The outcome of the March 20 Tasmanian election should be known by tonight, but whatever the technical result — 11-10-4 to the Liberals or 10-10-5 — there is no certainty who will govern.
The forgotten element in this election is the role of Tasmanian governor Peter Underwood, the former chief justice.
Both major leaders appear to have adopted the premise that the party with the most seats or, in the case of 10-10-5, the most votes statewide, should form government.
It is a pledge that has come to haunt incumbent premier David Bartlett. Not only is he under pressure from within Tasmanian ALP ranks and those across Bass Strait to hang on to government, but also he would be doing the governor a gross disservice constitutionally by advising him to appoint Liberal leader Will Hodgman as premier.
Under the Westminster system a premier is the principal adviser to the governor, and, in normal circumstances, the governor accepts the advice of the premier.
The governor must retain one of the leaders as his adviser. If Bartlett tells Underwood that Labor is not prepared to govern in minority and that he should summon Hodgman, Underwood is placed in the invidious position that Hodgman could be ousted in a confidence motion if there is no agreement between the Liberals and the Greens. This could happen in a 10-10-5 parliament where the Liberals have to supply a speaker, who does not have a deliberative vote on the floor of the house.
If Hodgman were defeated on the floor of the house in those circumstances, Underwood would be left with no adviser. He would have no option but to call a fresh election.
Bartlett would place the governor in a far better position by advising him that Labor should go to the parliament to test its confidence. If the House of Assembly fails to provide confidence in the minority Labor government, then Underwood’s course is clear. He would summon Hodgman to determine whether he could provide secure government. Assuming Hodgman would confirm that, he would go to the house as premier (and Underwood’s new chief adviser) and, presumably, also face a confidence test at some stage.
This course of events also puts the acid on the Greens, who, with four or five seats, hold the balance of power. They will have at least one and possibly two opportunities to demonstrate to the voters of Tasmania how they will exercise that power.
It may be that the end result would be an early, if not fresh, election, but the constitutionality of what had occurred would leave the institutions untarnished.
There is grave concern in Tasmania that Bartlett should not have made the commitment to allow the Liberals to govern. That commitment was not his to give. It may be advice that Underwood cannot accept. Therefore, it should not be offered.
One can understand, in the heat of a campaign, why Bartlett would have given such a commitment. Outwardly it seems the fair thing to do and, strategically, Labor might be far better off sitting out this term and watching the fun between Liberals and the Greens unfold, but it may so compromise Underwood that the commitment has to be erased. There are several ways of doing that. Bartlett either changes his mind or he is replaced.
I agree that Bartlett shouldn’t have made the commitment to resign, but having made it he should keep his word. I really don’t see that it compromises the Governor’s position: you can’t make a premier serve if he doesn’t want to. If Bartlett resigns, and Hodgman then either finds that he can’t form a government, or is defeated on the floor when he does, then it’s completely open to the Governor to send for Bartlett again and invite him to try. At that point he’d be able to say he’d kept his promise by giving Hodgman the opportunity, and was now free to form government himself if he could get the Greens on side.
I still have a gut feeling that there will be a minority government (probably Liberal) and there will be no formal deal with the Greens because both Liberal and Labor hate them so much. Liberal and Labor are the two similar parties – and they will end up allowing one of them to rule, while the other does not block anything too important – and they will keep the Greens out of any role or influence.
There will be an undeclared alliance between the two big parties, just to keep things as they are, in Tasmania. Neither will publically admit to such an alliance – it would be way to telling and people might finally wake up and see what is really going on. But they will work together to allow the logging companies to keep on logging old growth forests, and the environment can keep on being destroyed.
Sadly the Liberal and Labor “mirror images parties”, are too much in the pocket of developers and tree loggers, to ever form a working alliance with the Greens.
I really want to be wrong about this. I want my cynicism to be rebirthed into hope….
But for now, I am not holding my breath.
Maybe we will know in a day or two….
The Tasmanian people have elected the government they want, it isn’t for Liberal or Labor to exclude the Greens from the government.
The sad thing about this is Bartlett suffering from “Big Party Syndrome” that grips both Labor and the Coalition (Liberal and “li’l bro” Nat) – “government” is not about “party favours” and divying up the state or country. It’s about the people that voted for them, giving them the privilege of representing them, even-handedly for the benefit of that society as a whole.
Bartlett can’t take it, on principle, the party would have to elect a leader ready to work with those representing “20%” of the people.
The pity is, cumbersome as it is, there aren’t more governments being elected via the Hare-Clarke system. Most “governments” had more than 50% of the electorate rejecting a sizeable proportion of their policies.
Bloody hell, Bligh didn’t even respect “Q” enough to tell us all her “herpes policies” – “bankrupt” enough to “have to sell some of the children for scientific experiments” and now she wants to micturate more lucre up the wall on a C’wealth Games that it seems only Nigeria wants to bid for – and wouldn’t that ring certain bells to all but the tinniest ear?
Bartlett has forgotten that his party represents its voters. Does he seriously think people voted Labor so that the party (in the inevitable result of a hung parliament) would deal itself out of power, ie that they voted for the government supporting it going out of power? It’s Pythonesque…