Nostradamus
In particular, I would like to be present when Jim Wilkinson, who is a very pleasant character but in a court room, I would describe as a smiling assassin, comes to grips with those who suffer from convenient lapses of memory. And unlike the United States, there can be no pleading the Fifth Amendment, which we often hear referred to on our TV programs. In that context it means that “pleading the Fifth” protects witnesses from incriminating themselves – sorry, it doesn’t apply here!
Despite my eccentricities, I find myself standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the Editor of the Tasmanian Times; Dr Richard Herr and other notables in the state ( Here ). We must have a judicial inquiry of some description preferably conducted by somebody from interstate, who as I have said in previous comments, is owed nothing by Tasmania or Tasmanians and cannot be seen as being in thrall to vested interests. What started out as a small committee investigating the need for an ethics committee has been overtaken by events and I repeat the words that unfortunately I have used twice in the past: Tasmanians deserve better!
Do you have the courage?” Are you the last great hope or the great last dope?

I HAD fully intended to produce a quick follow-up to last week’s effort but events conspired against me. Quite apart from the fact that those events moved so quickly over the past few days, I had an opportunity to catch up with a close friend who does not enjoy the best of health but is a veritable gold mine of information and knowledge. He does not want his name mentioned because of ill-health and he guards his privacy because to quote him: “I’ve had a gutful.” Time spent with him was not wasted.

Pretty obviously, I do not intend to go into the substance of our discussions but associating with a person of great intellect and bouncing ideas around is a very rewarding experience. This “time out” worked for me in more ways than one but the principal benefit was sitting off the pace, so to speak and watching the direction that politics has taken in the mere seven days since I last wrote a column. I have never doubted the old saying that a week is a long time in politics: I’ve seen it on larger stages than that of Tasmania but several coincidences have inevitably proved the point.

I had commenced writing this column with an apologetic tone because my mood at the end of the last column was positively volcanic with anger and I was hoping to write something more calm and positive, while at the same time, address one of my pet topics. But it was not to be, for very obvious reasons,

After the events of the few days between last Saturday and the commencement of writing, I found that I was simmering once again. I took stock of my feelings – a little critical self-examination quite often useful. Rather than launch verbal thunderbolts, I felt it prudent to take a calmer look at the events that have dominated the media since last week; especially the mudslinging and implausible deniability, which now surrounds the government of David Bartlett.

Last Saturday those of us who read newspapers from the Big Island to the North were entertained by a fascinating article by Matthew Denholm concerning our Premier entitled: Hope floats with honest David Bartlett (The Weekend Australian 18-19 October). Any reader would have been stuck by the fairly generous approach offered in the article. It was an impartial look at the inheritance thrust on the Premier by his predecessor, the Lemon, and because I deplore writers who distort the work of others, I reproduce the opening paragraph, which was blunt and to the point:
“Landmines lingering from the troubled times remain and occasionally explode, inflicting damage on the self-declared “new government within government” of David Bartlett. However, the damage has been contained so far, and a spirit of optimism is growing where only months ago there was desperation.”

Modestly describing himself as the Inquirer, Mr. Denholm stated with the Premier’s permission, he had been allowed to follow him around for several days last week and attended normally secret strategy meetings; a fact-finding visit to the southern forests and even a session with his personal trainer. If I had been keeping score on performances during the week that Mr. Denholm enjoyed such good fortune, I would have concluded that despite straws in the wind, perhaps by Friday morning last week, the Premier could bask in favourable publicity.

I mean no disrespect to Matt Denholm but had the article been printed in the local press, it would have been worth its weight in gold in terms of humanizing a Premier of whom many of us know little. My sole criticism is that at times the article was like a hagiography. I had a close friend who was sucked in by a former unlamented Liberal leader and Prime Minister and the effect of spending a few days with a person of power was much the same and he defended his friend until the end. We have not spoken since. And to give Mr. Denholm his credit, he clearly has no scales in front of his eyes as subsequent critical and factual reporting has shown.

Things had not gone quite so well for the major opposition party in Parliament with the Liberal leader Will Hodgman somewhat uncharacteristically making a particular form of hand gesture to the hapless Brenton Best, a modest man whom I find personally likable. As Winston Churchill observed of Clement Attlee: “There goes a modest man and he has much to be modest about.” That has a certain resonance but Brenton does not attract enemies, merely detractors and those who treat him like a buffoon. It pleases me to speak up for the Brenton Bests of this world, for there is no malice in the man and that is a commendable character trait.

However, that gesture and Mr. Best’s reaction raised the temperature and made Mr. Hodgman look somewhat juvenile. I rather like young Will but masturbatory hand signals are best left at school. Fortunately for him, the incident was buried by a series of peculiar events. Moreover, it has to be said that the problems which then proceeded to escalate were of Premier Bartlett’s own making and he has no one to blame but himself for as Harry Truman reminded himself with a simple sign on his desk: “The buck stops here.”

The conundrum is that the Premier has six years’ parliamentary experience behind him before finding himself second fiddle to an unpopular Premier and then catapulted into the seat of power as the ALP’s “last best hope.” I have known many of many similar cases where an unlikely beneficiary discovers a few days into their watch that they had inherited a poisoned chalice. Personally, I was pleased to see the back of the Lemon: I felt he had committed the worst of all political crimes by taking the people with him at an election, then promising to govern for all and swiftly piddling away goodwill by favouring the few at the expense of the many.

However, I do not want to appear or sound like an old-fashioned record stuck in a groove so I will draw a line under that experience. Matt Denholm was absolutely correct in his statement about the Lennon legacy: there were lingering landmines for the new Premier but on a greater scale; mine fields, unexploded and dangerous ordnance and the phenomenon known to the Chinese as Dragon’s teeth. And as I know the readership of Tasmanian Times to be erudite, they will know the significance of the last remark. If not, try a search engine.

Somewhere I read details of the numbers and salaries of the army of advisers to government, including the Premier, together with spin doctors and ancillary staff who owe their positions ranging in origin from demonstrable talent through to being a Labor mate. I don’t have a clue in the world who provided David Bartlett with the advice that while Police Commissioner Jack Johnston awaits trial, a competent and politically reliable replacement was required as a matter of urgency; and it was astonishing beyond mere belief to find that the nominee was the retired Commissioner Richard McCreadie. Yes, Johnston’s immediate predecessor and mentor – the man who recommended him for the top job. I do not know and have never met Assistant Commissioner Darren Hine, who was acting in the top job until the appointment of McCreadie was announced. He has my sympathy and I understand is well-respected in the police force – a comparatively rare commodity. The fact that he is competent may well have led the power mongers and brokers to decide that McCreadie should return to the job.

From there it was decidedly downhill all the way for the Premier. The simmering row between the Police Association and the government promptly came to the boil. It will be recalled that the Association had intended to pass a vote of no-confidence in Richard McCreadie and when Jack Johnston was announced as his successor by the Lemon, without advertising the position or looking at the alternative candidates, it all hit the fan again. I’ll repeat what I’ve said before: Tasmania police are by and large a pretty decent lot. It would be strange if there were not a few rotten apples in the barrel somewhere but when compared with the forces on the main island, we are pretty well served, except perhaps when the police are used as revenue raising arms for the government, with massive use of radar guns and other technology to apprehend speeding motorists. I know many policemen, I think Tasmania and the GITN who do not want traffic duty because it stigmatizes them and they find the public less cooperative but that is a different matter.

When the DPP came out and announced that McCreadie could not act as the interim Commissioner until the outcome of the Johnston trial, expected next year, opinions appear to be divided on the legality of the move. However, the DPP is not appointed by the government and he felt that was a clear conflict of interest or a case of impropriety. Moreover, as reported on 22 October, he had stated his views in a letter that there were “close and current” links between the Premier, suspended police Commissioner Johnston and retired former Commissioner McCreadie. The press made a great deal of Mr. Tim Ellis’s statements and why not? It is not exactly every day of the week that a DPP makes such claims and they clearly implied a whiff of inappropriate dealings, especially when Mr. Ellis said that he would only discuss the matter with the Governor.

Not being a fly on the wall in the Premier’s office, I can only imagine his reaction. There have been tales that he has a temper and who are we to say given the lack of concrete detail that he did not have any right at all to feel that he had been the subject of a personal attack on his integrity? The ensuing publicity highlighted the Premier’s statement to Parliament that the claims by the DPP were “false, false, false.” Not unreasonably, the Premier told Parliament on woeful Wednesday he wanted the Solicitor General and the secretary of the Premier’s department to attend the meeting with the DPP, essentially as witnesses. The Mercury reported that the Solicitor General had met with the DPP earlier that morning and Mr. Ellis had clarified what he meant by: “close and current links” by stating that the remarks have not read the intended to imply “personal face-to-face contact.”

Thus the scene was set for a rather interesting meeting but at the time the public was not informed of what it would take place. It conjured up reminiscences of a cartoon sword fight, with flashing clashing steel and sparks flying everywhere. The notion of a constitutional crisis over the matter received fresh oxygen but the eponymous one, to his credit, pointed to the examples of similar contretemps in other states and I found myself agreeing with him, a worrying development. In such a situation, the media plays a key role and the ABC in particular was once again fanning the notion of constitutional crisis, while the experts interviewed begged to differ. I imagine by now Dr. Richard Herr is pretty fed up with calls from the ABC and he has consistently maintained the line that an immediate inquiry is needed, before the JSCEC completes its work.

In such a situation, something had to give and it did in the form of a meeting between the Premier and the DPP. Much as I enjoy writing, I would not like to be a journalist but Sue Neales by-line on 24 October was something that would’ve given me great pleasure. The meeting was announced under the heading: “Premier, DPP’s high noon.” In many respects, it was more than apt. No doubt, there will be many people who have not seen the great Gary Cooper film called High Noon and it is still regarded as a classic of the Western genre (although the Sunday Tasmanian resident windbag of a cinema critic would probably not agree). Shot in black-and-white, the sheriff of a small town has to face down a bunch of gunslingers: it’s well worth watching for the build-up of tension and the final shootout. In those days, the good guys won. And for what it’s worth, some of the largest stores are selling it at a very low price.

The outcome of the meeting between the two men was both subdued and predictable, with both issuing statements. The DPP said that there was nothing personal between him and the Premier and they would have a good working relationship, while Mr. Bartlett’s statement was pretty much a mirror image. According to ABC news, a truce had been declared and the DPP confirmed that he did not mean to suggest that the Mr. Bartlett had acted improperly.

Naturally enough, there were cries of outrage from the opposition parties. Nick McKim, who has been relentless on the matter stated the obvious, namely that the community was none the wiser for the meeting and for the Premier to come out from behind closed doors and announce that everything was okay; “just simply isn’t going to cut it.” Liberal leader Will Hodgman allowed that the impasse might be over but questions remained and he accused the Premier of being just like his predecessor “when it comes to being upfront and truthful with Tasmanians.” (ABC news, 25 October).

The reporting in the Australian and the Mercury reflected the lack of detail on the meeting and this week in Parliament promises to be an extremely interesting and quite possibly heated affair. A very sensible comment on the whole business came from Dr. Kate Warner, the Director of Tasmania’s Law Reform Institute of UTAS, also on ABC news, who suggested that the DPP should be left to get on with his job and things would probably blow over.

Oh yeah? Not with blood in the water and unanswered questions. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it would be irresponsible at the very least of the opposition parties to let the matter rest. It is a boil that needs to be lanced and quickly before it assumes the proportion of a constitutional issue.

If the Premier and members of the Labor Party genuinely believe that they have turned the corner and the omens are propitious for the next election, I suggest that they use one or two of the innumerable staffers kicking around to take a hard look at those who blog on The Mercury website. It is not scientific because it is self-selecting and the number of people could be termed serial bloggers but unfortunately for the government it reinforces the generally poor perception Tasmanian public has of the Bartlett government and politicians in general.

Summing up.

I said earlier that the crisis is of the Premier’s own making because in the final analysis, the buck does stop at his desk but once again, he was obviously given (less than) helpful advice. An apparently simple decision prompted all hell to break loose. In less democratic situations, the advisers would be taken out and shot: the Premier does not have that luxury but it throws into question whether he is really up to the job and I say that somewhat sadly after considerable introspection. There is someone who blogs on issues The Mercury permits comments along the lines of: “Lennon-lite” and nothing more. At times, I thought it amusing but no longer.

Not that I expect the Premier to give a fig about my opinion for I have one vote but both leaders of the Opposition, major and minor, now look more appealing as alternatives. Nick McKim has no chance of becoming Premier at present but it is likely that if the Bartlett experiment fails, the hand of the Greens will be immeasurably strengthened following the outcome of the ACT elections and by-elections in New South Wales. There appears to be a measure of agreement among political pundits that Labor in various states is crumbling; haemorrhaging membership and in danger of following the Western Australian Labor Party back into the wilderness. Many of those pundits have predicted a domino effect as state governments face re-election.

The events surrounding the ongoing saga involving the re-engagement of Richard McCreadie, the Premier and the Director of Public Prosecutions Tim Ellis have been the subject of many column inches/centimetres and electronic media airtime. In many respects, The Mercury editorial of Show Day, 23 October and the accompanying cartoon by Kudelka sum up the situation very well. However, I want to make several points:

The media and the ABC in particular have continually described the situation as a constitutional crisis. It is not a constitutional crisis in the accepted sense, although it has caused me considerable angst to have to agree with an eponymous legal commentator on this point, although I would add that he is sometimes too available, although those readers will note, he is given due credit below.

It is a crisis of governance, epitomized by dysfunctions in the relationship between the DPP and the government. As a statutory officer not appointed by the government, he cannot be sacked by the government. The Bartlett/Ellis meeting was welcomed by the opposition leaders and rightly so but the whole matter contains elements that are purely speculative at the moment and I do not propose to canvass them. However, I am sure we would all like to know what the DPP defined as official secrets and the reasons why he felt at the outset that he could not discuss them with the Premier. This is unprecedented and rumours about “dirt files” on the DPP were probably a pre-emptive strike aimed at neutralizing him.

The opposition parties have every right to pursue the government further. It is my opinion that both the Greens and Liberals have generally speaking performed with a certain amount of credibility and impartiality. This is the very foundation of democracy! They have not sought much more than exposure of the information, which they believe to be in the public interest. It has been a measured response and is welcome. We need to know just what the DPP knows; when he knew it and why he felt compelled at a certain point in time, to make the statement that he would only discuss the matter with the governor. The government may well have the numbers and the opposition parties combined power in a minority but they have teeth and are being noticed.

The genius behind the reappointment pro tem of Richard McCreadie deserves to be named and the reasons explained. I do not wish to rake muck on this matter but it is well-known that McCreadie was unpopular with serving police officers and that a vote of no-confidence was in prospect, when he retired to be replaced by his protégé Jack Johnston, an appointment which was made without advertising the position and in the face of opposition by the rank-and-file of the police force. With some experience in this field, I would suggest that if the genius is under contract, he should be spending the balance of his time cleaning toilets somewhere. Come what may, he/she should be named publicly.

The jungle drums indicate from a variety of directions that the idea behind the McCreadie appointment was essentially to stop further investigation of certain matters.

It is a regrettable fact that the Mexican standoff between the DPP and the Premier and attendant publicity obscured the underlying reason why the JSCEC should now be turned into a more powerful body with teeth to investigate. The original impetus for an official inquiry lay with comments by respected academic Richard Herr and the way pulp mill legislation was railroaded through Parliament. If nothing else, Dr. Herr’s comments set the ball rolling and it could well be that the government perceived some advantage to itself in setting up an ethics committee inquiry or rather an inquiry as to whether there should be an ethics committee. Forgotten was the immortal injunction attributed to the late Mick Young who said when talking about calling a Royal commission words to the effect “that you should never call one unless you know in advance what it will find.” It’s a bit late now!

Of increasing interest and potentially more of a problem for the government, was news, almost but not quite swamped by the Bartlett/Ellis brouhaha. It concerns stories written by young Michael Stedman of the Mercury, a journalist who obviously has his ear to the ground and a sense of what constitutes a good story. On 24 October, he broke the news that Linda Hornsey; the former Secretary of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, Mike Hawkes, a former driver for the disgraced Deputy Premier Steve Kons; Stephanie Shadbolt, Mr. Kons’ former personal assistant and Department of Justice Secretary Lisa Hutton has been called to appear before the Legislative Council Select Committee on Public Sector Executive Appointments on 27 October.

Described by Mr. Stedman as a powerful Parliamentary committee, unlike the JSCEC, apparently this committee has teeth and can compel witnesses to come forward, although my browser stubbornly refused to provide me with the terms of reference from the Tasmanian Government website. According to what is available on the website, it comprises a quartet of Legislative Councillors; Greg Hall, Paul Harriss (Chair) Terry Martin and Jim Wilkinson. Only the chairman, Paul Harriss is not also a member of the JSCEC and without prejudging their approach, they could scarcely be described as pawns of the government. It will be very interesting to see how witnesses react to sustained questioning. In particular, I would like to be present when Jim Wilkinson, who is a very pleasant character but in a court room, I would describe as a smiling assassin, comes to grips with those who suffer from convenient lapses of memory. And unlike the United States, there can be no pleading the Fifth Amendment, which we often hear referred to on our TV programs. In that context it means that “pleading the Fifth” protects witnesses from incriminating themselves – sorry, it doesn’t apply here!

Despite my eccentricities, I find myself standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the Editor of the Tasmanian Times; Dr Richard Herr and other notables in the state ( Here ). We must have a judicial inquiry of some description preferably conducted by somebody from interstate, who as I have said in previous comments, is owed nothing by Tasmania or Tasmanians and cannot be seen as being in thrall to vested interests. What started out as a small committee investigating the need for ethics committee has been overtaken by events and I repeat the words that unfortunately I have used twice in the past: Tasmanians deserve better!

This has been a week that I would like to forget, not the least for the amount of tittle-tattle and malicious gossip that is circulating about the government, the DPP, Nigel Burch and just about anybody remotely connected with the runaway bulldozer of events. With the Editor’s indulgence I would like to draw your attention to several key statements which appear in the Tasmanian Times on different pages. They include some made before the JSCEC:

DPP Tim 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.”

Nigel Burch: “Nepotism and favouritism are rife in the way the Labor government fills jobs for advisers and key public servants. Jobs usually go to family, friends, political allies or failed Labor candidates. Impropriety and incompetence are rife within the public service and government ranks but not corruption.” (I disagree profoundly with the concluding qualifying statement: if this is not corruption, then what the hell is?

Former Deputy Liberal Premier Sir Max Bingham: “…a healthy parliament relies on the advice of frank and fearless bureaucrats.”This independent public service really is the best guarantee of probity in Government.” He also said that ministers are increasingly relying on the advice of political minders and yes-men.

It is probably best provided you have the time, to look at the website of the JSCEC http://www.parliament.tas.gov.au/Ctee/ethical.htm as it contains a wealth of material.

• I conclude with a few mercifully brief words “Premier Bartlett, you can demand respect and loyalty but these commodities have to be earned. Far too many politicians have failed to recognize the notion of reciprocity. You have managed to alienate quite a few people of influence by a seemingly reckless attitude to due process and enquiry and an astonishing decision in the McCreadie reappointment. If you intended to stifle further delving into matters of public interest, you have failed.

• Consequently you must make a public commitment to a full judicial inquiry and support wherever it goes and reveal any impropriety (if that is found to be the case). You have the chance to be a leader of which the Tasmania can be proud. You have had time to find your feet. Equivocation and flip-flopping are signs of terminal weakness in government” creative procrastination can only carry you so far. The current situation demands positive action – boils on the body politic need to be lanced for reasons of health and public trust. Short term pain will mean long-term gain:


Do you have the courage?” Are you the last great hope or the great last dope?