Tasmanian Times


Poor, poor Guv


ON page 5 of the Merc’s Budget report, in the Quick News column, there is a brief about the Guv …. which says that he is one public servant who will weather the storm …. He is getting a 12% salary increase a year, taking his pay and the cost of running his Vice-Regalness from $418,000 this financial year to $471,000 in 2009/10 and up to $527,000 in 1012/13.

Good god, poor bugger. And he has to endure regular Grange tasting from the cellar … or what’s left after Richard’s raids …

Of course, there’s not a brass razoo for an ethics commission … but really … don’t you worry about that …

Author Credits: [show_post_categories parent="no" parentcategory="writers" show = "category" hyperlink="yes"]


  1. William Boeder

    June 15, 2009 at 2:22 pm

    So with the Governor’s lot, how much ‘bang for our buck’ is their issuing from this taxpayer indulgence?

    Buck-banging now being the term of substitution to the more recognized form of proper accountibility toward the taxpayer-funded opulence and largesse.

    Comment #2 above, is somehow incorrectly placed, this comment is relevent to an article titled: The Photographers Lament.
    Spare me your correctional disciplines here please Dr. Bonham!
    Am currently sitting here writhing in torment and terror lest you make substantive issue of this grave sin!

  2. Margaretta Pos

    June 15, 2009 at 1:32 pm

    #7 … Not so Phil Parsons. It is the Governor’s salary.

    The Mercury’s Budget brief noted: “The Office of the Governor costs the state around $3 million a year.”

  3. phill Parsons

    June 15, 2009 at 10:52 am

    I don’t want to be defending the amount but the allocation in the budget is not to pay the Governor but to run the office which includes a staff.

    There may also be other matters associated with the maintenance of the grounds and structure.

    An iteration of the disbursement by line items would seem an appropriate way of explaining the rise above the odds.

  4. Luke Vanzino

    June 15, 2009 at 4:05 am

    This being the same ‘Gov’ who in a previous life adjudicated on a logging related case at Mole Creek where Gunns were to be the processor of the timber and at the same time he held Gunns shares!

  5. john hayward

    June 14, 2009 at 8:16 pm

    One would have imagined that his recent COA would be enough flattery, as there was a lengthy queue of more distinguished jurists who missed out.

    One hopes the pay boost is not advance payment for services rendered, as the Gov has, astonishingly, been repeatedly promoting his importance in the event of a hung parliament. Nobody on the green side of politics would find reassurance in his public statements and actions on them.

    John Hayward

  6. Scott Ragg

    June 14, 2009 at 6:52 pm

    Hmmm… so the Guv gets 12% a year pay increase for the next 3 years, but the serfs get 1% for 2009/10, 1% for 2010/11 and 2.5% for 2011/12, as per the State Service wages policy in last weeks budget. Would anyone from King David’s court like to explain (read spin) the discrepancy?

  7. Margaretta Pos

    June 14, 2009 at 5:34 pm

    His Excellency could lead by example and decline to accept his pay rise.

  8. William Boeder

    June 14, 2009 at 1:09 pm

    The present cause of HRH Prince Charles.
    the Prince’s Rainforest Project.

    There is existent, under the heading of this above rainforest project, a world wide program to bring about the huge awareness of the extreme importance in retaining our natural forests, this is in the hope that the people of the world do halt and stop destroying the lungs of our earth.

    I urge readers to enter this web-site to read and so to better understand the damage being inflicted upon us all through the continuing degradation of even our Tasmanian Ancient Forests.

    Even with hundreds of thousands of hectares now under intensive plantation-type forests in Tasmania, yhis is still not enough of this created chemically reliant type of concern for their purposes.
    Nothing of this type of forestry purpose can replace that of which is so rampantly clear-felled annually in this State.

    Now that there exists such an international compelling call for restraint, (if not a complete halt,) to the continuing government supported arm of Forestry Tasmania, this must be considered.

    The rag-tag hierarchy of F/T, collectively are a mere handfull of Gunns supportive zealots who are paid handsomely by this State government, to continue their degradation of the peoples forests in the belief that they run a sustainable industry.
    The importance to the actualities and to the good old plain facts, that this is not, and never will be, a fully stand-alone sustainable enterprise, as is so proven today, yet there exists a selected band of renegades who are doing their utmost to claim their interferences to nature are negligible , yet sustainably profitable.

    Through their mystic powers somehow and mysteriously held over the printed media and electronic media in this State, this continuing program of misinformstion is fed to all the people in Tasmania.

    The marketing strategies of Gunns Plantations MIS are another glaring example of not presenting each and every clearly defined fact, this in itself is another sorry part of their selling strategies
    Nowhere is the mention of the Ancient Forest clear-felling abuses that prepared this land for MIS intensive new species planting in the first instance.

    The ever continuing references made to the media of just how much protected forest we have in Tasmania, can in fact drastically alter on a monthly basis, as F/T and Gunns go about their ancient harvesting methods of clearing to the ground, vast areas of our natural forests.

    Even armed with worlds best practice in harvesting practices, as known to this State for some many many years, has not seen them change to any marked degree of their clear-felling, bull-dozing then burning methodology, still much favored by todays forestry industries.
    The collective forestry harvesting industries are even today, demanding more cleared land for their allocations, then this land to undergo the intensive planting of their particular non-indigenous plantation species timber.
    Forestry is still operating under a darkened cloak of secrecy, shared between themselves and this State government.

    As for the Regional Forest Agreement, this collective ream of papers is more to protect the foresters from legal claims, it’s also an open licence to continue at what rate they wish, the ongoing slaughter of our wildlife, as an assumed necessary casualty to their present forestry
    harvesting practices.
    The mere stroke of the government pen can make this agreement act specifically in favor of forestry slaughter.
    (So recently this wildlife slaughter behavior was upheld as OK to continue in the Federal Court of Australia.)
    What a pernicious result for so many of our threatened indigenous wildlife species, to see that a group of city bred judges can inflict such an interpretation of law so to allow this State Forestry industry an exemption to all their continung slaughters?
    Then of course the resultant victory dance by the heads of Forestry Tasmania.
    What sort of an abhorrent mob must the forestry arm of the Tasmanian government be?
    Why is this so?
    Words to fully describe the enormity of this plunder and slaughter activity in Tasmania, fail me to accurately portray of their evilness.

    On the matter of the annual forestry burn-offs that cloud the skies of Tasmania each season, this is but another of the many ills and evils that go hand in hand with this ruthless government supported purpose.
    This same set of descriptives is also toward the aerial spraying of all sorts of toxic chemicals into our waterways and atmospheres.
    Yet another thoroughly dangerous to the people act of defiance by the likes of Forestry Tasmania and Gunns Ltd.
    I believe that these acts against nature must be incorporated into the MIS advertising disclosures of Gunns Plantations, for the simple fact of the veracity of this dangerous action, gamely inflicted upon and against against the very people of the State of Tasmania.

  9. phill Parsons

    June 14, 2009 at 10:38 am

    The office is in the constitution [State Constitution Act] so changing the fact means chanfing the federal system and I can just see all the wanna bees and would bees wanting that.

    Savings might be mad by sending the Governor home and selling off the pile but where would pomp circumstances and the feigh seperation of powers be displayed.

    Rethinking the structure might follow the expansion of local Councils to regional governments [its partly why it deosn’t happen] and the centralization of other powers [that the other part that goes oh so slowly]

    Retaining a structure laid out in the 1800’s and almost ossified in 1901 is doing us a disservice.

To Top