tasmanian politics
22 Mar 2010
Greens Take Centre Stage In Tasmania
After Labor copped a pasting in Saturday's Tasmanian election, the issue now is what the Greens will do with the balance of power they have won, writes Kate Crowley
With 86 per cent of the vote counted and no clear outcome, the Tasmanian state election has seen a 12 per cent swing away from the Labor government, the Liberals surging by 7 per cent, and the Greens picking up an extra 5 per cent. For the Greens it’s a record-high vote and brings with it the balance of power in a minority government.
The electorate has savaged the Labor government, unconvinced by its agenda in office or by its dirty tricks during the election campaign. Two high-profile Labor ministers, Lisa Singh and Graeme Sturges, have lost their seats in the very green electorate of Denison, as have three low-profile backbenchers.
All the Greens have held their seats, while the Liberals have picked up Matthew Groom (son of a former premier), Adam Brooks (a self-made millionaire), Michael Ferguson (a former federal member who has polled second-highest in the state), and possibly the conservative Jacquie Petrusma.
The final election result is, however, still too close to call between the Labor and Liberal parties with each projected to win up to 10 seats — which would see Labor losing up to four seats and the Liberals gaining up to four seats, and with the Greens potentially picking one up to give them a total of five.
Under Tasmania’s Hare-Clark electoral system, it will be 10 days at least before a result is known. Redistribution of remaining preferences and the counting of postal votes takes place 10 days after the election, and may take several days to finalise, so the election result will be clear within a fortnight.
The make-up of the next Tasmanian government will, however, be determined more by which major party is able to come to a negotiated position with the Greens than by the final result. So over the coming days and weeks the real action will be the positioning of the major parties with respect to what the Greens call a power-sharing government and which party is best able to accommodate it.
Tasmania has a well-known recent history of Greens-supported minority governments, one an Accord with Labor (1989–92) and the other a less formal alliance with the Liberals (1996–98). While these were productive governments in the policy sense, they were short-lived and acrimonious, and the major parties that were supported in power by the Greens suffered at the polls when they failed.
So will minority government work this time around — and which party will be prepared to wear it?
It seems inconceivable that the Greens would negotiate an arrangement with Labor. There is too much bad blood between the parties, not only over the failed Accord, but also over Labor’s poor environmental governance, its advocacy of a pulp mill and its poor track record in general. Labor has been scandal-ridden for much of the last four years and it has been hit hard in the polls as a result.
And yet it was a defiant, aggressive and unapologetic Premier Bartlett who fronted the tally room on Saturday night, despite managing to take full responsibility for his party currently sitting on only 37.1 per cent of the primary vote. For Labor, that level is very close to their record low in 1982 of 36.9 per cent, achieved when the party imploded over the Franklin River dispute and from which it took a decade and a half — until 1996 — to recover.
Another key moment in the local antagonism between the Labor and the Greens in Tasmania was the 1998 reform (designed by Labor in opposition during the Greens-supported Liberal minority government) to reduce the size of Parliament and raise the quotas needed for election in a bid to kill off the Greens. It needed — and got — Liberal support, but it was Labor bitterness at the Greens’ impact upon the ALP’s electoral prospects that drove this successful bid.
The Greens have persisted, however, recording 10.2 per cent in 1998, 18.1 per cent in 2002, 16.6 per cent in 2006, and now a record 21.4 per cent of the primary vote achieved after a campaign that has been acknowledged as the most sophisticated, inspiring and in touch with ordinary Tasmanians of any of the parties.
It is more likely that the Liberals will approach the Greens in good faith about power sharing. Indeed, Leader Will Hodgman has staked his claim to power on the Liberals’ current two-point lead over Labor, with his party sitting on 39.1 per cent of the primary vote. Even if this evaporates, it will be the party that strikes a deal on governing processes and policy priorities with the Greens that will govern.
The Green result is an extraordinary achievement for the party, and for its much-admired centrist Leader Nick McKim, who on Saturday night likened the end of Labor majority government to a great weight being lifted from the shoulders of the community. A negotiated arrangement will be able to deliver, he added, the stability and accountability that the Tasmanian people want and deserve.
In homage to the wane of Labor machine politics, and the advent of a greener electorate, Nick McKim welcomed those who voted Green for the first time as the "new believers" who see minority government as "an opportunity for a new era of constructive, cooperative politics, for politicians to work together, not to advance their own interests or their party’s, but to advance Tasmania".
Labor will wait for the final electoral outcome before it concedes defeat, although in the electorate’s eyes defeat has been convincing and it is time to move on. The Liberals will be sorely tested in their dealings with the Greens, and Nick McKim will need consummate skill to handle shared power.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Newsvine
Facebook
Twitter
Discuss this article
To participate in the discussion Sign in or Register
Very good summary.
One problem for an incoming Liberal minority government, if that does happen, is how to deal with a bureaucracy that is riddled with Labor appointees - a legacy of long term incumbency.
They will need a very big broom.
But there is still a strong likelihood that Labor will end up with more seats than the Liberals, which may result in a Labor minority government forming. That will make life very hard for the Greens unless there is a leadership spill in the Labor camp.
As someone who thinks the Greens are the better alternative when it comes to parliament, I am appalled that they would do a deal with the Liberals. It seems to height of opportunism to sell out principles and do a deal with the party of big business.
I voted for the Greens in my first election when I was 18 and was motivated by my gut hatred for Howard and the Liberals. I couldn’t vote for Labor either because they were becoming more and more like them.
It really brings into question whether I will be voting for them in the next federal election. If they can’t rule out preference and minority government deals with the Liberals, I’d find it hard to stomach.
The Greens need to be commended for their excellent position on same-sex marriage but if they’re going to do a deal with an outright homophobic party, can you trust that they’ll remain committed to even this?
In response to benjaminsolah, the Greens are a minority party. Unless or until they get more public support and more candidates, they will remain so. Any party that has only a few members in parliament but still wants to make a difference, has to be prepared to mediate.
And contrary to the Lib & Lab publicity about previous shared governments, Tasmania has benefited, proving that mediation and cooperation is beneficial in society, in government, and in our lives.
At the expense of what though? The result will be them doing what the Liberals want them to do.
They will be forced to ‘compromise’ and support disgusting Liberal policy that I see as a complete betrayal of the original party platform.
The Greens are doing this more and more in a bid to be accepted in parliament. This obsession with parliament and a step away from the grass roots activism that got me interested in the party is a real poisonous attitude to have. Sure they might get more votes, but on policies and principles that would be very different to how they began.
Bartlett (and company) are mad as cut snakes. His “defiant” stand (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/03/22/2852108.htm), determined to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, is a victory of bone-headed ideology over a more cautious pragmatism.
If Bartlett is convinced that being a shrinking opposition is preferable to actually having to work with the Greens (and where does his seriously think that Green voter preferences lie?), then he deserves to be relegated to a mere footnote in obscure history books.
As for Hodgman, well good luck to him. But if the Greens have any principles they’ll get him to drop his pledge on abolishing land tax - one of the best mechanisms for protecting the environment.
Get over youself Benjaminsolah! The Greens need to be flexible in a parliamentary situation - I don’t think the Greens are compromising to be more accepted in Parliament, I think they realise that unless compromising is a reality, nothing will get changed. I would rather have more Greens in Parliament any day - you don’t know how lucky you are. And what - you think the Greens should support Labor instead?? I think they are stuck between a rock and a hard place and can do with more support Benjaminsolah, not criticism.
jbiggs
Good summary Kate, but I balk at terms like “hung parliament” and “balance of power”. The greens only have balance of power when the two major parties are deadlocked and the greens have the casting vote. This is unlikely to arise on any issue that divides Tasmanians.
If the Libs are genuine about “Real Change” — and Hodgman’s election night in-your-face throwaway about the pulp mill even when Gunns are likely to go under suggests they are not genuine — they could come to some negotiated agreement with the Greens, despite WH’s never-ever rhetoric. I feel uneasy about this alliance but more comfortable with it than with a Labor-Green accord, Benjaminsolah, because Lab is now even more the big business party. However, Bartlett in today’s Mercury virtually gave notice that he would encorage such an accord so that he can sabotage it within a couple of years and no doubt his minders and mates in the public service will be of great service in doing just that. Then when it all collapses, Labor steps in with “See? What did we say? Tas needs strong majority govt!”
Another scenario is that there is no agreement between parties and so parliamentary debate will be issues-based, where each party (and Wilkie if he is elected) vote on each issue as it arises. Unfortunately, issues to do with forestry and untrammelled development will go through just as they did in the bad old days, leaving large numbers of Tasmanians disenfranchised on issues they care deeply about, but there is damn all they can do about it.
So in all, I see the Green’s surge as symbolic and very welcome but practically it will be business as usual for the greedy powerbrokers and their pet dinosaurs.
mr james
I fear jbiggs is correct, except perhaps for one thing. That is that prior to any agreement between the Liberals and Greens, it seems Nick McKim has suggested that agreement on a new forestry policy will be essential. One would love to think that this might herald the final turning point for Tasmania—but who can really believe that when Gunns has bought both main parties? But let’s hope Hodgman might see the writing on the wall.
On the other hand if a Liberal-Green accord descends into chaos, history shows the electorate reverts to two-party mode in horror at dysfunctional government. It is quite tricky for the Greens.
Great article.
It’ll be interesting to see what happens over the next term. It won’t be easy for any of the parties, but I think it’ll be good for Tassie. Strangely, I get the feeling that the Liberals would work better with the Greens than Labor. There’s a real culture of hatred and blame in the TAS Labor govt, and I just can’t see any kind of agreement or compromise happening while Bartlett is in charge, at least. However, as many of the old Labor seats (esp Graeme Sturges whooo!) have been lost to newer candidates, perhaps this rotten culture in the Labor party will die with them.
Will Hodgman has already softened his uncompromising stance about a deal with the Greens, made during the Leaders’ Debate last week in Launceston, so it’s looking more likely he will be the first to phone Nick about having a chat re power sharing. David Bartlett still appears to be in tantrum mode, and given his appalling performance at the Leaders’ Debate, and more recently on election night, doesn’t look likely to emerge from his major sulk.
Several new and younger MPs were elected on Saturday, and while they may be Liberal or Labor, they will hopefully also be more prepared to compromise and negotiate with the Greens for a more inclusive way forward for Tasmania. And a way forward that challenges the extraordinary and unhealthy power the forestry industry has had over the government in this state for far too long.
I’m confident Nick McKim and his fellow Greens can handle the situation, and the outcome of this minority government will be far more successful than the earlier examples. It’s a different generation and a different era, and perhaps it’s time we did politics differently too.
“We must all have a great sense of responsibility and not let things
happen because everyone takes the comfortable view that someone else
is looking after it. Someone else isn’t looking after it.” - Rachel
Carson, 1962
This is a great result for the Greens in Tasmania.Now we need these same people who run the Tasmanian campaign up here in NSW to kick off the Greens NSW campaign. We need a hung parliament here in NSW to sweep out the Labor and Liberal trash here in Sydney.
Nice article.
damon b
Nice article. A hung parliament with the greens holding the balance of power? that’s a well-hung parliament, isn’t it?
damon b
Nice article. A hung parliament with the greens holding the balance of power? that’s a well-hung parliament, isn’t it?