Ms ROSOL – Deputy Chair, I rise to reflect on Estimates committees, those committees in which we scrutinise and interrogate the government, and all is revealed about the Budget in answer to our questions. Well, that’s what we hope, anyway, but I’m being wishful and fanciful of course, because in my experience that’s not how committees work at all. Instead, the government use a wall of words to say nothing. They spill out word salads in a patently obvious effort to obfuscate. They give excessively long answers that don’t answer the actual question but do pad out the time so there’s less space for more questions and certainly less space for real answers. In Estimates, the government tabled plan after strategy after report in an effort to flood the space with information that diverts attention and distracts us from the real questions at hand.
Then there are the DDs, when we listen to mind‑numbing propaganda we already know from previous mind-numbing media releases, and once again we are prevented from asking important questions. The Greens constantly work to draw back the curtains and shine light on the machinations of government departments. The government’s shenanigans are incredibly frustrating. It would be nice to get a straight answer, a clear response, information that enables us to assess and evaluate the government’s spending and performance. Instead, what we find out about the budget is minimal, but what we do find out about is the government, what matters to them and what makes them tick. I want to share here insights gained into the government through Estimates, starting with Health Estimates.
In my budget reply speech, I mentioned that finding a performance indicator the Department of Health is meeting was like trying to find a needle in a haystack. Well, the government have gone one up on that now. In their new elective surgery four-year plan, tabled during Estimates, they’ve removed targets altogether, so embarrassed are they by their failure to meet performance indicators. I can see why they would. In the previous elective surgery four-year plan, the government laid out a total of 20 targets across the four-year period, as well as the overall goal of reducing the elective surgery waiting list to 5400. The government achieved only three of their 20 elective surgery targets across 2021 to 2025. They successfully completed more surgeries than their annual goal. This is great news, particularly for those people who did get their surgery, but the government failed on every one of the 17 other measures they set for themselves.
The wait list did not reduce to the target of 5400 people. The wait list at the end of the four-year plan was sitting around 9000 people, an abysmal failure. The government would like to tell us they invested $156 million into elective surgery, but despite that, they did not meet their targets across a range of measures, including seeing people on time. People are still waiting too long for surgery, in pain, debilitated, missing out on critical timeframes for surgery for health concerns like cancer. These delays have real implications for real people.
The government has a new elective surgery four-year plan and, as I said, it has no targets in it and surprisingly, the funding for it is less than half that of the previous four-year plan, only $70 million. When I questioned this during Estimates, I was told that work on the previous four-year plan has resulted in improvements to the systems, procedures and networks that will mean the government can reduce waiting lists with less than half the budget. That is a strange thing to claim, because while $156 million was spent in the last four years, the waiting list grew by 1000 over the last 12 months. The maths doesn’t math – $156 million and waiting lists have still grown in the last 12 months. How on Earth is $70 million going to do what the government says it will and reduce waiting lists? No wonder they haven’t included any performance indicators in their plan.
In this we see a clear government tactic, hiding performance failures from Tasmanians by not providing performance indicators, meaning evaluation of performance is impossible. It’s devious and says a lot about how this government operates.
Speaking of devious, we also focused on ambulance ramping during Health Estimates. In recent times we’ve seen much finger-pointing from the government blaming the federal government for the entire issue of bed-block. No doubt the federal government has a significant role to play, and they must do more, but this government must too. What’s really disappointing is that so often they’re more focused on talking points and announcements than they are on making a real difference.
The 2024 election promise to ban ambulance ramping is a great example. In announcing this promise, Premier Jeremy Rockliff said this:
Thirty minutes is around the average time it takes an ambulance crew to safely transfer their patient to the care of the hospital, which means that effectively we’re going to be banning ramping.
Apart from the fact that you can’t ban ramping, we got a completely different view from the Department of Health in Estimates. In fact, the Health secretary was very clear that transferring patients to the ED within 15 minutes remains the best-practice goal for our health system, and that any delay over 15 minutes is still considered to be ambulance ramping, as it always has been. In other words, Jeremy Rockliff and the Liberals simply made-up their own definition for ambulance ramping in last year’s election campaign just so they could make a headline-grabbing announcement. This politically manufactured definition of ramping wasn’t based in evidence or advice, it was the Premier playing politics with the health of Tasmanians.
Now that this cynical electioneering has been exposed, we hope the current minister will drop the charade. After all, it’s not just the Department of Health policy that says patients should be transferred within 15 minutes. It’s the Australasian College of Emergency Medicine and comprehensive, detailed research from Victoria that says delays of 17 minutes or more lead to increased risk of harm and death. If every single ambulance transferred their patient within 30 minutes, that would be a big improvement, but the evidence shows that would still be ramping that causes harm.
Of course, under this government, ramping has increased faster than anywhere else in the country, so we are now a long way from best practice, but we need to put in place the policies and measures that make this our goal. Getting ambulances back on the road is one measure to mitigate the effects of ambulance ramping, but we need to do so much more to tackle the problem. I urge the government to take on board the recommendations of the ramping inquiry and to actually focus on the system-wide measures that will make a difference.
The Greens asked questions about job cuts within the Tasmanian Health Service. We heard that over the last two financial years 14 positions have been declined by the Vacancy Control Committee. In a Health service with 16,000 employees, just 14 positions have been declined. That’s a pretty good indicator the Department of Health actually needs pretty much all the staff currently employed in it. If they only found 14 positions to cut, despite all their best efforts, it sounds like the Health Service is about the right size right now, which means any job cuts the Treasurer makes to rein in the budget will have a very real impact on service provision. We know those job cuts are coming because of the debt the state is currently in, and that debt is going to grow and grow and grow with the government’s plans for a stadium.
Given cuts are guaranteed, we asked what jobs are safe from cuts in the Department of Health? Almost none. The only jobs that are exempted from vacancy control are nursing positions allocated under nursing hours per patient day. Any other position is fair game -pathologists, physios, pharmacists, house services. The stadium equals far greater debt, equals more job cuts, equals service cuts. It’s all connected. The stadium will result in service cuts across the state and Tasmanians will miss out. To say anything different is to mislead.
We learned more about the government through their sycophantic bowing down at the feet of the AFL and foisting a stadium on the state despite the very real devastating economic impact it will have on the state. The government’s priorities are on full display in their budget choices and the needs of Tasmanians are far down the order of things.
I want to speak about the use of florfenicol to manage piscirickettsia salmonis in overcrowded fish pens in Tasmanian waters. Many questions have been asked about this by my fellow Greens MPs, and with good reason. It is deeply concerning that we are dumping antibiotics into our waterways and I asked questions about Public Health advice around this, particularly whether Public Health had provided advice on the potential impact of antibiotic use on antibiotic resistance.
Antibiotic resistance is a major global health concern, with growing resistance leading to less effective treatments for bacterial infections, yet when I asked about it I was brushed off. The antibiotics are necessary, the minister said, so it’s totally okay to be using them in the environment, as if treating salmon in overcrowded, overheated pens with antibiotics is not going to risk any impact on antibiotic resistance.
I was pointed to a media release and told it contained the advice of Public Health with links to national documents, including a national antibiotic resistance strategy. I’ve read the media release and the documents. None of them provide specific advice around the impact of florfenicol use in Tasmania and antibiotic resistance. All there is is comment around antibiotic residue and then a general acknowledgement that antibiotic resistance could be an issue. What we see here is a dismissal of questions. It’s not unreasonable to ask questions about florfenicol use by the salmon industry and whether it could lead to increased antibiotic resistance. Rather than batting these questions away, the government should be providing evidence on the safety or otherwise of florfenicol use in relation to antibiotic resistance. To do less is to minimise the concerns of Tasmanians and to disrespect them and potentially to miss an opportunity to take action to reduce risk.
This is what we learned about the government in Health Estimates. They draw a cloak of secrecy over their poor performance by choosing not to make targets or provide performance indicators. They play around with decisions and measures to help make themselves look better. They love an attention-grabbing headline. They’re going to prioritise a stadium over the State Service, and they are too willing to brush off legitimate concerns.
Sitting suspended from 1.00 p.m. to 2.30 p.m.
Resumed from above.
Ms ROSOL – Chair, I continue with the things that we learned about the government in Health Estimates. They love an attention-grabbing headline, they’re going to prioritise a stadium over the Public Service, and they are too willing to brush off legitimate concerns.
I want to turn now to other portfolio areas that I asked questions about. Again, looking at the government responses is instructive and revealing. I’ve mentioned the coming cuts in Health and other public service areas, and now I want to turn to Community Services, where cuts were also discussed. We know the cuts are coming. It’s clear in the forward Estimates, and the Treasurer has signalled this strongly through the budget submission pro forma.
When I asked the minister for Community Services why cuts were going to be made when community sector organisations are already struggling to make ends meet, the minister did not deny the cuts. At no point did she deny cuts or say there would be no cuts. What she did do was fall back onto cliches before urging community organisations to submit their budget bids so she could advocate them. Now, if I was a community sector organisation, I’d like something a bit stronger than that; something a bit more concrete than advocacy, because read the silence, the non‑answer of the question. There was no denial of cuts.
We all know what the result of the advocacy will be. The Treasurer will turn a deaf ear to it, because he’s looking for savings and cuts wherever he can. So, it strikes me that the minister was equivocating, talking up her care and appreciation for the community sector but unwilling to come out and state her opposition to cuts or say she would absolutely stop them from happening. In Community Services we see a government willing to mislead through platitudes and silence, hiding truth. The cloak of silence, once again.
What did we learn about the government from Disability Services? There’s a distinct dismissal of need in Disability Services in Tasmania, best illustrated by the total lack of funding for programs for Tasmanians with disability outside of the NDIS. There are many Tasmanians with disability who do not have access to the NDIS, and this government chooses to provide no funding for services for them. I’ve asked about this several times. Last year I asked about funding for Disability Voices Tasmania.
This year I followed up on a question from Labor about Aurora Disability Services, and I confirmed with the minister that there is no funding in the Tasmanian Budget for disability services that do not fit within the NDIS. This is shameful. Tasmanians with disability are missing out on supports they need because this government doesn’t think they are responsible for providing them. Other states recognise this responsibility, but not Tasmania. It’s disturbing that this government is content for people with disability to languish without support while they pass the buck to the federal government. This is a choice ‑ a choice that reflects the government’s lack of care for people with disability.
This government is also at war with itself. We see this with the tough‑on‑crime rhetoric that is in complete opposition to the Youth Justice blueprint, but we also see it in the area of disability. Last year the Disability Rights, Inclusion and Safeguarding Act was enacted. It’s an act that helps ensure the rights of people with disability are protected and upheld across our state. Yet while inclusion is encouraged by one arm of government, another arm of the government is working against inclusion, with consultation open on a freezing of the National Construction Code. One of the important things the National Construction Code does is require housing livability standards that ensure accessibility of new builds for people with disability. There has been ample time for the building industry to prepare for this. They’ve known about it for around a decade. Yet they are doing all they can to obstruct the implementation of the standards, and the minister for Consumer Affairs is enabling them to do this, announcing a ‘nation‑leading freeze’ on changes to the National Construction Code. What a shameful thing. Tasmania leading the nation on freezing the implementation of liveable housing standards. Once again, we see a government that talks the talk but does not walk the walk; that says they care, but actively works in ways that deny that care.
I turn now to Children and Youth. What did we learn about the government from Children and Youth Estimates? There has been a giant failure in collective knowledge retention, for one. We asked questions about the JCP Youth election promise and grant provision. Shockingly, we were told that no‑one at the table could answer our questions, because the minister was not the minister at the time of the election promise, the secretary was not the secretary, and the deputy secretary was not the deputy secretary. We were asking about a $3.7 million grant to JCP Youth ‑ a very significant grant, and there were no answers to our questions. There was a collective forgetting, and an unwillingness to seek out and provide the information during the committee. It is deeply concerning that the knowledge about such a large amount of money, with significant public interest, seems to have been lost because of a change of personnel and a lack of briefing.
Neither the minister, the secretary or the deputy secretary could provide detail on how or why a program was granted $3.7 million. They could not explain why this money was granted without a tender, or whether any assessment of JCP Youth was undertaken prior to the decision to make the grant. This is remarkable, because this was a $3.7 million contract granted to an organisation that does not use best practice, seemingly has no evidence base and, as experts have said, is not trauma-informed.
The Greens had an RTI on JCP Youth that we obtained in 2024. We already knew the answers to most of the questions we asked ‑ it was all there in the RTI. We just wanted to know if the government would admit that no‑one in DECYP had asked for JCP Youth to be given an enormous grant for statewide services; that staff in DECYP had had serious concerns about the safety and suitability of JCP Youth; that no proper assessment was done before the deed was signed; and that this grant was risky, unwise and unsuitable. What did we get when we asked? A whole lot of denial, excuses and even a suggestion that we were raising myths, when we were actually quoting concerns raised in internal DECYP documents.
This goes to the heart of the government’s attitude to election promises and explains the budget mess we are in, with election commitments made without any reference to strategy and with scant attention to safety. It also speaks volumes about the government’s attitude to public money, as if it is their own personal kitty bag from which they can hand out lollies to mates.
The JCP Youth election commitment is a perfect example of the government’s inability to appropriately and wisely manage limited financial resources. As the Auditor‑General identified earlier this year, election commitments are ad hoc and not aligned with government goals. Here in the JCP Youth election promise, we have the perfect example ‑ an enormous amount of money granted to one organisation with no consideration for the broader strategy of intervention or other organisations working in the space. We have no risk assessment and no consultation with DECYP; just a flashy announcement about a trendy organisation because they’re willing to pick up kids off the street at night. Extraordinary ‑ and an extraordinarily terrible process.
The government assured us in committee that they are meeting with JCP Youth, monitoring them regularly and evaluating their programs. It’s a pity they didn’t do that before granting them $3.7 million.
I want to speak now to Corrections and Rehabilitation. What I took away from Estimates is that the government really love a shiny, new prison. They mentioned it repeatedly. Meanwhile, lockdowns are the norm, mostly due to staffing issues. When we asked the government what they were doing to address this problem, they seemed to have no real plan for fixing things ‑ apart from building a new prison, which might make the government feel good, but won’t address the issue.
In this, we learn that the government prioritise shiny new things over people, which brings me to the stadium ‑ the biggest and shiniest new thing of them all, in the government’s eyes at least. It’s the ultimate in putting projects before people, prioritising cement over services. In the stadium, we see what the government really value: big things and their business buddies.
Given what we face as a state, their blithe brushing aside of budget pressures is bad for people, bad for communities, and bad for our state. The Premier might think the warm fuzzies of the dream will carry us through, but his dream is deluded, and it is the ultimate disrespect of Tasmanians. The Premier’s Trumpian-style denial of facts and rewriting of events is deeply concerning, and it is taking our state in a giant lurch towards anger, aggression and right‑wing dogma. And there we have it: the values of our government on full display in budget Estimates. If I had to sum up the government’s attitude on display through their Estimates responses, I’d say ‘disrespect’. This government disrespects Tasmanians.
I want to go to a clear example of this in my electorate of Bass, with the Minister for Sports’ actions around the North Launceston Football Club. The Greens have always maintained that dishing out funds at elections isn’t the best way to allocate the public’s money, and it’s a big part of why Tasmania is in so much debt. The minister made a commitment to the North Launceston Football Club during this year’s election campaign and then withdrew that commitment after the club president appeared in media with Labor. That’s staggering disrespect on display right there; treating the North Launceston Football Club as if they are a political football, rather than recognising their need for support after being more than neglected and completely forgotten in all the planning for the redevelopment of York Park Stadium.
North Launceston Football Club have been homed at York Park for over 100 years and now they find themselves with an uncertain future as a result of having no home. Even yesterday in question time, the minister’s disrespect continued in his responses. The Minister for Sport needs to stop playing with the club’s future. He needs to stop brushing off how appalling his actions have been, own what he’s done, apologise and fix the damage. North Launceston Football Club deserves better. They deserve to be recognised for their long history and connection with York Park, for their contributions to community sport over more than a century, and for the role they play in the Launceston community.
Budget Estimates revealed much about this government – the way they hide the truth, shift baselines, make glossy announcements to hide dark secrets, equivocate and avoid straight answers. This government loves spending money on shiny new things when people just need services. Ultimately, the government like to say they care about Tasmanians, but their actions don’t match their words. That tells us everything we need to know about this Budget and the coming budget. The government is putting a stadium before people and Tasmanians will suffer because of it, as we head into austerity and terrible priorities. It’s a shame.
