Public to be briefed on details of independent Newcastle council probe
RESIDENTS will get their first look at findings from a City of Newcastle review tonight.
A public briefing is being held on the independent inquiry into the council's policies, procedures, and processes which was designed to restore public trust and confidence in the council.
The review was a key pillar of Independent lord mayor Cr Ross Kerridge's election campaign, which promised a "thorough, forensic investigation into the Scott Neylon/Jeremy Bath/Jason Sivo letters saga" which has beleaguered the council and community since the Newcastle Herald launched its investigation into the letter to the editor writing campaign over a year ago.
A City of Newcastle (CN) code of conduct investigation carried out by external consultant Pinnacle Integrity found there was "insufficient evidence" that Mr Bath was involved in a misleading letter-writing campaign under his best mate Scott Neylon's name, or that he passed confidential information to his friend of 25 years, who has lived in Japan for decades.
Only one of 19 letters submitted to the Herald over nine years was examined and the investigation process drew wide criticism from the community.
Three months into the job and with no review yet pitched from Cr Kerridge, Liberal deputy lord mayor Callum Pull put forward his own motion in December 2024 calling for an independent probe into the council's policies, processes and procedures.
Despite Cr Kerridge's attempt to postpone the decision until after the Christmas break, councillors forged ahead after arguing the continued threat of an investigation would be bad for staff morale and the council's reputation.
The first public indication that Davidson had been approached about the review was in an "executive comment" report provided to councillors alongside Cr Pull's motion.
The report said Davidson had been approached to understand the cost of a proposed independent review.
Davidson was already involved with City of Newcastle, undertaking a benchmarking exercise to see how Newcastle council stacked up against other similar sized councils in NSW, Victoria and Queensland.
The exercise was designed to look at how Newcastle council compared when it came to debt, grant revenue and procurement, including value for money.
The executive report provided to councillors said that "familiarity" ensured a discounted total cost if Davidson undertook the review.
The report said Davidson predicted the review would take eight weeks, starting January, and cost in the vicinity of $70,000 plus travel costs.
"A $20,000 discount to this quote has been offered on the basis of the existing analysis of CN already undertaken as part of the benchmarking process," the report said.
The review is being undertaken by Davidson Business Advisory, a consulting firm that is already undertaking a benchmarking exercise of the council's expenditure and operational performance.
The Herald understands former Brisbane Council chief executive Colin Jensen, and former Melbourne City Council chief executive Justin Hanney are at the helm of the review.
RESIDENTS will get their first look at findings from a City of Newcastle review tonight.
A public briefing is being held on the independent inquiry into the council's policies, procedures, and processes which was designed to restore public trust and confidence in the council.
The review was a key pillar of Independent lord mayor Cr Ross Kerridge's election campaign, which promised a "thorough, forensic investigation into the Scott Neylon/Jeremy Bath/Jason Sivo letters saga" which has beleaguered the council and community since the Newcastle Herald launched its investigation into the letter to the editor writing campaign over a year ago.
A City of Newcastle (CN) code of conduct investigation carried out by external consultant Pinnacle Integrity found there was "insufficient evidence" that Mr Bath was involved in a misleading letter-writing campaign under his best mate Scott Neylon's name, or that he passed confidential information to his friend of 25 years, who has lived in Japan for decades.
Only one of 19 letters submitted to the Herald over nine years was examined and the investigation process drew wide criticism from the community.
Three months into the job and with no review yet pitched from Cr Kerridge, Liberal deputy lord mayor Callum Pull put forward his own motion in December 2024 calling for an independent probe into the council's policies, processes and procedures.
Despite Cr Kerridge's attempt to postpone the decision until after the Christmas break, councillors forged ahead after arguing the continued threat of an investigation would be bad for staff morale and the council's reputation.
The first public indication that Davidson had been approached about the review was in an "executive comment" report provided to councillors alongside Cr Pull's motion.
The report said Davidson had been approached to understand the cost of a proposed independent review.
Davidson was already involved with City of Newcastle, undertaking a benchmarking exercise to see how Newcastle council stacked up against other similar sized councils in NSW, Victoria and Queensland.
The exercise was designed to look at how Newcastle council compared when it came to debt, grant revenue and procurement, including value for money.
The executive report provided to councillors said that "familiarity" ensured a discounted total cost if Davidson undertook the review.
The report said Davidson predicted the review would take eight weeks, starting January, and cost in the vicinity of $70,000 plus travel costs.
"A $20,000 discount to this quote has been offered on the basis of the existing analysis of CN already undertaken as part of the benchmarking process," the report said.
The review is being undertaken by Davidson Business Advisory, a consulting firm that is already undertaking a benchmarking exercise of the council's expenditure and operational performance.
The Herald understands former Brisbane Council chief executive Colin Jensen, and former Melbourne City Council chief executive Justin Hanney are at the helm of the review.
RESIDENTS will get their first look at findings from a City of Newcastle review tonight.
A public briefing is being held on the independent inquiry into the council's policies, procedures, and processes which was designed to restore public trust and confidence in the council.
The review was a key pillar of Independent lord mayor Cr Ross Kerridge's election campaign, which promised a "thorough, forensic investigation into the Scott Neylon/Jeremy Bath/Jason Sivo letters saga" which has beleaguered the council and community since the Newcastle Herald launched its investigation into the letter to the editor writing campaign over a year ago.
A City of Newcastle (CN) code of conduct investigation carried out by external consultant Pinnacle Integrity found there was "insufficient evidence" that Mr Bath was involved in a misleading letter-writing campaign under his best mate Scott Neylon's name, or that he passed confidential information to his friend of 25 years, who has lived in Japan for decades.
Only one of 19 letters submitted to the Herald over nine years was examined and the investigation process drew wide criticism from the community.
Three months into the job and with no review yet pitched from Cr Kerridge, Liberal deputy lord mayor Callum Pull put forward his own motion in December 2024 calling for an independent probe into the council's policies, processes and procedures.
Despite Cr Kerridge's attempt to postpone the decision until after the Christmas break, councillors forged ahead after arguing the continued threat of an investigation would be bad for staff morale and the council's reputation.
The first public indication that Davidson had been approached about the review was in an "executive comment" report provided to councillors alongside Cr Pull's motion.
The report said Davidson had been approached to understand the cost of a proposed independent review.
Davidson was already involved with City of Newcastle, undertaking a benchmarking exercise to see how Newcastle council stacked up against other similar sized councils in NSW, Victoria and Queensland.
The exercise was designed to look at how Newcastle council compared when it came to debt, grant revenue and procurement, including value for money.
The executive report provided to councillors said that "familiarity" ensured a discounted total cost if Davidson undertook the review.
The report said Davidson predicted the review would take eight weeks, starting January, and cost in the vicinity of $70,000 plus travel costs.
"A $20,000 discount to this quote has been offered on the basis of the existing analysis of CN already undertaken as part of the benchmarking process," the report said.
The review is being undertaken by Davidson Business Advisory, a consulting firm that is already undertaking a benchmarking exercise of the council's expenditure and operational performance.
The Herald understands former Brisbane Council chief executive Colin Jensen, and former Melbourne City Council chief executive Justin Hanney are at the helm of the review.
RESIDENTS will get their first look at findings from a City of Newcastle review tonight.
A public briefing is being held on the independent inquiry into the council's policies, procedures, and processes which was designed to restore public trust and confidence in the council.
The review was a key pillar of Independent lord mayor Cr Ross Kerridge's election campaign, which promised a "thorough, forensic investigation into the Scott Neylon/Jeremy Bath/Jason Sivo letters saga" which has beleaguered the council and community since the Newcastle Herald launched its investigation into the letter to the editor writing campaign over a year ago.
A City of Newcastle (CN) code of conduct investigation carried out by external consultant Pinnacle Integrity found there was "insufficient evidence" that Mr Bath was involved in a misleading letter-writing campaign under his best mate Scott Neylon's name, or that he passed confidential information to his friend of 25 years, who has lived in Japan for decades.
Only one of 19 letters submitted to the Herald over nine years was examined and the investigation process drew wide criticism from the community.
Three months into the job and with no review yet pitched from Cr Kerridge, Liberal deputy lord mayor Callum Pull put forward his own motion in December 2024 calling for an independent probe into the council's policies, processes and procedures.
Despite Cr Kerridge's attempt to postpone the decision until after the Christmas break, councillors forged ahead after arguing the continued threat of an investigation would be bad for staff morale and the council's reputation.
The first public indication that Davidson had been approached about the review was in an "executive comment" report provided to councillors alongside Cr Pull's motion.
The report said Davidson had been approached to understand the cost of a proposed independent review.
Davidson was already involved with City of Newcastle, undertaking a benchmarking exercise to see how Newcastle council stacked up against other similar sized councils in NSW, Victoria and Queensland.
The exercise was designed to look at how Newcastle council compared when it came to debt, grant revenue and procurement, including value for money.
The executive report provided to councillors said that "familiarity" ensured a discounted total cost if Davidson undertook the review.
The report said Davidson predicted the review would take eight weeks, starting January, and cost in the vicinity of $70,000 plus travel costs.
"A $20,000 discount to this quote has been offered on the basis of the existing analysis of CN already undertaken as part of the benchmarking process," the report said.
The review is being undertaken by Davidson Business Advisory, a consulting firm that is already undertaking a benchmarking exercise of the council's expenditure and operational performance.
The Herald understands former Brisbane Council chief executive Colin Jensen, and former Melbourne City Council chief executive Justin Hanney are at the helm of the review.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Perth Now
6 hours ago
- Perth Now
Reynolds' fresh target in Higgins lawsuit
Linda Reynolds has turned her attention to former Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus in her bid to sue the Commonwealth over its compensation payment to Brittany Higgins, as the nation's anti-corruption agency revealed there was 'no corruption issue' in the payment. The retiring former Liberal minister in May launched action in the Federal Court against the Commonwealth, with the crux of the claim over the $2.4m compensation payment to Brittany Higgins in 2022. Senator Reynolds argued the payment was 'publicly affirming' of Ms Higgins allegations against her that she didn't support her former staffer when she alleged she was raped by Bruce Lehrmann. Brittany Higgins was paid a $2.4m compensation payment. NewsWire / Jeremy Piper Credit: News Corp Australia The Federal Court has found Mr Lehrmann raped Ms Higgins on the civil standard of the balance of probabilities. A criminal trial was aborted due juror misconduct and a charge against him was dropped. Mr Lehrmann has always denied the allegation and is appealing the Federal Court's finding. An amended version of Ms Reynolds statement of claim was filed on Wednesday, just a day before the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) said there was 'no corruption issue' in the $2.4m payment. The NACC on Thursday announced there was 'no evidence that the settlement process, including the legal advice provided, who was present at the mediation, or the amount was subject to any improper influence by any Commonwealth public official'. Senator Reynolds' amended statement of claim was made public late on Thursday afternoon. Linda Reynolds has amended her statement of claim. NewsWire / Martin Ollman Credit: News Corp Australia Among the changes is a reference to a speech by Mr Dreyfus the then Attorney-General made to parliament on March 15, 2021. Mr Dreyfus is not a party to the claim. Mr Dreyfus recounted to the House of Representatives a speech by Ms Higgins just outside Parliament House, where she told a large crowd she was raped inside the building by a colleague, and how her story was 'a painful reminder to women that it can happen in Parliament House and can truly happen anywhere'. 'If a woman cannot feel safe from rape in Parliament House, a veritable fortress ringed with security cameras, with entrances protected by armed guards and with Federal Police officers on duty inside, where can women feel safe?' Mr Dreyfus told the House of Representatives, according to a transcript excerpt in the claim. 'How strong is the rule of law if it isn't able to protect a young woman working in the ministerial wing of Parliament House?' The amended statement of claim argued Senator Reynolds had suffered loss and damage as a result of Mr Dreyfus' conduct, including denying her the opportunity to rebut Ms Higgins' allegation 'in the appropriate forum'. Former attorney-general Mark Dreyfus. NewsWire / Martin Ollman Credit: News Corp Australia It also argues Mr Dreyfus 'enabled and encouraged the falsity of Ms Higgins' claim to be maintained by Ms Higgins'. HWL Ebsworth, which acted on the Commonwealth's behalf, is also being sued by Senator Reynolds for negligence. Lawyers on behalf of Senator Reynolds argued HWLE breached its fiduciary duty to her by excluding her from the mediation conference where the $2.4m settlement was reached, and failing to conduct independent investigations to establish if there was 'at least a meaningful prospect of liability' by Ms Higgins. However, similar alleged breaches initially put forth against the Commonwealth were withdrawn in the amended document, with it now largely focusing on allegations of Mr Dreyfus' misfeasance of public office and alleged breaches of HWLE. Mr Dreyfus has been contacted for comment. He earlier welcomed NACC's statement. 'The NACC has conclusively found there was no improper interference by any Commonwealth official at any stage,' Mr Dreyfus said. 'I regret the baseless allegation of corruption has been so widely publicised ahead of this finding and hope future matters can be resolved in a more timely manner. 'I also regret any further distress caused to Ms Higgins as a result of this matter.'
The Advertiser
6 hours ago
- The Advertiser
How Australia's 'no-worries' approach has led our nation's defence astray
With the precision of a barrister and the venom of a politician betrayed, Malcolm Turnbull has torpedoed the credulous heart of Australia's multibillion-dollar AUKUS evangelism, raising the question: are we the only true believers? If the answer turns out to be yes, and we may know soon, the unhealthy consensus between our two major parties will have been exposed as the most naive conflation of our security interests with those of another country since Iraq, or even Vietnam. "The UK is conducting a review of AUKUS" the former Liberal prime minister tweeted. "The US DoD [dept of defence] is conducting a review of AUKUS. But Australia, which has the most at stake, has no review. Our Parliament to date has been the least curious and least informed. Time to wake up?" Maybe. We don't really do introspection and we're not much inclined towards looking backwards, either. To its credit, the UK allowed seven years for its Chilcot inquiry into Britain's disastrous enthusiasm for the Iraq invasion. It found that non-military options had been deliberately overlooked, that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, and that the UK had too willingly agreed with America in sexing up intelligence. An easily beguiled Australia was along for the ride, unlawful and unethical as it all was. Yet an Australian equivalent of the Chilcot process was never embarked on in the years after. Lessons went unlearned. When it was unveiled in September 2021, AUKUS quickly became the new big thing - one of those binary faith questions in mainstream politics and most media. There were only two types: believers and apostates. The tripartite Anglophone deal for nuclear subs came as a rude shock to the French who had been contracted (by the Turnbull government) to build our next generation of conventionally powered submarines. The costs were gargantuan but the long-term punt on unfailing US delivery was far greater because it relied on future administrations and unknowable security challenges in the decades ahead. Change of president? No worries. Everybody in Washington is onboard, the story went. Now, with Anthony Albanese on his way to the Americas for a possible first-ever meeting with Donald Trump, AUKUS is suddenly under active review to assess its consistency with Trump's populist rubric, "America First". Few really know where Trump stands or if he has ever thought about AUKUS. What is clear is that the president's acolytes are fuming about Australian sanctions on far-right members of Netanyahu's cabinet and are looking askance at Albanese's recent statements affirming Australia's exclusive right to set levels of defence spending. Then there's the whole trade/tariff argument. READ MORE: These eddies will make for trickier conditions than Albanese might have imagined only days ago. Might it even see a bilateral meeting delayed or downgraded as a rebuke to Australia? With friends like Trump, literally anything is possible. Which, by the way, is why blind faith in AUKUS has always been disreputable. With the precision of a barrister and the venom of a politician betrayed, Malcolm Turnbull has torpedoed the credulous heart of Australia's multibillion-dollar AUKUS evangelism, raising the question: are we the only true believers? If the answer turns out to be yes, and we may know soon, the unhealthy consensus between our two major parties will have been exposed as the most naive conflation of our security interests with those of another country since Iraq, or even Vietnam. "The UK is conducting a review of AUKUS" the former Liberal prime minister tweeted. "The US DoD [dept of defence] is conducting a review of AUKUS. But Australia, which has the most at stake, has no review. Our Parliament to date has been the least curious and least informed. Time to wake up?" Maybe. We don't really do introspection and we're not much inclined towards looking backwards, either. To its credit, the UK allowed seven years for its Chilcot inquiry into Britain's disastrous enthusiasm for the Iraq invasion. It found that non-military options had been deliberately overlooked, that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, and that the UK had too willingly agreed with America in sexing up intelligence. An easily beguiled Australia was along for the ride, unlawful and unethical as it all was. Yet an Australian equivalent of the Chilcot process was never embarked on in the years after. Lessons went unlearned. When it was unveiled in September 2021, AUKUS quickly became the new big thing - one of those binary faith questions in mainstream politics and most media. There were only two types: believers and apostates. The tripartite Anglophone deal for nuclear subs came as a rude shock to the French who had been contracted (by the Turnbull government) to build our next generation of conventionally powered submarines. The costs were gargantuan but the long-term punt on unfailing US delivery was far greater because it relied on future administrations and unknowable security challenges in the decades ahead. Change of president? No worries. Everybody in Washington is onboard, the story went. Now, with Anthony Albanese on his way to the Americas for a possible first-ever meeting with Donald Trump, AUKUS is suddenly under active review to assess its consistency with Trump's populist rubric, "America First". Few really know where Trump stands or if he has ever thought about AUKUS. What is clear is that the president's acolytes are fuming about Australian sanctions on far-right members of Netanyahu's cabinet and are looking askance at Albanese's recent statements affirming Australia's exclusive right to set levels of defence spending. Then there's the whole trade/tariff argument. READ MORE: These eddies will make for trickier conditions than Albanese might have imagined only days ago. Might it even see a bilateral meeting delayed or downgraded as a rebuke to Australia? With friends like Trump, literally anything is possible. Which, by the way, is why blind faith in AUKUS has always been disreputable. With the precision of a barrister and the venom of a politician betrayed, Malcolm Turnbull has torpedoed the credulous heart of Australia's multibillion-dollar AUKUS evangelism, raising the question: are we the only true believers? If the answer turns out to be yes, and we may know soon, the unhealthy consensus between our two major parties will have been exposed as the most naive conflation of our security interests with those of another country since Iraq, or even Vietnam. "The UK is conducting a review of AUKUS" the former Liberal prime minister tweeted. "The US DoD [dept of defence] is conducting a review of AUKUS. But Australia, which has the most at stake, has no review. Our Parliament to date has been the least curious and least informed. Time to wake up?" Maybe. We don't really do introspection and we're not much inclined towards looking backwards, either. To its credit, the UK allowed seven years for its Chilcot inquiry into Britain's disastrous enthusiasm for the Iraq invasion. It found that non-military options had been deliberately overlooked, that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, and that the UK had too willingly agreed with America in sexing up intelligence. An easily beguiled Australia was along for the ride, unlawful and unethical as it all was. Yet an Australian equivalent of the Chilcot process was never embarked on in the years after. Lessons went unlearned. When it was unveiled in September 2021, AUKUS quickly became the new big thing - one of those binary faith questions in mainstream politics and most media. There were only two types: believers and apostates. The tripartite Anglophone deal for nuclear subs came as a rude shock to the French who had been contracted (by the Turnbull government) to build our next generation of conventionally powered submarines. The costs were gargantuan but the long-term punt on unfailing US delivery was far greater because it relied on future administrations and unknowable security challenges in the decades ahead. Change of president? No worries. Everybody in Washington is onboard, the story went. Now, with Anthony Albanese on his way to the Americas for a possible first-ever meeting with Donald Trump, AUKUS is suddenly under active review to assess its consistency with Trump's populist rubric, "America First". Few really know where Trump stands or if he has ever thought about AUKUS. What is clear is that the president's acolytes are fuming about Australian sanctions on far-right members of Netanyahu's cabinet and are looking askance at Albanese's recent statements affirming Australia's exclusive right to set levels of defence spending. Then there's the whole trade/tariff argument. READ MORE: These eddies will make for trickier conditions than Albanese might have imagined only days ago. Might it even see a bilateral meeting delayed or downgraded as a rebuke to Australia? With friends like Trump, literally anything is possible. Which, by the way, is why blind faith in AUKUS has always been disreputable. With the precision of a barrister and the venom of a politician betrayed, Malcolm Turnbull has torpedoed the credulous heart of Australia's multibillion-dollar AUKUS evangelism, raising the question: are we the only true believers? If the answer turns out to be yes, and we may know soon, the unhealthy consensus between our two major parties will have been exposed as the most naive conflation of our security interests with those of another country since Iraq, or even Vietnam. "The UK is conducting a review of AUKUS" the former Liberal prime minister tweeted. "The US DoD [dept of defence] is conducting a review of AUKUS. But Australia, which has the most at stake, has no review. Our Parliament to date has been the least curious and least informed. Time to wake up?" Maybe. We don't really do introspection and we're not much inclined towards looking backwards, either. To its credit, the UK allowed seven years for its Chilcot inquiry into Britain's disastrous enthusiasm for the Iraq invasion. It found that non-military options had been deliberately overlooked, that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, and that the UK had too willingly agreed with America in sexing up intelligence. An easily beguiled Australia was along for the ride, unlawful and unethical as it all was. Yet an Australian equivalent of the Chilcot process was never embarked on in the years after. Lessons went unlearned. When it was unveiled in September 2021, AUKUS quickly became the new big thing - one of those binary faith questions in mainstream politics and most media. There were only two types: believers and apostates. The tripartite Anglophone deal for nuclear subs came as a rude shock to the French who had been contracted (by the Turnbull government) to build our next generation of conventionally powered submarines. The costs were gargantuan but the long-term punt on unfailing US delivery was far greater because it relied on future administrations and unknowable security challenges in the decades ahead. Change of president? No worries. Everybody in Washington is onboard, the story went. Now, with Anthony Albanese on his way to the Americas for a possible first-ever meeting with Donald Trump, AUKUS is suddenly under active review to assess its consistency with Trump's populist rubric, "America First". Few really know where Trump stands or if he has ever thought about AUKUS. What is clear is that the president's acolytes are fuming about Australian sanctions on far-right members of Netanyahu's cabinet and are looking askance at Albanese's recent statements affirming Australia's exclusive right to set levels of defence spending. Then there's the whole trade/tariff argument. READ MORE: These eddies will make for trickier conditions than Albanese might have imagined only days ago. Might it even see a bilateral meeting delayed or downgraded as a rebuke to Australia? With friends like Trump, literally anything is possible. Which, by the way, is why blind faith in AUKUS has always been disreputable.
The Advertiser
8 hours ago
- The Advertiser
Parties in full swing, tough path to election majority
The starter's gun has been fired for a snap Tasmanian election but whether the political situation is any less messy after polling day is anyone's guess. Minority Liberal premier Jeremy Rockliff's refusal to step down after losing a no-confidence motion last week has triggered the island's second poll in 16 months. His party rolled out its first wave of candidates on Thursday's first day of campaigning before the July 19 vote. The Liberals (14 seats) and Labor opposition (10) must get the public on board to have any chance of reaching the 18-seat mark needed to rule in majority. The Liberals, who have been in power since 2014, have governed in minority for two years. They suffered a 12 per cent swing against them at the March 2024 election, with voters largely jumping to minor parties and independents. It won't be easy for the Liberals or Labor to get the swing required for majority, election analyst Kevin Bonham said. The Liberals picked up 37 per cent of the vote in 2024 and Labor 29 per cent. "(Both) parties need a large swing. You'd be looking at a primary vote of around the low 40s (for majority)," Dr Bonham said. The most recent opinion polling in May showed support for the Liberals had fallen from the election result to 29 per cent, while Labor's backing increased marginally to 31 per cent. Labor took two seats off the Liberals in Tasmania at the May national election but Dr Bonham said the party couldn't rely on that wave of support at state level. Labor is also without popular former state leader Rebecca White, who now sits in federal parliament. "There were some different factors playing into the federal (result) like campaigns against (Peter) Dutton over health," Dr Bonham said. Minor parties and independent candidates are already throwing their hat in the ring. Anti-salmon campaigner Peter George, who gave sitting Labor MP Julie Collins a fright at the federal poll, is running as an independent in Franklin. The Nationals are expected to put forward former Liberal MP John Tucker, whose defection in 2023 plunged the Liberals into minority, as a candidate. "There has been a lot of disquiet (from the public)," Nationals Senator Bridget McKenzie told ABC Radio. "It seems both the major parties have been focused on themselves rather than the issues of everyday Tasmanians." Labor leader Dean Winter's no-confidence motion against Mr Rockliff was successful with support of the Greens and three crossbench MPs. The motion cited budget mismanagement, including ballooning net debt, and the delayed and over-budget new Bass Strait ferries project. Mr Rockliff said he wanted the campaign to be about Tasmania's future. "I know Tasmanians did not want an election. Dean Winter caused this election with his desperation and immaturity," he told reporters on Thursday. Mr Winter fired back, labelling Mr Rockliff stubborn for refusing to stand aside after the parliament lost confidence in him. Labor says it won't do deals with the Greens to govern but hasn't ruled out forming alliances with other members of a potential crossbench. The starter's gun has been fired for a snap Tasmanian election but whether the political situation is any less messy after polling day is anyone's guess. Minority Liberal premier Jeremy Rockliff's refusal to step down after losing a no-confidence motion last week has triggered the island's second poll in 16 months. His party rolled out its first wave of candidates on Thursday's first day of campaigning before the July 19 vote. The Liberals (14 seats) and Labor opposition (10) must get the public on board to have any chance of reaching the 18-seat mark needed to rule in majority. The Liberals, who have been in power since 2014, have governed in minority for two years. They suffered a 12 per cent swing against them at the March 2024 election, with voters largely jumping to minor parties and independents. It won't be easy for the Liberals or Labor to get the swing required for majority, election analyst Kevin Bonham said. The Liberals picked up 37 per cent of the vote in 2024 and Labor 29 per cent. "(Both) parties need a large swing. You'd be looking at a primary vote of around the low 40s (for majority)," Dr Bonham said. The most recent opinion polling in May showed support for the Liberals had fallen from the election result to 29 per cent, while Labor's backing increased marginally to 31 per cent. Labor took two seats off the Liberals in Tasmania at the May national election but Dr Bonham said the party couldn't rely on that wave of support at state level. Labor is also without popular former state leader Rebecca White, who now sits in federal parliament. "There were some different factors playing into the federal (result) like campaigns against (Peter) Dutton over health," Dr Bonham said. Minor parties and independent candidates are already throwing their hat in the ring. Anti-salmon campaigner Peter George, who gave sitting Labor MP Julie Collins a fright at the federal poll, is running as an independent in Franklin. The Nationals are expected to put forward former Liberal MP John Tucker, whose defection in 2023 plunged the Liberals into minority, as a candidate. "There has been a lot of disquiet (from the public)," Nationals Senator Bridget McKenzie told ABC Radio. "It seems both the major parties have been focused on themselves rather than the issues of everyday Tasmanians." Labor leader Dean Winter's no-confidence motion against Mr Rockliff was successful with support of the Greens and three crossbench MPs. The motion cited budget mismanagement, including ballooning net debt, and the delayed and over-budget new Bass Strait ferries project. Mr Rockliff said he wanted the campaign to be about Tasmania's future. "I know Tasmanians did not want an election. Dean Winter caused this election with his desperation and immaturity," he told reporters on Thursday. Mr Winter fired back, labelling Mr Rockliff stubborn for refusing to stand aside after the parliament lost confidence in him. Labor says it won't do deals with the Greens to govern but hasn't ruled out forming alliances with other members of a potential crossbench. The starter's gun has been fired for a snap Tasmanian election but whether the political situation is any less messy after polling day is anyone's guess. Minority Liberal premier Jeremy Rockliff's refusal to step down after losing a no-confidence motion last week has triggered the island's second poll in 16 months. His party rolled out its first wave of candidates on Thursday's first day of campaigning before the July 19 vote. The Liberals (14 seats) and Labor opposition (10) must get the public on board to have any chance of reaching the 18-seat mark needed to rule in majority. The Liberals, who have been in power since 2014, have governed in minority for two years. They suffered a 12 per cent swing against them at the March 2024 election, with voters largely jumping to minor parties and independents. It won't be easy for the Liberals or Labor to get the swing required for majority, election analyst Kevin Bonham said. The Liberals picked up 37 per cent of the vote in 2024 and Labor 29 per cent. "(Both) parties need a large swing. You'd be looking at a primary vote of around the low 40s (for majority)," Dr Bonham said. The most recent opinion polling in May showed support for the Liberals had fallen from the election result to 29 per cent, while Labor's backing increased marginally to 31 per cent. Labor took two seats off the Liberals in Tasmania at the May national election but Dr Bonham said the party couldn't rely on that wave of support at state level. Labor is also without popular former state leader Rebecca White, who now sits in federal parliament. "There were some different factors playing into the federal (result) like campaigns against (Peter) Dutton over health," Dr Bonham said. Minor parties and independent candidates are already throwing their hat in the ring. Anti-salmon campaigner Peter George, who gave sitting Labor MP Julie Collins a fright at the federal poll, is running as an independent in Franklin. The Nationals are expected to put forward former Liberal MP John Tucker, whose defection in 2023 plunged the Liberals into minority, as a candidate. "There has been a lot of disquiet (from the public)," Nationals Senator Bridget McKenzie told ABC Radio. "It seems both the major parties have been focused on themselves rather than the issues of everyday Tasmanians." Labor leader Dean Winter's no-confidence motion against Mr Rockliff was successful with support of the Greens and three crossbench MPs. The motion cited budget mismanagement, including ballooning net debt, and the delayed and over-budget new Bass Strait ferries project. Mr Rockliff said he wanted the campaign to be about Tasmania's future. "I know Tasmanians did not want an election. Dean Winter caused this election with his desperation and immaturity," he told reporters on Thursday. Mr Winter fired back, labelling Mr Rockliff stubborn for refusing to stand aside after the parliament lost confidence in him. Labor says it won't do deals with the Greens to govern but hasn't ruled out forming alliances with other members of a potential crossbench. The starter's gun has been fired for a snap Tasmanian election but whether the political situation is any less messy after polling day is anyone's guess. Minority Liberal premier Jeremy Rockliff's refusal to step down after losing a no-confidence motion last week has triggered the island's second poll in 16 months. His party rolled out its first wave of candidates on Thursday's first day of campaigning before the July 19 vote. The Liberals (14 seats) and Labor opposition (10) must get the public on board to have any chance of reaching the 18-seat mark needed to rule in majority. The Liberals, who have been in power since 2014, have governed in minority for two years. They suffered a 12 per cent swing against them at the March 2024 election, with voters largely jumping to minor parties and independents. It won't be easy for the Liberals or Labor to get the swing required for majority, election analyst Kevin Bonham said. The Liberals picked up 37 per cent of the vote in 2024 and Labor 29 per cent. "(Both) parties need a large swing. You'd be looking at a primary vote of around the low 40s (for majority)," Dr Bonham said. The most recent opinion polling in May showed support for the Liberals had fallen from the election result to 29 per cent, while Labor's backing increased marginally to 31 per cent. Labor took two seats off the Liberals in Tasmania at the May national election but Dr Bonham said the party couldn't rely on that wave of support at state level. Labor is also without popular former state leader Rebecca White, who now sits in federal parliament. "There were some different factors playing into the federal (result) like campaigns against (Peter) Dutton over health," Dr Bonham said. Minor parties and independent candidates are already throwing their hat in the ring. Anti-salmon campaigner Peter George, who gave sitting Labor MP Julie Collins a fright at the federal poll, is running as an independent in Franklin. The Nationals are expected to put forward former Liberal MP John Tucker, whose defection in 2023 plunged the Liberals into minority, as a candidate. "There has been a lot of disquiet (from the public)," Nationals Senator Bridget McKenzie told ABC Radio. "It seems both the major parties have been focused on themselves rather than the issues of everyday Tasmanians." Labor leader Dean Winter's no-confidence motion against Mr Rockliff was successful with support of the Greens and three crossbench MPs. The motion cited budget mismanagement, including ballooning net debt, and the delayed and over-budget new Bass Strait ferries project. Mr Rockliff said he wanted the campaign to be about Tasmania's future. "I know Tasmanians did not want an election. Dean Winter caused this election with his desperation and immaturity," he told reporters on Thursday. Mr Winter fired back, labelling Mr Rockliff stubborn for refusing to stand aside after the parliament lost confidence in him. Labor says it won't do deals with the Greens to govern but hasn't ruled out forming alliances with other members of a potential crossbench.
