Well we all know a bit more than when I first wrote on this matter last Thursday night. David Campbell has lived with a deeply personal secret for who knows how many years. Clearly someone knew or suspected but we haven't been told how Channel 7 and Adam Walters came to know about the Minister's "personal choices". I think this is relevant as it goes to the veracity of any claim that 7 and Walters has made that this "outing" was somehow in the public interest. I think we need to know their source, their motivation to follow Campbell, before we could e convinced that this was anything other than a grubby and wicked use of a person's sexuality to add to the ratings of an organisation and to elevate the career of an individual journalist.
Walters has been much more than an arms length observer and reporter of State politics. He has worked for the Government as an advisor and as long as all matters personal are on the table, we shouldn't forget that he became former Minister for Health, Reba Meagher's lover and partner. No longer together, they do now share a child. Walters tried lamely to raise the issue of public interest as Campbell had used his Ministerial car to visit Ken's at Kensington. Well, he was entitled to, wasn't he? He could have even used it to go to Ken's Kebabs at Kellyville if chose. Walters would no doubt have known this having spent more than a little time with a Minister. He and Meagher famously apparently enjoyed a night together forgetting to let the Minister's driver know her car wouldn't be needed! Not so flash for that driver.
With Channel 7 alluding to more to follow I can only imagine that they are desperately trying to find a story to shore up what has become a bit of a PR disaster for them. This grubby intrusion into the personal life of a politician in this way has been shown to more about titillation and ratings than it ever was to do with public interest.
KK seems to have received some good reports over her stance as well. She certainly read her script well (shown by cameras peering over her shoulder) though it really was arrogant of her to utter those words that what Campbell had done was "unforgivable". And this from someone who parades her Christian faith as part of her public life. This wasn't Christian, it was Old Testament. Apart from that pious statement from a clearly morally superior person, I think her overall message was correct. I am glad though surprised, that David Campbell appears to be facing up to the situation so well. But then again, this bloke would be one of the most immovable politicians I have ever seen.
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Riverina Red Gums
Debate on the Government’s National Park Estate (River Red Gum Reservations) Bill 2010 (No 2) came with the type of emotion and rhetoric from all sides that would be expected from such a divisive matter.
The Bill was not expected on the day, at least not by others than the Government who were in the know. Changing the Standing Orders to bring on such an important Bill at short notice and to push it through within the session is just plain wrong – it reeks of “clever” politics, setting aside the expectation of reasonable notice, usually five days.
Concerns of local effected residents are understandable; after all, life as they know it is going to change and all the assurances in the world that they will be looked after will be viewed with absolute scepticism.
The fact may be disputed by the Government, but the reality is that this Bill was brought on, perhaps not as an outright deal, but if not, at least as an appeasement to the Greens as the Government seeks to shore up support for preferences in March next year; no actual discussion of preferences maybe, but a “nod and a wink” wouldn’t surprise me. No slur on the Greens; their views on this matter have long been known and they have worked hard for the result.
Having said that I do support the intention of the legislation, which will create an extremely significant National Park protecting a wide range of species within this important ecological system. Inclusion of a greater legislated role for traditional owners in the management of this land was also very significant.
Local industries have been provided with compensation but it remains to be seen if this is enough. Claims that this Park will generate tourism dollars are in my view quite weak and eco-tourism in itself is unlikely to substantially offset losses from industries that have relied on harvesting timber from the River Red Gum forests. Of course, the truth of this will be only known with hindsight. Because of this it will be important for the Government, and the next, to carefully watch the impact on these communities and take action as needed to ensure that these communities can adapt and hopefully prosper.
The debate was extensive and credit to Frank Sartor who I think argued his point well. Properly done, this decision could in the long-term provide benefits for those local communities and ensure the best conditions for the sustainability of the River Red Gum Forests. In short, I don’t like how it was done, possibly not why it was done, but I think the decision is correct.
The Bill was not expected on the day, at least not by others than the Government who were in the know. Changing the Standing Orders to bring on such an important Bill at short notice and to push it through within the session is just plain wrong – it reeks of “clever” politics, setting aside the expectation of reasonable notice, usually five days.
Concerns of local effected residents are understandable; after all, life as they know it is going to change and all the assurances in the world that they will be looked after will be viewed with absolute scepticism.
The fact may be disputed by the Government, but the reality is that this Bill was brought on, perhaps not as an outright deal, but if not, at least as an appeasement to the Greens as the Government seeks to shore up support for preferences in March next year; no actual discussion of preferences maybe, but a “nod and a wink” wouldn’t surprise me. No slur on the Greens; their views on this matter have long been known and they have worked hard for the result.
Having said that I do support the intention of the legislation, which will create an extremely significant National Park protecting a wide range of species within this important ecological system. Inclusion of a greater legislated role for traditional owners in the management of this land was also very significant.
Local industries have been provided with compensation but it remains to be seen if this is enough. Claims that this Park will generate tourism dollars are in my view quite weak and eco-tourism in itself is unlikely to substantially offset losses from industries that have relied on harvesting timber from the River Red Gum forests. Of course, the truth of this will be only known with hindsight. Because of this it will be important for the Government, and the next, to carefully watch the impact on these communities and take action as needed to ensure that these communities can adapt and hopefully prosper.
The debate was extensive and credit to Frank Sartor who I think argued his point well. Properly done, this decision could in the long-term provide benefits for those local communities and ensure the best conditions for the sustainability of the River Red Gum Forests. In short, I don’t like how it was done, possibly not why it was done, but I think the decision is correct.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
