Remember how the South Australian and Tasmanian elections were going to be the precursor to the inevitable Abbott Ascendancy? How much can change in politics in such a short period of time!
Tasmanian Governor Peter Underwood has asked Labor Premier David Bartlett to form a government, and Bartlett has had something of a rapprochement with Tasmanian Greens leader Nick McKim. Discussions are underway on how the two parties will co-operate in a hung parliament, and what effect any agreement will have on their respective election promises. It’s also possible, particularly given the small size of the Tasmanian Lower House, that one or more Greens may join Cabinet.
If that were to happen, it would be an Australian first.
For me, this is welcome news. It’s how PR systems are meant to operate, and is far preferable to a minority government. It’s a mature and sensible approach, and a step away from the pathologies of winner-takes all so common to Westminster systems with single member electorates. The result will be the representation of the will of a larger proportion of the electorate, and it’s hard to see how that’s anything other than a positive.
I’m also pleased to see a centre-left majority rather than a Liberal minority government. No doubt much will be imperfect, but it does signal some hope for genuine political change in a state whose Labor party has often been far from progressive.
It will also be interesting to see how any Labor-Greens agreement in Tasmanian politics affects the federal campaign, particularly since some Labor MPs prone to electoral challenge from The Greens have, in the past, been inclined to electioneer with “Greens=Liberals” slurs. And then there’s preference negotiations.
I don’t minimise the tensions between the ALP, The Greens and their respective supporters, but I’d very much welcome a broader progressive alliance, and a more co-operative approach on the left generally in electoral politics.
This development really will have some interesting implications for the national scene in both the short term and the long term, as it’s genuinely a historical moment.
Update: New post on the final outcome.
I was amused to see Paul Lennon, of all people, welcoming the prospect of having Nick McKimm in the Cabinet.
It’s a welcome development, but fraught with danger for the Greens. Inevitably, they will be accused of selling out, if not right away, then eventually, by some of their fundamentalist supporters. It’s difficult to be a grown up protest party.
It’s also smart politics by Bartlett, on the Lyndon Johnson principle.
I’d agree that this deal has real risks for The Greens. They can’t be a party of opposition to policies they are enabling.
OTOH, if they ever want to be more than a party of opposition, then they have to be seen as underpinning successful governance. If, four years from now the government of which they are a part has been seen as having administered competently, become more transparent and dodged bullets they might have caught as a result of factional obligation as a result of Greens support, then the Greens’ cred will spread beyond its traditional base and it will be the Liberals who get marginalised.
One suspects that the traditional supporters, while having some qualms, will largely live with that despite the odd tanty.
It might go all horribly wrong of course, but this is a risk they simply must take, particularly as the downside risk in the Hare-Clark system is practically zero.
I suspect a significant number of those voting Green don’t accept the political act of compromise. I miss the Democrats and I see the Greens going the same way.
Gunns will potentially be the GST for the Greens that many, wrongly, thought the ETS was going to be.
Labor got mercilessly hammered for compromising on this, but then I saw the Greens leader on Q&A trying to do an early sideslip along the lines of ‘well that’s already been through Parliament and we opposed it then…’
I’m not saying they have to die on the issue, or refuse to ever work with Labor without a deal on it, but the argument that it’s done and dusted is weak, and if they don’t at least have a red hot crack at knocking the project on the head or at least circumscribing it with stronger environmental restrictions then surely there’s going to be some hell to pay among the support base?
Compromise in the name of workable governing coalition is, after all, the working ethos of Labor Left.
Agreed, Kim, and Fran at #2. It’d be historic.
I would be very interested to see how a Greens-inclusive Cabinet would deal with Cabinet discipline over contentious decisions; a more loose sense of Cabinet solidarity would have a great deal of implication for Labor ministries and shadow ministries all over the country.
@5 – I wonder if the modified Cabinet solidarity used in SA with the Nats Minister (can’t remember her name) isn’t a bit of a model, Liam. Though it’s somewhat different as the Greens would have more responsibility for the government’s general programme and legislative agenda rather than just one portfolio.
Kymbos:
This is a common claim but I see little evidence for it. It is one thing to oppose rotten compromises and quite another to oppose all compromise. All of us compromise every day and the same applies to politics. Bob Brown has, for example, offered a very modest proposal on interim carbon pricing quite recently.
Your reference to the Democrats is curious. The Democrats self-defined as a watchdog party. They were going to “keep the buggers honest” and draw upon disaffected supporters from both sides. The trouble is, both sides cared less about honesty than having the policies they wanted, and the Democrats could either have no policy or offend one or the other side by developing one. The honesty slogan was revealed as being vacuous and when they turned out to be dishonest — supporting the GST and assisting the Howard government to squeak back to office the people who were least unsympathetic looked elsewhere. Their more conservative supporters went back to a party that would be in government, and the others went to the ALP or the Greens who at least knew what they wanted.
So as it turned out, it was the Democrats willingness to engage in a 100% compromise over the GST and Telstra was what sealed their demise by underlining that they really stood for nothing at all. Tellingly, those parts of the Democrat sentiment that were defencible are prosecuted by The Greens, this time with a more reliable constituency, which is precisely why they will never vanish.
It’s interesting, Fran @ 7, that a fair few members of the Greens Branch I belong to are ex-Democrats (and a couple are ex-Labor Left). I doubt if we’re unique.
Karlene Maywald, that was her name, wasn’t it? I’d be interested to hear the views of Southstrailians on her tenure as a Nationals Minister in a Labor Government. From my comfy New South Wales computer chair it seemed like a fairly unique and hard-to-repeat case dependent on her own individual, er, idiosyncracies.
And as armagnac says, compromise of ideals is Labor Left’s schtick, we’ve been doing it for far longer than anyone else, and I challenge the Tassie Greens to do it any better.
She was actually pretty good value, Liam. She maintained Cabinet solidarity, while at the same time trying to balance the health of the river, the demands of irrigators, and the Adelaide’s need for water (not 100% successfully, otherwise I suspect she’d still be in Parliament).
Indeed, David, and as I said, I’ll be interested to see the Tassie Greens repeat the trick should they get a) more senior Ministries in a coalition Government, b) the job of dealing with Gunns, and c) pressure from their Senator(s) and interstate colleagues.
Personally, I’d favour a looser sense of Cabinet solidarity and a higher tolerance for public dissent over basic issues of governance. But then I’m not a senior public servant, or a major stakeholder/investor in any Government-backed projects.
on cabinet solidarity:
Mr Bartlett said he was exploring all possible models of governing in a minority, with the aim to ensure a stable government for Tasmania for the next four years.
One option is that any non-Labor ministers may be appointed who do not sit in Cabinet and so are not bound by Labor Cabinet solidarity.
They would only be involved in discussions within Cabinet when their own portfolios are discussed, but could still oppose other Labor policies on the floor of parliament.
and PS there’s still a strong chance that the ALP will opt to only offer Ministeries to upper house members and no Greens, with the sop of Speaker being offered to a Green MP.
In the immortal words of Admiral Ackbar “it’s a trap”.
If the deal goes sour in a couple of years, for whatever reason, then the Liberals will be the big winners and the credibility of minority governments goes out the window.
A solid minority government that goes the full term, with a Green Speaker keeping the House in order, sets up a solid precedent for the future.
The Tas Greens have made some great advances and are standing on the cusp of something huge. Don’t gamble it on a reckless leap now. Do a good job now and reap the rewards in 4 years.
d
It will be interesting to see the outcome. Labor has two compelling reasons for offering the Greens a ministry or two.
One: they will all be very busy if they don’t, which may compromise their ability to represent their constituents and campaign at the next election.
Two: get some more Green skin in the game, which is also potentially a trap, as Daryl points out.
I don’t imagine their will be a compromise on the Gunns Pulp Mill. Lennon himself has written it off already.
A Tarkine national park should be no brainer (with logging interests excluded).
Logging in remaining old growth forest is where the proverbial might hit the fan. Labor still strongly supports this in Tas, Vic and NSW, despite a clear majority of the Australian population opposing it. That’s politics – not democracy.
Tasmania may be best governed if all the parties step outside the old Westminster government and opposition paradigm. This means accepting that, after most elections, none of the parties will have enough talent to govern well in their own right any more than one of the parties will always get its own way.
So perhaps Bartlet could be even more imaginative and consider offering ministries to the Liberals as well the Greens. It could work quite well if the ministries offered to other parties are in areas where Labor and the other party are in general agreement. It may also help if Hodgeman and McKim stayed out side the cabinet so that the parliament retains an active opposition that is not compromised by ministerial membership.
There certainly needs to be a discussion about the best way for a small state to be governed.
The speaker is more than a sop. It can make a real difference to the way a parliament functions, and increase accountability. It also makes you look like a grown-up, serious and in charge. It would be a good move for the Greens to guarantee supply but refuse the trap of a ministry.
The Tasmanian (IL)liberals must be having kittens at the prospect of Labor AND the Greens together in government!
Kim @6, her name was Karlene Maywald. She lost her seat on 20 March in a backlash against the Rann government and no doubt sh*t stirring by the Libs. So now her electorate has got a representative in opposition.
She was known as the Pocket Rocket and seemed pretty good value to me. There was a lot of sh*t stirring about her effectiveness on water management and saving the Murray. Ironically, by voting her out, her electorate has even less access to or influence on, cabinet.
I think she saw the writing on the wall before the election and said she’d back the Libs. Too late.
Good idea, John D @16. I think it would help diffuse some of the anger in the lib ranks and if Bartlett chose sensibly, it could only be good for Tasmania.
SA now has a woman in the Speaker’s chair. I hope she isn’t easily intimidated.
Kim @6
youse are prophetic: Mr Bartlett pointed reporters towards the Rann “model” today (I heard it on “PM”)
What happened to the pledge to hand over government to the Liberals if they gained the higher total vote? Just wondering….
It had no consitutional standing as governments are in theory made on the floor of the house and the governor is, in theory, charged with securing a group that can have the confidence of the house.
It was clear McKim would support the ALP, Hodgman was declining, and so the governor had little option but to invite Bartlett to try to form a government.
It’s supposed to be a serious business, government — not some agreement between mates.
Surprised no one has mentioned Bob Brown’s latest comments. I’d be happy with a Labor-Greens government but Labor-Greens-Liberal?
http://www.examiner.com.au/news/local/news/politics/brown-tells-labor-to-share-cabinet-roles/1800891.aspx
“The Tasmanian (IL)liberals must be having kittens at the prospect of Labor AND the Greens together in government!”
I’m sure there’s some kittening within Tasmanian Labor as well.
d
Just a thought, but would this allow the Greens any more acess to information about the cosy ties between tas Lab and Gunns? Or would Lab be able to hide their older shenannigans?
Yes Fran, government is a serious business.
But the pledge was to the voters wasn’t it? Not a private arrangement between mates. Pretty serious, a pledge to the voters, I’d have thought.
Nonetheless you’re right to point out that the Governor had to make a judgement about the next, constitutional step. And whatever is agreed in the next few days will be tested on the floor of Parliament, the ultimate judgement.
A very insightful article I think…. Cheers David
Mole tried:
Yes .. he pledged a public bet that he wasn’t able to make. He pledged not to respect the electoral consensus and to prefer a minority to rule.
Scandalous promises should not be uttered, and if uttered, deemed unworthy of fulfilment. Someone who relies on them is by definition excluded from demanding them.
This doesn’t sound right, not in the context of Tasmania adopting Hare-Clark all those years (a century ago?)
Pretty certain PR in Tasmania was meant to keep Labor out of office, not to encourage power sharing between well-defined parties.
What rewards? The mathematically impossible feat of overtaking either of the major parties on the floor of the House of Assembly without benefit of a Bacon-sized Labor landslide?
That’ll happen when the Greens win and hold Melbourne for as long as Tanner holds/held it.
“What rewards? The mathematically impossible feat of overtaking either of the major parties on the floor of the House of Assembly without benefit of a Bacon-sized Labor landslide?”
No, the rewards that will flow from running a clean and transparent Parliament from the Speaker’s chair, providing stability for the State by supporting the Government, maturing the relationship with the Tas ALP and advancing the Green agenda through amendment of Bills. Then in four years, seeing the Green vote hold up, or perhaps even increase, maybe winning an extra seat and not being regarded with *quite* so much hostility by the old parties and their respective constituencies.
d
Darryl, if the Tasmanian Greens decide they can only be effective as a non-government party by holding the speakership while not entering into a pact with Labor, then they have a case of power-without-responsibility.
Recent South Australian history provides another useful example, I think.
Yes the Speaker of the House has an important role to play, but in the context of this discussion it would be a sop. All it really achieves for the Greens is to yes pick up a respected role but at the cost of one shadow portfolio on the floor of parliament where we have 5 / 25. Yes the Speaker can influence the order of business etc. but when the critics of the Greens who claim ‘we’ve never had the experience of governing’ take it seriously I will. It would only be worth something if it came with a clear set of policy agreements similar to what was negotiated in the ACT and Bartlett has ruled that out.
Having said that I too am very wary of Ministries if they are poisoned chalices, aimed to sideline our ability to proactively push policy or criticize the government’s, and don’t come with some ability still adhere to our key positions. The flip side of that is being a Minister without any say in Cabinet could also be potentially very problematic.
There are no easy outcomes, unless of course you count the ALP blinking and deciding to go with upper house members, leaving the Greens out. That’s certainly simpler but not necessarily desirable.
Just before the misinformation flying about gets set in stone here as well, here is the Governor’s official advice.
The key points are:
Bartlett left out of his advice to the Governor the public statement he had made about not blocking supply or moving no-confidence against the Libs. This clearly tipped Underwood’s hand towards feeling he was compelled to recommission the Labor government.
The Governor was not convinced that the Libs could guarantee the confidence of the house in the absence of the above advice from Bartlett and without any evidence of an agreement between the Libs and the Greens.
The Greens’ party room decision to not block supply or move no confidence in the labor government played no part in the Governor’s decision.
The Greens party room decision above was the result of the complete absence of any contact from the Liberals and a commitment to support stable government for Tasmania.
“Having said that I too am very wary of Ministries if they are poisoned chalices…”
Health, education and transport are, of course, the usual career destruction areas that are handed on to annoying left wingers.
Trouble is, to reject them is to pass on matters that can make a very big difference.
IMO Myriad, were The Greens to get the speaker’s position this would actually be not a bad thing. They don’t get to be responsible for anything bad that the ALP does and they can say they are supporting stable governance and good parliamentary standards. This is a low risk low return option. Being in the ministry would be a medium risk medium return option with a real but (low threshhold risk).
Jane @19 I don’t think the view that Karlene Maywald was a pretty good value Minister is widely held in SA. Water would not have been the great negative for the Rann government that it has been if the way the government via the Minister had handled it was approved of. Nor would she have been voted out if her electorate saw it that way.
Of course, negative perceptions of her performance are a little unfair, since for various Murray-Darling reasons out of any SA control, it was and will be very a difficult portfolio for anyone. In terms of the issue here, though, the precedent for the Tasmanian Greens (at least with a Ministerial position) is not encouraging. The fact is she excused her taking a Ministerial role in a Labor government by telling her electorate she could deliver better for their interests inside Cabinet than from opposition, self-aggrandisement doesn’t come into it, perish the thought. And then couldn’t deliver and was voted out. It is fairly predictable, surely, that, if voters put you in Parliament on the basis of certain declared values, it will be hard to deliver on those as part of a government with a quite different set of values.
Love your work, Fran, as always. Perfectly OK to reneg on a major, major pledge to the electorate, because if you make a “scandalous” promise you shouldn’t be expected to follow it through. Certainly a new take on non-core policies. Presumably the more scandalous the promise, the less need there is to keep it, so all pollies should seek to tell the biggest porkies they can conceive? As if they need encouraging.
In terms of “the inevitable Abbott ascendancy”, that is of course a nonsense, but do you think that the grubby spectacle of ALP governments in both Tasmania and SA (ALP members impersonating Family First supporters and handing out fake how to vote cards in key marginal seats is OK, is it?) conniving to cling to power at all costs will not damage the Labor brand federally in any way? Serious question. Though I suppose what happens in either Tasmania or SA is never noticed in the real world, unless it involves multiple bodies.
Wozza said:
Just so. Barack Obama for example promised to scale up in Afghanistan, yet it was clear then and even clearer now that this policy is a disaster all round. He should have dumped it and made for the exit doors, as the promise was scandalous. Promising to brutalise asylum seekers to turn them off coming here is likewise scandalous and I was very much hoping that if the Howard government got in on this promise that they wouldn’t carry it out. Of course, they did.
Promising to spit on the wishes of the electorate (and in particular the 60% who didn’t vote Liberal) was scandalous. I very much doubt that those who voted ALP or Green hoped Hodgman would become premier. Had they wanted that they could have voted for his party. I suspect that when they voted, they hoped there would be a competent government in place after the election that was sympathetic to their outlook. And why shouldn’t the 60% have its way?
That’s a matter for those supporting them. I would not have voted for Bartlett, had I been in Tasmania, since he was in effect promising to put Hodgman in. Had I been an American, I’d not have voted for Obama, despite the fact that he would have been a lot less unpleasant than McCain/Palin and as sympathetic a chap as he otherwise was. I could not have voted to continue the war or to bail out Wall Street as he did. But if politicians want to make scandalous promises, then that is a matter for them. We need to take that into account when voting or not.
Of course the ACT, using Hare-Clark, has had two successful (at least in the sense of running their full term) minority governments – one Lib, one Lab. Neither hurt the Greens’ prospects – quite the reverse.
I suspect if the Greens had taken ministries things might have been different though. And its also true that the electorate wasn’t violently split over an issue like the Tarkine or Gunns in the way that Tasmanians are. Pragmatism was a lot easier.
Tasmanian Devilry
Tasmania has made its choice.
Mainland conservationists rejoice.
Bob Brown has spoken to McKim.
It’s known that he has counselled him
To carry on the good and holy fight
And spurn the liberals on the right
While remembering to be very deft
With union machinations on the left.
The big priority, the number one,
Is bringing down the ghastly Gunns.
McKim points out, for good or ill,
The bill’s been passed to have that mill.
Journalists who have been on tenterhooks
Report today that at last it looks
As some pundits had long ago foreseen
The government will be red with just a touch of green.
Tassie voters reading this just shrug and smile.
What else did they expect? This is the Apple Isle!
Dammit – followed instructions for strong only on the heading. Missed the forward slash for closing. Can that be changed?
By the way my review panel below does not always appear. How do I bring it up?
@Patricia WA
The review panel doesn’t parse some markup tags, so some of your inputted content won’t display. It’s because it’s an older bit of coding, but there doesn’t seem to be a more up-to-date replacement for the feature.
Nice to see David Bartlett dropping by @26. Could be a first for LP?
As a long time LP reader and IT teacher, I was interested to read about Bartlett’s IT background on Wikipedia. I’m also encouraged that he commented here. As a vic greens member, I was turned off by what I perceived to be his anti-democratic (if not slightly hysterical) statements pre election result.
Will be interesting to see if Tas labor can redeem themselves in current negotiations with the greens. Certainly it would be hard to do worse than mainland labor do with regard to Machiavellian tactics re the greens.
Wozza, Bartlett did honour his promise by going to the governor and recommending that he invite the liberals to form a minority government. The governor was unable to do so because there was little likelihood that they could form a stable government as the Greens apparently weren’t prepared to join with them.
In the end the governor called the shots, so if you’ve got a beef about it, take it up with him.
Karlene Maywald was a victim of Libtard sh*t stirring in the main and her electorate are even further from having any influence on cabinet and water decisions. She wasn’t helped by prolonged drought either.
Jane
Wozza, Bartlett did honour his promise by going to the governor and recommending that he invite the liberals to form a minority government.
Except that he left out a key statement he’d made in public, which was that he would not block supply or move no-confidence in a Liberal minority unless there were extraordinary circumstances (corruption etc.). Bartlett conveniently left that out of the copy of his statements he gave to the Governor as advice.
The governor was unable to do so because there was little likelihood that they could form a stable government as the Greens apparently weren’t prepared to join with them [Liberals].
Let’s be absolutely clear on this: after the election Nick McKim wrote to both the ALP and Liberals and extended once again the offer to talk and work out an agreement to provide stable government.
Not only did Hodgeman not even bother to reply in private, he publicly responded by yet again announcing to the media that the libs would never ever ever talk to or work with the Greens. The Greens therefore didn’t ‘decide’ not to support the Liberals, the liberals left them with no choice, particularly given the one public commitment the Greens had given was to support stable government for Tas. So please let’s knock the furphy on the head that the Greens decided not to back the Libs.
In the end the governor called the shots, so if you’ve got a beef about it, take it up with him.
That we do agree on.
argh left out key statement
– if you read the Governor’s advice which I linked to above, it’s clear that the fact that Bartlett omitted his statement about not blocking supply or moving no confidence in a hypotehtical Liberal government did play into the Governor’s decision making.
Gosh, Jane, you mean the Libtards stood outside the electoral booths impersonating members of another another party and handing out fake how to vote cards?
Or that the Libtards pointed out that Ms Maywald had sold her electorate down the river, literally and figuratively, in joining a an ALP government and delivering to her voters none of the benefits she alleged would flow from that? And being complete morons unable to think for themselves the voters merely followed along like sheep? Live in Chaffey do you?
So far as Bartlett is concerned, the point was not the outcome – given that the Greens have clearly demonstrated a preference to work with Labor, an ALP government probably does offer a better shot at stability – but the way Bartlett slid round, as myriad points out, a public commitment, and certain commenters have enthusiastically joined and inventively elaborated on the slithering in order to excuse a broken promise.
And Mercurius posts a tirade about the language and logic of the wingnut right? The language and logic of the latte left is far more fertile gound for the linguistically inclined. Take the word “Libtard” for example.
No, let’s not.
Long before the word Libtard came into use the word Leftard was commonplace in right wing blogs. Calling people with whom one has a political disagreement mentally retarded is so primary school playground, but unfortunately to be expected in a lot of cases.
Wozza
The term “libtard” is also a neologism devised by the US right, where it refers derogatively to those whom the right deem to be of leftist inclination. This reflects the fact that in the US, liberalism is widely held to approximate to socialism whereas here the Liberal Party is conservative.
Wandering about on the more distinctly American parts of usenet, one sees from the “lefties” the term “rethuglicans” as well as “wingnuts”.
For the record, I’m against using the word “retard” (or any derivative neologism to describe anyone. Its usage is now so deeply associated with moral epithet that if the original usage (“mental retardation”)* ever had an intellectual warrant (and that too is debatable) it long ago vanished.
*As recently as 1977, I worked at Rydalmere Psychiatric Hospital, and on the northern side of Victoria Rd at James Ruse Drive was the “Psycho-geriatric and Retardation Unit”. At the time, I thought little of the term at the time but thankfully, we have moved on.
So to get back on track: Energy & Transport portfolios for the Greens? If they could take those two and the Speaker’s role, it would be a grand coup indeed. At least then, Labor would have at least a couple of backbenchers to keep the seats warm, and provide ring-ins should any of the minister’s portfolios go belly-up.
Some would rather the minister portfolios go to the Liberals instead of the Greens: a grand coalition in all but name. The Liberals have proven to be too headstrong for that.
It is a risk for the Greens to enter cabinet with a relatively hostile government. I hope they stand up to the plate and leave the mistaken perception that they are “Democrats Mk 2″ forever behind them.
Also the invective in today’s editorial in the Australian to the prospect of power-sharing with the Greens is vicious and unwarranted. I’m surprised that they have not gone so far as to call it ‘so monstrous a travesty’.
Aron Paul’s recent article in Crikey (subscr. required) is an insightful look at the governance challenges ahead for the Greens – for which Tasmania may be a precursor to the federal election ahead.
Deconst, I’m interested that you regard the Australian’s editorial as “vicious and unwarranted” in regard to Bartlett and power-sharing with the Greens.
As far as I can see, the only bits that even remotely approach that – the notion of Greens in Cabinet as a “deal with the devil”, “immature and muddled thinking” and a recipe for “instability and government inertia” – are, and are pointed out as, direct quotes from Bartlett himself, at a time when he was expressing rather more political principle, and less grubby desperation to stay in power at all costs. The quote from the Greens’ manifesto, and the account of the record of the last attempt at an ALP/greens accord in Tasmania are likewise entirely factual, are they not?
Is it somehow a capital offence for a newspaper to point out that Bartlett instantly jettisoned not only an unequivocal election campaign pledge, but of months of similar rhetoric, when it became inconvenient to keep the promise?
That’s a rhetorical question of course. You are not the only commenter around here who believes that it is.
given that the Greens have clearly demonstrated a preference to work with Labor
Um, no, there has not been any such preference expressed here in Tasmania right up until the midnight hour prior to the Governor’s decision.
All the Tas Greens did was make it explicit that given Hodgeman wouldn’t even once talk to the Greens (instead preferring to repeatedly publicly decry any move to negotiate with the Greens), it really left them with no choice.
Bear in mind also that Nick only initially confirmed that in the interest of stability the Greens would not support a move or initiate one to block supply or vote no confidence in a Labor minority government.
Since then & Bartlett’s recommissioning by the Governor, it’s been Bartlett who’s so far managed to see the sense in at least talking to the Greens to try and create some enduring stability. The Greens maintained from the get go that they were happy to talk to either party about just that, so unsurprisingly Nick accepted Bartlett’s offer to talk, and here we are.
None of this translated to a ‘clearly demonstrated preference to work with Labor’.
I suspect that if Will Hodgeman had the guts to control his party’s far right, and if it wasn’t for the fact that 4 more far-right Lib candidates were elected (Petrusma, Archer, Shelton, Ferguson) rather than more moderate libs (of which Groom is the only new one I’m aware of, don’t know much about Brooks), the story could have been quite different.
As I said on an earlier thread, when the outcome looking like 10-10-5 it was always going to come down to which of the old parties could control it’s right wing sufficiently to allow their party room’s to see the sense in trying to negotiate a deal with the Greens. So far the ALP is winning that one by a country mile.
Myriad, you clearly know a lot more than I do about Tasmanian politics, and you may well be right. But according to the press report I was relying on, McKim came out for Labor before the Governor made his decision, and on grounds that had nothing to do with what Hodgman may or may not have done:
“The Tasmanian Greens have pledged shock new support for the Bartlett Labor government to remain in power in Tasmania…… we have come to a unanimous decision in our party room to offer confidence to the existing Labor government in the hope it will continue…. Mr McKim said the Greens had pledged to the Tasmanian people to deliver stable government. Mr McKim said the decision was based largely on Labor having 13 members of parliament in both houses to the Liberals 11 MPs, offering more chance of forming a workable government with a stronger ministry.”
http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php?/weblog/article/greens-back-labor-minority/
In any case, I reiterate that the issue I’m on about is Bartlett’s behaviour – and the willingness of most here to give him a free pass for ditching a commitment, after all he’s one of us – not McKim’s.
Wozza, the Mercury’s reporting of the Tas Green MP’s decision was pretty poor. I think given your interest you’ll find this short transcript of Nick McKim on Lateline useful.
Excerpt:
TONY JONES: But we’ve been told there have been no negotiations with either party and yet you have chosen Labor.
Why have you chosen Labor when neither party has spoken to you evidently?
NICK McKIM: It happens that to date, neither of the other two parties has been willing to talk to us or talk to each other and we can’t drag them to the table and force them to negotiate but given the lack of negotiations, we’ve taken a decision to back the incumbent Government because we made a commitment to deliver stability and stability is very important because without government stability, you risk investor confidence and without investment, you place jobs at risk and we don’t want to do that.
We want Tasmania to keep moving forward. We want to deliver stable government and that is why we made the decision we did.
And
TONY JONES: Alright, but this is the same Labor Government you are putting into power – the same one that many of your fellow Greens believe is in the pocket of the Gunns Corporation on forestry – the same one that changed the rules in order the allow the pulp mill to get a fast track approval process and you are putting them into power.
Won’t many of your Greens supporters regard that as a kind of betrayal on your part?
NICK McKIM: Well, a couple of points there, Tony.
Firstly, all of those things apply equally to the Liberal party in Tasmania so I don’t think there is any issue in people’s mind about favouring one or the other of Labor and Liberal over those issues.
There’s more.
FWIW I personally don’t give Bartlett a free pass. But I think you need to be clear that he very stupidly dug himself a huge, embarrassing hole with that -off-the-cuff promise to offer power to the Liberals if they got more seats / votes. It was a completely foolish promise because it simply wasn’t in his power to make good on it. The powers required there are solely the Governor’s, and he should never have said it. In fact it was so inappropriate that the Governor publicly rebuked Bartlett in his advice regarding his decision to recommission Labor.
The reality was and there’s no doubt that senior figures in the ALP were well aware of this, that in the event of a 10-10-5 house as was clearly predicted, constitutionally the Governor really doesn’t have much other choice but to send the incumbent government back to the parliament to test the confidence in them. The clear precedent was set in 1989 when
a) Robin Gray was liberal premier and the 89 election handed him a minority
b) despite not being able to guarantee confidence to the Governor, and despite the ALP & Greens having a written agreement, the Governor still required Gray to recall parliament and test his minority government, which promptly lost to a vote of no confidence. Only then did the Governer commission a new government of the ALP with the Greens in formal agreement.
So you need to look at Bartlett’s advice to the Governor in that light – really he had to dig himself out of a very embarrassing hole and somehow hold on to what he’d said to the public and simultaneously not embarrass himself any further. The premiership was never his to give away.
update
One Green Ministry for Nick McKim, which one yet to be confirmed or whether the terms for participation in Cabinet are acceptable to the Greens as a whole.
The Greens have now rejected the offer of a ministry on the grounds that they should have more given that there are 5 greens to 10 Labor members of the lower house.
The real issue for the greens is not how many but what effect having their leader inside cabinet would have on the party. The greens may have had a lucky escape as long as they don’t get all bitter and twisted about the outcome. Look at the decline of the national party.
he and Greens leader Nick McKim had reached a compromise position that would mean Mr McKim would accept his invitation to become a minister in the Labor Government.
Under the compromise the Greens would be offered a Cabinet Secretary position.
“I will be writing to Ms Cassy O’Connor inviting her to accept the position of Cabinet Secretary.
“While not a Minister, it will be possible for Ms O’Connor to be delegated some responsibility to assist a Minister in his or her portfolio.
A question for myriad. There are calls (predictably enough) for Tasmania to abandon PR in favour of single-member constituencies with preferential voting. On a cursory inspection of the polling place figures for Denison and Franklin, it seems to me that the Greens would be able to win some single-member seats in these areas if there were five such seats in each (unless the boundaries were flagrantly gerrymandered) and in all likelihood the use of single-member constituencies in the election just past would still have produced a hung parliament. Is this your reading of the situation?
One thing is clear. If Tasmania abandoned PR and copied the system in the other states then any fair boundaries and absence of serious malapportionment on these data would have seen the Liberals in opposition. The 2PP would have been about 58-42 give or take a couple of percent.
That’s why the Liberals won’t oppose Hare-Clark. They went within a whisker or two of being the biggest party.
I’m still not clear what is wrong with the principle of consensus rule in a pluralistic democracy, which H-C does better than any current working structure for realising the principle. Sure you could rig things to disenfranchise groups that weren’t happy with the two main blocs, but what would be the ethical warrant for that?
Paul I’m a bit distracted so probably missing something obvious, but I don’t quite understand your question. Are you suggesting 25 single electorates?
If so, I guess I think it’s a bit immaterial because the real game is reforming the parliament to restore at least some of the 10 seats that were slashed from it.
I also don’t think having 25-35 individual feifdoms so to speak in a state with a population of half a million would be very practical or workable. I think the perception of lots of tiny seats would be even worse than for 5 key electorates with multiple representatives.
Would Greens win enough of them – well probably, but I don’t know what it would achieve.
Sorry, bit focussed on the here and now!
No myriad, I’m not suggesting that. Other people (like John Francis) are, because they think it will guarentee majority government, and I’m saying that it probably won’t.
I’m also against such a move, and I’m for restoring the 35 seats with PR, for the same reasons that you are.
Update: New post on the final outcome.
Continue comments there, please.