Leading political commentator Dr Richard Herr will lead experts examining power sharing government for Tasmania at a special forum in Hobart tomorrow.
The panel also includes MLC Jim Wilkinson, Chairman of the Joint Select Committee on Ethical Conduct.
Dr Herr will talk on the history of power sharing governments in Tasmania; their benefits benefits and limitations.
Mr Wilkinson will discuss the Tasmanian Integrity Commission and its implications for improving Tasmanian governance.
Also on the panel are former federal MP Margaret Reynolds and lawyer Greg Barns.
Margaret Reynolds will talk about state and federal politics and tri-partisan agreements; Greg Barns’ subject is international models that work – Scotland/NZ/others.
Moderator is Associate Professor Kate Crowley – School of Government, University of Tasmania.
The non-party political organisation Tasmanians for a Healthy Democracy has organised the forum to discuss power sharing government for Tasmania. In light of the impending State election, due in March next year.
“Tasmanians for a Healthy Democracy is aiming to reinforce and encourage a culture of respect and constructive dialogue in the political realm.
“For Tasmania to reach its potential, politicians need to work collaboratively, form tri-partisan agreements and bring their intelligence together to reach higher ground. Strategies to achieve and maintain power sharing government will be discussed at the forum,” said one of the organisers, Marion Nicklason.
The forum will be held 6.30 – 8.00pm at the Baha’i Centre for Learning, 1 Tasman Highway, Hobart on Tuesday 24th November 2009.
“The aim is to have an open, constructive and objective public forum.
“Models and strategies for effective governance will be discussed. Speakers will bring examples of international and national models to the forum and identify how power sharing works in other jurisdictions,” said Marion Nicklason.
“Tasmanians for a Healthy Democracy wants to raise public awareness regarding alternative styles of government suitable for Tasmania. An overview of Tasmanian Integrity Commission will be provided. There will be a moderated session enabling experts to discuss key issues and opportunities with politicians and the public.”
People who want to know more about power sharing in government and the pros and cons of the system are encouraged to attend. To reserve a seat email [email protected]
“It is important to create a community-inclusive and progressive government for the long term benefits of its constituents and the state it serves,” said Ms Nicklason.
www.tashealthydemocracy.com for event details and email
[email protected] to reserve seat.
Entry by gold coin donation.
Panellists and moderators bios final.doc
William Boeder
November 15, 2009 at 12:41
Forums of this kind may reduce the Lib/Lab bitterness and false accusations hurled toward The Greens Party, arguably, they The Greens will be an important feature of the newly elected government after March 2010?.
To date the biggest crime committed by The Greens is to call both these other political parties to account for their poor governance and lethargy in resolving many of the States fixable issues.
We now await again the usual Lib/Lab Harum-Scarum nonsense against The Greens, come closer the election date.
Leonard Colquhoun
November 15, 2009 at 14:02
Perhaps, at about 6.31 pm, this conference could begin with a minute’s silence to honour the many Baha’i who have been persecuted in Iran, their land of origin.
Centrally organised persecution began early in the 20th C and continued during the regime of the Shah. But whatever the sense of liberation felt after his overthrow in 1979, persecution of the Baha’i got far worse (as any shrewd observer would have expected at the time).
According to Wikipedia, “Since the Islamic Revolution of 1979 Iranian Bahá’Ãs have regularly had their homes ransacked or been banned from attending university or holding government jobs, and several hundred have received prison sentences for their religious beliefs, most recently for participating in study circles.[58] Bahá’à cemeteries have been desecrated and property seized and occasionally demolished, including the House of MÃrzá Buzurg, Bahá’u’lláh’s father.[37] The House of the Báb in Shiraz, one of three sites to which Bahá’Ãs perform pilgrimage, has been destroyed twice.[37][92][93]”
See link to follow up references in [ ]s –
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahá'Ã_Faith#Persecution
In Egypt, according to the same article, Baha’i suffer discrimination in that they are ‘non-citizenable’, to coin a term: ID cards must show a religious identification, and, in Mr H Ford style, you can choose sect any you like, provided it is Muslim, Jewish or Christian.
No Hindus, Buddhists, Shintoists, allowed; no modern Wicca or Mithraists; and, presumably, no latter-day worshippers of, say, Anubis, Osiris or Thoth* in the land of the Pharaohs (although tourist revenue-gathering in Egypt exploits this history relentlessly).
Back to the main suggestion: given that, in recent times, many meetings such as this one begin with statements of ‘Sorry’ (often, though conspicuous, merely tokenistic), and given that many such meeting begin with denunciations of oppression or discrimination (often one-sidedly anti-Semitic^), perhaps this would be a way to announce to the general public, and to TT readers in particular, that ideological approval is not a pre-requisite for such concern?
* Islamist fanatics in Egypt would love nothing more than to erase every physical remnant of their nation’s Pharaonic past: remember the Taliban destruction of the Buddhist statues in Afghanistan’s Bamyan province in March 2001?
^ used here in its customary sense of being anti-Jewish; attempts to assert that it includes being ‘anti-Arab’, because ‘Semites’ include both Jews and Arabs, is both casuistical nonsense and tending towards Holocaust diminution, if not outright denial.
Concerned Resident
November 15, 2009 at 18:38
The way I see it…the two major parties are ruled by large corporations, ie Gunns and the Federal Group…It seems that whatever these two corporations want, they get with the total support of the Liberals. It doesn’t seem to matter how much unrest within the state this causes, they go ahead regardless and approve whatever, usually environmentally destructive or socially destructive and often both. We need someone strong in parliament in Tasmania so that the people outside of the gambling industry and the logging industry are actually listened to for once. So far we have been cash cows to fund the lobbying for both of the above mentioned corporations by our state gov’t and also to fund their water, power, rates etc at a reduced rate on some sort of buddy system it needs to be stopped and become a democratic system. The only way to do that is to get honesty into the parliament. If we wind up with a major party holding majority gov’t, we will undoubtably see more of the rubbish and corruption as we have seen within this current gov’t. There is not a hairs breadth difference between the labor or liberal gov’ts…they both only answer to the two corporations. These corporations pay less for power etc while the public pay more to cover the shortfall and the corporations give major amounts of $$$to the parties and single polititions within the major parties who will do the most favours.
Pete Godfrey
November 15, 2009 at 19:51
I had to laugh at the bit about the “politicians bringing their intelligence together”
It appears that the party system of politics precludes any person of intelligence from becoming a member of the LIBLAB coalition.
There may be one or two who have slipped through but unfortunately most of the ones I have talked to or met have been incapable of independent thought and had the mistaken belief that they were there to “rule over us” Not to Listen to us.
It would be a very big call to ask members of the libs or labs to put their giant egos aside and listen and collaborate with each other for the good of Tasmania.
I would guess that it will be an interesting forum but the number of liblabs there will be very small.
Alderman Tony Mulder
November 15, 2009 at 23:02
oh dear! if the tenure of the previous comments is anything to go by, there’s not much hope. Could we at least LISTEN before labelling and dismissing. This isn’t about party point scoring, just a look at the reality of minority government that is the norm for most of the democratic world. As a potential player in such a game, I’d be keen to learn the lessons of history.
salamander
November 15, 2009 at 23:04
The current crop of Libs are ditto of the Labs. Any originality comes at the expense of actually opposing anything the government does or wants.
The Libs rolled over once again when the pulp mill permits were extended, so we can expect nothing less that a complete agreement between the two parties- anything to see that the Greens don’t get more power.
Both parties seem terrified of the Greens getting that power, which says a lot about the way the government works – the Greens will not roll over when asked, nor will they agree on issues that not ethical or popular.
William Boeder
November 16, 2009 at 03:13
Here is an open opportubity for the Lib/Lab coalition ministers to tell we the people, of their contributions and pro the people causes that have shown some measurable amount of success to the State and its people in the past 12 months.
This of course must not include sausage sizzles attended, kndergartens opened, vote-for-me mail-outs, doors knocked on and told to get off the property, media captures of them holding a shovel and that sort of thing, nor can it be of the many times they have merely agreed with others in parliament.
To the Tas Times readers, this will not produce a forbiddingly long list of individual accomplishments nor contributions by the abovementioned politico’s.
Is any LiB/Lab minister game to rise to this challenge?
Steve
November 16, 2009 at 23:47
7; What an excellent idea William. So simple. Just a list of when they actually contributed, or perhaps represented a constituent.
Of course, in the grounds of fairness they should also produce a list of every request from a constituent that they have ignored or trivialised.
john hayward
November 17, 2009 at 11:59
The status quo represented here is already sharing power amongst themselves. That’s the problem.
John Hayward
marion nicklason
November 17, 2009 at 22:33
Encouraging power sharing between the parties and the public is one of the key drivers of the forum.
Simon Warriner
November 18, 2009 at 12:32
Surely in an open democratic system of government, the parties derive their “power” from the public they represent. The concept of “parties” sharing power with “the public” should therefore not be an issue.
The real problem, Marion, is that the parties have forgotten that they derive their power from the fact they have clubbed together to represent the public. They need to be reminded of this.
It is for this reason we need to ignore parties and focus on electing independant representatives who can take real issues to parliment, instead of party candidates who show up and do as they are told by those who own them, namely their major donors.
I am sorry to have to say this Marion, because I am sure you have the best of motives, but you are wasting your time treating a symptom, while the disease continues to thrive.