Preoccupied with the fate of government in Canberra, no one on the mainland paid much attention when, the week before last, Tasmania’s three party leaders reached agreement to increase the size of the state’s House of Assembly from 25 to 35. But with hung parliaments very much the topic of the day, Tasmania’s situation has some wider lessons.
On one level, providing for more Tasmanian MPs is an obvious move. Trying to staff two front benches from just 25 people is a hard task — the upper house is mostly full of independents, so it doesn’t help much. Liberals and Greens went to the last election supporting a return to a house of 35, and since they won a clear majority between them it was always likely to happen.
But this is politics, so consideration of political advantage is never far away. The size of the lower house was reduced in 1998 in a deal by Labor and the Liberals to try to shaft the Greens. It worked in the short term, but didn’t prevent the Greens ultimately returning to five seats and more power than ever.
If this year’s election had been held with seven members instead of five from each of the five electorates, it probably wouldn’t have changed the relative strength of the parties at all. According to Peter Tucker’s calculation, they would have finished at 14-14-7, up from 10-10-5, although a strong preference flow from the Liberals could possibly have given the Greens an extra seat in Bass at the expense of the ALP.
But a larger house offers more potential benefits for the Greens. It gives them more downside protection, since reducing them back to one or two seats becomes an almost impossible task, and it makes them overwhelmingly likely to win two or more seats in at least one electorate, an essential step to credibility as a major party.
More members per electorate will mean a more proportional result, making single-party government more difficult. Unless something changes radically in Tasmanian politics, it seems that a 35-seat house will give the Greens the balance of power on a more or less permanent basis for the foreseeable future.
How does this compare with the position in Canberra? Obviously, the Greens are much stronger in Tasmania than nationally; even with their strong result last month, their national vote is only a little over half what it is in Tasmania.
Interestingly, however, that’s because the Tasmanian Greens have mostly soaked up the votes of minor parties and independents. The two major parties don’t do a whole lot better nationally than they do in Tasmania: 75.9% between them in Tasmania; on the latest figures 81.6% federally (even counting the various components of the Coalition together).
So what makes majority government the norm in Canberra but now the exception in Tasmania is basically the difference in voting system. No party (or coalition) has won a majority of the primary vote in a federal election since 1975; no party has even got close since Labor won 49.5% in 1983. If seats won reflected votes cast, the current minority government would not be such a novelty; the major parties would have to adjust to rarely having the numbers in their own right.
During this year’s Tasmanian election, which delivered the Greens the balance of power and ultimately two seats in cabinet, Greens leader Nick McKim eschewed the term “hung parliament”, preferring to talk about a “power-sharing parliament”. Now that power sharing has come to Canberra as well, we need more of a debate about whether our electoral system really reflects what voters want, or whether artificially constructed majorities might do more harm than good.
well said.
In Canberra power sharing government is actually the norm. In fact in it’s relatively short history there has only ever once been a majority government (2004). With a seventeen seat house the current distribution is Labor 7, Liberal 6, Green 4.
I am aware that you were comparing the Tasmanian government to the Federal government but referring it to Canberra may not be the most precise form of expression. It also builds resentment against the city for the actions of the politicians that occasionally visit.
I am also amused that Tasmania is consistently referred to as the source of information on minority governments when the ACT has successfully been doing it for most of it’s history.
Though many people seem horrified at the thought of proportional representation I must admit that I am all for it. It seems to be a far better way of representing the interests of an area and Does not necessarily need to result in more Federal MPs as you could easily amalgamate a lot of the metropolitan electorates anyway.
Power sharing government is the best form of government for those interested in politics as it becomes interesting, and also forces oppositions to provide credible alternate policies rather than merely saying Their Gizmo Bill is terrible! It will cost the country untold $billions! Next election vote for us as our Gizmo Bill is essentially the same but is put forward by us!’
@Crikey David – yes, fair point, there is a separate govt in Canberra as well as the federal one, and as you say it operates power-sharing very effectively. I’m afraid I can’t rid myself of the habit of thinking of it as a local council rather than a parliament.
[we need more of a debate about whether our electoral system really reflects what voters want]
Bring it on. But how? The forces for status quo are overwhelming.
crikey.com.au/2010/09/03/the-crisis-in-governance-in-two-party-systems/
Crikey David, I reckon Tassie has a fair call to precedence since they adopted Hare-Clark in 1896 while the ACT only gained self-governance 92 years later, in 1988. (Also the ACT can be over-ruled by the GG, presumably under instruction from the PM of the day.)
And Charles you are correct, both Tassie and ACT are smaller than just the Brisbane City Council (which is why briefly a year or so ago, Mayor Campbell Can-do Newman, was the senior Liberal in power in Australia, and would have been even if ACT and Tas went Liberal!) But let’s hope “from little things, big things grow”.