Last week Richard Flanagan unleashed a tirade against the government and salmon industry. He said at the Hobart town Hall meeting on Wednesday 28 April:
“… he could not explain the close relationship between the industry and Tasmania’s bureaucracy and politicians, but ‘it has to end.’ “
Flanagan may have been circumspect on the day, but many of us (including Richard) have been writing about crony capitalism and the unhealthy relationships between big business and politicians for years.
There are many concerns in Tasmania about poor governance including lack of transparency of political donations, no caps, and no foreign donation nor industry exclusions, such as gambling and property developers. Authorities such as the Ombudsman, Integrity Commission and Auditor General require bolstering and increased funding to enable adequate scrutiny of government activities. [1]
Crony capitalism is particularly evident in climate change inaction. Lobbying internationally has been linked back to the tendency for ‘conservative white males’ to be unable to accurately assess risk, as compared to other groups, on several issues including climate change, smoking, nuclear waste, coal burning, storms and floods, alcohol, and bacteria in food.[2]
As Tasmania and Australia are governed by conservative white males, their inability to accurately assess risk on issues relating to public health and the environment is a serious problem.
In Tasmania conservative males from both political parties have engaged in crony capitalism, with unhealthy close relationships to the tobacco, forestry, alcohol, and gaming industries. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]
This is all well documented in books, theses, and articles.
Alison Alexander wrote a spell-binding book on corruption and skullduggery in Tasmania in the early years of Tasmania.[8] There is certainly a rich history of corruption in politics and administration in Tasmania, going back to the early 1800s. We have experienced over two hundred years of intermittent and at times overt and extensive corruption. Principled politicians and appointees tried to clean up the corruption on many occasions. But corruption returned.
“The structure of the Tasmanian economy makes it vulnerable to crony capitalism and, some have argued, to institutional corruption.”
Beresford says in an article about institutional corruption in Tasmania:
“Crony capitalism is prone to corruption because it is based around an imbalance of power and lack of transparency in the government–business relationship.”[9]
We have seen for many decades Tasmanian industries and Government statutory authorities distort political processes, and campaign against governments or political parties who seek to regulate or rein in their excesses.
Pete Hay wrote in his 1974 doctoral thesis:
“….it is difficult to find any evidence that Tasmanians are likely to react electorally to charges of corruption by turning the alleged rascals out.”
Hay’s thesis is an excellent history on corruption in Tasmania prior to the 1970s. Of course, there has been much more corruption since then.
The Age newspaper reported on 6 March 1981:
“The question is whether Tasmania is to be ruled by its elected Government, or by an unholy alliance of conservative members of the undemocratic legislative council, the power-hungry Hydro-Electric commission and the highly subsidised industrial consumers.” [10][11]
The Hydro Electric Commission campaigned against the Hawke Labor party in the 1983 federal election. It has been described as a ‘state within a state’.
More recently James Boyce has written extensively on the unhealthy relationship between politicians and the Farrell family who own Federal hotels and have a lucrative monopoly control of gambling in Tasmania. Boyce says:
“Peter Gutwein’s position on poker machines is not in the interests of the Liberal party, its small business heartland or the Treasury.….for nearly fifty years almost every minister in charge of gambling policy, regardless of political allegiance, has misrepresented data to defend the industry.” [12]
Fast forward to the debacle of Gunns and forestry in Tasmania, all well documented by Quentin Beresford.[13] We find all the same crony capitalism in place, distorting the political processes, including proven corruption leading to the jailing of leading Launceston businessman Edmund Rouse and a Royal Commission.[14]
In only the last couple of months we have again seen the extent of cronyism in the relationship between big tobacco and Tasmanian politicians, who rejected a Bill, despite community support upwards of 67% , which would have raised the tobacco sales age to 21 years and reduced our horrendous smoking rates, and reduced pressures on the health system. [15]
This discussion of corruption and crony capitalism in Tasmania is not complete, there are undoubtedly many more examples.
My assertion is firstly that crony capitalism and corruption are endemic in Tasmania.
Secondly Tasmanians continue to elect politicians whom they know to be corrupt, engaging in dubious behaviour and are seemingly impervious to crony capitalism with close relationships to big business, often overseas or interstate owned so that profits go offshore.
Finally – Richard Flanagan’s clarion call ‘…it has to end’ in relation to out-of-control fish farms taking over and polluting huge swathes of Tasmanian waters – will continue to be ignored by Tasmanian voters.
Whilst the Green vote increased at the 2021 May election, the Liberal and Labor parties swore undying allegiance to the fish farm industry and failed to mention controls. The Labor policy, conveniently buried on an obscure website mentions controls, enforcement, and environmental regulation – it was never explicitly mentioned by candidates or the leader in the campaign.
There must be a better way to control corruption and cronyism in Tasmania and it will only happen if there is strong legislation brought in to control donations to political parties. The incumbent Liberal government tepidly supports this (but have failed to act), and both the Labor Party and Greens strongly support it.
Ideally Tasmanians should stop voting for conservative white males, who are hell bent on destroying our environment, handing monopolies to their mates, and ignoring public health risks. However, failing that, controls on donations are a worthy next step.
Strict controls as well as explicit and timely transparency of political donations must be the first item on the agenda of the incoming Parliament if we are to break the nexus between industry control of our waterways, forests, gambling, alcohol, tobacco, agriculture, unhealthy commodity industries and our politicians.
Dr. Kathryn Barnsley is an Adjunct Researcher, School of Medicine University of Tasmania, former member of the federal National Expert Advisory Committee on Tobacco, former member of the federal National Women’s Advisory Committee, Member of Tasmanian Women’s Honour roll, member of the Australian Labor Party, Labor Environment Action Network. Adviser to governments of all political persuasions, and author of several key pieces of tobacco control and public health legislation.
References
[1] Minshull L, Good Government in Tasmania. Strengthened donation laws and Right to information provisions, as well as a Tasmanian Integrity commission with teeth and a new truth in political advertising laws are needed to ensure good government in Tasmania. The Australia Institute. Discussion Paper. November 2020. https://apo.org.au/sites/default/files/resource-files/2020-11/apo-nid309832.pdf accessed 3/5/2021
[2] Finucane ML, Slovic P, Mertz CK, Flynn J, Satterfield TA. Gender, race, and perceived risk: The’white male’effect. Health, risk & society. 2000 Jul 1;2(2):159-72.
[3] Boyce J. Losing streak: How Tasmania was gamed by the gambling industry. Black Inc.; 2017 Mar 14.
[4] Barnsley KI. Barriers to evidence-based tobacco control in Tasmania: a case study (Doctoral dissertation, University of Tasmania).
[5] Barnsley K. Crony Capitalism or Corruption? The Curious Case of British Tobacco and a Tasmanian Government. in Papers and Proceedings: Tasmanian Historical Research Association 2011 Aug (Vol. 58, No. 2, pp. 173-182).
[6] Beresford Q. The rise and fall of Gunns Ltd. NewSouth; 2015 Feb 1.
[7] Beresford, Q 2010, “Corporations, Government and Development: The Case of Institutional Corruption in Tasmania”, Australian Journal of Political Science, vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 209-225.
[8] Alexander, Alison, 2015, Corruption and Skullduggery, Edward Lord, Maria Riseley, and Hobart’s tempestuous beginnings. Pillinger Press,
[9] Beresford, Q 2010, “Corporations, Government and Development: The Case of Institutional Corruption in Tasmania”, Australian Journal of Political Science, vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 209-225.
[10] The AGE 6 March 1981
[11] Baidya KN. Anatomy of the Gordon‐Franklin (Tasmania) dam controversy: socio‐economic, political and environmental implications—a viewpoint. International Journal of Environmental Studies. 1984 Oct 1;23(3-4):283-301.
[12] Boyce J. Losing streak: How Tasmania was gamed by the gambling industry. Black Inc.; 2017 Mar 14.
[13] Beresford, Q 2010, “Corporations, Government and Development: The Case of Institutional Corruption in Tasmania”, Australian Journal of Political Science, vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 209-225.
[14] Tasmania. Carter WJ. Report of the Royal Commission Into an Attempt to Bribe a Member of the House of Assembly; and Other Matters. Government Printer; 1991.
[15] Barnsley K, Hefler M, “Australia: Big tobacco wins in defeat of T21 age bill” Blog, Tobacco Control BMJ April 2 2021.
Ben Marshall
May 5, 2021 at 10:31
Kathryn is depressingly correct.
Our governments are never held to account because the mainstream media is either owned by Murdoch (editorially a pro-Liberal Party) or editorially conservative, or owned by Font PR which is owned by senior Liberal Party figures. ABC Hobart, (allegedly partisan / pro-Liberal Party) acts largely as stenographers for political media releases, and the ABC North West does its best with one or two journalists.
The bottom line is that there are simply no consequences for bad political actors, or to ‘soft’ or ‘grey’ corruption (think Farrell family donations) or to the Liberal Party’s anti-democratic push to hide the workings of government and to criminalise dissent.
A massive conflict of interest and all-round economic and environmental disaster in the making, the Marinus Project raises zero objections beyond the community level. It’s literally a plan to make us subsidise the export of profits, power and jobs from Tasmania, but there’s zero political or media interest.
Kathryn, you might also look at the role Planning Matters Tasmania has taken on in acting as an umbrella group for nearly 80 local communities fighting bad State-Corporate ‘developments’. Different issues locally, but the same issue on the larger State scale.
Finally, the clearest illustration of voter disengagement is the re-election of Adam Brooks. Like Trump, he could shoot someone in the street and no one would care. Hell, it would probably boost his popularity!
Christian Belk
May 5, 2021 at 14:53
Richard Flanagan would probably have liked to have named the senior “crony” public servants who are part of this mix in Tasmania, but sometimes standard legal advice suggests that you don’t name public servants.
Chief Editor TT
May 5, 2021 at 15:51
Fair point. I would expect RF realises he is a possible target for legal action over all this.
Kathryn
May 5, 2021 at 19:49
Yes, it is difficult.
In my thesis and publications I was able to name the public servants involved in the corrupt land transactions in the 1960s because they were deceased. Also, the documents were available after 25 years and could be examined. One of the public servants even explained the mechanisms for ensuring that the conspiracy to ensure British Tobacco was given the land in North East Tasmania in saying that it was designed to ensure that ordinary Tasmanians could not buy it. This was a massive breach of the Lands legislation, and absolutely corrupt.
Sir Max Bingham became Attorney General and launched a prosecution against senior British Tobacco executives and the former Minister Cashion. Of course British Tobacco brought in a squadron of lawyers and the charges were dropped, but nevertheless it showed a brave and ethical Attorney General. Naturally, British Tobacco retaliated and bribed Kevin Lyons who resigned and brought down the government.
In future, researchers will be able to document the current corrupt public servants and politicians – but we will have to wait until the archives are released many decades hence.
john Hawkins
May 7, 2021 at 09:53
It is a little known fact that the Liberal’s Abbott government in 2014 applied to UNESCO to have areas of the iconic Western Tiers removed from the World Heritage Listing so that they could be logged.
The current Tasmanian Minister for Forests ‘Logger Barnett’, who cultivates the logging lobby in his electorate, was part of this application.
How could we have elected such a person?
Logging old growth forests for woodchips is so 20th century and pathetic in an imploding world. This is a perfect example of the politically expedient, white male pollie who loves the gravy train, the pension and the money.
Dr. Kathryn Barnsley
May 7, 2021 at 16:51
Exactly!
And it is Logger Barnett who is also responsible for Primary Industries and WATER. So the Fish farm debacle is his fault, too.
Simon Warriner
May 9, 2021 at 12:59
There are a number of ways I could approach this article, but they are all summed up as follows.
The donation problem is a second order issue. It stems from the first order issue which is party politics. Party politicians wrote the laws that allow this problem to exist, and so to their minds it is not a flaw, but a feature. Expecting them to fix it is naive, at best.
The Greens might protest about this, but if given a majority I have no doubt that they would introduce measures that protect them against competition from others. It stems from party dynamics; not party ideology. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
The first order issue is addressed by reducing the influence of party politics by getting more Independent members sitting in parliament. This is where effort will deliver the most, and it will require a concerted campaign, probably over several election cycles, to get to a critical mass that renders the dysfunction and corruption of party politics harmless.
Call me when you are ready to start. A warning though, you cannot pick and choose your Independents, and you cannot set policy for them. All those arguments have been examined, and they do not stand up.
Kathryn
May 22, 2021 at 23:12
Thanks Simon Warriner (May 9th) for your good ideas.
However, the lessons from watching so-called Independents in the Legislative Council over the last four decades has shown me that many of them always vote with the one party, mostly the Liberal Party, with a few notable exceptions like Ruth Forrest and Mike Gaffney who seem genuinely independent.
I would like to see a detailed analysis of this. Maybe Kevin Bonham has done it, but I am not convinced that voting for an Independent guarantees independence in Tasmania.
I agree that Independents are less likely to be influenced by corporate interests … until money-bags Clive Palmer, or others of his ilk, rock up.