cristop

Maybe Acacia oshanesii

Probably Drosera glanduligera. If so, when it flowers you'll get a 1-4 many flowered scapes from each plant. Orange flowers.

If you tease open those buds you will see anthers & maybe pollen. So male. BTW: Plants don't have genders, they have sexes. 'Gender' is a term used in the humanities to avoid recognizing biological differences between men and women. We are still permitted to think of other organisms as having different sexes.

I make it A. leiocalyx too. The coiled pods help eliminate other similar species. The wider phyllodes would make it subsp. leiocalyx as opposed to subsp. herveyensis.

When the flowers have developed look for anthers or else styles

Plumosus nanus AKA Asparagus plumosus looks close

Some sort of Mentha. Maybe M. pulegium or M. aquatica. Neither of these is a perfect match though. Your specimen is set apart as its flowers have distinct pedicels.

Can't find any record of P. brachystachis in Australia. Try. Phalaris. minor, P. paradoxa & P. canariensis

The description of Lactuca serriola in Flora of the Perth Region describes it as "glabrous or basally setose" - i.e. bristly. To date L. virosa has only been recorded from MIldura, whereas L. serriola is found right across the continent. http://avh.ala.org.au/occurrences/search?taxa=Lactuca+virosa#tab_recordsView

Lactuca serriola.

All of the following is based on the assumption that it is Celastraceae. If you want to try your hand at a dichotomous key use this link: http://plantnet.rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au/cgi-bin/NSWfl.pl?page=nswfl&lvl=fm&name=CELASTRACEAE#3 In this key it looks like Maytenus is included under Denhamia. You'll need some good material to work with including some with fruits. You may also need a lens/microscope and ruler to measure the lengths of the styles, pedicels, petioles etc. There are only seven species of Denhamia in the key and you can knock out a few based on pedicel length (yours are several mms), leaf margins (yours are toothed), petioles (yours are a few mms) etc. Alternatively you could search through the records online here: http://avh.ala.org.au/occurrences/search?taxa=Celastraceae&q=+(state%3A"New+South+Wales"+OR+cl2117%3A"New+South+Wales") In this case I've just done a search for Celastraceae across all of NSW, assuming "temperate tablelands" is in NSW. You can reduce your search to a particular local government area or bioregion using the 'advance search' options. Note that Celastraceae or Denhamia goes in the box "taxon name" (not "text"). You'll have to wade through pages of specimens to come up with a short list of Celastraceae species. For some species the AVH has images in their database, but in most cases you'll need to find your images elsewhere online. If you can't find good matches between your specimens and images online or in the key then maybe it's not Celastraceae after all.

I tried the page Anodyne linked to but could not get to Acacia longifolia subsp. sophorae for some reason. Nevertheless if your Acacias conform with those two features I mentioned before, they have to be sophorae (or just possibly subsp. longifolia). Here are some images of some confirmed specimens - you can zoom right in on them. They look very much like the ones you photographed: http://avh.ala.org.au/occurrences/search?taxa=acacia+sophorae#tab_recordImages

Looks like Acacia longifolia subsp. sophorae though it's unusual for that to have phyllodes over 12cm long. Have a close look at the minor veins - they should be joining up quite a lot (anastomosing). Phyllode margins should not be resinous.

Then I can only speculate. Maybe A. implexa was planted there or maybe the third tree is a sport of A. melanoxylon. A. implexa doesn't usually flower this time of the year, but it can. If you are determined to get to the bottom of it you can collect flowers, phyllodes and pods from both types and take them to the Tasmanian Herbarium to compare with verified specimens housed there. If it's anything like WA there will be microscopes available for public use.

Given they're growing together they may both be A. melanoxylon, in which case there will be a bit of overlap between the features of either tree. Compare old phyllodes with old phyllodes, new with new etc. Are there some features that are consistently different between the two trees, e.g. no thinner acute phyllodes on the first specimen, no broad blunt ones on the second etc? If they are definitely different the second could be A. implexa, though this has not been collected from Hobart before.