My understanding is that Gilliard has a razor thin majority...two or three votes...and at least one of those votes is a "Green".I think I read someplace (the Sydney Morning Herald?) that that tax was enacted solely to keep that one "Green" on board so that Gilliard could stay in office.I certainly may have misread the piece or misunderstood what I was reading but if that's the case it doesn't speak well of Gilliard's ambition and lust for power.Of course we have that type here in the States...as anyone who's following Obabam's reelection campaign knows.
And BTW...what time is it there?? Something like 2AM??? Maybe that explains your typos! ;-)
Absolutely accurate. At the last election, Labor won 72 seats, and the Liberal/National coalition won 73 seats, in the 150 seat House of Representatives, control of which determines who forms government - you need 76 seats in your hands on at least the basic issues of confidence and supply (the budget) to form a government.
One seat went to a Green, four to Independents. To form government, Labor had to get at least four of those five to support them, the Coalition had to get at least three.
Labor wound up forming government when the Green, and three of the four Independents went their way. At that point, one coalition MP chose to sit as an independent - he was prepared to be part of a Coalition government, but saw no value in remaining in coalition in opposition (a couple of weeks ago, he rejoined the coalition in a clear sign he expects them to be back in government soon - in case it sounds like he's disloyal, he's not really - his position is based on the will of his constituents, and of his state party, and everybody in the coalition understands the exceptional nature of his position and understood it prior to the election).
To get Green support, which she needed to take office, the Prime Minister had to agree to introduce the carbon tax she had categorically said she would not. That broken promise is the primary reason her government is in dire political straits.