CAAANBRA: WONKSPORT DAY 1

Originally Posted 5th August 2013

Welcome to Day 1 of the semi-regular poliwonk festival known as the Election Campaign. It's a glorious time for fans of political contests, particularly if you disregard the notion that the winner gets to be The Government for the next three years. Block out the consequences of those nasty policies and an election is sport, plain and simple.

As with sport, though, every member of the team must be clear - crystal clear - on the the strategy. Every single member must know their role and responsibility, and be warmed up and ready to play the moment the whistle blows.

The Prime Minister blew the whistle yesterday. It's Game On...And that's enough of the sporting metaphors.

Brian Loughnane, Federal Director of the Liberal Party, has experienced the full gamut of emotion today. Breakfast must've been buoyant with two polls both delivering the Coalition a 52-48 2PP lead. But then Joe Hockey opened his gob and suggested that if the Reserve Bank cuts interest rates tomorrow, it's bad.

"The fact of the matter is, we should not be in a position where interest rates are being cut, because the economy should be growing faster. That's what the government said was going to happen. And they got it wrong. And they keep getting it wrong, because you do not tax your wage prosperity.”

I'm sure that Joe Hockey didn't mean to suggest that Aussie battlers in western Sydney would benefit from higher interest rates, but this is a federal election campaign, and the man who wants to be the next treasurer of Australia simply can't afford to make stupid gaffes like that. 

It got worse when Liberal candidate for Greenway, Jaymes Diaz, flaked in front of Channel Ten's news cameras. It's not his first campaign, but on Day 1, this performance is nothing short of tragedy...and it's not his first campaign.

But - to return to another tortured sports metaphor for a moment - it was the team captain who really stepped up to show his team how to campaign. 

First, he threw some carbon tax figures through the meat grinder he was inspecting at JBS Australia. It was another one of Tony's trademark hi-viz and hard-hat or hair-net appearances, and he announced that his first priority as Prime Minister would be to scrap the Carbon Tax. Apparently the campaign that didn't get him elected last time is stronger the second time around. 

Unfortunately, it slipped his mind that he had opposed a grant that gave the factory $4.4 million dollars, which was saving the company $1.1 million in power costs each year and helping JBS Australia to lower its carbon emissions by up to 81 per cent. Lucky for Mr Abbott, local ALP member Shayne Neumann was there to remind him. Perhaps Mr Abbott didn't want to mention that he opposed a measure because it is proof that the Carbon Tax is working as it was designed to work. 

My personal favourite from Day 1 was news that Mr Abbott had attended an event this evening in Western Sydney, where 500 Muslims were celebrating Eid el-Fitr, the end of Ramadan. Mr Abbott, whose signature slogan "Stop he Boats" refers primarily to boats carrying Muslim asylum seekers, spoke of multicultural Australia as "beacon of hope to a troubled and divided world".

My irony detector was going off like a frog in a sock. 

He continued:

"I am the sworn enemy for anyone who seeks to divide Australian over Australian on issues of class, gender, birth place, race and particularly over faith. I believe that all religious faiths seek to come to grips with the complexity of human condition. We have to respect the specialness of that faith to every person."

Despite the obvious grammatical...aahhh...challenges, it's a surprisingly inclusive sentiment from a man who was almost a Catholic priest. In fact, its downright lefty! Perhaps Mr Abbott meant to that we should be a less beacon-like...?

For now, I invite you to enjoy the cultural, religious and racial diversity of the Liberal Party's first official advertisement of the campaign, which was played at least eleventy-seven times today on Sky News Australia. 

Behold, New Hope.

Family Assistance

What did you learn during the Easter break? If you read the papers, you probably learned that Tony Abbott's daughters love their father, and Tom Waterhouse's mother loves her son. I'd like to thank News Limited for sharing both of these pieces of breaking news with their readership. It's important not to take even the most brain-numbingly obvious relationships for granted.


The whole Tom Waterhouse persecution story simply too silly too pursue. In summary, a grown man with a multi-million dollar business is attracting negative attention because the multi-million business in question is gambling and Mr Waterhouse's profile is ubiquitous. Everyone from Mummy Bloggers to politicians is concerned about the amount of screen time Tom Waterhouse commands as his polished voice gives sports viewers the latest odds on the horses, the footy and anything else that can be wagered upon.

It’s a serious issue which has been creeping into our media during the last few years. A mention of the odds here and there goes almost un-noticed until it starts happening more and more…and suddenly, the insidious incursion of gambling promotion into our family viewing time has a name and a face. It is Tom Waterhouse, with his clean-cut young-man-about-town appeal, his fine cotton shirts and ties and his infamous surname, all bundled together with some brilliantly strong branding - he almost owns the colour teal these days.

Tom is also his own worst enemy. I hate to think what his media budget must be. All of those paid television ads, in combination with neat little deals that see him on screen with the sports commentators, adding his brand of gambling-commentary to the soundtrack. The problem is that the sheer volume of ads and personal appearances on sports telecasts is what has got him noticed. He may have avoided the 'over-exposed' tag had he run a more subtle campaign.

Meanwhile, out here where reality bites hardest, Australians struggle with a gambling culture that rates as one of the worst in the world. We have banned the advertising of cigarettes at sporting events and on television. We have regulated the advertising of liquor. It seems gambling goes untouched. We don’t seem to care about preventing gambling addiction; we just make well-meaning though under-resourced attempts to mop up at the other end. We should be ashamed of ourselves.

And some of us are. Peter FitzSimons, himself a former sports star and now successful author, found the simplest of truths:

…instead of having the tagline of ''I was born to bet,'' it should have been ''I was born to take money off mugs who bet.

Poor young Tom has been copping criticism for months, since his profile during some broadcasts became more memorable than the game or event itself. That's a problem so serious for Tom that his horse-training mother Gai has splashed herself across the front pages, begging readers to stop picking on her darling boy, and promoting her son as a genuine commentator and lover of sports.
No, Mrs Waterhouse. Your son is promoting his business. The family business.

Like so many others, I would've have preferred that those column inches were devoted to covering gambling as the crippling national epidemic that it is. The simple fact that enough of us are disturbed by the Waterhouse gambling factory to have caused Gai to defend her baby boy suggests that gambling in Australia is an issue that warrants front page coverage.

Unsurprisingly, News Limited got the right story from the wrong angle. The only thing to surprise me more is that the online version of the story appears surrounded by TAB ads. In fact, there are no other advertisers on the screen at all.

Which brings us to two of Tony Abbott's daughters who are speaking out on controversial political issues. Bridget and Frances Abbott have confirmed their support for marriage equality, despite their father's unwillingness to deviate from the party line. Those opposed to same sex marriage must be relieved to know that neither one of the Abbott Girls interviewed have been elected, and seem to have no influence over their father.

So why is the Murdoch press splashing this utter non-story? Why does the story exist in the first place?
 
Somehow I doubt that the two Abbott girls approached media to state their positions on same sex marriage, regardless of how hurt they may have been when their father was branded a misogynist last year. It’s far more likely that this lovely little piece of PR was dreamed up by the communications team at Liberal HQ. They seem to like using the women in Mr Abbott's life, including Margie, the three daughters, and Chief of Staff Peta Credlin. And why not? From the outside, if you discount the fact that it's irrelevant, the story looks like a win-win for the Libs

It links the Liberals to a story about support for same sex marriage (even though their position hasn’t changed)

It marks Tony Abbott as a man who is comfortable disagreeing with women while still respecting them

It dilutes the perception that Tony Abbott’s robust Catholicism will dictate his policy decisions on certain issues

It’s certainly not a win-win for Frances and Bridget, who are being used as part of their father’s political campaign. Sure, they may have agreed to it, may have been eager to help their father, yet there are consequences. By allowing themselves to become media figures, they allow themselves to be ‘fair game’. They don’t control the media, and the media will be more than happy to use two attractive girls who just happen to be related to someone important: look what they did to Pippa Middleton.

I honestly can’t remember a time when the family of an Australian politician has had such a media profile as the girls are developing. It could be that they add an attractive, youthful element to the Liberal brand, but I doubt it. There were a handful of shots of Penny Wong and her baby, and a generation ago, Hazel Hawke and Margaret Whitlam had public profiles, but I don’t even remember Mrs Janette Howard making the news over her views on social reform. Surely the opinions of the family of a politician are irrelevant, even if given freely?
 
So responsibility for this story must be shared between News Limited and the Liberal campaign team. Get used to it, Australia. Frankly, I feel sorry for Bridget and Frances. At 21, they don't realise what they're in for.

I have no sympathy for Gai Waterhouse or her son. Both Gai and her son Tom come from privileged stock, and have run into challenges as a result of their career choices. Gai overcame hers by force of will and was eventually granted the trainers licence she had been denied when her husband was implicaated in the Fine Cotton scandal.We're yet to see whether Tom has the strength and determination to see this through.

Personally, I hope he doesn't.

Caaanbra: Failure to Lose

Yesterday, Sky News Australia’s political guru Peter Van Onselen tweeted "No Liberal candidate is allowed to do national media until AFTER they are elected...inspiring stuff when govt traveling so badly." This comes just a couple of months after The Age reported that Liberal candidates had been urged to shut down their social media accounts.


I suspect that it's not just the candidates, but also the sitting Liberal members, and even their leader who is being censored. With just over six months until the Federal Election, what can you say about a campaign strategy that discourages any sniff of communication that hasn't been entirely pasteurised, homogenised and dare I suggest, scripted, approved, rehearsed, spray-tanned and botoxed by the Party Machine. It's an approach that stinks of a lack of trust in the leader, every sitting Liberal member and every Liberal candidate.

Think for a moment. The Liberal Party Campaign does not trust it’s own people to communicate its message...and yet it expects us to vote for them and trust them to run our country? Based on recent polls, we probably will vote for the Coalition in great enough numbers to see them form government, but that’s assuming that t here’s no game changer between now and the election.

So the Liberal plan looks clear enough. Be vewy vewy quiet, let the ALP trip over themselves, stoke the dislike of Julia Gillard in a series of carefully crafted media events, and wait for the country to vote against the ALP. Next Step: claim victory early in the evening of September 14.

It's the inevitable Claytons strategy. After all, how do you plan communications for a political campaign that's short on both policy and personality? Even the Silent Treatment is risky, particularly when it's difficult to keep the team quiet. If the Campaign can't trust the candidates to say the right thing, it's unlikely they can be trusted to say nothing.

Fopr example, it might be difficult to keep Andrew Laming quiet. Despite having been in parliament for nine years, those years have been eventful. There were enquiries about $67,000 worth of dubious printing costs, his claim to be a social media expert (versus the reality that his social media activities are often ill-considered) and last week’s revelations that he had included a shot of a man flashing his man-bits at the camera in his latest brochure. It seems that communication is not really his forte: that's dangerous for a politician.

Still, credit where credit is due. Mr Laming has not tweeted for 13 days. The same can’t be said for members of the shadow cabinet, who must be exempt from the ban on social media.

Meanwhile, two of the higher profile Liberal candidates are Mal Brough, who’s contesting Peter Slipper’s seat of Fisher, and Bill Glasson, who is taking on Kevin Rudd in Griffith. Neither of them of are tweeting, although Mal Brough does has a twitter account of sorts.

Social media isn’t the only perceived danger zone, though. Here in Griffith, I’ve heard almost nothing of Bill Glasson since he was announced as the Liberal Candidate for Kevin Rudd’s seat. Surely the Liberal executive must believe he has a chance to beat Mr Rudd; as a former head of the Australian Medical Association, Dr Glasson has name recognition already, and would be a good candidate for most seats – but Kevin Rudd has enormous loyalty and in the past year, has been an energetic and highly visible local member.

Despite the LNP directive, Bill Glasson appeared on Nine’s Today Show in mid February, and accused Mr Rudd of neglecting his electorate.

STEFANOVIC: He [Rudd] is 61% in the polls. He is 61% as the favourite PM. He’s been in that seat since 1998. He is always up there holding community gatherings. He is very busy in his local electorate. He hasn’t neglected them. You can’t win!

GLASSON: I can win, Karl! I can win. He has neglected his electorate, I am sorry. He’s just come back to re-find the electorate. I think he’s been using the electorate, in many respects, as a springboard for his own career and, as I said, as I move around and talk to the people of Griffith there is a significant mood for change.

It’s rare that I agree with Karl Stefanovic, but in this case, he is correct. If you’re in any doubt about just how much Mr Rudd does around Griffith, check out his Facebook page, where every appearance in the electorate is detailed, most with photographs. Perhaps Andrew Laming could take some lessons from @KRuddMP on how to use social media effectively.



Selections from Mr Rudd's Facebook page from the past few days

 Looking beyond the election, if the Liberals can keep their powder dry until September 14, what can we expect from a Liberal Prime Minister and Coalition Government? With his minders shielding him from serious political interviews, is it likely that Prime Minister Abbott – if that’s what happens – will be as open with the media as previous Prime Ministers?

Or will he continue to prepare for major public appearances with a script, fake tan and a comb-over? Will he agree to quick chats here and there, without becoming becoming silent and visibly shaking for well over a minute, because he needs to control his urge to bop his media opponent on the nose? Will he take questions during press conferences, or like George W Bush, will he read a scripted statement and then vacate the podium?

How much media freedom would Liberal ministers have? Last week Scott Morrison spoke his mind about asylum seekers in the community and Tony Abbott backed him, despite Morrison’s words being some of the most appalling sentiments ever expressed by a politician. Also last week, Joe Hockey couldn’t articulate his own party’s policies regarding compensation related to repealing the carbon tax, but he spoke anyway, and then had to clean up the mess he made. Poor Joe has been the subject of Liberal Party concern for years now. "Treasurer Hockey" might deliver the Budget, but will he be trusted to sell it?

Cory Bernardi is another worry - he virtually removed himself to the opposition backbench after revealing that his personal values are lightyears to the right of the Libs. Julie Bishop couldn’t be trusted to keep the contents of confidential security briefings to herself. Christopher Pyne can always be counted on to say something ridiculous, and of course, Andrew Laming is never far from some kind of stupidity. Just give him an ipad, a twitter account and a spare half hour and he can get busy insulting people all over the country.

Despite all of that, I have more fundamental concerns as a voter, and for the voters of Australia. Is it acceptable that some of our politicians and candidates are being discouraged from speaking to the voters? No-one says they have to communicate with their electorates, but it's usually considered a big part of the job of campaigning and governing. This bizarre strategy might see the Coalition take power, but is it a win? Or is it just a failure to lose?

The Federal Clivening

The events of the past two weeks or so, since the accusations against Peter Slipper frustrated the nation, are the best arguments yet  against fixed parliamentary terms. There is already so little faith in the government, so little trust that it’s going to get better…

Sometimes, you can’t predict failure, and you can’t control it. Despite a successful legislative programme, and despite Tony Abbott’s censure attempts, the ALP Government’s has run out of time. The choice now is a daily crawl through fire towards the next election, trying to govern as if they had a mandate, or to call the election and start the rebuilding now.

Yesterday’s presser from the Prime Minister was an appalling start to the week, a desperate attempt to look as though she is in control. It didn’t work – it was too late, and her words lacked conviction. Under public and media pressure, she has consigned to the cross benches two members who as yet have not been convicted. There were no winners on the ALP side yesterday.

It was, in comparison, a better day for the Coalition, if only because they were able to point and mock. That doesn’t make them a better prospect for government; it just makes them “not Labor”. Tragically, that’s all it takes to get elected in this country right now.

In the next act of what is an increasing bizarre week, mining magnate Clive Palmer has raised his hand via talk radio, and announced that he will be seeking Liberal Party pre-selection to run against Treasurer Wayne Swan in the Brisbane seat of Lilley. Known for supporting the LNP’s Campbell Newman in his successful bid to become Queensland Premier, Mr Palmer has always harboured some parliamentary ambition. In 1984, he lost a pre-selection battle in Fisher to Peter Slipper. Assuming Mr Palmer wins pre-selection for Lilley – and given the amount of money he’s pumped into the LNP, he will – he’ll probably steal the seat for the Liberals.

It’s really not a bad idea though. Clive Palmer is a very smart man. Wouldn’t we all be better off if our government was made up of people who know how to be successful, who know how to achieve results, who know how to think? I’ve long thought that part of the problem in our parliament was the number of representatives who had never proven themselves outside of the government. Most of the current crop have spent more years working as political advisors, union officials, press secretaries and chiefs of staff before entering politics themselves than they’ve spent in private enterprise. Malcolm Turnbull is the obvious exception to the rule, but being richer than god tends to remove one from the day to day struggles to pay for the groceries.

Of course there’s a range of issues contributing to the gulf between where our politicians are, and where voters want them to be. Even the lowest paid of our federal politicians is earning $185,000 plus per year. That’s more than twice the average wage.

There is an argument that I first heard at the ripe old age of 12, that we get the politicians we can afford, and if we were willing to pay them more, we’d attract better credentialed candidates to public office. All the really good business and management minds are living it up in the private sector, earning ten times a backbencher’s salary.

I’m not sure that increasing the salary of our representatives would have the desired effect– there needs to be a passion to serve the nation. No amount of money would make up for the lifestyle, travel, time away from your home and family, the constant intrusion and the inability just to have a bad day. That’s a different kind of driver –it’s the desire to serve.

Does Clive Palmer have that ambition? Does he really want to be elected to public office and serve his country – where his salary would most certainly be less than it is now – or does he just want to kick Wayne Swan out of his way. Perhaps this politics lark is another item for Clive to cross off his personal bucket list. Perhaps he really does think he’s god and is behaving accordingly.

Or maybe Clive’s the Real Deal.

The Federal Coalition: Double or Nothin'?

With the Queensland Nationals and Liberals uniting as one party rather than as an unbalanced Coalition, perhaps it’s time for the federal coalition parties to do the same. My country cousins are constantly complaining that the National Party does nothing for the country. In fact, even when the coalition is in government, the Nationals do less for country voters than the Independents do.


I believe that’s because the two parties that make up the Coalition are determined to remain as individual parties, with different structures, policies and platforms. As the party with fewer seats, the Nationals are routinely disregarded, as we’ve seen this past week.

It started sometime last weekend, when I saw a few tweets suggesting that Nationals Senator Barnaby Joyce had contacted the Opposition Leader Tony Abbott to suggest doubling the baby bonus, from $5,000 to $10,000.

Twitter was wrong. Both Senator Joyce and Mr Abbott have denied that any such contact was made. Barnaby has gone even further and has denied that he supports the existing baby bonus, at least in its current form.

So where did this rumour come from? Where did we first hear that Barnaby supported doubling the baby bonus, and how did it gain such traction?

At midnight Saturday night, News Limited’s Online versions ran with the headline “The big push for $10,000 baby bonus by Nationals MP Barnaby Joyce”, complete with justification for the push.

Fearing a backlash over the generosity of the Coalition's proposed paid-parental-leave scheme, which would offer wealthy working women up to $75,000, the Nationals have proposed a better deal for stay-at-home mums.

"It's an incredible sacrifice for women to stay at home. You can see it in their superannuation and everything else," Senator Joyce said.

"We want to make sure people don't lose their house. Because everything is based on two incomes these days. All policies have a cost. But it's a substantial sacrifice for people not to go to work."

But when did Senator Joyce say this? Why won’t anyone on the Coalition side of politics own the statement or the policy? Why is there no footage? The Double the Baby Bonus story was reported widely, including on ABC’s Insiders and the Breakfast Giggle-Fests, the websites of politicians from both sides of the aisle, various blogs and a selection of niche magazine sites on everything from parenting to HR.

This was another big story featuring the unpredictable Barnaby Joyce, but Barnaby wasn’t confirming or denying anything. Yet.

The story was credible enough to force a joint media release from Penny Wong (Finance Minister) and Jenny Macklin (Minister for Families and Community Services). The release referred to a ‘blunderous back flip’ by the Coalition after Opposition frontbencher Christopher Pyne confirmed on ABC’s Insiders programme that “Barnaby is entitled to his ideas, but the Coalition doesn’t support the policy.”

By Sunday evening it was starting to sound flimsy, and because Barnaby’s reputation precedes him, it was all too easy to accept that he’d gone rogue and was whispering sweet somethings in Tony Abbott’s ample ears without the knowledge of the Nats. It’s no secret that he wants the leadership of the Nationals; his move from Senate to Lower House is designed to make that possible.

With surprisingly little creative googling, it’s not too hard to find the origin of the story. It’s right there on Page 23 of the Nationals 2011-2012 Policy Platform document, albeit worded a little obscurely. How it made it from a policy document to national headlines is anyone’s guess, but there it is.

And here's Christopher Pyne claiming that no, it’s not Coalition policy, although yes, it exists as policy within one of the Coalition’s policy papers. Warren Truss, Leader of the Nationals has confirmed that it’s National Policy, but not Coalition policy.

So why even mention it? I’m sure it would make a lot of stay-at-home mothers very happy, but if it’s not Liberal policy, and it’s likely to cost around $900 million dollars in the first year alone, it’s unlikely to become a reality.

After some pretty fancy backpedalling and policy doubletalk, it now seems that what Barnaby is willing to accept is a rethink of the Baby Bonus, with the Nationals’ policy as one possible way forward. That’s quite a distance from the headlines we saw on the weekend.

Historically, the Liberal Party and the Nationals (or the Country Party) have shared conservative ideology; that doesn’t seem to hold true any more. Historically, the Liberal Party has needed the support of the National Party as coalition partner in order to win and govern effectively.

If their policies are no longer aligned, and with the ALP so week across the board, perhaps now is the right time to either consolidate as a single party with a single platform, or dissolve the coalition to allow the Nationals to support what they actually believe in.