Premier Colin Barnett likes details. There is no doubt he wants to let his bean-counting days go and spend his last years in public office pondering the big issues, but it appears that our lonely leopard just can’t change his spots.
After watching him prematurely cut the heads off a number of people such as former Treasurer Troy Buswell and most recently, one of his best performing personal advisers, for what turned out to be very minor transgressions, we know that Colin Barnett learnt something from his sulky time on the backbenches of the Birney/Omodei/Buswell Oppositions – corruption sinks governments. And he certainly does not want his government to go the same way as that of his processor.
As an informed tax-payer I say, “yep, he’s right. We shouldn’t tolerate corruption in government.” But I hasten to add, “let’s not overreact”. Unfortunately for the Premier, that’s just what a number of his colleagues think he has done in his latest attempt to appear committed to eliminating any perception of misuse of public resources.
One of Mr Barnett’s subordinates called me recently to voice concern about the fact that the Premier has a new no-travel policy and how quickly this and his other no-bad-press memos are raising the ire of a growing number of Liberal Members. Apparently the Premier recently told the entire Liberal Parliamentary team that between now and the election, no one should be using their imprest accounts to fund any travel, even though they are fully entitled to do so.
Just for context, a Member’s Imprest account is credited with $24,534 at the beginning of a new Parliamentary term for the purpose of funding travel over the four years. While some ill-informed cynics consider these trips to be nothing more than junkets, in my experience they provide MP’s with very valuable opportunities to visit other States and Countries and both learn from them and act as an ambassador to us. Most MP’s who use this entitlement come back with new ideas, stronger international relationships and at the very least, a broader appreciation of how other people live and Western Australia’s place in a very big world.
I don’t know about you, but if these people are going to represent me and write our laws, I for one think $6,000 a year is a very small price to pay for them to get that broader understanding of life.
However, it is a fact that there are those in our community who vehemently disagree. They think it’s a rort and our elected representatives should sit at home with a beer and learn about the world via Foxtel – which, of course, they should pay for from their own pockets.
Anyway, enough context, back to the current issue:
While my deepthroat seemed to accept that the Premier is just trying to avoid feeding these fools with a plethora of “snouts in the trough” tabloid stories months before an election, the informant said the thing that has really irritated the voiceless sods in the Party room is that this comes on top of his latest decree to no longer allow unused imprest funds to be rolled over to a new term.
Apparently, there are a number of members who have done the right thing by not travelling extensively over the last few terms and in doing so, saved up close to $40,000 in their imprest account. Some of them were evidently hoping to fund a decent overseas study trip early next term if they were lucky enough to get re-elected for another 4 years. However, when the Premier stood up in Parliament during the final sitting days of 2010 and declared that unspent imprest credits would not be rolled over in the future, some of the backbenchers who had savings thought they might be able to squeeze in a trip during the winter break of 2012 before the election campaign really ramped up.
Alas, these plans have been dashed by the Premier’s newest strategy to minimise public disquiet, but he might not have foreseen the unrest his move is creating in his own backyard.
Showing posts with label WAPol. Show all posts
Showing posts with label WAPol. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Monday, March 12, 2012
Power shake-up imminent… I think… well, probably
The article on the front page of today’s West Australian newspaper is hilarious. Not for its journalistic qualities mind you, it’s the message that’s funny.
The headline is “Energy shake-up imminent: Collier”. However, to paraphrase what the courageous Minister for Energy says in the body of the story – “I am strong and in control. Now that the Premier has talked incessantly about how he wants the disaggregation of the State’s energy utilities re-aggregated, I agree… I think. No plans yet, but I’m sure it will happen.”
Is this a commitment? Has Treasurer Christian Porter agreed? If so, what did he agree to? When? How? Is this is anything more than a kneejerk reaction to the Premier’s moaning? If this was in any way planned, why did the Government allow both Verve and Synergy to sign off on separate multi-million dollar gas contracts just a few months ago?
The truth is WA’s government energy sector IS under pressure, but it probably has more to do with the way it is being managed than issues of disaggregation.
Let me explain.
To be fair, there are genuinely some costs and processes that do increase as a result of the former Government’s decision to split Western Power into four separate utilities. Obviously, there are three more Boards of management and three more groups of reasonably paid executives. There are also the issues all corporations with a single shareholder face such as reduced buying power because under competition policy, they all have to negotiate fuel and service contracts independently – without colluding on prices.
However, that is probably where the real issues of disaggregation end.
Beyond that, the big problems are well and truly within Premier Barnett’s remit. As I wrote in this article last week, it is bewildering to most taxpayers that the Premier has consistently claimed it would be better for the public to re-merge some of the Government’s energy corporations but have no plans to do it.
But the revelation by the Sunday Times yesterday that the last of the State’s energy executives has decided to quit offers an insight to another problem damaging our energy market - and it’s a problem that Mr Barnett knows was not caused by anything other than his own hand.
The problem is of course, Peter Collier - not his staff, not his policies… him, plain and simple.
Actually it’s far quicker to just name agencies under the control of Minster Collier that haven’t had at least one change of its chief executive during his short reign so far:
“So what?” Western suburbs folks might say. “It’s good to see a politician rolling up his sleaves and cleaning out the dead wood,” they might naively add.
As a conservative voter growing more and more desperate for some truly conservative leadership, I would wholeheartedly support such a move… if only it was a calculated one.
But the truth is these losses are not the result of some Machiavellian master plan by a fearless powerbroker ridding the bureaucracy of under-performers. On the contrary, the fact is that most of these people have voluntarily walked away from their prestigious and lucrative roles as highly respected long-term members of the public service. The problem for all of us is that when they walked, they took with them many years of valuable experience and a great deal of corporate knowledge the State needs now more than ever.
But they, as well as a number of highly experienced Board Members, are gone – bridges burnt. And when I say bridges burnt, I mean to the ground. Indeed, one of Minister Collier’s own favourite (yet culturally insensitive) clichés when talking about relationships he has destroyed is that he "napalmed” it.
Oh the irony.
Now for the record, it’s important for me to acknowledge that being any Minister in the current WA State Government isn’t easy. The Premier is a lone wolf and often informs his Cabinet and Party Room colleagues of his thinking via talkback radio. No one, other than the jelly-backs and sycophantic kiss-ups, would argue this point. The Premier himself publicly acknowledged his tendency to shoot from the hip during an exclusive one-on-one puff piece recently aired on Channel 9. However, Cantankerous Col Pot and his nervous nannies proves that I don't think this is the worst quality you could have in a leader - at least he does have his own ideas.
It’s the impact of his leadership style on the rest of his team that causes the biggest problems for the state. At the end of the day, Ministers are just people and like all of us, they want to feel respected and valued. Some of them are very self-confident, intelligent individuals who are able to just put the frustrations aside and get on with doing the best they can with what they have. Ministers Waldron, Redman, Porter and Buswell are a few who seem to have that magic ability.
However others, like Peter Collier, don’t. But please, I really don't envy Mr Collier. In fact my feelings toward him are currently much closer to pity.
Imagine being a devotee of a political party for 35 years, since you were 16 years old. You do your best to repress all your other urges and pursue a 20 year teaching career. During that time you manoeuvre yourself into a position of being admired as somewhat of an expert in politics and eventually get the ego-stroking title of ‘powerbroker’ within the party. After doing what you have to do for almost four decades, imagine then being slapped in the face by the bloke you helped to become Premier.
It’s no secret that as a former teacher, Peter Collier was desperate to take on the Education Ministry when the Liberal-National government was formed in late 2008. And I'm sure that I am one of many who would say that he was a highly effective Shadow Education Minister and therefore probably deserved to get the nod from the Premier.
But the fact is; he didn’t.
At the very first public test of their relationship, the Premier chose to tell the world that he simply didn’t trust Peter Collier enough to get the Ministry of his choice. Instead, Colin Barnett set about persuading someone else to take on the role – even though that person didn’t ask for it.
Having received that very public slap from a guy you thought was a friend, imagine how it would feel to then come to the personal realisation that you are 100% incapable of using the power people think you have to influence that or any decision of the Premier since.
At a human level, realising you’re impotent before you have a chance to conceive is nothing short of heartbreaking. I really do feel for him, but the biggest issue here isn’t personal – it’s the impact this has on the effectiveness of our State Government.
Situations like this cause problems for all of us because Ministers are just people - and when people get resentful, it sometimes manifests in anger and bitterness. We all know people who in spite of tragic misfortune, can manage these feelings and turn the energy into positive outcomes. But there are also those who try to repress every uncomfortable feeling they come across until they eventually explode and spray everyone around them with their offensive bile. People in this situation - those living a lie - are often highly anxious control freaks prone to angry, irrational outbursts when things don’t go precisely to plan.
Clearly, this would dent anyone’s ability to maintain mutually respectful, productive relationships on any level. And it has. The very real public interest in this is that during his three short years as Minister so far, Peter Collier has ‘napalmed’ many relationships important to the efficient operation and future of the government. Under his watch, a number of powerful former friends have unnecessarily become powerful threats – the head of almost every agency reporting to him has taken his or her knowledge and expertise to the private sector, numerous high profile Board members of government trading enterprises are now gone and he has had more than 35 staff in his Ministerial office of just 12.
As well as the public sector’s loss of expertise and wisdom, turnover of senior officers costs the taxpayer dearly. There are real dollars required to recruit and train replacements and the confidence and efficiency of all the other people working in the agencies plummets every time there is an extraordinary change of leadership.
Regardless of what lies at the core of Minister Collier’s tendency to destroy relationships, he needs urgent coaching to help him stop burning the government’s valuable bridges. Interestingly, the latest in the long line of executives to vote with their feet and walk away from Minister Collier, Verve CEO Shirley In't Veld, is held in quite high regard by the Premier. Hopefully with her new-found independence, she will soon be in a position to personally encourage Colin Barnett to help his Minister value his human resources a little more.
Unfortunately, I think Ms In't Veld might find Minister Collier’s direct line manager is simply too busy spreading his own accelerant on other bridges.
The headline is “Energy shake-up imminent: Collier”. However, to paraphrase what the courageous Minister for Energy says in the body of the story – “I am strong and in control. Now that the Premier has talked incessantly about how he wants the disaggregation of the State’s energy utilities re-aggregated, I agree… I think. No plans yet, but I’m sure it will happen.”
Is this a commitment? Has Treasurer Christian Porter agreed? If so, what did he agree to? When? How? Is this is anything more than a kneejerk reaction to the Premier’s moaning? If this was in any way planned, why did the Government allow both Verve and Synergy to sign off on separate multi-million dollar gas contracts just a few months ago?
The truth is WA’s government energy sector IS under pressure, but it probably has more to do with the way it is being managed than issues of disaggregation.
Let me explain.
To be fair, there are genuinely some costs and processes that do increase as a result of the former Government’s decision to split Western Power into four separate utilities. Obviously, there are three more Boards of management and three more groups of reasonably paid executives. There are also the issues all corporations with a single shareholder face such as reduced buying power because under competition policy, they all have to negotiate fuel and service contracts independently – without colluding on prices.
However, that is probably where the real issues of disaggregation end.
Beyond that, the big problems are well and truly within Premier Barnett’s remit. As I wrote in this article last week, it is bewildering to most taxpayers that the Premier has consistently claimed it would be better for the public to re-merge some of the Government’s energy corporations but have no plans to do it.
But the revelation by the Sunday Times yesterday that the last of the State’s energy executives has decided to quit offers an insight to another problem damaging our energy market - and it’s a problem that Mr Barnett knows was not caused by anything other than his own hand.
The problem is of course, Peter Collier - not his staff, not his policies… him, plain and simple.
- Verve
- Western Power
- Synergy
- Horizon
- Office of Energy
- Department of Indigenous Affairs…
Actually it’s far quicker to just name agencies under the control of Minster Collier that haven’t had at least one change of its chief executive during his short reign so far:
- Department of Training and Workforce Development
“So what?” Western suburbs folks might say. “It’s good to see a politician rolling up his sleaves and cleaning out the dead wood,” they might naively add.
As a conservative voter growing more and more desperate for some truly conservative leadership, I would wholeheartedly support such a move… if only it was a calculated one.
But the truth is these losses are not the result of some Machiavellian master plan by a fearless powerbroker ridding the bureaucracy of under-performers. On the contrary, the fact is that most of these people have voluntarily walked away from their prestigious and lucrative roles as highly respected long-term members of the public service. The problem for all of us is that when they walked, they took with them many years of valuable experience and a great deal of corporate knowledge the State needs now more than ever.
But they, as well as a number of highly experienced Board Members, are gone – bridges burnt. And when I say bridges burnt, I mean to the ground. Indeed, one of Minister Collier’s own favourite (yet culturally insensitive) clichés when talking about relationships he has destroyed is that he "napalmed” it.
Oh the irony.
Now for the record, it’s important for me to acknowledge that being any Minister in the current WA State Government isn’t easy. The Premier is a lone wolf and often informs his Cabinet and Party Room colleagues of his thinking via talkback radio. No one, other than the jelly-backs and sycophantic kiss-ups, would argue this point. The Premier himself publicly acknowledged his tendency to shoot from the hip during an exclusive one-on-one puff piece recently aired on Channel 9. However, Cantankerous Col Pot and his nervous nannies proves that I don't think this is the worst quality you could have in a leader - at least he does have his own ideas.
It’s the impact of his leadership style on the rest of his team that causes the biggest problems for the state. At the end of the day, Ministers are just people and like all of us, they want to feel respected and valued. Some of them are very self-confident, intelligent individuals who are able to just put the frustrations aside and get on with doing the best they can with what they have. Ministers Waldron, Redman, Porter and Buswell are a few who seem to have that magic ability.
However others, like Peter Collier, don’t. But please, I really don't envy Mr Collier. In fact my feelings toward him are currently much closer to pity.
Imagine being a devotee of a political party for 35 years, since you were 16 years old. You do your best to repress all your other urges and pursue a 20 year teaching career. During that time you manoeuvre yourself into a position of being admired as somewhat of an expert in politics and eventually get the ego-stroking title of ‘powerbroker’ within the party. After doing what you have to do for almost four decades, imagine then being slapped in the face by the bloke you helped to become Premier.
It’s no secret that as a former teacher, Peter Collier was desperate to take on the Education Ministry when the Liberal-National government was formed in late 2008. And I'm sure that I am one of many who would say that he was a highly effective Shadow Education Minister and therefore probably deserved to get the nod from the Premier.
But the fact is; he didn’t.
At the very first public test of their relationship, the Premier chose to tell the world that he simply didn’t trust Peter Collier enough to get the Ministry of his choice. Instead, Colin Barnett set about persuading someone else to take on the role – even though that person didn’t ask for it.
Having received that very public slap from a guy you thought was a friend, imagine how it would feel to then come to the personal realisation that you are 100% incapable of using the power people think you have to influence that or any decision of the Premier since.
At a human level, realising you’re impotent before you have a chance to conceive is nothing short of heartbreaking. I really do feel for him, but the biggest issue here isn’t personal – it’s the impact this has on the effectiveness of our State Government.
Situations like this cause problems for all of us because Ministers are just people - and when people get resentful, it sometimes manifests in anger and bitterness. We all know people who in spite of tragic misfortune, can manage these feelings and turn the energy into positive outcomes. But there are also those who try to repress every uncomfortable feeling they come across until they eventually explode and spray everyone around them with their offensive bile. People in this situation - those living a lie - are often highly anxious control freaks prone to angry, irrational outbursts when things don’t go precisely to plan.
Clearly, this would dent anyone’s ability to maintain mutually respectful, productive relationships on any level. And it has. The very real public interest in this is that during his three short years as Minister so far, Peter Collier has ‘napalmed’ many relationships important to the efficient operation and future of the government. Under his watch, a number of powerful former friends have unnecessarily become powerful threats – the head of almost every agency reporting to him has taken his or her knowledge and expertise to the private sector, numerous high profile Board members of government trading enterprises are now gone and he has had more than 35 staff in his Ministerial office of just 12.
As well as the public sector’s loss of expertise and wisdom, turnover of senior officers costs the taxpayer dearly. There are real dollars required to recruit and train replacements and the confidence and efficiency of all the other people working in the agencies plummets every time there is an extraordinary change of leadership.
Regardless of what lies at the core of Minister Collier’s tendency to destroy relationships, he needs urgent coaching to help him stop burning the government’s valuable bridges. Interestingly, the latest in the long line of executives to vote with their feet and walk away from Minister Collier, Verve CEO Shirley In't Veld, is held in quite high regard by the Premier. Hopefully with her new-found independence, she will soon be in a position to personally encourage Colin Barnett to help his Minister value his human resources a little more.
Unfortunately, I think Ms In't Veld might find Minister Collier’s direct line manager is simply too busy spreading his own accelerant on other bridges.
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Stolen Wages outcome illuminates deeper issues
In politics they say no matter how hard you try, you will never please all of the people all of the time. Arguably, that axiom applies to no portfolio quite as much as it does to that of Indigenous Affairs. The truth is that at times that Minister's job is just plain impossible.
As a political issue, the problems are so messy and complex they aren’t easy to even define, let alone fix. Everybody seems to be an expert and despite the fact that the State Government spends around $2 billion each year on trying to help WA’s 76,000 aboriginal people, more than half of those experts think the solution is more money for programs and infrastructure.
Many people with European heritage claim to understand the issues, but the best I can honestly do is offer a pretty simplistic observation. Evidently the pain of watching their ancient culture being eroded away is very personal and very raw for many of today’s aboriginal Australians. I’m really not sure how I would feel in the same situation, but I guess I would teeter somewhere between confusion and anger. If I had to live with emotions like those bubbling away inside, I’m sure I would struggle to excel at anything and ultimately probably not live very long.
Sadly, that is the stark reality for most aboriginal Australians. Very few of our country’s highest achievers have aboriginal heritage and the average life expectancy of an indigenous Australian is still around 19 years less than that of their non-indigenous countrymen. Aboriginal people are grossly over-represented in our prisons, the educational outcomes for indigenous kids are markedly lower than their peers and a number live with alcohol and other drug addictions in devastating poverty.
As only a 5th generation Australian I’m far from an expert on indigenous culture or history. However, one thing I do know is that as government spending increases in any particular portfolio, the return on each dollar reduces drastically. Bearing that in mind, I am therefore of the firm belief that the answer to the challenges facing today’s aboriginal people isn’t more money. The pain of such enormous social and economic dysfunction is far too personal to be quashed with something as relatively meaningless as cash.
So when aboriginal leaders yesterday criticised the Barnett Government’s offer of up to $2,000 recompense to those who had their wages withheld (or stolen if you prefer) by pre-1972 governments, they missed yet another opportunity to be truly heard from the heart.
In response to the media release titled Government to act on ‘Stolen Wages’, Aboriginal Legal Service chief executive Dennis Egginton was quoted on PerthNow.com.au:
[Desperate sigh]
Dennis, please let me offer some advice. The amount of cash provided shouldn't be the most insulting part of this debacle. Even if it is for some of your clients, it’s definitely not the best public line to lead with. By taking that angle, you irritate the many proud indigenous people who work hard every day to sooth the pain of the past and lead their peers toward a brighter future. They must be insulted by the over-simplification and embarrassed by the bitter stereotype your comments strengthen.
Importantly, adding to that stereotype also provides extremely unhelpful ammunition to the red-necked, racist zealots among us. You might naively retort that they don’t matter to your cause, but believe me, they really do. Some of these people are filled with irrational hatred and passionately support government decisions like this one which could only be described as foolish at best or mean-spirited at worst. If you choose to talk more about this publicly, please heed the advice and steer clear of words that paint a picture of a short-term cash grab by aboriginal people.
In the true spirit of reconciliation, I offer the following in the hope that it might prove useful when you next talk to a reporter.
For me, yesterday’s media statement by Indigenous Affairs Minister Peter Collier put an ugly full stop at the end of an embarrassing piece of government narrative. Based on the public comments by other indigenous leaders since, the full stop might in fact be so ugly that it has been mistaken for a comma with litigation to come.
At a practical level, the language of the government’s decision is troubling:
But the choice of language in the government's policy isn't the most troubling issue.
For background, the Barnett Government inherited this quandary from the previous Labor team when they took office in 2008. In December 2006, almost two years before that election, the Carpenter Government’s Minister for Indigenous Affairs Michelle Roberts received recommendations from a Federal Senate inquiry to re-pay stolen wages. Even though Minister Roberts told Parliament that her Government was considering its response a number of times, in the end they took no public action.
In fairness to all, the 20 or so months prior to an election are very busy and not a good time to rock the boat. But even though the politics of doing so would have been difficult, it's fair to assume indigenous people would be better off today if the Minister had been more courageous and pushed for a decision at that time. “Mea culpa” – a statement made by Minister Hames on this issue in 2010 - may also be an appropriate comment from Ms Roberts.
But that was more than three years ago.
Given that the Barnett Government asked questions about the issue when it was in opposition, it has effectively had more than five years to formulate a policy position on this. Why did it take so long? The truly distressing part of the answer for truly conservative voters is that the delay was not caused by any ideologically-driven debate happening behind the scenes - it is just another symptom of deep relationship tensions within Cabinet.
The truth is that this Government’s first Minister for Indigenous Affairs, current Deputy Premier Kim Hames, was smart enough to realise that this issue was a hot potato and would burn whoever was holding it when a decision was finally made. Interestingly, Minister Hames recently mooted the possibility of not contesting the next election. Perhaps thinking that he might soon semi-retire and pick up a few of his former clients as a consultant on aboriginal heritage, he decided he had too much to lose by holding on to the Indigenous Affairs portfolio. So in rare Machiavellian style, he ‘sold’ the portfolio to Minister Collier who still thinks that move was his idea and a vote of confidence from his uncommunicative Premier.
Alas, the basic but highly effective political strategy of trying to get a subordinate or less intelligent colleague to put their face on your bad news was at play. This isn't speculation - it became very obvious during the first few weeks of Peter Collier’s reign as Minister. I recall that while he was on a short period of annual leave out of the State, our office received the message loud and clear that the Deputy Premier wanted the Stolen Wages submission brought to Cabinet ASAP, and very generously offered to sign it in Minister Collier’s absence.
Knowing that Minister Collier hadn’t even been given the opportunity to read the background of the issue, I insisted that it wait for his return in seven or so days. To his credit, the new Minister has been trying to get the Premier to authorise the progression of a Cabinet submission ever since. However due to the combination of Minister Hames’ politically expedient obfuscation and Minister Collier’s lack of ability to personally influence the Premier, it has taken the threat of this saga being raised during the imminent election campaign for this Government to deliver an outcome.
Minister Hames isn’t the only one cynically maximising his political advantage of associating himself with good news stories that involve indigenous people. As of today, the Government has published 23 media statements referring to aboriginal people in the last year that do not contain the words “Peter Collier” anywhere - not even the heading.
Take a good long moment to think about that.
Summing up, I propose the main problems facing Western Australian aboriginal people today do not include a lack of inadequate resourcing. The efficiency of the money already spent needs to be evaluated urgently with the view of cutting ineffective or redundant programs and redirecting that money to those that are proving themselves.
However, the willingness of our political leaders to delay symbolically important decisions like Stolen Wages and their apparent eagerness to publish a media statement any time money is thrown at a new scheme, points to a deeply troubling lack of understanding and perhaps even respect for the big issues.
[sigh]
As a political issue, the problems are so messy and complex they aren’t easy to even define, let alone fix. Everybody seems to be an expert and despite the fact that the State Government spends around $2 billion each year on trying to help WA’s 76,000 aboriginal people, more than half of those experts think the solution is more money for programs and infrastructure.
Many people with European heritage claim to understand the issues, but the best I can honestly do is offer a pretty simplistic observation. Evidently the pain of watching their ancient culture being eroded away is very personal and very raw for many of today’s aboriginal Australians. I’m really not sure how I would feel in the same situation, but I guess I would teeter somewhere between confusion and anger. If I had to live with emotions like those bubbling away inside, I’m sure I would struggle to excel at anything and ultimately probably not live very long.
Sadly, that is the stark reality for most aboriginal Australians. Very few of our country’s highest achievers have aboriginal heritage and the average life expectancy of an indigenous Australian is still around 19 years less than that of their non-indigenous countrymen. Aboriginal people are grossly over-represented in our prisons, the educational outcomes for indigenous kids are markedly lower than their peers and a number live with alcohol and other drug addictions in devastating poverty.
As only a 5th generation Australian I’m far from an expert on indigenous culture or history. However, one thing I do know is that as government spending increases in any particular portfolio, the return on each dollar reduces drastically. Bearing that in mind, I am therefore of the firm belief that the answer to the challenges facing today’s aboriginal people isn’t more money. The pain of such enormous social and economic dysfunction is far too personal to be quashed with something as relatively meaningless as cash.
So when aboriginal leaders yesterday criticised the Barnett Government’s offer of up to $2,000 recompense to those who had their wages withheld (or stolen if you prefer) by pre-1972 governments, they missed yet another opportunity to be truly heard from the heart.
In response to the media release titled Government to act on ‘Stolen Wages’, Aboriginal Legal Service chief executive Dennis Egginton was quoted on PerthNow.com.au:
"This is a slap in the face and a cruel and heartless offer which offends the very notion of recompense… This State’s economic power was built upon the backs of hard working proud Indigenous men and women who had their hard earned wages withheld. To now offer these people such a paltry amount diminishes the contributions that our people have made."
[Desperate sigh]
Dennis, please let me offer some advice. The amount of cash provided shouldn't be the most insulting part of this debacle. Even if it is for some of your clients, it’s definitely not the best public line to lead with. By taking that angle, you irritate the many proud indigenous people who work hard every day to sooth the pain of the past and lead their peers toward a brighter future. They must be insulted by the over-simplification and embarrassed by the bitter stereotype your comments strengthen.
Importantly, adding to that stereotype also provides extremely unhelpful ammunition to the red-necked, racist zealots among us. You might naively retort that they don’t matter to your cause, but believe me, they really do. Some of these people are filled with irrational hatred and passionately support government decisions like this one which could only be described as foolish at best or mean-spirited at worst. If you choose to talk more about this publicly, please heed the advice and steer clear of words that paint a picture of a short-term cash grab by aboriginal people.
In the true spirit of reconciliation, I offer the following in the hope that it might prove useful when you next talk to a reporter.
For me, yesterday’s media statement by Indigenous Affairs Minister Peter Collier put an ugly full stop at the end of an embarrassing piece of government narrative. Based on the public comments by other indigenous leaders since, the full stop might in fact be so ugly that it has been mistaken for a comma with litigation to come.
At a practical level, the language of the government’s decision is troubling:
“An ex gratia reparation payment of up to $2,000 will be made to those Aboriginal people still living and able to evidence a withholding of entitlements; were born before 1958; and who were residents of a WA Government Native Welfare Settlement. All applicants will need to complete a statutory declaration and have six months to lodge their application with the Department of Indigenous Affairs.”We’ve already acknowledged that the current life expectancy of an Australian aboriginal man is currently only about 57 years. As per the statement above, the ex-gratia payment is only available to those who were born before 1958 and still alive… do I really need to do the maths? I’m glad these lucky people only have six months to lodge an application because anyone hoping to go through the process and spend the “up to” $2,000 might not have much time to do so.
But the choice of language in the government's policy isn't the most troubling issue.
For background, the Barnett Government inherited this quandary from the previous Labor team when they took office in 2008. In December 2006, almost two years before that election, the Carpenter Government’s Minister for Indigenous Affairs Michelle Roberts received recommendations from a Federal Senate inquiry to re-pay stolen wages. Even though Minister Roberts told Parliament that her Government was considering its response a number of times, in the end they took no public action.
In fairness to all, the 20 or so months prior to an election are very busy and not a good time to rock the boat. But even though the politics of doing so would have been difficult, it's fair to assume indigenous people would be better off today if the Minister had been more courageous and pushed for a decision at that time. “Mea culpa” – a statement made by Minister Hames on this issue in 2010 - may also be an appropriate comment from Ms Roberts.
But that was more than three years ago.
Given that the Barnett Government asked questions about the issue when it was in opposition, it has effectively had more than five years to formulate a policy position on this. Why did it take so long? The truly distressing part of the answer for truly conservative voters is that the delay was not caused by any ideologically-driven debate happening behind the scenes - it is just another symptom of deep relationship tensions within Cabinet.
The truth is that this Government’s first Minister for Indigenous Affairs, current Deputy Premier Kim Hames, was smart enough to realise that this issue was a hot potato and would burn whoever was holding it when a decision was finally made. Interestingly, Minister Hames recently mooted the possibility of not contesting the next election. Perhaps thinking that he might soon semi-retire and pick up a few of his former clients as a consultant on aboriginal heritage, he decided he had too much to lose by holding on to the Indigenous Affairs portfolio. So in rare Machiavellian style, he ‘sold’ the portfolio to Minister Collier who still thinks that move was his idea and a vote of confidence from his uncommunicative Premier.
Alas, the basic but highly effective political strategy of trying to get a subordinate or less intelligent colleague to put their face on your bad news was at play. This isn't speculation - it became very obvious during the first few weeks of Peter Collier’s reign as Minister. I recall that while he was on a short period of annual leave out of the State, our office received the message loud and clear that the Deputy Premier wanted the Stolen Wages submission brought to Cabinet ASAP, and very generously offered to sign it in Minister Collier’s absence.
Knowing that Minister Collier hadn’t even been given the opportunity to read the background of the issue, I insisted that it wait for his return in seven or so days. To his credit, the new Minister has been trying to get the Premier to authorise the progression of a Cabinet submission ever since. However due to the combination of Minister Hames’ politically expedient obfuscation and Minister Collier’s lack of ability to personally influence the Premier, it has taken the threat of this saga being raised during the imminent election campaign for this Government to deliver an outcome.
Minister Hames isn’t the only one cynically maximising his political advantage of associating himself with good news stories that involve indigenous people. As of today, the Government has published 23 media statements referring to aboriginal people in the last year that do not contain the words “Peter Collier” anywhere - not even the heading.
Take a good long moment to think about that.
Summing up, I propose the main problems facing Western Australian aboriginal people today do not include a lack of inadequate resourcing. The efficiency of the money already spent needs to be evaluated urgently with the view of cutting ineffective or redundant programs and redirecting that money to those that are proving themselves.
However, the willingness of our political leaders to delay symbolically important decisions like Stolen Wages and their apparent eagerness to publish a media statement any time money is thrown at a new scheme, points to a deeply troubling lack of understanding and perhaps even respect for the big issues.
[sigh]
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:
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
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:
- ALWAYS start by playing nice, without exception
- 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
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, March 1, 2012
Cantankerous Col Pot and his nervous nannies
They say where there’s smoke, there’s fire. Alas, there’s good reason some of the more bitchy, ‘precious’ members of the Parliamentary Liberal Party refer to Premier Barnett as ‘Col Pot’ behind his back.
I’m not sure if it’s any kind of revelation or just confirmation of what many already suspect, but it’s fair to say my time as a Chief of Staff in his Government taught me that our frustrated Premier has issues with playground etiquette. The problem for the tax-payer is that very few people are prepared to tell him that to his face.
As I explained in “Pilbara play proof Lib-Nat partnership a mistake”, Mr Barnett’s long-held ambition to oversee a professional, polished and uncontroversial government isn’t quite going to plan. And his frustration is really beginning to show.
Former Premier Alan Carpenter introduced the Western Australian public to a new grumpy, tell-it-how-it-is style of leadership. And it worked… for a while. At first, many people thought it was refreshing to hear a leader just blurt out apparently unrefined, unrehearsed morsels of “truth”. But sadly for Mr Carpenter, the uncomfortable fact is that most people really don’t like being told how to suck eggs so bluntly. His revolutionary style soon wore very thin on everyone around him, including the media and his constituents. The rest, as they say, is now history.
Surprising it is then, that a politically astute man and self-proclaimed student of history such as Colin Barnett would publicly utter phrases like this in yesterday’s parliament:
Some might say that insulting the small group of people you rely on to tell the public that you’re a nice guy worthy of their vote is a risky political strategy. But surely the Premier deserves a more generous explanation? Perhaps it was just a slip of the tongue from a frustrated man in the heat of Parliamentary battle? Well if so, he’s a slow because he’s done it a number of times before… Remember this beauty during a packed media conference a few weeks ago?
Firstly, he’s not the most approachable man in the universe. Ministers and a number of his personal staff have confirmed that in order to persuade Mr Barnett on an issue, “there’s a process involved”. He likes to be presented with the facts and left to stew on it. And stew on it, he does… sometimes for weeks, months or even years before anyone can get any kind of reading on his preferred way forward.
But being a thoughtful, considered leader isn’t necessarily all bad. Heck, the other extreme would be equally problematic. However, the big difficulty is that while issues sit on the Premier’s desk, he tends to not provide much feedback to those waiting for an answer - and over time, many of them become frustrated. While the 'precious' ones wait they think up nicknames, bitch to each other about his "process" and the few that only take a couple of meetings a day and have far too much time on their hands, plot his demise.
I personally explained the consequences of his "process" and asked the Premier to improve his communication during the consideration phase at the first weekly Chiefs of Staff meeting in 2011. To his credit, he told the meeting that he thought the criticism was fair and would endeavour to provide more feedback along the way. However, being the lone leopard that he is deep down, it’s obvious he isn’t likely to change his spots any time soon.
But in the interests of disclosing the full truth, it needs to be said that Mr Barnett isn’t in a particularly enviable place.
In fairness to him, he has had enormous trouble finding people he can fully trust to give frank advice in a way that respects his genuine wealth of knowledge and experience. He deserves that, but sadly most of the people around him are either jelly-backed sycophants or scared they will be left to hang out to dry if their advice isn’t received in the spirit in which it was given.
With the exception of a very small group, including his principal adviser and preferred choice for Chief of Staff Narelle Cant, the Premier’s staff and Cabinet colleagues largely prefer to stay within the safe confines of the trench than charge over the top alone. And they know that if they do decide to go OTT, it WILL be alone - because they’ve seen many others before them jump up and just as quickly get shot down. As a result of nothing other than outright poor management, it’s simply not safe to provide frank and fearless advice to the Premier.
While this is a huge issue for the morale of those routinely working 15 hour days for the Premier and his Ministers, it’s a far bigger issue for everyone else.
“Air conditioning is a luxury,” said the man who sent his first email just 3 years ago and has only owned a mobile phone since he became Premier. Let’s face it, Colin Barnett is not a man of the people. But arguably, after sitting in those comfy blue leather chairs on the hill for 22 years and being lauded by the obsequious western suburbs party-faithful while being criticised by everyone else for the same amount of time, no-one would be truly in touch with ordinary Western Australians.
So given that the Premier’s common-man radar is understandably a little askew, the need for frank and fearless has never been more important for the longevity of this leader or his government and the implementation of robust, sensible public policy. Sadly, very few Ministers or staff have the intestinal fortitude to truly confront this reality and those who are charged with the great responsibility of creating a culture that supports courageous honesty have simply dropped the ball.
Update (6/3/12): I've been reminded by someone who was at the meeting that I raised the issue with the Premier at the second Chiefs of Staff meeting in 2011, not the first as I incorrectly assert above.
I’m not sure if it’s any kind of revelation or just confirmation of what many already suspect, but it’s fair to say my time as a Chief of Staff in his Government taught me that our frustrated Premier has issues with playground etiquette. The problem for the tax-payer is that very few people are prepared to tell him that to his face.
As I explained in “Pilbara play proof Lib-Nat partnership a mistake”, Mr Barnett’s long-held ambition to oversee a professional, polished and uncontroversial government isn’t quite going to plan. And his frustration is really beginning to show.
Former Premier Alan Carpenter introduced the Western Australian public to a new grumpy, tell-it-how-it-is style of leadership. And it worked… for a while. At first, many people thought it was refreshing to hear a leader just blurt out apparently unrefined, unrehearsed morsels of “truth”. But sadly for Mr Carpenter, the uncomfortable fact is that most people really don’t like being told how to suck eggs so bluntly. His revolutionary style soon wore very thin on everyone around him, including the media and his constituents. The rest, as they say, is now history.
Surprising it is then, that a politically astute man and self-proclaimed student of history such as Colin Barnett would publicly utter phrases like this in yesterday’s parliament:
“…the member for Cannington rushed out the door to try to confuse the media, which is not a difficult task in this town!”
Some might say that insulting the small group of people you rely on to tell the public that you’re a nice guy worthy of their vote is a risky political strategy. But surely the Premier deserves a more generous explanation? Perhaps it was just a slip of the tongue from a frustrated man in the heat of Parliamentary battle? Well if so, he’s a slow because he’s done it a number of times before… Remember this beauty during a packed media conference a few weeks ago?
“Sometimes I think World War III could break out and you guys wouldn’t notice.”Ok, ok, surely someone in his office or one of his trusted Ministerial confidants has taken the time to explain the pitfalls of his strategy? Umm… I don’t think so.
Firstly, he’s not the most approachable man in the universe. Ministers and a number of his personal staff have confirmed that in order to persuade Mr Barnett on an issue, “there’s a process involved”. He likes to be presented with the facts and left to stew on it. And stew on it, he does… sometimes for weeks, months or even years before anyone can get any kind of reading on his preferred way forward.
But being a thoughtful, considered leader isn’t necessarily all bad. Heck, the other extreme would be equally problematic. However, the big difficulty is that while issues sit on the Premier’s desk, he tends to not provide much feedback to those waiting for an answer - and over time, many of them become frustrated. While the 'precious' ones wait they think up nicknames, bitch to each other about his "process" and the few that only take a couple of meetings a day and have far too much time on their hands, plot his demise.
I personally explained the consequences of his "process" and asked the Premier to improve his communication during the consideration phase at the first weekly Chiefs of Staff meeting in 2011. To his credit, he told the meeting that he thought the criticism was fair and would endeavour to provide more feedback along the way. However, being the lone leopard that he is deep down, it’s obvious he isn’t likely to change his spots any time soon.
But in the interests of disclosing the full truth, it needs to be said that Mr Barnett isn’t in a particularly enviable place.
In fairness to him, he has had enormous trouble finding people he can fully trust to give frank advice in a way that respects his genuine wealth of knowledge and experience. He deserves that, but sadly most of the people around him are either jelly-backed sycophants or scared they will be left to hang out to dry if their advice isn’t received in the spirit in which it was given.
With the exception of a very small group, including his principal adviser and preferred choice for Chief of Staff Narelle Cant, the Premier’s staff and Cabinet colleagues largely prefer to stay within the safe confines of the trench than charge over the top alone. And they know that if they do decide to go OTT, it WILL be alone - because they’ve seen many others before them jump up and just as quickly get shot down. As a result of nothing other than outright poor management, it’s simply not safe to provide frank and fearless advice to the Premier.
While this is a huge issue for the morale of those routinely working 15 hour days for the Premier and his Ministers, it’s a far bigger issue for everyone else.
“Air conditioning is a luxury,” said the man who sent his first email just 3 years ago and has only owned a mobile phone since he became Premier. Let’s face it, Colin Barnett is not a man of the people. But arguably, after sitting in those comfy blue leather chairs on the hill for 22 years and being lauded by the obsequious western suburbs party-faithful while being criticised by everyone else for the same amount of time, no-one would be truly in touch with ordinary Western Australians.
So given that the Premier’s common-man radar is understandably a little askew, the need for frank and fearless has never been more important for the longevity of this leader or his government and the implementation of robust, sensible public policy. Sadly, very few Ministers or staff have the intestinal fortitude to truly confront this reality and those who are charged with the great responsibility of creating a culture that supports courageous honesty have simply dropped the ball.
Update (6/3/12): I've been reminded by someone who was at the meeting that I raised the issue with the Premier at the second Chiefs of Staff meeting in 2011, not the first as I incorrectly assert above.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Pilbara play proof Lib-Nat partnership a mistake
The Premier’s “take a cold shower” comment to WA Nationals Leader Brendon Grylls this week is symptomatic not only of Mr Barnett’s tendency to highlight his superiority complex on talkback radio but also of a very messy, imminent problem for the wider government.
Of course, Mr Barnett would say that he was just trying to give some well-meaning advice to a valued friend and colleague, but his warning to Mr Grylls’ over his decision to run for the Labor-held seat of Pilbara at the next election runs much deeper than friendly advice. Quite simply, the Liberal Party will do all it can to stop the Nationals getting another seat in the Legislative Assembly, including that of retiring Labor MP Tom Stephens.
The Nationals have a well-earned reputation in Mr Grylls’ current electorate of Central Wheatbelt so they should retain that seat regardless of the candidate – be it current Upper House Member Mia Davies or anyone else. The threat to the Liberal Party is if Mr Grylls wins the seat of Pilbara, the Nationals will extend their size (and influence) in the Lower House and presumably increase their ability to manipulate Government spending in the next term.
Mr Grylls obviously believes his personal star power combined with the bucket loads of money the Government has spent in the Pilbara thanks to “his” Royalties for Regions scheme will deliver the seat to the Nationals. However, given the outright hatred the Labor Party holds toward the Nationals in that part of the world and their desperation to win Fremantle back from the Independent former Green MP Adele Carles, the Labor Party is likely to do a preference deal with the Liberal Party to disadvantage the Nationals in Pilbara. Unless Mr Grylls secures more than 50% of the primary vote, that deal would just about guarantee he will lose his seat in Parliament come 2013 and the Liberal Party will pick up Pilbara from Tom Stephens.
Mr Barnett wasn’t offering friendly advice - he was suggesting a threat to Mr Grylls’ Parliamentary career.
Both the Royalties for Regions program and Brendon Grylls himself have been problematic for Colin Barnett. There is wide discontent among his Liberal Cabinet colleagues who are often forced to go cap-in-hand to the much wealthier Nationals Ministers to effectively beg for money to fund their pet projects. And the current National team play hard-ball politics with who gets what. Consequently, the Premier is under growing pressure to reduce the proportion of Government spending controlled by the Nationals who would undoubtedly argue for the status quo or even more and if they were to secure another Lower House seat in the next Government.
In terms of Brendon Grylls the man, the Premier, who is hell-bent on trying to develop his image as a wise and considered statesman, is often frustrated by the brash impatience and naked ambition of his younger Nationals counterpart. In EERC meetings, where Ministers and their Department heads pitch to a star chamber of senior Ministers for funding, Mr Grylls is vocal, animated and often showers the room with expletives when he perceives a funding request to be poorly considered or not in the political interest of the government.
Conversely Mr Barnett, who as Premier made reinstating a jacket and tie dress code for Parliament one of his first orders of business, likes to play it cool and mull quietly in the corner leaving others to jump up and down in what he considers, an undignified manner.
But the tensions in the Liberal-National partnership are much deeper than dress-codes and unparliamentry langauge.
Mr Grylls has often upstaged Mr Barnett’s life-long ambition to run a professional, moderate bureaucracy. The urgency inherent in 39 year old Mr Grylls means he IS prepared to occasionally throw the baby out with the bathwater if it means reaching his short-term goal. As someone who has come so far aching with ambition to conquer the summit, he is often frustrated to be blocked at the top by someone who must appear to him as a boring father-figure. His Gen X risk-taking mentality has paid enormous dividends for the kid from the bush with a cruel lisp and the decision to have a stab at the seat of Pilbara underscores his “if you’re going to go out, go out with a bang” approach to politics.
His supposed ally, but true nemesis in his race to the top of the hill is the slow-moving, overly cautious, bureaucratic Colin Barnett. Mr Barnett wants to be remembered as an academic who put good public policy ahead of political ambition. He longs to be remembered as a modern-day Charles Court and with his new-found enthusiasm for the Queen, probably wouldn’t mind following Sir Charles into a knighthood either. Consequently, he tries to keep bad news away from the front page at all cost and is desperate to ensure his leadership is not connected to anything other than full and proper process – something Mr Grylls is happy to at least partially sacrifice in order to get a timely outcome.
Mr Barnett’s philosophical approach to government is diametrically opposed to that of Mr Grylls. And the differences between the men are reflected in the mood of the parties they lead. The National Party has a can-do attitude and is keen to make the changes they want now, even if it inflicts a bit of short-term pain. The Western Australian Parliamentary Liberal Party is defensive and reactive. To use the Premier’s own analogy, his team is batting, not bowling – and it looks like he thinks it’s a test match, not Twenty20.
The fight over the Pilbara will be a high profile and somewhat destructive battle for the Liberal-National partnership but unless someone smart negotiates a formal coalition agreement ASAP, the broader differences between the parties and their respective leaders will cause a much greater chasm in any future alliance.
PS. Paige Talor from the Australian Newspaper followed this up with a great article published on 3 March 2012. You can read that here
Of course, Mr Barnett would say that he was just trying to give some well-meaning advice to a valued friend and colleague, but his warning to Mr Grylls’ over his decision to run for the Labor-held seat of Pilbara at the next election runs much deeper than friendly advice. Quite simply, the Liberal Party will do all it can to stop the Nationals getting another seat in the Legislative Assembly, including that of retiring Labor MP Tom Stephens.
The Nationals have a well-earned reputation in Mr Grylls’ current electorate of Central Wheatbelt so they should retain that seat regardless of the candidate – be it current Upper House Member Mia Davies or anyone else. The threat to the Liberal Party is if Mr Grylls wins the seat of Pilbara, the Nationals will extend their size (and influence) in the Lower House and presumably increase their ability to manipulate Government spending in the next term.
Mr Grylls obviously believes his personal star power combined with the bucket loads of money the Government has spent in the Pilbara thanks to “his” Royalties for Regions scheme will deliver the seat to the Nationals. However, given the outright hatred the Labor Party holds toward the Nationals in that part of the world and their desperation to win Fremantle back from the Independent former Green MP Adele Carles, the Labor Party is likely to do a preference deal with the Liberal Party to disadvantage the Nationals in Pilbara. Unless Mr Grylls secures more than 50% of the primary vote, that deal would just about guarantee he will lose his seat in Parliament come 2013 and the Liberal Party will pick up Pilbara from Tom Stephens.
Mr Barnett wasn’t offering friendly advice - he was suggesting a threat to Mr Grylls’ Parliamentary career.
Both the Royalties for Regions program and Brendon Grylls himself have been problematic for Colin Barnett. There is wide discontent among his Liberal Cabinet colleagues who are often forced to go cap-in-hand to the much wealthier Nationals Ministers to effectively beg for money to fund their pet projects. And the current National team play hard-ball politics with who gets what. Consequently, the Premier is under growing pressure to reduce the proportion of Government spending controlled by the Nationals who would undoubtedly argue for the status quo or even more and if they were to secure another Lower House seat in the next Government.
In terms of Brendon Grylls the man, the Premier, who is hell-bent on trying to develop his image as a wise and considered statesman, is often frustrated by the brash impatience and naked ambition of his younger Nationals counterpart. In EERC meetings, where Ministers and their Department heads pitch to a star chamber of senior Ministers for funding, Mr Grylls is vocal, animated and often showers the room with expletives when he perceives a funding request to be poorly considered or not in the political interest of the government.
Conversely Mr Barnett, who as Premier made reinstating a jacket and tie dress code for Parliament one of his first orders of business, likes to play it cool and mull quietly in the corner leaving others to jump up and down in what he considers, an undignified manner.
But the tensions in the Liberal-National partnership are much deeper than dress-codes and unparliamentry langauge.
Mr Grylls has often upstaged Mr Barnett’s life-long ambition to run a professional, moderate bureaucracy. The urgency inherent in 39 year old Mr Grylls means he IS prepared to occasionally throw the baby out with the bathwater if it means reaching his short-term goal. As someone who has come so far aching with ambition to conquer the summit, he is often frustrated to be blocked at the top by someone who must appear to him as a boring father-figure. His Gen X risk-taking mentality has paid enormous dividends for the kid from the bush with a cruel lisp and the decision to have a stab at the seat of Pilbara underscores his “if you’re going to go out, go out with a bang” approach to politics.
His supposed ally, but true nemesis in his race to the top of the hill is the slow-moving, overly cautious, bureaucratic Colin Barnett. Mr Barnett wants to be remembered as an academic who put good public policy ahead of political ambition. He longs to be remembered as a modern-day Charles Court and with his new-found enthusiasm for the Queen, probably wouldn’t mind following Sir Charles into a knighthood either. Consequently, he tries to keep bad news away from the front page at all cost and is desperate to ensure his leadership is not connected to anything other than full and proper process – something Mr Grylls is happy to at least partially sacrifice in order to get a timely outcome.
Mr Barnett’s philosophical approach to government is diametrically opposed to that of Mr Grylls. And the differences between the men are reflected in the mood of the parties they lead. The National Party has a can-do attitude and is keen to make the changes they want now, even if it inflicts a bit of short-term pain. The Western Australian Parliamentary Liberal Party is defensive and reactive. To use the Premier’s own analogy, his team is batting, not bowling – and it looks like he thinks it’s a test match, not Twenty20.
The fight over the Pilbara will be a high profile and somewhat destructive battle for the Liberal-National partnership but unless someone smart negotiates a formal coalition agreement ASAP, the broader differences between the parties and their respective leaders will cause a much greater chasm in any future alliance.
PS. Paige Talor from the Australian Newspaper followed this up with a great article published on 3 March 2012. You can read that here
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:
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.
Friday, February 24, 2012
Keelty report a missed opportunity
The Barnett Government’s response to the Keelty report into the devastating Margaret River fires missed a critical opportunity for important change within Department of Environment and Conservation and further solidifies the public’s view that the Western Australlian Government lacks compassion.
Both Premier Barnett and Minister Marmion said the government took full responsibility for the controlled burn started by DEC in 2011 which ultimately destroyed 32 homes and damaged 16 more. While on the surface the statements infer culpability, the government has only agreed to provide compensation of up to $190,000 for victims of the fire - almost encouraging those who have lost a lot more to pursue arduous and expensive civil action against the state.
This is either a gross error of judgement or heartless and mean-spirited action.
Interestingly, this decision was made in spite of it being widely acknowledged among Ministers and senior advisers that the government has an image problem in this regard. Since the government’s first two budgets in which it decided to move domestic utility charges closer to cost reflectivity, the Premier’s office has been hyper-sensitive about the perception that the government lacked compassion. The Barnett government’s huge increases in fees and charges, combined with the Premier’s numerous “air conditioning is a luxury” type gaffs over the years have provoked a substantial internal effort to create a public perception that the Premier and his Government are in touch with the common people and sensitive to their financial pain. Indeed this was one of the driving forces behind the enormous $800m giveaway to the community services sector in last year’s state budget.
Even though the Keelty report squarely lays the blame on process failures within DEC, the Government has not only chosen to shirk the responsibility of full compensation but also run from the rare chance to make a much needed change to the leadership of DEC.
This might sound like a knee-jerk reaction, but the need for reform of DEC’s leadership is a long-festering problem. There is no doubt that Liberal-National government was elected in 2008 with significant backing from the mining and exploration industry, based largely on a promise of fixing the tiresome approvals process. One of the major gripes held by industry at the time was specifically about the conservative culture of DEC and it remains a huge disappointment that more hasn’t been done to correct that problem.
The Keelty report gave the government another opportunity to explain a change to the DEC leadership team and prove that it has compassion for the unfortunate amongst us, but sadly the Premier has stuck by his personal philosophies of sheltering the government and its public servants at all cost.
On this occasion, the cost may have been seriously underestimated.
Both Premier Barnett and Minister Marmion said the government took full responsibility for the controlled burn started by DEC in 2011 which ultimately destroyed 32 homes and damaged 16 more. While on the surface the statements infer culpability, the government has only agreed to provide compensation of up to $190,000 for victims of the fire - almost encouraging those who have lost a lot more to pursue arduous and expensive civil action against the state.
This is either a gross error of judgement or heartless and mean-spirited action.
Interestingly, this decision was made in spite of it being widely acknowledged among Ministers and senior advisers that the government has an image problem in this regard. Since the government’s first two budgets in which it decided to move domestic utility charges closer to cost reflectivity, the Premier’s office has been hyper-sensitive about the perception that the government lacked compassion. The Barnett government’s huge increases in fees and charges, combined with the Premier’s numerous “air conditioning is a luxury” type gaffs over the years have provoked a substantial internal effort to create a public perception that the Premier and his Government are in touch with the common people and sensitive to their financial pain. Indeed this was one of the driving forces behind the enormous $800m giveaway to the community services sector in last year’s state budget.
Even though the Keelty report squarely lays the blame on process failures within DEC, the Government has not only chosen to shirk the responsibility of full compensation but also run from the rare chance to make a much needed change to the leadership of DEC.
This might sound like a knee-jerk reaction, but the need for reform of DEC’s leadership is a long-festering problem. There is no doubt that Liberal-National government was elected in 2008 with significant backing from the mining and exploration industry, based largely on a promise of fixing the tiresome approvals process. One of the major gripes held by industry at the time was specifically about the conservative culture of DEC and it remains a huge disappointment that more hasn’t been done to correct that problem.
The Keelty report gave the government another opportunity to explain a change to the DEC leadership team and prove that it has compassion for the unfortunate amongst us, but sadly the Premier has stuck by his personal philosophies of sheltering the government and its public servants at all cost.
On this occasion, the cost may have been seriously underestimated.
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)