Politics
Rating the leaders
Nostradamus Help! Someone’s stolen my thunder
The challenge that I would put before our three young political leaders is quite simple. It rests on a belief that governments govern in the interest of the governed. Not vested interests, shadowy figures in the business community, nor farmers or a particular class but all Tasmanians. Therefore it should be axiomatic that before we export water or any other commodity, the welfare of the Tasmanian population comes first. And bugger those who believe, like a certain former Victorian Premier: “If you see a tree (or trees) cut them down and sell them. Then you have an open space and you can build on it.” The last thing we need in this state is an obsolete 20th-century philosophy. I have said many times that Tasmania is one of the finest places in the world in which to live. It is up to government and opposition alike to ensure that this continues.
I GOT a most dreadful shock yesterday morning when I opened up the Mercury to find an editorial that said great deal of what I intended to commit to my comment this week. This prompted me to put on the thinking cap and try to write something, which will draw more interest than previous columns. I don’t know whether people bother reading my jottings but there are precious few comments, which can be frustrating.
The intriguing prospect in the run-up to the next state election is that we have 3 amigos, if they don’t object to being categorized as such, heading our political parties – and they all apparently enjoyed the TV program “The West Wing.” And as a political tragic and pollie watcher, I very much hope that the recession which appears to be upon us does not warp the whole process. I’m no great believer in the nostrums of Access Economics and outfits like KPMG, which sometimes behave as though they are agents of darkness or the extreme right wing of the Liberal party. So today, if it’s good enough for the Mercury to steal my thunder, then I wish to borrow an idea from them and basically, that concerns rating the three leaders of the parties in the Tasmanian Parliament.
There is an old biblical saying about ” by their deeds shall ye know them” and I have tried to keep that in mind. The degree of my success will not be for me to decide. However, perception is everything in politics, which can be unfortunate at times. I did not have any great time for the Lemon, or his predecessors as ALP leaders and Premiers. Even the great Doug Lowe, revered by some and reviled by many recently passed some advice to Jed Bartlett, which I would let go in one ear and out the other.
What then of our three tyros? They are roughly the same age and young Willum Hodgman and David (Jed) Bartlett have both graduated from university, while Nick McKim, dropped out to pursue some entirely human pursuits. Having racked up a few education qualifications in my time, I regard tertiary education as valuable but not a necessity. So let’s start with perception. All three scrub up pretty well on the visual media and it appears that only Willum is totally addicted to wearing a tie. My one big gripe with Jim Bacon, when he took over the government, was that he insisted that his male staff must all wear suits and ties. In a way that was putting them in a uniform and while I don’t have an aversion to uniforms per se, I thought we had moved into the 20th century and now the 21st. I like the fact that Jed has joined Nick in leaving the ghastly strip of cloth off whenever possible. They still look neat enough and let’s not get hung up with the old saw of “clothes maketh the man” because in my experience, some of the best work has been done by individuals in jeans and sweaters, albeit behind closed doors. Fair enough to dress up when facing the press and cameras or visiting dignitaries.
On the basis of past performance, I would give the leader of the State Liberals a B grade. He is clearly articulate and well-spoken, especially when he has prepared material. Whether he develops the Hodgman gravitas, known to some as pomposity, which is essentially the front for his father Michael Q.C. Her Majesty’s shadow Attorney-General remains to be seen. I can see his lighter approach and appearances of him having fun as a positive electorally. If he has one weakness, it would appear to be that he is blindsided by unexpected questions and that showed dramatically on the ABC 936 afternoon program last week, when he appeared totally at a loss to explain a choice of record to Christopher Lawrence, who is by no means an adversarial interviewer. I rather hope that this was an aberration and that Mr. Hodgman is capable of thinking on his feet. I can’t claim to know him personally (and that applies to the other young Turks) but he appears to be a family man, on the liberal side of the Liberal party.
This is no small achievement in a state which boasts the sinister figure of a certain Liberal senator, who is well-known for right-wing proclivities and an intolerance of those opposed to him. His recent initiative to draw on extra-parliamentary expertise is a good idea, even though the Mercury initially misunderstood the concept. It should be axiomatic that any political party that does not make the best use of expert opinion is likely to be painted into a corner. The only problem with experts is that you get what you pay for and some are given to regurgitating what you want to hear. I have long taken the view that Vanessa Goodwin would be an asset to the Liberal team and improve the quality of debate in Parliament and the departure of Brendan the blob is not a bad thing. Apart from some motherhood statements, we are not really sure of what the Liberals stand for and there is a lurking suspicion in the minds of some, that there will be too heavy a reliance on the unelected shadowy men of power – those in the shadows – who appear to have undue influence on government.
Turning to Nick McKim and I stress there is no particularly arbitrary nature in the way I have chosen to look at the leaders, the new Greens leader is an interesting character in his own right. He is barely recognizable from the pony-tailed, stubble chinned young fellow who entered Parliament a few years ago. One thing is certain – he is a quick learner and not as hag-ridden as some of his colleagues with respect to backward-looking policies. It would appear that he is determined to forge the Greens into a genuine alternative party of government. This is no small undertaking but I think it is to his great credit that he is talking about being cooperative in relations with the other two parties. It has been suggested that the new positioning is to strengthen his hand in the event that we have a hung parliament after the next election. My own reaction to that would be “so what” because it is a perfectly legitimate political tactic. His parliamentary performances show fast footwork but at times he shoots from the mouth before fully considering what he is about to say. With the resignation of Peg Putt, and the introduction of Cassy O’Connor, the Greens remain a formidable quartet. I think I would give him a B- but only because he is a neophyte, albeit with great potential.
Lastly, there is the man that has inherited the accumulated crap of many years of ALP government, including a self-serving, self-perpetuating factional system. I rather like the idea of Jed Bartlett taking a week off to be with his family – it shows that he has a concept of life outside the hothouse of State Parliament. As I have commented before, he needs to be alert to the sound of sharpening cutlery coming from a certain direction and we do not know how easy sits the crown. Although he has been criticized for performing gymnastics over the development of Sullivan’s Cove, or the Hobart waterfront, depending on your view, I think accepting responsibility publicly is a bold move or as Sir Humphrey would say “a brave move Premier.” For a so-called geek, a term that is rich in negative connotations, young Jed has shown a degree of positivity. I think he is only too well aware of not locking the State into one big industry and is openly exploring diversity.
His propensity for loosening the collar, shedding the tie and wearing a thumb ring makes him more like a human being than some of the robotic ministers and staffers around the place. I found it interesting and gratifying that although he was unable to persuade Terry Martin to rejoin the ALP caucus, he has rehabilitated Lisa Singh MLA. I notice that my comment about Labor having a shallow talent pool, likely to evaporate in warm sun has struck a resonant chord in some quarters. If those who have acted like dragging anchors from the past are not removed, Jed should try for federal intervention. The very thought of it clarifies the ALP mind wonderfully. Grading his performance is hard and I devoted considerable thought before coming down with a B. Our new Premier hasn’t experienced the first 100 days in office, which is said by some to be the defining period for leaders but he is doing enough to suggest that he is moving forward. The basic problem is that being clever, kind and connected rolls off the tongue very easily but sometimes does not fit with reality.
Having been scooped by the Mercury editorial, I thought it might be useful to have a list of gripes for the week. They are as follows and in no order of priority because to determine priorities one needs to be in full possession of facts and I am not omniscient, contrary to belief in certain quarters.
1. The railways. It is appalling that we have not yet had a full and firm commitment to getting freight off the roads and trucks and on to the rail system. A case can be made for extra funding to the federal government, at least for line and track work. If the government is determined to involve the private sector, then it must be acknowledged that the rolling stock currently owned by the railways is junk. New rolling stock will be expensive but there are no shortcuts. I have seen a couple of trains recently near the city and while containers and pallets sit well on the flat trucks, other rolling stock, especially open trucks, appear to be more suited to the island of Sod Off, where Thomas the Tank Engine and his friends can have a little fun with them.
2. Hobart docks and waterfront. The plans being floated around by the shadowy Hunter Consortium provides grounds for concern and not necessarily optimism. We do not need any more casinos or hotels with poker machines at the waterfront. I would argue that the excrescence that comprises the treacle tin (also known as the home of the TSO) Ground Zero at Davey Street and the Hotel Grand Chancellor are arguably one of the ugliest entrances to a major Australian city. If we accept and we should, that the waterfront is an area that we hold in trust for ourselves and future generations, it is extremely important to get it right and in this context, development can be a dirty word. It is a project that needs to be thoroughly transparent and open to criticism and change. A second aspect concerns the worrying reports that the heavy lift crane has been allowed to fall into disrepair and the control tower at the docks will cease to function. It has been said that Hobart will still be a working port but it is rather hard to imagine given the general air of neglect that hangs over the area.
In the same general area, geographically speaking, there is the proposal to build a new hospital. I must confess to being completely nonplussed about the need for a hospital on that site. Not withstanding the nice drawings and plans that the Deputy Premier has been proudly displaying, this project is yet another that brings “Yes, Prime Minister” to mind. Although the principal actors in these series are now dead, the episodes are timeless and there is one about a perfect hospital. It included a full staff (something hard to envisage in Hobart) but no patients. That is one level of efficiency we could do without. The day that we have sufficient doctors and nurses and the wards of the hospitals are not closed, then and perhaps only then, should we be looking at an expansion of the Royal Hobart Hospital. And given the demographics of the state, is too much centralization in Hobart a good thing?
3. My next gripe concerns water and the push to pipe and export this most basic resource interstate. Even if Gunn’s pulp mill proceeds, it is a fact that parts of Tasmania, once regarded as fine arable land, is now in the grip of drought. It is foolishly short-sighted to be building houses on prime arable land around the state. We would do well to ensure that there is a thoroughgoing investigation into housing needs and that does not translate automatically into the ugly and ever far removed developments outside our major cities. Without public transport, how are people who can afford to build houses over 20 km from the city centre expected to get to their places of work? And we might as well face the fact that greater Hobart actually includes Moonah, Glenorchy and other industrialized suburbs. I predict that without reasonable public transport or alternative fuel sources for the great God motor car, the concrete canyons of those Dumb Freaking Objects (DFOs) at Cambridge and the Hobart International Airport (snigger intended) will become dinosaurs in their own time.
4. The insides of Parliament House are currently being reduced to the bare essentials. I trust that when the House of Assembly is reconstructed, there will be sufficient room for 35 members. Given the figures bandied about concerning the increase in the number of and payments to extra advisers, spin doctors and public servants, more politicians accepting greater responsibility could be a far cheaper option. There appears to be a general consensus that we should return to seven member electorates and as I have urged before, just because the respected Doug Lowe carps about a hostile Legislative Council, that should be no reason to attempt to emasculate that august body. Far better to bring them into line with elections for the House of Assembly every four years.
5. Then there is the matter of the current inquiry into the need for an ethics committee, or at least, that is how far some would go. My view is that the state needs an ICAC with teeth, nothing less, nothing more. The government is in a minority on the committee looking at the problem but it should not be afraid to face the facts should the majority argue for an ICAC. To those who say there is no corruption in this state, I will not dignify that statement with an obscene reply. Rather, I would point to something I learned from a QC (no, not Michael Hodgman) namely that absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence.
The challenge that I would put before our three young political leaders is quite simple. It rests on a belief that governments govern in the interest of the governed. Not vested interests, shadowy figures in the business community, nor farmers or a particular class but all Tasmanians. Therefore it should be axiomatic that before we export water or any other commodity, the welfare of the Tasmanian population comes first. And bugger those who believe, like a certain former Victorian Premier: “If you see a tree (or trees) cut them down and sell them. Then you have an open space and you can build on it.” The last thing we need in this state is an obsolete 20th-century philosophy. I have said many times that Tasmania is one of the finest places in the world in which to live. It is up to government and opposition alike to ensure that this continues.
When Jed returns from his holiday, I challenge him to speak out and continue to write (or get his speechwriters to prepare the letters) in the Mercury and elsewhere to try and keep the community connected, not divided. In addition to the issues mentioned above, we could do well to revisit the concept of Tasmania as “the intelligent Island” but with broadband technology currently being of Third World standard, it will be a hard task facing the next government to implement change: it should happen now. G3 technology and iPhones are all very well as fashion accessories but they need to be put to use modernizing Tasmania but without destroying its valuable heritage. Failing a communications revolution, we will remain a backwater and that has negative consequences for everyone.