Tasmanian Times


McKim ponders Bartlett ministerial offer

Greens Leader Nick McKim MP this evening confirmed that he has received a letter from Premier David Bartlett inviting him to be a Minister.

Mr McKim said that he will respond in due course after consultation with his Party Room colleagues.

Reports HERE: Take your pick …

Mark’s view: HERE

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


  1. William Boeder

    April 21, 2010 at 10:34 am

    You could be right on the mark here Steven, nothing else seems to alter the tyranny of this present government?

  2. Gerry Mander

    April 20, 2010 at 12:35 pm

    #26. Sorry Steven, I cannot help your failure to understand the simplest of wit. I generally dislike having to explain, but since you do not understand, it is a simple exponential of the Peter Principle: ‘Jobs expand to meet pollies available’!

  3. Steve

    April 17, 2010 at 3:38 pm

    It’s interesting that, when you read all the comments on this subject, that there appears to be an underlying assumption that any portfolio that the Greens take on will be handled far better than if a Labor minister takes it on.
    I suspect that this assumption is starting to run through the electorate. Many may hate the Greens, some with reason, some from habit, but everyone is starting to look at the Greens as virtually the only competent people in politics.
    Bit of an indictment on the major parties.

  4. William Boeder

    April 17, 2010 at 12:21 am

    Fair to say that Nick McKim has shown his astuteness by not falling for the ‘3 card trick’ that David Barlett’s backroom scorpions had intended for himself and or the Greens Party.
    There are not many trustworthy Labor ministers in this State, judging by what is printed in the news dailies in Tasmania.

    Tis a fool that would accept any plot being hatched out by their Doctor Moriarty and the string-pullers in Tas Labor!

  5. Realist

    April 17, 2010 at 12:07 am

    I think that this an opportunity for the Greens to take on a Ministry that includes food, agrisculture and the environment. For too long, these have lagged far far behind forestry in terms of environmental management (particualrly herbicides) stream side management, heritage management (particularly aboriginal), landscape management and neighbour notification and consulation, to name just a few.

    While we are quick to bag Forestry, I have come to the conclusion that it is in fact a massively better manager of the environment than agriculture and forestry (let’s just ignore the natice forest harvesting issue for now, although I have also come to the conclusion that the myriad of harvesting coupes across the landscape acttually increases biodiversity due to the mtulitude different feeding and breeding ecosystems that are produced).

    I think that the only reason it is bagged so much is due to the fact that we do know so much about it, and when you take into account the mistakes that are highlighted, the reality is that they are few and far between, when compared to other industries … it just seems awful because we KNOW about the ones in forestry, but my experience in agriculture and cropping is that they are scary with what goes on.

    I also beleive that the significant improvements that have been made over the last few years is due to the Forest Practices Code becoming mandatory to follow, and also simply because we have been able to see what has been happening.


  6. Paul de Burgh-Day

    April 16, 2010 at 7:27 pm

    Do I smell a very dirty sewer rat here.
    Too clever by half to take on The Greens leader, and to have him sworn to silence (cabinet confidentially) on anything that matters.

    His team are surely not likely to buy that?

    I can see how long such a relationship would last!

    Right on Maddie!

    Nick is, I am sure, being VERY, VERY CAREFUL!

  7. Bob McMahon

    April 16, 2010 at 5:03 pm

    Two months without government = two months without chaos. Once parliament resumes we can expect an avalanche of chaos. I’m going to Iceland. Nick McKim might like to come with me.

  8. mike seabrook

    April 16, 2010 at 3:34 pm

    if the greens accept, will the mercury headline on monday be



  9. Casey

    April 16, 2010 at 3:16 pm

    #3, I agree… BE VERY CAREFUL.

    Many members of this ‘government’ used descriptors and insults, vehemenently delivered, meant to wound both personally and politically.

    Nothing has changed – you are still a usurper at the gates in their eyes, despite the honeyed words of Australia’s luckiest Premier.

    Be Careful. Refrain from being bound. I think you serve Greens supporters more by arguing every bit of legislation on the floor, not in the hidden cabinet.


  10. Geraldine Allan

    April 16, 2010 at 3:14 pm

    #5. Sam don’t you get it?

    Nick McKim may be about to join the Government so that during the next 4 years there will be no corruption. Morals and standards will noticeably improve in this new era of “power” as you call it.

    I think you need to toss those sour grapes in the bin

  11. roger

    April 16, 2010 at 3:07 pm

    Kim should get Forestry and Police portfolios, the two most corrupt areas in Tassie

  12. mike seabrook

    April 16, 2010 at 2:59 pm

    nick the green, accepts the judas escariat offer of 20 pieces of silver and takes the ministry of primary industry and is then known as the minister for foxes and goes into the labor hen house.

    if he has bob brown as his advisr, can’t wait to see the feathers fly- it’ll be a spectacle.

    where is the public apology to nick’s cook, who the labor party took malicious cheap shots at – nick must be sick of the baked beans diet by now

  13. Rob

    April 16, 2010 at 2:00 pm

    I reckon he should accept Premier

  14. Pete Godfrey

    April 16, 2010 at 1:30 pm

    I suggest that as he got more votes than Barty he should be Premier. Cassy should be deputy as she topped her electorate and Kim Booth is the most qualified to take on Forestry, with Tim Morris who also topped his electorate to take on Parks, infrastructure and local government.
    That should do the job.

  15. Tom Torquemada

    April 16, 2010 at 1:23 pm

    Speculation only, but I would suggest that the Greens have been offered a less contentious portfolio that Labor can also agree on.
    It may be Police and Emergency Services, Tourism, Sport & Recreation. It will not be a divisive portfolio that has skeletons in cupboards.

    Sam,#5, How can change be effected if it doesn’t come from within?

  16. bob hawkins

    April 16, 2010 at 1:10 pm

    Nick McKim should remember Meg Lees and the Democrats . You don’t do deals with the devil. — Bob Hawkins

  17. james Williamson

    April 16, 2010 at 1:09 pm

    I would like to see Nick Mckim with the “Gaming” portfolio and see how far he can take the Anti-poker machine policies that the Greens took to the last election, which in my opinion cost Andrew Wilkie a seat.

  18. Gerry Mander

    April 16, 2010 at 12:31 pm

    #7. So,what do 42 portfolios compared with 28 indicate?

    They’ve got a lot more pollies in WA.

  19. David

    April 16, 2010 at 12:16 pm

    For what it’s worth, I would plead that Nick McKim does not take up Bartlett’s invitation and wait & see awhile.

    Intuitively I have a negative feeling about this ‘deal’ that Bartlett dares not speak it’s name!

    The disadvantages must be considered very carefully – for good of the elected 5 Tasmanian Greens’ solidarity and for their 21% Tasmanian constituents.

    To have one ‘non-PLP member’ in the Labor minority Ministry who is not acknowledged – by Bartlett – for any thing other than his ability, his experience, blah, blah …and NOT for his election as a Tasmanian Greens parliamentarian & that voter-base is disingenuous.

    Who is “the wolf is sheeps’ clothing”?

    David Bartlett is pandering to Nick’s ego rather too much; and political egos are easily captured by such charlatan tactics.

    Think of the political power dilemmas of likes of Peter Garrett or Cheryl Kernot. The Greens have little to gain and considerable to lose by Labors’attempt to gobble up a singleton Green.

    Think about it carefully, Nick.

    DON’T DO IT, NICK….please!

  20. Gerry Mander

    April 16, 2010 at 2:58 am

    I suppose he could accept Treasury?

  21. Brian

    April 16, 2010 at 2:11 am

    So Bartlett wants to build trust with another aligned political party. It’s a pity he has quickly forgotten that he must have trust with the electorate who vote. Up to polling day he was quoted as saying “he won’t do a deal with the Greens to form government”


    Get the team ready Will, it won’t be long now !

  22. Sam

    April 16, 2010 at 2:02 am

    So McKim is about to join the Government that he’s spent the last 4 yrs calling corrupt. How morals and standards wuickly slip for power !

  23. cobber

    April 16, 2010 at 1:37 am


  24. Water Wizard

    April 16, 2010 at 12:01 am

    The Greens should take on Primary Industries, Water Resources & Forestry.

    FEA is gone, Gunns is in difficulty.
    Many rivers and water catchments are polluted.
    Fox mirages are hunted and baited but not killed.

    The Greens have complained and run on primary industry issues for many years. Talk is cheap. Solutions must be found that do not lead to insolvency of businesses but are environmentally friendly. This is their chance to put up or shut up.

To Top