logo
For independents and minor parties, picking a side in a hung parliament is perilous

For independents and minor parties, picking a side in a hung parliament is perilous

On election night 2010, Tony Windsor was having drinks with supporters in Tamworth.
He'd been easily re-elected to the seat of New England as an independent.
"It was a pretty jubilant night," he says.
A few hours' drive away, Rob Oakeshott was celebrating his win in the seat of Lyne. Until that night, he had been hoping for a post-election camping trip with his kids.
"Probably three or four beers in, around 11 o'clock that night, you start getting phone calls and start having to divert your attention and realise the next morning's going to be pretty busy," Oakeshott says.
He was "pretty busy" for more than just the next morning.
The 2010 election resulted in a hung parliament — the first Australia had seen at the federal level in 70 years, with Labor and the Coalition on 72 seats apiece. It meant both parties needed to negotiate support from MPs outside their parties to form government.
Independent MPs Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott speak with Greens MP Adam Bandt and independent MP Bob Katter prior to brokering a minority government power deal in 2010.
(
AFP/Getty Images
)
Oakeshott, Windsor, and four other crossbenchers were thrust into 17 days of intense negotiations with Labor leader Julia Gillard, who wanted to continue as prime minister, and Liberal leader Tony Abbott who wanted her job.
It's the kind of scenario that the major parties are hoping to avoid this election, while many on the crossbench hope it eventuates, because of the extra influence it would bring them in Canberra.
And all political players have been thinking about how the hung parliament worked last time and what they'd do differently if a similar scenario comes to pass next weekend.
The greatly expanded crossbench elected in 2022 heightens the chances that neither major party reaches a majority in parliament and needs to govern in minority.
Andrew Wilkie was new to parliament when he had to decide who to support in minority government.
Parliament deadlocked
Back in 2010, there was the newly minted Greens MP Adam Bandt, whose party did a deal to support Gillard continuing as prime minister. There was a WA National called Tony Crook who wasn't formally part of the Coalition agreement, who nevertheless offered his support to Abbott.
There was Andrew Wilkie, who had won a surprise election on preferences after placing third on the primary vote.
"I had no experience in the workings of the parliament," he says. "I assumed back then that I was going into a room with political giants who had so much expertise and skill and political nous that I had to be very careful that they could run rings around me."
"Interestingly, I have discovered that there are less political giants in Canberra than I had first thought."
Wilkie also did a deal with Gillard, in return for Labor promising poker machine law changes.
With those deals in place, the parliament was still deadlocked, and so it came down to the final three independents: Oakeshott, Windsor, and North Queenslander Bob Katter.
Windsor, Oakeshott and Katter speak to the media in 2010 during negotiations as to who they will support for a minority government.
(
Jeremy Thompson: ABC News
)
They decided to work together to organise joint briefings and share notes.
"The initial plan was to get the crossbenchers together and get us on a bit of a unity ticket, without working as a party, but just making sure that we weren't picked off by the major parties and played off against each other," Oakeshott says.
The crossbench of today is very different in complexion to the crossbench of 2010. It's much larger, dominated by members from urban electorates, and poses more of a threat to the major parties.
But they've clearly been looking back and learning lessons from how the negotiations and parliament operated back then.
Oakeshott and Windsor say their negotiations with Abbott were rocky from the beginning.
"I think Tony just assumed that the country members of parliament, they'll have to come our way," Windsor says. "In the last week, he suddenly realised that no, it doesn't work that way."
"So out came this gush of money and promises and phone calls. It said to me that this bloke is not serious about the work."
For Oakeshott, there were fundamental policy differences that set negotiations off on the wrong foot from the very start.
"It became problematic from the first conversation," Oakeshott says.
"[Abbott] was happy to talk about any legislation at all, but just nothing about climate change, nothing about the NBN.
"So we immediately ran into a roadblock with each other … it was very difficult to recover from there."
In the end, Katter backed Abbott, while Oakeshott and Windsor supported Gillard, giving Labor government by the tightest of possible margins.
After making his decision, Windsor found himself having to defend his decision to back a Labor government
(
ABC News: Adam Wyatt
)
Don't do a deal, suggest 2010 independents
The Greens negotiated a long list of commitments from the Labor government in 2010, many of which never came to pass. When I asked Bandt if, in light of that, the deal was worth it, he was quick to point out what the deal did achieve.
"We achieved a lot: dental into Medicare for kids, $13 billion for clean and renewable energy, seeing Australia's climate pollution come down," he says.
"Did we get everything we wanted? No. I don't think anyone did in that parliament but it achieved some real change.
"We would have an open mind about how to structure arrangements in the coming minority parliament … the priority is getting outcomes."
Oakeshott didn't get much progress on many of his priorities in 2010. Back then he was trying to advance proposals for an Indigenous Voice to Parliament.
"The irony of that 15 years later," he says.
"NBN has been butchered and made a bit of a mess, and then the carbon pricing got torn up as well.
"You certainly reflect on whether it was all worth it or not. I think it was. I hope it was."
He says he'd seek more concrete commitments from the government were he in the same position again.
"We just kept it all pretty vague at the time," he says. "And most of those fell over, unfortunately."
Loading YouTube content
The pokies reform that Wilkie was promised in 2010 also never happened.
"When Julia Gillard effectively tore up the agreement between us and I then became a loose cannon, I discovered I had more influence in Canberra," Wilkie says.
"Looking forward to future parliaments, I have learned not to do a formal deal at all."
Most of the crossbenchers of today seem to agree, and have told the
"I think the preference for a crossbench would be to keep it fluid," Oakeshott says. "I think that's one of the lessons learned."
Rob Oakeshott would do things differently during a hung parliament if he had his time again.
(
ABC News: Adam Wyatt
)
'I don't think we needed all that showtime'
After making their decision, Oakeshott and Windsor found themselves defending their decision to back a Labor government, despite representing traditionally conservative seats.
"That was sort of the hot topic at the moment," Oakeshott says. "When I tried to explain it in the couple of weeks after the election there were bomb threats at the local RSL club when we were trying to have meetings to discuss it."
Most of the current independents similarly represent conservative leaning areas, whether it's the inner-city independents who won seats that had been long held by the Liberal Party, or regional independents like Helen Haines in Indi and Katter in Kennedy.
If they do need to pick a side, they may find themselves with the same dilemma.
"I made a decision that was balanced between the best interests of the local community and the best interests of the country, not on a brand of a political party but on the legislative agenda at the time, on the local issues that we could get resolved with one side or the other," Oakeshott says.
"They were the focus of attention, not … is this a conservative leaning seat or not."
Photo shows
A segment of a chart showing the proportion of votes going to the ALP, the LNP and 'Other candidates' at the 2022 election.
This triangle is going to help us explain how Australian politics has fundamentally changed over the past five decades.
The pressure for independents in ex-Liberal and National heartland seats to go the conservatives' way is unlikely to disappear, and the nature of a hung parliament thrusts crossbenchers and their suddenly critical votes into the media spotlight.
"I don't think we needed all that show time," Oakeshott says. "I think we, in many ways, lost control of our own narrative and then others took over."
In 2010, he announced his decision on which side he'd back at the end of a now-infamous 17-minute speech at Parliament House. If he had his time again, he says he'd probably have done it closer to home on the mid-north coast of NSW.
"That would have been enough for a governor-general to have reassurance that there's the opportunity to do a stable parliament," he says.
"I just think an announcement back home on my own patch, on my own terms would have been much more satisfying for me and my community, rather than trying to meet the expectations of a hungry media."
The great unknown
Not all hung parliaments are created equal.
We may find ourselves in a situation where, like 2010, both major parties are on a similar number of seats, but a long way from the majority number of 76.
Oakeshott says that creates a "much more interesting chessboard".
"I think how the crossbench internally manages that [is] something that they need to give a lot of consideration to," he says. "That's something to watch because government could be formed by splitting off different crossbenchers, and that's something that just wasn't there before."
While the independents will resist any moves to structure themselves in a more party-like way, they may find collaborating and organising themselves together may become a necessity in a more complicated parliament.
Read more about the federal election:
Want even more? Here's where you can find all our 2025
Alternatively, we could find ourselves in a situation with a hung parliament where one major party is very close to 76, and that party is the only viable government. That government would then be negotiating with a very diverse crossbench to get its legislation passed.
Or we may find ourselves with one party winning a majority of seats. But if they do so without winning back many seats from independents and crossbenchers, this conversation won't be going away. A hung parliament will remain on the cards, and this debate will be punted to 2028.
That's three of the many possible scenarios leading to very different looking parliaments. It all depends what voters decide next weekend.

Having trouble seeing this form? Try

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Home solar battery contracts ripped up as promised government rebate ditched
Home solar battery contracts ripped up as promised government rebate ditched

The Advertiser

time35 minutes ago

  • The Advertiser

Home solar battery contracts ripped up as promised government rebate ditched

Households in NSW promised federal and state government discounts on a new home solar battery have been told they are no longer eligible for both and will need to start from scratch. Australians with rooftop solar rushed to take advantage of the new federal "cheaper home batteries" discount - worth about $4000 on a typical 11.5kWh battery - in the wake of Labor's May election win. Many installers took orders and started fitting batteries on the basis the federal rebate could be claimed after July 1 on top of any state schemes. But the NSW government on June 10 announced it was scrapping its existing discount after only seven months. Instead, it decided to expand a program to encourage households to sell power stored in batteries back to the market through virtual power plants. This left installers with a lot difficult phone calls to make to battery customers who they'd promised would receive both the state Peak Demand Reduction Scheme (PDRS) discount and the federal rebate on new batteries. Some customers who had not yet had a battery fitted were offered refunds on their deposits, or new quotes with the NSW discount - sometimes worth thousands of dollars - removed. "There have been no circumstances where people can claim solar battery installation incentives under both the commonwealth and NSW schemes," a spokesman for the NSW energy department said. "We recommend that households and small businesses contact their installer to discuss any quote that claimed both incentives would apply." Installers would likely have to bear the cost of the state discount they expected where households had already paid for, and received, their battery. Solar Battery Group, which operates nationally and has been installing 40 batteries a day since the government's re-election on May 3, was one of those. "If the customer is adamant they don't want to change the size of battery or the specifications, then yes, we will wear it," chief executive James Hetherington said. "We've had a lot of people wanting finance that are very confused because those [NSW] laws changed." Mr Hetherington said each business made a choice about how to respond to the federal funding - but new policy "hand grenades" were coming thick and fast across the country. "They did warn all of us: 'Install at your own risk'," he said. "They made that quite clear and we all made our own individual decisions on what risks we were going to take based on our own margins, on our own business models." He said the industry was moving very fast. "It's never moved like this in its history with batteries. "It's had this, obviously, many times with solar and solar panels, but the battery industry is not used to this, so it's got a few growing pains in the next six months," Mr Hetherington said. A spokeswoman for Energy Minister Chris Bowen said the federal battery discount was always designed to be used in conjunction with state incentives. "We designed the cheaper home batteries program to be stackable with state incentives, and it is," she said. "NSW are now also offering a battery incentive, for joining virtual power plants, which is stackable with ours. "The design and balance of NSW incentives is a matter for them, but giving more people more support to get batteries and join [virtual power plants] is good news for the industry." But the industry at a wider level was nonetheless disappointed in the cancellation of the NSW battery installation discount. "The announcement of the new NSW scheme was not the outcome they had expected or wanted," Smart Energy Council acting chief executive Wayne Smith said. "Industry has been operating under a great deal of uncertainty as they awaited clarity around the NSW PDRS that's caused considerable pain for many," he said. "The cuts to the scheme will continue to cause pain." RESINC Solar and Batteries founder Leigh Storr did not offer customers both NSW and federal installation discounts. "I feel for any installers who've jumped the gun," he said. "What they've been selling on is hope." He said the cheaper home batteries discount was a large enough incentive on its own to encourage battery take up. "I'm in huge support of what Chris Bowen has done," Mr Storr said. The PDRS scheme in NSW, which delivered about 11,000 rebates in first six months of the program, will be scrapped after June 30. Instead households with batteries are eligible for up to $1500 to help more connect to virtual power plants, which take customers' excess energy stored in batteries and sell it on. "From 1 July the NSW Peak Demand Reduction Scheme (PDRS) incentives for installing a battery will be suspended, but the consumers will have access to higher incentives under the commonwealth cheaper home batteries program," an NSW energy department spokesman said. "Incentives under the NSW PDRS to connect batteries to virtual power plants (VPPs) will almost double, and can be stacked with the commonwealth program." Any new batteries cannot be turned on before July 1 in order to be eligible for the federal discount under the $2.3 billion cheaper home batteries program. Households in NSW promised federal and state government discounts on a new home solar battery have been told they are no longer eligible for both and will need to start from scratch. Australians with rooftop solar rushed to take advantage of the new federal "cheaper home batteries" discount - worth about $4000 on a typical 11.5kWh battery - in the wake of Labor's May election win. Many installers took orders and started fitting batteries on the basis the federal rebate could be claimed after July 1 on top of any state schemes. But the NSW government on June 10 announced it was scrapping its existing discount after only seven months. Instead, it decided to expand a program to encourage households to sell power stored in batteries back to the market through virtual power plants. This left installers with a lot difficult phone calls to make to battery customers who they'd promised would receive both the state Peak Demand Reduction Scheme (PDRS) discount and the federal rebate on new batteries. Some customers who had not yet had a battery fitted were offered refunds on their deposits, or new quotes with the NSW discount - sometimes worth thousands of dollars - removed. "There have been no circumstances where people can claim solar battery installation incentives under both the commonwealth and NSW schemes," a spokesman for the NSW energy department said. "We recommend that households and small businesses contact their installer to discuss any quote that claimed both incentives would apply." Installers would likely have to bear the cost of the state discount they expected where households had already paid for, and received, their battery. Solar Battery Group, which operates nationally and has been installing 40 batteries a day since the government's re-election on May 3, was one of those. "If the customer is adamant they don't want to change the size of battery or the specifications, then yes, we will wear it," chief executive James Hetherington said. "We've had a lot of people wanting finance that are very confused because those [NSW] laws changed." Mr Hetherington said each business made a choice about how to respond to the federal funding - but new policy "hand grenades" were coming thick and fast across the country. "They did warn all of us: 'Install at your own risk'," he said. "They made that quite clear and we all made our own individual decisions on what risks we were going to take based on our own margins, on our own business models." He said the industry was moving very fast. "It's never moved like this in its history with batteries. "It's had this, obviously, many times with solar and solar panels, but the battery industry is not used to this, so it's got a few growing pains in the next six months," Mr Hetherington said. A spokeswoman for Energy Minister Chris Bowen said the federal battery discount was always designed to be used in conjunction with state incentives. "We designed the cheaper home batteries program to be stackable with state incentives, and it is," she said. "NSW are now also offering a battery incentive, for joining virtual power plants, which is stackable with ours. "The design and balance of NSW incentives is a matter for them, but giving more people more support to get batteries and join [virtual power plants] is good news for the industry." But the industry at a wider level was nonetheless disappointed in the cancellation of the NSW battery installation discount. "The announcement of the new NSW scheme was not the outcome they had expected or wanted," Smart Energy Council acting chief executive Wayne Smith said. "Industry has been operating under a great deal of uncertainty as they awaited clarity around the NSW PDRS that's caused considerable pain for many," he said. "The cuts to the scheme will continue to cause pain." RESINC Solar and Batteries founder Leigh Storr did not offer customers both NSW and federal installation discounts. "I feel for any installers who've jumped the gun," he said. "What they've been selling on is hope." He said the cheaper home batteries discount was a large enough incentive on its own to encourage battery take up. "I'm in huge support of what Chris Bowen has done," Mr Storr said. The PDRS scheme in NSW, which delivered about 11,000 rebates in first six months of the program, will be scrapped after June 30. Instead households with batteries are eligible for up to $1500 to help more connect to virtual power plants, which take customers' excess energy stored in batteries and sell it on. "From 1 July the NSW Peak Demand Reduction Scheme (PDRS) incentives for installing a battery will be suspended, but the consumers will have access to higher incentives under the commonwealth cheaper home batteries program," an NSW energy department spokesman said. "Incentives under the NSW PDRS to connect batteries to virtual power plants (VPPs) will almost double, and can be stacked with the commonwealth program." Any new batteries cannot be turned on before July 1 in order to be eligible for the federal discount under the $2.3 billion cheaper home batteries program. Households in NSW promised federal and state government discounts on a new home solar battery have been told they are no longer eligible for both and will need to start from scratch. Australians with rooftop solar rushed to take advantage of the new federal "cheaper home batteries" discount - worth about $4000 on a typical 11.5kWh battery - in the wake of Labor's May election win. Many installers took orders and started fitting batteries on the basis the federal rebate could be claimed after July 1 on top of any state schemes. But the NSW government on June 10 announced it was scrapping its existing discount after only seven months. Instead, it decided to expand a program to encourage households to sell power stored in batteries back to the market through virtual power plants. This left installers with a lot difficult phone calls to make to battery customers who they'd promised would receive both the state Peak Demand Reduction Scheme (PDRS) discount and the federal rebate on new batteries. Some customers who had not yet had a battery fitted were offered refunds on their deposits, or new quotes with the NSW discount - sometimes worth thousands of dollars - removed. "There have been no circumstances where people can claim solar battery installation incentives under both the commonwealth and NSW schemes," a spokesman for the NSW energy department said. "We recommend that households and small businesses contact their installer to discuss any quote that claimed both incentives would apply." Installers would likely have to bear the cost of the state discount they expected where households had already paid for, and received, their battery. Solar Battery Group, which operates nationally and has been installing 40 batteries a day since the government's re-election on May 3, was one of those. "If the customer is adamant they don't want to change the size of battery or the specifications, then yes, we will wear it," chief executive James Hetherington said. "We've had a lot of people wanting finance that are very confused because those [NSW] laws changed." Mr Hetherington said each business made a choice about how to respond to the federal funding - but new policy "hand grenades" were coming thick and fast across the country. "They did warn all of us: 'Install at your own risk'," he said. "They made that quite clear and we all made our own individual decisions on what risks we were going to take based on our own margins, on our own business models." He said the industry was moving very fast. "It's never moved like this in its history with batteries. "It's had this, obviously, many times with solar and solar panels, but the battery industry is not used to this, so it's got a few growing pains in the next six months," Mr Hetherington said. A spokeswoman for Energy Minister Chris Bowen said the federal battery discount was always designed to be used in conjunction with state incentives. "We designed the cheaper home batteries program to be stackable with state incentives, and it is," she said. "NSW are now also offering a battery incentive, for joining virtual power plants, which is stackable with ours. "The design and balance of NSW incentives is a matter for them, but giving more people more support to get batteries and join [virtual power plants] is good news for the industry." But the industry at a wider level was nonetheless disappointed in the cancellation of the NSW battery installation discount. "The announcement of the new NSW scheme was not the outcome they had expected or wanted," Smart Energy Council acting chief executive Wayne Smith said. "Industry has been operating under a great deal of uncertainty as they awaited clarity around the NSW PDRS that's caused considerable pain for many," he said. "The cuts to the scheme will continue to cause pain." RESINC Solar and Batteries founder Leigh Storr did not offer customers both NSW and federal installation discounts. "I feel for any installers who've jumped the gun," he said. "What they've been selling on is hope." He said the cheaper home batteries discount was a large enough incentive on its own to encourage battery take up. "I'm in huge support of what Chris Bowen has done," Mr Storr said. The PDRS scheme in NSW, which delivered about 11,000 rebates in first six months of the program, will be scrapped after June 30. Instead households with batteries are eligible for up to $1500 to help more connect to virtual power plants, which take customers' excess energy stored in batteries and sell it on. "From 1 July the NSW Peak Demand Reduction Scheme (PDRS) incentives for installing a battery will be suspended, but the consumers will have access to higher incentives under the commonwealth cheaper home batteries program," an NSW energy department spokesman said. "Incentives under the NSW PDRS to connect batteries to virtual power plants (VPPs) will almost double, and can be stacked with the commonwealth program." Any new batteries cannot be turned on before July 1 in order to be eligible for the federal discount under the $2.3 billion cheaper home batteries program. Households in NSW promised federal and state government discounts on a new home solar battery have been told they are no longer eligible for both and will need to start from scratch. Australians with rooftop solar rushed to take advantage of the new federal "cheaper home batteries" discount - worth about $4000 on a typical 11.5kWh battery - in the wake of Labor's May election win. Many installers took orders and started fitting batteries on the basis the federal rebate could be claimed after July 1 on top of any state schemes. But the NSW government on June 10 announced it was scrapping its existing discount after only seven months. Instead, it decided to expand a program to encourage households to sell power stored in batteries back to the market through virtual power plants. This left installers with a lot difficult phone calls to make to battery customers who they'd promised would receive both the state Peak Demand Reduction Scheme (PDRS) discount and the federal rebate on new batteries. Some customers who had not yet had a battery fitted were offered refunds on their deposits, or new quotes with the NSW discount - sometimes worth thousands of dollars - removed. "There have been no circumstances where people can claim solar battery installation incentives under both the commonwealth and NSW schemes," a spokesman for the NSW energy department said. "We recommend that households and small businesses contact their installer to discuss any quote that claimed both incentives would apply." Installers would likely have to bear the cost of the state discount they expected where households had already paid for, and received, their battery. Solar Battery Group, which operates nationally and has been installing 40 batteries a day since the government's re-election on May 3, was one of those. "If the customer is adamant they don't want to change the size of battery or the specifications, then yes, we will wear it," chief executive James Hetherington said. "We've had a lot of people wanting finance that are very confused because those [NSW] laws changed." Mr Hetherington said each business made a choice about how to respond to the federal funding - but new policy "hand grenades" were coming thick and fast across the country. "They did warn all of us: 'Install at your own risk'," he said. "They made that quite clear and we all made our own individual decisions on what risks we were going to take based on our own margins, on our own business models." He said the industry was moving very fast. "It's never moved like this in its history with batteries. "It's had this, obviously, many times with solar and solar panels, but the battery industry is not used to this, so it's got a few growing pains in the next six months," Mr Hetherington said. A spokeswoman for Energy Minister Chris Bowen said the federal battery discount was always designed to be used in conjunction with state incentives. "We designed the cheaper home batteries program to be stackable with state incentives, and it is," she said. "NSW are now also offering a battery incentive, for joining virtual power plants, which is stackable with ours. "The design and balance of NSW incentives is a matter for them, but giving more people more support to get batteries and join [virtual power plants] is good news for the industry." But the industry at a wider level was nonetheless disappointed in the cancellation of the NSW battery installation discount. "The announcement of the new NSW scheme was not the outcome they had expected or wanted," Smart Energy Council acting chief executive Wayne Smith said. "Industry has been operating under a great deal of uncertainty as they awaited clarity around the NSW PDRS that's caused considerable pain for many," he said. "The cuts to the scheme will continue to cause pain." RESINC Solar and Batteries founder Leigh Storr did not offer customers both NSW and federal installation discounts. "I feel for any installers who've jumped the gun," he said. "What they've been selling on is hope." He said the cheaper home batteries discount was a large enough incentive on its own to encourage battery take up. "I'm in huge support of what Chris Bowen has done," Mr Storr said. The PDRS scheme in NSW, which delivered about 11,000 rebates in first six months of the program, will be scrapped after June 30. Instead households with batteries are eligible for up to $1500 to help more connect to virtual power plants, which take customers' excess energy stored in batteries and sell it on. "From 1 July the NSW Peak Demand Reduction Scheme (PDRS) incentives for installing a battery will be suspended, but the consumers will have access to higher incentives under the commonwealth cheaper home batteries program," an NSW energy department spokesman said. "Incentives under the NSW PDRS to connect batteries to virtual power plants (VPPs) will almost double, and can be stacked with the commonwealth program." Any new batteries cannot be turned on before July 1 in order to be eligible for the federal discount under the $2.3 billion cheaper home batteries program.

Tassie stadium plan is a lot of bread for a circus
Tassie stadium plan is a lot of bread for a circus

The Advertiser

time35 minutes ago

  • The Advertiser

Tassie stadium plan is a lot of bread for a circus

This is a sample of The Echidna newsletter sent out each weekday morning. To sign up for FREE, go to Imagine you open your letter box and there are four bills inside, one for each member of your family, including the two kids who are still at school. You open them and the amount each of you owe is $1247. That's roughly what each and every Tasmanian will be up for if the lower estimate of the cost of the contentious Macquarie Point stadium - $945 million - is accurate. This takes into account the federal pledge of $240 million, announced during a disastrous visit to the site by Anthony Albanese in April 2023, which saw him beating a hasty retreat as a crowd of hecklers descended on the event demanding that money be spent on desperately needed housing. The bill for Tasmanians will be even more if the higher estimate of $1.1 billion proves correct. Of course, there'll be no bill in the mail. The cost will be borne by what's not spent in other areas like health, education, infrastructure and affordable housing and the estimated $1.86 billion in debt racked up over a decade. It's a lot of bread for a circus. The state's ballooning debt was the trigger for the Labor opposition's successful no-confidence motion in Premier Jeremy Rockliff which has put government on hold while the governor works out whether to grant the request for an early election or ask the parliament to seek an alternative leader. The no-confidence motion and its disruption to government risks the state missing the deadlines laid down in the licensing agreement with the AFL. Yet the Labor leader insists he will continue to support the stadium should he find himself at the helm. That's despite the stadium diktat imposed by the AFL being deeply unpopular across Tasmania, not least because no similar demands were made of other recent regional additions to the league. An assessment by the independent Tasmanian Planning Commission was damning. The roofed 23,000-seat structure, it said, was "disproportionate to Hobart's small scale and would be contrary to Hobart's visual values". An artist's impression of what it would look from the eastern shore of the Derwent is like a still from sci-fi movie, an alien mothership squatting under the snowy flanks of kunanyi, dwarfing the heritage buildings around it. No wonder Hobart hates the idea. What's irksome from my non-sporting mainland perspective is the power wielded by the AFL. To set such onerous conditions on a state that wants to field its own team in the national comp is bad enough. To have the federal government pitch in with a promise of millions is even worse. This is when the AFL is flush with cash from a $4.5 billion TV licensing deal with the Seven Network and Foxtel. To use the vernacular of the querulous Tasmanian senator Jacqui Lambie, if they want a stadium with a roof, they can bloody well pay for it. HAVE YOUR SAY: Has Big Sport become too powerful in Australia? Should mainland taxpayers help pay for the Tasmanian stadium? Do both major parties in Tasmania look foolish for backing the stadium despite the opposition to it? Email us: echidna@ SHARE THE LOVE: If you enjoy The Echidna, forward it to a friend so they can sign up, too. IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: - The ABC has announced the end of the political panel program Q+A after 18 years on air. - Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has dismissed as "predictable" criticism of Australia's move to join four other countries in hitting two right-wing Israeli ministers with sanctions over West Bank settlements, as the opposition demands a briefing on the decision. - The number of industrial disputes has fallen to a two-year low, new figures reveal, despite major work outages affecting public transport commuters. THEY SAID IT: "The state government needs to go and tell the AFL where to stick it right now and tell them it's not going to play the game." - Senator Jacqui Lambie YOU SAID IT: The shooting of an Aussie reporter with a rubber bullet during the Los Angeles unrest reinforces the feeling the US is becoming an unsafe banana republic. "How long, I wonder, before we see a travel warning issued for the US?" asks Liz. "Calling it 'law and order' while pardoning actual insurrectionists is like burning down a fire station and calling it urban renewal," writes Mike. "The republic doesn't just smell like banana - it's practically slipping on the peel in front of the whole world." "I am a resident of Minnesota, a democratic state in the USA, and am appalled at the whole Trump situation over here, but especially when the Australian reporter was purposely shot with the rubber bullet," writes Carolyn. "I encourage people to stay away from my country for the foreseeable future which makes me sad because I have had wonderful visits from friends from your beautiful country." Allan, who lived in Los Angeles for six years in the 1980s, writes: "We've visited the USA numerous times since, but never again. Our initial concerns as we've grown older were with their health system, where serious illness could literally cost millions. Now the political situation is what worries us. I wouldn't rule out something akin to civil war the way things are escalating. But no, I don't think Albanese should raise the Tomasi shooting with Trump personally, it would achieve nothing and detract from other more important discussions." "Civil war was averted when Trump won the election," writes Arthur. "It now looks as though it was only a temporary reprieve." This is a sample of The Echidna newsletter sent out each weekday morning. To sign up for FREE, go to Imagine you open your letter box and there are four bills inside, one for each member of your family, including the two kids who are still at school. You open them and the amount each of you owe is $1247. That's roughly what each and every Tasmanian will be up for if the lower estimate of the cost of the contentious Macquarie Point stadium - $945 million - is accurate. This takes into account the federal pledge of $240 million, announced during a disastrous visit to the site by Anthony Albanese in April 2023, which saw him beating a hasty retreat as a crowd of hecklers descended on the event demanding that money be spent on desperately needed housing. The bill for Tasmanians will be even more if the higher estimate of $1.1 billion proves correct. Of course, there'll be no bill in the mail. The cost will be borne by what's not spent in other areas like health, education, infrastructure and affordable housing and the estimated $1.86 billion in debt racked up over a decade. It's a lot of bread for a circus. The state's ballooning debt was the trigger for the Labor opposition's successful no-confidence motion in Premier Jeremy Rockliff which has put government on hold while the governor works out whether to grant the request for an early election or ask the parliament to seek an alternative leader. The no-confidence motion and its disruption to government risks the state missing the deadlines laid down in the licensing agreement with the AFL. Yet the Labor leader insists he will continue to support the stadium should he find himself at the helm. That's despite the stadium diktat imposed by the AFL being deeply unpopular across Tasmania, not least because no similar demands were made of other recent regional additions to the league. An assessment by the independent Tasmanian Planning Commission was damning. The roofed 23,000-seat structure, it said, was "disproportionate to Hobart's small scale and would be contrary to Hobart's visual values". An artist's impression of what it would look from the eastern shore of the Derwent is like a still from sci-fi movie, an alien mothership squatting under the snowy flanks of kunanyi, dwarfing the heritage buildings around it. No wonder Hobart hates the idea. What's irksome from my non-sporting mainland perspective is the power wielded by the AFL. To set such onerous conditions on a state that wants to field its own team in the national comp is bad enough. To have the federal government pitch in with a promise of millions is even worse. This is when the AFL is flush with cash from a $4.5 billion TV licensing deal with the Seven Network and Foxtel. To use the vernacular of the querulous Tasmanian senator Jacqui Lambie, if they want a stadium with a roof, they can bloody well pay for it. HAVE YOUR SAY: Has Big Sport become too powerful in Australia? Should mainland taxpayers help pay for the Tasmanian stadium? Do both major parties in Tasmania look foolish for backing the stadium despite the opposition to it? Email us: echidna@ SHARE THE LOVE: If you enjoy The Echidna, forward it to a friend so they can sign up, too. IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: - The ABC has announced the end of the political panel program Q+A after 18 years on air. - Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has dismissed as "predictable" criticism of Australia's move to join four other countries in hitting two right-wing Israeli ministers with sanctions over West Bank settlements, as the opposition demands a briefing on the decision. - The number of industrial disputes has fallen to a two-year low, new figures reveal, despite major work outages affecting public transport commuters. THEY SAID IT: "The state government needs to go and tell the AFL where to stick it right now and tell them it's not going to play the game." - Senator Jacqui Lambie YOU SAID IT: The shooting of an Aussie reporter with a rubber bullet during the Los Angeles unrest reinforces the feeling the US is becoming an unsafe banana republic. "How long, I wonder, before we see a travel warning issued for the US?" asks Liz. "Calling it 'law and order' while pardoning actual insurrectionists is like burning down a fire station and calling it urban renewal," writes Mike. "The republic doesn't just smell like banana - it's practically slipping on the peel in front of the whole world." "I am a resident of Minnesota, a democratic state in the USA, and am appalled at the whole Trump situation over here, but especially when the Australian reporter was purposely shot with the rubber bullet," writes Carolyn. "I encourage people to stay away from my country for the foreseeable future which makes me sad because I have had wonderful visits from friends from your beautiful country." Allan, who lived in Los Angeles for six years in the 1980s, writes: "We've visited the USA numerous times since, but never again. Our initial concerns as we've grown older were with their health system, where serious illness could literally cost millions. Now the political situation is what worries us. I wouldn't rule out something akin to civil war the way things are escalating. But no, I don't think Albanese should raise the Tomasi shooting with Trump personally, it would achieve nothing and detract from other more important discussions." "Civil war was averted when Trump won the election," writes Arthur. "It now looks as though it was only a temporary reprieve." This is a sample of The Echidna newsletter sent out each weekday morning. To sign up for FREE, go to Imagine you open your letter box and there are four bills inside, one for each member of your family, including the two kids who are still at school. You open them and the amount each of you owe is $1247. That's roughly what each and every Tasmanian will be up for if the lower estimate of the cost of the contentious Macquarie Point stadium - $945 million - is accurate. This takes into account the federal pledge of $240 million, announced during a disastrous visit to the site by Anthony Albanese in April 2023, which saw him beating a hasty retreat as a crowd of hecklers descended on the event demanding that money be spent on desperately needed housing. The bill for Tasmanians will be even more if the higher estimate of $1.1 billion proves correct. Of course, there'll be no bill in the mail. The cost will be borne by what's not spent in other areas like health, education, infrastructure and affordable housing and the estimated $1.86 billion in debt racked up over a decade. It's a lot of bread for a circus. The state's ballooning debt was the trigger for the Labor opposition's successful no-confidence motion in Premier Jeremy Rockliff which has put government on hold while the governor works out whether to grant the request for an early election or ask the parliament to seek an alternative leader. The no-confidence motion and its disruption to government risks the state missing the deadlines laid down in the licensing agreement with the AFL. Yet the Labor leader insists he will continue to support the stadium should he find himself at the helm. That's despite the stadium diktat imposed by the AFL being deeply unpopular across Tasmania, not least because no similar demands were made of other recent regional additions to the league. An assessment by the independent Tasmanian Planning Commission was damning. The roofed 23,000-seat structure, it said, was "disproportionate to Hobart's small scale and would be contrary to Hobart's visual values". An artist's impression of what it would look from the eastern shore of the Derwent is like a still from sci-fi movie, an alien mothership squatting under the snowy flanks of kunanyi, dwarfing the heritage buildings around it. No wonder Hobart hates the idea. What's irksome from my non-sporting mainland perspective is the power wielded by the AFL. To set such onerous conditions on a state that wants to field its own team in the national comp is bad enough. To have the federal government pitch in with a promise of millions is even worse. This is when the AFL is flush with cash from a $4.5 billion TV licensing deal with the Seven Network and Foxtel. To use the vernacular of the querulous Tasmanian senator Jacqui Lambie, if they want a stadium with a roof, they can bloody well pay for it. HAVE YOUR SAY: Has Big Sport become too powerful in Australia? Should mainland taxpayers help pay for the Tasmanian stadium? Do both major parties in Tasmania look foolish for backing the stadium despite the opposition to it? Email us: echidna@ SHARE THE LOVE: If you enjoy The Echidna, forward it to a friend so they can sign up, too. IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: - The ABC has announced the end of the political panel program Q+A after 18 years on air. - Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has dismissed as "predictable" criticism of Australia's move to join four other countries in hitting two right-wing Israeli ministers with sanctions over West Bank settlements, as the opposition demands a briefing on the decision. - The number of industrial disputes has fallen to a two-year low, new figures reveal, despite major work outages affecting public transport commuters. THEY SAID IT: "The state government needs to go and tell the AFL where to stick it right now and tell them it's not going to play the game." - Senator Jacqui Lambie YOU SAID IT: The shooting of an Aussie reporter with a rubber bullet during the Los Angeles unrest reinforces the feeling the US is becoming an unsafe banana republic. "How long, I wonder, before we see a travel warning issued for the US?" asks Liz. "Calling it 'law and order' while pardoning actual insurrectionists is like burning down a fire station and calling it urban renewal," writes Mike. "The republic doesn't just smell like banana - it's practically slipping on the peel in front of the whole world." "I am a resident of Minnesota, a democratic state in the USA, and am appalled at the whole Trump situation over here, but especially when the Australian reporter was purposely shot with the rubber bullet," writes Carolyn. "I encourage people to stay away from my country for the foreseeable future which makes me sad because I have had wonderful visits from friends from your beautiful country." Allan, who lived in Los Angeles for six years in the 1980s, writes: "We've visited the USA numerous times since, but never again. Our initial concerns as we've grown older were with their health system, where serious illness could literally cost millions. Now the political situation is what worries us. I wouldn't rule out something akin to civil war the way things are escalating. But no, I don't think Albanese should raise the Tomasi shooting with Trump personally, it would achieve nothing and detract from other more important discussions." "Civil war was averted when Trump won the election," writes Arthur. "It now looks as though it was only a temporary reprieve." This is a sample of The Echidna newsletter sent out each weekday morning. To sign up for FREE, go to Imagine you open your letter box and there are four bills inside, one for each member of your family, including the two kids who are still at school. You open them and the amount each of you owe is $1247. That's roughly what each and every Tasmanian will be up for if the lower estimate of the cost of the contentious Macquarie Point stadium - $945 million - is accurate. This takes into account the federal pledge of $240 million, announced during a disastrous visit to the site by Anthony Albanese in April 2023, which saw him beating a hasty retreat as a crowd of hecklers descended on the event demanding that money be spent on desperately needed housing. The bill for Tasmanians will be even more if the higher estimate of $1.1 billion proves correct. Of course, there'll be no bill in the mail. The cost will be borne by what's not spent in other areas like health, education, infrastructure and affordable housing and the estimated $1.86 billion in debt racked up over a decade. It's a lot of bread for a circus. The state's ballooning debt was the trigger for the Labor opposition's successful no-confidence motion in Premier Jeremy Rockliff which has put government on hold while the governor works out whether to grant the request for an early election or ask the parliament to seek an alternative leader. The no-confidence motion and its disruption to government risks the state missing the deadlines laid down in the licensing agreement with the AFL. Yet the Labor leader insists he will continue to support the stadium should he find himself at the helm. That's despite the stadium diktat imposed by the AFL being deeply unpopular across Tasmania, not least because no similar demands were made of other recent regional additions to the league. An assessment by the independent Tasmanian Planning Commission was damning. The roofed 23,000-seat structure, it said, was "disproportionate to Hobart's small scale and would be contrary to Hobart's visual values". An artist's impression of what it would look from the eastern shore of the Derwent is like a still from sci-fi movie, an alien mothership squatting under the snowy flanks of kunanyi, dwarfing the heritage buildings around it. No wonder Hobart hates the idea. What's irksome from my non-sporting mainland perspective is the power wielded by the AFL. To set such onerous conditions on a state that wants to field its own team in the national comp is bad enough. To have the federal government pitch in with a promise of millions is even worse. This is when the AFL is flush with cash from a $4.5 billion TV licensing deal with the Seven Network and Foxtel. To use the vernacular of the querulous Tasmanian senator Jacqui Lambie, if they want a stadium with a roof, they can bloody well pay for it. HAVE YOUR SAY: Has Big Sport become too powerful in Australia? Should mainland taxpayers help pay for the Tasmanian stadium? Do both major parties in Tasmania look foolish for backing the stadium despite the opposition to it? Email us: echidna@ SHARE THE LOVE: If you enjoy The Echidna, forward it to a friend so they can sign up, too. IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: - The ABC has announced the end of the political panel program Q+A after 18 years on air. - Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has dismissed as "predictable" criticism of Australia's move to join four other countries in hitting two right-wing Israeli ministers with sanctions over West Bank settlements, as the opposition demands a briefing on the decision. - The number of industrial disputes has fallen to a two-year low, new figures reveal, despite major work outages affecting public transport commuters. THEY SAID IT: "The state government needs to go and tell the AFL where to stick it right now and tell them it's not going to play the game." - Senator Jacqui Lambie YOU SAID IT: The shooting of an Aussie reporter with a rubber bullet during the Los Angeles unrest reinforces the feeling the US is becoming an unsafe banana republic. "How long, I wonder, before we see a travel warning issued for the US?" asks Liz. "Calling it 'law and order' while pardoning actual insurrectionists is like burning down a fire station and calling it urban renewal," writes Mike. "The republic doesn't just smell like banana - it's practically slipping on the peel in front of the whole world." "I am a resident of Minnesota, a democratic state in the USA, and am appalled at the whole Trump situation over here, but especially when the Australian reporter was purposely shot with the rubber bullet," writes Carolyn. "I encourage people to stay away from my country for the foreseeable future which makes me sad because I have had wonderful visits from friends from your beautiful country." Allan, who lived in Los Angeles for six years in the 1980s, writes: "We've visited the USA numerous times since, but never again. Our initial concerns as we've grown older were with their health system, where serious illness could literally cost millions. Now the political situation is what worries us. I wouldn't rule out something akin to civil war the way things are escalating. But no, I don't think Albanese should raise the Tomasi shooting with Trump personally, it would achieve nothing and detract from other more important discussions." "Civil war was averted when Trump won the election," writes Arthur. "It now looks as though it was only a temporary reprieve."

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store