Throughout the decades, Tasmania has witnessed a rapid expansion of trucking logistics and road-based transport while rail lines have witnessed decline, from freight to passengers, with the program kept on “life support” as implied by Kevin Brown and the HNSRAG advocacy group. In parallel, Tasmania’s road logistics and passenger transport has become more concentrated. Since the 1990s, the decline in rail freight has resulted in the equivalent of over 2,000 additional trucks on Tasmanian roads every week, and the rise of multinational bus company Kinetic potentially eyeing off a Metro GBE sale and establishing itself as a monopoly in Tasmania.

Today in a TDMG exclusive, we explore the derailing of Tasmania’s rail industry, Tasmania’s obsession with concrete, the rise of road-based monopolies and how corporate interests might have influenced public policy (or not).

The Historical Decline of Rail & Public Transport

But to understand more about how this all came to be, why we spend so much on infrastructure we probably need some context.

In the 1960s, Tasmania’s public transport landscape was diverse, featuring rail, trams, ferries, buses, and private car travel. Over the ensuing decades, a combination of road infrastructure reform and the growing affordability of car ownership led to the gradual decline of trams, ferry services, and eventually passenger rail. Tasmania’s last regular passenger train service ended on July 18, 1978. Ferries saw a resurgence after the Tasman Bridge disaster of 1975 but would not see a revival until the 2010s.

In the decades that followed, public transport services were delivered primarily by the state-administered Metropolitan Transport Trust (MTT) and a patchwork of private bus operators. Responding to evolving governance models, the Rundle State Liberal Government passed the Metro Tasmania Act 1997, corporatising the state’s transport services under a new government business enterprise (GBE), Metro Tasmania Pty Ltd. For Tassie transport things remained relatively stable for a time.

The Rise of Roads & The Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme (TFES)

However, it wasn't just public transport shaping our roads, with the most significant effects felt in logistics and freight. The Freight Equalisation Scheme (TFES), announced by Labor Prime Minister Gough Whitlam in 1976, was designed to counterbalance the inherent disadvantage Tasmania faces when shipping goods to mainland Australia. The scheme offers financial support to eligible shippers for non-bulk, intrastate-produced goods transported between Tasmania and the mainland.

The scheme (on paper) applies to freight transported by both road and rail (as long as it eventually crossed Bass Strait). However, due to the Tasmanian rail network not having a direct sea link, the costs of intermodal transfer made rail non-viable. The lack of rail investment to counteract this discrepancy resulted in disproportionate funding towards road freight, with trucks dominating the TFES claim pool, with rail operators struggling to make their service price competitive. This obstruction in rail operations saw the rapid rise of road transport companies and multinationals quick to invest in the state, and by 2005 saw only 10% of Tasmania’s freight carried by rail, half the capacity from the previous decade (Dept. of Infrastructure, 2007).

Now into the 21st century, the state has witnessed multinational trucking giants and Australian businesses such as TOLL, SRT and Searoad logistics establish a concentrated market through the main freight corridors in Tasmania, while the more regional routes remain quite competitive. Current infrastructure investments under the Liberal’s 2030 strong plan sees the state investing $30 billion over the next decade, primarily focused on the Bass Highway, Bridgewater Bridge and midlands highway…all three of these area’s critical chokepoints in road logistics due to outdated infrastructure and wear and tear trucks caused on the roads.

It’s observed that heavy vehicles cause significantly more road wear than passenger cars. As highlighted by The Australia Institute, “when you double the weight of a vehicle, the amount of damage it does to the road increases by 16 times” (Richard Denniss, 2020), So for a fully weighed single trailer log truck at 44 tones (8-10 tones per axel), the damage caused is equivalent to 10,000-20,000 relative road damage of a car.

While exact figures vary, reports such as the 2013 Freight Logistics Coordination Team (FLCT) Final Report imply that the decline of freight rail in Tasmania has led to a significant increase in truck traffic—potentially 2,000 to 3,000 additional truck movements per week. If accurate, this would translate to Tasmania’s road network absorbing the equivalent road wear of over 1.3 billion car trips annually—a public cost largely borne by taxpayers, not the trucking sector itself.

the state’s transport system has steadily shifted from rail to road. This change cannot be attributed solely to infrastructure wear or market dynamics. Underneath, there are potential political influences and vested interests that have played a substantial role in steering the direction of Tasmania’s transport future.

The Expansion of Kinetic & the Public Transport Monopoly Risk

This is particularly visible in the swift consolidation of the public transport sector, notably through the growing presence of multinational companies like Kinetic Group.

In 2022, Kinetic entered the Tasmanian market by acquiring Redline Coaches, one of the state’s largest private operators. Within months, they expanded their portfolio to include other regional and contracted service providers.

This placed Kinetic in control of a significant portion of non-Metro public transport, with Tasmania becoming one of the most concentrated transport markets in the nation. More broadly Kinetic operates 1/3rd of Melbourne’s bus network and 40% of bus operations in Queensland. Kinetic’s services include school runs, rural connections, and charter services across Tasmania.

Political Access, Donations and Key Links

During the period of 2020-2022, Kinetic TCO made political donations totaling $25,000 to the Tasmanian Liberal Party (AEC, 2021). The company also reported contributions of over $100,000 to state branches of the Labor Party and interest groups across Australia, although donation amounts specific to Tasmanian Labor were not disclosed. Political donations in 2021-2022 align with Kinetic having taken over routes in Melbourne from Transdev in January 2022. The company has been awarded new Zero Emission Bus (ZEB) franchises, including routes previously operated by Dysons, as part of Victoria’s initiative to transition to zero-emission public transport. Contracts and purchases made after donations to the Victorian Labor Government were processed.

The acquisitions made by Kinetic in Tasmania were likely subject to standard review processes, including consideration by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC). While the ACCC has the power to assess mergers that may substantially lessen competition, there is no publicly available record indicating that it imposed formal restrictions on Kinetic’s ability to acquire further private operators within the state. Notably, these reviews might not have covered acquisitions involving government business enterprises such as Metro Tasmania, which could remain open to future interest.

In 2024, public ministerial diaries recorded a meeting between Kinetic representatives and Transport Minister Eric Abetz, regarding regional service delivery in Burnie, however, we don’t know any more details or what happened in the meeting. These events had come to light during a time when Tasmania’s passenger and freight rail debate has been at it’s quietest.

Despite efforts from the Greens, Independent Kristie Johnston and Labor members, the movement failed to sustain significant momentum. During the construction of the New Bridgewater Bridge and early development of the Macquarie point stadium site (2017-2025), the northern suburbs rail corridor was partially dismantled. Transport Minister Eric Abetz and his predecessor, Michael Ferguson, publicly argued during this period that a BRT (Bus Rapid Transport) was the more “economical and flexible” option, with rail “implausible” due to track deterioration.

These were statements that were only made after Kinetic donated to the Liberals and after it’s local operations were established. The Tasmanian Greens also accused the Liberals of repeatedly saying “maybe rail,” then quietly dismantling the rail lines, however this occurred before Kinetic's entry into the Tasmanian Market. A previous state-funded report from pre-Covid estimates the construction cost of Hobart’s rapid bus transit system at $445 million, compared to $596 million for light rail, however specifics of the proposal were not released.

The Liberals did not provide (or accepted a public inquiry) as partial corridor demolition progressed during this period. The Liberals eventually justified their stance against rail, with them determining the costs outweigh the benefits, with 1km of rail costing $70m compared to a fully fledged bus way at an estimated $115m total (The Inquirer, 2021). Strategic advocacy by the Greens, HNSRAG, and some council voices were stonewalled, with no public inquiry or feasibility analysis shared.

In a statement released last year, HNSRAG President Toby Rowallan to the Tasmanian Times stated “[The Liberals] have no business case for the busway and they have no true cost for it. They deliberately inflated the cost of rail in their reports and then the Premier deliberately inflated them even further with false comparisons in Parliament.”

In addition, the Liberals have not confirmed if said busway would be public or private, leaving open questions if Kinetic Group Is awarded the project or participates in joint funding with the state government.

The Liberal’s Privatisation Plans & Metro’s Future

In May 2025, the Rockliff Liberal Government announced proposed plans to privatise government enterprises, with Metro being a potential candidate up for grabs. A 2025 review of Tasmania’s government business enterprises, led by economist Saul Eslake, assessed 16 public assets. While six (including TasRail) were recommended to remain in public hands, Metro was not explicitly included in that group.

Eslake later cautioned that the state’s financial challenges would not be resolved by asset sales alone, framing his advice as pragmatic rather than ideological. Although the Rockliff Government has since stepped back from its privatisation agenda, opposition parties have kept the issue alive. The Labor Party has made protecting public ownership of Metro a campaign focus in the lead-up to the 2025 Tasmanian State Election.

While it’s not explicitly known which operator would purchase the metro if set for auction. The recent pattern of events and current position of Kinetic implies potential for it to expand further without restrictions from the ACCC. The act of privatisation from the Liberals could have the potential to form a monopoly in the Tasmanian transport sector, with an overwhelming majority of rural and suburban routes already owned or contracted by the state government to Kinetic. The move would have handed over a public enterprise to a private multinational however there are arguments for and against this. From the private sector, and more liberal economists such as Sinclair Davidson (RMIT University), They could argue Kinetic could centralise scheduling, procurement and fleet management.

In addition to modern tech and fleet upgrades it could improve public transport efficiency, something which Metro Tasmania has had challenges with. The move could also offload government long term maintenance costs, with Metro historically running at deficits and costing the government to run it. Lastly, as a multinational, Kinetic offers internal promotions, broader training pathways and inter-state mobility for employees with the potential for it to provide more robust employment opportunities.

However, the acquisition would establish the multinational as a total monopoly in Tasmania’s transport sector. Labor’s Meg Brown and the Labor party strongly oppose privatization, stating ““We will see fares go up, routes cut and our regional communities left without reliable transport options.” (Meg Brown, March 19, 2025). Local bus operators could lose market competitiveness and the government loses policy leverage over it.

This means it could threaten to cut services unless subsidized or contracts are raised. Labor has campaigned for the existence of Metro to service public mobility, even on unprofitable routes like rural and night trips. As a monopoly, Kinetic could trim or neglect those, unless forced to operate them by the state government. If Metro was sold to Kinetic (or another potential buyer) the state could pay subsidies to a private monopoly otherwise it’s services would see significant price rises as seen in the mainland transport sector. 

Corporate Players and Liberal Links? 

Despite all of this, it’s not just the Transport sector but also logistics which might have had an influence in infrastructure spending and the decline of rail. Interestingly the Liberal Party is connected with the logistics industry. Liberal candidate for Franklin Natasah Miller was former family owner of SRT logistics for 25 years (1997-2022), with the rest of the Miller family connections currently unknown. Google Australia, who has investments in technology and logistics systems space donated $22,000 to the Tasmanian Liberal Party in the 2021–22 financial year. This donation marked the first instance of Google Australia contributing an amount exceeding the disclosure threshold to any branch of the Liberal Party. Prior to this, Google's political donations in Australia had primarily been directed toward the Labor Party's federal branch. The last publicly known link is through the Behrakis family’s business “Salamanca Fresh”, In early February 2018, the company donated $15,000 to the party. Behrakis Group (owner of Salamanca Fresh) owns many intercity logistics businesses such as Boomerang Transportation pty ltd and SHV wholefoods. 

Going through the 2024-2025 ministerial diary records, one of Tasmania’s richest men Robert Rockefeller (yes a relative of the American Rockefeller dynasty) or his business representative met with Liberal minister Eric Abetz, representing Nekon Pty Ltd. While there is no public record of donations or collusion, these meetings demonstrate clear access at a time when key property, infrastructure or freight issues were under discussion. Rockefeller has close ties to the “Confederation of Greater Hobart Businesses” (CGHB) which contains numerous Liberal party members and candidates, most prominently LPA candidate and confederation Chair Edwin Johnstone and independent Liberal councilor Louise Bloomfield (connected through Bloomfield & Associates).

A 2014 public document from Nekon regarding the Tasmanian freight and rail industry. Rockefeller critiques the public sector's inefficiencies and suggests that private sector involvement could address these issues. While he doesn't explicitly oppose rail, his emphasis on private sector solutions implies a preference for road-based transit:

This aligns with the notion that Rockefeller's perspectives may influence CGHB's (and potentially his own) passive support for road-based transit over rail.

Rockefeller's critique of public sector inefficiencies mirrors rhetoric often used to justify privatization, a stance commonly associated with Liberal economic policies:

This statement reflects a viewpoint that aligns with arguments for privatization, suggesting that public sector entities are less efficient and that private sector involvement could lead to better outcomes.

Labor’s Ties: Industry Influence, Donations & Union Tensions

While Liberal-linked corporate donors are often the focus, Labor’s connections to road-based infrastructure run deep — through unions, contractors, and political alliances that also shape state policy.

Unions like the Transport Workers’ Union (TWU) and the Rail, Tram and Bus Union (RTBU) remain influential voices within the ALP, advocating for jobs, wages, and service protections. But their influence often comes with strategic trade-offs. While RTBU supports public rail investment, it holds far less sway in Tasmania, where active rail operations are virtually non-existent.

In contrast, the TWU — which represents thousands of truck and bus drivers — actively promotes road-based transport and receives government support for training, safety, and lobbying.

Then there’s the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU). A political powerhouse in Labor circles. The CFMEU directly benefits from large-scale construction: roads, bridges, stadiums, and public infrastructure. The more concrete poured, the more jobs created even if that means road projects get prioritised over rail.

While this dynamic is more visible in mainland Labor governments, where CFMEU-linked firms have secured billions in contracts, the same job-creation logic applies in Tasmania, especially as both major parties now compete on infrastructure stimulus and trade training programs.

While the Liberals aggressively court blue-collar support through their infrastructure-heavy 2030 Strong Plan, Labor hasn’t exactly taken a different path. Despite being out of government since 2010, Labor remains closely tied to unions and continues to champion road projects over meaningful rail reinvestment.

A State Trapped Under Concrete

With so much focus on infrastructure, could the state become trapped under its own concrete? Doing some research on Tasmanian infrastructure highlighted that, based on the total estimated capital expenditure between 2000 and 2025, the state has likely spent between $15-20 billion on infrastructure. While this might be surprising for some, it becomes even more striking when factoring in the total population growth of roughly 15.2% during this 25 year period, amounting to just around 77,513 new people (Population Australia, 2025).

Large infrastructure expansion, as we've seen in Tasmania, is usually justified when population growth per annum is around 2%, with the 0.5-1% range generally being targeted for selective growth in hotspot areas.

However, Tasmania's annual growth between 2000 to 2025 has only been 0.8% per year on average between 1998 to 2024 (ABS, 2024). If we look at infrastructure dollars per person we see that for every new person born (or arriving) in the state amounts to anywhere between $150-201k, double the national average. But the biggest winners were in the NT within the last 25 years, with infrastructure dollars per person equating to around $446,429. However despite this the Liberal government would argue it's position on state equity (“getting our fair share”), infrastructure replacement and job creation, providing the skills for the next generation.

However there are risks to this, especially for Tasmania. There is strong potential for infrastructure projects to have been politically motivated rather than economically justified. Population and demand growth are low for the need for major builds (including the proposed stadium thrown in). Even if accounting for infrastructure replacements like the Bridgewater Bridge, the risk of overbuilding and inefficient spending could be a concern for Tasmania.

In a report commissioned by Saul Eslake, Tasmania’s net debt could rise to over $16 billion by the 2034-35 financial year, equating to more than 25% of the state’s gross product. Eslake warned that such an outcome would "likely result in a downgrade of Tasmania’s credit rating" (Saul Eslake, 2024), He emphasized the need for infrastructure projects to be prioritized based on their social and economic benefits, suggesting that such analyses should guide decision-making.

Tasmania is spending more on infrastructure relative to the size of its economy than any other state or territory. To put this into perspective In the 2023–24 financial year, Tasmania's Gross State Product (GSP) was estimated at approximately $40.62 billion. The 2024–25 Tasmanian Budget allocated over $5.1 billion to infrastructure investment over the Budget and Forward Estimates period.

While ~3.14% of GSP on infrastructure annually might sound small in raw terms, for a small state it's not normal. Bigger states like NSW and Queensland can justify higher percentages because they’re dealing with booming populations, sprawling urban growth, and massive freight demands. Tasmania? None of that. It’s a small, slow-growing economy throwing a hefty chunk of its output into infrastructure that far outpaces what its real needs would suggest.

Why Is Tasmania Obsessed With Concrete?

Tasmania’s persistent prioritisation of road infrastructure isn’t just about transport—it’s about politics, public perception, and entrenched spending habits that have created a costly and self-reinforcing cycle. But why are we spending so much on infrastructure?

Political Visibility and Popularity: Politicians often treat roads and bridges as the go-to infrastructure solution because they are highly visible and directly impact voters’ daily lives. Issues like potholes, traffic congestion, and failing bridges demand urgent attention and deliver quick political wins. In contrast, less visible investments, such as rail, struggle to capture public or political attention.

Infrastructure Spending as Political Currency: Over the past two and a half decades, Tasmania has invested an estimated $15–20 billion in infrastructure. This spending far exceeds population growth, raising questions about efficiency and sustainability. The focus on road projects is tied to political strategies aimed at showcasing progress, generating jobs, and appealing to tradespeople and regional voters. The Liberal government argues that investment in key points such as the Bridgewater bridge alleviate congestion but most importantly provides employment and skills which can then be applied in other industries.

Entrenched Dependency and Infrastructure Inertia: Tasmania’s extensive road network now underpins its logistics, commuting, and emergency services. This creates a heavy dependence that makes shifting away from road investments both politically and economically challenging. Decades of prioritizing roads have locked the state into a cycle of continued road funding and upgrades.

Jobs and Labour Politics: Road transport industries employ significantly more Tasmanians than alternatives like rail. Politicians are cautious about large-scale changes that might threaten these jobs. Infrastructure projects focusing on roads and related construction also deliver immediate employment, making them politically attractive and reinforcing existing patterns.

What We Know — And What We Don’t

For public transport, While there’s no public record that Kinetic has bid for Metro or a busway. Despite this, the combination of their meetings with ministers, corporate donations to the Liberals,  ACCC-monitored expansion, proposed privatization of GBEs, advocacy from both the Liberals and associated groups (such as CGHB) for a Busway logically suggests an interest through circumstantial evidence. Tasmania is now one of Kinetic’s most consolidated state-level operations and the speed at which this has occurred (3 years) coinciding with the previously mentioned events raises serious questions for the industry and the government.

As for the logistics and freight industry, we know that there are select members of the Liberal party who either owned or formally owned related businesses. Businesses such as Nekon pty ltd, Miller Grove pty ltd and the Tasmanian Transport Association have had meetings with Minister Abetz, Ferguson or Vicent but there is no evidence which suggests collusion, although the environment for which it can occur is present. Without greater reform to Tasmania’s political donation laws, and publicly listed information this sector will remain quite firmly in the shadows for the foreseeable future.

What’s at Stake?

So what does this all imply? The lack of transparency (no Peter Gutwein-style funding breakdowns, no competitive bidding process) suggests the potential for politically driven developments. In terms of public transport, Given Kinetic’s rapid expansion and timing of political donations, it also raises the question: Did profitable road/bus investments get quietly orchestrated behind the scenes?

The answer to all this is no one really knows, the railway is still abandoned…metro is still owned by the government and any evidence to outright confirm or deny all this is still at large, behind Tasmania’s lack of political donation and disclosure laws and more generally a lack of new information. While transparency reforms were scheduled for July 1st of this year, they were cancelled at the last minute by the Integrity Commission, the motives behind this have not been disclosed by the public. Liberal Premier Jeremy Rockliff also states he is unsure why the commission has taken that action.

All of this leaves more questions than answers about the Tasmanian Government’s expansive and expensive road infrastructure spend topping $5.1 billion, and the potential for more diverse and more equally distributed alternative investments into rail. The government’s engagement, lack of disclosure (or discussion) regarding the fate of Hobart’s light rail, and “anti rail rhetoric” alleged by the HNSRAG, the sequence of connected events, donations, meetings within a short time period raises questions about government integrity, and the public’s interest to know what’s really happening in the shadows and if political and/or corporate interests are shaping the future of the state for the worst.

Disclaimer Statement: 

The article does not make any allegations of wrongdoing by Kinetic Group, the Liberal Party of Australia (Tasmania Division), Australian Labor Party (Tasmanian Branch), any logistics companies and/or any individuals mentioned, but simply highlights the timeline of events that have occurred. It presents a timeline of verified events, including policy shifts, acquisitions, political donations, and public decision-making processes, which are already on the public record, published websites or social media accounts. The intent is to examine how private and political interests can intersect in ways that shape public outcomes and to invite a transparent, informed discussion about Tasmania’s transport future.

In case of website takedowns, offloaded files we have downloaded all our research material which is accessible via a public google drive folder. Any party wishing to provide clarification, a response, or additional context is welcome to do so via our editorial office or media contact.

Closing Statement

This article took considerable amount of time to research, compose and edit, if you’d like to help our mission by providing alternative and relevant news consider subscribing to our mailing list, share our content with a friend or consider donating to help keep our platform alive and free for everyone.

#auspol #politics #australia #news #tasmania #infrastructure #politas #economics #transportation #logistics

• Wikipedia Contributors. (2025, June 16). Kinetic Group. Wikipedia; Wikimedia Foundation.
  

• KINETIC TCO PTY LTD - ABN 20601251067 - ACN 601251067 - Business Profile / Credit Report. (2021). CreditorWatch. https://creditorwatch.com.au/credit/profile/20601251067/AATS-TCO-PTY-LTD

  
  

• Donor Return - AEC - Transparency Website. (2020). Aec.gov.au. https://transparency.aec.gov.au/AnnualDonor/ReturnDetail?returnId=53961

  ‌

• NEKON PTY. LTD. Company Profile | HOBART, TASMANIA, Australia | Competitors, Financials & Contacts - Dun & Bradstreet. (2025). Dnb.com. https://www.dnb.com/business-directory/company-profiles.nekon_pty_ltd.9ea2407e8c78edfcf9f63031f8cb27c6.html

  
  

• ROADWAYS Tasmania Home. (2025). ROADWAYS Tasmania - Quality Road Solutions. https://www.roadways.com.au/

  
  

• Walkden, L. (2025). Les Walkden Enterprises Pty. Ltd. - Freight & Transport Company 325 Hobart Rd, Youngtown TAS 7249 | Yellow Pages®. Yellowpages.com.au. https://www.yellowpages.com.au/tas/youngtown/les-walkden-enterprises-pty-ltd-12747157-listing.html

  
  

• Department of Premier and Cabinet. (2025). Tas.gov.au.

  https://www.dpac.tas.gov.au/rti/MPS_routine_disclosure_log/documents/Abetz,-Eric-1-Oct-to-31-Dec-24.pdf

  
  

• Department of Premier and Cabinet. (2025). Tas.gov.au. https://www.dpac.tas.gov.au/rti/MPS_routine_disclosure_log

  
  

• Will Tasmanians get to see who government ministers really meet? | Tasmanian Inquirer. Tasmanian Inquirer. https://tasmanianinquirer.com.au/news/will-tasmanians-get-to-see-who-government-ministers-really-meet/

  
  

• BOOMERANG TRANSPORT PTY LTD Company Profile | NORTH HOBART, TASMANIA, Australia | Competitors, Financials & Contacts - Dun & Bradstreet. (2025). Dnb.com. https://www.dnb.com/business-directory/company-profiles.boomerang_transport_pty_ltd.978e88fc89ca90b5b0690ae02dc4fe70.html

  
  

• Overview — SRT Logistics. (2025). SRT Logistics. SRT Logistics. https://www.srtlogistics.com.au/srt-about-us

  
  

• https://www.facebook.com/Tasmanian-Inquirer-215161542624270. (2024). Comment: Tasmanian Liberal government blocks journalists from media conferences | Tasmanian Inquirer. Tasmanian Inquirer. https://tasmanianinquirer.com.au/news/comment-tasmanian-liberal-government-blocks-journalists-from-media-conferences/

  
  

• Wikipedia Contributors. (2024, August 5). Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme. Wikipedia; Wikimedia Foundation.

  
  

• Brown, K. (2020, December 16). Tasmania’s Rail Network: Much Opportunity, Many Problems - Tasmanian Times. Tasmanian Times. https://tasmaniantimes.com/2020/12/tasmanias-rail-network-much-opportunity-many-problems

  
  

• Times, T. (2024, May). HNSRAG: Liberal Minority Govt Has No Mandate For Busway - Tasmanian Times. Tasmanian Times. https://tasmaniantimes.com/2024/05/hnsrag-liberal-minority-govt-has-no-mandate-for-busway

  
  

• Holmes, A. (2025, April 15). Tasmania to seek federal funds for “rapid bus” line, which could form part of stadium transport planning. Abc.net.au; ABC News. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-04-15/tas-hobart-rapid-bus-transport-funding-pitch/105176958

  
  

• Pulse Tasmania. (2024, July 15). Buses vs light rail: Future of northern suburbs transit line hinges on business case. Pulse Tasmania. https://pulsetasmania.com.au/news/buses-vs-light-rail-future-of-northern-suburbs-transit-line-hinges-on-business-case/

  
  

• Hobart Transport Strategy 2024 Delivering transport choice for Hobart. (2024). https://www.hobartcity.com.au/files/assets/public/v/1/council/strategies-and-plans/transport-strategy/hobart-transport-strategy-2024.pdf

  
  

• Keeping Hobart Moving. (2024). Tas.gov.au. https://www.keepinghobartmoving.tas.gov.au/the_plan

  
  

• Population of Tasmania 2025 | Population Australia. (2025). Population.net.au. https://www.population.net.au/population-of-tasmania

  
  

• Kimberley, R. (2025, May 31). Tasmanian Government Privatisation Assessment – “Stage One” Report. Saul Eslake | Economist. https://www.sauleslake.info/tasmanian-government-privatisation-assessment-stage-one-report/

  
  

• Duggan, J. (2025, June 25). Tasmanian debt to be $3 billion worse than Liberal government’s projection, Treasury PEFO finds. Abc.net.au; ABC News. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-06-25/state-budget-pefo-treasury-debt-3billion-worse/105459198