Influencing the Influencers

Australia’s loyal Opposition has had most of the nation riveted for the past week as we watch, car crash like, the political brawling and treachery that even long-standing observers and players have called ‘unprecedented’.

Part of the lack of precedence has come from the use of new technology.  On air television commentators have been reading text messages and twitter posts from those Party members who leaked in ‘real time’ during internal, and supposedly, confidential meetings.  We were able to get rolling commentary from within, as though we were sitting amongst it all and watching the brawling and name calling in close up.  This has made it all the more compelling in a period when we have moaned that not much separates Australia’s two leading political parties who at times appear to have echoed each other in love calls to the conservative heartlands of this wide brown land.  Our PM, Kevin Rudd has even given some of Labor’s so-called enemy – Liberal Party stalwarts – very swish jobs including a diplomatic posting to a former Liberal leader.  So while we might think not much separates Labor and Liberal, this week has shown us that a lot separates the Liberal Party.  Within its own ranks, that is.

The final vote for the Liberal Party leadership was right down the middle with conservative Tony Abbott winning by one vote; presumably his own.  It is hardly convincing, but it is a win and he’s running with it.  It means of course further unrest as the losing side questions the legitimacy of the win and the Party’s future policy shift to the right. 

My moment of excitement in the victory press conference was not from Tony Abbott (though he is very exciting),  but from his loyal deputy, Julie Bishop (who is usually not so).  Ms Bishop, as one journalist observed, has now been deputy to three leaders.  So, how does she do it? he asked.  Tony put his arms around her shoulders and said something borderline patronising about her being a good girl.  Julie pursed her lips, and in her best Adelaide accent (I am from Adelaide and have been working on losing mine for the past decade) that unlike previous deputies, she saw her role as being loyal and supportive to whoever lead the party.  It was not to pursue personal ambition as others have, she added.  We presume she meant Peter Costello, who was deputy to former Liberal Prime Minister, John Howard.  Mr Costello spent years trying to convince his party to abandon Mr Howard and bestow the leadership on himself.  When they didn’t, he took his bat and ball and went back to Melbourne, leaving the Party leaderless. Or so they thought.  They’ve had three in two years, so perhaps he didn’t.

Only in Australia  can an acting Prime Minister give a speech to praise a state Premier and calmly say he has ‘worked his guts out’ for the people he governs. 

At an extraordinary Labor Party conference in Sydney this weekend, Australia’s darling and favourite acting Prime Minister ever,  the Welsh-born Julia Gillard, said it all when she supported and praised the NSW Premier, (a former garbage collector and greenkeeper with a degree in Literature) in her speech to the conference yesterday.   On Saturday, Premier Nathan Rees – who has endured 14 months of ridicule as a bit of a lame-duck with a knack for the vernacular - took the powerful conference delegates by their collective throat and demanded extraordinary powers to choose his own ministry (rather than have factional leaders tell him who he has to have).   He got what he wanted and created Labor history.  It was followed with stunned applause inside and outside the conference hall.

Within hours two ministers once considered unassailable were mere back benchers.   I’d watched them both that morning in the Business Observers centre displaying their cocksure bonhomie.  The normally tuned in duo clearly had no clue what was about to unfold.   The rest of us were glued to the action that followed the Premier’s speech, as ministers clearly stunned by the audacity of their youthful leader wandered about in a daze and checked their Blackberries to ensure they still had a job.

The Premier did it all with great style – testament to the mastery of his chief of staff, Graeme Wedderburn (who does work his guts out).   The speech began as the typical leader’s speech to the political wing of his government – the rank and file members of the ALP.   About two paragraphs in, after laudable announcements regarding Indigineous literacy,  employment, and transport links, he dropped the first big change; banning donations from developers to the Party funds.  That sent a loud murmur of incredulity amongst my fellow business observers.  Then a little later came the biggest announcement – all neatly and elegantly woven around the terms, ‘trust’, ‘integrity’ and adding the ghastly term ‘cleansed’.  ‘Cleansed’ is a word I loathe when it is used to describe filthy acts of murder in places like Kosovo and Sudan.  Now the Premier was demanding the right to ‘clean’ his ministry.  That said it all for me.  I quite liked it.

And so the afternoon of long knives set in.

We took up ours, literally.  At lunch with the Premier immediately after his speech there was  a palpably different  tone to the many I have sat through recently.  At those luncheons it was clear the business community wanted to be polite and afford the likeable young man from Sydney’s western suburbs some respect.  Quietly they’d mutter over their bread rolls that he hasn’t a chance and can’t rule some of the powerful factional leaders who exert real influence over the government.  This time there was no muttering.  Just applause and nodding.  This guy has guts, we said.  I told him that personally (yes, I used the ‘g’ word).  He nodded and said, ‘It had to be done.’

The next day the conference was anything but lethargic.  Word had got around, that this was the best show in town.  The Business Observer Centre was buzzing.  The PM, who had not been shy about distancing himself from Mr Rees, sent a video statement from Singapore (APEC meeting), praising the Premier for his bold decision and offering support.  Then Julia arrived and added to the applause.  The message is now clear, the very popular Federal government likes the new look NSW government now it has chopped off some heads – one from the left and one from the right.

This afternoon some new minister’s were announced to replace those who had been cleansed  – the first lot of ministers to be installed without the meddling of factional leaders.  Guess what?  One comes from the left, and one from the right.  All on merit, of course.

Australia is in a twitter over the revelation that Britney Spears doesn’t actually sing and gyrate at the same ‘real’ time during all the performances of her current tour.  She lip syncs to a fair whack of it. 

Fair Trading Ministers, one of whom in NSW claims to actually know some of Britney’s songs, are even talking about laws to ensure singers do actually sing.  At the same time they are performing.  No time delay.

Sounds fair.  And it should be applied to politicians too.  How many times have we noticed them doing their own version of lip syncing to cheat sheets prepared for them by loyal staffers? (At least it’s Britney’s own voice.) 

No matter what the question, too many over media-trained politicians run their fingers down their ‘speaking notes’ and pick out the answer that most resembles the question.  It rarely works.   Yet they still do it. The old ‘eighties media training dictum of saying what you want to say regardless of the questions is so, well, eighties.  The audience – that’s you and me – have moved on considerably.  We actually listen now.  To the question and the answer, and it jars when they don’t actually relate.  We are so tuned in to news media, our ear is super sensitive to the old ‘tell ‘em what you want’ line.  It grates just as much as Britney’s mouth moving, or not moving, when the song is being sung. 

At least it was Britney’s own voice, sometime.  Time delay is something many of us can handle.  But content miss-match and downright obfuscation is the real rip off.

The recommendation from Australia’s Productivity Commission that online gaming in this country should be made legal is both good and bad news for gaming operators (http://www.pc.gov.au/projects/inquiry/gambling-2009). 

Currently it is illegal for a provider to make available online gambling to players in this country.   Technically that means that the Australian Federal Police should go after any providers who make their games available to Aussies.  The reality is otherwise.   Loads of Australians enjoy an online flutter at poker.  Our most famous cricketer, Shane Warne is one such high profile player.  And they do so with little or no protection should anything go wrong.

The good news is that such a recommendation will mean more regulation for those playing the games, and (hopefully) ensure that those providers who do operate in Australian cyberspace (is that an oxymoron?), are legitimate operators who can be tracked down should there be any disputes.  The negative is that they can be tracked down should there be any disputes.  Also, tax.  Legitimacy brings with it a price – but more likely a windfall for the Aussie tax payer.

Online gambling operators should take the opportunity to respond to the recommendations before the November deadline.  The more savvy should be preparing their case for the government as to what any regulation might look like, including the tax regime.  Expect a load of costs in whatever the arrangement to be allocated to so called ‘harm minimisation’ techniques for problem gamblers.

Another regulatory arena to watch is the proposed internet filter.  This has been a messy piece of work with conflicting reports about what will be included.  At first it was loudly promoted as an online nanny to ensure children are not exposed to hideous porn and the predators that usually swim in that murky pool.  However, there is also  expectation that it will include all prohibited material.  That means online gambling sites as well.  Just how the punters feel about being lumped in the perverts is unknown, but it is a real problem for those outfits gambling on maintaining the status quo.  The safe bet is that the ‘quo’ has moved on.  Prepare to engage sensibly with a government that wants serious proposals as to how any changes to online gambling should work in this country.

Industry associations play an important role in influencing  the economic and political direction of a country.  Some of the leading stars of business and industry groups in Australian like Heather Ridout, Katie Lahey and my old school chum, Peter Anderson really move and shake. (BTW Peter’s nickname was an unkind ‘Pinhead’.  He is proof that the little guy who gets bullied gets them back in the end.  Go Pete).  Members of their organisations get great, effective representation.   But there is a rub for those who rely too much on an industry group advocating  their specific issue. 

My team is increasingly being asked to represent clients with serious regulatory issues (that is, they have a negative business impact) after they have relied on their industry group to do the job.  My sense is that some of these groups have become too big to be able to be  energetic advocates for all their members.  This is particularly so when their members are also competitors.  Some of my clients have found the source of their regulatory and even legal issue with government has come from a complaint by a competitor.  What does the industry group do in this event?  In my experience the representation is extremely muted in an understandable desire by the Association to be fair to all members.  It gets more difficult when some proposed regulation or government activity will actually benefit one company over the other.  In that event, the Association often chooses to remain silent or worse, say they will make representations but do them in a half-hearted way.  The message to companies is to by all means be active members of your industry association, but don’t rely on them to be your vocal advocate.

Businesses in NSW can be forgiven a slight smirk when they hear the
government’s much worn catch cry that Australia’s largest state is ‘open
for business’. Says who? is the chorused reply. Certainly not the economists
who report today that just about everything that could go wrong in NSW has.  The Government was anxious to counter that
this morning crying out that all is being tackled by a motivated team. (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/were-not-in-recession/2009/01/19/1232213493625.html)

Business will have just as much trouble swallowing that line as it does the
government’s favourite ‘open
for business’ slogan. The problem is extremely serious with business
costs increasing rapidly while the State stagnates – or regresses. A lot of the
problem is tied up with nervous and inexperienced Ministers worried about
opinion polls that increasingly determine the mood and behaviour of their leader and his team.  They all fear his next, often threatened reshuffle.
  This leaves fearful Ministers captive to both
overworked, inexperienced bureaucrats trying to do their best and truculent,
power- hungry, fat cats who have held the reins for too long.

Recently I raised with senior government advisers a very serious business
issue that had only got worse under inept, vicious and bloody-minded bureaucrats.  My analysis of the situation was not doubted
(clearly they’d heard it before.)  I was
told the best thing for the business involved to do would be to ‘Sue us!  That way we can go after the stupid idiot who
caused this problem and your client can get a lot of money.’  That
would be tax payers money.  Hardly an edifying response or serious attempt
to resolve an issue crippling a responsible employer in this state.

Not much management is managed while this shambolic, club-footed government
dances to the tunes of daily media that sets NSW’s political and, therefore,
economic, agenda. For more than a week the newspapers have been reporting that
the four-month long premiership of recently-wedded Nathan Rees is on its last
legs. And they moan that he’s a grumpy, grim-faced groom. All sorts of cabals
have been mentioned as having met and plotted to knock him off for either
someone even more shiny-new than him, or a dumped minister with too much time
on his hands. Naturally, those who have been identified as plotters vehemently
deny it. No-one is listening and no-one really knows who is telling the truth.
It doesn’t matter. The media are on a roll and they are going to win this one.
I suspect some are still a little bruised after missing the Rees ascendancy in
the first place. None of them had any idea that former Premier Morris Iemma was
being rolled four months ago until it happened. How embarrassing. And where has
the Opposition been? The media has decided nowhere. And so the Fourth Estate
morphs into Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition.

Certainly the public will be confused, but I get the feeling they just don’t
care. Those of you who might be in the hapless jobs of advising this
government, take note. When you tell me (as you repeatedly do) that the
Opposition is in just as bad shape and their leader is also under threat, it
just doesn’t matter. It should. But life is not like that. In the words of a
former Labor leader, a drovers dog could win the next election against your
lot. Many of the Joes in the street struggling to get to work on clogged roads
or a barely functioning public transport system probably have no idea who
Opposition leader, Barry O’Farrell is. Fewer could name his front bench. But
they sure as heck know that something is very wrong and they have no faith
Labor can fix it.

What can Business do in such an environment?  Ensure you have
identified the handful of serious, hard working advisers buried deeply in this
morass trying to do their best.  They are there, it just takes a while to
find them.  

And then there are the courts. How appalling.

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.

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.

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).

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.