Tasmania is facing another hung parliament. It could cost the state its AFL team
The future of Tasmania's AFL team and the state's fiscal health hang in the balance amid a deep political divide over the proposed Hobart stadium, which is backed by the major parties but fiercely opposed by the Greens and some of the crossbench.
Voters will head to the polls on Saturday for the second time in 16 months - and the fourth state election in seven years. But few are optimistic it will lead to a new period of political stability.
How we got here
The election was called after Liberal Premier Jeremy Rockliff, who led a minority government relying on independents and a Jacqui Lambie Network MP, lost a motion of no confidence in the lower house on June 5.
Opposition Leader Dean Winter used his budget reply speech to table the motion, which was won by 18-17 votes, saying it was in response to the state's budget, plans to sell power companies and the bungled delivery of new Spirit of Tasmania ships.
Six days after the motion, Rockcliff visited Governor Barbara Baker to request an early election instead of being forced to quit.
'Another election is not what I wanted, and I know that it's not what Tasmanians wanted,' Rockcliff said on June 11.
'But it was forced upon us by the Leader of the Opposition.'
What's footy got to do with it?
The proposed $945 million Macquarie Point Stadium in Hobart remains a hot-button topic for many Tasmanians going into the election.
In 2023, after years of lobbying and negotiations, the state was finally given a license to build a team – The Tasmanian Devils– and is slated to join the league in 2028. The AFL signed commitments with the Tasmanian and federal government for the construction of a 23,000-seat roofed stadium – a condition of the club's entry into the AFL.
No stadium, no team. Since then, the stadium has been embroiled in political turmoil and economic uncertainty, with recent opinion polling showing 60 per cent of Tasmanians oppose the development demanded by the AFL.
The election means a vote to approve the new stadium has been delayed. So what happens now?
The state government has already missed a June 30 deadline from the AFL to obtain all required planning and environmental approvals for the stadium. Legislation to approve the stadium will need to be tabled under the next government, with new numbers in the lower house.
Loading
Both Labor and Liberal leaders have said they will support the stadium, however the Greens, Nationals and some independents oppose the development.
It's unlikely that either major party will win a majority of seats in this election, so they'll need the support of the Greens or crossbench to form government.
One threat is that anti-stadium crossbenchers demand the stadium plans be dropped or altered, a big no-go for the AFL.
The 18 AFL club presidents unanimously backed the league's plan for a 19th team. However, they'll have a chance to withdraw their support if the stadium deal falls through. Until the election results become clearer, the stadium and the Devils hang in limbo.
Who said what?
Governor Barbara Baker in June: 'Notwithstanding the recent 2024 election, the public interest in avoiding the cost of another election and the prevailing public mood against holding an election, I have granted Premier Rockliff a dissolution.'
Opposition Leader Dean Winter: 'Today I have tabled a notice of motion that says this House has no confidence in the Premier. Because he has wrecked the budget. Because he is planning to sell our power companies, our ports and our public transport. And because no one can trust him after his handling of the Spirit of Tasmania fiasco.'
AFL chief executive Andrew Dillon: 'As we sit here now, 2028 is still on the agenda. We are looking forward to working with the government to deliver a stadium for all of Tasmania.'
What do Tasmanians actually care about?
University of Melbourne election analyst Adrian Beaumont said a new AFL team was not the central issue for most Tasmanians.
Rather, many were more concerned with the state of the budget, housing and health.
In a recent YouGov poll, 52 per cent of Tasmanian voters cited health as one of their top priorities and 45 per cent ranked building more public housing as a key concern.
Reducing state debt was a top concern for 41 per cent of voters, while 34 per cent opposed the privatisation of state assets and 33 per cent cited opposition to the Macquarie Point stadium as one of their top priorities.
Only 22 per cent supported the stadium proposal, while less than one in five voters prioritised policies supporting privatisation or cutting public services.
Meanwhile, a survey of 842 Tasmanian voters, conducted for The Australia Institute, found Tasmanians overwhelmingly felt dudded by the AFL and believed the state should renegotiate with the league.
Beaumont said the two major parties' steadfast support of a new stadium could lead to a surge in support for minor parties and independents.
Loading
'People who oppose the stadium have to vote for someone other than the major parties,' he said.
Beaumont also believes Labor's refusal to do a deal with the Greens to form government in 2024 has lost them support from the left.
What do the polls say?
Most polls indicate a hung parliament is the most likely outcome, which would force the major parties to negotiate with the Greens or independents to form government.
Labor could form government with the Greens, a partnership the party rejected after the 2024 election. But Winter has maintained his position that he would only do deals with 'sensible' independents.
Election analyst Kevin Bonham said that while he initially expected Labor to win the most seats, more recent polls suggest otherwise.
'This has led to a view that Labor's bringing down of the government could have actually backfired or at least failed to impress,' Bonham wrote on his blog.
'Tasmanians could be voting for more of the same or perhaps even a better Liberal position.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
2 hours ago
- ABC News
As voting day approaches, Tasmanians deserve more from their politicians
It was an election Tasmanians did not want and could not afford. Forced upon the state by either a "wrecker" opposition leader and crossbench, or a premier who refused to resign (depending on who you ask). But Tasmania had only just had an election 15 months ago — and that too was early. Turns out, not only was the public not ready for another election, the politicians weren't either. With the odd exception, this campaign has been lacklustre. Forget the chocolate fountains and new public hospitals on offer last time; this year it's been a merry-go-round of red-tape reduction, structured numeracy lessons and LNG fuel. Yes, given the state of the budget, it's the kind of election Tasmania had to have — if it was going to have one. That doesn't mean it's been fun or inspiring. So, if you cannot splash the cash around, surely it becomes about a 'contest of ideas'. People like to joke about how they struggle to see the difference between the Liberal and Labor parties — beyond their founding principles, of course. But by the time you have a very moderate Liberal leader in Jeremy Rockliff matched up against a right-wing Labor leader in Dean Winter, that joke seems to carry a little more weight. Look at the one and only leaders' debate. Sure, there was the usual bickering and finger-pointing, but how often did they disagree on actual policy or ideas? Banning native forest logging? Lockstep. Support for the aquaculture industry? Lockstep. Macquarie Point stadium? Lockstep. Labor's real point of difference is — they are not the Liberals. They are not the ones who have been in government for 11 years, so they are not responsible for the 5,000-plus people on the social housing waitlist (which has more than doubled since the Liberals came to power). Labor did not fail to build a berth for the new Spirit of Tasmania ships, costing the state more than a billion dollars. Nor is the $13 billion of debt the state is projected to be in in 2026-27 Labor's fault. A big point of difference for the Liberals is that they are not Labor. Speaking of that debt, the state of Tasmania's finances was one of three reasons Labor moved its motion of no-confidence in Jeremy Rockliff, so it stands to reason that the election should be partly fought on it. Despite the state of the budget, both parties have spent a bit during the campaign, albeit far less than normal. There has also been more focus than usual on how parties would pay for the promises. The Liberals, who mostly made health promises, have funded many from the existing health budget, while Labor is funding its from the Budget Repair Plan. The party has correctly identified if it was going to trigger an election due to the state of the budget, it would need a plan to fix it, and has claimed $1 billion in potential savings. But there were more than a few issues with that plan — like announcing it would cut eight Associate Secretary jobs, when only three are filled. Or the intention to "save" $171.5 million in capital spending by simply pushing the spending beyond the forward estimates. Not exactly a saving. Then there's $1 million Labor said it would save by cancelling the sale of the Treasury Building. The Treasury department was unable to cost that policy due to "insufficient information", but noted that there would likely be "costs incurred in relation to the finalisation of existing consultancy contracts". And, of course, Labor says about a fifth of the savings will be used to fund their election commitments. But at least they have a plan. The Liberals have yet to admit there is even an issue, denying there is a need to get the budget back on track. They have rolled through the election campaign relying on a budget plan that got them into this mess in the first place. And they have given up one of their ways to make some money — selling off assets, even if it is a sugar hit rather than real reform. Indeed, despite Treasury warning that savings and growing the economy will not be enough to address the budget issues, neither party has any real plan to find new money. It is only the Greens who are keen to raise revenue by making salmon companies pay for the use of state waters or increasing mining royalties to bring them in line with other states. However, the state's finances may not be not top-of-mind for most people What matters is core issues — like cost of living, health and housing and that is what the parties' signature policies aim to address. The Liberals have run so far from their potential privatisation plans that they are now hoping to add to the state's government businesses with its own insurance company, TasInsure, announced with merchandise and a shopfront. Still, a rather odd move for a Liberal government that is meant to be all about small government. While Labor accused the Liberals of cooking it up during the campaign, Mr Rockliff has claimed the idea has been brewing for a while. To most Tasmanians, the idea of saving up to $250 a year on insurance sounds great (or up to 20 per cent for small businesses, say the Liberals). The issue is, the modelling has not been released — so voters have no way to know how accurate those figures are. And just as many groups which have praised the idea, have criticised it. Not to mention the fact the Liberals are claiming it is cost-neutral because it will be an extension of the Motor Accident Insurance Board — a questionable claim at the very least. Labor's signature policy is TassieDocs, a plan for the state government to set up and run doctors' clinics, allowing doctors to pass on the full benefit of bulk-billing. It is an idea so appealing, the Liberals ripped it off on day one, although they have committed to building only five clinics to Labor's 10. Like TasInsure, TassieDoc is a policy that can cut through. It goes to the heart of what is impacting Tasmanians at the moment. The Liberals are trying to capitalise on it, but many still know it was originally a Labor policy — the party has done the work and its "powered by Medicare" slogan screams Labor. But why introduce it so late in the game? This is an election in which one in four eligible Tasmanians have voted before polling day. Labor could have let that sink in a little longer, instead of rolling out policies like ensuring the Spirits are home by Christmas. If the majority of the polls are any indication, things are not going to look too different come July 20 or whenever the final result is actually known. The Hare-Clark system may cause some seat shuffling within the parties, but if the numbers remain or shift only slightly, both majors are going to need to take a good, hard look at themselves. The one near-certainty is that Tasmania will end up with another hung parliament. That means dealing with independents and minor parties. Neither Mr Rockliff nor Mr Winter have been able to figure out how to work with those on the crossbench whose values differ greatly from them. Calling them "radical independents" certainly is not helpful. But each and every one of those politicians was voted in by Tasmanians and their place in the parliament should be respected, even if just for the fact that we've seen what happens when they wield their power. For that matter, the crossbench also needs be more open to compromise and aware of the consequences of their actions. There will be many lessons from this election, but one is already clear, it will be everyone's responsibility to make it work — lest we see Tasmania votes 2026. Follow live coverage of the Tasmanian election on Saturday night with the ABC News blog
The Age
2 hours ago
- The Age
Like ChatGPT, we need clear goals and rules. Otherwise, we could make bad decisions
And, after an independent review led by the former chair of the competition watchdog Graeme Samuel recommended a series of big reforms in 2020, both ministers – from opposite sides of the political fence – promised to act on them. Loading 'Yet here we are, in the winter of 2025, and nothing has changed,' Henry points out. That's despite the clear warning signs and relatively broad support for such change. Could it be that political focus has shifted to the economic issue of the day? Treasurer Jim Chalmers, having moved past inflation, has made it clear the government's second term will be focused on boosting the country's lagging productivity growth. Never mind the existential issue we face. But as Henry points out, even if productivity is our focus, no reform is more important to the country's ambition to pump out more of what we want (with less work hours or materials) than environmental law reform. 'If we can't achieve [that], then we should stop dreaming about more challenging options,' he says. There's been no shortage of activity on environmental reform – from policy papers to bills and endless rounds of consultation – yet little to show for it. Henry rejects the idea that this 'policy paralysis' comes down to a conflict between climate warriors and those wanting to charge ahead with economic growth. If this were the case, then why, he asks, is the pace of environmental damage speeding up at the same time our economy is stagnating? Henry acknowledges reforms won't be easy. Businesses and politicians are good at seizing moments of uncertainty when new changes are floated to send those changes to the graveyard. For some, he says, the stakes are high: 'We have whole industries with business models built on the destruction of the natural world.' Loading But we've done hard things before. And Henry points out it's now or never. While Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and his team won't want to hear it, changes have to be made within this term of parliament. The Labor Party may have been swept into a second term in power with a huge majority despite doing little to improve environmental laws. However, the growing national vote for the Greens is solid proof that voters have more appetite for environmental reform than the major parties have been serving. Many of these reforms are clear and supported by a wider range of people with different interests. So, what reforms are we actually talking about? Well, Graeme Samuel's review made 38 recommendations. But a big focus was on fixing what's known as the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, which Samuel said was complex, cumbersome and essentially powerless. Us humans are full of shortcomings, but by recognising them and changing the frameworks we work with, we can improve the way we look at our choices and make decisions. Samuel's suggestions ranged from introducing a set of mandatory National Environmental Standards and enforceable rules to apply to every environmental decision made around the country. These standards would be detailed, based on data and evidence, use clear language and leave very little wriggle room. He also recommended wiping out all special exemptions and moving from a species-to-species and project-by-project approach, to one that focused on the needs of different regions: areas that shouldn't be developed, those needing to be revived, and those where development assessments could be waved through more quickly. This would help give businesses greater certainty, but also help us overcome one of our biggest shortcomings. Because nature is so vast, when we assess the negative environmental impact of one project at a time, it will often seem tiny and irrelevant. That leads us to underestimate the environmental damage we are allowing over time, especially in particularly vulnerable ecosystems. The remarkable thing is that Samuel's recommendations were – and still are – widely supported by both business and environmental organisations. Yet, there has been no movement five years on. Loading That's a problem because there are plenty of big projects we need to get cracking on: huge investments in renewable energy generation and the government's ambitious target of building 1.2 million homes by 2030. In 2021, assessment and approval of a wind farm or solar farm blew out to 831 days – up from 505 days in 2018. And between 2018 and 2024, 124 renewables projects in Queensland, NSW and Victoria needed to be assessed under the Environment Protection Act. Only 28 received a clear 'yes' or 'no' answer. There could also be a way to give accreditation to state and territory decision-makers if they proved they could protect the national interest. That would remove the double-ups and complexity in approvals processes, and cut down the time taken to assess development proposals. Of course, developers have stressed the importance of the types of reforms which fast-track development, while environmentally-focused groups have pushed for more focus on new protections. Samuel also recommended an expert, independent and trusted decision-maker, in the form of a national Environmental Protection Authority, to work with the government to protect the national interest. Us humans are full of shortcomings, but by recognising them and changing the frameworks we work with, we can improve the way we look at our choices and make decisions. One of our problems is that, under the current Environment Protection Act, we tend to undervalue the environment. Part of that, as we've discussed, comes down to the vastness of nature (which needs to be matched by a broader regional lens, rather than our project-by-project approach). The other is our short-sighted view. Because the cost of damaging nature is overwhelmingly shouldered by future generations, Henry points out we have found it very difficult to stop ourselves stealing from the future. Loading Like bad eyesight, these issues are not unsolvable. We just need clear goals, rules and accountability measures to keep us on track. As Henry puts it, economics is concerned with optimising choices. That requires carefully defining what we're wanting to achieve and, just as importantly, determining the constraints that shape the choices we're incentivised to make. 'If the constraints are mis-specified, then decisions will be suboptimal,' Henry says.
Sydney Morning Herald
2 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Like ChatGPT, we need clear goals and rules. Otherwise, we could make bad decisions
And, after an independent review led by the former chair of the competition watchdog Graeme Samuel recommended a series of big reforms in 2020, both ministers – from opposite sides of the political fence – promised to act on them. Loading 'Yet here we are, in the winter of 2025, and nothing has changed,' Henry points out. That's despite the clear warning signs and relatively broad support for such change. Could it be that political focus has shifted to the economic issue of the day? Treasurer Jim Chalmers, having moved past inflation, has made it clear the government's second term will be focused on boosting the country's lagging productivity growth. Never mind the existential issue we face. But as Henry points out, even if productivity is our focus, no reform is more important to the country's ambition to pump out more of what we want (with less work hours or materials) than environmental law reform. 'If we can't achieve [that], then we should stop dreaming about more challenging options,' he says. There's been no shortage of activity on environmental reform – from policy papers to bills and endless rounds of consultation – yet little to show for it. Henry rejects the idea that this 'policy paralysis' comes down to a conflict between climate warriors and those wanting to charge ahead with economic growth. If this were the case, then why, he asks, is the pace of environmental damage speeding up at the same time our economy is stagnating? Henry acknowledges reforms won't be easy. Businesses and politicians are good at seizing moments of uncertainty when new changes are floated to send those changes to the graveyard. For some, he says, the stakes are high: 'We have whole industries with business models built on the destruction of the natural world.' Loading But we've done hard things before. And Henry points out it's now or never. While Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and his team won't want to hear it, changes have to be made within this term of parliament. The Labor Party may have been swept into a second term in power with a huge majority despite doing little to improve environmental laws. However, the growing national vote for the Greens is solid proof that voters have more appetite for environmental reform than the major parties have been serving. Many of these reforms are clear and supported by a wider range of people with different interests. So, what reforms are we actually talking about? Well, Graeme Samuel's review made 38 recommendations. But a big focus was on fixing what's known as the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, which Samuel said was complex, cumbersome and essentially powerless. Us humans are full of shortcomings, but by recognising them and changing the frameworks we work with, we can improve the way we look at our choices and make decisions. Samuel's suggestions ranged from introducing a set of mandatory National Environmental Standards and enforceable rules to apply to every environmental decision made around the country. These standards would be detailed, based on data and evidence, use clear language and leave very little wriggle room. He also recommended wiping out all special exemptions and moving from a species-to-species and project-by-project approach, to one that focused on the needs of different regions: areas that shouldn't be developed, those needing to be revived, and those where development assessments could be waved through more quickly. This would help give businesses greater certainty, but also help us overcome one of our biggest shortcomings. Because nature is so vast, when we assess the negative environmental impact of one project at a time, it will often seem tiny and irrelevant. That leads us to underestimate the environmental damage we are allowing over time, especially in particularly vulnerable ecosystems. The remarkable thing is that Samuel's recommendations were – and still are – widely supported by both business and environmental organisations. Yet, there has been no movement five years on. Loading That's a problem because there are plenty of big projects we need to get cracking on: huge investments in renewable energy generation and the government's ambitious target of building 1.2 million homes by 2030. In 2021, assessment and approval of a wind farm or solar farm blew out to 831 days – up from 505 days in 2018. And between 2018 and 2024, 124 renewables projects in Queensland, NSW and Victoria needed to be assessed under the Environment Protection Act. Only 28 received a clear 'yes' or 'no' answer. There could also be a way to give accreditation to state and territory decision-makers if they proved they could protect the national interest. That would remove the double-ups and complexity in approvals processes, and cut down the time taken to assess development proposals. Of course, developers have stressed the importance of the types of reforms which fast-track development, while environmentally-focused groups have pushed for more focus on new protections. Samuel also recommended an expert, independent and trusted decision-maker, in the form of a national Environmental Protection Authority, to work with the government to protect the national interest. Us humans are full of shortcomings, but by recognising them and changing the frameworks we work with, we can improve the way we look at our choices and make decisions. One of our problems is that, under the current Environment Protection Act, we tend to undervalue the environment. Part of that, as we've discussed, comes down to the vastness of nature (which needs to be matched by a broader regional lens, rather than our project-by-project approach). The other is our short-sighted view. Because the cost of damaging nature is overwhelmingly shouldered by future generations, Henry points out we have found it very difficult to stop ourselves stealing from the future. Loading Like bad eyesight, these issues are not unsolvable. We just need clear goals, rules and accountability measures to keep us on track. As Henry puts it, economics is concerned with optimising choices. That requires carefully defining what we're wanting to achieve and, just as importantly, determining the constraints that shape the choices we're incentivised to make. 'If the constraints are mis-specified, then decisions will be suboptimal,' Henry says.
