Mr BAYLEY (Clark) – Honourable acting Speaker, I rise to offer my response to the Premier’s State of the State. I start by acknowledging the Palawa people as the traditional and original owners of the land upon which we meet and, in fact, the land, seas, waters and skies of all of Lutruwita/Tasmania and I pay my respects to elders past and present.
I too attended Wybalenna a couple of weekends ago, where the minister was at and where my colleague Ms Rosol was also present. It was a humbling experience to be on Aboriginal land and see them celebrate, not only that land, but their story; their story of exile, their story of survival, their story of cultural revival and resilience. It was truly inspiring. In fact, I had the absolute honour and pleasure to spend the week camping on that land with members of the Aboriginal community in the lead‑up to that event. To be amongst them and hear their hopes and aspirations for the future and the future of this parliament was truly a humbling experience.
I have to say, I was disappointed not to hear a word in the Premier’s State of the State address yesterday that addressed the issues associated with our First Peoples. It is a leader’s role, as the leader of the sovereign state to address the hopes and aspirations of Aboriginal people. It was truly disappointing to not see that in his speech. In saying that, I acknowledge what the minister has just said now in her presentation and recognise that she has a commitment to justice when it comes to Aboriginal people and is progressing issues in this space. Land-return is critically important, minister. You know that, I know that well. I think we all know that. Indeed, what land that gets returned must be community-led. It is important.
I must say, in relation to your presentation, continuing to have conversations, trying to work out the best way to do it, kind of doesn’t cut it. The best way to do it is to return land, to return public land. It is the role of this government and the role of this parliament to do that. There is no more time for talking. It’s been 20-odd years since public land was returned to Aboriginal community. The best way to do it is just return it. The private sector is currently showing up this government in relation to land returns. The private sector is willingly giving its own land to the Aboriginal community through the Aboriginal Land Council of Tasmania, the statutory body. It is high time that this government stepped up and actually just walked the talk and returned land. My colleague, Dr Woodruff, spoke about this in terms of Aboriginal-owned national parks and freehold Aboriginal land returns. It just must be done.
Similarly, when it comes to the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1975, we must see that act progressed pronto. It must find a way to protect Aboriginal cultural landscapes. It really must because that is the key failure of the act as it stands at the moment. It begs the question, how is it that a proposal such as Robbins Island wind farm on a living Aboriginal cultural landscape of millennia, of critical significance to Aboriginal people opposed unanimously by Aboriginal people is approved? Not only approved, it’s approved against an act that this government came in here over almost five years ago now and acknowledged that it simply doesn’t work. It’s an absolute abrogation of our collective responsibility to protect one of the most ancient cultures and the heritage and history of one of the most ancient cultures in the world. Minister, while I accept your commitment and your words in this space, words have long been empty and Aboriginal people actually need action. I urge you to take action.
We need to take action also to protect our environment and biodiversity. Environment is central to Tasmania’s identity and economy. We simply can’t put a value on it. I think I just heard the Deputy Premier talk about our brand. He talked about it being pure, he talked about it being fresh, he talked about it being clean. I don’t think he actually mentioned it being green, but I know that’s what he meant. Environment is fundamentally important to this state, to our identity, to our economy, to our brand. Despite this, it was conspicuously absent also from the Premier’s speech. I don’t think that’s good enough.
In 2024, ten years late and after missing two statutory deadlines, finally the government did a State of the State report. It painted a really dire picture of the state of our environment, our species, our landscapes, vegetation, communities and indeed our rivers and our waters. In last year’s budget, there was no money allocated for implementation of some of the recommendations. This is simply not good enough. We still have logging that’s impacting on critical species such as the swift parrot, the masked owl and more. We’ve got massive industrial developments, things like Robbins Island which would impact on devils, on the orange-bellied parrot, on migratory shore birds. We’ve got fish farming impacting on species like the Maugean skate where expert, scientific evidence is being routinely ignored, not only here in this state, but at the federal level. Routinely ignored when it comes to the survival of that species and what needs to be done to actually ensure its survival. It is abundantly clear from the experts that what needs to be done is for fish farming to be removed from Macquarie Harbour.
Then we’ve got things like the florfenicol fiasco, let’s call it, whereby the salmon industry is approved to dump hundreds of kilograms of this antibiotic in our waterways against the evidence, with no clear evidence that it can be managed appropriately in the environment. Now we’ve got this shambolic situation where an approval for the use of this antibiotic after it’s been dumped across our waterways in south-east Tasmania having an impact on our wild fisheries, the permit is now being pulled. It is simply not good enough.
When it comes to other issues, roadkill is an issue that I am really passionate about and keen to do more work across this parliament on. We need to ensure that our species are not only protected from the vehicles we drive and that education is critical when it comes to driver behaviour and protecting species on our roads, but actually that the people that look after these species are actually being cared for, they are being funded and their commitment to these animals actually is respected, funded and enshrined in many ways.
Recovery plans are routinely ignored, species get to the crisis point before action is taken and it is simply not good enough. We cannot have a situation where captive breeding programs are the go‑to conservation measure when it comes to the species in this state. Of course, we need a truly independent EPA; an EPA with teeth, an EPA with stronger legislation, and we want it to have the capacity and the tools to actually protect the environment. We need to create an entity that does what it says on the label, the Environment Protection Authority, and that’s not currently what we have.
When it comes to the budget, it is clear and it has been spoken at length in here: we are in a woeful state. The 2026 Fiscal Sustainability Report is an absolute wake up call. It is a wake up call for this government and, indeed, this parliament. Across 150 pages of careful examination, Treasury has delivered statement after devastating statement on the truly alarming position the state’s finances are now in. It is an indictment on this Liberal government of 12 years, the self‑declared responsible economic managers.
The Liberals have instead managed to send Tasmania to the brink. Saul Eslake warned of this last year; he indicated in the review of the state’s finances that policy decisions, active policy decisions of this government, has driven the crisis. Despite all the evidence, the Rockliff government has continued to claim that the best way to fix the budget crisis is to grow the economy.
The fiscal sustainability report puts paid to that again. Again and again, experts have said that is simply not the way to do it and we need to be increasing revenue and we need to be decreasing spending. We need to increase revenue and we say that should be taxing the big corporations and we need to decrease spending. That’s not in job cuts, that’s in removing subsidies. That’s in stopping pork-barrelling and that’s in managing the infrastructure spend, things like the fifth lane on the Southern Outlet and things like a third AFL stadium.
Debt levels are out of control and to think and project that Tasmania’s net debt could reach an eye-watering $146 billion by 2040 is simply shocking. It is simply shocking news, and when you consider the cost of actually servicing that debt into the future, you can see how we are actually condemning our children to their own generation of debt‑paying for our largesse at the end of the day. The credit rating downgrade that happened across the latter half of last year will only make this debt more expensive, so clearly something needs to be done about it.
I want to just quickly address the barbs that are extended across the Chamber from the Treasurer and, I guess, the pleas from people like Mr O’Byrne for the Greens to rejoin the multi‑partisan budget consultation committee. The Greens agreed to participate in the budget consultation panel because we believed it could be an opportunity for MPs from across the parliament to collaborate on achieving positive outcomes for Tasmania and its people. As the panel’s name makes clear, the clear promise to MPs joining the process was that it would be about consultation. Unfortunately, that’s not been the case and far from it. Treasurer Abetz and the Liberals have shown that they have no interest in using this panel as a forum for genuine budget input. In fact, it is been a one‑way street; the government has been making major budget decisions without notifying panel members and even, when we are on it, resisting basic requests for important topics to be placed on the panel’s agenda for discussion.
Policy decisions with big budget implications have been made and it is a question for remaining members on that committee, were you consulted? Were you consulted over the Treasurer’s pokies announcement? As an alternative to the pokies precommitment card, something that Deloitte’s report found would deliver a net economic benefit of $230 million to $240 million by 2030. The Treasurer has gone and done something else that will deliver nowhere near the benefit. Were you consulted over the $10 million handout to a private property developer to build a private convention centre? Were you consulted about Building Tasmania and the axing of 250 jobs, from what is now the Department of State Growth, and that will Building Tasmania?
These are decisions that have profound implications on the budget, and it begs the question: were you, as the crossbench members of that panel, consulted? I know when we sat on it, we certainly weren’t consulted over stadium decisions and the like. The Greens remain committed to working constructively and collaboratively across the parliament to achieve positive outcomes for Tasmania and its people. However, we will not let the Liberals get away with using what’s become a shallow process as political cover for their deeply misguided and unpopular budget decisions.
While we’re on pokies, I will talk about political donations. Dr Woodruff has announced our intention to ban political donations, and there’s no better case study of the corrupting influence of political donations than the pokies lobby and its influence on policy. The Premier has abandoned his promise to implement the Liquor and Gaming Commission-recommended loss-limit card, and the Treasurer announced a raft of bit-part alternatives, some of which will actually make things worse for problem gamblers. It begs the question: why? Why would you do that when it’s worse for problem gamblers, when it’s worse for the budget, when it’s worse for jobs? Well, the Tasmanian Hospitality Association donated $217,700 to the Liberals between 27 June and 30 June last year, just before the election – by the way, they also donated $31,000 to the Labor Party. To put that into perspective: in January this year Tasmanians lost $17.42 million to the pokies. They are parasitic machines, and we can see, in those equations, the investment of $200‑plus‑thousand‑dollars by the pokies lobby in one month returned $17 million.
I also can’t talk about the budget and debt crisis without talking about and touching on the stadium, because it’s emblematic of bad decision-making – it was made against expert advice. There is no substance behind the proposal in terms of it being a ‘build it and they will come’ type mentality, and it’s an absolute train-wreck in the making.
The energy infrastructure issue is the latest shambles: a supposed thermal energy plant, substations either on the site, in the Baha’i Centre on private land, on Hobart City Council land ‑ significant upgrade of the network around the streets of Hobart. Is it part of the $1.3 billion cost of the stadium? Is it going to be paid for by energy consumers in Tasmania, as has been floated in the RTI that the Greens got? The Greens won’t stop opposing the stadium. There are plenty of big developments that have been approved and that never get built because they are a bad decision and we think the stadium could be one of those.
As has already been said, there’s 5387 active applications on the housing register and people are waiting ever longer. Dodgy data has been created in terms of stacking up against the Liberals 10,000 home target – that includes vacant land, that includes crisis accommodation and the like – and the failures when it comes to housing are writ large. It’s less than four years since it was created; Homes Tasmania is now being disbanded and brought back into the government, and this is something that we welcome. It’s an acknowledgement from the Liberals that Homes Tasmania just simply wasn’t working. The Greens always opposed the Liberals’ move to take responsibility for housing out of government and into a business, and it’s a neoliberal response to a neoliberal problem. It’s a core responsibility of government to assure everybody has a safe and affordable place. We welcome the fact that Homes Tasmania and the responsibility of building homes is brought back into government. However, we believe there needs to be more explanation about exactly how does this work: what happens to the debt, how is it going to be funded, how are we going to staff it and, actually, how are we going to build out the homes that Tasmanians need?
Of course, it’s not just homes that we need to build, we also need to protect the homes that we’ve got and we need to rein in out-of-control short‑stay accommodation. The 5 per cent levy that the government’s about to levy on short‑stay accommodation isn’t about dealing with the problem of short-stay accommodation isn’t about dealing with the problem of short stays taking whole-home rentals out of the market. It’s a revenue-raising measure. We also recognise that the Residential Tenancy Act review has been brought forward. It’s critical that this review identifies rental controls and minimum standards, ends unfair evictions and actually protects renters. We made some small progress last year when it came to renters’ rights with the pets reform, but it simply isn’t enough.
When it comes to education, the Tasmanian education system has received poor marks in the Productivity Commission’s latest report on government services. Without the support they need, disadvantaged Tasmanian students are struggling to stay in school and get the qualifications and life opportunities they need. Tasmania has the second highest proportion of low socio‑economic advantage students in the country, as high as 43 per cent in public schools, so there are many areas of the education system that need proper funding. The Liberals could start by giving teachers and support workers the fair deal for pay and conditions they have been denied for many months.
I will now talk about energy. The Greens are strong supporters of renewable energy. We recognise that the transition from fossil fuels is urgent and will need investment in renewable energy generation and associated infrastructure. That is not to say that every proposed project or associated transmission requirement is appropriate. The renewables transmission cannot come at the expense of biodiversity and other values, including Aboriginal heritage values. Robbins Island is a case in point. As I mentioned, significant impact on species, significant impact on Aboriginal heritage that wasn’t adequately assessed. Every development should go through a proper process.
We should also be looking beyond big industrial developments and focus on community‑scale solar and batteries, energy efficiency, independence in our households and the like – private generation that doesn’t come at a cost to the very values that make Tasmania special. I’ve sat on the energy committee with Mr Garland and others, and Marinus simply doesn’t stack up. It will make energy costs more expensive here in the state. It will drive industrialisation of the landscape across northern Tasmania and it is a huge risk when battery technology and other generation and storage technology is becoming more efficient, more effective and much cheaper on the mainland.
It was a welcome opportunity to talk about multicultural issues as part of the motion of condolence on Bondi yesterday. Racism is still a huge problem in our state and our country, and we need to do more. The national debate about migration is deeply concerning and it is having an impact on people every single day. As a spokesperson for multicultural affairs, I recommit the Greens to making sure that we do everything we can to make Tasmania an inclusive and friendly place for all and stamp out racism forever.
I don’t think we have the same rosy picture that the Premier has painted but I’m proud to be part of the Greens team standing up for the things that matter.
