Three-and-a-half weeks on, there remains no resolution to the July 19 Tasmanian election, which ended with Liberal on 14 seats, Labor on 10, the Greens on five, independents with five and one from Shooters Fishers and Farmers, with neither Liberal nor Labor winning the confidence-and-supply guarantees needed from cross-benchers. Owing to an unusual provision in the Tasmanian Constitution Act, in which ministers’ terms expire automatically seven days after the return of the election writs, the Governor was obliged to recommission Jeremy Rockliff’s Liberal government last week, inclusive of a ministerial reshuffle. But its survival is not ensured beyond the return of parliament next Tuesday, at which Labor leader Dean Winter plans to move a “constructive no confidence motion”, meaning one that puts Labor in government rather than requiring yet another election. There appears a good chance that this will be accomplished with the reluctant support of the Greens and at least three independents, even without formal commitments to support it through a full term in office.
Labor is determined not to enter anything that might be characterised as a deal with the Greens, without taking the principle to its ultimate conclusion by allowing the Liberals to remain in government, as was done in similar circumstances after the 1996 election. The Liberals are duly looking for four votes out of the six non-Greens cross-benchers, and appear unable to find them: independents Craig Garland, Peter George and Kristie Johnston have all signalled hostility in varying degrees, despite the Liberals offering a multi-party “budget panel”, a ban on greyhound racing and the protection of 40,000 hectares of forest from logging. Labor’s disinclination to follow suit presumably reflects confidence in the strength of their position, despite mounting expressions of frustration from both independents and Greens.
“Almost more exciting than election watching!!”
Yes, at this stage it is genuinely unknown which is exciting.
One does wonder which big personalities are whispering in the Indys’ ears behind closed doors at this point (I mean from neither of the 2 big parties, at least as current bods).
Before you get to the no-confidence motion the speaker needs to be elected. Who is elected speaker could indicate who has control of the house. In 1992, Libs had 19 seats (out of 35) and a labor member nominated a liberal who won against the official liberal candidate (Michael Hodgeman). Not sure if anyone knows who the other liberal defector was to this day.
Might be that the libs nominate a labor member to be speaker…..
It’s a little concerning, but probably not surprising, that Labor down there is politically closer to the SF&F than they are to the Greens
Winter really isn’t good at this
“The Greens accepted the invitation and they didn’t arrive,” he said. “Rosalie
did tell me that she wouldn’t be going and I said that’s your decision.”
Greens RSVP response we’re not coming
Winter they didn’t show up
https://pulsetasmania.com.au/news/dean-winter-says-talks-with-independents-really-positive/
Pollster: the second Liberal defector in 1992 to make Graeme Page Speaker instead of Michael Hodgman, and indeed the instigator of the plot, was fellow backbencher Bill Bonde. There was a system where despite it being a supposed secret ballot Liberals would show their ballot paper to a fellow Liberal to be seen they had voted the right way. Except Bonde and Page were each other’s fellow Liberal. Led to a great Mercury front page photo with a furious Hodgman giving a flipping the bird gesture.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-08-13/tasmanian-greens-threaten-dean-winter-leadership-aspirations/105644964 …
One thought that occurs to me:
Is there any reason to think there’s a possibility that the 5 Greens won’t stay united, both in outlook and, especially, in how they vote on Tuesday?
That would make it . . . really. . . interesting.
Some may be more diehard hate-Liberal than others, idk.
GFY2
Interesting extract from that article:
“The Greens also have the benefit of time.
They can reject Mr Winter’s bid for power now, tell their supporters they’ve extracted a greyhound racing ban from a Liberal party that just a month ago was telling the industry how valued it was, and consider a further no-confidence motion in Mr Rockliff if he doesn’t do what he has promised or makes decisions that outrage them.
They know Labor are likely to come back and want to form government if they’re unsuccessful this time.
But if the Greens vote for Mr Winter to become premier now, they know it will lead to a partnership that will be awfully hard to end.
The Greens see they’re giving Mr Winter a blank cheque to govern if they side with him this time.
And Dr Woodruff continues to argue the party will not do that without claiming some prized assets in return.”
The Greens Political Party want the Liberal Party in charge. Shameful.
Stuck record keeps reappearing on this site. Remarkably devoid of insight and analysis, let alone recognition of what is actually happening outside the tribal walls, such as Labor offering less to suit Greens than Liberals are.
Still, what can one expect from a mere ghost? 🙂
Never say never BTSays but I think it’s unlikely, the Greens have more power if they stick together
I hope Winter gives some ground before Tuesday or makes way for someone who will
The Greens will not split.
HBG / MI
Thanks – I’m a bit far away to observe any intel on such matters.
Do sage heads tend to think (like Dean Winter and assume) that the Greens are bluffing and will back Labor’s motion on Tuesday regardless, but are fighting for all they can get for now?
I mean, they may have well-prepared arguments for why they allowed Libs to continue in government otherwise, that distinguish articulately the difference between not backing Dean Winter and actually supporting Rockliff and the Libs which they will deny doing (whatever Whitlam’s ghost says. . . ), but it would be very rare in Aussie politics to have even the semblance of a Lib gov being facilitated into gov / ‘propped up’ by the Green party – even if the reasons are fairly unique and understandable.
How are Tassie Greens’ relations with their sister parties – and the fed Greens – on the mainland? – close, thick as thieves, barely talk, hate each other, working relationship. . . ???
(thinking of any possible backlash. . . . and if it’s even relevant to them. . . )
The Greens at a federal level are water melons in Qld and NSW. The Vic one is a little less extreme and the Tasmanians are true conservationists.
What does “water melons” mean? – very red, i.e. commies?
I think the ABC article linked to above is on the money, the Liberals saying they will shut down greyhound racing opens the door to the Greens, it’s more than Labor has put on the table
They can back the Liberals originally and switch sides if it goes wrong and / or Labor change their approach
I think the Greens around the country are all pretty similar, that’s outside looking in though
Perhaps common sense prevails over the weekend, with some cordial and collaborative discussions taking place about forming a broad-left Government next week, between Greens, Labor and cross bench. I wish!
The Greens Political Party bringing the Liberal Party into power may only help the rest of the country going forward.
“Vote Greens, get the Liberals”.
The Greens just got bashed by the electorate Federally for their noalition with the LNP (among other things like the anti-housing, pro-rich, anti-working class nimby campaign in Brisbane & Melbourne), do they want to keep treading down that road in order to prop up the Liberals in Tasmania?
“What does “water melons” mean? – very red, i.e. commies?”
Green on the outside. Red on the inside.
Although in Tasmania they might need a different descriptor. Blueberries perhaps. A mixture of Green + Blue.
BT Says: “What does “water melons” mean? – very red, i.e. commies?”
Green on the outside and red on the inside.
It appears to be a riff on the name that African-Americans (and Indigenous Australians) sometimes call their more White-friendly brothers sisters: “coconuts” (ie, black on the outside, white on the inside).
Ghost of Whitlam: “The Greens Political Party bringing the Liberal Party into power may only help the rest of the country going forward.
“Vote Greens, get the Liberals”.”
——————————————————————————–
I think a more appropriate slogan in the Tasmanian context would be
“Vote Tassie Labor, get the Kmart Liberals.”
Or perhaps the last line of the Who’s “We Won’t Get Fooled Again.”
“Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.”
HBG: “I think the ABC article linked to above is on the money, the Liberals saying they will shut down greyhound racing opens the door to the Greens, it’s more than Labor has put on the table”
——————————————————————————-
I also half-heard somewhere that the Libs had decided not to proceed with a proposed new logging approval. So they are making a bit of an effort. Of course, it’s not sincere: it’s an attempt to wedge Labor. But at least there seems to be some sort of strategy behind it. Perhaps Labor has a strategy too, but the impression Winter is giving in the media is that he is floundering quite badly.
The separation of the AFL team to be called “the devils” and the construction of the proposed stadium remains the largest of a herd of political animals to be be drenched before both the independents and the Greens settle on decisions as to find a solution to the fiscal conundrum remaining from the Liberals failures and the result of the last two state elections.
Tasmanian Greens have always been a bit more moderate/conservationist than the national Greens, and Woodruff personally is much closer to a Christine Milne than a Max Chandler-Mather.
What people forget is that while Milne’s type of Green caused less problems for Labor, they also weren’t dyed-in-the-wool Liberal-haters like the Chandler-Mathers.
I think Woodruff is serious, and thinking very much along the lines of a couple of BTSays’ posts upthread. I also don’t think Winter thinks otherwise – the change in his tone after Woodruff’s announcement suggests that he realises his original strategy to barge through won’t work, that he’s probably fucked it, but is not willing to give up the ghost quite yet.
Problem is Labor have boxed themselves into a corner by saying the election was needed because of the budget crisis but also taking “no deals with the Greens” to the election. Probably thought they’d do a lot better than they did but even so I think dealing with George, Garland etc would have caused them similar problems bar the optical difference of not having the Greens in the picture.
Now they have to look like they’re trying to form government otherwise what was the point, but it’s also hard for them to do so in a way that isn’t a deal with the Greens and therefore founded on a broken promise from day 1.
Yeah – while I do understand the PTSD, and I’ve said this from the outset – the bloody-mindedness of Labor re: the Greens fundamentally undermined it’s core justification for the NCM.
If you think the incumbents are bad enough to warrant that step – then playing funny buggers with whom you’re prepared to form government just makes you look like a craven opportunist… ESPECIALLY when you got a record low vote share.
Winter et al have played this really really badly.
Labor should have got their broken promise out of the way on election night. Say that the result has obviously changed things and that we need to get real. Persisting with it for this long is perverse and they are easily getting outmaneuvered by Rockliff.
In truth, if greens are chasing outcomes, Rockliff is offering more.
Impersonator of Whitlam’s remains says: “The Greens Political Party* want the Liberal Party in charge. Shameful.”
Surely the evidence is in:
The Labor Political Party wants the Liberal Political Party in charge. Shameful.
——-
(Partisan spiels like this belong in the main thread. This thread is for analysis. I apologise for responding, but I had to take the easy W.)
This is a very simple situation that requires a simple analysis.
All the Greens Political Party have to do is pick who they want in charge. The Liberal Party and their inept leader, or what their voters want, which is a Labor Government.
Why is this so hard for the Greens? Did they not learn their lesson from the Federal election?
“The Labor Political Party wants the Liberal Political Party in charge. Shameful.”
So why haven’t the Liberals consolidated their new Government? If Labor actually wanted the Liberals in charge then it would have been done already with a simple vote. Maybe practice what you preach and do some actual thinking instead of irrational and moronic one-line statements.
Straight back at you, Ghost! It was your one-line statement. One you keep repeating.
The ALP can form government if they want to. They just have to make concessions which they refuse to do. They have mismanaged this from the get go, all the way back to refusing to take government at the last election.
Don’t be so rude, my friend. Alienating your allies is never a good policy.
I doubt very much you would speak to me like that in person. In fact I know you would not as you are of sound character, your moniker tells me that.
I desperately want the ALP in government, but I am smart enough to not blame others if the ALP refuse to take the prize. It is entirely their decision.
The voters did not vote for a “no holds barred” inflexible Labor government. They appear to have voted for a left leaning coalition. Now it is up to the MPs to sit down and get on with it.
——
madPJKfan says:
Saturday, August 16, 2025 at 3:42 pm
Labor should have got their broken promise out of the way on election night. Say that the result has obviously changed things and that we need to get real. Persisting with it for this long is perverse and they are easily getting outmaneuvered by Rockliff.
__________
Nailed it.
Kevin Bonham says:
Saturday, August 16, 2025 at 10:32 am
Problem is Labor have boxed themselves into a corner by saying the election was needed because of the budget crisis but also taking “no deals with the Greens” to the election. Probably thought they’d do a lot better than they did but even so I think dealing with George, Garland etc would have caused them similar problems bar the optical difference of not having the Greens in the picture.
Now they have to look like they’re trying to form government otherwise what was the point, but it’s also hard for them to do so in a way that isn’t a deal with the Greens and therefore founded on a broken promise from day 1.
______________
Nailed it!
KB: “Now they have to look like they’re trying to form government otherwise what was the point…”
——————————————————————————-
Interesting observation. Perhaps this is all a bit of a charade on Labor’s part, and their true preference is for more time in opposition, dreaming of the day when they can win 18 seats off their own bat.
But 18 seats look a long way away for Labor. Labor would have to win back its traditional voters who have abandoned them for Johnston in Clark and O’Byrne in Franklin. They’d have to beat Razay in Bass and win a third seat in each of Braddon and Lyons. That gets them to 15 and is, I think, quite achievable if they have a good election.
However, then it would be really hard for Labor ever to win the remaining three seats it needs (presumably one in each of Bass, Clark and Franklin). The astonishingly high vote for Peter George in Franklin is indicative of a serious threat to both Labor and the Libs in the more affluent parts of the state coming from the environmentally-concerned centre. I think we’re soon going to find out that George is not really a centrist, but possibly to the left even of the Greens. But I reckon that many of the votes he received came from the sorts of people who would vote for the Teals on the mainland. If more credible George-type candidates emerge at the next election, they will steal more votes from the centre and pose a significant threat to Labor. They will also have an adverse effect on the Libs and Greens, but I don’t think the risks are as great to those parties given the seeming reliability of their base votes.
Without votes from the political centre, Labor can never hope to get back to majority government. But, in Tasmania, the centre is pro-environment, which doesn’t sit very well with Tassie Labor’s old school blue collar approach. In the past, Tasmanian centrist voters who cared about the environment have held their collective noses and have voted either for the Greens or, if that was too difficult for them, reluctantly for Labor. But, as George’s rapid rise to electoral success demonstrated, these voters are likely to find a lot more to like in a Teal-type candidate. We’re talking about educated, affluent voters, including the many mainlanders who have migrated down here since Labor’s last seriously good election result in 2006, when it received almost 50 per cent of the primary vote.
Tassie Labor might be facing the same sort of demographic problems that have led to the rapid near extinction of the French Socialist Party, which went from holding the Presidency prior to the 2017 election to receiving 1.75 per cent of the vote in the 2022 election. And, notwithstanding its triumphant win in the recent Federal election, I reckon the Labor Party nationally needs to be aware of the risks confronting it from environmentally-concerned centrist voters. Up to now, these voters have mainly punished the Liberals. But the 2025 result in the electorate of Bean could be a harbinger of more difficult times for Labor across the more affluent parts of its heartland, where Greens candidates have already been doing quite well at times, but where Teal-type candidates could conceivably do much better, especially if the Libs maliciously decided not to run candidates in some of those seats.
Both in Tasmania, and more generally, Labor needs to develop an interest in environmental protection comparable to that it displayed during the 1980s. Focusing on emissions reduction isn’t enough on its own.
mb
Your comment on Bean is a long bow, IMO. Bean does not really support your general thesis.
Labor romped in in the other two ACT electorates – including in the two electorates which possibly have a larger proportion of ‘environmentally aware centrists’.
The Bean result was different for five reasons none of which, IMO, have anything much to do with the environment.
1. A relatively lacklustre Labor incumbent.
2. An almost unique concatenation of preferences practically all of which went against the Labor candidate.
3. An exceptional Indie candidate who had campaigned energetically for a long, long time.
4. An electorate which has significant elements of local resentments about being neglected.
5. Moral support from Pocock.
As another straw in the wind, the recent IPSOS poll which ranked issues in terms of importance has the environment a long way down the list.
If there are significant lessons from Bean they are: preferences are critical and quality candidates are critical.
Is there some potential for Pasokification of Labor in Tasmania? IMO, in Tasmania and Australia-wide, yes. How much potential is the question.
Speersie gives Timmy a hard time on Insiders.
BW: I think the key to Bean was the quality of the candidate and possibly also the level of campaign funding she had available to her.
There seems to me to be no shortage of mediocre Labor MPs. So far Climate 200 has chosen to direct most of its funding towards seats that are, or at least were, held by the Libs. But, while George took a seat from the Libs, he effectively denied one to a Labor star candidate and denuded the overall Labor vote to the extent that Labor’s two candidates (one of whom is the party’s leader) came in fifth and seventh. If Climate 200 starts running quality candidates in Labor-held Federal seats, watch out.
I think the key problem here is that, both at the state and federal levels, Labor seems to returned to being very closely tied to the more traditional parts of the union movrment, ties that were loosened in the Whitlam-Hawke-Kelty era and through to Rudd (much though I despise that man, he attracted many educated voters to the party).
To my eyes, the party is looking as old-fashioned as it has done since the Calwell era. At the Federal level, it is benefiting from the weakness and division within the Coalition. In Tassie, the Libs are far stronger and better organised and we are perhaps seeing what the core Labor vote truly looks like these days: old, grumpy and somewhat intransigent.
Why then did Labor do so well federally in Tasmania on May 3 – good preselections of candidates in Lyons, Bass and Braddon, or Dutton was disliked a lot down there, or Albo’s promises on Medicare and bulk billing and cutting HECS debts played well there?
From the little I’ve seen of Dean Winter, he comes across as very wooden to me, are there better alternatives for leadership of the state ALP in Tassie? Overall, I think he’s read the whole situation totally incorrectly since the federal election. He and the brains trust obviously thought that the no confidence motion would result in Rockcliff being dumped by the Liberals for Abetz or somebody else, they never expected an early election 12 months after the previous one. So, they were quite unprepared for the campaign, whereas Rockcliff used his incumbency and was smart enough to recruit Bridget Archer as one of his candidates for Bass.
Labor were always going to cop the blame for Tassie folk having to vote again so soon after the last time, Winter and his team couldn’t counter that. And then after the election results are first announced, when he has the chance to do some sort of deal with the Greens, he bottles it.
I suspect this 2nd no confidence motion won’t get up, even with Garland voting for it, Rockcliff will hang on in government for another 12 months at least. And yes, federal intervention in the state Tasmanian branch is warranted from Albo and co.
meher baba says:
Sunday, August 17, 2025 at 8:11 am
Agreed.
But added that the leadership of Tas Labor has led themselves to this point. The Tasmanian public have worked out Winter and haven’t given him a shot at the top job other than through a rainbow alliance. This really is a singular failure of leadership on Labor’s behalf.
Democracy Sausage: Labor’s success in Tassie at the Federal level was purely a manifestation of the mess that is the Federal Coalition ATM.
It wasn’t a great result for Labor across the board. George performed surprisingly well in Franklin (arguably achieving 6 per cent post-preference swing from Labor to non-Labor, although some will argue that this is not a relevant way to look at the vote). Wilkie held onto to Clark easily with virtually no swing,,even though he’s achieved bugger all for his constituents in recent years.
I’d say Franklin will be very vulnerable to a strong Teal-type candidate going forward. Labor is fortunate that Collins comes from a long-lived family (I believe both of her grandmothers reached 100 or close to that).
At the state level, I think it’s a mistake to blame Winter too much. He’s nothing special, but take a look at the rest of his team before you pass judgement.
https://pulsetasmania.com.au/news/tasmanian-government-halts-salmon-expansion-starts-independent-review/ …
‘meher baba says:
Sunday, August 17, 2025 at 10:15 am
…
To my eyes, the party is looking as old-fashioned as it has done since the Calwell era.
…’
====================
Hmmm… Arthur would not recognize the Albanese Government. Just some of the major differences:
1. Majority of MPs are female.
2. Cabinet more or less mirrors this.
3. Support for women is comprehensive. Areas that Calwell ignored include domestic violence, childcare, closing the pay gap.
4. Migration.For example, around three million with Indian and/or Chinese heritage. Calwell would have been outraged.
5. Same sex marriage and euthanasia would both have been opposed by Calwell.
6. Massive rebooting of the economy towards renewable energy. Not an issue for Calwell but the latter was not interested in any massive rebooting of the economy.
7. Attitudes and policies towards Indigenous Australians are chalk and cheese. Calwell was an out-and-out and thorough going racist. Albanese is the opposite.
8. Biggest federal direct support for housing in Australian history.
Where Calwell and Albanese would have been on the same page is support for workers. If that is old fashioned then I am old fashioned.
Salmon farming ‘review’?
Killing off the dogs?
What is the price for the Greens support for the stadium?
meher baba – you are forgetting how well Rebecca White did to improve Labor’s position in Lyons federally, and the big swings to Labor in Bass and Braddon federally too – not sure any of the so called pundits predicted beforehand that Albo would pick up any extra seats in Tasmania.
Rockcliff making concessions on greyhound racing and salmon farming means he’s confident he can get the independents and maybe the Greens too on board, but will he go as far on the issue of the stadium?
I am far from convinced that Tasmanian Labor has a strategy other than to bully the Greens – and so far that strategy has not worked. Frankly it’s madness.
Perhaps an 11th hour strategy would be to get on the phone to the Greens, and at least secure support for a NCM in Rockliffe on Tuesday but not for a confidence motion in Winter. This opens up the constitutional process for Winter to be invited in for a chat with the Governor, followed by a process for Winter to secure confidence support from Greens and cross bench. At least this would provide a veneer of an excuse for departing from the commitment to not negotiate with the Greens
BW : I didn’t say Labor was the same as in the Calwell era, just that they are becoming out of date to much the same extent that the party was before it belatedly made Whitlam its leader (an election too late IMO). It needs to look beyond what matters to the declining trade union movement, and focus more on the concerns of Gens Y and Z.
I will acknowledge that – although I have lukewarm feelings about it – the move to recognise Palestine will give the party greater appeal to young voters. And if the coming week’s summit can perhaps at least touch on some ideas that might help to get the heat out of the housing market, that would be helpful too. I really can’t imagine that, for instance, a policy to limit neg gearing and CGT discounts on dwellings to one property per taxpayer would be in any way unpopular.
And they need to stop caring only about unionised jobs and pay more attention to environmental protection, biodiversity and endangered species. The blue collar part of the workforce might still love the unions that win them terrific pay and conditions, but those same pay and conditions are making them so rich that a steadily-growing number of them are voting for the Coalition. There’s no future for Labor in focusing predominantly on the concerns of blue collar workers. Yes, this is more of a shortcoming with Tassie Labor than elsewhere, but I think it’s symptomatic of a general malaise.
I don’t know how things are going on the mainland, but the view I get down here in Tassie from people involved in student and youth politics is that the only Labor activists are those with ambitions to have a career in politics. The overwhelming majority of young people appear to be either Greens or Liberals.
BW: “Salmon farming ‘review’?
Killing off the dogs?
What is the price for the Greens support for the stadium?”
——————————————————————————-
If that’s all it takes to keep the Libs in government, it seems like a pretty low price to me. (BTW, the Libs have also refused to give approval to a new logging project.)
It’s a price Labor could easily have paid if they were serious. My mail is that salmon is the main problem, Albo having gone so far out on a limb on the issue a few months ago.
DS: “meher baba – you are forgetting how well Rebecca White did to improve Labor’s position in Lyons federally, and the big swings to Labor in Bass and Braddon federally too – not sure any of the so called pundits predicted beforehand that Albo would pick up any extra seats in Tasmania.”
——————————————————————————-
Yes, the further north you look in the state, the better the ALP went in the Federal election. Which is not surprising if you look at the demographics: the main strongholds of the middle class “elite” voters in Tassie are in Clark and Franklin (although there are some in Bass as well).
Like a mortgage on a variable interest rate, the price of Government may not be apparent immediately. Sometimes it is better to let the house go to someone else rather than try and keep your partner happy, else it ends in divorce and selling the house for a loss……
Backtracking on promises when trying to form a coalition Government rarely ends well. Sure there are people who want a Greens/Labor coalition, but that doesn’t mean it’s in the best interests of Labor to take the advice of those people.
I don’t always agree with Boerwar, but on the relationship with Labor and the Greens he’s been right a lot more than his critics.
It is looking increasingly likely that the only judgement about the Tasmanian Greens is George Bernard Shaw’s question about the price.
A pause on growth and a review on existing salmon farming. The major policy piece of the Greens and Indis Garland and George. That tells me the negotiations are pretty much closed.
In my view the Libs have this government stitched up.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/aug/17/tasmanian-salmon-farming-expansion-on-hold-liberal-party-jeremy-rockcliff
The choice to go with Rockliff is becoming easier by the day, have Labor put anything on the table?
Offering Ruth Forrest the Treasurer’s job is about it?
Former Labor leader-turned-independent MP David O’Byrne to provide support to minority Liberals ahead of crucial vote
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-08-17/independent-mp-david-o-byrne-to-deliver-support-to-liberal-party/105663958
O’Bryne was always going to do a deal with Rockcliff, no surprises there!
Labor at this point would do better to concentrate on being an effective opposition for the next term of government, and if that means replacing Dean Winter as leader with someone else, so be it. The chances of them magically falling into government in the next few days look very remote to me.
To be frank, you can’t form government with only 10 seats out of 35 and the lowest primary vote in Tasmanian electoral history.