Mr BAYLEY (Clark) – Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for bringing this matter of public importance on for debate. When it comes to state finances, everything is a choice and everything has flow‑on impacts that affect people on the ground in Tasmania. There are impacts on everything from education to health, housing and the environment. At the end of the day, poverty is a political choice. Services are a political choice. Education is a political choice. Health care is a political choice. Housing is a political choice.
Everything comes back to choices and priorities. It is not only what the government is choosing to spend its money on, or our money as the taxpayers. It is not only where that money goes but where it gets that money from. We, the Greens, have been highlighting for a long time the fact that Tasmania could have so much more money to invest in health care, housing, education and other initiatives that people are desperately crying out for if only we addressed our business properly, and brought business into line with other parts of the country and other parts of the world.
For example, mining royalties could be increased. In the 12 months to May 2023, the Tasmanian mining industry exported $2.8 billion worth of mineral products. That is 62 per cent of the state’s mercantile export value. Despite this, we only collected $56 million in royalties, under 2 per cent of Tasmania’s own source revenue. Casino taxes are another example. Fish farm royalties are another example. We could be harvesting more worth and wealth from these companies that are, at the end of the day, exploiting much of what is beautiful about Tasmania.
There are other decisions and other political choices that the government makes, like subsidies and investments. There are subsidies in the racing industry; there are subsidies in the logging industry. In question time this morning we were discussing $10 million for a four-wheel driving strategy across an irreplaceable Aboriginal cultural landscape. The last time this government tried to do that, it was held up in the courts and it ultimately had to refer the proposal to the feds for proper assessment.
The government makes choices about where these investments are going. The biggest political choice that is on the table at the moment when it comes to the Tasmanian economy and the Tasmanian people and indeed, the Tasmanian people’s frustration and disbelief at the priorities this government is setting, is obviously a Mac Point stadium – a billion‑dollar stadium on one of the premier brownfield development sites in the country, let alone in the state. This government has signed us up to a specific stadium. It has 23,000 seats and a roof. It has signed up us taxpayers to every single dollar of cost overruns. We have to remember this investment comes at the expense of investments in health care, housing and education. The government publishes some pretty good and pretty glossy plans around what they are striving to do – the Housing Strategy being a case in point. It is a good strategy for 10 000 homes that are absolutely needed, but we do not see that strategy matched with the level of funding that is needed to actually deliver it.
It impacts on things across the state. We heard this morning again in question time some of the challenges of recruitment in out-of-home care in the north‑west of the state. We know there are problems with recruitment of teaching and support staff in our schools. We know there is a massive challenge to recruit bus drivers to get those services back on the streets so that Tasmanians can move around. There is no functioning economy without people being able to move between their home and their places of work, but we are not able to invest in those services. We are not able to invest in improving the conditions of those workers and, therefore, recruit people.
A reminder: our education system has a 53 per cent year 12 attainment rate. Our economy and the state’s finances are not going to improve unless we can straighten out the education system and get more of our people educated in tertiary education and contributing to the economy.
Then, of course, there are decisions that do not even take investment to fix – major structural financial problems. In housing, for example, it is not only the fact that we do not have enough houses to house people who are needing one. From a social perspective, we do not even have enough houses to house the workforce in rural and regional areas, so dollars are not the only solutions. We need structural reform as well.
Time expired.
