Accy raises an interesting concept.
Whichever party the Nats decide to deal with, they likely won’t enter into coalition. They’d guarantee supply, but otherwise keep their options open. And given the Nats’ likely control of both houses, it would possible for one of those options to be to get legislation passed without the help of the government. Meaning ministers forced to implement legislation they voted against.
Unlikely, sure. But wouldn’t it be fun while it lasted? And what other wacky scenarios can people think up before boring reality kicks in again?
I don’t know enough about the first Bracks term in Victoria, but NSW in the early 90s and Queensland in Beattie’s first term arguably had better government with a hung parliament than with majority government. Big business hates hung parliaments, so they can’t be all bad!
But I’m not sure that the vote auction that the Nats and the Independents in WA seem to be conducting bodes all that well.
To be fair to Grylls, it’s the main policy he campaigned on for the last few months, if not more, and he hasn’t wavered from it. He ran TV ads on the country channels stating his policy and won quite a few seats on the back of it.
In New Zealand, we’ve had governing arrangements like that for six years now, and they’ve worked OK. Parliamentary procedures limit the opportunities for other parties to force legislation on the government (members’ days are irregular, and the government has a financial veto if a bill involves significant expenditure), but they’ve also shown a fair amount of ability in workign with minor parties (and convesely, the opposition has shown none, and has consistently failed to build majorities even when they are there for the asking). So, maybe they’re taking a page out of our book?
And here is the ad in question.
Yep, I get that about Grylls, Anna. I was thinking more probably of the wish lists the two Labor Independents are reported as shopping around.
One of the Nats members appointed Speaker would be a good start (small beer too).
Thpeaker you mean?
No, Grylls wouldn’t take the chair. He needs to be the Leader of the Nationals in the Assembly so he can be in control of their Business.
Nice tongue-in-cheek, though.
I think Speaker is normally more of a temptation for an obscure Independent. I agree with Andos that it would make little sense for Grylls to take the gig.
I didn’t mean Lucky Grylls. Anyone else from his Party?
Apparently if asked, Liberal leaning independent Liz Constable has stated she will agree to become Speaker.