When politicians talk of reform, Wilkie’s pokie reform cause is true reform and his dedication to this continues to be exemplary. He is that rare breed, a committed politician the people can trust

Politicians only have their time in the sun for a comparatively short time.  Time for true social reform is limited.  Once they fade from the limelight politicians are remembered for their achievements. 

Gillard’s legacy is a litany of reneging, double dealing and of the few wins - mediocre compromised outcomes.  She will be remembered as a puppet prime minister lacking virtuous cause, strutting on the stage just to retain limelight for no other purpose that serving her puppeteers - Labor Right’s factional vested interests.   

In Rudd we recall hollow populism.  In Gillard we shall recall hollow duplicity. It got worse.

A terrific first step for pursuing integrity with decent politicians.  Hope more follow in your footsteps Mr Wilkie. You’ve stuck by your word, humanly and decently considered.  A shining light example from start to finish, you haven’t wavered. Good on you. Hopefully the rewards will eventually be inspiring a whole of government approach to helping to protect people, the vulnerable from government avarice to appease their donators.

If Labor doesn’t care what you think of them Andrew, what chance do the rest of us have?

Good on you Andrew, a politician that is true to their word!

Something that is totally devoid in mainstream self-serving liblab politics.

I wish you all the best in fighting the good fight.

“As someone said to me this week, millions of people are concerned about poker machines, but everyone should care about politicians being true to their word.”

Certainly.  PM Gillard is failing to keep her word - on pokies and on protection from logging (Clause 27) in the interim in the 430k ha.

This is all part of the democratic process. What we have is the best Democracy money can buy!

Should have done it when you had the number(s). And should have learned from history and experience.

When has the Rudd/Gillard Government done what they said they would do, or not done what they said they wouldn’t do?

It is sad that Wilkie was unable to do his deal, perhaps next time he won’t be so naive. He supported Gillard because he didn’t feel he could trust Abbott.

Forget the handshakes; next time u make a deal make sure it is a deal that can be enforced, otherwise despite all your good intentions, your wasting everyone’s time.

It’s time for an election, sick of every promises that is made to hold on to power being broken.

We could have an election if the power hungry greens had the same standards as Wilkie. But power is a powerful thing ... Isn’t it Bob??

Good on you, Andrew, a politician with integrity is a very rare person.  This Labor government is not a thing that Australians can be proud of; but, unfortunately, neither would an Abbott-led one be.  Is there no hope for a return to a time when politicians cared as much about the country as they did for their own personal ambitions?

Andrew Wilkie has been played like a pup in true labor party form , what more did he expect ?? .

I should add that Bob and co are implicit in this .

wilkie has had his 5 minutes of fame now he is no longer usefull.

His ranting as an ex career public servamnt is exactly that now as his vote is no longer needed .

I suggest he enjoy the rest of his parlimentry term and conditions as it is sure not to last .

Now if Peter Slipper would just resign as Speaker !

I’ve still got my Andrew Wilkie stickers on my clarinet case here in the UK.(it reminds me to open it right way up).Every now and then someone actualy recognises the name and the significance.
A lot of people in Tas. would be suprised that there are quite a few people in this addicted country who know about the man Wilkie and what he stands for.Wilkie is star in a sea of fossilised,
beaurocratic bull shit.If you want proof of that then have a look at the class(or lack of it),in his enemies and opponents.Stand firm in the ranks Andrew Wilkie.

Unfortunately politics has become a career based on power and staying in it. It is also based on finding ways to keep the power and job as long as possible. It is a very dirty game.
Thankyou Andrew Wilkie for trying to stand up and show that there are other ways to behave in a bear pit. To show that politicians should actually be caring and trying to make peoples lives (not just the rich ones) better.
Keep on holding all the politicians to account. I am glad that you are there.

How long it took to bring asbestos to heel and tobacco to account, or to change attitudes toward women [yet to be completed] and to question excessive alcohol consumption.

Racist attitudes will face another hurdle if the proposed constitutional reforms “move forward” under Gillard. Abbott has already put the noalition position and no doubt the woodwork will reveal more with ‘questions’ that appeal to the lowest.

Pokies reform may take longer than Wilke’s agenda, but the industry is no longer on easy street, the debate moving from individual freedom to choose to the impacts of gambling and its social harm.

Once such harm is defined the stages of change are only a way of delaying the inevitable as attitudes pass inter-generationally.

#8 refers to Wilke’s deal being broken by the other side and then wants the Greens to break their deal when the conditions they set have not been broken.

There is nothing like a double standard, it flies at the forefront of politics, and those who criticise it should not then call on its unfurling.

#15

Phil, we could split hairs on this stuff to the cows come home,

the outcomes the greens sought to achieve re asylum seekers, a higher carbon tax and/or mining tax have fallen through, they are supporting a government that is not supporting them.

Just like the Tas greens they have the ability to genuinely hold the government to account. Yet despite the shocking performance of both federal and state governments, the greens simply stand by and allow us tax payers to experience more inept governance.

They state they choose not to withdraw their support to ensure stability of government?? If your looking for a double standard, try that one on for size :-)

We are a sad state, a sad nation, led by people of little value who are in sync with a failed system and we would be all gone by now if not for the open cut policy that dominates our countryside, propping up the unbridled financial mismanagement that has been foisted upon us.

In Tasmania we are well snookered and what that means for the average punters is now becoming apparent.

A health system that is on life support, endless decisions aborted that have led to public bleeding, such as the multi layered water administration and law and order now out of order.

Out of this tragic reality steps one man who has the fortitude and skill to rise above the weasel words, blame shifting and pocket lining, to do what no other has done.

Through a process, Andrew Wilkie has raised the level of living standards in Tasmania and has fought to minimise the harm of addictive behaviour.

In return for this gesture and his time, he has been misled and vilified to a large degree.

The behaviour that has been exhibited and customarily executed toward Andrew remains typical of those of little consequence, who have wangled their way to the top of the tree and their minions who follow blindly in the spotlights.

Andrew, thank you for you time, your energy and commitment to all things good.

Bests,

Dave:)

I am ashamed to have such a obvious liar for a Prime Minister. Shame on the independents Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor and all labor voters for keeping this moral vacuum in power.

#11 Or the Craig Thomson chicken coming home to roost for Gillard.  By the way, what’s happening with this one?  Or is this to be swept under the carpet too?

One has to question the PM’s decision to scrap a written conrtact with Wilkie to deliver legislation by May!
This simply reinforces the brand damage that is at the core of Gillard’s poor polling, that she will do anything to survive even if it means junking her word on the Carbon Tax as well as her written agreement on poker reform.
The celluloid lady has quite a reputation, the lost opportunity for the PM has already managed to send some very confusing messages about her ability to remain in office beyond this term

Labelling Lieutenant Colonel Wilkie as an “ex career public servamnt” (sic), Th? (#10) Very interesting.

Most amused by the prospect of you telling the blokes in Afghanistan that they’re “career public servants”.

They say that politics is the art of the possible.
It also needs to be about honesty and integrity and realising that we are all in this together; political behaviour and decision making affect us one and all. We apparently vote democratically for leaders who we should be able to trust to do the ‘right thing’ by the people, the country.
Especially so that the most disadvantaged and vulnerable in society would get a ‘fair go’, right?
When our leaders ‘lose their way’; we are all lost. Genuine accounability, respect and honesty need to be on show by all leaders…thank you Andrew for putting your hand up for a sometimes thankless job. You will be remembered for your work and position in this arena. And it’s not over yet.

Andrew may have lost specifically on mandatory precommitment, but he has achieved spectacular wins in that he has made poker machine reform a major issue with something like 75% of the Australian voting public fully behind reform; he, as these comments and press letters show, has won the admiration of large numbers of people simply because he has shown honesty and integrity throughout. It is also mistaken to see him as a one issue politician; he has become involved in many issues national and local, including asylum seekers, live animal exports, the Royal Hobart Hospital, and even one phone call that fixed a dangerous hole in Macquarie St that had been ignored for months! So party political hacks watch out. Andrew’s sort of proactive politics has lifted the game for politicians and that is what ordinary people want from their politicians.

Sickening and sad:
We have got what we see:

PM’s big gamble, cutting Andrew Wilkie loose by reneging on poker machine reforms pledge

http://www.news.com.au/national/pms-big-gamble-cutting-andrew-wilkie-loose-by-reneging-on-poker-machine-reforms-pledge/story-e6frfkvr-1226250380121#ixzz1k8enpwVk

Prime Minister Julia Gillard announces Pokie Reforms with Jenny Macklin Picture: Norm Oorloff

Good on you Andrew, we shall remember who did what.

There is only one answer to the problem we have with the scoundrels that run party politics: we need a dedicated, prolonged, nationally organised campaign to get voters to vote 1, 2, 3, and however far down the ballot paper is necessary before numbering Labor and Liberal candidates last. For a while there might be turmoil in the parliament (we would be able to rely on the bureaucracy to keep things going), but at least both parties would be wrecked beyond reconstruction. C’mon Getup, how about getting us organised! Let’s put an end to vehicles for the likes of duplicitous opportunists such as Gillard and Abbott to exploit the innate ugliness that lurks at the heart of almost every human soul.

The most important contribution Andrew Wilkie has made to Tasmania and politics is that he has given the electorate hope again. By his actions he demonstrates that politics does not have to be the perversion it has become.  If, like the Greens the voters hope turns out to be misplaced, only time will tell but the importance of hope cannot be underestimated.

Bob #25 Putting Libs and Labs last: Sounds good.  I already usually put Lab followed by Lib last. 

A donkey vote with the real donkeys at the bottom.

I’m glad to see you wouldn’t put Greens last.  We might make a greenie out of you yet ... and get you to throw away that ‘blue tie’. (grin)

Congratulations, Mr Wilkie! Tragically, there is only ONE reason to want Tony Abbott as Prime Minister and that is to get rid of Gillard!

comment deleted - one persona on TT please - see TT code http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php/pages/legalbits

Bob, Getup! aren’t the answer to anything. They’re little more than labor yoof who will eventually get old enough to realise they just want their side in power at any cost. However they is achieve that goal will be compromised and meaningless.

Unless more people like Wilkie and Bernie Sanders appear and aren’t aligned to these groups, we’ll keep ploughing down the road we’re on.

Good for you Andrew Wilkie.
It has been shown that you can have an Australian politician with integrity.
Now all we need is a few (hundred) more like you and we will be in a real democracy.
You will have my vote.

It was ever thus…

I have a suggestion for improving on the voting strategy outlined by Garry Stannus at #27, namely that rather than voters putting Lab second last and Lib last, they should instead flip a coin before they go into the voting booth: For heads, do as Garry says and if the coin says tails, put Libs 2nd last and Labs last.

The rationale for my strategy amendment to Garry’s outlined strategy is that the coin-flipping approach is more likely to produce a hung parliament where any independents that are elected will have some decent influence as opposed to Lab holding power in its own right.

Possibly some Libs might have crossed the floor in the Lower House to vote in favour of Wilkie’s pokies bill.

Labor MHRs would have to abide by Gillard’s direction, if Labor Caucus backed that, since Labor MHRs cannot cross the floor without being disendorsed at the next election and also probably expelled from the Labor Party.

#34. Labor MHRs would have to abide by Gillard’s direction, if Labor Caucus backed that, since Labor MHRs cannot cross the floor without being disendorsed at the next election and also probably expelled from the Labor Party.

Isn’t this the fundamental problem of what passes for the myth of Democracy. The MPs first allegience is to the Caucus and NOT the electorate. This in fact, makes them basically a rubber stamp for what the Caucus defines as their policy, yet the Caucus members are subject to lobbying from the powerful industry groups and the rent-seekers. Money flows into party funds and washes away any semblance of democratic principles.

And we live with the results!

Its a sad day alright and the Gillard government are a pack of lieing grubs alright but c’mon people, i’m seeing a lot of pontification about honesty & integrity in politics here but where these same complaints when Gillard broke her word on a carbon tax?

My concern here is that it is becoming increasingly obvious that there is a serious problem with our politicians honouring their word.
I appreciate it has always been an issue; “..how can you tell if a politician is lying; his lips are moving..” but it appears to be escalating. We’ve moved beyond core promises to the current situation where our PM feels no compulsion to honour signed agreements.
I think this issue goes deep to the core of our society. As a business person myself I hold to the old fashioned belief that your handshake is your word. This is not actually naivety but a powerful philosophy. Occasionally one gets burnt but surprisingly, most people are honest. I wonder about how it’s all going to work if the basic honesty of our society is lost due to the morally hollow example of our current leaders

#16. Ah, the cows.

The agreement between the parties can be read at http://greens.org.au/sites/greens.org.au/files/Final Agreement _ALP_GRNS.pdf

As readers will see neither asylum seekers nor mining taxes are mentioned.

The Greens have expressed satisfaction with the actions on climate change up to 2020.

The Federal Greens state in writing that they agree to support the government.

Some, or many, may disagree with this policy, but as it is a commitment my point about double standards remains.

After the daylight swindle that was the IGA, could Wilkie really have expected the Bogan Queen to honour any agreement?

She’s far too busy at the moment outflanking Abbott on the Right to bother with people like him, or us.

John Hayward

The holidays are over and the annual sale of the contents of the House of Representatives will be starting soon. Place your bids!

Wilkie’s clear mandate and honest politics, presents an opportunity for the only alternative party, The Greens, to unconditionally support Wilkie’s pokie reform - the $1 bet looks to be the best odds.

This is perhaps Bob Brown’s greatest test to lead his party mainstream.

Could mainstream politics under Gillard or Abbott’s
Liberal-Labor Party get any worse?

#39, Phil your link doesn’t work, how appropriate, the party that claims to want open and accountable government has weblinks that only lead me to pleas for donations,

the sooner we have a royal commission (into a politician) and get rid of the greens direct role in government, the better will all be!!

put a few politicians in jail and their behaviour will quickly improve.

A question re the item linked to in #38.

“5.1 The following arrangements will govern the working relationship between the Greens
and the ALP for the duration of the 43rd Parliament. These arrangements may be altered
by mutual agreement.

a) When Parliament is in session, the Prime Minister will meet with Senator Brown and
Mr Bandt each sitting week, principally to discuss and negotiate any planned
legislation.”

Senator Brown has now cancelled these regular meetings over the Tasmanian forestry agreement issue, clearly without mutual agreement.  But the Tasmanian forestry peace deal issues were not explicitly part of the original agreement.

So is it not the case that the Greens have broken their agreement with Labor by cancelling the meetings, and if it is not the case, why not?

Depending on the convincingness or otherwise of any answers, there may be a more disconcerting supplementary question.  :)

#42. Col, I agree with the idea of slapping a few of the recalcitrant and serial offending politicians into the slammer, but how can we get the Tasmanian Supreme Court to play fair in this matter?
Tasmania has hosted some rather pig-headed defence lawyers and arbiters of the law in the past, each of whom would not ever contemplate sending any of Tasmania’s silver-spooned silver-tongued fiddlers of the truth to a term in prison.

This is irrespective of the proven dishonest conducts and behaviours of former and presently serving anti-the-people politicians, (of whatever elevated status,) seems to me the law and its practitioners will beggar themselves unto these back-alley political rodentae and allow them a free pass in lieu of a prison sentence.
I ask the question of the Tasmanian attendees to this forum: other than Edmund Rouse and from that time hence, has there been any other “proven delinquent ministerial misconduct-ing rodent”  been awarded a term in prison in this State?

#10. TH, I find your comments towards Andrew Wilkie to be quite an interesting display of your abstract negative views toward honesty and integrity should these qualities ever emerge in any future Tasmanian government!

Andrew,you have tried to set an example.

It must be very depressing to deal with our so called leaders.

Those who are on one side “moving forward”, yet can be seen to be always back pedalling pitted against the forward pedalling ” we will turn back the boats”, uttered whilst dressed in lycra over the even worse taste budgie smugglers.

If it is any consolation you still have many admirers out here in the real world.

Students of research methods will doubtless have been told the story about the guy looking for his keys under the streetlight. A passerby offers to help and asks the innocent question “is this where you dropped them?” only to be told that “well no, I dropped them further down the street, but there isn’t any light down there”. A lot of research is flawed by this syndrome – gathering the data that can be gathered even though it doesn’t actually address the research question.

So too with social policy. Our beloved politicians are so anxious to be seen to be doing something that they will ignore the irrelevance of that something. On poker machines, the key answers to our very real, very large problem lie in restricting access to machines. That is, we need to restrict the number of venues – especially in the lower socio-economic status areas targeted by the pokies-pushers, and restrict the hours in the venues that remain.

Here’s the problem. Those measures are licensing issues and come under the jurisdiction of state governments. Andrew Wilkie tried to be a state politician, but failed. Now that he has fallen into a federal parliamentary seat, he has gone looking under the streetlight. He didn’t find his keys, just a cumbersome pre-commitment idea. The Greens, looking under the same streetlight, found a dollar-maximum idea. Julia Gillard, not looking anywhere but at the numbers in the House of Reps, was happy to sign off without even wondering about those bloody keys. She now seems prepared to spend a lot of money on a trial of Andrew’s idea, contingent on a state government agreeing to play ball.

The only answer to the pokies tragedy is to address the current state government business model. Whilever states are dependent on pokies revenue (and restricted in using other revenue measures), they will resist attempts to pick up the keys – to buy back licenses and to restrict opening hours. Instead of throwing money at Wilkie’s silliness, Gillard (or, more likely, her successor) should be making funds available to states to fund bold licensing decisions. That is, federal funds should be used to compensate current license-holders and to offset diminished state revenues. Only then will we see pokies, and the ruinous losses of players, go into reverse.

#43 Kevin has pointed out that by cancelling regular meetings with the PM, Bob Brown appears to be in breach of the (Fed)Green-Lab Agreement. 

[http://greens.org.au/sites/greens.org.au/files/Final Agreement _ALP_GRNS.pdf]

I agree with Kevin and I will ask Bob about this.  I will ‘report back’ asap.

Andrew is now feeling the effects of conviction politics’ Force 10 storm! He will be now played as the pariah on Tasmanian Politics by all major parties - Labor, Liberals and Greens - as a failed one-term Independent who couldn’t compromise… it’s vicious devil-eat-devil world that has operated in Tasmania since 2003.

Eat lots of spinach Andrew and suck up any pernicious vitriol and KEEP GOING.

I have a fridge sticker that keeps me going in tough times: “Money Rules, the Spirit Liberates” - it was given to me by front-line medical practitioner in Canada confronted with suicide, alcoholism, drugs, social welfare dependency and gambling addiction among the Potlash indigenous people on the west coast of Vancouver Island, British Columbia.

GO FOR IT! Andrew or at least, go down trying!

The PM has decided to take her own path on pokie reform along with Bob Brown with his plan niggling at her while she remains as PM.
By agreeing with the Wilkie plan she always and I repeat always had the backup of Andrew to bolster these reforms.
The PM has broken the agreement and decided to go it alone, she has lost the support of Andrew and Labor could pay the price.
Losing a powerful advocate in already divided   support for Labor policies is a very foolish move.
The PM will pay the price for her stupidity, lack of leadership and trust.

I have just carefully read every posting on this string, after which I have only one question how will you all feel when Tony Abbott heads a majority government in this country? 

The high and might self-righteousness of the majority of postings frankly made my stomach churn.  Yes my stomach churn, you heard right. Because they help no one least of all those Willkie was trying to help.

OK so it’s Andrew Wilkie for sainthood because he stood by his principles well good on him.  Yes his proposals   had merit but he was unable to convince his fellow independents with whom he shares the cross benches.  But almost to a person you blame Ms Gillard not Wilkie who went too far in his desire for victory.  It wasn’t the PM’s responsibility to get Kater et al to vote for Wilkie’s antipokies legislation.  It was Andrew Wilkie’s responsibility to convince his fellow independents and or some Liberals to vote for his legislation in this he clearly failed. 

Even now he has been offered a compromise a compromise that would bring in legislation that would go a fair way to offer help to those who need help today not in ten years time or more (assuming an Abbott two term victory in 2013) please tell me how nothing is better than something and how nothing will help those who need help today not in 2023? 

But Oh no the Savanolla of Denison won’t accept a half measure he is far toooo pure of heart and spirit for such a dirty sinful compromise.  Like Mother Teresa it seems that he believes that it far better for the ill to suffer than receive partial pain relief;  because therein lies the kingdom of darkness and compromise.  What a shame those in pain and their families will continue to suffer won’t necessarily agree. 

Yes, politics is the art of the possible and sometimes it is a good thing that the possible is a hard road to travel.  And that some of the Australian’s who are so frequently and pejoratively excoriated not to mention vilified on TT need time to adjust before their educated noble betters change their lives yet again.  Changes for what many all too frequently see as being for the worse. 

So get over it; better yet learn to boil your frogs slowly, the green social revolution isn’t going to happen for a long time to come. 

And while you are still self-righteously smouldering you might just ponder that for the starving half a sandwich will help you far more than a politician’s empty rhetoric how ever much he or she might believe it themselves.

In his comment No 23 above John Biggs has summed up the reality of what Andrew Wilkie has achieved.  Andrew has acted as a genuine political repreresentative of other people should with consistency, persistence,and integrity. The people who live off the misery to defenceless children and others caused by problem gamblers may have control of the Prime Minister. 

However problem gambling, as John points out, is now, thanks to Andrew, a big political ethical issue for a large and growing number of people.
It is now an issue that given further development of public consciousness of what problem gambling it is really about is, despite Gilliard and her counter-part Abbott,  could well be resolved in the relative near future.

Giving priority to sweet cop jobs and cheap meals etc subsidised by problem gambling is hardly a responsible or caring approach.

How can Wilkie claim honesty and integrity when he supported Gillard in breaking her promise on a carbon tax?
Time to stop squealing Andrew, the chooks have come home to roost.

John O’Shea,
East Launceston.

For all you ALP and supporters, congratulations. The biggest club to get support out of this is Canberra Workers which is owned by the ALP.
Maybe we should have had the trial in a more independent place like South Oz or even Tasmania as offered by our Dear Leader Lara.

This comment has nothing to do with poker machines but, then again, most other comments to date are only politically biased anyway. Why is it so many politicians can smile upside down? No matter how many times I try I cannot contort my face into that shape. I’m not being specifically critical of Andrew Wilkie as he is not alone…just an observation.

Back on topic: I may not agree with Mr Wilkie’s “pre-commitment” legislation but I agree society has to do something to help those who cannot help themselves. The “dollar bet” is a good start.

Re #50 Dave, point noted.

The message is that political causes have become the hope only of non-Party politicians.

True representative democracy would see Wilkie hereon voting only on that agreed by the majority of Denison.  Politicians once voted in sideline their electorate in favour of Party compliance.

If voters had moral courage they would reject every political party - Libs, Labs, Greens, Nats because voting for representation is not about forgoing democratic agenda for a Political Party agenda.

Bring on more Independents. Ditch the beholden Party Puppets and all who betray and disgrace their Electorate’s priorities!

If you are really serious….and it seems simple to me….We have plain packaging coming for smoking addiction, why not have plain packaging for poker machines if you are serious about tackling pokie addiction.
ie… no music, no flashing lights, no pictures, no instructions on how to play, just a plain old machine with slots for money, keys for variety of bets and slot to collect winnings.
Oops… I forgot… that might cost jobs and affect shareholders.
Let’s face it, pokies are a vehicle to redistribute wealth from the poor to the rich ...... And with little effort.

The question is: with Julia Gillard’s joyless emphasis on numbers and pragmatism at the expense of truth and honour, are we seeing Game Theory at work in Oz?

Ref: Comment 1 and 2, here:
http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php?/weblog/article/measures-of-leadership-reflections-on-robert-s.-mcnamara/

Your perspectives please intelligent gentlemen.

It is appropriate for genuine independents to form a political party, since alignment with the dominant parties has been proven to be swimming with the sharks.

Without full analysis, I am impressed by the latest website of a new political Independent someway from Denison, but no less electorally mandated.

Bob Katter’s Australia Party, of which I am not a member, but could easily be has some good messages outside the oligarchical Liberal-Labor clique.

http://www.ausparty.org.au/

Wilkie is best placed to lead lateral politically thinking across Tasmania and beyond!

Kevin (#43)  I’ve had a reply from Bob Brown’s office.  I said to you (#47) that I’d let you know what I found out.  Here is the Green take on the cancellation of the regular meetings - one that instinctively I thought would be the case and which I accept as fitting the circumstances - :

“... The relevant clauses of the Agreement state:

‘5.1 The following arrangements will govern the working relationship between the Greens and the ALP for the duration of the 43rd Parliament. These arrangements may be altered by mutual agreement.

a) When Parliament is in session, the Prime Minister will meet with Senator Brown and Mr Bandt each sitting week, principally to discuss and negotiate any planned legislation.

b) When Parliament is not in session, the Prime Minister, or her delegate, will meet with Senator Brown and Mr Bandt, or their delegate, at least once each fortnight, principally to discuss the upcoming legislative agenda.’

Clearly this places an obligation on the Prime Minister to meet with Senator Brown and Mr Bandt but does not place a corresponding obligation on them to meet with her. Nevertheless, Senator Brown has subsequently clarified the situation by stating that he would meet with the Prime Minister if she requested discussion on a particular issue. ...”

Kevin, for the sake of clarity, this last para ‘Clearly this places…’ are from the email which I’ve just received, not my own take on the matter, yet it matches with how I viewed the agreement-for-meetings anyway.

-Garry.

Thanks Garry.  As far as I am concerned, Senator Brown may as well have said that clearly grey is white, because it is not at all clear to me that that text places an obligation on the PM only. 

The text states that the Prime Minister will meet with Senator Brown and Mr Bandt.  It does not say that she will merely attempt to meet with them and that they can unilaterally ignore that attempt whenever they want to; it states that a meeting of the three people will occur.  If Brown and Bandt fail to show up to such a meeting then they cause the Prime Minister to be unable to meet with them, and thereby disrupt the arrangement supposed to govern the working relationship between the parties.

Suppose the text had been:

“a) When Parliament is in session, the Prime Minister, Senator Brown and Mr Bandt shall meet each sitting week, principally to discuss and negotiate any planned legislation”

In such a text it would be absolutely clear the burden of attendance was on all the parties.

The actual text “the Prime Minister will meet with Senator Brown and Mr Bandt” is less clear because it can be read as implying an asymmetry of desire to otherwise attend, and perhaps one of responsibility, but it is not clear to me how far that’s meant to go, or even if the asymmetry is intended as opposed to being a result of sloppy drafting.  Much more detail about the history of negotiations would be needed to say. 

Note also that the arrangement may only be altered by “mutual agreement”, which implies that the arrangement cannot be cancelled unilaterally.  If that part of the agreement was meant to bind Gillard only it could have been written very differently.

Suppose the text had been: “The Prime Minister agrees [..] (a) that she will meet with Senator Brown and Mr Bandt [..]”.  Then I would agree that the obligation is clearly one-way.  But no, the lead-in passage is party-neutral and refers simply to arrangements that will govern the working relationship and can only be altered by mutual agreement. 

The so-called clarification actually clarifies that the Greens have effectively and unilaterally replaced the previous arrangement - which they presumably asked for so they would be consulted on legislation and thus enabled to object to it early, only to now find they don’t like or need it anymore and/or are willing to sacrifice it for a media stunt about Tasmanian forestry.  That they have replaced it with something that’s in theory effectively similar isn’t the point.  The point is consistency with their own truth-in-government shtick.

I would have thought that the meetings were some sort of concession/favour won by the Greens, something like a free pizza suprema once a week, or once a fortnight during the tourist season.  In such an instance, I’m sure she wouldn’t regard Bob as obligated to turn up at her pizzeria for a regular freeby. 

She’d probably be glad - pizzerias can be busy places.

So if Garry is correct in #61, what then is the point of the Greens cancelling the meetings? If they’re cancelling something they wanted and asked for that the PM really doesn’t need or want and would be happy to do without, then how is that any kind of effective protest, and how is the threat of cancellation any kind of serious threat?  Or is it all just a disingenuous pretext for silly media noise by the Greens about the forests issue?

#62 You ask a series of questions Kevin for which I don’t think you expect answers, they seem to be an ‘appeal to the audience’. 

My #61 made the point that the obligation to meet was not mutual, and it seems you are in some ways willing to concede the point, yet you sign off, as it were, with some parting rhetorical questions. 

If you actually do want answers to them, then perhaps it’s your turn to find out, Kevin.  I tried .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) and got an answer, which you’ve seen.  I think I’ve done my bit.  If you do contact Bob, I’m sure you’ll reword that last question, your

“Or is it all just a disingenuous pretext for silly media noise by the Greens about the forests issue? “

(This last question of yours was from a technical point of view quite interesting.  I was trying to decide whether or not the term ‘rhetorical question’ quite fitted.  In some ways it did, as your question did not seem to require an answer but rather seemed to have been posed for ‘mere’ effect.  But on the other hand, as I thought about the ‘disingenuous’ accusation contained in it, I began to wonder whether it was more a case of an argument which contained a conclusion but no premise.  Was there such a thing I wondered.  I decided I’d call it ‘an Argument by Suggestion’.  Is there such a thing?  And is it, typically, a poor argument?

So why is anyone surprised when Andrew Wilkie is on the move after all he has a long history of making big moves based on not getting his own way in his life. 

Andrew Wilkie began his political file in the young Libs from where he jumped ship.  Next he becomes became a high ranking army officer at Duntroon he subsequently admits to bastardizing and bullying junior cadets but says everyone did it. 

Subsequently he rises through the army ranks before becoming an intelligence analyst.  He jumped that ship when the intelligence bosses and community expected him to remain true to his country and fellow officers code of honour and practice .  A short stint with an American defence company and back home to Australia a most flexible post for an emerging leftish political radical. 

So where next?  Andrew is reborn and pops up as a Green and with a new best mate of Bob Brown.  Andrew quickly falls out with his new best mate and party because Bob gets most if not all the publicity and resources as a green’s candidate both in Victoria and later in Tasmania

Yet again Wilkie falls out with his support base and moves on.  Now does anyone see a pattern emerging yet? 

More recently the newly elected Andrew Wilkie MP gets a written promise in exchange for his vote and he now supports a Labor government but when he again fails to get all his own way you guessed it he shouts foul and blames everyone else for his failure to succeed. 

This behaviour is not that of the high-minded saint some would have us now see.  Rather it is the grandiose manifestation of a paranoid personality.  Here is a man who clearly believes that whatever he does or says he is morally right and everyone else is wrong.  I am willing to bet he sees conspiracies around every corner and believes that others are out to get him. 

It is important when judging anyone to look carefully at the behaviour and over time and see is there a pattern is the pattern repeating itself does the person learn from their behaviour?  Don’t just listen to the words they can so easily be lies but our behaviour never lies it marks the real us.

Re #63 I’m just covering all the bases.  On one interpretation, which is my preferred one at this stage, the Greens have broken an agreement in which they did have obligations.  The other interpretation is that this was just something they asked for and there are no obligations on them, and while I don’t agree with that view, I am just pointing out what appear to be its consequences.  Either the Greens breached their agreement or else their “protest” consisted of cancelling something only they wanted in the first place, in which case it could not be considered an effective threat or protest and we need to ask why they would do it.

I don’t have any interest in writing to the Greens and asking them to provide their latest party spin on the matter.  They are welcome to comment about the matter on TT or elsewhere should they wish to do so.  I appreciated your effort in obtaining the previous response from the Greens but you are not under any obligation to defend them or indeed to respond to any of my questions or posts.

I wrote my post in question form because while I’m rather confident that if #61 is correct then my implied conclusions follow, I like to give people the opportunity to put the case to the contrary just in case I’ve missed anything.  That is rather different to a so-called “rhetorical question” but I can understand that it would seem similar, especially if it was obvious that I was right.  :)

Your concerns about a possibly premiseless conclusion are misplaced.  The label “disingenuous” would hardly leap out of nowhere in a case where someone claimed to be conducting a protest by cancelling something that only they wanted, and by claiming this gained coverage for their stance on something else.  It is for such situations that the word exists. 

I’m actually not sure which scenario reflects on them worse!

#64. That seems to be a nasty piece of character assassination bazzabee. Everytime there is a career path change, you describe it as ‘jumped ship’.
However, he seems to have been fairly successful in all these changes and well respected.

Perhaps your own career path has been more rewarding and you’ve stayed on board all your life? Tell us about it?

#66 Dear Barnaby

University in England, one career path several jobs and promotions now retired. 

I moved from UK in the early 70’s a ten pound pom I had had two employers and then one in Tasmania.  Moved back to UK to do post graduate work in Scotland one employer. 

Returned to Australia in 1980 a refugee from Thatcherism, still only the one career only two employers in Tasmania over next twenty years.

Did a second degree, for fun, after my divorce and then took a job on the mainland.  Retired two years ago back to Tasmania,  are you bored yet?  Because I know I am. 

Add to this numbingly boring story three children six grandkids, a divorce and a second marriage. Yawnnnn ..... zzzzzzzzzzzzzz.  Please, please - stop before I become suicidal   and its me that’s writing this crap and I do value my snaity what little I have left that is.

#67. Two degrees and .... ‘and its me that’s writing this crap and I do value my sanity what little I have left that is.’

Couldn’t agree more.

C’mon bazzabee, you haven’t only jumped ship, you’ve deserted the country that trained you. You then deserted the country that sponsored the original betrayal and went home, only to re-desert. Not only that, you used the Tasmanian education system for your second degree, then moved to the mainland for the money, then came back to Tassie when you retired in order to be a burden on the State health system.
I’m leaving your personal life alone as I’m only expressing this viewpoint to make a point, not to offend but I’m sure you’re intelligent enough to see that actually your comment #64 is particularly nasty and you wouldn’t look too good if your own life was viewed in the same harsh light. Who of us would?
Barnaby was spot on in #66

#69 How I agree with you; oh how, I agree with you up to a point of course.  You should note that I said I have lead a boring life and not blameless life. As to my Tasmanian degree I paid for that and it cost the tax payers bugger all but that’s another story. 

In fact your comments would be extremely valid but for one small thing.  You see unlike Mr Wilkie I’m not seeking to have my opinions and beliefs foisted onto anyone let alone enshrined in a law that will according to its opponents change their lives in ways that they don’t agree with.

When you put yourself forward as a saviour history teaches that martyrdom all too frequently comes with the territory.  Whereas all I did was ask a couple of what I still believe are pertinent questions added to a which were a couple of quite observations about a possible alternative motive for Mr Wiklie’s behavior based on observed and verifiable facts.

NB: I support gambling reform I was questioning the motivation and the methods of its chief proponent not the need for reform.