Tasmanian Times


Scott McLean’s walk in the park: What I saw

I have just read the comments on Scott McLean’s campaign launch (HERE) and as one might expect they were skewed to meet the opinions and the prejudices of the author.

I am not sure if the lady who wrote the piece was there or not? I know that I was there and that what I saw was somewhat different from what she claimed to see. As far as refusing to answer questions that were shouted out with the intention of disrupting proceedings MClean offered to speak to this man but only after he had finished speaking, however this was clearly not what this young man wanted; the young man was clearly on a mission to disrupt the proceeding, confrontation is one thing, to deliberately set out to cause a scene which is being filmed by the one person doing the disrupting is disquieting and most unusual in Australian politics it is more akin to third world politics of social disruption and political manipulation.

I know that McLean had already spoken to Mr & Mrs Emburg who are well known opponents of the mill and regular contributors to TT and I also saw both McLean and Ferguson talk to others who opposed the ALP’s position on the proposed pulp mill. To say that they had no answers is disingenuous, just because someone does not offer the answer you would like does not mean that they have no answers. As to Dick Adam’s intervention it was only when the young man refused to stop shouting out his questions or halt his disruptive behaviour that Adam’s spoke to him.

On another tack I always thought that heckling was supposed to be spontaneous, it is also supposed to be witty and adds greatly to the cut and thrust of political debate. Clearly I was wrong because the noisy man with the questions and the camera was reading from a script which he dropped when he left it was then handed to McLean by a supporter. This script has ten questions for him to shout out while filming all of which begs the question who wrote the ten questions, and to what end? Clearly the questions were not written by the protestor if they were all his own work why would he need a crib sheet?

In my opinion this man was most likely sent to the meeting to disrupt it and to film any negative responses he got to his provocative behaviour, this man acted not as a concerned citizen as one might have been forgiven for thinking he was an agent provocateur. This man went to the meeting to disrupt it, he went to cause a scene that he later hoped to exploit. Any film of the event he shot and edits will be mere propaganda. No doubt it will provide its viewers with pictures that any totalitarian politician would approve of, what it won’t do is to provide a balanced or reasonable picture of Saturday’s events.

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


  1. BogusFiasco

    February 2, 2010 at 5:50 pm

    Dave, your account seems to contradict a video of the event. Rather, the video contradicts your account.

    I am continually surprised by the attempts of some people to make Labor identities look clean.

    Also, you forgot to mention Dick Adams in your duplicitous #12 comment.
    Dick has knifed in the back TWO Labor leaders.

    Can you name them for us please?

    Further to your accusations toward Kim Booth.
    Unlike you, I know this fellow and have seen him demolish, time after time, lies and arguments like yours, of both Liberal and (especially) state Labor identities.

    Booth is arguably the most intelligent Parliamentarian in the state circle.
    Pick up any Hansard and see for yourself.

    He does have a habit of pointing out bullshit in a humourous fashion and invokes the ire of the bullshitter, which is why he (like most Greens) are hated within Labor.
    Simply, he makes fibbers look like the dickheads they are.
    Your opinion of him seems to uphold my opinion of your opinion.

    He certainly has a superior understanding of forestry, himself having been a successful timber merchant and his father a renowned career as a forester for the FAO.

    And, you obviously know Ms Putt so well you can’t even spell her name properly.
    That’s RESPECT, Dave.

    Finally, there is a rumour in the Party that the Turdpolisher’s Guild will be awarded collective life membership for services to Labor.
    Nice work, Dave.

  2. Dave Hobart

    February 2, 2010 at 10:39 am

    To answer your questions (#9) who do I respect, as a matter of fact I have known Pegg Putt for a long time in fact I well recall many conversations with Pegg when she was a member of the ALP and later when she left the ALP for the Greens, so yes I do respect her.

    I have had several conversations with Bob Brown over the years and while frequently disagreeing with him I believe that he probably the best politician in Australia, and yes I respect him.

    I have never met Ms. Goodwin but I have been impressed with her level of community commitment and her start in the Tas Parliament. I think it is a shame that this hard working young ladies talents have been hidden in the upper house by Abetz and Hodgman she should be downstairs in the thick of it all.

    Jim Bacon I knew well I never liked he was dangerous to know not to mention duplicitous and paranoid, no I didn’t respect him.

    Paul Lennon Big Red was hard working and had the best labor values at heart, did he make mistakes u bet he did, did I respect him for the most part yes because he true to his beliefs.

    It’s people like Kim Booth & Alex Marr I don’t respect, why because they are dogmatic, duplicitous, not to mention hypocritical. These are men who would happily see hundreds if not thousands of good hard working people and their families destroyed by their arrogance and utter refusal to compromise and cooperate with anyone on any issue. Both men and increasingly to many like them remind me more of the old leadership of the Painters and Dockers (We catch and kill our own) than concerned caring environmentalists.

  3. Anna Pilkington

    February 2, 2010 at 12:36 am

    Anyone who knows Rick is aware that he does not need a script to read from, nor is he anyone’s mouth piece.

    And at times he has paid a very high price for having the guts to put his neck on the chopping block…to actually go out and say the things that behind closed doors people talk about, but don’t have the guts to say out in the open…

    This is what happened on Saturday.

    We are used to being attacked. We expect to be attacked. But it is not going to stop us from going out and articulating the heart-felt concerns of our friends and neighbours.

    Well done to you Rick! I’m proud of you.

  4. Russell

    February 2, 2010 at 12:01 am

    Re #7
    I’m assuming Dave Hobart is the author of this article (David, West Hobart).

    In reply to part (2) of your answer, no you didn’t answer my questions (either of them) so I suggest you heed your own advice and have a re-read, then try again.

  5. Mark

    February 1, 2010 at 8:10 pm

    Careful Dave lest you fall off your high moral ground! You state your respect of the politicians who spend time on the hustings. A few examples:

    1. I have seen Peg Putt address several public meetings including one in the Huonville Town Hall. Do you respect her?

    2. Bob Brown has probably attended more meetings than any other I can name. Do you respect him?

    3. When B-doubles were to travel along Sandfly Road there was public meeting held at Margate. A photo on the front page of the Mercury showed empty seat reserved for Jim Bacon and Paul Lennon. Do you have no respect for them?

    4. Vanessa Goodwin received much publicity for her neighbourhood doorknocks. Do you respect her?

    5. If one chooses to appeal against a PTR, one has 28 days to lodge the appeal after the publication of the Public Notice. I sent a letter requesting a stated position on support for forestry within 28 days to Peter Hodgman, Paul Lennon, Fran Bladel, Harry Quick and Paul Harriss. I did not get one response although I did have an informal discussion with Paul Harriss. Do you respect them?

    May I assume the answers are in accord with your simple philosophy.

  6. salamander

    February 1, 2010 at 7:20 pm

    Scott Maclean started his speech on the defensive (“Nothing wrong with what’s going on”) and at no time was any question answered intelligently and on subject, by him or Dick Adams.

    MacLean failed even as a Labor stooge! Evidently unprepared, and caught out.

  7. Dave Hobart

    February 1, 2010 at 5:58 pm

    I had meant to stop posting here on this subject I have had my say and I know that I won’t win any plaudits by continuing any longer but before I retire may I just say one last thing and that is to answer tow points one from Maggie and the last from Russell and this should not be taken as my support for the answers it is simply a matter of once again correcting the record.

    (1) McLean stated clearly and without equivocation his support for pulp mill and his support of a rotary veneer mill in Scottsdale.

    (2) I have previously addressed this but clearly Russell missed the answer something he has a often shown a marked propensity for.

    Fact true and incontrovertible, McLean offered to speak to his heckler after the meeting this happened as soon as Mr. Plikington began to shout out from the crowd I heard the offer and I was standing close to Mr Pilkington.

    As to Mr Adam’s I have no idea what he may have said or to whom following the meeting that was for him but I did see him talking quietly to people as I left.

  8. Dave Hobart

    February 1, 2010 at 11:18 am

    Dear Mr. Pilkington, I did not speak to u on Saturday because it was not my place to speak to you, it was McLean’s launch not mine.

    I was not there to answer questions on Mclean’s behalf; I went to listen. As I have said I found your behaviour rude and your attitude belligerent which are hardly the preconditions for a reasonable conversation.

    I put my comments on TT in response to the original posting which was from someone other than yourself and referred to you and your behaviour; I do not resile from my comments. I am however pleased that you came out and made yourself known.

    On Sat it was clear that there were others there who shared your opinions but chose to stay silent during the speeches these people were I know later spoken to in private by McLean obviously I have no knowledge of the conversations but they appeared cordial which is as it should be in a democracy where we can agree to differ without being rude and insulting.

    As to the man shouting from the boat I could not hear what he was shouting but I assume it was not his support or his agreement. Maybe he would have made his case clearer if it were not for the fact that shouting when eating and drinking tends to make one ignore him. However, I noticed as I was leaving even he was being spoken to quietly by the federal minister and while again I did not hear what they said the conversation seemed quiet and polite, you might try this someday it might be more productive than belicose grandstanding.

    It would seem therefore that it was only u and your poor manners that were ignored, in my opinion quite rightly so.

    Whatever else one may say or think or however the voters of Bass finally vote in March one thing they will not be able to say is that McLean was unwilling to face them on the street and from what I recall he said he will continue to hold open air meetings where the voters can talk to him.

    As a voter I admire any politician or would be politician who is willing to spend time out on the hustings and would like to think that more of the state’s elected representatives and hopefuls will spend time facing the public and talking to their critics as it will make for a good campaign if they do.

    Again as a voter what I would ask is that those who have sincerely held differing opinions show good manners and restraint. You might try it sometime who knows people might even begin to listen to you

  9. Russell

    February 1, 2010 at 9:56 am

    What answers did McLean and Adams give to the questions then Dave?

    Don’t just say something then not explain or give evidence to your accusations and beliefs. It’s pretty obvious your view on what happened is a very pro-Labor one.

    What is your own opinion of the bypassing of due process, then the fast tracking of the pulp mill?

  10. Dave Groves

    February 1, 2010 at 5:55 am

    ….”third world politics of social disruption and political manipulation”

    Tasmania to a tee.

    You can polish a turd, but no matter how much gloss you add, it remains a turd.

    Back to the spin machine for more training….

    How quickly forgotten are the 10+ thousand people, who wanted answers (City Park rally), but instead were labeled “misinformed” and ignored by the LIBLAB coalition?

    Small wonder there could be some, who after five years of knocking on doors (that hide sniggering corporate lap dogs), have finally had enough.

  11. GK

    February 1, 2010 at 12:44 am

    Hi Scott, If you are reading this would you please reply and advise if we should vote Tory at the next election as per your previous advice?

  12. Mark

    January 31, 2010 at 11:26 pm

    When Dick Adams delivered his speech on Parliamentary food standards he was trying to be witty! My mistake 🙂

    Quite a few old Labor pollies are rolling over in their graves at the comparison. These “blokes” do not deserve to stand in the same party. We have one who stood shoulder-to-shoulder with Howard while the other is the only meatworker in Tasmania still with a job.

  13. maggie

    January 31, 2010 at 10:53 pm

    Just because there’s a crib sheet doesn’t mean the CIA is behind the operation. I couldn’t remember 10 questions on any subject without prompting.

    But with all these words, exactly what is McLeans psoition on the pulp mill ? Not a word of that.

    Like all the bland lib-lab sheep they are desperate to say NOTHING about the pulp mill.

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Receive Our Weekly Tas Roundup

Copyright © Tasmanian Times. Site by Pixel Key

To Top