The unholy fight for Churchlands (part 2)

I wanted to write about something totally different today to prove that I'm more than just a one trick pony.

After all, I was in the room when Troy sniffed the chair, saw and heard all sorts of things that happened near the photocopier in the leader of the opposition’s office, saw a few good liberal women get destroyed, and was present when a number of very honourable people like Graham Jacobs were… well, let's just leave it at that.

But unfortunately, all that will have to wait because sadly I have to again write a post that relates to Peter Collier.

Just a side note: Paul Murray was quite correct in this amazing interview with the Minister – I am looking for work. If you are interested in some bold strategic advice, no-bull political commentary or even a guest writer or panel member who will entertain your audience with politically incorrect anecdotes and insights, I'm just a click away! (thank goodness we are getting those prostitution laws soon huh?) :-)

Anyhow, back to the glossy Peter Collier.

For those who asked me why I said the unholy battle for Churchlands would re-open old, very tender Liberal wounds.... Whulla! I give you this news article from the ABC yesterday.

That article doesn’t explain the whole background, but this Stateline transcript from 2005 certainly does.

After reading those articles, you might be inclined to think the allegations resurfaced because ALP Member Martin Whitely has a long memory.... nope! It was front of mind for him yesterday because the now-energy efficient halls of parliament (they auctioned the old power guzzler chandeliers off yesterday - presumably because the Speaker couldn’t afford his power bills like the rest of us) are abuzz with this old, very tender Liberal wound. We are of course talking about this because of the unholy fight for Churchlands.

After I published the unholy fight for Churchlands (part 1), I received an email from a very nice Liberal member who honestly couldn’t understand why I thought the pre-selection battle would get ugly. This person said they were at the State Council meeting and it was all very cordial and pleasant.
The emailer is of course correct but obviously isn’t much of a chess player. Chess, like any game of influence, requires a player to not only see the current state of play, but think about how all the pieces might look in the future.

The fun bit for those of us who are watching from the sidelines is that both Premier Barnett and Peter Collier are pretty good at this.

Here are some important facts to consider when thinking about what will happen next in this pre-selection.

1. Minister Collier holds the majority of the votes in the Curtin division – certainly enough to play a major role in deciding who will win a usual pre-selection process in Churchlands.

2. He supported his new Chief of Staff, and fairly well regarded Young Liberal Richard Wilson, who nominated in the usual way.

3. After pre-selctions closed, the Premier (and his senior media adviser Dixie Marshall) “suggested” to outspoken business-woman Kate Lamont that she put her hand up for a seat.

4. After learning of the Premier’s desire to install Ms Lamont, Collier clique member Senator Mathias Cormann moved a motion at State Council to re-open nominations to facilitate her nomination.

5. Ms Lamont nominated for Churchlands.

6. Peter Collier’s Chief of Staff withdrew his nomination.

7. From out of nowhere, long-serving Party member Jane Timmermanis took the opportunity to also nominate.

To piece all that together is pretty easy – while Peter Collier is definitely a chess player, he is constantly frustrated by others because his moves are just too transparent.

And here’s another relevant fact: generally, he doesn’t think much of women. I know, politically incorrect of me to put that in writing, but everyone knows it. There is so much evidence of misogynistic behaviour, it’s really just not debatable.

Note to the Collier clique: Be all offended and send me nasty emails by all means, but just think of who was behind the demise of recent sitting Liberal women and what is going on in his head when he says stuff like this:

Hon Sally Talbot: Have you  read the report?

Hon PETER COLLIER: Will you be quiet, woman!

Several members interjected.

[Hansard 19 May 2011]

Anyway.

Peter Collier thought he had a lock in supporting his new Chief of Staff Richard Wilson for the presumed safe seat. When it became clear the Premier (and probably the Honourable Liz Constable) wanted a woman in that seat, Peter Collier saw the writing on the wall for his preferred candidate. As quick as a flash, he burnt Richard Wilson (like he has so many others) and started the chess game.
It’s interesting to note that when Sue Walker was undermined and driven from her seat of Nedlands (led by… guess who), the Collier clique supported a nice chap named Bill Marmion – ahead of at least two other qualified women, one of whom was Jane Timmermanis.

Wow! What goes around really does come around in politics. I’m guessing with a little bit of rationalisation from the non-misogynistic Senator Cormann, Peter Collier was convinced that Ms Timmermanis was the best breasted candidate he could find to support in competition to the Premier’s ‘lock’.

So, I reckon the branch level initial vote will be interesting. If Peter Collier has the balls (which is questionable) and hasn’t burned too much political capital with all the insights we have been given as a result of a bit of media scrutiny this week, Jane Timmermanis should win pre-selection with his support.

But here’s where it gets really ugly.

Imagine for a moment you are Kate Lamont.

You’re a strong-willed, self-made, successful entrepreneur who relies heavily on support from wealthy and influential customers (i.e. her businesses need patronage to survive – nothing untoward there). Since working hard to gain that success, you’ve branched out and been politically active – but in a non-partisan way. You’ve picked up government advisory roles with both Labor and Liberal Governments and you’ve played a straight bat, gaining a fair bit of respect for telling it how it is. Importantly, you’ve managed to influence without having to be painted into any corner of the political spectrum and therefore risk losing the support of half of WA’s business community i.e. her target market.

Then one day the Premier and a straight talking, somewhat charming media personality drop in to your restaurant and suggest that you stand for Parliament.

Would you agree to pin a flag to your mast if the offer wasn’t a “guaranteed” seat in Parliament? And would you agree to piss off half your target market unless that offer came with a promise of something more than a $140,000 a year backbench position that doesn’t allow you to even speak in public, let alone influence Cabinet…

Na, either would I. I’m certain the Premier wouldn’t have promised anything like this, but it wouldn’t surprise me if Ms Lamont was left to believe it.

So, if Peter Collier delivers on his alleged powerbroking potential and gets Jane Timmermanis nominated, Kate Lamont will be very, very grumpy that she’s sacrificed so much for so little. And she isn’t shy about expressing her opinion when she’s angry. Nor is Liz Constable, who will no doubt do all she can to ensure any candidate supported by Peter Collier isn’t her replacement.

Eeeek!!!

The only way out of this scenario would be for State Council to over turn Ms Timmermanis’ pre-selection and by then, the Premier will have many, many more reasons to let Peter Collier suffer the consequences of being a powerless powerbroker with a lot of self-made enemies.

Too little too late - revolt is nigh

Great insight in Gareth Parker’s Inside State column in today’s West Australian newspaper – as he wrote, there is no shortage of government backbenchers who would like the chance to step up into a Ministry before the next election. Among those backbenchers, there’s a lot of dissatisfaction with the performance of some Ministers and the last thing the Premier can afford right now is a revolt within his own Party Room.

But other than the 'hard' news in the talented Mr Parker’s article, there was this wonderful little jewel:

“Asked about the possibility of a rejig of his ministry before the next election, Mr Barnett told Inside State flatly: ‘There is no planned Cabinet reshuffle.’ ”

Pretty stock standard response from a Premier – nothing in that… unless you contrast this statement against this bold statement by Sunday Times political editor in last weekend’s edition:

“Colin Barnett will have another cabinet reshuffle this year, possibly as early as July. Sources within the Liberal Party say…”

Hmm…. QBF readers might need just a bit of background here.

At around the same time as the Premier hired Dixie Marshal to fill the position of his director of all things media, the Sunday Times started getting LOTS of favours – almost all of the exclusive good news stories and the occasional whisper of a scoop. Simultaneously, the Premier started abusing the rest of WA’s media pack, including the West who were (rightfully so) relentless in trying to get to the bottom of a number of big issues – including the content of Ms Marshall’s email inbox and whether or not she or the Premier’s Chief of Staff had anything to do with Google Earth-gate that saw a media adviser sacrificed.

Having been on the other side of this, I know one of the crude ways governments try to manage their image is to feed the journalists who write the nicest stories about you, ie not necessarily the media outlets that dig deeply to get to the whole truth.

Back to the leak to Joe Spagnolo. Let me make an assertion - “Sources” in this case actually means the Premier’s office. Given the emphatic statement supplied to the West today, it had to be “off the record” because otherwise the Premier would have been accused of a conflicting message.

So why would the Premier’s office tell the Sunday Times off the record that there will be another reshuffle soon?

Easy! The Premier is a smart and politically astute man. He knows that when elections get close, ambitions get put aside for the sake of electoral victory. He also knows that there is so much unrest in the Party Room right now, it could explode at any time.

So in move that many teachers would have used to control a classroom full of screaming kids, he has sent the subtle message that if they all sit down and shut up for a while, the good ones might be rewarded and the bad ones might be punished. In Parliamentary terms, for the backbenchers who are agitating for a Ministry, play nice and you might get one – and for the Ministers who can feel the knives being sharpened behind you, keep your eye and the ball and you won’t lose your Ministerial salary.

Members are losing faith in the Premier, not because he is incompetent, but because he has left so many vital decisions to the last minute.

I like Minister Constable, but how on earth is she going to answer legitimate questions about the direction a future Liberal government might take in education in the lead up to next March?

Rob Johnson isn’t the only Minister backbenchers believe the Premier has favoured for too long.

The dixie effect (something light for Friday afternoon)

The West Australian’s Inside State column yesterday focussed on the pre-selection battle for Churchlands, but nestled amongst the ‘hard news’ of the story was this line:

“Inside State was told the impetus for Ms Lamont’s interest came when Mr Barnett and his senior media advisor Dixie Marshall, who served with Ms Lamont on the Tourism WA board for several years, had lunch at her Yallingup restaurant in late March while in town for the Margaret River Pro surfing tournament.”

Hmm, I thought. Having previously been the meat caught between a slice of Collier Pane ticinese (See ref 1 below) and Marshall Bubbleloaf (See ref 2 below) I know the Premier’s most senior bugle can be quite persuasive, so I wondered if she had worked her, umm… let’s call it charm, on Mr Barnett.

And on reflection, I think there’s probably enough evidence for me to confirm that our sometimes crusty old Premier has actually been dixied…

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Before the Contract of Dixie (BC) the Premier said: "When did air-conditioning become a necessity of life?"

After being dixied (AD): “That doesn’t mean I don’t make mistakes…I think I’ve been a pretty straight shooter. I don’t try to spin things and tell it how it is and sometimes that gets me in trouble.”

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

BC: [To the media] “Sometimes I think World War III could break out and you guys wouldn’t notice.”

AD: Exclusive "puff piece" on Channel Nine News 9 March 2012

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

BC: "I don't think members of parliament should turn up with jumpers on, and I think it should be a coat and tie for males and suitable business attire for females" (I can vouch for this – I witnessed him do a press conference in Karratha in high humidity and 40 degree heat wearing a full suit)

AD: Premier Barnett appeared at a mid-morning press conference in the Perth CBD on a Parliamentary sitting day (3 May 2012) without a tie OR jacket!!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

BC: "Be realistic about your expectations and be prepared to buy a fairly humble property first off and gradually work your way up as you go through life and your income increases.”

AD: “You’re not going to get political correctness out of me, I’ll say it how it is.”

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

BC: [a former Minister] “…I suggest he give the member for Vasse a kick in the nuts before he hits him in the head! [Mr BARNETT] “Mr Speaker, that is highly inappropriate”

AD: “This email shows the director of media doing her job,” he said. “This is what she is meant to be doing — co-ordinating the government message, communicating with her team. The email proves she goes about her business broadly, positively, and with good humour. OK, she occasionally says a swear word. She was, after all, a journalist for more than 25 years. Dixie has promised me she will never ever, ever, ever swear again in emails.”

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

A lot of people have been quite critical of Dixie Marshall in her new role, but you have to give her this – she’s managed to exert significant influence over one of the most strong-willed, headstrong men I’ve ever come across.


Notes:

Ref 1: Pane ticinese is a soft dough Swiss bread that is all white, strengthened by several small sub-loaves or rolls.

Ref 2: Bubbleloaf is a gooey pastry from Africa that sticks to the roof of your mouth, usually served as a treat because it is considered too rich for daily consumption.

iPad rage

Wow!

My post this morning exposing the Department of Premier and Cabinet report constructed to justify Premier Barnett's decision to not provide an iPad as part of the standard kit provided to Members of Parliament has caused a bit of a stir.

Not only have I been flooded with support for bringing the nonsense report to light but I've also had a bunch of people providing names of others who use an iPad - apparently without any of the security risks or technical problems the WA Department forecast.

So, with thanks to the knowledgable readers of QBF, please allow me to include the following names as an addendum to Dixie Marshal, Kim Hames, Pope Benedict and President Obama:

- Prime Minister Gillard (at the dispatch box no less)
- Malcom Turnbull
- The Queensland Cabinet
- The ACT Cabinet
- Joe Francis
- Christian Porter
- British Prime Minister David Cameron
- Sweden's whole Parliament
- The Dutch Senate (and they had a secure App written by local developers to manage their Parliamentary business)
- And while they haven't yet been delivered, every Member of the UK House of Commons

Hmmm, looks like the DPC really did their homework before recommending against the proposal for our local MP's.

To wrap it up, I'll leave you with a quote from Charlie Sorrell in an article he wrote advocating (as I am) for British MP's to to have access to the tool, simply because I can't say it any better:

"Those paper-loving members could of course simply opt out, or give the thing to their secretaries who probably do all their work anyway. But what Boon is missing is that iPads will make the process of government quicker, smoother and more modern.

Besides, who would you prefer running your country? A gaggle of old men and women who scoff at this passing fad called “the Internet” and pass laws to break it, or a bunch of tech-savvy politicians who are living and working with the very tools that will shape the future?"

PS. I wrote and uploaded this on my iPad while enjoying a quiet moment in Kings Park this afternoon.

Col Pot: No iPad for you!

It’s the classic shock-jock stunt and has been repeated over and over again: sit silently for 30 painful seconds after dropping the question live on air, “Mr Premier, do you know the price of a litre of milk and loaf of bread?”

As brutal and nasty as it is, this age-old circus act does serve some legitimate value in highlighting exactly how out of touch some of our long-serving political leaders can become. It’s a fairly blunt instrument, but the fear of being humiliated on live radio or TV probably serves us well by at least reminding our elected representatives to try to “keep it real” (thanks JR).  However, it might be time to update the question to better reflect the world in which we - and our children – now live.

Given the letter sent to Members of the Western Australian Parliament yesterday, I suggest a far more relevant question to catch our leaders out today could be, “Mr Premier, do you know what an App is?”

To be fair, the letter that anonymously landed in my inbox was signed by the Director General of the Premier’s Department, not actually the Premier – but given his self-proclaimed conservative outlook and overt lack of enthusiasm for technology, the content had Mr Barnett’s fingerprints all over it.

If you haven’t already guessed, the letter and accompanying 8-page report was the Department’s formal response to a push by many MP’s over the past couple of years to make a tablet computer (such as an iPad) part of their standard issue equipment.

Disappointingly, the letter basically says the Department doesn’t support the move and both the Premier and Presiding Officers have already accepted its recommendations. But as is often the case in politics, the devil is in the detail and the biggest disappointments are in the way the full report attempts to justify the recalcitrant decision.

Here are some salient points I picked out this morning and my quick responses below them:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

15 Members of Parliament trialled iPads for 5 months last year. Over the next 8 months, the DPC produced its 8-page report. (page2)

QBF response: I don’t want to put too finer point on this, but in the time it took our government to produce an 8 page report that basically says “no”, Apple launched 2 generations of the iPad - and reportedly sold upward of 55 million of them in more than 25 countries.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of the MP’s in the trial (page 4): 

• 93% reported that the iPad met their business needs
• 100% were satisfied with the simplicity of use
• 85% were satisfied the iPad would reduce dependency on paper
• 93% were satisfied with using the iPad to access their email and calendars

QBF response: Ummm, yes – these devices are very convenient and that’s why MP’s have been advocating for them to be provided.

In fact within 90 days of its release, the iPad is reported to have penetrated more than 50% of Fortune 100 companies in the U.S. Research in 2011 by Frost & Sullivan shows that iPad usage in workplaces increases employee productivity, reduces paperwork, and increases revenue. It continues, estimating "The mobile-office application market in North America may reach $6.85 billion in 2015.”

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“Documents in iPad Apps are not generally compatible with PC applications (such as Microsoft Office)” (page 6)

QBF response: This is simply incorrect and damages the credibility of the whole document. There are a number of very well-used Apps that create, read and write Microsoft Office documents.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The iPad is very good for reading and marking up documents…but is not generally suited to creating large or complex documents. (page 6)

QBF response: It IS very good for reading – and that is presumably why our Premier and Education Minister launched a state government program to fund 900 iPads for 1^st and 2^nd year school kids 6 weeks ago – read the media statement.

Even the US Federal Aviation Administration has approved the iPad for in-cockpit use which resulted Alaska Airlines becoming the first airline to replace pilots' paper manuals with iPads, weighing 0.68 kg compared to 11 kg for the printed flight manuals.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Corporate documents that are created or modified on an iPad may be lost or inadequately managed if not transferred to a server. (page 6)

QBF response: Every MP has a laptop for which the same threat exists: Many of them use these machines at Parliament House, which operates its own network and offers no connectivity to Member’s electorate offices. This forces them to save documents they use at Parliament (or working remotely without any connectivity to either network) locally on the laptop. To further complicate things, Ministers have a 3^rd, independent network they must also use. This is an education issue, not hardware.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MPs could adopt lower levels of security and usage behaviour which could place themselves and information at risk.

QBF response: Good grief! We are talking about the people WE elect to write our laws for goodness sake! If we can’t trust their “usage behaviour” on a device that every second 16 year old kid has in their school bag, our State is in dire trouble.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An iPad and cover costs $1,000 (page 7)

QBF response: Rubbish! Pick up the phone and ask for a volume deal – just like the State Government Education Department did to get their 40% discount.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“Most State and Federal jurisdictions are trialling iPads and some have rolled them out. More detailed information on this status could be obtained if required” (page 8)

QBF response: What on earth did you guys do for 8 months? This is another blatently incorrect assertion. I’ve personally sat through a number of Ministerial Council meetings where EVERY Minister from every other State referred to the reams of paper that my boss had on one multi-purpose 1 cm thick device – a government issued iPad.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And my favourite…

iPad’s create the potential for “security risks; including: loss or leakage of sensitive information, identity theft…” (page 6)

QBF response: If this is true, the bad news for the Government is there are already thousands of risks out there in the iPads being used by its own agencies and departments. But before the security police kick down the doors of Synergy or the Department of Health, perhaps they should look a little closer to home at  a few people with lot of secrets including Director of Government Media, Dixie Marshall and by the looks of this incredibly ironic piece of Hansard from 30 November 2011, our Deputy Premier, Dr Kim Hames:

“Luckily I have my iPad to help me define the term — Hypocrisy is the state of pretending to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that one does not actually have. Hypocrisy involves the deception of others and is thus a kind of lie.”

To really illustrate the point that this report is not about any real threat to security, the Pope sending his first Tweet from his iPad:

And President Obama about to board Marine One with his iPad under his left arm:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Come on Premier, how can the people who write our laws possibly have a good understanding of their constituents if you won’t provide them with the tools most of us in the real world use every day?

WA – Wait Awhile indeed. :-(

Where has the money gone?

I had a coffee with an educated, right-leaning mining executive yesterday who asked one very simple question no-one in his position should need to ask. On reflection, the very fact that he didn’t know the answer demonstrates what I think is perhaps the biggest challenge facing the Barnett Government as it careers toward the next election.

The question he genuinely asked me was: “I keep hearing that the state has more debt than ever, but where has the money gone?”

If you’ve just paused and wondered how you would answer, my next observation will come as no surprise - Premier Colin Barnett and Treasurer Christian Porter have become expert bearers of bad news and proletarian professors of good.

Have a think about it. How many times have you heard these men explain with crystal clarity that our great state can’t afford this or that because of our burgeoning levels of debt?

To some extent, lowering expectations is a well-trodden political path – you tell people things are tough and you probably can’t afford hand outs, then miraculously just before an election, you pull the rabbit out of the hat and take a bow while the appreciative audience cast their votes.

But sadly for those members of the audience holding their breath, this is no magic trick and there is no rabbit.

If you didn’t know already (because Mr Barnett and Mr Porter have said it ad nauseam) net state debt has risen from $3.6 billion in 2008 when Premier Barnett took the reigns to an expected level around $22 billion in 2014-15. To non-economists like me, those numbers look terrible and sadly for the Liberal-National government, the respectable Mr Barnett (who is an economist) has told the public over and over again, that indeed they are!

However, other reputable commentators such as the Chamber of Commerce and Industry say for a State with WA’s capacity to generate income, that level of debt is not a problem. In fact, the CCI has on occasion, urged the Government to even increase its spending a bit and invest more now to help achieve a better growth curve for the future. So if the State’s very reputable peak industry body is comfortable with our short-term debt forecast, why do Mr and Mrs Brown feel so uneasy about it?

It’s not that we know better than the bean-counters at the CCI, because we obviously don’t. They are truly experts in this field. However, a lot of Mums and Dads don’t get to hear from the CCI – because they simply can’t get the same opportunity to talk to the public as the Premier and his Treasurer do.  When my wife and I plonk down in front of the nightly news eating our microwave dinners from the stable-tables on our laps, we, like our neighbours, see a lot of our esteemed Premier and his anointed in full HD on our energy-sucking 50 inch plasma TV’s. We don’t get to see much of James Pearson’s handsome head, nor do we get to hear from anyone else impartial or even remotely rational on the issue. We, the watchers, increasingly demand something punchy, scary or outrageous from our media and simply lose interest when a credible guy in a suit is saying something sensible.

OK, that isn’t news. Politicians and their advisers have known for decades that the public can’t get enough controversy and just hate the boring stuff.

But that - the fact we all know controversy gets attention – is the point of insight regarding the current WA government.

My observation is that Premier Barnett and his Treasurer have very successfully sold the story that debt is exploding and that’s why we can’t all get presents from the government this Christmas. We’ve been told debt is one of the reasons for the enormous cost-of-living increases this government has forced upon us. We believe police, nurses and teachers aren’t going to get the pay rises they want primarily because of state debt. We know the Perth arena has cost more than expected and we know the solar feed-in-tariff was more popular than our boffins predicted.

But what the government hasn’t explained very well, at least to the well-connected and highly educated mining exec I met yesterday, is why?

OK, let's have a go.

The Government currently employs somewhere around 25,000 more public sector workers than former Treasurer Troy Buswell promised when they first took office – and that adds to state debt. The Fiona Stanley Hospital will cost us a fortune to run. The Perth waterfront is going to get dug up soon, that’s another cost, yep. The government wants to settle native title with the noongar people, ok, a billion there. Speaking of happy aboriginal people, we shouldn’t forget the cost of the enormously successful (cough) James Price Point development. Oh yeah, we’re getting a stadium at Burswood that James Packer isn’t paying for, we think, maybe…  The Oakajee Port is going to cost… oh no, that was going to cost the Government but not any more – cross that one off… umm… err… struggling now…. Western Power wants $10 billion over the next 5 years, no, wait, that’s not in the budget yet….hmmm

You get the picture. Most people couldn’t point to things to justify the extra $18 billion the government has spent so far under Mr Barnett’s leadership. That is an enormous problem for any government which, because of the debt, really doesn't have money to promise anything new in this election year.

And the most uncomfortable truth is that regardless of the number of very well-paid alleged political geniuses in the Premier's office, this amounts to nothing other than a colossal strategic error.

The Premier has used his valuable airtime over the past few years to drum home the message that we need to cap state debt at $20 billion and then scared the living bejesus out of us by having to break the news that not only did he set that number arbitarily, he we will soon take us beyond it by at least 10%. Neither he or his Treasurer have yet to use any of that precious space on my TV to explain to the people who thought Liberal governments were good with money exactly why we’re beginning to think otherwise.

Note: There's a pile of evidence that this administration likes to let one person hang out to dry when failures like this are publicly recognised, so I’ll pre-empt the inevitable finger pointing by defending Dixie Marshall on this issue. She simply hasn’t been the government’s chief bugle for even one budget yet, so it’s clearly not her fault. Nor can the blame be entirely laid at the feet of any of her predecessors.