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.
Showing posts with label Julia Gillard. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Julia Gillard. Show all posts
Friday, April 20, 2012
Sunday, April 15, 2012
coii (Part 2 - the end of the coalition)
In Part 1, I introduced and justified my so-called curse of imminent influence (coii) – basically what human nature does to 90% of political parties when they try to make the jump from a small ‘balance of power’ party to one capable of holding a majority.
Click here to read all about the coii.
Part 2 is actually a bit of a warning to the party that, like the Greens, is at grave risk of the coii because I think they are planning to declare themselves the next, next “third force in Australian politics”. That Party is of course, the Nationals. And if I’m correct, what will happen immediately before the coii hits them will be the end of the formal federal coalition.
Sound a bit far-fetched? Let me justify my claim.
The Nationals’ Member for the Federal electorate of O’Connor Tony Crook, aggressively took the seat from long-term Liberal Wilson Tuckey at the 2010 election. As we all know, this election resulted in a messy hung parliament. During the first few weeks of that parliament, Mr Crook tried to use his self-declared “independence” from the federal National Party to help the Labor Party form Government – on the condition it created a national “Royalties for Regions” (RfR) scheme.
However, Prime Minister Gillard found the votes she needed in a few slightly more independent independents and the national RfR scheme hasn’t eventuated… yet.
Royalties for Regions was the brainchild of Mr Crook’s Western Australian colleagues, lead by current Minister for Regional Development Brendon Grylls. It isn't overstating it to say RfR has been an absolute political boon for the Nationals in WA.
In short, the policy quarantines big wads of cash (the equivalent of 25% of WA’s mining and onshore petroleum royalties - around $6b) for the Nationals to spend at their discretion on things in regional parts of the State. I say “things” because the criteria for spending is, well fairly flexible and “at their discretion” because this money really is not linked to the State budget at all. In fact, I recall being in a Chiefs of Staff meeting in 2011 during which Brendon Grylls’ representative reported that, “The Royalties for Regions budget process is going very well”. I’m not sure it was meant to antagonise, but it certainly highlighted the very uncomfortable fact that 3 Nationals Ministers were deciding how to spend 25% of the Government’s money totally independently of the mainstream State budget that our 14 non-Nationals Ministers were wrestling over at the time.
Notably, this situation only came about because the WA Nationals chose to not enter into a traditional coalition with the Liberals prior to the 2008 State election. When the result was a hung Parliament, the Nationals did something quite extraordinary - threatened to form a government with the Labor Party. During a week of tense negotiations, the bold young Nationals Leader Brendon Grylls stood his ground, declaring that his Party would only form a government with a major Party if it would honour the terms of the Nationals’ pre-election RfR policy. There was some attempted horse-trading but in the end, Liberal Leader Colin Barnett extended his right hand and became the Premier of Western Australia – governed by an unorthodox Liberal-National “partnership” (not coalition).
Since then, Mr Grylls and his team have travelled around regional Western Australia throwing cash at projects that the government as a whole simply can’t afford – ironically because of the drain RfR is to the State’s wider budget. Virtually everything that gets built in a Western Australian country town now carries the “Royalties for Regions” logo and the Nationals have once again become the undisputed champions (and heroes) of the bush.
RfR has probably been good for country-based Western Australians, but it’s also been the best campaign fund the Nationals could have ever hoped for. And that is precisely why Queensland’s new Premier Campbell Newman has adopted the policy for new government – and why it will be part of a federal National’s policy platform in either 2013 or at the latest, three years after.
But for the Nationals to have enough weight in Canberra to force a majority Party to hand over what would be an absolutely enormous slush fund, they will have to have more than just Tony Crook’s vote to offer the Labor Party, or perhaps the Liberals as a “partnership, not coalition”.
Re-enter, Brendon Grylls and his youthful bullishness.
In the next WA State poll due in March next year, Mr Grylls will vacate his safe Nationals wheatbelt seat and stand for the currently safe Labor seat of Pilbara, in the heat of WA’s booming mining sector. By all accounts, he’s not likely to win it.
But as we’ve seen, Brendon Grylls isn’t as silly as he is courageous. He is fully aware of the potential to lose his seat in State Parliament and my hypothesis is that he actually wouldn’t mind if he did.
A few things lead me to that theory.
But I suggest Brendon Grylls is willing to lose in such circumstances is because he is planning to use his new high-profile martyr status to embark on something even more ambitious - become the lead advocate for a national RfR scheme and become a candidate for a Federal House of Reps seat at the soon-to-follow federal election.
If successful in that quest, he will be joined in Canberra on the big green comfy chairs by another ambitious and high-profile RfR supporter and friend, Barnaby Joyce - who is himself, planning to move to the lower house where he can use his vote to directly influence government spending.
Assuming Tony Crook can get re-elected in O’Connor and Premier Campbell Newman does some good politics with the Queensland RfR scheme, there will be at least three Nationals in the next House of Reps bold enough to cross the floor to squeeze a Royalties for Regions commitment from Prime Minister Abbott – or perhaps even Prime Minister Julia Gillard and her new Labor-National government…
Either way, the word “coalition” will be replaced by “partnership” before the 2016 election – mark my words.
The growth of the Nationals’ influence as a result of the Royalties for Regions scheme in WA and Qld will provide the adrenalin required for a whole new bunch of ambitious Nationals to stand, win and declare that they too will soon become the next, next third force in Australian politics - starting with Messer’s Grylls, Crook and Joyce.
My only advice to the “new Nationals” - beware of the coii!!
PS. There’s another piece of this puzzle that I didn’t get to include in the main body of my post. The Nationals’ recently appointed a new Federal Director – a politically astute guy who was integral to the successful implementation and operation of the WA Royalties for Regions scheme and takes with him all the knowledge and support required to replicate RfR in every state (and even federally)….
Click here to read all about the coii.
Part 2 is actually a bit of a warning to the party that, like the Greens, is at grave risk of the coii because I think they are planning to declare themselves the next, next “third force in Australian politics”. That Party is of course, the Nationals. And if I’m correct, what will happen immediately before the coii hits them will be the end of the formal federal coalition.
Sound a bit far-fetched? Let me justify my claim.
The Nationals’ Member for the Federal electorate of O’Connor Tony Crook, aggressively took the seat from long-term Liberal Wilson Tuckey at the 2010 election. As we all know, this election resulted in a messy hung parliament. During the first few weeks of that parliament, Mr Crook tried to use his self-declared “independence” from the federal National Party to help the Labor Party form Government – on the condition it created a national “Royalties for Regions” (RfR) scheme.
However, Prime Minister Gillard found the votes she needed in a few slightly more independent independents and the national RfR scheme hasn’t eventuated… yet.
Royalties for Regions was the brainchild of Mr Crook’s Western Australian colleagues, lead by current Minister for Regional Development Brendon Grylls. It isn't overstating it to say RfR has been an absolute political boon for the Nationals in WA.
In short, the policy quarantines big wads of cash (the equivalent of 25% of WA’s mining and onshore petroleum royalties - around $6b) for the Nationals to spend at their discretion on things in regional parts of the State. I say “things” because the criteria for spending is, well fairly flexible and “at their discretion” because this money really is not linked to the State budget at all. In fact, I recall being in a Chiefs of Staff meeting in 2011 during which Brendon Grylls’ representative reported that, “The Royalties for Regions budget process is going very well”. I’m not sure it was meant to antagonise, but it certainly highlighted the very uncomfortable fact that 3 Nationals Ministers were deciding how to spend 25% of the Government’s money totally independently of the mainstream State budget that our 14 non-Nationals Ministers were wrestling over at the time.
Notably, this situation only came about because the WA Nationals chose to not enter into a traditional coalition with the Liberals prior to the 2008 State election. When the result was a hung Parliament, the Nationals did something quite extraordinary - threatened to form a government with the Labor Party. During a week of tense negotiations, the bold young Nationals Leader Brendon Grylls stood his ground, declaring that his Party would only form a government with a major Party if it would honour the terms of the Nationals’ pre-election RfR policy. There was some attempted horse-trading but in the end, Liberal Leader Colin Barnett extended his right hand and became the Premier of Western Australia – governed by an unorthodox Liberal-National “partnership” (not coalition).
Since then, Mr Grylls and his team have travelled around regional Western Australia throwing cash at projects that the government as a whole simply can’t afford – ironically because of the drain RfR is to the State’s wider budget. Virtually everything that gets built in a Western Australian country town now carries the “Royalties for Regions” logo and the Nationals have once again become the undisputed champions (and heroes) of the bush.
RfR has probably been good for country-based Western Australians, but it’s also been the best campaign fund the Nationals could have ever hoped for. And that is precisely why Queensland’s new Premier Campbell Newman has adopted the policy for new government – and why it will be part of a federal National’s policy platform in either 2013 or at the latest, three years after.
But for the Nationals to have enough weight in Canberra to force a majority Party to hand over what would be an absolutely enormous slush fund, they will have to have more than just Tony Crook’s vote to offer the Labor Party, or perhaps the Liberals as a “partnership, not coalition”.
Re-enter, Brendon Grylls and his youthful bullishness.
In the next WA State poll due in March next year, Mr Grylls will vacate his safe Nationals wheatbelt seat and stand for the currently safe Labor seat of Pilbara, in the heat of WA’s booming mining sector. By all accounts, he’s not likely to win it.
But as we’ve seen, Brendon Grylls isn’t as silly as he is courageous. He is fully aware of the potential to lose his seat in State Parliament and my hypothesis is that he actually wouldn’t mind if he did.
A few things lead me to that theory.
- Mr Grylls is the Leader of his Party. There’s no higher position unless the Nat’s form a coalition with the Libs and he became Deputy Premier of WA – but that has already been ruled out, and Mr Grylls likes the freedom he gets by not sharing a Party room.
- He is already a hero within the National party, personally credited with reviving it from near-death. The ballsy gamble Mr Grylls took in holding out until he secured a promise from Colin Barnett to implement RfR has been a huge political coup and now seen as the way forward for the National Party all around the country.
- He’s young, but already been in State Parliament for 11 years. It must be pretty boring to sit on comfy blue chairs all day listening to others waffling on about things that simply fail to hold the attention of a successful and ambitious gen-xer like Mr Grylls.
But I suggest Brendon Grylls is willing to lose in such circumstances is because he is planning to use his new high-profile martyr status to embark on something even more ambitious - become the lead advocate for a national RfR scheme and become a candidate for a Federal House of Reps seat at the soon-to-follow federal election.
If successful in that quest, he will be joined in Canberra on the big green comfy chairs by another ambitious and high-profile RfR supporter and friend, Barnaby Joyce - who is himself, planning to move to the lower house where he can use his vote to directly influence government spending.
Assuming Tony Crook can get re-elected in O’Connor and Premier Campbell Newman does some good politics with the Queensland RfR scheme, there will be at least three Nationals in the next House of Reps bold enough to cross the floor to squeeze a Royalties for Regions commitment from Prime Minister Abbott – or perhaps even Prime Minister Julia Gillard and her new Labor-National government…
Either way, the word “coalition” will be replaced by “partnership” before the 2016 election – mark my words.
The growth of the Nationals’ influence as a result of the Royalties for Regions scheme in WA and Qld will provide the adrenalin required for a whole new bunch of ambitious Nationals to stand, win and declare that they too will soon become the next, next third force in Australian politics - starting with Messer’s Grylls, Crook and Joyce.
My only advice to the “new Nationals” - beware of the coii!!
PS. There’s another piece of this puzzle that I didn’t get to include in the main body of my post. The Nationals’ recently appointed a new Federal Director – a politically astute guy who was integral to the successful implementation and operation of the WA Royalties for Regions scheme and takes with him all the knowledge and support required to replicate RfR in every state (and even federally)….
Friday, March 2, 2012
Humpty Dumpty fell – do something about it or stop whining and get over it!
Yesterday’s piece on the growing circle of frustration between
the WA Premier and his Liberal colleagues (Cantankerous Col Pot and his nervous nannies)
drew a fair bit of support from unlikely people and places.
I guess it was a bit inevitable that Labor MP’s would use it to assert that our Premier is a kind-of Liberal version of their side’s inflexible and grumpy former dictat… umm, Leader, KRudd. Similarly, it’s not all that surprising that some of the underpaid journo’s who sit through hours and hours of tedious Parliamentary tit-for-tat and punctuation-free narcissistic ramblings expressed their gratitude for the fact that someone publicly acknowledged their place in democracy without spitting or cursing. (Yes, I see the irony in that long sentence!)
I also wasn’t too shocked to hear from a number of current and former government staff who have been burnt or hung out to dry for standing up to the sycophants I mentioned. What I really didn’t expect were the phone calls and messages of support from Liberal Members, land developers and senior industry leaders. The sentiment of those communications ranged from a simple “thank you” to detailed anecdotes about their particular frustrations.
It seems plenty of people are talking, but many of those in direct contact with the Premier and his team are feeling like there is a real reluctance, or perhaps even fear, to act. One CEO told me he thought the Government was “paralysed by risk aversion”. I think the Premier would say he has taken many risks and I agree - the commitments to build a stadium and redevelop the Perth waterfront are big risks. And given what I heard yesterday, perhaps he has actually under-estimated just how risky it is to create the perception that those big-ticket items will be built at the expense of other things that industry actually wants?
However, I do have some sympathy for the Premier. I’ve recently learnt what he has probably known for many years: it really is impossible to please all of the people all of the time. He must feel very disappointed that his dream of being the next Sir Charles Court – remembered fondly as the guy who made bold decisions to prepare WA for “periods of sustained growth” - is just not that easy when you have to appease the Nationals and other colleagues who would like to spend some money in their electorates to help them get re-elected in 12 months.
But if I’m being truly objective, I can’t be too generous to the man.
The whole truth is that Mr Barnett has a rather bizarre habit of arbitrarily making rods and strapping them to his own back – and this is a major source of frustration among his Cabinet colleagues. I’m no economist and I respect that he certainly is, but his decision to make it a “government objective to retain debt below $20 billion” has been both a broken promise and a heavy noose around his own neck. He has talked up the need to maintain the State’s credit rating so much that Mum and Dad think the sky will fall in if we jeopardise one of Standard and Poor’s “A’s”.
Again, being only halfway through my MBA, I don’t claim to be an expert but other highly respected commentators have outright said the State can cope with a significantly higher debt level than $20b. They say for the sake of building infrastructure to meet the short to medium term needs of industry, the government should release the brakes and spend some of tomorrow’s money now.
But if Mr Barnett has already over-played the debt card and can't increase the limit without looking like, well, Julia Gillard, what other choice do he and his nervous nannies have?
Well, if it was a truly conservative government – that is, true to its roots - it would have absolutely no trouble privatising one of its businesses and in doing so, cut the Premier free from the noose of his own words. I’m sure this would be music to the ears of both voters who are longing for the return of a properly conservative party. I also reckon it might help the myriad of so-called Liberal backbenchers who find themselves having an identity crisis talking up an $800m gift to the social services sector while slowly admitting to their electorate that they have no ability to get $50,000 to help local small businesses.
But the real question remains - is their bold, visionary leader too risk averse to contemplate this? You bet.
As Chief of Staff to the Energy Minister, I agreed to help my guy in the Premier’s office by letting him call it “The P word” whenever we discussed the pros and cons of privatising one of the Government’s most commercially successful businesses – Western Power. From Dumas House in West Perth where the Premier put the Nationals and other Ministers he didn’t want to bump into while riding the lift, it seemed that privatisation was just too unpopular for the jellybacks on the 24th floor of the Premier’s St George’s Terrace office to say out loud.
It has already been reported that Western Power is currently seeking approval to spend nearly $10 billion over the next 5 years. While the ERA will undoubtedly recommend a reduction to that figure, most of whatever is spent will add to State debt. The Premier and his nervous nannies might do what they did last time and chop it up into bite-sized chunks to make the debt figures look a bit better. This will help him by keeping the debt lower before the next election but in the long run, probably cost tax-payers more due to the inefficiencies caused by Western Power not being able to lock in long-term resourcing and infrastructure plans.
Sheesh, no wonder the CEO and Chairman have walked away…
Anyway, it’s a widely held belief that there would be very strong interest in the shares of a company with such an enormous existing asset-base and strong market dominance, operated in the tightly controlled regulatory environment in which a monopoly supplier of energy to the State would have to operate. But has there been any formal work done to test the viability of this win-win proposition? Nope. The reason is primarily because the Premier thinks the public doesn’t like privatisation and no-one has the balls to argue the case for a strong decision that at the end of the day, would relieve the government of its silly debt noose and return the Liberal Party its traditional place on the political spectrum - right of centre.
Meanwhile, the Premier still regularly talks to the media (not the energy Minister) about the need to put some of the energy utilities back together. But in true contemplative Colin fashion, rather than doing something about it, he chooses to sit on his hands while they get all pins-and-needly under the weight of his own frustrating inertia.
Premier, you are the Leader. Find some people strong enough to tell you the truth to your face, have a little think about their advice, then make a decision and lead, please. All the Kings Horses and all the Kings Men are waiting…
I guess it was a bit inevitable that Labor MP’s would use it to assert that our Premier is a kind-of Liberal version of their side’s inflexible and grumpy former dictat… umm, Leader, KRudd. Similarly, it’s not all that surprising that some of the underpaid journo’s who sit through hours and hours of tedious Parliamentary tit-for-tat and punctuation-free narcissistic ramblings expressed their gratitude for the fact that someone publicly acknowledged their place in democracy without spitting or cursing. (Yes, I see the irony in that long sentence!)
I also wasn’t too shocked to hear from a number of current and former government staff who have been burnt or hung out to dry for standing up to the sycophants I mentioned. What I really didn’t expect were the phone calls and messages of support from Liberal Members, land developers and senior industry leaders. The sentiment of those communications ranged from a simple “thank you” to detailed anecdotes about their particular frustrations.
It seems plenty of people are talking, but many of those in direct contact with the Premier and his team are feeling like there is a real reluctance, or perhaps even fear, to act. One CEO told me he thought the Government was “paralysed by risk aversion”. I think the Premier would say he has taken many risks and I agree - the commitments to build a stadium and redevelop the Perth waterfront are big risks. And given what I heard yesterday, perhaps he has actually under-estimated just how risky it is to create the perception that those big-ticket items will be built at the expense of other things that industry actually wants?
However, I do have some sympathy for the Premier. I’ve recently learnt what he has probably known for many years: it really is impossible to please all of the people all of the time. He must feel very disappointed that his dream of being the next Sir Charles Court – remembered fondly as the guy who made bold decisions to prepare WA for “periods of sustained growth” - is just not that easy when you have to appease the Nationals and other colleagues who would like to spend some money in their electorates to help them get re-elected in 12 months.
But if I’m being truly objective, I can’t be too generous to the man.
The whole truth is that Mr Barnett has a rather bizarre habit of arbitrarily making rods and strapping them to his own back – and this is a major source of frustration among his Cabinet colleagues. I’m no economist and I respect that he certainly is, but his decision to make it a “government objective to retain debt below $20 billion” has been both a broken promise and a heavy noose around his own neck. He has talked up the need to maintain the State’s credit rating so much that Mum and Dad think the sky will fall in if we jeopardise one of Standard and Poor’s “A’s”.
Again, being only halfway through my MBA, I don’t claim to be an expert but other highly respected commentators have outright said the State can cope with a significantly higher debt level than $20b. They say for the sake of building infrastructure to meet the short to medium term needs of industry, the government should release the brakes and spend some of tomorrow’s money now.
But if Mr Barnett has already over-played the debt card and can't increase the limit without looking like, well, Julia Gillard, what other choice do he and his nervous nannies have?
Well, if it was a truly conservative government – that is, true to its roots - it would have absolutely no trouble privatising one of its businesses and in doing so, cut the Premier free from the noose of his own words. I’m sure this would be music to the ears of both voters who are longing for the return of a properly conservative party. I also reckon it might help the myriad of so-called Liberal backbenchers who find themselves having an identity crisis talking up an $800m gift to the social services sector while slowly admitting to their electorate that they have no ability to get $50,000 to help local small businesses.
But the real question remains - is their bold, visionary leader too risk averse to contemplate this? You bet.
As Chief of Staff to the Energy Minister, I agreed to help my guy in the Premier’s office by letting him call it “The P word” whenever we discussed the pros and cons of privatising one of the Government’s most commercially successful businesses – Western Power. From Dumas House in West Perth where the Premier put the Nationals and other Ministers he didn’t want to bump into while riding the lift, it seemed that privatisation was just too unpopular for the jellybacks on the 24th floor of the Premier’s St George’s Terrace office to say out loud.
It has already been reported that Western Power is currently seeking approval to spend nearly $10 billion over the next 5 years. While the ERA will undoubtedly recommend a reduction to that figure, most of whatever is spent will add to State debt. The Premier and his nervous nannies might do what they did last time and chop it up into bite-sized chunks to make the debt figures look a bit better. This will help him by keeping the debt lower before the next election but in the long run, probably cost tax-payers more due to the inefficiencies caused by Western Power not being able to lock in long-term resourcing and infrastructure plans.
Sheesh, no wonder the CEO and Chairman have walked away…
Anyway, it’s a widely held belief that there would be very strong interest in the shares of a company with such an enormous existing asset-base and strong market dominance, operated in the tightly controlled regulatory environment in which a monopoly supplier of energy to the State would have to operate. But has there been any formal work done to test the viability of this win-win proposition? Nope. The reason is primarily because the Premier thinks the public doesn’t like privatisation and no-one has the balls to argue the case for a strong decision that at the end of the day, would relieve the government of its silly debt noose and return the Liberal Party its traditional place on the political spectrum - right of centre.
Meanwhile, the Premier still regularly talks to the media (not the energy Minister) about the need to put some of the energy utilities back together. But in true contemplative Colin fashion, rather than doing something about it, he chooses to sit on his hands while they get all pins-and-needly under the weight of his own frustrating inertia.
Premier, you are the Leader. Find some people strong enough to tell you the truth to your face, have a little think about their advice, then make a decision and lead, please. All the Kings Horses and all the Kings Men are waiting…
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)