Parliament and Governance (2)

A Very Weird Week

Details: Created on Monday, 27 August 2012 10:00; Written by Julian Amos

Have you ever felt there are times when you seem to have passed over from a world of logic and reason into a parallel universe, in which a totally new and unexpected reality resides. One based on a totally new approach to solving issues, where fear, circumstance and short term expediency share centre stage. A surreal experience to be sure. Last week was one of those times.

Take last week for example:

Education A meeting of State School Parents and Friends provided a warm reception to Minister McKim. It would appear that little attention was paid to the fact that Tasmania’s school retention rates, and its levels of numeracy and literacy, have fallen way behind the national average. It is easy for the Minister to call for the leaving age to be raised to 18. One would have thought that a priority would be to have the more basic 3R’s firmly established.

Health Medical staff in our public hospitals were complaining they are not been given sufficient attention by management. Management, they say, is preventing medical staff from contributing effectively to the day-to-day running of clinical programs.I would have thought that the job of managers was to manage, and not abrogate responsibility to the staff.

The trawler The fishing trawler coming to our shores is to catch a quota no different to what the company is already catching. Management is amenable to a range of operational constraints to ensure overfishing does not occur. The science supports the level of quota. Yet the science is debunked. Politicians are scrambling to find ways to “express their concern”, when the science is what should give them comfort. After all, if they find comfort in the science of climate change, then this one should be a doddle.

Forestry After 2 years of closed negotiations, where vested interests have sat around the table drawing lines on maps, supported by Ministers bearing late night pizza, we have had the spectacle of an Interim Agreement, in which nothing but platitudes have been agreed, apart from an agreement that they might agree to something sometime in the future. Meanwhile, there is a recommendation that negotiations continue, all at taxpayers’ expense. As well, there has been a suggestion that more scientific endeavour and advice be scrambled in a possible remake of Forestry Tasmania

Electricity Criticism has been leveled at our electricity utilities making money. How dare they? Yet at the same time criticism is leveled at FT for not making money. How dare they? Added to this conundrum has come the fanciful suggestion that a trading room operating in Hydro Tasmania be divided into three parts, separated by a Chinese wall. These trading desks will compete with each other, assuring competition in the wholesale market. Even the most cursory of examinations would conclude that these desks would be competing against each other – a gain at one desk would be at the expense of another. Benefit to the taxpayer. Zip. Benefit to the consumer, negative, since there would be more administration involved in a carrying out the same function.

Energy

The extraordinary thing about the electricity announcement from the Greens is that the government already has a policy, having accepted much of the review panel’s findings and appointed a panel to consider implementation measures. Now a part of government, led by a Minister of the government, is suggesting a different set of issues. The remainder of the government then said they would give consideration to these new concerns. I again sense the tail wagging the dog, with the Greens being in Cabinet when they feel like it, and not being in it when it doesn’t suit.

Waterfront development

The Parliament Square development, whose application is once more before the Supreme Court for a decision on a minor legal aspect of the project, continues to await a decision. Its not really news, that nothing has happened. The previous week it was the same. Nothing happened. So far, they have been waiting 6 months for this particular decision, and nothing has happened. So what is another week.

Such peculiar behavior was not confined to Tasmania. There would appear to be a similar affliction nationally.

Carbon Pricing The government has determined it will set a price on carbon use, which will cause much grief for many manufacturing enterprises, so they now compensate manufacturers so that they will not be penalized. No reason for any change of behavior here.

At the same time, the government which has imposed this tax, thereby causing electricity producers to hike their prices have now complained that electricity prices are on the increase, and have threatened the electricity producers with punitive action.

Asylum seekers After determining that asylum seekers will be processed offshore, we now discover that the facilities required to house these people on faraway islands have fallen into a state of utter disrepair, and will cost millions of dollars to bring them back to habitable standard. Meanwhile, centres like Pontville, on which significant sums of money has already been spent, remain empty and idle.

Coal sales The government is imposing a carbon tax to reduce carbon emissions and encourage the use of renewable energy sources, while at the same time encouraging the sale of greater amounts of coal to feed offshore furnaces so that others may pour carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. No benefit to the atmosphere whatsoever. And at the same time that we argue for a greater use of carbon-free renewable energy, we oppose biofuels as a renewable energy source. The same argument goes for uranium sales. Happy to sell it offshore, yet fearful of using it domestically. A strange sense of values, to be concerned about pollution while encouraging others to pollute. The word hypocritical come to mind.

Meanwhile, internationally, the euro staggers from one crisis to another, the Syrians are blowing themselves apart while the world watches, hopelessly, and the Republicans in the United States want to punish people for being poor, while letting looting bankers off scot free.

That was some of the action that occurred last week. The politics of pandering to vested interests and short term expediency has become a regular feature of public policy. Complex issues are reduced to the 30 second media grab, glib phrases suggesting dire outcomes have overtaken proper analysis, and the squeaky wheel gets the oil.

Maybe I am not in a parallel universe after all, and this is the way things are really done. Either that, or it’s all just a bad dream.

A response to Bob Brown

Details: Created on Monday, 05 March 2012 11:00; Written by Julian Amos

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Senator Bob Brown’s ill-considered attempt to denigrate me (Mercury, 2 March) shows he is not only a past master at rewriting history, but the real power behind Minister McKim.

Bob Brown should recall that in December 1981, the Government’s preferred power scheme (the Gordon-above-Olga), once supported by Brown himself, was put to a referendum and rejected. As Minister responsible I supported the Government’s position. It was only after that rejection that the Government needed to reconsider its position, and it did so in January 1982. At the State election later that year, I held my seat.

Regarding Doug Lowe, let the record show that I was indeed concerned about the leadership of the Government at that time and expressed that concern - within Government, in writing. However, in the ensuing vote on his leadership, I did not vote against him. Doug Lowe himself acknowledges this fact.

At all times during that period, I made no public comment contrary to the Government’s position. And it is on this point that I take issue with McKim. Interesting that it is Bob Brown that now responds. Trying to shoot the messenger does not change the message. And the message is that McKim should resolve his conflict of interest – to behave as a Minister, or resign from Cabinet.

On Governing

Details: Created on Monday, 13 February 2012 11:00; Written by Julian Amos

The recent outburst by Minister McKim, warning would-be investor Mr Richard Chandler and his company away from taking a stake in Gunns, highlights the absurdity of the present governance arrangements. His outburst follows the threat from his colleague Kim Booth to disrupt the commerce of this State and the call by the Tasmanian Wilderness Society demanding to meet with Mr Chandler - to warn him off.

The call would be laughable if it was not so serious. And it is serious for a number of reasons.

First, it places on display a Cabinet divided. The Premier has spoken in positive terms about the investment, and of its prospects for moving the pulpmill project forward, only to be undermined by one of her own government Ministers. For those not intimately associated with the nuances of the present governance arrangements, such as interstate and overseas investors, this is a most confusing message. And such confusion is immensely damaging to the State’s reputation as a stable economic environment.

Second, McKim is a Minister of the Government, and as such, speaks with the authority of the Government. Ministers simply don’t have the luxury of having a view separate from the government, because they are the government. It is impossible for him to divorce himself from that fact.

Third, it shows a Minister hellbent on bagging economic activity. For as much as he may wish to deny this claim by stating his comment is specific to Gunns and/or to the forest sector, the broader message he is conveying is that all investment is under attack.

Fourth, the Minister together with his party colleagues are inciting social disruption. For the Greens to talk of “a wall of protest the like of which we have not seen before” is nothing other than an inducement to others to disrupt economic activity and continue to promote divisions in the community.

Fifth, his argument is illogical. It has nothing to do with forestry matters, as the proposed pulpmill will be operating with feedstock from private plantations. And his argument cannot be environmental as the proposed mill has received all the requisite permits, which are of the highest world-wide environmental standards. So on what basis does he base his argument? To represent the mill as “toxic” is an appalling departure from the truth, and should not be tolerated from a government Minister.

Sixth, McKim represents a minority view within the Tasmanian community. However he represents his views as being those of the majority of Tasmanians, a claim that is patently false.

Seventh, it further undermines the Inter Government Agreement (IGA) process. His comment comes on top of a continuing round of protests against forest interests at a time when efforts are being made through the IGA to reach an end to the long-running dispute over forest access and when significant hectarage has been set aside while that process continues. In this context, the appalling and dishonest campaign against Ta Ann and Forestry Tasmania should be condemned by all Government Ministers, including McKim. However, the opposite is true, the protests continue unabated, and the IGA will most likely collapse as a result.

And finally, it is serious because the Government has seen fit to do nothing to bring McKim into line. The excuse from the Premier is that this is nothing new and that we have always known of McKim’s position on this matter. That may well be so, but it does nothing for her standing as Premier of this State to allow such comments to go unchallenged. In fact, the continuing commentary from the Greens does great damage to the credibility of her Government, and undermines her position as Premier.

There are enormous opportunities for economic growth in this State, but it is not going to happen without a positive direction from Government. Like it or not, the government is the elephant in the room, and it needs to recognise this fact. Investment doesn’t just happen, it needs to be encouraged, and with the present parlous state of the world economic situation, we do not have the luxury of surplus funds looking for a home.

At a time when the Tasmanian economy is struggling to move ahead, such antics from the Greens should be widely condemned. A recent forum held by the Tasmanian Property Council exposed the fact that the property market was subdued with little in the way of growth in sight. And this market is a bellwether for the remainder of the economy. In such an environment investment should be welcomed with open arms, and not trampled on for base political purposes. Being soft on her Cabinet colleague simply undermines faith in her Government.

Some in the Government argue that their primary concern is to ensure political stability above all other considerations. The question needs to be asked “What stability, and at what cost?’

At present “stability” means not rocking the boat, however the cost of such a cautious approach is considerable. When stability comes at the expense of significant economic and social disruption then it is a very high price to pay indeed. If the goal is to ensure political stability, all the Greens have to do is to suggest political instability to get the Government to fall into line. A depressing example of “tail wagging dog”.

At some point, there will be a reckoning for this abrogation of responsibility to the wellbeing of the Tasmanian community. From the ongoing forest conflict we have seen many in our community lose their jobs and their livelihoods. Many have argued that it is “changed market conditions” that has caused the problem

But that is not the story by any stretch. Sawmillers are selling all they can produce, and as industry analyst Robert Eastment reports, other woodchip suppliers around the country are finding markets for their product overseas, and at reasonable prices.

It is the Tasmanian brand that has been trashed. And as a community we have simply sat back and watched it happen. We are all aware of the boastful accounts from the conservation groups how they have been successful in sabotaging overseas markets – their care factor for their fellow Tasmanians is zero and their actions are despicable.

Many readers may not see this as particularly relevant to them – but it is. Such a significant loss of economic activity has ramifications across the entire community, and the human tragedy occasioned by this circumstance is far-reaching.

The Premier has a clear choice. She must show leadership and control her team. She must rein in the Greens, even if it means a threat to the existing governing arrangements. To not do so, to glibly say it doesn’t matter, is to baulk at this challenge. And to walk away from her own standing and credibility.

McKim's Ministerial Responsibility

Details: Created on Tuesday, 28 February 2012 11:00; Written by Julian Amos

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

The article written by McKim exposes an extraordinary abrogation of responsibility to his role as a Minister in the Tasmanian Government, or at the least a lack of understanding of the role of a Minister. I suspect the former to be true.

McKim argues that he has every right to speak out as Leader of the Greens party, and that he will not be silenced. In fact, he argues that a protocol forged between Labor and the Greens allows him to articulate policies different to Labor policy.

However, McKim has taken this to a point where he is a Minister arguing against a government decision, against other government Ministers, and threatening to undermine his Ministerial colleagues, and the government.

No-one argues that a “partner” in government should not have a view, nor that a leader should not speak out on issues. However, that’s not the point. McKim is not just in a party supporting a government, he is a Cabinet Minister in the government, and therefore has a greater duty to represent the government, and that obviously creates for him a conflict of interest between his two roles.

It is thus a simple proposition. In order to resolve the conflict he has to make a choice, to leave the government and remain an outspoken leader, or to relinquish the leadership to remain in Cabinet.

As to the matter of a personal disclosure of interest on my part, full details are available on my website, which is documented with the articles I write. Trying to shoot the messenger does not change the message. And the message is that McKim should resolve his conflict of interest – to behave as a Minister, or walk.

An Early Election

Details: Created on Wednesday, 24 August 2011 10:00; Written by Julian Amos

Everywhere you go these days, people are saying we need a new election. Whether it is parents at schools that are under threat of closure, hospital workers concerned about cutbacks, forestry people angry at the sellout of their industry, public servants worried about their jobs, investors confused by the planning laws, letter-writers to the papers, Liberals sensing the main chance - everywhere, everyone is talking up an election.

It is not that they are wanting an election as such, but there is a real desire for a change of government direction. Which could be a change of government.

And the mood of uncertainty and anger is not helped by the split in Cabinet over forestry policy, the support by Cabinet members for protestors breaking the law, and also Kim Booth’s incessant claim to bring down the government over payments to Gunns and\or some other “malfeasance”.

All of this has created a climate of instability, and this instability has led to a lack of direction and purpose.

Not that there will be an election any time soon. Booth’s protestations are more a cry of impotence than anything else. Even if he does get round to move his motion of no confidence, he is only one and he needs the support of three of the 5 Greens, plus the Liberals. Those three could be hard to find - the two Green ministers and the Green parliamentary secretary have become far too comfortable in their new roles in government - some even say in being the real government – the tail wagging the dog.

So it is entirely possible that there will be no early election, and from Labor’s point of view that is probably a good thing, because over the last year they have successfully alienated every traditional support group there is.

Polls show Labor now languishing at less than 25% popularity, not a good position from which to win the next election, and the Greens appear to have reached their zenith at around 20%. There are signs of disquiet amongst Green supporters - being in government has caused them to compromise their ideals thus alienating the idealistic vote that has supported them to this time. Not that this is of much comfort for the Liberals, as they have not yet reached majority support, although their vote is improving.

But let us for a moment assume that Cabinet does fracture, and that this will lead to an election and that it will be soon.

Under our present 25-seat Parliament, a quota for election is 16.67%. From the above percentages, that will translate into at least one Labor candidate and one Green candidate for each of the 5 electorates. Labor might even scrape up another 2, depending on the campaign itself. That leaves 13, maybe 2 more, to the Liberals.

A team of 13 will provide a majority government, so the messiness of co-operative government arrangements between two opposing political ideologies will be gone. A Cabinet of 8, a Speaker, and 4-6 backbenchers. The Greens will stay at 5, but with no say in government, and Labor will be reduced to from 5 to 7 members.

Although this will provide a government with a majority, will this be a good parliament? I suspect not. There will not be a strong backbench, and the opposition will be too weak to be even relevant. This is not good for sound, effective and responsible government.

Under a 35-seat Parliament, a quota for election is 12.5%. A 35-seat parliament would, under these figures, return a minimum of 5 Greens, 10 Labor and up to 20 Liberals. This scenario would provide a strong Government backbench and a viable Opposition. This is good for sound, effective and responsible government.

Such a change cannot occur before the next election, but it can and should be planned for now. It is a simple matter to amend the legislation, reversing the change of 1998.

When the matter of an increase in the size of parliament is raised, many argue against it on the basis of cost. However, this can be done cost neutral. Ministers are surrounded by advisors, far too many in the view of most people – and considering the standing of the government one suspects they are not too good at their job anyway. The books can quite easily be balanced such that the cost of MP’s and advisors don’t change. A gain in one area, a loss in another. Since most advisors think of themselves as MPs anyway, it is a relatively simple transfer, determined by the electorate. A more responsive parliament for no extra cost. It’s got to be good.

Anyway, for those who are hoping for an early election, don’t hope too hard. It’s probably not going to happen anytime soon. Any improvement in Labor’s support could leave us in a similar situation to now – a hung parliament and a minority government. If it did return a majority government - a fact still in some dispute - for the Liberals, the present loss in GST revenues has created a financial situation in which the joys of victory would be short-lived. Hard decisions will need to be made, and popularity would be ephemeral. It will require a government with commitment and resolve. For the present Government, the next election is theirs to lose. At this point of time, that would be the reality.