Tony Whish-Wilson
At a recent informal gathering of Liberal voters (were in the past at least) some of the more generous terms used to describe the Party’s recent performance include spineless, clueless, leaderless and useless. The Party is increasingly perceived to be backward and inward looking: of the Party, by the Party, for the Party – where power and privilege are put before people, principle and good policy.
And nobody dissented when a former official responded to a disparaging remark about the Lennon government by observing at that meeting: “It cant be the worst Government in the State’s history unless you also have the worst Opposition in the State’s history”.
SOME feedback on the Liberal Party’s standing in the electorate: to say it is “on the nose” particularly among long-time Liberal voters (such as me) would be a gross understatement.
I have recently toured around the State, and attended many meetings on the Pulp Mill, MIS, PAL and the like and the message is loud as it is consistent: we have been betrayed, and effectively disenfranchised by our elected Liberal politicians. I feel a voter backlash is certain.
I have attempted to outline the basis for voter discontent and alienation from the Liberal Party. Much of it can be traced back to its uncompromising support for the Pulp MIll and “arrogant disregard” for the views of those who voice concerns about it, or have dissenting views.
These “issues” as listed are only some of the matters which have turned true-blue liberals against the Party. However, they should be of most concern.
1. Public declaration of total support for the pulp mill immediately after release of draft IIS – before any meaningful analysis of its contents. Prudence surely demanded that judgement be withheld until after lengthy study and wide consultation, to ensure its impacts were fully understood. In-principle support was to be expected: jumping enthusiastically on the government band-wagon however was always going to pose future difficulties for Opposition Party supporters who opposed the mill, and were left with no political representation (save the Greens).
The die was cast!
2. Liberal politicians apparently had little if any hesitation in accepting the truncated “review and assessment” process after the Independent RPDC was ‘clear-felled’ (as described by a local business identity). This change would have attracted the attention of the Anti-Corruption and Crime Commission in another State.
The Party was now seen as supporting what Terry Martin, MLC called “shonky dealings”, and “corruption of fundamental democratic process”.
Not a good look!
3. The Party then moved to support enabling legislation, which included indemnifying the government against any future litigation relating to the new review process – even if bribery was involved!
Even “rusted-on” liberal supporters were shocked by this revelation.
4. Not a word of protest from the Party hierarchy when Mill proponents issued a ‘Benefits Study’ only instead of the internationally accepted “cost-benefits analysis” normally employed in evaluating major investment projects. Not even those who still believe in fairies would believe that a massive smoke-stack development of this nature would have no costs and risks, only benefits!
By their silence and inaction, the Opposition effectively made themselves complicit in an extraordinary deception!
5. Will Hodgeman set an amazing new standard in Party conduct by appearing in front of an ‘organised’ CFMEU rally with bull-horn in hand shouting support for their cause. Who cares that their cause may be damaging to other small, non-forestry businesses?
This action caused much angst among Party supporters who by now were having great difficulty distinguishing between the two major parties.
6. On the other hand: how many Liberal Party polititians attended the small-business expo held in the Albert Hall in July to showcase the range of specialist foodstuffs and related products produced in the region and sold into markets around the world? The answer ‘none’ shouldn’t really surprise as it’s becoming increasingly apparent to farmers, orchardist, grape-growers, etc, that businesses outside of forestry and pulp mills are of little interest to the Liberal Party these days – although it still proclaims that small businesses are the engine-room of economic growth.
This gap between words and actions is causing a significant alienation of traditional supporters.
7. The public rebuke handed out by the State President to Ben Quinn for speaking openly about community concerns relating to the Mill (with the threat of disendorsement) would have been greeted with approval in any totalitarian country: it was greeted with dismay by many of the Liberal faithful. Whatever happened to the Party touted by the PM as a ’broad church’, tolerant of different views, and committed to a broad range of individual freedoms?
It must be frustratingly difficult for any elected member who harbours concerns about the Mill to act with conscience, or properly reflect the views of his/her constituents when shackled by Party rules of this kind.
8. The quality of political leadership has again come into question following Mr Hodgman’s speech outlining why he was voting “for” Mill approval:
“ —– If Chile can have a pulp mill, if New Zealand can have a pulp mill, why shouldn’t Tasmania have a pulp mill? he pontificated.
The logic of this escapes most of us, particularly if you look at the economies of those countries.
9. Liberal Party participation in the Government-sponsored, Gunns- conducted Mill-inspection tour overseas served only to reinforce the view of many cynics that those involved were being manipulated by Mill proponents particularly when their ‘findings’ gave the Mill essentially a clean bill of health as it were – consistent with the Party line. Any credibility was lost when an Independent MLC ventured outside the tour confines and discovered some worryingly negative outcomes from Mill operations, not otherwise divulged.
Not a good outcome!
10. Any person with business experience can point to significant risks that attach to government involvement in major project developments.
In the case of the Mill, the Premier has candidly admitted that he initiated this project, which means that Gunns were in a sense ‘seconded’ to develop the project. Hence the outlandish outlay of tax-payer dollars in promoting the Mill. The government has effectively acted as the “Lead Partner” in a joint venture with Gunns to build the Mill and that perhaps explains the Premier’s extraordinary efforts to get it approved at any cost!
Any Corporation of course would be ready to go along for the ride in these circumstances because it couldn’t lose: there would be little or no outlay for infrastructure, health, environment etc, because these costs would be largely picked up by the government (read taxpayer).
And if there were ever any “problems” later with operating permits, etc, these would be quickly resolved in the operators favour because, being a government sponsored project, they would be obliged to ‘support ‘the operator.
Similarly if the Mill struggled to be financially viable: having invested so much money and political capital in it, the government could not stand by and see it fail: taxpayer dollars would have to be made available to prop it up if need be. And that must be a very comforting thought for the Corporation involved.
The question is: does the Liberal Party have any qualms about tax-payer funds being used to benefit a private corporation in this way?
11. The Party apparently believes there are no public health issues with the Mill despite repeated warnings from the AMA that their scientifically-based projections point to over 200 extra deaths being caused by mill emissions over the life of the Mill. Doesn’t that risk (at least) register with party officials? It certainly does with voters! Young people particularly are outraged by the readiness of elected officials to disregard such warnings from independent experts: they view the action of those voting for the Mill as tantamount to signing the death warrants of many valley residents in the future.
They can’t believe people of principle would consciously vote for a industrial development which could well put innocent lives at risk.
12. What infuriates many Liberal Party voters is the predisposition of its elected representatives to always repudiate, or seek to debunk any ““facts” put forward in the Mill debate by independent experts, apparently having absolute faith that anything produced by consultants hired by the Mill proponents (not so independent) carries more weight. Given the number of errors identified in their submissions already, this slavish adherence to the ‘party-line” is troubling to many and begs the question: whose interests is the party really serving?
At a recent informal gathering of Liberal voters (were in the past at least) some of the more generous terms used to describe the Party’s recent performance include spineless, clueless, leaderless and useless. The Party is increasingly perceived to be backward and inward looking: of the Party, by the Party, for the Party – where power and privilege are put before people, principle and good policy.
And nobody dissented when a former official responded to a disparaging remark about the Lennon government by observing at that meeting:
“It cant be the worst Government in the State’s history unless you also have the worst Opposition in the State’s history”.
And that’s a sobering thought!
Tony Whish-Wilson was born and raised in NE Tasmania. He Joined RAAF after secondary school, achieving the rank of Squadron Leader. He saw active service in Malaya, Vietnam. After resignation from RAAF, Tony joined mining giant Rio Tinto. Became a General Manager and In-House Consultant on business development. Familiar with multi-billion dollar investments.
Tony has been an active supporter of the Liberal Party since University (Arts/Economic, Business Administration). Until Now!
Tony Lived/worked in WA through period now infamously known as WA inc. Witnessed, first-hand, problems that eventuate from “unholy alliances” between government and big business.
He has been pro-market, pro-development, pro-business since University days. Advised Government on business development opportunites (advisory panel).
He supports the case for secondary processing of timber in Tasmania.
In summary:
“I have concluded however, that what has eventuated from a rushed, flawed pulp mill approval process is:
• The wrong type of mill,
• Of the wrong scale
• In the wrong location
• At the wrong time; and
• for the wrong reasons.”
