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.
In summary (updated from time to time) Labor's motion appears unlikely to succeed unless there is progress on convincing the Greens to vote for it.
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 or against the motion
Likely: Has ruled out confidence for one side and expressed clear possible interest in supporting the other without apparent reservations
Potential: There is some indication that this person might vote on this side - either a previous no confidence vote without a clear new position, or a statement indicating they wouldn't vote for the other side without changes
TBD: Did not support previous no-confidence motion and has not given a clear indication of preferring one side over the other (has either criticised both sides or neither).
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.
It's possible in theory for an MP to abstain from voting on a no-confidence motion by leaving the chamber. However I can't remember a case where it ever occured. It could also create ambiguity as a defeated Prenier might argue they could recapture support from the abstainers.
-------------------------
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 said they will not do any deals with the Greens.
* Have made policy concessions:
- phase out support for greyhound racing by 2029.
- moratorium on marine salmon farming expansion pending an independent study of industry's sustainability
* Have secured a statement of intent from David O'Byrne but no other guarantees of supply and confidence
Labor (10)
* Moved final no-confidence motion in previous Parliament, but voted against amendment to include stadium in reasons
* Will move or support a motion of no confidence in Rockliff and confidence in Winter on first sitting day
* Will make Ruth Forrest Treasurer if they form government. Forrest will be the sole non-Labor Minister and Craig Farrell will resign as President of the Legislative Council to become Leader of Government Business
* Have released an integrity policy*
* Are negotiating with all non-Greens crossbenchers and have discussed a confidence and stability plan with them. This was released on 17 August.
* Have had meetings with Greens, but 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) - not supporting motion
* 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)
* Said on Aug 7 Labor needs to have "meaningful conversations, negotiations" and that "That hasn’t happened yet and with 12 days until parliament, this is getting serious." Had face to face talks with Labor on Aug 10 described as "the start of a conversation"
* Said on Aug 12 that at this stage they could not support motion, citing lack of policy compromise on stadium, environment and "budget repair so that money goes back into health and housing". Claimed Winter had "no capacity or intention to negotiate in good faith". Said they were not giving the Liberals a guarantee of supply.
* Have said they don't have confidence in Jeremy Rockliff but also do not want to cause another election
* Have ruled out abstaining on the motion
* On 18 Aug confirmed they would not support intended motion
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
* Has said he will not support Liberals unless they completely drop proposal to phase out greyhound racing
* Later was less forthright on the subject but has been said by Labor to be "unlikely" to support Liberals
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 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
* However has since said that both major parties "are stuck in majority government headspace"
* Has now said he may support Liberals if they are willing to compromise and make concessions.
* Has been reported by Labor as saying he is "unlikely" to support Liberals
Peter George (IND) - not supporting motion
* 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 supported making Ruth Forrest Treasurer.
* Has positively reported that he discussed a possible supply and confidence arrangement with Labor, without any decisions being taken at the time
* Has now expressed concern that Labor "needs to understand that minority government means actually compromising and collaborating"
* As of 14/8 said he was having difficulty deciding who to support
* On 15/8 said that either side offering a moratorium on salmon farm expansion would "essentially" win his support subject to conditions
* On 17/8 said Liberal offer fell "somewhat short of what we [he and Garland] are seeking" but was welcome
* On 18/8 said Liberals appeared to be best grasping what was involved in governing in minority and Labor were not ready
* On 19/8 confirmed he would not support motion
Kristie Johnston (IND) - not supporting motion
* 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
* On 18 Aug announced she would not be supporting Labor's proposed motion.
David O'Byrne (IND) - not supporting motion
* 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
* Has said he will be influenced by Labor's poor result but also by the "size, scope and opinions of the crossbench"
* As of 17 Aug has reportedly confirmed he will support Rockliff on the motion and will provide a "letter of intent"
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!)
* Has said discussions with Labor about collaboration were "positive"
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.
ReplyDeleteIf I were them, I'd use full leverage and vote down the no confidence bill if Labor refuse to talk to the Greens. That would leave an unstable Liberal government liable to fall at any moment, and the ball squarely in Labor's court to come grovelling back at some point in the term and make a deal. It's high risk, of course, but the alternative is being sidelined and taken for granted, and that's not what Greens voters elected them for.
DeleteIf the no confidence motion does not pass, then I cannot see a successful one unless the ALP sees opinion polls with them in the 40s
DeleteThis seems to be setup to force crossbenches and Greens to pick between Liberal, Labor and another election. It’s a good plan by both major parties (might not be stable) as anyone who brings down the government can be said to be destabilising it. It does also push the “No Everything” camp to actually say Yes to something.
ReplyDeletePrediction is the greens will not support Winter into government, will then let the labor leadership spill happen and work with the new leader (likely labor left) to get more of their policies over the line. Leadership vote will be fascinating in the context of what the potential new leaders would do re forming government on the floor
ReplyDeleteCan Labor just... not support a no confidence motion? I almost think languishing in opposition for the next term is almost preferable for them - the next government is a poison pill.
ReplyDeleteLet's say Dean becomes Premier after not even pulling down a full quota. He spends the entire next 3 years working with a crossbench that is primarily opposed to their base of resource economy workers. Eric Abetz spends the entire term labelling him as "backdoor Dean". Next election, there's a real threat that the pendulum swings entirely back into Liberal's favour - hell, even the romantic mysticism that surrounds the Independents may even be dissolved by then (like if Di Falco keeps doing interviews bringing up Port Arthur).
Premier at any cost?
Problem then is what's the point of them. As I said in the Tally Room podcast (https://www.tallyroom.com.au/60946) they said the budget crisis was so bad we had to have a no-confidence motion (and as a result of that an election) to get rid of Rockliff, but now they're not going to form government to get rid of him because it's all too hard talking to the Gr**ns and getting trolled by Eric, what kind of opposition is that.
DeleteComment from Adam:
ReplyDelete---
Kevin we can all speculate what may or may not happen but truely no one really knows what’s going to happen when parliament sits.
That said how silly would Dean Winter look if he moved a no confidence motion in the Government but most of the independents and all of the greens abstained from voting. Yes the government wouldn’t fall ( at that point anyway ) and both the Libs/ Labs would be left high and dry. The Labor party could at that point elect another leader - perhaps as others say - from the left and with no baggage - which may make talking to the Greens a little easier.
With Winter no longer leader perhaps Tasmania could move into a more stable Government cycle and tackle the serious financial problems now facing Tasmania.
Not worrying about the next election cycle and repairing the economic problems Tasmania faces is perhaps the greats challenge for our elected representatives.
On another note I can’t help thinking that appointing Abetz as treasurer was a skilful move on the premiers behalf - it’s possible the pain Tasmanians will endure as the states economic woes are addressed will rest entirely at Mr Abetz’s feet and end his quest to become Premier.
Thank you Kevin for your very informative and at times entertaining blog.
It’s a breath of fresh air in a large uninformed media world.
If Labor succeeds in motioning no confidence in the Liberals, but fails to win the confidence of the House, what options does the Governor have apart from an election to see some sort of government formed? Would she appoint the person with the most confidence or the person most likely to have the confidence or would the leaders have to change and another confidence vote have to take place?
ReplyDeleteThe Labor motion will be worded as a two-in-one (no confidence in Rockliff or his government and confidence in Winter). If the motion gets amended to remove the confidence in Winter bit I suspect Labor will drop it. However, let's say the motion passes but there was some misunderstanding and confidence in Winter immediately collapses. In this case the Governor would appoint the person who in her judgement was most likely to command the confidence of the House going forwards - this could in theory be a crossbencher. It could also be a new leader of either major party, but that would be subject to evidence that they could command confidence at all. The margins of previous no confidence motions would be irrelevant to this decision unless someone had changed their mind. If no person with a reasonable chance of maintaining confidence for a reasonable time could be found, the Governor would call an election, possibly after commissioning a crossbencher as caretaker Premier in order that that person could advise one.
DeleteThanks, Kevin. I do believe Labor will go for a two-in-one motion, as was done in 1989. By doing this Labor essentially trap the Greens between supporting Rockliff, which they will never do or giving Winter confidence without a deal. This, I believe, will also remove the option of the governor asking for individual assurances from members if the motions pass; she still might, which could risk Winter's government immediately losing confidence, but it is unlikely. More broadly, Labor's view of the Greens being a poison pill might be a thorn in their side in a future Labor government; it would be more prudent in my eyes to negotiate with them; however, this contradicts previous commitments, meaning it will never happen. Labor can't realistically form government in Tasmania without negotiating with the Greens and until they realise this, they'll have a hard time forming or getting close to government.
DeleteKevin,
ReplyDeleteIs it possible that if both Liberal and Labour fail to receive a vote of confidence then the Governor can appoint Ministers of her choice to run the State without the need for another election which would be as popular as an Ice Cream salesman selling his products to Eskimos? In other words what powers does Governor have outside of naming a Premier? A multi party/ Independent Cabinet could be possible , many countries have multi party cabinets , what’s to say it couldn’t be tried here? Jim Howrah
The Governor appoints the Premier and appoints the Ministers on the Premier's recommendation. If both Labor and Liberal failed to receive confidence the Governor would need to find someone else - it doesn't matter who - who in the Governor's view had a reasonable chance to maintain confidence of the House for a reasonable time. If no such person exists a new election must be held. If such a person does exist they might well recommend a multi-party Cabinet. The Governor can't just go declaring an executive government without reference to the wishes of parliament as this would be undemocratic and unaccountable.
DeleteInteresting development today with Green announcement. It looks as if Rockliff will survive the no confidence motion unless Winter breaks his promises
ReplyDeleteInteresting to see what Peter George does as the Libs have offered up the moratorium on fish farms expansion.
ReplyDelete