Politics
More minority myths as Rene consolidates Opposition
Mercury columnist Wayne Crawford added to the commentary on the Lennon government: that latest independent opinion polling shows Labor to be increasingly on the nose electorally.
But he said:
With the Liberals having ruled out going into minority government in any circumstance, they are faced with what most believe is a near impossible task of having to almost double their representation in the House of Assembly to move to the Treasury benches.
And since possession is nine-tenths of the law under our parliamentary system, Labor — with the resources of government behind them and holding the ministerial commissions of office — are odds-on favourites to retain government, albeit probably in minority and relying on the support of the Greens to stay in office.
And, has been noted already “even though Labor likes to give the impression it also would renounce any arrangement for minority government which involved the Greens, constitutionally — as the government in office — it can promise no such thing. Labor’s candidates for the 1996 election — which include some Members still in Parliament — did sign a “no minority government” pledge. But that was when they were (like the Liberals now) safe in opposition.
Examined on TT by Uni of Tas academic Richard Herr, HERE
But now in the event of a so-called “hung Parliament” — and assuming the Liberals adhere to their promise to reject anything less than outright majority government — Labor, as the existing holders of the ministerial commissions, will be bound to at least try to form a minority government.
Crawford notes that conventional wisdom is that the Premier will call a summer or early autumn election. If he leaves it longer than that, the May Budget will get in the way, limiting his options for election largesse.
He underlines Hidding’s loathing of anything Green: “Hidding says his bitter experience as Cabinet Secretary in the Rundle Liberal government (1996-98) has made him realise that a minority Liberal government depending on the Greens to stay in office and get its legislation passed is simply not an option he is prepared to countenance. It would, he says, be a recipe for instability with the Greens constantly threatening to bring down the Government over some issue or other about which they disagreed.”
“Hidding says it would be the same for Labor. He cites as an example this week’s terrorism legislation which he says, in a minority government situation, would never even have been introduced because the Greens, who opposed it, would have threatened to bring the government down if they went ahead with it.
Which is all very well, except that even if the Greens held five seats, one in each electorate, they would only be able to create instability and bring down a minority government of whatever political shade, if they had the cooperation of an opportunistic opposition.
Crawford quotes political scientist and commentator, Associate Professor Herr, as saying it is arrogant for either of the major parties to blame minority groups, such as the Greens, for instability. He points out that no minority cross-bench group is in a position to block a legislative measure or threaten a government, without the co-operation of the Opposition of the day.
The Liberals seemed to be saying that “we are too principled to get involved with the Greens as a minority government;” but that in opposition “if we can opportunistically bring down the Government with the help of the Greens, then we will — regardless of the effect on the State, and hang the principles. Anything that goes wrong, we’ll blame on the Greens.”
It had become a mentality which was “one-eyed about the rights of the major parties to do what they like.”
Herr says minority and coalition governments are the norm in Europe, where electorates expect their parliaments to be arenas of compromise, discussion and debate — not of lecturing each other and inflexibility. Even in the UK, the Westminster Parliament accommodated a far more open system, under which Tony Blair’s Government had recently suffered a massive defeat in the House of Commons (on terrorism legislation), yet survived.
“It’s the executive’s dominance over the public and public institutions which is at issue here,” says Herr.
“It’s only in Australia that we are so naive, so insecure about public institutions that we refuse to trust them.”
Crawford says there is a wide acceptance in Tasmania of the arguments of the two major parties that political stability requires majority control of the Parliament.
Nonetheless, the Tasmanian electorate does tend to elect minority governments with regularity. The Liberal-Centre parties coalition government (1969-72), Labor-Green Accord (1989-92) and Rundle minority Liberal government (1996-98) all tended to be creative, reformist and in many ways quite courageous administrations — but all ended in premature elections with “train wreck” results which put the party into opposition for an extended period. The chances of minority government have been increased even further by the reduction in size of the House of Assembly which has made representation on either side of the House so small that majorities will never be large and the chance of a “balance of power” outcome will always be present.
Crawford concludes with the great paradox — that in spite of Labor being firmly on the nose, the Government may be saved by the Liberals’ pledge to govern in majority, or not at all.
For, in the likely event that no party wins a majority in the election and the Liberals refuse to play “pass the parcel” with ministerial commissions, Labor will be stuck with government, whether it likes it or not.
And given the red leather accoutrements of Cabinet posts, they are hardly likely to put up much of a fight against staying in office, even if it involves the ignominious prospect of having to negotiate through the maze of Peg Putt and the Tasmanian Greens.
The Mercury
Wayne Crawford can be contacted at: waynecrawford@msn.com.au