Update on Tasmania

Last Monday I blogged that the Liberals were to govern in Tasmania.

What is interesting is that Labor have surrendered power voluntarily, rather than trying to hold onto power by doing a deal with the Greens.

The outgoing Labor Premier said before the election that he believes the party that won the most seats, or the most votes if seats are equal, should be given first chance to govern. The libs had 2.1% greater share of the vote.

The Greens are miffed that the decision by Labor, means the Libs do not need to negotiate with them. Both the Greens and Labor have said they will vote supply to allow the Government to govern, but the Greens are under some pressure to renege.

Labor in fact have gone further and said they will not move a motion of no confidence, unless there is maladministration.

But a week is a long time in politics.

Labor backed away from their pre-election position to let the party with the most votes govern, and also backed away from their leader’s statement they would support a Liberal Government, as reported in The Mercury:

A DISGUSTED and dejected Will Hodgman said last night Labor had grossly betrayed the trust of the Tasmanian people.

The Liberal leader did not attempt to hide his anger when he fronted the media yesterday, shortly after returning from Government House where he received the shock news he would not become the state’s 54th premier.

He accused Premier David Bartlett of reneging on his commitment to hand over government to the Liberals in the event they won a higher proportion of the statewide vote. …

He was also scathing of the Greens for cooking up an 11th-hour deal to support Labor.

“The Greens tried to blackmail the other political parties,” he said.

“In his lust for power [Nick] McKim has backed an illegitimate government that has no moral authority to govern.”

Mr Hodgman accused Mr Bartlett of blatantly changing his advice to the Governor in a desperate attempt to hold on to power.

Now there is one other thing Labour were explicit on. They had ruled out doing a deal with the Greens. Well that did not last long as reported yestoday:

The Bartlett Government is negotiating to make Tasmanian Greens MPs ministers in its new Cabinet.

Premier David Bartlett announced this morning he would delay announcing his full cabinet of nine ministers for another week, to allow discussions with non-Labor MPs to continue.

The role of the Governor is also under scrutiny as detailed in Wikipedia:

On 7 April the results were declared, and under the Constitution Act 1934, the Governor of Tasmania, Peter Underwood, had seven days to commission a Government. Ultimately, after speaking to all of the leaders, he recommissioned Bartlett.

In an unusual move, he released the detailed reasons for his decision,saying that Bartlett did not have the right to promise power to Hodgman, and that Hodgman was not in a position to form stable government. …

Hodgman accused Bartlett of breaking his promise to hand over power, noting that in a letter to the Governor, Bartlett had contradicted a public statement made on 1 April where he had said he would not move any vote of no confidence against a Liberal government. However, Professor Richard Herr of the University of Tasmania believed the Governor’s stance was a correct one, as it served the interests of stable government.Constitutional law expert Michael Stokes disagreed, saying too high a bar had been set for the Liberals and Labor had not proven it could deliver stable government in the new Assembly.

It is important to distinguish two things here. There is no automatic right for the top polling party to form a Government. In that regard, there is nothing unusual about Labor and Greens combining to form a Government, despite the Liberals winning 2% more seats than Labor.

What has offended some, is that Labor lied to the electorate. They did not follow through on their word, given both before and after the election, to allow the party with the most votes to govern.

It would be the equivalent of if John Key did a deal with Winston Peters after the 2008 election, despite explicitly saying he would do no deals with him, and rather stay in Opposition, than rely on him.

You can debate whether or not that was a good position to take, but most would say once you state such a position, you should honour your word.

Labor’s share of the vote dropped 12.4% at the election. I suspect it may drop by that much again at their next election.