Hung up on minority government
Michael Lester cuts to the bone of this state’s fixation on power-sharing
WHEN it comes to debate about hung parliaments in this state it is a bit like the movie Groundhog Day or perhaps the 2014 movie Edge of Tomorrow where each time the heroes awake they move a step nearer to finding a way to win.
Every election, if the polls suggest a hung parliament is likely, it seems we have to go through the same issues: IT will cause instability and/or uncertainty. MAJOR parties proclaim there will be no deals with the Greens or any other party or independent. GREENS supporters claim it is undemocratic or arrogant to rule out deals. FEARS rise that we will be forced to a second election.
Firstly, there is a difference between instability and uncertainty. Arguably, we have stable government if we have a peaceful handover of power after an election. A Governor will view as stable a government that can last a reasonable period of time, pass a budget and ensure the continuation of essential government services.
Since 1989 every state and territory in Australia has had at least one hung parliament and in 2010 we had the Gillard minority federal government.
Currently, there are minority governments in the ACT and South Australia and there is also a minority government in New Zealand.
The United Kingdom, the home of our Westminster system, has a minority government — their second in seven years.
The sky has not fallen in any of those cases.
In Tasmania, there is a long history of hung parliaments and minority governments. In modern times Tasmania has had three hung parliaments — the Field government with the Labor-Green Accord between 1989 and 1992, the Rundle Liberal minority government between 1996 and 1998 and the Bartlett/Giddings LaborGreen coalition government, with two Greens in Cabinet, between 2010 and 2014.
Minority governments in Tasmania on average survive about 2 ½ years, but then not all majority governments go the full four-year term and at times majority governments can be pretty unstable as well.
A better case might be made for uncertainty, especially for the business community that factor in the government policy settings when making investment decisions.
But even majority governments have their problems with policies and that is especially true if they do not control the Upper House as we have seen with the Hodgman Government’s inability to get Bills through the Legislative Council. The same occurs at the federal level with the Senate.
Is it undemocratic or arrogant for the Liberal and Labor parties to declare they will not negotiate with other parties or independents should they fail to win a majority?
Actually, it is normal for parties to position themselves this way before an election, firstly to maximise their party’s vote and, secondly, to tell voters what they intend to do in the event that no party wins a majority.
Whether it is undemocratic or arrogant to rule out negotiations or deals with minor parties and candidates depends on your standpoint.
The argument is that refusal to do deals denies the “will of the people as expressed at the ballot box”. The problem with this is that it is hard to discern the actual intention of voters.
People who vote for minor parties or independents may want a balance of power.
Equally, those 70 per cent or more who vote Liberal or Labor may want a majority government.
As well, the question of majority or minority government almost certainly is not the only issue that will determine how people vote.
The popularity of individual candidates, health, education, the economy and a range of other issues may rank higher in voters’ minds.
Is it undemocratic to refuse to govern in minority?
There is a large body of literature that argues strongly that it is rational for political parties to opt for opposition rather than accept minority government if they feel it’s in their long-term interest.
Can the incumbent premier refuse to govern and would there be a second election?
Technically, both are possible but, equally, both are unlikely. There is a convention that there must be a government at all times to ensure the continuation of essential services. The premier could advise the governor that he is unable to form a government and the governor would then call for the opposition leader, in this case Rebecca White. If Ms White advises that she does not believe she is able to form government, then Mr Hodgman would remain as caretaker premier and the governor would most likely want to wait to see what happens in parliament.
If no one moves a noconfidence motion and the government is able to pass a supply Bill, budget or other major motion (like the address-in-reply to the governor’s speech at the opening of parliament), then the Liberals would continue to govern in minority.
Should the Liberals break convention and refuse to govern, Labor would then have every right to argue that it would be constitutionally irresponsible to leave Tasmania ungoverned and to therefore seek to form a minority government.
Whether the premier can advise the governor to dissolve parliament and call a second election — and whether the governor has to take that advice — is a grey area.
Based on past experience in Australia and elsewhere, it seems likely that only if no one was able to gain the confidence of the House, and the parliament was unable to resolve the matter, would the governor allow a new election.
In any case, the electoral backlash for creating a crisis, coupled with the fact all the parties will have exhausted their election war chests to fight a new campaign, would make it political suicide to go that route. Mike Lester is a PhD candidate with the School of Social Sciences at the University of Tasmania researching the subject of minority government. He is a former chief political journalist for the Mercury, political adviser to the Bacon government and public relations consultant.