Oh my, a politician who dares put the Tasmanian people first

Wayne Crawford adds some context to Sue Hickey’s spectacular heist of the role of Speaker

SHOCK, horror, Sue Hickey says she will “consider the merits of the argument” when deciding how to vote on legislation brought before the House of Assembly.

Traitor, cry the critics, the betrayal of Denison electors.

It is a sad commentary on the state of politics that an MP is regarded as perfidious when she declares she will consider the interests of Tasmanians when deciding whether to support proposed new laws.

Remarkable that a parliamentarian is accused of treachery when she says she will “mostly” support a narrowly elected Government and will not vote to bring it down on a matter of confidence. That she will support its budgets but will not necessarily support all the decisions of the executive government, and might oppose measures she believes are not in Tasmania’s interests.

How novel. An MP whose support for her party cannot be taken for granted.

The Liberals should welcome such independence. They constantly taunt the ALP as authoritarian for holding the threat of expulsion over any Labor MP who breaks ranks, unlike the Liberal Party which boasts its members retain a right to cross the floor.

If Hickey is true to her word, she will have ample opportunity to test the theory of that freedom.

Will Hodgman should surely have known Hickey would not be content to sit quietly on the backbench. She is the former “Lord Mayor for toilets” who defiantly flew the gay rights rainbow flag over Town Hall in support of marriage equality and who led a council that supported changing the “Invasion Day” date of Australia Day; the former Miss Tasmania (1979) and one-time TV weather girl; the ex-shop assistant in Kmart’s “socks and jocks” department who went on to be Tasmanian Business Woman of the Year and head of a successful marketing company; the independently minded small-l liberal who famously had a turbulent row with conservative MP and Attorney-General Elise Archer (now a fellow Member for Denison with Hickey).

But the looks on the faces of the Government front bench were a giveaway to the shock when Hickey was nominated for Speaker (and unhesitatingly accepted) and went on to win the post in favour of the Liberal nominee Rene Hidding.

Hidding had been a Liberal member for Lyons for 22 years, a former Liberal leader, former deputy chairman of committees in the Assembly, former secretary to cabinet and former minister.

Nobody in the House had more parliamentary experience than Hidding. Nobody had less than Hickey, even though trying to keep recalcitrant aldermen in line might stand her in good stead.

After the March election, Hidding had given up his ministerial positions in the expectation (and with the promise from his leader) of taking on the less arduous role of Speaker until his widely

anticipated retirement at the next election. Hidding must have been furious when Hickey swooped and snatched away the $224,000 job (plus chauffeured limousine, plush parliamentary offices and a generous staffing allocation as well as the honour, rank and privilege that goes with it) leaving him a backbencher ($189,000 with no chauffeur and limited staff).

Hodgman tried to salve the hurt to Hidding’s feelings by appointing him Parliamentary Secretary to the Premier, but it was little consolation as the job comes with no extra pay or perks.

None of this would have happened if Hodgman had included Hickey when he chose his ministry, as she says was implied would happen when she gave up her post of lord mayor to run as a Liberal candidate for Denison. Few political observers expected the high-achiever to be passed over when the new Cabinet was appointed.

Hickey’s appointment to the ministry would have gone some way to correct a gender imbalance in Cabinet, which has three women in a ministry of nine in the only Australian House of Parliament where women outnumber men.

But ministries are not always allocated to the best. Distribution of portfolios takes account of debts owed and regional concerns.

Sue Hickey’s ill-judged comments in a TV interview in the tally room on election night, in which she staked her ministerial claim, even nominating her favoured areas, were seen as presumptuous in senior Liberal ranks. Political protocol dictated she should have said “such matters are entirely for the Premier”.

Hickey has destroyed her chances of being a minister, at least in the foreseeable future. She acknowledges the Liberal Party would not “tolerate” it.

Hickey would have been an effective minister. Had she been given Housing, Hickey would no doubt have been faster to recognise the urgency than has Minister Roger Jaensch, who seems to be struggling.

It remains to be seen how wisely and skilfully Hickey uses her new authority and self-declared independence.

Wayne Crawford is a Walkley Award-winning political journalist and former associate editor of the Mercury.