The Tasmanian Liberals were triumphant on election night in May 2021, promising to deliver “certainty and stability” as they embarked on an unprecedented third term in office as a majority government.
But less than three years down the track, the leader has changed (as have many other faces), the government is in minority and the premier has decided Tasmanians must go to the polls more than a year early in order to regain that stability.
So how did it all go so wrong?
If you were to place a picture of the Liberal government elected in 2021 next to those standing today, it’d be the easiest game of ‘spot the difference’ you’ve ever played.
Not only are there two fewer backbenchers, but notably absent is popular premier Peter Gutwein, who quit just one year after the last election.
Elise Archer, Jacquie Petrusma and Sarah Courtney have also left the parliament.
Adam Brooks, who was later charged with firearms offences, was also technically elected but never took his seat.
While the changing of the guard and constant cabinet reshuffles proved confusing at best, it wasn’t until May 2023 that things really blew up.
Long standing backbencher John Tucker, and Lara Alexander, who was elected following Sarah Courtney’s resignation, dramatically quit the party, citing concerns around the proposed AFL stadium and Marinus Link.
The move threw the government into minority, leaving it holding just 11 out of the 25 seats — and having to find a speaker among those ranks, too.
Lucky for the government, or perhaps not so in retrospect, the crossbenchers were able to come to an agreement with Premier Jeremy Rockliff, offering him confidence and supply in return for the AFL stadium going through the project of state significance process and all AFL agreements being published ASAP.
But as the pair embraced their independence, it wasn’t quite the stability Mr Rockliff was after.
The pair voted with opposition motions and amendments, sent Energy Minister Guy Barnett to the privileges committee, criticised the premier over the handling of Elise Archer’s resignation, and leveraged their power to raise other issues.
It shouldn’t be forgotten that Mr Tucker also called on Deputy Premier Michael Ferguson, who’s from the conservative wing of the party, to challenge Mr Rockliff for the leadership.
It’s safe to say the remainder of that parliamentary year was anything but easy for the government with Mr Tucker and Ms Alexander making it clear they would hold it to account.
Then there was parliament’s last sitting day of 2023.
Recalled to suspend Justice Gregory Geason, instead the government tried to suspend parliament, only for the independents to vote alongside the opposition for it to continue.
The government then endured a verbal bashing.
Perhaps the return to an unruly parliament in March was already unappealing.
But the nail in the coffin, or maybe the excuse the premier needed, was Mr Tucker’s threat in early January to move a no confidence motion — and Ms Alexander’s indication she might support it — unless the premier assuaged his concerns.
This time, Mr Tucker wanted to make sure the AFL high performance training centre wouldn’t be built before the stadium is approved, and he was worried the government wasn’t going uphold his motion to make CCTV mandatory in abattoirs.
But the government had already committed to introducing CCTV in abattoirs and the training centre’s planning process might time out with when the stadium’s assessment process is finalised. If not, the difference will be a matter of months.
To the outside observer Mr Tucker’s concerns may not have seemed insurmountable, but something some compromising may have smoothed over.
On the other hand, why let two independents, who have little more than 5,000 primary votes between them, dictate the direction of the government?
Rather than trying to calm the situation, the premier threw his own grenade, demanding the pair sign a new, stricter agreement because he could no longer trust them — and if they didn’t, he’d consider all options, including an early election.
A threat he followed through on, despite repeatedly telling reporters, “I don’t want an election”.
But did Mr Rockliff ever really want to sort things out?
The agreement he demanded the independents sign stripped them of most of their independence. It would prevent them from voting for Labor, Green or opposition amendments, motions or legislation.
Mr Tucker and Ms Alexander left the Liberal Party for a reason. In what world would they sign an agreement that makes them Liberals in all but name?
One could argue, as the opposition has, that the premier crafted an agreement so unreasonable he could use it as an election trigger.
The independents walked into Friday’s meeting — their one and only after the premier’s ultimatum — asking for everything to stay the same, and prepared to give very little.
They came out of it with a conciliatory tone and a belief the premier was open to their requests.
Mr Rockliff’s interpretation, we would discover days later, was very different. The meeting didn’t result in him getting what he required.
After that, the writing was on the wall.
The minority Liberal government has now been dissolved, in a bid to rediscover “the stability and certainty” it once promised to offer the state.
And now, as they hope to secure a “historic” fourth term, the Liberals are staring down the face of a 35-seat parliament, one political analysts say is likely to deliver a minority government and a whole lot more independents.
That long sought after stability and certainty may just prove even more elusive.
LoadingLoading…