In response to Brown and others in the Mercury on the 11th.
$1m man ... Butler walks
I am still awaiting an iteration of Butler’s errors in law. I will never receive one because there aren’t any.
In the interim we are have opinions about what a sum of money, the equivalent to about $1.50 per head, would do for something like a school. Okay you’ve got a new building or 10 new teachers. What about the other schools, police stations or the new bed for a hospital?
Why was the appointment of a diplomat as Governor an experiment, how could it be known to be a mistake. Because Butler was not accepted by the Hobart elite? Because he became unpopular with a political scientist?. Because there was a campaign to have him dismissed?
Why should the figurehead be home grown unless they are elected. To ask the same conservatives to accept a woman is, in my opinion, looking for more trouble from the same conservatives.
Is it the view that Mr Butler should leave to live on the old age pension when he made no error in law, had no past failure that was morally questionable.
Tasmanians have only just seen their economy stagger to a slight improvement and regained a little confidence in their own potential.
What sort of reputation are we seeking when we dismiss our figurehead? That we should throw the Governor into the street penniless. Brilliant. There will be a long list of those wanting such treatment.
Butler resigned because he believed his position had become untenable. [Premier Lennon, the Governor is appointed, he does not reign, only represent the monarch. [Mercury 11AUG04]]. You know, the right thing to do was done.
The incumbent may not have been top of the pops as a Governor but it takes two to tango and the lack of acceptance of Butler lies with many parties, not just the incumbent.
What many fail to see is that we have failed. We have failed to embrace the opportunity of a high profile person as Governor, we have failed to express our hospitality, one expected by tourists, and most importantly we have shown again the failure of Tasmania to modernize.
Evidence Dr Scutt’s announcement that she will not renew as anti-discrimination commissioner, that we still behave as a colonial economy, sending low=value untransformed products along with the associated jobs offshore. The social impacts of this failure are clear, with Tasmania leading nationally in the worst social indicators and failing in the best.
Bacon may have wished to turn that around. I doubt if Hidding’s party can, it is more tied to the past than Labor. Unfortunately the Greens cannot gain sufficient confidence because to do so Lennon would have to transform the Tasmania economy and society and that is not in his interest.
AND
Vive le Roi
And now for a return to the relaxed and comfortable good old days of sleepy hollow where one of those born to rule end up at the place of appointment.
Methinks its time for the appointment to face the scrutiny of the people’s house and the Governor’s appointment to be confirmed by a three quarters majority of the lower house.
My earlier opinion on the other colonial anachronism
Enemy at the Gates
explains my omission of any role for them but if they cannot be abolished except by their own hand
it will take some time to see this ossification of irrelevance off the stage. Therefore a joint sitting would be acceptable full parliamentary legitimacy was necessary.
Further, the onerous role either has the big pay and modest accommodation or the modest pay and the mansion.
Either way this office costs us in the order of $1.5 million and it must do more than it has traditionally for that kind of money.
It can no longer be a retirement village for a past servant of the crown.
Deane set an example as Governor General that should be followed. The Governor must bring to Tasmania cohesion and a sense of identity as much as fulfill the duties of the office.
I would commend to the government to select an outsider to avoid the inevitable stain that this tawdry affair has left.
Any Tasmanian appointed will have to be blameless in the pressure applied to Butler.
Therefore the Tasmanian field has narrowed somewhat and once Republicans and Labor voters are excluded as they are unsuitable it only leaves the social climbers or their partners and they have been made unsuitable by their cabal.
Perhaps, in modernizing the role, the usual rebadging that accompanies a restructure in an attempt to achieve a new direction should apply and we should welcome the Administrator.
Lagerphone in hand, our own larrikin-tinged character could stand astride the sandstone steps of the entry portico bursting forth in rhyme and song to tell us of our past and reflect upon where it leads this land of pomp and nonsense.
phill Parsons wishes to elect his leaders from among his peers and no he is not peerless. However, he does not want the nation's figurehead to be a figure of politics, he wishes to save that bile for the Premiers and Prime Ministers. This is in the interests of keeping the idea of democratic government, one free from what we have just seen but legitimized by vote. Therefore electing a President will need to be a process free of campaigns, with candidates drawn from among us by ballot and elected on merit. Importantly the role of a President, both constitutionally and socially, will need to be iterated to avoid this game where Rafferty’s rules were allegedly broken.
AND,
While the gutter sniping frenzy surrounding Richard Butler has been (to steal a phrase) a very Tasmanian fiasco reflecting little credit on anybody involved, I think the involvement of Rene Hidding deserves exposure.
So, Lindsay Simpson, how should The Mercury have handled the “Butler saga”? How would you have handled it? What would you have done that The Mercury didn’t; not done that it did?
Jason Lovell, Mike Ward et-al, LETTERS
Earlier,
Is Richard Butler a great Tasmanian ...?
RAPID RESPONSE EMAIL: What do you think?
If you bounce,
tuffinlindsay@hotmail.com
Wednesday, August 11, 2004