Six Weeks, But Hey, Who's Counting

Nostradamus

By now, you will have gathered that I have very strong feelings about Parliamentary reform. The Hare-Clark system has served this state well and to those who believe that we should not return to a 35 member Lower House, I would point to the example of Iceland, with a smaller population than Tasmania but a considerably larger Parliament. Like many perfect or near-perfect systems, the weakness is always with the human element. While it is true that politicians in Australia generally are regarded in the same light as something unpleasant brought in on the soles of one’s shoes, this is an unfortunate and unjust reflection on many of those who choose to stand for elective office and I leave timeservers and hacks out of this equation. It is demonstrable that at federal and state level we have had our share of scandals, scoundrels and quite possibly, criminals. Then there has been a whiff of corruption which hangs over this state like something from a pulp mill, invisible to the eye but toxic to the body politic. It is amazingly hypocritical for Tasmanians to point to corruption in Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia while ignoring the mote in their own eye.

IT IS AN OLD saying as well as axiomatic that a week is a long time in politics. Premier Jed Bartlett had a pretty good week but once again, found himself bedevilled by the hand from the political graveyard that was his predecessor’s legacy. Many of the nabobs of negativism who can say nothing good about the current government probably think I’m being lenient in some of my comments. It’s certainly true that the Premier grew somewhat testy with Tim Cox on talk back radio 936, when questioned about the Sullivan’s Cove development proposals. Once again, the hidden hand of Federal hotels has its prints on a major project. I suppose it sounds trite but what did the Premier know about this deal and when did he know it?

In my opinion, it is important not to play the blame game with this issue. The decision was not made on Jed Bartlett’s watch but he is in the position of having to deal with it and the issue will provide an early test of his commitment to transparency in government. Personally, I find the prospect of yet another poker machine location being built in a sensitive area to be typical of the crass approach to development taken in this state over a number of years. For the moment, the Premier is on record as saying unequivocally that he will take charge of the process of progressing the project, and he will be held to account. So “Sturgo,” nominally the minister in charge of such projects, misses out and probably just as well – I still await concrete views on the future of Tasmanian railways.

And while talking about developments, perhaps a second look is required at the expense of building a new hospital on the rail yards (to say nothing of payments to the Hawthorn football club). For months, traffic in Liverpool Street was disrupted as extensions and renovations were made to the existing Royal Hobart Hospital. At present, wards are closed owing to insufficient staff, including doctors and nurses. There must surely be an arrangement that can be made with the adjoining Hobart Private hospital for overflow patients but even that hospital has problems with staffing. Moving the Royal breaks the current nexus between the two and the sharing of certain facilities. I remain unconvinced about the worth of a relocated hospital, especially when other uses suggest themselves for the rail yards.

I would like to assure those who think they know my identity and have made assertions that I am one of “those Greenies” who utilize talkback radio, letters to the Mercury and am possibly involved in a sinister plot to undermine the government. Nothing could be further from the truth. Many years ago, a QC landed me with the nickname Nostradamus and it has stuck. I don’t have a crystal ball or any device for scanning the future, let alone the fabled crystal skull but I make it a rule never to speculate without substantive evidence. Furthermore, there is no reason to try and put me in a political pigeonhole – I don’t fit. Using the name of Nostradamus protects me slightly from my enemies. I have always maintained that you can tell the worth of a man by the quality of his enemies but I don’t want to boast. Rather, I would like to focus on a couple of notions that raise an emotional rash now and then or then and now.

At the time of the 2006 election I was sufficiently convinced by the argument that Tasmania needed majority government. How I voted is my own business but I can say that at first I was delighted with the outcome but with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, I would’ve welcomed a hung Parliament. It has seemed incongruous to me that arguably the most democratic system in the Western world manages to return donkeys in some electorates, while excluding talented candidates like Vanessa Goodwin in Franklin. And this is a case where I judge the person’s calibre and competence. It is better to have a smaller majority but a more informed opposition. With the retirement of the Lemon, I would fully expect her to be elected, provided she is not associated with the extreme right wing of the Liberal party, made manifest in the form of Senator Eric Abetz. I don’t wish to write any more political epitaphs for Paul Lennon. His initiative with respect to the aboriginal people will probably stand as his greatest achievement and should not be lost or degraded by considerations concerning the general ineptitude and mismanagement of his government. He reaped what he had been party to sowing, with the reduction in the number of MPs, and now this has generally been recognized as a gross error of judgment by all concerned, it is to be hoped that any planned change is carefully thought through, without the usual mindset of immediate short-term political gain.

Talk around the town is that a great number of people are currently undergoing all types of mental convulsions and intellectual exercises to justify the expansion of state Parliament. It could be said quite reasonably that those who bother to think about politics now accept that the reduction was a crude attempt by the Liberal and Labor parties to exterminate the Greens. Not that anyone bothered to ask my advice but I would’ve told them it was doomed to failure. It transpired that one Peg Putt was worth the sum of any four other MPs in terms of sagacity, political nous and just a touch of that necessary cunning, more usually associated with a certain species of lavatorial rodent. And as predicted, Peg has relinquished her seat and will in all probability be replaced by the feisty, thinking man’s sex symbol, Cassy O’Connor, sometime staffer for Duncan Kerr and one of the driving forces behind the campaign to save Ralph’s Bay.

It so happens that I do not agree with many of the policies espoused by Peg Putt and her colleagues but I do not deny them the right to present them to the public and if elected, attempt to introduce change into Parliament. This is surely a fundamental principle of democracy. The crude campaign of intimidation carried out against the Greens in all types of media is obviously organized and furthermore, directed by great haters and we have an abundant supply growing in this state in both rural and urban areas – it’s the fertile soil. I, for one, would like to thank Ms. Putt for her contribution to Tasmanian political life and wish her a happy and long retirement.

It says a great deal about Tasmania and attitudes towards politicians that a businessman and a former Premier could conspire to bribe a member of another political party to cross the floor and retain power. I am certainly far from uncritical of our American cousins but the one thing that stands out when visiting that country is genuine patriotism and not the variety usually referred to as the last refuge of a scoundrel. My visits to the US have not been long enough – I would have preferred to escape from the cities and see how life is lived in the smaller states. One of the nicest men I ever met was from Kansas and he had no tickets on himself, let alone a superiority complex about his homeland. He rather liked the song by the late John Denver, “I’m proud to be an American” and in his own quiet way; he epitomized the best of things American, being courteous, hospitable, completely non-discriminatory and willing to accept any person on their own terms. Our professional discussions were always lively and never descended to the levels of personal abuse. However, we were in agreement on one thing and that was if anyone in the US had attempted to hijack the government in the same way that occurred in Tasmania, the perpetrators would still be doing time, reducing mountains to road gravel with very small hammers.

In consideration of parliamentary change, many notable commentators and those with political baggage have warned Jed Bartlett about the tricky and duplicitous Upper House or the LegCo, as some describe this venerable institution. For Labor it is seen as a totally negative force, an obstruction or barrier to the implementation of government policy. And it is true that some legislation is rejected and some given the intense scrutiny that is deserved but by and large the government usually gets its policies approved. In the best of all political worlds, assuming a bicameral system, it would be ideal to have a government with a slender majority in the Legislative Assembly and a hung or evenly divided Legislative Council. Unfortunately that is the fabric of dreams or nightmares, depending on one’s personal perspective. I would hate to see the Tasmanian parliament reduced to a unicameral system.

I have observed over many years that very few federal governments have controlled the Senate outright. Have we been any the better for it when they have had that control? The last Howard government effectively controlled both houses and look where that got us! The government of the Weasel suborned the Democrats into passing the GST legislation, a tax that we would never, ever going to have and that was with a hung Senate. (Thanks Meg Lees and goodbye Democrats). But for all its weaknesses and foibles, the Senate committee system has been extremely valuable in scrutinizing government. There are signs that a Tasmanian Legislative Council could quite conceivably carry out an equally effective role. In some respects, there are quite a few members with more intellectual clout in that House.

If I had any say in the matter, and I don’t, I would return the lower house to 35 members based on the federal electorates as before. However, I would introduce legislation to bring elections for the Legislative Council into line with the lower house. A 4 year term should be common to both. My guess would be that Independents would still have an important role to play in the Legislative Council. Tasmanians are no different from any other Australian elector – they like to see checks and balances in the system – it reduces the chances of abuse of power.

As for the usual grumble about politicians being paid too much, I can offer nearly 45 years of observations of politicians, including the good, the bad, the ugly and the no hopers. Life is much harder for a federal politician than his/her state counterpart. There are not nearly enough sitting days in the life of the Tasmanian Parliament, which ideally is where we should see the business of government enacted, not in smoke-filled rooms and behind locked doors, although I will admit that there is less likely to be smoke in the rooms thanks to healthy legislation.

The average person in the street sees little or nothing of the work of a politician. I have at both state and federal level and that was one reason why I declined the offer of nomination some years ago for a Senate seat. The sheer drag of travel, long sitting hours and behind the scenes work is not appreciated in the community. Many Tasmanians appear to feel that their MPs collect money for nothing when in fact that is far removed from the truth. You only have to meet some of them to see who is doing the work and the toll it takes on their health and that of their staffers. In some respects, it is a very great pity that a photograph of a politician is not taken when they enter Parliament and another after their first four years. (I have seen photographs of US presidents before and after the terms and they are not flattering). While I’m not suggesting that the responsibilities of Tasmanian Premiers and politicians remotely approach those of US presidents, the job ages them all, except for those who shouldn’t be there in the first place, the hacks and drongos who make up the numbers. If you want proof positive take a look at the photograph of a Paul Lennon when he first became Premier and when he left the job. I can’t say that it left me unmoved. Ironically perhaps, only the Greens appear to lack lead in the saddle bags, quite possibly because at least two of them live on wafer-thin margins. Perhaps a whiff of extinction is a positive inducement to a selection of better qualified candidates.

It goes without saying that the major obstacle to an enlarged Parliament being more effective will be the disease that currently afflicts the present structure and it is contagious. One would expect five Greens to be elected if the Legislative Assembly is expanded to 35, even though the quota for election would be cut. However, one cannot be very sanguine about the two major parties. Both Labor and Liberal carry enough logs in their ranks to make a decent-sized cabin or should that be wilderness lodge? With regret, it is the old story – the same one that applies in the federal sphere – if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys. And I have seen much more intelligent monkeys in zoos around the world. The work will still fall on the most able and while I am not prepared to point fingers this week, take a look at the goings-on of our politicians and you will see who does the work and who is making up the numbers. The Liberal party is having trouble attracting members, let alone quality candidates for election. The rumour that Brendan “the blob” Blomeley of Federal hotels and Clarence City Council fame/notoriety still looks longingly toward state Parliament provides some idea of the intellectual bankruptcy of the Party. And the same may be said of the ALP, notwithstanding the fact that it is in government federally and from coast to coast. The list of delegates to the State Conference makes for dismal reading

If our democratic system is to succeed and prosper, then we must have quality candidates. Somehow during the education process, young people must learn the notion of reciprocity: it is a privilege to serve the community and a right to receive decent remuneration. I heard a caustic comment the other day about Paul Lennon’s replacement in Franklin, Ross Butler. It was suggested that he was too old and a former cabbie, the implication unspoken: “what would he know about anything?” The ignoramus who made the remark pretty obviously did not know about the former teacher and school principal. I have met him several times and intellectually, he would run rings round quite a few currently drawing a salary from the public purse. He will probably lose his seat at the next election but I expect him to give it a red hot go while he’s there. And why should Michael Hodgman QC step down? He is still a formidable performer and the only problem is for young Will having Dad on the back bench. My feeling is that the old war horse has some years left in him yet. He put some of his younger colleagues to shame, provided you can tune out the bombast and rhetoric. Live long and prosper Michael! And as someone who saw him firsthand in Canberra, there was more to him than his enemies would have you believe.

Parliamentary reform goes hand-in-hand with the inquiry being conducted by the so-called Ethics committee, chaired by Jim Wilkinson MLC. My view, given the experience of turning over rocks and seeing all manner of strange critters emerge, metaphorically speaking, is and will remain unchanged. The state needs an ICAC with teeth and soon. Apart from matters raised in the press which are the subject of ongoing police inquiries, then needs to be an examination of the actions of certain public servants in the past. Public service should be just that and high positions should not be awarded to those with partisan political commitment, unless they can prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the advice they offer is impartial and uncontaminated by the political hand.

I have no reason to regurgitate what anyone could have read in the newspapers or heard on the electronic media during the past week. It was my sad duty to recently read a recommended paper in the form of a master’s thesis, on a subject in which I have considerable interest. The writer is quite well-known and qualified but less than 10% of the content was his – for the most part, the words of others were used as direct quotes and little attempt was made to analyse what had been said and written. Therefore, it is sometimes refreshing to see the improved quality of journalism in the Mercury especially by Sue Neales and Michael Stedman.

I could scarcely be described as an unabashed fan of the Mercury – it was a cold day in hell when the paper became a tabloid. Along the way, Wayne Crawford has been lost as a regular contributor and shrewd analyst of the Tasmanian political scene. Despite an occasional column, his perceptive views are missed. There are quite a few lightweights carried by the State’s major newspaper and to my horror, I have discovered a number of people who regard the Great Northern rag as superior. On my visits north of the DMZ, I find this view incomprehensible. And I thank my lucky stars that thanks to computers, I have access to all the major Australian newspapers and the foreign press. At least, that gives those of us who are computer literate a view of the bigger picture.

Of course, this week I could have chosen to bugle on about some of my pet concerns – the railways for example but why bother? Far too many people appear to believe that railways are historical relics rather than the future of freight and perhaps passengers in the state. Incidentally, my views categorize me as a historical relic. I could offer a neat treatise on political reform, developing some of my earlier ideas but I’m content to wait until I see what steps those who wield power are prepared to take, preferably before the next election. But having been brushed lightly by the wings of the angel of death recently, I thought a little whimsy was in order and accordingly I reduced the number of topics upon which I would normally have offered comment.

Therefore, although I elected to pass on a number of issues which will undoubtedly keep for the future, what cannot be allowed to slip by without comment this week is the dreadful performance in our education system as revealed in the Mercury. In a recent electronic rant, I praised the Premier for retaining the education portfolio. It appeared that his stated objective of raising the number of students remaining at school to reach Year 12 was praiseworthy, although I pointed out that the system had to produce literate and numerate students, not merely kids who had stayed on for an extra two years without learning anything significant to commence their adult life. Year 12 should equip students for moving into the broader society and hopefully, a career or satisfying work. This does not happen to everyone. Regrettably, the poor and the uneducated will always be with us.

In fact, I have argued in another forum that if every child was successfully educated to Year 12 level (assuming effective education) and the majority went to university, Australia would hold the record for the highest number of Ph.D.’s on unemployment benefits. (The actual number was quite remarkable a few years ago). However, and let us hope that this is something that the education Premier takes on board quickly, was the startling news about the number of children who leave school around Year 7. Various experts have tried to point out that socioeconomic status is a key factor in leaving early but SES is only part of the story.

The city/country divide is yet another bout the whole problem is more complex. The quality of schooling in rural areas needs to be assessed very carefully as there will always be a great temptation for parents to take children out of school or for the kids to leave of their own volition. It is small wonder that we have a very high rate of near illiteracy in this state. The situation is intolerable and it really makes one wonder about just what the bloated bureaucracy in the Education Department is doing to occupy its time. Like a well-used rifle, the department needs a good pull-through. There must surely be some well-qualified and experienced teachers who are aware of the problems and could be seconded to the Department to help sort out the minefield, along with some tough guys to ensure that they are not ground down by entrenched interests. We might also say that the words of the Premier in wanting the best qualified teachers in Australia for every child is a laudable commitment made in public and for which he will be held accountable.

Finally, a little fable. In the Yosemite National Park in the US, there is a geyser known universally as Old Faithful because it spouts hot mud at regular intervals. It puts me in mind of Bob Clifford, one of the shadowy men of power: the group which has influence without being accountable to the electorate. There he was, this week back from an overseas trip, complaining that Tasmania is stagnating, a statement that the Treasurer would no doubt refute with asperity. I understand that Mr. Clifford is no longer the managing director of Incat but he has made exactly the same comment each time that he has returned from overseas for as long as I can recall and it is always accompanied by a threat to build catamarans overseas, usually China. It would pay those politicians who have bent over backwards to accommodate him in the past, to put him back in his box and make him stay there! The real story of the workings of Incat and its health and safety record appear to be held in conditions of security that exceed top secret. I await with great interest the full story from an insider who is prepared to turn whistleblower but I do not expect it to happen in my lifetime. It ill-behoves me to agree with Greg Barns on any subject, but his column in the Mercury on 14 July hits the nail on the head and for once in my life I can find no fault with his argument.