Sue Hickey Disendorsed And Leaves The Liberal Party

I am still on remote fieldwork for another few days but the developments of the last two days deserve a quick post.  Yesterday Tasmanian House of Assembly Speaker Sue Hickey and Premier Peter Gutwein both announced that Gutwein had told Hickey that there was insufficient support for re-endorsing her as a Liberal candidate in the next Tasmanian state election.  While no formal endorsement announcements have been made, this effectively ensures that Hickey is disendorsed.  

What got us here?

For interstate and international audiences and any Tasmanians who have spent the last few years down a cave, Hickey is a former Hobart Lord Mayor, small businesswoman and long-time and long-suffering Liberal who was elected to state parliament in 2018, polling just under two-thirds of a quota in her own right.  Even before her election, Hickey had showed that she was about as left-wing as one can get in the Liberal Party without falling off the edge of the plane.  She was overlooked for an immediate ministry, but claimed she had been promised a ministry if she ran and was elected.  On the first day of the parliament, Hickey accepted a nomination from the opposition benches and was elected Speaker instead of the Government's nominee Rene Hidding.  It was a secret ballot but one can safely assume Hickey's thirteen votes were ten Labor, two Greens and herself.  

That was not new ground - Graeme Page had pulled off a similar heist in 1992 yet been re-endorsed in 1996.  However, Hickey soon went further by voting independently, using her casting vote alongside Labor and the Greens on numerous motions.  One that particularly embarrassed the Liberal Party was Hickey's support for birth certificate gender reforms, an issue the government can do nothing about because legislation supported by Hickey, Labor and the Greens passed both houses of parliament and now cannot be undone.  No example of this legislation causing the sky to fall in in any of the ways foreshadowed by opponents is known to me, but for culture warriors this one is a big deal. It is also a problem for the government because it signals that Hickey might vote against the government again if re-endorsed.   Hickey has also threatened to quit the party before, although relations between her and the party improved for a time following the resignation of former Premier Will Hodgman.

Has the government lost its majority?

Sue Hickey has made a number of rather confusing statements on this, the sum total of which appears to be that she has not yet formally resigned from the party but is about to do so (if it doesn't expel her first).  In any case she has made her intentions clear enough, including that she intends to run as an independent for Clark.  However when asked if she was leaving the party on March 22, Hickey stated "Not today".  While Tasmania isn't technically yet in minority government as I write, it may as well be, and formally will be within a few days (either via Hickey formally quitting the party or by her being expelled for stating an intention to run against it).  That is, unless Madeleine Ogilvie becomes a Liberal to counter Hickey's departure.  

Update: as of Wednesday, Hickey is self-describing as Independent so we are finally really there, Tasmania is in minority government.

Is the stability of the parliament at risk?

At the moment it is not clear that Hickey's actions pose a stability threat. While Hickey has threatened to withdraw confidence if she detects any "corruption", ex-Labor Independent Madeleine Ogilvie has been very supportive of the government and seems unlikely to expedite an election where she will probably lose her seat.  Then again, a day is a long time (etc) so we'll have to see how things play out as parliament resumes.  The government would probably like to use the Hickey situation as an excuse to have an election sooner rather than later but that doesn't mean such an excuse will fly.

Will there be an early election?

Both the clearing of the decks re the Hickey matter and the recent comments by Premier Gutwein that Tasmania will "have an election when it needs it" suggest the government is at least looking very seriously at an election sometime in the next six months.  Of course this is not set in stone and the advantage of incumbency is being able to alter such plans should circumstances change.  But I suspect the government is quite keen to find a pretext for an early election that the voters will accept in order to win while it can and while the governments of insular states are doing so well.  The message from Western Australia, whose Premier Mark McGowan has been swapping opinion poll records with Peter Gutwein, is that voters are ready to reward governments that are seen as having kept their states safe.  That said, (i) while apparently lacking much inspiration or any idea how to fight a government in this situation, the Tasmanian Labor opposition is nowhere near as hapless as the WA Liberals (ii) winning majorities in Hare-Clark is hard, and vote shares that would bring hefty wins in other systems could yet fall short of a majority in Tasmania.

My feeling is that the government will be very keen to win at least twelve seats outside Clark (four threes or at least one set of four) in order to not leave Clark to chance.

Can Hickey win as an independent?

Hickey's electoral form guide from Hobart Council was very impressive, and she might have attracted more support when running for Clark (then Denison) in 2018 had she not been a Liberal candidate.  However, with Glenorchy Mayor Kristie Johnston also announcing an independent run, and Ogilvie potentially in the mix as well, there is a crowded field of high-profile independent contenders for the seat.  Johnston has an even more formidable electoral record in local government and has the advantage of not having been tied to any one party.  

There are many kinds of voters who might vote for Hickey.  Inner city Hobart voters who are motivated by social issues and who swung from the Greens to Labor last election have probably fallen out of their newfound love with Labor after it junked its poker machine policy, and might move on to Hickey instead (that said Johnston will also compete for these votes).  Hickey's advocacy on affordable housing, for instance, could stand her in good stead with such voters.  Hickey would still retain substantial support through former business connections, and there will be people who vote for her because she is seen as being a character, speaking her mind and standing up to party machines.  Liberal wets might also vote for her, but I suspect that the COVID environment could mean they are generally happy with how their party is travelling.  

There will be some preference flow between the various independents, but it may be difficult to generate really high flows (above, say, 50% in the form 1 Hickey 2 Johnston or the other way around).  Hickey probably wouldn't need to match her 2018 vote of 11%, but would need to get something like, say, 8% and also get more than Johnston.  That is, unless there is enough vote for two independents, which seems a big ask.  Geography will play a role in that Johnston will probably have more appeal in most of the northern suburbs while Hickey will be better known in Hobart City.  

No independent has won since the House was reduced in size at the 1998 election.  However, this is largely because there have been so few serious attempts to win.  As for the general history of candidates who were disendorsed and ran as independents, some have been very successful and some have failed dismally.  

The risk also for all independents is an election like Western Australia, in which voters so wholeheartedly endorsed the sitting government that almost all other political movements did badly.  

As events unfold over coming days I may add updates to this article, but during Tuesday at least I will be working during the day so there may be delays.

How common is non-reendorsement?

It is very rare in the Hare-Clark system for sitting MHAs to not be re-endorsed.  The system allows for the voters to remove controversial MPs and replace them with others from the same party and thus the general tendency is for all MPs to be re-endorsed.  However this has backfired badly for Labor in the case of Madeleine Ogilvie.  A reader who is very informed re Tasmanian political history has suggested that the last Liberal case of a non-reendorsement was Gabriel Haros (1986) - this is also the last case I am aware of.