THE cosy relationship between Tasmanian Premier Paul Lennon and big business is the defining issue of the looming Tasmanian election (almost certainly to be called tomorrow, for March 18).
With now almost weekly revelations of unusual deals with Premier Lennon as their inevitable locus, the Lennon’s Government’s internal polling must be truly appalling for Premier Lennon to last week try and take credit for the remarkable Bob Brown orchestrated, Dick Smith financed saving of Recherche Bay — a perverse sight that could only be rivalled in its capacity to amuse were Fred Nile to appear in a g-string on a Mardi Gras float.
The Premier’s defenders are quick to maintain the legitimacy of the Tasmanian Government’s relationship with for example, Premier Lennon’s brother John’s management consultancy firm, Global Value Management, which has seen John Lennon’s company receive consultancy fees for workshops on policy issues in which the Premier has or had ministerial responsibilities.
Typical are a two day $30,000 workshop in November 2005 on the impact of the Gunns pulp mill on the three local councils, or a two day $20,000 workshop last August, funded by the Tasmanian Government for the Maydena comunity on its future after completion of Forestry Tasmania’s latest tourist project. Lennon supporters, such as aspiring ALP backbencher David Bartlett, argue that “all due process had been followed with the awarding of government contracts.”
In a similar fashion, the Premier’s defenders maintain that hospitality shown by PBL Ltd to Premier Lennon at Crown Casino during Melbourne’s Spring Racing Carnival — larded with a five-star butler — was normal for a VIP and had no bearing on the Tasmanian Government’s support for part PBL owned controversial online betting exchange, Betfair.
This has been welcome reassurance for all those Tasmanians far removed from the privileges of influence and power — be it those homeless living in tents provided by charities in what is still the nation’s poorest state, or those waiting in hospital queues in the nation’s worst health system — who might otherwise wrongly begin to question their Premier’s behaviour and priorities; and fail to properly understand Paul Lennon’s history since the ALP returned to power in Tasmania in 1998, with Jim Bacon as premier and Lennon his deputy.
Extraordinary, but typical of the Tasmanian type of due process and transparency David Bartlett lauds was the manner in which millionaire Greg Farrell’s Federal Hotels group became the leading tourism operator in Tasmania, bankrolled by its monopoly on pokie machines.
While in Victoria and NSW gaming machine licences are tendered for and billions of dollars paid by operators to state governments, in Tasmania a fifteen year monopoly on gaming machines, estimated by Citigroup to be worth at least $130 million in government revenue, was inexplicably given to Federal Hotels for no charge. Minister responsible? Paul Lennon.
Another transparent deal for which Paul Lennon had ministerial responsibility was the sale by the Government of the Tasmanian Motor Registry building — a prime Hobart CBD property — at the height of the Tasmanian building boom for $100,000. Within months, apartments were selling off the plan for the site for up to $3 million.
And then, while Paul Lennon was minister in charge of forestry, millionaire mate John Gay’s Gunns Ltd grew into a billion dollar monopoly that is now the largest hardwood woodchip exporter in the world. As forests disappeared, as rivers began drying up, as hundreds of thousands of protected native animals were killed with 1080, and drinking water catchments poisoned, Gunns shares increased in value over 700%. Since taking on the mantle of premier, Gunns has not been forgotten, and nothing has excited Paul Lennon’s interest and enthusiasm more than Gunns’ plans for a billion-dollar pulp mill.
Transparency and due process
This leads to the issue of a persistent, growing rumour about the Premier which requires clarification as yet one more example of transparency and due process, if the public are to maintain confidence in the appropriate dealings of its government, particularly with regard to a company as powerful as Gunns, which is currently seeking government approval for the largest and most controversial project in recent Tasmanian history.
The Premier needs to confirm or deny whether the ‘the construction division’ of Gunns Ltd (as it is termed on Gunns’ own website), Hinman Wright and Manser, carried out the renovations on his recently restored Georgian mansion, which was to feature in a pictorial spread in PBL-owned Womens Weekly.
It is hard to believe that the Premier — who has been vociferous in his attacks on John Howard’s new IR legislation — would use a company such as Hinman Wright and Manser which is known for its less than fulsome support of unionised labour.
A union source described Hinman as “union haters”.
“They will deny it, but union membership is ‘discouraged’. Last time we checked they don’t pay penalties, overtime, weekend or public holiday rates. They are owned by Gunns, and have become the Patricks of the building industry in Tasmania.” Hinman is understood to have enthusiastically embraced AWAs and the Howard government’s new workplace regime.
But a larger, far more serious issue than that of hypocrisy is raised if Hinman was the Premier’s renovator of choice. Given many Tasmanians’ misplaced belief that Gunns and not the government now make all major decisions of import in the clearfell state — Lennon’s government is after all often derided as the ‘Gunnerment’ — Tasmanian voters will need to be reassured that either Gunns had nothing to do with the restoration of the Premier’s home, or, that if they did, that documented proof can be produced showing that the project was, as it would and must be and we have no reason to believe has not been, properly costed and paid for.
Without this, further difficult questions will be asked about the transparent and due processes being strictly observed in the Government’s assessment of Gunns’ proposed billion dollar pulp mill.
It can only be in Premier Lennon’s interests to put this rumour to rest immediately by placing a clear and detailed statement of the facts and costs before the Tasmanian people, so that they can go to the election assured of his probity and integrity when they come to make their choice at the ballot box.
Because in the present climate, anything less may now mean electoral oblivion for Paul Lennon and his Labor colleagues.
FOOTNOTE: Tasmanian Times asked the Premier’s Office and Hinman Wright and Manser yesterday morning (Wednesday) if they would answer the question: Did Hinman Wright and Manser do the renovations on Premier Paul Lennon’s house at Brighton?
Both offices said they would respond by phone or email. As this item went live, no response had been received.
• Makeover just beginning …
Today: Tender process probe
