Excerpts from Sue Neales’ Greens tip power play:
EXPECTATIONS of a strong showing at this year’s state election have the Tasmanian Greens already planning how best to claim power alongside Paul Lennon and his Labor Party.
If a hung parliament is the election outcome, with no party winning a majority 13 seats in the lower house, Greens leader Peg Putt plans to enter a formal coalition government with Labor.
Such a Labor-Greens coalition could rocket Ms Putt to a place as Tasmania’s next deputy premier, incongruously serving under likely re-elected Labor Premier Mr Lennon.
The Greens would also want to snare several key ministerial positions within any coalition cabinet, with the environment portfolio an obvious prize.
The Greens are confident of winning six seats in the lower house of State Parliament — two more than they currently hold.
Labor would then likely have to rely on the support of the Greens in a formal alliance in order to govern effectively, since the Liberals have already vowed not to enter into any agreements to govern,
“We believe we have a really good chance of getting six candidates elected and we are saying we’re prepared to work to form a majority government with Labor if that is what the people want [by the way they cast their votes]” Ms Putt explained.
`It won’t be all our way or theirs [in a coalition], but that’s a democracy and that would be the will of the electors.”
And,
Ms Putt said a Labor-Greens coalition could be the solution that best matched the wishes of Tasmanian voters, if the 25 lower house seats are distributed in an election result that allocated 12 seats to Labor, six to the Greens and seven to the Liberals.
A recent telephone voter intention poll by The Mercury, conducted by the TasPoll group, indicated this was the most likely outcome if a state election had been held in mid-December.
And,
Former leader and now Greens senator Bob Brown said it was unfortunate mythologising that now painted the Labor-Green accord of 1989-91 as a time of squabbling, uncertainty and inaction.
“We shared the odium of that dark economic time because we promised to tackle the unknown $100 million debt that the government found itself confronting,” Dr Brown explained.
“`But it’s not right to describe it as a time of uncertainty; actually it was an extraordinarily exciting and creative government under the accord.”
Dr Brown said he was looking forward to the forthcoming state election and the prospect of a Labor-Greens coalition.
“People are saying go for the new, and this time my advice would be to go for a coalition with Labor rather than an accord, and the sharing of Cabinet positions that entails.”
The Liberal Party led by Rene Hidding has already committed to not entering an alliance. In November, Mr Hidding warned Tasmania it could not afford a return to the “unmitigated disaster days” of the Labor-Green accord.
“It would be terrifying for the future of Tasmania if Premier Paul Lennon was prepared to go down this path again, or his colleagues were conspiring to bring about this outcome,” Mr Hidding said.
“I think all Tasmanians would agree that the notion of Peg Putt controlling Paul Lennon on a daily basis would be a recipe for disaster for the future of our state.
“We would see Peg Putt controlling Treasury, taxes rising, development grinding to a sudden halt, jobs lost and economy going backwards, not to mention the potential introduction of all sorts of wacky policies such as legalisation of hard drugs and heroin injecting rooms.”
Ms Putt said the alternative to a coalition was to end up with a parliament where no party had the majority and any two parties could join together to defeat the issues or legislation being promoted by the third.
“I still think that Lennon would, or should, prefer to work formally with another party like ourselves in an alliance, than in a minority government situation,” said Ms Putt.
Read more:
Greens tip power play
Also:
Betfair: deal done
EARLIER:
All the debate on TT:
HERE
HAG’s predictions of hung parliaments and grand coalitions:
HERE
What Rene reckons:
Media Release
RENE HIDDING, MHA
Leader of the State Opposition
Tuesday January 17, 2006Putt confirms the massive threat to Tasmania posed by a vote for Labor or Green at the next election
Greens leader Peg Putt has let the cat out of the bag – confirming the massive threat to Tasmania posed by a possible Labor Green accord and a vote for either Labor or Green at the next State election.
Mr Hidding said Tasmanians would be reeling at the prospect of a Premier Lennon and Deputy Premier Putt leadership team in the unfortunate event for the future of Tasmania that a stable majority Hidding Liberal Government is not elected at the looming state poll.
“Tasmanians can now visualise just how serious a threat to the future of our State a Lennon-Putt Labor-Green accord would pose with Ms Putt’s self-serving statements in the media today about how she would seek the Deputy Premier’s position in any such alliance, and her disturbing statements that other Greens members would need key portfolios – presumably Nick McKim as Environment Minister, and heaven forbid, possibly the anti-farmer, anti-water-development Kim Booth as Primary Industries Minister.
“Such a Labor Green accord would be an unmitigated disaster for Tasmania. Labor and the Greens would squabble over everything and nothing would get done. And Ms Putt would be seeking to exert her influence, as she has confirmed in the media, to implement such whacky and disastrous policies as death taxes, legalised drugs and heroin injecting rooms.
“We could kiss goodbye to announcements like that yesterday of a $60 million investment in the forestry industry – and the pulp mill would never see the light of day, let alone the thousands of jobs that would go with it.“Tasmanians only need to look back to the disastrous Labor Green accord of the early 90s to understand that such a shocking pairing of political parties leads to higher taxes, massive job losses and a stunting of economic growth.
“This is the last thing we need in Tasmania. We need a plan and a vision for Securing our Future and Securing our Economy – not a Labor-Green accord to lead us into recession.”
Mr Hidding said Ms Putt’s comments in the media today only made more urgent the need for Premier Lennon and all of his Labor colleagues and candidates to sign a pledge like the State Liberals have, to govern in majority or not at all.
The State Liberal Team have all signed a guarantee that we will not govern in minority with the Greens or anyone else.
“Premier Lennon is clearly entertaining a Labor Green accord to cling to power in the event that the State Liberals do not achieve majority government because despite significant pressure from the State Liberals, he and all of his Labor colleagues and candidates have refused point blank to sign a pledge ruling out minority government with the Greens.
“The State Liberals on the other hand understand that stable majority government is in the best interests of Tasmania, and that is why every Liberal candidate for the next election has committed to governing in majority or not at all.
“Today’s revelations from Ms Putt underline the danger to Tasmania by voting Green or Labor – it will lead to a Lennon-Putt accord that will be an unmitigated disaster for our state.
“The revelations only heighten the need for Tasmanians to vote Liberal at the next election – for a stable Liberal majority government, for a Liberal State Government that will get its priorities right, and for a Liberal State Government that has a plan and a vision for Securing Tasmania’s Future.”
And,
RENE HIDDING, MHA
Leader of the State Opposition
Tuesday January 17, 2006Sturges has egg all over his face and only serves to highlight why the Premier should resign
Opposition leader Rene Hidding today said Labor’s Graeme Sturges was unfit to be an elected member of Parliament if he was too thick to understand the difference between accepting thousands of dollars of free hospitality from a company the Premier was about to award a $700 million licence to – and lying about that to Parliament – and visiting Taiwan as a guest of their Government as part of an annual bipartisan delegation, with no deals at all in the offing.
Mr Hidding said the Lennon Labor Government was clearly in panic mode if it was trying to make some sort of issue out a delegation Mr Hidding led to Taiwan at the invitation of the Taiwanese Government.
Alternatively, Mr Sturges was trying to shaft his Denison colleague David Bartlett, who was all ready to accompany Mr Hidding on this delegation until a personal matter intervened, and Ivan Dean took part at the last minute.
“Mr Sturges has demonstrated that he is as thick as two bricks if he is trying to create an issue out of my visit to Taiwan, along with Ivan Dean in David Bartlett’s place,” Mr Hidding said.
“This was part of a regular bipartisan delegation between Taiwan and Australia by MPs from all around Australia. David Bartlett was all ready to participate with me, until a personal matter arose. At the time there were no deals in the offing between myself and the Government of Taiwan. I have never attempted to conceal the fact that I took part in this delegation, indeed it has been openly disclosed in the register of interests.
“Contrast that to the behaviour of Premier Lennon. He accepted thousands of dollars of free hospitality from PBL on the eve of awarding this company a $700 million gaming licence – and misled Parliament twice about this, claiming he received no free hospitality.
“If Mr Sturges cannot understand the fundamental difference then he is not fit to be a Member of Parliament.
“He is also effectively implying that no Parliamentarian should ever participate in any delegations such as this and having clear shots at colleagues such as David Llewellyn, Lara Giddings, Steven Kons, the Premier and any other Minister who has ever received any free hospitality during overseas trips.”
Mr Hidding said that he took it upon himself to talk up the benefits of Tasmanian seafood, and the Australian Maritime College, during the visit to Taiwain and spoke at length with a number of industry representatives prior to the visit.
“That one or more people did not know about this is completely and utterly irrelevant.”
Mr Hidding said the Lennon Labor Government was absolutely clutching at straws with this pathetic and completely unfounded attack.
“This just shows how desperate this arrogant and incompetent Lennon Labor Government has become, and how greatly they are still in damage control over the Premier’s misleading of Parliament over the Betfair suite scandal.”
Mr Hidding challenged Mr Sturges to explain whether he condoned the Premier’s actions in accepting thousands of dollars worth of free hospitality from PBL owned Crown Casino on the eve of awarding the PBL joint venture Betfair a $700 million gaming licence, and whether he condoned the premier lying to Parliament about this on two occasions last year, as well as the Premier receiving almost $100,000 worth of dollars worth of free, warm and fuzzy publicity from the PBL-owned Womens Weekly which other Premiers such as Bob Carr have been forced to pay for.
For people such as Mr Sturges who need the blindingly obvious explained to them, fundamental differences between Paul Lennon’s Betfair suite scandal and Rene Hidding and Ivan Dean’s Taiwan delegation:
Rene’s delegation to Taiwan was not linked in any way to any deal between the Tasmanian Government and Taiwan or any other deal for that matter whereas Paul Lennon’s $20,000 in free hospitality and $90,000 Women’s Weekly article was received in connection with a $700 million gaming licence;
Rene has never sought to cover up the fact that the delegation to Taiwan was paid for by the Taiwanese government whereas Premier Lennon told Parliament on two occasions that he did not accept any free hospitality from PBL or Crown Casino;
Rene has been utterly transparent about his delegation to Taiwan, even recording it in his register of pecuniary interests in the year prior to it needing to be recorded, whereas Paul Lennon has not declared his free hospitality or Women’s Weekly deal in his register of pecuniary interests, nor with his Government’s Gifts policy, which he has clearly breached.By even attempting to compare Rene and Ivan Dean’s delegation to Paul Lennon’s Betfair suite scandal, Graeme Sturges has only served to highlight and reinforce the reasons why Paul Lennon should resign.
The question for the Premier today is will he be declaring his $20,000 in free hospitality and $90,000 Women’s Weekly article in his register of pecuniary interests. If not, why not?
What Peg reckons:
MEDIA RELEASE
Peg Putt MHA
Tasmanian Greens Opposition Leader
Tuesday, 17 JANUARY 2006GREENS WILL WORK CO-OPERATIVELY WITH OTHER PARTIES
Multi-Party Government Preferred Option if Balance-of-Power Parliament Returned
The Tasmanian Greens today said they are prepared to work co-operatively with either the Labor or Liberal party and that their preference is for a coalition arrangement to ensure stability, if the next election delivers a balance of power Parliament in which no single party has the majority of seats.
Greens Opposition Leader Peg Putt MHA outlined that in a democracy politicians are elected to implement the will of the people, and that if the people deliver a balance of power situation the politicians are duty bound to find a way to make that work, which means being prepared to set aside political point-scoring in favour of co-operation, and that refusing to do so is the political equivalent of declaring that the voters have it wrong and that that political party will take its bat and ball and go home.
Ms Putt believes that the optimum arrangement would see the Greens with ministerial posts and their Leader as Deputy Premier, as has been the norm with coalition arrangements in Australian politics such as the Liberal-National coalition in Canberra, but pointed out that former Liberal Minister Nick Evers has been espousing a Labor-Liberal coalition.
“The Greens have been looking at all the possibilities in the high likelihood of a balance of power Parliament being voted in at the upcoming Tasmanian election, and we make an undertaking to the people that we will work co-operatively with other political parties to deliver good government to Tasmania,” Ms Putt said.
“We will not have a temper tantrum and throw the peoples’ vote back in their faces by pledging to take our bat and ball and go home, which is what self-serving pronouncements about ‘governing in majority or not at all’ amount to.”
“Political maturity is required and this should not be beyond Tasmania’s politicians, after all multi-party government is the norm in Europe and can redress the arrogance and secrecy of a single party holding absolute power.”
“The Greens are in politics to implement our policies and move Tasmania forward, and we hope to increase our representation to six Members of Parliament and to be in a position to negotiate a part in government.”
“We are looking for Ministerial positions and understand that in this situation we would not get everything our own way and would need to compromise as would our coalition partner.”
“The bottom line is that Tasmanians are tired of political point-scoring and want politicians to be prepared to work together, and we Greens are saying that if a balance of power Parliament is delivered then we will talk to the other parties about just that, working together to deliver the will of the people.”
“The other possible arrangement would be a Labor-Liberal coalition due to their commonality of policies, with the Greens becoming the major opposition party,” Ms Putt said.
European Examples of Balance of Power Parliaments
As at May 2005 the following European Parliaments had multi-party governments, over half of which have more than two parties forming governments – consisting of alliances, coalitions & minority governments – in multi-party Parliaments:1. Austria: 2 Parties
2. Belgium: 5 Parties
3. Bosnia & Herzegovina: 5 Parties
4. Croatia: 3 Parties
5. Czech Republic: 3 Parties
6. Denmark: 2 Parties
7. Finland: 3 Parties
8. Germany: 2 Parties
9. Hungary: 2 Parties
10. Iceland: 2 Parties
11. Ireland: 2 Parties
12. Latvia: 5 Parties
13. Lithuania: 4 Parties
14. Macedonia: 3 Parties
15. Montenegro: 2 Parties
16. Netherlands: 3 Parties
17. Norway: 3 Parties
18. Poland: 2 Parties
19. Romania: 4 Parties
20. San Marino: 2 Parties
21. Scotland: 2 Parties
22. Serbia: 4 Parties
23. Slovakia: 4 Parties
24. Slovenia; 4 Parties
25. Switzerland: 4 Parties
26. Ukraine: 3 Parties
