The Waterfront, an Early Election?

a ISSUE 2106 “In Support of Progress” Newsletter Date: 22 March 2021 Hobart Waterfront The Hobart Waterfront The presentation by TasPorts of its Master Plan for the Hobart Port brings into stark An early election? relief the capture of the Macquarie Point waterfront for shipping. One electorate The TasPort vision is for a long wharf to extend the length of the Macquarie Point development, and beyond. As an aside, its documentation still refers to the Mac. Pt. parcel of land as “RailYards” The MONA vision for Mac. Pt. explicitly stated the value of its proximity and connection to the waters of the Derwent as an integral part of its thinking. And one would presume that the reference – made by both the Premier and the Minister for Infrastructure to Mac. Pt. rivalling South Bank would have as its connotation a waterfront presence, in fact a bank no less! Not so. Two Government Master Plans in conflict. The Master Plan for Mac. Pt, which the Corporation says took its direction from the MONA vision, takes into account the dominance of the TasPort vision, and the land under its control has now become a large block of land surrounded by the port, without access – or even a view – of the waterfront. And the later Master Development Plan for Mac. Pt., which provides “a clear direction for the stages of construction”, is presently guiding activity on-site. It is fair to say that there are plans afoot for the decommissioning and re-siting of the waste-water treatment plant, and if that occurs, then there might be a narrow northern access to water. However, it is far removed from the MONA vision. The Corporation is now engaged in a process of releasing parcels of land for private development. I presume the Corporation’s view is that private developers will source their own anchor tenants, such as an Antarctic/CSIRO interest, or a museum interest, or a public service department interest. And In fact, I suspect a developer would not proceed without capturing an anchor tenant. Building “a building” on spec. without a prospective tenant in mind would be foolhardy. However, such a move will involve some government direction, and as yet, that has not been forthcoming. And such a lack of focus has been, and remains, most concerning. This has been my point all along, that there is no clarity about what this piece of land will house. As the Mac. Pt. website itself advises, it could be this or it could be that or it could be something else. In the meantime, it is nothing. Once upon a time, the plan was for Hobart to become a lesser port. Not so now, it seems. Meanwhile, traders are tearing their hair out at the lack of action in developing the Burnie Point, which is where real action is needed - TasPorts should really be concentrating its efforts where an actual need already exists. PAGE 2 “IN SUPPORT OF PROGRESS” - A NEWSLETTER An early election? The Premier is certainly clearing the decks. The State of the State Address, containing many lollypops suggested by the Premier’s Economic and Social Advisory Council, whose Report was released last week, and the decision to proceed with monohull replacements for the TT Line ferries, made for a momentous week. Even efforts to plaster over the housing crisis were included in the framework of government “action”. A looming fight with unions over the recalibration of TAFE could suit his purpose, while at the same time resolving pay disputes and back pay claims with other unions. The looming headwinds, which the Premier would want to avoid, include the aftermath of the closure of the Commonwealth’s JobKeeper program, restlessness within the ranks and any future outbreak of Covid. He has now taken pre-emptive action to resolve another thorn in his side - a pre- selection stoush - in the persona of an independently-minded Speaker of the House, by advising her she had no support within the Liberal Party and would not be re-endorsed by the Liberal Party, so “don’t seek it”, and he would be watching with interest the machinations of the Opposition over its pre-selection processes, and of the Opposition Leader’s personal disposition. Plus, it would be fair to say there are internal tensions within the government and its party, and the horses are restless. With all this in mind, it must be tempting to go early. And yet… The government presently has 13 members in the 25-seat House of Assembly, INCLUDING the Speaker. Thus, from a stability point of view, it needs 13 to govern. The Speaker, who has now been advised she will not be pre-selected by her party, is now a VERY loose cannon, and could bring down the government at a moment’s notice. She says she won’t, but words are easy. Powerful forces are now in play, and power plays prior to an election would simply be grist for the mill. One electorate It is rare that I mention candidates by name, but the situation in the seat of Clark, encompassing the cities of Hobart and Glenorchy, has now taken a fascinating turn. The five present members of Clark are: 1 Elise Archer, Liberal 2 Sue Hickey, disenfranchised Liberat 3 Ella Haddad, ALP 4 Madeleine Ogilvie, former ALP, now an independent supporting the government. 5 Cassy O’Connor, Green Without wanting to pre-empt the pre-selection process of the major parties and the fate of their candidates, or the fate of any other candidates which may wish to stand under their own banner, three high-profile women have now announced they will be standing as Independents, being Sue Hickey, Madeleine Ogilvie and Kristie Johnston (presently mayor of Glenorchy) and it is not beyond the realm of possibility that the electorate could return 5 female members, being, for example: LIB Elise Archer ALP Ella Haddad Green Cassy O’Connor Independents 2 of the three mentioned above. IN SUPPORT OF PROGRESS NEWSLETTER PAGE 3 And what this means, with two independents in Clark and the continuing presence of Green members, is that it would be highly unlikely that either major party would command a majority. Woman power indeed! Further, it is entirely possible that one would be a disenfranchised Liberal, with an axe to grind, and one would be a disenfranchised Labor member, with a similar axe at the grindstone. The third independent has gone on the record stating that she would act as a true independent, she would not be beholden to anyone, that she was “sick and tired” of political games, that she would “listen to people and understand their issues”, that she would accept “good” ideas and reject “bad “ ideas, and vote for “good” legislation and vote against “bad” legislation. It might sound good for a Vox pop sound bite, but with the greatest respect, this is naiveté writ large. It is essentially saying, “I don’t stand for anything - I could change my views at a moment’s notice”. Well, not all issues are simply black and white. Take forestry for example, or the TT Line ship replacements What is “good” and what is “bad”? I raise these matters now because quite frankly, the Lower House is the house of government, and government should be stable. It is the Upper House where legislation can and should be reviewed. Each of these candidates could hold the balance of power. Maybe singly, maybe not. So, each of these three candidates will need to explain in detail their policy positions on a broad range of matters, as the major parties do, so that voters can be properly informed when they cast their vote. I wish the candidates well. However, the last thing this state needs is to be in a state of gridlock and continuing political instability, where decisions, if made at all, could be made on a whim, and where the fluidity of instability will only create uncertainty within the broader populace. This newsletter is supported by Tasman Management Services Further information can be found at www.julianamos.com.au .

Load more