Constructing No Confidence – A House on Sand?

A rather curious procedural development has emerged in the context of the anticipated no confidence move against the Rockliff Government when the House of Assembly meets on 19 August 2025.

In commenting on the failure of her meeting with Labor’s Dean Winter, Greens’ Leader Rosalie Woodruff asserted that her party could not guarantee support for an affirmative confidence motion in the Opposition Leader.

This has thrown into suggestion the validity of Labor’s plans to use a double-headed motion to depose Rockliff and install Winter when the new Parliament opens.

Both the Labor plans and the Greens’ reaction undermines the widely mooted suggestion that a constructive no confidence motion would be the tactic used to effect the change.

Some commentary on Woodruff’s assertion that the Greens would not support an affirmative vote in favour of Winter hinted at the possibility of the Ray Groom/Tony Rundle option in 1996.

Then, Groom adhered to his campaign promise not to do a deal with the Greens and resigned the leadership to allow Rundle to continue the Liberal Government on the grounds that he had not made the same promise.

Other interpretations of the Woodruff statement focused on it as a tactical lever in her party’s negotiation with Labor by emphasising that the Greens would not support an affirmative vote for Winter “at this stage.”

Either way, phrased in this way it appears that the motion of no confidence would have two semi-independent parts to it leaving open the possibility that no confidence in the Premier could carry but not the affirmative support for Winter as his replacement.

The potentially contradictory outcomes of a motion formulated in this way are obvious making it implausible that this is the way the motion will be structured.

More likely the putative no confidence motion will be phrased as a “constructive vote of no confidence”.

This procedure is designed such that it can only carry if there is a positive majority for the nominated replacement.

A constructive no confidence motion fails if there is inadequate support for the named alternative even if there is a general willingness to see the back of the incumbent

This is the dilemma that Woodruff is addressing with her dramatic line in the sand.  She is aware that the constructive no confidence  tactic is a Labor attempt to wedge the Greens into an unpalatable choice.  

If they do not support the motion, Rockliff remains premier.  However, if they  vote in favour, Winter gets Government without having to make any concessions to [a “deal” with] the Greens.  

The constructive vote of no confidence procedure is relatively rare in Westminster systems because these tend to be binary – Government and Opposition – so that a successful no confidence motion is automatically resolved by an election or a clear replacement.

However, it is notable that the constitutions of several of our regional Westminster neighbours, with weak party systems, require a constructive vote of no confidence by guaranteeing majority support for a successor thus reducing the risk of governmental instability.

There is one important but under-appreciated factor that may come into play in determining the course of the expected no confidence motion however it is formulated.The first substantial vote of the new House will be the election of a Speaker.

In previous years, it was a clear demonstration which party, if any, controlled the numbers to support a Government.

The delicate and unresolved distribution of influence within the House of Assembly make the election of a Speaker critical.

Considerable experience and knowledge will be needed to manage the yet-to-be framed motion of no confidence.

And, not just for this vote as these self-same qualities will be needed to help a fractious chamber be effective for the duration of the Parliament for whatever time it may survive.

The candidates willing to serve who have the necessary qualities and who might be acceptable to all sides of the House of Assembly appear to be in short supply.

Yet, the role of the Speaker will be too consequential for it to be used as a chip in bargaining for power or as a consolation prize for party unity.

Filling this key position may be as challenging as the confidence vote itself.

Dr Richard Herr is currently an Adjunct Senior Lecturer in the Faculty of Law. Until recently, he was the academic director for the Faculty of Law’s Parliamentary Law, Practice and Procedure course. He has held a variety of positions in the University of Tasmania since his appointment in January 1973 including Head of Department.

Tasmanian Times (TT) is a community-based news and current affairs service covering the island state of Tasmania. It exists to provide a diverse view of Tasmanian issues. TT creates and supports independent media content utilising the best of modern technologies and tried-and-true practices of public-interest journalism.

Support us in expanding our coverage and developing new content by and for Tasmanians. 

New initiatives on the way include:

• a weekly podcast covering current affairs
• a revamped website
• a monthly cartoon competition
• a user-friendly app for both Android and Apple devices
• a weekly roundup of key stories