Tasmanian Times

Comments

<Back to Article

A neat little outline, Mr Bonham, for a pretty filthy scene. I will be comforted by rain today on all the barbecues where Liberals and Labors will guffaw over how well the minority government hoax worked.

It is now back to “work” for the elected members and hopefully it is back to work for voters and the opportunity once again to judge whether majority equates with integrity in governance.

Bring on the next election.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 19/03/06 at 05:37 PM
kevin is it possible to do a rough breakdown of what the results would have been for a 35 seat lower house?

Cheers

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 20/03/06 at 03:21 AM
The Editor,

The State election has shown that fear campaigns, negative advertising and misleading advertising work.

At the start of the election campaign opinion polls showed the Tasmanian Greens poised to increase their vote and gain the balance of power in the parliament.

But over the four weeks of the campaign up to half a millions dollars was spent on negative advertising directed against the Greens.

At least two expensive advertising campaigns were funded by big business interests. The Exclusive brethren distributed highly misleading pamphlets about the Greens.

And the Liberal and Labor Parties ganged up against the Greens in order to protect their duopoly.

This is not how a well-functioning democracy should work. The Tasmanian Electoral Act needs to be reformed to outlaw misleading political advertising and ensure full disclosure of who is funding advertisements.

Over the next four years what kind of favours will be done for the businessmen in return for their helping in re-electing the Lennon Government?

Tom Nilsson
Sandy Bay

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 20/03/06 at 05:03 AM
There is some cause for optimism in Bass re Kim Booth’s chances.

Michelle O’Byrne received a very high first personal vote. Some of her preferences may not necessarily flow on to other Labor candidates, but may go to Kim Booth. This would make sense, because O’Byrne is not even currently part of the Lennon Government, and is probably (at least seen as) more left-leaning than the Lennon Government.

Also, the ALP stood 6 candidates in Bass. That means that if a significant proportion of ALP voters only voted 1 through to 5 then Steve Reissig could miss out on some Labor votes. For example if a third of Labor voters only voted 1 to 5 and one sixth of those ballot papers (as a result of Robson rotation) had Steve Reissig then his vote would drop by about one fifteenth of quota, which is significant.

Or I may just be clutching at straws.

Posted by Tom N on 20/03/06 at 05:27 AM
Jason, no problems. Thanks for asking me to do that, it’s always an interesting comparison:

Under a 35-seat house we would have had Bass 4-2-1, Braddon 4-3-0, Denison probably 3-2-2 with an outside chance of 4-2-1, Franklin 4-2-1, Lyons 4-2-1. Total 19-11-5 with an outside chance of 20-11-4.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 20/03/06 at 05:32 AM
The Greens are their own worst enemies. They urgently need the services of an unblinkered, professional campaign manager and they should start the work of campaigning NOW for the next election.
In this election:
Chickens were counted before they were hatched via several silly comments to newspapers, both local and national, about what the Greens would do after the election with their expected increased power.

Take a leaf of of John Howard’s smiling refusal to be drawn on problematic questions. Learn from his public persona of humility whenever he fronts the media.
The dirty tricks campaign, which the Greens can expect at every election from rich industrial leaders, put them off their stroke and they didn’t have enough standing in the community, earned throughout the previous four years, to negate the lies.
The Wilderness Society’s rally, just a couple of days before the election, and featuring the Greens leader and candidates took the attention of the media - but away from concerns closer to the hearts of the majority of voters, and indicated to the disgruntled Labor voters that the Greens really were only a 1-policy party as has always been their reputation.

All the good work of the previous months, in getting broader policies to the voters, was washed away because of lack of political savvy two days before an election.
The three Greens politicians should now work hard to grab media attention on every issue raised by ALL voters during the next four years and get their policies better known.

They should be out in the community and available to sort out the perceived problems of every constituent, be it a pensioner unable to access dental work, or a seriously ill person unable to access health care, or residents fighting a dubious development proposal, or parents concerned about lack of special teacher support in the education system.
Leave the everyday work of fighting for the wilderness to the Wilderness Society and teach this Society when it is appropriate to grab media attention and when it is not.
Did the Labor Party candidates attend a rally arranged by union organisers, or did the Liberal Party attend a rally organised by business interests just days out from election day? Of course not. In public they focused their attention on the concerns of everyday voters and kept their support base out of the media spotlight.
The Wilderness Society should stand separate from the Greens Party and should know when and when not to grab the attention of a shallow media, media that is only too happy to undermine a political group which threatens the power of people who pay advertising dollars that keeps the media in business.
Learn from this disappointing election result Greens - and be better prepared next time.

And thank you for all your hard work for the most important of causes - sustainability of the environment. Unfortunately at this time the majority of voters don’t recognise its importance, so learn to represent the issues that they view as important - as well as the environment.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 20/03/06 at 06:53 AM
Polly Watch

You make some good points. The timing of the forest rally may not have made electoral sense, because those attending the rally would probably have voted green anyway.

However, I think the biggest factor (by a long way) against the Greens was the negative advertising that came from many quarters, and with a hell of a lot of money.

I received a pamphlet from the Exclusive brethren in the mail only a few days before the election. It was highly misleading. It is very difficult for the Greens to counter such material in only a few days. Many voters do not follow politics much in the media, but are influenced by advertising.

Posted by Tom N on 20/03/06 at 07:24 AM
thanks for that kevin

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 20/03/06 at 07:35 AM
The Greens had mountains of real, substantial, and scary ammo to use against Lennon, and they should have known that negative campaigns work a treat even when, as was the case here with Lib/Lab/Exclusive Bros/Rorters for a Better Future, they are confected.

Lennon has shown himself too dumb to answer the mounting backlog of allegations against him, but he rarely had to. Next time, there may not be enough left of the state to fight over.

John Hayward

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 20/03/06 at 09:01 AM
Methinks we Greens doth protest too much in the notion of ‘grimy fear campaign’ conducted by persons who ‘won’t reveal themselves’.

For starters, who cares which business identity or which religious hard-liner is behind anti-green advertising? Whether they do so with their names emblazoned over their material or not?

As for grime, I can’t consider the attack on the dreaded ‘hung-parliament’ sceanrio as grimy. Politically immature and willfully obscuring the simple facts of politics (that single-party administrations are less transparent and more error-prone than coalitions) certainly, but grimy? Grime is when peoples’ personal matters are raised; perhaps I missed something, but I didn’t hear any grime directed against Greens candidates, at least not here in Denison.

From the Green perspective, 2006 has been a reaffirmation of the status quo as established by the last election (which was a significant advance for the Greens), and now a minor setback. Just goes to show that Tweedledum is not dead just yet, despite Tweedledee’s rude good health.

And Bass has not been decided. The money is still on 3-2-0, but I’m wouldn’t advise putting the house on it.

Oh, and those turkeys waving Greens posters behind Lennon’s victory speech in the tally-room last night. Very bad move, children. Who were you trying to impress?

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 20/03/06 at 10:36 AM
In the 21st century getting “Democratically Elected” costs lots of money. Serious political parties need seriously large resources. Elections - the battle for hearts and minds, like wars can be won and lost in the media. Especially on the idiot box. That is where the majority of people get their information about the big issues!

It’s all about persuasion. I don’t like it any more than anyone else. But that’s the way it is. If the Greens are going to fight the election war in the media they need to find a way to increase their financial resources.
Otherwise they are going to keep running into the same problems every election. To match it with the big boys they need the big bucks….well bigger bucks than they presently have. Having said that I think they do very well with what they have. I would also say that I secretly admire people who get involved in politics, regardless of the party (can’t stomach the family first thing though). I would not do it. Congratulations to all who participated in the Tasmanian election.

cheers
rick

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 20/03/06 at 01:36 PM
I find myself agreeing with Rick (well at least his last point). Full marks to all brave enough to run in elections and keep alive our tradition of democracy.

Tasmanian politics are always very interesting. The flirtations with minority governments, the swings from the liberals to labor and back again.

The family dynasties. The occassional bright young things.

The former unionists, the ‘born-to-rules’ and the starry eyed dreamers. And the lovely dimension that all of us are 1 - to 2- degrees separation from our representatives.

Congratulations to all who put themselves personally and financially on the line to provide the contest we explore, analyse and analyse.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 20/03/06 at 01:55 PM
It is clear that the election outcome in Tasmania this weekend was the result of a deliberately deceptive and fear-mongering campaign by the two major parties and their industry intimates. All cashed up by new Howard Government propaganda cash bonuses to the two major parties.

Perhaps it worked so well because many people are now so disengaged in politics they no longer know what to believe??

There’s an interesting article exploring the consequences of a disempowered national electorate (in this case, the British one) at:

http://www.jrrt.org.uk/PowertothePeople_001.pdf

“• Many people feel that their views or interests are not taken into account when key policies are developed and key decisions are made even if they do get involved in formal democratic politics.

• The main political parties are widely held in contempt. They are seen as offering no real choice to citizens, lacking in principle and acting as though a cross on a ballot paper can be taken as blanket assent to the full sweep of a manifesto’s policies.

• Our system of electing our parliamentary representatives is widely regarded as a positive obstacle to meaningful political involvement. For millions of citizens it seems, voting is simply regarded as a waste of time because the candidate or party you favour is either not standing or has no chance of victory while the candidate or party that does stand a chance of winning is positively disliked…”

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 20/03/06 at 02:12 PM
For goodness sakes, this is politics. It is a horrible, dirty game that burns the individuals and their families and friends. Those who bother to enter the fray are (not exclusively) either brave, mad and/or intoxicated with the possibilities that political office holds.

It is no good for the Greens, at one level, to do whatever it takes to achieve a political end, and then cry foul when others do the same, targetted at them. There is no purity in politics and clinging to the pretence that they are pure is hypocritical and demeans the Greens. It is a game and one must play by all the rules.

OK, some of the rules may need revision, like disclosure laws that prevent the sort of campaigns that were presumably bankrolled by the infamous ‘big end’ of town.

Perhaps it is time for Peg to check her eligibility for Parliamentary super and bow out with a semblance of grace before it embitters her any further? Some new blood to support McKim and Morris might not be a bad thing, while the party relearns (after the painfully losses of Lance Armstrong in 1996 and Di Hollister and Christine Milne in 1998) that nothing can be taken for granted in the conservative electorates.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 21/03/06 at 02:36 AM
Tom N argues that “For example if a third of Labor voters only voted 1 to 5 and one sixth of those ballot papers (as a result of Robson rotation) had Steve Reissig then his vote would drop by about one fifteenth of quota, which is significant.”

I think Tom actually means one-eighteenth of a quota (1/3*1/6) but in any case the argument is incorrect, since it only applies to the votes Reissig will need to get and not to the votes he already has. Furthermore the proportion of votes exhausting in these cases was shown to be much lower in 1998 even when Labor ran seven candidates in each electorate. For instance in Denison 1998, a comparable case in which a Labor candidate who polled a few thousand votes was eventually left alone in the count against a Green, leakage from Labor’s candidates to exhaust totalled 338 votes, or about 0.03 of a quota.

I expect in this case it will be less than that with only six candidates. Also it does not follow that the proportion of omitted placings will be even between the six Labor candidates. Most likely those with the least votes have the lowest profile and will be by far the most commonly omitted.

It is difficult to anticipate how much Michelle O’Byrne’s vote will leak. Last time Jim Cox leaked 10.8% and Kathryn Hay leaked 15.4%, but these figures are slightly inflated by “loss due to fractions”; the real leakages were about 10% and 14% respectively. I expect O’Byrne to leak closer to the former than the latter given that Hay was a celebrity candidate. Even assuming O’Byrne leaks 11% (half each to Greens and Liberals) and Rochester’s preferences split 70% Green and 15% to each major party, that would still leave Booth over 500 votes behind.

Booth clearly needs to pick up as postal votes are included to have a real chance.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 21/03/06 at 06:04 AM
I now think Franklin will be significantly closer than my initial assessment above. It has been pointed out to me that in 2002 the Green preferences in Franklin favoured Labor more strongly, and exhausted less, than my average figures from elsewhere had assumed.

On this basis the projected lead for Goodwin is more like 300 than 450 votes.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 21/03/06 at 07:05 AM
May I ask what is different between the Wilderness Society’s support for the Green Party, the Kent Majority Goverentment Campaign or the Exclusive Brethren’s anti-Green campaign?

They are all interest groups having their say.

In Australia we enjoy democracy. The same democracy that allows Greenies to protest, people to vote and enthusiasts to post their political views on websites such as this one.

The Greens however can’t handle this process when it bites back at them. In fact they remind me of the kids at primary school who tease but when get teased dob and cry.

In the words of the great one herself, Peg, ‘It’s True’.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 21/03/06 at 08:05 AM
Disinterested says “...this is politics. It is a horrible, dirty game…” - fair enough, throw insults at each other - but have the guts to put your name to them.

Josh - what’s the difference between the Wilderness Society and the Exclusive Brethren? Everyone knows who is behind the Wilderness Society. Why the need for the secrecy oh Mighty Brethren? Who are the kids in primary school again?

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 21/03/06 at 11:20 AM
The difference is very simple, Josh. We KNOW the Wilderness Society support the Greens—what we DIDN’t at the outset of this election is who Tasmanians for a Better Future were, and I struggle to understand why they had to be so secretive about it. Where is the surprise in the Big End of Town wanting to keep its nest feathered?

And I will remind you that the Brethren (they no longer seem all that exclusive to me) have weighed into a process in which they are not supposed to participate—tell me, Josh, how that makes sense. To anyone except Damien Mantach, perhaps. Of these groups all have a right to say their piece—but is a little honesty or courage too much to ask?

We need changes to electoral disclosure laws in this state, and we need them in time for the next state election. Which of our fearless elected representatives will be so bold as to draft them, I wonder?

I’ll say it again: this was the best election result money could buy and as a result something of an affront to democracy, in my humble opinion.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 21/03/06 at 12:22 PM
What about the “Community Alliance” that campaigned on the forestry issue at the last election?

Who were they, did they have a public membership list or were they just a little bunch of elitists?

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 21/03/06 at 03:20 PM
I disagree with ‘Disinterested’ re Peg Putt “bowing out”. She had every right to deliver the angry speech she delivered on Saturday night and she is a very energetic and dedicated leader. I do however think there is a time to show anger, and a time to rely on calmly spoken words to deliver the message - and calmly delivered speeches should be her goal for the next four years.
Many voters received misleading pamphlets from a nameless group in the mail only a day or two before the election as reported by Tom N - they were designed to suggest they had been written by the Greens and I hope there is a sympathetic barrister out there who will take up the case on behalf of the Greens and the faceless liars will be identified and prosecuted. The postal system should also be held accountable for mailing out such material and new laws should be enacted to prevent mailouts of political material within a week of the voting day. This would give those parties who have been misrepresented time to counter the lies before polling day.
It is very worrying if the democratic process can be sidestepped in this way and those responsible can remain nameless and unpunished for their deception -or perhaps even fraud.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 22/03/06 at 12:59 AM
What did the Commnunity Alliance stand for?

I never heard of them. Did they run TV or newspaper ads? Were they completely anonymous? Isnt there a pro pulp mill group under the same name working out of the Tamar at present?

I certainly agree with Cameron statement that

“We need changes to electoral disclosure laws in this state, and we need them in time for the next state election. Which of our fearless elected representatives will be so bold as to draft them, I wonder?

Whether you are green,lib, lab or whatever. Changing these disclosure laws can only enhance democracy. Turn of the Telly makes some compelling points on this. Dont hold your breath though.

I would say that the Greens have to let the dust settle a bit before they revisit ‘the anonymous smear campaign” thing and a push for legislative change. There has been bilateral smear campaigns against the Greens with anonymous help from the big end of town for as many campaigns as i can remember. That’s how things have gone in Tasmania. At times the Greens must feel like the little kid in the schoolyard who gets picked on.

What can they do about it. I’m not sure. Perhaps a bit more fiscal muscle?

I am pretty sure that Peg’s tally room speech was not a good idea.

Peg should have appeared more gracious, however difficult. Surely that is the only choice a party leader has in that situation. I think now that it is all too easy for her opponents to cast her as a sore loser. Did she lash out like this as a parting shot? Is Peg going to move on. I dont know.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 22/03/06 at 02:19 AM
If one had suggested 4 years ago, when the Greens first got 4 elected under the 5 seat system, whether they would be able to hold them under against:a rebounding Liberal Party, strong economic growth under Labor (cronyism aside) and an extraordinary Labor-Liberal-Business-Exclusive Brethren anti-green advertising campaign; the answer would have been no.

While ‘conspiracy’ is the wrong word ‘ganged-up on’ is a fair description of what happened to the Greens. Rene Hidding’s acceptance speech indicated that he was happy to play his part, and I was almost surprised that Lennon didn’t included the Liberals and the Exclusive Brethren in his thank you list.

Add to this the ‘Majority Government’ argument, which has a parallel in Howard’s interest rate scare camapign at the last federal election and the results become interpretable. The Greens core vote was strong, but they received none of the last minute swing.

Some real questions go to what happens next. If ‘majority government’ is a core requirement for many voters (or the money men!), then Tasmanian democracy has just come unstuck. Tasmania has become a one party state. If one takes the Greens vote as given, then the Liberals needs a swing against Labor of over 16% to obtain a majority of 13 seats in their own right. Any swing between 3% to 15% and there is a minority government. So have the Liberals just bought a ticket for a long wilderness tour?

This probably explains young Wil’s eagerness to reposition the Liberal party, probably somewhere other than to the right of Lennon’s already right-wing Labor party, and probably somewhere other than majority or bust.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 22/03/06 at 03:47 AM
What would the authors of the pamphlets be “prosecuted” for? Contrary to widespread belief, it is not an offence to make a false or misleading statement in election material, because if it was many political candidates would need to be charged. It is only an offence if it is a false and misleading statement in relation to the formal process of casting your vote.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 22/03/06 at 04:28 AM
Re. The Community Alliance.

Bonham cleverly asks “What about the “Community Alliance” that campaigned on the forestry issue at the last election?”

Like so many others are doing at the moment, Bonham likes to reinvent history somewhat, but gets caught in his own web of smart-arseness.

Kevvy, unlike the invisible and cowardly front groups for the Big End of Town who bought and sold democracy on Saturday last, I recall the Community Alliance holding a press conference and actually being on camera for all the world to see.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 22/03/06 at 08:06 AM
The only thing the Exclusive Brethren might get busted for is the unauthorised use of Bob Brown’s image in their materials.

They certainly have broken the law but I don’t know whether it will go anywhere.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 22/03/06 at 08:57 AM
Beautifully spotted Neil. Kevvy is pretty predictable. I’m not sure what he meant by “Elitists”.

Pretty rich coming from a bloke who feels the need to remind us that he is a doctor every time he posts!

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 22/03/06 at 01:19 PM
Rick, I don’t feel a need to inform people of my doctorate, but there are some here who seem annoyed by the fact so I like to keep reminding them! Far from Neil’s comment being “beautifully spotted” he actually totally missed the point.

In fact, this press release from the Wilderness Society: http://www.wilderness.org.au/campaigns/forests/tasmania/20020617_mr/ states that the Alliance was a coalition including a few businesses, certain prominent individuals (the self-appointed elitists I referred to) and major conservation groups.

As such there is no public evidence I am aware of that it had anything to do with communities or that its name was any less deceptive than the names of various other groups of this nature.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 23/03/06 at 05:00 AM
Deceptive or not, Dr Bonham, I won’t hold my breath to wait for Tasmanians for a Better Future to hold a press conference.

Regardless of who comprises these groups, regardless of their political persuasion, there is quite a gulf between being up front about who’s involved (and the press release you link in your post provides a pretty impressive cast list, and is much more informative than anything disclosed by T for FB) and hiding behind front organisations in pathetic and cowardly anonymity. (Having said that, I will dip me lid to Michael Kent for owning up at the end.)

And given the extensive list of people involved in the Community Alliance, this name seems perfectly apt. There was a community of them, and they were allied behind a common cause. What is so deceptive about that?

Perhaps you need a new dictionary, Dr.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 23/03/06 at 06:59 AM
Cameron, what is deceptive about it is that the term “community alliance” gives the impression that the alliance is drawn from or representative of the community in general rather than being what it was - an alliance of supposedly important persons, a few small businesses, and activists.

Had the intention been merely to create the impression you describe, the expression “community alliance” would have been extremely tautological (since a “community” that is activist on an issue in this way is obviously an allied one), therefore I suspect you are just trying to be cheeky. In case you have not been informed yet by registered mail, that’s my job!

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 02/04/06 at 08:35 AM