Tasmania has developed a way of life, a mode of doing things, a demographic, a culture and associated economy that reproduces underachievement, generation after generation – Jonathan West (above)
Really?
As I recovered from the shock of the less than flattering description of Tasmania and its people, I was forced to ask myself, could it possibly be true? And, how do my fellow Tasmanians feel about such accusations?
Trying to objectively reflect, I came to the stark realisation that perhaps there is a hint of truth in West’s description. I wasn’t alone.
This article draws on responses to the Jonathan West article (initially published in the Griffith REVIEW and subsequently online, including The Conversation), as well as other comments made by Tasmanians elicited by the author via email and social media.
“Extremely depressing because it seemed right” – Rose
“Truthful representation of situation within the state” – AT
“Nail on the head” – Andy
“I think Jonathan West is spot on in his dissection of the reasons behind our economic situation” – Leanne
“Initially, defensive, but now after reflection, I think it is spot on”- Philip
“Tasmania – the fish that John West Rejects” – Fred
“Thank you Jonathan West – you have hit the nail on the head about development” – Cornelius
Others think differently:
“Opinion reported as fact, no thanks” – Steven
“Awfully negative but raises some important issues” – Clare
“A cheap go at Tasmanians” – Anthony
“An example of how academics denigrate bogans in public”- Bill
“West’s article was written with the same tone of failure that he claims is endemic to Tasmania”- Emma
However, Emma also pointed out that “Tasmanians are not blind to the issues”.
I agree, I think Tasmanians recognise the need for change, want change and that the process has already started.
Much of the popular response to the article has suggested Tasmania is not unique in its situation, and that there are many other regions in Australia experiencing the same fate. (Of course, Tasmania’s predicament is highlighted as it is reported as a state, whereas other similarly performing regions are absorbed into the aggregates of their respective mother states.) This discourse suggests that because Tasmania is not alone it is okay for it to underperform. To me, this is not acceptable.
It is not just its problems that aren’t unique to Tasmania. The natural advantages bestowed to the island state are neither unique nor likely to be the island’s saviour. There are many other tourism destinations luring visitors to pristine wilderness experiences, gourmet food destinations, and cultural meccas. The world is competitive. Many places have similar environment, lifestyle and job opportunities.
We cannot afford to underperform.
West’s argument rests on the claim that Tasmania’s problems are inherent in its demographics – a substantial “underclass” and a “smaller, comfortable, government dependent middle class”. Due to the dependence on government, both groups lack an incentive to support private development. But is this correct?
Read the rest of Lisa Taylor’s article, The Conversation, here
Lisa Taylor is a workforce demographer and PhD student at the University of Tasmania. Her article includes this Disclosure Statement: Lisa Taylor does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations.
The Comments exchange between Dr Marks (TT: Democratic hemlock: saving earth from our animal selves) and Lisa Taylor:
Dr Marks:
Hi Lisa
Following that key quote made by Jonathan West in the Griffith Review article I took a look at the Australian Innovation Research Centre AIRC.
http://www.utas.edu.au/australian-innovation-research-centre/
On one level I was interested in what the values and focus of the AIRC were, given that this quote seems to me to be value laden and relative ie. it depends upon how you define ‘underachievement’, what sort of economic development you consider to be lacking and appropriate etc.
Obviously, much debate about forest industries and the ethics of woodchipping and logging in general has defined community unrest and economic debate in Tasmania. Hence, it appears that Tasmanians have very polarised ethical positions about the use of Tasmanian resources and the direction of Tasmania in general. This is front and centre to the economic argument and the general debate about development and economic viability I would think.
The AIRC seems to be very much business focused (fine) but it was not clear to me how different community expectation are considered along with such a pro-business focus? There is nothing wrong with a pro-forest industry stance even, just that it would seem fair to declare such interests in the context of this debate and such a bold statement.
Accordingly, imagine my surprise when on the AIRC site I found this:
“Research Associate Lisa Taylor was interviewed by Michael Vietch on ABC Radio Afternoons regarding population, employment and skills in Tasmania.”
Perhaps this is a different Lisa Taylor? If not, would it have been appropriate to declare a link with the AIRA in your disclosure statement? If this is the same Lisa Taylor, then perhaps your apparent objectivity in commenting about the initial quote and Jonathan West’s article in general is somewhat diminished?
Lisa Taylor:
Hi Clive
The AIRC is part of UTAS (within the School of Management). I started my PhD with the AIRC in December 2011 and transferred to the School of Sociology (now Social Sciences) in July 2012. I am a student and have no longer have any affiliation with the AIRC. During my time at the AIRCe\ I did do around 30 hours of research work in total, regarding the demography of the Local Government Areas which would be impacted by the restructure of the forestry sector.
Regards, Lisa
Dr Marks:
Thanks Lisa
So you are no longer an associate of the AIRC as they claimed when you did the ABC interview?
I think that if you had a clear association with the AIRC in the past/present (and presumably the author of the words you cite and then review?), it might have been appropriate to mention that before you opened with:
“Trying to objectively reflect, I came to the stark realisation that perhaps there is a hint of truth in West’s description.”
It seemed to me that you were presenting yourself a totally independent along with:
“…my fellow Tasmanians”
It does not mean that your opinions are invalid, but at least readers should be able to make up their own minds if there might be the potential for some degree of ideological flavouring and association.
Perhaps The Conversation editors should clarify what their policy is in this respect?
