Two weeks to go to the Tasmanian election, and it’s finally attracting some attention in the mainland media. An opinion poll last week by Enterprise Marketing & Research Services showed a fall of some 18% in the ALP vote, putting them on just 31% to the Liberals’ 39% (up 7%) and Greens’ 27% (up 10%). (Antony Green covers it well here.)

The two noteworthy things here are the apparent surge in the Greens vote and the near certainty of a hung parliament: the EMRS figures would give 10 Liberal MPs, nine ALP and six Greens. Interestingly, however, these two things are not as closely connected as one might think.

In a two-party system, one party’s loss is the other’s gain. But in a three-party system such as Tasmania’s, a party’s fortunes depend not just on its own performance but on the balance between the other two.

To hold the balance of power in the new House of Assembly, the Greens don’t need to increase their vote at all; they just need a substantial movement from ALP to Liberal to deprive Labor of its absolute majority. That’s exactly what every poll for the last year has shown happening.

Before the last Tasmanian election, in 2006, the polls also foreshadowed losses for Labor and a hung parliament. But the Liberals then were starting from so far back that they had no chance of winning a majority; the choice, for all practical purposes, was between a Labor majority and the Greens holding the balance of power. Faced with that choice, many voters stuck with Labor, which limited the swing to just 2.6% and kept its majority intact. The Greens vote actually went backwards.

This year, however, anyone who was voting just to avoid minority government would be puzzled about what to do. It’s not at all clear which party has a better chance of a majority; certainly neither of them has much chance.

Once you accept the notion that, whatever happens, two of the three parties are going to have to co-operate to provide stable government (and let’s face it, a large fraction of the world’s democracies work that way), then the reason for voting tactically pretty much disappears. So the Greens may indulge the hope that this time their vote will hold above 20% rather than ebbing away before polling day.

But even if it doesn’t, they will still be well placed. The Greens will be almost as powerful in a parliament that splits 11-10-4 as one that splits 10-9-6.

Either way, Tasmania’s politicians will have to learn to work together in order to get things done. Which, given that no party looks able to get much above 40% of the vote, is just how it should be.

Meanwhile, former Tasmanian correspondent for The Australian Bruce Montgomery writes:

Tasmania is looking down the barrel of the hung parliament to end all hung parliaments. The EMRS opinion polling confirms the Bartlett Labor Government has run its course; the Liberals have failed to convince the electorate they should or can govern; the Greens haven’t put a foot wrong but Tasmanian conservatives will never vote for Tasmanian conservationists; and, consequently, one-in-four Tasmanians hasn’t a clue how to vote in three weeks.

If it is 10-10-5, what happens? Premier David Bartlett will advise Governor and former Chief Justice Peter Underwood that Labor should form the new government, go to the House of Assembly and test its confidence.

The first task for the new parliament will be to elect a Speaker. A Labor Speaker taken off the floor of the House would give the Liberal Opposition a one-seat voting majority over the Government and deprive the ALP of a casting vote from the Speaker’s chair; a Liberal Speaker would give Labor the most votes on the floor of the House; a Green Speaker would maintain Labor’s numbers through his/her casting vote. Labor’s ideal nominee for Speaker would be Lyons Green MP Tim Morris (though it would be over the dead body of current Labor Speaker Michael Polley).

If the result is 11-10-4 or 10-9-6, the major party may seek an accommodation with the Greens, though it would be unnecessary. No Green “opposition” will bring down a minority Liberal or Labor Government in Tasmania and live to tell the tale. They would be annihilated at the ensuing election.

Greens leader Nick McKim would espouse a position that the Greens would never support a no-confidence motion moved by the main Opposition; they would only move their own in the case of gross maladministration or corruption and they would not vote down the minority Government’s Budget. All other legislation would be treated on its merits, which is how it should be. Given this, he would be in no position to bargain for any ministries.

The great tragedy to the people of Tasmania in the apparent outcome of this election is that whoever forms government will use all of their elected MPs to fill the ministry. That is plainly ridiculous, as the past series of Labor ministries has shown. It demonstrates just how appalling was the 1998 decision of the ALP and the Liberals to reduce the size of the House from 35 to 25. In Tasmania, a government backbencher is an endangered species.