Tasmania Remains Ungovernable: 2025 Election Tallyboard And Summary

Tasmania 2025: Liberals Have Won Most Seats

Government formation however TBD

Rockliff has stated intent to be recommissioned.  If he proceeds, Parliament will need to pass another no confidence motion if it wishes to remove him and install Winter.  

FINAL RESULT 14 LIB 10 ALP 5 GREEN 5 IND 1 SF+F

BASS 3 LIB 2 ALP 1 GREEN 1 SF+F

BRADDON 4 LIB 2 ALP 1 IND

CLARK 2 LIB 2 ALP 2 GREEN 1 IND

FRANKLIN 2 LIB 2 ALP 1 GREEN 2 IND

LYONS 3 LIB 2 ALP 1 GREEN 1 SF+F

Links to seat postcount pages:

BASS

BRADDON

CLARK

FRANKLIN

LYONS

Other articles:

Pathways To Government

(Update at bottom of this page re comments in The Australian 20 July)

--

After the 2024 election, Labor (with ten seats) could have sought to form government with the crossbench, but did not.  After bringing down the Rockliff government with a no-confidence motion this June, Labor could again have sought to form government, but did not.  And so we had an election, and they've again won about ten seats.  In the process they've further embarrassed themselves with what is likely to end up as their lowest primary vote since 1903.  Now maybe they can take government if they want it, but they will do so with a weaker mandate than had they done so last time.  

Based on the words of the leaders tonight, Jeremy Rockliff intends to be recommissioned as Premier at least to "meet the parliament".  If he can stitch together a basis for supply and confidence then well and good, but to continue in office he doesn't strictly need that. All he needs to continue is for there not to be 18 MPs willing to pass a new motion of no confidence in order that Labor be installed.  Even if 18 MPs do form a deal against him, he is still entitled to be reappointed and make the others vote him out on the floor.  Of course, if he can get 18 that will be better for him, but that may not be at all easy.

It remains to be seen whether Labor will want to potentially govern in the light of a new day, considering how much fun it wouldn't be and how embarrassing it is to be so reluctantly dragged to that fate.  But if they are still interested then they may need all of  the five Greens, Craig Garland, Kristie Johnston and Peter George.  And George is interesting because he comes to all this with clean hands in terms of the motion passed in the previous parliament.  He has said that he would not have voted for the previous no-confidence motion.  Perhaps he would view a fresh one differently.  If not, then Labor needs an extra seat from somewhere, with Bass a messy possibility.

It also appears Labor intends to let the Liberals try to negotiate their way to 18 first, but just how hard the Liberals might try is another question.  Even without 18 solid votes on confidence and supply, if there is not a lined-up deal against them the Liberals might well just go back to the parliament and govern as if nothing had occurred.  They would know full well that Labor would hardly bring them down while unwilling or unable to take government themselves any time soon.  So Labor - if they want government at all - cannot rely on the Liberals failing to get to 18.  They must be able to get 18 themselves.  It's important to note both George and Johnston have said they won't make confidence and supply agreements and intend to treat each vote on its merits.

There may be more clarity re Labor's intentions in coming days - it did not take long in 2024.  On this thread I will post updates about government formation as well as updating the tallyboard at the top.

Some summary comments on the numbers so far.  The Liberals have a swing to them everywhere but Franklin, where their vote is the same as last time but there are more people to beat, so they look like dropping a seat.  Their Braddon performance is the standout where I thought they were in the mix for four but most likely via some candidate-vote-splitting pathway off 3.4 quotas or so, not by just getting four quotas off the cuff.  

Labor has swings against them everywhere but worst in Franklin (Peter George effect) and also Lyons (with no Rebecca White).  The Greens have a status quo overall vote share and most likely seat share.  The Independent vote was overstated in polls by as much as I expected it to be, and the four expected winners have won with no others looking that likely to join them (though there's still some kind of chance in Bass).  The big four indies have all polled very well, but most of the remaining forty have embarrassed themselves.  It is too easy to run for Tasmanian parliament without having any serious support.  It slows the count down and makes voting more confusing for voters, and I suggest the Parliament in future require 100 signatures to run.

The Nationals have come and tried and failed again, deservedly so.  Serious questions should be asked in Canberra of the wisdom of the federal party's involvement in this ludicrous campaign and why they allowed a state branch that endorsed candidates who had sent Liberal governments to elections.  Moreover they've been shown up by the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers who ran a far more limited campaign with just one candidate per seat, yet are leading the race for the final seat in Lyons with a splendid vote. 

The Jacqui Lambie Network ticket elected three MPs at the last election then collapsed.  The very low votes for all three show that they were only there on the Lambie name and did not build any real personal vote in just over a year.

Did Tasmanians vote for a change of government at this election?  I'm really not sure that they did. If anything, they voted to punish Labor for causing it, though those doing the punishing went to crossbenchers, not just Liberals.  Estimating Hare-Clark 2PPs is challenging, especially with the high Independent vote this election including a high vote for left independents, but the Liberals might just win a statewide Hare-Clark 2PP (my first back of envelope attempt was 51-49; it may be refined later).  But sometimes in Hare-Clark the party that would win the 2PP still loses the election, as happened in 1989.  

Can this parliament be stable?  If the Liberals continue in office after all that Labor will surely be chastened against any repeat of this performance and may even come under pressure to rule out no-confidence attempts for some time further.  If Labor takes office they will have to work with the Greens and independents who will not support them on several key policy areas.  With so few MPs to work with it will be as thankless a task as that confronted by Michael Field in 1989.  

Once upon a time, minority governments in Tasmania were invariably smashed and replaced by a majority of the other side.  Whatever else, Jeremy Rockliff has at least broken that hoodoo, though perhaps only because of the premature nature of this election.  I asked if the 2024 election was Hare-Clark's new normal, for this one at least it seems it was.  

More to follow, now on to the Bass postcount.  I expect Bass to be my only postcount thread tonight, with the rest posted tomorrow.  

Sunday 20th 10:15 am: It is also worth noting that just because Garland voted for the previous no-confidence motion does not mean he will vote for a new one if the Government is responsive enough to his concerns.  But this only even arises if they need his vote to sutvive.

Sunday 20th late night: Dean Winter's press conference today gave a pretty clear indication that Labor is having a serious sniff around re taking minority government.  While ruling out any deal with the Greens, Winter seems open to accepting confidence and supply for nothing, and questions Rockliff's ability to form a government.  

The Australian today contained the following:

Constitutional expert Donald Rothwell told The Australian Mr Rockliff could not expect Ms Baker to automatically commission him to test his support if he could not demonstrate that support existed.

“I don’t think under the circumstances that the Governor would say ‘Test your support’, because of the fear that she may well end up commissioning a Liberal government which could literally fall on the first day,” said Professor Rothwell, of the Australian Nat­ional University’s law school.

“The Governor will be cautious … given what happened in June (the no-confidence motion against Mr Rockliff). The Governor will, I think, also be proactive in terms of having discussions with both sides until such a point as (she) is completely assured.

As best I can determine Donald Rothwell is primarily an international law expert anyway.  In any case, the above is inconsistent with established tradition regarding the right of an incumbent in a minority situation - however doomed - to "meet the House" and see if they can survive.  Australian examples included Don Dunstan in 1968, Robin Gray in 1989 and Rob Kerin in 2002, all voted out.  

There is no reason to fear commissioning a government which would fall on the first day as that government would not have time to do any damage.  If the Premier wants to be recommissioned to test their support it is by far best that their support or not be determined by the Parliament than by an unelected Governor's opinion of who has the prettiest collection of letters of support.  It is only when there is no incumbent that the Governor needs make a choice of who is the best person to send back into the House based on who the Governor thinks is most likely to command the support of the House.  Here the Governor is entitled to expect some evidence of support (such as a Parliamentary motion of confidence in the new Premier).  

Of course, if Rockliff discovers he is well short of the numbers and that Dean Winter has the numbers, he has the option to resign.  I believe we won't see that as the Government will be very keen to argue that its replacement is illegitimate and try to make all its crossbench supporters wear the blame for installing it.