Labor or an independent expected to move constructive no confidence motion
----
This morning Premier Rockliff met with Governor Baker and sought to be recommissioned pending the meeting of Parliament to determine his Government's fate. The speed with which this request was granted, entirely in accordance with precedent (see detailed reasons here) should be a wake-up call to those at The Australian and the ABC who entertained that it might be otherwise and repeatedly passed off an international law expert as a constitutional law expert (and later even as 'some experts') in order to do so. The interesting news is that matters will come to a head sooner rather than later with the faster than expected recall of Parliament on August 19 to sort out the mess. No date earlier than the start of September had previously been seen in speculation.
In my pathways to government article I explored three main pathways to forming the next government: a Liberal government with formalised confidence and supply, a Liberal government without formalised confidence and supply, and a Labor government with presumptive confidence and supply following a successful no-confidence motion. The first of these looks less likely following Craig Garland's announcement that he will not be making a confidence agreement with the Liberals and will be exploring possible arrangements with Labor.
As I start this article there is evident potential for Labor's motion to succeed, leading to a change of government, but there are also possible obstacles to it doing so.
This article is to track progress towards either side having 18 votes on the no-confidence motion/amendment expected to be moved on the first sitting day. It is confined to public statements and simply seeks to summarise every party's or member's position based on information to hand.
In the tracking tally above I classify parties or crossbenchers as follows:
Confirmed: Has signed a confidence and supply agreement or has clearly stated they will vote for the motion
Likely: Has ruled out confidence for one side and expressed clear possible interest in supporting the other
Potential: Voted no confidence in other side in the previous parliament, or has criticised one side while expressing possible interest in supporting the other. Listing as "potential" or "likely" does not mean it is impossible for the MP to support the other side.
Other things about the no-confidence motion
I would expect Labor to obtain constitutional law advice on the exact content of the no-confidence motion.
The most common form for a no-confidence motion on the sitting of Parliament is an amendment to the Address-In-Reply (see previous article for 1989 example)
The first order of business for the House prior to resumption is the election of the Speaker. Frequently in such cases this has served as a proxy for the subsequent no confidence vote but that will not necessarily follow in this case. (I have a Not-A-Poll on preferred Speaker on the sidebar, but may put one up with fewer options when the field narrows). The Speakership election will not affect the outcome of the confidence vote unless an odd number of MPs do not vote for whatever reason.
A no confidence motion can be amended by the House, subject to the will of the Speaker if that will is upheld by the House. If an amendment succeeds the vote would then be on the motion as amended. However if the amendment was to remove the statement of confidence in Dean Winter, Labor might respond by abandoning the motion on the grounds that the crossbench were not committed to stable government.
It is possible that the Liberals could survive the initial no-confidence motion but be brought down by (yet) another one weeks or months later - this could happen if some crossbenchers feel the return to Parliament is too soon for them to have completed negotiations and information-gathering and want more time.
It is also possible that Labor could form government following the motion but that this government could also prove unstable, especially if crossbenchers were unhappy with Labor (in)actions on their policy interests.
-------------------------
Liberals (14)
* Have been recommissioned to form government pending survival on floor of the House
* Have released a stability framework for discussion with crossbenchers
* Have not secured any known guarantees of supply and confidence
* Have said they will not do any deals with the Greens.
Labor (10)
* Moved final no-confidence motion in previous Parliament, but voted against amendment to include stadium in reasons
* Are seeking to negotiate with all non-Greens crossbenchers and are discussing a confidence and stability plan with them, but have not released it publicly subject to discussion of its contents with them
* Have had one brief discussion with Greens, at their instigation, and have not included Greens in stability plan process
* Have ruled out any "deal" with Greens, but appear willing to accept their support on confidence and supply if given freely
Greens (5)
* Voted for multiple no-confidence motions in previous Parliament, and to amend final no-confidence motion to include stadium
* Have repeatedly said that Labor needs to have meaningful discussions with them about how Parliament would operate.
* Will not give "enduring and stable" support for full term without discussions. (Detailed comments here)
Carlo Di Falco (SF+F)
* New to Parliament
* Has stated he is open to working with either side
* Has stated policy priorities including gun and deer culling laws, telecommunications and rural health that will affect his support
Craig Garland (IND)
* Voted for final no-confidence motion in previous Parliament, and to amend final no-confidence motion to include stadium
* Initially expressed openness to working with either side
* Has now stated that he will not be making a confidence and supply agreement with Liberals, and is open to voting no confidence in them again
* Has said that only Labor can deliver stable government and is interested in discussions with Labor
Peter George (IND)
* New to Parliament
* Has said he would not have voted for no-confidence motion in previous Parliament
* Reported before election as not intending to sign confidence and supply agreements
* Has said support for "a minority government" is conditional on progress on key issues including phasing out salmon farming and most native forest logging, abandoning Macquarie Point stadium, and transparency improvements, a well as housing, health and education
* Has criticised Liberals' stability framework and approach to negotiations
* Has positively reported that he discussed a possible supply and confidence arrangement with Labor, without any decisions being taken at the time
Kristie Johnston (IND)
* Initially provided letter to previous Rockliff Government outlining an approach to questions of confidence and supply. This was widely misinterpreted as a statement of confidence and supply but was not
* Voted for multiple no-confidence motions in previous parliament, including attempt to amend final no-confidence motion to include stadium
* Reported before election as not intending to sign confidence and supply agreements
* Issued joint statement with Peter George and Craig Garland
David O'Byrne (IND)
* Supported Liberals on confidence and supply in previous parliament, including signing agreement and voting against all no-confidence motions on floor
* Withdrew confidence support from Michael Ferguson as a Minister, triggering Ferguson's resignation from Cabinet
* Has stated he is open to working with either side
* Has stated he will not accept any ministerial or parliamentary position
* Has stated his approach will be not "transactional" and will be focused on stability not policy outcomes
George Razay (IND)
* New to parliament
* Has said that on Launceston Council he doesn't telegraph decisions in advance of making them
* Has said he will work with whoever is able to form government (has not said how he will contribute to deciding who that is!)
I suspect Winter will only talk to independents. The Greens have already said they don’t support the Libs so he will ignore them. Then Winter puts his motion of no confidence in the Libs and confidence in himself and see how the Greens vote. Then if the Greens support it without any “deal” then he can say he did not do a deal with the Greens. If the Greens vote against the no confidence motion then he can say that the Greens supported the Libs. The issue will be how the Greens will react. Will they support the motion when they have had no real discussions with the ALP.
ReplyDelete