17 March 2024

The Liberals’ proposal to force MPs out of parliament who resign from their party is undemocratic. People vote for candidates, not parties. And members’ priority should be their constituents, not their party.

The proposal would take power from MPs and give it to parties. If an MP became aware the parliamentary party leadership was corrupt or behaving unconscionably, they would have the choice of staying and betraying their conscience and the interests of their constituents or be kicked out of parliament.

The proposal would be open to abuse. If a party leader took a dislike to an MP, she or he could force the MP out of the party and parliament.

If the kick-out rule was in effect when David O’Byrne was excluded from the Parliamentary Labor Party, he could have been forced out of parliament which is what some of his party colleagues wanted but not what the 7538 voters who gave him their first preference at the 2021 election wanted or the 5062 who preferenced him.

Andrew Inglis Clark – who devised our brilliant electoral system – was wary of parties’ power and the influence of their unelected leaders and staffers. The Liberals’ proposal undermines the intention of our system.

Grants pork-barrelling

13 March 2024

The noise of the election has drowned out the important issue of integrity which isn’t a priority for either major party. An example is the Liberal and Labor parties’ community grants programs, which integrity experts say is pork barrelling.

Liberal party officials decide what community groups will be given grants and the amount. Premier Rockliff says there is a “strict process” to award the grants that must be approved by parliament. The process might be strict but Liberal party officials decide who gets grants and the amount.

Like the Liberals, Labor has approached organisations about grants. Shadow attorney general Ella Haddad says the Labor caucus will decide who gets what and ultimate approval will be by the relevant government department.

Commonwealth Grants Rules and Guidelines – recommended by the Integrity Commission in its 2022 report on Tasmanian elections – should be implemented.

Another example of the major parties’ attitudes to integrity is no Liberal or Labor candidate responded to a Tasmanian Constitution Society survey about political donations. Only 32 of the 167 candidates who responded to the survey: all supported public reporting of donations more than $1000.  Both major parties have refused to voluntarily publicly declare donations which further erodes public confidence in our democratic system of government.

Democracy relies on accountability, transparency and integrity to succeed which is why the new parliament should immediately introduce stronger political donations laws and regulations for community grants.

Minority governments: the facts

25 February 2024

Tasmanians have nothing to fear from a minority government. The major party leaders have made their usual declarations they will govern in majority or not at all.

The Liberal and Labor parties warn of the perils of minority governments: they are unstable, unreliable and unable to get anything done. Getting things done requires consultation and compromise. The major parties don’t enjoy governing in minority because they have to consult and compromise more that if they had a majority. 

There are inevitable disagreements coming to an agreed position which creates headlines and social media pile-ons about division and inertia. Voters get the impression the government is chaotic and unable to get anything done. The news is all about the politicians and not policy implementation. The business community contends minority governments create uncertainty that hampers long-term planning which is bad for the economy.

The evidence shows minority governments are not as unstable, unreliable, and unable to get things done as they are perceived. Evidence doesn’t speak as loudly as perception which is often more persuasive than evidence. 

If stability is measured by the length of a government’s term, the number of resignations, and legislative achievement, minority governments score well. 

Nearly a third – eight – of the 22 governments since 1945, including the current one since May last year, governed in minority. The average term of all governments from 1946 to 2021 is 1143 days. The average term of minority governments is 1030 days – 113 days below average. On longevity, there is not a big difference between minority and majority governments.

Resignations: there were four resignations from cabinet in the first two years of the current government’s term, when it had a majority. There was a new cabinet, on average, every six months. 

In the first two years of the minority Labor-Green government, elected in March 2010, there was one resignation from cabinet – Premier David Bartlett.  In the first two years of the 1996-1998 minority Liberal government, there were no resignations. There were no resignations from the 1989-1992 minority government.

There was one resignation from the Liberal-Centre party government in March 1972. The Centre party leader and deputy premier, Kevin Lyons, brought down the government which had been in office almost three years. There was another resignation, albeit short-lived. The Minister for Road Safety, Dr Nigel Abbott, resigned when he failed to fulfill his promise of reducing the road toll and the Legislative Council rejected legislation for on-the-spot fines for traffic offences and a demerit point system. Cabinet persuaded him to return the next day.

The evidence shows – using resignations as a measure of stability – minority governments are as stable as majority governments.

Legislative achievement: minority governments have shown leadership by implementing reforms. In ‘Minority Government: The Liberal Green Experience In Tasmania’, the Mercury’s former political editor, Wayne Crawford, has written the Liberal-Centre party government of 1969–1972 introduced more reform in its three years than the previous 35 years of continuous Labor administrations. 

The government made improvements to the Criminal Code and prison administration, revamped police training, and introduced heating allowances for pensioners. Road deaths and injuries were taken seriously. Dr Abbott was the state’s first dedicated minister for road safety. Breath testing of drivers started in 1969. Random breath testing was not implemented until 1983.  Wearing seatbelts became compulsory in 1971. The road safety initiatives were controversial and there was widespread opposition, including within the governing Liberal party.

Despite the tumultuous times of the Labor-Green government of 1989–1992, there were environmental reforms, and great gains in getting Tasmania out of a deep financial difficulty. Administratively, the government was ahead of its time when it amalgamated government departments that included the creation of the Department of Police and Emergency Services. It also appointed a board to advise on local government reform. The Liberal-Green government of 1996–98  acted on the board’s report. That government – against formidable opposition that included from within the Liberal party – reformed local government and reduced the number of councils from 46 to 29. 

The government strengthened the nation’s weakest firearm laws, which included banning automatic weapons. Tasmanian became the last state in May 1997 to decriminalise homosexuality. The laws went from the most stringent in the nation – a 21-year jail sentence for a breach – to the most progressive.

Liberal premier Tony Rundle said it was “the most dynamic period of government in recent political history.” 

The minority status of the current government has meant – among other things – we have more information about the proposed AFL stadium, Marinus link and pressure has been brought to bear about clamping down on cruelty to animals in abattoirs. 

The Tasmanian Constitution Society is not advocating for a minority government but to point out the evidence shows minority governments are not as bad as the major party leaders would like us to believe.