Having familiarised ourselves with the Minister’s modus operandi when (avoiding) answering questions he doesn’t like, we ‘decoded’ Eric A’s response in an interchange from Hansard.
PRAEMONITUS PRAEMUNITUS (Forewarned is forearmed)
ERIC ABETZ – Minister for Deflection on all matters pertaining to a stadium at Mac Point
The Minister’s technique for dissembling, misquoting, avoiding, deflecting and distracting were well honed over his years in the Senate, much of which was under John Howard, an equally slithery character in the verbal contortion stakes, who regularly said one thing while meaning another. Eric A seems to have a pathological aversion to giving a straight answer to any question. We predict we’re going to be subjected to quite a lot of this verbal discharge over the next few months, so forewarned is forearmed….
We’ve analysed an interchange taken from Hansard. This how Eric A does it:
Ms BURNET question to MINISTER for MACQUARIE POINT URBAN RENEWAL, Mr ABETZ
“We learnt at Estimates and from the Tasmanian Planning Commission (TPC) hearing provided to the upper House that the Macquarie Point site contains up to 220,000 cubic metres of contaminated fill containing asbestos, lead, mercury, arsenic, cyanide, benzenes and other toxic chemicals. This is information the Macquarie Point Development Corporation (MPDC) apparently didn’t provide to the TPC. It was confirmed by the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) that the regulated cap on the Copping C Cell is 45,000 cubic metres. If your stadium was to go ahead and construction begin, a significant public health issue is raised.
What’s the plan? It’s clear to us that you and the MPDC can’t be trusted to tell the truth about the contaminated soils on site. As minister responsible for the stadium, how do you explain MPDC’s misleading information, and can you give any assurance that this high volume of contaminated soil can be safely dealt with?”
The SPEAKER – The member’s time has expired.
ANSWER
Honourable Speaker, I wish I could thank the member for Clark for the question,
No, he doesn’t wish that at all. In fact, he’s delighted he’s been given an opportunity to distract and take the debate in a different direction. This is plain sarcasm and reeks of disrespect. It’s an entrée to the ad hominem: already we are being told that the member is in some unspoken (unspeakable?) way morally deficient.
…but the aspersions cast on very good public servants is (sic) something that should not be occurring in this place. By all means, attack me, attack members of the government, but don’t attack public servants who cannot defend themselves in this place.
While he plays the martyr with invitations to “attack me”, he’s successfully drawn the debate in an entirely different and largely irrelevant direction. He’s announced his intention to divert the discussion to the accuracy of the numbers rather than the plan he should have in place to deal with the huge quantity of contaminated fill, whatever its amount.
Meanwhile, no “very good public servants” have actually been attacked. The failure by the MPDC to inform the TPC of 220,000m3 of contaminated fill containing asbestos, lead, mercury, and toxic chemicals, was described as “misleading information”. How should this failure to inform the TPC be characterised? The MPDC had ample opportunity to defend itself in ‘Estimates’ when these ‘numbers’ were exposed.
We are asked to accept at face value the numbers provided by the Greens.
No “face value” about it – the numbers quoted by Ms Burnet came from two reputable sources – from the TPC and Budget Estimates hearings. Scoring cheap political points is clearly more important to the Minister than public safety.
Implicit ad hominem: no numbers are acceptable simply because they are from the Greens. This is reiterated in the next statement about the rally numbers.
Last Sunday, there was a group of 15,000 people gathered and the Greens tell us that was equivalent to the 1,500 that appeared the week before,
Yet another red herring but it exposes the Government’s strategy in talking down the numbers at the ‘Save Tasmania’ anti stadium rally on the 23rd November, suggesting that the spin doctors got a bit of a shock at the turnout against the stadium the weekend before and were quite purposeful in their efforts to make the following week’s debate all about how many turned up, rather than allowing any of the strong statements made at the rally get an airing in the days that followed. Instead, the Police’s fanciful claim dominated the media all week.
Clearly, making any reference to the “1,500” furphy was number one on the Premier’s list of talking points and Eric A being an obedient servant, rarely says anything without referring to those.
Note the use of “gathered” vs “appeared”, conveying warmth vs impersonal manifestation. . The language generates a certain imagery without being directly descriptive. ‘Gathering’ suggests that the getting together was intentional and expressed a shared commitment, or at least, belief, while ‘appearing’ just means the individuals happened to turn up in the same physical location. He’s deliberately misquoting the Greens who have never said that there were an “equivalent” 15,000 people at the first rally.
…so I am very sceptical, forgive me, but experience has taught me to be exceptionally1 careful when Greens quote numbers and assert things because I’ve been burnt once too often, so I will be exceptionally2 careful.
Using emotive terms to sound humble while casingt aspersions on the integrity of those asking quite a simple question, “What’s your plan?” Instead, he plays the victim “burnt once too often”
[As an aside*: We wonder when was it that Eric A was “burnt” by believing the Greens? We have the feeling that if this did ever happen, we’d have heard about it, probably repeatedly from the Minister’s own lips, he has such a penchant for revisionist history when it suits his narrative.]
And he’s still not acknowledging the validity of the source for these numbers – thereby insulting both Budget Estimates and the TPC in a continued ad hominem, while inviting the inference that the Greens are doing something inherently dangerous, which is why he is advocating for ‘exceptional’ carefulness.
However, let’s also be exceptionally3 clear –
“Exceptionally”? Again? Three times in 15 seconds of dialogue. It’s time for a new adverb! Just saying something repeatedly doesn’t make it so, and thus far the Minister has been anything but “clear”.
Dr Woodruff – Get to the question, get to the Hansard, get to the truth.
The SPEAKER – Dr Woodruff.
Ms BURNET – Point of order, Speaker, Standing Order 45, relevance. I draw the minister to the question.
The SPEAKER – I ask the honourable Treasurer to be relevant to the question, please.
Mr ABETZ – I thought I was, but I can understand that the answer is uncomfortable for the member for Clark.
If he “thought” he was being relevant to the question, he has another ‘think’ coming – so far, he hasn’t mentioned the contaminated fill at all. Instead, he now grasps yet another opportunity to divert the debate, and adds another ad hominem, alluding to ‘discomfort’ on the part of the questioner to belittle them. But how can the member for Clark feel anything (except exasperation) regarding the answer since none has been given. He still hasn’t broached the question.
The other thing that is going on is that through his tactics he is conveying a powerful unspoken message that he is not going to be held to mutual standards of moral respect and accountability. That he is somehow exceptional. Everyone in the House is telling him what is wrong with what he is doing – they are evoking the standards of the House, but he chooses to play ‘deaf’ to it. In terms of moral psychology, he is placing himself outside the moral community. He knows this will really irritate the Greens precisely because they are politicians of moral conviction.
What I would say to the member for Clark, even assuming that which you assert is correct – let’s assume that just for once, very dangerous, I know, but we will assume it –
Again, he’s delaying the debate with snide remarks and using emotive terms to cast aspersions on the integrity of those asking quite a simple question, “What is your plan?”
that contaminated soil would need to be removed, irrespective of the project that was going to take place on the site.
A classic whataboutism and blatantly false. There are any number of uses to which that land can be put that would not require the degree of disturbance that an AFL Tier 2 venue necessitates.
Indeed, Labor and the Greens at one stage wanted a hospital there, all on contaminated soil. Having the odd concert, convention or football game compared to a hospital was not an issue for the Greens at the time. It’s only become an issue because they don’t like the AFL stadium and the multipurpose nature of it.
Strawman argument – create a different target – ‘a hospital on contaminated soil’ sounds much worse than the “odd concert…”. The Minister for Deflection knows full well that additional hospital facilities would be nowhere near as large as an AFL ground. Nor would they need to be so heavy, nor would they be expected to accommodate so many people at any one time. Even relocating the RHH entirely would require barely a quarter of the footprint of the stadium, so construction would not require the same degree of excavation and would therefore not require the same quantities removed, even if that could be done safely. This question is about where 220,000m3 of contaminated fill will go.
Now it’s only “the odd concert, convention or football game”? This is an attempt to diminish the concerns associated with constructing such a large venue on such a contaminated site. The number of events has nothing to do with the size of the venue, and quite contrarily, his statement supports the arguments against having such a large structure that will sit unused for most of the time – 96% of the year the stadium will sit idle and empty despite having consumed so much of the site and so much of the State’s finances. Hence its negative Cost-Benefit-Ratio (CBRs of 44% – 50% return on a cost of $775M – $945M, not the latest estimate of $1.13Bn)
Dr Woodruff – You need three more Coppings.
The SPEAKER – Dr Woodruff.
Mr ABETZ – I’m further advised the testing undertaken by the MPDC indicates that approximately 10 per cent of the historical fill estimated to be removed will require disposal at Copping, and this is well within the facility’s annual capacity.
Use of the word “further” here suggests he has previously addressed the question of where the fill is to be disposed of, when a quick scan back through his verbiage shows it to be a masterclass in avoidance, distraction and deflection. This is his first verbal reference to the “historical fill” and he’s now chosen to distinguish 10% of that as needing to be sent to Copping. He offers no evidence for this except ‘advice’ he’s received but fails to table that advice.
The MPDC has drilled I don’t know how many hundreds of holes on the site to determine the levels of contamination.
That the MPDC drilled holes to determine the levels of contamination across the site is a statement of fact, but not relevant to the question of where the contaminants identified by that drilling are to go. While he admits to not knowing how many holes were drilled to determine the levels of contamination, using that phrase in such a casual manner implies there were so many he couldn’t keep count, but such a great number somehow imparts safety?
If he doesn’t know the answer why not take the question on notice? Perhaps his ego over-rode his common sense and the opportunity to pour scorn on his opponents was just too tempting.
Isn’t it amazing when we refer to the site as an ‘industrial wasteland’ the Greens attack us for referring to it as such, but then when it suits them they say the whole site is contaminated and how dare you build anything on it. I just wish there was some consistency.
Another red herring (more like a school of them in that sentence) and quite the verbal contortion. Whether the assertion that the Greens “attack” them for referring to it as an “industrial wasteland” is true or not, it’s irrelevant to the answer. The use by the Premier of the phrase “industrial wasteland” is more often met with “and whose fault is that?” alluding to the conga line of Liberal Government Infrastructure ministers who’ve had oversight of the MPDC for the previous decade and allowed it to deteriorate into this “wasteland”, either through deliberate neglect or benign incompetence.
Then he puts more words in their mouths referring to the “whole site” being contaminated, when the question is clearly about the 220,000m3 of contaminated fill identified by the MPDC but not mentioned in their reports to the TPC. At no point does the question ask, “how dare you build anything on it?” That the Minister then pleads for “consistency” is laughable.
The SPEAKER – The honourable Treasurer’s time has expired.
SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION
Ms BURNET – A supplementary question, Speaker?
The SPEAKER – I will hear the supplementary question.
Ms BURNET – The question I asked was what’s the plan? I draw the minister’s attention to what was put on the public record, that there is about 220,000 cubic metres of contaminated fill. What’s the plan, because Copping won’t be able to take all of that?
The SPEAKER – Honourable Treasurer.
Mr ABETZ – Speaker, it’s one of those problems when you have a supplementary question and you want to ask it without listening to the answer.
What sort of ‘problem’ is that? He accuses the questioner of not listening to the answer when he hasn’t actually given an answer to the question. Again, this imparts blame where it doesn’t lie.
I just indicated to you that Copping can take the amount. I will repeat it again for the benefit of the honourable member. I’m further advised that testing undertaken by MPDC indicates that approximately 10 per cent of the historical fill estimated to be removed will require disposal at Copping. This is well within the facility’s annual capacity.
This still doesn’t answer “what is the plan for disposing of 220,000m3 of contaminated fill?” Even if he can be believed about only 10% being worthy of ‘treatment at Copping’, by focussing on this one part of the question, he avoids explaining where the remaining 90% of contaminants will be dumped. If not at Copping, where? We’re sure the residents near wherever that is will be interested to know how the Minister proposes to keep their communities safe.
Dr Woodruff – That’s not what they said to the Legislative Council.
The SPEAKER – Dr Woodruff.
Mr ABETZ – Leader of the Greens, we know that the member for Clark had to ask your question because you didn’t quite get around to it, but that doesn’t give you licence to interject on the answer.
Another ad hominem belittling his opponents, implying that their sharing of questions amongst their parliamentary cohort amounts to some sort of defect. The irony runs deep here in the criticism that Dr Woodruff didn’t “didn’t quite get around to it” when he has just wasted his entire question and follow-up question time failing ‘to get around to’ an answer.
What I would say to the member for Clark is that the contamination will be removed by all the required standards and the people who use that facility can be guaranteed that they will be safe and there is no human health issue.
It is not clear as to which “facility” he refers – is it the dump site? Is it the stadium site during the excavation process? Or is it the stadium itself once it’s open and filled with 23,000+ fans and players? What of the neighbourhoods surrounding these ‘facilities’? What’s the plan, Minister, for ensuring Tasmanians’ safety?
Again, he has failed to answer the question which is “what is the plan” that enables him to make that guarantee? He clearly has no idea what those “required standards” are, but instead of admitting that, accepting the question and taking it on notice, he dissembles, distracts, casts aspersions on the integrity of the questioner, in fact on their very right to even ask the question, and alludes to irrelevant matters from his Premier’s list of Talking Points.
The SPEAKER – The honourable Treasurer’s time has expired.
Expiration of time meant that, having failed to provide a ‘plan’ early in his answer, he then didn’t have to answer any of the obvious questions that should have followed:
His promise that “the contamination will be removed by all the required standards and the people who use that facility can be guaranteed that they will be safe and there is no human health issue” does NOT answer the question re volume or how he can make that guarantee.
Furthermore, the guarantee is made for “people who use that facility” with no mention of the potential health impacts for the removalists or the neighbourhoods surrounding the site and along the route to the fill’s destination.
The primary question remains: what IS the plan?
Having witnessed first-hand similar performances by the Minister in the Lower House, we can imagine what comes next: He sits back with a self-congratulatory smirk on his face, his internal dialogue writ large in that smug expression “I nailed it!”
Source:
*Reference to being “burnt once too often”:
Eric Abetz is a prominent figure on the conservative wing of the Liberal party, and his political stances are fundamentally at odds with the Greens’ platform.
Throughout his 28-year career in the Senate (1993-2022) and his subsequent political roles, Abetz has regularly and publicly attacked the Greens as “extreme left” and “anti-Australian”.
This political opposition is evident in their:
-
Ideological Conflict: Abetz frequently criticised the Greens on policy grounds, including environmental issues like forestry and social issues like marriage equality.
-
Political Rivalry: He often highlighted when other politicians (such as Jacqui Lambie) voted with the Greens to criticise their voting record, suggesting that doing so was an unusual and negative political alignment from his perspective.
-
Voting Record: Analysis of his voting record on major issues like climate change shows he consistently voted against measures that aligned with Greens’ policies.
-
Preference Deals: He actively warned against his own Liberal party entering into any preference deals with the Greens, arguing it would cost them votes among their conservative base.
If the Minister would care to elucidate when he was “burnt once too often” or even just ‘once’ by believing the Greens, we’d be delighted to be corrected. Otherwise, it’s yet another ‘mistruth’, only serving his ad hominem agenda – the put down at every opportunity.
It serves its purpose, however, by wasting time and delaying his response until all he could do was offer a vague placation – “trust me, everything will be done properly, I’m sure.”
Our Place is a community group with an alternative vision for Macquarie Point.
