Minority premier takes campaign crack at independents
Tasmania's Liberal premier has taken a swipe at "single-issue" independents as he attempts to turn voters away from another minority government scenario.
The island state is heading to the polls on July 19, the second time in two years, after its parliament passed a no-confidence motion in Premier Jeremy Rockliff in early June.
The Liberals have governed in minority since 2023, and collapsing relationships with the crossbench have triggered the past two elections.
Opinion polls show the Liberals (14 seats) and Labor (10) face an uphill battle to reach the 18-seat mark required for majority.
The Liberals held their official campaign launch at a car dealership in Launceston on Sunday.
"I know many Tasmanians feel good about voting for an independent. But look at how it's worked out," Mr Rockliff told party faithful.
"Despite our very best efforts, because of political games played by Labor, the Greens and some independents, it has been a recipe for instability and uncertainty.
"Independents, especially those single-issue independents, are not the answer. They are threatening the very future of our state.
"They will continue to create uncertainty. And hurl us straight back to where we have been."
The no-confidence motion against Mr Rockliff was passed with the votes of Labor, the Greens and three crossbenchers.
According to polling in May, Labor has the support of 31 per cent of voters, the Liberals 29, with the remaining 41 per cent split between minor parties, independents and "other".
Incumbent independent Kristie Johnston, one of the three crossbenchers to vote for the no-confidence motion, has the backing of notable federal independent Andrew Wilkie.
Anti-salmon campaigner Peter George, who gave sitting Labor MP Julie Collins a run at the federal election in May, is having a tilt at state parliament.
The Nationals are seeking to capitalise on anti-major party sentiment by running candidates including former Liberal John Tucker.
Mr Tucker quit the Liberals to sit on the crossbench in 2023, plunging the government into minority.
He campaigned outside the University of Tasmania Stadium in Launceston on Saturday with a truck emblazoned with the Nationals' opposition to a new stadium in Hobart.
Construction of the stadium, supported by the Liberals and Labor but opposed by some minor parties and independents, is a condition of Tasmania's entry into the AFL in 2028.
Mr Rockliff used the Liberal campaign rally to announce a $240 million investment to deliver 250 more hospital beds.
The campaign has been bereft of major funding announcements, with the state's growing debt under the Liberals a major reason for the no-confidence motion.
Labor leader Dean Winter has spruiked a plan to find $1 billion in budget savings and establish a budget repair round table.
The state's chamber of commerce and industry on Sunday threw its support behind the round table idea.
"(Their) support reflects a growing consensus ... that we can't continue to ignore the crisis created by the Liberals," Mr Winter said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Advertiser
an hour ago
- The Advertiser
Should staffing matters be under such unfettered prime ministerial control?
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has just announced a reduction in staffing to the opposition (ie the Coalition parties) by about 20 per cent and some small cuts to the staffing for minor parties and independents and his government's own ministerial offices. To clarify, these changes only concern those extra "personal" staff allocated to ministerial offices, the opposition, minor parties and independents concerning their shadow ministerial and direct parliamentary roles. It does not affect the five electorate staff each federal MP has, including all ministers, to serve their electorates. This was increased from four by the Albanese government in the 2023-24 budget at a cost of $159 million over four years. In 1974, there were just two, and once upon a time, our parliamentarians had none - they did it all themselves. Such staffing changes occur after every election, reflecting a prime minister's wide discretionary powers conferred under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 (MOPs Act). It highlights once again whether such matters should be under such direct, unfettered prime ministerial control. Such prime ministerial unilateral decisions require no parliamentary approval. The prime minister can give additional support and just as easily take it away. Nor do reasons have to be given, though usually lame ones like "savings to the budget" are proffered, as when the Albanese government reduced staff support for crossbenchers in 2022. That is being used again. Such explanations stretch credibility given the relatively small size of parliamentary staff costs compared to the total federal budget expenditure of $786 billion. Of course, reducing staff numbers and their classifications undermines the ability of an opposition, minor parties and independents to hold governments to account. It has even greater adverse impacts on oppositions given their role in our Westminster system to not just be critics of government but as the "government in waiting" be able to present to the electorate alternative policies across the whole of government and be ready to take office and govern immediately after an election. Reducing the number of opposition staffers from a 100 or so to the reported 87 is minuscule compared to the more than 430 in ministerial offices, which are supplemented by the support and expertise of each minister's public service department. Indeed, Albanese's prime ministerial office alone has about 60 staff, while comparable with recent coalition prime ministers, it is far more than previous Labor leaders like Whitlam, who had just 21. The 1989 Queensland Fitzgerald Report highlighted the lack of adequate staffing for oppositions to scrutinise the National Party-led governments, and so undermined responsible and accountable government and possibly allowed corruption to flourish. Another concern is that the government is reported to be giving greater emphasis to employing more political rather than policy or expert personnel in ministerial offices. This presumably means having fewer experienced public servant secondments from departments who presently constitute surprisingly large proportion of ministerial staff, including chiefs of staff, under both Labor and Coalition administrations. The problem with current arrangements is that too much is left to convention and non-legislated formulas. For instance, since 1995, opposition staff numbers were based on a formula that their staffing allocation be 21 per cent of the government's staff. So, by the current government reducing its own ministerial numbers, cuts to opposition staff numbers can be justified. While the MoPS Act required the prime minister to have regard to the "parliamentary duties" of a member or senator when concerning personal staff, that term is not defined nor clarified by other material. MORE OPINION: Apparently Medicare applies to all Australians, except ratepayers in the ACT Although there has been the Sex Commissioner's investigation of parliamentary working conditions and the subsequent review of the MoPs Act, personal staff numbers and their allocations have not been similarly reviewed. They are thus open to far too much discretionary decision-making driven by partisan, rather than public interest, considerations. Consequently, there is a need for a follow-up to the 2009 Henderson Review of Government Staffing, preferably one that is independent and transparent, to consider who and on what basis staffing numbers and allocations are made. It might explore new issues like whether the Greens with 12 per cent of the vote deserve a better allocation than is presently envisaged. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has just announced a reduction in staffing to the opposition (ie the Coalition parties) by about 20 per cent and some small cuts to the staffing for minor parties and independents and his government's own ministerial offices. To clarify, these changes only concern those extra "personal" staff allocated to ministerial offices, the opposition, minor parties and independents concerning their shadow ministerial and direct parliamentary roles. It does not affect the five electorate staff each federal MP has, including all ministers, to serve their electorates. This was increased from four by the Albanese government in the 2023-24 budget at a cost of $159 million over four years. In 1974, there were just two, and once upon a time, our parliamentarians had none - they did it all themselves. Such staffing changes occur after every election, reflecting a prime minister's wide discretionary powers conferred under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 (MOPs Act). It highlights once again whether such matters should be under such direct, unfettered prime ministerial control. Such prime ministerial unilateral decisions require no parliamentary approval. The prime minister can give additional support and just as easily take it away. Nor do reasons have to be given, though usually lame ones like "savings to the budget" are proffered, as when the Albanese government reduced staff support for crossbenchers in 2022. That is being used again. Such explanations stretch credibility given the relatively small size of parliamentary staff costs compared to the total federal budget expenditure of $786 billion. Of course, reducing staff numbers and their classifications undermines the ability of an opposition, minor parties and independents to hold governments to account. It has even greater adverse impacts on oppositions given their role in our Westminster system to not just be critics of government but as the "government in waiting" be able to present to the electorate alternative policies across the whole of government and be ready to take office and govern immediately after an election. Reducing the number of opposition staffers from a 100 or so to the reported 87 is minuscule compared to the more than 430 in ministerial offices, which are supplemented by the support and expertise of each minister's public service department. Indeed, Albanese's prime ministerial office alone has about 60 staff, while comparable with recent coalition prime ministers, it is far more than previous Labor leaders like Whitlam, who had just 21. The 1989 Queensland Fitzgerald Report highlighted the lack of adequate staffing for oppositions to scrutinise the National Party-led governments, and so undermined responsible and accountable government and possibly allowed corruption to flourish. Another concern is that the government is reported to be giving greater emphasis to employing more political rather than policy or expert personnel in ministerial offices. This presumably means having fewer experienced public servant secondments from departments who presently constitute surprisingly large proportion of ministerial staff, including chiefs of staff, under both Labor and Coalition administrations. The problem with current arrangements is that too much is left to convention and non-legislated formulas. For instance, since 1995, opposition staff numbers were based on a formula that their staffing allocation be 21 per cent of the government's staff. So, by the current government reducing its own ministerial numbers, cuts to opposition staff numbers can be justified. While the MoPS Act required the prime minister to have regard to the "parliamentary duties" of a member or senator when concerning personal staff, that term is not defined nor clarified by other material. MORE OPINION: Apparently Medicare applies to all Australians, except ratepayers in the ACT Although there has been the Sex Commissioner's investigation of parliamentary working conditions and the subsequent review of the MoPs Act, personal staff numbers and their allocations have not been similarly reviewed. They are thus open to far too much discretionary decision-making driven by partisan, rather than public interest, considerations. Consequently, there is a need for a follow-up to the 2009 Henderson Review of Government Staffing, preferably one that is independent and transparent, to consider who and on what basis staffing numbers and allocations are made. It might explore new issues like whether the Greens with 12 per cent of the vote deserve a better allocation than is presently envisaged. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has just announced a reduction in staffing to the opposition (ie the Coalition parties) by about 20 per cent and some small cuts to the staffing for minor parties and independents and his government's own ministerial offices. To clarify, these changes only concern those extra "personal" staff allocated to ministerial offices, the opposition, minor parties and independents concerning their shadow ministerial and direct parliamentary roles. It does not affect the five electorate staff each federal MP has, including all ministers, to serve their electorates. This was increased from four by the Albanese government in the 2023-24 budget at a cost of $159 million over four years. In 1974, there were just two, and once upon a time, our parliamentarians had none - they did it all themselves. Such staffing changes occur after every election, reflecting a prime minister's wide discretionary powers conferred under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 (MOPs Act). It highlights once again whether such matters should be under such direct, unfettered prime ministerial control. Such prime ministerial unilateral decisions require no parliamentary approval. The prime minister can give additional support and just as easily take it away. Nor do reasons have to be given, though usually lame ones like "savings to the budget" are proffered, as when the Albanese government reduced staff support for crossbenchers in 2022. That is being used again. Such explanations stretch credibility given the relatively small size of parliamentary staff costs compared to the total federal budget expenditure of $786 billion. Of course, reducing staff numbers and their classifications undermines the ability of an opposition, minor parties and independents to hold governments to account. It has even greater adverse impacts on oppositions given their role in our Westminster system to not just be critics of government but as the "government in waiting" be able to present to the electorate alternative policies across the whole of government and be ready to take office and govern immediately after an election. Reducing the number of opposition staffers from a 100 or so to the reported 87 is minuscule compared to the more than 430 in ministerial offices, which are supplemented by the support and expertise of each minister's public service department. Indeed, Albanese's prime ministerial office alone has about 60 staff, while comparable with recent coalition prime ministers, it is far more than previous Labor leaders like Whitlam, who had just 21. The 1989 Queensland Fitzgerald Report highlighted the lack of adequate staffing for oppositions to scrutinise the National Party-led governments, and so undermined responsible and accountable government and possibly allowed corruption to flourish. Another concern is that the government is reported to be giving greater emphasis to employing more political rather than policy or expert personnel in ministerial offices. This presumably means having fewer experienced public servant secondments from departments who presently constitute surprisingly large proportion of ministerial staff, including chiefs of staff, under both Labor and Coalition administrations. The problem with current arrangements is that too much is left to convention and non-legislated formulas. For instance, since 1995, opposition staff numbers were based on a formula that their staffing allocation be 21 per cent of the government's staff. So, by the current government reducing its own ministerial numbers, cuts to opposition staff numbers can be justified. While the MoPS Act required the prime minister to have regard to the "parliamentary duties" of a member or senator when concerning personal staff, that term is not defined nor clarified by other material. MORE OPINION: Apparently Medicare applies to all Australians, except ratepayers in the ACT Although there has been the Sex Commissioner's investigation of parliamentary working conditions and the subsequent review of the MoPs Act, personal staff numbers and their allocations have not been similarly reviewed. They are thus open to far too much discretionary decision-making driven by partisan, rather than public interest, considerations. Consequently, there is a need for a follow-up to the 2009 Henderson Review of Government Staffing, preferably one that is independent and transparent, to consider who and on what basis staffing numbers and allocations are made. It might explore new issues like whether the Greens with 12 per cent of the vote deserve a better allocation than is presently envisaged. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has just announced a reduction in staffing to the opposition (ie the Coalition parties) by about 20 per cent and some small cuts to the staffing for minor parties and independents and his government's own ministerial offices. To clarify, these changes only concern those extra "personal" staff allocated to ministerial offices, the opposition, minor parties and independents concerning their shadow ministerial and direct parliamentary roles. It does not affect the five electorate staff each federal MP has, including all ministers, to serve their electorates. This was increased from four by the Albanese government in the 2023-24 budget at a cost of $159 million over four years. In 1974, there were just two, and once upon a time, our parliamentarians had none - they did it all themselves. Such staffing changes occur after every election, reflecting a prime minister's wide discretionary powers conferred under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 (MOPs Act). It highlights once again whether such matters should be under such direct, unfettered prime ministerial control. Such prime ministerial unilateral decisions require no parliamentary approval. The prime minister can give additional support and just as easily take it away. Nor do reasons have to be given, though usually lame ones like "savings to the budget" are proffered, as when the Albanese government reduced staff support for crossbenchers in 2022. That is being used again. Such explanations stretch credibility given the relatively small size of parliamentary staff costs compared to the total federal budget expenditure of $786 billion. Of course, reducing staff numbers and their classifications undermines the ability of an opposition, minor parties and independents to hold governments to account. It has even greater adverse impacts on oppositions given their role in our Westminster system to not just be critics of government but as the "government in waiting" be able to present to the electorate alternative policies across the whole of government and be ready to take office and govern immediately after an election. Reducing the number of opposition staffers from a 100 or so to the reported 87 is minuscule compared to the more than 430 in ministerial offices, which are supplemented by the support and expertise of each minister's public service department. Indeed, Albanese's prime ministerial office alone has about 60 staff, while comparable with recent coalition prime ministers, it is far more than previous Labor leaders like Whitlam, who had just 21. The 1989 Queensland Fitzgerald Report highlighted the lack of adequate staffing for oppositions to scrutinise the National Party-led governments, and so undermined responsible and accountable government and possibly allowed corruption to flourish. Another concern is that the government is reported to be giving greater emphasis to employing more political rather than policy or expert personnel in ministerial offices. This presumably means having fewer experienced public servant secondments from departments who presently constitute surprisingly large proportion of ministerial staff, including chiefs of staff, under both Labor and Coalition administrations. The problem with current arrangements is that too much is left to convention and non-legislated formulas. For instance, since 1995, opposition staff numbers were based on a formula that their staffing allocation be 21 per cent of the government's staff. So, by the current government reducing its own ministerial numbers, cuts to opposition staff numbers can be justified. While the MoPS Act required the prime minister to have regard to the "parliamentary duties" of a member or senator when concerning personal staff, that term is not defined nor clarified by other material. MORE OPINION: Apparently Medicare applies to all Australians, except ratepayers in the ACT Although there has been the Sex Commissioner's investigation of parliamentary working conditions and the subsequent review of the MoPs Act, personal staff numbers and their allocations have not been similarly reviewed. They are thus open to far too much discretionary decision-making driven by partisan, rather than public interest, considerations. Consequently, there is a need for a follow-up to the 2009 Henderson Review of Government Staffing, preferably one that is independent and transparent, to consider who and on what basis staffing numbers and allocations are made. It might explore new issues like whether the Greens with 12 per cent of the vote deserve a better allocation than is presently envisaged.
Sky News AU
an hour ago
- Sky News AU
Senator Pauline Hanson criticises Liberal leader Sussan Ley for Acknowledgment of Country before National Press Club speech
Senator Pauline Hanson has said she was left "disgusted" with Opposition Leader Sussan Ley after her Acknowledgment to Country during a major speech last week. The Liberal leader spoke at the National Press Club on Wednesday, but before she kicked off her address she acknowledged the traditional owners of the land. The party's former leader Peter Dutton had a hard stance on First Nations ceremonies, including the Welcome to Country, saying they had been "overdone" after a number of people booed at a Melbourne Anzac Day dawn service in April. Senator Hanson did not hold back in her assessment of Ms Ley's act. "I was disgusted. Absolutely disgusted with it," she told Sky News' Danica and James. "Because the Liberals, they were the ones that actually opposed the Voice to Parliament. It wasn't just the Liberals that opposed it. It was a lot of people like myself, like Gary Johns, and then you had Barnaby Joyce and you had Jacinta Price." "Because once the public were informed about what it meant and changed in the Constitution, people were better informed and made their decisions about it." The firebrand politician also believes Ms Ley is not the right person to be leading the party as she was a moderate and that a "true conservative" had to replace her. "It's going to be very interesting what happens the next three years under Sussan Ley. I think she will be overthrown before the next election," Senator Hanson added. Earlier, the One Nation leader was asked about a poll from the Institute of Public Affairs which had found 56 per cent of people say Welcome to Country ceremonies are divisive. According to the survey conducted by research firm Dynata, 27 per cent of others questioned said they were unsure and 17 per cent disagreed on the remark. "Every Australian out there that's got a backbone about them and say, 'we're not going to deal with this anymore', turn your back on it as I do every time I'm in parliament and they do a Welcome to Country. I turn my back," Senator Hanon said. She also claimed to have turned her back on the ceremony during her grandson's school's anniversary, saying she is not "going to put up with this rubbish". "It's ridiculous where we're going. It's divisive. More than 56 per cent of the public out there are so over this but they are in fear of being called a bigot or racist," she said. Senator Hanson also praised the Melbourne council worker for standing up against his employer after an Acknowledgment to Country during a toolbox meeting. It was revealed on Thursday Melbourne street sweeper Shaun Turner had won his unfair dismissal case after he was dismissed by Darebin City Council in June. Mr Turner said the use of the Acknowledgment to Country is "getting out of hand". "That council worker, good on him for actually fighting back over it and questioning it. And yet he's lost his job. He's won it in the courts and I hope that they actually apologise to him and offer his job back," Senator Hanson told Sky News.
Perth Now
2 hours ago
- Perth Now
Glastonbury organisers appalled at 'death to IDF' chant
Glastonbury organisers say they are appalled by on-stage chanting against the Israeli military during a performance by Punk-rap duo Bob Vylan, saying the music festival is no place for anti-Semitism or incitement to violence. During their show on Saturday, the duo chanted "Death, death, to the IDF" in reference to the Israel Defence Forces, the formal name of the Israeli military. United Kingdom police said they were considering whether to launch an investigation after artists at Glastonbury made anti-Israel comments on stage, without naming Bob Vylan. "Video evidence will be assessed by officers to determine whether any offences may have been committed that would require a criminal investigation," Avon and Somerset Police, in western England where the festival is held, said on X late on Saturday. Glastonbury Festival criticised the chanting by Bob Vylan, which comprises the guitarist-singer with the stage name Bobby Vylan and a drummer known as Bobbie Vylan. "Their chants very much crossed a line and we are urgently reminding everyone involved in the production of the festival that there is no place at Glastonbury for anti-Semitism, hate speech or incitement to violence," it said on Sunday. The Israeli Embassy in the UK condemned the "inflammatory and hateful rhetoric expressed" on stage at the festival. Bob Vylan's band members did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Their show on the festival's West Holts stage took place just before controversial Irish rap trio Kneecap played to a huge crowd, leading chants against UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer and also taking aim at Israel. During the show, frontman Liam Óg Ó hAnnaidh accused Israel of committing war crimes, saying: "There's no hiding it." Known by the stage name Mo Chara, he was charged with a terrorism offence last month for allegedly displaying a flag in support of Lebanese militant group Hezbollah at a concert. He has denied the charge. Senior members of Starmer's government also criticised the chants by Bob Vylan. Health Secretary Wes Streeting said it was appalling that the comments had been made on stage, adding that he was also appalled by violence committed by Israeli settlers in the occupied West Bank. "I'd also say to the Israeli embassy, get your own house in order in terms of the conduct of your own citizens and the settlers in the West Bank," Streeting told Sky News. "I wish they'd take the violence of their own citizens towards Palestinians more seriously." Political commentator Ash Sarkar said it was typical of punk musicians to spark controversy. "Don't book punk bands if you don't want them to do punk stuff," said Sarkar, a contributing editor to Novara Media, a progressive media organisation.
