Sour apples in Tasmania

30 May 2021

The Liberal Party might well be celebrating in Tasmania at this time. Despite taking power in Tasmania at an election in 2014, and then winning another election in 2018, never in its history had it won three Tasmanian elections in a row. That was until earlier this month – when it achieved the feat at a general election called earlier than was required. Yet something still seems unsettling about the result.

There didn’t need to be an election in Tasmania until about March next year, four years on from the last election. But with Tasmania the only major jurisdiction in Australia where the Premier of the day can call an election when he or she sees fit, an early election remained an option, and it was taken.

The result of this election was slightly different from the last one, notwithstanding what’d happened since the last one. Out of 25 seats at the last election, the Liberal Party defeated the Labor Party with 13 seats over 10, while the remaining seats went to a pair of Greens. At the election this month, the result was virtually the same, though the Labor Party lost a seat and an Independent won a seat.

Between these elections, however, some changes took place. After a Labor MP suddenly resigned, another Labor candidate from 2018 was chosen as a replacement – but by then that Labor candidate had parted company with Labor and become an Independent. Some time later, a Liberal MP went over to the crossbench, while the former Labor figure joined the Liberals.

Now, this election has seen a new Independent take a seat at the expense of the former Liberal MP, effectively meaning no change in pre-election seat numbers. I should point out, however, that this new Independent’s gain comes effectively at the expense of Labor, who had ten seats after the last election and had nine before this election – and finished up with nine again. But the loss was because of the former MP who became an Independent before joining the Liberals.

This election result in Tasmania was something of a surprise. Under the Liberals, the State economy had become strong, though there were problems in health and housing and other issues. What was more prominent than anything, though, was how the State coped following a worldwide coronavirus outbreak and pandemic, and it seemed to cope well enough. But the Liberals had a narrow majority of one seat, and enough local dissatisfaction could’ve cost them their majority and forced them into some sort of alliance with crossbenchers – which Tasmanians arguably detest. Somehow, however, they did enough to maintain their miniscule majority.

Indeed the pandemic arguably dominated everything else confronting Peter Gutwein, who became Liberal leader and Premier just before the viral outbreak occurred. Gutwein succeeded Will Hodgman, who resigned after leading the Liberals to their 2014 and 2018 election victories. Under confronting circumstances, Gutwein managed the State well though the pandemic, and was rewarded. But this victory wasn’t as big as victories achieved by some governments, all Labor, in other parts of Australia since the pandemic began.

In terms of this election, I’d tipped the Liberals to lose their majority, and for Labor to regain its lost seat. But I got that result wrong.

Tasmanian elections have five electorates with five seats apiece, and in three electorates the Liberals held three of five seats, with two of five in the other two seats, both covering the State capital, Hobart.

There were swings against the Liberals in the Hobart region, and to them in the electorates outside Hobart, but the swings weren’t enough for them to lose or gain seats.

Labor had two seats in every electorate except Clark, covering central Hobart, where it had one seat, but its vote fell in Hobart, though its overall seat numbers didn’t change.

But many people must be wishing that the Liberals didn’t hold power through the return of the Labor MP who defected to their ranks. The presence of that Labor “rat” might well leave critics questioning the legitimacy of the Gutwein Liberal Government.

The Liberals also faced questions over the legitimacy of the return to Parliament of a former minister, Adam Brooks. Resigning from Parliament because of a scandal during the previous term, he managed to win back his seat at this month’s election, despite new controversies surrounding him. But a new scandal prompted him to quit Parliament again, having only just being returned to it. Some Liberals must be relieved that he won’t be around, at least for now.

Could the Liberals have won without the Labor defector or Brooks? It’s open to debate. But without them, I’d sum up the election in an amusing way!

When something’s all right, there’s a possibility of hearing people say, “She’ll be right.” Alternatively, they might say, “She’s apples.” And we all know of Tasmania being called “the Apple Isle.” As such, without those doubtful things, I’d sum up the election by saying, “Gutwein’s apples in Tasmania.”

But the doubtful things make me say that the election’s left sour apples in Tasmania.

How the Liberals behave after this election win, their third in a row in the Apple Isle, will demonstrate whether they see it as a mandate to continue as before or do things differently.

New problems for Berejiklian

17 May 2021

Gladys Berejiklian has a rocky road ahead of her, at least in the short term.

Lately two of her MPs, who ten years ago won seats which the Liberal Party really had no right to win, have gone to the crossbench. Both MPs face allegations of misconduct, regarding different issues.

Yet how many people remember that the last State election in New South Wales, in March 2019, left Berejiklian and the Liberal-National Coalition only just holding power, with a majority of three seats?

Amid the euphoria felt by Coalition supporters over winning three consecutive elections for the first time in many decades, plus the dismay of the Coalition’s opponents in having watched the Coalition win an election that it could well have lost, one must wonder whether both supporters and opponents alike really saw how close the Coalition’s win was. I suspect that this closeness slipped people’s minds.

At least a three-seat majority was better than a one-seat majority, whereby only one MP’s difference of opinion was enough to make the Government dependent on crossbenchers. But this didn’t exactly leave the Government much room for dissent or problems.

Now, however, the closeness of the last election result has been exposed, with two Coalition MPs out on the crossbench. Doubts linger over whether they can survive.

Added to this is the resignation from Parliament of another Coalition figure, triggering a by-election for this coming Saturday. And because the by-election is in a marginal seat, the Coalition might well lose it if voters are upset enough.

Mind you, I doubt whether the Labor Party can, or will, take advantage of this trouble. After copping an absolute caning at an election in 2011, it doesn’t look to be winning enough voters back.

That election in 2011 saw the Coalition win 69 seats out of 93, while Labor won only 20. An enormous revolt against Labor by voters cost Labor plenty of seats that arguably shouldn’t have fallen. Worse still, some of those particular seats are still with the Coalition today.

Two such seats are held by the two Liberal MPs now on the crossbench, John Sidoti and Gareth Ward.

Sidoti won the seat of Drummoyne in Sydney’s inner west upon the retirement of Labor MP Angela D’Amore, while Ward defeated Labor MP Matt Brown to win the seat of Kiama in the Illawarra region.

Both Sidoti and Ward have turned out to be quite resilient as local MPs, and I doubt that the Liberals could hold those seats without them. MPs like them can be pivotal to the success of governments.

Over time, I’ve seen plenty of new MPs elected in landslides, and frequently they’ve been looked upon as one-term MPs, winning only on the basis of the unpopularity of their opponents. But they’ve been able to hold their seats at election after election, enabling governments and leaders to govern maybe for longer than might’ve been predicted.

John Howard, for example, became Prime Minister in a landslide election win in 1996. But while many of his new MPs from 1996 were defeated at the next election, some of them managed to hold their seats at subsequent elections, and they had much to do with Howard’s ability to remain PM for eleven years. And in some cases, when these MPs retired, their seats fell to Labor.

This could be the reality now confronting Berejiklian in NSW. She’s lost both Sidoti and Ward because of the allegations of misconduct surrounding them, albeit only to the crossbench, meaning that they could come back if subsequent investigations by authorities clear them of any wrongdoing. However, if they leave Parliament and trigger by-elections, the Liberals might struggle to hold their seats.

And as far as this Saturday’s by-election is concerned, it takes place in Upper Hunter, which narrowly went to the Nationals in 2019. If they lose it, Berejiklian will govern in minority for some time, subject to what happens to either Sidoti or Ward.

These new problems have exposed what was always something of a fragile position for the Coalition and for Berejiklian. But it seems like the euphoria of the 2019 win obscured that fragility.

Less than two years remain before the next State election in NSW, due in 2023. Plenty can take place during that time. For now, Berejiklian is lucky that Labor doesn’t seem to be unsettling her. Lacking serious competition might make the current difficulties with her MPs easier to handle.

Peacock the flustered leader

15 May 2021

Hardly any of us can say that we recall almost nothing from childhood. We probably prefer to forget certain things, yet they somehow remain with us forever. And news of a recent passing stirred up memories in my head, going back to a period well before I became interested in politics and elections.

By my estimation, it would’ve been during the early 1980s when I first heard a few political names. I recall hearing back then that Malcolm Fraser was Prime Minister and Bill Hayden was Opposition Leader, and as such I came to remember them. I also recall hearing another name mentioned a few times – although I was too young to understand what for.

Naturally, it was during that time that I heard about Hayden resigning as Opposition Leader, with Bob Hawke replacing him, and then I heard about Hawke beating Fraser in an election and becoming Prime Minister.

After Fraser’s defeat, I heard about a new person becoming Opposition Leader, and it was the person whose name I’d heard mentioned in previous years – Andrew Peacock.

Over the next few years, through watching or listening to news, I’d hear about Hawke being Prime Minister and Peacock being Opposition Leader. While I paid more attention to sport and weather during news, Hawke and Peacock in their respective roles were what stuck in my head. But I also recall moments when I heard that someone different from Peacock was Opposition Leader – namely John Howard.

Somehow I recall hearing these things from my childhood, long before I started paying attention to politics and elections. And these memories were stirred when I heard about Peacock’s death last month.

Peacock was a popular figure in his day. He held the eastern Melbourne seat of Kooyong for almost three decades, from 1966 to 1994, served as a minister for many years, and led the Liberal Party on two occasions.

He won Kooyong at a by-election after the departure of Sir Robert Menzies, the founder of the Liberal Party, who served as Prime Minister for almost two decades. Those would’ve been huge shoes to fill.

After years as a minister, Peacock was elected Liberal leader after Fraser lost power in 1983, beating Howard in a post-election leadership ballot, while Howard became deputy leader. These two would somehow come to embody a divide within Liberal ranks for years to come. At an election in late 1984, though nowhere near as popular among voters as Hawke, Peacock lost by a smaller margin than expected, regaining some seats lost in Hawke’s 1983 triumph and picking up a few others. Following the election, while he remained Liberal leader, there was talk that Howard might challenge him, but Howard didn’t rule that in or out.

However, less than a year later, something bizarre happened. The deputy leader was frequently sounding more credible as a parliamentary performer than the leader, which flustered the leader. As a result, someone else was sought to be the leader’s deputy – subject to a vote for a spill of positions. This would’ve sounded incredible, to say the least.

But nobody sought to run for the deputy leadership against Howard. Ultimately, though, John Moore ended up running against Howard. A vote to declare the deputy leadership vacant was carried, and in the resulting vote for the position, Howard beat Moore.

This was humiliating for Peacock, and he resigned as leader. Howard then took over the leadership.

In hindsight, this was possibly a curse for Howard. He seemed nowhere near as good as Opposition Leader, compared to when he was Deputy Opposition Leader under Peacock. And many Liberal MPs were naturally upset about his rise to the leadership, because they hadn’t voted for him after the 1984 election. He knew that Peacock had been their man, and while he sought the leadership, he wasn’t set to challenge Peacock.

Despite some difficulties, Hawke and the Labor Party were still popular enough when an election took place in 1987, and Hawke increased his majority in beating Howard.

After that election, Howard remained Liberal leader. But Peacock became leader again after an unexpected leadership coup in 1989. Then an election came in 1990, and while Hawke’s popularity was waning, Peacock was again defeated, albeit by a smaller margin than in 1984.

It would’ve been galling for Peacock to see the closeness of the result. There was a big swing to the Liberals in Victoria, the home State for both him and Hawke. He might’ve won through this alone, but it was probably due mainly to the unpopularity of Labor at the State level, because the Cain Labor Government was coming apart amid major scandals. Gains for Labor in other States arguably saved Hawke.

Peacock ceased to be Liberal leader after the 1990 defeat, and he left Parliament in 1994.

Despite two election losses, many in Liberal ranks hold Peacock in high regard. But I can’t help wondering whether the bizarre events of 1985, when Peacock tried to get his deputy leader replaced and resigned after that didn’t happen, will make him stand out as the flustered leader with flawed judgement.

Countless Liberals would regret Peacock’s failure to reach the top job in Australian politics.

Tasmania set to shake

1 May 2021

By tonight, Tasmanians will have voted in a State election in order to either give the Liberal Party a third straight term in power or put the Labor Party into power after several years out. This may or may not happen with support from crossbenchers. But people could be waiting a few days or more before they know what result the election produces.

Either the Liberals or Labor will govern. That is beyond question. But will this election produce a clear winner, or result in agreements and deals in order to end up with power?

This election was actually due by around March next year. But it’s been called early, in a situation where, unlike every other State and Territory in Australia, parliamentary terms in Tasmania aren’t fixed, and the Premier of the day can call an election whenever he or she sees fit. And that’s what Peter Gutwein, who became Liberal leader and Premier only at the beginning of last year, decided on just now.

What are the prospects in this election for the Liberals, who have governed since comfortably winning an election in 2014 and have never won three elections in a row in Tasmania before? Well, they seemed good enough when the election was called, but things seem less rosy now. They won the last election, in 2018, by only one seat, and just recently they lost their majority when one of their MPs departed for the crossbench – before a former Labor MP joined them.

Gutwein became Premier early last year upon the resignation of Will Hodgman, and not long after this, there was major drama with a worldwide coronavirus outbreak and pandemic. This event has arguably mattered more than anything else since Gutwein stepped up to the top job, and his efforts in keeping this virus under control in Tasmania have been highly praised. But he’s in pretty good company. Other political leaders around Australia have been praised for their efforts in keeping the virus under control, through border closures and other restrictions, and governments to have faced elections since the start of the pandemic have all been returned – some with bigger majorities than before. Did Gutwein think that he could take advantage of the praise that he received for his handling of the pandemic and bring about a bigger parliamentary majority through a snap election, which he was able to call? He probably did so. Then again, leaving aside the pandemic, the Tasmanian economy has been in pretty good shape over a number of years, so Gutwein and the Liberals were always likely to benefit from that.

But despite the good condition of the economy, which invariably are critical for governments when they face elections, problems have arisen in health and housing, and Labor has run hard on these problems during this election. Labor is trying to convince voters to think of these problems over the years, instead of what the Liberals and Gutwein have done during the past year.

After the last election, out of twenty-five seats in the Lower House, the Liberals had thirteen and Labor had ten and the Greens had two – hence a one-seat majority for the Liberals.

The seats are spread across five electorates, with five seats in each electorate, and candidates win seats based on how much of the vote they win in the electorates that they contest. It doesn’t actually matter how much of the vote parties win, as people elect candidates rather than parties in Tasmanian elections.

Two of the five electorates cover the State capital, Hobart, and a few regions around it. The other three electorates are prominently rural, though one seat, Bass, takes in Launceston, Tasmania’s second-largest city. Since the last election, there’s been an electoral redistribution, abolishing Denison, a Hobart-based electorate, while creating a new Hobart-based electorate called Clark.

In 2018, the Liberals won three seats apiece in the three electorates outside Hobart, but they only won two seats apiece in the Hobart electorates. Labor won two seats in every electorate, while the Greens won a seat apiece in the Hobart electorates. The Liberal MP now on the crossbench and the defecting Labor MP are both in Hobart.

Hardly any opinion polls are conducted ahead of Tasmanian elections, and of late two different opinion polls tell different stories, with one poll suggesting a swing to the Liberals in this election and the other poll suggesting the opposite. The Liberals won a majority of the statewide vote at the last election.

I’m tipping the Liberals to lose a seat in this election, costing them their majority. They look vulnerable in Hobart, which has former Liberal MP Sue Hickey running as an Independent, with another well-known Independent also running. While these Independents might also take votes off Labor and the Greens, unless voters give the Liberals enough preferences, I think that they’re more likely to lose. I’m tipping Labor to gain a seat there. The Liberals could also lose a seat in either Braddon or Lyons. But I’m tipping no change in either Bass or the other Hobart-based electorate, Franklin.

Voters in Tasmania might strip the Liberals of their majority in this election. And despite hating minority governments, they’re set to make the Apple Isle shake now. But unpredictability could bring potentially a clear result. Many just seek a result without waiting.