Nostradamus
As with his predecessors from both the major parties, there is a lack of information about the Premier’s relationship with the shadowy men of power, to which I have referred in the past. These are the people who stay out of the public eye but exercise a great deal of power and influence behind the scenes, unelected and unaccountable. Does this make me a conspiracy theorist? The answer is simple, yes and no. Perhaps those currently considering the need for an ICAC need to remember something mentioned at an earlier date; absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence. If we are to believe the story reported in the Australian by Matthew Denholm on 24 July, the late Premier, Jim Bacon, knowing that he was dying passed some wisdom to the retiring TV gardening guru Peter Cundall and I admit that I found the words intriguing. If correctly reported (and Matt Denholm is usually very reliable) Mr. Cundall said: ”(Former Premier) Jim Bacon rang me two weeks before he died and said:” Oh Peter, keep fighting for these things” Cundall says “I said hang on, you were the Premier.” He said “That’s right, I was powerless – you’ve no idea how powerful these bastards are.” But if he imparted the names of “these bastards” they have not been publicized.
NOT QUITE a slow past few days but the fan is still turning and the election countdown clock is still running.
As US Vice President Dick Cheney famously said in part: “we have known knowns; known unknowns and unknown unknowns.” This week, somewhat belatedly, I am following through on a previous column in the Tasmanian Times, where I discussed the exciting proposition of three young tyros competing against one another at the next election, due in 2010. I also write against a backdrop of criticism of the media, including this trail-blazing electronic journal by some who seem to believe that government should be given a free ride and not subjected to scrutiny. I’m not for one moment criticizing the opposition in State Parliament, which despite its size, seems to me to do a pretty fair job of keeping the Bartlett government on its toes. Furthermore, without their pressure, the Lemon might still be at the helm and I cannot believe that would have been in the best interests of Tasmania.
However, although the press/media has often been described being the second oldest profession, after prostitution, it is incumbent on us all to recognize that without public scrutiny; all power corrupts sooner or later. Lacking a body with the power of close scrutiny, many instances of the corrosive and corrupting effect of the misuse of power have still been noted in this state, most notably the Rouse/Gray affair. If nothing else, this should focus the mind of the committee considering an ICAC for the state wonderfully.
During the past week or so, the Mercury and the Tasmanian Times have come in for a bit of a bath, being seen as inherently critical of the government and only the government. Out there in the electorate, it is obvious that some bright sparks are only too willing to blame the media for the troubles of the ALP. On 30 July, the Mercury reported on a leaked letter from the Clarence Plains branch of the Labor Party, ( On TT, Here ) urging the establishment of a media watch unit comprising persons friendly to the government, who would write letters to or blog on the Tasmanian Times and Mercury websites.
I do not know much about the Clarence Plains branch of the ALP but it is my understanding that the State Secretary of the Labor Party, John Dowling, is a member. It tends to beggar belief that such a crass letter could be written in the first place and secondly, while there is no surprise in it being leaked, it speaks volumes about the originators of the document. As it appears on the Tasmanian Times site, I invite readers to have a look and judge for themselves. Apart from the appalling grammar and spelling (the letter was obviously not subjected to a grammar and spell-check before posting) the letter invites the ALP to setup what political scientist, Dr. Richard Herr has described as a covert operation in letter-writing to defend the government.
There are various manifestations of this tactic used all around the world and they cannot be merely dismissed as a form of dirty tricks. It must be said that there is nothing to stop any member of the ALP or any other political party writing to any journal, newspaper or the electronic media. Like it or not, that is a vibrant part of democracy and people have died to defend freedom of expression. I suspect that Clarence Plains has a terminal case of thin skin. And an acquaintance of mine has recently told me that certain members of the ALP engage in intimidation of journalists and energetic letter writers with whom they disagree. Of course, when the Greens conduct peaceful demonstrations there appears to be a need for a special police unit to keep them in order. What a shame there is no similar provision to track down and prosecute those who conduct harassment by letter or e-mail.
It is in the spirit of constructive criticism that I wish to direct a few comments to our Premier David (Jed) Bartlett. I don’t know whether it offends him when bloggers such as me refer to him as Jed. I rather hope not because I tend to be a little envious. I have been called a few things in my time and very few of them have been polite. The magnitude of the task facing the Premier cannot be understated and his situation can be summed up by the Jack Dyer (Captain Blood of the Richmond AFL club) and a man known for mangling English: “he’s like the boy with the pushcart; he’s got it all in front of him.
For various reasons, not the least being the fact that an election is within sight and the ALP will be trying desperately to convince the electorate that it should be returned as a majority government, this week I wish to add to my Dear Premier column of a couple of weeks ago ( On TT: Here ). I don’t fool myself that the Premier is an avid reader of my electronic rambles but I have very little doubt that they are reported to him.
There is no doubt that Jed is very personable and at present is extending himself across the community and being seen and heard. Like any public figure, he probably wants to be seen as a nice guy and minimize the number of his enemies. But he would be well-advised to remember that he cannot be all things to all people and under some circumstances, the measure of the man is gauged by the quality of his enemies and not necessarily in a numerical sense. He appears to have a small but competent advisory team around him at present; however, I hope that he does not take too much notice of three living former Labor premiers. He is the first genuine 21st-century Premier in the State and still very much an unknown quantity. His status could be likened to a farmer with a tractor ploughing a field for the first time and the furrows must be straight. Therefore, somewhat modestly, I would offer him the advice to watch his back, locate his targets, be his own man and go for it! The election is in May 2010 and the issues discussed below will not go away.
The job of a leader is to lead. In one recent editorial, the Mercury made the very valid point that the Premier needs to lead and while that does not mean for one moment that all parties should not be consulted, Mr. Bartlett is the man in the chair with his hands on the levers of power. This is what distinguishes him from Nick McKim and Will Hodgman – the State Premier is responsible for government and while there might be some apprehension because of the style of his two predecessors, it is still his job to lead the State, and carry the electorate with him, especially if we are to believe his statements that his premiership represents a new start – in other words forget the past 10 years or at least, the nasty bits. It could well be that in the minds of some, failure is not an option.
I will state my position right now and leave no one in any doubt. I heeded Lennon’s call for a strong majority government at the 2006 election. With that most excellent tool, 20/20 hindsight, combined with a certain amount of experience being what our American cousins call a Monday morning quarterback, I bitterly regret the outcome of the election. I remain singularly unconvinced that a hung parliament and a minority government would have laid waste to the political scene in the manner of the former Premier. I know of one case where a former deputy took over an organization and managed to piddle away (not my words) all the goodwill that attended his succession to the position of top dog. Paul Lennon had to follow Jim Bacon and there is no doubt that he had a hard time personally as well as politically but he ploughed his own furrow and we all know where that led and there, I draw the line. It is fair enough for young Jed to want to rule a line under the past 10 years of Labor and make a fresh start but the Tasmanian electorate has a long memory and a history of bitterness and division.
Firstly, let us briefly examine the assets at the Premier’s disposal. They start with the fact that Labor is in power and incumbency can be an important element. I have probably said too much about the shallow pool of talent available to him in Parliament and I’m not the only commentator to have noted that on a warm day, it would evaporate. Consider instead perhaps, the words attributed to the Duke of Wellington before he faced Napoleon at Waterloo. It is said that he looked at his troops and commented: “I don’t know what they do to the enemy but by God, they frighten me.” Unfortunately, the same can be said of the Labor administration, with a few honourable exceptions.
As we know, Jed took a week off to be with his family and why not? It is the human and proper thing to do, although I would not mind a small bet that he was bothered during that week. The business of government is expected to continue under such circumstances. The issues of the Sullivans Cove or waterfront development did not take a holiday that week; neither did the issue of Tasmanian railways and the brouhaha over the “greenfield” Royal Hobart hospital. And while Lara appeared most photogenically in the media as acting Premier, some ministers managed to shoot themselves in the foot or slightly higher up their anatomy.
It has been suggested in many quarters that part of the deal that saw Paul Lennon retire was the elevation of Graham Sturges to the Ministry. And what a time he has had since he’s been in the job! As it stands, Sturgo makes Brenton Best look very good indeed. Now I’ve only met Brenton a couple of times and enjoyed a conversation with him over a convivial drink. He is a nice guy, amiable, approachable and easy-going and apparently a tolerable and tolerant, chairman of committees. Further, during the debacle surrounding the downfall of two deputy premiers, Mr. Best was discovered to be better known than either Bryan Green or Steve Kons in his electorate. And if my recollection is clear, he was re-elected last time with a quota of his own. Enough said perhaps.
Therefore, it is a very sobering exercise to look at the talent at Mr. Bartlett’s disposal. Leaving aside for the moment, the question of the size of Parliament and the available talent, it is fairly obvious that the female MPs are generally speaking more than a match for their male counterparts, with the possible exception of Michael Aird. The treasurer is something of a chameleon, able to change according to prevailing circumstances. Surprisingly for some, that is the hallmark of an effective politician while to those who value obscure notions of ideological purity, these characteristics are anathema.
When the Mercury went through an exercise of grading politicians on the basis of their performance at the end of last year, there were very few who could have claimed a pass mark. I disagreed with a few of the grades but confess to having higher expectations of politicians than the person in the street. I have always regarded public service in any form, especially standing for parliament, as the highest form of duty in which a citizen can be engaged in democratic society.
Come what may, Jed Bartlett has to make the best of the personnel he has at his disposal and it will not be an easy task. Freshening the Ministry is extremely difficult: perhaps Jim Cox could retire and Steve Reissig enter Parliament but does he have the right stuff? I have previously mentioned certain forces with which the Premier will have to contend. Within the ALP, there appears to be a feeling in some of the Left that he owes them in some way for being Premier today. Given that the Left is a faction riven by internal divisions, based on personalities and shared antipathy, although they try to pretend otherwise, the façade of unity is very thin indeed. As it now appears to have been a ‘given’ that Lennon had to go, the person in the street could only wonder who else would have been seen as a potential leader. At present, there are no rivals or realistic alternatives so close to the next election. Before very long, we will be in a similar situation to when the late Mrs. Indira Ghandi, the assassinated Indian Prime Minister, counselled those close to her that it might be wise to put up an umbrella as the solids were about to hit the punkah.
Outside of the parliamentary wing, the ALP still has problems recruiting and retaining branch members and as I mentioned in an earlier column, the list of delegates to the State Conference makes for very depressing reading. When a friend showed me the list, I cringed on the Premier’s behalf and could not help but wonder how the Party can reinvent itself and retain government in its own right. I haven’t asked to see the list of motions on the agenda, as masochism is not my long suite.
With each passing day, the election express approaches and the window of opportunity for new initiatives correspondingly narrows. While Labor is pitching hard for retention of majority government, it is possible that in some eyes, anything less will be seen as a defeat. Certainly there is some feverish activity behind the scenes on planning for a new, bigger House of Assembly and while some of the Jeremiahs who regularly write to the press moan and groan about the cost, it could scarcely be more than that paid to the small army of advisers and spin doctors who currently make up an administrative subclass within the bureaucracy: not exactly public servants but pulling down big salaries and being in the enviable position of exercising power without true accountability. A bigger Parliament should theoretically deliver more talent. That’s the theory but with the ALP, the possibility of more hacks and potential non-performers is never very far from being a probability, if not a downright certainty.
If Mr. Bartlett is to stamp his imprimatur on Tasmania, then he needs to flex his muscles and actively intervene in the pre-selection process. He needs bright new men and women who are quick learners and have the capacity to be ministers. It was smart politics this week to pitch to public servants over the heads of their union leaders in the current pay rise impasse but only if the ploy works. With it comes the possibility of being seen to act decisively in the public interest but failure, like misery attracts few friends. The public service pay dispute is still a running sore in need of urgent treatment.
In short order, we need definitive statements from the government on the future of Tasmanian railways and where they fit into the overall pattern of transport management. Logic dictates that we move as much freight as possible by rail and rely less on trucks and that logic is grounded in the inevitability of continuing high prices for gasoline and diesel fuel. I have a particular axe to grind with the federal government in that it is entirely possible that more liquid petroleum gas (LPG) will be exported and the domestic user will be forced to pay world parity prices as with gasoline and secondly, that Mr. Martin Ferguson appears to have a blind spot when it comes to the potential of liquefied natural gas (LNG). This is the fuel of the future and the way out towns and cities have developed means that only those who live in comparatively affluent suburbs have access to public transport. The fact that so many choose to drive (check the rush hour for single occupant vehicles) reflects on our priorities when it comes to buses and one dare not mention the reintroduction of passenger services on the railways.
The future of the railways is tied in with two other major areas of concern, namely the future of Hobart as a working port and not just a collection of fishing boats and tourist vessels and the decision to locate a new hospital on the site to be vacated by the railways in Hobart. A spokesman forTasPorts has come out very strongly in calling for a statement of the government’s intention with respect to the port of Hobart. And unfortunately, it appears that a certain amount of neglect of vital infrastructure, such as the heavy lift crane is undermining the status of the docks.
The need for a new hospital requires more justification than we have been given, notwithstanding pledges made by government ministers on the subject. Unlike some vested interests, I don’t believe the Royal Hobart Hospital should be relocated to Glenorchy. It needs proximity to the Tasman Bridge for the fast growing communities of the Eastern shore and access from Kingston and all points south. Taking someone from say, Huonville up to Glenorchy could well be 10 minutes too far. And this view is supported by the ambulance service.
Assuming the white elephant is constructed, would a rail terminus add ambience to the river views of the hospital that isn’t really needed, and how would maintaining the heavy lift crane at the dockside and using port infrastructure make any real sense? I don’t wish to kick last week’s trash can around too much, let alone throw in the Deputy Premier’s photo opportunities with hospital plans but it does appear that the waterfront, the port of Hobart and the railways are interconnected. Rocket science is not required to put together a strategic plan for the whole area and perhaps that includes Sullivans Cove.
The advent of Peter Mackay, also interviewed by Tim Cox last week did very little for the Hunter consortium pushing a waterfront development with a new finger wharf and a hotel out over the water. With Federal Hotels being involved in the consortium, it rather suggests more poker machines, which as most available evidence suggests, is a very unwelcome prospect.
The University of Tasmania had an extremely astute demographer on its staff in the form of Dr. Natalie Jackson. It would be interesting to know her views on the need for creating that new hospital site, which we are now told will incorporate the Royal Hobart Hospital and the Hobart Private hospital. Never mind, the plans and the pictures look good but is it a part of further consolidation of hospital facilities in Hobart? The money allocated to the hospital would be far better spent on facilities in places such as Sorell and elsewhere for regional medical services. As matters stand, all of the hospitals in Hobart have had to close wards because of lack of nursing staff and there is still a shortage of doctors. I choose to blame former federal Liberal health minister Dr. Michael Wooldridge for the shortage of qualified doctors. Obviously, limiting places in medical faculties at universities is now costing us dearly, not only with an aging population and its associated needs but also doctors and specialists who are not immortal and don’t wish to live and work forever.
These questions need to be addressed urgently, along with appallingly slow broadband Internet connection and a lack of piped gas to the Eastern shore which constitutes a fast growing market for both services. There are other matters that I will discuss in the future including the problems of gambling, homelessness and those sleeping rough so I want to turn to an underlying problem that will apparently not go away.
As with his predecessors from both the major parties, there is a lack of information about the Premier’s relationship with the shadowy men of power, to which I have referred in the past. These are the people who stay out of the public eye but exercise a great deal of power and influence behind the scenes, unelected and unaccountable. Does this make me a conspiracy theorist? The answer is simple, yes and no. Perhaps those currently considering the need for an ICAC need to remember something mentioned at an earlier date; absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence.
If we are to believe the story reported in the Australian by Matthew Denholm on 24 July, the late Premier, Jim Bacon, knowing that he was dying passed some wisdom to the retiring TV gardening guru Peter Cundall and I admit that I found the words intriguing. If correctly reported (and Matt Denholm is usually very reliable) Mr. Cundall said: ”(Former Premier) Jim Bacon rang me two weeks before he died and said:” Oh Peter, keep fighting for these things” Cundall says “I said hang on, you were the Premier.” He said “That’s right, I was powerless – you’ve no idea how powerful these bastards are.” But if he imparted the names of “these bastards” they have not been publicized.
There is also a certain State politician, who I won’t identify in both our interests and he mentioned a list of these shadow players longer than my arm – and the range of their reach came as a great shock. It’s all very well to pillory John Gay as head of Gunn’s or Bob Clifford, of Incat and point the finger as proof of shadowy figures. Whatever my personal view of these gentlemen, they are upfront for their companies and by definition, in the public arena. If a respected dying Premier of Tasmania confides in an equally respected TV presenter, then there is more than just smoke or forestry burn offs. The unnamed, shadowy people need to be named and if appropriate, shamed.
These are some of the immediate challenges facing Jed Bartlett. His success or otherwise will be determined at the next election. There can be no wriggling away from problems by referring them to committees or burying them in a welter of so-called public consultation. Events have shown that if you call a public meeting, they will not come but that does not mean they have no opinion. A sullen uncommunicative electorate is a sure pointer to the fact that voters are making up their minds and the government has the job in front of it.
