Guy Barnett will hand down his first state budget amid challenging times for his party

It's not the ideal setting for Treasurer Guy Barnett's first state budget.
After watching the Liberals lose all their Tasmanian Lower House seats at this month's federal election, new EMRS polling released on Monday showed the state Liberal Party slumping below Labor in the polls for the first time since 2009.
The government's woes were further compounded on Saturday night, with a poor showing at the Legislative Council elections.
The Liberals look set to lose one of their four Upper House seats, with election experts forecasting independent Casey Hiscutt is on track to defeat Liberal Stephen Parry in Montgomery and claim the seat his mother Leonie held for the Liberals since 2013.
The Liberals also fell flat in Nelson, where candidate Marcus Vermey has failed to win a single booth off independent Meg Webb, including in the traditional Liberal heartland of Sandy Bay.
Ms Webb has so far attracted a whopping 52 per cent of the primary vote, with Mr Vermey well back on 34.1 per cent.
Political analyst Kevin Bonham says the result shows the issues with the party's brand aren't confined to the federal election, like frontbencher Felix Ellis tried to suggest this week.
"There just seems to be no appetite for voters to elect more government members to the Legislative Council," he said.
"Voters want the government to be scrutinised."
But Dr Bonham says there's no shame in the Liberals, represented by former senator Stephen Parry, losing the seat of Montgomery.
Mr Hiscutt leads Mr Parry by 2.47 per cent on primary votes, with Dr Bonham projecting him to extend that lead when preferences are counted on Thursday.
"They [the Liberals] won that seat in 2013 and that was a time when the Liberal brand was soaring high and there was massive resentment to the Labor-Green coalition government in that area of the state.
"So it was a smart move for Leonie Hiscutt to run as a Liberal even though previous Hiscutts had been independents.
"But at the moment it was not a smart move — if Casey Hiscutt had run as Liberal, someone would have come out and out flanked him as an independent, so he's done the clever thing here."
Casey Hiscutt's great uncles Desmond and Hugh Hiscutt were previously members of the Legislative Council in the 1980s and 1990s.
Whatever the reason, the Liberals' likely defeat in Montgomery makes things even tougher for the government.
The six major party MLCs are outnumbered by eight independents and Green Cassy O'Connor.
The Liberals, with just three MLCs — ministers Nick Duigan, Kerry Vincent and Jo Palmer — need the support of five other MLCs to pass legislation.
That means either five crossbenchers, or Labor and three independents.
It makes it harder for a government already frustrated by the Upper House not passing some of its legislation, like its push to allow certain development applications to bypass local councils.
The government will need to display some great negotiation skills to get controversial plans, like its special legislation allowing the Macquarie Point stadium to be built, through the Upper House.
Getting three independents to join the Labor Party in supporting the stadium won't be an easy task.
The government already had its hands full getting two of Tania Rattray, Bec Thomas, Dean Harriss and Ruth Forrest to support the legislation.
Now it'll also have to woo Mr Hiscutt, who says he supports the stadium but wants to scrutinise the legislation before guaranteeing he'll vote for it.
The recent blows for the Liberal Party make Mr Barnett's first budget even more important.
It needs some good PR to get the public back onside.
But that's not an easy task when the state is on track to reach almost $10 billion of debt by 2027-28, and doesn't yet have a concrete date to return to surplus.
None of that makes it easy to deliver the kind of big funding injections that put smiles on the faces of Tasmanians.
At a press conference on Sunday announcing another year of record health expenditure, Mr Barnett said the budget would contain a "very clear pathway to surplus", but refused to answer whether the document would forecast one being achieved in the next four years.
And, crucially, he refused to rule out making some calls that will stir up public opposition, like accelerating public sector spending cuts, or unveiling plans to sell state-owned companies.
Here's a snippet from the press conference:
Journalist: When will we see [economist] Saul Eslake's report into government business enterprises?
Mr Barnett: I'll have more to say about that later this week
Journalist: So is that your budget day surprise, you're selling assets?
Mr Barnett: Let's be very clear in terms of the budget. We're very focused on building a better Tasmania now and for the future, investing in the things that matter for Tasmanians like health; today is an excellent example of that, we've got record funding in health. I'm very excited and looking forward to budget day and I'll have more to say on Thursday.
Journalist : So how many assets are you going to sell?
Mr Barnett: I'm looking forward to budget day on Thursday.
The press conference seemed to point to a budget that could contain some tough love, right at a time when the government needs an easy sell the most.
No pressure, Mr Barnett.
And it all comes at a time when the government's task of getting the public back onside is set to get even tougher, with its draft stadium legislation set to go out for public consultation in the next week.
After EMRS polling showed the Liberals losing the most support in the state's north and north-west, being seen to be ramming through a project that polling says is deeply unpopular there will be pretty tough to sell to the public.
And that could make the task of convincing Tasmanians to elect them to a fifth straight term in office at the 2028 state election that little bit tougher than it's already looking.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

West Australian

6 hours ago

• West Australian

Opposition alliance parties only going to get closer says Zempilas following all or nothing Love comments

Basil Zempilas has denied the Opposition Alliance is close to splitting up despite comments by his Nationals counterpart Shane Love that the junior partner would break the agreement if it was not formalised. Speaking to media on Sunday, Mr Zempilas said he was surprised to see Mr Love's comments and thought the two parties were working well together. 'I'm not disappointed, but I was surprised only because the sense that perhaps was portrayed does not match the reality,' he said. 'The absolute sense is that from those inside both teams and those who have been observing the early weeks of this new parliament, we are working very well together as a cohesive, high-functioning, united Opposition Alliance.' The comments come after The Sunday Times reported comments from Mr Love saying the two parties should go it alone if a formal Coalition agreement could not be met. 'To be anything in the middle (of being fully separate or in a formal Coalition) has really not proven successful,' Mr Love said. 'For me, we either have an agreement where we are definitely working together, or we be separate.' The traditional Coalition partners have had a tense relationship in recent times. In late 2024, leading up to March's State election, the alliance was on the brink after Mr Love pledged not to form a Coalition government with the Liberals unless they agreed to rewrite Labor's firearm law reform. Mr Zempilas said he believed the two parties were stronger together but that a formal Coalition agreement took time to develop. 'I've got a very good vantage point, I'm well aware of how well we're working together, I'm very aware of how good the relationship between Shane Love as leader of the Nationals and my own relationship as leader of the Liberal Party is,' he said. 'We're working very, very well together. My sense is that we are nowhere near a walking away, in fact if anything, we are only going to get stronger and come closer together.' Mr Love clarified his comments on Sunday in a statement, saying if the parties were to win the 2029 State Election, they needed to do it together. 'The current Opposition alliance is functioning well, our parliamentary relationship is focused, co-operative, and firmly united in holding the Cook Labor Government to account,' he said. 'The Nationals WA recognise the pressing need for a longer-term Opposition agreement that provides clarity, stability, and strategic direction beyond the current short-term Alliance. 'While we await the Liberal Party's return to the negotiating table, the Opposition parliamentary teams will continue to work together effectively.' Deputy Premier Rita Saffioti slammed the disunity of the opposition. 'The Nationals and Liberal Party have been a mess for many, many years so this is of no surprise,' she said. 'My analysis is it's like watching an episode of The Big Brother house and they keep going into the diary room to complain about each other.'

Sydney Morning Herald

6 hours ago

• Sydney Morning Herald

The Libs have been handed a golden opportunity. Now watch them stuff it up

One of the great entertainments of political commentary in Australia over the past decade and a bit has been speculating on what new and inventive way the Liberal Party will find to comprehensively bugger itself up. I can't help thinking this must have crossed Treasurer Jim Chalmers' mind as he fronted the National Press Club this week to announce that he will undertake a process to develop a new productivity agenda. Chalmers' speech was solid, but so it should be after so many have said the same things so often to so little avail. His words and aspirations have been written for him many times over, sometimes with hope, other times with emotions ranging from dull rage to despair. Sometimes even by the Coalition. We need productivity reform, politicians all know we need it, the media all know they know we need it, yet no-one ever does it. There's a simple reason for that: it's hard. The treasurer dwelt in his speech on why it's hard. Reforming an economic system requires trade-offs. Some choices will cost some people. They may or may not be recompensed in the rejig. Chalmers doesn't want the media to simplify economic reform by explaining it in terms of 'winners and losers', as they do after each budget, but there will be winners and losers in the short, medium or long term as a result of any new tax system. And, naturally, the opposition will do what the name says on the tin. It will oppose. Given the last years of Liberal shenanigans, the real question is how it chooses to do that. In one scenario, Sussan Ley leads a team which analyses and criticises the government's productivity proposals to ensure the best outcome for Australia and Australians. Should they choose this version of their own adventure, there will be plenty of material to tackle. The prime minister has already shown that he has no instinct for making business more efficient or even any understanding that a healthy economy relies on the private sector, creating new wealth instead of just shifting existing money around. In the first term of the Albanese government, the size of the public sector grew relative to the size of the private sector, so now each private employee is supporting more public sector salaries. Loading Then-employment minister Tony Burke passed through an industrial relations bill which makes it harder for businesses to scale up without locking themselves into costly arrangements. Meanwhile, the 'Future Made in Australia' slush fund has been 'picking winners' (code for government making decisions on industries it poorly understands) by investing in bringing in an overseas quantum technology firm rather than backing existing quantum technology firms – ahem – made in Australia. Labor is even trashing its own legacy by changing rules on the superannuation system it forced people to contribute to, undermining trust that the money you lock away for retirement is really yours for later. It's hard to see how a government which made policies of this sort a priority and prefers the public to the private sector will back a productivity agenda which turns Australia around. But one of the great paradoxes of politics is that sometimes you need the party which is seen to be the touchy-feely side to deliver hard-nosed decisions. Think Labour prime minister Tony Blair in the UK, Democrat president Bill Clinton in the USA, or chancellor Gerhard Schroeder in Germany, all of whom delivered welfare reform in the face of their countries' badly designed benefits systems which were creating disincentives to work.

ABC News

9 hours ago

• ABC News

Australian government calls for de-escalation of war in Iran as Coalition endorses US strikes

The Australian government has offered no endorsement of the United States' strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, instead issuing a statement reiterating calls for de-escalation as the opposition put forward its support for the military action. Donald Trump announced the United States had dropped "a full payload of bombs" on the Fordow nuclear site on Sunday, along with strikes on two other locations, declaring Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities "completely and totally obliterated". In response, a government spokesperson said: "We have been clear that Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile program has been a threat to international peace and security. "We note the US president's statement that now is the time for peace. The security situation in the region is highly volatile. We continue to call for de-escalation, dialogue, and diplomacy." A short time after the government released its statement, Opposition Leader Sussan Ley and acting Shadow Foreign Minister Andrew Hastie said the Coalition supported Mr Trump's "proactive action" to bomb the facilities, more than a week after Israel launched an attack on Iran. "The world can never accept a nuclear-armed Iranian regime, and today the United States military has taken proactive action to ensure that we never need to," they said in a statement. "While Australians will never seek conflict in the world, we can never forget that the Iranian regime is a militantly theocratic autocracy … It is the Iranian people who are the victims of this brutal regime and we stand in solidarity with them." Current and former Liberal politicians were also quick to offer their strong support for the strikes, calling on the government to do the same. Former prime minister Scott Morrison said Mr Trump was left with no other option given the risks of Iran's nuclear program, while Liberal Senator Dave Sharma told Sky News it was "essential that Australia supports what the United States has done". Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is yet to respond to the developments personally. Earlier on Sunday, before Mr Trump announced the strikes, Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles said the government's position was de-escalation while noting it recognised Israel's right to defend itself and the risk of Iran's nuclear program. "We are worried about the prospect for escalation here, and we have been urging de-escalation, dialogue, and diplomacy, and we continue to do that," he told Sky News. In an address to the nation late on Saturday night, local time, Mr Trump described the action as a "spectacular military success", while a spokesperson for Iran's nuclear organisation told state media the Fordow site experienced limited damage. The extent of the damage is yet to be independently assessed. Mr Trump later posted to Truth Social — a social media platform — that any Iranian retaliation on the United States would be "met with a force far greater than what was witnessed tonight". Early on Sunday, Mr Hastie, who is also a veteran, warned that any escalation of the war was "dangerous and risky" and could bring unintended consequences. Speaking to ABC's Insiders minutes before Mr Trump announced the attack, he said: "We could see regime change, a collapse of the Iranian regime, large-scale migration and refugees across the world, but particularly Europe. We don't know who would fill the power vacuum." "If there is one lesson I take out of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, it's be careful what you wish for." He also said there needed to be greater transparency over how the United States uses Australian military bases, calling on the government to be clear about what the military alliance involves. Mr Marles this week did not say whether American forces could make use of Australian military bases in the north in an action against Iran, stating "we have a system of full knowledge and concurrence" of operations from Australia. "We need greater transparency, to talk about operationalising the alliance, building guard rails for combat operations and defining our sovereignty," Mr Hastie said. "This will make things clearer for us, so we can better preserve our national interests." Greens leader Larissa Waters said in a statement that the government "must not allow the use of Australian US military bases like Pine Gap in this conflict". "Australia must always work for peace and de-escalation. Australia is not powerless, and we cannot be involved in another brutal war in the Middle East," she said. "Only when countries like Australia push back and hold to principles and international law and back them up with material actions, will there be a chance for peace."