It's a matter of numbers.
In Australia, the government is determined by which Prime Minister and their party (or coalition of parties) can maintain a majority in the House of Representatives over matters of confidence and the budget.
There are 150 Members, which means you need 76 for a majority (as the government normally provides the Speaker who generally only votes to break a tie, this would actually effectively give them a 75 to 74 majority.
Following the election last year, Labor won 72 seats. The (conservative) Liberal/National Coalition won 73 seats. Labor managed to get over the line by an agreement with the sole Green MP, and the support of three of the four Independents in the House. This gives them the magic 76.
Labor did supply the Speaker, bringing them back to 75.
The Liberal/National Coalition has the support of one elected Independent, while one National Party MP has now said he's a semi-independent who does not feel bound by the coalition agreement, but who is still likely to support it on most issues, meaning for the purposes of confidence, it now has 74 MPs - either 73 Coalition +1 Independent, or 72 Coalition + 2 'Independents' depending on how you count that last National MP.
If Labor's Craig Thomson has to resign, a by-election would need to be held for his seat of Dobell, which he won by a margin of about 5%. Current Opinion Polls put the Coalition ahead by about eight percent, so it is likely that seat would fall to the Coalition in a by-election.
We would them have a Parliament where Labor had 71 MP, and the support of 3 independents and a Greens - 75 - and the Coalition has 73 MPs, but one Independent and one semi-Independent National MP - 75.
And as one of Labor's MPs is the Speaker, who only votes in a tie - the Coalition would functionally have a majority of 75-74.
The Opposition could pass a vote of no confidence in the Prime Minister (and she might well lose one or more of her Independents at that stage as well - why prop up a government that will fall whether you support it or not, when you have a chance to try and join the winning team), and should that happen, the Prime Minister has one of two choices.
She can ask the Governor General to dissolve the House of Representatives so there can be another general election. In the circumstances, there is no reason the Governor General would not grant such a request. On current polling, Labor would be defeated in a landslide at such an election, given us a conservative government.
Or the Prime Minister could advise the Governor General that she cannot continue to form a government, and the Governor General would have to commission a new Prime Minister who could command a majority of the House on confidence and supply. The only realistic choice in that situation would be for the Governor General to immediately commission Tony Abbott as Prime Minister of a minority Liberal/National conservative government. I suspect that one of his first actions as Prime Minister would be to ask the Governor General for a dissolution of the House of Representatives himself, and she would probably grant it (she might ask him to attempt to govern for a time, but I doubt it in this case). In which case, again, the polls indicate that the end result of that election would be a conservative Liberal/National government with a substantial majority in the House - it would still have a minority in the Senate. Not much can be done about that for the moment.
Will all this happen? It's largely down to what Craig Thomson does. If he is convicted of a criminal offence which carries a potential sentence of more than two years in prison, he becomes ineligible to sit in Parliament, but he is, of course, entitled to a presumption of innocence unless and until he is convicted. The fact there is a police investigation, or even if he is charged, doesn't disqualify him - only a finding of guilt and a criminal conviction would. He is already under pressure to resign, and that will grow, if this scandal continues to grow. But he is also under pressure to stay from his own party. The question becomes how much pressure he can take, and what he decides is most important - himself or his party. And also, if at some point, the scandal becomes damaging enough to the Prime Minister to prevent her supporting him.
There are advantages to being able to throw out a sitting PM ... before his/her term in office has passed an arbitrary calendar limit.
Gillard and Rudd, what disasters.
Hoping she gets the boot, but I’m skeptical somehow.
And if this doesn’t get rid of her, she doesn’t have to call an election for a long time.
Just a question for you guys. Do you plan to have a real conservative, or instead follow the European route with a leader who is only sightly less liberal than a real Liberal
In other words, is your new ‘conservative’ going to say that road price is a terrible idea, so it shouldn’t be implemented until 2014, rather than 2012 (as the liberals would do), or would he say that it is such a bad idea that it shouldn’t be implemented at all.
Makes a big difference if you want to be wealthy country for the next few decades (something we’ve already rejected, by the way, with our debt).
Great summary! Saw a poll today in the SMH that had the
Coalition leading Labor by 60 -40 on two-party-preferred in Thomson’s district. If Labor pull the current Speaker, I have to think lots of Australians would see it as a desperate attempt to cling to power. G’bye Julia!
ping
Keeping an eye on OZ.
Comments? evaluations? ...if any.