Minister Collier has to go

Yesterday’s post explained why the Premier’s imminent pre-election reshuffle should include a replacement for Minister Liz Constable, but she’s not the only current Minister he should jettison forthwith.

Today, I’ll explain some of the reasons why the Premier should take the opportunity to also drop Minister Collier who is, as you will see below, a much greater liability to the Government than the Minister for Education.

Firstly, let’s clear the air about something. My last job in the Barnett Government was as Minister Collier’s Chief of Staff and despite what he said to Paul Murray during this interview our relationship did not end amicably. In fact, the termination of my contract was a total surprise to me – delivered via SMS by the Premier’s Chief of Staff while I was in New York on annual leave with my pregnant wife. I have had one conversation with the Minister since then, which I initiated, at 1am from my hotel room. During that 30 second call, I asked what I had done wrong and his response was, “It’s not like that, we are just very different people”.

While thankfully we are indeed very different people, I had spent the vast majority of my time in Minister Collier’s office working to arrest the high level of staff turnover and build efficiency through improved morale – and had quite some success. But to a genuine narcissist, efficient teams and stable human resources are of little value.

Some will attempt to paint that as nothing more than a vengeful spit from a disgruntled former employee – so be it. Regardless of how my detractors go about trying to play it down, there are many other examples of the Minister’s total disregard for others - and that is why he has to go. A Minister’s stock-in-trade is the strength of relationships he or she holds. They need people to trust them enough to offer the truth when asked and be open to conversations that end in accepting a compromise, or favour, for the Government - for want of a less corrupt-sounding word.

But Peter Collier is simply not capable of building those kind of relationships. His lack of willingness to discuss his issues with me face to face is one thing, but he’s also done some pretty ordinary things to others – like asking me to replace his longest serving staff member while that person was on compassionate leave trying to cope with a terrible family tragedy.

Some might question the public relevance but anyone who has ever held a management position will immediately understand the cost of staff turnover and poor morale - in pure tax-payer dollar terms - on top of the lost time and corporate knowledge that is now in the hands of someone else. In his office of 13, Minister Collier has seen around 40 staff come and go – a complete turnover of staff 3 times in just over 3 years. Just think about how that kind of change would impact on your workplace.

And it’s not just his office staff walking away.

Astonishingly, the Minister seems almost proud to take credit for what he rather insensitively calls “napalming” the upper levels of management of almost every agency he oversees. In fact, every single agency (Training and Workforce Development, Office of Energy, Department of Indigenous Affairs, Western Power, Synergy, Verve and Horizon) have lost its CEO on Minister Collier’s watch and many, many more highly experienced Board Members have taken their expertise elsewhere.

I am even aware of anonymous correspondence sent to the West Australian newspaper claiming that as a result of bullying by the Minister, a number of staff at the DTWD have suffered and taken ill. I am sad to say that if I hadn't intervened and stood in the middle, I’m certain this would have continued with devastating outcomes. The West hasn’t printed the correspondence because until now, no one would validate the claims – although it did prompt the Public Sector Commissioner to undertake an investigation into the way the Minister interacted with the Department. And that’s another occasion when I had to mediate because of a broken relationship. I recall discussions I had with Commissioner Mal Wauchope while the Minister was standing over my desk, insisting that the terms of the investigation be changed to an “examination” that included a specific reference to yet another senior (and superbly performing) Departmental officer he had in his sights at the time.

And there are many others he has “napalmed”.

Since I started writing my blog, I’ve been contacted by others who used to report to the Minister – some with harrowing stories of bullying and intimidation. The cost to Western Australian tax-payers in golden handshakes, reduced productivity and lost corporate knowledge is literally incalculable. But on top of that, in three short years he has turned so many friends of the government into enemies he has become a liability to the Barnett Government on that basis alone.

But his narcissistic arrogance and non-existent people skills have damaged the State in so many other ways – for example the embarrassing trip to the UK where he managed to offend, or at least mortify every one of the senior CEO’s that spent their time and money travelling with us to try to promote Western Australia as a working destination. There was the CEO who told me I needed to stop the Minister publicly denigrating the countries hosting our delegation, the several who asked me to stop him staring into his mobile phone whenever they wanted a quiet moment with him and of course the humiliating lunch meeting with senior officers of the Irish government when he declared that he “doesn’t eat lunch” and spent most of the meeting walking around outside the glass-walled room talking on his mobile phone, while the rest of us spoke on his behalf.

Notably, he still hasn’t provided a report to Parliament explaining the outcomes of the expensive and damaging two week jaunt.

Not only was that trip damaging, it was exhausting for all involved because he has an overwhelming need to have expert knowledge of everything he confronts. That manifests in three significant ways:

• His diary secretary is explicitly instructed to accept a maximum of only two meetings in his office per day (but occasionally takes more when absolutely necessary),
• He becomes highly anxious and unpleasant when he is surprised, and
• His departments are put under enormous pressure by being forced to generate briefing notes for every trivial issue, including his own Cabinet submissions.

There’s a reason we don’t ever see the Minister on weekend news or at weekend events – there are no staff available to provide background briefings!

But the Minister’s failure to manage and optimise relationships and the impact this has had on the efficiency and effectiveness of his three critically important portfolios isn’t the main reason the Premier should replace him in next week’s reshuffle. It’s the Minister’s propensity to shirk all responsibility and mislead Parliament that are the real hanging offences.

Sadly, I haven’t yet had time to trawl through Hansard for specific examples but there are more than a few occasions the Minister has misled Parliament – here’s just two that I heard during question time on 15 May:

“As far as chiefs of staff are concerned, I was very sorry to see Colin and Blair go; they went on to other things. Darren moved on to something else” [Yes, a reluctant stay-at-home Dad]

“I have had only one change in media officers… she was fantastic but she wanted something a little quieter” [Outright lie, she was effectively dismissed]

I promise I’ll do that research very soon - if the Opposition doesn’t get to it first - but my baby needs to be fed and I can’t end without mentioning the reason the Minister was referred to as “slippery Pete” long before the Federal Speaker fiasco arose – and the serious image problem it causes for the Government.

While we have the Premier on the radio regularly offending people with his somewhat charming “tell-it-how-it-is” style of honesty and accountability, the Minister for Energy; Training and Workforce Development; Indigenous Affairs is working the room, taking credit for everything positive and busily blaming everyone around him for anything less than pleasant.

Again, there are many examples of this in Hansard, but I really liked this report in the West Australian last week when he did a classic Bart Simpson (“It wasn’t me”) and blamed his performance in the House on the poor Police Minister - Collier silenced over 'fake cop' scandal. Now, it just may be true that Minister Johnson had provided instructions to his Upper House colleague on how to deal with tricky questions, but it’s far from collegiate and a long way from in the best interests of the Government to escape scrutiny by blaming an already vulnerable Minister.

And that really exemplifies the core of why the Premier should dump this Minister now.

He isn’t a team player. He doesn’t understand the need to assist his colleagues. He does not have the best interests of anyone other than himself at heart. Quite simply, Peter Collier is not worthy of the Ministerial salary based solely on his lack of competency, let alone the wider damage his reckless self-obsession continues to cause the state of Western Australia.



Note: To answer any question about why I’ve decided to tell “my story” now – two things:

1. There’s a chance the Premier will promote Peter Collier in this week's reshuffle and he needs to be fully aware - so he can be accountable - of the truth before he finalises his decision.
2. Personally, I’m ready and quite anxious to move on. My professional reputation has suffered because many former friends and colleagues were left to make assumptions about the circumstances of my departure while others were actively misled. I need to set the record straight so I can set about rebuilding the bridges that were burnt from under me.

Minister Constable has to go

Honour is a rare commodity these days. And sadly, it appears to be one that some believe they can expediently trade when it suits them.

Take Minister Liz Constable, for example.

Regular QBF readers know that I value the intellect of Minister Constable and believe she has been a worthy contributor to our Parliament over her 21 year career. But quite simply, she now has to go.

There’s a couple of sound reasons for this.

Firstly, as I wrote in Too little too late - revolt is nigh, the Premier is under growing pressure from his constituents (no, not his subjects in Cottesloe-I’m talking about those who elect the Premier in the Party Room) to move her aside and give some actual Liberal Party members a chance to shine. It’s virtually a no-brainer that a retiring Independent will not and indeed, can not spruik Liberal Party education policies the way they need to be spruiked in the lead up to an election.

This is so obvious, frankly it’s embarrassing that the Premier let the situation arise, let alone condone it for so long. The only possible justification he can cling to in that regard is the fact that the Cabinet is so short of women, although that doesn’t say much for his confidence in competent Liberal women in the waiting, like Liza Harvey.

But internal Liberal Party issues aside, Minister Constable was elected in 1991 after a heavily factional Liberal pre-selection saw her resign from the party and run as an “Independent”. From her first words in Parliament, Dr Constable championed a few key causes:

1. More women in Parliament

2. Various Education issues

3. A more “open and accountable Government”

She hasn’t achieved the first one – although in fairness to her, it’s simply too big an issue for any single MP to fix. On point two, Dr Constable did the virtually impossible and attain the Education portfolio as an Independent, however her performance as Education Minister is not without its critics.

But let’s take a closer look at her third cause.

Dr Constable started her Parliamentary career by paying tribute to her predecessor in the seat of Floreat, Mr Andrew Mensaros as a man who set high standards. She continued by saying, “I hope that I will be regarded in the electorate and in this Parliament as he was - a person of substance, of principle, of excellent judgment and of compassion.”

And therein lies the rub for the Minister.

Being a person of principle isn’t really a flexible term. You either are, or… well, you wake up every morning, avoid looking in the mirror and recite, “it’s better to try to fix the system from the inside than hold on to rigid beliefs and have no influence”. Indeed, in order to keep her seat around the big table, I imagine many of Dr Constable’s days now start with murky self-affirmations just like that one.

It really is difficult to understand how she can reconcile continuing to take a Ministerial salary while being complicit in so many compromises of her career ideals. For example, the Member for Floreat as she was at the time, spoke of the need for Freedom of Information legislation in these terms:

“It should require all Government departments and agencies to publish details of their operations and the processes they use in making decisions. By granting citizens access to Government documents, freedom of information legislation aims to increase the citizens’ powers over the power of the State and it lessens the State’s claim to secrecy. As such, it is one of the instruments of accountability.”

Of course, we now have FOI legislation but rather than it empowering those hoping to better understand Government process, Minister Constable’s Government has form in using the process to do quite the opposite (eg. Secrecy claim over Govt staff payouts)

And of course there’s the lobbyist legislation that Dr Constable unsuccessfully tried to enact as an unsupported independent backbencher in 2003 and 2007 – which still hasn’t been passed despite her current Government committing to do so in its first 100 days, 1,290 days ago….

If you’re like me and try to take a pragmatic view of things, these examples of small compromise are probably a justifiable way to hold influence and contribute to addressing bigger issues.

However, as a person of principle who has vehemently and almost exclusively championed the need for more Government and lobbyist accountability for more than two decades, it’s nothing short of disgraceful to declare retirement, reduce your workload and expect to continue to be fed from the tax-payer’s teat for the next 255 days.

The Premier has no choice but to drop Dr Constable from Cabinet when he announces his pre-election Ministerial line-up early next week.

Response to reader "Wizman" comment

I normally post replies to comments as a comment, but I thought this one deserved a post of it's own.
In response to Even children have depth perception, wizman commented at June 15, 2012 9:54 AM:

i caught you on 720ABC in the afternoon talking about liz constable and her replacement (you and peter kennedy would be a great state politics double act). anyway, with christian porter leaving, will a backbencher get 9 months to show some promise or not? when liz constable goes and assuming barnett wins again at the state election, does the "new member" who may or may not be delivered by parachute get a free ride into cabinet, or again does barnett trust a backbencher? if he continually overlooks the elected members doesn't this just reinforce the opinion that there is no talent, or is it just barnett's "incompetence as leader" at work again?

My response:

Hi Wizman.

Firstly, thanks. I admire PK and would love to work with him (WABN and ABC: Hint! Hint!)

I honestly hope Mr Barnett takes a bit of a calculated gamble by throwing a couple of backbenchers in the deep end, but I really don’t think he will. He reinforced that yesterday in Parliament in an answer to a question without notice – he made way too much of the fact that he has had a “stable” cabinet, effectively making yet another rod for his back. He is a very conservative man who prioritises stability in the public sector.

Unfortunately, that causes two big problems:

1. Retiring Ministers are very problematic at elections. Norman Moore will be in Parliament for a few months after the election (because the LC doesn’t change until May 2013), so that one is not a drama. However, how on earth is the Government going to articulate its Education election promises when their spokesperson can’t speak for the party (because she’s independent) or the future (because she won’t be part of it)? I’m guessing that’s another role the Premier will probably take on in the caretaker period before the election.
2. The other, which I think is the biggest problem and one that Mr Barnett is not fully cognisant of is the huge morale problem brewing in the back bench. Imagine being a 2nd or 3rd term Liberal backbencher who has played all the games and done as you were told for the last 8 or 12 years and hearing the Premier cite Independent and National MP’s as evidence of his available talent. Good leaders are inclusive and lay out a growth path for their ambitious subordinates – and Colin fails to do that over and over again. He needs to remember what happened to Natasha Stott-Despoja and Kevin Rudd – both very popular with the public, but rolled by their immediate constituents – their subordinates – because they weren’t making them feel valuable.

Colin’s reluctance to take a punt on anyone new is not evidence of the depth of the talent pool. It is, however absolute evidence of one of Colin’s worst qualities, which will be his downfall in spite of his many good ones.

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 unholy fight for Churchlands (part 1)

As Gary Adshead and Gareth Parker wrote in The West Australian newspaper on Tuesday and today, the Liberal pre-selection process for the much coveted seat of Churchlands has taken some interesting turns.

They were insightful articles but I thought I might be able to put just a bit more meat on the bone for QBF readers.

As we know from Messrs Adshead and Parker, the consequence of delaying the pre-selection so the Premier’s preferred candidate Kate Lamont could join the party and nominate caused two other changes in the line-up. The current Chief of Staff to Minister Peter Collier withdrew his nomination and long-time Party member and - not to put too finer point on it, female - Jane Timmermanis elected to join the contest.

The reference to gender isn’t subtle but sadly, it’s important. I really wish it wasn’t a factor, but as the Premier said on ABC radio yesterday, the WA Parliamentary Liberal Party desperately needs more women and that is why he asked the Party to “bend the rules” to facilitate the late nomination of Kate Lamont. The other reason is of course, whoever wins the Liberal pre-selection will have a much smoother ride if they come with the blessing of pro-women-in-Parliament and close friend of Premier Barnett, outgoing Minister Liz Constable.

Just as an aside, I’m all for equal rights. But my big point here is being elected to Parliament isn’t a right – it’s a privilege. Any attempt to artificially bias the gender balance is in my mind, a corruption of our democratic process. If there aren’t enough women who actually want to stand for so-called “safe” seats like Churchlands, I suggest bending rules and making promises to a celebrity non-member might go someway toward addressing the symptom but only adds to the underlying cause. A much more sustainable solution for the Premier, and one that I suggest would attract bipartisan support, would to be address the family-unfriendly nature of the big house on the hill, but that's fodder for another post on another day.

The saddest thing about what is happening in the pre-selection for Churchlands is that no one will ever be sure that the person who eventually secures the Party’s endorsement did so because they were the best person for the job or if their 'winning edge' was merely their lack of penis. Worse still, other solid potential candidates, such as Mr Bruce Butcher, will probably be asked to withdraw his nomination in the next few days and neither the Liberal Party nor Parliament will ever get a chance to benefit from his unique and valuable skillset.

Anyway, let's move on and just accept that gender is a prerequisite for Liberal pre-selection in Churchlands this time around. The big question - will it be the high-profile, new member and strong-willed businesswoman Kate Lamont or the very long-term, loyal party member and partner of the head of the liberal policy committee, Jane Timmermanis?

My guess is Kate Lamont, but the path the Party will take to eventually arrive at that decision will be bloody and open a number of old, very tender wounds.

Part two soon - gotta go to an antenatal class.

Power Minister’s powerbroking powers broken

“Thank you for your application. Although it was of a very high standard, the Board has decided to extend the deadline and re-advertise to fill the position. To be clear, you are still being considered and are highly competitive - you may be contacted for an interview after applications close.”

Yeah right! If you wanted me for the job, why would you waste time and money re-advertising?

If, like me, you’ve ever received one of these pseudo-rejection letters as a job hunter, you’ve probably got some empathy for those Liberal Party members who nominated for the highly coveted State seat of Churchlands.

You see, on Saturday the WA Liberal Party’s State Council confirmed more candidates to run for various seats at the March 2013 election. However, despite a number of long-term Liberals having already put up their hand for Churchlands, where Independent Liz Constable will retire after 22 years, the Council decided to delay the decision and re-open nominations.

There’s all sorts of spin they can put on a move like this: we want to make the process as competitive as possible and therefore need more time to get (even more) candidates; since there is an incumbent government Minister in that seat it’s not that important to select the candidate early; given one of the candidates is a Ministerial Chief of Staff, we want to delay it as long as possible so he can stay in that position without a perceived conflict of interest…

Whatever the official line, it has to be said that it looks a lot like none of these candidates, who followed due process and nominated within the allowed time, ticked all the boxes required by someone above. It really is hard to argue that the decision to re-open nominations amounts to nothing more than a rejection of those loyal nominees in favour of a preferred latecomer.

And it’s no secret that latecomer is the Premier’s choice - long time critic and recent member of the Liberal Party, Chairman of Tourism WA and promoter of Bali, Sydney and France as holiday destinations, bolshy local restaurateur Kate Lamont. Whether or not this qualifies Ms Lamont to occupy a safe Liberal seat in Parliament is a matter for the State Council in a couple of week’s time, but the way this has happened raises a couple of broader issues worthy of comment from the QBF.
The first is the wisdom of the Premier being tied to the process anomaly.

If it is true that Ms Lamont is being parachuted in by the Premier, it’s probably for two very worthy reasons:

1. Ms Lamont is a woman and the Liberal Party is very thin on the ground for women in the Lower House; and
2. Ms Lamont will have the blessing of the outgoing, strong-willed friend of the Premier, Minister Liz Constable.

The gender issue is a no-brainer. The Liberal Party needs to do whatever it can to improve its female voter-base and that’s nearly impossible with so many crusty old men (and bra-snapping younger ones) on the front line.

The second point hasn’t been raised in the public sphere, but Minister Constable’s endorsement of the candidate is absolutely essential to a Liberal victory. If the very highly regarded current local Member Liz Constable (Minister Constable got a whopping 67.30% of the primary vote in 2008) didn’t like the Liberal candidate and decided to throw her support behind another, presumably independent candidate, the seat could very easily remain in the hands of an unaligned Member – and perhaps one that is not as Liberal-friendly as Liz Constable.

Liz Constable is a solid friend of the Premier, so presumably if Kate Lamont is being dropped in with the Premier’s support, she also has the blessing of the current Member.

But the loudest message sent by the State Council on Saturday is that Peter Collier is not the “powerbroker” he is often alleged to be.

Despite Mr Collier’s relentless behind-the-scenes cajoling and conspiring to “control the numbers” required to determine the outcome of pre-selections in all of the western suburbs electorates, what is obvious from this is that he simply doesn’t have the courage to go head-to-head with the Premier.

Mr Collier has his own preferred candidate for Churchlands - and it’s not Kate Lamont. Mr Collier’s choice is a fine young man who is a long-term supporter of the Party, very active and loyal to a fault. He followed due process in nominating for Churchlands within the prescribed time and hasn’t particularly upset any powerful figures within the Party nor has he been involved in any major external controversy. Other than not being a woman, on paper he looks like the perfect Liberal candidate for Churchlands.

And yet on Saturday, the Party snubbed Mr Collier’s preferred candidate to facilitate the late nomination of Mr Barnett’s – even though in theory Mr Collier controls the numbers to stitch-up Churchlands and even overturn Mr Barnett’s pre-selection for Cottesloe.

This, on top of Mr Barnett’s very public humiliation of Peter Collier in 2008 when he inexplicably took the Education portfolio away from him, would make any fan of the Godfather or West Wing think the puppet master would initiate a swift and bloody retaliation.

However, those who know the man behind the “powerbroker” tag also know that payback will consist of little more than a bunch of bitchy text messages to and from his troupe of fine young supporters and if things get really heated, possibly a new nickname for the Premier.

How deeply disappointing that courage isn't a prerequisite for candidacy.