LETTERS

Peter Troy

This man has no shame.

If we suffered 34 killed in Afghanistan and 780 fully incapacitated each week, it would be a national tragedy.

The dollar cost to Australia of 2005 workplace losses was $Billion 57.5.

Abbott is a twister of the truth?

John Ward

Glenn Milne, "ECONOMICAL WITH TRUTH Sunday Tasmanian" 11-11-07 raises some interesting questions about the economy, major party politicians and truth.

John Howard’s record -- GST, Children overboard, Iraq, and interest rates plus do not impress as being honest.

It is time we looked seriously at what is happening to the lives of very large numbers of ordinary people. For example big mortgage holders are losing their houses in unprecedented numbers. Some are faced with the prospect of debts greater than the unstable market value of the houses they are losing to the money lenders. For many people forced to try and rent a house the situation is at best awful.

Housing, health and education are serious issues. However the failure of both major parties to confront the real issues climate change presents portends even greater problems. Howard’s proposed Nuclear Power constructions would actually increase green house gas in the critical current decade. Also, nuclear power stations would create targets and increase the threat of terrorist attacks in Australia.

Despite their support for continued forest and fresh water availability destruction, (Gunn’s Mill), and for Uranium mining, Rudd Labor are opposing nuclear power development in Australia. Their support for wasting public money on the elusive, unlikely and too long term, even if possible, clean coal option is not encouraging. But they have at least indicated some commitment to renewable energy projects. In part, they recognise that as the great American thinker, J. K. Galbraith, put it in his 1996 book "The Good Society" the trade unions are a necessary and civilising influence in modern society.

It is time for change. Howard and Costello hold out no hope for a future. More people participation, plus a strong vote for and the balance of power in the Senate being won by the Greens, could give impetus to a new Labor Government acting to face the realities and real challenges global warming confronts us with. This is actually a matter concerning the life possibilities for our children and grandchildren.

Max Bound

While he needs to do much more in policy terms, Rudd has, at least, publicly recognised that the mining export boom will not go on for ever.

The APEC gathering, which Howard hoped to use for electoral purposes, has cost Australia in several ways. Nuclear proliferation has been accelerated and will lead to a large scale and very dangerous increase in green house gas. Uranium mining and construction of nuclear power stations both generate massive amounts of green house gas.

Added to this are other dangers to the environment, and people, and massive costs to the public purse inherent to nuclear developments. Plus again the dead line for avoiding major catastrophes from the global warming process will be well past before new nuclear power generating facilities begin to produce power.

At another level -- it is to be hoped that the Australian people will not fall for a planned Bush initiative for war on Iran should this eventuate before the election. Rudd appears to have positioned himself not to support more wars in the Middle East. Further fueling of the situation that allows the worst elements of Islamic fundamentalism to recruit and mislead young people to sacrifice their own and other people’s lives in terror bombings can only worsen an already terrible situation.

It is to be hoped that Rudd holds his current opposition to increased Australian involvement in wars for oil and profit from making armaments. It is also important that he brings himself up to date and faces the reality that nuclear power, in the longer run, spells a world no longer able to provide life support for human beings. Adequate investments in renewable energy can solve our energy problems and create both wealth and jobs in the process.

What is needed is the political will to serve the interests of a human future rather than the short term profit motives of a rich and powerful few.

Max Bound

The Howard government's first move on winning power in March 1996 was to cut $450 million from Indigenous Health programs, which was never restored. Since then the Howard government refused to apologise for the Stolen Generations in 1997, stonewalled on the people's movement for reconciliation in 2000, and then ground down and abolished the Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Commission.

The declaration of a 'national emergency' on child sexual abuse in Aboriginal communities is an admission that the 'practical reconciliation' policy espoused by the Howard government has not worked.

I support the constructive responses to the Howard 'national emergency' call that have come from Aboriginal service and community organisations in the Northern Territory as expressed clearly by Pat Turner, and from the Australian Council of Social Service.

These organisations strongly assert that the Aboriginal communtiy organisations have to play a central role in addressing the child sexual abuse and domestic violence crisis, and that the Howard government must abandon its unilateral approach and talk to them.

The Howard - Brough initiative includes severe measures to take over Aboriginal lands, and to end the control of entry onto these lands, measures which have nothing to do with the big problems of child sexual abuse and domestic violence, but would disempower the communities further, and open up the lands for the mining industry.

What is needed is a response which empowers aboriginal communities, respects their culture and land rights, and radically boosts spending on housing, education, health services and job creation. Like the lies about 'Children Overboard' this 'emergency' appears as a pre election move. In its present form the so called 'emergency' policy will benefit mining companies and other people who have an interest in taking advantage of the position which the Howard Government, as indicated above, has played a sizable part in creating. It will also open the way to a further worsening of the situation of the original owners of the land we live in.

Max Bound

My name is Diane Hansen. I am an Australian citizen residing in Tasmania. My partner, Hawi Rapudo is a Kenyan citizen. Hawi is 32 years old and a qualified Community Development worker. On two occasions during 2005, Hawi attempted to visit another country for a holiday; only to find that he was refused entry purely on the basis of race. The authorities in both Australia and Singapore assumed that Hawi is a dishonest person; who was not admitting his real reasons for travel.

In both cases, Hawi fulfilled all of the legal and financial requirements to be granted a tourist visa. Because Hawi is an African living on a low income, he required my financial assistance to travel. I happily provided this. Hawi is a Community Development Worker at the Ugunja Community Resource Centre. He has worked at the UCRC for 4 years on a voluntary basis; with financial assistance from his family and an allowance paid to staff subject to the availability of funds.

Application to visit Australia
Hawi applied for a tourist visa to the Australian High Commission in Nairobi. I clarified the requirements for me to sponsor Hawi’s visit with DIMIA on the telephone. I also spoke to two Migration Agents who both reassured me that with the appropriate documentation, Hawi’s application should be successful. Hawi provided documentation such as copies of bank statements, a valid passport, a letter from the Director of the Ugunja Community Resource Centre confirming that Hawi’s leave was approved, that he had a job to return to and the monthly rate of pay that he is entitled to receive as a member of staff. I sent Hawi a Statutory Declaration stating that I would provide accommodation and sponsor Hawi’s visit financially including medical expenses. I also provided a copy of my bank statements.

A written reply was received from the Australian High Commission, dated 13/07/04 stating the reasons for refusal. The reason in essence was that Hawi was not considered to be a genuine tourist. It was believed that Hawi would have no incentive to return to Kenya after the visit. On page 2 of the letter it states that “It is therefore apparent that there is not a strong commitment to your employment and that your minimal salary will not act as an incentive for you to return.” The letter states also:- “I find that the risk of you not abiding by the visa conditions outweighs the nature of the visit”. The letter also implied that Hawi would have to be visiting a relative to be considered a genuine tourist. Does this mean that Hawi is not permitted to visit an Australian citizen or permanent resident who is merely a friend or a colleague?

Would this restriction be applied if Hawi were a British or US citizen wishing to visit Australia? Is this not proof that the Australian government discriminates against people from Kenya who wish to have a holiday? Is this discrimination not in breach of a person’s fundamental right, regardless of race, to travel to another country freely?

Attempt to visit Singapore
Hawi and I flew to Singapore separately on October 4, 2005. We had planned to have a holiday together there for 3 weeks. We both contacted the Singapore authorities separately; Hawi by email on 3 separate occasions and myself on email and by telephone to the Singapore Embassy in Australia. We were both assured that visas were not required to enter Singapore. We had booked accommodation in Singapore and both had letters of confirmation of the accommodation. To claim your baggage at the airport, you must first pass through the Immigration checkpoint; which effectively means entering Singapore. Hawi arrived on the plane from Kenya/Dubai 3 hours before me and when he attempted to claim his bag, he was detained by the authorities and later deported back to Kenya. Hawi was not given a reason for deportation or allowed to telephone the Airport Hotel where we had a booking for the night. He was treated like a “criminal”, purely on the basis of race. Fortunately, we had ten minutes together before Hawi flew back to Kenya and were able to make alternative plans. I did not try to argue on Hawi’s behalf because I did not think that the decision would be reversed. The Immigration Checkpoint Authority has the discretion to refuse anyone entry into Singapore; despite having fulfilled all legislative requirements.

The two examples above show that discrimination against people on the basis of race still occurs in Australia and in Singapore. Official legal requirements for entry to Australia and Singapore do not tell the full story, if you are from a “third world” country. There is a climate of suspicion and racism, which human rights activists must fight against. The fight will continue and I pray that a respect for human dignity will win in the long term.

DIANE HANSEN
November, 2005

The outrageous negative outpourings on March 18th, Election night, and since proven as quite wrong projections, of Liberal Party representative Senator Eric Abetz are being "forgotten". Why has the media, including these columns, concentrated so much on Peg Putt’s election night speech?

Perhaps Peg Putt could have been more humble and self critical on election night. Her claims, early in the election campaign, for the Deputy premiership- and her talk about blocking supply in certain circumstances, a big ask for 6, or at the outside chance 7 Green members in a house of 25, was at best hardly realistic.

The big money spent to misrepresent the position of the Greens came from the very people who donate heavily to both of the major political parties in order to achieve their own agendas. These are the big corporations. Woolworths was explicitly involved while others preferred not to name themselves. The actions of these vested interests were clearly aimed at reducing the voice of the Greens in protesting in parliament at the undue influence and power these big corporations exercise.

Max Bound

How odd. I saw something completely different from where I stood in Hobart while Tony was observing from Melbourne. I saw that Lennon's strategy had an awful lot to do with wealth accumulation. It was in outline identical to Howard’s strategy in the last Federal election. Beat the fear drum (in Lennon's case it was the fear that if the Greens held the balance of power your house would lose 25% of its value); throw money at all the targets that might influence voters; and "Look how well the economy is doing. Trust me!" For a cashed-up incumbent government, it's a strategy that never seems to fail.

There was a lot of talk in Wayne Crawford's article (p. 32) about how the Greens saw "conspiracies" everywhere. Well, I suppose it depends on how you define "conspiracy". Am I seeing a conspiracy between the Bacon-Lennon Government and big business if I note the following?

• Federal Hotel's monopoly on gaming machines was extended for another twenty years - and the appropriate fees, said to be in the hundreds of millions of dollars, were waived.
• Federal Hotels now hold a virtual monopoly in the tourism business.
• Sunday trading was rammed through because Woolworths in particular wanted it, thereby sending many local small businesses to the wall.
• PBL was allowed to give us Betfair, the last thing this gambling obsessed State needs.
• Private development is allowed inside National Parks, contrary to legislation.
• Walker Corporation was given open slather on the absurd Ralphs Bay development. It was Walker who withdrew in the face of huge public opposition, not the Government.
• Gunns seems to get whatever it wants. Publicly owned timber is sold for less than its value (compare Gunns' profits with Forestry Tasmania's); FOI and environmental and species protection legislation is waived; access roads to forests Gunns wants to log are constructed with public money, and public money funds propaganda for Gunns’ new pulp mill. When "mistakes" are made, such as spraying the Carpenter's water supply in October 2004, the Minister responsible, Steve Kons, instead of investigating what happened and apologising, publicly jeered at the Carpenters on the front page of The Mercury, drinking from a glass said to contain contaminated water from the Carpenter’s water tank. Has Ministerial behaviour ever sunk quite as low as that before?

And the so-called house of accountability, the Legislative Council, lets it all happen. There had been a lively debate a few days earlier in The Mercury about whether the Legislative Council should be abolished. Many pointed out - especially prospective Legislative Councillors - that the upper house was a necessary place of review, it held the lower house accountable, it protected us from legislation that was not in the public interest or that was made by a majority government ramming legislation through with minimal debate, as had happened time and time again on issues such as those I’ve listed above. Why waste time debating an issue if you have the numbers anyway? So the Lennon Government stifles debate, preferring to hurl insults at those who seek it. And what does our watchdog the Legislative Council do? Wag its tail. Some token debate on Betfair, but sure Paul, we'll let it through for you, no worries, mate. Now give us a pat.

Here was a situation just made for the Greens. Call it conspiracy theory or not, the fact remains that things that shouldn’t have been passed were being passed through Parliament, and with minimal debate. The initial support for the Greens, in Denison reaching 30% (more than the Liberals), showed that people were concerned about this state of affairs. The Greens should have got their six seats easily.

Given our lack of legislation on electoral funding, it should have been entirely expected that the megawealthy would mount a whatever-it-takes campaign to prevent the Greens from spoiling their cosy relationship with the Government. While the Greens could have had a properly worked out reply at the ready, pointing out where their position was being misrepresented, that isn't the only reason why the Greens didn't do as well as earlier indicated.

Sue Neale reports that "Labor crowed with delight when she (Peg Putt) refused to rule out ever blocking supply" (p. 32). That was one of several serious tactical errors in the campaign outlined in Sue's article. She also explains what those mistakes were and why they harmed the Greens. An extraordinary miscalculation was that they saved their very well worked out forestry policy until the very end - repeating exactly the same mistake that Latham had made in the Federal election. But "Peg Putt will not countenance that any tactical mistakes she made during the campaign nearly cost the Greens half their political representation" (p. 32). Sadly, that means that those and similar errors of judgment are likely to be repeated next time round. The Greens need to do some serious soul-searching.

So with Labor claiming that its cosy relationships with the big corporations have been endorsed, the Greens shooting themselves in the foot and pretending it doesn't hurt, and the Liberals struggling to rebuild after two trainwrecks, it's going to be status quo for a long time yet.

And the Melbourne-based Tony Cutcliffe sees Tasmanian politics, and Paul Lennon's in particular, as a role model for other states! He should come over here and see what's really going on.

John Biggs

As a complex systems consultant and strategist, I'm very interested in your web site and associated views.

In 1996 our national debt was $16 billion. Now, after 10 years of 'good economic management' by the federal government, our debt stands at over $300 billion. This means that the policies of the Howard generation are putting subsequent generations into a massive debt, a debt that Howard's generation will not have to repay, they're leaving it to our kids.

At the same time, federal policies are destroying our means to pay off such a debt...letting our industries be sold to overseas concerns, cutting down our forests, depleting our rivers, allowing critical infrastructures (roads, rail, bridges, port, power generation, telecommunications) to fall into disrepair, charging our young for their education, impoverishing our health system, allowing water catchments to be depleted and polluted, throwing working people back 50 years in support and flexibility.

The outcomes of federal policies lead to a simple question...what kind of parents would do that to their children? We must address this issue for the sake of future generations.

Sincerely,

Mike Bolan

I arrived in Tasmania to finally settle on the 27th February, 2001, the last trip of the Devil Cat. I disembarked at George Town and drove down the East Tamar Highway and on to Hobart. My eyes popped wider at every turn of the road. Timber trucks, loaded with huge logs that had just been ripped from old growth forests. One after the other, a never ending stream. I soon learned what was happening.

Forestry Tasmania is a government-run business enterprise that operates under a Forest Practices Act (FPA), the Board of which has thoughtfully exempted Forestry Tasmania from the operations of the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, the Threatened Species Act, and for good measure, in case someone wants to know what the hell is going on, of the Freedom of Information Act. The timber industry can do what it likes, no matter what the law says about pollution, degrading the environment, or killing wildlife in season or out, endangered or not. Yet Forestry Tasmania barely manages to keep itself out of the red, while it is a major supplier to a timber company that posted record profits. Centuries old forest is clearfelled, the best logs taken, the remaining detritus of leaves, bark, smaller bushes and trees, including many precious and rare hardwoods, are piled into mountains of flammable material and napalmed to make it more so, with the above noted result.

When the fires have burned out, young saplings of either blue gum or radiata pine are planted, and carrots distributed. Whatever wildlife has escaped the inferno are drawn back by the carrots: possums, wombats, poteroos, wallabies and bandicoots return. After three days or so, during which the animals have been thanking their respective gods for these delicious carrots, they are replaced with carrots laced with 1080 poison. Within another day or so, tens of thousands of animals have writhed their agonising last. The saplings are safe - but not the endangered wedge-tailed eagle, the spotted quoll or the iconic Tasmanian devil, all of which scavenge the poisoned animals. Since these forestry practices began, the devil, prolific ten years ago, has developed a highly contagious facial cancer and is currently in danger of extinction. The connection between the devil's cancer and forestry practices has yet to be demonstrated, but it is very plausible. The fail-safe strategy would be to ban chemical spraying and obviate the poisoning of animals by protecting the young saplings with fencing or netting. But that is more expensive than mass poisoning.

The saplings are regularly sprayed with atrazine and other dioxins. Sometimes the aim goes awry, and streams are poisoned. The once prolific giant freshwater crayfish, weighing several kilos, is now endangered because of spraying and loss of habitat; the oyster industry at St. Helens on the East Coast nearly wiped out - oysters are very sensitive to dioxins. The Government claimed unusually heavy rains were the problem, not dioxins. Farms adjacent to plantations get caught in the spraying: Howard and Michelle Carpenter's Lilydale property was sprayed in September 2004, their water supply contaminated. The minister responsible, Steve Kons, instead of showing his sympathy and declaring that compensation and prosecution of the offending parties would speedily take place, mockingly displayed his contempt for the Carpenters' plight by having his photo on the front page of The Mercury (27 September) drinking a glass of their so-called contaminated water, saying they were making a fuss over nothing.

High quality Tasmanian hardwoods, such as myrtle, sassafras, blackwood and several eucalypts ('Tas oak'), are in great demand by quality craftsmen. However, it is fiddling and time-consuming to select these woods individually: 'world's best practice' means all are woodchipped indiscriminately. It's cheaper that way. The chips are sent mainly to Korea and Japan, where our once magnificent forests are returned to us as cardboard and toilet paper. Gunns pays royalties of $14 a tonne to Forestry Tasmania and are paid three or four times that amount for the woodchips, while we pay one hundred more times than Forestry Tasmania received to get back our lovely old forests in the form of cardboard and toilet paper. While Forestry Tasmania has been in financial difficulties for years, Gunns until very recently returned record profits for all the years of the Bacon-Lennon Labor governments since 1998. Now the Third World has undercut the woodchip business, Gunns are proposing a massive and dirty pulp mill, just one step up the processing chain but even more destructive, that will pour organo-chlorines into Bass Strait and blight the city of Launceston with emissions. All with the strong backing of the Government of Tasmania.

A Forestry Tasmania officer, Bill Manning, could stand it no longer: he blew the whistle with a devastating report on Tasmania's forestry practices, which led to a Senate Enquiry. But the action following the enquiry was a State matter. Both sides of State Parliament - who receive large donations from the industry - denounced the reports as 'trivial'. Rene Hidding, leader of the Liberals, called Mr. Manning's allegations 'Green-inspired mischief', and Tasmania as having 'arguably the best forest practices regime in the world.' Any criticism by Mainlanders is met with the stock response: 'Butt out of Tasmania's business.' Criticism from within Tasmania - and around 80 per cent of Tasmanians are opposed to current practices - meet other stock responses: 'a stunt by the Greens', 'Greens are liars', 'this is world's best practice', and 'this is all about jobs'. Reasoned arguments and evidence, that farms and endangered and domestic animals are being killed, that growing plantations are draining the water table, that forestry practices are mechanised as much as possible so that over ten years the industry has shed thousands of jobs not created them, are denied as more Green lies.

On the 14th December, 2004, Gunns issued writs for 'loss of income' and 'corporate vilification' in what is known in the US as a SLAPP writ (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation), in order to silence public criticism. The twenty defendants - now known as 'The Gunns 20' - included the State and Federal leaders of the Greens, several environmental groups and individuals, including a grandmother who runs a small farm. Days later, Gunns announced plans to build a massive pulp mill at the mouth of the Tamar. But public opinion wasn't stifled by the fate of the Gunns 20, if that was the intention: there was and is massive public protest. Both matters are ongoing.

The use of the courts by the rich and powerful as a weapon to silence legitimate criticism has been given the nod by both Liberal and Labor parties in Tasmania. Anyone who publicly criticises forestry practice, which is intertwined with the forestry policies of both major parties, is liable to be harassed, Singapore-style, into bankruptcy and silence. So sue me.

In 1989 the Greens held the balance of power in an alliance with the Liberals. The then Chairman of Gunns, Edmund Rouse, horrified at that prospect, offered $110,000 to Labor member Jim Cox to cross the floor to ensure continuing Government support for the industry. Instead of rolling over, Jim blew the whistle and Rouse received two years in gaol, outraged that he wasn't seen as having tried to perform a public service.

The two major parties, 'the Laborials', saw the Greens as a threat to the cosy relationship they had established with the top end of town, the forestry industry in particular. They agreed to reduce the number of seats in Parliament, which in the mysterious way the political system moved, meant that the Greens had to obtain 17% of the primary vote rather than the 10% as hitherto. In the 1998 elections it worked, only one Green, Peg Putt, was elected. But come the 2001 elections, people were very concerned: four Greens were elected and the Liberals were decimated.

But with fewer members, some senior politicians had to hold several portfolios. Remember too that Tasmania is a small State with an upper and a lower house, and six members of Senate to elect, the same as much larger states like NSW. Tasmania has more politicians per capita than any other state; we have to dredge the bottom of the barrel.

David Llewellyn currently holds the portfolios of Health and Human Services, Housing, and Police and Public Safety. The health system is in tatters, the Royal Hobart Hospital has lost so many specialists the waiting lists for elective surgery, psychiatric and dental care are years long, methadone clinics lack the funding to treat all in need, public housing has become too scarce and expensive to be called 'public', while the waiting list for the top category of the homeless to be given a roof over their heads is just under one year, and the prison system is a disgrace. Llewellyn's face appears on local television night after night, trying to explain that all is well after all - these mistakes are a media beat-up, any irregularities are now under control. The Premier, the surly Paul Lennon, closes ranks with his failing ministers, bellowing insults at critics.

Lennon's hobby is gambling. Federal Hotels, who now control the top end of tourism, were awarded, without tenders being called, an extension of their poker machine licence in their hotels for an extra fifteen years, with an allowance for a 'cap' of 300 extra machines. The question of an estimated $180 million worth of royalties was waived, revenue that other states would have collected as of right. $20 million was set aside to rebuild the stand at Elwick Racecourse, and an on-line betting system, Betfair, was given a licence to operate in Tasmania. Problem gambling is a bigger social problem in Tasmania than in other states. In 2004/5, Tasmanian gamblers were out of pocket to the tune of $231 million. I make that nearly $500 for every man, woman and child in Tasmania.

The National Geographic's Tourist Magazine rates Tasmania in the top three unspoilt tourist areas in the world, but with two qualifications: 'Heritage assets still well conserved, but need to watch commercialization in and around major parks' and 'The logging industry is out of control and the recent exemption of logging from the endangered species act is atrocious.'

Allowing development within national parks and conservation areas is a similar tale to logging. The Government does secret deals with developers, promising 'in principle' permission to set up 'eco-friendly' resorts within national park areas, in the face of red hot grass roots opposition: the SE National Park near Southport being one example, Pumphouse Point in Lake St. Clair being another. Public opposition was so ferocious in the case of a development at Ralphs Bay, the developer caved in to public outrage before the Government did.

The problem is not solved by voting out Labor and voting in Liberal. Both parties run on cronyism, corruption and secrecy. We have the word of an ex-leader of the Liberals, Bob Cheek, for that. He admits to having participating himself in extraordinary rorts and rip-offs he never thought himself capable of: but once in the culture, you do as the others do. Such things include: buying household equipment with a $5,000 'equipment fund'; a virtually limitless entertainments allowance, which includes limitless free alcohol for the term of your parliamentary life; free junkets abroad, including a visit to a 'sister city' in China, which was a favourite because of the lavish banquets and the services of 'stunning-looking call girls'. One member in that particular group amused the others by showing off his knowledge of the Mandarin word for 'blow job'.

NowWeThePeople (NWTP) is a non party-political organisation comprising people, like me, who are deeply concerned about what is happening in the political arena. The nub of the matter is that a few people, elected to represent the interests of the majority, are in fact acting in the interests of rich corporations whose interests are not the welfare of the Australian people but of themselves and of their shareholders. This is the negation of democracy.

The majority of Australians did not want the war in Iraq, the free trade agreement with America, the GST, the privatisation of public services, the downsizing of the Public Service to be replaced by party political 'staffers', the cannibalism of small business by large corporations, the emasculation of Medicare, handing control of the media to two interested players, the repeal of unfair dismissal laws. We do not want decisions - relating to immigration, to wages and work conditions, to who is to be imprisoned without even being charged - that were once made by courts or tribunals on which the interested parties were represented, to be made at the discretion of a minister. We do not want government by fiat. Especially do we not want an Australian Government that has melded into a one-party system to follow the orders of the neo-conservative wing of the US Republican Party. For despite the manly roars of Kim Beazley, the Labor Opposition has closed ranks with the Coalition in virtually all issues except industrial relations. Tasmania is a microcosm of Federal politics, except that here it is a Liberal Opposition, and the issues are state not national ones.

It's said that people deserve the politicians they vote in. That assumes people know what is going on. They don't, precisely because they have been deliberately misinformed in a language that means the opposite of what it seems to be saying. It also assumes that there is an alternative but in Tasmania at least both major parties are equally involved in this deception and corruption. The Greens are not involved, as Cheek generously allows, but there are insufficient of them to form a government, and both other parties have sworn they'll never form a coalition Government with the Greens.

Now, we the people do not deserve any of this.

John Biggs

References
The Mercury, 2 December, 2005.
Cheeky: Confessions of a Ferret Salesman, Privately Published, 2005.
These quotes from excerpts published in Sunday Tasmanian, 13 November, 2005.