WATCH THIS SPACE
EXPRESSIONS OF INTEREST PLEASE
eMAIL launcestonPROJECTS@bigpond.com
???
“If you want to go quickly, go alone. If you want to go far, go together.”
African Proverb
Thursday, January 8, 2026
Saturday, May 31, 2025
Wednesday, January 1, 2025
Friday, November 1, 2024
LAUNCESTON'S TURTLE TOWN AWARD
CLICK ON AN IMAGE TO ENLARGE
What is being done speaks so loudly as you just cannot hear a pin drop
Dear Mr Johnson and whoever this may concern,
Here is a version of a question that I have been putting to Council in various contexts for quite a long time but always grounded on Council’s declaring a CLIMATE EMERGENCY in 1998. Like:
· “By polluting the oceans, not mitigating CO2 emissions, and destroying our biodiversity, we are killing our planet. Let us face it, there is no planet B.” Emmanuel Macron, President of France
· “We are the first generation to feel the effect of climate change and the last generation who can do something about it.” Barack Obama, Former US President
· “Twenty-five years ago, people could be excused for not knowing much, or doing much, about climate change. Today we have no excuse.“ Desmond Tutu, Former Archbishop of Cape Town
Serially and somewhat surreally my questioning overtime has been met with well-rehearsed obfuscation. It needs to be said that if you're defending a lie, you can only defend it with obfuscations and other lies. You can't defend a lie with the truth – and that is the truth. Indeed, Council has turned questioning relative tostrategic matters into opportunities to exclude its constituency - and it is a Machiavellian exercise spiked with assertions confidentiality.
All this is so much so that there are officers at Town Hall who have for whatever reason developed expertise in avoiding anything that might exhibit transparency and accountability. Sadly, all this has evolved into Town Hall culture.
On the available evidence it seems as if there may be conflicts of interest in play and thus considerations of wastefulness come into play as a consequence. Given this, it gets to be even more concerning when:
· Councillors’ direct knowledge and experience is as limited as officers’ given that it appears that the appetite for meaningful research and/or any consequent change is compromised for a litany of reasons; and
· Councillors are not always being provided with appropriate independent expert advice with contemporaneous backgrounding by relevant experts in accord with SECTION 65 of the Act – elastic as that has been proven to be; and
· Questions are put to Mayor and Councillors and officers respond on their behalf without consultation with Councillors, without seeking appropriate expert advice, and without current contextualisation – especially so when the expertise is not held by staff.
No doubt what I’m submitting here will be contested. However, I submit that it is timely that Council now takes the opportunity to review its protocols and to facilitate opportunities for deliberations with more direct referencing of CITIZENresearch as if it had a modicum of veracity.
By-and-large, and all too often community consultation processes can be characterised as aCLAYTONSconsultation process – and sadly so.
Informally and formally, on the subject of Launceston’s WASTE MANAGEMENT CENTRE, I have been informed that:
- Council has no intention of changing the nomenclature of the WASTE MANAGEMENT CENTRE to RESOURCE RECOVERY CENTRE and I’m serially informed that there is no marketing imperative or benefit in doing so; and that
- Officers are too busy maintaining a WASTE MANAGEMENT CENTRE that endorses landfill as the‘time honoured’ management strategy and too busy to contemplate change at any level at this time – albeit that Government policy takes a totally different view; and that
- There are no current economically viable alternatives to maintaining a WASTE MANAGEMENT CENTRE despite the officer being directed to other jurisdictions where RESOURCE RECOVERY CENTRES are maintained and profitably by all accounts – some that I have had occasion to visit and engage with their managers; and
- There are classes of WASTE/RESOURCES that are too difficult to process and that is unsustainable rhetoric, and moreover administratively, that self-serving. I have knowledge of a marketing strategy where people delivering ‘postCONSUMER resources to a RESOURCE RECOVERY CENTRE were rewarded IF delivered in the desired condition – and heavily penalised if not – and as likely as not having access to the centre denied; and
- It is just not feasible or viable to achieve something when the officer has no engineering or like experience and there being no realistic access to it; and
- Formal consultation processes such as Citizens’ Juries/Assemblies don’t work and can’t work given the lack of people in the community with the appropriate skills, experience which is not the case; and
- Very recently I have been informed that collectively textiles, soft/difficult plastics, and contaminated wood is represented (60%?) in the waste stream going to landfill plus large amounts of glass are going to landfill when none of any of this should be if appropriate simple separation strategies were to be put in place; and more still.
The concerning subtext to be found in all this is there as evidence of bureaucratic blocking in ways that impacts upon elected representatives’ ability to adequately, and appropriately, represent their constituencies.
Even more concerning is Launceston’s WASTE MANAGEMENT CENTRE being an unsustainable ‘basket case’ contributing, in a local sense, disproportionately to ‘climate emergency’ that Council has acknowledged but has in essence has sat on its hands since doing so.
In the 21st C in a worldwide context looking to maintain the status quo in any context is a denial of the real-world issues where attempts are being made to be mitigate against catastrophic outcomes against considerable odds brought on by human activity and the unsustainable mining of and exploitation of resources.
In fact, there is a strong case to close Launceston’s landfill facility except for highly contaminated and the most toxic material such as asbestos. Indeed, there is a myriad of enterprises such as microFACTORIES [LINK] that require:
- Affordable infrastructure; and
- Ongoing access to postCONSUMER and redundant resources:
That is the valuable resources that are now being consigned to landfill in Launceston.
Indeed, Launceston like the whole of Australia, and indeed the Pacific region too, faces ongoing serial catastrophic events. Looking away for bureaucratic convenience is simply untenable no matter how stressed those charged with the mitigation feel.
Launceston is on the cusp of a catastrophic flood event as was Lismore was/is and the assumptions that Lismore’s Council et al brought on the unprecedented flood event. I have direct experience of flooding in this region with relatives and friends who lived through that event and are still dealing with its consequences.
Lazy thinking and trivialising resource recovery in any way is something that cannot be countenanced on any premise. However, piquing the interest of a bureaucracy dedicated to the status quo is a futile and thankless task and especially so when the personnel have so much invested in how things currently stand – particularly generous career opportunities and employment security.
Nonetheless, this aught not be an opportunity for the contrite wringing of hands. Rather right now is the time for change and an early adoption of strategies to engage the community more directly in strategic developments where the initiative to do so can be exercised by ‘them’ representing themselves. There are win-wins to be had.
Importantly, this is so, given that within the community there is a vast amount of experience and skills available to be tapped into.
The initiating of Citizens Juries/Assemblies has been very successful in an increasing number of jurisdictions. Nonetheless these assemblies provide expert advice from within their processes and the experts they consult/commission that in the end is deliberated upon and determined by the elected representatives. In a murder trial the jury may well determine gilt or otherwise, but it is the judiciary that determines the penalty – slight or dire.
Interestingly, while I keep a relatively close eye on the local press, and social media, I’ve not yet gleaned an opportunity to participate in any way in the current ’10year strategic planning process’ – and I suspect that I am not alone.
Therefore, against this backgrounding, the response I received from Ms Wyatt and approved by you, and clearly without reference to the Mayor and Councillors, is quite inadequate and under the circumstances untenable.
In today’s world where wars are raging, I think that it is it morally unacceptable to kill stories of children being killed, of land being laid to waste, not to run stories even, stories that people have risked their lives to get. Likewise, it is morally and economically unacceptable to be stifling proven strategies to recover postCONSUMER resources.
I struggle with Council’s predisposition to obfuscate and especially so when the issue at hand has earned the importance that it has in a worldwide context. Indeed, as a constituent, I find the ongoing and somewhat ham-fisted attempts to hoodwink constituents more than disturbing. I’d be among the first to acknowledge that what is at stake here is both complex and of monumental proportions. However, there is a way forwardalbeit that it will require civic administrations to take the journey forward, one step at a time.
Like many people in other communities who are seeking action relative to sustainable resource exploitation, I’m ready to work collaboratively and cooperatively to find ways forward locally along with other concerned citizens. Missing chances is not anything anyone should tolerate. What is needed, quite simply are meaningful chances for community members to participate in sustainable postCONSUMER resource recovery at multiple levels and in various ways. This will require a flatter playing field.
Imagining that a constituency is populated with unskilled, uneducated, inexperienced people is just not a sustainable proposition and moreover it reflects very poorly on those who imagine that it is the case. Therefore, I along with many other concerned citizens we look forward to your prompt and considered response.
Yours sincerely,
Ray Norman
Sturt Alumni, Cultural Producer,
Cultural Geographer & Researcher
YES HOMELESSNESS IS DISGUSTING
WE ARE WONDERING IF THE MAYOR WOULD FIND IT DISGUSTING TO VISIT SOME OF LONDON'S HOMELESS!?
Launceston mayor will pay for own trip to London after council funding rejection. Mayor Matthew Garwood will embark on a trip to London next week for an awards ceremony, footing the bill himself after being denied permission by the council to use ratepayer funds for the venture.
In October, councillors rejected Garwood’s request to fly to the other side of the globe to attend the City Nation Place Awards at a cost of $5,304, citing the current cost of living crisis.
The funds were to be drawn from the Councillor Development budget, which council officers indicated had enough money available.
INTERESTINGLY no Councillor has suggested that this $5K could be used to do something for the city's HOMELESS.
It is all very disgusting!!
IT IS DISGUSTING ABSOLUTELY DISGUSTING
Everything about homelessness is disgusting along with the prejudices that those choosing to sit on their hands harbour their disgust via their in actions leading to the homeless sleeping rough in Launceston.
//////////////
EXAMINER EDITORIAL Prof David Adams
Tasmanian councils have a greater role to play in housing crisis
New housing affordability, homelessness approach needed
There seems to be general agreement that homeless and affordable housing in Tasmania has not been fixed after more than 75 years of the Commonwealth and state governments holding the reins.
Before that, housing the homeless and making housing affordable fell mainly to charitable organisations and local councils.
Maybe it's time to go back to the future in Tasmania? Indeed community organisations and councils continue to play a key role in housing, it's just that the legislative frameworks and funding are now largely under state and federal government control.
The early efforts in Launceston to house the homeless were led by groups such as the Launceston Benevolent Society who had two 'alms houses' on High Street in the 1890s. albeit for the "aged poor of the higher classes". Before that, some of the homeless men were housed in what is now the Launceston Barracks on Paterson Street.
Women were housed in the local gaol.
There are some compelling arguments to rethink the role of local government in housing, right across the continuum from a tent to secure accommodation.
Homelessness is usually very local and needs granular responses that can both focus on prevention as well as being able to support people from homelessness through transition accommodation to secure affordable housing. Much of the day-to-day interaction, especially with homeless people, is with community service agencies and councils - for example, in how bylaws are enforced and in the provision of food.
The housing continuum has many gaps in it, especially around short-medium term accommodation. This is where knowledge of local assets comes in. For example, some councils are engaged directly with the public, community and private providers in establishing tiny houses.
There are government incentives to build them in your backyard as well so long as you rent them out. A big issue is the raft of planning issues that come into play around building standards and energy supply and plumbing etc. Mostly local council issues.
Responses need to be flexible. State and Commonwealth governments are not that agile whereas local councils and community agencies can be if they choose to.
Councils through their planning responsibilities and their influence over the release of land have a big say in shaping housing form and supply. Despite the importance of homelessness and affordable housing, it is often an afterthought in the history of land use and urban planning. We only need to look at the history of Launceston suburbs such as Mayfield and Ravenswood to see this where housing was not initially supported by the right mix of commercial and other community infrastructure. Perhaps a core objective of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act should be preventing homeless, there is no mention of homelessness or affordable housing in the Act.
Often the issue is the complex organising of conversions and modifications required and someone to operate local facilities such as hostels. Again councils are often in the prime position to knit these challenges into a solution alongside community agencies - such as has been happening with the City Mission precinct in Frederick Street.
Your council or mine might not - at the moment - look like a front runner to more formally share the housing reigns but the evidence is that with proper funding, skills and authority to act they could do a better job. Indeed the City of Launceston council is already taking a lead in joining up local services for a shared voice on the issue.
There is a lot of disruption at the moment in housing. For example, in many country areas houses are being converted to short-term tourist accommodation which reduces the stock available for other uses.
Being close to the action, being agile, flexible and being empathetic with a long-term view of client pathways to affordable housing are core to solving the crisis.
Under the watch of state and Commonwealth governments, homelessness has increased and housing affordability decreased. Other countries such as the UK have devolved responsibility for homelessness back to local authorities and reconceptualised the focus from need to risk.
The focus on risk means much earlier efforts around prevention and building homelessness assessments into all policies (such as Airbnb and potential accommodation associated with all new facilities).
Tasmania seems to be searching around for a new role for local government and this ought to be in the mix. It would be a good test of the next round of the Launceston City Deal if homelessness and affordable housing could be a centrepiece of how the three levels of government could work together on a major social problem - and be the first in Australia to solve it.
......................................
EXAMINER
It's complex, says advocate as power cut for homeless
By Emily Verdouw
Updated October 23 2024 - 6:26pm, first published 6:23pm
Authorities are being urged to address the root causes of homeless camps in Brisbane. Photo: Supplied/AAP PHOTOS
Authorities are being urged to address the root causes of homeless camps in Brisbane. Photo: Supplied/AAP PHOTOS
When power was cut off at two of Brisbane's biggest tent cities by the local council, criticism came fast from frontline services.
While the lights in the park have stayed on, power points and electric BBQs at Musgrave and Kurilpa Point park are no longer in use.
Warm food can't be cooked and phones can't be charged.
Power points and electric BBQs at Musgrave and Kurilpa Point park are no longer in use. (Supplied/AAP PHOTOS)
But as the council reports an escalation in violence and anti-social behaviour, some advocates are reluctant to criticise the decision.
"I think the complexity of Musgrave Park is hard for the average person to understand. We're oversimplifying it all the time," says Karen Walsh, CEO of Micah Projects, a not-for-profit that works to end social injustice.
"We know the dynamic in encampments - there's relational issues, there's often illegal activity occurring that makes it unsafe for people there and in the community."
Ms Walsh said while the communication from the council was inadequate, people shouldn't get sidetracked from the real issue.
"What we need is to not really have people living in tents as the answer to homelessness or the housing crisis."
Brisbane City Council has supplied pictures that show drug use, fires and vandalism to BBQs to justify turning off the power, while also alleging there have been stabbings.
"The serious escalation of violence and anti-social behaviour in these encampments is incredibly concerning and the power has been switched off for safety reasons," City Standards Committee chair Sarah Hutton said.
Others argue switching off the power won't help the issue.
"The council want to project to the community that they're doing something without actually doing any of the hard work to actually get people into housing, or to be putting pressure on the state and federal governments to be investing enough," Greens MP Amy MacMahon said.
That investment needs to urgently go to improving safe accommodation for people waiting for long-term housing, advocates say.
And there's history in dealing with this issue, with proven pathways out.
"Fifteen years ago we had 120 tents on the river bank, 80 tents on Riverside Drive. It's not the only time in history we've dealt with it, we know it takes very strong co-ordination," Ms Walsh said.
The problem is, the conversations keep going around in circles.
"I think we've got an election interrupting things, we have different political paradigms, different points of view," she said.
Brisbane City Council has complained about drug use, fires and vandalism at the camps. (Supplied/AAP PHOTOS)
Brisbane City Council has complained about drug use, fires and vandalism at the camps. (Supplied/AAP PHOTOS)
Any action that has been taken has been far too slow, the Greens argue.
"Labor have been building social housing at a snail's pace," Ms MacMahon said.
"They've been selling off public housing, they've failed to do anything about skyrocketing rents and mortgages, and now they are punishing those people who are the victims of their failure to address the housing crisis."
Ms Hutton, who was elected to the Brisbane council in 2020 on a Liberal National Party ticket, accused the Greens of being soft on crime and "routinely opposing" the construction of new homes.
For the residents of the parks, the power remains off with uncertainty as to how and when they'll be able to move on.
Australian Associated Press
By Emily Verdouw
Updated October 23 2024 - 6:26pm, first published 6:23pm
Authorities are being urged to address the root causes of homeless camps in Brisbane. Photo: Supplied/AAP PHOTOS
Authorities are being urged to address the root causes of homeless camps in Brisbane. Photo: Supplied/AAP PHOTOS
When power was cut off at two of Brisbane's biggest tent cities by the local council, criticism came fast from frontline services.
While the lights in the park have stayed on, power points and electric BBQs at Musgrave and Kurilpa Point park are no longer in use.
Warm food can't be cooked and phones can't be charged.
Power points and electric BBQs at Musgrave and Kurilpa Point park are no longer in use. (Supplied/AAP PHOTOS)
But as the council reports an escalation in violence and anti-social behaviour, some advocates are reluctant to criticise the decision.
"I think the complexity of Musgrave Park is hard for the average person to understand. We're oversimplifying it all the time," says Karen Walsh, CEO of Micah Projects, a not-for-profit that works to end social injustice.
"We know the dynamic in encampments - there's relational issues, there's often illegal activity occurring that makes it unsafe for people there and in the community."
Ms Walsh said while the communication from the council was inadequate, people shouldn't get sidetracked from the real issue.
"What we need is to not really have people living in tents as the answer to homelessness or the housing crisis."
Brisbane City Council has supplied pictures that show drug use, fires and vandalism to BBQs to justify turning off the power, while also alleging there have been stabbings.
"The serious escalation of violence and anti-social behaviour in these encampments is incredibly concerning and the power has been switched off for safety reasons," City Standards Committee chair Sarah Hutton said.
Others argue switching off the power won't help the issue.
"The council want to project to the community that they're doing something without actually doing any of the hard work to actually get people into housing, or to be putting pressure on the state and federal governments to be investing enough," Greens MP Amy MacMahon said.
That investment needs to urgently go to improving safe accommodation for people waiting for long-term housing, advocates say.
And there's history in dealing with this issue, with proven pathways out.
"Fifteen years ago we had 120 tents on the river bank, 80 tents on Riverside Drive. It's not the only time in history we've dealt with it, we know it takes very strong co-ordination," Ms Walsh said.
The problem is, the conversations keep going around in circles.
"I think we've got an election interrupting things, we have different political paradigms, different points of view," she said.
Brisbane City Council has complained about drug use, fires and vandalism at the camps. (Supplied/AAP PHOTOS)
Brisbane City Council has complained about drug use, fires and vandalism at the camps. (Supplied/AAP PHOTOS)
Any action that has been taken has been far too slow, the Greens argue.
"Labor have been building social housing at a snail's pace," Ms MacMahon said.
"They've been selling off public housing, they've failed to do anything about skyrocketing rents and mortgages, and now they are punishing those people who are the victims of their failure to address the housing crisis."
Ms Hutton, who was elected to the Brisbane council in 2020 on a Liberal National Party ticket, accused the Greens of being soft on crime and "routinely opposing" the construction of new homes.
For the residents of the parks, the power remains off with uncertainty as to how and when they'll be able to move on.
Australian Associated Press
Monday, October 14, 2024
AND THE SHOW ROLLS ON AND WHAT NOW?
Deputy Premier Michael Ferguson had held some of the more important roles in cabinet over his time as a government minister since 2014.
BASS HAS LOST A CABINET MEMBER AND SOME TRUTH HAS BEEN REVEALED
Jeremy Rockliff FACEBOOK POST
This afternoon, I have accepted the resignation of the Deputy Premier and Treasurer, Michael Ferguson.
He will continue to serve as a Member for Bass.
Michael has proudly overseen the redevelopment of the Royal Hobart Hospital, the building of a new Women’s and Children's Precinct at the Launceston General Hospital, the almost-completed new Midland Highway, and importantly, the state’s largest ever infrastructure project, the Bridgewater Bridge.
I want to thank Michael for his contribution as Minister over the past decade, for his fierce loyalty and his friendship during that time.
It is with a heavy heart that this afternoon I have tendered my resignation as Treasurer and Minister.
It is also my intention to resign as Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party.
I will continue to serve the people of Bass – who have faithfully elected me on six occasions.
I am proud of the achievements our Government has delivered, and those that I have been honoured to lead or play an important part in.
Projects like the Bridgewater Bridge, redeveloping the Royal Hobart Hospital and building a new Women’s and Children Hospital at the Launceston General Hospital.
I have chosen to act in the best interests of the Government and Tasmanians.
And I have plenty more to do for the people in my electorate and for Tasmania generally, and I will continue to serve with passion and humility as the Liberal Member for Bass.
Voters in dark: Treasurer exposed as former bankrupt
Mr Ferguson and senior figures in the state-owned TT-Line ferry company and TasPorts have blamed each other for the debacle, which also follows budget and timeline blowouts on the ferries. Labor has called for Mr Ferguson to be sacked as Treasurer and stakeholder minister or risk being censured next week by parliament, in which the minority Liberal government relies for support on independents. It appears 17 of the 35 lower house MPs would vote no confidence in Mr Ferguson. If one of two independents yet to declare their hands also backs the motion, it will pass, forcing Mr Ferguson to resign – or risk a no-confidence motion in the government. Mr Ferguson has denied misleading parliament.
..........................
Tasmania's deputy premier Michael Ferguson facing backbench demotion from rare no-confidence motion
By state political reporter Adam Langenberg
A well dressed man stands holding a document.
Mr Ferguson could be relegated to the Liberals backbench if the no-confidence motion succeeds. (ABC News: Luke Bowden)
Barring a huge surprise, Tasmanian Deputy Premier Michael Ferguson will suffer a major humiliation on Tuesday, when a majority of lower house MPs send him to the backbench over the Spirit of Tasmania fiasco.
Essentially, Mr Ferguson has challenged Labor and the crossbenchers to a game of political chicken; making it clear that he'll only leave his job if they wrench him out of it in public.
It positions Tuesday as the end point of a long argument.
Is this campaign to kick Mr Ferguson out of the infrastructure portfolio, and now out of cabinet entirely, a political stunt like the government insists?
Or are a majority of MPs holding a senior minister to account over a stuff up of monumental proportions; the failure to build a berth for the new Spirit of Tasmania ships at Devonport in advance of their arrival in the state.
A large, red ferry with a smaller pilot boat in front
The two new Spirit of Tasmania vessels are late and the berth to accommodate them in Devonport has not been built — something which political opponents have laid the feet at Michael Ferguson as infrastructure minister. (Supplied: Spirit of Tasmania)
By refusing to ask for Mr Ferguson's resignation before a no-confidence vote, Premier Jeremy Rockliff is trying to make it look like a political kill; the actions of a vindictive Labor Party trying to cause political chaos.
He said as much in Launceston on Monday morning.
"Tasmanians do not like smear campaigns and the worst of politics," he said.
"What Tasmanians expect is their political representatives to get on with their job in the best interest of Tasmanians and that has been my focus as Premier."
Jeremy Rockliff speaking in front of news microphones, with greenery behind him.
Jeremy Rockliff will be needing to install a new deputy premier and treasurer if Michael Ferguson is brought down. (ABC News: Ashleigh Barraclough)
The Premier wants people to believe there is only one political party focused on fixing the mess and getting on with the job — the Liberals.
Spirit of Tasmania saga escalates
Photo shows Man sitting at board room table speaking to politiciansMan sitting at board room table speaking to politicians
The delivery of two new Spirit of Tasmania vessels has faced significant scrutiny over its repeated delays and cost blowouts. The former chair of the ferry operator has now taken aim at the government over its "appalling" support
And on a week where the government is set to pass its budget, they think the Opposition using their time to kick Mr Ferguson out of his job is a pretty good illustration of that.
But will people feel angry enough or so sympathetic for Mr Ferguson's plight that it outweighs the pain and humiliation of seeing their second in charge literally kicked out of his seat?
It's a big gamble.
It also needs people to buy into Mr Rockliff's "Labor stunt" argument.
And that falls down in a few places.
A woman in a multi coloured jumper speaking to media.
Dr Rosalie Woodruff says Michael Ferguson has a "personal incapacity to be honest with Tasmanians about what's happening in his portfolios". (ABC News: Luke Bowden)
Firstly, it's not just Labor who think Mr Ferguson needs to go.
They're only raising the no-confidence motion because they know they have got another eight MPs on board: five Greens, independents Kristie Johnston and David O'Byrne, and Jacqui Lambie Network MP Andrew Jenner.
That's a lot of other people convinced that there's merit in the motion and believe that Mr Ferguson's mishandled the Spirits fiasco so badly, and failed to be transparent with the public enough that the ultimate punishment is warranted.
And crucially, none of them think it's a stunt.
Jeremy Rockliff and Michael Ferguson at Bridgewater Bridge.
Jeremy Rockliff says Michael Ferguson would be "feeling the effects of being attacked". (Facebook: Jeremy Rockliff)
Greens leader Rosalie Woodruff said she considered reams of evidence, and thought extremely deeply, before deciding her party would support a no-confidence vote.
"It's no light matter taking a motion of no-confidence against a minister, it's so serious," she said.
"But we've just heard from so many people who were shocked, outraged, appalled at Minister Ferguson's behaviour in the role of managing the Spirits — both as treasurer and previously as infrastructure minister.
"What we could see is a refusal to answer the most basic questions about the costs, and about the timeline and the delivery of the Spirits, so basic that it shows he has a personal incapacity to be honest with Tasmanians about what's happening in his portfolios."
'A breathtaking lack of contrition'
Another of Mr Rockliff's arguments for the motion being a stunt is that Mr Ferguson's already taken responsibility for the Spirit failures by resigning from the infrastructure portfolio.
But plenty of MPs, including Mr O'Byrne, say that's not at all the case.
"I thought when minister Ferguson relinquished the infrastructure portfolio that that contrition by that act was a statement from him as minister that he took responsibility for that," he said.
"But the events of last week and public statements from Mr Ferguson has demonstrated to me a breathtaking lack of contrition in terms of his role in the TT-Line/TasPorts fiasco."
But Mr Ferguson, a Liberal frontbencher from the minute he entered state parliament in 2010, and one of the state's most recognisable and divisive politicians, carries plenty of baggage.
Artist impression of planned ship terminal.
A visualisation of the yet-to-be-built berth for the new Spirit of Tasmania ships, which are due be in service by early next year. (Supplied: TasPorts)
And the Liberals could be forgiven for asking if other ministers, who had already resigned from a portfolio six weeks ago, would face the same consequences that Mr Ferguson will on Tuesday.
He was a controversial health minister regularly derided by the Greens and Labor before he was shuffled out in 2019, who stirred up the crossbench further by announcing service cuts to Metro Tasmania in response to a driver shortage.
Tasmanian Health Minister Michael Ferguson talks to reporters
Mr Ferguson, pictured in 2014 as then-health minister, was eventually moved out of that portfolio. (ABC: Brad Markham)
Often the Liberal Party's attack dog, Mr Ferguson is not afraid to rub his opponents the wrong way — something MPs might struggle to push out of their minds when considering his future.
Opposition leader Dean Winter mentioned health in explaining why Mr Ferguson needed to go on Monday, and Dr Woodruff told reporters it was hard to separate his past from the present.
'It's clear that his past record comes to mind in this situation," she said.
"But we're here talking no-confidence in him because of what's happened with the Spirits, because of his massive stuff up there."
What happens when the motion passes?
Mr Rockliff cleared up one of the last bits of uncertainty on Monday when he confirmed Mr Ferguson would move to the backbench if the motion passes, not carry on as a minister like Liberal frontbencher Eric Abetz had suggested on Sunday.
That's in keeping with convention that a minister or premier have to stand down when the majority of parliamentarians express they no longer have confidence in them continuing in their role.
No confidence motion against embattled Michael Ferguson likely
Photo shows Man speaking in front of microphones to a group of peopleMan speaking in front of microphones to a group of people
Independent MP David O'Byrne has said he will support a no-confidence motion against treasurer Michael Ferguson when parliament resumes on Tuesday.
The last successful no-confidence motion in Tasmania was in 1989 against Liberal premier Robin Gray, leading to his resignation, and Labor's Michael Field coming into power. Another was moved in Labor's Doug Lowe in 1981, and Liberal Harry Holgate in 1982.
They are not normally moved in a minister, meaning there's a lot of uncertainty about what will happen when the motion passes on Tuesday.
But Mr Rockliff will have one hell of a headache.
He will need a new deputy premier, and a treasurer to help get his budget through.
And he may need to reconsider whether he wants to keep playing political chicken going forward.
Contact ABC News /////////
HE SAID .... Michael entered political life determined to make a real difference and improve the lives of Tasmanians. His vision is “for Tasmanians to be the happiest people, enjoying the best quality of life in Australia”. Michael has committed his time in public life to local, state and Federal levels of government.
Michael grew up, studied and married in Northern Tasmania. He displayed a passion for community work and charitable causes. He achieved two degrees at UTAS, a Bachelor of Education and Bachelor of Applied Science, developed interests in youth work, radio and politics. He started his own business before working as a high school teacher in 1996.
Michael taught maths, science and IT at state secondary schools. His continued commitment to many community organisations led him to being named Tasmanian Young Australian of the Year for 2002 by the National Australia Day Committee. That year Michael was elected to the Meander Valley Council.
From 2004 to 2007 he served as Federal Member for Bass. In that role he worked on a number of parliamentary and policy committees, secured funding for health, road, infrastructure, education and improved shipping between Tasmania and the Bass Strait Islands. Michael served the Clifford Craig Foundation as CEO, advancing its mission for world class medical research and encouraging more staff specialists to work at the LGH.
In 2010 he was elected as a member of the Tasmanian Parliament and has been returned at each election since.
Michael currently serves the Tasmanian people as Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Infrastructure. Previous portfolios include Health, Finance, Local Government, Housing, State Growth, Small Business, Science & Technology, Police, Fire & Emergency Management, Transport, Planning and Leader of the House.
Michael strongly believes in the values of hard work, self-discipline and personal integrity all underpinned by his Christian faith. He is married to Julie and they have three adult children.
Ministerial Charter Letter
The Ministerial Charter Letter commits Ministers to upholding the highest of standards of public office and delivering every element of our 2030 Strong Plan for Tasmania’s Future. The Charter outlines the priorities of each Minister that will drive their actions and decisions.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)