Ms ROSOL (Bass) -Honourable Speaker, I take this opportunity to respond to the Tasmanian Development Amendment Bill 2024 and I thank the Premier for the briefing his office provided earlier this week. I appreciate their explanation of the bill.
I want to provide comment on aspects of this bill from the Greens’ perspective. The Premier describes this bill as a part of their plan to modernise Tasmanian Development and Resources so it can better achieve its function of supporting Tasmanian businesses and the state’s economic development. The Greens see this as an example of the government’s devotion to placing business before the needs of the people of Tasmania for fully funded services across the spectrum of both government and non-government service providers.
We are in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis, a health crisis and a housing crisis, and every day we hear stories of Tasmanians struggling to make ends meet or unable to access the healthcare or housing support they need. Despite the desperate need in our community, the government is demanding efficiencies across government departments, cutting jobs in the public sector. Every part of the Department of Health has been forced into vacancy control measures that are taking workers out of the health system at a time when they are most needed. At the same time, non-government service providers are reporting record levels of demand for services and this is stretching them beyond capacity.
I have spoken to many service providers across the community, youth and disability sectors and every single one spoke of the desperate need for more funding to be able to fulfil their duties in supporting Tasmanian people.
One program provider I spoke with is funded to provide literacy support in a low socioeconomic community. They were given the impression they had been successful in obtaining five years of funding, only now to be told their funding will not be renewed at the end of this year after only three and a half years. It seems their literacy program has fallen victim to government budget cuts and they are devastated that they will not be able to continue to build capacity in their community, supporting people to gain literacy skills that will help them better participate in society, join the workforce and prosper.
I asked a several organisations how much money they needed to run their programs and fulfil their obligations and the figures they gave me were relatively small. $145,000 a year for the literacy program, $400,000 for an organisation to provide advocacy for a whole segment of the Tasmanian community and $110,000 extra to employ an additional staff member who would boost services. These are not large amounts.
TasCOSS and other peak bodies have been pleading without success for an increase in the indexation of funding to organisations across the community, mental health and disability sectors. Current indexation that provides for 12.5 per cent increases in funding across four years, which is a 3 per cent to 3.5 per cent increase per year, does not even keep up with inflation and is leading to service cuts that are directly impacting on the health and wellbeing of Tasmanians and their ability to participate in their communities.
What does all this have to do with a bill about economic development? This highlights the value systems at play in the legislation we produce. There are many ways to boost the economy of Tasmania. We could pour money into private businesses, help them boost their profits and wait for the benefits to trickle down to the average Tasmanian, or we could better invest in people, ensuring their safety, boosting their health, mental health and education by providing the things they need to participate, engage and contribute as active members of our community. That kind of investment boosts the economy by boosting people.
Yes, we need thriving, successful businesses in Tasmania and it is exciting to see so many innovative businesses here, but is it ethical to funnel large amounts of public money into supporting private businesses while public services are going begging? The Greens do not believe so. At the same time as the public service and community organisations are being denied extra funding, or worse, having their funding cut, we cannot in good conscience support what amounts to enormous increases in loans to businesses in the private sector.
Clause 4 amendments provide for increases in the order of 100 per cent through to a whopping 400 per cent. It is astounding that service providers must fight for a 3 per cent increase to their funding while businesses are being handed the opportunity of such enormous increases in loans or government equity investment. As I said earlier, it is all about values and the Greens hold the value of putting people first. We believe government should put the service needs of Tasmanians first and properly fund government services and community service providers.
In relation to the specifics of this bill, I would like to comment on several clauses. Clause 4 amends the general powers of the TDR in section 9 of the principal act. Keeping in mind the values system the Greens bring to this debate, we consider the amendment to section 9(2)(b) of the principal act increasing the cap on secured loans from $3 million to $15 million to be excessive. This is an increase of 400 per cent. At the briefing, I asked the reason for this increase, as it is not in line with inflation and is not consistent or in proportion to the other changes being made to caps in this bill. The response I received was there was not a specific motivation for this figure being chosen, but it was felt $15 million filled the gap between the equity option in section 9B of the principal act and unsecured loans. We are not convinced of the strength of this argument but as the loans will be secured, we will support this amendment.
Again, the amendment in section 9(2)(d) increasing the cap on government equity investment from $10 million to $35 million is a significant jump. We asked for the reasons behind this 250 per cent increase. We also asked if this increase had been requested by a private business or if the government had a specific project in mind when they settled on this amount. We were advised that this increase was a Liberal election promise that was made specifically to enable the development of the Launceston Health Hub. The Greens are concerned about the precedent this amendment sets. While the Launceston Health Hub can be expected to make a positive contribution to the health of people in the north of the state, it is concerning that legislation is being amended so dramatically in response to a request from a private business. What is to stop any other business requesting an amount larger than $35 million and the government jumping to pave a smooth path and then amending the legislation again, favouring business, potentially at the expense of the public?
While we have these concerns about the amendment to section 9B, we will support the amendment because of the significance of the Launceston Health Hub to the provision of health care in the north of Tasmania. However, we emphasise our commitment to properly funding public health care and not relying on private health services to meet the needs of Tasmanians.
The Greens do not support the amendments to section 9 (4A) or (4B) of the principal act.
While $500 000 is far less than the $35 million for government equity investment, or the $15 million for a secured amount, is still a significant amount of money in terms of the Tasmanian budget. As I mentioned, this could fund some community organisations or programs for several years. To risk this amount of money on an unsecured loan is not acceptable in our view.
Similarly, choosing to discharge liabilities up to $50,000 is to let money that could otherwise benefit Tasmanians slip away. We would like to see the cap on discharging liabilities remain at $20,000.
In relation to other clauses of this bill, we will support these amendments. However, we emphasise the importance of transparency and accountability. The minister must ensure that decisions involving the lending or equity investment of large amounts of money are clearly communicated to the parliament and the people of Tasmania.
It is important that all Tasmanian funds are used wisely to best meet the needs of the state, that public and community services are fully funded and that we have a holistic view of the ways we can boost the health and wealth of our state.
