Craig Garland, the fisherman turned maverick independent MP from Tasmania’s north-western corner, summed it up best when he told state parliament on Thursday morning he was “a bit confused”.
Garland wasn’t confused about what he was doing – he calmly backed a no-confidence motion in the Liberal premier, Jeremy Rockliff. But he expressed doubts about how the Tasmanian parliament got here, and what lay ahead.
Based on the reaction online and on talkback radio, many Tasmanians agree.
From the outside – and to many on the inside – the events in parliament this week look like a form of collective madness that was entirely avoidable and, despite all the strong words, largely pointless.
The vote of no-confidence in Rockliff, moved by the Labor leader Dean Winter, passed on Thursday afternoon by the barest of margins: 18-17. It has pushed the state to the brink of a fresh election just 15 months sincethe last one.
Bizarrely, the state finds itself in this position despite all the major players – Liberals, Labor and the Greens – declaring loudly that an election is a bad idea and should not happen. Each had the power to prevent one. Which is not to say all are equally to blame.
We need to briefly rewind 15 months.On 23 March last year, Tasmanians chose what some have called a rainbow parliament, and others have described as chaos: 14 Liberals, 10 Labor, five Greens, three MPs from the Jacqui Lambie Network (JLN) and three independents.
No party was close to the 18 seats needed for a majority government, but the Liberals had a clear plurality of support. Winter declined to try to lead the state despite the crossbench being made up largely of progressive MPs, declaring he would never deal with the Greens.
Sign up for a weekly email featuring our best reads
Rockliff won a promise of support on confidence and budget supply from JLN and the independent David O’Byrne, a former Labor leader, who would prefer an ALP government but wanted the parliament to work. In the months that followed JLN fell apart and the government’s position became more precarious.
The sole remaining JLN MP, Andrew Jenner,refused to vote for a budgetreleased in September, breaking his commitment to ensure the government survived. The then treasurer and deputy premier, Michael Ferguson,was forced to resign and move to the backbenchwhen he faced what would have been a successful no-confidence vote over mismanagement of new Spirit of Tasmania ferries.
And the Greens moved two no-confidence motions in Rockliff – one over a shelved gambling harm minimisation promise, the other overa controversial AFL stadium planned for Macquarie Point, on Hobart’s waterfront.
Despite the noise, the premier appeared relatively safe. Just last month, Labor argued the stateneeded a period of stability. That changed on Tuesday, when Winter surprised observers bytabling a no-confidence motion at the end of a budget reply speech, and declaring he would move it when it was clear it had enough support.
It was a dare to both the crossbench and the government. But it was a tactic without a clear endgame.
The motion was ostensibly about the budget, arguing Rockliff had wrecked the state’s finances, planned to sell public assets and had mismanaged the ferries. Handed down five days earlier, the budget had beenwidely criticisedfor increasing debt and spending, and failing to provide solutions to structural problems. Some government supporters said it was the worst they had seen.
But the opposition leader did not make a case for what Labor would do differently, and did not make a pitch to become premier if the no-confidence motion carried.
The goal was to either push the Greens to side with Rockliff to prevent chaos or, more likely, claim the premier’s scalp by forcing the Liberals to replace him, almost certainly with someone less popular.
Neither happened.
The motion quickly won backing on Tuesday from Garland, Jenner, and the independent Kristie Johnston (who had backed earlier no-confidence motions). The Greens declared their support after meeting on Wednesday morning.
But the Greens did not want the motion to just be about the budget. The minor party tried to amend it to include a rejection of the stadium – one of the biggest issues dominating public debate in the state over the past year given the likely $1bn-plus cost, and because admission of the Tasmania Devils to the AFL hinges on it being built. Their leader, Rosalie Woodruff, alsooffered to work with Labor to try to form an alternative government.
Both steps were rejected. The Greens knew they would be. They backed the motion anyway.
Some commentary over the past week assumed the motion would lead to a Labor-Greens minority government. But the relationship between the two parties in the state is hostile, and they are ideologically miles apart. Winter’s defining position since becoming Labor leader last year has been to argue for “traditional industries” – including native forest logging, salmon farming and mining – and to reject suggestions he would work with the minor party.
Winter did not speak with crossbenchers before tabling the no-confidence motion, and Labor and the Greens mostly voted against Rockliff for different reasons.
Sign up toFive Great Reads
Each week our editors select five of the most interesting, entertaining and thoughtful reads published by Guardian Australia and our international colleagues. Sign up to receive it in your inbox every Saturday morning
after newsletter promotion
There is deep history to this. Labor and the Greens fell out after governing in partnership from 2010 to 2014, a period in which two Greens held ministries. The relationship has become more distant under Winter, who is close to the former premier Paul Lennon, an assertively pro-industry and anti-green figure.
It doesn’t take much analysis to realise this raises questions about whether Labor can form government anytime soon, given it has lost four straight elections and has less than a third of seats in the state’s lower house. It continues to argue it could win a majority.
Labor and the Greens are also sharply divided over the stadium, which has become the most politically charged issue facing the state and driven significant public resentment against the government.
Polls suggest a majority of the public are opposed to it in every electorate, especially in the state’s parochial north. But the stadium has the support of both major parties – not least because neither wants to stand accused of killing thelong-held dream of a Tasmanian AFL team, which still has overwhelming public support.
There is a strong case that a new stadium will be needed in the state’s capital for the club to be a success. But the state government spectacularly stuffed up the argument.
It signed a lopsided deal under which the AFL pays a meagre $15m of the direct funding for the stadium’s construction. Predictably, the cost of the stadium to taxpayershas blown out beyond Rockliff’s initial pledgeit would be capped at $375m. And thesite itself is controversial.
The premier has broken promises on the issue, most recently trying to push through legislation to circumvent the independent-heavy upper house from potentially blocking the stadium. Meanwhile, the AFL has refused to budge from its line – no stadium at Macquarie Point, no team.
Critics including the Greens accuse the government of caving to AFL pressure, point to crises facing the state on housing and health, and argue a stadium cannot be justified. Some have claimed, without evidence, the AFL could be forced to redraw the deal. Some vocal critics don’t care if there is a team. Butthat’s not where most of the public is.
It’s a mess that continues to hurt the government, but doesn’t necessarily win support for Labor. As the no-confidence motion was debated, Tasmania Devils executive Kath McCannbroke down at a press conferenceas she argued the future of the club was uncertain if Rockliff was removed.
While it wasn’t the subject of the no-confidence motion, you could make a decent case that the stadium – including the AFL’s refusal to accommodate genuinely held Tasmanian concerns – will cost Rockliff his job.
But that hasn’t happened yet, and it is not clear if it will.
The Liberals have backed Rockliff, for now at least, rather than replace him with one of a list of potential contenders. Liberal MPs have argued the budget was backed by the government, not just Rockliff, and supported his push for an early election if the no-confidence motion was passed.
They may yet change their minds. Business leaders warn an election would hurt confidence and stall investment. Some senior Liberal figureshave urged the parliamentary party elect a new leaderto avoid forcing Tasmanians vote again. The parliament has to return on Tuesday to pass a short-term supply bill before Rockliff plans to speak with the governor, Barbara Baker, so they have a few days to work it out.
If there is an election, it is difficult to see either major party approaching a majority of seats. Themost recent ERMS pollhad Labor on 31% support, ahead of the Liberals, who fell five percentage points to just 29%. But 37% said they preferred someone else.
This doesn’t bode well for the major parties, which have struggled to come to grips with the reality ofan expanded 35-member parliamentin which no one has control. The Liberals failed to maintain the support of enough MPs. Labor has done little to develop a relationship with the crossbench.
Tasmanians might soon tell them that’s not good enough, and to try again.