Shadow boxing

The shadowy figures behind the advertising campaign against the Greens and for majority government before the Tasmanian election last weekend are coming out of the woodwork — including former Liberal Premier Robin Gray.

Greens leader Peg Putt has blamed a coalition of forces against the Greens for a drop in electoral support, including big business, union leaders and the Christian sect Exclusive Brethren (as unearthed by Tasmanian Times and Crikey).

Today, Exclusive Brethren members Trevor Christian and Roger Unwin have defended their actions in letters to Tasmanian newspapers. Christian and Unwin, who have avoided direct media contact, say no-one else was expected to disclose their religion, reject accusations they mislead the public over Greens policies, and say that it was their decision for a blitz against the Greens:

… our campaign was not initiated, controlled, funded or publicly endorsed by the congregation in any way. We believe government to be of God and for this reason we respect it; consequently, although our conscience precludes us from voting, it equally creates a responsibility to testify to persons in government and the community to uphold right Christian principles on which our nation is founded.

While Christian and Unwin entered the fray in the last days of the campaign, a group called Tasmanians for a Better Future were in there from the start, with a multimedia campaign advocating stable, majority government — which could only mean a vote for Labor, since the Liberals had no chance of winning outright.

The ads were authorised by Corporate Communications principal Tony Harrison. Before the poll, Hobart businessman Michael Kent revealed he had pumped money into the campaign, but would not say who else was involved. However, buried in an interview with The Examiner on Monday, Liberal member Sue Napier said Robin Gray was involved. Gray is not only a former Liberal Premier, but he is a director of timber giant, Gunns Ltd, which had warned that the $1.5 billion pulp mill proposed for the Tamar Valley might be built in China if there was minority government.

Crikey couldn’t get in touch with Gray this morning, so went back to Napier, who said the Federal Government’s IR policy had hurt the Liberals and that ads placed by Gray and Kent had also had an adverse effect. “We said we would govern in majority or not at all, so Robin (Gray) and Michael Kent said that voters should ensure that if there was a majority government it should be a Labor Government.”

And, Kerr v. Oquist:

Green with envy

Christian Kerr writes:

The Greens are a bunch of whingeing frauds. Whingeing frauds who don’t know much about politics. We’ve just seen a repeat in Tasmania of exactly the same thing we saw at the 2004 federal election – and over the Tasman in the Kiwi poll last year. They’ve talked up their results. The polls have looked good. And they’ve flopped on election day.

Let’s deal with the frauds bit first. The Greens public pitch is based on the reasonable proposition that as this is the only planet we have to live on; we have to look after it. This is manifested as an appeal to middle-class shrub hugging and guilt on a few voguish social issues.

Behind this, though, is a heap of very odd looking baggage. And when voters have their attention drawn to what else the Greens stand for – what the Greens really stand for – support evaporates.

And the politics? In today’s Australian Tasmanian Greens leader Peg Putt blames the drop in their vote from 22 per cent in a poll four weeks ago to 16 per cent on Saturday on the “grubbiest, most vicious” smear campaign in Tasmanian political history.

Well, whackos love conspiracy theories – but why doesn’t Putt ask Gary Morgan or any other pollster about what they think keeps happening to the Greens.

They’ll probably suggest that undecided voters nominate the Greens when pollsters talk to them as it sounds better than a dunno. They’ll also probably add that negative campaigning against the Greens – like we saw from all sides in Tasmania – locks in support behind the major parties. The Green vote collapses. The undecideds are frightened. And they’ll also tell you that Tasmania is the perfect microcosm, the perfect test-market, to prove the truth of this argument. Just look at the results.

Greens are big on limits on growth. Why won’t they admit that there are limits on what they can poll?

In defence of the Greens’ performance in Tassie

Ben Oquist, Bob Brown’s former chief-of-staff, writes:

The Greens-hating bitter bile of Christian Kerr is back (yesterday, item 7). It had been days without him slagging us off – and we had been missing it!

But let’s have a more dispassionate look at the weekend results. The Greens scored 16.2% of the vote in Tasmania – that means one in six Tasmanians voted Green. Although this is a small swing of 1.9% away from the 2002 vote (which was an all time high), it is LESS than Saturday’s swing away from Labor of 2.3%.

We have definitely won three seats and, despite extensive reports to the contrary, we have an excellent chance of holding all four seats. The Greens vote was slightly less than the polls predicted but to call a vote of 16% for a minor party a “flop” is plain stupid. And the result was achieved in spite of the saturation scare campaign from big business and the Exclusive Brethren during the week leading up to the election.

Meanwhile Greens leader in Tasmania, Peg Putt, got 3,000 more votes than any other individual candidate – Labor or Liberal – in the seat of Denison.

Christian Kerr has no evidence to back up his silly lines about limits to growth – indeed the overall trend in Greens votes is quite the opposite.

In South Australia, the Greens have broken through for the first time with the likely election of our first upper house MP – Mark Parnell – despite a bad preference deal.

In the SA Lower House, the Greens vote doubled to a record of 6.3% in a tight struggle with Family First who secured 5.8%. This looks like it is shaping up for the next big minor party battle Australia wide – the fight for Senate seats in 2007.

Christian Kerr replies to yesterday’s piece (item 15) by Bob Brown’s former chief-of-staff, Ben Oquist:

Dear Ben

Thanks for your note yesterday. It’s a pleasure as a former spin doctor to stay in touch with a young spinner like you – such a good propagandist. Because that’s what spinners are, aren’t they?

You know that quote from the anonymous White House aide about “the reality-based community” picked up by Ron Susskind in the New York Times that sent a billion blogs into paroxysms. And you know he was right. Spinners “create our own reality”, just like the Bush aide said.

You are so good that virtually no-one questions what your masters say. You are so good that a whole sector of the population – even, going by the letters, sceptical types like Crikey readers who aren’t normally susceptible to spin – will come out and say commentators are being biased just when they apply the same degree of scrutiny to you as they’d apply to any other party.

I know someone like you has done some usual spin doctor tricks – liked reversing the x and y axes on graphs to come up with a more visually appealing product for your press releases.

Let’s try that trick on you – spin your spin and invert your comments on the Greens’ Tasmanian performance from yesterday. Running off Antony’s snapshot, more than 83% of the Tasmanian population didn’t back your party. In other words, fewer than one in five Tasmanians voted Green. (93% of South Australians didn’t support you, either.)

It doesn’t matter how you present the figures. Your party lost ground – and probably lost seats – in Tassie on Saturday.

If you want yardsticks of minor party success, you know you have to look at the Queensland election before last, where One Nation captured 22.7% of the vote and 11 seats – or the performance of the No Pokies ticket in the South Australian Legislative Council last weekend. That puts your success into perspective.

All the national navel gazing that’s gone on over the last few weeks as we’ve marked John Howard’s tenth anniversary in power shows that Australians lean less to the radical left than ever before. I’m sure you’d admit that. Why won’t you admit that a key part of the small vote the Greens are actually able to win comes from Labor left voters disaffected by its successful centrist stances in state government?

Peg Putt’s petulance on Tassie TV on the big night is another issue, too. Not a good look. She may have “got 3,000 more votes than any other individual candidate” this time round, but turn that into an ad and she’ll lose 3,000 next time round. And, no, that won’t be part of a “saturation scare campaign”. It will be part of what spin doctors are paid to do.

You know all that. I said you’re good. I mean it. After all, your old boss, Bob Brown, has hardly had a word to say since Saturday – and look how loquacious you are. It’s pretty clear where he got all his lines from!

Anyway, I’d better sign off. I don’t want to write a spinners Screwtape Letters – although that could be a pretty good read. Hey mate?

Christian

More at: www.benoquist.com