Ms BURNET (Clark) – Deputy Speaker, I rise to respond to the Premier’s state of the state address from Tuesday. I acknowledge the contributions already in this House, but particularly from my Greens colleagues, and Ms Rosol’s to come. There have been some very good things that have been raised in relation to what the Premier has said.
The state of the state address is like a report card of how well the government is travelling. I will start by posing the question: what are the hallmarks of good government? What is it that they should be marked against? What do the people of Tasmania expect the government to deliver on?
Here are 10 principles of success in government. It is not an exhaustive list, but it is a considered list nevertheless. First there is, of course, good governance. Over the summer break I have been reading the writings of Sam Freedman, who has written a book called Failed State. It is all about the government of the UK and how we can learn from some of those mistakes made in government.
Second, there is making reparation with the palawa people. Third in my list of what I think government should be measured against is delivering for the community, especially those vulnerable members of our community. Fourth is reducing the risk of intergenerational debt. Fifth is fiscal responsibility. Sixth is building society, not tearing it down, by making sure that we have strong public institutions. Seventh is reducing inequality and improving tolerance. Eighth is improving environmental stewardship and responding to climate change. Ninth is balancing the interests of business, community and various interest groups. Tenth is being generous with knowledge, and honest and open.
The Premier should be leading this work, but we all have a part to play. We should use the short time we have in parliament to make sure we use every second we have to serve the people and not our own interests, or play petty games of one‑upmanship. I do not envy the Premier. He has come into the role at the tail end of an 11‑year government that must take responsibility for some major disasters. The Premier talked of the post‑pandemic malaise, but did not mention the uncertainty of current geopolitics that impacts us all and will no doubt deliver more turmoil in the years to come.
The state of the state address is a chance to shine almost one year into a term, to lay out the plan for the year, and to reflect on the year past. What did we witness? How is the good ship Tasmania travelling? What is the government doing to protect those important things for Tasmanians, our environment and economy? How are the scorecards against those 10 points I mentioned before?
Everyone is aware of the economic disaster our state is sailing towards. We are sailing towards an $8.6 billion debt in forward estimates, reduced credit status pushing up the cost of servicing our loans, the Spirits budget well and truly blown, and the billion‑dollar Macquarie Point Stadium emerging as a bottomless pit of debt with costs unannounced but still climbing.
Instead of that time for reflection and thoughtful response in readiness for challenges ahead, the Premier reached for that old playbook: kick the living daylights out of the public service and privatise our public institutions. You cannot think that is actually a boost to the economy, as the TCCI seems to think and back in. You cannot think that this move would in any way be a winner to reduce costs, as I will outline in a moment.
We are looking at 2500 public sector jobs already on the chopping block, 1900 of which are in the health service. There are efficiency dividends, which were slated in the September budget by the Treasurer reaching across all government agencies, a Kafkaesque EPU, like DOGE in the United States, set up to find efficiencies. This undermining of the public sector and its workers is an appalling tactic by any government, which unions representing their workers will not accept. Add to this the list of privatisation of government assets and institutions that the Premier announced, it is absurd.
How well does it work? Are services guaranteed? What happens when private organisations providing essential services decide their bottom line is not good enough? We do not have to look too far into the past. In fact, this week the private operator Healthscope decided that maternity services it runs in one of our private hospitals are not turning enough profit and it will not be providing that service anymore. Even as a donor to the Liberal party, there is no guarantee required that you will meet those demands and it falls back to public services and another private operator literally holding the baby.
That is how privatisation of what has been a public service works. The knock‑on effect ‑ people leave their professions. While not necessarily a direct response, but as a case in point, we saw on the front page of today’s Mercury that obstetrician, Dr Irena Nikakis, saying what others are probably thinking, that she is going to leave the part of work that she loves because those services are not going to be provided. What could be more essential than women’s health and maternity services? What is the government doing to make sure that those services are available?
If you think about TasRail, we heard last year, even before we were looking at the governance restructuring and looking at the governance of our GBEs and state‑owned companies, that there was a consideration by the government, or an announcement that there would be a merger of TasRail, TT‑Line, and TasPorts. Not even having done that governance work, they are talking about a merger of three government‑owned entities.
As a reminder, the Tasmanian Government Railways was formed in 1872, we are going right back in history here. In 1975, there was the Railways Tasmania Act, and in 1978 all services were absorbed into the National Railway Network and there was a rapid decrease in demand for passenger services as car ownership grew. In 1978, services were operated by ATN TasRail, which was federal, and in 1997 they were sold to the Australian Transport Network. Then ATN was sold to Pacific National in 2004 and, lo and behold, in 2007 the Tasmanian government takes responsibility for tracks and infrastructure. Then, in 2009, the Rail Company Act, Tasmanian government purchases, or rather, repurchases our railways and trains and TasRail was formed.
It is a case in point, Is it not? That an announcement about privatisation does not bode well. It can be very costly for our government when we have these things before us and these decisions. It is not a sure‑fire way to make money. In fact, it is quite dangerous. If you think of the assets that are in Tasmania’s hands, then you take them away, you do not have them ever again, until you have to buy them again, which is such a costly way of doing business.
I cannot fathom the Premier’s logic. Instead of systematically looking at the most costly projects and seeing whether he can or should afford them, as you might do – and this has been raised by the member for Bass in relation to the comparison to household budgets – you look at whether you can afford them, what alternatives are available, but the Premier has not done this. He has avoided this kind of scrutiny and this systematic approach to how you might manage your economy. It is a state economy about which we are talking.
He does not want to cut his losses with Mac Point’s growing $1 billion‑plus and price tag, nor does he want Saul Eslake to look at this as part of the brief. He did not even mention it in his speech, but the Greens will continue to highlight what a waste of money the billion‑dollar stadium at Mac Point is to our economy. It would be number one on the list of things to look at if I were looking at a responsible government on the government benches, but Mac Point does have alternatives. It is an easy example of a project you could abandon before spending a red cent more. The many years undertaking remedial work would not go to waste. The six hectares around about could be used as something more accessible and beneficial for all Tasmanians who visit that area. It could even consider multi-residential housing and public facilities as was first mooted, as well as the Antarctic Division headquarters. There is over a billion dollars of debt wiped just like that. We could stop subsidising big salmon, Sustainable Timber Tasmania and other extractive industries.
What of the billion‑dollar infrastructure pipeline? Health analyst, Martyn Goddard, believes that infrastructure priorities are skewed. There is too much in the 10‑year $30 billion pipeline. There are 442 projects, mostly public, and they inevitably take tradies from other pressing infrastructure projects like building housing. In reality, those infrastructure projects, undertaken with a review of arrangements with the federal government, will no longer be an 80/20 split in favour of Tasmania. It is more likely to be 50/50, as the federal government has said. Imagine applying this difference to the three‑quarters‑of‑a‑billion‑dollar Bridgewater Bridge project and other projects such as that.
A scan of today’s papers will show you that a $130 million upgrade of York Park is occurring, it has just been approved, I believe, by the Launceston City Council. It is occurring already, so why is the government not finding savings through reprioritising projects that are not a higher priority and withdrawing that money and funding for the Mac Point project?
We have seen de-investment in institutions such as TAFE, which has happened years ago.
Mr Ellis – Rubbish.
Ms BURNET – Sorry?
Mr Ellis – Rubbish.
Ms BURNET – There has been de-investment over many years, even before your time, Mr Ellis, and TAFE has become much less of an organisation over those years. It has been legislated to make it a not-for-profit. If you are a TAFE employee, you are no longer a state public servant, it is under Fair Work that your conditions apply. TAFE has been run down. It is public institutions that are continually neglected by this government. Governments such as this government tend to neglect organisations which should be strong and robust. The case that springs to mind – and it was mentioned in the Premier’s speech – is that Metro is continually underfunded. It is a situation where we see underfunding, we do not see priorities of security for drivers, we see services cut, we see a lack of frequency, and a lack of regularity. It is very hard to predict a service that is rundown. It is not invested in as much as it should be.
The quality of a city – and if you have travelled, as I am sure you have, Deputy Speaker ‑ those cities that are great have fantastic public transport systems. They have systems that are joined up and obviously invested in. Here, we have the shame of a lack of investment in Metro. This is seen as a reason to privatise it. It is something that is not fathomable if you were really looking after your people, the Tasmanian population, who need to rely on a public transport system that is strong and robust.
We could do well to focus on cities as solutions to some of the other critical issues that we face, improving housing, improving the economy to reduce energy demands in a carbon‑constrained economy in the face of climate change. It is part of your electorate, it is part of mine – we could consider the Northern Suburbs Transit Corridor as a model project to tick those boxes of making sure that there is good urban design and a robust renewal project that we can all be proud of.
It would be good to have those ferries, light rail, whatever it takes to have a robust and reliable public transport system. A movement into austerity, at the same time swinging at anyone who might take a different view on slashing public service jobs, providing uncertainty for workers across all government agencies, from Smithton to Geeveston and from Launceston to Hobart and everywhere in between, is not good enough. It is not acceptable.
Hobart is a public service town. Take the RHH, which is the biggest employer. With efficiency dividends, vacancy control, and the Rockliff razor gang, you can kiss job security goodbye. With job cuts, you can expect to see a downturn –
Sitting suspended from 1.00 p.m. to 2.30 p.m.
Resumed from above.
Ms BURNET (Clark) – Honourable Speaker, the Premier’s state of the state address leaves a lot to be desired. I have not even mentioned the State of the Environment Report and the fragmentation that our land use planning is responsible for the degradation of some of our land at the fringes of our cities and settlements. It is not good enough to just think that privatisation is the best thing for this, for our state institutions. I wonder what the State Service review is doing, languishing. It is going to be repeated by perhaps another consultant. Perhaps the government is looking at spending more money on consultants and reducing the impact of those services that are already in place. It is very disappointing. The Greens will be there to stand up for Tasmanians and the Tasmanian environment.
