Ms O’CONNOR (Hobart) – Mr President, I move –
That the Council:
(1) Notes the stated intention of the Rockliff minority government to privatise government business enterprises (GBEs) and state-owned companies (SOCs), with only Hydro Tasmania excluded from possible sale.
(2) Recognises this means the potential sale of TasNetworks Pty Ltd, Aurora Energy Pty Ltd, Tasmanian Irrigation Pty Ltd, Metro Tasmania Pty Ltd, TasPorts Pty Ltd, Tasmanian Railway Pty Ltd, Tasracing Pty Ltd, TT-Line Company Pty Ltd, Forestry Tasmania Pty Ltd, the Motor Accidents Insurance Board, Port Arthur Historic Site Management Authority, Tasmanian Public Finance Corporation, and the Public Trustee.
(3) Agrees these GBEs and SOCs have been built up by generations of Tasmanians and are owned by the people of Tasmania.
(4) Further notes this massive privatisation agenda was not taken to the 2024 state election, nor included in the Tasmanian Liberals’ 2030 Strong Plan.
(5) Agrees the Rockliff minority government has no mandate for its privatisation agenda.
I move this motion today following Premier Jeremy Rockliff’s first address to the parliament on its return this year, his first address to the people of Tasmania, his state of the state speech, in which he said that he was leading a re-elected government with a fresh mandate, a refreshed team, which, as I pointed out to honourable members last week, is embodied in only the person of Rob Fairs, the new Liberal member for Bass, and new ideas. What were the new ideas that we got in the state of the state address? Did I make a mistake there? Oh, yes, well, sorry, I was talking about the House of Assembly, but I apologise.
We do have in here the very honourable minister and former mayor of Sorell, Mr Vincent, and I apologise, you do refresh the team, but it is you and Rob Fairs.
So, it raises the threshold question which I think Council should be given the opportunity to explore. We believe it is a false claim for the Premier to state that he has a fresh mandate. The only new ideas that were put forward in the state of the state address came under two principal umbrellas. One was to put up for sale our GBEs and state-owned companies with the exception of Hydro Tasmania, and even that exception does not, for example, protect Momentum from sale. The second part of these new ideas was to take the hatchet to the public service. Both of these ideas have been put forward because the state’s finances are dire. Now, the Liberal’s fiscal strategy that they took to the last state election, says that:
A re-elected majority Liberal government will continue to ensure the prosperity and resilience of the state by supporting sustainable public services, fostering economic growth and promoting a business-friendly investment environment. This includes carefully assessing the impact of major government infrastructure initiatives, strengthening the links to the fiscal principles embedded in the Charter of Budget Responsibility Act 2007 and providing responsible financial management. The Tasmanian Liberal’s fiscal strategy aims to provide flexibility over time, allowing for a dynamic response to changing economic and fiscal considerations, thereby ensuring a well-adapted and sustainable fiscal framework for the state’s growth and stability.
Well, what a load of waffle. Ultimately, it meant nothing. It meant nothing. There is nothing in the fiscal strategy where there was honesty from the Liberals at the last state election about how they might approach the state’s financial situation. It is reasonable here to acknowledge that the Liberal government – the finances of the state are not the sole fault of the government of the day in the times that we are in. The decisions that it makes about how to deal with the finances, however, are the responsibility of the government of the day and the level of honesty that they have with the people of Tasmania – that is an issue. It is no wonder that right around the country and here, people are losing trust in politicians but particularly, in major party politicians.
I am sure all members here have heard ad nauseam about the Liberal’s 100-day plan and their 2030 Strong Plan for Tasmania. Did I say that the right way, Leader?
Mrs Hiscutt – Not quite the right way.
Ms O’CONNOR – Our 2030 Strong Plan for Tasmania’s Future, that is it? Thanks.
What you will not find in here is any hint at all that if re-elected, a Rockliff government would sell the family silver.
The question we have to ask ourselves is what is a mandate? Now, the Oxford Dictionary definition of a mandate is, ‘To give someone authority to act in a certain way.’ if you use it in a sentence, ‘The rightful king was mandated and sanctioned by God.’ In political terms, what we understand to be a mandate is a vote of the people that is strong, that is an endorsement of the policies of whichever political party or group of individuals ends up forming government.
It is very hard to claim you have a mandate when you have come back into a new 35-seat parliament, with 14 members. There were also three JLN members, three independents, five Greens, and 10 Labor members elected.
Now, under no logical interpretation of the word ‘mandate’ could this government claim to have a mandate to sell TasNetworks, Aurora Energy, Tasmanian Irrigation, Metro Tasmania, TasPorts, TasRail, Tasracing Proprietary Limited, TT-Line, Forestry Tasmania, the MAIB, Port Arthur Historic Site Management Authority, Tasmanian Public Finance Corporation, and the Public Trustee.
This government has no mandate to sell government businesses and state-owned companies that have provided wealth for generations of Tasmanians, off the back of the work of generations of Tasmania; that have provided dividends back to the state that enable us to fund essential services, health, education, housing, other community services, perhaps even invest in looking after the environment.
So, the question in my motion on behalf of the Greens, Mr President, is not your policy position on the government selling public assets to mitigate its financial circumstances. The question before us today, is whether the government has a mandate to do that and a mandate, Mr President, is a sacred trust that is given to elected representatives who are elected in their own right and to the government of the day. We regard this move as something akin to theft because the voters of Tasmania were not told what the government would announce within a year of being re-elected. Tasmanians cast their votes in the dark about what a re-elected Rockliff government would seek to do. They must have known that some radical, corrective surgery was required on the budget. Perhaps there was a space during the months after the state election for there to be a collective response to the state’s finances. Ultimately, I think that is what Tasmanians would like us to be doing. I think they expect us to work together more than we do. There may have been a space there, for an honest and open discussion about the state of the books, but we have not had that. In fact, we have had mistruth after fudging, after alternative facts, on top of spin.
The one thing that received no mention at all in the Premier’s state of the state address was the Macquarie Point Stadium. Now, it is hard, if you are the speechwriter for the Premier, who is talking about flogging the family jewels, to put in there that you would also like to build a billion dollar stadium. For my honourable colleagues, I am sure at some point everyone will have a look at the Planning Commission’s draft integrated assessment report for the Macquarie Point Multipurpose Stadium Project of State Significance. I thoroughly recommend that all my colleagues read this report so they understand, with real clarity, what we are dealing with here. We are dealing with a project that would quite literally, on the evidence of the Tasmanian Planning Commission, ruin the state financially. The first thing we need to do is have a look at the panel. These are very distinguished Tasmanians, Mr President, chosen to undertake this integrated assessment. The panel consists of the former solicitor-general, Paul Turner SC, he is the chair, Gary Prattley is on the panel, Lynn Mason AM, former mayor of Flinders, former chair of the Tasmanian Community Fund, highly regarded Tasmanian, also on the Tasmanian Honour Roll of Women; Shelley Penn, Order of Australia Medal; and Martin Wallace, the former Treasury secretary. We are not talking about a panel of radicals, or progressives, or anything other than an expert, and from their report, dedicated, straight-laced panel.
I refer colleagues to page 17, which is the economic effects – just little bits out of this report in case people do not get a chance to read it for a little while. The first point they make is that:
The Panel finds that the costs of the Project are approximately double its estimated benefits.
It says:
As the results of all three cost-benefit analyses –
I will pause here – the first one was undertaken by the Macquarie Point Development Corporation. Then Dr Nicholas Gruen undertook a cost-benefit analysis. Then I think the Macquarie Point Development Corporation put forward one, and also the Planning Commission has put forward a cost-benefit analysis. It says:
there would, by implication, be a reduction in Tasmania’s economic welfare from implementing the Project.
The Panel notes the Proponent’s Project of State Significance (PoSS) CBA confines itself to an estimate of the direct cost of building the stadium. It excludes the capital expenditure in the surrounding precinct needed for the stadium to be used, safely and effectively, for the purposes for which it is intended. As a result, the Panel finds that the cost of developing the stadium and the supporting infrastructure and services (the Project) are understated in the Proponent’s report. The Panel also concludes that the estimated benefits from the Project are overvalued in the Proponents report.
Indeed, the panel finds:
If all costs and benefits were able to be better quantified, the Panel believes the excess of costs over benefits would be greater.
The panel also finds that:
under its central scenario, construction of the Project would require the State to borrow – or otherwise finance at the same or greater cost – approximately $992 million.
I put that number out there for colleagues to consider in the context of the motion before us. We have government announcing plans to sell GBEs and state-owned companies – and other parts of government agencies, in fact, like the Land Titles Office – that are owned by the people of Tasmania in order to pay down debt, and yet is committing itself to a stadium which the Planning Commission itself says would require the state to borrow approximately $992 million.
Wait, Madam Acting President, there is more. At the end of 10 years of operation, the additional debt directly associated with the project’s construction and operation would be approximately $1.86 billion. The state’s debt servicing costs are estimated to be $76 million higher per annum over the first 10 years of operation than would be the case if the project is not constructed.
Page 19 is very telling. It is a table that examines cost-benefit outcomes. You can see that the proponent – and while the proponent is technically the Macquarie Point Development Corporation, let us be frank, the proponent here is in fact the Rockliff government. The net present value, the total costs according to the proponent, would be $754 million. Dr Gruen found that the total costs would be double that, $1.4 billion. The panel affirmed Dr Gruen’s findings: $1.414 billion total cost for the project.
It is a thread through this report where you see there has been quite a concerted and deliberate effort on the part of the proponent to overstate benefits, understate costs, and not provide critical and necessary information, which clearly has frustrated the panel.
We go now to net benefit, economic impact, the panel considers the construction and operation of the project would not generate a net economic benefit for Tasmania, compared to an alternative public investment of the same financial magnitude. Very similar, to what Dr Nicholas Gruen found. If we go to the Cenotaph. That beautiful sacred monument placed where it is, after very thoughtful consideration, obviously, by our forebears. Overall, the panel finds the project would have significant negative effects on the values of places, buildings and activities of historic cultural significance and community significance. The panel considers the scale of the stadium would dwarf historic heritage elements and diminish their presence and the story they tell of Hobart’s historic development and their prominence as physical landmarks in the landscape.
The panel considers that the built form of the stadium would have a significant detrimental effect on the visual amenity of the Cenotaph and the way it is understood and experienced. The panel considers that both the proposed built form and the use of the stadium building would have a significant detrimental effect on the historic cultural heritage and community values of the Cenotaph. The panel considers the dominating physical presence of the proposed building, along with associated elements of its use such as noise, lighting and patron activity to and from and within the site would conflict with and diminish the Cenotaph’s values. The panel does not consider that these effects from the Cenotaph, arising from the scale, height, form, bulk, use and proximity of the stadium building could be resolved by design details applied to the proposed stadium building or by the rescheduling of stadium events to avoid specific ceremonial activities at the Cenotaph.
A government that had a deep, abiding, sustained and sincere commitment to honouring our veterans would read that paragraph and walk away, you would think. What it says is that no matter what the proponent proposes in terms of mitigating the impact of that monolith on the sacred ground of the Cenotaph, it cannot be mitigated. When we have a look at historic cultural heritage, obviously, they are talking about putting a massive roofed stadium in a place of extraordinary heritage. The panel considers that the built form of the stadium has significant negative effects on the setting of the buildings on Hunter Street, specifically the Henry Jones IXL building and the engineer’s building. The panel considers that the built form of the stadium has significant negative effects on the setting and appreciation of the Royal Engineers Building.
The panel considers that the proposed design details are not sufficient to ameliorate the effects of the stadium’s-built form on the historic cultural heritage significance of surrounding places. The panel considers that due to the size, height and bulk of the building which are required to facilitate its intended use, these effects cannot be satisfactorily resolved.
Madam ACTING PRESIDENT – Member, could I ask you to refine your comments back to the motion that is before the Council? Because, they do not align with what I have in front of me.
Ms O’CONNOR – Thank you for your guidance, Madam Acting President. I respectfully disagree and I have listened to any number of debates in this place where there is a motion before us and related matters and the stadium is deeply integrated with the government’s plan to sell government businesses or state-owned companies.
Mrs Hiscutt – It is not a GBE.
Ms O’CONNOR – I know, Leader of Government Business, you do not want, necessarily, for me to read the draft integrated assessment report parts out.
Madam ACTING PRESIDENT – Order. I have the five dot points in front of me and they relate to the privatisation of government business enterprises and state-owned companies. Then, it goes on to talk about recognising the potential sale. Then, agrees with the GBEs, state owned companies, built up by generations. Further notes, the massive privatisation and then it goes on, agrees the Rockliff minority government has not made a mandate for privatisation agenda. I am just asking you, member, to bring back your contribution to the motion that we have before us.
Ms O’CONNOR – Thank you for your counsel, Madam Acting President. It is not possible to talk about selling government businesses and state-owned companies in order to relieve the state’s debt burden without also talking about the giant roofed-elephant in the room, which is the stadium, which would leave the state $1.8 billion in debt within a decade. With respect, I take note of your advice, but there are a number of elements of this report which are absolutely germane to this motion, and I ask that they be put on the record.
Madam ACTING PRESIDENT – The report is not referenced in this motion.
Ms O’CONNOR – I am a little perplexed that I am being challenged in this way. As you know, members have some latitude when they put forward a motion to talk about related matters, and I am seeking to do that because you cannot separate the government’s policy to ‘sell the family silver’ from its policy to build a stadium on the waterfront. You cannot.
Madam ACTING PRESIDENT – I will allow a very small amount of latitude here, but I would like you to refer to some of those points on your notice of motion.
Ms O’CONNOR – I certainly will. I am coming back to them.
Madam ACTING PRESIDENT – Thank you.
Ms O’CONNOR – Thanks, Madam Acting President. These are important bits of information. This report came out at 4 o’clock last night. Most Tasmanians are now aware of it. They are also very aware that the Premier has announced, without a mandate, a policy to sell state-owned assets. Most Tasmanians will not have had an opportunity to read through the draft integrated assessment report. That is why, as a representative of the people of Hobart, I sat up last night reading it, because I knew this motion was coming on today. The findings in this report are deeply germane to the government’s policy to sell our state-owned companies, our ‘family silver’.
Speaking of Tasmanian treasures, the draft integrated assessment report makes it really clear that the Tasmanian Symphony Orchestra would be massively, detrimentally impacted by the construction of the stadium, as well as by its ongoing operation. There would be sound impacts for the life of the construction, but also there would be different kinds of sounds that would be impacting on how the TSO, when the TSO is able to put on performances. This beautiful little building we have down there on the waterfront, which would be right next to the stadium, its whole purpose, ultimately (again, paid for by the people of Tasmania) would be compromised if there is a stadium built right next door.
The panel also finds that Evans Street and Hunter Street would have to be closed, that there would be massive congestion and pedestrian issues. There will be very significant impacts on the hotels and apartments closest to the construction site, particularly during the construction phase and during events. Massive, problematic pedestrian movement issues have been identified for event patrons and the broader community, and these issues relate as well to safety.
The panel notes that there is a whole lot of infrastructure associated with this project which is not in the proponent’s reports to the Tasmanian Planning Commission. That is why the costs have been so massively understated by the proponent, that is, the Rockliff Government. Also unfunded and the evidence base around it very weak. The plan, apparently, to put on 80 extra buses – if we did not have a government that was so keen to flog off Metro Tasmania, perhaps there would be an integrated public transport solution. Certainly, that is not identified in here.
Madam Acting President, I cannot let the opportunity go past without mentioning the environmental impacts of the state. Let’s remember, this is built on timtumili minanya the Derwent – a river that, as a result of historical pollution, particularly from Boyer and Nyrstar, has acid sulphate soils in it. The panel finds that there are significant problems with contamination from the site and huge amounts of unknowns. It notes that there has been no site suitability statement prepared for the stadium development, and on and on and on it goes.
Honestly, I could go on and on, on the basis of that draft integrated assessment report, but it is emblematic of how we got here: pigheadedness, arrogance, secrecy and craven capitulation to the AFL. We are being told that the government is going to sell off the wealth of Tasmanians, and at the same time, send the state into an extra nearly $2 billion of debt over the next decade. It is disgraceful. I lost sleep last night. After reading that report, I was so furious and worried. How can a responsible government have these two policy objectives sitting side by side?
Do you know what we heard today in Question Time downstairs in the other place? When we put it to government that they might ‘do a Paul Lennon’, who in 2007 pulled the pulp mill out of the Resource Planning and Development Commission and brought to parliament the Pulp Mill Assessment Act 2007. That allowed for a consultant appointed by the minister to do an assessment, make the recommendation to the minister, and then there would be a disallowable instrument process in the parliament. We asked that question this morning of government, and it has not been ruled out. If you want a clue to where we are likely to be heading, I refer honourable members to the statement made by the Minister for Business, Industry and Resources (who is responsible and a shareholder minister for a number of these GBEs and state-owned companies) not long after 4 p.m.
The draft integrated assessment report comes out three minutes to 4 o’clock, I think it was, yesterday afternoon. Within less than an hour – not enough time to read the draft report – we had a statement from the minister, who says, ‘We are committed to the Macquarie Point Stadium.’ Dismissing the evidence of experts, pretending everything is going to be peachy, and pretending the state can do this with the debt that we already have, being asked to sell away our ‘family treasures’ and then go into another nearly $2 billion of hock. We had this statement from the minister, who does have responsibility for a number of the GBEs that are on the chopping block. He is certainly responsible for Forestry Tasmania, and who would buy that?
He says: ‘The report has raised broad issues and taken a wide scope of the project, and we are concerned about the potential of any delays to an already tight timeline. We have been clear that if we are to meet the existing time frames set out in the agreement, we cannot afford any delays,’ he reiterates. Then, the bone that we are thrown – like the bone that was thrown in the other place this morning in Question Time: ‘Ultimately, the decision on whether the project will proceed will be made by parliament.’ We are not stupid. We can see what is being set up here. The draft integrated assessment report undertaken by the independent Tasmanian Planning Commission has made it very clear, through a proper assessment process, there will be no Macquarie Point Stadium.
Madam ACTING PRESIDENT – If we can bring that back to the selling –
Ms O’CONNOR – Madam Acting President, I do not catch you pulling up other members like this.
Madam ACTING PRESIDENT – Order. Order. My view is that other members may not have read the report and had an opportunity to talk about the report that you are referring to the best part of your contribution. That is my concern.
Ms O’CONNOR – I am trying to help them.
Madam ACTING PRESIDENT – Talk about the report that you are referring to, the best part of your contribution. That is my concern. So, are you intending to continue to refer to the report that is not referred to in this motion?
Ms O’CONNOR – Well, Madam Acting President, I worry that I am being censored here in a way that other members are not. I continually refer back to the subject of the motion on the back of your previous ruling.
Madam ACTING PRESIDENT – So, I want to make sure that you completely understand that you have to have that connection without continuing to refer to that report, that not everyone has possibly read or seen or intended that that would be debated today.
Ms O’CONNOR – Madam Acting President, I am concerned to ensure there is only one set of rules in here and I am concerned to ensure that I am not censored.
Madam ACTING PRESIDENT – You are not being censored. I would have made the same call on any member and I would expect it to be on me, as well, if it was me speaking.
Ms O’CONNOR – Well, thank you again for your guidance. I think, on a logical assessment of the subject matters that I have been discussing today, they are integrated, connected, deeply and you cannot talk about one without talking about the other, Madam Acting President, and because of this council –
Madam ACTING PRESIDENT – Well, my ruling differs to your view around that and, so, I will just remind you to come back to the motion before the House.
Ms O’CONNOR – Madam Acting President, we can all agree that the GBEs and state-owned companies have been built by generations of Tasmanians and are owned by the people of Tasmania. We can all agree that the site down there at Macquarie Point is owned by the people of Tasmania. The Macquarie Point Development Corporation, owned by the people of Tasmania, Stadiums Tasmania, owned by the people of Tasmania. Like all these GBEs that this government, which has no mandate to do so, has put out there on the table for potential sale and, Madam Acting President, I understand that honourable members – most – will not have had an opportunity to read that report, but there will be matters that come before us, this Council, in the weeks and months ahead where it is very clear the connection between these two issues and we may well be faced with a Macquarie Point stadium assessment bill of 2025 as well as being faced with a whole lot of amendment bills or GBE removal bills and it is all connected because it is all about the future of the state.
Ms ARMITAGE – Through you, Madam Acting President, could I make a suggestion?
Madam ACTING PRESIDENT – Yes.
Ms ARMITAGE – Could I suggest that perhaps the member for Hobart actually list this report? Perhaps you move a motion –
Ms O’CONNOR – What a great idea.
Ms ARMITAGE – tomorrow or the next day and have a report so it can actually be discussed perhaps next week as an item of its own, so that people, who have had the chance to read it, can then comment. Just a thought.
Ms O’CONNOR – No, it is a very good thought. Thank you, member for Launceston, I will do that.
Madam ACTING PRESIDENT – I should have suggested it myself. Apologies for not doing so earlier.
Ms O’CONNOR – I will do that, but in this Chamber, we do not have Matter Of Public Importance debates. There is not really an opportunity to bring on urgent matters unless we can secure three other members.
Madam ACTING PRESIDENT – That is not true, anyone can bring an MPI.
Ms O’CONNOR – No, I understand that, but when I had a look at the history of the MPIs, it has been a very, very, very long time since there has been one in this place and this is an urgent matter, as is the sale of our GBEs and state-owned companies.
Madam ACTING PRESIDENT – Well, had that piece been listed as an MPI, it may well have seen favour of the House, and so it was not.
Ms O’CONNOR – Well, that is the discussion I want to – thank you, Madam Acting President – I want to have that discussion with my colleagues in the future because there are matters where I think we should be prepared to break with the proceedings for the day and have an informed debate on a matter of public importance and there are not any subjects that are as important to the people we serve as the future of Tasmania, Madam Acting President, and, at the last state election, it is blatantly obvious to anyone who understands even basic maths that this government did not receive a mandate.
They came back into parliament on its knees with the support of the then Jacqui Lambie Network members and the Member for Franklin, Mr O’Byrne. On the threshold question, the question before us today, I would argue that the only way to see this is as a statement of fact. To agree, that this Rockliff minority government has no mandate for its privatisation agenda. Privatisation, as every one of us here knows, is an issue that people feel very strongly about. That sense of ownership we all used to have of for example Qantas, the Commonwealth Bank. Great institutions, Telstra was another one, for which governments invariably did not take those plans to privatise those entities to the people before they decided to do that. As much as I admired the former Labor Prime Minister Paul Keating, he was one of them. Where, you have governments to go to an election with one narrative and come out the other side and have what former Prime Minister John Howard used to call core and non-core promises.
This privatisation agenda, it should alarm us all. Having listened to debate in the other place and having spoken with some of my colleagues across both Houses and all parties, I do have some faith that parliament will save this government from itself and will save Tasmania from reckless government decision making. Pardon my cynicism on the history, but I have been quietly surprised and pleased to see Labor take a really strong position on selling off our GBEs and state-owned companies. It may be the case that those bills do not reach this place. It depends on what some of those independents do, but every one of us who is elected in here is elected with an individual mandate to represent our communities.
I know having doorknocked last March for the state election, right across Clark and in some other electorates and then doorknocked in Hobart leading up to the Legislative Council election, the issue of the stadium is a huge concern for people. But there is metanarrative here of trust and people who grieve the loss of integrity in politics. In my community overwhelmingly, people do not want this stadium. I know that, in Hobart, for people to know that a government would sell off the Port Arthur Historic Site Management Authority would just have Hobart locals shaking their heads overwhelmingly in disbelief.
Large parts of the electorate of Hobart are reliant on public transport. Who would buy Metro Tasmania? It is a loss-making venture, a fantastic public service. A loss-making venture. You sell Metro Tasmania, as a government, what are you doing? You will restrict access to affordable transport and you will make sure bus fares go up.
Ms WEBB -Yes, worse services; higher prices.
Ms O’CONNOR – As the member for Nelson says, worse services; higher prices. I know I veered slightly off topic, but I would argue that it was on topic enough in the context of what we are talking about. We have a responsibility in here to make sure the truth is told and to act, speak and vote accordingly. The truth of it is, no government that goes to an election 13 months early and then returns with three seats less than a majority – oh sorry, my maths is terrible – four seats less than a majority is not a government that can argue a mandate and we need to remind the Liberals in government that these are not their treasures to sell. There was no permission asked of the owners before announcing that these GBEs and state-owned companies would be up for sale.
So, for Jeremy Rockliff to come in on his state of the state address and falsely claim that this is a government with a fresh mandate should be exposed for the fraud that it is. And I ask honourable members, again, I will say this, it does not matter what your policy position is on the sale of public assets. That is not the question before us. The question is whether or not the people of Tasmania gave the Premier and his colleagues in government a mandate, that is the right, to even discuss selling the family jewels and the answer, unarguably, is that no, they did not. In their wisdom, they did not. So, I commend the motion to the House.
Contributions from other members.
Reply to contributions at 7.11 p.m.
Ms O’CONNOR (Hobart) – Mr President, I will make a very brief reply. I remind members, as the member for Nelson did, that the last time Saul Eslake produced a body of work for the state government – which was only last June or July – it was ignored by this same government.
Mr President, I thank all members who made a contribution today. I listened to all with great interest and it’s a very considered and nuanced debate. It was good to hear the Leader of Government Business put some more meat around the bones of what was tossed at us when the House of Assembly returned on 4 March. I loved the vulnerability lens that the member for Mersey placed over this debate. It is so important and it has been reinforced by other members, that is, that must be a primary focus of us in this debate. I enjoyed very much the history lesson, which I had heard a little bit about too, on the blighted attempted privatisation of TasRail, which I am sure you would know a fair bit about, Mr President, but I enjoyed the member for Nelson’s history lesson there. The member for Launceston’s quote was also really poignant. These GBEs and state-owned companies are ours. They are important to us, they hold meaning for us. It is so true, they belong to us. I also appreciated the heart that the member for Rumney brought to the debate, albeit with a little bit of cynicism, which is fairly understandable under the circumstances attached.
I thought that the member for Elwick’s contribution was really considered. Of course, you do not want to rush into judgement on these things. The question, however, as I said earlier, is not whether or not there is an argument for examining some government businesses and state-owned companies to see if they would be more efficiently run by the private sector if that can benefit to the state. That is not the question. The question is – and it is an important one for us to seek to answer in this debate this year when, from what I understand from the Leader of Government Business’ contribution, will be confronted with the legislative or policy effects of the announcement that was made by the Premier on 4 March – and for the member for Elwick’s benefit, in the state of the state speech itself, he states, ‘It’s coming up to one year since Tasmania elected a new Liberal government, a re-elected government with a fresh mandate.’ Just as we have heard, Mr President, it is not possible just on the maths to claim that you have a mandate when you have been re-elected in minority.
For the member for Elwick’s benefit, once he got into the swing of the state of the state speech, he said a couple of key things: Hydro will always remain in public ownership – boxing away Hydro and I certainly hear the concerns raised by the member for Elwick. Then, he asked, ‘But what about the others?’ ‘We’ll consider whether the Motor Accidents Insurance Board (MAIB) would do a better job freed from the shackles of government ownership.’ Who says its shackles? Why would MAIB feel shackled? I remember the member for Montgomery’s state of the state address, and I do not remember the exact numbers, but I understand MAIB to be an extremely successful government business. $950 million? Amazing. That does not sound shackled. He also goes on to say, ‘because it’s happened in every other state, why wouldn’t we do it here?’ I’m paraphrasing, but he also says it’s worthy of consideration.
Likewise, Metro. Is it most efficient as a state owned company? I think that is the wrong question if we are talking about the delivery of public services to people who are disadvantaged, particularly on urban fringes and rural and regional areas where people do not have vehicles.
He said we will also consider a 99 year lease of TasNetworks to retain ownership but bring in the expertise and the corporate culture to drive the organisation forward. 99 year lease is the sale. It is a sale. Is a sale. Is a sale. As the member for Pembroke pointed out in one of his contributions recently, when we had that election back in 1998, where the Rundle government took the potential sale of Hydro to the election, which was an honest thing to do. That was about the poles and wires as well because that was before we disaggregated TasNetworks out of Hydro.
Flags the sale of Momentum Energy. Flags, he says, and whether the Land Titles Office really needs to be owned by the government. Terrifying really, is it not? Also, for the member for Elwick’s information, we asked in Question Time last week if the Premier would rule out the sale of the Port Arthur Historic Site Management Authority; he would not rule it out. We asked in Question Time today if the Minister for Infrastructure would rule out any of our key ports or other TasPorts infrastructure to state-owned companies. Would not rule that out. We have a privatisation agenda on our hands and the question that is before us is whether the government has a mandate to do that. The answer clearly is no.
I ask members to assess and vote on this motion just on the facts because at the very least, if the motion is carried, it will send a message to government that we are watching very closely, we know you do not have a mandate. I was extremely interested in the answers provided by the leader of government business because it is very clear that in those few short days since 4 March when the premier delivered his state of the state address, the government has gotten a bit of a shock at the public reaction. We have a much more cautious approach being outlined here. Although the leader of government business did talk about not rushing things, but some things will be fast tracked. I do not know how you align those two ideas, but I hope that – well, I will say this, I thought that the leader of government business’ response to the questions that have been asked in this place were reasonable.
I know that the government has had a bit of awakening since the 4th of March speech and realises that it is in all sorts of trouble with this unmandated privatisation policy, and is now seeking to reassure the Tasmanian community and us to them. In the end, it is unarguable that the Liberal minority government does not have a mandate to sell the family silver.
Motion agreed to.
