After being overlooked consistently during recent federal elections, it was time Hobart and Clark received its fair share writes Hobart Lord Mayor Anna Reynolds.
The next time you're stuck in Hobart's traffic, take a moment to ask yourself—why does Tasmania’s capital and most populated city still lack efficient public transport, with light rail, buses, and ferries all integrated, despite years of discussion?
The answer: we’re on the losing end of a flawed political strategy.
As another federal election approaches, Hobart and the broader electorate of Clark once again find themselves on the wrong side of the funding equation. Billions of dollars in infrastructure projects, grants for local government, and election sweeteners are being showered across the country—particularly in marginal seats—while Hobart’s share remains conspicuously thin. Despite being Tasmania’s capital and a thriving hub for the state’s culture, economy, and tourism, Hobart continues to be overlooked when it comes to federal investment.
While Clark and Hobart have received funding for several state government-identified priorities, such as the fifth lane on the Southern Outlet and the Macquarie Point precinct, it’s clear that Hobart is still missing out on its fair share. Why is this happening? The answer lies in the relentless focus of both sides of politics on marginal seats.
Federal elections are won and lost in swing electorates, so major parties pour resources where they believe it will secure the most votes. Tasmania has a few marginal seats, but Hobart—sitting in the relatively safe electorate of Clark—doesn’t fit the profile of a "vote winner." Politicians know that pouring money into Hobart won’t shift the electoral needle like a well-timed infrastructure announcement in a marginal Victorian or Queensland seat might.
Despite promises by the Albanese Government to change the approach to federal grant funding, they too have faced criticism for ‘pork barrelling’. In 2024, an analysis of $1.35 billion in grants found that almost 90 per cent of the seats Labor held or gained at the election received a grant.
This approach to election spending turns funding into political leverage rather than a mechanism for well-planned and balanced national development. While Hobart grapples with challenges like infrastructure gaps, transport issues, and housing availability, marginal seats elsewhere are gifted with splashy road upgrades, additional sports facilities, and community hubs. This creates a structural inequity where funding is allocated based on political strategy rather than genuine need.
For example, both state and federal governments have allocated more than $70 million towards upgrades and new builds for aquatic centres and related infrastructure in Tasmania. However, the bulk of this investment has been directed toward northern electorates, leaving regions like Greater Hobart with fewer resources to address pressing pool infrastructure needs.
The Doone Kennedy Hobart Aquatic Centre roof is in urgent need of an upgrade, requiring federal funding.
Another example is the staggering shortage of 16 basketball courts in the Greater Hobart area compared to the greater number of facilities in the north-west, thanks to election-period funding that has addressed infrastructure gaps in that region.
Hobart’s status as a smaller capital city also works against it when it comes to investment in areas such as public transport. Federal governments tend to prioritise larger metropolitan centres like Sydney and Melbourne, arguing that their greater populations and economic activity justify greater investment. While that may make sense from a numbers perspective, it ignores the fact that smaller capitals like Hobart need a step change to become more sustainable cities with more transport options for growing communities. These investments—like a light rail for Hobart—need the weight of the federal budget to assist.
This is not just a theoretical problem—it has real consequences for Hobart’s residents. Public transport remains underdeveloped, and housing affordability is worsening, with limited federal support to address rising rents and a growing homelessness crisis. Sporting facilities struggle to secure upgrades or new builds to meet player demand, forcing, in some instances, local governments to carry the financial burden without adequate federal backing.
The City of Hobart has a number of key advocacy priorities that could help address some of these challenges. We’ve submitted several federal funding applications, including to unlock more housing in central Hobart through stormwater upgrades. We’ve also sought funding to design and plan a multi-purpose precinct at Halls Saddle—just outside the Wellington Park boundary and close to Hobart’s most visited natural asset, Kunanyi / Mount Wellington—which would integrate tourism and recreational opportunities. These projects have the potential to deliver long-term benefits for both the local community and Tasmania as a whole. We are waiting patiently for Clark to receive its fair share of federal funding programs.
The solution to this isn’t complicated—it simply requires political courage. First, federal funding allocation must be based on demographics and evidence-based need, not political convenience. Second, recognising the strategic importance of smaller capital cities like Hobart is essential.
Hobart’s funding shortfall isn’t the result of bad luck—it’s the product of a flawed political approach that rewards electoral volatility over genuine need. Until this pattern is broken, Hobart will remain stuck in a cycle of underfunding and missed opportunities.
Federal elections should be about securing the future of the whole nation—not just the swing seats that decide the outcome. It’s time for Hobart to receive the recognition—and the funding—it deserves. I urge our federal candidates for the electorate of Clark to commit to investing in Hobart’s future.
Anna Reynolds
Hobart Lord Mayor