The idea to diminish the number of politicians in the Tasmanian Parliament came about through the efforts of Liberal Premier, Ray Groom and implemented by Premier Tony Rundle who succeeded him. It was in November 1993 that Ray Groom raised the parliamentary wage by a whopping 40 per cent. This did not go down well with the electorate; this I remember very well. To off-set the bad publicity, what better way to win back a measure of approval than to cut back the number of politicians? After all, are we not over governed? Certainly on the face of it, it may appear – but are we really? Perhaps we are indeed over governed, but not in the way most would understand it.
There is a popular cry that, “Tasmania is over governed”. We have three tiers of government, Federal with its two Houses, State with its two Houses and twenty nine local municipalities. That does seem a lot for a State of 500,000 residents. The Founding Fathers of our nation, aware of the insidious nature of man to acquire power, in their wisdom before federation, decided on splitting the responsibilities of government between the Federal Government and State Governments, as outlined in the National Constitution. It was not long before there were complaints that the federal government was eroding State’s responsibility. Our one-time Premier Edmund Dwyer-Gray (1939) expressed concern way back in 1931 of the encroaching powers of Canberra against the States and he took up the cry of “Justice for Tasmania and secession”. During WWII, Joseph (Joe) Darling of our Legislation Council (in my opinion probably Tasmania’s greatest politician) led and eventually won a nation-wide campaign to stop the Federal Government’s takeover of many State powers in an effort, so they said, to fight the war. Joe was wise enough to know, once taken they will never be given back, even though the Federal Attorney-General Herbert Evatt guaranteed that after the war, those responsibilities taken away would indeed be returned. Well, pigs may fly. Even in our time, during the Franklin below Gordon Dam controversy there was a State-rights fight under Premier Robin Gray, who went as far as to threaten, like Dwyer-Gray, secession and even commissioned a feast ability study, a copy of which I have in my files.
It was good that our founding fathers split power, to break it down and to disperse it. Municipal government of course is a State responsibility, although Tasmania had a number of local governments existing under the authority of colonial governments before federation. Hence the three-tier system of government. To some, even this is too many layers, although the United States has a four-tier system, the City (or town), the County, the State and Federal. Then there are those who wish to centralise power, getting rid of State Governments altogether (which is almost impossible because it would need a referendum to agree) and just have regional government, say for Tasmania three, north, south, north west, and most of the power centralised in Canberra. Heaven forbid! Then there are those who believe Tasmania should do away with its State independence and be governed from Victoria. Again, heaven forbid!
There is then, the conception that Tasmania is over governed – too many tiers of government and too many politicians. One way to stop this is to amalgamate municipalities and to cut back on the number of State politicians, which we saw happen in 1998. It was a popular move and received the backing of the electorate. Now, however, we are looking at its reversal.
On the surface of course it does seem terrific. We have fewer politicians which is now costing us a lot less financially. It would be interesting to know much it all cost in 1998 and compare costs up for 2019. I would suggest we are not really any better off. Governments have a rule of increasing in size in various way, thus I would submit running government would be even more expensive now. It is just like council amalgamations (often forced) with the carrot being that resources can be shared, there will be fewer aldermen and as a result rates will decline. This has never happened of course. It is a fervie. Rates don’t go down.
Tasmania in my opinion is not over governed, at least not in the way people understand that it is. The Lower House now has 25 members, down from 35, while the Upper House has 15, down from 19. From a small pool of thirteen which make up the current government, nine actually have portfolios of which there are thirty three. Being Premier is a responsible job in itself, but Mr Hodgman has four other besides this position. Our Attorney-General, Elise Archer, who is very competent, has six, Guy Burnett four, Michael Ferguson five and so on. Perhaps there are too many portfolios. Regardless, how anyone can handle such responsibilities is beyond me and one must question, something which was recently pointed out to me and not contained in my written submission, can such awesome power transfer into authoritarism? Like our founding fathers, who broke up power, we should likewise break down the number of portfolios each minister can have. This means of course increasing the number of representatives or cutting back the number of portfolios. Now there may be the claim that a government could win 15 and more seats. No doubt if this happened it would spread the load, but this is unlikely and the worse thing for good government is a landslide. To handle such a load, must be stressful, demanding and almost impossible to devote adequate attention and time to every separate portfolio. The job load would be for better government if shared around to others, as long as that person is competent and experienced enough. Sharing such a large number of portfolios between small numbers could also see the situation where those who have a portfolio could be taking on a responsibility that they are just not prepared to accept.
The other aspect for the increase of numbers will be to represent the electorate more fully. Here in Tasmania, many electorates not only know who their representative is, many actually have met them or know them quite well and are able to seek out their services for assistance. On the mainland, the electorates are so large, that most if they know who their representative is, would hardly have an opportunity to meet them on a personal basis (maybe election time is an exception) let alone know them. Here in Tasmania twenty five members works out (approximately) one House of Assembly representative for every 20,000 people, but increasing it to 35, the ratio darts down to one to every 14,000 people. This low ratio i.e. representative to the electorate can only be of benefit to the voter. This gives him or her far greater opportunity to get to know their representative rather than being just one person in a big cog wheel. Of course, the same can be said of the Legislative Council. Nonetheless it is the Lower House Member which most electorate know more than say the Upper House Member, while not diminishing the importance of the Upper Chamber. More numbers means better representation to the electorate and while it may appear correct that we should have less numbers on the belief we are over governed, it can actually work against good government. The further away from the individual that government goes, the less chance that person has in influencing their members and indeed, the government – and isn’t this what it is all about…people representation? Government of the people, for the people? The same can be said about council amalgamation. It is an attractive concept, but the further away the seat of government gets from where the people live, the less say and influence the electorate have on how they are governed.
But we are over-governed, but not in the way popularly thought. I am now in my twilight years and since a boy, through youth-hood, young man hood and middle age I have seen the freedom of society and of the individual reduce dramatically even to the extent it is like living in an occupied country. How can this be so? Simply, there is too much government legislation, too many boards, too many commissions, too many unelected public CEOs, too much outside influences which have increased government power enormously and when government power increases the freedom of the people decreases. We have seen now on the mainland efforts to curb the freedom of the media. One of the most insidious pieces of legislation implemented by the Tasmania Parliament is section 17 of the Anti-Discrimination Act of 1998, and amended by Minister Brian Wightman’s bill of 2012 and commenced 1 January 2013. I bring Section 17 up as an example of governments being in our faces. Governments and politicians should be there protecting the people’s freedom, rather than taking it away. Such legislation is always opened to interpretation and abuse. In fact the actual amendment is dreadfully worded. How it passed the Upper House, I don’t know. A few decades back it would have been sent back or even rejected.
I submit that low number of representatives is detrimental to the people in receiving good government. It is also detrimental to those in government in being able to provide the best of government possible and that low numbers, regardless of the ability of some our ministers to handle such awesome responsibilities, can be just too much for one person to shoulder. Less numbers cuts down on the ratio of representative to the electorate, but higher numbers will obviously increase that number, which can only be of benefit to the people. And government is about serving the people to its best ability. Yes, it will cost more in wages and expenses, but better government will result. Cutting down on costs can be achieved in other ways, perhaps cutting back on the number of portfolios and their departments.
However, I also submit that we are indeed over-governed, but in a way in that we no longer a free people, over burdened by government interference and domination of our lives. Born in the late 40s I can compare what was, to what is and the contrast is enormous. This trend of curbing and controlling the beliefs, the thoughts, the opinions, the movements and the actions of the people is only increasing and people are seeing governments as the problem. Surely this is not what our Founding Fathers intended when they broke up power and had it shared, knowing the human heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked, who can know it? (Jeremiah 17:9).
There have been further demands to change traditional names, the latest being the bridges Bowen and Batman. Recently of course we had calls for the renaming of Franklin Square, named after Sir John Franklin. Bowen Bridge in the south was named after Lt John Bowen RN, while the bridge in the north, Batman, was named after John Batman. Their contribution not only to this state, but especially with Batman, to the nation is enormous and they are worthy to have important venues named in their honour. Neither men were perfect; no one is, including those who criticise them. Perhaps as Christ implores, they should cast out the beam in their own eye first.
The four lane Bowen Bridge crossing the Derwent River was opened in 1984 and was (as stated) named after Lt. John Bowen. Bowen was twenty three years of age (incorrectly stated in many sources as eighteen) with 48 other settlers, (free, military and convict) who settled at Risdon Cove in September 1803. He was instructed to land at Risdon Cove on the order of Philip Gidley King, acting on the recommendation of explorers, John Hayes and George Bass. Thus Bowen established the first British settlement in Tasmania. For that alone, he should be remembered and recognised. It was an incredible important historic episode for Tasmania and for Australia. He came with Martha Hayes Quinn who remained here after Bowen left our shores. Martha had two daughters by him, with descendants living here today. Martha went on to marry twice after John had gone and had further children.
Importantly, the settlement at Risdon Cove was named “Hobart” as testified by correspondence between Bowen and King. The settlement at Sullivan’s Cove the following year, which of course became Hobart Town, was actually the second settlement of that name. Lord Hobart was the Secretary of War and Colonies.
The contentious aspect about the Risdon Cove is the confrontation between the natives and the settlers which occurred in May 1804. An historian in a recently published book states that Bowen was there at the time, but in actual fact this is erroneous, as he was away exploring the Huon River. In charge of the settlement was marine Lieutenant William Moore. The scene saw a large number of natives confronting the small number of settlers and shots were fired. The few documented accounts we have indicate that possibly up to five natives were killed. The figures have now escalated to one hundred. A lot of this comes from the testimony of Edward White who gave evidence at the March 1830 inquiry into the affair. The big problem is, despite White saying he was there at the time, he was not, and thus his evidence cannot be accepted as accurate.
The arrival of Colonel David Collins to Risdon Cove in February 1804 was the start of the end of the Risdon Cove settlement. Even so, four settlers who died from Collin’s expedition are buried there. Dr C Pardoe, anthropologist, actually inspected the remains of one several years ago. The skeleton was found by farmer Fred Sargent in 1917.
Bowen, who came from a distinguished naval family, left the island to fight the French during the Napoleonic Wars. Much more can be said of this young man, his achievements, his frustrations and yes, his failures. That he played an important role in this state’s history cannot be denied.
The Batman Bridge spanning the River Tamar was opened in 1966. It is named after John Batman, who probably is best remembered for the founding the city of Melbourne. We should be proud as Tasmanians that we not only preceded Melbourne, but that city had its origins from one who lived here.
Batman was born in Parramatta, NSW, in 1803. Leaving NSW, he and his brother Henry arrived in Launceston in 1821 and his life here was full of achievement. He actually captured bushranger, Matthew Brady. Batman did indeed take place in the Black Line in 1830 which was an attempt to round up the aborigines of Tasmania. Here we have the conflicting nature of Batman. He did attack and kill a number of natives, including a woman and a child. Yet in October 1830 he gave refuge to twelve natives who sought sanctuary from him after a ferocious inter-tribal fight. He lived on his property which he called Kingston, north east Tasmania where he co-habited with Elizabeth Callaghan. They had a number of children and were eventually married. By 1835 he with friends, John Fawkner and John Helder Wedge, discussed plans to make discoveries on the mainland. Batman visited Port Phillip (where Melbourne now stands), returned and then set sail again on the vessel Rebecca which was built at Rosevears in the north. Once there he noted a suitable place for a village, the future Victorian capital. He was accompanied by a number of Sydney aborigines who he said (his journal – Mitchell Library) helped him with his dialogue with the local aborigines, he writing that they “perfectly understand each other”. The whole episode is a large story unto itself.
I would like to end on Batman what I have written in my book Parramatta – Tasmania historic connections about this man. “Certainly as John Bonwick early historian and author picture him, he was no hero, full of warts and all. Indeed, he was human. He was a man, however, who rose from humble beginnings and obtained prominent heights in our history books. It can be said that he grasped an opportunity and made the most of it.”
Changing names because certain people are out of favour with certain people is not a genuine reason to do so. If we are looking for perfect people to name things after, then we shall not find them. Many prominent people of international renown, like Lincoln, Churchill, Kennedy, Ghandi, Mandela (etc., etc.) had their flaws and some serious ones, but we must recognise their positive contributions as we must with Bowen and Batman.
Reg. A. Watson is a Tasmanian historian and author of “John Bowen the Founder of Tasmania”.
There have been recent calls for the re-naming of Franklin Square in Hobart which was dedicated to Sir John Franklin, with his statue contained in the grounds. It may be well worth to inspect Sir John and Lady Franklin’s time in Tasmania and understand why the park’s name should remain.
Sir John has been remembered world-wide more for his Arctic exploration rather than his colonial administration of Van Diemen’s Land.
He died in 1847 while exploring the vast, icy expanse and 129 fellow travellers died with him. The exact date and cause of his death has puzzled scientists and historians for years.
Franklin was born in 1786 in Lincolnshire, England. Before beginning his exploration in earnest in 1845 he had already led an amazing life. Between 1819 and 1825 Franklin set off in several expeditions to the Arctic Ocean and returned to England with valuable geographical and scientific knowledge.
In 1836 he was appointed Lt. Governor of Van Diemen’s Land, arriving in January 1837 with his wife, Lady Jane, both of whom were well educated and well travelled. Upon arrival in Launceston they were received by the citizens and were accompanied to Hobart, it was reported, by “300 horsemen.”
His eight year term of the penal colony was that of an able administrator with a humane outlook. He clashed many times with his colonial secretary, John Montagu, over the issue of land speculation. The controversy would reach London.
Another very interesting episode in Franklin’s life was to do with bushranger, Martin Cash. Martin with two comrades, Kavanah and Jones together with Bessie (politely referred as Mrs Cash) were held up in their fort at Mt Dromedary. Knowing the military were out to find them, they sent Bessie to Hobart Town for safety. Bessie was subsequently arrested which made Martin furious. As a consequence he wrote the following letter to Sir John Franklin:
‘’If Mrs Cash is not released forthwith and properly remunerated we will, in the first instance, visit Government House and beginning with Sir John administer a wholesome lesson in the shape of a sound flogging.’’
Bessie was indeed released, but not because of the threat. Her release lured Martin into Hobart Town, as planned, where he was recognised and after an enormous and dramatic chase, was captured, ending his bushranging career.
The Franklins left in 1845, his wife exhorted him to seek further glory and he set his mind to explore the Arctic wastes. The fabled North-West Passage across the top of Canada had been sought for centuries and Britain had taken a major interest in its discovery.
In 1845 the British government despatched Franklin, in command of the Erubus and Terror, in another search. In July he reached Walefish Island in Davis Strait. He was never seen again and it was not until 1847 that serious apprehension began to be entertained regarding the fate of the expedition.
For the next 14 years, 40 expeditions were sent to determine the fate of the Franklin party. In 1860 the expedition of Captain Charles Hall learned of several particulars concerning the Franklin death.
He found a small boat off King William Island near Cape Crozier, containing two skeletons and a pathetic baggage of soil handkerchiefs and silver teaspoons engraved with Franklin’s crest. Both Franklin’s vessels had been trapped in ice and eventually sunk. The explorers and crew managed to disembark in time taking supplies and a large row boat.
What followed is a story of heroism and self sacrifice, but also illogical behaviour. When leaving the sinking vessels the survivors took hundreds of bibles and hymnals and office furniture, placing them in the row boat only to drag them across the ice for more than 1600km. Certainly, the cruelty of exposure took its toll. Scientists believe after visiting the sites and a thorough investigation, concluded that lead poisoning could have caused their illogical behaviour.
Franklin’s wife, died in 1875 in London, a few days before the unveiling of a memorial to her husband in Westminster Abbey.
Lady Franklin was a promoter of the arts. In 1839 she purchased 410 acres of land at Lenah Valley (then called Kangaroo Valley) and began to plan a Museum for the display of Sculpture, Natural History and Painting. It seems an odd place to build at the time so far away of the capital, Hobart Town. She wrote to her sister in England, Mrs Mary Simkinson of the Museum which she described as “a pretty little design of Greek proportions with one or two rooms.”
The actual museum site was chosen in 1841 and was officially opened with its library in October 1843. It was unfortunate that Lady Franklin had little time to enjoy her accomplishment as the Franklins left the island soon after. The property was called Ancanthe, a Greek word meaning a “vale of flowers”. Care of it passed to the Governors of Queens College until 1938 when it was transferred to the Hobart City Council. In 1947 it was leased to the Art Society of Tasmania, who still cares for the building.
The Museum and park is located in the most wonderful of places. It is surrounded by natural bushland with Mount Wellington beyond. It is an oasis in a rapidly urbanised area, bringing tranquillity and beauty and a link to the past.
The Franklins played an immensely important part in our history. It is noticed that 78 per cent of responses to The Mercury wanted no name change to the park. I hope, on this occasion, the majority’s wish will be honoured.
It is often said that in Australia we live in a free society. Yet over the decades I have seen freedom of speech, thought and movement erased by stealth. This trend to control people is very dangerous. Our politicians and governments who should protect the electorate’s freedom are often the very ones who are taking it away.
As one who was born post WWII, I can reflect growing up in the 50s, 60s and into the 70s and how much freedom we had compare to what now exists. Those who were born in the post 90s understand very little how it was.
The past decades were far from being a perfect world. Alcoholism was a very serious social issue. Pondering on this fact I put a lot of it down to the war. Men returning in their hundreds of thousands, adjusting back into civilian life, endeavouring to adapt without a great deal of social help and with severe psychological problems turned to alcohol. Yet we were a united nation….true there were divisions, Labour versus Liberal, Catholic and Protestants, but these divisions were not out of control. The tensions between Catholics and Protestants were played out on the school boy’s football field with perhaps a black eye as a result. Today in modern Australia we are divided not only on race, but culture, sexual orientation and religion. We don’t seem to be able to agree on anything. I have seen my country once united now developed into a country divided.
The social manipulators tell us this is all very good, but it has produced severe tensions and frictions. I am reminded what Christ said (as endorsed by Abraham Lincoln) “a house divided against itself cannot stand”. I much prefer the wisdom of Christ than that of the politically correct.
There was little fear in previous years of being frightened in what you said and wrote and having now near fifty years of published experience I know how it has changed. Today you can be prosecuted and persecuted for speaking one’s mind and having an opinion, particularly with the legislative powers of 18C (federal) and Section 17 here in Tasmania which is even more repressive than the former.
One could move about without the horrid control which exists now. In those days a trip to the airport was pleasant. Now it is an unfriendly place where one is looked upon with suspicion. Tasmanian Parliament House you could walk in as you wish; now you have to go through rigid security and to leave, your access is blocked, which I think is quite illegal impeding your right of progress. This is all because of “terrorism “, yet I wonder whether this is often used as an excuse.
Going to a place of entertainment like football or cricket can also be unpleasant. Security guards even approach one outside the stadium to check your bags (again I believe this quite illegal as you are on a public place). Once in, you are a captured audience exactly the same with the Hobart Cup. In past years one was able to take one’s own beverages, now it is not permitted forcing everyone to buy what is offered at inflated prices.
There was very little control in past days when attending local football. It was fun and casual with only a constable or two in sight. Now there are dozens and dozens of security guards of dubious talent. Something has happened to society.
The other issue which one did not have to content with was drugs. Even in my early twenties, I never came across the scourge. Today of course they are everywhere, even with primary school children, resulting in crime that is often brutal in the extreme.
A couple of years ago I went to a book launch at a primary school where the author told the students they have the right to say what they want without being threatened. That may have been the case, but it is not so today. With political correctness, people are fearful of repercussions if they speak up, try to contest the status quo or act independently. Of course, most of us will agree to the concept of freedom of expression, but herein lays the problem; most will only tolerate freedom of expression if that opinion agrees with them. We are afraid of offending others who have a variety of ways to silence those who offended them and take vengeance. Yet freedom of expression can only exist when one has the right to offend. People have become too sensitive and too self-centred. I never thought I would live to see the day when Australia had to pass legislation to protect freedom of religion.
Mankind’s march for freedom began thousands of years ago. Socrates faced it, even in liberal Classic Athens, by questioning the gods. He was convicted and died as a result. Yet through those thousands of years, the inborn desire for freedom has always been present and won not only on the battlefield, but through the corridors of power. Both Benedict Spinoza and English Liberal John Locke developed a political theory where natural rights were protected by governments. However, with the growing power and interference of governments, the opposite is happening. Our rights are actually not only being curtailed but being taken away from us. The weakness of the party system is of course that most politicians will do exactly what their party tells them to do. If you don’t, you will not survive within the system.
Political correctness, which is simply people control, now dominates the entertainment industry, corporate Australia, advertising, art, science, professional sport, the public service and education. That is why it is imperative to safeguard the freedom of the press.
Things have certainly changed and one can site much more. If they continue as they do, I can see us entering a new dark age. Freedom will only come if the people take a stand. The hunger for freedom cannot be stifled regardless of the efforts of those in control and it is deliberate; it is not happening by accident.
What type of tourism should Tasmania have?
True tourism is when the visitor experiences the life and the environment of the locals. In essence they blend in and absorb. There is another type of tourism which has become very prevalent and could be called “manufactured” tourism. This is when visitors in large numbers arrive only briefly and then leave our shores really not experiencing the real Tasmania.
Tourists of this manufactured kind can over stay their welcome. This is currently being seen in Europe where places like Venice (Italy) reveal that the residents have had enough because of their lives being dramatically altered. This type of ugly tourism can make the natives feel like living in a zoo.
The proposed Cambria Green resort project is one of these manufactured tourist schemes, which do not entirely benefit the locals changing their lifestyle. It certainly will benefit the big end of town and for governments, State and local who then can boast of growth figures, even though the economic positiveness is not passed down to the general population.
The original Cambria is of great historic significance to Tasmania and perhaps more can be made of this for Tasmanians and visitors alike. It was the home of George Meredith with Cambria being the ancient name for Wales. It was known as “Government House” with a procession of Governors and their wives staying there. At one time son Charles (who was to come a politician and there is a memorial to him on the Queen’s Domain) and wife Louisa Anne lived on the property. Louisa was an outstanding observer of colonial life and society. Described by historian Douglas Pike as a “poet in feeling” she was much more than a writer, but also an artist, naturalist and botanist who achieved international fame. She wrote of Cambria: “commands an extensive view of large tracts of bush and cultivated land and across from Head of Oyster Bay of the Schoutens.”
Now it is to be a golf course, 100 room five star hotel (where locals cannot afford to stay), 300 units and an airstrip. While the developer said the historical aspects of the property will be maintained, one wonders how will this be achieved.
To be truthful it will only be a playground for those overseas visitors who can afford it. They will fly in (own airstrip) enjoy the manufactured surroundings, then fly out….what have they really seen or experienced of the true Tasmania? Little.
I have said it before and I will say it again, Tasmania’s attraction is being Tasmania; in other words, being unique. Our lifestyle, our small population, our history, the scenery, quality of product, our distinctiveness is what attracts people to our beautiful island. We can boom with proper visitations, but these “playgrounds” will only destroy our lifestyle.
I repeat, the true experience of tourists should be to experience the REAL Tasmania. As an example of this, some years ago I was employed to take a day trip of visitors from New Jersey in a mini bus. The itinerary was ridiculous. Picking them up from the boat, I first took them up Mount Wellington, then to Salmon Ponds, then to National Park, then to Richmond and the finally back to the departing vessel. All within a few hours. They were totally exhausted and some of the elderly ones complained – and quite frankly I did not blame them. I thought the whole thing embarrassing. Did they see the real Tasmania? No.
It is pleasing that many community groups have taken the time to protest against the Cambria development with similar developments going on throughout Tasmania. The problem is of course in such circumstances, whole areas are changed dramatically and forever and after the damage, the developer moves on to another project and does likewise.
Do we need development? Of course, we can’t stay in a time warp – but we can have good and controlled development. Can we have a successful tourist industry which is welcomed by the locals and not abhorred? Of course, but not this ugly and stressful input.
On many occasions the local are treated like second class citizens because of the perceived need to attract huge numbers of visitors. As another example, when booking into a Tamar resort I also booked a seat for dinner in the dining room. In the meantime, two large tourist buses arrived and because so, I was delegated to the bar. In the morning hoping for a fine breakfast I found that the tourists had already come and gone, leaving little left; it was like a horde of locusts had descended on everything. Leaving the premises to return home, I, stopping at a dining premises down the Mainland, was refused entry because a tourist bus had come and there was no room. This type of thing can only build resentment from locals.
The developer has stated that those who will be staying at Cambria will be people from China and finance will be coming from both China and the USA. To be quite frank I am tired of our politicians who are prepared to sell our real estate out to the highest and short term buyer. To those who may charge me with “racism” let me say, the Cambria development in its present form from any nationality would be opposed by me.
The fact is that such a massive development with change the attractiveness of the area. It is true I do not live in Glamorgan, although I am a member of the local history society and and my family, the Watsons, were colonial settlers. However, the east coast is also the playground of all Tasmanians and quite frankly, we do not like our State exploited.
It is strange that Australia has an inquiry into the need to protect religious freedom and religious expression. We will see what the report is like when it is handed down by Philip Ruddock.
I say “strange” because I thought there would never be a need for it in Australia. This freedom has existed for many years as it is part of our inheritance from Great Britain and guaranteed in our laws.
This is obviously no longer the case, otherwise it would not be necessary. Things socially are ever so different to the 50s and 60s, even the 70s. The younger generation, say from the 80s, have little understanding how it has changed.
When we say “religious freedom” we are in reality meaning Christian freedoms. Christianity was brought to our national shores in 1788 and to Tasmania in 1803. Britain of course, has been home to Christianity for 1300 years, longer elsewhere in Europe. It has been a part of our culture and heritage.
It was Alfred the Great who codified much from the Old Testament into English law and down the ages we have inherited The Magna Carter, the 1689 Bill of Rights, English Common Law, trial by Jury and Habeas Corpus all resulting from a country with a Christian background. In Australia we have our own Constitution, which states in its beginning paragraph “relying on the blessings of Almighty God”. This part was added by the insistence of the Churches of the day, excluding the Seventh Day Adventist Church which took the view that if such a wording was added it would force Sunday worship upon them rather than Saturday. This obviously did not happened
Whereas “almighty…God” was neutral in its emphasis it was clearly to mean at the time, the God of Christians.
Down through the centuries it has influence dramatically our ethics, morality, modesty, principles,art and consciousness. There is no denying there are faults; any Institutions developed by imperfect man will fail to some degree. Over all it worked very well with many leading charitable organisations and acts emanating from Christian belief, not just here in Australia, but world-wide and many examples can be cited.
Australia since settlement has not been a strong church-going community, unlike say the United States. Even in the hey-day attendance percentage-wise would not have been more than fifty percent of the population. Yet, the influence was there and people though nominally Christian did respect its Institutions and certainly used it for Sunday School, Christenings, Confirmations, Weddings and funerals. During WWI ninety per cent of our soldiers declared themselves Christian.
Today by recent statistics only about fifty per cent of the population now give the title “Christian”.
In the 50s it was all so different and it was just taken as the norm that what was will continue. I remember all too clearly when on Christmas Day, all radio stations (and later in the early days of television) played religious music as they did at Easter. Sundays was indeed a day of rest, with most businesses, sports and entertainment taking a break. It was a day for church, going on picnics, visiting or being visited. Today of course Sunday is very different, our roads are full of traffic, sport is the new religion, shops are open and while our communication has expanded technologically, we communicate less with each other including families.
All what was has gone and I really do not think for the better. Society must believe in something and that “something” will determine how we view things and our attitude to situations. It appears that we are still searching for Christianity’s replacement. There is no such thing as a vacuum as people crave for something. To some it appears to be socialism, environmentalism, militant atheism, science and even hedonism – whatever.
To some extent the fault does lie with the Churches themselves. It is apparent such institutions have not fulfilled many people’s spiritual requirements. One naturally has to refer to the appalling publicity which many, particularly of the established mainstream churches, have been subject to. This has disillusioned many of faith. Herein lays the problem, because people have placed their faith on man-made institutions and church leaders, rather than the faith itself. Yet that is an easy statement to make. It must be very difficult for those ‘good’ and ‘sincere’ members of the cloth who are now under unfair suspicion.
We do live in a post Christian where the religion and Christians can be subject to criticism, attacks, mockery and even abuse which would not be allowed if the target was another religion or of a particular ethnic group.
I am yet to be convinced we are a better and happier society without Christianity. We seem to have more problems than a one armed fan dancer. Australia now is divided sometimes aggressively and it seems permanently on race, religion, culture, gender and sexuality. We are beset with numerous and it seems unsolvable social problems. All this has developed and co-incided with the demise of the Church’s influnence.
July 4th is American Independence Day or as it is termed over there, The fourth of July. It is the day in 1776 when the thirteen America colonies declared their independence from the mother country, Great Britain.
Over the time, the connection between America and Australia/Tasmania has been strong, often friendly and certainly those who settled here from the USA have been fascinating and purposeful. Yet initially it was not so. Indeed the Americans had plans to invade the British colony of Sydney.
The idea was formulated in 1801 with the help of the French, the arch enemy of Great Britain. Sydney, settled in 1788 was an easy target for invasion from anyone. At that time, it was a struggling, small colony. Hints of invading Sydney was formulated after the exhibition to the colony by Frenchman Nicolas Baudin.
It was to take several years before anything substantial occurred. In 1812, Governor Lachlan Macquarie, an able and humane man, was Governor of NSW and also of Van Diemen’s Land. We were then administered directly from Sydney with local Commanders in charge while a new Lieutenant Governor arrived which was to be Colonel Thomas Davey.
The planned invasion of Sydney was discovered by adventurer, Jorgen Jorgenson who learnt it from a French prisoner held in Tothill Fields Prison in England. Jorgenson informed the British authorities, who thought it was rather “amusing” and did not take it seriously, judging it to be wild and unlikely.
However, the French with their American allies were quite serious and indeed two French warships were to be sent to the new nation of America to tee up with two American vessels to invade Sydney. The French part of the invading plan was not successful. Their two ships were wrecked off the coast of Spain near Cadiz as the result of a violent storm.
The Americans continued their plan to invade, sailing for Sydney. While doing so they attacked British non-naval vessels, primarily whaling ships and by all accounts destroyed a considerable number of them.
Even so, without the French warships not accompany them, the desire of the two American ships started to wane especially when a British man-of-war was seen by them. The experience sent them scampering thus ending the planned invasion of Australia by America.
Jorgenson eventually came to Van Diemen’s Land as an explorer, editor, navigator and colonial constable.
Fortunately since the debacle of the invasion most visitations were generally peaceful and helpful, although it does depend which side you were on. Colonial Americans were one of the main agitators during the Eureka Stockade incident and in 1840 a number of Americans were sent to our island as political convicts after the disastrous Canadian revolt in which many south of the border participated.
Whilst here their treatment was brutal, but fortunately for them they received a pardon by Queen Victoria and left our shores for good, happy to go.
A few years later there were further political prisoners, this time Irish. One, Thomas Francis Meagher, fought in the American Civil War with the Unionists as Brigadier-General, after escaping from Tasmania. His colleague, John Mitchel also was involved in the war, by supporting the Southern States, becoming the editor of the Richmond newspaper in Virginia,
Mitchel like Meagher spent some time in Tasmania with Mitchel enjoying the company of his family. A son of his with whom he lived in Bothwell, followed his father to America after he had escaped from his prisoner home. Interestingly enough this young man, John Jnr, who once lived amongst us was the person to fire the first shot heralding the start of the American Civil War. He was a Commander of a regiment who fired a canon volley on Fort Sumpter thereby opening the war.
In reference to the American Civil War, three American war veterans are buried here, they being Francis Waters (Cornelian Bay), Henry Wells (Somerset) and Charles Baker (Beaconsfield).
As a matter of interest actor Edwin Booth, brother of John Booth who assassinated President Abe Lincoln, played at one time at the Theatre Royal in Hobart while Hobart also enjoyed a visit from author Mark Twain who spent a very brief spell of only several weeks with the Confederate Army, arriving in Tasmania 2nd November 1895. Twain described Hobart as “one of the tidiest cities in the world”.
Another connection is with John P. Mikesell who superintended the construction of Tasmania’s original telegraph line in the 1870s. Mikesell was born in Virginia in the 1830s and participated in the Californian gold rush in the late 1840s and 50s. He enlisted in the Union Army in November 1861 and resigned as Captain in 1863. When gold was found in Australia shortly afterwards, he sailed for our shores. After completing his services as a superintendent to our telegraph construction, he left Australia and returned permanently to America.
The connection between our country, state and America goes back many years and is quite substantial.
The proposed aboriginal name for Hobart which, as testified by the Hobart Lord Mayor Ron Christie, will replace the existing name may not be a simplistic as envisaged. There are not only historic matters to consider, but legal and public acceptance. Consultation must be taken with all Tasmanians, not just those within the Hobart City Council’s jurisdiction. After all, Hobart being the capital of our State belongs to everyone, whether they reside in Glenorchy, Ringarooma, Launceston, Queenstown, where-ever.
The city of Hobart was named after Lord Hobart, the Secretary of War and Colonies, yet the first Hobart was at Risdon Cove (1803) and letters between Lt John Bowen and Governor Philip Gidley King in Sydney shows this. When David Collins arrived in February 1804 and moved the settlement to Sullivan’s Cove, which was first termed “the camp” Collins continued with the name Hobart in his honour.
The present Lord Hobart, Earl of Buckingham is patron of the Hobart Town (1804) First Settlers Association.
Clearly neither Hobart nor any city of any kind existed before 1804. To say that conditions of the early settlement were difficult would be an understatement. I have written about the struggles of this period previously, but it is suffice to say that from those foundations arose the modern, high standard of living city of Hobart. The current city just did not happen, it was built on the backs of those who came before us. Intentionally or not their sacrifice and endurance, their fortitude and courage is the reason why we have our city. If these pioneers had not arrived, Hobart as we know and love, would not exist….I would not be here, the Hobart City Council would not be here, the Tasmania Government would not be here and so on. I believe I have made my point.
We should, therefore, be eternally grateful for those who came before us. To change the name of their city shows a huge sense of ingratitude and like the closure of the many churches which is currently a topic, I wonder what the founders would think of we modern folk undoing their efforts.
The problem with the proposed name is there is no agreement on its historical roots or accuracy. By consulting my aboriginal friend, whose group is not connected to the TAC whatsoever, I understand that the Tasmanian aboriginals did not name specific places as European do, such as after indivuduals like Lord Hobart. Rather it was a reference to a place or locality where good shell fish were found, or a good area for wallabies. Aboriginal reference to where Hobart now stands could not possibly embrace the concept of a city let alone the modern capital of Tasmania.
Any name change, however, would entail great financial costs and I would suggest great confusion, known now for 214 years as Hobart world-wide with all its traditions and history and suddenly there is to be a new name? New names for cities usually come with a substantial change of government such as the fall of Communism in Russia or the new South African Republic, although the latter has retained such names as Dundee, Johannesburg, Cape Town, etc. It seems to me the proposed name change is simply a whim of politicians and lobby groups, without any consultation with the people of Tasmania.
One thing which irks people, the masses of which I am one, is the belief that governments and many politicians do not truly represent the electorate – after all they are called our “representatives” and we employ them. Too often they represent themselves, their Party, lobby groups and even foreign bodies, seemingly the electorate last. Like the scriptures state, the Sabbath was created for man and not man for the Sabbath, so the government was created for the people, not the people for the government.
Too many individual politicians in a position of influence believe they have a mandate to push their personal political or social point of view upon the rest of us. Often this is without the consent of the people or to our benefit. In essence they have a pet project and without following proper procedure go ahead and implement their desire on us all.
With the proposed name change by our Lord Mayor I understand the proper procedure has not been followed. He has taken upon himself to promote the concept without any reference to the Hobart City Aldermen and one wonders why he has done this. However, the name change of our capital cannot be the responsibility alone of the HCC. As our capital it has to be the responsibilty of Parliament and the State Government or more pointedly, the people. This can be determined through a State-wide referendum. The latter will be a true public representation rather than a hand full of self-interested people deciding for us. In reality even a referendum is not warranted here. I have no doubt that in honour of the heritage of this fine city, the majority of Tasmania do not agree with the Lord Mayor and if this being the case, then why is it even being seriously considered?
Hobart is a fine, beautiful medium sized city, which we love. It is a progressive city, an innovative one, but one which prides and appreciates our founding pioneers and history, which includes Hobart as its name. Leave it alone. If this did go head what is next? The name Tasmania?
Already there are hundreds, perhaps thousands of towns, districts and streets that have Tasmanian aboriginal names, so the original inhabitants have not been forgotten in this regard. It is true that the origin Tasmanians were the first, but we should embrace the wonderful contribution of the British so both can be justifiably recognised. We are all ‘natives’ of Tasmania.
The book contained churches from the main denominations such as Anglican, Catholic, Congregational, Presbyterian and Methodist, the latter three amalgamating in to the Uniting Church some years ago.
1975 was a long time ago now and since then, many of those churches contained in the book have been closed with more to come. Those already closed included the Anglican and Congregational Churches in Broadmarsh, the most historic Back River Chapel, the Hestercombe Chapel at Granton and to be closed the most beautiful and quaint, St Mary’s Church, Gretna.
Church closers, particularly of the Anglican and Uniting denominations are not a new phenomenon. It’s been going on for years with a number of these churches being closed much to the chagrin of their parishioners. I have been involved in a number of churches in an effort to preserve them, such as St Maraget’s Church, Risdon, The old Congregational Church, Old Beach, churches in Launceston and Trinity Church North Hobart, which fortunately is now being used as Greek Orthodox. I say “fortunately” because it is still being used as a place or worship. I have recently been contacted regarding the future closure of St Matthias, Windermere East Tamar built in 1843 and is unique- as many are – in its architecture. A number of churches were designed by convict architect, James Blackburn.
The recent publication in The Mercury shocked me with the number of churches to be closed, such as the magnificent St Michael All Angels Church, Bothwell and St Andrews Church, Evandale (both of which are covered in my book), and St Stephens Church Sandy Bay, beside so many others. It is all so sad. Many of these historic and beautiful churches contain cemeteries in which numerous pioneers are buried.
I am aware church attendances are down and that many of these churches and halls, built by our settlers were in rural areas when transportation and communication was primitive. Modern transport allows parishioners to attend churches in other communities without a great deal of inconvenience. It has been reported that the selling by the Anglicans of many, of their churches and properties is to pay compensation to those ‘abused’ by members of the church. However, I also understand that amounts to 25 per cent of the revenue raised, so where does the rest go?
What does all this actually mean? It means a huge loss of heritage and the passing of an era. When our pioneers settled in an area, they did two things. They erected (not in order) the church for worship and the hotel….one, as I often have said, to sin in and the other to repent in. Joking aside, it does state quite dramatically the intention and desires of our early society. There was obviously a conflict in values, but both equally and important as each other. There were thousands of taverns and hotels in olden days, many more than now as there were churches. Many of the former still survive, seemingly in a much healthier way than our churches. This does reflect upon modern values and wants in comparison to previous generations.
Many of the churches now are homes, craft shops, retail outlets and cafes/restaurants and some are simply derelict. A number have been allowed to crumble beyond repair, such as St Mary’s Bridgewater. When I did my book that particular church was full of wood carvings, performed by artist Ernest Osborne whom I interviewed. What has happened to these pieces of work? What happens to the pews, plaques, wall tablets, fonts, war memorials, etc, etc. of these churches when they close and are purchased? This is a major concern.
I often wonder what those pioneers would think of what is happening today. Would they approve or understand or would they shake their heads in bewilderment? I believe the latter.
I am not a church goer, but I have a respect for religion, particularly the Christian religion which has given so much to us. As I was growing up we were not a church family, but the church was always there, particularly for christenings, confirmations and weddings. It shaped our consciousness and sense of what was right and wrong. Since the demise of that influence, society in my opinion has lost its way.
I cannot help to be critical of those who make the decisions to sell and close down such edifices. I am aware of the effect it has on existing congregations and very aware of even the anger it produces. Such as was the case with the selling of Trinity which went against the wishes of the parishioners as is the current case with St Mathias.
Christianity came to Tasmania with Lt John Bowen who settled at Risdon Cove in 1803. The first Christmas service was held there in December, by the order of Governor Philip Gidley King of Sydney. The first church was erected in Hobart with David Collins. This shows the importance on the inherited religion placed by our early settlers. Yet today even by our church leaders, it appears such emphasises are missing.
When my book was published way back then, Tasmanian historian and author, G. Hawley Stancombe wrote the foreword. He finished off by writing, “This book will hope to remind us of this (why our ancestors built and believed as they did) and perhaps point a way to the future”.
Hopefully it will remind us of what was, but unfortunately it has not pointed a way to the future.
The subject of freedom of expression has has come to the fore of late. There are calls to, if not abolish 18c of the Federal Racial Discrimination Act, then at least amend it. On a State level there has been moves by Legislative Councillor Tania Rattray to remove the terms, “offence” and “insult” from the Anti-Discrimination Act Section 17.
In defending to retain the legislation as it stands, proponents state any such change will harm many and that the laws are really there to prevent ‘hate’ being espoused.
Yet, are these laws actually doing what they claim to prevent? Are they actually being used to intimidate and threaten individuals and groups? Are those who advocate, “inclusiveness, tolerance and diversity” consistent when they also advocate with those with whom they have a differing opinion should be not only persecuted but also prosecuted? This is the dilemma; in endeavouring to protect sections of the community , it can be used to victimise others.
What is freedom of speech and expression? It is to be able to express one’s social, political and/or religious views without hindrance, especially if put in a civilised manner. Obviously if violent, then the current laws will deal with that. If libellous or defamatory, existing laws will handle that. An opinion given in a debate and stated in a peaceful manner which has been sincerely uttered must be tolerated. The supporters of Section 17 and 18C state the legislation is there to prevent “hate” speech. Yet, the Catholic Archbishop of Hobart’s pamphlet on traditional marriage was in no way a hateful document. It was interpreted as such by a political candidate. Although the charge was dropped, the Archbishop was subject to not only persecution, but possible prosecution. For simply voicing his Church’s policy on marriage? This had nothing to do with ‘hate’ but somebody taking an issue with his opinion. Well how many times in life are we offended? Personally I am offended many times a day. Being offended, however, can be a lesson in life; how to deal with it, how to meet its challenge and how to counter it with adult argument. Free speech can only exist if one has the right to offend.
On the Federal level with 18c we have seen unfair prosecutions regarding the late cartoonist, Bill Leak. Then there was journalist Andrew Bolt and the three young university students from Queensland. The latter had written inoffensive and true statements on their Facebook page, when they were subject to reverse discrimination (which is simply discrimination) because they were not aborigine. There would many more cases not making the news, because the person or person involved, just comply, not wanting to handle the stress and strain of the whole affair.
We have become despite the claims, an intolerant society. Even though we can watch the most offensive material when it comes to the entertainment industry, including filthy language (and that is what it is) on a political level, we are greatly censored. We have moved from being a debatable society to a society which promptly bans an opposing point of view.
Examples of this is the attacks on Coopers Brewery for organising a civilised debate on same sex marriage (Coopers collapsed like a pack of cards over the matter) to a Christian Lobby group on the mainland who had to cancel their conference on traditional marriage because of threats. Now we have seen the film “The Red Pill” about a Men’s Right Movement banned in Melbourne and Sydney because again, of threats. The young American female producer of the film stated on Sky News recently that Australia has far more political censorship than the USA. Organiser for the screening of the film (again a young lady) has been told by the Student Union from Sydney University they will not tolerate the showing of the film.
Then we have the young Somalian woman, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who now lives in the USA cannot come into Australia for lecturing as her security cannot be guaranteed. Her subject, of which she has had first hand experience, is female religious genital mutilation. Incidentally (19th April 2017) a doctor who undertook such a procedure in America has just been arrested.The first case ever in that country.
Overseas, the film “Vaxxed” produced by Robert de Niro was removed from the Cannes Film Festival because of outside pressure from big corporations. The public must not make up its own mind on a particular subject.
Senator Cory Barnardi’s office was recently trashed by a militant left wing group who did not agree with his views and saw it was their right to threaten his staff and destroy his place of work.
Just being offended because of the subject matter does not give anyone the right to prevent the opposing view being aired or the right to use legislation to ban it. This word “offended” can be used to stifle debate and freedom of expression.
The problem is that there is a complete lack of leadership on this issue from the Prime Minister downwards. Our governments and Parliamentarians (excluding the few) shy away from the subject. Our universities which should be in the forefront of defending differing points of view do nothing to counter this intolerance. Incidentally English comedian, John Cleese said recently he will no longer perform at universities because of their sensitivity and political correctness.
Is ANZAC Day on the attack list? I wonder what our diggers would think of the current repressive situation? To give their life so one cannot espouse an opinion because someone may be “offended”?
As one who has been involved with the media now for 49 years and has made much of my living from my interaction with it, I have seen the gradual erosion of freedom with speech and freedom of movement in Australia. This is a very dangerous trend.
The twentieth century saw freedom of speech advance in various Western democracies. Are we now in retreat? What makes a country a free country as opposed to an oppressive dictatorship is a free media and the guarantee of individual freedom together with the ability to be able to tolerate another’s point of view.
What has happened to Voltaire’s “I disagree with every word you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it.” On his death a banner proclaimed, “He gave wings to the human mind. He prepared us to be free.”