Ms BURNET (Clark) – Deputy Speaker, it is a huge responsibility to deliver a budget for a government. Tonight, I wish to use this budget reply to paint a picture of what this budget lacks, point to missed opportunities and elaborate on what a budget should provide and for whom. I’d like to acknowledge the contributions of many in this Chamber over the last couple of days who have spoken out for the welfare of their community and their environment.
The role of government is to spend public monies wisely. It is to serve the community’s interests. It is not to pander to vested interests, such as big salmon. It is to have the vision, and insight, to invest wisely for all of us to prosper, not at the expense of the environment, nor of deserving and needing Tasmanians, like children catching buses to get to schools which aren’t running.
It is a chance to see where mistakes may have been made and correct the course, but it’s hard to see where this government learns from its mistakes. This is a budget that prioritises a Macquarie Point stadium over delivering much‑needed services and infrastructure that should be prioritised for the benefit of all Tasmanians.
The Treasurer has had time to change course from the disaster of the May budget that was not delivered, but leading commentators say that there has been no budget repair in this interim budget after the previous Treasurer failed to deliver for Tasmanians. Deloitte Access Economics’ Cedric Hodges said Tasmania’s increases in debt needed to be arrested soon. I quote:
As that debt accumulates, so do the interest payments, and the interest payments are money that we spend every year that don’t create a single job, and they don’t provide a single hospital bed. They don’t educate a single Tasmanian.
Economist Saul Eslake, whose advice the government apparently loves to ignore, says:
I think they’ve missed an opportunity to make an early start on doing things they’re going to have to do eventually in order to put the budget on a more sustainable footing.
Tasmania’s economic position, according to Mr Eslake, was the worst of any state or territory when two key budget measures were looked at. Mr Eslake said the debt was larger, as a percentage of its gross state product, than that of any other jurisdiction. That’s debt carried by the GBEs, such as Hydro Tasmania, TasNetworks, and TT‑Line, of which we’ve heard a lot.
I reference the Auditor‑General’s report as well with that claim of likely insolvency, and Tasmania’s unfunded superannuation liability. These are projected to rise from $22.8 billion this financial year to $28.5 billion in 2028-29. He also points out that returns to government through GBE profits, at least in the near term, are going to be smaller than foreshadowed in previous budgets. This is very worrying indeed. It should not be brushed off as of little or no concern, as the Treasurer and the Premier would have you believe.
It is telling to listen carefully to a budget speech and to listen out for those hidden details, rather than what the Treasurer wants us to hear. The Treasurer’s Budget Speech was a bravado performance which might have convinced the casual listener that the Tasmanian economy is pure symphony. The spotlight now needs to be on those notes he did not play.
The Treasurer may speak aspirationally of an $8 billion surplus in forward Estimates, but it skips over the millions of dollars of cuts to vital community and public services. How will that gap be filled?
There are a number of concerns the Greens have raised about the likely drain the Macquarie Point stadium will be on Tasmanians across generations to service unwanted debt, but what of capital spending, Treasurer? How do you intend to rein that in?
When defending the massive expenditure and debt that the Macquarie Point stadium will inevitably incur, the Treasurer continually suggests, rather patronisingly I might add, that operational and capital expenditure are not connected. They are two different pots of money with no relation to each other. They seem like endless pots of gold for the Treasurer ‑ but try telling that to 2800 workers whose public service positions are marked for cuts, almost 10 per cent of the public sector .Tell that to the unions, and those workers who went out rallying right across the state, and those who represent our public sector workers.
The Treasurer may speak of natural attrition that will reduce public servants, but he fails to reveal the calculation of just how that might occur. It is a modest operational surplus that the Treasurer aspires to in 2028‑29 through the EPU efficiencies and cuts to Tasmanians in public service jobs. Does he realise that Tasmania’s needs are greater than other jurisdictions when it comes to the public sector to population ratio, with a very dispersed population and higher reliance on social service and welfare payments? Our community needs a functioning public sector amid our food shortages, and we know that uni students at UTAS at Sandy Bay are finding it very difficult, as are many pensioners and people who we speak to in our electorate offices.
There are others who are working two jobs to pay for power bills and stretch their food and make ends meet. This is a biting cost of living. Housing and transport stress is occurring from unfortunately poor population and regional planning. It has a long‑term outcome, and it’s a poor outcome for our state. 2800 public sector workers’ jobs are a lot to shed, and vacancy control is a false economy, let me tell you. I’ll paint you a picture of how it works on the ground, and this can play out in many public sector organisations going through the pain of vacancy control, which ultimately leads to job cuts. I’ll paint you a picture of what I faced as a manager in the Health Department.
I had a small team of health professionals and there were vacancy controls, so we couldn’t fill vacancies in frontline positions, but also support positions. What that means in day-to-day activities is that those patients who can’t be seen will ultimately gain more problems. In this case, it might be foot ulcers, it might be complications associated with diabetes. When they can’t get seen by an outpatient podiatrist, they may need to go to the Emergency Department, or go and seek their general practitioner or a nurse practitioner to help stave the gap before they can have further treatment. In the worst case scenario, there can be surgical interventions, such as amputations, so this is pretty serious to people’s health and wellbeing.
For staff who are there, it takes longer for those patients to be seen because their complications and comorbidities become greater and it’s much more difficult in the long term. By stopping positions being filled, you have knock-on effects, and you have knock-on effects for staff because you have burnout for staff ‑ this is what the unions have been telling us ‑ you have burnout for managers. It’s a farce. It’s just a waste of time to always go to HR for finding out whether you can get through vacancy control. It is a false economy, and it is not serving Tasmanians well.
This is a similar story we’re hearing again in our offices from many employees across government agencies. Jobs aren’t being filled, managers are juggling staff, and there is often burnout and work stress. That’s not a way to treat public servants. It has knock‑on effects for private sector as well, certainly in the case of podiatrists, because it’s very hard to get podiatrists to come down to work in Tasmania.
Not only are there concerns about the impact on public sector workers, but there are also concerns of the lack of prioritisation the government seems to bring to their infrastructure projects
We have six months before the next budget, Treasurer, and I request that the multi‑partisan budget panel consider a list of the major infrastructure projects and hear the government’s plan to either deliver or shelve them, and over what timeframe they are to be considered. That way the panel can understand – and Mr Bayley talked about the benefits of the panel: fiscal literacy and an improved knowledge of how the government works. Having a chance to look at those governments infrastructure priorities would be of benefit for that for that panel to hear. I ask the Treasurer if he would take this request on notice. There is much work to be done to repair the austerity that will not improve without our interventions, such as using taxes wisely, including royalties on salmon companies.
The Greens have an enduring place in this parliament, as part of Tasmania’s history and of the Tasmanian landscape. We are here to continue to remind and encourage the government that there are always way to be kind, compassionate and fair.
As a state, we should be working towards better state of the environment outcomes. Better strategic planning upfront, which we’re sadly lacking; smarter transport outcomes rather than urban growth pushing into valuable agricultural land or land that has important ecological values.
One of the key recommendations from the State of the Environment Report was to review Tasmania’s resource management and planning system, to ensure they are contemporary, effective, and aligns with the UN’s Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Global Biodiversity Framework. The commission recommended a review of the Land Use and Planning Approvals, Environmental Management and Pollution Control and the State Policies and Projects acts. We could be heading into an era where our planning system helps us to protect and preserve the environment and critical biodiversity; provide much needed housing and transport solutions; and create liveable, vibrant communities. Instead, with this budget, the Treasurer is simply ushering us into the era of stadium austerity.
When we talk transport services, which is one of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases, this presents an easy win for remediation. The State of the Environment recommendation 15, is about air quality monitoring and emissions reduction across all sectors. This recommendation discusses the government’s existing emissions reductions and resilience plans, including transport. Given the budget for the climate change output is reducing from $9 million this year, to two $2 million a year over the forward Estimates: how is the government going to implement meaningful emissions reductions across all sectors of the Tasmanian economy and government?
One obvious solution to reduce emissions is in how we plan and build housing. If we pilot housing solutions along transit corridors such as the Hobart to Glenorchy pilot in the northern suburbs of Hobart, by building multi-residential developments and housing along the corridor in poorly utilised land, which is being championed by people such as the Planning Institute, the Glenorchy and Hobart councils are on board, and the Committee for Greater Hobart would love to see this as well – they’re doing a fantastic job in advocating in this space. There is a chance to deliver medium-density housing close to transport and services, without encroaching on the urban fringes. Why, then, is the Abetz budget silent on a win‑win for housing solutions?
In summary, there are fundamental questions here. Does this budget deliver for Tasmanian social health and wellbeing? Does it deliver for people with Neighbourhood Houses in West Moonah, Chigwell, including the Chigwell Community Garden and Goodwood? Does it help with active transport health and wellbeing outcomes through better urban design with cleaner air through better transport efficiencies and better transport options for general mobility of all in our community, including younger and older Tasmanians alike. It clearly does not. It delivers continued uncertainty for social wellbeing. It undermines the valuable role of the public service.
Does this government deliver for the environment? No. No funding for the State of the Environment report’s recommendations which suggest the environment, such as our waterways and urban fringes and transport emissions, are losing out.
The Treasurer’s interim Budget is just that, a stopgap. Another missed opportunity and, unfortunately, Tasmanians will suffer both in the short and the long term because of so many ill‑considered responses. It’s another sticking plaster attempting to cover up the deep scars left by a slash‑and‑burn agenda and a reckless attempt to avoid responsibility.
