The whole exercise was a charade, undertaken for two reasons. First, and most obviously, ALP head office wants to be sure their new parliamentary leader secures a safe seat in the lower house to take up the fight to Premier Mike Baird in the bear pit. Auburn was the most suitable because Foley lives just outside its boundaries and – thanks to allegations of branch stacking – the preselection battle between sitting MP Barbara Perry and local councillor Hicham Zraika was not yet decided. Second, and more pointedly, as the new leader Foley wants to keep his reputation intact. As a leading member of the Left faction, Foley has spoken in favour of granting ordinary Labor members more say over who represents them in the parliament.

To allow himself to be forced upon branch members as their representative in Auburn would be starkly at odds with that position. So when it became obvious a head office "parachute" was on offer that would have simply installed him as the candidate, Foley quickly declared he would not accept one and called for a rank-and-file preselection. The party obliged. Its national executive cancelled the current preselection and called a brand new ballot for January 17. The branch members will obediently endorse a man whom many of them have probably never met until last week, if ever. Shortly afterwards Zraika and Perry miraculously announced they would not nominate against Foley, ultimately leaving him as the sole candidate.

Now, to anyone observing this process in the real world this was clearly a carefully crafted political fix. But not in the parallel universe of the NSW Labor party, apparently. Foley continues to protest that because a rank-and-file preselection has been called he is prostrating himself before Auburn branch members and, ipso facto, his hands are clean. But is this really how Foley's role in all of this should be read? Has he actually behaved genuinely as a man of principle? Or has he in fact turned a blind eye to the scheming of party powerbrokers (as a former party official he would know full well how these things are organised)? It's an important consideration, because as a keen student of ALP history, Foley knows only too well that the answer has the capacity to put an early spin on his leadership.

Any suggestion that he is indebted to the "faceless men" at head office undermines the idea he is his own man. Just ask Kristina Keneally, who struggled with being branded a "puppet" of Eddie Obeid and Joe Tripodi. This also has the capacity to reflect on his subsequent approach to internal democratic reform. Any future wavering in this area could be seen as pandering to the Sussex Street powerbrokers who remain opposed to key changes such as the introduction of direct election of upper house candidates. It's likely that the answer is: a bit of both. There is little to suggest Foley does not genuinely believe in the rights of ordinary branch members. But he also appears to be holding his nose when it comes to acknowledging the unmistakeable odour of a fix emanating from head office.

Perhaps this is understandable. Foley and the ALP's decision were all about expediency in extraordinary circumstances. John Robertson resigned two days before Christmas, leaving the party little choice but to move as quickly and decisively as possible. But it's also somewhat disappointing for a party that for the four years since its worst ever election loss has promised to be turning over a new leaf. As Labor itself has stated on so often, the key to rebuilding its brand is to re-establish the trust of the community. It is also key to growing the party with concrete demonstrations that the concerns of ordinary members are looked after. Being honest with voters – and members – about why the party provided Foley a parachute – to give him and Labor the best possible chance at the forthcoming election – would have gone a long way towards doing that. Twitter: @seannic