Peter Tucker
THE standing aside of Bryan Green as deputy premier and minister over the TCC “scandal” is the biggest political problem (of its own making) that Labor has had to face since it came to power in 1998. Many commentators have as good as written off Mr Green’s political future, believing that the hole he has dug for himself is now so deep that premier Paul Lennon does not have a rope long enough to throw to him. But is Bryan Green a goner? Maybe, but I argue here that the chances of his political resurrection are greater than some people think.
Weighing up the political scales
It is a fact of Australian politics that when ministerial scandal bites, be it for incompetence, impropriety or over some personal peccadillo, the government of the day will support that minister only as far as it is in the party’s political interest to do so; in other words, there is a tallying up of political plusses and minuses — once the scales tip against the offending minister, out he or she goes.
A corollary to this argument is that the more political capital invested in the minister then the more there is to lose. In Bryan Green Labor has a great deal invested:
1. fourteen thousand primary votes (nearly 1.5 quotas, the second highest vote winner in the state behind Paul Lennon),
2. the profile of deputy premiership in the critical Braddon electorate, and
3. the services of a reasonably competent minister from within a limited talent pool.
These are the plusses Bryan Green brings to Labor. Are the minuses now greater? Have the political scales tipped irrevocably against Bryan Green?
I agree with Associate Professor Richard Herr and other commentators that Labor has had a disastrous start to this term. But I am not as pessimistic about Bryan Green’s future as the Sydney-based media consultant, Anthony McClellan, interviewed by Tim Cox on ABC radio this week (The podcast link is here http://www.abc.net.au/tasmania/podcast.htm. Scroll down and click on the item “spindoctor” or downloud the MP3 file).
I think the odds are at least 50/50 that Bryan Green will be rehabilitated to the front bench PROVIDING he is cleared of criminal charges AND there are no further serious misdeeds unearthed by the inquiries currently under way.
Three seats in Braddon
Why? Most importantly, to protect Labor’s three seats in Braddon. Bryan Green is a big vote winner in the north-west electorate and Labor desperately needs two popular vote-pulling ministers (currently Mr Green and Steve Kons) to make the most of its chances of three seats. If Mr Lennon dumps Mr Green it leaves a big hole; by my calculations a swing against Labor of six per cent would be enough to put the Liberals in front three seats to two.*
Also, the political fall-out is less where it counts most — with the voters of Braddon. A reading of the three Tasmanian newspapers is illustrative: this issue is playing out differently around the regions. Look at the three dailies for Monday 17th July, the first working day after Mr Green’s resignation: the Mercury ran a front page item on the (effective) sacking and the tone of its inside analysis was, as its editorial position has been since the issue broke, that Mr Green’s career is over.
By contrast, in the Examiner the story did not appear until a small item on page six and there was no comment or analysis. It is, the paper appears to have concluded, either a Hobart political story or a north-west local story, either way not something of major significance to Examiner readers.
But the real counter-point to the Mercury’s position was in Mr Green’s home-town paper the Burnie Advocate. It ran a front page and inside spread puff-piece on how Mr Green “will be back”, complete with photos of the deputy premier and his wife along with the human interest angle.
I am certainly not saying that the press has been biased in its reporting the facts of the issue. What I am saying is that when it comes to giving the story weighting, and in terms of editorial analysis, each paper has taken a different course depending on what they feel their respective readers are interested in. That is their task.
Time is with Labor
Another reason why Bryan Green’s political future may not be terminal is simply that Labor has time on its side. If a week is a long time in politics, then three years is an eternity. With the next election not due until 2010 there is ample time for Mr Green to be exposed, chastised, punished and rehabilitated.
Where to from here? Keeping my qualification in mind of no new serious revelations to come, it could be that Bryan Green is reinstated to his ministry but that someone else (Steve Kons?) is given the deputy premiership. Paul Lennon would be loath to do a reshuffle as most ministers were allocated new portfolios after the March election which they are just getting their minds around. From an organisational point of view, it would make sense to simply return economic development to Bryan Green, a portfolio in which he has a reasonable standing.
This may not happen straight away. It may be that Mr Lennon leaves Mr Green on the backbench as a public display of chastisement, perhaps for the spring session of parliament, but slips him back into the ministry over the summer break when the more voracious (and perceptive) of the media gallery are on leave and while the electorate is at the beach or watching the cricket.
Deputy premiership not so certain
But Mr Lennon might want to send a message that Mr Green is not to be let off without some longer-lasting punishment and therefore may not give him back the deputy post. With a mind to retaining regional balance in cabinet, that would make Mr Kons the front-runner which, given his low-key demeanour, is perhaps surprising. But maybe the public will connect with his quiet but straight-talking style? Maybe that would balance the leadership team better?
As I wrote recently, Labor cannot continue to spend political capital like millionaires even though voters generally are pragmatists more interested in the ends (ie. economic good times) than the means (ie. the political argy-bargy). It is interesting to draw a comparison between Bryan Green’s troubles with those of the prime minister over the “note-in-a-wallet” leadership pact: a majority of people believe Peter Costello’s version over Howard’s, but still a majority prefer Howard as PM.
Social progressives driven mad
The lesson? Voters know politicians lie — that’s what politicians do — but providing the goods are being delivered on the ground they don’t necessarily care. There is increasing evidence that the public are quite prepared to distinguish the concept of “trust”: they accept that, on one hand, a politician may not be “trustworthy” while, on the other, they trust him or her to deliver on the issues that matter out in voter-land. Bill Clinton is another case in point. The public knew he lied to his wife, lied about his personal life, and that he lied to other politicians, but he still scored highly on voters trusting him with the country’s political direction.
So out of base self-interest and cynicism voters will accept to a certain extent “politicians being politicians”. This reality, while driving the social progressives mad, is to Bryan Green’s advantage.
The extent to which Bryan Green is politically rehabilitated is directly correlated to the extent to which his transgressions are perceived by the electorate as so much political “noise”. My interpretation is that, providing the damage can be limited to what is currently known and as long as Mr Green remains popular within Braddon, he will be a minister of the government at the next Tasmanian election.
(*Note: To gain a majority in the House of Assembly, under the Hare Clark system of proportional representation, a simple rule of thumb is that one of the major parties must win at least three out of five seats in at least three of the five divisions. In the north-west electorate of Braddon, because the Greens traditionally do not poll well enough to gain a seat, one of either Labor or Liberal only has to be slightly ahead of the other on aggregate primary votes to win the seats 3-2 during the cut-up. Currently Labor is in this position, an advantage it could easily cede without Mr Green’s vote-pulling power.)
Peter Tucker has worked in Tasmania as an advisor for the Liberals in opposition and in ministerial offices for both Labor and Liberal governments. He is currently a free-lance political commentator and writer, and PhD candidate at the University of Tasmania’s School of Government. [email protected]
