What Happened to Hobart's Political Centre?

Elections are supposed to give communities the opportunity to judge performance, consider ideas and decide who should represent them.

Hobart's recent election has left me asking a rather different question.

What exactly are we rewarding?

After four years serving on council, participating in numerous committees, attending countless community functions, scrutinising finances and working to deliver practical improvements, I have been left questioning whether the traditional measures of public service carry much electoral value at all.

The election appeared to favour strong political identities, high public profiles and, in some cases, candidates associated with the more polarising debates of recent years.

But perhaps this is not entirely new.

Look back over Hobart's recent political history and an interesting pattern emerges.

Dr Peter Sexton, a respected medical professional and long-serving alderman, faced a difficult election in 2018 before ultimately choosing not to contest again in 2022.

Former Lord Mayor Damon Thomas, whose background included leadership within Tasmania's business community, lost the lord mayoralty in 2014 and ultimately his seat in 2022 when I was first elected.

Now I have lost my seat following four years advocating practical, financially responsible and economically sensible policies.

Edwin Johnstone, another candidate with a moderate, practical approach to local government, also failed to secure a seat in 2026.

Four different people, across different elections, from different professional backgrounds, but sharing an emphasis on business, moderation and practical governance.

It raises a question worth examining.

Is Hobart's political centre becoming increasingly difficult to sustain?

And if so, why?

Individual election results are influenced by many factors. Name recognition, campaign resources, preferences, public profile and changing community priorities all play their part.

But I wonder whether we are developing a political culture in which being measured is mistaken for being weak, while confrontation delivers visibility.

There is something troubling about that possibility.

Good government is rarely theatrical.

It involves reading lengthy reports, questioning financial assumptions, negotiating competing interests and making decisions that may not generate headlines but nevertheless improve people's lives.

It requires patience, diligence and a willingness to listen.

During my term, I worked on matters ranging from accessibility and youth services to financial discipline, small business support and the practical functioning of our city.

These were not always issues that attracted enormous public attention.

But they mattered.

And I know that similar commitments have motivated other elected representatives over many years.

Yet election campaigns often concentrate attention on conflict, personalities and highly visible arguments.

It is possible to dominate public debate without demonstrating equivalent commitment to the less glamorous responsibilities of office.

That raises another uncomfortable question.

Have we reached a point where being seen to fight carries greater electoral value than being seen to deliver?

There is also a distinction worth making between being pro-business and being pro-big-business.

Supporting investment does not mean abandoning scrutiny. Supporting economic growth does not require placing the interests of major commercial players ahead of small enterprises or community services.

Moderate leadership should be capable of supporting development while insisting on fairness, transparency and financial responsibility.

That middle ground is sometimes difficult to explain in a political environment increasingly dominated by competing camps.

Nuance does not fit comfortably on an election poster.

But it is essential when governing a city.

None of this means voters were wrong to make their choices. Democracy belongs to the electorate, and those elected are entitled to serve.

Nor does it mean every moderate candidate should automatically succeed.

However, if the repeated electoral difficulties of candidates associated with practical, moderate governance reflect a wider trend, that trend deserves scrutiny.

Because council is not merely a debating chamber.

It is responsible for substantial public assets, essential services, planning decisions and financial obligations that affect every household and business.

Those responsibilities require more than political conviction.

They require judgement, financial understanding and the ability to balance competing interests.

I accept the result of the election, although I make no secret of my disappointment.

But I am more concerned about the longer-term implications.

If large volumes of committee work, community participation and demonstrated achievements do not translate into electoral recognition, what incentives are we creating for future representatives?

And if moderation continues to struggle for political space, who will occupy the ground between those with the loudest voices and the strongest interests?

The real question is not simply who Hobart elects. It is what kind of leadership our electoral culture encourages.

That is a conversation worth having long after the votes have been counted.