Tasmania’s recent state election has resulted in a significant political shift, marking the second election in just 16 months. This rapid succession of polls is the shortest in Australia since Queensland’s elections in 1957. As voters returned to the ballot box for the fifth time in less than two years, the state’s political landscape appears to be evolving towards a new normal of minority government.
The election, held in March 2024, saw the state’s Labor opposition struggling to explain its poor performance. Labor secured only 26% of the vote, while the Liberal government, led by Jeremy Rockliff, garnered approximately 40% of the vote share. This outcome comes despite Labor’s recent success at the federal level, where it gained two additional seats in Tasmania.
Labor’s campaign was triggered by a no-confidence motion against Rockliff’s minority government, which cited concerns over budget management, proposed asset sales, and the delivery of major projects. Yet, their proposals for budget repair were modest and conflicted with their support for the controversial Macquarie Point stadium project. Furthermore, Labor’s stance against asset sales was undermined by their intention to divest the state’s share in the proposed Marinus Link Bass Strait connector.
In a notable shift, the Liberal party altered its narrative from advocating for privatization to proposing a government-owned insurance company. This strategy, while criticized by experts, resonated with small business owners and successfully captured media attention during the campaign.
The election results also highlighted a record number of independent candidates, with 44 independents competing. Key independents, including incumbents Kristie Johnston, Craig Garland, and David O’Byrne, performed well, although many others failed to gain traction. The Tasmanian Nationals, in their latest campaign, struggled to make a significant impact and were even outpolled by the lesser-known Shooters, Fishers and Farmers party.
Under the Hare-Clark proportional representation system, each of Tasmania’s five federal electorates elects seven members to the 35-seat House of Assembly. This system complicates the prospect of majority government, yet in previous elections, voters have often rallied behind the major party they perceive as most likely to win. However, polling prior to this election indicated a lack of support for either major party, suggesting a trend toward non-majority parliaments.
Following the election, Rockliff’s government gained a seat in Braddon, a region that swung heavily toward Labor in the federal election. However, it appears to have narrowly lost a seat in Franklin to Peter George, an anti-salmon-farming campaigner. The current political alignment leaves Labor potentially able to govern if it aligns with the Greens and left-wing independents, which could yield a coalition with 18 or 19 seats.
Despite this possibility, Labor’s lack of initiative to form a coalition after the no-confidence motion raises questions about the legitimacy of such an alliance post-election. Should Labor attempt to govern after a disappointing election performance, it could face significant scrutiny.
Rockliff intends to request the governor to renew his commission, a step that is typically granted regardless of whether he can secure sufficient support for confidence and supply. If unable to garner enough backing, Rockliff could challenge the parliament directly, potentially leading to another no-confidence motion if Labor seeks to assume leadership.
As Tasmania navigates this new political terrain, the challenges ahead include addressing a burgeoning debt crisis and fulfilling commitments to various interest groups, including those concerned with native forest logging and salmon farming. With a volatile political climate and shifting voter sentiments, Tasmania’s governance is sure to be closely monitored in the coming months.