Wow!
My post this morning exposing the Department of Premier and Cabinet report constructed to justify Premier Barnett's decision to not provide an iPad as part of the standard kit provided to Members of Parliament has caused a bit of a stir.
Not only have I been flooded with support for bringing the nonsense report to light but I've also had a bunch of people providing names of others who use an iPad - apparently without any of the security risks or technical problems the WA Department forecast.
So, with thanks to the knowledgable readers of QBF, please allow me to include the following names as an addendum to Dixie Marshal, Kim Hames, Pope Benedict and President Obama:
- Prime Minister Gillard (at the dispatch box no less)
- Malcom Turnbull
- The Queensland Cabinet
- The ACT Cabinet
- Joe Francis
- Christian Porter
- British Prime Minister David Cameron
- Sweden's whole Parliament
- The Dutch Senate (and they had a secure App written by local developers to manage their Parliamentary business)
- And while they haven't yet been delivered, every Member of the UK House of Commons
Hmmm, looks like the DPC really did their homework before recommending against the proposal for our local MP's.
To wrap it up, I'll leave you with a quote from Charlie Sorrell in an article he wrote advocating (as I am) for British MP's to to have access to the tool, simply because I can't say it any better:
"Those paper-loving members could of course simply opt out, or give the thing to their secretaries who probably do all their work anyway. But what Boon is missing is that iPads will make the process of government quicker, smoother and more modern.
Besides, who would you prefer running your country? A gaggle of old men and women who scoff at this passing fad called “the Internet” and pass laws to break it, or a bunch of tech-savvy politicians who are living and working with the very tools that will shape the future?"
PS. I wrote and uploaded this on my iPad while enjoying a quiet moment in Kings Park this afternoon.
Friday, April 20, 2012
Told you so: RfR bandwagon heading East soon
Check this out from today’s West Australian Newspaper – Windsor calls for mine tax cash for bush.
It looks like future MHR Brendon Grylls might have the rug pulled from his plan to lead a Royalties for Regions balance-of-power block vote after the next Federal election.
In Run Brendon, run (not for Forrest), I predicted that Mr Grylls will take his bold, “I’ll form government with any majority party as long as they promise to adopt our RfR policy” attitude to Federal Parliament as the Member for Pearce next year after losing his bid for the State seat of Pilbara.
However, given that the current balance-of-power Member for New England Tony Windsor reportedly said yesterday, "Why shouldn't a bit of the MRRT go to regional areas," Mr Grylls might find a version of his Royalties for Regions plan already in place before he has a chance to get to Canberra and take the credit he personally deserves.
Watch this space...
It looks like future MHR Brendon Grylls might have the rug pulled from his plan to lead a Royalties for Regions balance-of-power block vote after the next Federal election.
In Run Brendon, run (not for Forrest), I predicted that Mr Grylls will take his bold, “I’ll form government with any majority party as long as they promise to adopt our RfR policy” attitude to Federal Parliament as the Member for Pearce next year after losing his bid for the State seat of Pilbara.
However, given that the current balance-of-power Member for New England Tony Windsor reportedly said yesterday, "Why shouldn't a bit of the MRRT go to regional areas," Mr Grylls might find a version of his Royalties for Regions plan already in place before he has a chance to get to Canberra and take the credit he personally deserves.
Watch this space...
Col Pot: No iPad for you!
It’s the classic shock-jock stunt and has been repeated
over and over again: sit silently for 30 painful seconds after dropping the
question live on air, “Mr Premier, do you know the price of a litre of milk and
loaf of bread?”
As brutal and nasty as it is, this age-old circus act does serve some legitimate value in highlighting exactly how out of touch some of our long-serving political leaders can become. It’s a fairly blunt instrument, but the fear of being humiliated on live radio or TV probably serves us well by at least reminding our elected representatives to try to “keep it real” (thanks JR). However, it might be time to update the question to better reflect the world in which we - and our children – now live.
Given the letter sent to Members of the Western Australian Parliament yesterday, I suggest a far more relevant question to catch our leaders out today could be, “Mr Premier, do you know what an App is?”
To be fair, the letter that anonymously landed in my inbox was signed by the Director General of the Premier’s Department, not actually the Premier – but given his self-proclaimed conservative outlook and overt lack of enthusiasm for technology, the content had Mr Barnett’s fingerprints all over it.
If you haven’t already guessed, the letter and accompanying 8-page report was the Department’s formal response to a push by many MP’s over the past couple of years to make a tablet computer (such as an iPad) part of their standard issue equipment.
Disappointingly, the letter basically says the Department doesn’t support the move and both the Premier and Presiding Officers have already accepted its recommendations. But as is often the case in politics, the devil is in the detail and the biggest disappointments are in the way the full report attempts to justify the recalcitrant decision.
Here are some salient points I picked out this morning and my quick responses below them:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15 Members of Parliament trialled iPads for 5 months last year. Over the next 8 months, the DPC produced its 8-page report. (page2)
QBF response: I don’t want to put too finer point on this, but in the time it took our government to produce an 8 page report that basically says “no”, Apple launched 2 generations of the iPad - and reportedly sold upward of 55 million of them in more than 25 countries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of the MP’s in the trial (page 4):
In fact within 90 days of its release, the iPad is reported to have penetrated more than 50% of Fortune 100 companies in the U.S. Research in 2011 by Frost & Sullivan shows that iPad usage in workplaces increases employee productivity, reduces paperwork, and increases revenue. It continues, estimating "The mobile-office application market in North America may reach $6.85 billion in 2015.”
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Documents in iPad Apps are not generally compatible with PC applications (such as Microsoft Office)” (page 6)
QBF response: This is simply incorrect and damages the credibility of the whole document. There are a number of very well-used Apps that create, read and write Microsoft Office documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The iPad is very good for reading and marking up documents…but is not generally suited to creating large or complex documents. (page 6)
QBF response: It IS very good for reading – and that is presumably why our Premier and Education Minister launched a state government program to fund 900 iPads for 1st and 2nd year school kids 6 weeks ago – read the media statement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corporate documents that are created or modified on an iPad may be lost or inadequately managed if not transferred to a server. (page 6)
QBF response: Every MP has a laptop for which the same threat exists: Many of them use these machines at Parliament House, which operates its own network and offers no connectivity to Member’s electorate offices. This forces them to save documents they use at Parliament (or working remotely without any connectivity to either network) locally on the laptop. To further complicate things, Ministers have a 3rd, independent network they must also use. This is an education issue, not hardware.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MPs could adopt lower levels of security and usage behaviour which could place themselves and information at risk.
QBF response: Good grief! We are talking about the people WE elect to write our laws for goodness sake! If we can’t trust their “usage behaviour” on a device that every second 16 year old kid has in their school bag, our State is in dire trouble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An iPad and cover costs $1,000 (page 7)
QBF response: Rubbish! Pick up the phone and ask for a volume deal – just like the State Government Education Department did to get their 40% discount.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Most State and Federal jurisdictions are trialling iPads and some have rolled them out. More detailed information on this status could be obtained if required” (page 8)
QBF response: What on earth did you guys do for 8 months? This is another blatently incorrect assertion. I’ve personally sat through a number of Ministerial Council meetings where EVERY Minister from every other State referred to the reams of paper that my boss had on one multi-purpose 1 cm thick device – a government issued iPad.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And my favourite…
iPad’s create the potential for “security risks; including: loss or leakage of sensitive information, identity theft…” (page 6)
QBF response: If this is true, the bad news for the Government is there are already thousands of risks out there in the iPads being used by its own agencies and departments. But before the security police kick down the doors of Synergy or the Department of Health, perhaps they should look a little closer to home at a few people with lot of secrets including Director of Government Media, Dixie Marshall and by the looks of this incredibly ironic piece of Hansard from 30 November 2011, our Deputy Premier, Dr Kim Hames:
To really illustrate the point that this report is not about any real threat to security, the Pope sending his first Tweet from his iPad:
And President Obama about to board Marine One with his iPad under his left arm:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As brutal and nasty as it is, this age-old circus act does serve some legitimate value in highlighting exactly how out of touch some of our long-serving political leaders can become. It’s a fairly blunt instrument, but the fear of being humiliated on live radio or TV probably serves us well by at least reminding our elected representatives to try to “keep it real” (thanks JR). However, it might be time to update the question to better reflect the world in which we - and our children – now live.
Given the letter sent to Members of the Western Australian Parliament yesterday, I suggest a far more relevant question to catch our leaders out today could be, “Mr Premier, do you know what an App is?”
To be fair, the letter that anonymously landed in my inbox was signed by the Director General of the Premier’s Department, not actually the Premier – but given his self-proclaimed conservative outlook and overt lack of enthusiasm for technology, the content had Mr Barnett’s fingerprints all over it.
If you haven’t already guessed, the letter and accompanying 8-page report was the Department’s formal response to a push by many MP’s over the past couple of years to make a tablet computer (such as an iPad) part of their standard issue equipment.
Disappointingly, the letter basically says the Department doesn’t support the move and both the Premier and Presiding Officers have already accepted its recommendations. But as is often the case in politics, the devil is in the detail and the biggest disappointments are in the way the full report attempts to justify the recalcitrant decision.
Here are some salient points I picked out this morning and my quick responses below them:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15 Members of Parliament trialled iPads for 5 months last year. Over the next 8 months, the DPC produced its 8-page report. (page2)
QBF response: I don’t want to put too finer point on this, but in the time it took our government to produce an 8 page report that basically says “no”, Apple launched 2 generations of the iPad - and reportedly sold upward of 55 million of them in more than 25 countries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of the MP’s in the trial (page 4):
- 93% reported that the iPad met their business needs
- 100% were satisfied with the simplicity of use
- 85% were satisfied the iPad would reduce dependency on paper
- 93% were satisfied with using the iPad to access their email and calendars
In fact within 90 days of its release, the iPad is reported to have penetrated more than 50% of Fortune 100 companies in the U.S. Research in 2011 by Frost & Sullivan shows that iPad usage in workplaces increases employee productivity, reduces paperwork, and increases revenue. It continues, estimating "The mobile-office application market in North America may reach $6.85 billion in 2015.”
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Documents in iPad Apps are not generally compatible with PC applications (such as Microsoft Office)” (page 6)
QBF response: This is simply incorrect and damages the credibility of the whole document. There are a number of very well-used Apps that create, read and write Microsoft Office documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The iPad is very good for reading and marking up documents…but is not generally suited to creating large or complex documents. (page 6)
QBF response: It IS very good for reading – and that is presumably why our Premier and Education Minister launched a state government program to fund 900 iPads for 1st and 2nd year school kids 6 weeks ago – read the media statement.
Even the US Federal Aviation Administration has approved the iPad for in-cockpit use which resulted Alaska Airlines becoming the first airline to replace pilots' paper manuals with iPads, weighing 0.68 kg compared to 11 kg for the printed flight manuals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corporate documents that are created or modified on an iPad may be lost or inadequately managed if not transferred to a server. (page 6)
QBF response: Every MP has a laptop for which the same threat exists: Many of them use these machines at Parliament House, which operates its own network and offers no connectivity to Member’s electorate offices. This forces them to save documents they use at Parliament (or working remotely without any connectivity to either network) locally on the laptop. To further complicate things, Ministers have a 3rd, independent network they must also use. This is an education issue, not hardware.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MPs could adopt lower levels of security and usage behaviour which could place themselves and information at risk.
QBF response: Good grief! We are talking about the people WE elect to write our laws for goodness sake! If we can’t trust their “usage behaviour” on a device that every second 16 year old kid has in their school bag, our State is in dire trouble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An iPad and cover costs $1,000 (page 7)
QBF response: Rubbish! Pick up the phone and ask for a volume deal – just like the State Government Education Department did to get their 40% discount.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Most State and Federal jurisdictions are trialling iPads and some have rolled them out. More detailed information on this status could be obtained if required” (page 8)
QBF response: What on earth did you guys do for 8 months? This is another blatently incorrect assertion. I’ve personally sat through a number of Ministerial Council meetings where EVERY Minister from every other State referred to the reams of paper that my boss had on one multi-purpose 1 cm thick device – a government issued iPad.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And my favourite…
iPad’s create the potential for “security risks; including: loss or leakage of sensitive information, identity theft…” (page 6)
QBF response: If this is true, the bad news for the Government is there are already thousands of risks out there in the iPads being used by its own agencies and departments. But before the security police kick down the doors of Synergy or the Department of Health, perhaps they should look a little closer to home at a few people with lot of secrets including Director of Government Media, Dixie Marshall and by the looks of this incredibly ironic piece of Hansard from 30 November 2011, our Deputy Premier, Dr Kim Hames:
“Luckily I have my iPad to help me define the term — Hypocrisy is the state of pretending to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that one does not actually have. Hypocrisy involves the deception of others and is thus a kind of lie.”
To really illustrate the point that this report is not about any real threat to security, the Pope sending his first Tweet from his iPad:
And President Obama about to board Marine One with his iPad under his left arm:
Come on Premier, how can the people who write our laws possibly
have a good understanding of their constituents if you won’t
provide them with the tools most of us in the real world use every day?
WA – Wait Awhile indeed. :-(
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
The double-edged sword of public opinion
As an overweight person, I’ve always been fairly self-conscious about eating in public.
My partner regularly (and somewhat unhelpfully) tells me I have “food issues” and on reflection, I guess I do.
I simply can’t eat while walking and feel nauseous if someone stares at me while I chew. Even when I’m really hungry in a restaurant, including a buffet restaurant where everyone else is gorging themselves stupid, I consciously choose my food partly in terms of how it might be judged by those around me.
Stupid huh? Everyone eats, right? I’m intelligent and somewhat accomplished – why can’t I just ignore the judgement of others?
The answer of course, is as simple as it is complex: human nature.
The truth is we are all at least a little bit nervous about what others think of us – for better or worse, we are very social animals and need acceptance as part of our recipe for survival.
This need to be accepted is one of many normal human traits that are often exaggerated in our politicians. That’s not meant to be a personal attack, mind you. In this case, I’m just talking about the fundamental fact that the survival or extinction of the current government quite literally depends on how well it is accepted by the public at large. This process arguably forces political decisions to stay relevant and popular with the majority, but it also limits the boldness and creativity of our political leaders.
That necessary evil - that razor sharp double-edged sword - is at the core of why sometimes I find our political system so deeply disappointing.
A case in point is the imminent move of the Premier’s office from St George’s Terrace in Perth to Hale House in West Perth.
As most QBF readers would already know, the Premier and Cabinet Services will soon move from their current, privately-owned St Georges Tce offices to the government-owned Hale House in West Perth. At the same time, 4 Ministers, the Department of Premier and Cabinet and the Public Sector Commission are also moving from the same Perth building to the government-owned 14 storey Dumas House, which forms one corner of a virtual triangle that would be completed by Parliament House and the Premier’s new Hale House office. Both Dumas House and Hale House have undergone significant refurbishments and re-fits at a total cost of around $100 million.
The Opposition has condemned the move suggesting the expiry of the lease on the St George’s Tce property could have been handled in a way that would cost the tax-payers less. The Government has responded by trying to sell the move as a cost saving measure – apparently reducing the over-all government accommodation bill by $11 million per year.
No real surprises there – fairly standard politics at play. The Opposition did what it is paid to do and questioned the cost and impacts of government decisions. And the Government has defended the move with what we have all come to expect from our governments of both colours - justifications, explanations, clarifications and just a hint of obfuscation.
Personally, I disagree with the Opposition on this one. Even though I don’t believe we will see the annual savings the government is projecting, I would still support the move if it cost twice as much upfront and didn’t save a cent on rent.
In fact, as a Chief of Staff sitting in a 2011 briefing on the project, I explicitly argued to the Director General of the Department of Premier and Cabinet that the government should actually increase the budget.
While I wholeheartedly believe it serves every Western Australian well for the executive government (regardless of which Party holds power) to work in attractive, professional offices that are in close proximity, I wasn’t suggesting extra expenditure for nicer furniture or the latest cappuccino machines. Indeed my suggestion for a larger project budget was about something far less trivial – the security of our Ministers and the secrets they hold.
Let me explain the concern I raised.
It is common knowledge (and often even publicly broadcast) that the Western Australian Premier leads a meeting of all his Ministers at the same time on the same day of each week. It is also widely known that this meeting occurs in the St George’s Tce building that currently houses the Premier’s office. Ministers who currently also have offices in that secure building simply ride the lift to those meetings. Ministers who work from Dumas House get driven from the secure basement in that building to the secure basement of the St George’s Tce building - from where they catch an exclusive (not accessible to the public) lift to the meeting room.
Other than the small waste inherent in nine V6 Holden Statesmans carrying 1 or 2 people from the same location at the same time to the same destination a little over 1 km away, I don’t see any major risk to either the reputation or security of our executive government.
Interestingly, the media knows this well-oiled process means they probably won’t see any Minister either before or after a Cabinet meeting, but still a sizable press pack gathers in the foyer of the Premier’s building whenever a hot story is brewing - even when the Premier is not scheduled to do a post-cabinet media conference. This reliable and easy access to a group of influential journalists means the weekly Cabinet meeting is fertile ground for protestors and others who might like to make their point in a very public way.
At the moment, the process doesn’t constitute much of a threat to anyone - mostly because Ministers come and go via car in the secure basement and the minimal footpath space in front of the building makes it fairly easy for police and security guards to manage any groups of troublesome people that might try to rally.
However, given that a number of the Government’s own publicly available documents tell us that those Cabinet meetings will move to Hale House when the renovations are completed, I forecast a very different outcome.
Take a look at this image from Google Earth adorned with some of my Photoshop handy work:
To help orient you: the Perth CBD is off the top of the picture, Hay Street in West Perth runs along the left edge and Kings Park Road runs up from the bottom right bending left toward St George’s Terrace off to the top. That big flat building with the square shadow on the lower right is Dumas House where almost all the Ministers offices will soon be. The red-roofed building in the top-left corner is Parliament House and Hale House (aka the Premier’s Palace) is the smaller red-roofed building in almost the centre of the image.
Now, back to the weekly Cabinet meetings that will soon be held in Hale House:
The 223 metre long blue line shows how a normal person could be expected to walk from the front doors of Dumas House to the new Cabinet entrance of Hale House – right through the middle of a very open parking lot. Presumably, at least when it’s not raining, all but a few of our Ministers will that path at the same time on the same day every week - 10 minutes before the widely publicised Cabinet meeting.
Beside the obvious security risk, imagine the embarrassing images that will happen every week as some of our dogged local journalists chase each Minister across that car park with a camera and microphone in their face… think the closing credits of the Benny Hill show minus the big-bosomed ladies. (Gen-y’s will have to Youtube “Benny Hill Show” to understand what I mean).
So after the first hilarious episode of “Ministers run the gauntlet” hits our TV’s, what are they likely to do?
Well, my guess is some of them will get in their individual V6 cars in the secure basement of Dumas House and be driven via the 318 metre red line. This will no-doubt result in at least one episode of “Lazy Ministers cars are slower that our reporter crawling” on TV and the final response will probably be a line of security guards being employed every time there is a Cabinet meeting to keep journalists and protestors away from Ministers as they scurry across the car park to and from Hale House.
The same dilemma will exist for the Premier, who will no doubt be encouraged to walk the 159 metre yellow line to Parliament when required but end up being driven the long way around.
If it’s just the media chasing Ministers across a car park every week, it will result in somewhat humiliating, but funny images that at the end of the day cause no real harm. However, the belief that our Ministers or their staff will never be the target of something more sinister is naive in the extreme.
And it was that sad realisation that prompted me during that briefing to argue for a larger budget that would allow for the construction of a secure tunnel linking Parliament House, Dumas House and the Premier’s office (the green line). Needless to say, the double-edged sword of public opinion – that force that ensures government decisions are moderate but increasingly disables sound, long-term planning was wielded. My idea was cut down on the basis that we couldn’t spend any more on this project without losing significant public acceptance.
And they were right. The costs of this project have become a matter of significant public disquiet.
But for me, it’s not disquiet that disappoints me about our modern political process - it is the growing tendency for our leaders to follow.
Please note: the image is from Google Earth and I have not identified any landmark or feature that isn’t already publicly identified. I also took care to not give details of the current day, time or location of Cabinet meetings. This post is intended to discuss the problems associated with cutting costs to appease the public and will hopefully prompt a re-think about the tunnel idea.
My partner regularly (and somewhat unhelpfully) tells me I have “food issues” and on reflection, I guess I do.
I simply can’t eat while walking and feel nauseous if someone stares at me while I chew. Even when I’m really hungry in a restaurant, including a buffet restaurant where everyone else is gorging themselves stupid, I consciously choose my food partly in terms of how it might be judged by those around me.
Stupid huh? Everyone eats, right? I’m intelligent and somewhat accomplished – why can’t I just ignore the judgement of others?
The answer of course, is as simple as it is complex: human nature.
The truth is we are all at least a little bit nervous about what others think of us – for better or worse, we are very social animals and need acceptance as part of our recipe for survival.
This need to be accepted is one of many normal human traits that are often exaggerated in our politicians. That’s not meant to be a personal attack, mind you. In this case, I’m just talking about the fundamental fact that the survival or extinction of the current government quite literally depends on how well it is accepted by the public at large. This process arguably forces political decisions to stay relevant and popular with the majority, but it also limits the boldness and creativity of our political leaders.
That necessary evil - that razor sharp double-edged sword - is at the core of why sometimes I find our political system so deeply disappointing.
A case in point is the imminent move of the Premier’s office from St George’s Terrace in Perth to Hale House in West Perth.
As most QBF readers would already know, the Premier and Cabinet Services will soon move from their current, privately-owned St Georges Tce offices to the government-owned Hale House in West Perth. At the same time, 4 Ministers, the Department of Premier and Cabinet and the Public Sector Commission are also moving from the same Perth building to the government-owned 14 storey Dumas House, which forms one corner of a virtual triangle that would be completed by Parliament House and the Premier’s new Hale House office. Both Dumas House and Hale House have undergone significant refurbishments and re-fits at a total cost of around $100 million.
The Opposition has condemned the move suggesting the expiry of the lease on the St George’s Tce property could have been handled in a way that would cost the tax-payers less. The Government has responded by trying to sell the move as a cost saving measure – apparently reducing the over-all government accommodation bill by $11 million per year.
No real surprises there – fairly standard politics at play. The Opposition did what it is paid to do and questioned the cost and impacts of government decisions. And the Government has defended the move with what we have all come to expect from our governments of both colours - justifications, explanations, clarifications and just a hint of obfuscation.
Personally, I disagree with the Opposition on this one. Even though I don’t believe we will see the annual savings the government is projecting, I would still support the move if it cost twice as much upfront and didn’t save a cent on rent.
In fact, as a Chief of Staff sitting in a 2011 briefing on the project, I explicitly argued to the Director General of the Department of Premier and Cabinet that the government should actually increase the budget.
While I wholeheartedly believe it serves every Western Australian well for the executive government (regardless of which Party holds power) to work in attractive, professional offices that are in close proximity, I wasn’t suggesting extra expenditure for nicer furniture or the latest cappuccino machines. Indeed my suggestion for a larger project budget was about something far less trivial – the security of our Ministers and the secrets they hold.
Let me explain the concern I raised.
It is common knowledge (and often even publicly broadcast) that the Western Australian Premier leads a meeting of all his Ministers at the same time on the same day of each week. It is also widely known that this meeting occurs in the St George’s Tce building that currently houses the Premier’s office. Ministers who currently also have offices in that secure building simply ride the lift to those meetings. Ministers who work from Dumas House get driven from the secure basement in that building to the secure basement of the St George’s Tce building - from where they catch an exclusive (not accessible to the public) lift to the meeting room.
Other than the small waste inherent in nine V6 Holden Statesmans carrying 1 or 2 people from the same location at the same time to the same destination a little over 1 km away, I don’t see any major risk to either the reputation or security of our executive government.
Interestingly, the media knows this well-oiled process means they probably won’t see any Minister either before or after a Cabinet meeting, but still a sizable press pack gathers in the foyer of the Premier’s building whenever a hot story is brewing - even when the Premier is not scheduled to do a post-cabinet media conference. This reliable and easy access to a group of influential journalists means the weekly Cabinet meeting is fertile ground for protestors and others who might like to make their point in a very public way.
At the moment, the process doesn’t constitute much of a threat to anyone - mostly because Ministers come and go via car in the secure basement and the minimal footpath space in front of the building makes it fairly easy for police and security guards to manage any groups of troublesome people that might try to rally.
However, given that a number of the Government’s own publicly available documents tell us that those Cabinet meetings will move to Hale House when the renovations are completed, I forecast a very different outcome.
Take a look at this image from Google Earth adorned with some of my Photoshop handy work:
To help orient you: the Perth CBD is off the top of the picture, Hay Street in West Perth runs along the left edge and Kings Park Road runs up from the bottom right bending left toward St George’s Terrace off to the top. That big flat building with the square shadow on the lower right is Dumas House where almost all the Ministers offices will soon be. The red-roofed building in the top-left corner is Parliament House and Hale House (aka the Premier’s Palace) is the smaller red-roofed building in almost the centre of the image.
Now, back to the weekly Cabinet meetings that will soon be held in Hale House:
The 223 metre long blue line shows how a normal person could be expected to walk from the front doors of Dumas House to the new Cabinet entrance of Hale House – right through the middle of a very open parking lot. Presumably, at least when it’s not raining, all but a few of our Ministers will that path at the same time on the same day every week - 10 minutes before the widely publicised Cabinet meeting.
Beside the obvious security risk, imagine the embarrassing images that will happen every week as some of our dogged local journalists chase each Minister across that car park with a camera and microphone in their face… think the closing credits of the Benny Hill show minus the big-bosomed ladies. (Gen-y’s will have to Youtube “Benny Hill Show” to understand what I mean).
So after the first hilarious episode of “Ministers run the gauntlet” hits our TV’s, what are they likely to do?
Well, my guess is some of them will get in their individual V6 cars in the secure basement of Dumas House and be driven via the 318 metre red line. This will no-doubt result in at least one episode of “Lazy Ministers cars are slower that our reporter crawling” on TV and the final response will probably be a line of security guards being employed every time there is a Cabinet meeting to keep journalists and protestors away from Ministers as they scurry across the car park to and from Hale House.
The same dilemma will exist for the Premier, who will no doubt be encouraged to walk the 159 metre yellow line to Parliament when required but end up being driven the long way around.
If it’s just the media chasing Ministers across a car park every week, it will result in somewhat humiliating, but funny images that at the end of the day cause no real harm. However, the belief that our Ministers or their staff will never be the target of something more sinister is naive in the extreme.
And it was that sad realisation that prompted me during that briefing to argue for a larger budget that would allow for the construction of a secure tunnel linking Parliament House, Dumas House and the Premier’s office (the green line). Needless to say, the double-edged sword of public opinion – that force that ensures government decisions are moderate but increasingly disables sound, long-term planning was wielded. My idea was cut down on the basis that we couldn’t spend any more on this project without losing significant public acceptance.
And they were right. The costs of this project have become a matter of significant public disquiet.
But for me, it’s not disquiet that disappoints me about our modern political process - it is the growing tendency for our leaders to follow.
Please note: the image is from Google Earth and I have not identified any landmark or feature that isn’t already publicly identified. I also took care to not give details of the current day, time or location of Cabinet meetings. This post is intended to discuss the problems associated with cutting costs to appease the public and will hopefully prompt a re-think about the tunnel idea.
Monday, April 16, 2012
Hamish, Hilary and Mark do it… but Col’s crew is still not connected
My 40-something year old sister is in Phuket with her family at the moment (I wouldn’t usually disclose a lady’s age like that, but it’s important to the message). They arrived at their coastal resort a day before last week’s undersea earthquake off Sumatra. As we know, that event triggered a tsunami warning for the whole Indian Ocean area but fortunately didn’t cause any damaging waves.
Anyway, the relevance of this is that after unsuccessfully trying to telephone them on both their mobile phones and hotel landline for 6 hours, my first communication with my sister was when she sent a Facebook message. It consisted of only a few words to let us know that “everything is ok” – but the accompanying grainy picture showing hundreds of people huddling together on the edge of a dark hillside, was worth a thousand more.
The point is, for many everyday Australians speaking to a friend or relative is now a lot less common than sending a Facebook message, SMSing or Tweeting them - regardless of where they are at the time. Social networking applications provide a fast, relatively unobtrusive method of providing or retrieving information from one or many people simultaneously – and that makes it very powerful.
Indeed the winner of last night’s Golden Logie award, radio comedian Hamish Blake, is reported to have won the prize ahead of two of Australia’s most visible daily television personalities only due to a strategic social networking campaign.
You might ask why these two facts relate to the world of a political commentator - easy;
US President Barack Obama often personally uses Twitter to make a political point, Federal Liberal Leader Tony Abbott takes questions without notice via social media whenever he has a free 15 minutes and many members of the Western Australian opposition are gaining both confidence and skill in using the propinquity offered by social media to score political points and build positive relationships with their stakeholders – including the growing number of journalists who spend much of their day sharing their insights via their mobile phones, oops devices.
And yet, computers and mobile phones issued to Ministers and their staff are to this day fitted standard with filters that block access to all social media applications. Consequently, other than a couple of eager backbench members who have been instructed to limit their use, there is only one Government member using social media regularly – and this Minister’s messages are far from strategic, providing much greater insight to the man than any policies or plans of his government.
This obvious lack of enthusiasm (or perhaps even understanding) for social media within the government will be a distinct disadvantage to the government between now and the March 2013 election – not only because Mark McGowan’s opposition will be speaking to a growing number of voters only accessible through this medium, but also because those voters are likely to be speaking exclusively back.
* Previous blog posts mention this issue, but after a Radio personality surprised everyone by winning TV’s biggest award last night, I thought I’d dedicate a post to it.
Anyway, the relevance of this is that after unsuccessfully trying to telephone them on both their mobile phones and hotel landline for 6 hours, my first communication with my sister was when she sent a Facebook message. It consisted of only a few words to let us know that “everything is ok” – but the accompanying grainy picture showing hundreds of people huddling together on the edge of a dark hillside, was worth a thousand more.
The point is, for many everyday Australians speaking to a friend or relative is now a lot less common than sending a Facebook message, SMSing or Tweeting them - regardless of where they are at the time. Social networking applications provide a fast, relatively unobtrusive method of providing or retrieving information from one or many people simultaneously – and that makes it very powerful.
Indeed the winner of last night’s Golden Logie award, radio comedian Hamish Blake, is reported to have won the prize ahead of two of Australia’s most visible daily television personalities only due to a strategic social networking campaign.
You might ask why these two facts relate to the world of a political commentator - easy;
- It’s not just young people using social media as their primary communication and information source (my sister is 40-something), and
- The Logies are decided by a popular vote – just like our governments.
US President Barack Obama often personally uses Twitter to make a political point, Federal Liberal Leader Tony Abbott takes questions without notice via social media whenever he has a free 15 minutes and many members of the Western Australian opposition are gaining both confidence and skill in using the propinquity offered by social media to score political points and build positive relationships with their stakeholders – including the growing number of journalists who spend much of their day sharing their insights via their mobile phones, oops devices.
And yet, computers and mobile phones issued to Ministers and their staff are to this day fitted standard with filters that block access to all social media applications. Consequently, other than a couple of eager backbench members who have been instructed to limit their use, there is only one Government member using social media regularly – and this Minister’s messages are far from strategic, providing much greater insight to the man than any policies or plans of his government.
This obvious lack of enthusiasm (or perhaps even understanding) for social media within the government will be a distinct disadvantage to the government between now and the March 2013 election – not only because Mark McGowan’s opposition will be speaking to a growing number of voters only accessible through this medium, but also because those voters are likely to be speaking exclusively back.
* Previous blog posts mention this issue, but after a Radio personality surprised everyone by winning TV’s biggest award last night, I thought I’d dedicate a post to it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)