Meg Webb and Luke Edmunds expected to be returned, third Legislative Council seat still unclear
Elections were held in three of the 15 Legislative Council divisions on Saturday.
Political analyst Kevin Bonham said the two southern electorates of Nelson and Pembroke would be held by sitting members, independent Meg Webb and Labor's Luke Edmunds.
Dr Bonham said Ms Webb had won "very convincingly" and could win on primaries alone.
He said Mr Edmunds had a "huge" primary vote lead from which no other candidate would be able to catch him.
In a statement released on Saturday night, the Tasmanian Electoral Commission (TEC) said Ms Webb held a majority of first-preference votes in Nelson, with 51 per cent.
Ms Webb described it as "a resounding vote for an independent Upper House, and for greater integrity, transparency and accountability in politics".
About 1,800 early votes were yet to be counted in Nelson.
The TEC said Mr Edmunds held a "strong lead" in Pembroke, with almost 44 per cent of first preference votes.
The north-west seat of Montgomery was a bit more uncertain, following the retirement of Liberal Leonie Hiscutt.
Her son, independent Casey Hiscutt, has almost 32 per cent of first preference votes, followed by the Liberal candidate, former senator Stephen Parry with 29 per cent, and the Greens' Darren Briggs with 21 per cent.
Tasmanian Electoral Commissioner Andrew Hawkey said Montgomery would be decided on preferences.
"[There are] two candidates on very level pegging … I would think for Montgomery we're going to have to distribute [the preferences given to] those lower candidates to see who comes out on top," Mr Hawkey said.
Dr Bonham said he expected Mr Hiscutt to win unless Mr Parry did better than expected on preferences.
If Mr Hiscutt wins, there will be nine independent members in the Upper House.
"That will make things hard for the government on things where Labor supports but the independents are sceptical," Dr Bonham said.
He said the Liberals' biggest obstacle in Montgomery was going up against the "Hiscutt family name".
But he said Mr Hiscutt's pro-stadium stance may have tipped some voters towards the Greens and the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers party.
Counting will continue Monday, with pre-poll, provisional and out-of-division votes added. Postal votes will be counted on Thursday.
Mr Hawkey said Saturday was a successful voting day despite the wet and windy weather.
"It looks like we've had good turn outs in all three divisions," he said.
He said 66 people with a print disability used the telephone voting service, which was expanded for the first time this year.
Members of the Legislative Council are elected for six-year terms on a rolling election cycle, which means two or three divisions are up for election each year.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News AU
13 minutes ago
- Sky News AU
Woolworths, McDonald's and Coles say they will not stock US beef despite relaxed biosecurity measures
Several major Australian companies have confirmed they are planning to stick with domestic beef suppliers despite the Albanese government's move to loosen import controls on meat products from the United States. In June, Agriculture Minister Julie Collins said Australia would be removing biosecurity restrictions on beef produced in the US, Canada and Mexico. The move sparked concern from farmers, who warned it could introduce mad cow disease into Australia and threaten the livelihood of domestic producers. However, McDonald's Australia and the nation's major supermarkets told they would continue to use Australian suppliers despite the government's move. In a statement, a Woolworths spokesperson said they had longstanding relationships with many domestic suppliers and had 'no plans' to source beef elsewhere. 'We apply an Australia-first approach and 100 per cent of our fresh red meat is sourced directly from Australian farmers,' they said. 'We have no plans to change that approach.' Meanwhile, a spokesperson for Coles said: 'At Coles, we continue to partner with top beef producers across Australia to bring our customers the high-quality, 100 per cent Australian-sourced Coles brand fresh beef that they enjoy today'. McDonald's Australia also said they would continue to purchase from Australian farmers. 'We'll continue to source 100 per cent Aussie beef for our menu and provide our customers with the great taste, quality, and value they know and love,' a spokesperson told Meat and Livestock Australia managing director Michael Crowley welcomed the decisions from Coles, Woolworth and McDonald's, as he sought to calm fears about the impact of the government's changes. 'The potential for US beef to be imported into Australia in large volumes is minimal,' he told Mr Crowley cited the high demand for Australian beef in the US, the low US cattle herd and the strength of the Australian dollar. "More than 99 per cent of beef available in Australian supermarkets, pubs and restaurants is Australian beef,' he said. "Australia produces approximately three times more beef than needed to feed our population. Around 70 per cent of our production is exported to global markets. "The impact of US and Canadian beef entering Australia is expected to be minimal. It is unlikely there will be an adverse effect on Australian cattle producers." The decision to loosen biosecurity rules comes as Australia attempts to navigate unpredictable trade policy from the Trump administration, including the threat of tariffs on a range of exports. Trade Minister Don Farrell has refused to be drawn on whether opening the Australian market to US beef was part of an effort to avoid any potential trade restrictions.
ABC News
13 minutes ago
- ABC News
How the iconic North Sydney Olympic Pool put local council in deep financial debt
It's seen 86 swimming and diving world records. It has hosted two Empire Games. And its 1930s architecture and harbourside location, beneath the rumbling Harbour Bridge railway and overseen by the grinning face of Luna Park, must place it near the top of any global list of spectacular sporting venues. But lately the achievements at North Sydney Olympic Pool haven't been quite so magnificent. When it finally ends, a two-year renovation budgeted at $57 million will have taken five years and cost $122 million. It's put the local council $56 million in debt, prompting it to consider some unpopular methods of clawing back cash, like increasing rates by 90 per cent, charging people to watch New Year's Eve fireworks, and selling public streets to private schools. The council has also had to curtail its public works budget and can't afford essential works like repairing leaking roofs at childcare and community centres. All in one of the nation's wealthiest areas. North Sydney Mayor Zoe Baker isn't happy about it. As a councillor, Ms Baker voted against the pool redevelopment. As mayor, she has to find the cash to pay for it. "Just in the last three years we've had to defer, each year, $12 million on capital works on council assets," she said. This year the council is also trying to find $6 million in savings. "The council agreed very reluctantly to ticket access for New Year's Eve and Blues Point Reserve, and that's in order to find $300,000 to offset the cost of delivery of New Year's Eve." At the same council meeting, councillors had to choose between funding a seawall repair, or fixing North Sydney Oval's broken PA system. Former North Sydney lap swimmer Clare Payne says the pool's once-tight community of early morning swimmers have lost touch with each other. Closures for renovations at the other two nearest public pools — at Willoughby and Mrs Macquarie's Chair — have forced those swimmers even further apart. Ms Payne was upset back in 2019 when the council announced the North Sydney pool would be closed for up to two years. "That felt quite devastating." she told 7.30. "I didn't really want to even process that because I thought this is just going to be too long. I hate the fact that it's closing like this, especially both pools." The second pool was a 25-metre indoor pool that sat atop the grandstand designed by architect Ken Maher. His 2001 redevelopment on the heritage grandstand won several architecture awards. In 2019 the council announced it would be demolished, along with the entire grandstand. Mr Maher said he was "shattered, frankly, and because it seemed to be for no really good reason". The grandstand had concrete cancer — but Mr Maher says the building could have been saved. "It wasn't falling down," he said. "It may have meant that there was work that had to be done to repair the structure underneath that was suffering, but it's not unusual that concrete structures that are having concrete cancer are repaired." The redevelopment was championed by then-mayor Jilly Gibson, who retired last year. Jessica Keen is the sole remaining councillor who voted for the redevelopment. She says council staff made a business case for the pool, which she approved in good faith. "I voted for a $60 million pool, not $122 million. There is a vast difference in that budget," she said. An independent review of the project by accounting firm PWC found that the problems started even before work commenced. Among the problems identified by the review: The builder, Icon, says the council's design team have made hundreds of changes to the project. Icon blames the council for the failure of structural steel in the new indoor pool building, atop the rebuilt grandstand. That steel had to be pulled down and replaced. Icon and the council are also in a legal dispute over $28 million in cost overruns. Mayor Baker says the scale of the project was always too much for council to take on. "It started as a $28 million project. It morphed effectively on the floor of council into a $58 million project … there were literally councillors getting up on the floor of council and saying, 'I'd like a creche, and I would like this,' and so the scope of the brief was being expanded in an ad hoc way," Mayor Baker said. "There was no reporting back about how much that would cost and how council would fund it." Mayor Baker says the pool will be handed back to the council later this year and should be open to the public in the first quarter of 2026, once the fit-out is finished. She is relieved the saga is finally coming to an end. "For me it's bittersweet, because there's absolutely no satisfaction in 'I told you so,'" she said. "I don't think the cost of that $122 million to our community for the things we've had to forego and the impossible decisions that we're now having to make because of the financial impacts is worth it. "I was always an advocate for doing a much more modest approach to the pool redevelopment." Mr Maher, the architect of the demolished 25m pool, doubts he'll be returning to swim at the rebuilt site. "I don't think I'll go there. I think I'll just feel too negative about it," he said. Does he have any sense of schadenfreude? "I think the the tragedy of the project is the impact it's had on the community, no access to the pool for five years or more, huge increase in cost," he said. Ms Payne, the former North Sydney pool swimmer, is looking forward to the reopening and trying the complex's new 25m indoor pools. She sometimes swims at Balmoral, where the sea temperature is currently a chilly 15 degrees. "It doesn't necessarily get any easier, I think, swimming in cold water. It's bracing, it's invigorating. But it will definitely be nice to get a pool back — especially an indoor pool." Watch 7.30, Mondays to Thursdays 7:30pm on ABC iview and ABC TV Do you know more about this story? Get in touch with 7.30 here.
ABC News
13 minutes ago
- ABC News
Will Labor's conversation about everything produce anything much?
Labor's triumphant election victory left its true believers with a question: now what? Before long, Anthony Albanese and Jim Chalmers had a concept of a plan. They would summon leading experts and advocates to Canberra to share economic ideas, with nothing off limits and an appetite not just to talk about reform, but to take it on. Inside the Labor fold, two camps have formed around the government's productivity roundtable, slated for later this month. One camp doubts that a cautious Albanese has much inclination to take on a controversial new policy — and question whether "consensus" can be achieved with business and unions appearing poles apart on several issues. But the other camp sees genuine opportunity to achieve something of substance on the budget, the tax system and productivity — urgent national concerns that have been rotting for years in the too-hard basket. There is a risk that a talkfest about everything could amount to nothing, but the rewards could be great if the ambitious Chalmers can emerge with a term-defining reform package that he can sell to the public — and most importantly, his prime minister. The three-day agenda is sorted from easiest to hardest. The theme of the first day is "economic resilience" — that is, how Australia should weatherproof its economy to survive a chaotic world, a worthy but relatively uncontroversial topic. Day two is about productivity, a misunderstood and long-neglected subject but one where plenty of consensus can be found. Productivity is what makes an economy greater than the sum of its parts. It does not come from making people work more, as often thought, but from new technology, better regulation, education, or anything that grows or harnesses our economic potential. Build a road between two towns and you boost productivity because the people in each can visit one another, exchange ideas and find new ways to work together. Educate kids, and you boost productivity. Remove a bureaucratic obstacle, and you boost productivity. Remove a barrier that holds people back from fully participating in the workforce, such as the cost of parenting, and you boost productivity. Economists see productivity growth as the main reason living standards have steadily but dramatically improved in countries like Australia compared to a century ago, and the only reliable guarantor that this will continue. But as in much of the developed world, it has been hard to come by for the last decade or so, prompting urgent conversations about how it can be revived. Some ideas for how to do so are uncontroversial and even dull. In its last term, for example, Labor moved to stamp out the overuse of non-compete clauses, used to restrict everyone from hairdressers to data analysts from changing jobs or starting their own businesses, and so stifling innovation. Few objected. Similar ideas could be steered through the round table, such as removing unnecessary duplication in accreditation and regulation across states and territories or countries. Other bigger-ticket items match up with Labor's political priorities and may also find broad support. On housing, where Labor is falling well short of its target of 1.2 million new homes over five years, Housing Minister Clare O'Neil has recognised more needs to be done to make new housing easier to build. Productivity is part of the story — Australia's construction sector completes half as many homes per hour of work as in 1995, according to the Productivity Commission (PC), which has called for better planning coordination and a review of building regulations. On major projects, Labor is inching towards landing an overhaul to the environmental approval process, which business, unions and environmental groups all agree are too slow and serve no-one well, even if they have different priorities for reforming it. There has been some speculation that a deal on these reforms, which Environment Minister Murray Watt appears close to landing, could be announced at the round table. One of the most obvious frontiers for productivity growth, but where perils are also apparent, is the growth of artificial intelligence. The question of how — if at all — government should respond is a vexed one and will spark much disagreement between the participants. Business groups have argued any regulation should be light touch, and the most important task for government is to promote the development of AI and the innovation it can make possible. Unions see risk for jobs and want government to constrict and contain AI rather than unleash it. Both views have their sympathisers within the Labor fold. Assistant Minister for Competition Andrew Leigh, is an AI optimist who sees the potential for major productivity gains. Industry Minister Tim Ayres, has appeared more sympathetic to union fears, suggesting internal disagreements that may take more than the round table to fully resolve. In the care sector, which Labor has devoted billions to expanding, the PC will release a report the week before the round table with suggestions about how to deliver the standard of care the public expects while also doing so more efficiently. Unions, business groups and many economists also argue that making childcare universal would boost productivity by harnessing the talents and ideas of parents, mostly mothers, for whom the cost of childcare is a barrier to full-time work. Labor promised at the election to guarantee three days of subsidised childcare each week to nearly all families, and a $1 billion fund to open more centres. Many still regard universal childcare as the likely choice if the PM wants a "signature" reform for his second term, although the PC dealt it a blow last year when it advised against the move, urging a focus instead on improving access. The spotlight on the sector's poor regulation following shocking allegations against a Melbourne childcare worker present another obstacle, a reminder of the risks associated with expanding the sector prematurely. Apart from universal childcare, which does not feature prominently on the roundtable agenda published in late July, none of these items feels like the centrepiece reform Chalmers could be seeking. If that is to come in the productivity space, it could involve company tax, a key priority for the business lobby and some economists after a decade where investment has fallen. There has long been support in some quarters — echoed in recent Treasury advice to government, and by Labor backbencher Ed Husic — for cutting Australia's 30 per cent company tax rate, which is higher than some global comparators. That was last attempted by the Turnbull government, which managed to cut the rate to 25 per cent for small businesses but fell short of doing so for larger companies. Ahead of the round table, company tax is again on the agenda but with more fine-grained proposals than a simple rate cut. The PC has recommended a headline rate of 20 per cent for companies with less than $1 billion in revenue — that is, most companies. This rate applies to profits and is only really meaningful for foreign investors, because for Australian investors the rate is ultimately refunded in the form of "franking credits" so that the tax can instead be paid at the investor's income tax rate. At the same time, the PC suggests a new 5 per cent tax on cashflows. It expects this would see some larger companies pay more tax, but help smaller companies by allowing them to deduct the cost of new capital immediately, stimulating investment. Several similar proposals have been floated, including ANU tax professor Bob Breunig's proposal for an effective tax-free threshold for business investors. Other economists including Chris Richardson favour higher specific taxes on offshore gas companies, mining companies or banks, but lower taxes on others. The business lobby has focused its calls on a more generous tax credit for research and development spending, although some economists say the current credit mostly benefits companies who would have spent the same amount on research anyway. Chalmers has shown much appetite to focus on company tax, but a proposal favoured by the business community — and which the Coalition may have no choice but to support as well — could balance out a package that raises taxes elsewhere. That question — whether to raise taxes somewhere — will consume the third and likely most controversial day of the round table, about the federal budget. The budget's problem is well documented: we consistently spend more than we collect in tax, and there are reasons to believe this will worsen over time. Labor bucked this trend in the last two years with budget surpluses, but these were anomalies helped by the good fortune of high commodity prices, which boosted the company tax take. Strip out these short-term vagaries and the "structural" position of the budget is in deficit to the tune of 1.5 per cent of GDP — or almost the size of the entire NDIS. Add in state governments and the picture more than doubles, to 3.1 per cent. While Australia's current level of debt is modest by global standards, the trajectory is troubling given spending is at the highest non-crisis level in a generation while the tax take has not substantially changed, and there is more spending pressure ahead. Debate over the budget tends to be split in two between those who emphasise spending cuts as the solution and those who emphasise higher taxes. But Treasury bluntly stated that both would be needed to fix the budget, and the round table will consider both. Independent MP Allegra Spender, who will attend the round table, convened high-profile economists last month to canvass ideas on both sides of the equation. On the spending side, Labor acted in the last term to contain cost growth in the NDIS and aged care, although there are calls to go further on both. To those two, the e61 Institute's Michael Brennan added what he called a "capital binge" on mega-projects with benefits that did not justify their costs and which were diverting capital from other uses. Brennan also questioned the budget impact of shifting towards universal payments, for example in childcare, but also in schemes like the NDIS and the health system where care recipients with financial means are not expected to contribute out of pocket. The counterargument, made by tax professor Miranda Stewart, is that "targeted" payments can actually punish recipients for earning more, because the benefits of higher income are diluted or even eliminated by the accompanying loss of payments. It is also unlikely to appeal to a Labor government that has made universal public provision — especially in Medicare — key to its political message. And even substantial changes to infrastructure or to the payments system would likely pale in the context of long-term projections by Treasury and others of how much the cost of health and care will grow — not to mention any higher spending on defence. The Grattan Institute's Aruna Sathanapally emphasised that spending would need to grow astronomically just to meet our current expectations of care. "Even if did not raise our service expectations, the nature of an ageing population and growing health technology means that government will get bigger," she says. For Sathanapally, who has been chosen to deliver the keynote address for the tax section of the round table, that means the federal government must tackle the uncomfortable question of raising more money. "If we want to find a magic way to have Australian-level service expectations and remain being a low-taxing country, I'd love to know what it looks like," she told Spender's forum. "But my starting proposition is we're going to have to think about higher taxes or we're going to have to think about taking chunks out of our service expectations." Former Treasury secretary Ken Henry agrees, but reluctantly, saying any tax reform package should be designed to be revenue neutral at first, but over time lift revenue as a share of GDP over time in a way that would do the least economic damage. Chalmers has already stipulated that any package brought to the round table should be budget neutral at a minimum and ideally budget positive. The Coalition has said it will only support changes that are revenue neutral, meaning it would only support a package that repairs the budget if the improvements came from the spending side. But the tax debate is about "how", not just "how much", and here there is likely to be much disagreement. Participants in the tax debate tend to complain about one of two things: that the tax system is unfair or that it is inefficient (that is, it distorts people's choices). The objectives of fairness and efficiency do not always align. The GST, for example, is considered an efficient tax because it applies the same rate to everything and so does not distort spending decisions as it would if different rates applied to different products. There are exceptions, which create inefficiencies, but the efficient character of the tax is one reason why some economists say raising it could be a worthy option. But the other side of the coin of a flat rate is that it can be regarded as unfair because it is "regressive" — the same 10 per cent tax is a greater imposition on someone with a smaller income than someone with a larger income. That is one reason why the proposal has been regarded as politically toxic, and Labor has given no indication it is enthusiastic to adopt it. But there is one feature of our tax system where inefficiency and inequity are broadly aligned: our system's heavy reliance on the taxes of wage earners, and comparatively low tax on those who make passive income from their wealth. Australia's tax system is wildly inconsistent in this regard. A couple with no assets, both on the minimum wage, could pay more than a couple with three homes, shares, and hundreds of thousands in annual income. The second couple might even pay no tax. As e61's Greg Kaplan put it at Spender's round table, this can not only be seen as unfair but can also distort choices in an undesirable way because wage earners pay a higher rate of tax than asset owners who can use deductions and discounts to lower their tax. "The absolute worst case you can be in is to earn all of your income as an employee working for somebody else," Kaplan said. "The message that we are sending to our young people is that if you want to be rich … choose a career plan where you can generate capital gains, strive for property development or funds management, not for engineering. That matters for productivity." But nobody needs a long memory to recognise the political perils of taking on issues such as tax discounts for superannuation, capital gains or the treatment of franking credits, several of which were in Bill Shorten's rejected 2019 policy platform and one of which — super tax — is the source of a current controversy. Those ghosts — and the ghosts of the carbon and mining taxes in the Rudd-Gillard era — are fresh in the minds of many in the Labor fold, not least the prime minister, and will weigh strongly against the case for any sweeping reform. While Labor could balance out any of these tax-raising proposals with large income tax cuts or even company tax cuts, any of them risks igniting a political firestorm, and those close to Chalmers have privately sought to lower expectations that this is his plan. But Ken Henry, perhaps Australia's most prominent tax reform authority, who has been consulted by Chalmers in recent weeks and will attend the round table, has a different view: go big or go home. "Tax reform cannot be done piecemeal," he told Spender's forum last month. "This is the lesson I take from Australia's tax reform adventures of the last 40 years. If it's going to be successful, it's going to have to be big."
