October 13, 2011 | Graham

LNP should have set up an in-house oppositional research wiki

The most surprising thing about the LNP’s so-called dirt file is that they had to pay an outsider $3,075 to compile it. If their parliamentarians weren’t aware of just about all that was in the files then they aren’t doing their jobs properly.

They could have set-up an inhouse wiki and pooled their resources for a better and cheaper result and up-dated it in real time right up to and through the campaign.

The second most surprising thing is that anyone should be apologising for the files.

While the Courier Mail excised some parts of the files, if the files were not in fact largely relevant, why did the paper publish them today?

The issue isn’t whether the party researched the sexual habits of some of their opponents, but what they did with the information. It’s not as though sexual pecaddilloes are irrelevant.

Let’s not forget that two former Queensland Labor frontbenchers – Keith de Lacy¬†Wright (my unreserved apologies to Mr de Lacy it was a slip of the fingers) and Bill d’Arcy – have done time for sex crimes committed in the 90s and before, and only last year a NSW Labor cabinet minister stood down after being sprung in a gay brothel. In the last case it was a newspaper that did the research.

Even if this is not information that you intend to use, it’s information you need to know how to react to if, or when, it comes out. In the case of the two Queenslanders, it would have been better if their own colleagues had paid more attention to the gossip – perhaps less harm would have been done.

If the Opposition wants to rule Queensland they need to toughen up. The episode demonstrates strongly that they are prepared to let the government and The Courier Mail  dictate the agenda rather than trying to run it themselves.

Posted by Graham at 5:34 pm | Comments (5) |
Filed under: Uncategorized


  1. Graham, I’m not sure I agree with this. I think that justifying it probably keeps the story alive. I think Newman handled it well. Certainly much better than he’s handled the disclosure stuff.

    Comment by Nick — October 13, 2011 @ 5:58 pm

  2. I think you will find Keith deLacy is innocent of the accusation you make and you should take down that comment immediately.

    Comment by Mark — October 13, 2011 @ 6:16 pm

  3. Whoops. Unreserved apologies to Mr de Lacy. It was obviously Mr Wright.

    Comment by Graham Young — October 13, 2011 @ 7:32 pm

  4. Agreed Graham, WHY are the LNP not talking about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Mackenroth & http://www.devine.com.au/ & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclone_Larry ? How much reconstruction was involved?

    Comment by formersnag — October 19, 2011 @ 1:26 pm

  5. Graham, I think the fact that the LNP had conducted opposition research in house in the 2009 election (and every other election in history) as reported shows that it was futile to try and apologise for it:


    Comment by Steven — November 18, 2011 @ 9:41 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.