Economist and winemaker Peter Whish-Wilson has been selected by the Greens to replace former leader Bob Brown in the Senate.
Mr Whish-Wilson, 44, is the co-owner of a vineyard in the Tamar Valley and a finance lecturer at the University of Tasmania.
He has been a vocal opponent of the proposed Gunns pulp mill in the state’s north.
Mr Whish-Wilson says he is humbled by the appointment.
“I’m also very conscious of the responsibility that will go with this position, both to Greens voters and all Tasmanians, in fact all Australians,” he said.
“I would just like to say that I think it is a very significant move for the Greens to put a senator in the north of Tasmania, to put an office there.
“It’s also a very strong message that the Greens will continue to oppose the pulp mill in the Tamar Valley.”
Greens leader Christine Milne says Mr Whish-Wilson will bolster the party’s economic credentials.
“This is a tremendous opportunity for us to build our Green team nationally, to represent our state so well, and to actually take the Greens so strongly into that economic space where we have excellent policies and where we’re working to present an internally consistent, cohesive and visionary economic narrative for the nation,” she said.
Senator Brown says he is delighted with his replacement.
• WHISH-WILSON A PROVEN PERFORMER WITH A STRONG ECONOMIC VISION
Nick McKim MP
Greens Leader
The Tasmanian Greens today congratulated Peter Whish-Wilson, the newly nominated Greens Senator for Tasmania, saying he would be an outstanding addition to the Green team.
Greens Leader Nick McKim MP said Peter was a proven Greens performer with economic credibility and a formidable track record of defending the interests of Tasmanian small businesses, communities and the environment.
“Peter is a Tasmanian small business owner and economist, and he will bring an incredible skill set and knowledge to the Greens senate team,” Mr McKim said.
“Peter has been a huge supporter of people and businesses in the Tamar Valley, where he’s fought a passionate campaign on behalf of the community against the construction of a polluting pulp mill.”
“An award winning wine maker, Peter knows what it means to work hard and succeed in a small business and he’s living proof that the ‘clean, green and clever’ brand means dollars.”
“Peter is a man of vision and energy with his eye set firmly on Tasmania’s economic future, and we can’t wait to sit down with him to discuss his ideas for promoting progressive business.”
“We are thrilled to have Peter on board, and all Tasmanians can have faith that he will be out there fighting every step of the way for the community, jobs and the environment.”
• Whish-Wilson gets nod to replace Brown in Senate
• Canberra Times: Greens pick Tasmanian banker for Senate
• Peter Whish-Wilson: My Vision for Tasmania, as published in today’s Examiner:
THE vision that building a polluting pulp mill in the Tamar Valley will secure this state a bright future is looking increasingly unlikely. Some of world’s most sophisticated financial and ‘‘economically literate’’ investors are showing little interest in financing this project, indeed some have given it the big thumbs down.
Imagine the economic possibilities for Tasmania if we had focused our collective time and energies elsewhere in the past 10 years? It’s time to put this unpopular project behind us, and move on.
I say this not because I am a ‘‘NIMBY’’ or a ‘‘greenie’‘, but because I want a better future for my kids, and I passionately believe there are more exciting opportunities currently facing Tasmania.
The two ‘‘game changers’’ are the potential of new technologies, such as high speed broadband, to build a digital media industry in Tasmania, and the market benefits, energy security and technical innovation being driven by incentives to move towards a low-carbon pollution future.
In fact, both can be perfect complements to each other.
If there are bigger ‘‘strategic’’ opportunities for reshaping the Tasmanian economy of the future, I would genuinely like to hear them.
The new information age won’t discriminate based on where your business is located in the world.
The technology industries of the future will spring up anywhere, as long as they have the talent pool, incentives and bandwidth to get established.
Back in the 2010 federal election Christine Milne and I launched a policy concept to capitalise on Tasmania’s national ‘‘first mover advantage’’ in the rollout of high-speed broadband.
We wanted to explore the building of a digital media centre in Northern Tasmania that could create content for selling new commercial education and information services to the world, that would also train our youth and help re-skill our workforce.
Importantly, we also championed a local vision for a Tasmanian youth TV station as part of this new hub of innovation.
The message to us was our youth both need and want a high tech culture.
Digital media is a broad area that includes the creative convergence of digital arts, science, technology and business.
It focuses primarily on human expression, communication, social interaction and education. In a nutshell, this is just about everything you can download off the internet - games, information, entertainment, Youtube and so on.
Here are just a few ideas that are exciting for Tasmania.
One is to develop unique applications for tourism experiences in Tasmania, or what is often called experiential tourism.
Imagine having an audio visual virtual tour guide in your mobile phone as you travel the state.
The content, produced by our local youth and talent, could be simply downloaded and bought from the internet.
This would be a world first; a great way to differentiate our tourism product; another good reason to visit Tasmania. Sorry, but did I mention it will probably need broadband to work effectively?
Another idea is that of developing content for ‘‘open universities’‘. It might sound far fetched, but recently in America the Massachusetts Institute of Technology launched a platform for developing a ``virtual university’’ or open university of the future, with a community of millions of learners from all over the world expected to pay good money for online education services.
Why couldn’t Tasmania be a world leader in designing and selling online education content and services to the world?
The University of Tasmania is already the second biggest employer in Tasmania with a growing talent pool and reputation.
It has already started to deliver online courses to distance students, and its recent significant investment in digital technology makes it well positioned to capitalise on opportunities such as this.
There are a myriad of other possibilities. It just takes a bit of imagination to see and realise such an alternative vision, so what have we got to lose?
- Peter Whish-Wilson is a winemaker and University of Tasmania economist. He has been a candidate for the Greens in Tasmanian state elections and the Senate. Yesterday the Greens named him to replace Bob Brown as a Tasmanian senator.
• Friends of the Tamar Valley: Pulp mill opponents wish him well
Tamar Valley community group Friends of the Tamar Valley today congratulated fellow pulp mill opponent, and FTV member*, Peter Whish-Wilson on being selected as the new Tasmanian Senator for the Greens.
“Peter is an excellent choice. He is able to speak knowledgeably for the environment because of his long commitment to the Surfriders Association, and its investigations into the irreversible damage dioxin-laden effluent will cause to the marine ecosystem. His real-world commercial experience, ranging from international banking to winery ownership and operation, means any statement concerning the deeply flawed economics of the pulp mill project has to be taken seriously,” said FTV spokesperson Anne Layton-Bennett.
“With his breadth of economic knowledge he will be a strong advocate in Canberra for pulp mill opponents – wherever they live,” Ms Layton-Bennett said.
*Now that he will be part of the Australian Greens Senate team Mr Whish-Wilson has resigned from Friends of the Tamar Valley, which is an apolitical community group.
Show Comments
Comments (60)
Excellent choice and result!
Love it. Great choice. I might even vote Green for the first time, rather than Independent.
A better choice could not have been made.
Great choice, with Peter being selected, it will lend further energy to Chritine’s push to promote business interests.
Good one Whishy!
All the best to you Peter. This is an excellent choice for the Greens.
I am fully aware of your commitment to the land through ties with NRM, to coast and marine via assocciations with the SRA and your continued fight against the TV Pulp Mill.
Probably much else that I am not aware of also. I have no doubt your heart and head are in the right place. Stay strong and true.
Sometimes I wish the Greens could consider a name change. Although thoroughly identifiable, unfortunately the term green has copped alot of flack with insinuations of
links to communism and socialism not to mention the derisive groans that mention of the term Green seems to muster these days.
I prefer the Sensible Party! The only party with the sense to put the environment and community first knowing that if we are respectful and clever, nature will provide for us all for many years.
Those who snipe and endlessly raise the tired catch cry of ‘what about jobs’ are just greedy capitalists fretting for their latte’s and Toorak tanks.
There are many ways to skin a cat (sorry cat lovers). The old order has had long enough of a go and failed. If we can be simplistic for a moment, what is our basic understanding of what each party supposedly represents in our society. Labour? The working man and small business. Liberal? Business and free market economy. The Greens? the environment, community and a sustainable economy. How far have the first two got us? What do you think its time we focused on? You know it makes sense !
Good luck to you Sir !
Peter is a man of integrity, a man who encompasses a broad spectrum and a man who carries a positive outlook.
With the mish mash of local politics, our state needs someone who is capable of moving community forward.
It’s really great news.
Bests,
Dave Groves:)
Great news. Great choice. Great bloke.
A voice in the national parliament for the Tamar Valley. Fan-bloody-tastic.
Congratulations Peter ! Well done! Well deserved!
Good to have an economist in the Green Senate team-
He should be able to calculate how many bottles of wine at $50 a pop will be needed to get our hospitals going again, guarantee good health-care for all and ensure a steady growth in paying jobs to support an increasing number of retirees.
Then there’s the funding of education, infrastructures and the cost attached to closing down the mining industry.
Mr Whish-Wilson can probably calculate all that in his head.
Hmmm. What is this thing whereby someone quits/retires and a person who has not been voted in by the public instantly gets into represent the party? For surely they haven’t been voted in by the public to represent them. Is that a democracy? I had always thought, believed Bob Brown was fairer than that, and although I still have the utmost respect for him, I don’t think it’s right that a person who hasn’t been voted in by the public instantly gets into the halls of power and money without having proven the public vote behind them. It’s party politics at its most unfairest, if not most publicly unrepresentative. Cassy got in on the back of Peg, and look where that has ended up … keeping the embarrassment of Tassie labor in power… and here we go again. Geez perhaps if the Greens opened their state conference doors to real media/public scrutiny, rather than it being a ‘staged’ event, perhaps the public could see just who controls the Greens too … Hmmmm! I call for ‘real’ representation and integrity.
Congratulations to both Peter and the Greens! An excellent choice for a Tasmanian Senator.
An excellent choice.
Not sure where you are going with your argument Claire.
Mr Whish-Wilson ran behind Christine Milne at the last election, and polled quite well from memory.
That was the third time he had run for public office. Secondly, his appointment has to be signed off on by the Tasmanian Parliament, a formality but an important check on the abuse of power.
Nominations to fill the seat were open to anyone who was member of the party as I understand it, so you could probably have nominated, if you were prepared to join the Greens.
hardly a case of backroom deals.
Thirdly, your argument fails to provide for politicians who retire mid-term, would you propose a costly by-election, seems like a waste in this instance given Whish-Wilson will in all probability face the polls in around a year, but possibly earlier depending on what happens in the lower house.
Finally if you want greater openness at party conferences I suggest you contact your local Green Senator…
Re #11:
“I don’t think it’s right that a person who hasn’t been voted in by the public instantly gets into the halls of power and money without having proven the public vote behind them. It’s party politics at its most unfairest, if not most publicly unrepresentative. Cassy got in on the back of Peg, and look where that has ended up … “
Some facts here:
Firstly at the most recent election that saw her wind up in Cabinet, Cassy O’Connor was elected by the voters.
Cassy did indeed first come to Parliament on a recount when Peg Putt resigned in 2008, but at that time the Greens were just crossbenchers and not part of Government.
Secondly, Peg Putt herself came to parliament exactly the same way as Cassy O’Connor - got in on a recount when Bob Brown resigned to run for Federal Parliament in 1993.
And Bob Brown too originally came to State Parliament on a recount back in 1983 - a recount of the votes of Norm Sanders of the Australian Democrats. It was quite an unusual event in that although Sanders had running mates on the Democrat ticket, Brown still won, the only instance where a Hare-Clark vacancy has been filled by someone from outside the party of the retiring MHA.
Remarkably, no Green has ever been first elected to Denison from outside the Parliament in their own right.
Thirdly, the Senate system and the state House of Assembly system for filling vacancies are not the same. To get in on a House of Assembly recount you need to have some kind of voter support. When Cassy O’Connor first got in in Denison, it was because she was the next preferred candidate, of those who stood, of those who voted for the retiring member. When it comes to filling Senate vacancies it is purely a party decision; the candidate need not have ever stood for election at all.
Anyway I think either Whish-Wilson or Burnet would have been at the sounder end of the spectrum of choices potentially available to the party.
Claire (#11) Maybe, and maybe.
This system is simply the way the Senate works, and always has. The same for Labor, Liberal, National, and now the Greens. The theory being that “a Green” was elected, and having the spot taken in a by-election by either Labor or Liberal (as is sure to happen) could be seen as even more unfair, in a house whose membership is deliberately based on proportional representation.
It’s no good saying that the elected Senator should serve the full term - the vacancies are not always caused by retirement; the reason could well be death.
Still, your point remains - the replacement Senator was not elected. But maybe it’s some consolation that they don’t get a free 6-year ride; they must face the electorate at the first general senate election.
Yes, the system works in favour of the political party concept rather that of the honest independent, and certain aspects of party control certainly stink - but parties are a reality whether we like it or not. If we could somehow outlaw them today, they would be back in de facto form tomorrow.
At least we should be able to acknowledge that proportional representation (as in the Senate) and preferential voting (rather than first-past-the-post) are desirable counterbalances to absolute party control.
Claire also suggests that the Greens should “open their state conference doors to real media/public scrutiny”. There might be something to be said for that if our media were populated by frank and fearless analytical journalists and editors.
But the way things are, political conferences just provide more material for the parasitical sensationalist media hacks to blow out of proportion for their own purposes. Feeding them slowly after the issue has been properly thought out is less dangerous.
By the way, congratulations Whishy. You will bring some powerful thinking to the Party Room. I’m no fan of traditional north-south Tassie rivalry, but a good Senator and a Senate office in the north will be convenient and a very welcome development to a lot of people.
Congratulations Peter, you’ll do Tasmania proud with your economic knowledge, skills and experience, and it’s fantastic to have a Greens MP from the north of the state representing us all in the Senate. All the best to you.
Re #11, although on the face of it your point sounds like a good one, once the details are considered it is a different matter. The problem is that Bob Brown was not elected to represent Tasmania by himself in the Senate: he was one of six elected at the same time, under the Senate’s proportional representation counting system. Now that Bob Brown has retired, what are we to do?...
1) have a by-election to elect a single replacement?
2) throw out the other five as well and have a by-election for a completely fresh batch of six?
3) run an election for just those people who voted for Bob Brown, to work out who they would prefer instead.
Option 1 is unfair to the people who voted for Bob Brown. In any election for a single winner the winning candidate will almost always come from a major party. You can be nearly 100% sure it won’t be a Greens candidate. In effect you’re replacing all the votes that were cast for Bob Brown with votes for mostly other people. This would give Liberal and Labor voters in particular a chance to get another member into the Senate and would certainly not be a fair representation of the wishes of the electorate as expressed at the previous election.
Option 2 is obviously unfair. Just because Bob Brown has retired, why should the other five be forced out as well?!
Option 3 sounds fair, but is clearly impossible since votes are secret.
What actually happens is akin to option 3, but without running an election. All the ballot papers that contributed to Bob Brown’s tally are re-examined and his votes are transferred to the next unelected Greens candidate according to the voter’s preferences (I doubt I’ve expressed that absolutely correctly, but that’s the gist). The winner of that race is then declared elected.
Peter Whish-Wilson can be considered to be the person who would most likely have been elected originally had Bob Brown not stood at all.
I would be interested to find out more about Whish-Wilson’s views on monetary theory before I advance him any credit for being a finance lecturer.
Is he the Mr Fix-It who will conjure up some sort of financial wizardry to continually replenish the Greens’ economic policy magic pudding, already groaning under the strain of unlimited centrally-distributed social welfare handouts and ‘creative destruction’ of jobs?
#6 - Impressive spin, are you looking for work as a ‘media advisor’?. I liked the bit where you suggest the Greens be renamed the ‘Sensible Party’! Hang on a sec, were you being serious???
Great news! And to Claire Gilmour #11: Don’t fret, it will be ok. Certainly the Party could have done it differently but it’s a long drawn out process and the way I see - if Peter Whish Wilson is good enough for Bob Brown, he’s good enough for me. (I trust his judgement). Have you got a problem with Mr WW? Is it just the process you’re bothered about?
I wish him well and believe he will uphold the Green’s values.
#6 Sue McKim: Sort of agree with you about the name. It has become something of a burden and my goodness the Greens have been getting plenty of flack lately. We don’t really want to go down the path of Gunns though do we? “A rose by any other name .. etc. etc.” I think the other parties should change their names so that we have Greens, Reds and Blues. So much simpler. Let’s face it, Labor is no longer for the working class and Liberal is in a state of total confusion and doesn’t really know who to appeal to anymore.
I’ve just come in from a day out in the drizzly cold. Was feeling a bit numb, but reading that Peter Whish-Wilson has been selected to replace Bob has certainly warmed me up. Great choice from a field of great talent.
Brilliant choice. Congratulations Peter
#18, while making many sound arguments, is incorrect on a couple of points. Firstly, for Senate vacancies of this sort the ballots of the retiring member are not thrown - the party appoints the replacement. (As Cleaver correctly points out in #14, and I neglected to mention, this is subject to ratification by the state parliament - normally a rubber stamp these days but it was not always thus.)
Secondly even if it had been Bob Brown’s ballots being thrown, Brown was most recently elected to the Senate in 2007. His #2 at that long-ago election was Andrew Wilkie, so if the Senate did have the same system as the Tasmanian House of Assembly, then Wilkie could consider whether he wanted to swap to the Senate (thus stealing a seat from the Greens and causing a by-election in Denison) and if he said no we would get Senator Sophie Houghton. For various (doubtless killjoy) reasons the Senate has a very different system.
The election where Whish-Wilson was the #2 Senate candidate was 2010 when he was #2 behind Christine Milne.
Re #15, I stand corrected re the rules for filling vacancies in the Senate, which I have confused with those applying to the Tasmanian House of Assembly. Mind you, the thinking behind the two approaches is basically the same: to find an acceptable replacement for the departing member.
Seeing Peter loves a surf at Low Head, he must know how important the Bell Bay industrial area is. How Rio (Comalco) and Temco have been the engine drivers for the State for the past 50 years. Providing hundreds and hundreds of people an opportunity to work, and millions of $ to the state. Much much more than any company has provided.
It will be great to see him outline his vision for George Town and the north, in getting it back to work. If anyone has driven up there recently, unless action is quickly taken, the whole of the NE will soon be a ghost town. Alot of people who dont visit this website have already moved to WA to look for work.
One the things about living in Hobart is how much the public service shields it from reality. The north has no luxury like having DPAC or Treasury house 1000 workers doing nothing.
Yes vineyards and agriculture are important and has a place, but the cost of business, state taxes, the soon to be carbon tax, port costs, electricity, water ect ect, will soon drive all of us to the point being bankrupt. Having a hobby farm does not cut it for long.
For a man that got less than 19% of the vote at his last stab at an election, lets hope Peter gets moving quickly with some positive policies.
http://www.tec.tas.gov.au/pages/LegislativeCouncil/LC2009/Results/Windermere/ResultsWindermere.gif
On a side note, why didn’t Mckim endorse Peter listening to him on Southern Cross news tonight and why cant we know who else put their hand up. What was the final votes total? Did my favourite Green in Helen Burnett put her hand up? Love the green policy on their workings…..no-one is allowed to know anything..one rule for them..
#25, strange how people see something in the distance but, once closer, it appears as something completely different. I watch electricity prices rise for the average consumer as prices remain constant, below cost and hidden for Temco and Rio. I wonder the worth of Rio and Temco to the state at such a cost. You speak of the public service and welfare but ignore the business welfare extended to coys such as Rio. A very selective perspective #25 and you need to get much closer to the reality.
I agree with Claire that the system used for filling retirement vacancies should be more along the lines of what applies for local council elections. Maybe voting above the line in Senate elections needs to be gotten rid of. Then Senate ballot papers and local government ballot papers would be same format. I especially hate the way voting above the line on Senate ballot papers, only allows voters to number one of the boxes above the line. Then that voter’s vote is distributed according to whatever behind the scenes negotiations that the various parties standing candidates for that Senate election have agreed. Why can’t this distribution be decided above-the-line by each voter on their own. Bob Brown certainly finds the idea of only being able to number only one box above the line, obnoxious based on his public comments regarding that restriction on above-the-line voting.
With regards to Claire’s contribution to Australian politics, I believe we’ll always be indebted to her for her candour with the following disclosure based on her time in the state Greens standing as a candidate in Mar 2010 for Braddon:
>>> (quoting her)
In the last [Tas state] election (behind the scenes) the Greens concentrated very heavily on trying to counteract a rise of a new party, (rather obsessively I thought) over and above the very real threats of lib/labs, let alone how this took away from the focus on important issues/policies. In this regard whilst political parties are concentrating on ripping independents to shreds, an independent support group (under whatever name is chosen) and the independents themselves can and should be focusing on the real issues facing the community.
A case in point is comment (56 - lmxly) on the following thread:
http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php?/article/andrew-wilkie-presents-the-inaugural-tasmanian-times-lecture/
56. Amazing discussion, but mostly off topic. Could anyone enlighten me why Wilkie has been nominated to give this lecture? What are the criteria, who formulates them, who assesses candidates and how/why does Wilkie score more points than other possible nominees? And would someone care to enumerate precisely, point
by point, what he has actually ‘achieved for Denison’ - whatever that might mean?
Posted by lmxly on 14/09/11 at 10:17 AM
Regardless of whether one is personally in support of Wilkie or not, the above comment is part of the
political party machine.
I was personally asked to write letters/comments to the editor and find someone to put their name to it!! Not any integrity in that, so I refused. But that’s the sort of thing your up against.
<<<
#25 sam betts: Southern Cross must have missed Nick McKim’s endorsement of Peter W-W. It was on the ABC.
Looking at the experience of our Tasmania Senators (and Senator elect), it seems that the Greens and the Liberals tie with each party having two Senators with experience of the world. The remainder, and all of the Labor Senators, are either lawyers, unionists or political staffers. Only these four Senators truly represent a real constituency in Tasmania - the remainder are merely political syncophants.
Eric Abetz, Liberal, lawyer
Catryna Bilyk, Labor, unionist
Bob Brown, Greens, doctor
Carol Brown, Labor, political staffer
David Bushby, Liberal, lawyer
Richard Colbeck, Liberal, businessman
Christine Milne, Greens, school teacher
Steve Parry, Liberal, policeman + business owner
Helen Polley, Labor, political staffer
Nick Sherry, Labor, unionist
Lisa Singh, Labor, unionist
Anne Urquhart, Labor, unionist
Peter Whish-Wilson, Greens (elect), economist + business owner
The Tasmanian Parliament cannot reject the Greens Senate nominee.
Pete once said the IGA was a ‘train-wreck waiting to happen’. Today he was assuring us it had nothing to do with the pulp mill. So what changed Pete?
No 25. for heavens sake… don’t you read the paper? or listen to the news? i bet the call for nominations & information on who was applying for the senate position, was even published here on Tassie Times….. secrets ???? i don’t think so…
Re #30 I’d be interested to know of any evidence you have for that. My understanding is that the Tasmanian Parliament (it’s a joint sitting of both houses) must appoint a member of the same party as the departing Senator, as a result of a constitutional amendment passed in 1977, but they could still, in theory, refuse to appoint the specific member nominated by the party. Indeed in 1987 the Tasmanian Parliament refused to endorse Labor’s nominee John Devereaux, creating a standoff in which Labor refused to nominate anyone else but the parliament would not endorse Devereaux, and Tasmania was a Senator short until the next election. See Antony Green’s comment 37 (dated 2009) at http://larvatusprodeo.net/archives/2009/01/21/papering-over-the-cracks-in-c-m-credibility-with-populism/
Re #10
Pity you don’t have an economist in your own State Labor or Liberal team. We might then have a health and education system, employment and a surplus.
Abetz obtained his seat in parliament unelected and illegally via a casual vacancy for he was still a dual national until 2010 when he renounced his German citizenship.
You cannot renounce a citizenship you do not have.
Abetz is now so powerful that he can call all the shots and sequence the candidates so only those who toe his line get a job.
Well done Peter and good luck with the toad hunting.
#33 in regard to #30
Well, that’s right Dr.Bonham: if the Parliament refuses to endorse the candidate nominated by the Party and the Party won’t put forward an alternative-why would or should they?- then there is no appointment- effectively that means the Parliament doesn’t have a choice unless it wants the State to be not fully represented in the Senate.
It’s bit like so many other matters: there’s a choice to do or not to do-but there’s a penalty-is that a Hobson’s?
I would agree with Kevin (#33) who understands that the State Parliament is required to appoint a member from the same party as that of the Member creating the vacancy, but not necessarily any particular member proposed by that party.
It appears that TGC’s (#30) “The Tasmanian Parliament cannot reject the Greens Senate nominee.” is incorrect. Here is an excerpt from the Commonwealth legislation:
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 15
Casual vacancies [see Note 8]
If the place of a senator becomes vacant before the expiration of his term of service, the Houses of Parliament of the State for which he was chosen, sitting and voting together, or, if there is only one House of that Parliament, that House, shall choose a person to hold the place until the expiration of the term. But if the Parliament of the State is not in session when the vacancy is notified, the Governor of the State, with the advice of the Executive Council thereof, may appoint a person to hold the place until the expiration of fourteen days from the beginning of the next session of the Parliament of the State or the expiration of the term, whichever first happens.
Where a vacancy has at any time occurred in the place of a senator chosen by the people of a State and, at the time when he was so chosen, he was publicly recognized by a particular political party as being an endorsed candidate of that party and publicly represented himself to be such a candidate, a person chosen or appointed under this section in consequence of that vacancy, or in consequence of that vacancy and a subsequent vacancy or vacancies, shall, unless there is no member of that party available to be chosen or appointed, be a member of that party.
By the way, Bob is still the Senator-for-the-Time-Being, n’est-ce pas? I’m personally glad that Wishy is the nominee - and that’s not a reflection on anyone else. Can’t help it. I’ve seen him a few times over the years ‘having a go’ and putting himself on the line. I welcome the Greens’ choice of a recognised anti-pulp mill campaigner to replace Bob when he steps down.
#31 Got a link for that Karl?
Hi Rick: here’s the link:
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2010/s3044885.htm
Karl at #31 has used Whishy’s words, but not given the context. I interpreted Peter’s remarks as being along the lines of:
‘If, as some are claiming, a deal on the forests is to be tied to the pulp mill, then that would be a train wreck waiting to happen.’
His remark was from Oct 2010. We most of us know that some of the ENGOs contemplated a trade-off, or even agreed to one… But, I never saw anything tangible which included the Greens. I think perhaps that Peter’s remarks were intended to forestall such a situation. And then again, maybe I am trying to launder the past, and it might be that I again get called ‘wilfully ignorant’, ‘obtuse’ and (worse) stuff like that when I make these comments, by people from ‘my own side’ of the issue. Whishy endured similar things at the time and Karl’s comment seems to hark back to those troublesome times which those of us who are now ‘ex-TAPpers’ remember.
This is how it is ... the Communists and the Anarchists were both against Franco, yet the Comms had to have it their way, and could not work as a part of a united front. I compare Hemmingway’s Americanesque picture (‘For Whom the Bell Tolls’) of the resistance to the Fascists with Orwell’s compelling ‘Homage to Catalonia’. But surely I am straying, and the best-of-all-possible thought police will be wondering if they be needing to sharpen their red pencils…
[Have a lovely day everbody in TT land. I’m off to vote in Western Tiers. There are two candidates. The choice is easy. I don’t need to toss a coin on this one. Then I’m going to wait in Liffey for tomorrow’s full ‘super’ moon and photograph it, from a lookout on a hill in my bush. And I’ll be thinking of Miranda, from her possie seeing the same moon rising. And hearing the tree frogs, and night birds and being cold in the dark. And the sound of the creek below me…]
Garry at #39, your comment “I’ll be thinking of Miranda, from her possie seeing the same moon rising. And hearing the tree frogs, and night birds and being cold in the dark. And the sound of the creek below me…” speaks clearly about what all of us should be doing more often in our lives. Very poetic and full of environmental wisdom. Hope you get a brilliant photo.
#33 and #37
I accept Dr.Bonham’s understanding of the Constitutional arrangement-not sure #37 does- but #33’s expression “in theory” is important: in this present circumstance does anyone believe the Greens would ‘back down’ if the Tasmanian Parliament declared against their chosen nomination (Peter Whish-Wilson)>
#39 Thanks Garry i remember whishy’s trainwreck comments and others critical of the forests for a pulp mill deal. I’ve also spoken to whishy about it and know how pissed off he was at the time.
Karl said…“Today he was assuring us it had nothing to do with the pulp mill”. I must have missed this yesterday so i’m interested in a link to the comment.
How amusing
Karl’s trying to cause problems for Peter W-W already. Obviously the taste of sour grapes is difficult to erase!
Congratulations Peter, I am sure that you will make a great Senator.
I am wondering about the conjecture on the appointment, we must have different laws here to Queensland. My memory says there was a vacancy in the Federal Senate and that Jo Bjelke Peterson nominated a person from a different party to fulfill the position. From memory there was a stink at the time but the member Jo nominated sat in the seat.
I have a theory that Jo and Flo ran a school of politics out back of the cafe in Sheffield while they were here, so watch out for dirty tricks.
Maybe Kevin Bonham will clear this one up.
Your memory is the same as mine, Pete.
re #33, #3, #44 etc. The Joh appointment (of anti-Whitlam Labor member Albert Field) was made in 1975, that is before the 1977 amendment referred to by Kevin Bonham.
But he was actually a member of the same party as the Senator who died (Bertie Milliner). It was just that he was an obscure character who had never wanted to be a politician, and (just what Joh wanted) was no lover of Whitlam.
The man Labor wanted was none other than the subsequently-notorious Mal Colston. Joh had asked for a short list of three; Labor refused to provide one - and thus sowed the seeds for the subsequent blocking of supply in the Senate and the dismissal of the Whitlam government (because Field had to stand aside from the Senate during a High Court challenge, thus giving Fraser’s Liberals control).
A most interesting story.
Could it happen again? Might Lara ask for a 3-person shortlist? She probably wouldn’t be so provocative, given the current reliance Labor has on the Greens both State and federal (and the Joh history). But if she did, would the Greens provide such a list instead of just one nominee? The Act as quoted by Garry at #37 seems to be silent on such complications.
Keep listening.
Oh gee, it was hard living without a computer for the last while, i missed you all so much … Oh well at least I helped create an interesting debate!!
Back door politics.
Great info there Dr Kev, I knew some, but not all of that. It might be legal but is it really ethical, in the meaning of fairness and democracy that the system can work like that?
What have we got, a political game system of quitters? Whereby the next rides in through the back door? Plenty of past complaints on similar when it comes to the libs/labs etc. Are there different rules on playing the integrity game if you’re a greeny? I would hope not. And let me engage to ensure that that is not going to continue to be the case! Real integrity comes with openness and fairness. You can’t call out the rest and …. what is that saying … something like … do what I say, not what I do! I’ve been a naïve, toe the line in the past, but I’ve been in the party room since. And I didn’t like some of what I saw and heard. It’s not like I don’t know the game, infact been partially trained to play the game, by the greens. And I am not going be one of the sheep, just to be in the ‘click’. I have an opinion based on very real experiences. I trusted them, perhaps too much … so yet another life lesson learnt! Disappointed is probably an understatement, disenchanted? yes completely, do I feel like I can hang my hat completely, honestly, with the utmost trust on the Greens and Whish-Wilson? No! I don’t. Because they are run by are small group of people, generally I believe in Hobart, and they don’t take into consideration the very real issues that affect communities like mine. You are asked, then discounted; ask the questions, (such as I was asked to question the Greens from a very knowledgeable Tamar Valley person about their plantation push, which I had already seen through their forestry policy, so therefore was already very concerned about), you are discounted, if not howled down by the likes of WW, then told. Puppetry I call it. I don’t have a media group behind me (like the greens) to remind me what I have said. As long as you’re true to yourself, you can always speak without fear. Perhaps I’m too open and honest sometimes … So try this one for size … the links worry me profoundly … the Ex, Wilson, Gay, Gunns, Sop, plantations … explore that someone, if you will … … and just as I’ve said previously (under howls of protest at the time too), that this green/labor thingy wouldn’t bode well, I’d suggest there is now another magic pudding. So don’t scream when all goes spare again, as it will!! The greens many of us believed in (the essence of) have gone, it’s party politics now boys and girls, they’ve joined the big time rank and file. And although I believe in compromise in the vein of fairness, I don’t believe in being compromised! and therefore I’m not going to sell my soul, say things I don’t believe in just for appeasement. I’m certainly not going to put all my eggs into one basket that has previously proven to me won’t listen but simply wants me reiterated the bleat! That does not mean I am not green hearted, it just means that I’m totally over party politics … to me it seems they are all concerned more about the party than the policies that are supposed to help the people they are supposedly representing.
Bob could have retired at the end of his term, when the election came up. So don’t give me the line on ‘costly by-elections’. I recognize political machinations, but haven’t the greens pretended they are different? Apparently they are not. Timing is everything. So don’t be fooled. Arm yourself with true inside knowledge, join them, pay them some money, they need it, and go along and see for yourself!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7Xf-Lesrkuc#!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaG9SDxwPBg&feature=endscreen&NR=1
Re #36 sometimes the party in charge of a state parliament does want that state to be short of representation - if they are short of a member of the opposite party. But that situation in 1987 was classic Robin Gray, and nobody else has done it to my knowledge in the last 35 years, and I’m certain they won’t risk trying it this time either.
#32 - while it was public knowledge that Helen Burnet was a candidate, the Greens also stated that they would not release the names of all candidates. In theory there was the possibility that someone could put up their hand for the position and get it without public discussion. I don’t know still if there has been any official confirm or deny that Helen Burnet and Peter Whish-Wilson were the only applicants.
#47 Spot on Claire. One thing that all Tasmanian MHAs, MLCs, MHRs and senators have in common is their unstinting support for Plantation Isle. They all support a pulp mill, every last one of them. They only differ about its location.
This means, in effect, that they all support the on-going development of monocultural, large-scale plantation development for pulp, and all the destructive ramifications of that.
It also means that they all consider that the evidence at large, overwhelmingly showing that a Tasmanian mill won’t be competitive with those in South America, and also showing a global trend down in demand for pulp as IT creates such things as paper-free classrooms, should just be ignored.
In terms of Tasmania’s future it makes no sense to keep large areas of the rural landscape in monocultural pulpwood plantations, whether they’re located in catchments, alongside waterways or in prime agricultural areas, from whatever perspective you care to look at it. Just last Wednesday, the secretary-general of The Global Foundation, Steve Howard wrote that “global demand for food will escalate dramatically in the coming years, as the world population heads for 9 billion, while scarce resources of arable land and fresh water will become even more scarce”. He emphasised that the largest internal migration in human history is currently taking place in China, with about 350 million people likely to move from the countryside to cities by 2030.
That is just one aspect of how Tasmania is hell-bent on missing the opportunities that come from understanding what is taking place in the broader world. The classic case, of course, is MIS plantations. All Tasmanian politicians were warned, again and again and again, about how this was a disaster waiting to happen, but they all ignored those warnings without exception, Labor, Liberal and Greens. They still do. Even while plantations once established by the collapsed MIS schemes are being returned to pasture and other agricultural alternatives, the mantra in support of Tasmania as Plantation Isle continues unabated.
Another aspect of this is water. Clean water. A key push for clean Tasmanian water to be piped from Tasmanian catchments to Melbourne, Adelaide, the Murray-Darling and Roxby Downs is on again, (as I try to explain in a forthcoming article), but this is all being kept under wraps by the Tasmanian government, as usual. Where can clean water be obtained in Tasmania for such a proposal, when the most suitable catchments, such as the Arthur-Pieman, have already been degraded?
Perhaps one day Tasmanians will wonder what on earth they were thinking about during the first decade of the 21st century. But I doubt it. If the pulp mill does get built, wherever it might take place, in the Tamar Valley as supported by Lab-Libs, or along the north west somewhere, as supported by the Greens, it will be built at just the time when the current market which still exists, China, will be swinging down, and when the demand for food by Asia’s growing middle class will be swinging up.
Congratulations Peter Wish-Willson I know that you will be a very hard working member of the Senate for Tasmania and a brilliant representative for the Greens.
Re all the chatter about appointing a replacement for a retireing senator.
The law is that the party of the retiring senator nominates a replacement who is then submitted to the state government for ratification.
This happened in 1994 when Eric Abetz was nominated by the Liberal party to fill the vacancy when BB Archer retired.
It happened again recently when Mark Arbib retired and Bob Carr was nominated by the Labor party to take his place.
The Greens have gone through a very vigorous process to call nominations ( advertised in the Tassie papers)and in the usual way of the Greens reached a consensus decision .
I am glad that the names of all the people who were nominated were not released as it is important that the privacy of people who nominate for such positions is respected.
I am so pleased that Peter Wish-wilson will be the person taking the wonderful Bob Brown’s senate position and wish him and his family well in the very busy years ahead.
As Max Bound wrote in his recent book- “Greed or Survival” - ‘Some political activists who in the past would have lent support to the broader political left have, in recent decades, become deeply involved in Green politics. On the other hand, in Tasmania at least, some pominent people have left the Greens in frustration at continuation of the incomplete focus…’. [page 101]
Like the Tasmanian aquaculture industry, the forestry plantation model is all about simplistic concepts and untested assumption. It does not take into consideration wider landscape and ecological consequences. The Greens were too captivated by a peace-offering Trogan Horse wheeled into their green citadel.
The difficulty with the “forest for a pulp mill” deal promoted by the ENGOs and initially sold by Our Common Ground agenda was that it came out of accepting the status quo - collapsing wild fisheries and collapsing native forestry.
#25 I am not sure the importance of the Bell Bay industrial area is to Peters love for surfing but it must be a more enjoyable trip down the East Tamar to Low Head now without the high levels of pollution now that Temco has temporarily ceased operations. Also these large companies received generous government concessions for creating jobs yet over the years they have and are still reducing their workforces significantly and still receive the same concessions. A small business that creates employment do not receive the same generous hand outs.
Whilst not saying that there is huge amounts of job vacancies in Tasmania a number of people that have moved to the mainland or FIFO for work are lured by the higher wages on other in the mines compared to some of the jobs on other in Tasmania.
#26 Certainly have to agree
“50- “pulp mill…along the northwest coast somewhere (Hampshire?) as supported by the Greens…”
This should be knocked on the head for good- the Greens do not support a pulp mill being built anywhere in Tasmania- that they appear to be soft in their opposition to other than the Tamar Valley - Hampshire has frequently been mentioned- is only because there are no plans to build a pulp mill at Hampshire-or anywhere other than Bell Bay.
Now, if that Bell Bay site was abandoned and Hampshire stood as its replacement then the Greens vwould quickly find reasons for “Braddon says No to an Hampshire Pulp Mill”
There’s a philosophical, political and economic opposition to a Tasmanian pulp mill by the Greens and they would harness any low level doubts in any district about a pulp mill and drive those doubts into full gear opposition. It just gives them a smidgeon of apparent reasonableness to imply they do support down-stream processing of the plantation resource. In any near-term reckoning that can only be via pulp mill.
That’s an absolute no-no for the Greens.
#51- and others: Why should those nominating for the Greens Senate vacancy be afforded privacy?: in the next Senate election -if the Greens nominate a number of persons for their ticket, they will be named- it’s not all that easy to understand why unsuccessful candidates should not be. There’s always great enthusiasm for getting the names of those interested in becoming a candidate for Labor,Liberal or National seats.
A good journalist should be able to sniff out the full list of 10- reputedly- who went for the nomination this time.
For the Geographically challenged such as TGC, the proposed pulp mill that will never get funded is at Longreach. Definitely not Bell Bay.
You know that the site was zoned as a wildlife refuge area and a buffer zone but of course keep on repeating the rubbish about it being in an industrial area because it serves the masters’ propaganda.
#55 TGC Is protecting his/her privacy by signing off with initials!!
People nominating for positions with political parties have to consider their work/home/life situation.
Most work places would not take too kindly to their members nominating for a political position and many like state & federal governments make employees resign before standing for an election.
Be consistant TGC, you obviously like or need your privacy so don’t criticise the Greens for making sure that their members work/home/life privacy is respected.
#56—If it will “never get funded” the geography hardly matters.
Ahhh Merk, number 19, we meet again. So where prey tell is the spin?
The first few lines are fact. The rest is by and large opinion, like most offerings in these comments sections. I am not even a Green party member, so have no need to ‘spin’ anything.
But I was only really half serious. I don’t foresee or actually suggest a Greens name change. I agree Maddie (#20) that these simplistic (as stated)
party demarkations are now essentially blurred and redundant. Hence my point regarding the unfortunate nature of being tied to a specific party name and branding.
Once you join a party, it is assumed you are a dyed-in-the-wool robotic mouthpiece for an established rhetoric, whereas you may have opinions that sit anywhere across the liberal/labor/green spectrum. My point is that although having aligned himself more on one area of the spectrum than the others, he may have some fresh ideas and deserves to be assessed on his merit. Although merely congratulating him on his appointment, this is still what I will be doing. I was pointing out that I have witnessed Peter standing behind what he believes and that is always a good sign.
I would be interested to know Merk what you think is laughable about suggesting a party that is trying to sure up the health of the environment that we eat, breathe, drink and absorb everyday of our life before all other considerations, while proposing a way we can still have jobs doing so is supremely sensible. Which is the only party who has environmental protection as a core policy pillar? What is insensible about this exactly? Just hoping that the free market economy or taking care of our working class or just human society in general will somehow, somewhere along the way just magically achieve a positive outcome for our finite resources and environmental health seems like a bit of a gamble hmmm?
Where’s the spin, you ask?!
“Those who snipe and endlessly raise the tired catch cry of ‘what about jobs’ are just greedy capitalists fretting for their latte’s and Toorak tanks.”
Or perhaps they just care about preserving the dignity and purpose of employment and providing for their families.
”... the term green has copped alot of flack with insinuations of links to communism and socialism ...”
Shall I read that as a categorical denial that the members of the extreme political left, abandoned by Labor as it chased the false profits of globalism and financialism to the centre-right, have not taken refuge within the Greens? If so, I think you may be alone in this view.
The contrast between my view and yours, I think, is that you believe that the answer to ‘shoring up the environment’ is submission to a political Green machine, and you demonstrate this by your ‘half-serious’, happy-clapping comment that I took issue with. I personally take the view that the capacity for critical thought is more valuable in today’s society than being JAFF - just another fricken follower!
I think the real story in this thread is what Claire Gilmour has had to say about the Party she once hoped to represent (and who I have previously voted for), becoming disenchanted by the ideological purification machine and finding liberation in expressing herself truly on these pages. I’d be more interested to hear your reflections on her public remarks - provided you don’t first have to ask Saint Christine’s permission to do so?