Tom Baxter standing against Jim Wilkinson (Nelson)
on Leg.Co. reform.
Lets give him all the help we can to be successful.

‘Now Wanted’ new candidates against Vanessa Goodwin
(Pembroke).

Clear out these political dinosaurs, we want reform, reform
reform.

Basil Fitch, L’ton

#1 Hear, hear.

Good man Tom Baxter and well schooled in good governance (pardon the pun) & ethics.

Baxter wrote some incisive commentary on the pulp mill saga which i found myself returning to over & over again. Anyone who hasnt read Baxter & Roland Browne’s “Probity Issues Connected with the Tasmanian Pulp Mill” should do so.

All the best Tom.

Just another lawyer.

I had a small amount of hope when I misread one sentence as: “If elected, I pledge that on my first day in Parliament I will move to remove our Upper House”

Three words for all Lefties / Greenies hoping for a Tasmanian unicameral parliament:

1. Joh

2. Bjelke-

3. Petersen.

Leonard, And for all Liberals wanting the same, four words being:

1 Campbell
2 Mein
3 Kampf
4 Newman

See what $465,000 per annum buys you…

Auditor-General’s Special Report No. 87
Employment of staff to support MPs

http://www.audit.tas.gov.au/publications/reports/specialreport/pdfs/specialreport87.pdf

#4 I agree.

Greg Barns recently called for a unicameral parliament in his Mercury column. But Barns has made it clear he believes the Tasmanian community needs a Kennett style govt at this time who will simply ram through development & reforms. Unfortunately many short sighted lefties who are upset at the legco over the rejection of the SSM bill, & Legco hostility to the TFA also want to abolish the Legco without thinking through the ramifications for democracy with a single house govt.

Baxter has already placed on the public record that he is for reform of the Upper House & NOT for abolition for the same reasons Leonard outlines.

This Greens candidate is right on the money- make it a top priority to stop the Leg.Council from blocking a State Budget   Now, when did that last occur…? And the result was…?
Just one further question ...‘What about the workers…?”

Before I start, let me say I applaud Tom Baxter’s willingness to put himself in the arena. I wish him good luck and no ill will as an individual.

As a university lecturer on corporate governance I am interested to hear Tom Baxter explain the obvious conflict of interest between representing the people of Nelson without fear or favour, and promoting green policy.

I wonder if he will view the greens policy prescription through the lens of his electorates needs and ambitions for itself, or if he will view his electorates needs and ambitions through the lens of greens policy prescriptions.

The distinction is interesting, but in no way compensates for an honest representative viewing one’s electorate’s needs and desires through nothing more than ones own eyes devoid of bias, filtering for dogma, and blinkers of groupthink.

I wonder if he is prepared to turn a blind eye to the dioxin issues flagged in Les Baker’s leaked emails? The same issue Cassie and the others ignore in order to laud the colours of the emperor’s new frock. The frock so diligently sewn by the round table collective and at present being given a final dryclean over at the Legislative Council.

A stunning bit of ethical behaviour, that one.

Well may Baxter be impressive however we remain unimpressed by his thoroughness in relation to comments about the Ethics & Sustainability Party (http://www.esparty.org) appearing in http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2010/01/17/122035_election.html

Seems at the time he more than likely was a member of the Greens and this was not made clear in the article, and we’d furthermore have concerns as to why then Mercury journo Philippa Duncan and author of that article chose to ask the opinion of a corporate governance expert who was at the time a member of the Greens. Duncan conducted the interview with hard-of-hearing 80y.o.plus Dr Petrovsky over the phone. Baxter made no attempt to contact the Ethics & Sustainability Party to verify that his public comments in that Mercury article were grounded in fact. From our knowledge of the matter, his assessment was flaky and we would now be inclined to look at anything he says in a circumspect manner.

We understand Philippa Duncan went on to work for Andrew Wilkie. We also have some concerns over fairness in relation to Duncan’s interviewing of past TCCI boss Andrew Scobie.

All-up, can Baxter be considered a person of principle? That is what matters.

After 18 year it is time the current Liberal-leaning member for Nelson, Jim Wilkinson is replaced.

I am wondering why comments from the article about Tom Baxter’s candidacy in The Mercury have been removed from yesterday, see “Baxter Tilt for Nelson:
http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2013/01/20/370706_tasmania-news.html

Tom Baxter, another useless elitist clone with no real experience in life other than his ideological programming, through life in a schoolroom and office.

That’s all we’ll ever get from the primitive ideological fools,more of the same babbling empty headed with nor understanding of reality of rational logic. I’d love to debate these fools on any state issue, u scripted, or controlled questions, without their minders, script writers and overeducated empty head advisers.

I and others asked a certain obese politician the other day at Dunnelly what their plans were and how they were going to change things for the better, the response was to ignore our questions, walk away and then slink off in a luxury car paid for by those he refused to communicate with or acknowledge. Seems he and his ilk were only visible for the media circus.

Nope, definitely no more Greens, sorry young Tom like many other hopefuls nobody will vote for more Greens, “the party is over”. Young guns are welcome to apply, but not Greenie types, an Independent with a slight tinge of Green would be acceptable.

What a nerve, having that former Labor family employment connection, now posing as an Independent. I suppose Allison Ritchie is un comfortably unemployed, cant get a job, nobody wants her and sees politics as the only way out!
I dont want to bag her completely, but she displayed appalling behaviour when she was Michael Airds sideslip, no bloody wonder Barty got rid of her.

Better to stick with Jim and Vanessa than mess about with uncertainity.
Overall Leg Co has the right mix with only one Greenie Rob Valentine, that is enough.

A.K. #12 I am not sure how you would know that Tom Baxter is “another useless elitist clone with no real experience in live other than his ideological programming..”  Have you actually met him?

Furthermore, I am not sure how anyone could be more elitist than the current member for Nelson, Jim Wilkinson. Mr Wilkinson is a former partner in a law firm, a Sandy Bay resident, is ideologically conservative and largely represents the establishment and the Sandy Bay elite.

At least Tom Baxter is trying to initiate reform, unlike the current member who has done nothing for the last 18 years.

It would be interesting to hear Baxter’s reasoning for running as a Green & not independent. It would be preferable to have a independent candidate but having listened to Tom Baxter on a number of public issues over the years i’m still pleased The Greens have picked up a high quality candidate.

It would be interesting to hear Kev Bonham’s view on Baxter’s chances of unseating Wilkinson.

#14
Ok, you’ve made me laugh, or are you serious. “Corporate governance lecturer and former lawyer” speaks for itself, no different to the rest of them. Just read his bio at the beginning of the thread, nothing but school, offices and bureaucracy

He’s still at school, lecturing on economics and corporate government, subjects which are as far away from the peoples needs as possible. It’s all elitist bullshit knowledge he teaches, not sane logic or rational approaches and application for a decent future. Everyone knows how inaccurate economists are and lawyers, well you only have to look at the non outcomes for any average person seeking justice against a corporation or elitist ideologist. They can’t afford it and have no guarantee of success, or costs.

The legal system is orientated so it disarms people and uses a language and terminology which completely disenfranchises the people and puts the entire power of the law on the side of the professional legal fraternity, who prosecute, defend, judge and review. They all belong the the same organisations and even write the laws which are designed to only support those with power and money, to confuse people they use a semantic language which is not understood by either the victims or defendants. Then they go into courts and deceive to get criminals off, in the process on many occasions try to destroy the victims credibility. Who wants elitist clones like that representing them, as it is most of the incumbents in the upper house are either bureaucrats, lawyers union clones.

“Unlike the incumbent, I will also dedicate myself full time to representing the people of Nelson.”

No he doesn’t, he represents the Greens party, a part of the /lab/lib coalition, who in reality are no different to each other. You can’t represent the people and an ideology at the same time, they are diametrically opposed. He realises without party backing, he has no hope of being elected because he as no policies that would work and be acceptable to the public. So he climbs on the back of a party that doesn’t represent the people at all nor even in any meaningful way

“If elected, I pledge that on my first day in Parliament I will move to reform our Upper House,” Mr Baxter said.”

Pushing his ideological agenda to boost his egocentricity is in the above statement, nowhere is there anything mentioning what he is actually going to try to get done which will benefit the state in the real future. Instead of his and his parties deluded and primitive ideology of getting more power and control by wiping out a house of review that has mostly non party members elected. That’s his agenda, destroy people power and get more for him and his ilk and stuff the people, or the future.

What would he know about transport, farming, industry, health, or any other portfolio, nothing of any use. As it is they throw portfolios to each other like confetti, not because they have any knowledge of the subject or operation because they don’t, but because it’s an ego trip and the get more money and power to direct government business and money where they want to.

Supporting this same sex marriage crap is just another example of them jumping on a disruptive senseless bandwagon of a demand, most people don’t think has any importance whatsoever, considering the state of our island in every aspect of life. Where are the policies that will count for a survivable and progressive future, you won’t find them coming from him or his ilk, they are already in control and only those in ideological denial would by primitively deranged enough to think they are doing a good job

Good luck Tom, you’ll make an extraordinarily good LegCo member.

In reponse to A.K. #16 I would suggest that something Tasmania really needs is better corporate governance and better economic management, and Baxter would be helpful on those things.  He is also very well informed on the forestry debate.

Sure, Baxter cannot be an expert in everything, no one can, but A.K. you still have not answered the question as to why you think Baxter would be worse than the incumbent.  Given the outcome of the Nelson election is likely to result in either Wilkinson or Baxter, people have a choice between the two.  Most of the criticisms you have directed at Baxter are surely even more applicable to Wilkinson.  In regard to one particular issue you mentioned, it is actually Jim Wilkinson who spends a large part of his time representing alleged criminals, whereas I am not sure if Baxter has ever paracticed criminal law.

The electors of Nelson know too well the reasons for the decline in the Tasmanian economy to elect another Green into Parliament. Tom Nilsson and other fringe dwellers who believe Tasmania is already over-populated are in the minority. Jim Wilkinson is popular in the electorate because of what he stands for, what he has done and will continue to do. Yes, I’ve met both Jim and Tom. Interesting that Tom has now come out and declared himself Green. Tom, we knew it all along. Hopefully this admission will now disqualify him from being the ABC’s default know-it-all on issues of governance. Or at least they should declare his affiliations.

#16 A.K. - I think I’m in love.

#19 “Jim Wilkinson is popular in the electorate because of what he stands for, what he has done and will continue to do.”

What does Jim Wilkinson stand for?  Rich people?  The status quo?

What has he done?  I can’t think of anything substantial.

—
Editor’s note: minor edit for legal reasons

Tom Nisseon, 18. Let me be direct. Standing as an elected representative of an electorate conflicts with the role as an elected representative of a political party. Continued acceptance of that conflicted interest as the status quo is, quite obviously, the cancer destroying our body politic.

Conflicting the interests of a person occupying a position of leadership is plainly and simply not good corporate governance. It is a most basic principle, if not the most basic.

That the state’s resident expert on corporate governance places himself in this position where his interests are conflicted speaks volumes about the heights of ignorance to be climbed before we see anything even vaguely resembling competent governance from any of our governmental apparatus.

It also tells us that our education system is failing us very, very badly.

Leadership requires example. Al Gore’s failure on climate change has demonstrated that beyond all doubt.

Unless a new gun like Tom has really something to offer then he is wasting his time grovelling to the Nelson electorate who may have some Green inclinations when we already know that Jim Wilkinson is not perfect but is a reliable enough representative
To challenge Jim it would take an Independent of some kind or another who has one up on Jim,  so far it has not happened.

For Allison Ritchie to think that she will be recycled is unbelievable.
After her bout last time has proven that she only represented herself and close family. Her ambitious past plans by using soft targets winning over the local P&F’s of kindies and preps to achieve her personal imperial power at great cost to her electorate has gone down like a lead balloon on the Eastern Shore.
Voters wont go near her, better she would not make a fool of herself again and stay away from the very edgey and publically judgemental political scene in Tasmania.
Vanessa Goodwin hasnt faltered, polite to the point of being as fair and reasonable in her approach and deserves to remain as a worthy Leg Co rep.

Re #22 Political parties are pretty common in all democracies because it is often productive for people to join forces and work together.  I think Tom Baxter would probably argue that Greens policies are in the best interests of the electorate so there is no conflict.

Re #23 “Jim Wilkinson is not perfect but is a reliable enough representative”.  The only thing Jim Wilkinson can be relied on is to do absolutely nothing of value, that is what he has done for the last 18 years.  Considering how many problems Tasmania has I think doing nothing is a pretty poor option.

Given the multiplicity of problems humanity is about to feel the full effects of, one could quite successfully argue that the democratic governments formed by the common parties are about to be revealed as dismal failures. Over population, anthropogenic global warming, a financial system based on the fatally flawed concept of an infinite resource base, peak oil are all issues competent governments would have managed in a manner that prevented them from becoming crisis triggers. I welcome your explanation of where this haas taken place and how future crisis triggered thus have been everted.

There may be no conflict in your mind, Tom, but in my mind, the common good is consistently placed second to party objectives.

Cassie O’Connor’s woefully ignorant “but he would say that” in regard to Les Baker is all the proof one requires to make that point.

I make the point that Tom Baxter is applying for the job of the electorates representative and therefore it is more than a tad arrogant of Tom, or yourself to presume to know the electorates mind until the vote is counted, and that assumes an informed electorate based on honest revelations of candidates preferences.

A more representative outcome would be delivered by a candidate who polled their electorate on the issues to be decided and represented that result on the floor of parliament, without injecting their own partisan prejudice.

#24 Look Tom I partly agree with you, but where is the challenger and I dont care as to whether the aspiring recruit is Liberal, Labor or Independent, but the Greens only care about their own environment and nobody else. Who wants to hear about Carbon Trading waffle as bushfire affected people are not given sufficient support at the coalface by our own government.

#25 Simon I can’t undertstand where you are coming from.  You mention “Over population, anthropogenic global warming, a financial system based on the fatally flawed concept of an infinite resource base, peak oil”

The current member for Nelson, Jim Wilkinson wouldn’t give two hoots about any of those issues.  So why would you criticise Tom Baxter and not criticise Wilkinson?  Wilkinson is a conservative, meaning he likes the world the way it is.  Baxter is a reformer.

Ah, Comment 27, that sad old mantra “peak oil”!

Mantras, slogans, ten-second bytes are not just the tools of ad agencies and PR outfits -  they are increasingly, and of course, expectedly, being used by politicians to avoid detailed argument.

Now they are being seen and heard increasingly, and worryingly, in universities by academic simpletons whose scholarship is no more than ideological propagandising.

People who don’t have the luxury of public funding for pseudo-academic drivelling and / or who have to deal with the real physical world, respond to shortages of resources in one or all of these three ways:

(i) they invent new ways to find them;

(ii) they work on finding new sources; and

(ii) they develop new technologies to substitute for them.

They don’t just give up in such a brain-dead fashion, and tell us to go back to firesticks^.

Hence developments such as fracking, shale oil and LPG.

How many of our crop of academic simpletons do anything useful remotely like this?

^Oh, and don’t forget the mass-starvation and the human culling which will accompany acting (or not acting) on a “peak oil” mindset.

Thats funny Robin. I thought there was only one environment? Not ours and theirs. I’m sure they want to care for your environment too if you would let them.

Refer 8.

T.G.C Because of your knowledge of the
Tasmanian Parliamentary system ,it surprises the writer that you are not aware that the Legislative Council blocked supply in 1948.

The Cosgrove Labor Government was forced to an election and won that election in a landslide

Does this answer your query

Who are the workers you are referring to ,instead of insulting our intelligence with your one liners ,do a bit of research yourself

Tom, Baxter claims the role of an expert on corporate governance. The greens support that claim. Conflicted interests are the antithesis of sound corporate governance.

Why are you having trouble joining the dots?

In answer to Comment #10:
No, your assumption is wrong. I was not a member of any political party in 2010 (nor in 2011 for that matter) when I was phoned by Philippa Duncan for a comment on what became her report of January 17, 2010.
My quote at http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2010/01/17/122035_election.html is quite reasonable.
It is unrealistic to expect an academic responding to the media’s request for comment to chase up your party, particularly as the journalist had previously interviewed Dr Petrovsky, presumably an authorised representative of your party.
I did not comment on the subsequent governance issues your party faced. The TCCI’s issues are on the public record.
Simon, It seems you regard any person running as an endorsed party candidate for the Upper House to be somehow conflicted. I disagree, and think it more honest to run as an openly endorsed party candidate than some Upper House pseudo-Independents. For what it’s worth, I found Les Baker’s emails v concerning and would welcome any publicity you can generate regarding them.
Afraid time does not permit me to respond to other comments. Thanks for those, including the various well-wishers.
Warm Regards,
Tom

Hi Tom. Thanks for acknowledging the stench eminating from the Baker emails. Cassie will probably sort that out for you with some vaseline under your nose. Welcome to party politics.

As for the ethical race between a party representative and a dishonest “independent”  party stooge, in my mind both come home behind an honest independent who does not have to serve two masters. I suspect that over the next couple of years that view might find a few more minds open to its entertainement. I have no doubt you mean well, but there is some considerable history that suggests that meaning well is not enough.

I have used the carcinogen analogy to decribe the danger possed by politicians who support, or fail to recognise, conflicted interests because it is not any one encounter that causes the cancer, but continued exposure to the carcinogen over long preiods of time.

The ailments besetting our public administration have been metastising for a very long time. The supervision of that same system of public admionistration has been in the hands of party politicians for practically all of that period.