By David Flint AM
Since the grant of self-government by the British in 1856, the powers of the Crown in relation to Tasmania have been vested in the Governor of Tasmania, Her Excellency the Honourable Barbara Baker AC.
Her Late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, in her role as Queen of Australia, appointed Barbara Baker after her distinguished service as a Federal Judge.
This was done on the advice of the Tasmanian Premier, Peter Gutwein, on 16 June 2021.
Her current role illustrates the importance and, I would say the wisdom of the Australian people in deciding in the 1999 landslide referendum vote that we should remain a constitutional monarchy and in rejecting a constitutional model which would make it easier for a Prime Minister to sack the President than his cook.
Under the Australian version of the Westminster system, the Governor, appointed by the King or Queen, plays the role of a local monarch.
The role of the Governor, in the events leading up to the 2025 Tasmanian state election, was far from routine.
This demonstrates how important this aspect of our constitutional system is.
What the Australian system ensures is that the Governor provides leadership beyond politics.
Notwithstanding who recommends the appointment, the actual appointment is by the King to whom the Governor swears allegiance.
It resembles the way in which we appoint judges, rather than, say, electing them.
Election is, of course, a political process, one which necessarily involves agendas and mandates.
The appointment of a Governor or Governor-General by the King demonstrates that the appointee should thereafter be above politics (even where he or she was previously involved in politics).
On June 5, 2025, a no-confidence motion against the Liberal government of Premier Jeremy Rockliff was successfully carried in the House of Assembly. This was a significant event, as it meant the government had lost the support of the majority of the House.
The motion was moved by Labor Leader, Dean Winter, and supported by the Greens and crucial crossbenchers.
Following the no-confidence vote, Premier Jeremy Rockliff advised the Governor to dissolve the House of Assembly and call an early election. This is a conventional action for a Premier who has lost confidence but believes they can regain the public’s mandate.
This is where the Governor’s role became critical, involving the exercise of a governor’s reserve powers.
She did not immediately grant the Premier’s request for a dissolution. Instead, she took time to ‘give due consideration to all available options’.
This included exploring whether an alternative government could be formed.
Accordingly, the Governor met with the Labor Leader to ascertain if he could form a stable government, potentially with the support of the Greens and/or other crossbenchers. This is a standard step for a Governor in a hung parliament or a situation where the incumbent government has lost confidence.
In addition, there were reports that other Liberal MPs might be willing to try to form a government if Mr Rockliff could not. The Governor would have assessed the viability of such alternatives.
After careful consideration and meetings with both the Premier and the Opposition Leader, Her Excellency concluded that ‘there is no real possibility that an alternative government can be formed’.
Based on this assessment, she then granted Premier Rockliff’s request for an election to be held on July 19, 2025, issuing writs for the election and dissolving the Parliament on June 11, 2025.
In summary, the Governor’s role leading up to the 2025 election was of great significance.
It went beyond merely acting on the Premier’s advice.
This demonstrates that under our system, the Governor is not a rubber stamp.
She exercised her crucial reserve powers ─ the powers which Sir John Kerr famously exercised half a century ago ─ to ensure that the constitutional principles of responsible government were upheld and that a workable government could either be formed or a fresh mandate sought from the people when no viable alternative existed within the existing Parliament.
The election, however, again resulted in a hung parliament, with no party winning a majority of 18 seats.
The latest reports show the Liberal Party with 14 seats, Labor with 10 (or 9 in some projections), Greens with 5, and Independents with 4, confirming no outright majority.
With Labour winning 10 seats and the Liberals 14 in the 35-seat lower house, the House of Assembly, the Liberal leader Jeremy Rockliff will continue as Premier under the caretaker conventions.
These mean the government continues to operate, but refrains from significant policy decisions, major appointments, or entering into long-term financial commitments that would bind a new government. This ensures continuity of administration.
With the Parliament scheduled to meet on August 19, there will be an opportunity for the House of Assembly to indicate if it no longer has confidence in the government.
This can be tested in various ways, most commonly through:
- A motion of no confidence: the Opposition or another party could move a formal motion stating they have no confidence in the government. If this motion passes, the government is expected to resign.
- Supply: the government needs to pass its budget (supply bills) to continue to fund its operations. If these bills are defeated, it’s considered a loss of confidence.
- The Address-in-Reply: often, after the Governor’s speech opening Parliament, there’s an ‘Address-in-Reply’ debate. If the government loses a vote on the Address-in-Reply, it can also be interpreted as a loss of confidence.
Accordingly, the Liberal government will need to secure ‘confidence and supply’ agreements with enough crossbenchers (Independents and/or minor parties like the Greens or potentially Shooters, Fishers, Farmers if they win a seat) to ensure it can survive these crucial votes.
After any significant parliamentary event that impacts on the government’s standing, particularly a vote of confidence or the passing or failure of supply, the Premier will then formally advise the Governor of the situation. This is a fundamental aspect of responsible government.
This is where the Governor’s ‘reserve powers’ come into play, especially in a hung parliament.
While normally the Governor acts on the advice of the Premier, in situations where the government’s ability to govern is in question (e.g., after losing a confidence vote), the Governor may need to exercise her discretion.
If the Premier demonstrates he can now command the confidence of the House (e.g., through agreements with crossbenchers), the Governor will continue to commission him and his ministry.
But if the incumbent Premier cannot demonstrate confidence, but another leader (e.g., the Labor leader) can, the Governor might invite that alternative leader to form a government. This would usually involve that leader showing the Governor they have enough support from other parties or independents to pass confidence and supply motions.
Let us suppose no party, coalition, or combination of parties can form a stable government that commands the confidence of the House. In that case, the Governor might ultimately grant a dissolution of Parliament, leading to yet another election.
This is generally a last resort, as the aim is to avoid imposing another election on the populace if a workable government can be formed.
This is a delicate process; the Governor’s role is to ensure constitutional propriety and the formation of a stable government.
The specific agreements reached between parties and independents in the coming weeks will be critical to determining the path forward for Tasmania.
Originally posted to the Spectator’s Flat White.