ISSUE_8

SHELLI S S U E 8 Spring 2016Official publication of Wells Haslem Strategic Public Affairs
THE
LEGALISE
MEDICINAL
CANNABIS
THE FIGHT TO
The increasing volatility & unpredictability of
the Australian electorate | Brexit: What next
for the EU? The view from Brussels | Trump
taps disenchantment | Funding success -
Helping 24,000 Aussie kids | Is it time for
digital evangelists to take a cold shower? |
The economic sun may soon shine on
Australia’s northern neighbour | The social
media election?

Welcome to the spring edition of Wells Haslem’s
magazine, The Shell.
First, I’d like to thank the members of my team for all of
their hard work.
Our cover story looks at our campaign to create access to
medicinal cannabis to treat chronically-ill patients. We
are helping our new client MGC Pharmaceuticals navigate
the halls of Parliament to ensure better health options
and outcomes for Australians (Isabelle Walker p.3).
Everywhere you look around the world the political
climate is changing dramatically. The UK has decided,
against the polls, to exit Europe. Britain has a new Prime
Minister, untested but already looking very strong and
capable. Theresa May is the second woman to run the UK
Conservative Party in the past 35 years (our European
IPREX partner, Cambre, has provided perspective on this
p.13). In America, the Presidential campaign is hotting up
with the political establishment candidate Hillary Clinton
against the renegade from the right – Donald Trump –
who probably cost himself the Presidency recently by
attacking a Muslim family whose son died fighting for
America. Donald, a real bad move. If that is the extent of
your judgement, maybe you should not be President. But
the Yanks will decide shortly (Isabelle Walker p.16).
And at home Malcolm Turnbull’s Coalition has just
scraped back into office by the skin of its teeth.
Fortunately for the Government, Tony Abbott had a
successful campaign in 2013 and won such a big majority,
or Mr Turnbull would be out of a job. That’s the long and
short of it. Reality hurts. (Hear about five things we
learned from the Federal Election by Julie Sibraa p.10).
The past six months have been both hectic and exciting
for Wells Haslem.
One of our more rewarding clients, The Smith Family,
was provided a major funding lift during the election
campaign -$48m - for its marvellous program “Learning
for Life” for disadvantaged students (see how we
achieved this on p.5).
We spent an enormous amount of time working with
thyssenkrupp Marine Systems on the project to develop
new submarines for the Australian Navy. tkMS is
regarded as the leading designer and builder of
conventional submarines in the world. However, the
government decided the French should have the design
contract after a three-way beauty parade between
Germany, Japan and France. Keep an eye on this one.
We have worked closely with a range of clients including
helping: the team at DOOLEYS Lidcombe Catholic Club
prepare for a very major redevelopment; the ATO on a
range of projects; public company Ingenia Communities
which is seeking to redevelop another caravan park site
for older Australian seeking a community style
retirement.
The past six months of this calendar year have been very
strong for Wells Haslem and we are encouraged by the
start of 2016 financial year. We continue to strengthen
great relationships with our existing client base and
welcome new companies to our client roster, including
Ingenia Communities, Asbestos Injuries Compensation
Fund, MGC Pharmaceuticals, CFD & Margin FX Association,
Australian Biotechnologies and others.
We also welcomed two new members to our team: Kathy
Lindsay – who brings extensive experience at the highest
levels of corporate communications in Japan, Thailand and
Indonesia – and Timothy Mantiri – who, as the back page
demonstrates, is a political and media man-about-town.
Please send us an email with any feedback you have, which
will certainly help us improve our offering
(mail@wellshaslem.com).
Thank you all for your ongoing support and
encouragement.
I hope you enjoy reading edition eight
of The Shell, we've enjoyed putting
it together for you.
WellsHaslem:Clientsuccess
John Wells, Chairman

Australian governments join global push to use
medicinal cannabis to treat chronically-ill patients
State and Federal governments in Australia are paving the way for the cultivation, manufacture and prescription
of medicinal cannabis to treat and relieve symptoms of chronic and painful illnesses, reports Isabelle Walker
In 2014 Daniel Haslam, a 24-year-old terminally ill cancer
sufferer, was given a suggestion by a friend: he should try
medicinal cannabis to relieve his pain and increase the appetite
he had lost during chemotherapy.
The drug worked so well that Daniel felt compelled to write to
the NSW Government and ask they decriminalise the act of
using cannabis for medicinal purposes, on a compassionate
basis. Thus began the story of medicinal cannabis in Australia –
a triumph for health campaigners and policy.
Medicinal cannabis has been available for people with proven
illnesses across several jurisdictions globally for some time.
Famously, California legalised medicinal cannabis in the 1990s,
with Canada, Israel and parts of Europe following not long after.
It has taken longer to reach Australia, however as it did many
families came out of the woodwork to declare medicinal
cannabis had been their lifelines for some time.
Apart from its known properties for exceptionally effective pain
relief, medicinal cannabis also contains cannabinoids, or CBD,
which can have extraordinary effects on the brain. For example,
drug-resistant epilepsy patients had successful results from the
use of medicinal cannabis. Young children with Dravet
Syndrome (a particularly nasty form of epilepsy) experiencing
up to 10 seizures a day saw their fits (and associated brain
damage) dramatically reduce in number.
And now the governments of Australia have got on board. In
December 2015 the Federal Parliament passed a law to allow
for the legal cultivation and manufacture of cannabis for
medicinal purposes, with the private licenses to cultivate to be
approved after October 2016.
Victoria and Queensland governments have drafted legislation
outlining who will be able to prescribe and access the drug. The
NSW Government has released guidelines for police discretion
in dealing with chronically ill patients accessing the drug. In the
last year the legislation and/or regulation– at Federal and State
levels – has moved extremely quickly.

Wells Haslem client, MGC Pharmaceuticals, is at the forefront of medicinal cannabis
production. It specialises in researching and producing strains of cannabis that have
ratios of CBD optimised to treat certain ailments. Originating in the innovation
powerhouse, Israel, MGC produces products with minimal THC (the psychoactive
element of cannabis) so the patient can receive all the benefits with a negligible ‘high’.
These products will change the lives of chronically ill patients, especially children, who
desperately need the healing and pain-relieving effects of medicinal cannabis.
Dr Ross Walker (pictured at left), a consultant cardiologist and non-executive director
of MGC Pharmaceuticals, believes medicinal cannabis is the ‘next big thing’. He says:
“The research performed throughout the world is describing benefits
for the following conditions:
• Epilepsy, especially rarer forms of epilepsy such as Dravet
Syndrome, which can often see young children fitting up to 10
times a day. A recent study of 99 per cent pure cannabidiol for
refractory epileptic patients who have trialled and failed
standard anticonvulsants showed a 54 per cent reduction in
seizures in 137 patients;
• A variety of studies with different types of cancer showed a
reduction in cancer pain, reduction in nausea associated with
chemotherapy and some even suggesting reduction in cancer
spread;
• Many common neurologic disorders have some preliminary
work with medical cannabis such as Alzheimer’s disease,
Parkinson’s disease, Motor Neurone disease and the best
studied is the spasticity associated with Multiple Sclerosis;
• Osteoporosis and some auto-immune disorders such as
rheumatoid arthritis, lupus and psoriasis;
• Psychosis, depression and anxiety; and
• Chronic brain injury including alcohol-induced injury and chronic
traumatic encephalopathy from recurrent head injuries.
Probably the most striking area is in the treatment of chronic pain
syndromes.
Seventy per cent of Australians suffer some chronic pain. Prescription
opioids for chronic pain are now leading to more deaths from
accidental and intentional overdose than heroin.
Another commonly used treatment for chronic pain is non-steroidal
anti-inflammatory drugs, which although very effective for a variety
of musculoskeletal disorders can lead to significant upper gastro-
intestinal problems, high blood pressure and kidney damage.”
The government departments and ministers responsible for the fast-tracked
regulation of medicinal cannabis have been encouragingly responsive in the fight to
give access to the most in-need patients.
In terms of regulation, Australia still has some way to go. There is certainly still some
red tape to overcome before companies can grasp the full potential of this health
industry. However, Australians should feel assured their governments are working
with the experts to make sure this product becomes available to those seriously in
need.
pg.4|Medicinalcannabis–IsabelleWalker

How patience,
determination and a well-
thought-out government
relations approach helped
24,000 disadvantaged
Aussie kids
CEO Benjamin Haslem
On 26 June Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull announced a re-
elected Coalition Government would provide $48 million over
four years to The Smith Family’s successful Learning for Life
program.
The funding, which will help an additional 24,000 disadvantaged
students improve their educational outcomes, was the result of
over two-years’ hard work by the charity’s leadership team:
CEO Lisa O’Brien and Head of Research and Advocacy Anne
Hampshire, ably supported by Head of Policy and Programs,
Wendy Field and a dedicated support staff.
The outcome is a shining exemplar of an adage we at Wells
Haslem tell most clients seeking an outcome from
governments: it isn’t easy; you need to put a watertight case;
you will need to meet with a broad cross-section of MPs,
bureaucrats, committees, ministers and advisers and most
important of all: be patient.
The Smith Family is a national, independent children's charity
helping disadvantaged Australians to get the most out of their
education, so they can create better futures for themselves.
The Learning for Life program currently provides 34,000 highly-
disadvantaged children across 94 communities in Australia with
targeted educational assistance throughout their school years
and is having a significantly positive impact on their educational
outcomes.
It provides emotional, practical and financial support to help
disadvantaged children and young people with their education.
The Smith Family’s support starts in the early years of learning
development and continues through primary and high school.
Learning for Life provides long-term support in three ways:
• Financial: to help families cover core education-related
expenses such as books, uniforms and excursions.
• Practical: A Program Coordinator (The Smith Family staff
member) who works with the family and their school to
support the young person’s long-term participation in
education.
• Programs: A range of short programs to help a student
develop the skills, knowledge, attitudes and behaviours
needed for long-term educational participation and
success. Programs include literacy and numeracy, learning
clubs, mentoring and career activities, as well as digital
and financial literacy initiatives for parents.

pg.6|TheSmithFamily -BenjaminHaslem
‘…it was crucial for The Smith Family team to
position itself as wanting to work with government
and not as mendicants asking for the next grant.
The Smith Family has a strong research
focus, reflecting its strong commitment
to evidence-based advocacy.
It regularly produces reports on topics
related to disadvantage in Australia and
how to better support disadvantaged
children, young people and their
families.
By meeting with key political
stakeholders and providing them with
credible, straight-forward information
about the economic and social
significance of its work, The Smith
Family was able to establish strong
relationships with governments.
Central to the organisation’s
communications was not promoting its
own individual interests at the expense
of disadvantaged young people.
It focussed on the national benefits of its
work, even from local initiatives, relying
on an evidence base in all advocacy, be
it in meetings or written materials.
This approach over time led to a greater
understanding in government of what
The Smith Family does and how it could
help governments develop better policies
to improve educational outcomes and lift
people’s standards of living.
During its work, it was crucial for The
Smith Family team to position itself as
wanting to work with government and not
as mendicants asking for the next grant.
As with any good government relations
approach, The Smith Family had to
operate within the government’s
agenda: to improve educational
outcomes, boost employment and
economic activity, lift the standard of
living for disadvantaged Australians,
particular those of Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander heritage; break the cycle
of intergenerational welfare
dependency and increase parental
engagement in children’s education.
Lisa and Anne met with Ministers from a
wide range of portfolios relevant to The
Smith Family’s work, including Education
and Skills; Indigenous Affairs (About
6,000 Learning for Life students are of
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
background); Employment; Status of
Women; Human Services and Social
Services.
Other Government MPs with
backgrounds or interests in education
were also briefed, including backbench
policy committees and senior
bureaucrats. Meetings were also held
with key Labor Opposition members.
The Smith Family advocated that efforts
aimed at improving the educational
outcomes of disadvantaged young
people are most cost effective if they
involve balanced long-term support
across a young person’s life.
The Smith Family showed, through its
own experience, how a sustained and
early intervention approach is far more
cost effective than one-off or short term
programs for young people, or remedial
efforts aimed at preparing adults for the
workforce.
The organisation was also able to show
how parental engagement in their
child’s learning matters – and how its
approach of working closely with
parents supported children’s
educational achievements
The Smith Family team had many
meetings with various levels of
government over more than two years.
This hard work and discipline has
delivered an outcome that will benefit
thousands of disadvantaged families and
over the longer term, the Australian
community.
But much more needs to be done. The
Smith Family will continue to rely on the
generous support of its individual and
corporate donors.
If you’d like to donate or sponsor a child,
please visit:
www.thesmithfamily.com.au/get-involved
Its results are outstanding. Since 2012,
The Smith Family’s support has enabled
over 6,500 disadvantaged young
Australians to finish Year 12. In 2015,
more than four-in-five (84 per cent)
former Learning for Life students were
engaged in employment, education or
training, a year after leaving the
program.
Last financial year The Smith Family
raised just over $50 million from
individual Australians, corporates,
universities and philanthropy to support
children and young people on Learning
for Life.
When The Smith Family approached
Wells Haslem in early 2014, the
challenge the organisation faced was
that while its brand was likely well
recognised in Canberra and State
capitals, many MPs and their advisers
did not know what the organisation did.
Very few were aware that The Smith
Family’s primary focus was helping
children break the cycle of disadvantage
through improving their educational
outcomes.
Nor were they aware of the partnerships
that The Smith Family formed with
various stakeholders across the
community, from parents, teachers,
volunteers, small businesses, major
corporates and local governments to
develop a whole-of-community
approach to helping children break the
cycle of disadvantage.
Working closely with Lisa and Anne,
Wells Haslem developed a government
relations communications strategy to
position The Smith Family as a major
resource for politicians and advisers
seeking information on, and insights
into, helping disadvantaged children
maximise their educational outcomes.

The social media election?
Yes, but not how you think
Account Executive, Tim Mantiri analyses how social media really made an impact at the federal election.
As the dust settles on the longest Federal election campaign in
living memory, the unexpectedly close result that defied most
analyst and pundit predictions has naturally brought about a
round of reflection and examination on the two major parties’
election campaigns.
Much has already been made of Labor’s dishonest but effective
‘Medi-scare’ campaign, as well as the Coalition’s flat and
uninspiring ‘jobs and growth’ mantra that even Coalition MPs
struggled to sell. Less analysis however has been done on the
tactical level of the major parties’ campaign. In particular, the
parties’ use of social media as a strategic campaign tool has only
warranted cursory examinations in the media thus far.
Moreover, when we do hear about the role social media plays in
modern campaigning, the examination is largely limited to a
superficial analysis of the increasing quantity, although not
necessarily quality (think #faketradie), of political marketing
content shared across the mainstream social media platforms.
The often overlooked but just as vital utilisation of social media
in the election campaign came in the form of invaluable voter
insights gained through social media analytics and the way they
were used to shape, fine-tune and focus more traditional
methods of campaigning. It was through this utilisation of data
from social media that enabled election strategists to run
effective and in some cases ruthless campaigns that delivered
not only votes but also crucial seats for their respective parties.
From Labor’s army of volunteers armed with the social media
sourced demographic details of voters in marginal electorates, to
progressive activist group GetUp!’s sophisticated micro-
targeting strategy and even the Liberal party’s canny use of
Chinese social media platform WeChat in the ethnically diverse
Victorian seat of Chisholm, social media was harnessed in new
and innovative ways that went beyond the distribution of
political marketing content and that produced decisive and
discernible results at the ballot box.
While the federal election of 2016 has been labelled by some
commentators as the ‘social media election’, it is clear that the
plethora of Twitter hashtags, Facebook mentions and Snapchat
filters that we were subjected to don’t tell the whole story.

pg.8|Thesocialmediaelection–TimothyMantiri
This trend becomes more and more
evident when considering younger
voters. As research published this year by
the Reuters Institute for Journalism
Research found 38 per cent of 18-24 year
olds named social media as their primary
news source, ahead of TV at 24 per cent.
Content isn’t always king
While all serious campaigns and
candidates now focus a sizeable
proportion of their campaign resources
on developing and spreading content
across social media, relying on online
engagement alone to win votes would
not only be reckless but extremely
ineffectual. Malcolm Turnbull’s Facebook
page may have twice the amount of likes
(308,000) than Bill Shorten’s (150,000)
but it is goes without saying that this
advantage did not replicate itself at the
ballot box.
Similarly, while the distribution of
political content through social media
channels may register many online
engagements, Facebook shares and
Twitter retweets cannot replace a fully-
fledged ground campaign in reaching and
persuading voters. Social media channels
may be cheap, direct and ubiquitous but
by their very nature lack the personal
level engagement that can often
influence how someone votes.
As Victorian ALP Assistant State Secretary
Stephen Donnelly told ABC’s 730 in the
lead up to the election, “there is no more
effective conversation or interaction with
a voter than actually speaking with
them.” This sentiment was also shared by
the national director of progressive
activist organisation GetUp! Paul Oosting
(left) who also emphasised the
importance of direct dialogue and
conversations with voters when trying to
persuade them in an election campaign.
While political parties would ignore social
media at their peril, depending on these
channels alone as a medium of political
content distribution and voter
persuasion would be to overstate their
significance against traditional methods
of campaigning that focus on human
interaction and direct dialogue.
Harnessing big data
As former Prime Minister John Howard
famously remarked; politics is ‘driven by
the laws of arithmetic’, and while the
social media content of the major parties
recorded record levels of engagement,
these figures count for little when there
are only one or two marginal seats
separating government from opposition.
The stark reality is that the only
arithmetic that counts in elections is the
sum of members each party ends up with
in parliament.
Much like the American concept of
‘swing states’ that decide presidential
elections, Australian elections are
generally determined by the
government’s ability to hold its marginal
seats. Consequently, the real utility of
social media to campaign strategists
during the election were in the insights
into voter concerns as well as voter
demographics that social media analytics
provided in these crucial seats.
Yes,socialmediaismoreimportantthanever
Since the ‘Kevin 07’ election nine years
ago in which social media made its a
debut as campaign tool, the role of social
media in election campaigns has become
increasingly integral to the strategies of
the major political parties. As
telecommunications technology
becomes increasingly sophisticated and
society more reliant on smartphones and
social networks for everyday activities, it
was inevitable that social media would
play an even more instrumental role than
in elections past.
As we saw at the election, social media
platforms served as a key battleground of
discussion and debate in the 55-day
campaign. Tweets, tags and shares of
party-political content were at the
highest level ever, as users turned to
social media platforms to engage with
parties, sitting parliamentarians and
prospective candidates. According to
Facebook, which is still the most popular
social media platform overall, over 3.6
million people engaged in 30 million
election related interactions.
There are numerous reasons why
political campaigns of all stripes have
embraced social media. Social media
gives a cash-strapped candidate and
campaign manager a cheap and effective
tool to engage with the electorate. It also
provides an opportunity for campaign
strategists to craft and direct content to
voters without having to get their
message through the traditional media
gatekeepers of reporters and journalists.
However, the central reason why
campaigns on all sides of politics utilise
social media channels to deliver political
content lies in the breadth of its reach. As
the public increasingly get their news
from Facebook and Twitter, social media
now has an increasingly broader reach
vis-à-vis traditional media.

Despite the ability to quantify the level of
engagement with content shared across
social media, how this engagement
actually influences votes and delivers
seats is harder to gauge. This challenge is
less apparent when looking at how
effectively utilised social media insights
had a real influence in the outcomes of
specific seats. Indeed, the major parties
can point to real and concrete victories in
the seats where social media analytics
played a major role in their campaign.
For instance, the win in the Western
Sydney seat of Lindsay where data
sourced from social media analytics
helped provide Labor with one of several
unexpected victories this election is one
such as example. In this particular seat,
social media analytics informed Labor
campaign chiefs that Medicare was key
concern of voters in the electorate. They
were then able to localise the issue and
run an effective ground campaign around
the existing local issue of a lack of funding
for the local hospital. Whether or not the
threat to Medicare or the local hospital
was indeed factual is of little relevance.
Labor strategists were able to effectively
harness insights from social media to fine
tune the key messaging of their local
campaign on the issues that mattered to
locals.
Similarly, the unaffiliated but
unashamedly progressive activist group
GetUp! utilised social media and the
analytics from their online content to
shape and tweak their campaign in the
Tasmanian seat of Bass. GetUp! targeted
sitting Liberal member Andrew Nikolic
with a campaign worth roughly $300,000
that paid for TV and billboard advertising,
phone calls, door-knocking and how-to-
vote cards. Like in Lindsay, what made
their campaign effective was their key
messaging that focussed on the concerns
of locals. During the election GetUp!
activists were able concentrate their
campaign around the thousands of
undecided voters in the electorate and
the issues that mattered to them.
Demographic data and analytics allowed
the group to make 17,000 calls to
undecided voters and enabled them to
track what was the most effective and
efficient means of deploying its
members. Bass was eventually won by
Labor candidate Ross Hart with a 10.5 per
cent swing against the sitting Liberal
member.
Not to be outdone by their progressive
opponents and in an astute
demonstration of the effectiveness of
shrewdly utilised social media sourced
data, the Coalition skilfully used Chinese
social media platform WeChat in the
Victorian seat of Chisholm to not only
disseminate their key messages but also
as a source of information into the
concerns of the sizeable Mandarin
speaking population of the electorate.
That feedback into voter concerns then
went on to shape the messaging of the
local campaign as the election wore on.
For example, the issue of changes to
negative gearing proved to be a key
concern of this group. Similarly, there
were also concerns raised on the
platform about social issues, including
Labor's support for the Safe Schools
program. These material concerns that
were raised on social media were fed to
local Liberal campaign strategists who
then were able to re-focus their
campaign around these issues. This
particular use of social media analytics
proved to be a masterstroke as results
from voting booths in Box Hill, where
more than 20 per cent of voters are
Mandarin speakers, registered a first-
preference swing of 4.2 per cent to the
Liberal candidate, Julia Banks, and 5.6 per
cent away from Labor. The results in
these booths helped Ms. Banks record a
2.8 per cent swing towards the Coalition
in Chisholm and delivered them their
only gain against Labor in the entire
election.
Effective analytics produces winning results
While there must first be a significant
amount of activity on platforms such as
Facebook or Twitter before meaningful
analyses can be developed by campaign
strategists, the simple analysis of likes,
shares or retweets was of much less use
to strategists than the demographic data
in the analytics and insights in the online
engagement, now available from both
Facebook and Twitter.
Rather than being simply a channel to
distribute political advertising, social
media and the analytics that they
provided gave campaign strategists and
crucially, local campaign managers the
opportunity to effectively focus and
allocate their often scarce campaign
resources. Social media analytics added a
layer to their existing databases of ABS
Census and AEC data as well gave them
immediate feedback into the themes
that did and did not resonate with voters.
By harnessing this invaluable information
source, campaign strategists were able to
micro-target the seats and even specific
polling booths where they would be most
effective.
The analytics then allowed campaign
workers to have more face-to-face
conversations, target those
conversations to local communities and
communities of interest as well as inform
the substance and subject of those
conversations. In this sense, it is clear
that the real value of social media is in its
use as a complement to, and in support
of, the more traditional methods of
campaigning and voter engagement.

Actually we already knew this, but it seems Mr Turnbull didn’t.
What was he thinking? He clearly didn’t heed our issue of the
Shell in 2014, specifically the piece entitled “Uncertain times in
the Senate; or have we seen it all before?”, where we said:
“Because even if a genuine trigger existed, and [Tony Abbott]
believed he would win the election, a double dissolution would
most likely only lead to the election of more minor or micro
party candidates. This is because the quota or threshold for a
double dissolution is half that of a regular half Senate
election”.
We also pointed out that ungovernable Senates are not a new
phenomenon; that Australian voters have been quite
deliberately denying governments’ control of both Houses for
some time.
There’s no doubt that following the 2013 election reform of the
Senate voting process was needed to ensure individuals or
parties weren’t manipulating the election process, doing
backroom preference deals, and ultimately delivering outcomes
only a handful of voters wanted.
And as hasty and half-baked as the reforms were that passed
the Senate before the election, they do seem to have
eliminated the worst of the secretive preference dealing.
Indeed, people voting for the Senate on Saturday 2 July were
able to fully express their preference either voting above the
line or below.
And express it they did. We now have the two major parties
with fewer Senators (the Coalition lost three Senators, Labor
gained one), the Greens down one, Nick Xenophon with two
additional representatives, Jacqui Lambie, David Leyonhjelm
and Bob Day re-elected amd now joined by Derryn Hinch and
four Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Senators. That went well
didn’t it?
1 If you want a more manageable Senate, don’t call a double dissolution
Wells Haslem’s Special Counsel, Julie Sibraa, has held senior roles at the highest levels of Federal and NSW
Governments. Here she outlines the five things we learned from the recent Federal Election.
Election 2016
The increasing volatility & unpredictability
of the Australian electorate

pg.11|Election2016 –JulieSibraa
On election night Mr Turnbull declared
his confidence that he would be able to
form Government. Given the results at
that point, it seemed optimistic. But his
scrutineers across the country,
particularly Queensland, would have
told tell him just how many postal votes
were still out there.
In the seat of Flynn in Queensland,
where the Labor candidate was holding
the lead on election night, 12,500 postal
votes or 13.5 per cent of total votes cast
were yet to be counted. In terms of
ordinary votes cast - election day votes
and pre poll votes - the Labor candidate
was polling 36.02 per cent of the
primary vote to the incumbent LNP
candidate’s 35.25. The 12,500 postal
vote results however came in at Labor
22.10 per cent to the LNP’s 49.24 – a
wildly different outcome which handed
the LNP a 1,814 vote victory.
In the other seats the Coalition was able
to retain after initially looking positive
for Labor on election night, the postal
vote was also very high. In the Victorian
seat of Chisolm it made up nearly 15 per
cent of the total vote. The Liberal
candidate in that seat improved her vote
in the postals by six per cent.
So what have we learned from this?
Clearly the Coalition ran a very strong
and effective postal vote campaign in
the key seats, particularly the
Queensland seats which recorded
significantly higher than average
numbers of postal votes cast.
The ability to run a postal vote campaign
is one of the benefits of being the
incumbent government at election time.
We’ve heard a lot about the so-called
“Medi-scare” campaign run by Labor
and Bill Shorten, with Malcolm Turnbull
and his Coalition spokespeople
expressing outrage at Labor’s dastardly
tactics.
The outrage was obviously genuine,
however it has to be wondered whether
it was more about the fact the
Coalition’s tried-and-true message about
having an economic plan failed to
resonate with voters. There was a lot of
talk about his plan for the economy and
jobs, but really all that was known was
there was a plan. Bill Shorten snuck
under their guard with an issue of great
concern to many Australians.
With no other burning issues
dominating the endless election
campaign did the Coalition just assume
it would be all about the economy?
Because when it comes to managing the
economy, it’s almost political
convention that, when asked, voters say
they trust the Coalition more than
Labor. No one did it better than John
Howard in a campaign, pulling out the
“who do you trust” line every time
things got shaky for him.
Unfortunately for Malcolm Turnbull, he
hadn’t yet earned that type of trust. He
and his predecessor Tony Abbott had
certainly sold the message the budget
was in disrepair and in desperate need
of fixing, but this only made it more
believable when Bill Shorten said that
part of their plan to fix the budget was
by getting stuck into Medicare. That
resonated.
The Essential Poll of 26 July 2016, that is,
three weeks after the election, showed
60 per cent of voters saying health
policies were very important to their
voting intentions, closely followed by
Medicare itself on 58 per cent. Economic
management came in at equal third as
most important issue at 53 per cent with
which party was ‘better for me and my
family’ also at 53 per cent.
Bill Shorten and Labor ran a very
effective campaign on an issue of deep
concern to an ageing electorate
increasingly dependent upon publicly-
funded health services. It nearly won
Labor the election.
2Postal votes gave Malcolm
Turnbull his majority 3It’s not the economy stupid –
it’s Medicare (well almost)

The changes to voting for the Senate
described above have (rightly) put the
ultimate power in the voters’ hands for
determining exactly where their vote will
go. The intent of the changes was to
eliminate backroom preference deals, but
no legislation could address the often
ludicrous intra-Party factional deals that
determine in which order a Party’s
candidates appear on the ballot paper.
The closer a candidate is to the top of the
Party’s list on the ballot paper, the more
likely he or she is to be elected.
Party’s often produce candidate lists that
say more about the internal workings of
that Party and its factions than who is the
best (most popular or credentialed)
candidate to lead the ticket. But until now
the how-to-vote card issued by the Party
was how the candidates were elected.
Until this election. In Tasmania.
The ALP’s Lisa Singh was a former State
Member of the Tasmanian Parliament
representing the area around central
Hobart. After losing her seat she ran for,
and was elected to, the Senate in the 2010
election (and took her place in 2011). She
was factionally unaligned and was given
the unwinnable number six position on
the ballot paper.
Her cause was reportedly adopted by left
wing factional warhorse, Margaret
Reynolds, who once represented Labor in
the Senate from her home state of
Queensland. She decided to run a
campaign to save Ms Singh, urging voters
to vote below the line and put Ms Singh
first. Ms Singh gained 20,740 below-the-
line votes and retained her Senate seat.
On the other side, another long serving
and popular Senator from the Liberal
Party, Richard Colbeck was also relegated
to the precarious number five spot on the
Senate ballot paper.
His cause was taken up by a farmer who,
while not a Liberal party member, held Mr
Colbeck in high regard. Former Senator
Colbeck received 13,474 number one
votes below the line, although it was not
enough to see him re-elected.
Tasmanian voters demonstrated it is
possible to not only express their true
preference, but defeat the factional deals.
It will be interesting to see if this new
trend is replicated in a future election.
Former Prime Minister Tony Abbott was
always going to be a big target in his safe
Sydney seat of Warringah. Among the
usual northern beaches lethargy there
was a bit of anti-Abbott sentiment, so an
array of colourful candidates was
gathering to throw their hat in the ring.
There were some small rumblings in the
local Manly Daily that a group named
the People of Warringah (POW) was
meeting in a local pub to discuss
defeating Mr Abbott.
The POW put together a campaign to
urge voters to “Put Abbott last”. They
needed a star candidate to lead the anti-
Abbott vote (they obviously could never
consider supporting a Labor candidate –
even if they did agree with just about all
Labor’s policies). With five weeks to go,
just as it seemed no messiah candidate
was forthcoming and the POW campaign
was fizzing away, up popped TV
personality James Mathison.
Mathison was a local. Born and bred on
the northern beaches. He made a brief
initial appearance announcing his
candidature, said he wanted to
represent young voters (his TV
demographic) and then disappeared
again only to pop up occasionally over
the new few weeks via social media and
the Manly Daily.
So it wasn’t so much a campaign as a
series of appearances accompanied by
signs pasted around power transmission
poles (that looked more like ads for a
live concert or circus) than a political
message. The signs and leaflets didn’t
appear at the pre-poll until a few days
before the election, by which time
thousands of people had voted.
Having done so very little by way of
campaigning Mr Mathison received an
astounding 11.41 per cent of the vote in
Warringah. At the polling booths he
made an appearance, his vote reached
as high as 18.55 per cent. The strong,
credible and diligent Labor candidate
received 14.79 per cent and the popular
Greens candidate 12.19 per cent.
What this all shows is everything we
think we know about politics and voting
trends must be continually reassessed to
keep up with the ever changing social
and cultural landscape and the
increasing volatility and unpredictability
of the Australian electorate.
4Tasmanianswentbelowtheline
to reject Party factional deals 5Every seat needs a
celebrity candidate

For Australia, Brexit means the loss of an important trade negotiation ally, but it would be wrong to predict an end
to the EU project, writes Nathalie Rubin-Delanchy* in Brussels.
Following a referendum on 23 June the UK is set to leave the
European Union, effectively putting an end to over 40 years of
membership. From an Australian perspective, Brexit will not
fundamentally affect relations with the EU. Tourists can continue
to travel to EU countries under the same conditions (the UK does
not participate in the Schengen area, which allows for free
movement within EU borders). The UK will also continue to
operate according to EU rules until its departure comes into
effect – which will take at least two years.
However, Australia, as other Anglophone third countries such as
the US and Canada, loses an important ally in international trade
issues. Perhaps the most important impact will be on the
business community, as the mechanics of how London-based
financial institutions operate are likely to change drastically.
For Brussels, Brexit definitely came as a shock.
This is the first time in the history of the EU that a member chose
to leave. It will have important consequences on how the EU
project moves forward. Faced with an existential crisis, the EU
has to be remodelled to prevent any ripple effects in other
member states and try to appeal to a people who have shown
dwindling support over the last years.
Euroscepticism has been on the rise in several EU countries,
fuelled by a string of challenges such as the economic and
financial crisis or migration. Nationalist voices demanding
greater sovereignty for member states have taken a front seat
during elections in Poland, the Czech Republic and Austria.
France and Germany are witnessing a similar phenomenon as
they gear up for their own elections in 2017. Since the UK’s vote,
France’s National Front, Italy’s Northern League, Austria’s
Freedom Party, and the Dutch Freedom Party all issued calls for
their own Brexit-style referendums.
But the contagion risk may be exaggerated. As the dust begins to
settle on the chaotic aftermath of the vote, some are starting to
believe that Brexit could be the much needed wake-up call for
the EU project. Opinion polls suggest that support for staying in
the EU has actually (and substantially) increased this past month
in countries such as Denmark, Sweden, Germany and Finland.
The 27 leaders have already announced they are starting a deep
think on the EU’s future, with action planned for 2017.
Image: Jwslubbock
Brexit: What next for the EU?
The view from Brussels

The EU, whose moto from the onset has
been “ever closer union”, could move
towards greater integration or more
rapidly shift to a “multi-speed” Europe
with varying levels of integration
between countries and policy areas (as is
already the case with monetary union
through the Eurozone and free
movement through the Schengen
passport-free area). Any such predictions
are, however, premature at this stage:
other scenarios predict a serious roll back
of EU sovereignty.
One month down the line, most
stakeholders appear to have opted for a
wait-and-see approach. This means a
sudden and drastic change in the EU’s
functioning will probably not happen.
Incremental change is more likely –
keeping in mind that coordinating
positions of (now) 27 member states can
take a very, very long time.
In the meantime, the Brexit wheels are
already in motion. The UK, in practical
terms, remains a member of the EU until
the Government decides to trigger article
50 of the Treaty on the European Union,
which lays out the conditions for
withdrawal of membership. The trigger
of article 50 is a formal request to leave,
which is expected at the earliest at the
end of 2016.
However, new appointments on both
sides indicate clearly that Brussels and
London are gearing up for negotiations:
new British PM Theresa May has
appointed several pro-Brexit politicians
to key positions within her cabinet, while
Belgian diplomat Didier Seeuws and
former French representative in the
European Commission Michel Barnier
should lead negotiations on the Brussels
end. The final decision is to be voted on
based on standard EU qualified majority
voting rules, meaning an isolated UK will
have very little weight.
The EU, therefore, holds all the cards.
Brexiteers foresee a future where UK
residents and businesses would retain a
large part of their freedom of movement
and operations within EU member states.
This is unlikely.
It would imply paying into the EU budget
and accepting free movement of labour
from the EU – the two main reasons for
withdrawal in the first place. It is also
unlikely the UK will have much leeway to
strike a profitable deal. Since the result
from Brussels has been
inflexible. All three leaders of the EU
institutions – Donald Tusk, heading the
Member States’ European Council; Jean-
Claude Juncker, heading the executive
branch the European Commission and
Martin Schulz, heading the European
Parliament – are calling for a “clean
divorce”.
The UK is thus essentially no longer
considered an EU Member State by its
peers. EU leaders are already shifting
their language to refer to the “EU27”; the
country has relinquished its six-month
seat as the Presidency of the EU in 2017
as well as the prestigious
‘For London, leaving the EU means renegotiating
relations with countries around the world’
financial services portfolio in the
European Commission; in the Parliament,
British representatives have given up
their leadership roles. The UK Permanent
Representation to the EU has been
moved from the FCO to the newly
created “Department for Exiting the
European Union”, indicating how British
diplomats will no longer be focusing on
playing a pro-active role in European
affairs.
Policy-making will change fundamentally
on both sides of the channel. For
Brussels, the UK’s departure will have a
significant impact on dynamics and
voting patterns in many EU policy fields.
The EU loses a generally vocal and
powerful member, for better or worse
(depending on the policy field and your
opinion). The UK, for instance, was a
heavyweight voice for lower taxes and
better regulation. On the other hand, the
remaining big EU member states –
notably Germany and France – will gain
more sway in the Council and Parliament.
For London, leaving the EU means
renegotiating relations with countries
around the world – covering everything
from trade deals to international political
agreements such as the COP21 climate
agreement. The country has next to no
trade negotiators (as the EU has for the
past four decades negotiated on its
behalf), and will need hundreds to
replicate the market access it currently
has with 50 states around the world as an
EU member. US President Obama has
already warned the UK that it would be
“at the back of the queue”. Until the UK
officially leaves the EU, it cannot even
start new trade talks.
pg.14|Brexit–NathalieRubin-Delanchy

However, it is unlikely the UK’s profile as
an international trade partner will
change much. EU countries are among
the UK’s largest trading partners and any
model which the UK opts for will seek to
keep maximal access to the EU’s internal
market.
Options such as the Norwegian or Swiss
model, or a deep and comprehensive
Free Trade Agreement, will require the
UK to abide by EU standards (in for
instance social or environmental
aspects). In any case there will not be a
roll back of UK regulation and the UK will
likely continue in the long term to apply
EU regulation.
In the financial sector, prospects at first
glance are grim: as soon as the vote result
became clear in the early hours of Friday
24 June, financial markets plummeted,
the pound falling by 14 per cent to its
lowest level in 30 years. Capital has been
fleeing the UK ever since.
The International Monetary Fund, the
European Commission and the Bank of
England have all issued negative
forecasts for the UK economy, and more
broadly for the EU. Yet Brexit does not
necessarily imply a lose-lose scenario for
the EU, UK and foreign companies.
A new spot is up for grabs as the EU’s
financial hub since London’s ability to
secure a strong deal with the EU remains
uncertain. Wannabee financial centres
such as Frankfurt, Paris or Dublin could
attract UK-based companies wishing to
relocate elsewhere.
What will definitely change is the voice
UK-based businesses have in EU policy-
making. UK businesses can no longer
count on the UK government channels to
shape EU policies to the same extent as
previously – they will accordingly need to
shift their lobbying activities to Brussels
or other EU capitals. The same holds true
for EU trade associations, which will
surely not give the same weight to the
interests of their UK members moving
forward. Third countries inevitably need
to adapt to the reality that the UK’s voice
no longer carries weight in Brussels.
Yet despite the chaos that ensued from
Brexit, panic is not on the table for
Brussels. The EU has to adapt its modus
operandi but Brexit does not presuppose
a halt to European integration. What is
more likely is a more tailored EU,
allowing closer integration where desired
and more flexibility where required.
T-B: Former British P M Da vid
Cameron; Current British PM
Theresa May; Cu rrent British
Foreign Secreta ry Boris Johnson
‘… despite the chaos that ensued from
Brexit, panic is not on the table for
Brussels.’
*Nathalie Rubin-Delanchy is an external relations consultant at Wells Haslem’s IPREX
Brussels partner, Cambre. She is also a member of Cambre’s Brexit Taskforce.
Cambre is a multidisciplinary team focused on European advocacy and communications,
based in Brussels. The company brings a collaborative approach to government
relations, public affairs and public relations in order to anticipate and manage its clients’
policy and reputation needs.
Cambre has a network of partner agencies across Europe and like Wells Haslem is a
member of the IPREX global communications network.
cambre-associates.com/

Dirty Harry goes to Washington
Trump taps the disenchantment
The rise and rise of Donald Trump has shocked both sides of US Politics. But their failure to listen to voters means
they are equally to blame, writes Isabelle Walker.
This time last year there’s no way I’d have predicted Donald
Trump would be the Republic Candidate for the 2016
Presidential Campaign and I don’t believe I’m alone in that.
I think it’s necessary to deconstruct the reasons why Mr Trump
has risen to this position, where come 20 January 2017, he has
a 50/50 chance of being sworn in as the 45th President of the
United States of America.
Americans – mostly Republicans, but also a spate of previously
non-voters – have spoken. The country is the most divided it
has been in years. Police killings have risen, with young black
men the most vulnerable, and in response, police officers have
also found themselves the target of revenge killings.
There is a fight between the #blacklivesmatter and
#alllivesmatter campaigns.
Some want to close the borders and build The Wall.
The “Religious Right” and the “Liberal Media” are at constant
loggerheads, with nasty attacks waged regularly from each side.
All the while, the inequality gap grows and 45 million Americans
find themselves on food stamps.
Many of the people who have been voting for Trump – mostly
poor, white and conservative – feel they have no leadership
from their elected officials. This isn’t necessarily reflective of
the electorate’s feeling towards just Barack Obama, but to the
establishment as a whole – both Democrat and Republican.
Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio, darlings of the Republican
establishment, didn’t even get a look-in during the Primaries.
Their campaigns were dead in the water. Ted Cruz found
himself the last bastion of hope for the establishment in the
GOP nomination, even though he himself seems somewhat of
an extreme candidate.
Bernie Sanders, though ultimately unsuccessful, received a
substantial amount of delegates in the Primaries. He is a
proclaimed socialist, touting universal healthcare and free
community college funding.
The establishment has been given a big wake up call.
The reason for this is that the world as we know it is no longer
business as usual.
Image: Gage Skidmore

pg.17|DirtyHarrygoestoWashington–IsabelleWalker
People may be scared, or baffled, by the
rise of Trump, but he didn’t get here by
accident. He was voted in, fairly.
Rather than decry the rise of this unlikely
political figure, we need to be empathetic
to why his voters support him.
His rhetoric is not for turning. There are
no platitudes, nor is there political
correctness. A lot of his supporters
believe their politicians haven’t been
representing their values, beliefs or
interests for a long time – and now
Trump (apparently) is. He is promising to
end Muslim immigration. He is promising
to “smash ISIS” (the how hasn’t been
discussed yet). He is promising to end
illegal immigration from Mexico and Latin
America more generally.
Though most thought his racist policies
would be diluted – even disregarded –
soon in the piece if he were to be elected,
they’ve rung true with the electorate.
The irony of the situation is the
President has his hands tied, a lot of the
time, when it comes to domestic policy.
Unless a President has political control
of the Congress (a difficult thing to
achieve), a lot of these promises are
empty. Having said that, maybe Donald
Trump will be one of the most
conciliatory Presidents in history when it
comes to Congress, and work with those
from the Republican establishment to
bring meaningful policy change to
America. Then again, maybe not.
The fact remains, Trump is a result of
continuedsocialdivisionandpoliticalinertia.
Like many who disagree with Trump, you
could be excused for wanting to close
your eyes, put your fingers in your ears
and ignore the next four, possibly eight
years should he win on 8 November.
But to ignore Trump, or disregard his rise,
is to ignore how he got there in the first
place. He has struck a chord with many
people, and those people feel they
haven’t been listened to for a very long
time. There are reasons Average
Americans feel their interests aren’t
being represented in Washington,
despite having Senators and local
Representatives present in the Congress.
Some say business is too influential, as
well as wealthy donors and large lobbying
factions. Another area of thought is that
politicians try to appease everyone and in
doing so, get nothing done.
Whatever it is, Donald Trump is a
reaction. He’s a reaction to an impotent
political representation that for too long
has perpetuated the status quo, to their
peril.
However, this maverick may have
pushed the boundaries a little too far
this time. In recent weeks, Trump has
come under fire for making offensive
comments directed at the parents of
Muslim U.S Army Captain, Humayun
Khan, who died in combat and received
a Purple Heart and Bronze Star
posthumously for bravery. After the
Khans appeared at the Democratic
National Convention saying they were
Muslims who were also proud
Americans, Trump questioned why “the
mother”, Ghazala Khan, didn’t speak,
remarking “maybe she wasn’t allowed to
speak”. Now, even one of Trump’s
closest supporters, Chris Christie, has
labelled his comments inappropriate.
Whatever the fallout from Trump’s wont
to outrage, unless the establishment can
overhaul itself, and make their
constituents feel listened to and
represented, we can expect more of the
Anti-Politician to come.

It may be unfashionable but some old heads are starting to question if we have focussed too heavily on digital
at the expense of ‘old-fashioned’ communications channels, writes Benjamin Haslem.
Have we become overly obsessed with digital at the expense of
traditional communication channels?
Are public relations practitioners, marketers and advertisers so
desperate to prove they are ahead of the curve that they focus
on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, SnapChat and other social
media platforms and ignore radio; television and (yes they still
exist) newspapers?
Is there a growing skills gap in the PR and advertising industries
because younger consultants are too focused on digital at a
time when ‘old’ media still holds most Australians’ attention?
And are we investing in digital comms with no real sense of
what returns they are generating?
It seems it is dawning on advertisers that recent investments in
digital platforms have not met expectations.
A recent report in the Wall Street Journal points to a surprising
uplift in television advertising sales in the US, after two years of
decline.
According to global media analytics company, Kantar Media,
the United States’ biggest advertiser, Procter & Gamble,
increased its TV advertising spend by 13 per cent in January this
year compared with 12 months earlier. The trend continued in
February.
As the WSJ’s Joe Flint and Suzanne Vranica report: “some
advertisers who have made big bets on digital are coming back
to TV because the return on their investment didn’t live up to
expectations”.
“Marketers are concerned about digital advertising issues
including fake web traffic generated by computerized ‘bots’ and
the lack of consensus on how to judge when an ad is
‘viewable’.”
This recent development would come as no surprise to Chris
Mitchell, the former editor-in-chief at The Australian
newspaper.
Mitchell, one of Australia’s most experienced newspaper
practitioners, argues advertisers need to check how much
weight they give to digital over traditional media.

pg.19|Backtothefuture–BenjaminHaslem
“Right around the world the hot topic in
marketing is the lack of a standard
measuring tool for digital advertising,
especially for video views, where on
Facebook and Instagram a view is three
seconds,” argues Mitchell.
“How can that be compared with ads on
free-to-air television?”
News Corp Australia’s Chief Commercial
Officer, Sharb Farjami, is blunt and
refreshingly honest: “I don’t know
what’s working and what isn’t but a lot
of nonsense is being talked”.
On the question of ROI in the digital
space, the US-based Association of
National Advertisers (ANA) CEO-
president Bob Liodice doesn’t mince
words: “many marketers are getting
their money stolen”.
Digital advertising spending has reached
55 per cent of the total US ad spend,
US$230 billion.
It’s growing at 14 per cent per annum,
three times as fast as total spending.
The problem, says Liodice, is that only
about half the digital investment
actually reaches the publishers.
A recent ANA survey found US
marketers lost US$7.2 billion to ad fraud
in 2015, mostly from web bots, about $1
billion more than in 2014.
“Ad fraud awareness has improved but
effective action is rare,” Liodice told a
recent Advertising Financial
Management Conference in Florida.
“It was estimated in 2015 that about
US$22 billion of ad investments did not
reach their intended targets, and that is
expected to rise to US$41 billion.
“In Q2 2015, the ad blocking rate among
the US online population was 16 per
cent. It is extreme and it is growing
fast.”
Not everyone agrees that there should
be a retreat from digital.
Colgate-Palmolive is investing heavily in
the space.
“A lot of our consumer engagement,
particularly given the changing
demographics in the world, is now with
digital advertising,” Chairman-CEO Ian
Cook said recently.
“Digital advertising is more efficient than
the traditional print, television, radio,
billboard type of advertising.”
Consumer products giant Clorox (think
Brita jugs and Glad Wrap) is following
the same path.
“We will, going forward, work with
agencies that are agnostic to TV and that
are going to be led by digital, and
they’re going to help us take our brands
to new heights in a world where digital
and social rules,” Clorox CEO Benno
Dorer said recently.
Other major brands betting on a big
upswing in digital include: Home Depot;
L’Oréal; Estée Lauder and Kimberly-
Clark.
The issue of digital over legacy was a hot
topic in Mumbrella’s recent survey of
1000 industry professionals, particularly
how younger workers lack knowledge of
the role traditional media plays.
Mumbrella’s marketing and advertising
editor, Simon Canning, reported recently
that industry leaders agreed “there was
a skills gap growing, particularly in
agencies where younger workers had
little knowledge of legacy media such as
newspapers, magazines and TV, skewing
planning and buying towards digital
channels, which they were more familiar
with”.
“… many advertisers are pumping large
parts of their marketing budgets into
digital products and, shiniest new thing
of them all in the past couple of years,
social platforms such as Facebook and
Instagram,” Mitchell wrote in The
Australian recently.
”What I know after 42 years in media is
the only worthwhile ad is one that rings
the cash register.”
Marketing professor at Melbourne
Business School, Mark Ritson, argues
that “most marketers have become
completely obsessed with the brave new
world of digital marketing at the
expense of strategic fundamentals and
the more traditional channels.
“This obsession has taken hold despite
the actual data,” Ritson wrote recently
in The Australian.
Ritson points out that 85 per cent of all
video is still watched on a TV set in
Australia.
“Not a phone. Not a laptop. A TV,” he
writes.
And don’t fall for the argument that it’s
all about the youth. The millennials born
between 1980 and 2000.
According to OzTAM data, that cohort
watched 59 per cent of its total video on
TV. As Ritson points out “that still means
they see four-times more video on their
TV set than on their phone and three-
times more than on their laptop”.
And when it comes to actually
measuring how many eyes are latching
on to your YouTube advertisement, web
bots and other forms of web dupery
means it is easier to gauge a ROI through
traditional channels.
‘I don’t know what’s working and what isn’t but a
lot of nonsense is being talked’

Farjami believes the digital debate is a
matter of balance.
“Whilst trying new things is really
important for a media industry, we
should be clear about what
accountability looks like. I think there is
a bit of a swing back going on, a bit of
rebalancing,” the News Corp Australia
COO says.
Sebastian Rennie, chief investment
officer of global media investment
management group, GroupM, agrees.
Rennie told Fairfax Media that “it’s
important that we find ways to
introduce digital into the overall screen
mix, because there’s definitely viewing
happening there and it’s happening in
increasing numbers each year, but I
think you've also got to be careful that
you don’t tip the balance too far”.
“There's no question TV still remains a
lead media channel for us as an agency,
but also for our advertisers and clients
too.”
Nevertheless, it would be foolish to
downplay digital platforms as channels
of influence. Particularly in public
relations, where chasing editorial
coverage to assist a client is far more
powerful than advertising.
The University of Canberra’s News and
Media Research Centre released its
second annual survey of news
consumption in Australia recently. It is
free online and well worth a read.
The survey of 2000 people found that
just over half of respondents reported
that social media was a popular source
of news.
However, when asked for one main
source of news only 18.5 per cent said
social media or blogs; 37.6 per cent
replied TV and 27.4 per cent said online
news (40.7 per cent of 18-24 year olds
and 27.5 per cent of 25-34 year olds said
social media).
Radio news programs (39.6 per cent),
printed newspapers (35.4 per cent) and
websites of newspapers (32.5 per cent)
were also widely used as sources of
news.
Note the figure for newspapers: about
one-third of media consumers are still
reading printed newspapers. However,
just 8.2 per cent said newspapers were
their main source of news.
Asked which social media site they used
for finding, reading, watching, sharing or
discussing news, Facebook topped the
lists: 45 per cent used Facebook for
news. Only 15 per cent use YouTube for
news; 8.2 per cent use Twitter and
(interestingly) 4.1 per cent used the
messaging app WhatsApp.
Rennie argues that marketing and PR
practitioners need to understand how
digital developments affects their
clients.
However, it is not as simple as digital
being best for acquisition and traditional
mass media for building brands.
“It is important to get the balance right
… but a lot of assumptions are being
made ... and we don’t really have the
data to back them up,” Rennie says. “But
you can’t get away from the fact that
media consumption patterns are
changing and digital is changing the lives
of consumers.”
Rachel Lonergan, head of strategy at
boutique media agency, Foundation, told
Mumbrella she visited many advertising
agencies to talk about newspapers and
was concerned by the lack of
understanding younger people in media
agencies had about mass traditional
media.
“My observation was that the lack of
knowledge in the five-years-and-under
group in media agencies and creative
agencies around traditional channels is
pretty fatal,” Lonergan said.
“There is no sense of that scale in
cohorts who see everything through that
digital lens.”
Omnicom Media Group CEO (ANZ) Leigh
Terry told Mumbrella that “the starting
point was the key”.
“You have to start from a channel
neutral position and consider all
channels and dismiss them on the basis
of relevance, cost and everything else,”
Terry said.
Media agencies needed to make sure
that staff, even if they were not
consumers of traditional media channels
themselves, were fully up to speed with
them “because that’s your job”.
‘It is important to get the balance right … but a lot of assumptions are
being made ... and we don’t really have the data to back them up’

After many false dawns the economic sun may soon
shine on Australia’s northern neighbour
Wells Haslem Account Director Kathy Lindsay lived and worked in Jakarta from 2010-16.
She worked in PwC’s Energy, Utilities and Mining business.
With a growing middle class of around 50 million and half of its
250 million people under 30 years of age, our neighbour to the
north, Indonesia, represents a huge opportunity for Australian
business. The sectors expected to benefit from the higher
disposable incomes of Jakarta’s young, middle class are health,
leisure and tourism.
Australia’s two-way trade with Indonesia is worth about $16
billion a year, below the other much smaller ASEAN countries of
Thailand and Malaysia, which generate about $20 billion each
per annum, and one-tenth of our major trading partner, China.
There is room to grow the relationship, even though doing
business in Indonesia can be a challenge.
The lack of infrastructure is the most-cited difficulty.
The roads in Jakarta are in gridlock from early morning to late at
night and there are an incredible 4,000 additional motorbikes
and 1,500 cars on the streets every day, according to the Jakarta
police. The official metropolitan area has grown from 8.2 million
people to over 30 million between 1970 and 2016.
And for the 10 million people within the city limits of Jakarta,
only four per cent have access to a sewage drainage and
treatment system. For the majority, household waste is disposed
untreated.
Outside the capital there are poor roads, inadequate ports and a
struggling electricity network.
Indonesia’s regulatory environment can also be intrusive and
hard to navigate - the rules are often unclear and can change
quickly. While labour costs are still low, wages are rising and
labour laws are restrictive. For foreign expatriates, there are
further restrictions on age, skills and experience.
Despite these challenges there is a great deal of opportunities for
Australian businesses looking to do business in Indonesia.
A changing of the political guard and with it the political culture
are reasons for optimism.
Image: Winry Armawan

pg.22|Indonesia–KathyLindsay
There is a lot enthusiasm for the new
breed of government leaders – President
Joko “Jokowi” Widodo, Jakarta Governor
Basuki “Ahok” Tjahaja Purnama,
Surabaya Mayor Tri Rismaharini and
Bandung Mayor Ridwan Kamil – who
claim a space for themselves outside the
political elite.
Their emphasis is on down to earth
leadership, building physical and social
infrastructure and implementing pro-
poor policies.
Jakarta’s Ahok is fast-tracking
infrastructure projects, most notably a
rail-based mass rapid transit system,
cleaning rubbish from the streets and
drains to mitigate flooding and
subsidised health care and education for
the poor. Mayor Tri has improved
Surabaya’s green credentials, which has
won it the ASEAN Environmentally
Sustainable City Award 2012. Mayor
Ridwan is championing Bandung’s
technology and creativity and has also
introduced better waste management.
Meanwhile, the National Government
announced is most recent economic
stimulus package in March, the 11th
since September 2015, to boost
Indonesia’s growth. President Jokowi is
hoping to cut the high dwell time at
Indonesian ports, which has caused
losses of up to IDR 740 trillion (approx.
A$74 billion) and drastically affected
competitiveness due to high
transportation and logistics costs.
Indonesia has slipped 10 spots down the
World Bank’s logistics performance index
in 2016 to be ranked 63 out of 160
countries.
Previously stimulus packages have
included deregulation, cheap loans and
other support for Indonesian SMEs, tax
incentives for investment and opening up
more industries to foreigners.
A list of industries where foreign
investment is restricted is updated every
couple of years. This so-called “negative
investment list” is designed to increase
investment in Indonesia while protecting
national strategic business as well as
Indonesian SMEs. The latest list released
in May removes the foreign ownership
cap on 35 business. Sectors that benefit
include e-commerce, health care,
tourism, transportation and power
generation, construction and installation.
Recent indications are that Indonesia’s
economy is responding. Economic
growth has been the strongest in 10
quarters in April-June lifting annual
growth to 5.18 per cent. The Jakarta
stock exchange composite index has
risen 15 per cent in the past year.
Australian business should give serious
consideration to investing in Indonesia
but be aware that moments of optimism
in the past have come to little.
Still, with a new breed of political
leadership, perhaps this time the
economic upswing will be sustained.
As a starting point, knowledge of the
market, a good local partner, the ability
to adapt to changing circumstances with
speed but the patience to deal with the
red tape will all be required to be
successful.

IPREX highlights
Wells Haslem is a member of IPREX, a US$350m network of communication agencies, with 115 offices worldwide
ARENALIA LAUNCHES
A DELEGATION
IN MADRID
Barcelona-based Arenalia has
launched a delegation in Madrid
with the objective of offering a
closer service to its clients, such as
Qatar Airways or Vans. Arenalia is
now in the position to offer a
complete and efficient service in
Spain.
IPREX OPENS
IN THE
MIDDLE EAST
IPREX has opened in the Middle
East following the election of Iris PR
from Dubai in the United Arab
Emirates as a partner. The
company covers the Gulf
Cooperation Council countries,
Levant and North Africa region.
Founded in 2009, Iris PR has
focused on strategy, innovation
and accountable delivery.
IPREX GlobalAnnual
Conference, SanFrancisco
Clockwise from left:
BenjaminHaslem; Don
Rountree (Rountree Group,
Atlanta); SilviaPinedaSibaja
(DexteraComunicación,
MexicoCity), DeborahPead
(PeadPR, Auckland); Mayte
Gonzalez-Gil(poweraxle,
Madrid); CarolynGrisko
(Grisko,Chicago);Travis
Taylor (FinemanPR, San
Francisco)

SPM PRESENTS
EXPERIENCE WITH 2,500
CLIENT CRISES
SDI'S JUDY WHITTLESEY
NAMED CHAIR OF US FRAC
BOARD
The Food Research and Action Centre
(FRAC) announced Judith H.
Whittlesey, executive vice president
of Washington DC-based Susan Davis
International (SDI), the new Chair of
its Board of Directors. Judy has a long
track record of overseeing successful
campaigns for corporations, federal
government agencies, and national
non-profit organizations.
DUNKIN' DONUTS NAMES
FINEMAN PR AOR FOR
NORCAL
San Francisco-based Fineman PR
has been selected as the Agency of
Record for Dunkin’ Donuts in
Northern and Central California.
The agency will provide local
market support for the opening of
restaurants and establishing a
stronger Dunkin’ Donuts brand
presence.
NZ’S PEAD PR
BOOSTS LEADERSHIP
TEAM
Pead PR is restructuring at a senior
level to ensure sustained success in
the evolving PR industry. Deborah
Pead is stepping in to a CEO position,
taking a more strategic role, while
group account director Becky Erwood
becomes managing director.
Deborah says it’s “a good news
announcement” and an investment
in the leadership of the business.
Suzanne Miller and Kristen
Kauffman from Texas-based, SPM
Communications recently
presented at the annual National
Restaurant Association MEG
conference, where they shared
insights from their nearly 20 years’
experience handling 2,500 client
crises. You can view Suzanne and
Kristen’s Prezi HERE.

For the past 25
Years John was a
founding partner
and senior
consultant in one
of Australia’s
leading public
relations
companies,
Jackson Wells.
Prior to that John’s
career embraced
journalism at the
most senior levels
in Australia and
overseas. He has
extensive
experience in
media
management in
both television and
radio, has provided
policy advice to
Federal political
leaders and offers
public affairs
consulting.
Benjamin has over
20 years’
experience in the
media.
Ben worked at
Jackson Wells for
nine years, where
he managed and
worked on
complex projects
and became a
Director and CEO.
Ben possesses an
acute
understanding of
mainstream media,
having spent the
best part of a
decade working for
The Australian
newspaper in
Sydney, Canberra
and Melbourne.
Ben has lectured
students from the
City University of
Hong Kong on
public relations
and government
affairs.
Immediately
before joining
Jackson Wells, Ben
was The Australian
newspaper’s High
Court
correspondent and
regularly acted as
Chief-of-Staff at
the Sydney Bureau.
From 1999-2002,
he was based in
the Parliamentary
press gallery in
Canberra.
Alexandra has over
eight years’
experience in the
public relations
industry and a
communications
degree from
Charles Sturt
University.
Alexandra
previously: was an
Account Manager
at Jackson Wells;
headed up
marketing and
media at a sports
publishing
company; and
worked within a
consumer public
relations
consultancy,
representing some
of the world’s
largest FMCG
brands.
Alexandra is
passionate about
the NFP sector and
has been involved
in various Boards
including with the
United Nations,
Sydney Peace
Foundation, and
social enterprise
and tech start-up
OnNow.
Wells Haslem Team
John Wells
Chairman
Alexandra Mayhew
Partner
IsabelleWalker
Account Manager
Isabelle completed
a Bachelor of Arts
(Government and
International
Relations) at the
University of
Sydney. Her
passion for US
politics prompted
her to take
numerous courses
at the university’s
innovative United
States Studies
Centre – where
Wells Haslem’s
Michael Baume
was a Board
Member. Here she
was invited to join
a round table
discussion about
US-Australian
affairs with the US
Assistant Secretary
of State for the
Asia Pacific.
Isabelle works
across a range of
Wells Haslem
clients providing
intelligent
direction and
support.
Tim holds a
Bachelor of
Political, Economic
and Social Sciences
from the University
of Sydney and is
currently
completing a
Master’s Degree in
Strategic Public
Relations.
Prior to joining
Wells Haslem, Tim
worked as a
researcher for
leading
conference,
exhibition and
training organiser,
Informa Australia.
He has extensive
campaigning
experience
through his
involvement in
several election
campaigns for
Liberal candidates
at both the NSW
State and Federal
level. At the last
NSW state election
he was responsible
for organising the
campaign strategy
and media tactics
for a Liberal
candidate in a
marginal seat.
Benjamin Haslem
CEO
Kathy Lindsay
Account Director
Kathy has
extensive
communications
experience
working in Asia.
She was previously
head of internal
communications,
Asia-Pacific, at
Lehman Brothers,
Tokyo and was a
member of
corporate
transition team
during Nomura
Holding’s
acquisition of the
global banking
giant.
She also worked in
business
development for
PwC Indonesia's
energy and mining
business and as
executive director
of the Australian-
Thai Chamber of
Commerce.
Kathy has
previously worked
as an adviser to
then Victoria
Premier, Jeff
Kennett and NSW
Environment
Minister, Chris
Hartcher.
Timothy Mantiri
Account Executive
Kate Mayhew
Special Counsel
Kate draws on over
a decade of
experience
working in
journalism and
communications to
provide high-level
strategic advice
and support.
Kate started her
career with UNICEF
Australia. In this
role she raised
awareness of
UNICEF’s work
across all forms of
media including
print, online,
television and
radio. Kate
managed UNICEF’s
celebrity
ambassador
program and was
responsible for
accompanying
celebrities and
media on
international field
trips to promote
UNICEF’s
humanitarian
work.

Kerry’s career has
embraced the
highest levels of
Australian political
life and the cutting
edge of business
development. He
was an ALP
Senator for NSW
for 19 years,
including President
of the Australian
Senate from 1987
until retiring from
Parliament in 1994
to become
Australia’s High
Commissioner to
Zimbabwe and six
other southern
African nations.
He is a former
director of
Zimbabwe
Platinum Mines
and World IT.
From 2003 to 2010
he served the
Government of the
Republic of
Mozambique as
their Honorary
Consul-General in
Australia.
In 1996, he was
awarded an Order
of Australia.
Kerry Sibraa AO
Special Counsel
Julie has 20 years’
experience in
public policy in
both the
government and
private sectors.
She began her
roles in
government during
the Hawke/Keating
era, working with
Federal
parliamentarians
including the
Health Minister
where she had
responsibility for
drug policy, mental
health and
women’s health.
She later worked
for NSW Minister
John Della Bosca,
for nine years, the
office of the
Premier of NSW,
and was COS to the
NSW Treasurer.
In 2009 was the
Deputy Chief of
Staff to the Federal
Minister for
Employment
Participation.
Julie spent nearly
two years as
National Policy
Manager for
Infrastructure
Partnerships
Australia.
Julie Sibraa
Special Counsel
pg.26|Team
Wells Haslem Team cont.
Ron is one of WA’s
most respected
government
relations
specialists,
enjoying an
excellent working
relationship with
all sides of politics.
From 1983-1993,
he was Federal MP
for the Perth
electorate of
Stirling. Prior to
leaving parliament,
Ron was Deputy
Speaker.
In 2006 he was
awarded a PhD in
Education from the
University of WA,
which investigated
factors that
promote social
inclusion.
Ron is a keen AFL
fan and in 1994
helped established
The Graham (Polly)
Farmer
Foundation. He has
been a Board
member since its
inception.
Ron, who has
extensive
experience in the
fisheries and
mining sectors,
assists Wells
Haslem clients
communicate with
the WA State
Government and
Federal MPs and
Senators based in
WA.
Affiliates and Counsel
Ron Edwards
WesternAustralia
Michael is a former
diplomat, front-
bench federal
politician,
consultant,
journalist, public
company director,
stockbroker, TV
panellist and
commentator,
author and public
speaker.
He is Deputy
Chairman of the
American
Australian
Association Ltd, a
member of the
Sydney Symphony
Orchestra Council
and a former
board-member of
the United States
Studies Centre at
Sydney University.
He is a contributor
to the Spectator
Magazine and a
former regular
columnist in the
Australian
Financial Review.
Michael
Baume AO
Special Counsel
(Emeritus)
Chris is an investor
relations and
corporate
marketing
professional with
extensive financial
services knowledge
gained from over
25 years’
experience working
across different
sectors of the
financial services
industry –
predominantly
superannuation;
investments and
wealth
management and
advice.
Working with
diverse stakeholder
groups including
shareholders,
investors, financial
intermediaries and
the media, Chris’
focus on delivering
results has
consistently been
demonstrated by
the ability to build
and protect
corporate
reputations,
establish and
maintain strong
stakeholder
relations externally
and internally,
manage
communications in
both normal
operational periods
as well as crisis
situations, plus help
to turbo-charge the
growth of
businesses.
Chris Bowen
Affiliate

Robert Masters
Director
pg.27|Team
RMK + Associates
is a strategic
communication
and stakeholder
engagement
consultancy.
Since its inception,
its approach to
strategic
communication
programs,
community
consultation and
stakeholder
engagement
processes have
earned it a
reputation of being
at the leading edge
of communication
management for
over 30 years.
Rob’s services and
clients cover the
energy sector (oil,
gas, coal),
electricity,
forestry,
government
(federal, state,
local) water,
finance,
automotive, health
and health
research,
pharmaceutical,
education,
transport (road
and rail),
information
technology,
primary industry,
environment and
retail.
RMK + Associates Melbourne
John Kananghinis
Director
Angus Nicholls
Senior Associate
Maria Vampatella
Group Manager
Angus has in
excess of 15 years’
experience of
working with, in,
and around all
levels of
Government in
Australia, in roles
ranging from
lobbying, to
advising a Federal
Minister, and as an
elected
representative of
his local Council.
He was an Adviser
and Acting Chief of
Staff to a former
Federal Minister.
Complementing
Angus’
government
experience is his
commercial trading
background,
having run one of
the nation’s largest
seafood wholesale
and commercial
fishing operations
out of Melbourne.
Alistair King is a
highly skilled
professional with
over 20 years’
experience in
communication
and stakeholder
relations
management
within the
Victorian
Government and
not-for-profit
sector.
His experience
ranges widely and
encompasses
energy, resources,
agriculture,
industry, health,
education and
justice portfolios,
as well as several
years in the
Department of
Premier and
Cabinet.
Alistair holds
degrees in
Marketing and
Economics as well
as an IAP2
Certificate in Public
Participation. He is
a Fellow of the
Public Relations
Institute of
Australia and a
member of IAP2,
and has presented
on
communications
and engagement at
numerous
conferences and
forums.
Laurissa Mirabelli
has close to two
decades of PR
experience both in
Australia and
abroad.
Laurissa has
extensive
experience in
establishing and
maintaining media
relationships,
communicating for
industry bodies,
creating and
running product
launches and
events and dealing
with sensitive
stakeholder issues.
She combines
strong industry
knowledge with
expertise in
strategic
communications to
provide clients
with practical and
commercially
valuable advice.
Laurissa has
developed strong
automotive
industry specialty
and has worked
with some of the
largest and best
regarded brands in
the automotive
sector.
Maria has worked
in communication
for over 25 years
with major
international and
national
consultancies with
specific expertise
in media relations
and strategic
communication.
She has assisted in
developing
effective
partnerships at a
national and
international level
with health
organisations,
education,
government and
community groups
covering strategic
communication
planning,
corporate and
government
integration, and
strategic alliances
with policy makers
and leaders.
John has close to
30 years’
experience in
strategic
communication
planning and
implementation
both as a
consultant and as a
senior executive
within highly
successful multi-
national
companies.
John has been
Managing Director
of a leading
Australasian
communication
consultancy and
has almost two
decades of senior
corporate
experience
through his roles
as General
Manager of
Marketing &
Communications
for BMW Australia
and Sales &
Marketing Director
for Scania
Australia.
John studied law at
Victoria University,
Wellington and is
also holds a
Diploma in
Business
Communications
from Massey
University in New
Zealand.
Alistair King
Senior Associate
LaurissaMirabelli
ConsultantAlex Messina
Senior Associate
Alex is an
accomplished
public affairs
professional with
25 years of coal-
face experience.
He has applied his
strategic thinking
across diverse
industries
including
agriculture, food
production,
community
services,
pharmaceuticals,
mining and
resources,
fisheries, energy
and infrastructure
and construction.
Alex’s
communications
heritage started
with 12 years in
metropolitan
journalism
covering State
politics, education,
consumer issues,
industrial relations
and investigative
reporting. He
followed this with
10 years in senior
communications
roles in Victorian
Government
departments
working with
senior executives
and a dozen
Ministerial offices.

L-R: Timothy Mantiri and NSW Treasurer Gladys Berejiklian; Wells Haslem team and guests at
the School for Life Ball; Timothy Mantiri and Tony Abbott MP (Image: DorePhoto); Isabelle
Walker competing at the School for Life Ball; Alan Jones and Timothy Mantiri.
CONTACT
Wells Haslem Strategic Public Affairs
+61 2 9033 8667
mail@wellshaslem.com.au
wellshaslem.com.au
Level 1, 50 Yeo St
(PO Box 223)
Neutral Bay NSW 2089
Designed and produced by Wells Haslem
Strategic Public Affairs PTY LTD
August 2016
Twitter: @WellsHaslem
Find us on: Facebook, LinkedIn

ISSUE_8

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (10)

Similar to ISSUE_8

Similar to ISSUE_8 (20)

More from benjaminhaslem

More from benjaminhaslem (6)

ISSUE_8