Shooters, Fishers and Farmers candidate Carlo Di Falco elected to Tasmanian parliament
As the distribution of preferences continued on Friday, ABC chief elections analyst Casey Briggs declared Mr Di Falco had secured the seat.
Mr Di Falco, an SFF candidate for Lyons at the last three state elections, is the first from the party to be elected to Tasmanian parliament.
The party described its campaign as being "run on the smell of an oily rag", with no paid staff and limited funds.
Tasmania's latest election is the fourth in seven years, and happened only 16 months after the last one.
It resulted in another hung parliament.
The Liberals have won 14 seats, Labor 10, the Greens five, and four independents have been elected, while one seat in the electorate of Bass remains in doubt.
Regardless of which major party forms government, they will need support from some or most of the crossbench to form minority government.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Perth Now
13 minutes ago
- Perth Now
Jostling for government hots up as final votes declared
Tasmanians hope to soon gain a clearer picture of their next government, as the declaration of poll ceremony finalises results of a snap election that left the state in political limbo. With the votes counted and elected members confirmed, focus shifts to high-stakes negotiations as the major parties vie to form the next government. Tasmanian Premier Jeremy Rockliff has declared his readiness to accept the "will of the people" as he positions the Liberal Party as the strongest contenders to form government. He revealed on Sunday he intends to ask Governor Barbara Baker to recommission his government, saying he is keen to "get on with the job". "We want to work with each and every member of parliament to ensure everyone has their say," Mr Rockliff said. "Tasmanians are sick and tired of the political games. They have elected a parliament, they expect all members of parliament to work together." The final makeup of Tasmania's parliament is 14 Liberals, 10 Labor, five Greens, one Shooters, Fishers and Farmers MP and five independents. Labor's Jess Greene and independent George Razay claimed the final seats in the division of Bass on Saturday. Mr Rockliff and Labor Leader Dean Winter are intensifying negotiations with the crossbench to form another minority government as they attempt to secure the 18 parliamentary votes needed to govern. Professor Razay didn't reveal whether he would support the Liberals or Labor when speaking to ABC Radio Hobart on Monday. "Nobody knows George's views until the day of voting because I like to listen to every opinion and do my background research and then make my opinion on that day," he said. "So I said to both, 'look don't worry about me, if you are able to form a government, I am going to support whoever forms a government'." Deputy Labor Leader Anita Dow criticised Mr Rockliff's pledge, saying he had "learned nothing" from the starring role he played in the collapse of the last parliament. "The increasingly arrogant Premier claimed that without changing the way he operates, a new government he leads could last a full term,'' she said. "Despite losing the confidence of the house, he still thinks the last parliament was working well." The snap election on July 19 was triggered after Mr Rockliff lost a no-confidence motion, prompting the state's second election in 16 months. A key sticking point in negotiations to form government is the major parties backing a new stadium on Hobart's waterfront, which is a condition for Tasmania getting a side in the AFL. But the Greens and some independents are bitterly opposed to the plan.
The Australian
38 minutes ago
- The Australian
McKell Institute warns thousands of Australian manufacturing jobs are at risk
Thousands of Australian manufacturing jobs, particularly in regional areas, face significant risk as China intensifies investments to bolster its own manufacturing industries, a new report warns. The research by the McKell Institute reveals approximately 73,000 jobs in Australian regions reliant on refining and smelting metals are vulnerable. The report highlights the town of Port Pirie in South Australia, where state ministers have called for a federal bailout to save its lead smelter, a crucial local employer. If the smelter closes, the report estimates the town's population could drop by around 2,000 people, roughly 11 per cent, as economically productive residents and their families relocate. 'South Australia simply cannot afford to lose industrial anchors such as the Port Pirie smelter – anchors that have sustained regional communities for generations,' McKell Institute chief executive Ed Cavanough said. 'Our analysis shows that if the Port Pirie smelter were to close, the town's population could drop by around 2,000 people – that's 11 per cent – in the first year alone.' The report claims China's 'aggressive' industrial subsidisation, now likely exceeding its defence spending, is a major driver behind the mounting pressure on Australia's refined metals sector. In 2019, China invested an estimated $407 billion in industrial subsidies, enabling it to produce refined metals at significantly lower costs and flood global markets with cheap products, the report said. 'In the short-term, China's geoeconomic strategy is designed to onshore as much global heavy industrial capacity as possible,' Mr Cavanough said. 'In the longer-term the strategic goal is limiting the viability of critical manufacturing in competitor economies, including Australia. 'This would create a huge long-term economic advantage for China, and hobble Australia's industrial capacity.' Mr Cavanough said other nations are actively responding to these challenges while Australia's current approach of reacting plant by plant is unsustainable. 'Currently, the government is playing industrial whack-a-mole – working with individual refiners to preserve individual plants as they come under threat,' he said. The report urges the Albanese Government to develop a cohesive national strategy to safeguard communities reliant on the industry. Read related topics: China Ties Breaking News England v India: Three talking points Breaking News Israeli PM says to brief army on Gaza war plan
ABC News
2 hours ago
- ABC News
Why police couldn't stop the Harbour Bridge protest
Sam Hawley: It was a protest the New South Wales government and police tried to stop but couldn't. In the end, more than 100,000 protesters were permitted to walk across the Sydney Harbour Bridge, demanding an end to the war in Gaza. But should we be concerned that organisers had to fight for the right to hold the rally in the first place? Today, Associate Professor in Law at the University of South Australia, Sarah Moulds, on why it's becoming harder to protest. I'm Sam Hawley on Gadigal land in Sydney. This is ABC News Daily. News report: It was the protest that brought Sydney to a standstill. Thousands marching across the Harbour Bridge. Despite the rain that come from all over the city and beyond. Protester: The starving children of Gaza cannot wait another day. End the violence. Protester: There's too many deaths of young children, too much starvation. Protester: It's a sign of the turning tide of the of the opinion in this country. And it's a sign that people aren't going to put up with it anymore. Sam Hawley: Sarah, when a pro-Palestinian group first proposed this march across the Harbour Bridge in Sydney about a week before it was to take place, the government and police were not happy, were they? Sarah Moulds: No, they were looking for a way to stop the protest or to see whether the protest could happen in a different place. Sam Hawley: Yeah. So the New South Wales Police Acting Deputy Commissioner, Peter McKenna, he was saying that he was concerned about public safety and the disruption to motorists. Assistant Commissioner Peter McKenna, NSW Police: We understand there is some angst at the moment about what's happening overseas. We understand and are sympathetic to that. But the New South Wales Police decision around this has to be first and foremost about public and police safety. We will not be facilitating that protest. Sam Hawley: Chris Minns, the New South Wales Premier, he opposed the protest, saying he could not allow Sydney to descend into chaos. Chris Minns, NSW Premier: To close down the Harbour Bridge, which has happened maybe two or three times in a decade, is a logistical and communications Everest. It's incredibly difficult to do. And I understand that some people say, look, it's easy to shut down the bridge. It's not easy. Sam Hawley: Were they reasonable arguments at that time? Sarah Moulds: I think they were reasonable arguments. But one of the things that's important to hold in mind is this concept that we have a common law right to communicate about political matters in Australia that comes from our constitution. And the concept of the right of peaceful assembly is something we've signed up to at the international level. So while I think the arguments around safety, inconvenience and disruption are really powerful, particularly with something of this scale in this place, on the other side of the ledger, if you like, are these important principles that Australians also consider to be fundamental in our democracy? Sam Hawley: All right. Well, around this time, the protesters were predicting that around 50,000 people would turn up. So that's about a week before it actually happened. And the matter then went before the New South Wales Supreme Court and Judge Belinda Rigg, who would make the ultimate decision about whether or not this protest could happen on the Harbour Bridge. And she did that on Saturday morning. What did she say? Sarah Moulds: In the reasons that were shared from the justice of the New South Wales Supreme Court, it's clear that that common law concept of peaceful assembly was an important consideration. So was the principle that just because something might be inconvenient or disruptive might not be enough to say it should be prohibited under the law. And also there was information to suggest that people were going to do this anyway. And so that was something that needed to be considered alongside the safety information that the police were putting before the court. Sam Hawley: And Justice Rigg, she noted that the march at this location on the Harbour Bridge was motivated by the belief that the horror and urgency of the situation in Gaza demands an urgent and extraordinary response from the people of the world. She also noted that it is in the nature of peaceful protests to cause disruption to others. Sarah Moulds: That's right. That was clear from the ruling that that concept of inconvenience and disruption is inherently connected to the idea of protest and communicating on a matter of political importance to the people of Australia. Sam Hawley: All right. So the judgment meant, of course, that the protest could go ahead and that the protesters would have immunity from being charged with what offences? Sarah Moulds: Yes. So the immunity is quite limited. So the ruling meant that somebody was not going to be charged with an offence relating to unlawful assembly, of obstructing a person, vehicle or public place. But it was conditional on the fact that the protesters stayed within the boundaries of the assembly that was described in this form one that was before the court. So the protest organisers had to put all that information together, share that with the police and the court. And if the communities involved stayed within the scope of that plan, they would be immune from those minor offences that I just described. However, it would not extend to somebody being prosecuted or charged with a violent offence. And the police retain powers to make orders with respect to individuals and ask them to do things or ask them to change what they're doing. And a failure to comply with those kind of orders made by police could also potentially result in liability. So important immunity, but also limited. Sam Hawley: Well, Sarah, as we said before, initially, the protest organisers thought that it attracted around 50,000 people. In the end, more than 100,000 people showed up despite the terrible weather. It was pouring with rain. That's huge, isn't it? Just put that into perspective. Have we seen such a large protest like this before? Sarah Moulds: I'm sure we have back in history, but in recent years, particularly in the years since these legal processes for handling process have been involved in this way. This is a very, very significant number of people. And I think that speaks to the significance of the issue that people were protesting about on the bridge, as well as the challenge faced by police and other authorities in facilitating this type of event to happen safely. So, yeah, throughout history, we've had really big protests before in Australia. But definitely in recent years, the numbers of this one are really significant. Sam Hawley: The acting assistant commissioner, Adam Johnson, he described the situation on the bridge as intense and one of the most perilous he's ever been involved in. Acting Assistant Commissioner Adam Johnson, NSW Police: I can honestly say in my 35 years of policing, that was a perilous situation. I've never seen a more perilous situation. I was honestly worried that we were going to have a a major incident with a potential loss of life. Sam Hawley: But it was peaceful, wasn't it? Sarah Moulds: I think one thing to keep in mind on the legal side of it is that the reason we have this process of being able to put forward an application detailing a public assembly and then have the opportunity for the police to respond and ultimately the courts is to try and make sure that this can happen safely, that we get the right balance between freedom of speech and association and our right to communicate on political matters and safety. And so I think that it is really important to continue to encourage organisers of community events and public assemblies to put that information in the application and give the authorities time to respond. It was clear from the ruling in this case that this was important to get right. If there was a prohibition, there was a risk that people would protest anyway and then you would lose that opportunity to create safety or have control over what might happen in and around the protest. With the oversight of the court, you can do this in a safe way. And it appears that it did have a safe result in this particular case, which is pretty extraordinary. Not many places around the world could have a protest of 90,000 people and result in safety for everybody. So that's something pretty significant as well. Sam Hawley: So, Sarah, we know protesting is a democratic right, but as you've mentioned, it has become harder to protest in Australia. There are more barriers now than ever before, right? Sarah Moulds: Yeah, that's correct. So we've made a commitment at the international level to protect everybody's right to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. But what we don't have is anything clear in our constitution or in any other piece of legislation saying we have a right to protest in Australia. Instead, we have this implied constitutional freedom to communicate on political matters in our representative democracy. But what you definitely can have and what we see in a number of states in Australia are laws that prohibit any disruptive action on the streets, any disruptive action on the roads or around businesses or workplaces. So in South Australia, for example, we've got offences for obstructing public place. In Queensland and New South Wales, they've got offences for attaching yourself to roads or major thoroughfares. In Tasmania, we had laws around logging areas, prohibiting people from protesting there. One of the things that's obvious is that these laws are different in different places, and it's quite complex and confusing for people to know what they are. And that's why we see people having to get legal advice and barristers to help them work this out. So if we were able to get together and streamline these processes across Australia so it was clear about how important it is to value peaceful assembly, but also how important it is to put people on notice about what things are going to look like so we can do this safely. I think that would be great. Sam Hawley: All right. Well, police have said they can't allow a protest like this to happen again. Assistant Commissioner Peter McKenna, NSW Police: So this operation, from our point of view, was a success in that no one was hurt. No people were hurt. No police were hurt. But gee whiz, I wouldn't like to try and do this every Sunday at that short notice. There's a reason we need time to plan these things out. And I think going forward into the future, that has to be taken into consideration. Sam Hawley: And the Premier, Chris Minns, says the government will look at whether that Supreme Court judgment actually sets a precedent. Chris Minns, NSW Premier: I have to examine all of this. I'm not ruling anything out. And I think most reasonable people would expect that, yes, you do have from time to time massive demonstrations, even if it's on the bridge. But knocking it out every week is just it's not something that we can consider forever. Sarah Moulds: Well, I think that at the moment, the summary offences process that was followed in this case, it gives discretion for police commissioners to make decisions, and it gives discretion for the courts to make decisions. If the New South Wales Parliament attempted to pass a different law about protest, they've done this in other areas or use different powers, then ultimately it might go to the High Court to see whether the Parliament has unduly infringed that constitutional freedom. So I think there are tweaks that the Parliament could make to the process of applying for authorisation for protests. But they'd have to be careful because there's a tipping point where the High Court would say you are now prohibiting that implied freedom of political communication. And that's such an important concept of a representative democracy that we can communicate about things that we feel passionately about as voters and citizens in the country. Sam Hawley: The point, of course, of a protest, Sarah, is to bring about change. Do you think this will do that in any way, given the magnitude of it? Sarah Moulds: Well, I think Australia's ability to influence what's happening on the ground in the Middle East is limited. However, we have a powerful voice in international forums and in forums with our allies. And so I think that action like this empowers and emboldens our political leaders to do things like look to international forums, international law, humanitarian law, and say Australian people support those concepts of dignity and human rights and that they can then go and express that position on the world stage. So I think the protesters would feel that they've done something historic in organising this event, sent a message across the world about what the people of Australia think, supported the elected representatives who are articulating their perspective on the world stage. And I think we should also be proud of our police and authorities, as I said, that have been able to organise a protest like this is probably an excellent sign of a healthy democracy that we can facilitate this kind of democratic expression in this way. Sam Hawley: Sarah Moulds is an associate professor in law at the University of South Australia. This episode was produced by Sydney Pead and Cinnamon Nippard. Audio production by Sam Dunn. Our supervising producer is David Coady. I'm Sam Hawley. Thanks for listening.
