Red Rag

ANF secretary Mark Olson reportedly had a go at Wanneroo MP Dianne Guise outside the Labor launch, telling her she wouldn’t be in parliament after the election. In fact, Guise pulled off a massive swing to win the formerly marginal seat with 50.7% of the primary vote. The ANF’s “independent nurse,” Anne Cowley, came in dead last with under 400 votes. Now Olson’s come crawling back, cap in hand.

When I first mentioned Graham Kierath’s dirty tricks campaign, I asked, “after Paul Everingham’s experiment with green how-to-votes, what were we to expect?” The answer, it seems, is more dodgy green how-to-votes. Now that a Labor victory is assured, I nearly hope Kierath gets over the line. He would be “an almost certain candidate” for the Liberal leadership, and that would guarantee a third term for Labor.

Predicted ALP gain in Kingsley? Yay!

Four more years. Thankyou and goodnight.

As predicted the West Australian has moved behind Labor “grudgingly and with serious reservations.” A Westpoll conducted on Monday and Tuesday shows Labor in difficulty in several marginal seats, but the paper doesn’t trust its own poll and the headline reads “Labor was ahead in key marginals.”

A larger and more recent Newspoll puts Labor in a winning position, having improved steadily throughout the campaign. The Australian’s writeup includes this odd comment:

The Newspoll reveals another big surprise: a drift of voter support in Western Australia back to the two major parties.

A shift back to the majors was evident in the federal election results, and minor parties are fielding fewer lower house candidates (the Democrats aren’t running any at all), so I don’t know how that comes as a surprise.

Poll Bludger’s tipping Labor by five seats, Mumble says thirteen, and Crikey’s Charles Richardson says seven.

I certainly hope there’s a big swing to Labor, because Damien Parry has promised to pay some interesting forfeits in the unlikely event that he wins Carine (and if Mumble’s accurate, he could). But I think Poll Bludger’s got it right.

I’ve discussed Graham Kierath’s dodgy advertising before, but here’s a doozy from Alfred Covian Peter Ward:

[M]y absolute favourite piece of your campaign literature arrived in the mail today.

‘It’s Graham We Should Thank’ When bouquets are being handed around the politicians for the achievements, Graham Kierath doesn’t seek praise. … Yes, thank you Graham — thank you, indeed.

And then:

Written and authorised by G Kierath, PO Box 1032, Canning Bridge WA 6153.

Fantastic work, Graham. Great to see you are as modest as always.

Peter also notes that the Kierath newsletter is illegal, because according to the Electoral Act 1907 the authorising address needs to be a physical place and not a post box: “Unless of course you actually physically live in a PO Box, then it would be fine.”

It also fails to include the name and address of Kierath’s printer, another legal requirement. That rule is there so that we know MPs aren’t misusing their parliamentary entitlements, so I’m sure you’ll agree that it’s an important one. Kierath’s response?

Guilty. Along with probably 99% of other candidates, including those you clearly support. Hopefully we’ll all get to share a cell when your complaint reaches the Electoral Commission. In fact in all the literature I’ve seen, I think I’ve seen this complied with once.

Any literature I’ve designed includes the printer’s address — it’s not hard — and nothing that’s come through my letterbox from Labor, the Libs, or the two independents who’ve distributed material in Kingsley has lacked the appropriate fine print. (I check these things. Sad, I know.)

Vote [1] Kierath. Because we need a member who’s above the law.

The Australian’s Matt Price says that when his shonky costings were exposed, Colin Barnett “turned crimson and began to sweat”. The West’s Steve Pennells reckons “the blood drained from his face.” Who’s correct? Did Barnett turn red or white?

The West doesn’t put many of its stories online, and those it picks are rarely from the front page. But from the tiny, blurry thumbnail of tomorrow’s cover, I can make out, “I was misled into standing for marginal seat: nurse.” I think I can guess where that’s headed, and I’m looking forward to unwrapping the paper in the morning! [Update: My mistake. A pro-Labor story was too much to expect, but an interpreter who says she couldn't understand a form? Sounds a bit sus to me. Here's the key line: "A spokesman for the WA Electoral Commission said it had probed Ms Ma's complaint but found no wrongdoing."]

This is what the Chamber of Commerce and Industry thinks of its former CEO’s financial credibility:

It has apparent gaps in expenditure. We are extremely cautious and suspicious of its comprehensiveness. If elected, the Coalition would have to do a complete re-think of its finances.

Some of the savings are ambitious to the point of being unachievable. We have a concern that these numbers would indicate deficits in several of the years.

The Australian doesn’t hold back, either:

Mr Barnett’s campaign is reminiscent — including the same sort of innumeracy — of Pauline Hanson at the pinnacle of her popularity. Some of his policies are pitched to prejudice and economic ignorance, and he has made no convincing case he would be a competent premier.

Matt Price, who claims to be the first to spot the error, feels sorry for Barnett:

Once highlighted, the simple, horrendous error dominated the announcement. Questions rained on the Liberal leader like bullets. Barnett muttered something about “arithmetic discrepancy”, turned crimson and began to sweat. The exchange became juvenile.

TV reporter: These figures don’t add up.

Barnett: Yes, they do.

TV reporter: No, they don’t.

Barnett: Yes, they do.

Liberal strategists wore thousand-yard stares as their man, and possibly the election, vaporised on video. … Barnett’s harrowing half hour has, in all likelihood, transformed a feisty underdog into political roadkill. It was sad to watch.

I reckon the costings fuck-up will be enough to swing even the West behind Labor (though it will be a transparently reluctant endorsement).

It’s been clear all along that Mark Olson’s deal with the Liberals is a sham. The mooted $50 million for improved conditions is not guaranteed; it is an upper limit for a package to be negotiated at some time in the future. The idea that Barnett, whose goal is to cut $400 million from health spending, would give them full value is ludicrous.

But now it seems it’s not just the $50 million for working conditions that’s illusory. The entire $212 million package, including the wage rise, was left out of Barnett’s long-awaited costings. He hasn’t put money aside to pay the nurses.

And that’s not all. His long-awaited policy costings just don’t add up, as the media who sat down to hear his spiel quickly worked out:

Unfortunately the document, which Mr Barnett said he had prepared himself, contained a $204 million error, with the estimated savings from scrapping Labor’s desalination plant adding up to $407 million, rather than the claimed $611 million.

Pointing out the savings figures were “notional”, Mr Barnett was forced to defend his ability to manage a $14 billion budget, when he was unable to add up a column of figures.

And that’s just the things he included. As I mentioned above, his deal with the nurses didn’t make the document. Neither did the canal ($400 million according to Barnett during the week), and neither did a promised power station ($400 million).

The common denominator? These three things are the Coalition’s key campaign commitments and feature prominently in their television ads.

How do you submit policies for costing and accidentally leave out your biggest promises?

How can you trust Colin Barnett?

You might remember that the Greens complained that the West Australian ignored them during throughout the election campaign. Now their complaint has extended to another newspaper. In a report about a Kalgoorlie campaign breakfast, “the Greens candidate, Peter Burger, has been excluded from the group photo, despite being present at the breakfast and having his photograph taken several times by the Kalgoorlie Miner.” The Miner, like the West, is owned by WA News.

The Liberals have never really liked Colin Barnett, and now it’s really starting to show. At a public meeting in Broome yesterday, the Liberal candidate for the Kimberley (where Colin’s Canal will start) says, “There is no secret that Barnett and myself are at loggerheads over the canal project and how he has gone about it.”

Today, the Liberal candidate for Roe told Channel 7 that he was sick of Colin Barnett making policy on the run — in particular, caving in to the National Party on something or other. Apparently, Barnett signed up to the $100 million policy last night, and it was announced today. I’ll fill in the details when I find an online source.

Update: Still nothing online, but this is from p9 of today’s West:

The Liberals’ candidate in Roe, Graham Jacobs, has claimed “underhanded tactics” by the National Party have forced Mr Barnett into making rash decisions and policy on the run.

“Policy on the run does not work and will never work … I am disgusted by the manipulative, underhand tactics of the National Party that they are using on the people of Roe,” Dr Jacobs said.

Last week, Dan Sullivan flew down to Albany to launch the centrepiece of the Coalition’s regional health policy — a brand new hospital for the southern town.

The Labor MP for Albany, Peter Watson, immediately questioned the policy:

“I’ve been door-knocking Albany for four years and I’ve never heard one person say we need a new hospital,” he said.

“Nowhere in the media has there been anything about a new hospital and 10 days out from an election the Liberal and National parties say we’re going to put $40 million into a new hospital.

“Now I just think it smacks of desperation and and maybe the polling they’ve done in Albany shows they need to be seen to make a big decision and they’ve come up with this out of thin air.”

Now, this is the sort of tit-for-tat you expect in an election. The Opposition makes an announcement, the Government dismisses it as unnecessary.

But what if Peter Watson is right?

And what if the Nationals candidate contradicts Dan Sullivan and admits Peter Watson is right?

[Beverley] Ford now says a new hospital is unnecessary and the money could be better spent elsewhere.

Mrs Ford says she was not consulted by her Coalition colleagues before they made the decision to commit to a new hospital, and it has put her in an awkward position.

Whoops.

The Australian’s Mark Day has an interesting run-down on the West Australian and its “erratic, brash, cocky, naive, bullying, rash, immature, raw, aggressive, suburban, self-absorbed and biased” editor, Paul Armstrong.

Among the more serious claims are that he directly interferes with the work of his journalists, “changing their copy without reference to them”.

And many Perth journalists join the chorus. Former West business editor John McGlue: “A newspaper has to get its facts right, has to report all relevant facts, and has to give both sides of a story. Sometimes, those rules are not being followed.” Brett McCarthy, editor of the rival weekly Sunday Times: “His news judgments are often bizarre, and he has no full sense of West Australian community.” Former West reporter, Trevor Robb on ABC radio: “I can tell you, categorically, that there were days when Paul was actually writing headlines and then telling reporters to go and get a story to match the headline.”

He boasts that the West is no longer a paper of record, and revels in the fact that the paper does not report both sides of issues: “Terrific. Isn’t that what papers are meant to do?”

The journos’ union complains that Armstrong bullies his staff:

The MEAA’s Sinclair-Jones brands Armstrong as a bully. At last year’s West Australian Newspapers annual general meeting he asked if the company’s board condoned Armstrong’s abuse of a young female reporter as “a waste of fucking oxygen”. He says Armstrong launched a two-minute tirade against the reporter late at night when it was discovered she had a fact wrong in a story. Armstrong says the reporter was not present when he made the comment, and rejects the charge of bullying.

Maybe she was there, maybe she wasn’t, but the female staff at the West don’t seem to like his style — Crikey reports that three (more) are resigning, and says, “With reports from the Swamp that the only way to join the inner circle is to wear pants, vote Liberal and drive a souped-up Holden, who can blame the women for bailing.”

Mark Day and Matt Price brush off the bullying and bias claims by pointing out that at least the West is interesting. So is a mugging, but the fact that people stand and watch doesn’t justify it happening in the first place.

Day concludes by asking:

As for the allegations of political bias, if The West were to endorse the return of the Gallop government in its editorial on Saturday, they’d all go away, wouldn’t they?

To which I reply: No. Bias is bias, and a last-ditch effort to redress the balance (or jump on the bandwagon) doesn’t change a thing.

Update: Elsewhere, Day defends Armstrong, reminding us that his behaviour is no worse than “the feudal atmosphere of newsrooms in the early 1960s”. Oh, that’s okay then.

Day also says “it is impossible to believe the Copyright Act was framed in order to give first-year cadets the right to tell the boss they’ll run off to court if their intros are re-cast.” However, people like Trevor Robb, who quit over Armstrong’s interference, could hardly be described as first-year cadets.

Not the West interprets the Christian Democratic Party platform: “5. CARE FOR THE ELDERLY AND FRAIL as long as they’re not homosexual.”