Showing posts with label Government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Government. Show all posts

Wednesday, June 20, 2012

The negative opposition fallacy

I was involved in a Twitter conversation last evening that was started with this Tweet by @sarahscustard:
“This campaign bugs me. Do you really have to campaign on negativity and cheap statements? :( #wapol “
I’m very sure it was a genuine question and not a strategic attack from an anti-Labor campaigner. Regardless, it led to a good, robust conversation that attracted input from the ALP State Secretary, two Members of the Upper House and a couple of others including social commentator and aspiring politician, @troutish and myself (@_darren_brown_).

It was worthy and while I won’t go on about the reluctance of this Government to use social media more proactively, the discussion did confirm two things for me:

  1. There’s a bunch of people out there who are interested in our political system but at risk of becoming disillusioned because no one takes the time to offer a counter argument to the cynical views developed by reading newspaper headlines and watching 7 second grabs on TV, and
  2. Social media, like Twitter, provides a massive opportunity for someone to offer that alternative view and hopefully engage more people in our political system.
I’ve always been an advocate for greater engagement and involvement , but until today hadn’t seen that it’s probably something I could be doing more to facilitate, for the betterment of all – and hopefully to prove that I have yet another skill worthy of payment! :-)

So let’s address the question raised earlier today.

Why are Oppositions so negative?

Firstly if the title isn’t obvious enough, they aren’t in control of the State’s policy agenda. That is, their job is to offer an alternative to the government, or to oppose. That doesn’t mean Oppositions blindly oppose everything just because they’re not holding the reigns. In fairness, there is actually a lot that happens in Parliament where all Parties say their piece, then agree to compromise a bit for the sake of practicality and productivity – during the committee stages of new Bills is a good example of where that happens a lot.

And because of that, it’s sometimes very hard for the media to report the happenings of Parliament in a way that will even be heard, let alone interesting to the majority. As an example, when I worked in the office of a Leader of the Opposition, I was constantly frustrated when news outlets would report the outcome of our Parliamentary tactics as, “The State Opposition failed to suspend standing orders today” when it should have been, “The Government used its majority to deny the Opposition’s motion to suspend standing orders today” - but again, most of the voting public would rather watch Bear Grylls sucking the gizzards out of a live snake than follow through on a headline that simply confirms an expected outcome, so in retrospect who can blame a journo for trying to “sex-up” a daily summary of Parliament a little?

So that leads to most of the voting public only ever hearing about the disagreements in Parliament, and only when they are passionate and animated enough to compete with Mr Grylls drinking his own urine – Bear, not Brendon that is. And from that, it’s really no wonder many believe that all Parliamentarians carry on like pork-chops every day and the Opposition (regardless of political colour) never offers anything positive to the debate, just criticism.

But it’s more than just perception. It’s a huge gamble for any Opposition Party to release any specific policy too far out from an election, particularly if it’s innovative or if it involves significant expenditure. And when I say too far out from an election, I mean pretty much anytime before the caretaker convention kicks in.

While this is frustrating for the public, it is really quite easy to understand.

In comparison to the Government, Opposition Parties really do have very limited resources. The Leader has 10 or so staff and that’s it. Everyone else is multi-tasking – and working only with publicly available data. The Government on the other hand, has access to privileged information and thousands of departmental staff available to analyse policy ideas both in isolation but importantly also how any change in direction would impact across the rest of the government, with the benefit of knowing what else is on the agenda.

This means an almost impossible no-win situation for any Opposition with big ideas. If they release an innovative policy before the caretaker period, the Government will employ its significant resources to study the opposition document and either adopt it and implement it if it’s a good idea or pick it to pieces and use its large microphone to explain every single risk or flaw, thus rendering the policy more of a liability than an asset to the opposition come election time.

And there’s one more legitimate reason for Opposition Parties to keep their big policies under wraps until close to the election – money. There’s a few variables that determine how much both the Opposition and Government can spend in election commitments.

Firstly, there’s the amount of money the State can squeeze from the Federal Government in terms of GST reimbursement. The Premier and former Treasurer made a lot of this lately and WA’s share is planned to fall significantly however, in terms of making election promises, at least this figure is known well in advance i.e. it’s something everyone can budget for.

The next big income source is one that neither the Government nor Opposition can accurately predict, although the Government has information that should always give them a better idea – Royalties. Given that the State’s income is increasingly bolstered by the sale of commodities, fluctuations in international demand and the value of the Australian dollar means no-one really knows precisely how much cash the State will get until the ships have unloaded their ore at their destination. Having said that, Governments will sometimes use very conservative assumptions as to the value of the Dollar and likely levels of export so they aren’t caught short – and that means they often have a larger than predicted surplus to play with every May.

The last one is the killer for Oppositions. The fact is, Governments ALWAYS try to underestimate the level of surplus in pre-election budgets so they can announce a surprise windfall (and associated new spending and projects) just in time with the election. Lots of games get played with the budget papers to hide or underestimate money in pre-election budgets and the one being debated in Parliament right now is no different.

The problem for the Opposition is they have to base their election promises on what is visible in the budget papers – if you believe you only have one dollar, it’s irresponsible to promise to spend two. However, the Government knows where the extra money is buried and exactly when it’s coming, so expect a new school, tax cut or some other sweet promise from the incumbent Government that the Opposition will never be able to match, simply because they didn’t know there was enough money to do it.

So really, Opposition is a pretty crappy game until a month or two before an election when the Government shows its hand and you get to see what they’ve been hiding. Until then, it’s almost always unwise for Opposition Parties to release detailed policy commitments because it’s simply too dangerous.

Having said that, it should be noted that New Labor, under Mark McGowan appear to have made the conscious decision to start rolling out election promises early. Given what we’ve discussed above, that’s remarkably courageous or just plain stupid, but I guess only time will tell.

Tuesday, March 6, 2012

Lobbying 101 - Aggressive lobbying tactics

About this series
Squeaky Wheel’s “Lobbying 101” series of posts are designed to provide insightful background and practical advice to individuals, companies and community groups who aim to influence government policy and/or decisions.


The author, Darren Brown, is a Western Australian-focussed political commentator and registered lobbyist who draws on his experiences as a professional advocate and more recently, Ministerial Chief of Staff. Darren’s observations are provided in his trade-mark, but often unpopular with his employers, blunt and quirky style. He always welcomes equally blunt and quirky feedback, but please keep it civil.

==============================================

How aggressive should a lobbying strategy be?

At the risk of sounding like a politician, this is a complicated question because every situation is different. However there are a few tips I can provide that might help guide you.

Firstly, when developing your lobbying plan it’s important to take a holistic view of the situation – try to think about winning the ‘war’, not just this battle. Depending on the issue, it might be strategically better for you to be passive and sacrifice a small debate in order to win an advantage in a much bigger one. There’s definitely a place for aggressive tactics in lobbying governments, but as with many things in politics, it’s all about the timing.

More practically, when I’m developing a strategy to influence for a client, I apply two golden rules:

  1. ALWAYS start by playing nice, without exception
  2. Constantly evaluate your risk-return ratio

While it’s popular to believe politicians are all over-fed, narcissistic power-mongers, the far less sexy truth is that most of them are actually pretty decent, average people.

This is very important because knowing that most politicians are just normal people means you can appeal to them using the same hopes and fears that we all share. Just like you, many of them enjoy feeling like they are doing something positive and hate being humiliated or trapped in no-win situations. Also be generous; bear in mind that they have a lot on their plates and probably don’t know every detail of the issues that you’ve dedicated your time to – even if you have previously sent them a 400 page letter explaining it.

Golden rule number one - start by putting your frustrations aside, then respectfully and courteously explain to the person (not the position) what your problem is and how they could make it better. Give them an honest chance to get it right well before you show your teeth. Remember, plenty of stray dogs get fed with nothing more than a friendly wag of their tail. If they always approached people with an aggressive growl, they would no doubt eventually starve.

Having said that, there are certainly times when you might be forced to use more aggressive tactics such as prompting the interest of the mass media or parliamentary opposition. But be warned, these types of strategies come with big risks and should be used only after you’ve ‘wagged your tail’ in every possible friendly way.

Hence the second golden rule – before you adopt an aggressive lobbying tactic, make sure you are comfortable with the likely fallout if it all goes terribly wrong. Constantly evaluate whether the possible benefits of a successful outcome are worth the risks if you fail. Your time, energy and reputation are valuable commodities so if this particular issue isn’t really important to you, it could be time to let it go and walk away.

However, if you are sure that you have nothing left to lose or what you do have to lose is so large that the risks of defeat are worth it, plan your attack carefully, brace yourself for a rollercoaster ride like you’ve never had before - then go hard. Whether you win or lose the battle, your willingness to stand up and challenge the status quo will deliver stronger, more relevant public policy for us all.

Thanks for your interest and future participation.

==============================================

For other posts in this series, click on the “Lobbying101” label on the right-hand side. To be notified when new posts appear, subscribe to this blog or follow @_Darren_Brown_ on Twitter

Tuesday, February 28, 2012

Senior public servants should be term of government

The Barnett Government will soon have to deal with the vexed issue of whether or not to renew the contract of one of the State’s most high profile bureaucrats – Police Commissioner Karl O'Callaghan - and it will cause unnecessary angst for all involved, as usual.

Mr O'Callaghan’s clever strategy to build cosy relationships with the local media has made him one of the few free-range department heads in the Government. The Premier and his Cabinet openly acknowledge that he does a pretty good job as Commissioner, but secretly would like a bit more control over his public comments without the fear of a media backlash.

However, regardless of the individual involved, the current structure and culture of our administration makes all governments vulnerable to controversy when they consider the future of any senior public servant. This is mostly because Oppositions are always hungry to invent a conspiracy theory of the betrayal of a fine public officer if the incumbent doesn’t renew a contract and just as quickly slam the Government for supporting a dud if they choose to renew. It’s largely a no-win situation for the government.

I’ll explain how this recurring ugliness could be eliminated with a fairly simple change to senior public service contracts but first, a bit of background:

In the Western Australian public service, there are fundamentally three types of employees: term of government (TOG), fixed term contract and permanent.

At present, TOG employees are very low in number and typically found only in Ministerial offices.  The people in these positions are appointed by the relevant Minister and rarely keep their jobs when a government falls. In each Ministerial office the usual roles for TOG’s include the Chief of Staff, Media Adviser, Ministerial/Parliamentary Liaison Officer and perhaps a Principal Policy Adviser or two. Importantly, the Leader of the Opposition is also afforded a number of TOG employees in his office.

The remainder of the more than 150,000 public sector employees (PSC Annual Report 2011) in Western Australia make up what is commonly referred to as the ‘bureaucracy’ and are broadly contracted as either fixed term or permanent. Regardless of their specific contract conditions, these people are usually considered “apolitical and professional” servants of the public. There is a general expectation that fixed term contracts will be renewed when they expire unless the role is redundant or the employee initiates a change.

Indeed, Premier Barnett has made a number of statements over the years that confirm his strong personal view that TOG’s are very different to their more secure cousins:
A term-of-government employee comes and goes with the government, comes and goes with the minister, and come and goes with the circumstance. A public servant cannot be moved on; that is the difference… What cannot be done under this government is the sacking of a public servant.” (Legislative Assembly, Wednesday, 19 May 2010)
While this commitment is no doubt very comforting to unionists and those employed by the public service, the Premier’s rigid  view is a double edged sword for both the Government and the tax-payers who fund the unsackable 10% of Perth’s population.

Mr Barnett’s staunch defence of the traditional “a public sector job is forever” philosophy is on balance, probably in the interest of the broader public. After all, government employees normally aren’t the highest paid in their field and high churn costs the government money in recruitment, training and lost productivity. I’ll go along with this even though the Barnett Government is currently around 20,000 public sector FTEs over its election commitment.

However, the Premier’s dogmatic implementation of this policy is problematic on two fronts – inefficiency and recalcitrance.

How do you improve the efficiency of an underperformer when they know they “cannot” be sacked? The uncomfortable truth more often than not in the public service is to promote them. Yep, you read it correctly, promote an underperformer. It is widely acknowledged that the fastest way to get a troublesome person out of your team is to move them up – clearly not ideal for the taxpayer and far from fair for those who do the right thing, work hard and don’t get promoted.

A far bigger problem caused by the no-sacking mantra occurs when a government inherits recalcitrant bureaucrats, particularly those in senior positions.

Firstly, let me put this on the record – the vast majority of public servants are excellent people doing the best they can to manage a constant fight for resources and cyclic, back-to-the-future policy changes. But occasionally, governments are faced with a Director General or other executive (on a salary of more than $150,000) who either can’t get their head around the new policies of an incoming administration or outright doesn’t want to. Then what?

The answer is fairly obvious if you concede that very senior public sector employees have to be somewhat political. It’s clear that Premier Barnett will disagree with this notion, but I contest that while bureaucrats in these positions can not act politically, they can’t be truly apolitical either –they need to be quite uniquely multi-partisan: that is, their job is to enable the political party in power, regardless of who that might be. The uncomfortable truth is that means they are often required to perform duties that advantage the government at the disadvantage of the opposition – and in that way, it’s a no-brainer that these roles have a political aspect.

And when a head of department fails (either due to lack of ability or lack of willingness) to fully embrace the policies of a new government, departments often become dysfunctional. To be fair, it’s sometimes a hell of an ask – imagine that a Director General has built a strong, trusting and friendly relationship with the Minister they have been working with for a number of years and within weeks, a new government is elected and asks that person to turn their department around and run in the opposite direction. Not easy for either the Minister or department head involved.

My proposed solution? “Term of government plus 6 months” contracts for heads of departments.

The “term of government” aspect turns the expectation of a renewal upside down – i.e. the person who accepts the role assumes that the contract will probably end in 4 years. If it does, the separation happens without turmoil or conspiracy theories, much like they do in the private sector. However, to avoid a mass exodus of knowledge and expertise at every election, the “plus 6 month” addition allows for the new Minister to meet and work with the person before offering another contract or provides for an orderly handover if there is a change.

While I understand this proposition will scare the daylights out of life-long public servants, it is made in recognition of the fact that a lot of time and political energy is wasted trying to cajole some overly comfortable, reluctant or recalcitrant heads of department to execute changes that take some time to fully implement – such as the Barnett Government’s slow-moving environmental approvals reform.

Thursday, February 23, 2012

Live by the sword, die by the sword

There’s been a lot of surprises in the Federal Gov’t soap opera of late. The first and possibly biggest for me is that Julia Gillard seems surprised that after trying to pull a tiger out of its cage by the tail, it turned around bearing its teeth.

I find it incredulous that a semi-intelligent human being can partake in an unprecedented attack on a first term Prime Minister then cry foul when the very precedent she set is used against her.

But it’s not the first time that someone at the top of the political heap has mysteriously forgotten the tactics they used to get there and sadly, I’m certain it won’t be the last.

Live by the sword, die by the sword they say - while I’m no fan of Mr Rudd, it’s clearly time for Ms Gillard to lay in the bed that her and her colleagues made in 2010.

Friday, February 10, 2012

The tangled web…

Last week’s dismissal of one of the Premier’s media advisers will cause significantly more harm than good for the average taxpayer – and the journalist who leaked the offending email should be the one to lose his or her job.

Let’s get a few things straight.

Firstly, the ugly truth is that our political system is adversarial and purposefully encourages confrontation. It sometimes gets personal and that is an important part of the process that provides insight to the character of the people who are paid to represent the public.

This age-old process delivers hardened leaders and exposes others who try to climb to a position they are not competent to manage. It’s far from a perfect system, but in the main it works in the favour of the public at large.

Next, hardened leaders don’t lead alone. They require (and demand) an enormous amount of assistance and support from their staff. Both the Premier and Leader of the Opposition have a handful of what are known as “term of government” staff who are in every sense, political appointments. They do the work required to navigate the messy political system that delivers our leaders and keeps them on their toes.

The media adviser who lost his livelihood and well-earned reputation last week was doing his job. It is an ugly job but it is one that has always been done by TOG’s and will continue to be done for generations to come. His actions weren’t explicitly approved by the Premier, but that is because neither Mr Barnett nor anyone else in his position could possibly approve everything his staff have to do to keep him on top of the messy system of politics we have. This background noise is managed by a group of hard-working, often under-appreciated and evidently disposable soldiers who do so to enable him to focus on the big issues of State.

Finally and perhaps the ugliest truth of all is that this has irrevocably damaged the public’s access to important insights into the State’s current and future political leaders.

The fact is that tips and suggestions like those in question are sent to journalists every day and play a critical role in the evolution of governments. The need for whistleblowers and political mischief-makers alike to feel safe when providing information to the media is clearly in the public’s interest. The decision to publicly name the author of these communications caused a series of events that has damaged that trust.

Ultimately this means less accountable governments and oppositions who do not receive the scrutiny they need before they rise to power. Bearing in mind that some journalists have chosen to go to prison rather than disclosing their source, it’s fairly obvious to at least some in the profession that the media’s responsibility is far greater than a 2 day cheap headline and scalp of what turns out to be just a young guy doing his job.

Welcome

Welcome to The Quick Brown Fox blog.

I hope to bring you informed comment, insight and suggestions regarding the politics of all levels of Government in Australia with a focus on Western Australia.

I aim to not only make comment, but also some uncommon background to issues that will ultimately provide a better understanding of how our system of Government works and in some cases, doesn’t work.

I’m currently the principal consultant at Squeaky Wheel strategic communications and government relations which provides commercial services to corporate clients and also some services (such as education and some advocacy) to not-for-profit organisations and individuals on a pro-bono basis.

Thanks for reading and please don’t hesitate to provide feedback and questions for me to respond to.