Tasmania election: Winter mulls Greens deal as hung parliament looms
The results two days on show Tasmania Labor is still on track for its worst ever electoral performance with the party currently sitting on under 26 per cent of the primary vote with the Liberals on 40 per cent and the Greens capturing 14 per cent of voters first choices.
Labor's 2025 state election result is the party's worst electoral performance since 1903.
Despite the result, Labor is likely to end up with the same number of MPs as it did in the 2024 election when it achieved 29 per cent of the primary, while the Liberals had 14 seats – short of the 18 to form majority.
While Premier Jeremy Rockliff is claiming a mandate for the Liberal Party to continue in power, Labor leader Dean Winter may still work with the Greens and crossbenchers to form a minority government.
Labor Leader Dean Winter with his wife Allison at Hobart Grand Chancellor tally room on election night. Picture: Caroline Tan
As the election night results rolled into the Tasmanian tally room, it looked increasingly like Mr Winter's election gamble had backfired.
What makes this election outcome different is unlike in the immediate aftermath of the 2024 result, the Labor leader has not refused to attempt to form government with the Greens and independent crossbench.
Despite ruling out any formal deal with the Greens, Mr Winter says he has already reached out to a number of independents.
The Greens have urged Labor to seek an arrangement with them to form government.
It is understood the Labor leader has yet to contact Greens leader Rosalie Woodruff. However for Labor to govern in any capacity, the Greens support in some form will be required.
Mr Rockliff who all but declared victory on Saturday night is adamant that he is the one with a mandate to govern.
'I do have a mandate, given we've got the largest number of seats,' the Premier told reporters on Monday.
'For Dean Winter to govern, he'll need to do a deal with the Greens for which he does not have a mandate from the Tasmanian people.'
Liberal Leader Jeremy Rockliff says he has the mandate to form a minority government. Picture: Caroline Tan
The problem for the Liberals however is that with a likely 14 or possibly 15 seats, they are also well short of the 18 votes needed to command a workable majority on the floor of the 35-seat House of Assembly.
Additionally, with the former Jacqui Lambie members all losing their seats, the House will be without conservative leaning independents, with three of the four independents elected opposed to the Macquarie Point stadium.
The only crossbench member to support the project is former Labor leader David O Byrne, who said he could work with either side to form government.
There could be an additional new member to the crossbench with Shooters, Fishers and Farmers candidate Carlo di Falco a chance to win in Lyons, however a final result is not expected for another week.
The Shooters, Fishers and Farmers are opposed to the stadium, meaning one of Mr Rockliff's key commitments would only be delivered with Labor votes, regardless of who forms government.
Tasmania Labor's path to power looks less certain but they can count on Greens support in whatever form that comes (Mr Winter says the support would only be accepted without any conditions attached)
Labor leader Dean Winter's chances of forming government are more difficult. Picture: Caroline Tan
With a likely 10 seats from Labor and five from the Greens, Mr Winter would then only have to negotiate with three independents, something Mr Winter was unwilling to do just one month ago.
Saturday's election was held follow the passage of Labor leader's successful no confidence motion in Premier Rockliff's leadership with Mr Winter citing the botched roll out of new Spirit of Tasmania vessels, the state's growing budget deficit and the controversial Macquarie Point Stadium project as examples of Mr Rockliff's failed leadership.
Despite being in a position to put together a minority government as a result of the no confidence motion's passage, Mr Winter chose to decline the opportunity, leaving the state's Governor with no choice but to grant Mr Rockliff's wish to hold the state's second election in just 16 months.
Instead of a clear result. Tasmanian voters have returned very similar numbers as the last parliament.
This time Mr Winter may be less likely to pass the opportunity of government up, with the Labor leader calling a third election 'not an option.'
Originally published as How Labor Party could still form government in Tasmania despite 'worst ever' election result
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Advertiser
an hour ago
- The Advertiser
Fears for vulnerable children as social media ban grows
Limiting children's access to social media could inadvertently harm marginalised children, an expert has warned, as YouTube is roped into Australia's ban. The federal government's decision to include the video-sharing platform in its social media ban for under-16s has renewed focus on the measure. While it has been broadly celebrated by the coalition and Labor, who say it will protect children from the harms of social media, youth mental health foundation Headspace disagrees. "This is seen as a solution and it may be helpful, we don't know. But it may cause harm as well," national clinical advisor Simon Dodd told AAP. "We've talked to young people and they value social media. They value the connections it gives them." This was particularly true for those who struggled to find physical community in parts of regional or rural Australia, and for LGBTQI youth, who use social media platforms to find support and stay safe, Mr Dodd said. Mental health is complicated as there are many factors that can impact it, including a person's social environment, and focusing on one measure as a solution risks missing opportunities to address young people's challenges . From December, people under 16 will no longer be able to create accounts on social media platforms such as Snapchat, Instagram, Facebook ,TikTok and now YouTube. Platforms that fail to conform with these rules face fines of up to $49.5 million. Eating disorder not-for-profit Hide N Seek warned YouTube could be home to harmful content such as extreme videos about body transformations or "what I eat in a day" media. "It can be extremely damaging, extremely damaging for children who are still developing their sense of self," founder Jaimee Krawitz told AAP. "But YouTube also hosts supportive, recovery-focused communities and educational content that can be part of a young person's healing journey." The changes will still allow children to access YouTube Kids or view videos accessible without an account. Though he recognised regulation was part of the answer to making online spaces safer, Mr Dodd has also urged the government to centre on young people's voices. "They have consistently told us they get the complexities of the social media environment and understand it better than many of the adults who are trying to legislate something that is difficult to manage," he said. "Without genuine consultation, this will result in young people feeling less trust in government and that is a real worry." Limiting children's access to social media could inadvertently harm marginalised children, an expert has warned, as YouTube is roped into Australia's ban. The federal government's decision to include the video-sharing platform in its social media ban for under-16s has renewed focus on the measure. While it has been broadly celebrated by the coalition and Labor, who say it will protect children from the harms of social media, youth mental health foundation Headspace disagrees. "This is seen as a solution and it may be helpful, we don't know. But it may cause harm as well," national clinical advisor Simon Dodd told AAP. "We've talked to young people and they value social media. They value the connections it gives them." This was particularly true for those who struggled to find physical community in parts of regional or rural Australia, and for LGBTQI youth, who use social media platforms to find support and stay safe, Mr Dodd said. Mental health is complicated as there are many factors that can impact it, including a person's social environment, and focusing on one measure as a solution risks missing opportunities to address young people's challenges . From December, people under 16 will no longer be able to create accounts on social media platforms such as Snapchat, Instagram, Facebook ,TikTok and now YouTube. Platforms that fail to conform with these rules face fines of up to $49.5 million. Eating disorder not-for-profit Hide N Seek warned YouTube could be home to harmful content such as extreme videos about body transformations or "what I eat in a day" media. "It can be extremely damaging, extremely damaging for children who are still developing their sense of self," founder Jaimee Krawitz told AAP. "But YouTube also hosts supportive, recovery-focused communities and educational content that can be part of a young person's healing journey." The changes will still allow children to access YouTube Kids or view videos accessible without an account. Though he recognised regulation was part of the answer to making online spaces safer, Mr Dodd has also urged the government to centre on young people's voices. "They have consistently told us they get the complexities of the social media environment and understand it better than many of the adults who are trying to legislate something that is difficult to manage," he said. "Without genuine consultation, this will result in young people feeling less trust in government and that is a real worry." Limiting children's access to social media could inadvertently harm marginalised children, an expert has warned, as YouTube is roped into Australia's ban. The federal government's decision to include the video-sharing platform in its social media ban for under-16s has renewed focus on the measure. While it has been broadly celebrated by the coalition and Labor, who say it will protect children from the harms of social media, youth mental health foundation Headspace disagrees. "This is seen as a solution and it may be helpful, we don't know. But it may cause harm as well," national clinical advisor Simon Dodd told AAP. "We've talked to young people and they value social media. They value the connections it gives them." This was particularly true for those who struggled to find physical community in parts of regional or rural Australia, and for LGBTQI youth, who use social media platforms to find support and stay safe, Mr Dodd said. Mental health is complicated as there are many factors that can impact it, including a person's social environment, and focusing on one measure as a solution risks missing opportunities to address young people's challenges . From December, people under 16 will no longer be able to create accounts on social media platforms such as Snapchat, Instagram, Facebook ,TikTok and now YouTube. Platforms that fail to conform with these rules face fines of up to $49.5 million. Eating disorder not-for-profit Hide N Seek warned YouTube could be home to harmful content such as extreme videos about body transformations or "what I eat in a day" media. "It can be extremely damaging, extremely damaging for children who are still developing their sense of self," founder Jaimee Krawitz told AAP. "But YouTube also hosts supportive, recovery-focused communities and educational content that can be part of a young person's healing journey." The changes will still allow children to access YouTube Kids or view videos accessible without an account. Though he recognised regulation was part of the answer to making online spaces safer, Mr Dodd has also urged the government to centre on young people's voices. "They have consistently told us they get the complexities of the social media environment and understand it better than many of the adults who are trying to legislate something that is difficult to manage," he said. "Without genuine consultation, this will result in young people feeling less trust in government and that is a real worry." Limiting children's access to social media could inadvertently harm marginalised children, an expert has warned, as YouTube is roped into Australia's ban. The federal government's decision to include the video-sharing platform in its social media ban for under-16s has renewed focus on the measure. While it has been broadly celebrated by the coalition and Labor, who say it will protect children from the harms of social media, youth mental health foundation Headspace disagrees. "This is seen as a solution and it may be helpful, we don't know. But it may cause harm as well," national clinical advisor Simon Dodd told AAP. "We've talked to young people and they value social media. They value the connections it gives them." This was particularly true for those who struggled to find physical community in parts of regional or rural Australia, and for LGBTQI youth, who use social media platforms to find support and stay safe, Mr Dodd said. Mental health is complicated as there are many factors that can impact it, including a person's social environment, and focusing on one measure as a solution risks missing opportunities to address young people's challenges . From December, people under 16 will no longer be able to create accounts on social media platforms such as Snapchat, Instagram, Facebook ,TikTok and now YouTube. Platforms that fail to conform with these rules face fines of up to $49.5 million. Eating disorder not-for-profit Hide N Seek warned YouTube could be home to harmful content such as extreme videos about body transformations or "what I eat in a day" media. "It can be extremely damaging, extremely damaging for children who are still developing their sense of self," founder Jaimee Krawitz told AAP. "But YouTube also hosts supportive, recovery-focused communities and educational content that can be part of a young person's healing journey." The changes will still allow children to access YouTube Kids or view videos accessible without an account. Though he recognised regulation was part of the answer to making online spaces safer, Mr Dodd has also urged the government to centre on young people's voices. "They have consistently told us they get the complexities of the social media environment and understand it better than many of the adults who are trying to legislate something that is difficult to manage," he said. "Without genuine consultation, this will result in young people feeling less trust in government and that is a real worry."
Sydney Morning Herald
2 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Their founder now calls them unlikeable and authoritarian. Can the Greens change their spots?
Not so long ago, Adam Bandt was a very happy man. It was the winter of 2022. The Morrison government had been defeated and Bandt, in his fifth term as the member for Melbourne, was accompanied in the lower house by three new Greens colleagues who'd won seats in inner-city Brisbane. The 'old' parties – Labor and the Coalition – were in terminal decline as far as the Greens leader was concerned. 'We created a Greenslide, and we've put down even deeper roots in Greensland,' he declared. 'Next election, I know we can grow again. I think we can win even more lower house seats.' Bandt stayed on his high for the next three years. He looked ahead to the prospect of Labor falling into minority government status in 2025 and how that would enable the Greens to have a direct role in setting national policy. He worked with his housing spokesman, Max Chandler-Mather, to block the Albanese government's housing policies, deemed to be insufficient, by joining with the Coalition in the Senate. Bandt and Chandler-Mather convinced themselves they were creating a whole new Greens-supporting political constituency of mostly young, angry renters. They overplayed their hand. The government stared them down and the Greens eventually folded late last year, waving through Labor's legislation. But the damage was done. The Greenslide was going into reverse. Most renters don't want to stay renters forever. They wanted action on building more houses; Labor's prescription might not have been ideal, but it did offer action while the Greens for too long delivered inaction and boasted about it. It was a shocking failure of strategy. Much of the talk in politics, encouraged by Bandt publicly, was about a possible Labor-Greens minority government. At the May 3 election, voters with the power to make a definitive difference acted assertively. Two of the 'Greenslide' seats went to the ALP, and Bandt himself was turfed out of Melbourne, which Labor's Sarah Witty won with a swing of more than 8 per cent. There is now just one Greens MP in the lower house, Elizabeth Watson-Brown. A couple of points need to be made. One is that although the Greens lost three of their four seats, the party's lower house vote was still 12 per cent, just as it was in 2022. The other is that while the party was hurt in the lower house, it is by no means irrelevant. One of the biggest running stories about the Albanese government's second term is that it will have to rely on the Greens in the Senate to get its legislation passed. The Greens have 10 senators and the balance of power. They are the legislative gatekeepers. But they have been on a long march to try to fulfil the wish of one of their founders, Bob Brown, to replace the Labor Party as the pre-eminent 'progressive' party. That venture is not going well and took a bad hit at this election. In fact, the 2025 outcome could well come to be seen as a watershed for the Greens. It suggested very strongly that while the public is OK with the Greens having a substantial presence and role in the upper house, it's much less interested in entrusting them with a direct role in government. Loading Just to put the Greens' new single-seat status in context, the party's 12.2 per cent share of the national primary vote is certainly substantial. But the other parties holding one seat are Centre Alliance, with 0.2 per cent of the vote, and Katter's Australian Party, with 0.3 per cent. The Greens' lower house vote share has hovered around 12 per cent for six consecutive elections. And on May 3, many of its older, cashed-up supporters in gentrified suburbs, put off by the performative politics of Bandt and Chandler-Mather as well as its aggressive stance on the Israel-Gaza conflict, flipped to the Labor Party. In my local polling place, a hitherto heavily Green part of the seat of Wills, there was a 7 per cent swing away from the Greens, which, along with similar vote shifts elsewhere, was enough to keep Wills in Labor's hands. Bandt's successor as leader, Larissa Waters, has a massive job ahead of her in navigating the responsibility of holding the balance of power in the Senate while also recalibrating the tone and behaviour of the party. There is a key question about the Greens' mission. The party grew out of the environmental movement, a global phenomenon, and is still struggling with broadening itself. The split over transgender rights and restrictions on discussing the issue within the party, which has led to the expulsion of a co-founder, Drew Hutton, is an example of this. Hutton has described the modern Greens as aggressive, weird, unlikeable, authoritarian and doctrinaire.
The Age
2 hours ago
- The Age
Their founder now calls them unlikeable and authoritarian. Can the Greens change their spots?
Not so long ago, Adam Bandt was a very happy man. It was the winter of 2022. The Morrison government had been defeated and Bandt, in his fifth term as the member for Melbourne, was accompanied in the lower house by three new Greens colleagues who'd won seats in inner-city Brisbane. The 'old' parties – Labor and the Coalition – were in terminal decline as far as the Greens leader was concerned. 'We created a Greenslide, and we've put down even deeper roots in Greensland,' he declared. 'Next election, I know we can grow again. I think we can win even more lower house seats.' Bandt stayed on his high for the next three years. He looked ahead to the prospect of Labor falling into minority government status in 2025 and how that would enable the Greens to have a direct role in setting national policy. He worked with his housing spokesman, Max Chandler-Mather, to block the Albanese government's housing policies, deemed to be insufficient, by joining with the Coalition in the Senate. Bandt and Chandler-Mather convinced themselves they were creating a whole new Greens-supporting political constituency of mostly young, angry renters. They overplayed their hand. The government stared them down and the Greens eventually folded late last year, waving through Labor's legislation. But the damage was done. The Greenslide was going into reverse. Most renters don't want to stay renters forever. They wanted action on building more houses; Labor's prescription might not have been ideal, but it did offer action while the Greens for too long delivered inaction and boasted about it. It was a shocking failure of strategy. Much of the talk in politics, encouraged by Bandt publicly, was about a possible Labor-Greens minority government. At the May 3 election, voters with the power to make a definitive difference acted assertively. Two of the 'Greenslide' seats went to the ALP, and Bandt himself was turfed out of Melbourne, which Labor's Sarah Witty won with a swing of more than 8 per cent. There is now just one Greens MP in the lower house, Elizabeth Watson-Brown. A couple of points need to be made. One is that although the Greens lost three of their four seats, the party's lower house vote was still 12 per cent, just as it was in 2022. The other is that while the party was hurt in the lower house, it is by no means irrelevant. One of the biggest running stories about the Albanese government's second term is that it will have to rely on the Greens in the Senate to get its legislation passed. The Greens have 10 senators and the balance of power. They are the legislative gatekeepers. But they have been on a long march to try to fulfil the wish of one of their founders, Bob Brown, to replace the Labor Party as the pre-eminent 'progressive' party. That venture is not going well and took a bad hit at this election. In fact, the 2025 outcome could well come to be seen as a watershed for the Greens. It suggested very strongly that while the public is OK with the Greens having a substantial presence and role in the upper house, it's much less interested in entrusting them with a direct role in government. Loading Just to put the Greens' new single-seat status in context, the party's 12.2 per cent share of the national primary vote is certainly substantial. But the other parties holding one seat are Centre Alliance, with 0.2 per cent of the vote, and Katter's Australian Party, with 0.3 per cent. The Greens' lower house vote share has hovered around 12 per cent for six consecutive elections. And on May 3, many of its older, cashed-up supporters in gentrified suburbs, put off by the performative politics of Bandt and Chandler-Mather as well as its aggressive stance on the Israel-Gaza conflict, flipped to the Labor Party. In my local polling place, a hitherto heavily Green part of the seat of Wills, there was a 7 per cent swing away from the Greens, which, along with similar vote shifts elsewhere, was enough to keep Wills in Labor's hands. Bandt's successor as leader, Larissa Waters, has a massive job ahead of her in navigating the responsibility of holding the balance of power in the Senate while also recalibrating the tone and behaviour of the party. There is a key question about the Greens' mission. The party grew out of the environmental movement, a global phenomenon, and is still struggling with broadening itself. The split over transgender rights and restrictions on discussing the issue within the party, which has led to the expulsion of a co-founder, Drew Hutton, is an example of this. Hutton has described the modern Greens as aggressive, weird, unlikeable, authoritarian and doctrinaire.
