The forced marriage

Extract:

Michael Field, who spent three years as Premier during the Labor-Green Accord from 1989-92, says that alliance was a “forced marriage” which ended in acrimonious divorce because there was not sufficient goodwill and trust on either side — but most particularly because of the uncertainty felt by ministers about whether they could rely on the Greens’ support.

Field has been widely commended for his efforts during that period as Treasurer in bringing the State back from the brink of bankruptcy after the profligate overspending and over-borrowing by the Liberals. But the cutbacks, tax hikes, and redundancies he was forced to impose made his government intensely unpopular, and the electorate punished Labor severely when the Accord fell apart in 1992.

“I am proud of what we achieved,” Field says, adding that he realised at the time that if his government was to do what was necessary to save Tasmania from bankruptcy, the pain would be unpopular and electorally damaging. After losing the 1992 election in grand style, Field set about rebuilding the party and is credited with the resurgence which two weeks ago saw Labor elected for a third successive term — the first Tasmanian government to have done so since 1979.

Field says that had last month’s election failed to come up with a clear-cut win, his advice to Paul Lennon would have been not to go into minority government relying on Green support unless he had a guarantee from the Greens, individually and collectively, not to join with the Liberals in a no-confidence motion or to block Supply to bring the government down. The only exception would be if there was proved corruption or gross maladministration, as assessed independently by someone with the standing of a Supreme Court judge.

Field says a formal coalition, giving the Greens ministerial positions in a minority government, could only be possible if the Greens first spent a period in “Purgatory” proving they were prepared to live up to their undertakings.

With the likelihood that minority government will be an issue at future elections — especially given the smaller Parliament — Field says that if the Greens want the opportunity of a voice in government, they will need to address this issue seriously.

He says the Accord of 1989-92 became intolerable and impossible to continue not only because of the tensions, uncertainty and failure to compromise took a toll on ministers — the threats of no-confidence motions as a lever to achieve policy objectives — but also because the very foundation of Westminster Cabinet government was undermined. The Greens had used the threat of a no-confidence motion against the then education minister Peter Patmore to try to dictate the makeup of Cabinet — even though it was not on a question of corruption or maladministration.

“The whole idea of Westminster Cabinet government is undermined if the decision of who is in Cabinet is determined by the opposition parties,” Field says.

He says it’s an issue faced by social democratic parties around the world — how to reach a level of maturity where progressive parties with similar policies can come together under the same umbrella in a united front against the Conservatives.

Field acknowledges that “if you take out ‘trees’ and the Greens’ opposition to industrial development,” the policy platforms of Labor and the Greens are very similar, particularly on social issues.

“If the Greens expect to be accepted as having a legitimate role in minority government, they need to get away from this belief that everything is a giant conspiracy. They see corruption around every corner and believe everyone else is controlled by evil forces and we’re all a pack of bastards.

“Of course, we are all flawed human beings, but for them to gain legitimacy they need to acknowledge legitimacy in other people who are genuinely trying to make Tasmania a better place to live.”

waynecrawford@msn.com.au

Earlier, by MICHAEL FIELD on Tasmanian Times: Why Labor is dominant