2025 Tasmanian Election Guide: Main Page

TASMANIAN STATE ELECTION 19 JULY 2025

SEATS AT ELECTION LIB 14 ALP 10 GREEN 5 IND 4 NAT 2 (1 IND and 2 NATs were elected as JLN at 2024 election)

CAUSE OF ELECTION: No confidence motion passed in Premier Jeremy Rockliff, no alternative government could be formed

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Welcome to the main page for my 2025 Tasmanian state election coverage.  Yes we are really here again! This page will carry links to all the other articles about the election that I write prior to the close of polling, and will contain general big-picture stuff and links to all the specialised articles (once these are written).  It will be updated very frequently.  Each electorate will soon have its own guide page, to be rolled out in the next few days. These are my own guides and I reserve the right to inject flippant and subjective comments whenever I feel like it; if you do not like this, write your own.  This guide and all the others will evolve over coming weeks.  

Very pleased to annunce I will be covering the election counting night for Pulse Tasmania, presumably from the tally room; this coverage will not be paywalled.  All post-count coverage will occur on this website.  

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Donations welcome!

If you find my coverage useful please consider donating to support the large amount of time I spend working on this site.  Donations can be made by the Paypal button in the sidebar, which also has PayID details or email me via the address in my profile for my account details.  Please only donate if you are sure you can afford to do so.  If viewing this site on a mobile, you may need to scroll to the bottom of the page and click "View web version" to see the sidebar with the donate button.  

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Article links

Articles relevant to the election and written during the leadup or previously will have links to them posted here as they are done; this will include resource pieces from the 2024 election.

Effective Voting

How To Best Use Your Vote In The 2025 Tasmanian Election

Electorate and candidate guides

2025 Tasmanian Election Guide: Bass

2025 Tasmanian Election Guide: Braddon

2025 Tasmanian Election Guide: Clark

2025 Tasmanian Election Guide: Franklin

2025 Tasmanian Election Guide: Lyons

List of candidates

Other articles

Links will be added here (most recent to top) as other articles are written.

What Can We Really Draw From The Liberal EMRS Poll?

What Happens If An Ineligible Candidate Is Elected At Tasmanian State Elections?

There Must Be Some Way Out Of Here: YouGov and DemosAU Polls

Tasmanian Nationals Are Lambie Chaos 2.0

Relevant pre-election articles

The Election Cliff (pre-election article)

Labor Tables No Confidence Motion in Premier Rockliff (pre-election article)

Liberal Agrees Tasmanians Are Ostriches (2024 article re Liberal preselection of Julie Sladden who they have also preselected for this election)

2024 Guide Main Page

Holding The Ball: Polling And The Proposed Stadium (updated for June TAI YouGov poll, some earlier polls to be added)

Dates and cause of election

The election was called after the Premier visited the Governor on Tuesday 10 June, with his request granted on Wednesday 11 June.  It will be held on Saturday July 19. Key dates will be edited here when available:

******************************

18 June Writs issued, close of enrolments, nominations open

26 June Nominations close

27 June Nominations announced

30 June Prepolling commences

11 July Postal vote applications close

19 July Election day

*****************************

Tasmania's third early election in a row has been called after Jeremy Rockliff's minority government lost the confidence of the House of Assembly in an 18-17 vote.  In 2024 Rockliff was returned as Premier four seats short of a majority.  Initially Rockliff's government was supported by three new MPs from the Jacqui Lambie Network and former ALP leader (and now Franklin independent) David O'Byrne.  O'Byrne's support was maintained via a pretty standard confidence and supply agreement but the agreement signed with the JLN MPs radiated distrust and control-freakery on the Liberals' part.  The government also claimed that it had confidence and supply support from Clark independent Kristie Johnston but her letters were never more than a statement of a conditional approach to confidence and supply.

JLN imploded five months after the election with Miriam Beswick and Rebekah Pentland sitting as independents with a new agreement with the government.  The government's real problem was that they could not maintain relations with the sole remaining JLN MP, Andrew Jenner, leaving them with only seventeen solid votes.

There had been various no-confidence close shaves through the term (see article here for more detail) but eventually with the federal and Legislative Council elections out of the way (both suggesting Labor's brand was in far better condition than the Liberals') Labor finally decided it was time to rumble on June 3.  Dean Winter used his budget reply speech to table a motion of no confidence in Rockliff specifically citing the Government's management of the budget, exploration of asset sales and ability to deliver major projects (following the Spirits of Tasmania debacle).   The motion was passed with votes from ten Labor MHAs, five Greens, Jenner, Johnston and Braddon independent Craig Garland.

No other Liberal showed any public interest in replacing Rockliff as Liberal leader and attempting to secure support from the crossbench while Dean Winter showed no interest in any form of deal with the Greens.  As a result, the Governor after 24 hours concluded that no alternative government could be formed.  This decision was entirely consistent with conventions.  

The Backdrop

The Rockliff Government is over eleven years old, Australia's oldest surviving Coalition government by far.  This is not because Tasmania is a conservative place (indeed Tasmania has just resumed its place as the most Labor-leaning state federally) but because of electoral cycle effects.   Will Hodgman led the Liberals to a massive 2014 victory over a 16-year old Labor government reduced in its final term to a deeply unpopular coalition with the Greens.  The Liberal government succeeded for a while by being generally very moderate but maintaining mostly excellent internal relations between moderates and conservatives, but over time it has run into more and more turnbulence.  

Hodgman was re-elected in 2018 but with only a one-seat majority, and struck trouble in the form of former Hobart Lord Mayor Sue Hickey who usurped the Speakership and caused the government pain by crossing the floor on gender birth certificate reforms and mandatory sentencing, among other issues.  Hodgman moved on in 2020 and was replaced by Peter Gutwein, who had been in the job just a few weeks when COVID-19 struck the planet.  Gutwein's widely praised handling of the pandemic saw him trade approval records with WA Premier Mark McGowan.  In 2021 Gutwein advised Hickey that she had been disendorsed, Hickey quit the party and Gutwein called an election.  The Liberals won the primary vote massively but still secured just a single seat majority again.  Such are the perils of Hare-Clark.

Gutwein resigned less than a year into that term and was replaced by long-serving Deputy Jeremy Rockliff.  Rockliff had long been the party's popular "nice guy" MP but had also attracted criticisms: too left, lacks killer instinct, tin ear and so on.  The "lacks killer instinct" part was heard less after he stared down a risk of dumped Attorney-General Elise Archer staying on as an independent.

In early 2023 the political issues mix shifted to football, in particular the state's bid for an AFL licence for which the AFL required a new stadium.  The Macquarie Point stadium proposal was and remains unpopular, and the governance of the stadium issue was one of many catalysts for a couple of grudge-bearing conservative Liberals to defect and become independents, among other crises.  This led to the early 2024 election, in which the government was massively dragged by the stadium issue and suffered a double digit swing.

However Labor gained very little from the expansion of the House to 35 seats, which mainly benefited the crossbench.  In trying to recover from the 2014 drubbing Labor has had a series of lacklustre elections.  Firstly there was 2018 at which the party's policy to restrict poker machines to casinos was popular in the inner cities but seen as ignoring real voter concerns if not classist elsewhere.  Then there was 2021 in which the party burned off its new friends by appeasing the pokies industry but also had a remarkable level of infighting and candidate chaos, including senseless attempts by the unionised left to block Dean Winter from being preselected. 

In 2024 Labor's approach to the stadium so confused voters that those who supported the stadium thought Labor was against it and those who opposed it thought Labor was for it.  The party also had some policy misfires and was still reeling from post-2021 election events in which David O'Byrne had won a member/delegate ballot for the leadership but been brought down by a sexual harassment scandal from before his political career. Following another ordinary result in 2024, leader Rebecca White was initially defiant but the party's administrative committee (in charge following federal intervention) declared the result as a loss and spilled the leadership.  Dean Winter was elected leader unopposed and White is now in federal politics.

The System

The Tasmanian lower house is elected by the multi-member Hare-Clark system, a form of proportional representation with similarities to the Australian Senate system.  At this election, seven candidates will be elected in each of the five electorates, after the House was restored to 35 seats prior to the previous election.  Voters must number at least seven squares and can number as many as they wish.  There is no above-the-line voting and how-to-vote cards cannot be handed out near booths on polling day.

The system favours candidates with high profiles and hence high name recognition, because these are most effective in obtaining not only primary votes but also preferences both from their ticket-mates and from other candidates.  In cases where all a party's candidates have been elected or excluded, a high proportion of that party's vote will exhaust from the system because some voters just vote 1-7 for their chosen party and stop. As a result, for instance, Greens preferences have relatively little impact.  

The system allows candidates to compete with and in cases displace others from their own party as well as from other parties.  Projecting results from opinion poll data and even from primary vote totals is a complex and difficult task.

The House was reduced from 35 to 25 seats prior to the 1998 election, partly with the aim of reducing costs but also with an eye to making majority government easier.  This change was reversed during the previous parliament.  See Tasmanian Lower House: 25 or 35 Seats?  for ongoing analysis of the impact of the change.  

To win majority government, a party needs to win 18 seats.   Since the number of seats became odd in 1959, the lowest vote share to have won a majority was 44.79% (ALP in 1998) and the highest vote share to not have done so was 47.68% (ALP in 1969).  However, with minor party / independent vote shares increasing, it is possible the former record will be broken soon.  There is only one case of government switching from a majority of one side at one election to the other side at the next, and in that case (1982) the government had lost its majority during the term.

The Issues

This section covers some issues that may attract attention on the campaign trail.  This section does not claim to be a complete or representative coverage of the campaign and includes such issues as I find the time to cover.  An issue being an "election issue" does not necessarily mean it will drive votes.  

* Budget Repair: The 2025 Budget (never passed) was one of the major factors behind the no-confidence motion.  There is a long-term forecast of spiralling debt, but raising taxes, cutting services or public sector jobs or selling assets are unpopular ways to address it.  It will be interesting at this election to see what plans Labor outlines for doing a better job than the government it has brought down.  My strong hope is that Labor will outline clear plans and not rely on surfing into office off the collapse of the government.

Left forces (I'm especially subtweeting the George group here but I'm sure there are others) have a populist view of "budget repair" that involves doing what they wanted to do anyway (scrapping the stadium and Marinus Link, charging higher mining royalties and spending more on stuff they like).  Will that really balance the books?  I very much doubt it.  As of the last week in June I had not seen much from the major parties either by way of finger pointing for a projected debt that Treasury PEFO now projects to be $3 billion worse than the government's estimates. 

Labor has released a fiscal strategy which aims to make $1 billion in savings immediately (a nice round stadium-sized sum) by various measures.  I'm awaiting expert comments on this strategy which seems to contain several good ideas.  However one that isn't good is "Amend the Financial Management Act and the Constitution Act so that any budget with a cash deficit greater than 10 per cent of revenue will require a two-thirds majority of Parliament to pass".  This is another stunt entrenchment, following the Liberals' one on asset sales, and ineffective and a bad idea for the same reasons (see below).  Labor while opposing asset sales also proposes to sell Tasmania's share in Marinus Link.   The TCCI is happy with Labor's plan calling its existence "courageous".  The Liberals (see same link) have called the plan a con.  

The Nationals claim they will "balance the budget", I have not seen how they propose to achieve this.

* The Stadium: For the second election in a row the proposed Macquarie Point AFL stadium will be one of the biggest election issues.   Although many voters don't consider it a relevant issue at all, associated wedge attempts will again be inescapable on the campaign trail.  The stadium is supported by those who argue that it will generate jobs, is essential for the AFL team to succeed and will have other cultural benefits such as catching large rock tours and other sporting events.  It is opposed on the basis of cost, traffic disruptions, perceptions that it is a distraction from health and housing crises, and also the proposed location being close to the Cenotaph.  A more complex and apparently even more expensive "Stadia 2.0" proposal is also still being canvassed though the government has rejected it - Labor seem to have not totally closed the door on it.  Did I hear even Stadium 3?  Apparently so.

Stadium 1 is nearing the end of a complex Project of State Significance process (followed by a final Parliamentary decision) that was forced on the Rockliff government by defectors in the previous term. The Government was trying to fast-track its way around that process (which it argues to have become compromised), with legislation that was condemned for its lack of appeal provisions.  The government has also walked away from a previous taxpayer contribution cap of $375 million.   

Labor strongly supports some version of the stadium or other so those wishing to vote against the stadium will not be voting for the major parties this election. However this time there has been doubt about Labor's preferred pathway to a Hobart stadium - do they support fast-tracking it as the government was seeking to do, do they support Stadium 2.0, etc?  On 18 June Winter said that Labor were "not considering" any alternative proposal and want to deliver the original project.  However in another item aired on the same day he said that Labor wanted to make sure the current proposal could be delivered (which he believes it can) and was open to alternatives if this proved not to be the case.  Finally (perhaps) on 19 June Winter declared that supporting direct (ie fast-track) legislation was the only way to meet the AFL's deadlines.  The Australian has summarised Winter as supporting the view that the AFL needs to make concessions on the penalty clauses signed up to by the current government.  However Winter has also used those penalty clauses to argue for fast-tracking the stadium rather than allowing the POSS process to complete.  While the penalty clauses were unreasonable and Rockliff should have refused to sign any deal that included them even if the result was not having a team, it remains the case that the amount involved ($4.5 million per delay) is small in the context of the cost of the stadium overall.  It will be interesting to see how the Legislative Council sees the tradeoff between the penalty clauses and the POSS assessment.

The Yes AFL Team, Yes Stadium Facebook page is a common source of unabashed cheerleading for the government in connection with the issue and did nothing for perceptions of bipartisanship when it expelled Dean Winter and Josh Willie after they moved their no-confidence motion.  Everyone of significance supports a Tasmanian AFL team but the existing crossbench (Greens and independents Craig Garland, Kristie Johnston and Rebekah Pentland) are generally opposed to a Hobart stadium except for David O'Byrne, who very strongly supports it.  Also the Nationals, Shooters Fishers and Farmers, and several prominent independent challengers including Peter George, Adam Martin, Elise Archer and Michelle Dracoulis are all either opposed to the Macquarie Point stadium, or at least (in Dracoulis' case) deeply sceptical about it. John Macgowan supports the stadium conditional on the Government "revising its plan to outsource advertising infrastructure, and monopolising on field, LED ribbon board and all associated stadium adveritsing fees".  

(Sadly nobody is running on a platform of NO TEAM YES STADIUM.  The idea that we should build Macquarie Point but open it to everything but football to punish the AFL for its standover tactics has such an obvious air of justice about it.)

* Asset Sales: The government in March announced that it would investigate possible asset sales in an attempt to reduce debt levels, in a move that unfortunately for it appeared to dovetail with the DOGE movement that we have since noticed Australian voters hate.  This was one of the factors cited in the no-confidence motion and Jeremy Rockliff has tried to hose it down by now ruling out privatisation (blaming Dean Winter for having to do this) and saying that he will pass legislation to ban asset sales not approved by two-thirds majorities of parliament.  Similar clauses have been entrenched in other states' constitutions but do not work because the ability to bind future state governments using "manner and form" entrenchment is confined to matters concerning the composition, powers and procedures of Parliament under the Australia Act 1986.  (Example link).   Even if they do work it is undemocratic for a majority of one in any parliament to be able to bind any majority less than two-thirds in a future parliament, especially in Tasmania where majorities are so hard to achieve.  

This issue appears to be a total loser for the government - once you've let the scare campaign genie out of the bottle, you can never put it back in. 

* Major Projects Delivery: The third plank of Labor's no confidence motion was the government's ability to deliver major projects, specifically citing the ferries port facility fiasco which brought down then Deputy Premier and Infrastructure Minister Michael Ferguson.  The government can however point to the recently opened new Bridgewater Bridge as an example of an apparently successful project completed on its watch. 

* Salmon: Industrial salmon farming has been a bigger issue than usual in the state recently, both in view of salmon pollution threats to the endangered Maugean Skate in Macquarie Harbour on the west coast and fish mortality events and proposed upscaling of farming in the south-east of the state.  Labor's federal campaign kept the industry and Braddon voters onside very successfully through amendments to federal environmental laws, but there was a significant backlash in Franklin where independent Peter George (running for this election) held Labor's Julie Collins to a 57.8-42.2 two-candidate result and won the two-candidate vote in numerous coastal booths.  

* Environmental Approvals: Winter has called on the federal government to extend the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Act long-standing threatened species laws exemption for forestry to salmon farming, mining and energy including the Robbins Island windfarm.  Winter has been particularly critical of the lack of major renewable energy project approvals. It will be interesting to see how this is received by the Greens, who also voted to bring the current government down and whose voters generally prefer Labor to Liberal.  Bob Brown who is no longer answerable to electoral reality in the same way called Winter a "complete corporate patsy", citing overseas investments in all of the recent flashpoints.  While it may seem Winter is trying to one-up the Liberals for anti-Greens cred here, in my experience he has a longstanding very human-centred political viewpoint.

* Stability: There is a history of minority government avoidance auctions in Tasmanian campaigns, in which leaders threaten to do increasingly gruesome things to their career should their party fail to win a majority.  However with the previous election having landed so far short of a majority for either side, a majority-or-bust policy for this one would be much laughed at this time round unless polling emerged to give it credibility.  The major parties are likely instead to set their aim as forming government without requiring support from the Greens.  Winter has said he is willing to work with independents to deliver "the most stable parliament we can".  

Unfortunately the Liberals cannot market themselves as working well with others after a term in which they mismanaged relations with some potentially supportive crossbenchers.  On the other hand Labor didn't even try to form government, and it's not clear Labor will do better.  That particularly applies if the crossbenchers are (as many in the current parliament are) opposed to the major parties on issues such as the stadium, salmon, forestry and governance.    

In the event of no party getting close to a majority it may be that the only path forward for the stadium is a very temporary grand-coalition style agreement by whoever is in opposition to provide confidence and supply to enable stadium legislation to be passed (a situation like this arose with resource security for logging in 1991).  

The Nationals may market themselves as an alternative to chaos but show early signs of being at least as much a rabble as JLN were.  In particular it is utterly bizarre that the Nationals have endorsed both Andrew Jenner and Miriam Beswick, MPs on either side of the JLN rift, one of whom voted for the no-confidence motion that brought down the government and one of whom voted against.  If these two and no-one else are elected for the Nats how long does anybody think that will last?  It's unclear if the Nationals concept has any theme apart from opportunism over the stadium.  

 In an interview with 6 News, Nationals likely candidate Carl Cooper said the party would "negotiate with whoever, basically comes to parliament with the numbers". But actually if they're negotiating with the Nationals that means they don't have the numbers yet - and what if either party had routes to government that could depend on the Nationals (say 13-13-4-5 Lib-ALP-Green-others including a few Nats)?  Is it possible the Nationals could if elected support a Labor government?  What would Bridget McKenzie think about that?   Candidate John Tucker has said that dumping the stadium is a condition of Nationals support.  A problem with determining the Nationals' position is that they do not even have a leader.  

Other potential crossbencher comments about possible support 

Craig Garland has said the release of information concerning Marinus Link would be a condition of his support.

Elise Archer has said that she would not specifically favour either side but would support whoever she thought was in the interests of Clark.

Peter George has said he will work with anyone who will work with him on his "four pillars", which I suspect means he could be working a lot with the Greens and not at all with either of the major parties.

* Health: During the federal election health seemed to be a sleeper issue in the state with the Liberals thumped by a Labor team that advertised health policy plans on corflutes while also running negative campaigns against Peter Dutton over Medicare.  The Liberals in this campaign are not going to die wondering if they could avoid a repeat and as of June 18 had had five consecutive days of health announceables (expanding pharmacy treatments, greater services to women in the north, hydrotherapy pools, breast screening clinics and paramedic training to reduce hospital visits.) There has been plenty more of this since but the PEFO finding that health spending is a big part of the state's budget problem may raise questions about whether such things as CT scanning for St Helens are affordable.  

* Tourism: Recently the government announced a $100 tourism/dining experience voucher scheme to compensate the tourism industry for the loss of custom caused by its Spirts stuffup.  Labor opposes the scheme and will scrap the vouchers, arguing that "no responsible government" would spend $10 million on this during a budget crisis.  Minister for Hospitality and Small Business Jane Howlett has called the vouchers "a vital family cost-of-living measure".  As the vouchers are expendable only on dining out or tourism experiences no sane person could believe this to be remotely true.  Nonetheless Tasmanians in the hunt for a travel voucher may be influenced by the scheme's potential scrapping.  Labor has promised instead that if elected it will replace the government's tourism/dining experience scheme with a $100 sports activity voucher for every child that can be spent on "any extra-curricular sports activity outside of school hours – soccer, football, swimming, dance – you name it".  So I have to ask: chess? (Chess is an IOC recognised sport)  (There is an existing sports voucher system but it is means-tested)

* Transparency / The Lack Thereof:  During the campaign, Tasmania's almost totally useless Integrity Commission announced that for unknown reasons it was shelving plans to introduce a lobbyist code of conduct on July 1.  It has since blamed objections from the three main parties but it is not clear what the objections were or when they occurred, and has suggested the parliament needs to legislate a view on the matter. Also for the second election running we have no idea who some long-running or perhaps that should be long-crawling investigations into elected representatives (rumoured to include sitting Liberals) are into, what they are about or whether they have the slightest merit.

* Insurance: Curiously having until recently canvassed selling the Motor Accidents Insurance Board the Government is now promising to create a general insurer called TasInsure, that would aim to insulate Tasmanians against rising premiums caused by crime waves and climate disasters interstate. Far from being a mid-campaign thoughtbubble this seems to have been quite well planned complete with merch!  In the past Tasmania-centred financial state institutions have some history of struggling for competitiveness and eventually being privatised.  This proposal has been roundly ridiculed by economists, insurance experts and free marketeers, not least because Tasmania is actually very exposed to climate disasters itself (bushfires, floods, storms ...) and could end up even more billions in debt in the event of another 1967 style bushfire event.  However the government figures it's on a winner here, citing rising insurance costs for small businesses as "market failure".  

* The Need To Fix The Feed:  Every election I get to declare something to be a state election issue even if it isn't, so for this one ... it's just not good enough that the Parliament House webcast of an actual live confidence motion passing for the first time in 36 years was unwatchable on most browsers because too many people tried to access it at once.  In the next term whoever governs must ensure that in the future the web feed is reliable and also immediately replayable, as the federal web feed via YouTube is.  

(Many more issues to be added later) 

The Campaign

Candidate Rollout: The Liberals were quickest out of the blocks, rolling out a full slate of candidates in Bass almost immediately, followed by Braddon and Lyons, noting that they are recycling a large number of candidates from 2024 in Bass particularly.  News about intending Labor candidates was scarce until the third week of June with just occasional announcements of intending mostly major candidates, but on 18 June Labor announced all their remaining candidates, overtaking the Liberals who announced their remaining Franklin signs the same day but had yet to announce four in Clark.  

Campaign Pause: The Liberals, Labor and Greens paused campaigning on 17 June as a mark of respect following the death on active duty of Constable Keith Smith.

Recycling To A New Level: It's common to see recycled candidates and recycled signs but a couple that stood out ... firstly James Redgrave reusing yellow JLN signs from 2024 with mentions of JLN removed and secondly Ella Haddad's sign team using "Put The Liberals Last" signs authorised by Jess Munday that I think are recycled from the federal election.  These are an odd fit for Hare-Clark since most Labor voters stop at 7 and as such don't put anyone last.

Birtherism! Oooh yeah! A strange sideline to the campaign has been the Liberals, especially Eric Abetz, trolling Dean Winter about statements from various points in his political career about where he was born.  Although a statement attributed to Winter on the ALP website since at least January until its recent removal says he was "born on Tasmania's glorious West Coast", in 2014 when first running for Kingborough Council his website stated "I was born and raised in Kingston Beach," and in 2012 when running for Hobart Council it stated "Dean was born and raised in Hobart".  In the latest development the Liberals have pounced on a shorter "A message from Labor leader Dean Winter" post that merely calls him "A kid from the west coast". 

Wikipedia has, apparently wrongly, stated Winter was born in Queenstown since 10 April 2024, the day of Winter taking the Labor leadership.  The first edit to this effect was unsourced by an anonymous IP address user who has three other edits (a typo correction, an unsourced edit calling Daniella Weiss a terrorist and an edit changing the first name of Brighton Councillor John McMaster from Jack to Vincent ... weird!)  While the Liberals have claimed this edit was done at Winter's behest, this seems almost certainly false.  The main text was edited to match on 30 May 2024 by another anonymous user with several mostly Tasmanian-politics-related edits, citing Winter's inaugural speech, however said speech does not say Winter was born in Queenstown.

On 7 May 2025 Winter stated in The Mercury "My hardworking parents were living there when I was born, but drove down to Hobart for the birth before returning home again to Queenstown afterwards [..]" The Tasmanian Parliament website states Winter was born in Hobart.  Despite this Anita Dow on 29 May claimed in Parliament that Winter was "born on the west coast".  

It seems that Winter was actually born in Hobart and spent substantial parts of his childhood in all the mentioned places.  The Liberals are hypocritical for pursuing this matter while continuing to object to complaints about their reselection of Julie Sladden.  The Premier claims Tasmanians are "tired of the political games and the personal attacks" so why is his own side continuing them?  

The Strategy

Notes on campaign strategy matters will be added here.

Character:  I may move this to the issues section.  The government has sought to label the election as a referendum on "common decency", painting Opposition Leader Winter as a bad guy and a "wrecker" and also suggesting that his real motive in moving the no-confidence motion was not to cause an election but to replace Rockliff with a less popular opponent.  Thinking of cases like the 1975 and also 2013 federal elections, I'm not sure this Deano-is-a-meano stuff is going anywhere especially when it's not difficult for Labor to argue they have done what oppositions do and with good reason.  

And while the Liberals may want to campaign as niceness central, they can hardly do this credibly while running a candidate who has called Tasmanians ostriches and condemned the COVID response of our health professionals and previous Premier Gutwein (Sladden) or when some of their more conservative MPs have never recanted from their historic stances on gay rights issues.  

Experience: Dean Winter has only been in parliament for four years (though that is longer than Jim Bacon and about the same time as David Bartlett when they became Premiers).  He heads an inexperienced Labor team containing no MHA with 10 years' parliamentary service, for the first time since the state Labor Party was itself less than a decade old (they do have one MLC with more experience, Craig Farrell).  Expect many more references to L plates, crashing the hatchback, the dog that caught the car and so on - an initially slow candidate and policy rollout gave this stuff some credence too, but by 18 June Labor had more candidates unveiled.  On the other side, the Liberal government had not that much renewal in its ranks from the last election and suffers from long incumbency, being now over eleven years old.  

Labor's Positioning: Labor had great trouble defining what it stood for at previous elections.  Under Winter the party's focus is much sharper though it is not to all potential supporters' liking.  The party's current push is centred around "safe secure well-paid jobs", supporting the resource industries and rejecting the Greens as "diametrically opposed" (which may be news to Greens voters who will probably continue to send far more preferences to Labor than the Liberals).

Stadium: I have found it interesting that from around the time of the no-confidence motion passing, when Winter has been asked about the stadium he has often given lines along the line of 'Yes the stadium is important but (insert list of other things) are important too.'  

Don't Mention The S Word In 2024 I described the Liberal campaign as a circular dead cat throwing machine for their deliberate determination to get the media talking about anything, literally anything,  that isn't the stadium, because whenever the stadium was in the news they lost votes.  In 2025 a similar dynamic seems to be present.  Sure, TasInsure has been blasted by Saul Eslake, for example, but hey while we are talking about it we are not talking about the stadium.  

The Formation

As per last time there are bound to be questions about how government is formed if (and I again stress that that's still an if not a when) no-one wins a majority.  Firstly, the incumbent Premier is entitled to remain Premier for the time being until they are voted out on the floor, so even if there is an apparent opposition arrangement the Premier is not required to resign immediately (Robin Gray insisted on his right to "meet the parliament" in 1989 but many other Premiers in such cases have not).  If there is a prolonged negotiation phase the Premier may be reappointed temporarily while negotiations continue.  

If neither major party wins a majority or is willing and able to form a stable government a situation could in theory arise in which the Premier requests and is granted a further election.  However this is unlikely, as in past cases whatever has been said before the election a way has been found for a government to form.

The most likely way things will progress is that either the government will have the numbers on confidence and supply and will continue, or else the opposition will have the numbers, throw out the government (if it does not simply resign) and be installed as its replacement.  It's possible if Labor wins narrowly that it could need to be confirmed by another no confidence motion in Rockliff.

A minority government need not necessarily be a coalition government or form by a deal.  As in New South Wales, a minority government can form based on commitments of confidence and supply unilaterally given by crossbenchers.  There was a lot of confusion between minority governments and coalitions at the 2024 election.  A coalition exists when a minor party or independent/s joins the Executive and provides ministers.  Labor/Green coalitions are common in the ACT, but in the states there have been 13 no-majority election results not counting the Liberal-National established Coalitions since 1980, of which only three resulted even arguably in coalitions (and two of those are scraping the barrell). 

In the event of the incumbent Premier being voted down, the next Premier need not be the Opposition Leader.  The Governor can appoint whoever, in their judgement, is the most likely to lastingly command the confidence of the House.  In theory if the election went extremely badly for both major parties that could be a crossbencher - but I do not expect to see that!

The Debates

People's jury style "victories" in these debates are worse than useless as a predictor of results.

The Sky/Mercury People's Forum will be held on Wednesday 16 July at 12:30 pm; a paywalled debate held at lunchtime on a workday this close to the election when so many will have already voted will have very little impact unless there is a breakout blunder by either candidate.  

The Polling

Polling in Tasmania is often scarce, but the previous election was one of the best polled state elections we have seen, in terms of diversity, quantity and accuracy of the overall results.  Annoyingly there were some polls for which full details were never published as they were only given to tame media interests who then published incomplete summaries, in some cases deplorably not even publishing the name of the pollster.  I am interested in receiving full details of all published polls in the interest of a complete record and accurate analysis of the polling.  It would not be surprising to see less polling this time around given that media will have spent polling budgets on the federal election.  

Many campaign polls are being seen in the field, mostly likely to be party polling.  A detailed YouGov poll was seen on 13 June but was unfortunately at least partly for the Australia Institute; it is unclear if voting intention figures will be adequately released.  EMRS has been in the field for a poll expected to be released mid-campaign, and there has also been a DemosAU poll using the EMRS platform.

Overstatement of the Independent vote is a common problem in Tasmanian election polling, and even occurred at the 2024 election where there were several independents running in every seat.

Notable polls released or publicly reported:

* Liberal commissioned EMRS  June 15-17 and June 29-July 1 Combined results Liberal 33.4 Labor 28.45 Green 13.95 IND 18.5 NAT 1.95 other 3.7.  Based on this poll there would possibly be little change.

* DemosAU poll June 19-26, Liberal 34 Labor 26.3 Greens 15.1 IND 19.3 Nat 2.3 other 3.  Based on this poll there would possibly be little change.

* YouGov poll June 12-24, Liberal 31 Labor 34 Greens 13 IND 18 other 4.  Based on this poll Labor would make substantial seat gains but still be not near a majority.  

* EMRS poll from May 13-17 with Liberals 29 Labor 31 Greens 14 JLN 6 Independents 17 Others 3 (Poll Report link).  Based on that poll the Government would have lost seats with no-one near a majority.  Labor's two-point lead in that poll has been over-interpreted and they will need a far higher primary vote to mount a convincing case for taking office.  Rockliff led Winter 44-32 as Better Premier, an indicator which skews to incumbents.  Rockliff had a net +6 likeability rating to +5 for Winter, but Winter has persistently polled high "never heard of" ratings in this series.   Note that JLN are now not running.

I am aware indirectly of results of a commissioned poll by a different pollster since the election was called, with a lower independent result than the above polls and a 2-point lead to the Liberals.  

The Prospects

This section will evolve as the campaign develops.

The government is over eleven years old but has the benefit of being in opposition federally.  Historically in state elections these two factors go close to cancelling each other out in this case, but on average age would be a slightly bigger factor than the federal effect, and so the government will be doing well if it doesn't lose seats.  Also, the Albanese Government currently appears to be (at least in Morgan polls) enjoying a second honeymoon for its larger than expected victory, and so it's probable federal drag will be weaker this time around.  On the other hand, the age drag factor usually applies after a full term or nearly so, as this has been a short term it's possible not much more age of government drag has emerged to harm the Liberals since last time. 

Most of the voter anger over the stadium should have been present in the 2024 result, but the Government has had the added handicap of governing in an unstable minority, as well as the Spirit saga.  The last four Tasmanian minority governments that had been elected as such at the previous election were all defeated heavily, in cases thrashed.  However the most recent three of these involved Green support, which has not been an issue for this government, so it will be interesting to see if the pattern continues.  

A primary vote in at least the low 40s is likely to be needed for a majority, which in Labor's case requires a swing well into the teens.  To win more than 15 seats, Labor would need to gain two seats in at least one division.  In the previous history of the 35-seat system (1959-1996) no party ever did this.  While I wouldn't completely rule out Labor jagging a majority by some combination of landslide and luck, a more realistic aim seems to be governing in a minority that (however difficult) does not depend on the Greens.  My expectation prior to polling was that Labor should win the most seats, or at worst be roughly even on seats.  Whether they can do so in a way that breaks the cycle of chaos is another question.  However some of the early campaign polls (albeit not of high quality) were not encouraging regarding even taking the seat lead.

The Greens won five seats at the 2024 election.  They have had a solid if low-profile term and their Senate vote at the federal election was strong.  It will be very difficult for them to gain seats at this election especially with Peter George (probably the most serious new independent chance) running in Franklin, and I expect their focus to be on trying to hold the five they have, especially their second seat in Clark.

Of the six sitting non-Greens crossbenchers, most obviously at risk are the three ex-JLN MPs, two now running as Nationals.  The Lambie name is a magnet for low information voters and Jenner, Pentland and Beswick have had very little time to establish themselves as MPs.  The remaining indies Johnston, David O'Byrne and Garland are generally given better chances but risks exist to all of them; I will discuss their prospects in more detail on seat pages.  There has been speculation about a flood of further indies but at the 2024 election many fancied independents hoping to cash in on the teal wave failed and I suspect again that only those with high profiles will succeed. 

The National Party has tried and failed to establish itself in state elections before and the brand may still be scarred by the rogue 2014 attempt; we will see if this time it can manage a campaign of scale and any resonance, though if its ideas were supported one would think John Tucker would have won his seat back last time.  I expect it will also compete with Shooters, Fishers and Farmers for the rural vote in Lyons.  It would be interesting to know what the federal Coalition partners think about the Tasmanian Nationals possibly endorsing candidates who sent the last two Liberal governments to the polls early.

As surprise Clark candidate John Macgowan puts it "I've never seen a state government in worse condition", so it's possible things could be very ugly for the Liberals here.  However, Hare-Clark tends to save the furniture.  Even if the Government has a result way worse than the recent polling suggests, it's hard to see it falling below, say, nine seats.  

The Parties

As well as Labor, Liberal and Green, four other parties are registered:

Animal Justice Party (apparently not contesting)

Jacqui Lambie Network (apparently not contesting)

National Party of Australia - Tasmania (contesting Bass, Braddon and Lyons)

Shooters, Fishers and Farmers (contesting Bass, Braddon and Lyons)

The Nationals are not in coalition with the Liberals in Tasmania but are running separately.  This is a new incarnation of the Nationals in the state.  

Endorsing Groups

At the previous election (see 2024 guide) endorsements were given by three non-party groups of note, Voices of Tasmania, Save UTAS and Australian Christian Lobby.  I will note any such endorsements here.

The Betting

Betting in Tasmanian elections has a dire predictive track record.  In 2006 Labor's odds of retaining majority government were as long as $9 at one point; not only did they do this, but they did so easily and nearly gained a seat.  In 2014 odds-on favourite candidates to top the poll failed to do so in three of the five electorates.  In 2018 "Liberal Majority" (a result that eventually occurred with about 6% of the vote to spare) was at $15 six weeks from the election, and the Liberals did not become favourites to win until a couple of weeks out.  (Even by election day they were only in the range 1.33-1.47.)  In 2021 and 2024 however betting markets performed pretty well - in 2024 overestimating the Liberals and underestimating the Greens by about two seats each.

17 June: Party that supplies the Premier at the time of swearing in according to one leading bookmaker: Labor 1.70 Liberal 2.15 Green 21 Other 26.  As I have commented before it's not too clear how the bookie deals with this when the incumbent asks to be sworn in to "meet the parliament" but is then defeated (eg Robin Gray 1989). 

22 June 1.65/2.25/31/34

26 June 1.62/2.30/36/41

29 June: 1.30/3.60/36/41.  Has someone seen a private poll or something?  Have just been made aware of another market that has 1.22/4.00/other 61.

1 July: 1.33/3.40/36/41.

2 July: ARBITRAGE!  1.33/3.40/36/41 vs 1.14/5.25/101 on the two main markets.

4 July: The more pro-Labor of the two markets pulled its head in and is back at 1.24/3.80.

7 July: A slight move back, 1.38/3.15 and 1.30/3.30.

The Legislation

Notes relating to the Electoral Act and other electoral legislation will be included here.

Amendments to the Electoral Act in terms of donations disclosure and public funding take effect from mid-year.  This means some donations during the campaign are likely to be disclosed soon after the election.  

The Government, with Labor support, tried again in this term to reform the ridiculous, archaic, obscure, illiberal and presumably unconstitutional Section 196 (1) of the Electoral Act, which prohibits the use of candidate names in certain forms of electoral material without candidate consent.  The Legislative Council referred this to the new Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters which had not reported back before the election was called. The often contentious administration of this section turned into a complete farce in the previous campaign when an obvious mock advertisement produced by Juice Media was somehow ruled to be possibly an advertisement.  This in spite of previous TEC interpretations that suggested the section would be handled sensibly.   A Liberal Party Facebook page attacking Brian Mitchell by name over his social media posts controversy from the 2022 federal campaign was deleted during the 2025 campaign, possibly because of this section.  

In restoring the House to 35 seats the Government ignored my advice to introduce new savings provisions to accompany the return to a requirement to number from 1-5 boxes.  Tasmanians had to number from 1-5 at the 2021 state election and 2022 council elections, 1-7 last year, 1-6 at the recent Senate election and now 1-7 again.  The informal vote rose 1.18 points to 6.31%, the second highest in Tasmanian history, as the state returned to a strict 1-7 requirement. I am not optimistic of much improvement.  I call on the next Parliament to introduce savings provisions within the first year, just in case the next Parliament does not last longer than this one.

Any councillor/mayor/deputy who is elected relinquishes their council seat immediately, triggering:

- for mayors, a by-election for the mayor and one councillor

- for deputies, a round-table election of a new deputy and a recount (or a by-election if no remaining candidates) of the council seat

- for councillors, a recount (or a by-election if no remaining candidates) of the council seat

On 28 June Eric Abetz claimed Jess Munday was ineligible for election because she holds a position on the WorkCover board.  Labor responded by stating that a 1944 amendment prevented the Constitution Act from applying to state public servants and ensured that their state position ceased immediately on election.  Here is the amendment.    The Liberals' contention is that this does not apply to Munday as hers is a crown appointment (members of the board are appointed by the Governor on ministerial advice).  However the legislation very strongly appears to cover such appointments too - my view is Munday is eligible.   See detailed article here, which also includes comment on what happens if an elected MHA is ever ineligible (a murky question!)

An unauthorised and somewhat illiterate letter has been reported in a number of mailboxes.  The letter from a person claiming to be an ex-Labor voter effectively endorses the government and blames Greens and supposed single-issue independents for the state's condition.  Apparently it's Peter George's fault! (He's not even an MP yet).  The TEC has been discouraging social media users from recirculating the letter.  In my view it is not illegal for a properly authorised social media post to quote from such material but I understand the TEC's desire to keep the peace and stop illegal material getting amplified.

I have seen screenshots of a post apparently made to the Yes AFL Team - Yes Stadium Facebook group that said "For those considering a vote for Labor, understand that you [sic] vote will likely spill to a green or independent".  This claim is false and illegal as it misleads electors in relation to the casting of their vote.  A vote for Labor that is simply 1-7 Labor and stop will never reach any candidate but Labor.  Even a vote for Labor that preferences non-Labor candidates will often not end up reaching those other candidates as many Labor votes will use all of their value helping Labor candidates get elected.

Putting signs on roadside reserves without authority continues to breach the Roads and Jetties Act 1935 but candidates will keep doing it until the law is changed to throw out candidates who do this.  Peter George's sometimes illuminated roadside trailers have been a common source of complaint.  

The Liberals are claiming that 65 "Community Connect" Facebook groups created by Janie Finlay, at least some of them back in 2021, require authorisation.  Under the recent Electoral Act changes material must have the "dominant purpose" of affecting voting intention.  These groups probably don't although there are a lot of provisos that say that various things that promote MPs are assumed to have affecting voter behaviour as the dominant purpose unless proved otherwise (maybe someone might argue that the About section requires authorisation).  Notably some of these groups have large membership.   

Gaffes And Colourful Incidents

This is always my favourite section! 

* The Liberals put out a release saying they had been leaked passcodes to Labor HQ but the only media coverage this attracted that I have seen quoted Labor having a go at the Liberals for making a release on the subject without quoting any point the Liberals might have been trying to make about it.  

* Thanks to an esteemed reader for spotting this one: new Liberal Clark candidate Edwin Johnstone mistakenly invited people on Facebook to like the page Luke Martin - Labor for Clark.  

* The Mercury (which still owes my partner $15) printed a State of the House item which failed to sum to 35 seats, crediting the Liberals with 15 seats when they only have 14; it also omitted Tabatha Badger (Greens, Lyons) as a sitting MP.  

* Not a gaffe but in the immediate leadup to the election Ruth Forrest MLC provided high quality entertainment by repeatedly offering to become Premier, correctly noting that in the 19th century Premiers had been provided by the upper house.  

* Legislative Council erasure has been a common complaint regarding references to the confidence or dissolution of Parliament.  Dean Winter edited a Facebook post after being schooled by Bec Thomas MLC on this subject and in one announcement even the Governor seemed to have dissolved the indissoluble!

* Ella Haddad's letterboxing team delivered to my address a letter for flat (x+1)/4x in my street, where x is my house number.  

* As noted in comments, on 4 July Labor's website released two press releases entitled "Liberals’ desperation and incompetence reaches shocking new low", one of which criticised the Liberals over their unconvincing claims that Jessica Munday isn't eligible and the other of which didn't really mention the Liberals, and was presumably mis-titled.  As of 8 July the double-up was still on display.  

* As of 8 July with voting already open for more than a week the Tasmanian Nationals' faltering attempts at a web presence now included profiles of seven of their nine candidates; the Facebook links of both Lesley Pyecroft and John Tucker went to Angela Armstrong's Facebook page instead of the Facebook page of the candidate in question.  (Fixed 9 July after I commented on it on Twitter).

Most Irrelevant Interventions

Just keep your distance from our elections Hollywood megastars, Victorians and north island culture warriors  ...

* Tony Abbott has been seen in the state for the second time this year.  Because reminding Tassie voters of how "no cuts to health and education" went in 2014 is such a winning strategy.

* The NSW Libertarian Party has endorsed John Macgowan for Clark.  Libertarianism is such a foreign language in Tasmania that the federal party continually runs mainland candidates for Tasmanian Senate.  

Trivia

* This was the second-shortest Tasmanian term since Federation.  The shortest was the 1912-3 term of nine months, in which the Solomon majority government (an earlier Liberal incarnation) went to a very early election because of instability and won another majority, but collapsed again fifteen months later.  

* This is the fourth election since 3 March 2018.  The only time since Federation that four elections have been more closely packed was in 1912-1919 (7 years 1 month and 1 day); at that time Tasmania had three year terms!

* July elections were also held in 2002 (July 20) and 1979 (July 28) with Labor polling very well at both of them.

* Melissa Anderson (ALP, Bass) is contesting her second state election before her 21st birthday.  There may be other candidates in the same situation when the full Greens list is released.  [EDIT: Yes, I understand Lauren Ball (Green, Bass) and Owen Fitzgerald (Greens, Franklin) also qualify.]

* Eight former federal MPs are running at this election, including three state incumbents, three who left federal parliament at the May federal election (two retired, one defeated) and two who were federal MPs long ago.

* Each major party has recycled nine non-incumbent candidates who ran for that party in 2024 (in one Liberal case as an incumbent), Labor has also used a 2024 JLN candidate.  

* Clark and Franklin will each have only three formal party groups running for the first time since 1989 (in which both had Labor, Liberal and Democrats as the Greens were at that stage Green Independents without a registered party name).  Franklin had only three groups total in 1986.  Bass, Braddon and Lyons each had only three party groups in 2010 but Clark and Franklin both had Socialist Alliance that year.  

* Braddon's 38 is the most candidates in a division ever, beating Lyons' 36 from last year.  As well as Lyons, Bass and Clark had all time high numbers in 2024, but Franklin's high remains its 34 from 1996.

* If the 1992 Green Independents are excluded, the 44 independents running smashes the record of 32 set in 1982 (at a time when independents with their own ballot columns needed a running mate).  This includes a record 24 ungrouped independents, with 7 in Lyons the most ever in seat (there were 6 in Denison 1982).  

Scratched/Disendorsed Candidates Tally:

1 (Tamar Cordover, IND, Franklin, decided not to run)

Not-A-Polls

Not-A-Polls are up on the sidebar that you can vote in if you have a view about the results.  Remember that there are 35 seats in total so if you vote in all five polls, pick a total breakdown first and make sure it adds up to 35.  In 2014 and 2018 the Not-A-Polls skewed to the left by a seat or two but in 2021 they were spot on.  In 2024 they overestimated Labor and underestimated the Greens, also by a seat or two.

As of 20 June averages in the Not-A-Poll were Liberal 12.0 Labor 12.6 Greens 5.1 IND 5.1 others 0.8.  12-12-5-5-1 would be very messy!

As of 1 July not much movement, 11.9-12.6-5.1-4.9-0.9, so still about 12-12-5-5-1. 

Other Guides and Resources

Tally Room

Poll Bludger

ABC Elections

ABC Promise Tracker

ielect - the site is purporting to function as a results predictor but there has obviously been vast confusion between who users think will win and who they want to win, as seen with the Liberals reaching as high as 27 seats after the site was shared on the "Yes AFL Team, Yes Stadium" Facebook page, and the site continuing to maintain a massive Liberal skew as of 2 July.  Can be used to prepare a personal how to vote card (but then delete your votes afterwards if you don't want them treated as predictors.)