Comments on: More clarity needed in internal communications roles, functions and titles http://pracumen.com.au/2009/11/16/corporate-affairs-v-pr/ Insights and commentary about public relations Sun, 11 Jul 2010 22:25:27 +0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: James http://pracumen.com.au/2009/11/16/corporate-affairs-v-pr/comment-page-1/#comment-2 James Mon, 16 Nov 2009 11:54:12 +0000 http://pracumen.com.au/?p=700#comment-2 Whilst an interesting point for debate, I think Geoff Allen's piece dances around the central point of Mr Carpenter's appointment. He is employed to open doors. He knows people, and Wesfarmers needs those doors opened. "Corporate affairs" is a conveniently vague title to give someone who is employed essentially as a lobbyist, without the odium of the title in the state that gave us Brian Burke. We are debating the delicacies of what the title means without calling it for what it is - lobbyist. Wesfarmers wants to know what the government is thinking, what decisions it intends to make and why before they are made. A former Premier can give that advice, and open doors on all sides of politics. This could be extremely useful, particularly given there is a Labor government in Canberra. I see this less as a raising of the profile of "Corporate Affairs" and more as an attempt to hire a lobbyist on the payroll without the title. You may feel this is cynical. Not at all. I think it is a valid appointment, however I don't think we should be distracted from the basic point of of it. People with profile and contacts can open more doors than someone without. It's like the embassy that puts the MI6 operative as 2nd Assistant Cultural Affairs Attache. It hides everything in the name. Whilst an interesting point for debate, I think Geoff Allen’s piece dances around the central point of Mr Carpenter’s appointment. He is employed to open doors. He knows people, and Wesfarmers needs those doors opened. “Corporate affairs” is a conveniently vague title to give someone who is employed essentially as a lobbyist, without the odium of the title in the state that gave us Brian Burke.

We are debating the delicacies of what the title means without calling it for what it is – lobbyist.

Wesfarmers wants to know what the government is thinking, what decisions it intends to make and why before they are made. A former Premier can give that advice, and open doors on all sides of politics. This could be extremely useful, particularly given there is a Labor government in Canberra.

I see this less as a raising of the profile of “Corporate Affairs” and more as an attempt to hire a lobbyist on the payroll without the title. You may feel this is cynical. Not at all. I think it is a valid appointment, however I don’t think we should be distracted from the basic point of of it. People with profile and contacts can open more doors than someone without. It’s like the embassy that puts the MI6 operative as 2nd Assistant Cultural Affairs Attache. It hides everything in the name.

]]>