Michael Hodgman stepping down at the election would be a big story and would create stories of its own in terms of who would then get elected. So from the point of view of the typical press bias in favour of change over stasis I’m not surprised to see this sort of argument being made for Hodgman Snr to retire.
I don’t agree with it though. That would leave the Liberals taking a slate of candidates including no incumbent into an electorate where they have to defeat at least one Labor incumbent to win a second seat. I definitely wouldn’t recommend this since profile is of enormous importance in securing the final seat in these five-seat electorates, and the Liberals do not yet have any alternative Denison candidate with a high enough profile. Also, as I previously mentioned, Michael Hodgman attracts votes to the party in demographics with which the party otherwise struggles. Provided that Michael Hodgman remained fit enough to serve as an effective MHA, it would make more sense to go to the election with him as a candidate – if necessary on the publicly unspoken understanding that he would probably retire, say, halfway through the next term to give a new MHA time to build themselves up for the election after that.
Comment here
Dr Kevin Bonham
