Trashing the Westminster System of Government

The three Independents who will hold the balance of power in a minority government if formed have asked for Treasury costings and analysis on both major parties policies to be provided to them. For this to occur it apparently requires changes to the caretaker arrangements of government (http://www.dpmc.gov.au/guidelines/docs/caretaker_conventions.pdf). Julia Gillard wants to do this and not only that she wants to publish all the costings and Treasury analysis on the economy for consumption by all Australians.

Tony Abbot says he still won't submit his policies for costings as required by the caretaker arrangement amendments of the Howard Government. Tony puts forward that: "What we've got here is a desperate Prime Minister trashing the Westminster system in an attempt to hold onto power,".

Well... Err... No... Tony... The Westminster system of Government doesn't really prescribe anything about specific caretaker arrangements and in fact if a Government wants to change those arrangements they can - As evidenced by the Howard Government.

As for publishing what is usually confidential treasury advice and analysis, I couldn't find any convention of the Westminster system that claims this is a key element of it that could or would harm it's legitimacy.

What is a key element of the Westminster system of Government is that the lower house or House of Representatives is subject to a Government being dismissed by blocking supply or passing a no confidence vote. This is the core of why the Independents want to be sure that they side with the party most capable of providing stable Government because the risk of this happening is dramatically increased in a hung parliament.

By resisting the request to submit his policies for costings and analysis to Treasury (the very body that will be asked to handle them if the Coalition take Government) Tony effectively puts in doubt the ability of his party to provide stable Government. Why is it a problem for those who hold the balance of power and could pass a no confidence vote against the minority government to have some reassurance that they can commit to a Government with confidence that won't come to pass?

Tony argues that a leak made during the campaign means the Coalition cannot trust Treasury, which in itself is a fairly dangerous statement to make. What does this mean? How does a leak of an analysis constitute a failure of the body in question to provide accurate analysis? It just doesn't make sense. If Tony had argued the analysis was biased in some way and could provide evidence then at least his argument would hold some water.

In contrast to Tony, Julia Gillard is bending over backwards to provide the Independents with everything they want and more. Some would argue she's just selling herself out in order to gain power, but that largely ignores the circumstances we find ourselves in. If we went back to the polls it would be harder to argue that Julia's stance would cost her more votes than Tony's would, people really don't like the idea of unanswered questions and Tony is doing his best to manufacture a few.

So who is really is "trashing the Westminster system"? If anyone? At this point no one is, but you could argue Tony is showing a little disregard for the reality of the situation. If the Independents side with the Coalition and then discover that the budget or important bill isn't to their liking, they can block it and send us back to the polls. So lets find out now if they would block it so we can get that over and done with as soon as possible.