Candidates in Tasmania's Legislative Council election weighing up Hobart stadium decision
Voters in Montgomery, which takes in parts of Burnie, the Central Coast, Sheffield and extends south to the Cradle Valley, will go to the polls on May 24 alongside electors in Nelson and Pembroke — two seats with a view of Macquarie Point, the site of the planned arena.
But unlike the Hobart seats where popular incumbents are recontesting their roles, Montgomery's Liberal MP Leonie Hiscutt is retiring — leaving the race open to several contenders, including her son Casey Hiscutt.
Mr Hiscutt, however, is running as an independent, and the Liberal government is hoping former federal senator Stephen Parry will retain the seat for the party.
Independent Gatty Burnett is also standing, as is Greens candidate Darren Briggs and Adrian Pickin from the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party.
The candidates have offered a range of views on the stadium, and whoever is successful will be crucial to helping — or hindering — the government's plans for the stadium.
The Liberal government needs state parliament's upper house, known as the Legislative Council, to pass its special legislation on the stadium if it is to be built as it is currently proposed.
It's guaranteed to pass the lower house, where Labor has vowed its support.
The AFL issued Tasmania an entry licence to the league on the condition that a stadium be built at Macquarie Point.
Premier Jeremy Rockliff has been criticised after issuing an ultimatum to legislative councillors.
"If the legislation is not passed, the stadium won't go ahead and the team will not go ahead," Mr Rockliff said earlier this month.
Independent upper house MP Ruth Forrest said the premier's language was "threatening."
Polling published by the Tasmanian firm EMRS in February indicated the broader north-west population was largely opposed to the stadium, with 65 per cent of the region against the plan, compared to 59 per cent of people statewide.
Ulverstone resident Helen Farmer said she had signed up to be a member of the Tasmania Devils team, but she felt the stadium planning had not been transparent and the location was not suitable.
Another Montgomery voter, Alan Rowe, said he believed "it'd be a great thing for the state".
Data specific to Montgomery has not been published but, coincidentally, the Montgomery candidate stances closely align with the EMRS polling, with three of the five opposed to the government's plan.
Mr Parry said he had come across opposition to the stadium in the electorate but believed he had convinced voters to support it when he explained the "long-term benefit".
Mr Hiscutt said he was a supporter of a Tasmanian AFL team, which he said relied on a stadium in Hobart for a sustainable business model.
He said he would "scrutinise" the legislation, and criticised the government's handling of the negotiations for lacking transparency.
Greens candidate Dr Briggs argues that public money spent on the stadium would be better spent on housing.
Ms Burnett has similarly said she does not believe the voters back a stadium.
"The constituents that I speak to across Montgomery are clear that they don't want a stadium," she said.
And the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers candidate says the stadium should be built in Launceston.
Political analyst Kevin Bonham says the stadium is not the only race in town for Montgomery voters.
"I wouldn't assume that it's an overwhelming issue, but I think it is certainly there," Dr Bonham said.
He said he wouldn't expect voters to back "any anti-stadium candidate" on the ticket, but if anyone other than Mr Parry is successful in Montgomery, it could spell trouble for the Liberal government's plans.
And earlier this week, Liberal MP Liberal MP Felix Ellis was singing a similar song.
"It's quite clear that votes for the other candidates … could kill the dream of an AFL team for Tasmanians."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
15 minutes ago
- ABC News
Labor and the Coalition have very different ideas about ties to the United States
The prime minister's well-telegraphed announcement this week that Australia will recognise a Palestinian state surprised precisely no one in the end. Nor did the opposition's rejection of this diplomatic step. But the arguments from both sides this week revealed more than just a foreign policy split over the Middle East. The growing divide over how deferential Australia should be towards the United States has become a chasm. The prime minister and opposition leader have expressed starkly different views on whether Australia should be prepared to "break" with its great ally on such a major foreign policy question. The partisan divide over how closely to align with the US has been steadily building since Donald Trump's return to the White House. The Albanese government remains committed to the US alliance. It wants AUKUS to survive the ongoing Pentagon review and is confident it will. But at the same time, the prime minister is demonstrating greater independence from the US than any of his recent predecessors would have dared. The unpopularity of Trump in Australia has allowed him the room to move. Australia and the United States are now at odds on climate change (Albanese is sticking with net zero and the Paris Agreement), trade (Trump's tariffs are "not the act of a friend") and defence spending (Australia is resisting US calls to reach a 3.5 per cent of GDP target). In his John Curtin oration last month, Albanese spoke of this greater independence within the US alliance as a virtue. He sees a more sovereign stance benefiting Australia's relations in the region and Labor's political standing at home. When pressed this week on the implications of splitting with the US on Palestinian recognition, the prime minister's response was revealing. "We make our sovereign decisions as a nation state in Australia's national interest, and we are aligning ourselves with like-minded countries," he said. "Sovereignty" and "national interest" carry a patriotic appeal. Aligning with "like-minded countries" refers to the UK, Canada, France who have all committed to Palestinian recognition. The US, notably, is not regarded as "like-minded" here. Australia has been increasingly siding with this "like-minded" group as western nations navigate the turbulence of Trump. In statements condemning Israel, in discussions about how to support Ukraine without the US, on climate and trade — this "like-minded" coalition is finding more common ground. Opposition Leader Sussan Ley's view of how Australia should prioritise the US relationship could not be more different. The Coalition is already more closely aligned to Trump's world view on a range of fronts. It's considering joining Trump in dropping the net zero target. On trade, it seeks to blame the Albanese government, at least in part, for Trump's tariffs. On defence spending, the Coalition's pledge to reach a 3 per cent of GDP target was re-stated immediately after the election, while everything else remains under review. Barely a day goes by when the opposition isn't criticising the prime minister failing to secure a face-to-face meeting in the Oval Office. The Coalition views this as vital. It derided the length of Albanese's recent visit to China, on the grounds he should be in Washington instead. On Palestinian recognition, the opposition leader revealed just how heavily she thinks the US relationship should weigh in Australia's thinking. "There can be no breaking with our closest ally," Ley declared at a press conference after a shadow cabinet decision to oppose and reverse Palestinian recognition. "It's disrespectful of the relationship with the US," she told 2GB. Shadow Finance Minister James Paterson, incidentally, struck a somewhat different tone. While also strongly criticising the government's decision, he told Sky News Australia "of course, Australia's foreign policy is a matter for Australia, and we should decide it consistent with our own national interest, regardless of what our friends or allies might say". It was an acknowledgement the Coalition's position should still be framed as a sovereign decision, not one driven by deference to the United States. For his part, Trump is clearly not in favour of Palestinian recognition while Hamas remains in place and before a peace process. He agrees with those who argue recognition only rewards Hamas. He dismisses the significance of momentum amongst US allies who have taken this step. But Australia's decision to join the list hasn't caused much of a reaction from Trump at all. Indeed, the level of presidential concern appears to be subsiding as more allies take this step. A White House official told the Nine newspapers while the president's position is clear, he "is not married to any one solution as it pertains to building a more peaceful region". Still, Trump is nothing if not unpredictable. He may well say something much stronger if directly asked. This difference over Palestinian recognition could add to strains in the Australia-US relationship. The Albanese government has no doubt factored in that risk, along with all the other risks that go along with the decision to recognise a Palestinian state. The fear of upsetting Trump, however, isn't stopping US allies from moving towards Palestinian recognition. And here in Australia, this decision has exposed an even wider gap between the prime minister and opposition leader over whether "breaking with our closest ally" is OK. David Speers is national political lead and host of Insiders, which airs on ABC TV at 9am on Sunday or on iview.
ABC News
an hour ago
- ABC News
Leaked Treasury advice lists possible outcomes of Labor's yet-to-be held roundtable
A leaked Treasury document has revealed a number of recommended outcomes for the federal government's yet to be held productivity roundtable. The pre-written list, prepared for cabinet and seen by the ABC, shows advice from Treasury to pause the National Construction Code, similar to a proposal by former opposition leader Peter Dutton that was panned by Labor at the federal election. It also recommends measures to speed up housing approvals, including a national artificial intelligence plan to cut environmental red tape, and reforms to clear a backlog of 30,000 housing approvals currently being assessed under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity (EPBC) Act. Industry has approached next week's summit cautiously, after some business leaders left the government's 2022 'Jobs and Skills Summit' feeling the government had entered with a pre-determined outcome. Shadow Treasurer Ted O'Brien last month warned the government not to approach the economic summit with an "agenda", or else it would risk it becoming a "talkfest". A spokesman for Treasurer Jim Chalmers said the government was consulting widely and broadly on economic reforms ahead of the round table. "We aren't pre-empting ideas floated there, but Treasury is preparing for them as you would expect," the spokesman said. "It should come as no surprise that Treasury provides advice on issues raised with the government, including issues raised in the context of the round table." The advice issued ahead of the three-day Economic Reform Roundtable reveals what the government expects to achieve during the talks, and while the document has been prepared for cabinet, the government does not have to accept all of it. Economic experts, unions and business groups will descend on Parliament House in Canberra next week for the wide-ranging discussion, designed to fulfil the government's promise to focus on boosting productivity in its second term. Treasurer Jim Chalmers told the National Press Club in June that he wanted the forum to consider tax reform as a priority, but Prime Minister Anthony Albanese played down expectations last week, suggesting the "only" tax policy the government was implementing was what it took to the election. Mr Albanese told the ABC on Tuesday, however, his government was "up for big reform". The Treasury document seen by the ABC does not make any recommendation to reform negative gearing rules or capital gains tax benefits for landlords, politically prickly issues that union groups have urged be put back on the agenda. The government has previously indicated it has no plan to change either. Rather, several of the recommendations mention reform of environmental laws, a task which falls to Environment Minister Murray Watt after the government was unable to pass changes to the laws last term. The National Construction Code governs minimum construction standards for safety, amenity and environmental sustainability of buildings, but its critics say recent and frequent changes to rules drive up the cost of housing. The Productivity Commission recommended a review of the code earlier this year, saying the set of construction rules had blown out to 2,000 pages, and was imposing "unnecessarily high" costs on building new homes. The Coalition proposed a 10-year freeze on changes to the code at the last election, to reduce "red tape" for the building sector. It was a policy Labor dismissed at the time, with then-industry minister Ed Husic accusing the opposition of wanting Australians to live in "shoddy" homes. "We certainly believe that we should have modest, regular changes to the code that keep pace with construction methods," Mr Husic said in November. The new Treasury advice does not specify how long the government should pause changes to the code for. But Master Builders chief executive Denita Wawn said she is lobbying to freeze the code for residential homes for four years, while the government tries to reach its goal of 1.2 million homes by mid-2029. "Our ask is that you pause it for residential, you review the whole document and we ensure that there is a level of consistency to enable people to actually have the certainty of what their costs will be when they invest in housing in this country," Ms Wawn told the ABC. "That is critical if we're going to meet those targets." She said the government so far seemed "sympathetic" to her calls for the pause. Housing Minister Clare O'Neil told the Australian Financial Review last week that builders had to contend with "a crazy amount" of regulation. Environmental law reform also appears to be a centrepiece of the treasurer's round table plans, with department advice recommending a national artificial intelligence plan focused on speeding up approvals. It also suggests the government needs to clear a backlog of 30,000 homes being held up by the EPBC Act assessment process. Labor is attempting to rewrite the EPBC Act, which sets out environmental protections for developments, following calls from conservation and business groups that they are outdated and ineffective. A joint coalition of 27 business groups has called for the unifying of federal, state and local environmental regulations in a submission to the round table, saying delays in planning approvals are costing Australians much needed homes. The Treasury document does not specify how AI would assist in streamlining environmental approvals. Treasury has also advised the government to support corporate watchdog ASIC to review a rule to "unlock more investment in residential construction". ASIC announced it would conduct the review on Wednesday, which aims to boost superannuation funds' ability to invest in housing projects by changing the way they disclose stamp duty payments. Housing Minister Clare O'Neil has welcomed the review, telling the ABC it was a "hugely positive move that could help us unlock billions of investment, and build 35,000 additional homes for Australians". Shadow Housing Minister Andrew Bragg said the decision was "deeply disturbing" and would mean superannuation funds would be more Australians' landlords.
ABC News
4 hours ago
- ABC News
Housing to be a focus at the upcoming economic roundtable
JACOB GREBER, POLITICAL EDITOR: It's one of the biggest challenges facing the country and it's at the heart of the government's reform agenda. JIM CHALMERS, TREASURER: We have got a very big, broad, ambitious housing agenda, which is about building more homes, because that's the best way that we provide more affordable options for people who are trying to get a toehold in a difficult market. JACOB GREBER: But it's in places like the Wollondilly region on the outskirts of Sydney where rhetoric splits from reality. Cassandra Mast and her siblings used an inheritance from their mother to invest in land believing it would be the pathway to building a new, affordable home. CASSANDRA MAST, HOME BUILDER: We wanted to do something that would honour her, and she was always about welcoming people into her home, making sure anyone in trouble had a place to stay. JACOB GREBER: After buying a half-acre block last year almost two years after the previous owners began the process of subdividing it – the project remains mired in red tape. CASSANDRA MAST: We've had to remove so many trees and so many plants for the fire regulation even though the fire rating was downgraded, in between the time first application was made and us starting construction. JACOB GREBER: Anyone doing a renovation or building a home knows exactly how Cassandra Mast feels. CLARE O'NEIL, HOUSING MINISTER: We've got too much red tape and regulation; we are not seeing enough innovation in housing. JACOB GREBER: Housing Minister Clare O'Neil has been touring the country in the leadup to next week's roundtable talking to home builders, who've been telling a familiar story. CLARE O'NEIL: We had a good chat with one of the builders here before and he said to me, you know, a decade ago, the hard part about building a house in this country was the actual building. The problem now sits in the approvals and the delays. JACOB GREBER: Building houses in Australia has become more challenging, tangled in paperwork, and costly. According to a recent study by the Housing Industry Association, almost half the million-dollar cost of a house and land package in Sydney goes into regulatory fees, taxes, and delay. JOCELYN MARTIN, HOUSING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION: It is made up of cascading taxes like stamp duty and GST. It can take up to almost 12 months for a planning approval to take place and then of course for the build itself to take place. JACOB GREBER: Few dispute that housing has become one of the worst inter-generational fairness issues of our time. But unlike previous efforts to fix the problem via demand-boosting incentives like first-home buyer grants - the benefits of which have often flowed to older generations of sellers - the emphasis today and next week's roundtable is about increasing supply. JOCELYN MARTIN: We are hoping that there will be discussions around how to make the delivery of housing more productive, how to address significant amounts of regulation and red tape, to look at all the things that are holding back the delivery of housing supply. JACOB GREBER: The much-hyped economic roundtable is all about momentum building. Three days of talks have been scheduled. The only problem? The government 's messaging over how ambitious they should be has risen and fallen like the tide. JIM CHALMERS (17 June): I expect, I anticipate, I welcome tax being an important part of the conversation. ANTHONY ALBANESE (7 August): The only tax policy that we're implementing is the one we took to the election. JACOB GREBER: The whiplash has stoked speculation of tension between the Prime Minister and his Treasurer. Though both are denying it today. SALLY SARA, RADIO NATIONAL: Are you and the Prime Minister in lockstep about what this roundtable will ultimately achieve? JIM CHALMERS: Completely. ANTHONY ALBANESE: We talk every week, almost every day. We talked yesterday. We talk every day, either in person or exchange messages. JIM CHALMERS: I think it has been a very worthwhile thing that we are shaking the tree for ideas and the Prime Minister and I are aligned in the way we go about that. ANTHONY ALBANESE: We are up for big reform, whether it's strengthening Medicare, the changes to childcare, the benefit to education. JACOB GREBER: Despite the bold talk and the Prime Minister and Treasurer's media blitz of the last few days – almost pre-budget-like in its intensity - it's far from clear what the roundtable will ultimately achieve. For now, major tax reform is off the table, unions are pushing for regulation of artificial intelligence and a four-day work week. But as we've seen, it's in housing where hopes are highest. JOCELYN MARTIN: It is a slow ship to turn around, but we are seeing some changes. JACOB GREBER: For people trying to build homes now, it can't happen fast enough. CASSANDRA MAST: If we can add a home, and someone else can add a home, and someone else can add a home, we won't have a housing problem. We don't need huge developments.
