The buck stops here – Part Two: The Chronicles of Despair

In my absence, I kept up with the local political scene largely through electronic media, The Mercury and Tasmanian Times. It wasn’t pretty to behold and I shall return to this aspect later, because a vibrant thriving democracy requires a healthy and critical media to keep everyone on their toes. As I indicated in part one, the former US President Harry S Truman also frequently said: “If you can’t stand the heat, you’d better get out of the kitchen.” Such was the case with Paul Lennon and I can’t say that the fall of David Bartlett surprised me greatly. He squeaked into Parliament and won an election as leader after the demise of Paul Lennon, without any factional base but a great deal of goodwill because he appeared to be Mr. Clean. I’m not terribly sure that he can claim any great achievements in the brief period of his premiership unless you want to talk about such asinine matters as AFL – I don’t, yet. Before we go too much further, wasn’t this part of the new paradigm of Australian politics? If that was the case, how is it that the estimable Sue Neales was able to write such an upbeat assessment in January this year – in The Mercury on January 1 to be precise, in an extensive article entitled: “Pals get down to work” and in the very first paragraph, it is quite clearly stated that David Bartlett admits “that he is only now happy in his political skin.” No ambiguity here or journalistic license; nothing less than a straightforward press conference and if even if this was mere artifice, it came over well.

Tasmania was to be the Intelligent Island (presumably part of the clever country – watch the spelling) and the decision to road test the NBN was a lofty ambition but a dangerous farce. I maintain that there would not have been as much criticism from the federal Opposition had the trial been conducted somewhere on the mainland, presumably New South Wales, Victoria or Canberra. Malcolm Turnbull knows nothing about Wi-Fi because if he did, he would know that the more users go online, times becomes slower and the service decays. The federal minister has said that the two systems are complementary and so they should be but that won’t stop members like Malcolm Turnbull who are as rich as Croesus complaining and carping. He could probably afford a geosynchronus satellite and his own network.

So where did the lofty Bartlett ambition and desire to do the best for the state become derailed? Did it get lost in daydreaming about an expensive transformation of parts of the city around Parliament House and the dock area – an architect’s dream but when taken up by politicians becomes extraordinarily expensive and certainly shouldn’t have priority over more pressing matters. I remember the plans and recalled with a hint of malice, Albert Speer, Hitler’s architect and the new capital of Germania. However, was new Hobart frustrated by rules and regulations and talk of obtaining permission from aboriginals? To which we must also ask when did it happen and why? The gullible public is expected to believe that in a few short months, Bartlett lost his appetite for politics, stepped down but remained a minister, no doubt for the car and other lurks and perks and then, when the acid is applied he leaves politics. I’ve not been around to know what is behind this remarkable about-face but as usual, the rumour mill is fully primed. After all, Aird left, Head of Treasury Don (Mr. “safe hands”) Challen retired and everything began to fall apart, but why? Did they know what was in the wind and jump early?

When Lara Giddings emerged as Premier, I wondered, rather idly, how long she could stand the pace. It crossed my mind more than once that although she was very personable and an obvious choice given the alternatives, being Tasmania’s first female Premier would look and sound good but not if the idea is to set her up for the big fall a la Joan Kirner. Quite obviously, with Lin Thorp’s exit, that toxic grouping sometimes known as the Llanherne Left was caught high and dry. The jury is still out on the Premier but I have seen signs of steel in her, lacking in others but what that means concerning practical government remains to be seen, especially with the current ministry. On Thursday, May 26, we learned of the recount of votes in Denison. What we got is Sturgo, believed to be dead and buried after the last election. It should be borne in mind that the only two real contenders did not exactly poll heavily (Madeleine Olgivie primary vote 608 and Sturgo 1185 primary votes). This is a clear case of back to the future and surely some time, the system needs a re-examination to prevent farce. Perhaps there are grounds for a by-election rather than a recount but I’ll leave that to Drs Bonham and Herr. Surely thought of amending the system of accommodate a by-election would be more justified and arguably more democratic.

Adding insult to injury, came the news that the newly-elected Craig Farrell was to be the Deputy Leader of the government in the Upper House. I beg your pardon, there’s only two official ALP members in the LegCo and on the same day, he received a $40,000 p.a. hike as ‘Deputy Leader’ and out came the news that all politicians would be getting an over 4% pay rise. For what? Being there, perhaps but what a smack across the chops for the average worker/taxpayer and a real insult to the less fortunate in the community.

Looking along the impoverished ranks of the ALP for the distribution of ministries, the potential for choice on the basis of talent is a cruel exercise, because what you see is what we’ve got for the moment. Some people in politics and outside would be advised to be very careful with the current Premier. Ms. Giddings can be very pleasant and persuasive and she is no shrinking violet. In school, we dealt with kids who stole sweets, especially marshmallows by putting a ball-bearing in them and I fancy there will be some broken teeth in Parliament, when she is cornered. In looking at ministerial contenders, one name is mentioned behind hands across the mouth and with a certain amount of sniggering. I vaguely know and rather like Brenton Best and for all the power accorded a minister, they might just as well have given him something. Rather unkindly he was referred to in a group that included me as “the thinking man’s doorstop.” What, we might ask does that make the Speaker who seems to have overdosed on the smell of leather and the arrogance of power, still trading on the belief that he knows where the bodies are buried, skeletons hidden and so on. An ambulatory waste of space? That’s a concept with which to conjure over a half-decent red and i don’t mean a dying communist.

However, it’s not all one-way, because as wretched as the government appears to be quite often, the Liberals as the Opposition offer little except hot air in public places. With the introduction of water meters, jettisoning the cap on water charges and watching multiple authorities with overlapping responsibilities engaged in the bureaucratic game that resembles absolutely nothing except going through the motions (no link to sewage intended) and turf wars, I despair for the future. For a decent democratic state to prevail, it requires not only a good responsive and responsible government but also an opposition with ideas and an electorate prepared to be engaged and active, not whining and carping or tuning out. What of the alternatives? It is abundantly clear that this island state is deeply divided by one single issue more than any other – that bloody pulp mill. We are at the stage where no one can be right, no quarter is given and no prisoners taken. I can’t escape the thought that in many respects, for most of us, this issue is totally out of our hands. The two major parties are in lock step on this issue along with many others although you wouldn’t believe it necessarily, just wait for the wind to change. Rabbitting away in Mercury polls about calling an early election overlooks the point that firstly, we can’t afford the cost, secondly the Premier doesn’t have a desire to test the water or a death wish until constitutional necessity calls and lastly, as indicated throughout, with or without re-expansion to 35, we would get more of the same. For those who gripe about Hare/Clark, it leaves first past the post for dead in a representative sense and the dreadful evidence is the mess once known as the UK. The current system could be tweaked a little to circumvent the Denison debacle but this would require a scarce commodity – mature consideration of what is best for the State, not merely vested interests.

I look at the sorry 25 and you can pick about six or seven that you would want to work for you in an ideal situation. However, the situation is far from ideal and we have to deal with what we’ve got and as a consequence, the public has to put up with those nominated and the way ballot papers are structured. We cannot demand an election except under extraordinary circumstances and even if that was the case, an election would cost more money than it’s worth because irrespective of whether 25 or 36 members were returned, they’d all be cut from the same cloth as the existing bunch. Don’t just take my word for this assumption. Neil Brown, a former Liberal Attorney-General, still alive and kicking continues to make incisive comments in The Spectator magazine and although it’s part of the Murdoch empire and most of the Australian comment usually comes from the lunar right, Brown was always regarded as a wet and therefore truly small-L liberal. In examining the problems of governance in China he has made some observations that you can read for yourself. He finishes with the following: “…if the Chinese are worried about how they could perpetuate the rule of the Communist Party under a system of free elections, they should fear not; just take a look at the ALP that now regularly grooms and puts into office its own chosen sons and daughters so that the succession is guaranteed, just as surely as if it were a dictatorship. And if someone says the Liberal party does the same thing, I agree: it just strengthens the argument.” (Spectator Australia May 21, 2011. p xi)

What indeed of the Opposition? With interest and annoyance, I’ve watched and listened to W.E.F. (Huff, Puff ‘n Stuff) Hodgman support the restoration in numbers only to say that it should be delayed because of the State we’re in and we can’t afford it. Really? If one single news item made me annoyed in recent days, it’s the fact that public servants and other unelected officials drive around in BMWs, Mercedes-Benz and other expensive European cars, while presumably those who drive Subaru Foresters are connected with aboriginal affairs or the environment. Personally I’d like to see a statement of who drives what and why. I’d certainly like to know their salary range and the other lurks and perks of office and most of all I’d like to know why government provided vehicles are driven by spouses. Where’s the brouhaha about this flagrant abuse of taxpayers money? The response is a promise by Ms Giddy to crack down on the use of cars and tighten the budget on the departmental drinks cabinet. I’ll believe both when it happens. Any way, what’s wrong with the amount paid to farewell Don Challen, just over $3500: this is small change, a piddling amount begrudged by Whingers ‘R Us and those who didn’t get an invite. I didn’t but don’t care.

While we’re on the subject of political abuse of office, consider the following. In this highly computerised and technical society, I note that most government members I have seen have iPads and iPhones. Presumably these are paid for by the government and in the case of iPhones, why not? A mobile phone is indispensable these days, especially if you take your work seriously or alternatively, want to play solitaire or some other game during parliamentary sessions. It goes without saying that provision of iPads is totally different: sure, I’d like one but they are in the nature of an expensive toy and when I looked at my requirements, I had to pay a lot more to purchase a high-powered laptop. In a way it would be different if Apple had provided a phone capacity for this device, USB ports and so on and surely they will come but in the meantime, it’s a rather expensive way of keeping MPs happy and arranging appointments. Unfortunately, despite a few directed questions, I’m not sure how far the use of iPads extends; whether it applies to the Opposition, bureaucrats, advisers and so on. Again, just how many enjoy these benefits at public expense? Furthermore, when the original is replaced by a later model, what happens? Are they tendered out for sale? Can the public benefit or the schools or only relatives? Who knows; who cares? Take a good look at the appendix to this part and then ask, who would have the courage to put the same question here.

From observation “Huff, Puff ‘n Stuff” is not a splinter from his old man’s block and the faction behind the ambitious Michael Ferguson are holding classes in knife sharpening but the situation is more complicated with brother Gutwein being the stalking horse. Keep your friends close and enemies even closer, alternative Premier. The latest joke is getting out there and asking for community views and input. I say this is a joke because in days gone by, the branches of political parties provided community views. Both major parties have been struck by a catastrophic collapse in numbers and branch closures and above all, capture by vested interests. The state government, like its federal counterpart, sets great store on focus groups. I can say with complete authority that focus groups exist to provide a profit for those that run them and, if you know what the consumer wants, it can be done and I have seen this at first hand. I managed to get myself ejected from a focus group concerning the other great white elephant Forestry Tasmania a few years ago and I count this as a badge of honour. If we are reincarnated, I would like to return as a focus group facilitator or an economist because in both instances you can never be wrong, and you will be well paid for whatever you do.

It was with considerable disquiet that I watched the departure of the former minister, Lin Thorp, whom I had considered to be eminently qualified for the positions she held and long overdue for a ministry. Her travails have been well-publicised and ludicrous reactions carried the day. She should have apologised early on one matter but a minister cannot micro-manage one department, let alone three: it’s totally impracticable and references to the Westminster system are puerile argument. I have little doubt that Tony Mulder will represent Rumney to the best of his ability and it will be tested. I can’t say that I know the new member personally but he has held responsible positions in Tasmania police and, as an alderman with Clarence Council, has been something of a breath of fresh air. I’m not sure which faction of the Liberal Party he is aligned with but at this time, it doesn’t really matter. To a certain extent, anyone getting into politics at the moment is accepting a poisoned chalice. I can’t recall a time when so much bile, spleen and invective has been hurled at politicians generally but in some respects, we could be proud: Tasmania has led the nation, largely because of the power plays that turn on pulp mills and the environment and the actions of militant environmentalists. The debate about forests and pulp mills is the key issue that divides us and despite working groups and mediation it must be patently obvious that the two sides will never agree. Therefore, this can be regarded as a national benchmark when looking at societal division. At the end of the day, I would rather like to know how much Bill Kelty racked up in payment and perks in his role as the great conciliator. I’ll settle for 10% as a kickback.

We could argue until we are black in the face that the timber industry is critical to the economy of Tasmania and that is possibly true. However, can the products of pulp mills compete on the international market with cheap commodities from other countries around the globe. I mentioned Canada earlier for one good reason. A much-loved relative resided in the Rocky Mountains and most of her family were engaged in the timber industry. Before she died, she complained bitterly that the mountains had been denuded and that landslides, mud slides and the failure to in any way preserve sufficient forest had quite literally ruined the environment. Canada still has a thriving timber industry but it’s different wood for a different market. I will always maintain that anybody who lives in Tasmania for more than a few months cannot fail to be touched in some way by the environment. There appears to be no comprehensive plan for conserving important species, especially those that provide habitat for native animals and the “chop it down, pulp or chip it” mentality prevails where it counts most. Former Premier David Bartlett wanted Tasmania to be the food basket of Australia and in theory, it could work. However, much relies on soils and water and well-qualified hydrogeologists have pointed out that some once arable land is beyond redemption. The matter is complicated further by economics. We have seen exports of potatoes and peas to the mainland for mass consumption fall to pieces because either they cannot compete or alternatively, agribusiness and fast food chains don’t want what we produce. Perhaps I need not mention the consequences of a duopoly in the supermarkets where far too many products are imported, while presumably our crops are ploughed under. In despair, some farmers have planted trees in the hope of a long-term investment. Ah McCain, you’ve done it again. For the average household, I suggest joining the Cundallistas and growing your own. It’s cheaper and healthier but involves the dreaded ‘w’ word – work but it offers a great deal of intrinsic satisfaction.

My own view is that the Tasmanian forest industry should be based on the notions of sustainability. Certain species should only be logged for craftspeople and specific reasons such as house frames. Forestry Tasmania, tottering on the brink of examinations and claims of incompetence, has had it too good for too long and there is much to commend the view that what we have is inherited from those who have gone before, but we are stewards for the next generation. The suggestion that Chinese money will bail out Gunn’s and build a ‘non-polluting pulp mill’ in the Tamar Valley is arrant nonsense. The air around the northern capital can be quite filthy in the colder months and further pollution will have consequences for the health of the population. The basic problem is that no one really gives a damn, and if they do, there’s trouble in the offing. Every Saturday morning, I listen to one of Tasmania’s living national treasures, that master of composting and mulching, and here is a man in his 80s still fighting causes in which he believes deeply and is prepared to be arrested for those beliefs. It says something about Tasmanian law that he was arrested and the charges he faced after a seemingly harmless demonstration outside Parliament. If you can’t demonstrate peacefully outside of Parliament without being arrested, something stinks and I don’t think it’s blood and bone: so much for justice.

So where does the buck stop? Indisputably it stopped with the late Jim Bacon and his co-conspirators both inside and outside parliament because that’s the only reasonable way to describe them and it hasn’t moved a great deal yet. As I predicted at the time (and I hate saying: “I told you so” because that is one of three no-no statements for me) reducing the House of Assembly, whose members now call themselves MPs, to 25 was a surefire recipe for disaster. For a start, even if the best minds in the state were somehow dragooned into serving, anything remotely resembling the Westminster tradition of governmental and ministerial responsibility has vanished into thin air. Let’s take a brief look at extent of the problem, not the least because it’s all too easy to blame politicians and perform the Pontius Pilate routine.

Firstly, as mentioned earlier, there is the load carried by ministers and only the most savage and unrelenting critic would say that when critical errors occur on their watch, they should follow the Westminster tradition and fall on their sword. This is logical fallacy because the Tasmanian electoral and political system only vaguely resembles the Mother of Parliaments. This enables certain people to brazen it out and in some cases reinvent themselves and the gullible electorate continues to reelect them because they have been placed at the top of a ballot paper. I find it somewhat nauseating that a certain MP still sits in the lower house and preens himself as the next leader of the ALP. If the Westminster system had applied, he should have stepped down and left but we are left with the rictus of a smile and the air of a man on a mission: not quite the Cheshire Cat but infinitely more dangerous and he believes his own propaganda that he will be the next leader. Presumably the moustache will also return on the visage in due course. However, it was rather disquieting to read of a newbie minister and friend of Venzuela being touted as “The One.”

Watching Parliament from the public gallery could once be considered free entertainment and warm in winter. But how seriously do politicians take the circus when Parliament sits? The most recent of the former Premiers was known for excessive fiddling with his mobile phone. Was he sending SMS messages, playing solitaire or another computer game? Obviously bored, except when he was speaking and taking credit for intangible or improbable benefits, his greatest contribution was to resign under duress and his greatest achievement was to damage the image of politicians even further. It was obvious from the smaller public gallery that he was there but not at home.

Secondly, when a greatly reduced government, in a numerical sense, is ostensibly running the state of Tasmania, it is patently obvious that the talent pool is too shallow. Both major parties are factionalized and run along tribal and familial lines. At one stage, the ALP had three left wings, which is no mean achievement but all that’s left are a few feather dusters. The Liberal Party is desperately struggling to present itself as a responsible alternative government and yet the splits and personality conflicts are no different from those of the ALP and when you look at the background of some of the members, it appears they are in the wrong party. The Liberal Party of Australia has always claimed to be a broad church, whatever that might mean but in ideological terms, moderates are scarce numerically and the neofascist right holds power behind the scenes. Their sole objective is to attain power and use it for the benefit of their mates, which is exactly the ALP’s objective. The late Sir Robert Menzies, whom I had the distinction of meeting once at a party gathering was said to have left the party he created in the last years of his life. If you ever read his speech: “The forgotten people” it’s worth the effort but the economic rationalists doomed both the major parties to acquiescence in destabilising Australia.

The Tasmanian Greens, who pretend to be the conscience of the State, now have a member in each electorate and if the parliament is expanded, there is a distinct possibility that the number will grow. There is no doubt that they are a cut above most of the politicians in the major parties but compromise is missing from their lexicon and it’s only a question of time before they split, as other parties have split before them. It used to be said that the Greens worked harder and were more in touch with the electorate than the other parties. I’m not sure whether they claim that their membership is still growing but membership of any political party is seen to be a waste of time. Just like on the federal scene, party branches have become irrelevant. The other problem with the Greens is that they can’t be trusted. They pose as politicians of conviction and conscience but they always have a hidden agenda.

Then, thirdly, there is the factor of remoteness. The war on terror has produced more elaborate security at Parliament House, government buildings and individuals. It has yet to be tested seriously but it is woefully inadequate. Its main function is to separate us from our elected representatives. Once we have elected them to government or opposition in this state, it appears that they circle the wagons and graft/gouge whatever they can from the system. If the average voter wants time with an MP, 15 minutes appears to be the maximum, with no real follow-up, unless you are prepared to make a confounded nuisance of yourself. Inevitably an acne-plagued assistant loiters with intent and a mobile phone, then notions of privacy vanish. Then, if persistent, you are blacklisted or described as a crank and the doors remain closed. You may have helped to put them into office but you’re not welcome between elections. Then of course, they swamp you with propaganda, most of it of dubious value, claiming how well they govern or oppose and increasingly (and no small wonder) the population becomes more cynical and regards it as piffle and the material heads for the trashcan.

Next, the major group responsible for this terrible situation is US – we the people, not the Yanks. With a heavy heart, and plenty of shots in my locker, coming back to Tasmania this time was like dipping my feet into sewage. I fully expect bloggers and other parasites to tell me to “xxxx off” but there’s nothing new about that. All these people can do is criticise. There was no coincidence in the fact that the ABC is showing a docudrama on the Kennedy family in the US, that led me to read and listen yet again to the words of JFK: “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.” Leaving the contention about JFK to one side, the sentiments were certainly correct and could well be the subject of a forthcoming paper for academic consumption and perhaps a re-print in TT. However, the media cannot avoid a share of the blame. The sad demise of The Mercury is only too evident from every issue. Real news; that is articles on local, national or international events and issues comprises less than a third of the paper and most of it is a direct lift from elsewhere. I have no great issues with that paper but most of it goes into recycling without a second look. To be fair, there have been some very good editorials on matters of public concern but they are in a minority and have little impact, while the on-line blogging is savage, vindictive and highly personal: I’m not in favour of censorship but there are grounds for the rag to employ someone to weed out the offensive, incorrect and abusive…what do we get but, page after page of photographs of people who want to be seen out and about. Some may ask: “so what?” and after a while you realize the same tossers crop up quite regularly. On any given day, well over 50% of the paper isn’t worth a second look and with the departure of Sue Neales, it can only get worse. It’s typical of the Murdoch press interstate and abroad and has historical precedents such as the Romans providing circuses for the citizenry and the famous quotation: “Let them eat cake,” variously attributed to Marie Antoinette but almost certainly not uttered by her: such is the proclivity for deception by the winners writing history and the inability of the decapitated to answer back. I am reluctant to mention the electronic media because most emanates from interstate and 936 has been hollowed out and is now a pale imitation of the times BC (Before Cox) but he overheated, tried to be the news and took off for the far North. The changes in the ABC locally are becoming so profound that they might just as well turn the building over to the railway and operate from elsewhere. The current presenters are a pallid lot, especially the Northern Territory kid and then we have wall-to-wall waffle with conversations until mid-day. At least the hayseed hour provides some interest, albeit fleeting but it makes Hobart feel like a country town. At times I am reminded of early visits to Canberra and in the middle of a TV show, on would come a yokel to ask: “Have you top-dressed your paddocks yet?”

Things are so bad that in accordance with provisions of the the Electoral Act, I will present myself at a voting station at the next election because that is what the law requires. I have no plans to fill in the ballot paper until I know who is endorsed and then I will indulge in some creative work which may or may not result in a formal as opposed to an informal ballot paper. I don’t see any point in wasting time or effort defacing the ballot paper with obscenities but I will only vote for those I believe to have the interests of Tasmanians as a whole, as their guiding precept: in short Tactical Voting 101 for beginners and it’s always a few minutes of fun deciding who should be last on your paper.

Finally and somewhat desperately, as things stand, the situation cannot be allowed to continue. What this state needs is a thorough audit, preferably conducted by an external outfit and beholden to no one in the state. We desperately need to know what functions are duplicated and systems corrupted by stupidity. We need to know where the money goes and to whom. Above all, there is a long overdue requirement for a major examination of the Tasmanian public service. Petty officials and piddling bureaucrats spend over 70% of their time engaged in turf wars or protecting their own positions And this is a subject I can speak about at great length and in detail. As a concept “public service” has become almost a contradiction in terms at State and federal level: Instead of being regarded as a noble duty or responsibility, it has become synonymous with a sinecure and a defence against the more turbulent climate of the private sector. Various governments talk about cutbacks and razor gangs and in the past, punishment has been inflicted on all public services but these days, the victims are likely to be long-suffering taxpayers.

A former colleague of mine, quite an expert on management at both the theoretical and practical level was engaged in research in a government department interstate. As a result of his examination of work practice, he coined a term that you will not see in management texts. It’s called “The Ritual Imperative” and it came about through the recognition of the resistance to change inherent in bureaucracies and the way in which certain tasks are carried out. I understood that he got thoroughly cheesed off with asking why a job was done in a certain fashion, only to be told that it had always been done that way. It’s not a great insight but contains the kernel of truth as politicians go through the motions, again with apologies to sewerage. With great regret, I have had to conclude that we lack politicians with any real vision. They think ahead only for the duration of the electoral cycle and never beyond. The nature of the electoral system means that if the House of Assembly is expanded once more, as I explained earlier, we will only get more of the same. It is almost an iron law of Tasmanian politics that like recruits like and quite often that means family members.

One brief example to conclude: does anyone believe that the federal Liberal Party would be as opposed to the National Broadband Network (NBN) had the trial taken place in New South Wales, the ACT or Victoria? People in Tasmania have mixed feelings about the NBN and the Coalition maintains that Wi-Fi is the way to go. That may be perfectly acceptable for Mr. Malcolm Turnbull who is as rich as Croesus but I have been to countries dependent on Wi-Fi and the more consumers, the slower the speed. In a nutshell, this simple example demonstrates Australian thinking – marching grimly to the rear always looking behind and never ahead. Whatever happened to the clever country and the intelligent island? More seriously and I have promised to write on this subject, what has happened to us that we criticize and do nothing, then line up like sheep on polling day to be fleeced into electing stumblebums, the inept, the hacks, the n’er do wells, and ambulatory fence posts?

A one-term government dedicated to a thorough examination of the system and taking out the trash is a wonderful pipe dream. At the end of the day, we the electors, are as much to blame as the politicians. We enjoy criticising them and demanding more but the demands are not for qualitative improvement: it’s just gimme, gimme, gimme. Unfortunately the same may be said of federal politics, with all the negativity, carping and criticism.

Any answer, obscene or restrained will no doubt be countenanced if not necessarily welcomed by the editor. I would like to conclude by thanking those who believe my past efforts deserved a packet of dog faeces in the letterbox to be appropriate: it says more about them than me. Mind you, it provides inspiration for calling the house “Dogshit Castle,” which is somewhat better than Dun’rovin, Chez Nous and other more whimsical names.

Addendum –

The question – and this is for one ministry. How much for the locals and hangers-on? Are there any takers with the guts to ask of the government something like the question below and let’s have it in writing.

Extract from House of Representatives Hansard May 24, 2011.

QUESTIONS IN WRITING Ministers and Ministerial Staff: Mobile Phones and iPads (Question No. 142)

Mr Briggs asked the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, in writing, on 25 November 2010:

(1) How many (a) mobile phones, (b) blackberries and (c) I-Pads are currently allocated to the (i) Minister, and (ii) the Minister’s ministerial staff.
(2) In respect of mobile phone usage between (a) 3 December 2007 and 24 November 2010, and (b) 24 June 2010 and 24 November 2010, what was the total cost for (a) the Minister, and (b) the Minister’s ministerial staff.
(3) For each month since December 2007, what was the cost of mobile phone usage for each mobile phone account allocated to the (a) Minister, and (b) Minister’s ministerial staff.
Mr Burke: The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows, noting that the ministerial portfolio of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities was established following the formation of the new government:
(1) (i) (a) (b) (c)
(ii) staff:
(a) (b) (c)
In relation to the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (Burke) – 1 0 0 (The Minister has access to Departmental i-Pad devices, used specifically for parliamentary purposes.)
In relation to the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (Burke) ministerial 4
6 (2) (a) In relation to the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (Burke):
(a) $722.75 (GST Exc)
(b) $722.75 (GST Exc)
In relation to the Minister for Environment Protection, Heritage and the Arts (Garrett):
(a) $10,972.63 (GST Exc)
(b) $570.96 (GST Exc)
In relation to the Minister for Climate Change, Energy Efficiency and Water (Wong):
(a) $20,262.30 (GST Exc)
(b) $0.00 (GST Exc)
(b) In relation to the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (Burke) ministerial staff:
(a) $3,205.02 (GST Exc) (b)$3,205.02 (GST Exc) In relation to the Minister for Environment Protection, Heritage and the Arts (Garrett) ministerial staff: (a) $127,272.86 (GST Exc) (b) $17,127.23 (GST Exc) In relation to the Minister for Climate Change, Energy Efficiency and Water (Wong) ministerial staff: $77,408.08 (GST Exc) (b) $191.50 (GST Exc)
(3) (a) A comprehensive answer to the cost of mobile phone usage for each mobile phone account allocated to the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (Burke) cannot be provided as such information is not readily available. What is readily available is mobile phone account invoices paid in each month. Accordingly, the data that follows is based on the payment of invoices in that month, noting also that invoices paid may cover mobile phone usage over more than one monthly period.
October 2010 $678.21 (GST Exc)
November 2010 $44.54 (GST Exc)
A comprehensive answer to the cost of mobile phone usage for each mobile phone account allocated to the Minister for Environment Protection, Heritage and the Arts (Garrett) cannot be provided as such information is not readily available. What is readily available is mobile phone account invoices paid in each month. Accordingly, the data that follows is based on the payment of invoices in that month, noting also that invoices paid may cover mobile phone usage over more than one monthly period.
Month
December 2007 2008 January February March
April May June July August September October November December 2009 January February March April
May June July August September October November December 2010 January February March April
May June July August September
Amount (GST Exc)
$0.00
$120.14 $55.11 $310.82 $90.00 $90.00 $3,359.22* $255.33 $238.09 $214.18 $146.69 $136.31 $198.99
$129.51 $166.24 $275.03 $457.17 $1,073.76 $402.04 $0.00 $325.72 $247.05 $208.07 $0.00 $221.64
$656.48 $0.00 $734.50 $289.58 $0.00 $103.69 $133.51 $333.76 $0.00

*The total expense figure for June 2008 of $3,359.22 comprises charges that covered periods dating back to December 2007 to March 2008. Data to split the charges by month is not readily available.

A comprehensive answer to the cost of mobile phone usage for each mobile phone account allocated to the Minister for Climate Change, Energy Efficiency and Water (Wong) cannot be provided as such information is not readily available. What is readily available is mobile phone account invoices paid in each month. Accordingly, the data that follows is based on the payment of invoices in that month, noting also that invoices paid may cover mobile phone usage over more than one monthly period.

Month
December 2007 2008 January February March
April May
Amount (GST Exc)
$0.00
$99.90 $658.58 $651.02
$2,093.39 $672.44
Month
June July August September October November December 2009 January February March April
May June July August September October November December 2010 March April%

Part 1 and all Nosty: HERE