change is probably good for an area of government that has suffered from a plethora or reviews and reorganisations. With three Ministers in two years and a few CEOs, they probably feel sufficiently “freshened up”.

But it would be naïve to think that public administration can be conducted in a political vacuum. Government is essentially a political process; winning and maintaining the confidence of the electorate is essential. And if reshuffles help convince that electorate (and the media) that the government is not asleep at the wheel, then they are going to happen, regardless of any principles of public policy. And it has ever been thus.

POSTSCRIPT: Labor’s Federal preselections. Predictions demanded by deadlines in advance of events are always dangerous. Thus the assessment offered in last month’s Review, written well before nominations closed for Labor’s preselection for federal seats, that “unless the factions suddenly suffered a loss of control there will be by now only one nomination for each seat”, proved somewhat inaccurate, particularly as regards the seat of Makin.

It took less than a week for hasty negotiations, arm-twisting and intervention by the Premier and the national office of the metal workers union to make it entirely accurate. But the Makin preselection resolution may have set a precedent that could unsettle factional cooperation within Labor, and sets up fascinating problems when Labor moves to consider Senate preselections. It also speaks volumes about Mark Latham’s impact on Labor and the party’s view of its electoral prospects. The SA Labor branch may be unique for the cosy collaboration between factions that has been institutionalised as “the machine”. Recently the factional entente was expanded to bring the minority left faction (previously the Duncan Left) back into the fold and to “give” them preselection rights over Makin.

Many assumed, wrongly as it turned out, that in return for being allowed back into the factional tent they would support popular local Mayor Tony Zappia but instead they put forward factional stalwart Dana Wortley. The extraordinary and quite courageous move by State MP Francis Bedford to nominate for the seat raised the spectre of a public and messy resolution at a Convention, maybe even a State by-election. Her action gave party heavies a significant incentive to get the problem fixed.

And fixed it was, with Tony Zappia ultimately winning the preselection unopposed, as indeed did Steve Georganas and Kate Ellis in Hindmarsh and Adelaide respectively.

But in doing so the party cast aside a fundamental principle of factional harmony, namely that once the basis for a division of positions has been agreed, each faction always respects the others’ choice of candidate. In this case, the two stronger factions combined to overthrow the choice of the recent addition and hence junior member of the machine. However, if the electoral attractiveness of a candidate put forward by a faction is subject to assessment by others, it may prove uncomfortable for all factions in the future.

The resolution in Makin also creates significant pressure for the affirmative action rule to be enforced in Senate preselections. As the rule stands, it is hard to see that Labor can avoid choosing women for two of the top three Senate spots, which may mean that the careers of incumbents Nick Bolkus and Geoff Buckland are looking decidedly uncertain. Anyone with a Y chromosome may have problems. Under state branch rules, if the affirmative action principle is not met the next step is to spill all federal preselections and start the process again – a prospect Labor strategists would view as appalling.

Why were the factions prepared to act as they did in Makin? One reason is that under Mark Latham, Labor believes it can win and the tantalising prospect of office relegates factional advantage to the second division. Labor holds three State seats within the Makin electorate. If 2002 State election results had been transposed to the Federal seat, it is estimated Labor would have won 53.5 per cent of the vote on a two-party preferred basis. Simple translations of State voting figures to Federal seats are inherently misleading as the issues at each election are significantly different. But the seat is clearly within Labor’s grasp, and the party was prepared to overturn long-standing factional principles to ensure it stayed within reach. It is hard to believe it would have taken the risk, or that the factions would have agreed, if Simon Crean was still leader and Labor was languishing at the polls.