8pm. With all booths counted now, Casey Hiscutt holds a small lead over Stephen Parry in Montgomery and looks set to win on preferences; Meg Webb is on over 50% in Nelson; and Labor’s Luke Edmunds is on 44.13%, still almost doubling the second-placed Greens and assured of a comfortable win.
7.06pm. Labor member Luke Edmunds has fallen below 40% after a less good result from the third and biggest booth to report so far, Lindisfarne. However, the third-placed Greens, on 26.37%, seem unlikely to do well enough on preferences to threaten him.
6.58pm. With thirteen booths in, Liberal candidate Stephen Parry has pulled ahead of independent Casey Hiscutt, by 1497 (31.46%) to 1486 (31.23%), but the latter still appears likely to win on preferences from the third-placed Greens on 1011 (21.24%), who are presumably soaking up a lot of the homeless vote. Independent incumbent Meg Webb has a majority on first preferences after four of the twelve booths have reported in Nelson, and looks safe. Two booths are in from Pembroke, where Labor member Luke Edmunds’ 302 votes (45.55%) are nearly double his nearest rival’s, suggesting he will be comfortably returned.
6.43pm. The first booth in Pembroke looks encouraging for Labor member Luke Edmunds, who has 216 votes (48.43%) with the rest scattered, the Greens coming second with 90 votes to independent Allison Ritchie’s 85.
6.41pm. Up to eight booths now in Montgomery, and Hiscutt looking good with a lead over Parry of 588 (32.83%) to 463 (25.85%).
6.38pm. Six booths in now from Montgomery, continuing to show independent Casey Hiscutt leading Stephen Parry of the Liberal Party, by 282 (31.58%) votes to 238 (26.65%), suggesting a likely win for Hiscutt given preferences will presumably favour him.
6.35pm. The first booth in Nelson, from Kingston West, has independent member Meg Webb on 119 votes (49.17%) to the Liberal candidate’s 87 (35.95%) and the Greens’ 36 (14.88%).
6.30pm. Three booths in from Montgomery, where independent Casey Hiscutt leads with 122 votes (33.15%) to Liberal candidate Stephen Parry’s 87 (23.64%), not far ahead of the Greens candidate’s 74 (20.11%) and Shooters’ 73 (19.84%). The voting system is preferential, but voters are only required to number a minimum of three boxes.
6pm. Polls have closed for the elections for three of the 15 Tasmanian Legislative Council seats, which are elected over a six-year cycle in which either two or three seats fall vacant each year. This year’s contests are for the northern coast seat of Montgomery, where the retirement of Liberal incumbent Leonie Hiscutt looks to have resulted in a contest between former Senator Stephen Parry as Liberal candidate and Casey Hiscutt, Central Coast councillor and the son of the outgoing member, who is running as an independent; the eastern Hobart seat of Pembroke, where Labor incumbent Luke Edmunds is being challenged by two notable independents in Allison Ritchie, a former Labor member for the seat, and Tony Mulder, a former independent member for the seat of Rumney who has in the past been a Liberal candidate; and the outer southern Hobart seat of Nelson, where independent Meg Webb faces opposition from Liberal and Greens candidates who appear unlikely to trouble her.
That sounds like a really dumb system. Going to all the trouble of an election for three members?
Is it mandatory to vote?
So I’m curious, what policies are the likely winning candidates bringing to the table in this upper house election?
I understand that these Tasmanian Legislative Council elections happen every year, but this duration and the fact that most of them are Independents and such, how do they matter exactly in the bigger picture of things?
Ghost Of Whitlam says:
Saturday, May 24, 2025 at 6:12 pm
That sounds like a really dumb system. Going to all the trouble of an election for three members?
Is it mandatory to vote?
中华人民共和国
Upper Houses are a dumb idea if you ask me. Especially in a State the size to Tasmania. Should be abolished like Queensland.
My coverage here https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2025/05/legislative-council-2025-montgomery_24.html
Ghost Of Whitlam: LegCo seats are on a 6-year rotating cycle designed to frustrate any impetuous impulses of the people voting for the house downstairs.
Upnorth: Voting is compulsory but turnout often mediocre. We very much need our LegCo to block all the garbage the lower house passes, though it also sometimes blocks stuff that it shouldn’t.
Kevin Bonham says:
Saturday, May 24, 2025 at 6:19 pm
My coverage here https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2025/05/legislative-council-2025-montgomery_24.html
Ghost Of Whitlam: LegCo seats are on a 6-year rotating cycle designed to frustrate any impetuous impulses of the people voting for the house downstairs.
Upnorth: Voting is compulsory but turnout often mediocre. We very much need our LegCo to block all the garbage the lower house passes, though it also sometimes blocks stuff that it shouldn’t.
中华人民共和国
Thanks good Doctor. Sounds like Mrs Upnorth! Love your work along with our Lord Bowe.
I loved the story about Dr Bonham that I read this week of him climbing a tree so that he could be the first to see the Tasmanian Premier going to visit the Tasmanian Governor to call the election. 😀
Upnorth at 6.16 pm
“Should be abolished like [in] QLD”.
Seldom has the lack of an in in situ changed a meaning so substantially.
On the matter to hand the probable winner of the Montgomery seat, Mr Hiscutt, whose mother is the retiring Liberal member, looks set to beat the Liberal candidate. Very unlikely to happen in QLD.
While Mr Hiscutt reportedly supports the very big public subsidy for an AFL roost in Hobart, he sells himself as a sort of “quick thinker”. Perhaps if he gets familiar with the details, and the views of most of his constituents, he might start to have independent ideas.
If the LNP has dissolved, is there more Nationals than Liberals ? Given that a lot of the LNP from Qld are really Nationals ?
if Nat > Lib, are the Nationals really the Opposition ?
Tas upper house should either be abolished or the elections, which are a waste of money now, synchronised and using a similar system to the five seat lower house and federal system.
State Upper Houses are a complete and utter waste of time. Abolishment would save the taxpayer millions.
Not to mention deprive the oxygen of fruitcake minor parties who just grandstand.
In NSW, they’re in for 8 years and don’t represent anyone.
Queensland is the perfect example of why state upper houses are so important
I hope the one in Tassie at least pushes for a better deal on the stadium, the current one is going to send the state broke
A friend of mine who did a law degree had a research project as part of it, and chose tge topic of why there was more corruption in Qld politics over decades than other states.
She concluded it was because of the abolition of the upper house. Certainly not the first to say that, but I found it interesting because she didn’t go in with a preconceived opinion, and in fact she seemed rather surprised when she told me.
The cost of the MPs salaries etc is pretty small if it stops a Joh era catastrophic period of bad governance.
I agree with Stephen Luntz.
For those Liberals wanting to abolish layered houses – Kevin Rudd
For those Labour wanting to abolish layered houses – Scott Morrison
Which one do you want to have unchecked power ?
We had 12 year terms and then 8 years in the NSW Upper House. And still had massive corruption, especially in the Carr/Iemm/Rees/Keneally government.
Mainly perpetrated by Obeid, MacDonald and Kelly all of whom were in the Upper House.
The notion that the Upper House is a stopper of bad legislation and provides more ethical government is a nonsense. It just gives the unelectable a place to be legitimised without proper oversight for lengthy terms.
Canada seems to operate fine without having Provincial Upper Houses.
You can’t just ‘have’ an upper house.
It needs a fundamentally different version of ‘democracy’ hence the preferential HoR and proportional/state seat Senate here. Otherwise either the governing party has a similar makeup in the Upper and Lower and won’t enquire into its own corruption.
Or just appoint the Upper House with worthies a bit like the judiciary – and how I was hope Starmer would do in the UK – who can’t be removed but also have no mandate to oppose something that was proposed and voted on by the public.
Tas is very small though – the Queensland example is not relevant. More of a local council.
The best example of a person whom you don’t want to have unchecked power is Donald Trump.
Populists are on the march worldwide. In addition to Trump, the most recent examples are the Romanian far-right that got 45% of the Presidential vote, and the Portuguese far-right who came 2nd with an increased vote share.
Australia has been luckily immune, so far, but I have no confidence this’ll continue in the future.
We need as many checks-and-balances as possible.
in response to Fernando above, but for Donald Trump, we could well have slept walked into an authoritarian regime in Australia. It was Trump revealing just how dangerous he was that finally made the masses wake up in Australia and not reward Temu Trump “He’s a deep thinker” and “our policies will be just like Trump” “Make Australia Great Again” Dutton with unfettered power and an unchecked ego.
We dodged the bullet this time, we might not be quite so lucky next time.
Thank Dog for Albo.
That said the Tassie staggerer upper house elections do seem a little quaint.
In some respects Tasmania’s upper house is too powerful – it can block Budgets and force the government to an election (though this happened only once in 1948). Overall I’m in favour of having it because otherwise we’d have to live with some of the abysmal legislation that has got through the lower house, particularly some very bad electoral legislation and an amendment to outlaw ridiculing people on account of their political or religious opinions. I like the idea of having two houses with very different electoral systems to increase the likelihood that bad legislation will be blocked except where governments have an overwhelming mandate. Some good legislation doesn’t get through but it’s worth it.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-06-04/jeremy-rockliff-no-confidence-motion/105371790
Dog save the gov, because not even Lucifer can save the premier?