Dean Nalder faces reporters shortly after the announcement that he had been stripped of his portfolio. Photo: Aleisha Orr

A couple of years ago I was impressed by the response US President Barack Obama gave to a school student who asked him for advice on how to go about getting the top job in American politics during a live TV interview.

"Firstly," Obama said with a coy smile, "be careful what you wish for." 

After the chuckles from the adult members of the audience had died down, he dropped this genuine pearl of wisdom.

Advertisement

"And be very, very careful about what you write on Facebook and Twitter because if you ever run for President, they will find it and try to use it against you."

It's a pretty simple piece of advice - in politics, perception is king. Context doesn't matter nearly as much as who said or did it and how it might play out in a seven-second video clip on the nightly news. Intent isn't important.

And that seems to be where former Finance Minister Dean Nalder has failed to demonstrate the kind of political nous required to lead a major political party in today's world of line-by-line instant media and citizen re-publishing.

Although Mr Nalder was openly being touted as Premier Colin Barnett's successor at the time, I formed the view back in July that the new Minister for Finance and Transport was far from ready for the kind of scrutiny that modern political leaders must endure in order to rise to the top of their murky pool.

Which brings me back to the only thing about Obama's advice that wasn't crystal clear - exactly who "they" (those who might use your past against you for political gain) are.

For whatever reason, sources from within the Barnett Government told me six months ago that the relatively new Minister had wanted to take his young, female policy advisor to China for a personal business trip.

Without any knowledge of the financial links between the two, I formed the view that although Dean Nalder was clearly not very politically savvy, the information I had at the time didn't demonstrate any failure of his ministerial duties and therefore was not something that I wanted to publish.

Then in August the Director General of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, Peter Conran, published a short notice (as he is legally obliged to do) that approval for Mr Nalder's personal leave in July had been retrospectively reduced by a week. 

Since Peter Conran and the Director of Government Media Dixie Marshall have explicitly denied me access to the usual open and accountable media process, I couldn't simply ask for an official explanation so I started piecing together bits of information I was able to glean through my various back channels.

It wasn't long before it became clear that the Minister's trip to China wasn't in any way salacious, but very much about the personal business in which Mr Nalder and two of his ministerial advisors were co-investing. 

That raised a number of red flags that I thought were very much in the public interest.

Did Minister Nalder's active business investments pose any potential conflicts of interest with his tax-payer funded obligations?

Is it proper for a Minister and any member of his staff to collaborate on personal wealth creation schemes while they are working together in tax-payer funded positions of such power and authority?

Given that the Premier has "punished" Mr Nalder by removing the Finance portfolio (albeit on the same salary) and the policy advisor in question has been forced to leave, the answers to those two questions are now obvious.

But while we're talking public interest, it's more than just Mr Nalder's poor judgement that needs to see the full light of day.

A parliamentary question confirmed that Mr Nalder's Chief of Staff not only saw the folly of Mr Nalder wanting to take take his policy advisor to China for personal business but also raised it with "staff" in the Premier's office - four months before the Premier told the media that he had only just been made aware of the issues.

And that means either Mr Barnett lied about when he first knew about this or someone in his office took it upon themselves to decide that the Premier (and Chairman of Cabinet) didn't need to know that a Minister holding two of the most important portfolios for WA's future had a conflict of interest.

In hindsight, Mr Nalder has stuffed up on a number of fronts. He simply should have known better. Even if his behaviour was a direct result of bad advice or part of some Machiavellian smear campaign, someone with his executive experience in the banking industry and who only became a minister as a result of Troy Buswell's fall from grace should have been extra cautious.

The fact is he wasn't cautious enough and amply demonstrated that he doesn't currently have the political nous to lead the Liberal Party.

However, the bigger issue here might just be what Barack Obama was hinting at in his suggestion that political enemies come from over the hill and sometimes, your own backyard - especially when those on your team with the biggest weapons are also those who consider you the biggest threat.