National
The massive breakdown in public trust
Nostradamus
There is a great and underlying problem demonstrated by the Tasmania Together 2020 survey, namely that only 17% of the population believed that the state government satisfactorily listened and responded to the community. It shows a massive breakdown in public trust of government and politicians. And yet twice a year, on Anzac Day and on 11 November, we are formally reminded that some of the finest young men produced by this country went off to war to defend our freedoms and we commemorate sacrifice. I wonder what some of the “glorious dead” would make of the current situation, especially those from Tasmania who were over-represented in the armed forces.
“I find your lack of faith disturbing.” (Darth Vader, the original Star Wars movie)
I had intended to write something light and shorter this week but fate dealt a cruel hand and I was forced to take an enforced break and during the past few days, the words of an old-fashioned song came back to me: “What a difference a day makes,” and isn’t that just the truth! To be perfectly honest, I had written around 7500 words but no one in their right mind is going to waste time with that length. Mind you, it’s all good stuff but not for this week. I am in deadly serious mode and while part of the reason lies in intimations of mortality, the wellspring of this week is anger.
You can read about the international financial firestorm anywhere and obtain views from experts, people who can rightly claim to know far more than I do about economic matters. I cannot/will not let it pass by without a brief comment: I would like to see one of those sleek fat cats who regaled us about the benefits of deregulation, liberal free markets and other related nostrums to stand on TV on every station and say: “I’m sorry, we got it all wrong.” Pigs might also fly!
In addition, I can’t help thinking about those people who were encouraged by the federal Coalition government to become “Mum and Dad shareholders.” In a country where gambling is a national addiction, such helpful advice was to invest wisely and not take chances. When the wash-up comes, I shall feel more sympathy for those who literally punted on the market. Of all the iniquitous parts of our financial system, the futures market is nothing more than Tattslotto on a worldwide scale.
It was my intention to be a little more self-indulgent and perhaps more whimsical than usual but certain events overtook my purer motive. The rot set in on 3 October, when The Mercury reviewed details on the 2020 poll carried out under the auspices of Tasmania Together. As any reputable statistician will confirm, a poll of 2000 people in Tasmania can be regarded as statistically viable but I would add a rider and that is that such polls are a snapshot in time and relevant only at the time when the data is collected. We lack longitudinal studies on all matters of substance in Tasmania but this is not the time to allocate or apportion blame.
As regular readers know, I deplore the low esteem in which our politicians are held and Sue Neales’ report, subsequently posted in the Tasmanian Times, brought on a severe attack of despair, for I love this state and its people and only want to see the best for the future. I don’t expect politicians to be placed on pedestals and venerated but I expect I shall die still frustrated by the fact that people in general tend to lump politicians in with real estate and used car salesmen* in the hierarchy of occupations.
The report by Ms Neales (read it yourself) minces no words: “A whopping 83% of Tasmanians do not believe the state government listens to them or acts on community wishes…” – a more slashing indictment, I have yet to read and I find it very disconcerting. This is the only finding of the report that I wish to address directly at present.
Later in the week, (as former Indian PM Mrs. Indira Ghandi referred to a certain phenomenon: “the solids hit the punkah.”) when the dog and pony show returned to Hobart, the state capital. Not being able to examine chicken entrails or tea leaves this past week or so means that I have very little idea of where we stand in relation to electoral reform. I notice that the old furniture from Parliament House in Hobart is being sold and many seats purchased by serving and former politicians. All very nostalgic but I for one would like to know how many new seats are being installed in the Legislative Assembly. Of course there is room for 35 and that is how many I would like to see in place, when the chamber opens for business.
I make no apologies for kicking this topic around again for the simple reason that along with the Wilkinson inquiry on the need or otherwise for a standing committee to examine ethics, along with other more serious matters, electoral reform is critical to the political health of the state. Therefore, I would suggest to Premier Bartlett that this is not time for him to be the “flying flap jack.” His first instincts were correct – to return to what was abolished by the Laborial plot, which shamed/shames us all.
There is a great and underlying problem demonstrated by the Tasmania Together 2020 survey, namely that only 17% of the population believed that the state government satisfactorily listened and responded to the community. It shows a massive breakdown in public trust of government and politicians. And yet twice a year, on Anzac Day and on 11 November, we are formally reminded that some of the finest young men produced by this country went off to war to defend our freedoms and we commemorate sacrifice. I wonder what some of the “glorious dead” would make of the current situation, especially those from Tasmania who were over-represented in the armed forces.
For those reasons, I have omitted a great deal of material relating to democracy and what it should mean because the other foot fell later in the week. Before I launch into what some would consider to be an atypical burst, I would like to repeat something I have said consistently, namely that we are very fortunate in Tasmania that we have three young political leaders now positioning themselves for the next election. Premier Bartlett can no longer be regarded as a “newbie” leader because he has been there for over six months as the Parliamentary leader of the Labor Party and hailed by the Prime Minister at the recent State Conference – an unrepresentative gathering of yesterday’s men and women and quite a number who should never be allowed into a democratic forum. While I regard politics as the art and practice of the possible, there have been some disturbing trends over the past couple of weeks. They are all parts of one strand and concern not just the 2020 poll. Despite the squawking from the opposition parties, governments of all persuasion in every state and federally engage in this sort of quasi-scientific research – criticism is futile but to a certain extent, I do agree that the results could have been released a little earlier.
At this time, I will return to just two issues that I regard as critical. The first is parliamentary reform and I think I have had my say earlier in this and other articles. I fervently believe in a return to 35 members of the House of Assembly, with five electorates as before. The idea of having seven electorates with five members is being brought to you by the same people who masterminded the plot to reduce numbers in 1998. The Premier would be well advised to ignore those who are blowing in his ear: he is the leader and they are basically people of the past, some of whom are intent on fighting old battles. “Michaelitis” is a nasty condition.
There are already signs and portents that the Premier has a glass jaw in Parliament and a disposition to turn nasty on occasions. Fair enough, he is after all a human being but he serves, like all MPs, at the pleasure of the electorate. It is not likely that the disinterested electorate will throw him out because of some behavioural characteristics and as I have commented before, in some respects the ALP resembles the Australian cricket team: it is much harder to get out than get in, especially with the factional system. And for what it’s worth, probably not much, Bryan Green will be re-elected as will Steve Kons if he decides to re-contest.
The same description of factionalism may be noted incidentally, of the Liberal Party and anyone who is foolish enough to believe that the factions do not exist within that party is either blind or lacking in comprehension. And we all know who the hardliners are and those who could be considered the pragmatists. The “Fab four,” as some have dubbed the Greens in Parliament have divisions in the wider electorate between pragmatists and watermelons.
Regrettably, it is stating the bleeding obvious that somehow the government’s top priority should be to restore a measure of credibility in the institution of Parliament and government. Decisive action and leadership is required and while I could recite a list of priorities, nothing surpasses in importance, the need to deal decisively and promptly with the increasingly tendentious and noxious, if not toxic, matters before the Joint Select Committee on Ethical Conduct, which I have previously described in shorthand terms as the Wilkinson commission – no longer.
Owing to legal restrictions, The Mercury has apparently been unable to publish full details of testimony given by DPP Tim Ellis to the JSCEC concerning the actions of Police Commissioner, Jack Johnston, in providing written information to Jim Cox, then Minister for Police about confidential investigations concerning ministers. (Ed: There is a transcript of this and others’ evidence, and Tim Ellis’ original submission and those of others on the Committee’s website: http://www.parliament.tas.gov.au/ctee/ethical.htm )
Mr Ellis told the committee the police and the Government were “practically inseparable” and that they were happy to pose for photo opportunities to present a united front. He said Mr Johnston, who was appointed directly by Cabinet, “owed his position directly to political patronage”. “I submit that when it comes to investigating government, Tasmania Police and government are so deliberately intertwined and enmeshed that the appearance of independence cannot be given,” he said.”
Being Tasmania, it appears that everybody knew most of the details of the DPP’s testimony but in order to avoid any misquotation or error, I am quoting directly from Michael Stedman’s report in The Mercury (11/08) which in my opinion, warranted front page treatment. And it is time for me to put aside any whimsy or humour in the interests of the seriousness of the situation. Mr. Stedman’s article states in part: “in a submission to the Joint Select Committee on Ethical Conduct, which is protected by parliamentary privilege,
Mr Ellis used the case as an example of a lack of independence in the police force.
He revealed that details of a confidential investigation involving Government members had been given to then police minister Jim Cox in a briefing note, penned by Mr Johnston.
In his submission, Mr Ellis wrote: “I was astonished and disturbed to see that the Commissioner had given the Minister forewarning of the investigation into the Solicitor-General allegation when that allegation had not publicly surfaced.
“The names and ranks of two of the detectives to be involved (in the investigation) were given, quite inappropriately in my view.”
Mr Ellis told the committee the police and the Government were “practically inseparable” and that they were happy to pose for photo opportunities to present a united front.
He said Mr Johnston, who was appointed directly by Cabinet, “owed his position directly to political patronage”.
“I submit that when it comes to investigating government, Tasmania Police and government are so deliberately intertwined and enmeshed that the appearance of independence cannot be given,” he said.”
Sadly, that is probably just the tip of the iceberg but there is no way that this little lot can be swept under the carpet. If anything, it highlights the need for a standing committee to be established on ethical conduct and it makes no difference whether you want to call it an ICAC by another name. Even more staggering is the fact that the Attorney General stood before the JSCEC last Wednesday and smilingly/disarmingly, even disingenuously claimed that there might be a case for a committee with teeth but not fangs and she doubted whether there was any corruption in Tasmania.
Predictably, a certain eponymous legal figure has argued strongly against any such body. He is the same person whose views arouse either antipathy or sympathy depending on the guilt feelings of an individual. Tasmania is a small state and there is no denying the proposition that it would be extremely difficult to have police investigating themselves, especially if an internal affairs division were to find itself examining the affairs of senior officers. As one witness to the JSCEC pointed out in his submission, everybody knows or is related to everyone else in this state.
Therefore, selection of a commission is not only important in terms of finding people of the highest integrity who cannot be bought but they must not be related by blood or marriage to anyone in Tasmania, or have any financial connections. A high priority must be placed on expertise in handling delicate investigations. This is not the type of work that is casually handed to a second cousin or subcontracted to private enterprise. I could probably name some “incorruptibles” but somehow that would not be doing them any favours.
This is one opportunity for the Premier to seize the initiative and make the running. But regrettably, it appears that Mr. Bartlett and Ms Giddings, the newly-minted Attorney General are not only singing from different song sheets but different songbooks! Whether the ALP and the Premier are prepared to admit it or not, we are now in the killing zone 18 months out from an election and that is when people have made their mind up about how they will vote. I am sufficiently persuaded by academic inquiry in this area that I do not feel any need to provide resources or references. And if anybody really has any doubt, the results of the 2020 survey provide added fuel for the flames.
On 10 October, The Mercury reported that the Premier had “given conditional support for an independent body with power to investigate crime and corruption,” and admittedly that was before the DPP’s submission was printed in The Mercury. The wording of the report appeared to give Mr. Bartlett leeway but if he wants the job of Premier as much as folklore indicates, the word “conditional” should be rendered inoperative, forthwith.
Before the Opposition parties pat themselves on the back any harder or engage in mutual back scratching and self-congratulation, Will Hodgman should know that “betrayal of the people” is a far bigger issue than the results of a single opinion poll. And, Nick McKim should likewise forget about criticizing what all governments do to sample opinion and tackle the real issue, which is to establish a standing committee on corruption immediately. It must not be left until after the next election, dangling like a rotten sheep carcass from a tree branch!
This is a time for clear, decisive leadership – nothing less. We have had enough equivocation, ambiguity and deliberately misleading statements about various matters not considered in this article.
Am I angry? You bet, I’m bloody furious because Tasmania is a great state and Tasmanians deserve better, much better: I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again! Perhaps finally our political leaders will heed what appears to be blindingly obvious and at least take the first steps to restore faith in our institutions.
*(And journos, Nosty)