Tasmania 2025: What Went Down When Gray Met The House In 1989

The State Of Play

It's been a rather slow lead-in to Tuesday's resumption of parliament following the as-yet not-firmly-resolved 2025 Tasmanian state election.  Although it has been known for eleven days now that parliament will be resuming on Tuesday, it took til today for any of the seven crossbench units (David O'Byrne for Rockliff) to clearly state support for one side or the other.  Three (the Greens re Labor, Craig Garland and Carlo di Falco re Liberals) have so far said at some stage that they weren't backing one side or the other unless something changes, but all have left the door open for the target of their disappointment to come good.  (See my confidence position tracker for a summary of who has said what.)

An apparently major issue for Labor's foreshadowed constructive no-confidence motion that would be designed to replace Jeremy Rockliff with Dean Winter is the position of the Greens, although it's not clearcut that the motion will pass even if the Greens support it.  There is an impass here in that the Greens are saying they cannot support Labor's motion without concessions on key policy areas but Labor is saying it won't provide any because it went to the election with a clear platform of doing no deals with the Greens.  I'd suggest that the two parties badly need a neutral mediator here except it's not clear these positions can be mediated, and presumably Labor would consider any outcome of a mediation to be a deal with the Greens.  (I have devised a magnificent scheme in which it would actually be a deal with the mediator, which the margin of this page is too small to contain etc ...)

Amid this there is currently widespread doubt that Labor's motion will be successful and a minority view that it might not even go ahead at all   Perhaps some of this overplays the value to the crossbench of the government's moves on forestry, greyhounds and salmon farming - given that this government has promised all kinds of reviews and closures that have not happened or have achieved nothing before.  Is the government just saying anything to try to stay in power as long as it can?  Will it really deliver?  However the crossbench may reason that if it does not they can always throw it out down the track and either install Labor or tie Labor to their inability to do so.  

Some on social media have even been tempted by the deep waters of Labor's motion being amended to a destructive no-confidence motion like the June motion (which just expresses no confidence in Rockliff and leaves the Governor to sort out the mess).  It is not that clear to me why any of the three big players should support such an amendment - the Greens given that it could well result in Winter becoming Premier for nothing further in return, the Liberals because it could let Winter in without making the Greens directly own it, or Labor because they would have a lot of explaining to do as to how the parliament had confidence in their guy when it just passed up an opportunity to express that confidence.  Indeed the Governor might want to see something from the Greens to explain such a position, and the Greens might not want to provide such a something without movement on policy, and round and round we go again.  

The point of such an amendment would be if the Greens wanted to put Labor in power but without being tied to a positive statement that they have confidence in Labor, but I think their reluctance to back Labor for nothing goes further than that.  

The Incumbency Trap

Partly the problem for Labor is that our system is incumbency-based - the election was inconclusive so the incumbent continues til the Parliament decides otherwise.  As discussed by Chris Monnox in our recent Tally Room podcast, the ACT has a neutral system where the initial Chief Minister is elected by the Parliament after each election.  In our system, for the Greens to put Labor into office they need to throw the Liberals out.  That then puts them in a position where they are basically tied to Labor for the rest of the term, having burnt the option of accepting the Liberals' initial offer and trying to get more concessions out of their desire to stay in office.  If they then bring Labor down for not delivering policy concessions that Labor never said it would give in the first place, that's going to look a bit awkward, especially if the only way to then avoid an election is to crawl back to the Liberals having previously rejected their offers to support Labor for nothing.  It might be different if the Greens were making a fresh choice between the two on level terms.  

Something else I have seen is a view that the crossbench should not be chasing policy concessions in particular from Labor and at this point should be more concerned with process, because there will be wins on the floor given the "progressive" (did I mention I can't stand that word?) nature of the parliament.  This narrative is at very best naive.  On the major issues of crossbcnch concern (such as salmon, the stadium and logging) there is very little daylight between the major parties and there is no reason to believe the crossbench will make gains on the floor on issues where the majors will team up to vote them down. The Greens are in a conundrum here because their supporters strongly prefer Labor to the Liberals, but it's doubtful that putting Labor into office will result in better outcomes on core Green issues, even ignoring the incumbency-based strategic issues mentioned above.  

1989: Rock And Roll All Nite

As a prelude to whatever might or might not happen this week, I give below a not especially short summary of the events of 28-29 June 1989, taken from the Historic Hansard.  There are a few general points to make about this.

Firstly, the outcome of the 1989 no-confidence motion was known in advance (unless someone unexpectedly switched sides).  However, Labor and the Independents wanted to be very clear about the messaging they were sending to the Governor that they had no confidence in Gray, and had confidence in Field, lest Gray attempt any delaying tactics or milk any co-operation from the House to try to call an election.  In this case, Jeremy Rockliff isn't likely to seek a further election.  I'm not expecting therefore to see another all-night sitting.  I'd be surprised to see the same level of procedural chaos, but we could see some if MPs are still deciding their positions during the debate.  

Secondly, because of standard procedural matters with the resumption of Parliament, the first day proceeded very slowly.  This is, unfortunately, likely to happen again - but the timeline in 1989 blew out by several hours because Labor and the Independents proceeded with their no-confidence motion as a motion on notice that then led to a massive side-debate about hours of proceedings and control of the House.

Thirdly, smooth Speakership is essential.  I cannot stress this enough and I hope the Parliament will think very carefully about who they elect as Speaker this week.  Speakers with the procedural knowledge base of Michelle O'Byrne and Michael Polley do not grow on trees but in some earlier terms of this Government we often saw the House suspended while the Speaker left the chair to seek advice on how to do to chair a debate.  If that happens again frequently in this no-confidence debate and it gets messy, we will be here all week!  I hope the Parliament will consider the Speaker's ability to chair the more complex debates above party considerations in deciding who to select for the role.  

Now, here is a recap of the 1989 debate:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

After moving to the Legislative Council chamber to hear the Commission read, the 35 MPs (31 men and four women, was this really so long ago?) were all sworn or affirmed in as MPs.  The first order of business was the Speaker election where Robin Gray first moved that Tony Rundle be made Speaker.  Gray spent much of his speech in favour of Rundle throwing shade at Michael Polley, who interjected while he still could.  Ray Groom also spoke in favour of Rundle, Field nominated Polley and Gerry Bates seconded that nomination. 

Polley won the ballot.  There is a myth that Gray's government fell at this point, but Polley being able to win the ballot was widely seen as a litmus test for the proceedings to follow - something that might not apply this time should the major parties decide there should be a crossbench Speaker. Upon Polley winning the Speaker election, Ron Cornish (Liberal) commenced a "congratulatory" speech that started by tracing the history of the office of Speaker back to 1377.  This was interrupted by Polley who said that Cornish was not speaking to a motion before the Chair and had one minute to wind up, but Cornish said he had been given the call and had 40 minutes.  Cornish continued for several minutes more before being interrupted by Polley suspending the sitting from 12:17 to 3 pm so he could be presented to the Governor as required by the Constitution.

On resumption, members adjourned to the Legislative Council to hear an address from the Governor and shortly after the sitting was adjourned again until 4:30 pm. At this point Premier Gray announced his ministry that had been sworn in to meet the constitutional seven day deadline, and Michael Field announced himself as Opposition Leader and also announced his Deputy and Opposition Whip.  David Crean (ALP) was elected unopposed as Chairman of Committees and the Speaker nominated Deputy Chairs.  Numerous petitions were then presented including two with over 25 000 signatures combined calling for a new election.

At this point, we got to the first no-confidence attempt with Bob Brown (effective leader of the proto-Green Independents) giving notice of a motion of no-confidence and then seeking leave to move that standing orders be suspended to proceed with the motion.  Gray said he was prepared to allow the motion to go ahead forthwith subject to an understanding about the hours of sitting, ostensibly so the media and public could follow the debate.  Gray proposed that the debate continue not later than 11:30 pm and then resume at 10 am the next day.  Field and the Independents did not accept this and the motion to seek leave to move that standing orders be suspended was passed 18-17 on the Speaker's casting vote.

Brown moved on to move that Standing Orders be suspended, but required a two-thirds majority for this to pass.  (This bizarre and inflexible requirement is a relic from the 19th century that does not exist in other Australian parliaments as I documented here.  The Parliament set it aside for the most recent term, but only for that term, so it is now functional again until the new Parliament decides otherwise. In the 2024-5 term the motion to set new Standing Orders for the term was moved after debate on the Address-In-Reply to the Governor had commenced.) 

Brown and Field spoke to this motion, arguing that the voters had spoken and it was time to put the election to bed rather than letting the defeated government continue to filibuster and whip up turbulence.  Gray then spoke against the motion to suspend standing orders at length, arguing again that the no-confidence motion should be debated when it could be best scrutinised, and suggesting Labor and the  Independents had forgotten about the two-thirds rule.  He also started to draw attention to various times when Labor had promised to avoid governing with the Greens on the campaign trail, and trying to embarrass Labor about recording its worst primary vote since 1906 (hmmm sounds familiar).  Gray also suggested the Independents were inconsistent as they had often opposed all-night sittings before.

Debate continued on the SSO for some time with Deputy Labor Leader Peter Patmore saying that they would not agree to the Government's proposal because they did not trust the Government one iota.  Deputy Premier Ray Groom (Liberal) spoke in large part echoing Gray and also introducing the first mention of psephology in the debate.  Malcolm Mackerras had published an article in the Canberra Times (I have not yet found the full article) arguing that the Independents were rorting Hare-Clark by lining up as a block behind Labor, given that their supporters had preferenced Labor over the Liberals by a margin which he gave as 77-23 (my own calculations are similar).  After all Gray's government would have clearly won a two-party preferred vote in 1989.  

Nick Evers (Liberal) also accused Labor and the Independents of stuffing up by bringing on the motion and Cornish threatened that the Liberals would move to adjourn and filibuster the adjournment motion too.  There were eight more speakers (seven of them Liberals) and finally Roger Groom (Liberal) offered that if Labor was concerned about a perception that the Liberals were in control of the House, then the parties could negotiate different hours for debate.  Field said that he would accept this proposal if Roger Groom would allow him to move the adjournment, and the House was suspended from 9:31 pm to 10:59 pm for negotiations.

On resumption, Field stated that the Government had rejected an offer in which the debate would be adjourned.  Roger Groom said the proposal involved the Speaker leaving the chair at midnight without an adjournment vote and that this was irregular.  The SSO debate continued until 11:30 pm when in accordance with Standing Orders a motion to adjourn was automatically put.

Various Liberals spoke about whatever they liked through to 12:30 am  - this included Ray Groom providing information on the Government's sources of constitutional advice (including on whether it could call a new election).  At this time the adjournment motion was put, and defeated along party lines.  The SSO debate finally wound up and Standing Orders were not suspended.

As the next item of substantial business the Governor's Speech was presented and the Address In Reply moved by Bill Bonde (Liberal).  Bonde spoke at some length in praise of the Government including saying that "nobody could claim by any stretch of the imagination that this Government lost government on 13 May" (history now records that it did exacrly that).  John The Duke Of Avram (Liberal) then seconded the Address In Reply, this being also his debut speech.  At some points along the line the Government had called for quorum perhaps in the hope that everyone had fallen asleep outside the chamber and the parliament might adjourn.  Following this, at around 2:45 am (!), Bob Brown dropped his original Notice of Motion and moved the key constructive amendment that was to bring down the Government.

The Motion! (Yes We Are Finally There)

This was then seconded by Field, who among other things said that in no case had a Governor not offered an Opposition a chance to form Government if the Government was defeated on the floor after an election at the first available chance.  Gray, interjecting, called Field "Mr one-third" referencing a vote share that Labor in 2025 could only wish they had.  (Actually it was 34.7%).  

Gray in response claimed that he won the election.  Gray blasted the media including The Mercury for their coverage of the aftermath.  Rundle in an interjection mentioned an Examiner "poll" said to show 18% support for the Labor-Green accord.  Gray said that various newspapers had reported the Independents as saying they would support the party with most seats, though the Independents had denied this.  Gray spoke at much length about various issues he had with the Labor-Green accord (mainly on environmental policy) and said that 70% of working class voters had voted Liberal.  He also talked of his Government's success in establishing ... the salmon industry!

Ray Groom then spoke on the motion quoting numerous pre-election statements about how Labor would form no coalitions (and indeed they did not form one) and do "no deals on policy".  Groom again referenced Mackerras who had said that the ousting of Gray was "a scandalous procedure because it assumes as true the lie that the deal has the approval of all Labor and all Green voters".  

Former Labor Premier Harry Holgate then spoke, referencing his own experience with losing a no confidence vote and pointing out that the judgement of the voters had included a large swing (it was 7,3%) against Gray's Liberals.  During his speech he suddenly moved that the amendment be now put.  Over protestations from Peter Hodgman and Ron Cornish the Speaker called a division immediately.  The Liberals did not move from their seats and the procedural motion was deemed carried unanimously.

Polley then put the question that Brown's amendment to the motion be added.  Cornish tried to move dissent from the Speaker's refusal of a point of order during the previous division and Gray said "You are going to get an election over this, mate" to which Field responded "Ha ha, you lost.  You even voted against yourself".  The Opposition's complaint appeared to be that Holgate could not move that a motion be put because he was not a Minister.

Cornish continued to attempt to dissent from a ruling by Polley but Polley said there was no ruling to dissent from.  During the argument about this Field referenced May's "Parliamentary Practice" as stating that 325 such motions had been carried in the UK House of Commons in the 1970s.  As the Liberals continued to bemoan what had occurred the division was taken.  The vote was 16-16 with one from each side paired.  Speaker Polley gave the casting vote and the amendment was agreed to.  But that still left the substantive motion.

Hodgman then tried again to dissent but the Speaker then moved to the substantive motion "That the Address-In-Reply as amended be agreed to".  Cornish now suggested there should be a substantive debate about this motion with forty minutes for every speaker.  Field said that the previous motion to put the amendment meant the main motion should be put without debate if the Speaker so desires, and again referenced May.  Speaker Polley said that the substantive motion had been adequately debated and the Parliament had been recalled to work out who the government should be and should do it.

At this point Polley finally allowed a motion of dissent from Cornish.  There were contributions from Cornish, Field, Gray, Brown and Hodgman and the dissent motion was lost.  The Government said that the Tasmanian Standing Orders were not silent on the matter so May was irrelevant but I can't find anywhere where they quoted from the Standing Orders that contradicted May.  

The substantive motion was put and passed and at 7 am the sitting was finally over, to be followed by Gray's resignation and eventually the appointment of the Field Government.  

2010 Sequel

A first-day no-confidence motion in David Bartlett also happened in 2010, surrounding events post the 2010 election.  This didn't specify any alternative Premier and had obviously no prospects of success.  Standing Orders were suspended without objection and it was conducted in a much more orderly fashion, starting just after 3 pm on the first day, adjourning just before 6 pm, resuming at 10 am on the second day and finishing at 12:44.