Tasmanian Times

The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. No price is too high for the privilege of owning yourself. ~ Friedrich Nietzsche

The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. No price is too high for the privilege of owning yourself. ~ Friedrich Nietzsche

John Hawkins

Abetz and Channel Highway Land Deals

This is an account of property dealings in the past decade of one of Australia’s most powerful political figures, Senator for Tasmania, Erich Abetz. It is a factual account of the dealings of Senator Abetz while representing Tasmania in the Senate. I became aware of Senator Abetz’s property dealings during the process of preparing my Petition to the Court of Disputed Returns for I had cause to check the residential address provided by Senator Abetz on his nomination forms for the 1998 and 2004 Senate elections. The Senate requires all Senators to maintain a “Statement of Registrable Interests”. This is kept at the Senate in Parliament House, Canberra. There are questions the Senator should clarify, in the public interest. For example the sale of one property raises questions about the declared profit, compared to an apparent actual profit. Was the full extent of the capital gain declared to the Australian Tax Office? It is vital Australians have complete faith in their elected representatives. Below are the facts regarding some of Senator Abetz’s property dealings over the past decade.

Mr Robert Rockefeller is a well connected Tasmanian businessman with an extensive Australian business background.

He graduated from Melbourne University with a Bachelor of Laws degree and a Bachelor of Commerce degree with majors in Accounting and Economics and was admitted to the Supreme Court of Victoria as a Barrister and Solicitor.

Mr Rockefeller is a shareholder in the Antarctic Division headquarters, (Lot 203 on Document 1), at 203 Channel Highway, Kingston, purchased for $10,188,182 through one of his company’s, AAD Nominees Pty Ltd, on 21 December 2001 from the Commonwealth Government, then led by Prime Minister Howard, a Government in which Senator Erich Abetz was Special Minister of State.

Mr Rockefeller through his company AAD Nominees Pty Ltd has applied to Kingborough Council to build a shopping centre, car park and other facilities on the adjoining block of land with Channel Highway street numbers 163, 167, 191 and a section of 203 (Document 1).

Kingborough Councillors have recently knocked back the Development Application (Document 2) which had been approved by the Planning Department of the Council. Two of these lots, 191 and 167 have an interesting recent history, of which I became aware as a result of checking the residential address provided by Senator Abetz on his nomination forms for the 1998 and 2004 Senate elections.

Lot 191 (191 Channel Highway) appears to have been owned by Senator & Mrs Abetz and was their family home. The land area was 0.6206 hectares and on it stood a weatherboard house with an imitation tile roof with six main rooms built circa 1910. The property was acquired prior to the introduction of Capital Gains Tax (CGT) so was free of CGT when the Abetz family decided to sell.

An adjoining block, Lot 167 comprising some 3.894 hectares or approximately 10 acres, was purchased by E and MA Abetz from the Tasmanian State Government on 1 June 2000. Lot 167 was purchased for $100,000. The purchase price was $20,000 less than the Government capital valuation price (Cap) and I can find no trace of it ever being put out to tender.

Senator & Mrs Abetz were lucky with the rezoning of their land as a result of the completely new Kingborough Planning Scheme introduced in 2000. The Kingborough Council prepared a Report for an Amendment to its Planning Scheme, and the matter was referred to the Resource Planning and Development Commission (RPDC). Lots 163, 167, and part of 203 were rezoned from Residential to Business and Civic in March 2005. (Document 3)

The RPDC archives provide a good background to the matter but do not show who applied for the change of use. The Council Planning Officer, Andrew Goodsell, for some reason incorrectly describes the Abetz land as “167 Channel Highway in two titles (owner E Abetz) ….includes a small title of .3662 ha incorporating the house Lynden Rise” he continues and places emphasis on Lot 167 thus, “Of these lots it is this rear lot of 167 Channel Highway that potentially has the most potential, providing potential for facilities and services that interconnect with those of the Antarctic Division site”.

Interestingly Goodsell in this application reduces the land area of title 191 which gets no mention, only the house is named.

Lot 163, the adjoining house block on a larger land area 0.8232 hectares, had been purchased prior to the RPDC’s agreement to rezone from a Mrs V Wiseman on 10 December 2004 for $565,000 by AAD Nominees Pty Ltd. The Government valuation in 2004 (Cap) was $208,000 (the house was built in 1968). The Capital Value as of 1 March 2009 is $670,000 with a land value of $490,000.

Lot 203 was subdivided from the Antarctic Division block already owned by AAD Nominees Pty Ltd.

In summary therefore the blocks owned by Senator & Mrs Abetz Lots 191 (although not specified) and 167 were attached to 163 and 203 then owned by AAD Nominees Pty Ltd for the purposes of a rezoning in an application referred to the RPDC for approval.

Following approval by the RPDC on 24 Feb 2005, Senator & Mrs Abetz immediately sold 191 and 167, with completion on 18 July 2005, to AAD Nominees Pty Ltd for $1.9m with Abetz apportioning $1.5m to the family home, 191 Channel Highway, and $400,000 to Lot 167, the 10 acres purchased from the State Government for $100,000. It should be noted that the Abetz name does not feature on the Title to Lot 191 in this transfer; why?

Since the purchase, AAD Nominees Pty Ltd has obtained two reductions in the rated value on Lot 191 – the Abetz family home, now a land value of $430,000 and a capital value of $840,000. In a rarity for Kingston this loss of value over the past five years, must put a question mark over the assigned value of the Abetz residence in 2005.

Is it a case of Lot 191 having been overvalued by Abetz? This would reduce his capital gains tax liability on the adjoining 10 acre land Lot 167. Perhaps Abetz can elucidate further.

The Senate requires all Senators to maintain a “Statement of Registrable Interests”. This is kept at the Senate in Parliament House, Canberra.

Regarding real estate, the Register requires that the suburb or area is provided and makes a distinction between residential and investment property, and whether the property is used as a residence, as a holiday home, as a farm, or is held for investment or other business purposes. For all purchases or disposals of real estate, the date of settlement is to be considered the date of alteration of interests and notification should be made within 28 days of that date.

Senator Abetz’s information in his Statement of Registrable Interests for each of his terms of office reveals, in part, his real estate interests. The 1994 Register, his first in Parliament, gives his only property as ”Kingston Tasmania Residence”; in an alteration to Senators’ Interests (Document 4) he cancels his loans but he makes this addition to his interests, “Consultant to Abetz & Co in association with Shields Heritage”.

He declares the purchase of two investment properties at Gagebrook in 1995 and 77 Beach Road Kingston – a block of four units or flats overlooking the golf course – in 1998, with a sale in 1999.

There is no mention on the Register of Assets of the separate purchase from the State Government of Tasmania of Lot 167, yet he informed the Register: “My wife and I have contracted to purchase land adjacent to our residence through a nominee” possibly the Abetz Family Trust on 14 Feb 2000. He later confirmed the purchase but in joint names (Document 5) on 5 June 2000, with no mention of investment that would turn out to be financially beneficial. Eighteen months later, in Dec 2002, still no mention, but he informs the Register that he has paid out the loan.

Someone must have been looking into Erich’s affairs, for his former legal office Abetz Curtis at 83 Davey Street was the subject of Documents 6 and 7. It may be that Gagebrook, Beach Road and Davey Street should be subject to audit if a check is to be run over 167 and 191 Channel Highway.

The acquisition of 10 acres of land, Lot 167 Channel Highway, from the Tasmanian State Government, followed by rezoning from Residential to Business and Civic, must turn this transaction to a “property held for investment” and as such it becomes very much a “Registrable Interest.” This property as 167 Channel Highway has never been declared as either a purchase or sale to the Senate of Australia.

Abetz still gives, “Kingston Residence” as his only property even after 167 and 191 are sold with completion, 18 July 2005, yet he has to inform the Register within 28 days of sale. I ask why the delay? The sale was declared as Residential on 3/Jan/2006 (Document 8)

The sale of Lot 167 within five years, at a declared profit of $300,000 – but arguably an actual profit of approximately $1.3m – makes this a very good investment indeed. If this is so the capital gain is in excess of $1m and the Capital Gains Tax unpaid would be in excess of $200,000.

This begs the question, why did the Tasmanian Government not arrange itself for the rezoning in conjunction with the developer, so as to benefit the people of Tasmania rather than a well-connected Senator?

Download: Documents_1-8.pdf

• Document 1 Layout of land Titles used in this Document
• Document 2 Overlay of proposed Shopping centre and Car Park.
• Document 3 The Kingborough Council Planning Scheme 2000, Amendment A1
with no Lot 191
• Document 4 14 July 1994, Alteration to assets
• Document 5 5 June 2000, purchase of 167 land Channel Highway
• Document 6 Letter 17 Nov 2003, over discovery of lost property
• Document 7 Sale of ‘lost’ property, 2 February 2004
• Document 8 Alteration of Interests 3 January 2006, sale of 196 & 197 with no distinction drawn between Residence and Investment

First published: 2010-09-09 08:01 AM

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


  1. William Boeder

    December 30, 2012 at 2:29 pm

    A striking coincidence with the re-publication of this Abetz article, for it coincided with my completion of a rather scathing letter addressed to this very same Senator ‘on behalf of the Tasmanian people’ only this last Friday evening.

    The reasons for doing so are in relation to both the John Winston Howard era scandals involving the profligate expenditure of an enormous amount of taxpayer Millions of dollars delivered to the Iraqi government during the Iraq war, which became known as the AWB scandal, then to the scandal within the RBA/Securency partnership and to the unlawful methods used by them in their procurement of overseas Bank-note printing contracts.

    Included with this letter were references to the real-estate transactions engaged in by this Senator, then of his radical ranting support given to the MIS travesty that has cost this State countless millions of dollars and ruined the financial futures of a great many Tasmanian farmers along with many others.
    Among those many other losers were those whereby the accumulative monies of many individual fund members were unknowingly expended by a large number of Superannuation Fund Trustees, who we find were so easily encouraged to participate in this giant taxpayer funded scam and rort program.

    Should my letter be replied to by this State’s anti-the-people Senator Eric Abetz I may be able to hint to the whys and wherefores as to these engagements by the Federal Liberal Party (now fittingly located upon the opposition benches,) then to the unique part played by Senator Eric Abetz in pursuing his own purposes while he was busily advocating the values of the MIS skunkery, then to his own questionable engagement in an untoward personal real-estate transaction during this Senator’s earlier time in office, when he was supposedly elected to perform his offices solely for the benefit of all Australians.

    The history of this religious-zealot and extreme right wing leaning Eric Abetz should provide some extraordinary insight into what makes this Senator become so intolerably objective and so acutely disfavored by the people of Australia.

  2. William Boeder

    October 7, 2012 at 3:30 pm

    #39. Ian Lawrence might I add that this Abetz twister plays a major role in his own diocese (of whatever christian faith,) he is also quite kind in his concerns for the Exclusive Brethren.

    Now as to this Senator and that highly profitable indulgence of his in that memorable real-estate transaction out Kingston way.

    Accordingly this Senator Abetz being of such a strong christian faith will profess this fortunate real-estate transaction to be a kindly gracious act of him upstairs.

    Yet this less than respectful Senator has not repented his overlording engagement and advisory involvement in the MIS scammery and to that which was to overtake sound common sense and due diligence in Tasmania, this that has had such a woefully damaging impact on the lives of many aggrieved or rorted Tasmanian farmers and upon the economical State of Tasmania itself?

    What’s more that by deft use of his desk calculator he would be able to calculate the numbers required by his good christian self to retain his Senatorial seat.

  3. Ian Lawrence

    August 7, 2012 at 12:39 pm

    Its sad to see so many religious people who have so much hate, if I was a Christian I would be so ashamed.

  4. John Maddock

    March 18, 2012 at 11:54 am

    Maggie #37

    Sorry, I don’t have any titles to scan, but I think there were some documents put up when this thread was current.

    If not, one of the earlier posters might have more info. Hopefully they will have received email notification of new posts.


  5. Maggie

    March 18, 2012 at 9:43 am

    It is an interesting story. Is there any chance the author could scan the titles and place them on the site?

    This would provide a more precise view of what happened.

  6. John Maddock

    March 17, 2012 at 11:33 am

    Interesting that this thread should come back to life at this time.

    I noticed last week that the house at Linden Rise, owned by the Rockefeller business and on the land he proposed as a new shopping centre (killed by the Supreme Court I believe) has now been demolished.

    As I remember when I was last there a couple of years ago, it had been let go to some extent, but with a shortage of rental housing in Kingston, and all but next door to the AAD which is frequently looking for accomodation for staff and visiting scientists, I’d have thought it was a good rental opportunity until the proposed shopping centre gets another turn.

    With maybe a hectare or more of vacant land behind the now demolished house, I doubt that the land was required for expansion of the AAD.

    We shall see, i due course, I expect.


  7. Maggie

    March 17, 2012 at 1:45 am

    The most fascinating thing is that Eric Abetz says on 18th November 2003 that he was still a registered proprietor of 83 Davy Street, Hobart despite sending a transfer divesting himself of “all and any interest” in the land about February 1994.

    In other words the property ownership was in limbo for 9 years.

    He said he had received no income from the property “nor paid any monies in relation to the property”

    I had a similar problem with a transfer that did not go through. However the problem only lasted for about four years not nine. I was actually paying rates on a property that had not been transferred to me.

    This letter supports an argument I put in an application for leave to appeal to the High Court that people in Tasmania can actually own a lot more land than they think they do because of problematic land transfer processes.

    This argument was dismissed yet clearly it is right as Abetz still has his name on a title to a big hunk of prime CBD real estate some 9 years after signing a transfer. It other words he has whole lot more property in his name than he realised.

    The question I would like answered is who was paying the rates on the property for those nine years as technically you have to have a notice of transfer to start the new rates operating for the new owner.

    Thank you for this article I may not start a whole new court case based on it but it does prove that I was right.

  8. JD

    September 18, 2010 at 2:55 am

    Re the Lynden Rise property, to build a shopping center on it, it is on old swamp land as is the AAD. The water table is just 3-4 feet down, after 20 years the building like the ADD will have issues/movement.

  9. Christopher Purcell

    September 18, 2010 at 1:08 am

    anon, I don’t think John was talking about the small round-about at the entrance to the shopping precinct that the developer is rightly paying for as it only gives access to his development. Instead, I’m pretty sure he was referring to the large round-about at the junction of Algona Road, Huntingfield Drive & the Channel Highway, fully paid for by the taxpayer. This round-about has led to a lot of speculation by people from the Channel as nobody can see why ALL South bound traffic has to veer left from the bypass, simply to go around this round-about in front of the Antarctic Centre/proposed shopping centre. Surely a Southbound left exit lane would have sufficed to allow traffic to get to the existing Algona Road/Huntingfield round-about & an underpass built into the new embankment on the bypass would have allowed traffic from the existing Algona Road/Huntingfield round-about to enter onto the new bypass in order to travel North. Instead, the problem of the existing Summerleas Road/Channel Highway round-about will be relocated South to the new beaut, super round-about beside the Antarctic Centre/proposed shopping development. Perhaps you anon, could explain this mystery. Here’s a link to the Kingston Bypass proposal for anyone else that is ninterested.


    As to the proposed shopping development negatively affecting the economics of the existing enterprises that RR owns in Kingston, such as Kingston Plaza, then why build it? Philanthropy? Surely RR & Nekon aren’t socialists, are they? Building new shopping precincts out of the goodness of their hearts perhaps? I’m sure that if the proposed development negatively affected RR’s other Kingston enterprises enough, he wouldn’t proceed.

    Exactly who are the other players? Are they connected with the 1000 plus housing development that is going in at the South end of Huntingfield, or is that RR as well?

  10. anon

    September 14, 2010 at 5:48 pm

    I think you are imagining conspiracies when you add the Kingston By-pass into this equation. RR and Nekon would have come to this site prior to the allocation of any money for construction of the by-pass. Indeed the other enterprises that RR owns in Kingston like Kingston Plaza (Coles) will be negatively affected by this by-pass and construction at the AAD site.
    Too much mud is being thrown with little knowledge of Economic behaviour and the other players.
    It is on the Council record as to the traffic flows and if anybody bothered to look they would notice a large roundabout at the junction of the proposed development that is wholly paid for by the developer. Contain yourselves to fact not rumour.

  11. John Maddock

    September 12, 2010 at 11:59 pm

    #30 John

    No, not necessarily.

    The Kingston Bypass was planned in the early 1970s, and the state gov. has been acquiring land as it became available since then e.g. the section north of Spring Farm Rd at about the time Alan Trethewey sold Spring Farm about 20 years ago.

    The link from the proposed roundabout at Rockefeller’s proposed development to Summerleas Rd has come much later, as I understand.

    On the other hand, someone in the Rockefeller organisation has been very astute in selecting their acquisition sites. The proposed Coles supermarket, Shell fuel outlet & other shops will have the market catchment from Blackmans Bay, Bruny and all of the Channel directed thru a major roundabout very close by. In addition, Huon traffic can be captured via the Summerleas link road.

    If staff at the AAD move to the proposed Hobart waterfront development, the adjacent AAD site would be available for shopping expansion, making this expanded site a potential rival for Kingston Central as a shopper magnet.

  12. John Ward

    September 12, 2010 at 5:32 pm

    So are all these linkages showing us why the Kingston By-Pass at $42 mill, starts at the fork in the road round about, and a potential new shopping and housing development?

  13. Steve

    September 12, 2010 at 1:53 pm

    Could it be that Lot 167 is out of sequence because it’s a left over from an earlier subdivision? The small blocks adjoining it probably formed 166 before it was chopped up, or they might have been a part of a larger 167.
    The numbers of the lots reflects their date of creation, rather than their sequential location.

  14. Marcus

    September 11, 2010 at 11:19 pm

    Thanks very much for your diligent research John. Tasmanians will thank you if your efforts result in our seasoned policitian Eric Abetz being brought to account publicly. Democracy in Tasmania needs justice, transparently administered.

  15. Philip Lowe

    September 10, 2010 at 5:03 pm

    ‘ello,’ello,’ello.What’s goin’ on ‘ere then eh?

  16. Paul

    September 10, 2010 at 3:10 pm

    Getting pretty damn tired of these rants from this (Anonymous Personal Abuse Deleted)

  17. Ken White

    September 10, 2010 at 2:29 pm

    The unloved, unwanted by many, Kingston ByPass is delivering an off ramp right to Eric’s or Rockefeller’s land next to the Antarctic Centre.

    Without the off ramp this land would be ‘marginal.’

    This amounts to a $43.5 million subsidy if you get my drift.

    Hurrah for the now mainstream electronic print media. Hurrah for John.

  18. john hawkins

    September 10, 2010 at 3:01 am

    #23 John for reasons best known to Abetz it would appear that the Residential title to 191 was never included in the rezoning at the RPDC hearing 2004/2005; this may now provide grounds to test the legality of the Zoning of the shopping centre.

    The Land Title was transferred as “R1 ….C684518 TRANSFER to AAD Nominees PTY LTD” but from whom is not stated; I ask why and how is this possible?

    # 18.Why indeed does the title to 167 appear out of sequence; who gave it this number and why the concentration on its importance by the Planner. Abetz as a lawyer will I am sure be able to provide an explanation.

    Those who have closely followed this thread will, I suggest, be able to work out a possible scenario for all these moves in the game of monopoly that is being played here. I suggest that the clue is that 167 is correctly transferred by “E ABETZ, MA ABETZ TO AAD NOMINEES PTY LTD”.

  19. John Maddock

    September 9, 2010 at 10:09 pm

    And why is the RMPAT hearing against the Kingborough Council by Mr. Rockerfeller in relation to the development of the land which is the subject of these questions to be held in camera?

  20. Daniel

    September 9, 2010 at 9:08 pm

    Interesting work John. Thank god you are still on the case. Loved the rottweiler reference milko.

    Any chance this little gem will be picked up by the mainstream press?
    Also, is it usual that the owner (poor erich) provides his own valuations to the tax office in the event of determining capital gain?
    Must be the only property in Tasmania that reduced in value to this extent during that time.

  21. john hawkins

    September 9, 2010 at 6:24 pm

    #16 Bacon was Premier and Lennon was Minister for Infrastructure Energy and Resources, Minister for Racing and Gaming and Deputy Premier so the sale of land title 167 the property of the Tasmanian Department of the Environment and Land Management may have come under his remit.

  22. John Ward

    September 9, 2010 at 3:18 pm

    Eric basks in the ‘magnificent equality of the law’, that forbids both the rich, and the poor, to sleep in the gutter, or to spit on the street.

  23. phill Parsons

    September 9, 2010 at 2:53 pm

    #16. Bacon did not sell the land directly to this LibLab character writ large. Hayward [incl #14]describes the process that has developed and Obendorf in #17 gives its underpinning philosophy.

  24. John

    September 9, 2010 at 1:53 pm

    Why does lot 167 appear between 191 and 203 in Doc 1? Has that been drawn in with crayon?

    In doc 8, Abetz requests the deletion of “Kingston Residence” and declares a “Blackmans Bay Residence” to the Registrar.

    At a glance, it seems legit to me…

  25. David Obendorf

    September 9, 2010 at 4:07 am

    Spot on John Hayward [comment #13] – Erich Abetz would see his financial windfalls as a mere product of legal acumen and sheer intelligence!

    “The law grinds the poor, because rich men make the law.” Isn’t that right, Senator?

  26. davies

    September 9, 2010 at 3:26 am

    Love the research. It’s this sort of article that puts TT well ahead of the competition. Perhaps the Mercury will have a scoop in a week’s time!

    However, I am confused on timings. The land was bought in Feb 2000 which means Bacon was Premier. What possible reason could he have to help out Abetz? Mind you, he did sell 1 Collins St for $100k without any tender process.

    Anyway, back to this case. We can add ‘creative’ accounting to ‘creative’ form writing. You could examine the possibility that he holds a current German passport…

  27. R Menzies

    September 9, 2010 at 1:48 am

    Did this overpayment give Rockefeller access to the Federal Cabinet via Eric and could this constitute an evasion of tax? Shame on you Eric to even allow the taint of suspicion, no wonder the Federal Liberals are down to 4 members. Its all your fault, siding with the christians and talking like a fascist is so last century. Eric, go away …

  28. john hayward

    September 9, 2010 at 12:28 am

    This is a very uplifting story even without delving into the inspiring tale of how a poor lawyer/polly manages to have his properties selectively rezoned in such a rewarding manner. Such visionaries often have little time for the humdrum of tax returns and asset disclosures.

    This exemplifies the hard work that Eric and his mates exhort us all to make if we wish to enjoy the same good life as they do.

    John Hayward

  29. salamander

    September 9, 2010 at 12:03 am

    This sounds like enough to need answers from Abetz – but the questions need to be asked by someone he finds worth responding to, with full and proper answers.

  30. John Ward

    September 8, 2010 at 10:20 pm

    Eric has difficulty covering his arse, because he is simultaneously and endlessly talking out of it.

  31. Dobimin

    September 8, 2010 at 9:37 pm

    I’m sure the ATO would be extremely interested in following up John Hawkins’ findings 🙂


  32. phill Parsons

    September 8, 2010 at 8:57 pm

    On the face of it Hawkins appears to show that the Senator appears to have enetered into arrangments that stretch the code of conduct beyond the limit.

  33. MIchael Christie

    September 8, 2010 at 7:55 pm

    Great journalism, John. While the Canberra Press go into hyperbolic hissy-fit mode, someone is doing some good ol’ fashioned investigation and asking questions that Senator Abetz needs to answer.

  34. Jack Nimble

    September 8, 2010 at 7:45 pm

    Great work John Hawkins. I can’t wait for the day you…

  35. Steve

    September 8, 2010 at 7:30 pm

    Interesting stuff John. What seems to come through very clearly with every Hawkins update is that this senator seems to have a very casual regard for all the legal stuff surrounding his position. Quite surprising for someone with legal training.
    I wonder if all the senators have such a relaxed approach to these matters?
    These land dealings seem to be cutting it a bit fine and one would have thought, assuming all to be above board, that he would have been meticulous in ensuring that the registry of interests was fully up to date, with as much detail as possible, just to avoid any uncharitable interpretations further down the track. Seemingly not.

  36. Justa Bloke

    September 8, 2010 at 5:04 pm

    As perhaps the most successful politician ever in Australia at State level, Sir Johannes Bjelke-Petersen, once famously said: …

    Surely it is bordering on seditious to attack someone in as exalted position as Eddie Betts’s older sister.

  37. Concerned Resident

    September 8, 2010 at 4:57 pm

    Keep up the delving John Hawkins…It would be great to see just one of these …. bastards brought down.

  38. Pete Godfrey

    September 8, 2010 at 4:16 pm

    It appears that Mr Hawkins is not from Tasmania. He doesn’t seem to understand how Looking after our Mates works.
    Surely Mr Hawkins is aware the the tenure of a politician is on fairly shaky ground and they need to make as much money as they can while they have the postion of politican. Their pensions will never be enough to properly look after them once they have tasted the food at parliament house

  39. Karl Stevens

    September 8, 2010 at 3:39 pm

    Thank you John Hawkins for this fascinating journey into the machinations of members of the Tasmanian Liberal Party. I could make comments about ‘swinging voters’ but how many voters ‘swing’ in the full sense of the word?

  40. milko

    September 8, 2010 at 2:33 pm

    Whats the difference between John Hawkins and a Rottweiler?

    A rottweiler lets go when your dead.

    Love your work John.

Leave a Reply

To Top