Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Tasmanian Greens hedge their bets

By Matthew Holloway - posted Wednesday, 25 January 2012


The Tasmanian Greens are showing themselves to be a completely out of touch with their own policies and Greens in other states, specifically their support of privatisation seems in stark contrast to the policies of Greens branches in Western Australia and New South Wales.

In October 2011, Greens leader Nick McKim confirmed that his party would support the Opposition's bill to stop the state Government selling TOTE Tasmania, the state-owned betting agency. Mr McKim said 'The position we took to the election was to not support the sale of TOTE, it remains Greens policy'.

One month later on the 23rd of November, a vote on the floor of parliament saw every Greens member (with the exception of Kim Booth) vote against the Opposition bill and support Labor in privatising the betting agency.

Advertisement

This gross display saw the Greens ignore the advice of Kim Booth, the Green spokesman on Racing and gaming who had also chaired a committee investigating the future viability of TOTE. Mr Booth was left standing as the lone representative of the Tasmanian Greens who were once a party of principle and a genuine opposition force.


The 23rd of November will go down in Tasmanian history as the day Nick McKim showed the Greens have no alternative to the status quo and are willing to compromise principles in exchange for power. McKim also showed he is just as willing as the major parties to use core and non-core promises as a way of back flipping and betraying the electorate.


The Greens touted neo-liberal arguments in their media release stating, 'The Tasmanian Greens today confirmed that it was the majority view of the Party Room to not support moves to repeal the Tote Tasmania Sale Act 2009, saying that the changing circumstances surrounding the State's financial situation forced a re-evaluation of government priorities.'


It is interesting to note that the Greens press release confirmed that Kim Booth was the only Green to vote according to the recommendations of the Committee's report.

McKim stated 'The majority view in the Party Room was that governments should not be running a gaming entity, especially given the potential ongoing risk to the public purse in order to prop up Tote, when we have such dire funding needs across the community.'

This is a peculiar argument considering the Greens commitment to reforming the gambling industry. Add to this that the WA Greens support for abolition of greyhound racing, horse racing and inhumane use of animals for sport and entertainment.

Advertisement

There is public support for reform; EMC released a poll in October 2011 on regulation of gambling finding 52% of respondents supported more regulation of sports betting while 35% supported more regulation of horse race betting.

If the Tasmanian Greens have ambitions of reform, surely it is better to work with a government owned betting entity than battling a private enterprise who will direct millions into campaigns against any government that tries to initiate change. Counter to Green's claims, privatisation is not restructuring, nor will this promote viability and transparency in the gambling industry.

It is worth noting a quote from a recent address by Greens MP Sylvia Hale in NSW 'The decline of formal engagement with politics, both in voter turnout and in political party membership, has been accompanied by social democrat parties generally accepting – or at least failing to confront – free market economics where government regulation is reduced to a minimum. Challenges to the assumptions underlying neo-liberalism and economic rationalism have been sporadic and somewhat half-hearted.'

This quote from a Greens MP is worth examining in light of the fact that the Tasmanian Greens have also failed to engage people in the political process or to challenge the system and offer anything other than neo-liberal solutions to current economic problems.

The speech was presented before the formation of the Labor–Green government in Tasmania and warned of the dangers of Greens entering coalition governments by highlighting the experiences of Greens parties in Germany, France and Ireland.

Hale promotes the 1991 New South Wales hung parliament where independents John Hatton, Clover Moore, Peter Macdonald and Tony Windsor entered into a Memorandum of understanding with the Liberal Premier Nick Greiner.

In this government the independents were able to achieve significant reforms in areas such as electoral funding and disclosure, fixed four-year terms, strengthening Ombudsman and Auditor-General powers as well as achieving changes to defamation laws and Whistle-blower protection. This agreement offered the government votes on appropriation but gave the independents the ability to vote against the government in cases of maladministration and corruption.

When the Independent Commission against Corruption 'ICAC' led an investigation against Premier Greiner and found the creation of a job in the Environment Protection Agency to be an act of corruption, the Independent MP's supported the immediate resignation of Greiner.

In Hale's reflection on the experience and failures of Green coalitions in European parliaments, it is clear she is was promoting the Independent-Greiner government as an example to the NSW Greens should they find themselves in a balance of power position after the 2011 state election.

Compare this to Tasmania where the Greens have been enticed by a deal with the devil which has offered the perks of office, ministerial positions and chauffeur driven cars all in exchange for compromising core principles.

This has effectively silenced the Greens ability to expose government maladministration and has incriminated them as accomplices of government misconduct; the Greens have so far protected the incompetence of two Ministers who have faced no confidence motions on the floor of parliament.

The first is the indefensible support Cassy O'Connor gave to ex-Children's Minister Lyn Thorp who had breached ministerial conduct and confidentiality.

Minister O'Conner also defended the incompetence of Health Minister Michelle O'Byrne who has been responsible for broken promises and massive cuts to health services. In defending Ms O'Byrne, Minister O'Connor stated 'You can heckle Michelle O'Byrne all you like but you have got to acknowledge that she has courage and is telling the truth.'


Weeks later the supposedly truthful and courageous Minister O'Byrne was exposed as having wasted $23,757 tax payer dollars on accommodation in 4.5 star hotels for the acting CEO of the Royal Hobart Hospital, the CEO was meant to be staying in long term DHHS accommodation provided for visiting staff.

Minister O'Byrne's was also humiliated in 2011 by both the Australian Medical Association and ex Green member, now independent MP for Denison, Andrew Wilkie calling for a Federal take-over of the state's health system. Added to this is the fact that the Liberal opposition and the Australian Nurses Federation have moved no confidence motions against Minister O'Byrne.

The sale of the Tote is just one example of the Greens move towards privatisation and the neo-liberal agenda, since their move into government the Tasmanian Greens have promoted policies which seem incongruent with the Greens in other states of Australia.

Nick McKim as minister for corrections promoted the privatisation of the state owned Hayes Prison Farm; McKim argued that $4.5 million was needed to upgrade the facility but stated an undisclosed amount would be spent to prepare the facility for the sale which the government expects will return a minimal $2.5 million.


This is in stark contrast to the New South Wales Greens who in 2009 the Greens led a campaign to stop the privatisation of Cessnock Gaol and initiated a parliamentary inquiry into the sale.

The WA Greens website that privatisation risks equitable and sustainable provision of services and is often a bad decision made on purely economic terms. They also scrutinise claims that the private sector is more efficient in managing services and advocate options other than privatisation to effect greater efficiency.

On the specific issue of prison privatisations, NSW Greens candidate Janet Cavanaugh came out against moves to privatise Grafton gaol stating it is a government's obligation to run prisons and this was in the best interest of society. Ms Cavanaugh argued that allowing corporate profits to be made from punishment was unethical and stated 'The Greens believe that introducing the profit motive into the prisons system is not in the interests of prison officers, prisoners or the rest of the community.'

The final example of the Tasmanian Greens and their massive philosophical divergence from their other Green counterparts is the recent moves by Human Services Minister Cassy O'Connor to hand over the Stainforth Court public housing estate to private developers.

Ms O'Connor discussed social problems on the housing estate and tried to justify a move towards privatising a number of the units. The truth remains that this is a prime location with some of the most beautiful views in Hobart and is situated near the picturesque Cornelian Bay, less than 5 minutes from Hobart CBD. Tony Collidge, the Real Estate Institute of Tasmania's vice-president stated units could attract $300,000 to $400,000.

Having close access to cities is important for people in public housing; public housing residents are more likely to be reliant on public transport and are in greater need of close proximity to the social services on offer in major cities. This Green privatisation initiative will force lower socio-economic people further from the city and preferences wealthier people for inner city living.

In reference to these actions, Jacqui Petrusma, the shadow minister of human services stated 'Stainforth Courttenants are vulnerable, low income earners. They can't afford to move into the private rental market, and should not be forced to.Given we don't have enough public housing properties to meet existing demand, Ms O'Connor must explain how she will ensure that the extra 100 plus tenants from Stainforth Court will not be left out in the cold.'


Privatisation of public housing is against the policies of the New South Wales Greens who clearly state that they do not support privatisation of any essential services and call for an end to the use of public private partnerships for public services and infrastructure. The NSW Greens also call for 'No mandate, no privatisation' legislation to stop state governments selling off public assets without a full public and parliamentary debate.

It is worth examining whether the public housing privatisation push by Minister O'Connor is a breach of the Charter of the Australian Greens. Privatisation of public housing is questionable in light of the social justice section of the Green Charter, specifically point a) To eradicate poverty by developing initiatives that address the causes as well as symptoms of poverty. Also point c) To introduce measures that redress the imbalance of wealth between the rich and poor.

The time is fast approaching that the Australian Greens need to address their crisis in identity and the actions of the Tasmanian Greens. The question that needs to be answered 'How can the Tasmanian Greens radically promote privatisation in direct contradiction to Greens platforms in other states? Also should the Tasmanian Greens be allowed to continue as members under the Australian Greens banner?'

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

1 post so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Matthew Holloway is a freelance writer and social justice advocate from Tasmania, where he stood for state and federal parliament and co-founded Tasmanians for Transparency. He has previously written for Tasmanian Times and Eureka Street, Matthew currently lives in Melbourne where he works as a Counsellor in Aboriginal Health and a Social Worker in Catholic social services.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Matthew Holloway

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Matthew Holloway
Article Tools
Comment 1 comment
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy