Mr BAYLEY (Clark) – Deputy Speaker, I rise today to talk to the Appropriation (Supplementary Appropriation for 2024-25) Bill 2025 and indicate at the outset that the Greens will support it. There are some critically important services and indeed wages contained within this appropriation bill, and as a result, we will be supporting it. That is not without some strong criticisms of elements of how we got to where we are, and that’s not without some deep concerns about elements contained within the budget. Before I speak to that, I acknowledge the departmental staff in the Chamber here today and thank them for the briefing on this. I found that incredibly informative in terms of unpacking the specifics that sit behind this supplementary bill.
Of course, we knew this was coming. The Revised Estimates Report came out just a month or so ago and shocked us all collectively with the scale of the changes that needed to be made, or needed to be recognised and incorporated into the bill that we passed through this place. An increased deficit of $500,000 to $1.3 billion; increased debt up by $328 million to $5.7 billion by the end of the financial year. That is going to take $500 million a year simply to service.
The scale of the crisis is really quite perplexing when you think that simply to service the debt that we are going to have racked up by the end of the year it will be $500 million, and indeed, it will be over that by 2028 when debt pops up to $9.6 billion. Saul Eslake has done some estimates about this with regard to forecasting the debt through into the next decade, and it is truly alarming as to what will happen there.
Mr Eslake has done his report into the government’s finances, and the review held a number of different recommendations. I completely do not accept the Premier’s articulation that some of those recommendations justify and bolster the proposition of selling government businesses, but Mr Eslake highlighted some concerning issues regarding our finances and made some constructive propositions. We need to be increasing revenue. He rejected outright efficiency dividends and vacancy controls as any kind of sensible or effective way to manage the budget. He put some really simple propositions on the table for parliament to consider, things like a parliamentary budget office. This is an office that can put out projections 10 years into the future that the parliament has access to. That has seemingly been rejected outright by the government in its response.
I will read into the Hansard some comments from Mr Eslake’s report that speak a little bit to how we got here, because there is a lot of discussion about the impact of the pandemic and the impact of the commission of inquiry. We Greens absolutely acknowledge that they are issues and that they have exacerbated this crisis, but our present situation is not simply as a result of those shocks to our economic system. Mr Eslake has been very clear. Let me read into the Hansard what he wrote:
Tasmania’s public sector finances have deteriorated significantly since the latter part of the 2010s – despite a noticeable improvement in Tasmania’s economic fortunes, by many metrics, relative to the rest of Australia between about 2016-17 and 2021-22. That deterioration, best evidenced by the shift in all of the principal measures of the government’s budget ‘bottom line’ from balance or surplus in the mid-2010s to persistent and (for the most part), growing deficits since 2018-19, and the government shift from net creditor throughout the 2010s to a net debtor from 2020-21 onwards.
This is the important bit:
These trends were partly attributable to the Covid-19 pandemic, and more recently to the need to provide compensation payments to survivors of child sexual abuse in State institutions. But they began before the onset of the pandemic, and have continued after it.
He is abundantly clear that it is policy decisions of this government that are creating this situation and indeed making it worse when we look at these kinds of responses. He explicitly mentioned raising more revenue. Why is it that in this state we are charging mining companies less than the national average for their rights to mine our resources? Why is it that we cannot raise more money and we are having to take a razor gang to the public service to try to rein in this level of spending?
I have to make the point, as did Mr Eslake, that there is simply no pathway to surplus in the budget. It is a complete and utter mirage. The Revised Estimates Report demonstrated that there is an ongoing deterioration in just about all of the aspects of our financial position, and that the pathway to surplus is completely made up.
Mr Barnett regularly references the net operating balance. That is bolstered, it has to be said, by not having capital expenditure in it. That net operating balance itself is trending pretty poorly. The net operating deficit is going to increase by more than $350 million across those forward Estimates, which is more than what is currently budgeted for. The balance looks better because of an upward revision of capital grants from the Commonwealth, even though it is for an infrastructure spend, not to pay for operational expenditure.
The pathway to surplus is a mirage and yet the backdrop to all of this ‑ I think there are two backdrops to all of this that need to be clearly articulated. We have the worst health, education and housing outcomes of almost any state or territory in the country, depending on which metric you are looking at. It also has to be held up against the expenditure decisions in relation to a billion-dollar stadium at Macquarie Point, a stadium that was never referred to Treasury for their advice. It was never referred to the Premier’s own Cabinet for consideration. It was certainly not referred to the Tasmanian people for their input. It is a billion-dollar stadium at a time when we can least afford it. We all want a footy team, of course, and we know the benefits that can bring to us as a state. However, to deepen this budget crisis, to add hundreds of millions of dollars on top of the debt burden already there is, at the end of the day, intergenerational theft. It will condemn our kids and future generations to having to address that for so very long.
The term I took from the Treasurer’s speech was ‘above budget’. I do not know how many times I heard him talk about ‘above budget’. I completely understand that there are always things that will pop up that cost more than you budget for. However, it does beg the question about how the Treasurer is compiling his budgets in the first place when you have some of these issues so consistently arising and this parliament having to consider supplementary bills so regularly. It begs the question as to how this is going to be addressed in the coming budget.
Treasurer, I note that while we are dealing with a bill here for $467.5 million, the Revised Estimates Report actually talks to a $660 million‑plus increase in expenditure. What I am taking from that is that the ‘above budget’ issues are not just the half‑a‑billion dollars we are dealing with in this bill, but actually $665 million, and some of that is being addressed in other mechanisms that do not need to come to this parliament.
When it comes to ‘above budget’, if, in the space of six short months, as Mr Willie articulated, they are coming back to this parliament for another $500 million appropriation to inject into the budget, how on earth can people have any confidence with the stadium spend? How can we trust that this government can do what it says it wants to do for the amount of money it says it can do it with, when we know it is all smoke and mirrors, when there are so many elements that are unfunded? This includes the northern access road and the Collins Street bridge, for example. How are we going to fund these enabling elements of a project that pertain explicitly to the safety and the convenience of patrons? How are we going to get there, apart from GBE sales?
The member who has just resumed his seat spoke at length about GBE sales. The Greens, it seems, are on a similar page with the Labor Party about hostility to flogging public assets to plug the hole in the budget. We cannot have our treasured public institutions and assets being sold simply so that we can build and pay for infrastructure and elements we do not need.
Let us also remember that it is not completely isolated to government businesses. Treasurer, we are still wrapping our head around this and you might, on summing up, be able to tell us a little bit about this: How is it that we can reach into the public service and pull out a part of it for sale, for example, the Land Titles Office? That is not a government business, it is not a state‑owned company. It is an important part of government service that holds an incredible array of important personal information. It has been named as an entity that is going to be looked at for sale. We are interested in an explanation as to how that can be because, to us, it is not a business; it is a service. How on earth are you going to try and monetise that, and how do you take into account the risks that come with that?
To speak to the bill more specifically, there are elements that are completely understandable and elements that seem incompetent or skewed budgeting. To go through some of the line items one by one – and some of my colleagues are going to talk to these in more detail, when it comes to the Department of Education, Children and Young People (DECYP), I completely understand more money for the Advice and Referral Line, and welcome the fact that this is a service being taken up and embraced by the community. It is a shame there is that demand, but if there is the demand, we absolutely have to pay for it.
Regarding out‑of-home care and Ashley, we have been strong critics about the government’s approach when it comes to helping our most vulnerable and troubled children and both the cruelty and illogical expense of Ashley Youth Detention Centre. I heard from my briefing – and this is across several of the sectors, Corrections and Police as well, this relates to workplace management, to occupational health and safety. It relates to increased sick leave, increased insurance and increased workers compensation. I heard from my briefing, and perhaps the Treasurer, on summing up, could confirm this, that there are 16 staff currently suspended from Ashley Youth Detention Centre and that we are paying them while investigations are ongoing. That is understandable. However, can the Treasurer confirm that there are 16 staff currently suspended from Ashley?
When it comes to Health, yes, of course, we need health care. One of the parallel crises, along with the climate and biodiversity crisis, and challenges in our education and housing systems, is the state of the health system. We fully support additional resources going into this sector and this output. However, again it begs the question of how are we going to fix the problem that the government is underestimating, under‑budgeting for the spend and demand on health? How are we going to get it right next time so that we do not have to come back to this place and ask for additional appropriation bills?
We know we are one of the oldest, sickest populations in the country. Our healthcare costs are going to be high, they are going to grow. How do we make sure that the complexity of the cases we have coming forward and the recruitment challenges the health system is experiencing at the moment are properly considered in the next budget? Treasurer, we will be watching your first budget very carefully to make sure that some of these issues are properly addressed going forward, because it is not good enough. We understand sometimes coming back to this place to ask for more money for the out‑of‑the‑box issues, but it seems to be happening more and more often.
When it comes to the Justice department, again this speaks to occupational health and safety – cost pressures impacting the prison service, difficulty attracting and maintaining levels of staff, workers compensation issues, leave issues and so forth.
This begs the question, or at least needs to be put alongside, the Tasmanian government’s ‘tough on crime’ mantra: the question about prisons, and the question about the cost and the expense of prisons versus alternative, more therapeutic, more successful, I might say, opportunities to deal with these kinds of issues within our community.
Yes, we have to deal with crime, but it is really clear and it is clear in these budget papers and the explanation for them that a ‘tough on crime’ approach is just going to load up pressure on the system. It will load up pressure on its people and ultimately then load up pressure on the Tasmanian budget, because the department blows its own budget when it comes to the various cost pressures.
The Department of Natural Resources and Environment in Tasmania ‑ minister, I would like you to address this. This supplementary appropriation is for $8 million. I appreciate that. It is provided to address an increase in operational costs in the National Parks and Reserve System. I noted from the –
Sitting suspended from 1.00 p.m. to 2.30 p.m.
Resumed from above.
Mr BAYLEY (Clark) – Deputy Speaker, before lunch I was talking about the Parks output and highlighting that in this appropriation bill there is an $8 million provision for unfunded operational costs.
I was alarmed, and I know Ms Badger will talk about this more when she has an opportunity to talk to this, but I was alarmed in my briefing to hear that this was considered an ongoing deficiency when it came to the Parks budget and that the Parks budget had not been met consistently and we need top-ups. The supplementary bill has an $8 million figure, but if my memory serves me correctly – I do not have it on paper – the Revised Estimates Report itself has a $32 million figure against the Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (NRE Tas) and parks, which indicates that maybe the unmet operational element of their budget was $32 million as opposed to only the $8 million. Obviously, we are needing to come to the parliament for the $8 million – the $24 million is funded from some other way. Can you confirm that, Treasurer, as to whether it is from the Treasurer’s reserve or where is that additional $24 million coming from with regard to Parks?
We Greens have been making the point that for decades now that Parks are completely underfunded for its land management tasks. The tasks in the park space are getting ever more difficult with climate change with the invasive species, with humans who in ever increasing numbers are loving our parks, and at times loving them into problems. We fully support additional Parks funding. It is another note for the Treasurer to take away if this is an ongoing deficiency that the parks service consistently has to have addressed, then that is the situation you really need to deal with at budget time.
We want to get to a situation where our departments are properly funded in the budget each year and we are not having to come to the parliament for these top-ups, particularly when they are elements that are already in their budget submissions. If these are in their budget submissions and they are saying we need this money now and they are only getting half of it, it is hardly surprising and it is also completely unacceptable for them to have to come back and ask for more. Not only have they scrimped and saved and stressed for that whole period until they have actually got the confirmation of additional money, they are clearly not delivering as good outcomes in the parks themselves.
When it comes to police again, another OH&S type issue is in terms of additional money being needed, not only for workers compensation premiums but also the fact that this has been driven by an increase in the number of workers compensation cases and the increased complexity of those cases. Yes, we know that the working world is getting ever more complicated, difficult with challenges and there is no more difficult workplace than on the beat for a police person, but it does raise the issue about sustainability of that workforce, making sure we fund it adequately as well.
Premier and Cabinet got $11 million for the severe weather event. This is one of those things, Premier, that I will ask you here and now about how are you going to budget for this in the future? We know that climate change is driving more frequent, more extreme, more serious weather events. We have one in the north of the country at the moment and we have still one on the west coast with regard to our fires, but we are having these more frequent and extreme events. They deliver a shock to our economy, not only across the economy but to its people.
How is the government going to provision for these kinds of payments into the future? Will you have a severe weather event contingency fund built into the budget and into the future so that people know that if they are dealt by a bad hand by climate change through fire, flood or some other tempestuous incident – I will not say natural incident because it is human induced, but some other damage – that they know that the government is going to be good and able to help them out?
The rest of State Growth, I will let my colleagues speak to these in more detail with regard to the Dolphin Tungsten Mine, of Wine Tasmania and tourism packages, because that speaks more specifically to them. With regard to homelessness, and my colleagues will talk to this, obviously, strong support for Bethlehem House regarding their capacity to increase the services that they deliver to women in crisis.
With that, I only have a few minutes left. We, Greens, will support this Appropriation Bill. This money is needed to keep aspects of government going, but it really is a case in point and I guess as we approach a couple of months away before we have to sit down and go through the next Budget process with a new treasurer, it really points to some of the deficiencies in the budgeting process, and the ability of the Department of Treasury and Finance to properly consider other departments’ budget requests and make sure that they are met.
The central issue here is the way we are managing our finances overall in terms of the debt and deficit challenge that is coming: the impost that we are putting on future generations, our children, their children, and the legacy that we are leaving them. We are not only a planet in crisis and an environment that is ever harder and more expensive to manage and recover from – not only are we leaving them a legacy that is diminished in that regard, but we are obviously leaving them a significant debt issue as well.
As we hit the doors for this federal election – we Greens are already out on the doors knocking with volunteers in support of colleagues – it is the same as this time last year in the Tasmanian context. People are looking at cost of living, the health crisis, the homelessness crisis, education results, and they are looking at budget bills like this and the government coming to the parliament with its hand out again to fund some of these services, and they are asking again and again, ‘How can this be in the context of a Macquarie Point stadium? How can it be that we can build a Macquarie Point stadium at the whim of a major national sporting corporation? How is it that we can be dictated to build a stadium like this when we have these significant challenges within our budget and significant structural challenges within the services that Tasmanians need and deserve?’
We will always say we should be investing that money in those services to give Tasmanians everything that they need and deserve to succeed in the twenty-first century.
