UPDATED - Labor Vandalism, Wobble Boarding - The Too Hard Basket

This is a post where we will add questions that we have asked – of politicians, public figures, government agencies, councils, corporations, lobby groups, you name it – in the public interest, but have not received an answer after a reasonable length of time.

The questions will stay here until answered. Periodically, when we remember, we will follow up with those questioned. Any brushoffs will be quoted verbatim. If/when answered properly and to our satisfaction, the answer will be posted verbatim, and the completed question moved to the bottom of this page.

??? Ugly Monstrous Questions Still in the Basket ???

Labor Campaign Defacing Public Property

To: Tasmanian Labor Party secretariat, 17 June 2025

Questions:

1. Why is the Labor Party deliberately defacing public infrastructure?
2. Who made the decision to approve this?
3. What reparations will the Labor Party to the Hobart and Glenorchy councils to ensure that all are removed immediately?
4. What measures will the Labor Party put in place to ensure any future campaigns avoid defacing public property?

Response: Nil.

Note: We have observed an authorised Labor Party ‘TassieDoc’ flyer A5 in size on public light poles and other infrastructure around Hobart. A Liberal Party video shows young men affixing the flyers to poles and bus shelters in the city centre and Moonah, possibly filmed on Tuesday 15 July 2025. The flyers are self-adhesive and so have been clearly been designed for this purpose; flyers for letterboxing or general distribution would not need to be self-adhesive. We understand that the Hobart Council has written to the Labor Party in regard to the alleged vandalism of public property both during the affixing and in their removal.

Endangering Drivers Through Wobble Boarding

To: Miriam Beswick, Nationals MHA for Braddon, 17 June 2025; Rebekah Pentland, independent MHA for Bass, 2 July 2025; Peter George, independent candidate for Franklin 17 July 2025

Question: Given the following (below) from the Road Safety Council, why do you and your campaign believe it is appropriate to distract drivers in motion along a carriageway at a busy time of day?

Distraction is one of the Fatal Five contributing factors to serious and fatal crashes, and even brief lapses in attention can have consequences. We encourage all road users, including those on the roadside, to consider how their actions might impact driver focus.

Wobble boarding, or waving signs to attract attention, is common during election periods and is also used by some businesses. While these efforts aim to increase visibility, any distraction—however momentary—can reduce a driver’s ability to respond to what’s happening on the road.

Even in lower-speed areas, staying focused is key. We remind all drivers to keep their attention on the road and avoid being drawn to activity on the roadside.

If there are concerns about specific locations or practices, we encourage these to be raised with the relevant landowner or local authority.

Response: Beswick – nil. Pentland – nil.

Peter George: “Wobble boarding is not illegal, all parties engage in it. More distracting is the signage at the end of the Southern outlet – a busy, often congested intersection with traffic lights. I will respond with a more considered reply and /or seek a meeting with the Road Safety Council post election if desired. Campaign staff report the Road Safety Council has not been in touch with us regarding the Tasmanian Times report.”

Note: At odds with Peter George’s claim, Tasmanian Times has not received reports of ‘all parties’ engaging in wobble boarding in this campaign. There are no reports on the Labor, Liberal nor Shooters, Farmers & Fishers parties. The Greens posted on Instagram about wobble boarding but the accompanying video was on a suburban street with no traffic hence we have no evidence of them attempting to distract drivers.

Revenue Side Measures for the State Budget

To: Jeremy Rockliff, Premier (via media advisor), 7 June 2025

Question: For the record why will you not consider the revenue suggestions as put forward by Eslake? Are they not worthy of assessment in terms of their potential impact?

Response: Nil.

Note: The question was in response to a media release issued by the Premier earlier the same day. He said:

“Well-respected economist Saul Eslake has been undertaking work to identify strategic and reasonable divestment of some government-owned businesses to return to surplus sooner.
This followed the business community’s call for the Parliament to have a mature, sensible conversation about it.
…
The Government will also be implementing all of Mr Eslake’s recommendations from the Independent Review into the State’s Finances, except those that relate to introducing new or increased taxes and reducing infrastructure spending.”

Several observers including economists Eslake and Graeme Wells, TasCOSS, Standard & Poors and more have observed that cuts alone cannot right the budget and revenue growth is required. Tasmania is the state most reliant on GST; in other words, it generates proportionally the least revenue.

Our question therefore seeks to understand why this incarnation of the Tasmanian Government will not seek budget repair on both sides of the ledger.

Labor’s Backing for ‘Stadium Jobs’

To: Luke Edmunds, Labor MLC for Pembroke (via media advisor), [email protected], 26 February 2025

Question(s): The consultant’s report indicates that jobs during construction will peak at 400 with half of those being done by mainlanders.
Why does Labor continue to use the jobs excuse to support the stadium when that rationale doesn’t really stack up?
What assessment has Labor done of alternative uses for the amount of money required to build the stadium in terms of potential impact on employment?
Would more and better jobs be created by spending on other projects at Macquarie Point and beyond?

Response: Nil.

Note: Tasmanian Labor have at least five times included the following words in media releases: Labor supports a stadium because it will generate desperately needed jobs and secure the AFL and AFLW teams our state deserves.

Unemployment in Tasmania is at a historically low level of around 4%. There appears to be a shortage of skilled tradespersons, as noted by demographer Lisa Denny, rather than a lack of work for them.

Jacqui Lambie Network Board

To: JLN, [email protected], 9 April 2024

Question(s): Jacqui Lambie and (ex-JLN) Tammy Tyrrell have both referenced a JLN “board” a few times. Who is on this board? Are they elected by party members? If not, how are they chosen? What powers and responsibilities do they have?

Response: Nil.

Note: Given the obvious interest in the JLN after the 2024 state election where the party won seats in the Tasmanian House of Assembly for the first time, this question is very pertinent and requires a prompt answer.

Glynn Williams is known to be on the board. Giovanna Simpson was Secretary of the JLN. We understand that during the build-up to the election she signed a JLN candidate’s Candidate Agreement form, resigned as Secretary, and announced herself as a Liberal Party candidate for Braddon, all on the same day.

Update: Ian Basckin, according to his LinkedIn profile, is a JLN board member. We put to him similar questions by text message to his mobile on 13 April 2024.

Questions from Tasmanian Times for on-the-record answers:

Are you a current member of the JLN board? Who else is on this board? Are they elected by party members? If not, how are they chosen? What powers and responsibilities do they have? What is your role? Are you remunerated in any way for your work, if so by whom? How is the board accountable to the JLN Party members?

Response: Nil.