Ms BURNET (Clark) – Honourable Speaker, I note the sombre tone in this Chamber today and it is for good reason. This is not a motion that should be considered with anything but seriousness. To move a no‑confidence motion in a premier, and not the Treasurer at the handing down of a budget, is an extraordinary step by the Leader of the Opposition.
If we think about political history, and we were all probably students of political history, if you look at the federal level, there has been a revolving door of leaders. In 1996, we had prime minister Howard, then Rudd, then Gillard, then Rudd, then Abbott, then Turnbull, then Morrison and now Albanese. The federal parliament is remembered for those turbulent years as leadership challenges. However, it has been bookended by relatively stable leadership of Howard and Albanese.
Tasmanian politics has had relative stability in leadership over that same period. From 1996, we had premiers Rundle, Bacon, Lennon, Bartlett, Giddings, Hodgman, Gutwein, then Premier Rockliff from April 2022. It has also been a relatively smooth transition of premiers in this state in recent history, compared to the federal spin cycle. It has been at a time of their choosing or, I might say, the people’s choosing.
We know that premier Jim Bacon had ill health which forced him to retire, with his death a couple of months after that and we know that Mr Gutwein, after steering the state through COVID, left of his own choosing early because of the strains of COVID and a long period in parliament. We have seen the number of parliamentarians over that time cut in July 1998 from 35 to 25, ostensibly to remove the Greens from Tasmania’s political story. Recently, with the 2020 bill expanding back to 35 members, the Premier and former parliament were responsible for this. Seeing that the size of the House had reduced its capacity, it needed to be restored back. Meg Webb, member for Nelson, wrote a paper regarding this. I am quoting from her paper ‘Restoring House of Assembly Numbers’. She quotes the former solicitor‑general Bill Bale when he spoke to the ABC upon his retirement in 2008. He said:
I think the reduction in the size of the parliament, and that is, of the House of Assembly from 35 to 25, was a retrograde step. I don’t believe that 25 people generally elected on a two-party basis, in Tasmania, there may be a third party, certainly a third grouping. I don’t believe that leaves the governing party with enough people on its benches to provide a strong ministry, particularly if two or three ministers, as has happened fairly recently in this state, for one reason or another, find that they’ve got to resign, there’s very, very little on the reserve bench. And I simply don’t believe that leads to good decision making.
Hare‑Clark is, I think, the best form of democracy around. I think it is the best fit for Tasmania as well. We have a small population. Our population knows, and takes responsibility in the performance of those elected to parliament, and not least of all in the Premier’s role. We have a responsibility to make this parliament work, but unfortunately we are not seeing it working to its fullest effect under the current Premier.
I argue that Tasmania’s parliaments have been important experiments in democracy. They are sometimes threatened by lousy government bills, and we have seen quite a stack of those coming through of late. However, it has also tried to reflect the wishes of the Tasmanian people, as we have seen various parliaments, up to and including this 51st Parliament of Tasmania.
We have gone through those things, and I think the Premier might even have talked about those things that have happened in this minority government, this power‑sharing government, with bills coming from the Greens, from Labor, from Kristie Johnston, member for Clark.
Ms Johnston – Thank you very much.
Ms BURNET – Those things make the parliament work. I might say, certainly with the May Day celebrations with Unions Tasmania, the Saputo workers were very pleased that we backed them as a united parliament. I think that was something that was very important to those workers on strike for so many weeks.
We have seen minority governments during the history of the parliament and a reluctance to embrace the concept of power‑sharing because we are too cosy, often, in having all the power held in majority governments over the years. I think there is a real problem with that.
I think the Premier has tried his utmost to work with the crossbench. I do not know, I was not privy to those deals that might have occurred with the crossbench. However, what we are seeing is that that experiment is not necessarily working. We need to reach a maturity in our precious democracy at the bottom of the world. I do not think that we have reached that point of maturity, and so this matter of no confidence in the Premier is before us.
That might be a reflection on Labor as well. We know that Labor is desperate to rule in majority. However, we are not at that stage yet, we are talking about no confidence in the Premier. As a Greens, I have a long list of points of concern about this government and ultimately this Premier. It is a long, long list. We have heard from other members of the Greens talking about the concerns that we have, but I want to raise some of the concerns that I specifically have with what the Premier is leading us into.
We talked at length about the stadium during the debate on Dr Woodruff’s amendment. The stadium is problematic because of the huge debt that this government and future governments and future taxpayers will have. It will be an intergenerational debt. I will not prosecute that argument again. We have heard about the ferries debacle and the mismanagement of our state-owned companies and government business enterprises. It is as if the government has had to be dragged kicking and screaming to improve the governance of those important state-owned companies and GBEs.
We have seen a chronic underspend on infrastructure projects across the board. The guaranteed spend that we were to have in the 2024-25 Budget has not been recognised in virtually all areas, including health, public infrastructure works and so forth. I have mentioned before that Montello Primary School is desperate for a rebuild. When I went there as a member of the Public Works Committee, we went through classrooms to get to other classrooms ‑ hallways were part of the classroom. There was no privacy. If a kid wanted to go off to the toilet, they had to go through classrooms to get to that. Those things should be a priority.
Reprioritising infrastructure is so important, and we do not see any reprioritisation of infrastructure projects. There are infrastructure projects that are coming up – if we look at the Tasman Bridge, for argument’s sake, that is a pretty significant piece of failing infrastructure, and it is nowhere to be seen in the budget papers. In fact, it is a tiny amount compared to what is required to either remedy that bridge for us as best as it could, and we know that it needs to be done sooner rather than later, or to reconsider what we do with the Tasman Bridge.
We have just seen the opening of the Bridgewater Bridge and the finalisation of that project – almost. There are a few things that still need to be done, but those things are priorities that we should be considering, or a government should be reconsidering as to how to go about that. Dr Woodruff talked earlier about the renal dialysis beds in Bass. It is a $10‑million federally funded project from 2019. It still has not been built and there is no money for that in the state budget, which is appalling. Having two more beds is really short‑changing those people with chronic health needs in the seat of Bass.
There has been an inability to review those infrastructure projects, as I said, to deliver on the most pressing, or to abandon those we cannot afford – and I go back to the stadium. There is an inability to undertake strategic planning. We have seen time and time again over the course of this 12 months of parliament that minister Ellis is out of control in relation to what he brings for this parliament to consider, backed in by Labor, I might add. We have had the development assessment panels thrown out in the upper House. They will be back again. We have seen the youth justice facility bill, which ostensibly, in my opinion, undermines planning and how planning is done and the rights of people to appeal. Mr Bayley talked earlier of the stadium bill, or the Macquarie Point bill, which is currently out for consultation, but it was tabled the other day. There are huge concerns about how that undermines the rule of law and I hope that, should it be passed – and I hope that it is not passed – it is challenged in the High Court.
We should not be responsible for lousy legislation, but unfortunately this is what we have under Premier Rockliff’s watch. There has been an erosion of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act. It is appalling. Councils are angry; every council across Tasmania is angry, minister Ellis. They are angry and they know what you are doing. They know that you are undermining their responsibility of landing development, and I might add that we have this continued irresponsibility by minister Ellis in relation to strategic planning. The land use strategies – I saw a line in the wrap‑up of the Budget about land use planning. I do not think this government has a clue about how to do planning properly and strategic planning, and it is embarrassing. It is absolutely embarrassing for this state.
We have seen, also, the withering of the public transport system. Public transport is one of the most important principles of how cities and places function. We are seeing a lack of investment and a total undermining of public transport by this government, and it is a sad indictment because intelligent cities have good public transport systems. Cities should be able to get people to and from work. Everybody should have the right to good public transport.
We know that there has been very little investment in greenhouse gas emission reduction through transport, one of the largest emitters in our state. The introduction of electric buses is a joke and we have, I believe, the country’s oldest fleet of public transport buses. I expect the Minister for Transport is rubbing his hands together in glee at the disarray that we see in our public transport sector.
We are effectively locking in transport poverty for those Tasmanians who cannot rely on a broken bus service and instead have to drive a costly commute. They can thank minister Abetz for increased congestion and longer peak hour traffic. We see the starving of the community sector, which is there to deliver to the most vulnerable Tasmanians. How is it that the minister has not argued for more funding to deliver programs to help the most vulnerable of our state?
There is an inability to undertake due process. The Project of State Significance process was chosen for the stadium, then abandoned, then legislation introduced to fast‑track a permit process that disallows the right of appeal. There are so many things that are broken. It is absolutely appalling. There are also delays in delivery when we look at the environment. The container deposit scheme has arrived and minister Ogilvie is crowing about that. It is a good thing, but it has been a very slow process. The waste levy has been a slow process.
Greater powers for organisations such as the EPA to address the issues of pollution, of protecting our environment from the ravages of antibiotics and self‑regulating industries, such as salmon, which is impacting both our coastlines, as we saw with millions of fish deaths over Summer, and even outfall from salmon hatcheries in rivers, such as the Florentine, and from poorly managed handling of the waste of dead salmon and biosolids.
The State of the Environment Report fail is unforgivable. Delays in release – then under the cover of Christmas holidays. The concerns are many. However, I want to highlight the impact of development on city fringes across Tasmania which threatens flora and fauna species, and impacts soil and biodiversity. It is a blundering, heavy-footed and expensive approach in more ways than one. Is this the government you want to lead, Premier? If so, this is of great concern because I do not think you want to lead a government that operates like this.
I have been disappointed in opportunities for this parliament, with the level of discussion and debate both inside and outside the Chamber, in the interests of the Tasmanian community. For some reason, I expected more and agree with some of the sentiments of the member for Franklin, Mr O’Byrne. Collaboration and good will should extend to everyone. It is unfortunate that this Premier has not facilitated that as much as I would have expected. What do we have before us? Do we have a premier in charge of a Cabinet that is arrogant, fiscally irresponsible and does not really care about intergenerational debt? I believe we have that dilemma before us. The buck ultimately stops with the Premier.
This is a moment in time where the House decides the fate of a premier. It is not his own party with long knives, which is the scenario we have been used to seeing in the federal arena, where everyone climbed over others’ still warm corpses to seize leadership. This decision today will be remembered, as the Premier said earlier, for the Leader of the Opposition’s actions. I expect that the Leader of the Opposition has, sadly, not thought through all of the consequences of his actions, The ‘what if’ scenarios and the discussions with important players in the lead‑up to the events of the day.
The Greens support this motion of no confidence. We recognise the important contribution Jeremy Rockliff has made over the years, but we see the shortcomings in this 51st Parliament with all that has been mentioned, and this must be the circuit breaker we need right now.
