What absolute nonsense

THE EMINENT columnist Wayne Crawford deilivered a thorough evisceration of opportunistic pollies in his Saturday Mercury column. Here are extracts:

TALK about breathtaking arrogance. The Tasmanian electorate is again being warned that unless we vote the way the major parties demand, we may be forced to return to the polls again and again “until you get it right.”

Getting it right would involve electing a majority government — that is, giving one party at least half the members of the House of Assembly.

Both the Labor and Liberal parties are now saying they will insist on winning an absolute majority of seats before they are prepared to go into government after the election expected in early 2006. They both rule out forming a minority government — the implication being that they don’t want a return to the days of relying on the support of the Greens to stay in power.

It is, as one veteran of the ballot box noted this week, just a case of “politicians playing politics.” Or as Greens leader Peg Putt said, the leaders of the two major parties boasting to the electorate that “my pledge is bigger than your pledge.”

But it’s downright dishonest. There are so many flaws in the so-called “majority government pledges” that they amount to mere rhetoric, unenforceable nonsense.

That’s telling ’em. And he goes on:

In 37 years of observing Tasmanian politics, I have seen politicians virtually crawl over broken glass to get into government and stay there. But what I have not seen is a politician pass up the chance of being in government if the opportunity of sitting on the Treasury benches was within reach.

Not only is it in the nature of those who seek election to use every available opportunity to achieve power — it is their bounden duty; their responsibility; their mandate.

Under the Westminster system of parliamentary representation, we — the electorate — do not elect the government. We elect Members of Parliament who, in turn, decide amongst themselves who will be the government.

It is up to them to work with what we give them — that is, with the 25 Members of the House of Assembly — to form a workable government. It is the reason we elect them.

So for either party — worse, for both major parties — to place conditions on their election, is at best arrogance and contempt for the electorate; and at worst is simply not workable and a threat to leave Tasmania in a state of constitutional havoc.

It was Liberal leader Rene Hidding who set the hares running with an announcement that all Liberal MPs had signed a pledge ruling out “under any circumstances” forming a minority government. All Liberal candidates would be required to sign the pledge.

In Parliament last week, the Government derided the Liberals’ pledge as a stunt — but it was an identical stunt to the one Labor Members pulled a decade ago after the pain and frustration of the Accord. Although Labor ministers ridiculed the Liberals, they also gave assurances their own pledge still stood to govern only in majority. Education Minister Paula Wriedt _ who was not in Parliament at the time of the original Labor pledge and therefore was not a signatory _ said she would sign a “no minority government” pledge in blood “if that makes you feel any better.”

But minority government does not deserve the reputation both parties seek to give it for their own politically selfish reasons. While the Accord did end in acrimony, the relationship between the Field Government and the five Greens did generate a period of “creative tension” during which a fair amount was achieved. University of Tasmania political scientist Associate Professor Richard Herr says it is a shame Michael Field now, in retrospect, takes such a jaded view of the period. However brief, the Accord had enabled the Field Government to achieve a set of important reforms which were to Field’s enormous credit and to the great benefit of Tasmania. Notably, the budgetary reforms of the era set the pattern for two subsequent Liberal governments and set Tasmania up to be able to reach its present favourable economic position.

Nonetheless, both parties hate the thought of having to share power with the Greens.

And finishes with a warning:

The Liberals, meanwhile, may well rue the day they decided on such an all-embracing “no minority government” commitment. What if one of their own — for instance, Peter Gutwein, a dissident small-‘l’ liberal MP who has a history of bucking the party line on such issues as old growth logging and an inquiry into abuse of children in institutional care — decided to quit the party on an issue of conscience and sit on the cross-bench? Under their commitment, the Liberals would be bound not to go into coalition with him in order to form (or remain in) government — which would be pretty silly, and a betrayal of those who voted for them.

And a history lesson:

One of the most reformist Tasmanian governments in my experience, the Bethune Liberal-Centre Parties government (1969-72) achieved power only in coalition with a dissident former Liberal, Kevin Lyons. As with the Field Government, there were tensions which eventually boiled over, causing the fall of the government after three years. But a lot was achieved in that time which would not have been done if the coalition arrangement had not been reached.

Ironically, it was the cut in the size of Parliament — an ill-considered attempt by Tony Rundle’s minority Liberal Government in league with the Jim Bacon-led Labor Opposition, to get rid of the Greens — which has made a hung Parliament more likely by reducing the “critical mass”. If the results of the latest opinion poll were applied to the old 35-member House, Labor might win anything up to 20 seats.

Crawford concludes:

It’s nonsense for either party to so severely limit their options by stating — before the election has even been called — that they might not accept the result.

Practically, the members elected are obliged to find a way to make the election result work, unless they wish to bear the public odium of admitting failure and advising the Governor to call another election — which might return exactly the same result.

Wayne Crawford can be contacted at: waynecrawford@msn.com.au

Earlier:
The Psephologist: Poll … a premature hanging?