The ACT Labor Party suggests that its response to the Auditor-General’s report need not result in a change of Government. That is correct in theory. But in practice, a successful vote of no-confidence in Chief Minister Kate Carnell means a change in government because the other Liberals have said they will not take on the chief minister’s job.
There is one other horrible prospect, as we shall see.
The report will be tabled next week at a brief sitting, probably Monday. The Assembly will have two weeks to digest it before the next full sitting at which someone can give notice (of seven days) of a no-confidence motion in the Chief Minister.
ACT Labor Leader, Jon Stanhope, said on Thursday, “”We have never suggested that a motion of no confidence would inevitably lead to a change of government. It would not. Instead it would, with the current membership of the Assembly, lead to the election of Gary Humphries or Brendan Smyth as Chief Minister. The Liberals would remain in Government.”
In theory, that is right.
The Act Self-Government Act – an Act of the Federal Parliament which serves as the ACT’s Constitution – provides that “”if a resolution of no confidence in the Chief Minister is passed, the members present shall elect one of the their number to be Chief Minister”
In theory, Humphries or Smyth could accept a nomination for the job. But they and the other three Liberal MLAs have stated they will not stand. Their position is that if Chief Minister Kate Carnell goes, none of them will accept a nomination (from the floor of the Assembly where it must come from) as Chief Minister.
This is a very unusual situation, normally politicians fill power vacuums like water in a cistern. There are a couple of similar situations in Australian history where the head of government has been threatened. NSW Premier Nick Greiner 1992 and Queensland Premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen in 1987. These precedents are contrary to what Deputy Chief Minister Gary Humphries said on Thursday.
Humphries said, “”The possibility to have this surgical process, to snip off the leader and the Government doesn’t skip a beat, I don’t know of that happening anywhere.”
Well, in 1992 the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption made a formal (and very technical) finding that Greiner was “”corrupt”. The finding was nonsense and was overturned by the NSW Court of Appeal later. All Greiner had done was offer his Education Minister a plumb Public Service job as an incentive to leave Parliament. Heavens, the Australian diplomatic corps is full of such political appointments.
Anyway, the Labor Opposition and three Independents who held the balance of power said Greiner must resign. If not, the Independents said they would support a Labor Government.
Greiner fell on his sword and the natural power hunger of politicians took over. The cistern filled. The Liberals wanted to stay in office. That’s what political parties do. They surgically snipped off Greiner (to use Humphries’s words, and the Government did not skip a beat. They stayed in office after electing John Fahey as leader. The skipped beat did not come till 1995 when Fahey lost the subsequent election.
The 1987 Queensland crisis came about after Joh Bjelke-Petersen came unstuck in the Fitzgerald inquiry. This time, his own National Party voted him out of the leadership, but he refused to resign as Premier. The Governor refused to sack him, quite properly arguing that Parliament should meet to do that. Mike Ahern was thus leader of the National Party, the majority party, but without a ministry. Eventually, Bjelke-Petersen capitulated and resigned after working out a deal on his pension rights. The leader was snipped off and the Government did not skip a beat. The skipped beat did not come till the election in 1989 which the Nationals lost.
Lost of office at the subsequent election is instructive for ACT Liberals. Perhaps they feel that it would be better to hand office to the Labor Party for the remaining year of this term rather than bat on without her and then face the electorate. A year in office would take a bit of shine off Labor, as it does all governments. Remember Labor’s Rosemary Follett lost office half way through her term in the first Assembly after the Liberals did a deal with minor parties. That deal collapsed under its own fragility and Follett took office again several months before the 1992 election. She probably did not do as well in 1992 as she would have from Opposition with a Government in chaos.
But how can the present Liberals be sure that Labor would take office.
Picture this scenario. The cross-benchers join Labor and vote in favour of a no-confidence motion in Carnell. Under the Self-Government Act the Assembly must elect a new Chief Minister (all other business would be out of order). The Speaker calls for nominations. The Liberals re-nominate Carnell which they are entitled to do. Then Labor must either nominate Stanhope or stay silent.
If they stay silent, Carnell will be the only nomination and be elected unopposed – unless dear old ex-Liberal now “”united Canberra”” MLA Trevor Kaine can convince someone to nominate him as Chief Minister and he leads a cross-bench government. Horror.
If Carnell is elected unopposed, another no-confidence motion could be launched and so on.
If that continued the Federal Minister for Territories (in effect our Governor) would step in and advise the Governor-General that the Assembly was incapable of effectively performing its functions under Section 16. A commissioner would be appointed to run the territory pending an election sometime after a month or so’s campaign but before three months.
That scenario carries huge political risks for both sides. It would tend to force Labor not to allow it to happen – in effect forcing them to nominate Stanhope as Chief Minister.
The other scenario is for no-one to nominate as Chief Minister. If no-one is elected within 30 days, under Section 48 an election shall be called. There is a month or so’s campaign and the poll must be held within three months. In this circumstance no commissioner is appointed to run the territory. The place runs rudderless as all ministers would have automatically vacated office on the passing of a no-confidence motion in the chief minister (Section 46).
The Federal Government would not tolerate a rudderless ACT, so it is more likely to install a commissioner.
This would be very humiliating for the ACT, and its prospect would put a great deal of pressure on both sides and the cross-bench to crack. Either Labor would have to install Stanhope as Chief Minister, or the Liberals would have to nominate someone other than Carnell, or the cross-bench would have to stop voting in favour of a no-confidence motion in Carnell. It is possible that Humphries or Smyth might crack and “”reluctantly” take on the mantle of government, but they would be going back on their word – not a good start to government.
But it may not come to that because enough of the cross-bench will not vote in favour of the no-confidence motion in the first place.
But if they do, Labor will have a difficult task avoiding a change of government. Politically, it would love to contest a tainted Liberal Government headed by Humphries or Smyth. But it cannot demand that situation. And in attempting to force it, if it causes federal intervention and the appointment of a commissioner to runthe place, it will be costly politically because oppositions are supposed to be ready for government.
Further, the threat of this chaos must also run through the mind of the cross-bench.
In short, whatever the theory, if Carnell goes there will be a change of government.