On last night’s results Jon Stanhope is like a Christian in the Roman arena facing a choice of three doors.
Behind Door One is a coalition with the Greens taking a ministry or two.
Behind Door Two is a compact with the Greens as has happened in Tasmania.
Behind Door Three is to take the risk that, without ministries or a compact, the Greens will support him as Chief Minister when the Legislative Assembly first meets late this month or early next month.
Door Four is unthinkable: that the Greens abstain leaving a stalemated seven-seven vote for Chief Minister. That won’t happen. If a new election were forced the Greens would be crucified.
Has Stanhope got the guts to take Door Three?
It is unlikely to lead to sudden death. The Greens have never supported a no-confidence motion against Labor, but have often supported one against the Liberals.
He would be elected Chief Minister. That takes care of the Executive Government.
As to legislation, if Stanhope played his cards skillfully he could get nearly all of his legislation through. Any pro-business legislation should get the support of the Liberals, or at least their abstension. Any socially progressive legislation would get the support of the Greens.
The dilemma is whether to freeze out or co-operate with the Greens. The history of federal and state politics suggests that the party which captures the middle ground captures government. So co-operation will give birth to difficulties next election. Freezing out, on the other hand, carries difficulties on the way. The Government would be walking on egg-shells.
But would the Greens ever support the Liberals and a Liberal Chief Minister? History suggests not. But who would have imagined the National Party supporting a Labor Government, as is happening in South Australia?
A big factor is that Labor got a higher primary vote than the Libs, so perhaps have a moral claim to take government. But that should not necessarily be the main criteria. Minor parties have their platforms and philosophies and have the right to choose whichever of the majors suits their policy at the time of government formation or at the time legislation is considered.
One thing Stanhope should consider is that yesterday’s vote should not be seen as a sudden environmental awakening by the electorate. Much of it was protest vote. And to the extent it was a protest, it was a protest against unaccountability and openness, rather than against any lack of environmental sensitivity by Labor.
Labor should take heed of that: no more surprise school closures; no more blacked-out FOI responses; no more surprise power plants and so on.
It does not mean Labor has to be beholden to every element of Green policy either in a compact or in a coalition. But that was the fate of Labor in Tasmania, so Stanhope has to be careful.
But to the extent that minority government means that Labor might have to run some of its gestating proposals past the Greens before announcing them, it can only improve government.
Labor got into the pooh it did last night – nearly an 11 percentage point swing – partly because it was in majority and thought it had carte blanche.
On the accountability point, a Labor minority government might well face a much stronger opposition this time around because quite a number of the divisive, squabbling, poorly performing rabble on the last Assembly have been either thrown out by the voters or been elected in a humiliating position in the order of elected candidates in their seat.
No other parliament state or federal will have lost such a high percentage of sitting members if all the doubtfuls go against sitting members.
Labor has been rightly bruised but the experience and the system should make it a better government in the next term.