Influencing the influencers

Communicating the global financial crisis; a case study in bad language

Jacquelynne Willcox — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 03:24:00 GMT

The failure of the Bush finance rescue plan is a case study in poor communication and public affairs management. Also, in counting. Looks like no-one got the Congress vote numbers right. Who is managing the issue at the White House, or anywhere for that matter?

Firstly language. The communicators haven’t clearly outlined who their audiences are, and then crafted the language to appeal to them. At the moment it sounds like language designed for alienation all round. Those demonstrating on the streets in Washington and New York have made it very clear that the idea of ‘bailing out’ Wall Street’s high flying greed merchants is untenable. Their posters and slogans are clear and concise; this is about greed and punishing gamblers. Somewhere lurking behind those vox pops and posters is the sniff of voters suspicious that the wool has been pulled over their eyes for too long. They seem to be rejoicing that now is their day of reckoning with those smarty pants bankers and others who allowed the situation to get this bad in the first place – the legislators.

From the beginning of this crisis nobody in the front line of the issue seems to have used language that counters that natural urge for punitive measures and embraces all of us by making it our own issue. We haven’t been convinced that the proposed solution has been carefully crafted to resolve or at least lesson all our suffering and ensure better control. It is such a failure of message crafting that their own party members of Congress have not been convinced that this type of spending is good for the nation. No wonder the taxpayers of the US, who will reportedly be shelling out $5000 each for the deal, haven’t bought it either.

That the issue has been allowed for so long to be termed a Wall Street problem is at the heart of the problem. It has limited the cause of the crisis to a narrow street in New York that symbolizes all that is good and bad about capitalism. These are the guys we all want to see suffer, not revive to come back and do it all again.

And what about the deliverers of the message; President Bush and Treasury Secretary Poulson? Notwithstanding polls that have the President low on management ability (and even credibility) and media who note that Mr Poulson is from the dark side (that is to say, a veteran banker), they just don’t cut it communicating complex ideas in this emotional environment. (After all, Bush hasn’t done at all well convincing Americans and the rest of the world that a war on terror and all that is evil to free thinkers is such a good idea. How on earth are we to expect he can communicate the message that spending government money on worthless loans that might never come good is the answer?)

Then there is timing. This is an election year in the US, and nervous campaigners are listening to the mum and dad voters – the one’s marching in the streets and shouting slogans about punishing greed. They know this is about the only time in their four year election cycles when they can actually make a difference. Surely the public affairs professionals in the White House sat down and worked out a list of those most vulnerable to these constituents, and then lobbied them and locked in the votes? Apparently not. And it is not just about those who listen to the calls for punishing the greed merchants. Don’t forget the special interest politicians, those who worry that such an intervention in the so called ‘free hand of the market’ is the death of capitalism and all that has made America great. I think it was Karl Marx who said that capitalism was all about privatizing profits and nationalizing debt.

Sure, it’s a complex message, but it didn’t have to be so hard.

Don't laugh, this is serious: Politics Aussie style

Jacquelynne Willcox — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 02:30:00 GMT

Australia’s largest and let’s face it, most interesting political state, New South Wales, will now have four by-elections next month. The bet is that the Labor Government’s machine-men are busy tying other likely jumpers to their seats, for fear that losing too many seats in the traditional protest vote evident at by-elections (and also writ large at this weekend’s local government elections) could easily mean the once healthy margin the government enjoyed could be slashed to make it a minority government. Three of the by-elections were caused by the Labor Government’s sitting members (one Premier and two ministers) pulling up stumps after years of appalling management that has seen the normally calm Aussie voter enraged by almost daily scandals and incompetence at the most senior levels of government. This weekend's dummy spit by deeply unpopular former golden girl of the right wing faction, Reba Meagher, when she announced her resignation to the media rather than the Premier, could mean a backlash in her formerly safe seat in Sydney’s outer west. I say formerly, because Reba has managed to dwindle the sizeable margin down at progressive elections. They haven’t liked her for a long time. And even her closest friends would have to admit there are plenty of reasons for the voters to be cross with her. These would have to include a poor performance in her health portfolio, choosing to live in a more swanky beach-side suburb more than an hour’s drive from her demanding and needy electorate, and her colourful personal life taking up tabloid front pages.

The former Premier’s – he resigned after his own faction dumped him after he tried to sack a few of them, including Reba - seat of Lakemba would in more sober times be considered safe Labor with a margin of 34 per cent. However, anything is possible in these times. This government has been imploding in ways once only considered possible by fiction writers. And perhaps Nero. The highlight for those keen on the politically absurd was the resignation of the nascent police minister just days into his job. Why? He admitted to dancing in his brief undies at a loud ‘techno music’ party he held in his parliament house offices some months ago. There were also suggestions that the dance included a simulated sex act with accompanying naughty words on a female parliamentary colleague. She lost her job too, though the new Premier says for other reasons. Both the sacked minister and the lady deny the simulated sex act charge, by the way. In the words of Christine Keeler – who you might recall held centre stage in a more serious political sex scandal decades ago – ‘They would say that, wouldn’t they?’

All the NSW government needs to complete the image we have of it is for someone to marry their horse, or at least give it a ministry.

Onto more sober, but no less interesting, political intrigue in the nation's wealthiest mineral state, Western Australia. After weeks of uncertainty a coalition government of the conservative Liberal Party and rural-based Nationals will be sworn in on Tuesday. The new Premier, who was recruited as leader of the Party a day before the election was called, has already announced his new ministry. Miners will be thrilled that the first task of this government will be to cut the backlog of requests for exploration leases. Uranium miners can also expect to get the go ahead for their projects soon, after years of being on hold due to the previous government’s ban on all things nuclear-related. Adding to the frisson of excitement should be that the Premier, who will also champion state development, will be covering off mining with his Minister, ensuring some pretty heavy hands on this lucrative sector. Those of us who like a bit of scandal can expect to not be disappointed. The new Premier has promoted the man he replaced as leader to a number of key portfolios, including Treasurer. For those of you not acquainted with the Troy Buswell story, you might get some idea of the person by knowing his widely-used nickname. Chair sniffer.

Green light for WA Uranium mining?

Jacquelynne Willcox — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 00:43:00 GMT

The new WA Government alliance between pro uranium mining Liberals and Nationals, means the end of the anti mining status quo as declared by recently ousted Labor Premier, Alan Carpenter and his divided team. I recall when the Australian Labor Party’s long-standing ban on new uranium mines was dropped at last year’s national ALP conference after a vote won by the slimmest of margins. Even so, WA – lead by just defeated Premier Alan Carpenter - declared it would still keep its policy preventing new mines. At the time, one of the Left faction’s leaders, Martin Ferguson declared he voted for uranium mining because he was "sick to death of being in Opposition.” Carpenter should have listened very carefully. Ferguson is now the Federal Minister for Resources handing out mining export licenses. Carpenter is a political dead duck, having resigned as leader of his defeated and demoralised party. And while the anti uranium Greens increased their share of vote at WA’s recent election and have a sizeable number in the Upper House, it does not look enough to block any mining moves. Perhaps with this in mind, the Nationals cited the Upper House Greens as the main reason they chose not to go with Labor in forming a governing alliance. Negotiating with the Greens was just too much of an anathema to the Nationals.

Uranium became a divisive issue during the campaign, with Mr Carpenter taking the risky option of promising to legislate his ban on mining and making it L-A-W. This was despite divisions clearly apparent within Mr Carpenter’s election team. The powerful Australian Workers Union (AWU) (which also fielded a Labor candidate at the state election, Tim Daly) publicly split from Mr Carpenter and backed uranium mining and a debate on nuclear energy. The AWU (which is affiliated with the ALP) is Australia’s largest blue-collar union and is strongly behind a national push for a rethink on nuclear energy. Mr Daly said WA should not be left out of the debate.

Daly was echoing views put by the AWU’s national leader, Paul Howes in a joint presentation with former Labor Premier of New South Wales, Bob Carr at the recent Australian-American Leadership Dialogue in Washington. Both men called for Australia and the Rudd Government to embrace a nuclear power industry. (``If we are going to be a green Labor Government, then we have to look at nuclear''.)

The federal Minister for Resources and Energy, Martin Ferguson says it is only a matter of time before mining developments occur in states which have large uranium deposits. And it is he who issues the export licenses for any mineral, including uranium.

"Queensland and Western Australia, at a point, will fall into line," Mr Ferguson fortuitously predicted. "The uranium industry will open up”.

Mr Ferguson made these comments recently at a meeting of the Uranium Industry Framework, a hand-picked advisory group appointed by the previous Australian government. He said that uranium mining has a bright future that would lead to increased export earnings for Australia, and jobs. Mr Ferguson is viewed by the industry to be very sensible and pro uranium. Significantly his adviser, Neal Roberts, is a former WA government political staffer with extensive experience in mining policy and strong links with the mining industry. It is worth noting that a recent WA member of the federal parliament, Gary Gray, is a former national leader of the Party who left the Secretariat to work for Woodside Petroleum in external affairs. Though a relatively new member of parliament, Mr Gray was appointed Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure – Northern and Regional Australia (taking in the mineral rich Pilbara region).

Can NSW Labor pull it off? I was asked today.

Jacquelynne Willcox — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 07:18:00 GMT

A wise political head from New South Wales’ Labor government asked me a very good question over a pot of tea today; “Can we make up for all the mess we've made in the two-and-a-bit-years we have before the next election?”

It was wise of him to ask someone like me. That is, outside of the inner circle. Most people in the engine room of politics tend to ask each other that question rather than those who have more conversations with real people. (That would be me on this day. ) So, I said I didn’t think so. Why? Because it is hard for any so-called new regime to convince the electorate they are a ‘new broom’, when they keep some of the most loathed members of the old team in their leadership group.

New Premier, Nathan Rees, a member of the Left faction and a former garbo with an honours degree in literature who actually reads poetry AND watches football, started out on Friday looking fresh. He’d just been made Premier even though he had been in parliament for 18 months, and even more surprisingly had the numbers from his opposing faction (the powerful right wing). That’s how desperate things are in NSW Labor. The Right, let me assure you, never give up power. And it is unheard of to give it to the Left.

Over the weekend Premier Rees kept us thinking he might be just the tonic when it trickled out that key bad performers in the Government - who have survived through seemingly never wilting factional protection - had had their day. He was chucking them. NSW silently roared its approval and Nathan looked set to be our new darling rubbish remover. He was the garbo who knew trash when he saw it, and like most normal people, he threw it out.

But today, I could hear the old groans of disappointment from all over this large state, used to its share of disappointing political leaders. Nathan had kept much of the old pack. No! Yes! They’d survived without any obvious good reason other than they might create too much mischief on the back bench if they weren’t kept busy. So, that’s why I told my wise friend that his lot were doomed, despite Nice Nathan.

Just to back up my thoughts I pointed to this weekend’s WA election. While the Labor government there appeared marginally less incompetent than NSW’s, its Liberal Opposition was a shocker. Lead by an offensive buffoon caricatured as a sexist they were going no where. Even their own side gave them a less than no chance of winning any election. In desperation the Party dumped their unelectable leader at the eleventh hour and recruited a replacement from the departure lounge. They had no one else. Though he’d already announced his retirement and was packing his fishing gear, Colin Barnett was better than anyone else on their side. Even so, the nascent leader campaigned on motherhood statements absent of any thought-out policies (there was no time, one of his closest allies explained today). Yet in just four weeks, much of the electorate thought even he’d be better than the current Premier.

Not a good sign for NSW's Nathan, I’d say.

WA Election; is it really good news for uranium miners?

Jacquelynne Willcox — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 06:40:00 GMT

It is time to bring some cool thinking into the enjoyable frenzy that is the aftermath of the Western Australian election and the consequent hung parliament.

Miners, for example, could be lead up the garden path by some commentators who boldly claim that the WA Liberal Party will be able to scramble together the seats to form some sort of conservative coalition government and give the green light (pun intended) to uranium mining. Hang on! Don’t start digging just yet. The newly powerful king maker that is the WA National Party – with four seats in the lower house and a suspected three in the upper house – lead by a charismatic young wheat farmer with a very engaging manner, including a cute lisp that sets him apart from roughie-rural types – is not a safe bet for some sort of 'natural' alliance with the Liberals.

The argument goes that it is a natural marriage simply because they are both Labor foes. I am not so sure. Firstly, on election night the Nationals Leader said they weren’t interested in coalition. Wisely, these Nationals have decided to be different to their federal counterparts and other state bodies and go it alone as credible cross benchers. That is probably why they were so successful. Secondly, the old adage about being mates because you hate the same people doesn’t work in this new electoral environment. The electorate and emerging power blocks, like the WA National Party, are too sophisticated for that sort of lame thinking.

The word from over the west is that talks between Labor and the Nationals are going surprisingly well. WA looks to have wisely picked up some advice from their brothers in South Australia on how to do deals with Nationals (SA Labor has had one in their ministry for sometime now). The WA Labor Leader even called the prospect of working with the Nationals ‘exciting’. (Not that he needs much more excitement. The chatter is that he could be knifed soon in revenge for this disastrous election.)

Another neat surprise is that it looks like the count is trending back to Labor. Not enough for outright government, but enough (so says WA Labor’s most senior identity, Foreign Affairs minister Stephen Smith) for a minority government with support from the Independents. (What fun it will be for political junkies to watch that little arrangement, given that they are ‘independents’ because they received the rough end of the pineapple from Labor only weeks before the election was called).

Let’s assume Labor does a deal with the Nationals. Will it really mean a go ahead for uranium mining - as some of my clients have asked? Not sure. Labor has marginally more seats than the Liberals, thanks to Green preferences (surprising winners along side the Nationals in this election). This should mean that Labor owes them its promise to keep banning uranium mining. How Labor might work with the ‘mine-the-lot Nationals’ and the ‘over-your-dead-body Greens’ has me on the edge of my perch.

Emissions Trading Scheme; not just hot air

Jacquelynne Willcox — Thu, 22 May 2008 22:35:00 GMT

My friend Matthew Warren makes a valid point in today’s Australian newspaper (and in his blog ) about the complexity of Australia's Climate Change policy and the Government’s proposed national emissions trading scheme. As Matthew intimates, this is not going to be a popularity contest winner. There will be big losers, the problem is that the jury is out on whether the earth will be a winner.

Yesterday at an intimate post-budget luncheon, Treasurer Wayne Swan assured a small collection of business people that his next six months would be focused on two key government policy initiatives; getting the emissions scheme right and the taxation review. That warmed the hearts of one extremely vocal key player at my table, who seemed pleased that what he considered a more sober Government mind was now looking at the proposal.

Which is just as well. As The Australian newspaper reports extensively, the Productivity Commission has responded to the Garnaut Report by questioning the need for an emission limit and also flagging that electricity prices and therefore other costs will surely rise – with little effect on greenhouse gases. (By the way, the Productivity Commission is now in the middle of an inquiry into paid parental leave. We will all be tuned into the release of that report.)

And what of petrol? Headlines in today's SMH newspaper shout that the end is nigh for our commuting way of life. We simply can't hack these petrol prices and the distances we must travel simply to get from home to work and back. The flow-on (excuse the pun) effect will be disastrous for transport and town planners. Workers will move to inner cities with no parking, or to cheaper outer suburbs with no public transport. Whatever they choose, roads will be clogged and emissions will pour into the atomosphere. So, will Petrol be included in the emissions trading scheme? We’re not sure. The Productivity Commission report recommends transport fuels be included in any scheme. Some ministers have said maybe, others say no. If there is a tax on petrol, will the already angry motorists and truckies turn on their new government? And what about those Rudd ‘Working Family’ voters in the spreading outer city suburbs? As my chum Matthew Warren says, they are doing a lot of commuting and feeling the pain of current prices. Can they sustain any more?

There are signs the government is starting to look a little concerned about some of the recent pronouncements. In this budget selling period between parliamentary sitting weeks, key Ministers are quietly repeating in gatherings all over the country that the good Professor Garnaut may wear the label ‘Chief Climate Change adviser’, but he will not be their only adviser. They say they are listening to all the different views bubbling around board rooms at the moment. The Productivity Commission’s response to Garnaut is the first serious discussion that brings a sober approach to this problem. Feel free to add yours to the Treasurer, Minister for Climate Change, and the PM.

Keeping on message and getting results

Jacquelynne Willcox — Wed, 21 May 2008 00:16:00 GMT

In the traditions of keeping informed about our industry, my hot shot team attended a breakfast with a presentation by one of our competitors. She was supplying hints for dealing with the now six-month old ‘new’ Australian government. It was a neat presentation with a confident speaker. What was reassuring is that my young crew were rather thrilled that there was nothing new for them in the information. “And she is a director,” the said, indicating they were pretty chuffed they knew as much.

Well, they do. I am proud to boast that. They get real results.

What the presenter was telling the breakfast crowd was that advocating your client’s story to the government – or any audience, really - is all about staying on message and being creative in the process. We don’t mean bells and whistles, creative. We mean thinking innovatively about resolving complex, weighty and often expensive issues that are always enmeshed in intricate regulation and politics. (The politics of behaviour as well as party politics, that is.)

My team were feeling particularly emboldened this morning. As well they should. Yesterday we were successful in what looked a week ago to be achieving the impossible for a client; getting his product back on the shelf. The team had stayed on message, and been extremely creative covering all bases in order to get the message across.

I won’t go into detail for obvious reasons of confidentiality. However, when I tell you that the client – a tough and experienced businessman who has spent his life in the manufacturing business – was in tears at the result, you will understand what a boost we get in being able to do our bit for real problems. These are bread and butter problems, the problems that stop factories from running, make paying mortgages difficult and keep people awake all night worrying about survival.

Our client is an emotional man. He is a decent person who in the past few months has continually reminded me of the effect this issue has had on his staff and wholesalers. He genuinely feels for them. It can be draining to hear their stories, as well it should. The stakes are high. They are real personal stories of workers who are part of my client’s ‘family’. I haven’t met them but I know the names of staff who have serious illnesses, some are recovering from cancer treatment, others have childcare issues. I know this because my client speaks of them passionately during our strategy updates. As the speaker this morning would remind us, he kept on message. It wasn’t a ploy or a strategy developed for him by my hot team. It is what matters most to him, and in turn, to us. I don’t think it made my team work harder for this client, they do that anyway. And I would be concerned if we professionals became too emotional, for risk that our judgment and advice became clouded. What it did though, was keep the endgame in sight a little more vividly. We knew what his central issue was. He didn't want scalps and he didn't want to go down the legal path, all of which might well have been open to him. He wanted to keep his workers in their jobs and get his product back in supermarkets. And that was why he looked a mess when he turned up to my office for a bit of a chat before our meeting with the government yesterday; he hadn't slept a moment.

He shed tears in the meeting with senior government bureaucrats and ministerial advisers as he told his story. He talked gently of the frustrations involved and I watched as hardened critters who turn the wheels of government listened to these genuine stories. I can tell you that they were moved much more than they had been during my chats with them. I don’t think it influenced their decision, but it certainly brought home to them the reality of the judgments they make.

Dysfunction is all part of Opposition

Jacquelynne Willcox — Tue, 20 May 2008 03:36:00 GMT

My friend Malcolm Colless who writes a political column for the national daily, ‘The Australian’ had some wise words today for Australia’s federal Liberal Party, now performing badly as the new Opposition. Sadly for that side of politics, most of their state-based party colleagues (in opposition everywhere in Australia) look to be in similar dire straits.

In our largest and most populated state, NSW, where the Labor government must be thanking Gods everywhere that they have fixed terms and are not facing an election for three years (even some of their most loyal troops are muttering words like 'unelectable'), the Liberal Opposition can’t land a punch. No, the NSW Labor Government, like the federal Opposition, is doing it to themselves. If it wasn't for a loose coalition of media and the Greens, there would be no obvious Opposition in the NSW parliament.

But back to the federal Libs. In the long tradition of nascent Oppositions still unsure of their role after more than a decade running the country, key members appear to be busy bashing each other while leaving the new Rudd Labor government to bask in the best approval ratings any outfit has received in more than 30 years.

No doubt Prime Minister Rudd is busy calming his excitable troops at the moment. He has been keen to keep a firm hand on just about every ministry in the shop. Staffers, even experienced ones poached from the state governments, are feeling a little hamstrung as the PM’s office effectively runs the show. Burn-out is bound to get to a few before long. It is now legendary – and far from apocryphal – that the PM is Thatcher-like in the number of hours sleep he needs to keep on top of things. Most of us, including senior public servants are more human. This pace is taking a toll with grumbles, snaps, and a sense of exhaustion already obvious.

A former GP, the Leader of the Opposition, Dr Nelson might be able to prescribe some sort of antidote to match the Government’s pace, but he really needs to calm his own team down. It’s hard when a number of experienced players are exhibiting real signs of depression and ‘relevance deprivation disorder’ common to a former ministers I have met over the years. No-one will feel sorry for them, save for a few of us political junkies, but life after being so influential is very tough. No wonder they appear to be dysfunctional, they really are.

Ministers can tell stories

Jacquelynne Willcox — Thu, 08 May 2008 01:47:00 GMT

At a business breakfast in Sydney this morning we were treated to not one but two New South Wales Government Ministers; Ageing and Disability Services (Kristina Keneally) and Health (Reba Meagher) giving us their view of their very troubled worlds. Not the most exciting moments in a brisk Thursday morning in Sydney, you might think. What was surprising was how good both these young ministers were. Minister Meagher has had some very bad press ever since she took over the health portfolio about a year ago. The headlines have screamed every nightmare scenario; dead babies, mothers' enduring miss-carriages in hospital lavatories, hospitals built on faulty plans, cockroaches in operating theatres. The most troubling is that most of them are true.

I have not been a huge fan of Ms Meagher's media performances as she has tried to defend the indefensible. We have some mutual friends who mostly tell me she is a hard worker who is misunderstood because, they posit, she is young, attractive, successful. Most of us are, of course. However she is a shocker on the telly, and not much better on radio. The poor woman - always well groomed (which often goes against her, I must say) - freezes. Her eyes widen, mouth purses and she looks scared to death. Her voice becomes strained, a real give away as to how tight her throat and chest muscles have become. And so we don't hear her enough to work out if we believe her. In fact, we often wonder if she believes it herself. What a damn shame. This morning she was the second speaker after a very good performance by her junior, Ms Keneally. Now there was some story-telling in action. Ageing and Disability Services are not the best areas to get an audience enthused early in the morning. I am not saying we were all jollied along, but those of us in the communication business listened, seduced you might say by her ability to craft a story. Simply, she personalised the issue and told us about a woman called Allegra who has cerebral palsy and lives in rural Australia. The story kept coming back to Allegra and how things can change for her despite some pretty rough cards being dealt her. It was policy in action, if you like. There were other little stories along the way that gave us the picture of what the government is trying to achieve. All without the obvious use of notes, by the way.

Hmm, I thought, poor Reba, having to follow that!

Well, she was much better than I expected. She didn't use notes, told a few jokes - even against herself - and I for one, warmed to her. I kept thinking that her staff must wish she can do the same in front of a television camera. "Reba is not with out a brain," a mate told me. "She just hasn't had a real job." Cynics like my mate might say that has she has been making speeches half her life and so should be getting better at it. Ms Meagher was once the youngest member of parliament, after a stint working for a trade union which is a pretty traditional apprenticeship for a Labor politician in Australia. That’s another reason why she is so misunderstood; not a lot of real runs on the board.

So, memo to minders; get the Minister some decent media training which might include breathing techniques on how to cope when the body doesn't listen to the brain and goes into panic.

In the thick of Aussie Political Mayhem

Jacquelynne Willcox — Tue, 06 May 2008 06:01:00 GMT

The NSW Labor Party held its conference at the weekend and I was there as a business observer. What was striking at these always well run events (they don’t call the ALP head office ‘the machine’ for nothing) is how few business observers turned up this year. Perhaps it was due to the local media campaigns linking large business groups (mostly property developers and the gang known as ‘pubs and clubs’ ) hefty donations to the ALP and political decisions made in their favour. Or maybe some business people have given up trying to talk to this government?

Those of us attempting serious discussions with ministers and their minders (there was a sprinkling of the brand new federal ministers available for us to talk to as well) could not be unaware of the political intrigue on the conference floor and just about every nook and cranny in the enormous Sydney Convention Centre. One poor business colleague had about three goes at talking to a key NSW minister, but was continually interrupted by the politician’s more pressing matters; doing the numbers.

It was all about the Premier’s plans to sell-off the State's electricity assets, much as his colleagues in a number of other Australian states have already achieved. We all know that he lost that debate by more than 600 votes, but has vowed to do it anyway and defy his Party’s policy. That’s a great showdown for us political junkies. History buffs are also getting into it and diving back into the archives for the last time an ALP leader defied his party.

The problem for the ALP is that not all business observers fall into the junkie category. Most were appalled at scenes usually reserved for pub fights or Rugby League games. The mainstream media has reported it well, with photographs of the unfortunate-looking Treasurer appearing quite mad. Well, he was angry. But the rich colour that is democracy at work troubled some of my business colleagues. Indeed, some were clearly bewildered by it all such that it might make the Machine wonder whether it is really is a good strategy to let their dirty linen be so publicly washed.

Planning minister appears to survive allegations of influence peddling

Jacquelynne Willcox — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 07:08:00 GMT

Chances are that when Australians want to make a fortune, they pick the bold city of Sydney as the place to do it. They’ve been doing it since 1788, when just under 800 British convicts landed at Botany Bay – now a suburb of Sydney – and went on to make the east coast of Australia the country’s most populated region. Despite the down turn in the property market world-wide, real estate remains a popular way to make one’s fortune. Which is why the job of planning minister is considered one of the most difficult and also the most powerful positions in the NSW government.

With the ability to shape the way the state grows and develops, the position of planning minister brings with it allegations of being unduly influenced from the plethora of interest groups that populate the lobbies of parliament house and council chambers. If any position should attract a vocal and curious opposition, it is this one. Developers, green groups, heritage societies, property investment houses and general home owners all want to be heard and have their own ways of achieving that. As in most things in life, some do it better than others.

The current Planning Minister, Frank Sartor, is weathering some heated questions that attempt to link very large donations from property developers to his party, the Australian Labor Party, and planning decisions. Clearly one’s political persuasion will influence perceptions of how well he has coped under fire. He remains the Minister and has the support of his Premier who gave him the job in the first place. Mr Sartor’s supporters and foes know that he is not a novice in handling pressure. I worked with him briefly when he was Lord Mayor of Sydney and watched as he survived unscathed from some serious attempts to rattle him. He did it so well that he was lured from that independent position to take up a coveted parliamentary seat with the Labor government. Once there he was moved quickly into a ministry further infuriating his detractors.

While the main party of opposition in NSW the Liberal Party, makes quiet noises every time a newspaper article tries to draw a link between influence, decisions and party donations - they seem a bit meek. The real NSW Opposition is the Green party. There are not many of them - just three in the NSW parliament. But they are getting the headlines and probably taking up more of Mr Sartor's time than any questions the Liberals might have for him.