DAVID BARTLETT’s announcement HERE that he had organised for Sky News to host a nationally televised debate on March 14 between himself and Will Hodgman — but not the Greens leader Nick McKim — is a striking illustration of his how little weight he gives to his own pronouncements on the need to restore trust in Tasmania’s democracy. Bartlett’s strategy is to enlist a national news outlet and some yet-to-be-announced Tasmanian journalists in doing Labor’s bidding in trying to marginalise the Greens. Bartlett’s ‘I won’t debate the Greens’ tactic is a carbon copy of Paul Lennon’s 2006 election campaign strategy.
In his January 31 speech, titled “Building a Strong Tasmania”, before assembled Labor candidates, Bartlett proclaimed that the ALP stood for “a fair go” and claimed that he was committed to listening “to the concerns of Tasmanians right around the State.” After reflecting that many people had lost trust in Tasmania’s government when he became Premier he stated that “it is an ongoing commitment to build institutions of governance that the Tasmanian people can have confidence in.”
Just over a week after re-pledging himself to work to restore trust in democracy, Bartlett unilaterally announced a debate which Will Hodgman apparently didn’t know about until it was announced. Bartlett defended the exclusion of McKim HERE on the grounds that there were only “two alternative Premiers” and for good measure threw in a gratuitous insult stating that “Nick McKim is never going to be Premier and as important as he thinks he is, that is the facts.”
It is understandable that Bartlett would want to exclude McKim in the hope of corralling journalists and the public into thinking that there are only two choices when electors go into the ballot box. Clearly, Labor strategists fear that Bartlett could be out-performed by McKim and that part of Labor’s soft vote could defect to or stay with the Greens.
Bartlett’s claim that McKim is not going to be Premier is disingenuous. Who becomes Premier is determined by which party can command majority support on the floor of Parliament. With the Greens holding four seats and having reasonable prospects of retaining them all, it is quite possible that they could hold the balance of power. It is quite reasonable for Tasmanian electors to be informed about the respective polices of the three major parties and how they would handle the balance of power scenario.
While it is possible to understand why Bartlett wants to freeze the Greens out of the debate, it is difficult to fathom why SKY News would agree to a proposal that is fundamentally undemocratic. Sky News willingness to stage a debate that has been rigged to exclude participation of a party that could determine who forms government is staggering. Sky News CEO Angelos Frangopoulos echoed Bartlett’s rationale for a two-way only debate. He told The Mercury HERE that “Sky News view is that it is a debate between the Premier and the alternate premier – that’s why it is called a leaders’ debate.” (Frangopoulos may well be ignorant of the fact that in the Tasmanian parliament the Greens have party status and McKim is recognised as its leader.)
The Sky News deal is Bartlett’s backstop after he refused to participate in an ABC-hosted debate which proposed to include McKim. “If the ABC is so entrenched in ensuring the Greens, who have less than 20 per cent of the vote, are somehow put up as some alternate premier, I am really pleased that Sky have the foresight to run this debate,” Mr Bartlett said. In 2006, Lennon and then Liberal leader Rene Hidding refused to participate in a ABC hosted debate if the then Greens leader Peg Putt was included. As a result, the ABC cancelled the event. HERE.
Will any Tasmanian journalists play footsie with Bartlett?
In his announcement Bartlett stated that the debate would be moderated by Sky’s Political Editor, David Speers, and that “a panel of local journalists will also be involved in posing questions”. In the media release, Frangopoulos states that “the panel of local journalists would be selected by Mr Speers.” What expertise Speers has in Tasmanian affairs and why he should be selecting the panel is not immediately apparent. Indeed, in agreeing to host such a skewed event Sky News have resoundingly demonstrated why they aren’t an appropriate host for the debate.
Any Tasmanian journalist receiving such an invitation would do well to reject it.
The days of media outlets pretending that the Tasmanian Greens don’t exist are over. It is also worth noting that the debate organised in late 2009 by the Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and another by the Tasmanian Council of Social Service’s “Our Island Our Voices” campaign both included McKim. Hours before Bartlett’s media release, The Examiner announced HERE that it would host a debate between Bartlett, Hodgman and McKim, to discuss issues affecting northern Tasmania.
Clearly, any journalist participating in SKY News “leaders’ debate” as it is currently proposed would be knowingly legitimising a Bartlett-initiated stunt designed to marginalise a significant political force in Tasmanian politics. They would also be implicated in an event designed by one political leader to deny Tasmanian voters the opportunity to assess the Greens policies and McKim’s performance as leader.
If Bartlett is serious about restoring trust in democracy, he would be insisting that the Greens be included in all pre-election debates. After all, if his policies are so good, what is he worried about?
phill PARSONS is beyond salvation
February 8, 2010 at 09:45
Its not that Bartlett won’t debate McKim, it is that can’t.
I raise again the question when do the greens graduate to a major party.
They have policies on the full suite of government matters, they stand a fullteam of candidates and they record more than enough to be publicly funded.
It no longer a 2 horse race. 3 cornered contests are not uncommon throughout the democratic world.
Cannot the audience distinguish between more than 2 arguements. If so is the leaders debate simply cheap entertainment. if so it is a wonder the ABC does not have multi leader debates more often as it moves in that direction
Philip Lowe
February 8, 2010 at 10:03
There is a song for every occasion.
‘Chick chick chick chick chicken
lay a little egg for me’
No class on this one david(small ‘d’)
Dave Groves
February 8, 2010 at 10:26
A debate on SKY?
Terrific!
I’ll wander down to tha local…..rip the tops off a few frosties wif da boys and whack a coupla hungee frew da pokies….maybe a little KENO….or we might get caught up with some 8 ball……
….and hopefully forget about the debate….perhaps that is the plan????
Steve
February 8, 2010 at 10:32
The problem is that the only people who will be offended by this obvious ploy are already voting Green.
Bartlett knows this perfectly well, as did Lennon, so it doesn’t really matter what games they play, they won’t incur a penalty.
Bit poor of Sky to get involved though. There really is an obligation on the media to play it fair when it comes to elections.
Buck and Joan Emberg
February 8, 2010 at 11:01
An even worse problem here is that Will Hodgman did not say to Bartlett, “NO…not without all three parties participating in the debate.”
You missed a good one again Will. Get back to your plastic bags where you are obviously more comfortable.
Darren West
February 8, 2010 at 11:10
Given how these two people behave in parliament the event would be best described as a “mass-debate”…
alan taylor
February 8, 2010 at 12:28
with private polling showing that the labor party is only about 7% ahead of the greens, david barlett’s private gig with the murdoch media is a joke.
the polling (as outlined by sue neales in the mercury) means that nick mckim is only about 7-8% behind david bartlett in the ‘potential premier’ stakes.
what’s more, if the liberals fail to win government in their own right but outpoll labor on election day, they may be invited (by the governor) to form a coalition government with the greens. in such a situation there is at least the theoretical potential for nick mckim and the other green parliamentarians to be part of some accord government or coalition. this scenario is not new to tasmania.
this is still a democracy. a party forms government, not one person, and the public has a right to hear the views of the entire spectrum of potential government parties, albeit expressed by one representative.
michael polley, brian green and brenton best have less chance of being premier than nick mckim. are we to assume that david bartlett will not be speaking for them when he ‘debates’ on sky TV?
this move simply endorses david bartlett’s belief in executive government.
rather than justify his action by recourse to the spurious argument that nick mckim has ‘no chance of becoming premier’, david bartlett might well look to the possibility of himself not being premier after march 20 (or whenever) ~ and his party not being in government.
i notice that he hasn’t disqualified himself from the debate on the grounds that his own chances of being premier for much longer are looking slimmer by the day.
Bonni Hall
February 8, 2010 at 13:01
Only two people who are scared would go ahead and debate without the third. What a pair of weak-kneed individuals.
john hawkins
February 8, 2010 at 13:03
A streetwise and smart Hodgman, if he was not asked by Bartlett to paticipate until it was a done deal with Sky would have refused without Green participation.
This would have made everyone aware that backdoor, backflip, line in the sand Bartlett is not a proper chap and has absolutely no idea how to behave.
Hodgman would have welded on the Greens to a future Liberal minority government and proved his credentials as a gentleman and man of honour.
A golden opportunity wasted.
Bob McMahon
February 8, 2010 at 14:08
What a great opportunity for the Greens and their supporters, if they have the bottle, to invade the venue and give the dear leaders debate a taste of noisy democracy. It’s about time there was an injection of energy and righteous anger into the comatose state of Tasmanian party politics.
Dave
February 8, 2010 at 14:17
Phil,#1 you ask the rhetorical question of when will the Greens graduate to the status of a Major Party. The answer is so blindingly obvious that even a dead drovers dog would know the answer to your question. Simple: when they get enough votes from the public accepting of them as such. Until that time it won’t happen.
Ahm just two other points in reference to your comments. Firstly, I think the answer is quite simple, if the Greens can’t form government, than actually why should they be included in a debate. Secondly, seriously who gives a toss re political debates. It is just another form of question time in the House. And that is dead boring !! Thirdly, it is not the ABC but to be shown on Sky (payTV), so and unless you watch such crap TV, no one is going to even see it, so once again why bother worrying about it.
Does it look petty on behalf of Bartlett to discount McKim, yes probably, but I suppose it is his call as the current Premier. Ditto re for Will in accepting to debate him. I guess from their perspective it is a matter of trying to maintain the status quo. So a usual two horse race rather than a possible 3 horse race.
I for one am not hot and bothered about this all, since I reckon all the pollies/parties of any colour stink. Informal is sounding pretty good to me this year !!
john Hayward
February 8, 2010 at 15:10
The nation’s pubs are expected be packed for this Super-Lightweight elimination bout. Mainland interest will focus on the fact that both fighters share the same manager, J Gay, and are expected to start from the same corner.
A third contender has been ruled out, reportedly for being substantially over the weight limit.
Tickets are already being scalped for up to 1/3 of an FEA share.
John Hayward
Concerned Resident
February 8, 2010 at 15:18
Bartlett is afraid that Nick McKim will be smarter than him, which, judging by the way bartlett ignores the voice of the majority of people, would not be all that hard. He is so arrogant to think that this a two horse race…let me make it plain to him that there are three running…and I hope the one he and Will Hodgman choose to ignore puts them all in their place.
Claire Gilmour (endorsed Greens Candidate for Brad
February 8, 2010 at 17:54
As much as much the accompanying picture shows Bartlett trying to thrust out his weak little chin, obviously he’s not prepared to challenge real men, but simply wants to backdoor what he clearly considers to be his weakest opponent.
Let’s face it Bartlett was the last resort for Labor, and now after all the embarrassment Labor has caused Tasmania, he just wants to go and prove to the rest of Australia just how inept he and his Labor government have been for the state of Tasmania.
Have Labor got their damage control department ready? Because very likely they’ll need it!
Andy O'Brien
February 8, 2010 at 19:03
Emily #7 – well played!
Mike Adams
February 8, 2010 at 19:50
Once again, Hodgman goes along with Bartlett. Follow my leader stuff despite the expensive ads.
Philip Lowe
February 8, 2010 at 20:03
Darren West-what a cracker of a one liner.
Marrette Corby
February 8, 2010 at 20:22
Dear Editor
How dare our Premier Mr Bartlet ignore a significant proportion of the Tasmanian population who he is supposed to represent. By refusing to engage with the Green’s leader in the televised election debate he is effectively forgetting, or choosing to ignore, a significant part of Tasmania. Whether or not he agrees or disagrees with the policy of the Green’s is not the issue, rather he should not dismiss an important part of the Tasmanian population and political scene.
Yours faithfully
Ms Marrette Corby
John Day
February 8, 2010 at 21:26
Skynews News Cheif is Angelos Frangopoulos. His email address is [email protected] .
I will be emailing my thoughts on his stations devisive action of allowing a debate excluding Nick McKim.
Could you do the same – and pass on the email address to everybody you know.
Regards John Day
Dave
February 9, 2010 at 19:50
Posting #8 So am I correct to say the author of this posting has access to the secret ALP polling? If u do please, please post on TT.
alan taylor
February 10, 2010 at 00:13
in response to post # 23:
the results of the polling done by EMRS was distributed to all parties in tasmania. this is tasmania. like the meander dam, it leaks like a sieve. the main section of it ~ consisting of the broad reaction to the parties and the leaders, and the way the respondents would vote at the next state election ~ is fairly common knowledge around the traps. the issues specific to each party’s interests was only given to the party involved.
not only that, the rough figures have been published in an article by sue neales in the mercury. they’re no big secret.
[as i said in my post: “the polling (as outlined by sue neales in the mercury) means that nick mckim is only about 7-8% behind david bartlett in the ‘potential premier’ stakes.”]
the survey done for all parties by EMRS is conducted online. the sample is 1000 voters. the undecided vote in this poll was 20%.
EMRS is a private polling company and is used regularly by tasmanian political parties and interest groups.
for instance, “Our Island, Our Voices” commissioned a poll through EMRS last november on the issues that will be important to tasmanians in the forthcoming state election.
as the site says, the results of that polling were used to advise political parties and candidates on the important issues, as respondents saw them, in deciding how they will vote in March.
the results of that survey are being progressively released to the public via the internet on:
http://www.ourisland.tascoss.org.au/Resources/OurIslandOurVoicesEMRSPolling/tabid/108/Default.aspx
there is no conspiracy to keep any of the results secret. any good political analyst would have been aware of it.
sanguine
February 12, 2010 at 20:32
agree with 25 – thank you #14 for a good laugh!
William Boeder
March 14, 2010 at 04:49
So we see that Barty backdoor chose a stacked deck of cards as now so placed at the beginning of this much trumpeted debate, be thus meant to incorporate this meaningful precipitate intent, as so then guiltily rigged toward this fraudulent purpose and action, of a 3 person only debate?
Or could it also even suggest a duplicit intent right from the get-go beginning, by overwhelming the prospect entirely in the advent of a good clean political debate between 2 only of the 3 parties representing Tasmania?