Tasmania’s AFL Team Dream - And Next Government - Remains Uncertain

Two weeks on from Tasmania’s election, there isn’t any real clarity on exactly who will end up being the state’s next Premier.

The headline: Tasmanian Parliament looks basically the same as last time, which was only in March last year. Despite the support of both the Liberal and Labor parties, the status quo isn’t a good sign for the State’s proposed stadium.

This is their third state election in five years. If you add in federal elections, they’ve been to the booths five times in five years, and twice in the last two and a half months. Last month’s election came about as a result of a no confidence motion against the Liberal minority government passed in the House of Assembly, followed by a decision by the Labor party not to seek the opportunity to form a minority government of their own.

While the proposed Macquarie Point stadium wasn’t officially the reason for the move, it underwrote everything that happened next.

Tasmania does things a little differently - instead of single member electorates like the rest of the country, Tasmania (like the ACT) uses multi-member electorates in the lower house.

It’s pretty similar to how the Senate is elected federally, although there’s no option to vote ‘above the line’. Every voter chooses a minimum of seven individual candidates in order of preference. This system, called the Hare-Clarke system, leaves Tasmania with five electorates, each with seven representatives.

A quota - the proportion of votes you need to earn one of the seven seats in each electoral district - is 12.5%. Because of this, Tasmania’s Parliament tends to have a number of independents and minor parties.

Their elections are unique in other ways too; including through a mechanism called the Robson Rotation.

To eliminate the slight but undeniable advantage that donkey votes typically grant the first listed candidate on a ballot, Tasmania randomises the order in which names appear. They print off multiple versions of the ballot with the order shuffled each time, spreading out the advantage that being top of the ticket traditionally offers.[1]

Here’s where it gets interesting: while both major parties are in favour of the stadium proposal, just one of the nine cross benchers - former Labor leader David O’Byrne - has thrown his support behind the project.

The seventh seat in Lyons is still within reach for the Tasmanian Liberals - but Shooters, Fishers and Farmers candidate Carlo di Falco seems best placed to get over the line here.[2]

That leaves the Tasmanian Liberal Party with 14 seats, and Labor with 10; neither is anywhere close to the 18 seats needed to form Government.

Even with the support of the five Tasmanian Greens MPs, whom Labor’s Dean Winter has long insisted he will not seek an agreement with, it’s still anybody's game.[3]

The simplest way to convince enough independents to guarantee confidence and supply - the two central aspects of a minority government agreement - is inevitably to back down on Macquarie Point.

And yet, nobody seems inclined to do so.

Poll after poll has shown that Tasmanians do not approve of the Stadium - approval of the AFL’s treatment of Tasmania and the licensing requirements imposed, in a June poll, was just 21%.[4]

Disapproval of the stadium crosses the political spectrum.[5] That same polling suggests that 71% of Labor voters and 56% of Liberal voters feel that the Tasmanian Government should renegotiate with the AFL rather than proceed with the Macquarie Point project.

Looking at the numbers, it isn’t difficult to see why.

Updated costs projections top $1 billion, and the Tasmanian State Government will be expected to fill the Federal and AFL funding shortfall. [6] With the federal government providing $240 million - and the AFL offering up just $15 million - Tassie taxpayers will ultimately be left footing a pretty hefty bill.

Concerns have also been raised over the State Government’s enabling legislation for the project.

Tasmanian Greens Leader Rosalie Woodruff wasn’t pulling any punches, calling the legislation “draconian” and “an utter farce”.

Her primary concern? Even if the Tasmanian Parliament were to accept the bill as written, it gives the Minister for Industry, Business, and Resources near complete discretion over the permit conditions and restrictions for the project.

The Minister - still Eric Abetz during the ongoing caretaker period - has the power to determine whether the 35 conditions for approval by the Tasmanian Planning Commission have been addressed.[7]

The legislation itself "extinguishes all rights of appeal", including through all usual tribunal or judicial avenues for review.

So: Tasmanians are mad; the project itself is in turmoil; and two weeks on from yet another election there’s no guessing who will form government or how they’ll pull it off.

Even though the major parties back the project, it has fundamentally destabilised both. The simplest pathway to government, for either Jeremy Rockcliff and Dean Winter, is ultimately to back down - yet both insist that this isn’t an option.

References:

[1] https://www.tec.tas.gov.au/info/Robson_Rotation_Paper.pdf

[2] https://www.tec.tas.gov.au/house-of-assembly/elections-2025/results/bass/index.html

[3] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-07-30/dean-winter-tasmania-labor-path-to-power-hemmed-by-greens-stance/105584680

[4] https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/whether-for-or-against-the-stadium-tasmanians-overwhelmingly-feel-dudded-by-the-afl-poll/

[5] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-02-25/tas-macquarie-point-stadium-support-by-chris-rowbottom/104979126

[6] https://www.afl.com.au/news/1331218/tasmania-stadium-costs-increase-ahead-of-pivotal-vote-in-parliament

[7] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-05-28/hobart-macquarie-point-stadium-legislation-explained/105343576