Comments
I have a plan………
Let’s make huge super duper markets with all the usual profit maximisers, but let’s have alcohol, not only to sell, but to drink.
Then for those who like horses and those who can be coaxed when they’ve had enough drink, let’s bring in the TOTE.
Then, to extract the last remaining coin from the unsuspecting punters, install rows of poker machines past the checkouts before they hit the doors.
Mmmm… there must be a way to get (other attractive things) in there, casinos? ... my we are gathering quite a list, may take a few elections to get it all together, but no time like the present.
Posted by Dave Groves on 03/04/06 at 04:56 PMI think Chris Harries intention was to paint Mr Kent as a typical greedy capitalist villain. But he has failed. From reading this rather bias profile I think we need more people like Kent. Successful local entrepreneur reinvesting the profits into the State economy - good on him!
There is nothing wrong with open trading. Why should consumers be forced to pay a premium to keep inefficient business alive? I always thought that business was there to serve consumers, not the other way around.
Protectionism hurts those who are least able to afford it. I wish Mr Kent all the best in his endeavours to expand consumer choice and convenience. And it don’t really care if the motivation is selfish, the outcome remains the same.
Your profile was also dishonest by omission, or simply poorly researched. You make an assertion about Mr Kent being no “casual philanthropist”. Yet fail to mention the many worthwhile organisations that he has been involved with, such as current President of the RSPCA (TAS).
Posted by Richard Dowling on 03/04/06 at 11:14 PMAnd the other big questions about Tasmanians for a Better Future:
- Was Gunns boss John Gay a major contributor?
- How much did former Premier and current Gunns board member Robin Gray contribute?
Posted by Geoff Law on 03/04/06 at 11:38 PMI am with Richard Dowling.
Michael Kent has done an enormous amount for the Tasmanian community. You can’t agree with everyone on every view they hold, some people might be against Michael for his views on shopping hours, but have a look at a broader picture of the man than this one painted in all the dark colours by Chris “we’re all ruined” Harries.
Like Chris Harries, Kentie has a powerful view of where he wants Tasmania to be in the future and is prepared to put his own time and effort into achieving it. He is not evil for having a different view to that held by a Wilderness Society veteran like Chris Harries who is a bit more than a writer and a social advocate.
And the patronising attitude of the Greens to the voters of Tasmania might be as good a reason as any for why they are not sharing power. “Anyone who didn’t vote Green has been duped, all 80-plus per cent of them.” Leave it alone Chris, Tasmanians are a fair bit smarter than you might give them credit for.
Oh and by the way, grog is sold in supermarkets elsewhere in Australia and, unless both The Mercury and Tasmanian Times missed the story - an unlikely occurence - the sky hasn’t fallen in.
Make mine a charddy,
Cheers,
Nudger
Posted by nudger on 04/04/06 at 01:57 AMRichard Dowling et al miss the point.
At fundamental stake with Michael Kent’s activities is not whether alcohol distribution should be further liberalised but whether such changes are being procured by inappropriate financial contributions to Tasmania’s electoral process.
It is good that policy should be debated, it is bad that it is being put up for sale. Now Mr Kent appears as a willing buyer.
Posted by Alex Wadsley on 04/04/06 at 03:21 AMThe real issue here isn’t the philanthropic intentions or otherwise of Michael Kent, but the practice of influencing election outcomes through advertising without disclosing who is footing the bill.
Michael Kent has the privilege of being able to afford such advertising, which is a luxury unavailable to the vast majority. The public have as much right to know his intentions in advertising as we do in knowing the intentions of political candidates. Yet whereas the candidates generally promote theirs, this is not the case for Michael Kent. His intentions only become public knowledge through the efforts of journalists, or such investigators as Chris Harries.
Perhaps if Michael Kent’s possible reasons for financing Tasmanians For A Better Future had been made public before the election, his advertising campaign may have been less effective as voters took its message with a grain of salt.
In his comments about the ‘patronising Greens’, ‘Nudger’ suggests that anyone who saw the negative advertising would have retained a healthy, politically-aware scepticism as to its message anyway. Is it not a bit patronising of ‘nudger’ to assume that everyone is as politically-savvy as he is? It also seems likely that ‘nudger’s’ comfortable acceptance of Michael Kent’s electoral practices results from his sharing of Michael Kent’s views on minority government.
Is it not patronising to believe that it doesn’t matter how the outcome is achieved provided people vote the way you want them? I’m sure if the Greens had funded a lavish election campaign whose funding has been primarily provided by unknown Asian entrepreneurs, ‘nudger’ would want to know exactly what was going on!
Posted by Ben Ridder on 04/04/06 at 04:03 AMSorry Chris, but your article is complete and utter crap.
Michael Kent has done more for the Tasmanian community than most will ever dream of doing.
Apart from having built-up a Tasmnanian-born company in the form of Purity that has employed thousands of Tasmanians, of all ages, in all corners of the state, for nearly half a century, Kent’s contribution to Tasmanian charitable organisations, sporting communities and business fraternity are second to none.
And your kind of demonising of Tasmanian corporate-types does no favours to those who represent the alternate view in which your article supposedly seeks to articulate.
It just panders to the same old prejudices of a naive minority that is out of touch from the mainstream Tasmanian community.
If Michael Kent wants to spend his own money promoting his personal political views in a way that complies with the full letter of the law, than good luck to him.
If the rest of us have a problem with well-off individuals using their inequitable financial resources to promote biased political comment in an election campaign, than let’s pressure to change the law on political advertising, not attack an individual’s character.
There are many aspects of both Kent’s personal politics and especially his agenda for changing the Woolworths regulative framework that i personally am diametrically opposed to. Their long-held desire to sell grog in supermarkets is one you have rightly named, the way they are putting family-run service stations out of business right across the state through their aggressive activites in that industry is another.
However, Michael Kent has done more than enough to earn a certain degree of respect that we who oppose his point of view should debate the issue, not his character.
Posted by Eyes on Denison on 04/04/06 at 04:51 AMEd - I think my earlier contribution dropped out. I will have a go at reposting it here as much as I recall.
Chris Harries is not only a Tasmanian based writer and social advocate, but also a former Greens advisor and strategist. Chris might recall the election in 2002 when a less shadowy, more annoying group calling itself the “Tasmanian Community Alliance” in which the Greens and Wilderness Society were involved touted that they had a $100,000 media campaign.
Now, Chris, perhaps you would care to document the contributors to this fund - I can’t recall ever seeing a list of the financial backers? Could it be that some of them wanted to remain anonymous? Could it be that some may even had businesses that may have benefited from impediment to industrial forestry? Could it be that some may have businesses that might have benefited further if the Greens had obtained some degree of political power?
Did the expensive media campaign by the TCA influence the last election? Well, the Greens did about 2% better in 2002 than in the 2006 round. Perhaps the TBF learned some lessons from the TCA?
Posted by super Annoyed on 04/04/06 at 05:00 AMBen Ridder - why do the unknown entrepreneurs have to be Asian?
Could Asian entrepeneurs be unwelcome in the Greens version of Tasmania?
Posted by super Annoyed on 04/04/06 at 05:03 AMEyes on Denison seems to be over-reacting. This article simply explains to me Mr Kent’s motives behind his support of the so-called Tasmanians for a Better Future. It comments on Mr Kent’s strategy to get what he wants in business.
However, it naturally leads to the questions about whether we want these methods to be allowed.
His charitable and community contributions are not at issue here.
Just remember Tasmanians for a Better Future was not a charity and was not acting in the best interests of all Tasmanians.
Mr Kent deserves criticism for backing a group that hides its true motives.
Posted by Barry Brannan on 04/04/06 at 05:30 AMTo those who are missing the point, my essay was not about Michael Kent, except by example. It was about the silent and gradual submerging of our electoral system into the market economy.
We have become accustomed to wealthy entrepreneurs buying up entire sports teams, whereby sporting contests (such as the AFL) have, in effect, become a commercial contest between those corporate entities who can buy up the strongest players from around the country – even though the rules of the game haven’t theoretically changed. Much though we may decry the passing of genuine contest between say, the boys of Collingwood versus Footscray, we accept that we now live in a market economy, which envelopes sport and many other aspects of daily life.
But, as citizens in a democracy we should have BIG concerns about the commandeering of our electoral system by the market economy. The principle at stake is how to restrain a complete takeover - as is the case now in the US - whereby the integrity of our democratic electoral system is virtually undermined by money.
Have we become so enamoured by the market that we, as a society, do not even feel at all alarmed that commerce should become a major player in electoral politics? Blinded to the extent that we even applaud it?
It almost doesn’t matter who does the vote buying - whether it be Michael Kent, Robin Gray or anybody else - the question needing a fertile debate is how can our electoral system be shored up in the face of commercial encroachment. What rules should apply?
At the very least, those corporate citizens who engage in the electoral process mark themselves as political entities. That’s a risk they take themselves, and it is in the interests of democratic principle that their financial largesse be subject to scrutiny.
Posted by Chris Harries on 04/04/06 at 05:45 AMWhy do so few of Michael Kent’s supporters have real names?
Super Cynical
Posted by lhayward on 04/04/06 at 07:00 AMIf having a view that Tasmanians are intelligent, articulate and capable of thinking for themselves, then YES, I am patronising.
Ben, everyone does things in politics that push the moral envelope, even the great St Bob. As was suggested earlier, let’s see Chris Harries name names of those other backers. It doesn’t seem to be exactly sprinting into print.
The Greens; biggest problem is that they want everyone else to abide by the rules, but not them when it suits them.
And believe it or not, I am not anti-Green. The presence of the party has added enormously to the rich tapestry that is Tasmanian life.
But please, let’s stop kidding ourselves that they are purity (no pun intended) itself, and everyone else is tainted, especially in this case the former owner of Purity.
Posted by nudger on 04/04/06 at 07:31 AMNudger, the Greens are the ones who are suggesting we change our electoral laws to enforce greater disclosures.
Once the other political parties agree to this, everyone will disclose.
It is hardly fair for you to attack the Greens about disclosing when it is others that are resisting disclosure laws.
Posted by Barry Brannan on 04/04/06 at 09:44 AMThis article is good. Some of the posts in response are rubbish. Of course Purity employed Tasmanians. That’s how a retail company functions and its owner makes a profit. But If it hadn’t been Purity it would have been another retailer. I can’t see that Michael Kent had created any jobs than otherwise wouldn’t have existed.
Alcohol shouldn’t be sold at supermarkets because it is a powerful drug and it causes a lot of health and social problems (far more than illegal drugs such as marijuana or ecstasy).
Posted by Tom N on 04/04/06 at 12:27 PMMr Harries I do not consider it prudent to label your article “Who is Michael Kent” when you have just stated that it was not about Michael Kent.
My initial response was not really about Mr Kent either, except to counter your pernicious and unfair treatment of him.
Chris Harries has totally lost me on his follow up comment. What is this rubbish about AFL being a business contest? I don’t really want to get distracted on this silly point, but since you raised it, nobody owns AFL teams. And you say “though we may decry the passing of genuine contest between say, the boys of Collingwood versus Footscray” - if you actually followed AFL you wouldn’t have said this. The AFL actually still remains a highly regulated market that mandates collective bargaining and probably contravenes the Trade Practices Act as well - so another deficient example on your part.
Does anyone really understand what point this guy is making? The follow up comment has little to do with your poorly conveyed commentary of Mr Kent.
I can see that I’m wasting my time here because no doubt as soon as you read my comment you’ll be telling me that I’ve missed the point again.
So what is the damn point? If it is about “the silent and gradual submerging of our electoral system into the market economy,” then please enlighten me. Attacking Michael Kent or alluding to the commercialisation of sporting contests does nothing to advance this doubtful argument.
A D-minus for Mr Harries’ efforts so far.
Posted by Richard Dowling on 04/04/06 at 12:38 PMI do have a real name, it is Neville, but my friends call me Nudger. You can too. And you can contact me at my e-mail address and I will converse with you there, too.
Isn’t Richard Dowling a real person?
Methinks straws have been clutched at since Mr Harries first put fingers to keyboard and that continues to be the case:)
The election is over, the umpires in the shape of the good people of Tasmania have made their decision, so let’s get on with it.
As they say in cricket, have a look at the scores in the paper tomorrow - you’re out!
Still make mine a charddy!
Posted by Nudger on 04/04/06 at 11:29 PMGee, doesn’t Michael Kent have a cheer squad! I don’t know the man personally, but I sincerely doubt he’s Mother Teresa. Only time will tell whether he spent his money wisely or not. Personally I want grog in my supermarket, it would give Liberal Party pub owners some competition.
But that’s not really the point. Nor is whatever Mr. Dowling is trying to say about the AFL – he’s after all too young to have experienced the real game as she was played. No the real point is that, when you lay down with dogs you will get flees.
That’s happened to the Brethren, to Kent and others. Whether they deserve it or not, I now look differently at my Brethren friends, and when Kent appears on TV doing charitable works, I regard him with suspicion. What a shame!
Posted by cassandra on 05/04/06 at 01:57 AMTo further the case for some sort of disclosure and election spending limits regulation, it was not so long ago that the Tasmanian Electoral Act specified a strict spending limit of $1500 per candidate. To exceed this amount was in breach of electoral laws and a breach actually resulted in a re-election in Denison in the early 1980s.
Rather than modify spending limits, this law was simply repealed to prevent such awkward situations, and this has left our electoral laws with zero spending limits, and thus exposed to excessive influence from well-heeled vested interests.
To make matters worse, nor is spending of any amount by anonymous interest groups in breach of the existing Act.
Again, in the interests of democratic elections, there is a need for a re-think. It doesn’t matter if Mr Kent or Mr Goody Two Shoes intervenes in elections with buckets of money, the principle is exactly the same.
As for the Tasmanian Community Alliance, which publicised forest issues in the 2002 elections, this was no shadowy, secretive group.
Every TCA supporter was made public and still is on <www.tasmaniancommunityalliance.com>
With the Electoral Commissioner agreeing that changes to the law would be sensible, it is only prudent to have a sensible debate over the efficacy of our existing electoral laws.
Posted by Chris Harries on 05/04/06 at 06:10 AMChris - are you being a bit glib? We do know who was in the TCA but who funded the campaign? The $100,000 for the tv and other media ads? And how is this any different to TBF? And what conflicts of interest did these contributors have with regard to electoral outcomes? It is no different to the TBF - just a different set of values.
And where were the TCA in 2006? Could it be that the Wilderness Society decided to do its own ads? And why no criticism of the Wilderness Society? This is a tax payer subsidised organisation that ran a less than obtuse ad campaign through the last election. How much did this cost? And what interest did the WS have in the outcomes?
The hypocrisy of the Greens can be breathtaking at times. They are only willing to get on the high horse if it isnt their side with the buckets of money and tv ads.
Posted by super_Annoyed on 05/04/06 at 08:21 AMSuper Annoyed may be surprised to learn that new laws to protect democracy would even apply to the Wilderness Society.
I’m sorry Super Annoyed but don’t try bringing us all down to your level. It’s not all about money and profits and political power. Some people actually care about things from which they don’t directly benefit and some people at least try to do the right thing even though they don’t have to by law.
New laws will apply equally to all, but they are really only for the likes of contributors to TFBF who know it will be obvious why they donated if they are revealed. No one was ever ashamed of admitting they donated to protect our majestic forests.
It is clear to all why people like Super Annoyed and TFBF don’t want better laws which we all must adhere to. For them it is all about money and political power.
Donation and spending limit laws try to level the playing field so we all have equal political sway. In the past only those owning land could vote. Now corporate profits are deciding elections. TFBF didn’t spend over $350,000 to not have an effect. While there are many things you could say about Tony Harrison, Michael Kent and Robin Gray, they are not stupid. You can be sure that every business donating to TFBF etc would have stood to gain nicely from the election outcome.
The question is are some more equal than others?
Posted by Secret Tasmania on 05/04/06 at 01:13 PMThe straight answer, Super Annoyed, is that the Wilderness Society should also be subject to any mooted electoral disclosure laws, of course. No worries.
But no marks for working out which sides of politics are backed by the mightier corporate interests.
Interesting that some folk seem dead opposed to a level playing field!
You aren’t one of the secret election funders are you, Super Annoyed?
Posted by Chris Harries on 05/04/06 at 09:57 PMNo Chris - I approached this election the old fashioned way - I looked at policies and people. Bartlett #1, O’Connor #2, SIngh #3 etc. I think I put Peg Putt last - I wouldnt want her anywhere near a role in governing the State based on her performance over the electroral period. I am not a member of any political grouping. I just dont like hypocrisy.
Secret Tasmania has it wrong - my point wasnt about whether one cause was better than another, my point was that people come to elections with different sets of values. While businessmen may have many capitalist reasons to want majority Lab/Lib govt, it is just plain wrong to imply that both TCA or TBF didnt spend the money to try and influence voters, and that both groups didnt have a vested interest in the outcome - whether you love dollars or trees. I know a lot of Greens and they are just as greedy for political power as the Libs/Labs. High and mightiness on these issues wins the Greens no more friends beyond their committed brethren (not to say they are exclusive about the latter, but they could try being more inclusive as a novel electoral strategy).
Posted by super Annoyed on 05/04/06 at 10:41 PMWhat a load of crap from both sides in this debate.
Talk of democratic electoral processes and how to make them more transparent is just that. Talk.
I have never met Michael Kent and have no opinion about him, but as far as I’m concerned, if he’s prepared to pay for the government he wants, then he can have it. So can John Gay, Federal Hotels, PBL, the Exclusive Brethren or the secret unknown Asians.
There is far too much importance placed on social justice, the environment, education and health. None of these things contribute towards a short-term profit for the owners of capital.
Posted by Justa Bloke on 06/04/06 at 12:20 AMEscept you keep missing the main differences Super Annoyed:
The Wilderness Society is a well-established NGO with a publicly audited membership-driven funding base. What it stands for is very clear. The fact that the Greens are their best allies in achieving the Wilderness Society’s stated aims is also clear. But it’s also equally clear that the Wilderness Society exists to advocate to ALL political parties - Lib/Lab like to conveniently forget this as just one way of trying to legitimise ignoring the constituents’ views represented by the Society.
Comparatively, nobody knows who TFBF are bar one individual; nor who funds them, who runs them, and what other than a single position - majority government - they support. It’s even open to question whether they would have formed and funded advertising had the Libs been in power and facing a minority government, given the only known member is a close friend of Lennon’s. The lack of disclosure between the Wilderness Society and TFBF is glaring. Everyone knows who the Wilderness Society is, how it gets its money and what it stands for. You can’t even answer one of those questions adequately for TFBF.
I’m green and I’d certainly never argue that the Wilderness Society wants to raise the public profile and inevitably effect therefore political decisions through its advocacy. Heck I’d personally have relatively little objection to TFBF if we could actually answer those aspects as I’ve stated them above. People have a right to know who is trying to influence them, and why, and whether the funds they are using to do so are legitimate.
And this is the crux of the matter: the Greens support Electoral disclosure law reform, that would affect all groups, including those who are perceived to ally with the Greens. It’s called a level playing field. I’m at a loss as to why you don’t support it.
Posted by imogen on 06/04/06 at 02:29 AMImogen - It’s not that I don’t support disclosure reform, it was that I was pointing out that the Greens have benefited from expensive campaigns from the TCA (2002) and the Wilderness Society (2006). On disclosure, the public has no idea how much the Wilderness Society spent (plus I object to my tax dollars supporting it’s political engagement, but that is another matter) also the public has no idea which individuals or buisnesses associated with the TCA supported the 2002 media campaign, and whether they had anything to fiscally gain from greater number of Greens pollies and potential balance of power.
It was the hypocrisy of the rabbiting on about the TBF mob, and the holier-than-thou attitude that annoyed me. I was suggesting that the Greens think about being a bit more inclusive in their approach to politics rather than drawing up ‘us and them’ divisions as far as ‘shadowy groups’. Painting TBF as a capitalist conspiracy also does nothing to dampen down the impression that the Greens have become the harbour for the far left either.
For the future, if the Greens adopted a more inclusive agenda and set of platforms, the electorate may feel more comfortable about putting them into potential coalition roles. Otherwise, they will be stuck at 18% or less.
Posted by super Annoyed on 06/04/06 at 06:08 AMThere is nothing wrong with the Greens “agenda and set of platforms”. It’s all about perceptions.
Posted by Barry Brannan on 06/04/06 at 08:14 PMWhat’s wrong with them, Barry, is that over 80% of the voters don’t want them.
It doesn’t matter how noble your agenda is, or how logically and sensibly you propose it, nor how compassionate and tranparent you plan to be when in power, the point is that the Greens lost this election even worse than the Libs lost it.
Super, you are wrong, too. The Greens agenda would have to be so inclusive as to be unrecognisable for them to be a real force. After all, Labor has only got where it is by abandoning its principles. At least the Libs will never have to worry about that.
Posted by Justa Bloke on 07/04/06 at 07:24 AMI’ve only just come across this article, so I’m a bit late to the debate. However, I thought I should point out to anyone still listening that there is a factual error in it. Harries says:
Kent “knows that public sentiment (as with seven-day-trading and gambling machines in your local pub) will always side with the convenience factor”.
The fact is that on the one occassion in recent years that a question such as this has been put to the vote public sentiment clearly did not side with the convenience factor.
In 2005 WA had two referenda coinciding with their state election, one to extend trading hours until 9pm on weekdays, the other to allow Sunday trading, (both in the Perth Metro area only). Both had roughly 60% no votes. Of course this does not mean that the same result would occur in Tasmania on a different question, but certainly the idea that voters will always back convenience is wrong.
Posted by Stephen L on 09/08/06 at 10:15 AMFor the future, if the Greens adopted a more inclusive agenda and set of platforms, the electorate may feel more comfortable about putting them into potential coalition roles. Otherwise, they will be stuck at 18% or less.
Posted by ram on 01/08/08 at 11:11 PM
