Tasmanians left in limbo until week's end as governor considers election request
Tasmanians could have to wait until the end of the week to find out if the state is off to another election.
Premier Jeremy Rockliff met with the state's governor, Barbarba Baker, at Government House on Tuesday evening to request an election after suffering defeat in a no-confidence motion.
But a statement released by Government House shortly after the meeting said the governor needed more time.
"Following their conversation, Her Excellency is now taking the time necessary to give due consideration to all available options," the statement reads.
By the end of the week the Premier will meet with Her Excellency again.
Further statements will be made in due course."
Mr Rockliff also released a brief statement.
"I respect the need for Her Excellency to take the appropriate time to consider important matters of state," it reads.
"I remain committed to serving the people of Tasmania."
Two alternative options to an election emerged during the week after the no-confidence motion.
Mr Rockliff could have been replaced by another Liberal leader who could then seek the confidence of parliament, but this option was repeatedly knocked back by Mr Rockliff and members of the partyroom.
The other option was for Labor leader Dean Winter to attempt to form minority government, which would require the support of the Greens, but he also rejected this.
Parliament was recalled on Tuesday to pass emergency budget supply bills to ensure public servants get paid during and after an election campaign.
This was delayed, after an "8" instead of a "6" was written in a funding line — inadvertently adding $2 million to the budget — and had to be rectified after already passing the lower house.
Tasmania has been in a pseudo-election campaign since last week.
On Sunday, Mr Rockliff held a press conference to announce recently ousted federal Bass MP Bridget Archer would be seeking preselection for the party.
"Dean Winter has forced an election upon Tasmanians," he said at the time.
"I did not want an election.
Mr Winter also held multiple press conferences on the weekend alongside various union leaders.
Labor put the blame back on Mr Rockliff.
"Jeremy Rockliff thinks he can put Tasmania through another election because his position in the government is more important than the government continuing without him," Labor's Josh Willie said on Sunday.
The Liberals have been in power in Tasmania since 2014 starting with a two-seat majority, which reduced to one seat in 2018, stayed at one seat after the 2021 election, and then was in minority before and after the March 2024 election.
The party had 14 out of 35 lower house seats, and Mr Rockliff was governing with supply and confidence deals with crossbenchers.
He had already survived two no-confidence motions from the Greens, before Labor moved its own motion last week, gaining 18 out of 35 votes to turf Mr Rockliff.
In the week since the no-confidence motion passed, the major parties have given some indication of how an election campaign would pan out — if there is, indeed, an election.
Mr Rockliff and the Liberals have heavily attacked Mr Winter as a "wrecker", potentially pitching it as a popularity contest between Mr Rockliff and Mr Winter as individual leaders.
Labor's no-confidence motion included the bungled rollout of the new Spirit of Tasmania vessels, a deteriorating budget position and potential privatisation of state-owned companies — which Mr Rockliff has now ruled out.
Mr Winter has continued to slam Mr Rockliff on each of these topics — and blamed him for losing confidence of parliament.
The Tasmanian Greens extended an olive branch to Labor several times to try to form minority government, but this was rejected.
The Greens are the only one of the three parties that oppose the Macquarie Point stadium, which has polled poorly — particularly in Bass and Braddon — in recent EMRS polling.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
an hour ago
- ABC News
Murray Watt flags Woodside's North West Shelf project extension response could be delayed
A final decision on the future of Woodside's major gas plant could be delayed, with the federal environment minister revealing the mining giant has more time to respond to his provisional approval of its North West Shelf extension. Murray Watt last month threw his support behind Woodside continuing to operate its onshore gas processing plant in Western Australia's north for the next four decades. Woodside is considering the "strict" conditions attached to his approval, aimed at protecting ancient Aboriginal rock art in the Murujuga National Park on the Burrup Peninsula. Mr Watt said while the 10-day period to do so expires tomorrow, he wasn't certain that would happen. "We haven't received a final response from Woodside at this point," he told ABC radio. "When I handed down my proposed decision a couple of weeks ago, there was a 10-day comment period for Woodside to respond to. "That 10- day period expires [tomorrow], but I should say it's not uncommon for proponents in this situation to take a bit longer in coming back on those comments. "I can't predict exactly when it will be that Woodside will provide those comments once I receive them, consider them and make a decision on whether or not to approve the project." The North West Shelf is Australia's largest oil and gas precinct, located off the north-west coast of WA, near the regional city of Karratha. Woodside has several offshore platforms and undersea pipelines to enable it to extract gas, which is then processed at the onshore gas plant. In 2018, Woodside applied for a permit to extend the life of that plant beyond 2030, which triggered a long and controversial process which ultimately saw the proposal approved by the state, and most recently, federal governments. The North West Shelf extension sets the company up to expand its operations beyond the existing gas fields. The 2070 extension is seen as a critical step in extracting gas from the untapped Browse fields, north of Broome, without building new infrastructure to process it. Browse is said to have reserves large enough to meet Australia's entire domestic demand for almost 20 years. However, Woodside's application to drill there has yet to be approved, and after nearly seven years, is still going through environmental assessment. The North West Shelf extension was touted as a boon to WA industry, promising job security to thousands. But the move has left green groups furious, with critics warning opposition to Browse — which is still before the Environmental Protection Authority — will be fierce. Concerns are wide ranging, and include questions about what the project's emissions will mean for WA's climate targets. There's also alarm about the proximity of the Browse gas fields to the Scott Reef, which is home to endangered whales, turtles and corals. Traditional Owners have also threatened to take legal action against the life extension of the North West Shelf and Browse, concerned about the impact on priceless ancient rock art near the Karratha Gas Plant. Proponents maintain gas is a critical transition fuel in the switch to renewables, and an important export to countries moving away from coal.
ABC News
an hour ago
- ABC News
WA fishers say federal plans to protect more ocean will increase seafood prices
Shoppers have been warned Australian seafood prices will rise and the nation will import more fish as a consequence of federal government plans to prevent commercial fishing in millions of hectares of ocean. Environment Minister Murray Watt told this week's UN Ocean Conference Australia would expand "highly protected" areas to 30 per cent of its territorial waters within five years. It represents a six per cent increase in ocean estate where extractive industries such as fishing or mining are locked out. The announcement follows the release last month of Sir David Attenborough's documentary Ocean, which shines a spotlight on global fishing practices. While green groups welcomed the news from the government, WA Fishing Industry Council CEO Melissa Haslam said it would hurt consumers. "Seafood prices will rise," she said. "In some cases you might see some fisheries close, they reach a brink where they cannot be economically viable anymore. "Alternatively where they continue, the cost of getting that fish to market just increases astronomically." Ms Haslam said Australian seafood was already struggling to compete on price point. "When the average Australian is in Coles or Woolworths, they'll look at the WA snapper at some extraordinary price per kilo," she said. Ms Haslam said Australians wanted to eat fish from local waters and not imported fish that may not be of the same quality. Ms Haslam said she was blindsided by Mr Watt's announcement, and frustrated at the broad statements being made about ocean management. "I understand the international pressure must be huge, and people look to first-world countries like Australia to lead the way, but someone needs to stand up and say, 'We are leading the way,'" she said. Ms Haslam said Attenborough's film should have shown the difference in fishery and ocean management practices between countries. "They never contacted us, they haven't contacted other [West Australian] commercial fishers that I'm aware of, so you're looking at a very skewed view of the world," she said. Ms Haslam said fishers did not broadly oppose marine parks, but they were not the "silver bullet" some portrayed them as. "They don't stop pollution, they don't stop oil spills — marine parks don't stop illegal fishers from other countries," she said. The Ocean documentary highlights the destructive impact of bottom-trawling on marine ecosystems, but the fishing industry argues it overlooks the strict regulations and sustainable practices of Australia's trawl fisheries. Trawling represents about two per cent of fishing activity in Australia, but it generates about 40 per cent of the nation's seafood. "When they show footage of trawling over the ocean floor that's causing terrible damage, I will guarantee you that footage was not taken in Australia or any other world-leading country that has highly regulated fishing practices," Ms Haslam said. Seafood Industry Australia CEO Veronica Papacosta shared Ms Haslam's frustrations. "You know, it was almost if it bleeds, it leads headlines," she said. "It just sounds better if it's all a big mess but in Australia we have worked so hard to make sure we have constant improvements. "In Australia we trawl on sandy bottoms — that talk on the documentary of ripping up the environment, we would lose our boats if we trawled across habitats [like that]." Andrew and Nicola Forrest's Minderoo Foundation contributed more than $3 million towards the production of Ocean — about half its overall cost. Minderoo Pictures executive director Malinda Wink said the film was made independently by Silverback Films, but Minderoo did have oversight of its scientific accuracy, as it did with all films it supported. "The narration scripts were entirely of Sir David and the team," she said. Ms Wink did not know if there were any shots of Australian commercial fishing used in the film. "I presume that management practices are different everywhere in the world, but the overarching narrative that Sir David has to share is that we need urgent action in order to restore oceans to a healthy state," she said. Speaking on ABC Radio National Breakfast, Mr Watt said protecting 30 per cent of Australia's territorial waters from all extractive industries was a good move for the environment and for fishers. "The scientific research tells us that as long as we preserve 30 per cent of our ocean space … it allows our ocean to replenish itself, fish stocks to re-grow, marine life to re-grow, coral to re-grow," he said. "In a sense, it's helping guarantee the long-term security of our commercial fishing industry as well, by making sure that there are fish remaining for generations to come. "Because when you protect those areas, fish then spill over beyond the protected areas."
ABC News
an hour ago
- ABC News
The Trump administration's AUKUS review set off a political storm, but it doesn't mean the deal is dead
News that the Trump administration is reviewing AUKUS broke like a wave over Australia this morning. Defence Minister Richard Marles has responded with determined calm, saying Australia has known about the review for "weeks" and that it was perfectly "natural and understandable" for the new administration to "look under the hood" of the submarine pact. The review won't necessarily sound a death knell for AUKUS and there are plenty of experts who say it delivers enough benefits to the United States to ensure its survival. But it has provoked a storm of controversy and speculation, with defenders of the project taking to the battlements and sceptics declaring it will offer a golden opportunity for the government to escape a pact that is shaping as a strategic catastrophe for Australia. And there are also plenty of signs the Trump administration is happy to use the review to twist Australia's arm on defence spending — putting the prime minister in an awkward position ahead of an anticipated meeting with Donald Trump. At this stage, details are scant. A Pentagon official says the US wants to make sure the plan aligns with Mr Trump's "America First" agenda, ensuring "the highest readiness of our service members" and "that the defence industrial base is meeting our needs". It will be led by senior official Elbridge Colby, who has been a high-profile AUKUS sceptic — although he has sounded more open to the initiative since taking office. Still, Mr Colby warned during his confirmation hearings that the US would only be able to sell nuclear powered submarines to Australia under AUKUS if the US managed to ramp up submarine production to meet its own critical needs. Put simply: if the US Navy is facing a nightmare scenario, like a war in the Taiwan Strait, then it might prefer to have those additional submarines under its direct control, instead of under the command of another country that might choose to steer clear of the fight. Under the AUKUS agreement, Washington will only begin to transfer second-hand Virginia-class submarines to Australia if it can first lift its local production rate of nuclear-powered boats to at least two a year by 2028. Currently, American shipyards are producing around 1.2 nuclear-powered attack submarines per year but will need to hit a target production rate of 2.33 before any can be sold to Australia. Analyst Euan Graham from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute says the administration will "need to be convinced that the short-term loss to the US Navy's submarine order of battle is worth the longer-term gains from basing and maintenance and greater interoperability". "Support from the US Navy and Congress will be critical," he said. But the administration will also face real costs — not least to US credibility — if it pulls the plug. US analyst Richard Fontaine says all three countries have "absorbed financial and diplomatic costs to get to this point" and "walking away would amount to a strategic setback and devastate ties with Australia". That might explain why some Australian officials and politicians insist they are quietly confident Mr Trump and his key lieutenants will not abandon AUKUS. Questions around the US industrial base and grand strategy might dominate the review, but the process is not happening in a vacuum. The Pentagon says it will use the review to make sure "allies step up fully to do their part for collective defence". In the past few months, both US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth and Mr Colby have publicly demanded that Australia dramatically lift defence spending. The message seems clear. Nobody in the US is saying outright that AUKUS could face the chop if Australia refuses to play ball. But by directly linking the two issues, the Trump administration seems to be flagging that it is happy to use AUKUS as leverage. Unsurprisingly, some Australian MPs are predicting Mr Trump will demand the Albanese government commit to pour more money into the US submarine industrial base. It is still not certain if Anthony Albanese will sit down with Mr Trump on the sidelines of the G7 meeting in Canada next week, for their first face-to-face meeting. But if they do, it is certain AUKUS and defence spending will be at (or near) the top of the agenda. And the Trump administration's decision to apparently leak — or let slip — news about the review just days before the meeting shows they are happy to put the acid on Australia. If AUKUS does get scrapped, Australia will be left with a very hefty bill and nothing to show for it. Under the AUKUS deal, Australia last year began making a series of multi-billion-dollar payments to the United States and United Kingdom to help boost submarine industrial production in both nations. Earlier this year, the government made a $768 million down-payment to the US as part of an overall pledge of $4.7 billion, to help secure the transfer of second-hand Virginia-class submarines here in the 2030s. Australia is also scheduled to pay $4.6 billion to the UK to help support the eventual construction of a new SSN-AUKUS fleet, but the government and defence have been reluctant to admit these contributions have a no-refund clause if the submarines do not arrive. That is not the only sunk cost. As Greens senator David Shoebridge points out, Australia is also "spending $1.7 billion of taxpayers' money to build a US nuclear submarine base that will be operational by 2027 just off Perth". Ever since former prime minister Scott Morrison tore up Australia's submarine deal with France in favour of the AUKUS nuclear option, the ambitious deal has dominated the Defence Department's future planning and efforts. Despite concerns about the direction of AUKUS under the Trump administration, Mr Marles dismissed calls to develop a fallback plan in case the US reneges on the pact. If the AUKUS deal was to collapse, Australia's options to acquire submarines, conventionally powered or nuclear, are extremely limited. France would be reluctant to resume the now-scrapped Attack-class program with Australia, while Germany, which was overlooked in 2016, has indicated its submarine construction yards already have full order books. Australia could potentially return cap-in-hand to Japan, more than a decade after a handshake deal between former prime minister Shinzo Abe and then-prime minister Tony Abbott was made to buy that country's Soryu-class submarines. But the reality is that if AUKUS does fall through, Australia will be facing a yawning capability gap, with no obvious replacement for our dependable but rapidly ageing Collins Class submarines — all at a time when we're facing the most perilous strategic landscape in decades.
