Hot on the heels of their Pembroke by-election win, the latest EMRS poll provides a further shot in the arm for the Tasmanian Liberals. The survey of 864 voters finds them ahead of Labor for the first time since David Bartlett replaced Paul Lennon as Premier in May 2008. The Liberals are up five points to 41 per cent, while Labor have crashed eight to 35 per cent. The Greens have also benefited from Labor’s collapse, up four points to 21 per cent. The news from the preferred premier ratings is even better for the Liberals: Will Hogdman is up six points to 37 per cent, taking the lead for the first time from Bartlett who is down nine to 30 per cent. Greens leader Nick McKim is up two to 15 per cent. Electorate breakdowns are also provided, for those willing to take such small sample sizes seriously. Much more from Peter Tucker at Tasmanian Politics.
1. The first function of a legislature is to provide a stable government. If you have an electoral system that allows three mutually hostile parties to win seats, and gives the smallest of the three the power to decide which of the other two can form a government, that is not conducive to stable government. This is a problem with all PR legislatures, but it is worse in Tas because of the small size of the house, which makes party hatreds very personal. There is a simple solution – move to a single-seat lower house and a PR upper house.
2. The Greens are not a centrist party, they are a far left party, so the current system enables them to blackmail the other parties into supporting policies which 90% of Tasmanians have voted against.
bob1234 @100
[Your point is?]
You asked how it was disproportionate. I answered your question, that’s all. The point of what I posted was to answer your question. However, since you now raise other points, I’ll respond to them.
[If two parties are on 45% and get 45% of seats each, and one party gets 10% and 10% of seats, that’s completely fair, as is the 10% holding the BOP.]
I don’t agree that it’s completely fair.
[If a left party holds 10 seats and a right party holds 10 seats, and a centrist party holds 5 seats, often they would hold the BOP and rightly so. How does what pursuasion they are, however, change that right?]
I don’t agree that it is a right.
No rational argument has been put to say how it is undemocratic. Rather it’s just a partisan whinge about the Greens holding the BOP. If a party gains 50%+1 of seats, they hold a majority and lock the others out. Democracy at work. Simple.
Psephos @101
[The first function of a legislature is to provide a stable government.]
That’s not obvious.
It’s not a function of legislatures in Presidential democracies to provide stable government.
It wasn’t a function of the original Parliaments in the Middle Ages to provide stable government.
bob1234 @103
[No rational argument has been put to say how it is undemocratic.]
It’s undemocratic in that people don’t get to indicate directly what sort of government they want. There may well be many people who would like to have a Labor-Greens coalition government, but our system gives us no way of finding out how many people want that by letting them vote for it directly. This is a basic problem with all parliamentary democracies. In Germany they’ve actually had SPD-Greens coalition governments, but there’s still no way for people to vote directly for that result. In many countries the practical problem is empirically bigger.
[The first function of a legislature is to provide a stable government.]
This is simply your view. By no means is it definite.
My view is that the parliament’s function is to represent the perspectives and views of the community. PR achieves this much better than single member electorates.
[It’s undemocratic in that people don’t get to indicate directly what sort of government they want.]
The system wasn’t and isn’t designed to vote for a government or party. You vote a candidate to represent your seat as an MP.
[It’s not a function of legislatures in Presidential democracies to provide stable government.
It wasn’t a function of the original Parliaments in the Middle Ages to provide stable government.]
It’s the first function of a modern Westminster legislature.
Oz@106
[My view is that the parliament’s function is to represent the perspectives and views of the community.]
Why? Why can’t the community represent itself?
bob1234@107
[The system wasn’t and isn’t designed to vote for a government or party.]
I know. That’s what’s undemocratic about it.
(Also, PR systems are designed for party voting. Without parties or some equivalent, PR is meaningless.)
Psephos@108
[It’s the first function of a modern Westminster legislature.]
Maybe, but if so that function has been grafted onto an institution still retaining features deriving from its original design for different functions and which hinder the efficient performance of the function you’re talking about.
I didn’t say it was the *only* function.
I think it is better to say that a parliament has to be stable enough to authorise the funds required for the functioning of government. As long as the services of government are funded, then the constitutionality of government stability is irrelevant. As long as funds are provided, a government can just float along doing nothing in minority. It’s not very effective, but it is constitutionally valid.
As long as a budget is passed, and as long as there is not a fixed term parliament that provides for constitutional votes of no confidence, then technically there is no vote that can bring down a government, though continual loss of votes, or an inability to control the adjournment debate, would be frowned upon by a Governor.
As I like to point out, the Country Party’s A.A. Dunstan governed Victoria from 1935 to 1945 in minority as only the third largest party in Parliament. He got his budget through every year, initially with Labor support, later with UAP/Liberal support. But he never actually did enything in that period, just survived because he refused to back either the larger Labor or Liberal parties to form government. It was only in 1945 when the Liberal and Labor parties got sick of this game and defeated his budget that Dunstan was finaly forced out of office. And even then, it took several weeks, the behind the scenes intervention of the Governor, and the appointment of an interim Ministry made up entirely of members retiring at the next election to force Dunstan to finally agree to an election being called.
Psephos @ 110
I know you didn’t. My point is not just that Parliament has multiple functions but that the combination of functions is inharmonious and dysfunctional.
Antony, the question which the case of the Dunstan Goverment raises is whether governmental paralysis is a good thing. I don’t think so. Just saying that it’s constitutional is not a sufficient answer. Constitutional arrangements which enable governmental paralysis are a bad thing, in my view.
In Tasmania between 1989 and 1992, Michael Field lost at least on major vote of no confidence, and quite a few less important ones in individual ministers. He survived because the Greens wouldn’t carry through with a threat to bring the government down if the only result would be an election that re-elected Robin Gray. Once Gray was deposed as Liberal Leader, Field called an early election and lost.
If the next Tasmanian election produces a hung Parliament and Labor stays on in minority, I suspect it will do the same thing, dare the Greens to put it out of office. The outcome would eventually be a new election. It’s why I suspect the governbment has never introduced its fixed term Parliament legislation, so that whoever forms government after the next election, they still have the option of an early election.
J-D – entirely true. Victorian government was paralysed for four decades before 1952. It is one of the reasons why the state developed big public organisations like the Melbourne Board of Works, because government was so unstable that bureacratic bodies took on semi-government functions. Dunstan also did so little that Victorian income tax rates were incredibly low, and when the Commonwealth took over income tax in the war, Victorians got hit by a big increase in tax rates that didn’t help the state’s finances.
[My point is not just that Parliament has multiple functions but that the combination of functions is inharmonious and dysfunctional.]
That’s quite correct. In a modern westminster system, Parliament has three main functions: to provide a basis for stable government, to be a forum for the opinions of the voters, and to scrutinise the executive. The first and second of these functions are in conflict. A legislature which allows multiple parties to gain representation will have difficulty providing stable elections. A legislature which keeps out all minority voices fails its duty to be fully representative. *This is the value of bicameralism.* We have a lower house as a house of government, and an upper house as a house of review. The logical place for minor parties is therefore in the upper house, where they can play a useful part in reviewing legislation and scrutinising the executive. So we should have an election system which allows minor parties to win seats in the upper house, but makes it difficult for them to win seats in the lower house. That’s what we have federally and in every state except Qld (which should re-create its upper house) and Tas (which should change its election system).
will have difficulty providing stable elections. = will have difficulty providing stable government.
Maybe the Greens should be allowed to form government briefly, and Nick McKimm can become the Anderson Dawson of the Green movemement. (Dawson formed a Labor government in Queensland for a week in 1899 while the two non-Labor parties formulated a new pecking order.)
After the 1950 Victorian election, John McDonald formed a Country Party government despite being the third party with only 13 members in the 65 member Assembly. Two years later, he was replaced by Thomas Tuke Hollway as head of an Electoral Reform government, and he only had had 7 members, all of whom got ministries. He was defeated after 4 days, after which the Governor agreed the parliament was unworkable, McDonald was re-appointed caretaker Premier and an early election called which produced the first ever majority Labor government. (It last three years until destoyed by the DLP split.)
In 1921 in NSW, the Dooley Labor government lost control of Parliament. Dooley asked for an election, the request was denied and George Fuller became Premier. His government lasted 7 hours before Dooley was re-appointed premier and his wish for an election was granted.
The last change of governments in unstable parliaments occured in the first term of the ACT Parliament, where the Liberal took over half way through the term after doing a deal with the anti-self-government crowd and one anti-flouridation activist. (They turned the flouride off in the water for a few days at one point.) The Labor party was re-appointed as government eighteen months later, the second change of government in the same term.
With that ACT exception, we haven’t seen revolving door governments anywhere in Australia since 1952, and I don’t think the complexity of modern government could deal with it. All the constitutional precedents are there for the situation where the Bartlett government is defeated in the House and requests an early election, is denied the opportunity, and then Hodgman and the Liberals decline to form government. All precedents at that point would indicate the Greens could be offered and could try to form government, and after defeat, Bartlett would be re-commissioned and granted a dissolution.
I just suspect that these days, all this would be sorted out without having a one week Green government in the interim.
Psephos
Your idea that Tasmania should get single member electorates has two flaws.
It would mean that most seats are safe as houses for each side depriving most of the voters of most of their electoral relevance.
It would take away the voters ability to chose between a selection of candidates from the party they want to vote for.
This combined with a we want our system not te mainland system factor is likely to defeat such a move.
The Greens in Tasmania get a vote in the mid to high teens not 10%.
Antony
The ALP and Nationalists should have got together in the 20s and ended the malapportionment 30 years earlier than happened.
There would have been less paralysis if a Melbourne, Geelong, Ballarat and Bendigo wide councils had got up because they would have been Country Party-free.
[Maybe the Greens should be allowed to form government briefly, and Nick McKimm can become the Anderson Dawson of the Green movement.]
Great idea Antony! Though i’d sure Adam would be spitting chips if this ever happened 😀
120
Gunns would not have the wood chips to donate to the ALP if they did.
[Though i’d sure Adam would be spitting chips if this ever happened ]
Quite so, but I don’t live in Tasmania so it doesn’t matter what I think. I can however tell you that 90% of Tasmanians would be horrified at the idea of a Green government.
122
About 80% or less. Remember that the Greens get a vote in the mid to high teens. They got 16.2% in 2006 and 18.1% (there highest ever in Tasmania) in 2002.
http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/a/australia/states/tas/tas20061.txt
http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/a/australia/states/tas/tas20021.txt
[I can however tell you that 90% of Tasmanians would be horrified at the idea of a Green government.]
No doubt Queenslanders said that in 1899 😉
And it’s not 90%. That’s like saying a majority of Tasmanians would be horrified at the idea of a Labor or Liberal government.
[About 80% or less.]
I stand corrected. I would never argue with statistics from such an unimpeachable source.
[No doubt Queenslanders said that in 1899 ]
Yes they probably did. Labor didn’t actually win an election in Qld until 1915. When the Greens win an election in Tasmania or anywhere else they will be entitled to form a government.
[When the Greens win an election in Tasmania or anywhere else they will be entitled to form a government.]
But as we know from people like Anderson Dawson in QLD in 1899 and Watson federally in 1904, it’s all about the baby steps 🙂
In the case of Watson, and in the case of NSW Labor, it is a matter of moving on from being a balance of power party to being an opposition party. NSW Labor played balance of power party from 1891 to 1904 when they emerged as the Opposition. Once they were the Opposition, the only option they ever had of implementing policy was be getting into government. Federal Labor did the same thing in 1906(7?) in resolving to no longer become involved in the sort of electoral pacts that kept Deakin in office.
With the exception of 2006 when the Greens nominated Cassie O’Connor in Denison, the Tasmanian Greens have never made a serious attempt to win more than a single seat in each electorate. The next step is to go beyond balance of power and become the alternate government.
Or is it only the ‘old’ parties that hang on to old fashioned ideas like government and opposition.
[Federal Labor did the same thing in 1906(7?) in resolving to no longer become involved in the sort of electoral pacts that kept Deakin in office.]
And the Greens may do this as well. But remember, 1906/7 was after 1899 and 1904 😉
Except Bob, when Labor made that decision in 1906/7, they had more seats in Parliament than Deakin. When Deakin continued in Government after the 1906 election, he had less seats than either Labor or the Free Traders. It was one of those situations like Victoria where the smallest party governed. Once Labor made the decision not to back Deakin in Parliament, Deakin was forced to resign and Fisher became Prime Minister in 1908, until the formation of the Fusion Liberal Party in 1909. Labor went on to win the 1910 election easily.
As I said, the next step is to go beyond balance of power.
[As I said, the next step is to go beyond balance of power.]
And Labor didn’t do that until they had formed a minority state AND federal government…
Correct statement Bob, wrong conclusion. It was the transition from being the balance of power to being the Opposition that was important, not the experience of a brief minority government.
I have to say though, I do like the idea of the Greens forming a minority government. It would be educative.
Antony,
Educative for the psephologists and historians that follow. But, bloody hell for those who have to live through it.
It may also be educative for the participants.
Antony,
There’s a fine line between pleasure and pain.
And for the public. Maybe the world won’t end.
[It was the transition from being the balance of power to being the Opposition that was important, not the experience of a brief minority government.]
My point is that it is still very early days for the Greens if you look at it from the perspective of when Labor held BOPs, formed governments, and ultimately the decision to cut off forming any future coalitions and become the opposition.
And Labor got a leg up through multimember seats in the states back then, so they already had a large support base when the single-member federal lower house came along in 1901. Apart from Tas/ACT, I certainly don’t expect the Greens to begin forming governments any time soon. But it is interesting to see how much the Greens have gone up in all state and federal polls since the last election. It kept going up during the Howard years, since then it’s moved even faster.
Early days? The Greens have been around for two decades now and remain a periphery party.
Labor by the the same point in their history had established themselves as a true party of government and were such a force that the non-Labor parties had to amalgamate.
Bob, using NSW Labor as a guide, the Labor Party formed in 1891, held the balance of power and determined who governed at the 1891, 1894, 1895, 1898 and 1901 elections, became the official opposition in 1904 and was majority government in 1910.
The Tasmanian Greens first held the balance of power in 1989, and for a second time in 1996. Perhaps its just harder to break into politics these days.
The shock for Labor was the 1904 election when the Progressive government they had supported for the previous five years in return for concessions disappeared overnight. Suddenly all the tactics used by Labor for 13 years to extraxt concessions in return for support were useless because three-party politics had disappeared.
127
The Greens probably should have tried for a second in Denison in 1989.
If the House of Assemble is re-increased then the Greens should seriously try for a second MHA in both Denison (a likely victory) and Franklin (a chance).
The Greens do aim for government.
Bob, it was the Labor Party in NSW and Queensland that caused the abolition of multi-member seats. Victoria and WA didn’t have them. Only SA retained multi-member electorates until the 1930s.
But in Qld and SA they weren’t multi-member seats in a PR sense, they were just traditional two-member boroughs, inherited from the unreformed House of Commons. Victoria had them in the 19th century.
142
http://elections.uwa.edu.au/electionsearch.lasso?ID=1
This link has Victoria having FPTP two member electorates until abolished for the 1908 election. This was the first election that the election law intentionally allowed women to vote in Victoria.
I believe that the survival of multi-member electorates in the House of Assembly of South Australia was because two-thirds of electorates were required to be outside Adelaide and the majority of the population lived in Adelaide so there were multi-member seats in Adelaide for some balance.
143
I corrected Antony Green on the Victorian dual-member electorates better than you did!
I suppose by the law of averages you were bound to be right about something eventually. It’s taken long enough.
146
I looked it up. You did yours from a vague memory. Since you have the Victorian election results from before 1992 you could have looked it up and given more information like numbers.
I could if I was at home but I’m not.
Were you born this tiresome, or did you study tiresomeness somewhere?
In South Australia, the 2:1 ratio of country:Adelaide seats came after the multi-member seats were abolished. The multi-member seats were not just in Adelaide but for the whole State, and they were all abolished and replaced from 1938 with single-member seats, 13 in the ‘central’ (Adelaide) zone and 26 outside it.
Victoria had single member electorates from 1903, except for a single two-member electorate reserved for railway workers which was used at the 1904 election. I will have to check in books tomorrow how many multi-member electorates there were pre-1903. That UWA site you refer is says that the 1904 election was conducted with “One and two member districts, first past the post (plurality) voting ” but the footnote on the same page says there was only one 2-member electorate. Vamplew (1988) says that single member electorates applied from 1903, and I’ll have to check at work tomorrow what Hughes and Graham (1965) has to say.
But as Psephos said, the multi-member nature was irrelevant because of ‘plumping’. It was first past the post in multi-member electorates. I can’t speak for other states, but the abolition of those multi-member seats was written as one of the first items in the Labor Party platform for the 1891 NSW election, so it’s a bit hard to say Labor got a kick along because of system Labor pledged to abolish. It appears that Labor at the 1891 NSW election may have played games with the number of candidates it nominated in the multi-member districts, but as far as I know there isn’t a contemporary source that backs this as being a tactic. I can’t speak for other states.