It's deja vu all over again

Former Tasmanian Premier, Robin Gray.

Mark Twain is claimed to have famously said “history doesn’t repeat, but it does rhyme.” Or perhaps Tasmanians could be forgiven for thinking that legendary American baseball player Yogi Berra got it right when he said, somewhat critically, that “its déjà vu, all over again.”

Because not only does the outcome of the recent Tasmanian election look remarkably similar to the Parliament which Tasmanians elected just 16 months ago, the subsequent manoeuvring is beginning to look like previous hung parliaments such as 2010, and especially 1989.

On both those occasions Labor formed government with the support of the Greens, despite promises not to do so, and against the apparent will of the people.

On both those occasions, it also ended in tears in all around.

With counting now concluded, the 2025 state election has delivered 14 Liberal seats, 10 Labor, 5 Green, 5 independent and 1 Shooter, Farmer, and Fisher (SFF). It is one of the vagaries of our Hare-Clark electoral system that these major party seat totals are exactly the same as the previous parliament, despite a state-wide swing to the Liberals of 3.2  per cent, and 3.1 per cent away from Labor (delivering their worst result since 1903).

After the 2024 election, the Liberals quickly sewed-up a confidence and supply agreement with the Jacquie Lambie Network’s three members which got them to 17 seats, and effectively sealed the deal. This time, with the JLN replaced by a host of independents and one SFF member, the task it not so easy. Particularly given that three of the independents are strongly left-leaning, and another is a former leader of the Labor Party.

Labor for their part have made it clear that they will seek to govern via the support of the Greens and independents, even though they promised prior to the election not to deal with the Greens. If that does eventuate, no doubt we are going to see contortions of Olympic proportions from Mr Winter telling us that despite appearances, it’s not a “deal.”

In 2010 David Bartlett promised in the lead-up to the election not to do a deal in with Greens, and to resign as Premier if the Liberals got more seats or more votes. Ultimately, he didn’t do this (this is the bit he omits from his re-telling of the story) and Labor formed government at the request of the Governor, before famously consummating a deal with the Greens following a bike-ride up Mount Wellington/Kunyani.

But it’s 1989 that offers the most striking parallel. During that election campaign, Labor leader Michael Field repeatedly promised not to deal with the then Green independents. Despite this, following a 17 Liberal, 13 Labor, and 5 Green result, immediately after the return of the writs Labor and the five Greens announced that they had reached an “Accord” delivering the 18 seats needed to govern.

Following weeks of political and constitutional argy-bargy (not to mention a bribery scandal), the Robin Gray Liberal Government was defeated in a no confidence vote in Parliament, and a Labor-Green Government lead by Michael Field was installed.

Make no mistake, this is exactly the scenario that Mr Winter and Labor are planning for right now.

This leaves the ball squarely in the court of the independents. At the time of writing, only Craig Garland has declared his hand, backing in Labor and committing to supporting a no confidence motion when Parliament returns. Counting the Greens, this leaves Labor two votes short, with Kristie Johnston and Peter George the most obvious options, particularly given Ms Johnston voted for the original no-confidence motion which brought the election on.

Mr George for his part has pontificated loudly about the need for everyone to compromise, while at the same time issuing a list of demands which he says are not-negotiable. Hypocritical much?

Inevitably with a hung parliament there’s a lot of talk about the “will of the people” and the need to “compromise.” The former normally comes from those with the leading position (in this case, the Liberals), and the later from the losing and minor parties, and independents. 

Unfortunately, the worst offenders at this point are typically the mainstream media, who tend to lead the cheering for “compromise” and give a free pass to break promises made during campaigns, especially when it comes to dealing with the Greens.

The reason the major parties promised during the election campaign not to deal with the Greens was because they know it to be electoral poison. 

Recently, Enterprise Marketing and Research Services (EMRS) undertook polling on preferred government formation following the election. While the overall results were unsurprising, particularly telling was the 21 per cent of people who said that while they voted for Labor at the election, they now preferred a Liberal minority government to a Labor minority government with the Greens.

It's not a stretch to suggest (although impossible to prove) that if Labor had kept the door open to a Green deal during the campaign, some portion of that 21 per cent would have shifted to the Liberals, and potentially delivered them additional seats.

Nonetheless, the die is now cast.

Just how Labor plans to form a functional government with just 10 members in the Lower House (the Cabinet is 10) and have any form of stability without a “deal” with the Greens remains unclear. 

Ultimately, it will be the iron-law of mathematics on the floor of the Parliament that decides. Whether any subsequent Labor-Green government also ends in tears all around well, time will tell.

• Brad Stansfield is part-owner of EMRS who were engaged by the Liberals during the recent election campaign. He is also a part-owner of this publication.