Speech-in-Reply: Tasmania State Budget 2022
Ms WEBB (Nelson) – Mr President, I rise to provide my response to the state Budget 2022-23. A lot has certainly changed since we last stood here responding to the previous state budget which was barely nine months ago, as it was slightly delayed again last year.
We now have before us a new Premier, a new Treasurer and a couple of elections have occurred in the meantime including in this place and federally. It is fair to say the 2022‑23 Budget has been delivered within a very difficult political landscape than last year’s.
The political tectonic plates have well and truly shifted. That shift has come into sharp focus with the recent federal election and its results. It has been interesting to see pundits and commentators alike now seeking to make sense of this fairly extraordinary result through, perhaps belatedly, recognising the community lens brought to that election which very much prioritised climate change action, integrity, gender equality and inclusion as key themes.
Here at a local level, new Premier Mr Rockliff, in a media release on the 8 April undertook:
… to lead a government with integrity, a government that is courageous, accountable, delivers on its commitments, but above all, I will lead a government with heart.
Importantly in that same media release the Premier stated a vision for Tasmania that it was to be a place where everyone feels valued, included, encouraged and supported to be the best they can be. Very pleasing statements to hear from the new Premier, given the overlap between the federal election we have had and its themes, the resignation of former premier Gutwein, the change to current Premier Rockliff and the finalisation of this state Budget, all underway during that period.
The budget papers before us provide the first opportunity to examine the synergies between the community’s priorities and Premier Rockliff’s stated objectives. Also to assess whether and how well the 2022-23 state Budget reflects the acknowledged need to improve a respectful relationship between community and government and between the executive of parliament, while delivering a coherent plan to place Tasmania on a sound fiscal footing.
However, for all intents and purposes, it appears this state Budget, despite having its bags packed, has missed the zeitgeist train. It lacked the agility to jump aboard the compassionate, the cost of living, climate action, integrity and gender quality carriages as they left the station.
We know the state Budget, whether national or sub-national, is more than a mere set of numbers. It is not just a ledger tracking incoming and outgoing monies. It is also a significant statement and expression of a government’s public policy prioritisation.
In addition, it must be acknowledged that since 2020, national and state governments and treasurers have faced extreme challenges. There was no pandemic budget blueprint for treasurers to follow, nor for others to evaluate those pandemic-constrained efforts.
However, the recent announcement that by 30 June the Government intends to lift all COVID-19-related Public Health directions, means Tasmania will be formally no longer in a pandemic. The removal of that pandemic status and hopefully, an equivalent reduction in our overuse of the word ‘unprecedented’, perhaps.
The end of this financial year means, in effect, that this is the first post-pandemic transitional budget for the state. I say transitional, as the budget papers still make backup or emergency provisions, for example the additional money provided in the 2022-23 Treasurer’s Reserve allocation. Which according to its footnote is for the purpose of ‘unexpected COVID‑19 pandemic and other costs which could not be reasonably foreseen at the time of developing 2022-23 Budget’.
In a hopeful post-pandemic context, this Budget will be a crucial test of the rubber hitting the road. How well have the post-pandemic foundations been set over previous financial years? Are we entrenching social and economic intergeneration disadvantage, or have we seized opportunities to reorientate to restructure, to tackle head-on those inequities and divisions?
How do we get back on to that zeitgeist train while ensuring it stays on its fiscal tracks? Let me start by talking about state tax reform, a good place to start. As we formally move out of a pandemic status we need to ensure we leave nobody behind when we do so. As warned during and since 2020, we must ensure the pre-pandemic social and economic fault lines are not allowed to calcify and worsen. Cost of living challenges pose vicious and compounding cycles. Static and supressed wage rates exacerbate rental and housing pressures, power and heating pressures, food insecurity and corresponding increases in health and mental health challenges. With reduced money circulating, local economies stagnate or shrink which risks further turning of the screw when it comes to unemployment, underemployment and wage rates.
This is not a hypothetical scenario. It is the description of the real-life experience of many Tasmanians, and I will talk a little later more about the cost of living. There may be a cautious welcome of the larger than projected new operating expenditure in this Budget over the forward Estimates through until 2025-26. However, there is an understandable concern over the lack of a plan, other than an indicative and movable time frame, identifying strategies to manage and reduce the expected larger cash deficits and the increase in net debt to $4.9 billion by the end of the 2026 financial year. According to Saul Eslake, this net debt figure, and I quote from him from 26 May, ‘is equivalent to about 11.3 per cent of forecast growth state product, the highest this percentage has been since 1998-99’.
Sometime down the track debts will need to be serviced, as will interest on that debt, while community services and support will still need to be provided. In this context it is also worth noting the recent policy decisions such as reduction in land tax, which will see the state revenue reduced by $173 million over the four years through to 2025-26 without any objective or rigorous mechanism by which to evaluate the benefit of this policy change for the broader community. This was a giveaway of state revenue, targeted to achieve no social or equity outcomes – simply a gift, extra money into the pockets of those whose are least likely to need it.
The member for Murchison also pointed to this and to the other gift – the loss of state revenue that we have projected with the reforms coming through the gambling bill that was passed here last year. We will see half a billion dollars of revenue to this state lost as a gift through heavily and unnecessarily discounted tax rates in casinos applied to poker machines and to Keno. Shame on this place, shame on us for passing that and depriving our state of the nurses, teachers and social services that could have been delivered with half a billion dollars over the licence period.
However, moving on to that other elephant in the Budget, the state’s ongoing reliance on GST revenue as well as Commonwealth grants. As Budget Paper No. 1 on page 83 tells us, the previous horizontal fiscal equalisation (HFE) strategy has been amended with the new distribution methodology expected to reduce our GST revenue over the forward Estimates. However, the budget papers quickly reassure us that due to the federal:
… temporary no-worse‑off guarantee ensures that no state will be worse off in total under the new distribution arrangements during the transition period up to 2026-27.
The key phrase there is ‘the transition period’. That grace period is set to terminate in three financial years. What happens then? As Saul Eslake summarised last week:
… unless it is extended, or the GST revenue sharing formulae reverts to its previous form, Tasmania in particular (given its greater reliance on its share of GST revenue than any other jurisdiction except the Northern Territory) stands to be considerably adversely affected.
That was from 26 May.
Presuming the GST distribution formula does not revert to its previous form by the end of the transition period of 2026-27, we could see this source of income adversely affected just as the budget papers tell us we will have reached cash deficits of over $4 billion. The combined cost of debt service payments and defined benefit superannuation costs will reach 6.3 per cent of cash receipts in 2025-26, exceeding the government’s fiscal strategy limit of 6 per cent. Although those same papers state the government will take remedial action to deliver all stated fiscal strategic actions over the medium term, details of exactly what such action might look like is not provided, nor is there a time frame for such action. Clearly, any remedial action will involve changes to spending and revenue raising.
During my budget reply speech last year, I called for an independent expert review of Tasmania’s taxation and revenue system. It is a call made by others here in this place, and in the wider community, and I reiterate that call now. This is work that must be done. We have had years of circular debates about regressive taxes versus progressive taxes. We need some form of circuit-breaker which is also devoid of ideological imperatives.
To break the current impasse on meaningful and effective structural reform of Tasmania’s state taxation and revenue financial system, we need an independent inquiry into structural reform of the state’s taxation and revenue system. Such a review would do the following things: review the state’s recognised narrow taxation and revenue base and seek potential modern, equitable and efficient means to broaden that base; review whether the current mix and emphasis of the state tax and revenue base provides the stability and certainty necessary to deliver important community services; review whether the current taxation and revenue mix supports, or risks undermining, modern public policy direction and demand – for example, the potential impact of reducing or removing taxes on positives such as employment, while redirecting tax focus onto damaging practices, such as pollution; and other incentivising taxes that encourage social and sustainable reforms.
It would review any current revenue foregone options formalised within our current state tax and revenue mix, and identify any required transitional time frames and support, including funding to assist those most affected by any proposed reforms. We have had other suggestions. The member for Murchison put forward the idea of a deliberative democracy approach to this sort of review and reform. That is certainly a laudable option, and one that we could also consider.
I believe it would be appropriate, as another option, for the parliament to commission and set the terms of reference for an independent panel of experts with appropriate fiscal reform expertise. As some members are aware, former parliaments have attempted taxation reform, such as the 2011 tripartite State Tax Review panel consisting of then Labor premier and treasurer, Lara Giddings, the shadow treasurer, Peter Gutwein, the Greens treasury spokesperson, Tim Morris, and the member for Murchison, Ruth Forrest, MLC.
Despite undertaking public consultation, including public forums in late 2011, the State Tax Review panel announced its decision to discontinue that formal review. To quote from their statement issued in November 2011, that decision was made – ‘due to the perceived limited ability to reform state taxation in the current, post-GFC economic environment’. Prior to the discontinuation of the review, the panel did acknowledge that many of the submissions received ‘involved broadening the tax base in order to reduce tax rates or remove less efficient forms of taxation’. However, they were unable to forge ahead and develop alternative options within that process.
An independent panel of experts, or another mechanism to achieve similar ends, would not be as constrained by political ideology and should be able to provide rigorous and credible options brought back to this parliament for open debate.
Timing-wise, we have that GST transition period expiry date of 2026-27 to provide us with an imperative. Tasmanians deserve a transparent and accountable plan A, and even a plan B for the state, as well as something to take to the Commonwealth for consideration. I noted last week at the budget breakfast in Hobart that the Treasurer expressed a willingness to contemplate a review and reform of state taxation. Unfortunately, he confirmed that neither increased nor new taxes would be considered as acceptable by the Government, which effectively gives lie to that expressed willingness.
As already mentioned, the 2022-23 budget papers are very clear that we are moving out of a pandemic situation – according to the Government – and that the focus is now on strengthening essential services to support living with COVID-19. That is in Budget Paper No. 1, page 4, of the budget papers.
A key failing of these budget papers is the lack of integration of and reporting back on the COVID-19 support-related line items identified by the Premier’s Economic and Social Recovery Advisory Council (PESRAC). As members will recall, PESRAC was charged with developing Tasmania’s COVID-19 response and recovery plan.
In March last year, the Government accepted all 52 recommendations of the PESRAC final report, additional to the 64 recommendations contained in the July 2020 interim report. A total of 116 PESRAC COVID-19 response and recovery recommendations.
I recognise that not all 116 of those recommendations would have budgetary implications or implementations, but the majority did. Not all would continue across the forward Estimates, and some of those which do are probably included in the budget output group 90, which in places still appears in these budget papers before us. However, during last year’s budget Estimates committee hearings, I raised and received an undertaking from the then premier and treasurer to investigate requiring the budget papers to clearly identify which departments were responsible for which PESRAC recommendations and also how those recommendations correlated with budget output group and line items.
Further, that not only would the papers present any remaining PESRAC-related expenditure for the current financial year and/or forward Estimates, but detail the impact and effectiveness or otherwise of that initiative already delivered. For example, to pluck one random PESRAC recommendation, the July 2020 interim report recommendation number 39, which states:
The State Government should implement and fund the Community Arts and Cultural Development strategy.
That is from page 57 of the PESRAC interim report, recommendation 39. However, if we search in the budget papers for the arts allocation, Budget Paper No. 2 Volume 1, Department of State Growth, it does not identify such a strategy. But, table 11.2 in a footnote 9 does state:
The decrease in Arts Industry Development in 2022‑23 reflects the funding profile for the Community Arts and Cultural Development Fund, Creative and Cultural Recovery Support, and Arts and Cultural Grants Fund.
That is page 276 of Budget Paper No. 2, Volume 1. Is that it? Is that the fate, the final resting place of PESRAC COVID-19 response and recovery recommendation number 39 from the interim report? Is the decrease in funding there specified from around just over $13 million down to about $9.5 million in 2022‑23 because the sector has determined the strategy is implemented in full and further assistance is unnecessary?
If the Community Arts and Cultural Development Fund was a mechanism of implementing this particular PESRAC recommendation, what impact did it have? Was it effective? Did it deliver as it was intended?
These questions may be explored in Estimates, but without a clear presentation of all PESRAC recommendations in the budget papers following up on them with appropriate scrutiny is very challenging. This data should be collated financial year by financial year, allowing people to track and follow each of the 116 PESRAC recommendations that have either been funded by state coffers or have impacted budgetary priorities and fiscal policy, their implementation time frames and their evaluated effectiveness. It should not require Sherlock Holmesesque detective work and processes of elimination to find them.
Further, we have been told the Government intends to declare at the end of this month we are officially no longer in a COVID-19 pandemic condition, so it would be absolutely responsible and accountable to provide a comprehensive progress and evaluation report of the PESRAC plan, which was intended to drive our COVID-19 response and recovery. How effective were the PESRAC recommendations? Wholly, partly, not at all? In what way were they effective? Why were they effective? What are the short, medium, and long-term impacts? Where is our collective debrief on this, Mr President?
This is an issue of good, basic, accountability. To clarify, I am not disputing at all the need to provide COVID-19 and pandemic-related economic and social support in my comments here, and they should not be construed as such. I am saying that before the debt ramifications of that support are used to potentially justify a later slash and burn fiscal tightening of belts mantra, we should be able to clearly identify and evaluate the effectiveness or otherwise of those COVID-19 measures. It would make good public policy sense also.
As previously recognised, there was no how to cope with a protracted pandemic crisis blueprint for governments or treasurers. However, we have been developing a de facto blueprint on the run. If future need arises and future governments and parliaments need to contend with similar challengers, how will they evaluate our COVID-19 response? A proper detailed benchmark and indicator budgetary framework would be responsible and invaluable corporate knowledge.
While on the subject of benchmarking, I do want to note and acknowledge the inclusion of strategic actions detailed in the Fiscal Strategy progress papers against which the 2022‑23 Budget process is reported, that is in table 3.1, Budget Paper No.1 pages 32 to 37. This is a form of clear and measurable progress indicators, which ideally can be compared from one budget to the next. Table 3.1 of Budget Paper No. 1, is a good start. It shows evaluating and measuring budgetary deliverables against intent and goals can be done, and has a place in budget papers. We need to see such systematic articulation of concrete strategy actions with respective measurable performance and delivery indicators applied more rigorously through the budget and other public policy deliverables. Before the PESRAC-free zone in the current budget papers, it’s worth noting the Tasmanian Government, coronavirus.tas.gov.au website states the following, and I quote –
In 2020, the Government accepted all of 116 recommendations from the two reports produced by PESRAC. Progress on the delivery of PESRAC interim recommendations will be publicly reported in the first half of 2022.
Well, we are now concluding the first half of 2022, and this is news to me. It also appears to be news to Treasury and those working on the budget papers. I would welcome such a progress report on the delivery of PESRAC recommendations, but I would have thought much of the relevant data would have been financial and therefore could have been incorporated into these budget papers to facilitate this reporting back. I would appreciate an update from the Government, if possible, detailing when we can expect this publicly promoted progress report for the implementation of the PESRAC interim recommendations.
Where to even start on whether and how the 2022-23 budget papers incorporate and plan for the greatest global public policy challenge – climate change action. Sadly, I am not even at risk of pre-empting an order of the day here. Despite being tabled downstairs, we do not have a clear timetable from the Government as to when they are going to prioritise debate on the long-stalled Climate Change (State Actions) Amendment Bill 2021.
Anyone waiting for any indication from the Treasurer during his speech was sorely disappointed. Despite climate change and the new Renewables, Climate and Future Industries Tasmania (RECFIT) being shared across the output groups of both Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania, and Treasury and Finance, progress on the long overdue climate change bill is literally relegated to a footnote in these budget papers – footnote number 6 of table 12.6 Budget Paper No. 2, Volume 1 to be exact. I quote from that.
The Government’s next climate change action plan is under development pending the passage of the Climate Change (State Action) Amendment Bill 2021.
That is page 319, Budget Paper No. 2, Volume 1. Therefore, the corresponding table can only indicate an intention of more than $90 000 to be required should the bill be passed by the parliament sometime during the next financial year.
Given the urgency expressed by many sectors and individuals in the community for comprehensive climate change action, and also a very keen awareness for compliance monitoring and reporting, I would be very surprised if this indicative amount in the Budget footnote is sufficient. It is also worth noting that it does not appear any new money has been allocated to the Climate Change Action Plan. Instead, we are relying on the funding provided in the 2021-22 Budget, to continue implementing what is described as the ‘whole-of-government plan to guide the Government’s activity on climate change’. That is from Budget Paper No. 2, Volume 1, page 309.
The Budget speech – delivered barely five days following a Federal election that was christened The Climate Election – was a missed opportunity. It was an opportunity which should have been seized to clarify and commit to prioritising Tasmania’s climate change action legislative and regulatory framework. That is was not, is quite mind-boggling. The lack of urgency exhibited by the Government on this critical matter, which has clear synergies with the current cost of living crisis as well as human rights considerations, reveals a worrying and unwarranted complacency.
The least an engaged and responsive Government should have provided in its budget papers is a clear time frame for parliamentary debate on the Climate Change (State Action) Amendment Bill 2021 to commence. This should have included an intention to commence debate in a timely manner to ensure the parliament has dealt with the bill prior to the November 2022 United Nations Climate Change Conference (UN COP 27) meeting, so that Tasmania’s regulatory regime could be included in Australia’s report to that global meeting. Additionally, implementation allocations for that bill based on modelling could have been allocated across the forward Estimates.
I now move on to discuss the long-promised, long-overdue state political donations disclosure reforms.
Surprisingly, this morning the Attorney-General tabled the Electoral Disclosure and Funding Bill 2022 in the other place. I say surprise, as it coincides with growing consternation that on the one hand the Government is touting the need to make our local government here more democratically robust, and at the same time, it has left this inexplicable, gaping hole in the fabric of our democratic accountability and governance for the past four years.
In turn, that has left a gaping chasm on which public trust in our system of governance teeters. We all know why this legislation is a no‑brainer. Voters deserve to know before they go to the ballot box, who has paid what to whom, who is bankrolling and seeking to influence the outcome of an election or government policy. It is as simple as that.
I have not had the time or opportunity to examine closely the long-awaited bill tabled this morning, but at a swift glance, alarm bells are beginning to sound. This bill will serve as a defining test of how genuine the Premier, Mr Rockliff is, when he claims he intends to lead a government of integrity and accountability.
Will his premiership be defined by the fact he presided over ushering in the nation’s most robust and thorough political donations disclosure regime, or will he again allow Tasmania to languish in the embarrassing position of having the nation’s worst and weakest political donations allowed regime.
Currently, there are deeply concerning indications that the undemocratic habits are going to remain entrenched, no matter who is at the helm in this Government. The Government is happy to leapfrog its own remaining legislative priority agenda by bringing in other legislation under the guise of urgency, which impacts on democracy and people’s capacity to participate in it. We have seen the re‑emergence of controversial anti‑protester laws, which goes to show how determined the Government can be, when they decide something is important, either to them or to particular stakeholder groups.
What a shame that we did not see similar responsiveness to the broader electorate demands for political donation reforms over these past four years.
Suddenly, we were told last week that local government voting reforms are an absolute must. I agree that standardising compulsory voting would strengthen our democracy, but I am not convinced it is so time‑sensitive that it needs to take precedence over the state Budget scrutiny process.
There is a bizarre tone‑deafness to this sudden and determined top‑down, non‑inclusive meddling with people’s democratic rights and election processes, which seems to suit the Government, while the grassroots call for rigorous and realtime political donations disclosure reforms was essentially fobbed off by this Government for four years.
One cannot help but think, that if concerns about strengthening this democracy in the local government elections was genuine and altruistic, also introducing rigorous, realtime political donations disclosure laws in time for the local government October elections would be an equally important democratic reform to make.
However, it appears the Government’s sudden local council election changes took the Treasury by surprise too, as there is no provision that I could find anywhere in the budget papers, or in the Treasurer’s Budget Speech for funding any additional education or implementation requirements of this mooted reform.
There is an allocation of $1.6 million for the current local government review which is underway, which according to the Treasurer’s Speech is examining, and I quote:
The future role, functions and design of local government, and the structural and legislative reforms required to meet these objectives.
But this review was apparently excluded from the current decision on local council compulsory voting, and changes to the voting method.
Staying on the topic of democracy for a short while longer, another sudden, policy on the run – albeit a welcome one – was the recent announcement by the Premier to move on restoring Assembly numbers and to have legislation introduced by the end of this calendar year.
This will clearly be an investment in both the robustness of our parliamentary democracy, and encouraging improved diversity and inclusion.
Again, clearly an announcement outside this budget process, with no provision made, that I can see, across the forward Estimates in these papers, for any planned education, or implementation costs between debate and potential passage of that proposed bill and the next general election, when it is planned to come into effect.
Clearly restoring the numbers, as they were in the other place, with five electorates of seven members, would also restore the integrity of the Hare-Clark quota while minimising any costs or potential voter confusion associated with electorate boundary changes.
I also urge that serious consideration is given to the potential for including dedicated Tasmanian Aboriginal seats in that reform process, additional to the straightforward restoration of those five electorates to their pre-1998 numbers.
I cannot help but wonder that if there was a continual representation of the Tasmanian Aboriginal community in this parliament, whether we would see a more prominent representation of their needs reflected in budget papers, such as the ones we have before us.
While it is good to see the ongoing investment in the important, and federally shared, Closing the Gap program, I note that after its slight increase in allocation in 2022-23, the funding has fluctuated across the forward Estimates. The 2022-23 $500 000 allocated to the implementation of the 24 recommendations made in the 2020-21 Pathway to Truth-Telling and Treaty report is good to see here, and I welcome it. That really is a minimal down payment on such a crucial ongoing process.
I consider it odd there is nothing further allocated across the forward Estimates. It would be useful to see a breakdown of exactly how those 24 recommendations would have been benchmarked, implemented and evaluated. A task for Estimates, perhaps.
Further, while I appreciate that the Truth-Telling and Treaty discussions will be an evolving process, it would be prudent forward planning to recognise that resources will be needed for future uses and redress. We are seeing the Government do that in light of other mechanisms, such as the Commission of Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse.
Before I leave the issue of what these budget papers tell us about ongoing commitment to strengthening our democratic and governance systems, I take this opportunity to quickly highlight that we are still sorely in need of a Tasmanian human rights act as previously recommended by the Tasmania Law Reform Institute. The need to invest in our human rights protections framework is becoming increasingly evident within the budgetary process.
As the primary policy expression of Government priorities, the budget process presents significant implications and ramifications for so many human rights considerations such as our approach to and recognition of cost of living challenges, and access to a safe and secure roof over people’s heads. The Premier is reported as saying people have a ‘fundamental right to social and affordable housing’. That is reported in The Examiner in April this year.
Human rights considerations also include the recognition and inclusion of our First Nations people, which created diversity and inclusion across the board; the establishment of a new Tasmanian disability commissioner; provision of a liveable wage and gender pay parity; and the emerging recognition of human rights impacts of climate change. This list goes on. These are all things that we currently have in our budget process and are considering here in these papers, which would appropriately link to a legislative framework provided by a Tasmanian human rights act.
So much of the budget process – what it includes and what it omits/speaks volumes about our collective attitude towards human rights. It is appropriate and necessary to point out that a Tasmanian human rights act is a crucial plank to be included in any plan to strengthen our governance, our democracy and accountability foundations.
I come now to the 2022-23 budget papers inaugural Gender Budget Statement. I say at the outset that we would never have expected the first iteration of such a mechanism to be perfect or entirely comprehensive. There would always have been a willingness to embrace a genuine effort, one that perhaps clearly pointed the way to intended improvements and developments in future years. However, what was delivered unfortunately fell short of even that, which is a genuine shame as there had been a real sense of hope following the commitment to produce this statement.
The unanimous support for the debate that occurred in this place on International Women’s Day this year on the need for genuine, gender-responsive budgeting and a rigorous gender budget impact statement, and the subsequent commitment from the Government, fuelled that sense of hope. People felt there was a shared and common understanding of what was required to meet the intent of a gender budget impact statement, and that we were on the same page. However, we were presented with that which we had explicitly stated would not meet those clearly expressed expectations. Put simply, and as a range of expert commentators in this space has stressed over recent years, a glossy shopping list of specific women-oriented election commitments and other gender-oriented election commitments and funding initiatives is not an example of a best practice analytical gender budget impact statement, informed by analytical gender responsive budgeting processes. It is not just a list of such items which could fall beneath women’s support or girls or boys or men or LGBTQI+ Tasmanian-supported headings that are collated to hang off the side of the real budget papers, in inverted commas, such as we were presented with, I believe, last week.
As an aside, the inaugural gender budget statement was not even made available on the Treasury website with the budget papers at the same time the other documents were there. I am happy to say it is there now, though.
I wish to stress that my criticism of the fact that the Government has tried to present such a collation of expenditure items as a gender budget impact statement when it does not qualify for that status is not a criticism of the individual items which are listed in that document, which are all laudable initiatives and programs. I am happy to see them included amongst the government spending and investment priorities. However, the fact that remains their immediate and/or long-term effectiveness in addressing entrenched gender inequalities may be undermined by other measures contained in the budget and fiscal strategy. As any other competing assumptions, challenges, and priorities have not been assessed holistically through that gender process.
As QCOSS, Queensland’s version of TasCOSS, put it:
Gender-responsive budgeting is broader than contemporary versions of women’s budget statements. Cast the lens of an analysis even more broadly across all policy measures contained in the budget. Further, it is not confined to expenditure announcements, but also considers the impact of transfers and taxation settings that are also part of every government’s budget.
That is from a paper by Leonora Risse for QCOSS, July 2021 page 6. That last point is important. That gender responsive budgeting worthy of that name also includes taxation policy. It assesses the impact of all fiscal strategies, including revenue and taxation as well as expenditure.
To move forward in a constructive manner to invest in ensuring that the 2023-24 gender budget impact statement mark II is closer to meeting expectations, I would point to a quick step-by-step breakdown of a simplified, typical gender-responsive assessment model that can be adapted for use from departmental internal assessment through to integrated budget planning and production processes. This process can be found readily on Women in Tasmania’s website. It is laid out there in eight clear points, well described. I also would point to the Women in Tasmania website, which provides links to other jurisdictions who implement gender-based analysis. Some of that might be a little out of date, I do note that the OECD and the IMF as well as the Victorian government have more exhaustive and current lists than that available on our website, but we have a really good start there. There are ample and accessible examples of effective and comprehensive gender-responsive budgeting practices, culminating in meaningful gender budget impact statements.
I am pleased to hear the Minister for Women, in her contribution today, speak about an intention to continue down that track in the future. There is certainly no reason for us to reinvent the wheel here, but I want to see a more genuine effort.
Members may also be interested to know that not long after the gender-responsive debate held in this place in March, the Victorian Public Accounts and Estimates parliamentary committee tabled its inquiry into gender-responsive budgeting report. It was tabled in March, and one would have thought available for every jurisdiction that was serious about developing its own credible and rigorous processes. This report is extremely thorough and makes a range of recommendations, many of which are pertinent for the ongoing development of a meaningful gender-responsive budgeting process here in Tasmania. I will not take up further time now discussing its findings and recommendations but I would draw it to the government’s attention and to that of other members.
I certainly in all fairness do want to reiterate and acknowledge that even with all the other examples available to provide a head start on tailor-making an appropriate, incredible gender-responsive budgeting process, the first iteration was certainly not expected to be perfect. I do not think any member in this place would have expected it to be so. But it was and it remains a fair expectation that the inaugural gender budget impact statement would have provided an initial framework, processes and time frames by which the government intended to develop effective, analytical, structural gender responsive budgeting models.
I will move on a and return to the cost of living, which I note many other members here have also addressed in their contributions. One of the things I find really distasteful at budget time is the inane catchphrase used by the Government over and over again, which is that the budget contains a “record spend” on health, education, justice, infrastructure or whatever you care to poke a stick at. Completely inane comment. Given inflation, in order to invest the same value as last year, you have to spend more. Just because you are spending more, does not mean you are delivering more. A record spend could be a smidgen more than last year and yet fall short of inflation in that particular area and in actual fact be a cut in what is able to be delivered.
The other offensive thing about this Government crowing of record spends at every turn, is that every single household in Tasmania is spending record amounts on a whole range of fundamentals in their budgets. Tasmanians themselves, are in the midst of a record spend on rent, groceries, petrol, insurance and on other staples. Let us talk about the record spend of struggling Tasmanian households in relation to this Budget. One of the most topical issues both at the recent federal election and at the state level has been the cost of living pressures being felt by our communities. Inflation is at a very high level, while wage growth has been very low, if not stagnant. Global economic pressures and global events, including supply chain disruptions have certainly contributed to this situation. We know Tasmanians on low incomes – especially those on income support payments and those in private rental accommodation – are really feeling the pain of these increased costs and are suffering detriment to their health and their wellbeing.
A more granular look at inflation shows some of the costs have risen are the ones that really bite, especially for low income households in our state. For example, while overall inflation has been – I believe – 5.8 per cent, we know that some common items and costs have been much higher than that. Beef 13.1 per cent, vegetables 9.2 per cent, petrol 45.6 per cent, house prices 18.7 per cent, tertiary education 7.4 per cent, pet costs 6.6 per cent, insurance 9.6 per cent and those are a few examples which are really core costs in many households. The impacts of these steeply rising costs are a vicious spiral downwards for those who are in poverty or at risk of poverty. At this time of year, we are particularly mindful of energy costs. While Tasmania has amongst the lowest regulated electricity prices in the country – which the Government loves to tell us – we are amongst the highest users of electricity primarily due to our climate, which means that energy costs are a larger proportion of our household budgets. In addition to our climate, energy costs are unnecessarily higher because our housing stock is typically so poor when it comes to energy efficiency; old or inappropriate heating appliances or equipment, an absence of insulation, insufficient window coverings and virtually no double or triple glazing in this state, means the impact of this is tens of thousands of Tasmanians are experiencing energy poverty. Those are households that ration energy use at this time of year.
What is the Government doing looking at this Budget? Unfortunately, they are mostly continuing existing investments and initiatives, nothing that will provide significant difference to those affected by these costs. The Government points to things like the concessions it provides to water, sewerage, electricity and council rates. It points to the fact that this is indexed to maintain its value over time and that is fine, but it is not transformative, does not solve this issue and keeps us ticking along as we are now. It points to the lowest vehicle registration premiums of all states and territories, again, excellent, but not transformative, just keeps us ticking along as we are now. It is good we have switched to allowing quarterly rego payments for example, car registrations, so that people can have bill-smoothing benefits from that. That is great. It is not transformative, but keeps us ticking along as we are now. Where are the policies and initiatives that tackle these cost of living issues at the source? The energy poverty issue is incontrovertible: longstanding, well understood, with tangible solutions immediately available to a government that cares to engage with them. Where are the government programs to incentivise and/or subsidise improvements to energy efficiency and heating options of our housing stock, not just in public and social housing but in the private rental sector and for low-income homeowners? These kinds of initiatives are not a handout. They are transformative support which improves the housing stock of our state overall. They not only address the energy poverty and alleviate the harm it causes for that household, but they create jobs in doing energy assessments and audits and in the work generated by installation and maintenance of the appliances and the other measures that would be funded through that program. This is not new. We have done it before – in limited ways, but we could do it again right now, this winter.
Ironically, this Government seems more inclined to provide a handout, for example through increased funding to emergency food providers, than to design and fund readily available initiatives that would be a hand up for both those directly benefiting and for our economy overall. In that, I certainly do not disparage the additional funding for emergency food providers. It is the only thing keeping some families going.
I have heard trite pronouncements from members in this place claiming to support the philosophy of ‘a hand up, not a handout’. These claims are shown to be hollow indeed when we look at many of the actual decisions in this Budget and the polices pursued by this Government. I would challenge any members who have made such pronouncements in the past to do an honest audit of your Government’s policies and funding decisions, including those handouts provided, for example, through the land tax cuts that I spoke about earlier.
I also have to wonder whether there is a genuine interest from this Government in seeking good policy solutions to cost of living pressures on low-income households. Are we even making the most of learning from the opportunities that are arising around us? One quick example, recently, when petrol prices spiked, the Government – laudably – decided to offer free buses for five weeks. This was a wonderful opportunity to test and learn what impact that policy would have on the Tasmanian people, their access to transport and their ability to manage cost of living pressures, as well as their engagement with their community, education and employment. What did the Government do to evaluate the full impact of that temporary policy to inform our understanding and be able to consider its potential value as a permanent policy, for example? How have we captured and fully reported on the social and economic impacts of what was essentially a policy pilot of free public transport in this state? For clarity, in asking that, I do not just mean the documentation of patron numbers on buses, but a more nuanced analysis of the social and economic effect during that five-week period. What a shame it would be if we had wasted that opportunity to inform ourselves on what may well have been a game-changing policy worthy of being pursued more permanently.
A key part of the cost of living equations in this state is housing, so I will move on to that area. We know that things are looking grim, especially for those Tasmanians in the private rental market, although we know also that, as interest rates are expected to begin rising for the first time in a decade, we will see homeowners also begin to feel the pressure, especially those with large mortgages due to having purchased during sharply rising house prices. I note, as others have noted here today, that we are facing a situation where we have around 4400 people on our social housing waitlist and that priority applicants on that list are waiting for 90 weeks. I have worked in the community sector for 20 years before coming to this place and I do not remember a situation quite like that in my time – certainly not during the time I was focused on social policy in the decade leading up to being elected.
This is an appalling situation and a dramatic expression of the need in the community. We also know that the NRAS scheme is ending and people are facing a homelessness cliff as their subsidised rents that have been in place under that scheme that has been in place for a decade are about to disappear. As others have said here, I do not believe that it is good enough for our current housing minister to say that he is writing to the federal minister about it. It should not be a buck that is passed. I also do not believe it is good enough for the housing minister to say that those who are affected can ring Housing Connect and seek support. We know that the result of that will be that they will end up being 4401 on the waiting list, and they will wait 90 weeks and in the meantime they will face homelessness.
This situation has been known for a very long time. The state Government has had time to come up with a targeted response for these NRAS tenants. I began asking questions in the first budget I participated in this place in 2019 – what is going to happen when the NRAS comes to an end? What will we do with those tenants? It is cruel that they are now at the eleventh hour and facing homelessness, many of them in there elderly years. Even if they secure new affordable tenancies, the impact on their health and wellbeing of going through the uncertainty and the trauma of this process is unacceptable.
The budget papers indicated a $538 million investment into social and affordable housing and homelessness initiatives, with $204 million of that in 2022-23. The Government claims we are on track to build 1500 homes by June next year. I hope that is true. That would be a small dent in the overwhelming need that is currently there. The Government also states it plans to build 10 000 homes by 2032; but the really simple question is, how can we believe this? I note today analysis by the Greens claiming that over the past eight years we have seen a net gain of only 578 new social housing properties in Tasmania from this Government. That is 72 per year. According to their analysis, 941 new homes were promised by the state Government in 2016-17, but only 186 were built.
In 2017-18 the promise was a total of 900, but, in fact, public housing stock went down in net terms by 212 properties. In 2018-19, 1500 new homes were promised, but 697 have been reported built so far. Despite impressive sounding promises announced, and often re-announced to milk maximum kudos, it appears we see very little delivered by this Government. No wonder that we have seen no tangible improvement on the ground in those services that are trying to support the ever-escalating number of Tasmanians struggling to find an affordable home to live in.
No wonder we are seeing eye-watering waitlists, and waiting times. Given this history, it is hardly surprising that the commitment to build 10 000 homes by 2032 sounds like a pipe dream from this Government, especially when we see in the budget papers that the investment allocated to this initiative is largely pushed out to future years. The Government may dispute the analysis put forward by the Greens today, but to do so it should present accurate data that shows the additions and subtractions from our public and social housing supply and not default to grandstanding re-announcements.
The budget papers outline funding to progress the establishment of the housing authority, as part of the disappearing of the Department of Communities Tasmania. I remain highly sceptical about the breaking up of this department, including the costly and complex process of creating a housing authority with yet another skills-based board and bureaucratic framework. And of course, the removal of responsibility and accountability somewhat from the minister, putting it at arm’s length, where any political heat will be felt much milder by the executive government. The housing authority will be tasked, we are told, with building and acquiring the promised homes and partnering with the community housing organisations to increase supply. As I noted earlier this year in my reply to the Premier’s Address, the proposal is to align the new authority with Infrastructure and State Growth, but of course, the remit of the current Housing Tasmania covers much more than just building things.
The planning, provision and management of public and social housing is not just property development. It is community building and shaping; it is social services, to support individuals and families in their capacity to access a safe and secure home. Housing Tasmania currently covers the planning, funding and oversight of the full suite of Housing Connect services, including homelessness services and rental supports. This is embedded currently in the community sector, intrinsically connected with a range of other social and health services. I ask again, what happens to these connections and the provision of integrated, effective services when Housing Tasmania is taken out of a department focused on communities, and reconfigured as a statutory authority situated in a department focused on infrastructure, with the undoubted primacy that gives to property development as a standalone activity? Will the full spread of the current Housing Tasmania responsibilities, and the skills, experience, and accountability required to plan and administer them, be successfully undertaken by an independent statutory authority under a skills-based board? These are questions that remain unanswered. I will be very interested to see this proposed authority in its detail, including the proposed skills mix of the board that will be put in place to run it, and how we go about delivering the services that are currently covered in the Department of Communities Tasmania.
I note in the budget papers the funding provided to support the development of ancillary dwellings. We are given to understand 185 dwellings are being developed now, I presume, and a further $2.5 million is being provided for 250 further dwellings. These ancillary dwellings ‑ essentially granny flats – are described as ‘new long-term rental stock’. Let us be really clear, there is only a requirement that these dwellings be offered as affordable rentals for a period of two years, I believe, and by no stretch of the imagination is that long term. We are in the midst of seeing the cessation – as we have discussed – of the NRAS scheme, which locked in reduced rents for a period of ten years. Now that it is coming to a close, we are seeing tenants exiting into homelessness. Two years is not a long-term rental, and we risk pushing this problem down the road. What is the Government’s expectation of what will occur at the end of a two-year lease period, I wonder? Sadly, my expectation is that we will be here in a couple of years’ time talking about Tasmanians becoming homeless after their two-year stretch in these properties comes to an end.
Similarly, we see the Private Rental Incentives Program provided with a further $9 million over three years to encourage property owners to make their properties available to low-income households and subsidised rents. This is described in the budget papers as ‘stable housing for Tasmanians renting in the private market with two year lease terms designed to support families and reduce housing stress’. However, I note in the papers there is investment in this scheme which seems to fall away in the forward Estimates. Is funding for this scheme not budgeted to continue through the forward Estimates to 2025-26? I will not have a chance to interrogate this in Estimates but I encourage those in the other committee to do so. How many tenancies are in this program now? How many more are expected in each year that it is funded? Are current leases expected to be renewed with the subsidy remaining? Are leases that will be signed in 2022-23 and 2023-24 expected to be renewed with the subsidy remaining when they first expire after their first two years?
Mr Valentine – Do not lose those thoughts.
Ms WEBB – Mr President, I also note the $36 million outlined in the Budget for specialist homelessness services. Some of the investments include the Safe Spaces across the three regions; Youth-2-Independence homes; the expansion of Magnolia Place for homeless women and children; the Launceston Youth at Risk Centre and Thyne House; and the Devonport Men’s Shelter. Let us be very clear, the need for this additional investment for homelessness crisis services is an indictment on this Government. It serves to highlight the utter failure of this Government over the past decade to make any substantial improvement to the availability of affordable housing in this state, or in the protection of vulnerable tenants haemorrhaging from the private rental market into homelessness. This, across a decade in which the Government has consistently boasted of glowing economic outcomes and record investments in other areas.
In addition to the Government’s commitment to building houses years from now, which if past performance is any indication may well be a pipe dream, we could be providing more immediate alleviation of the urgent market failure in our private rental market if the Government cared to prioritise those most vulnerable. It is in the private rental market that so many of our most vulnerable citizens are stuck while they wait for new supply of an affordable housing to materialise. That is where, while they wait, they are ground down even further into poverty and disadvantage. A review of the Residential Tenancy Act has been called for years and could be undertaken immediately to come into effect, perhaps as soon as the end of this year, for example. Such a review, could lead to appropriate caps on rental increases. The only objection to which is landlord greed.
Large jumps in rent have been an all to frequent factor driving Tasmanians out of what had been secure private rentals into homelessness and onto our public housing waiting lists. All of us would have had people effected by massive increases in rents in our electorate offices begging for help.
With the current only limiting factor for rent increases being market equivalence, under our legislation, we are seeing a race to the top when it comes to rental increases in this state. Capping annual rent increases to say, CPI, or some other appropriate moderate measure, would stabilise rent increases for the short to medium term and act to prevent the fall of Tasmanians from secure renter into homelessness we are seeing all too often.
Plain reality is there is no detriment to landlords in such sensible regulation. Their property will still rise in value. Their wealth will build. They will still collect the rent that has been sufficient to date and can increase in line with the allowable levels such as CPI or other moderate caps.
Nations similar to us, around the globe, have utilised some form of rent stabilisation to assist in very tight rental markets such as we are experiencing. Nations such as Ireland, Scotland, Spain and Canada. Not just places that might be seen as being more radical than we are.
In addition to rent stabilisation through regulatory reform, there are a range of other measures the Government could contemplate to provide more urgent assistance.
If the Government does not want to listen to me on this, or the Tenants Union, or community sector organisations who are all calling for these things, I dug out work done by the UTAS Institute for Social Change, back in 2018.
Remember, and the member for Rumney mentioned this earlier, many of us can turn our minds back to 2018 when we first got alarmed by the housing crisis as it was first described then descending on our state.
In early 2018, more than four years ago this Government called an urgent Housing Summit at that time, to bring forward solutions. UTAS Institute for Social Change did some preparatory work for that summit and produced a Tasmanian Housing Summit Directions Paper in March 2018.
I will mention a couple of the suggestions the institute included in that paper as appropriate for the crisis response. It identified a few categories of response, crisis response, and then medium to long‑term responses.
These are from what they suggested in March 2018, and could be done to help with the crisis response identified at that time.
First one of those that I will point to, is an audit of vacant residential property in Tasmanian cities and incentives for the conversion of vacant residential properties into long‑term housing.
The second one is a pause strategy for approvals to convert entire properties to short‑term holiday accommodation in key urban areas.
Here we are four years later. Imagine how many more Tasmanian families may be securely and affordably housed now, if those excellent evidence‑based suggestions from the Institute for Social Change had been actioned. But it is not too late if the Government cared to act on it.
I turn to speak more briefly on a few of the topics from the Budget I will highlight, knowing others have done a good job in speaking to some I am not so familiar with or experienced into to bring forth good comment. The first one that I am interested to speak about is the children and youth area.
Again, this is an area going to be significantly impacted by the dismantlement of the Department of Communities Tasmania and I remain concerned about the full impact of that. It is concerning to start such a major proposed restructure without consulting and without speaking to the people who work in that area, who will be impacted by it. Without speaking to the broader community about it and other stakeholders that interact.
That is where we started with an announcement. I remain concerned the area of children and youth will be conflated into the Department of Education and become part of a larger super department there. Just because children are part of each of the remit of those departmental areas does not necessarily mean that they belong together, and we can look to other states as some of us have discussed here before. States such as South Australia have run into trouble when they have tried to bring those two things under one umbrella.
However, in the budget papers, I do recognise and am very pleased to see there is funding of $2.2 million allocated for the whole-of-government response unit to continue to support the coordinated Tasmanian Government response to the commission inquiry. It is really important work, we really have to see that commission inquiry through to the end and it will continue to be a process that is challenging and at time distressing. I am pleased to see that Government is giving every indication it intends to see that through and continue to support the work that comes out of it.
I do also note the continued investment stated in the Child Safety Service system, including additional frontline workers for the IRL, for the child safety system and the Advice and Referral line. It says that this is to ‘meet increased demand and continue to support improved outcomes under the Strong Families Safe Kids child safety redesign’. I do note though that investment to meet increased demand as it says does seem to drop off into the forward Estimates and I am wondering why that is. Is that going to mean less investment and less staff available? We already know there are challenges recruiting and retaining staff in that area. I am concerned about out child safety system and the way that is staffed, the conditions under which the staff work and the outcomes we provide to children.
I also note, and think the member Elwick might have pointed to this in his contribution earlier, there is some investment provided for the intensive family engagement services in this area also to help prevent children from entering statutory care.
It looks like in the papers there is funding allocated in 2022-23 and nothing over the forward Estimates. It does say this specific funding allocation for these services will be based on demand and the department is currently assessing the appropriate long-term funding allocation. It looks like the intention is there to fund in the forward Estimates but we will not put it in the papers at the moment in case we have to count it, maybe?
There may also be some uncertainty in relation to efforts moving into the Department of Education and the bringing together of those two departments. What we can certainly assume is there will be a demand there, past the year it is funded and an allocation would be required. It does bring questions to mind as to why it is not outlined to some extent.
Similarly, I am pleased to see funding allocated of $2.2 million to establish out-of-home care accreditation carers registration to improve the standards. That was a recommendation of the royal commission and it’s pleasing to see it says it starts in 2023-24 and goes forward from there. I am not sure why the delay in that work, that recommendation has certainly been there for some time. It certainly will be important to see that progressed as quickly as possible.
I note $6 million allocated for the continuation of the Transition to Independence program T2i. However, that is over two years and there is nothing then in the forward Estimates. Again, it uses the similarly wording from earlier where it says ‘this specific funding allocation for these services will be based on demand, and the department is currently assessing appropriate long-term funding allocation’. Again, they have not put anything in there so we do not have to count it, but we know that it will be needed. It seems a little bit disingenuous of the Government to do that.
Of course, I am very interested to see what pans out with the Youth Justice Reform transition plan. While it is pleasing we are closing Ashley finally after nearly a decade of having had it been recommended to be done, we know the design of what comes next will be really important in setting the tone for how we approach this area of Youth Justice. I would hope we will, in the not too distant future, be including in that an approach that accommodates a raise in the age of criminal responsibility to 14 years.
I will briefly touch on education, and others here are watching this area very carefully and have given it more scrutiny than I am able to give. There are some positive things I will point out in this area as well.
It is pleasing to see investments made in safeguarding children and young people, implementing recommendations from the Department of Education inquiry report. We are told there should be school safeguarding officers in every government school; mandatory professional development training; additional staff to support the investigation of complaints and disciplinary processes for the Teachers Registration Board. They are all positive things.
It would be interesting though – and perhaps for the other committee in Estimates – to get a breakdown of what is being allocated for school safeguarding officers per school per year. We know there are in the vicinity of 200 – maybe 203 schools – in this state. It is a fairly modest allocation being made in this area. On my back-of-the-envelope reckoning, it does not seem like a very large amount per school, so I am wondering what that means for the outcome and expectation for that allocation. No doubt Committee B will interrogate that in quite some detail.
There are some good news stories in the Budget in Education. There is $25 million, as the member for Mersey pointed out, to continue to support more students impacted by trauma. That is an incredibly important and valuable investment.
The $5 million program is to reduce the digital divide for learners, providing more devices. These are important equity measures in our schools to support those investments. It is a small thing but quite symbolic: the free sanitary items in all Tasmanian schools. It is very pleasing to see that come about.
I also was quite delighted to see continuing investment into expanding the school lunch pilot program to an additional 30 schools. I have always been a big fan of that program and I would dearly love to see it rolled out statewide one day.
I note that students with a disability, with our needs-based funding model, are yet to see that model evaluated and assessed as to its efficacy, and what impact it is having on our students. I note that there will be an independent evaluation of the model, apparently next year. It is a shame to have taken that long, but I hope that means we will understand how to tailor or adapt that funding model to deliver even better to students. There are still ways in which we are falling short on that.
Infrastructure investment in schools is scattered around the state. I am pleased for having six new child and family learning centres. These are excellent, important, fundamental supports in our communities. There is even one in my patch coming on board in Kingston, so I am very pleased to see that.
While we can welcome this, I guess the way I have presented it is a bit of grab‑bag of initiatives and infrastructure commitments. We are still left with a question and that is: what is this Government doing, or planning to do, to make transformative change in our educational attainment in this state, our educational outcomes? The member for Elwick went into quite a bit of detail on this I will not need to, but NAPLAN data over the past decade does not paint a good picture of our educational outcome. We are not improving our outcomes. In fact, in many ways we are going backwards. That is significant for the future of our state.
While we have had structural changes in extending our high schools to year 12, which has delivered some improvements in retention at that end of the school, I believe we are yet to see an impact on educational outcomes as tracked through our NAPLAN results.
Just today, I was hearing it reported in the media that research that has come out which has mapped the impact of COVID-19 on school attendance for students in Tasmania. The research found that the attendance rates for children from lower social‑economic households had been more adversely impacted as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. That is a further barrier to attainment for those students which will require a well-developed and effective response from this Government. What is our plan for education?
Health spending in this state will always be a challenge, I believe. We are seeing, this year, health spending is sitting at 33.6 percent of the state’s Budget. It is a rising proportion and a significant challenge. The figure was something like $7.3 million per day spent delivering health services in Tasmania. We know that what is in the budget is generally an underspend; only last week we passed a bill to top up the Health budget for this current financial year, as we do each year, because the Government wants its budget to look better than it knows it really is, when we have to pay for Health fully through the year.
We know that GP-led healthcare and hospital avoidance programs are good, but they have their own limitations, especially because GPs remain underfunded at a federal level. As a result, we see impacts in our bulk-billing rates in this state that are far lower than they should be, and waiting times to access a GP are very poor.
Improving access to digital health and investing in fully integrated healthcare systems and telehealth are all positive investments; I hope they continue to be developed and utilised in this state.
One thing in health that I am particularly pleased to see is the successful pilot of the PACER program leading it to be continued and our pilot to be extended into the north-west of the state. In my view this should be extended statewide. It is beneficial not just for the 74 per cent of its clients who were supported to remain in the community instead of being taken to hospital, but also for those staffing the service: the police, the ambulance and the clinical services staff who are part of the PACER teams. I have spoken to some of these workers when I ran into them in the street. From what they describe, the impact of working in this coordinated, effective and supportive team to deliver these positive outcomes, keeping people out of hospitals and being supported in the community, must be considerably more positive for those staff and lead also to their improved job satisfaction, and to less stress and trauma in their individual service areas.
On preventive health, to state it briefly, all international research tells us that if we want to change the health trajectories of our state, our country and our jurisdiction, we need to spend 5 per cent of our total health budget on preventive health. That is what the research tells us, but we do not do it and we never have. It is always projected to be well under 2 per cent, sometimes as low as 1 per cent. I have not calculated what the preventive health figure is in this Budget, but we will probably be able to find that out through Estimates. Those in the community sector interested in this area often do the assessment and are able to provide that figure. It needs to be 5 per cent. We really need to think about transformation here, and preventive health is one of our key opportunities for it.
One last positive that I would really like to highlight about the health area is the investment in oral health. The $300 000 is a very modest amount. It is going to Oral Health Services Tasmania. Sorry, it is $300 000 for the Royal Flying Doctor Service and $1.5 million for Oral Health Services Tasmania to provide additional dental appointments. That is such a good investment. It is not enough. We could do much more. Oral health is so pivotal to overall health and to keeping people out of hospital, but it is good to see something additional there.
I am not going to speak in detail about mental health other than to say I hope the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services – CAMHS – reforms continue to be invested in appropriately. Young people’s mental health has been incredibly hard-hit of late and it is essential that we provide the support they need, but so far we are still falling short. Although there is money invested to continue the implementation of the Rethink 2020 mental health plan, with its focus on suicide prevention, I did note the Mental Health Council of Tasmania’s comment in relation to the Budget that:
However, given the absence of any specific workforce initiatives in this budget, in a sector which already struggling to attract and retain qualified mental health professionals, we are concerned we won’t have the skilled workforce needed to deliver on these announcements.
Again, workforce challenges are a bit of a common theme and it would be a shame if we were to underdeliver in mental health because of a workforce recruitment issue.
I was very excited, though almost missed it, on 4 May 2022, when the Premier, Jeremy Rockliff, put out a media release announcing that Tasmania’s first wellbeing framework would be delivered. This will be an interesting area to understand better in Estimates, especially what, if any, genuine financial investment is going to be made and what, if any, benchmarks and accountability will be attached to this framework. I am maintaining a positive expectation here because I noted in the Premier’s media release that he acknowledged that they are going to engage with Tasmanians to create this framework to ‘ensure their wellbeing priorities are Government priorities, supported by the right targets, measures, policies and services’. The media release goes on to say:
Wellbeing can mean different things to different people, but it includes economy, health, education, safety, housing, living standards, environment and climate, social inclusion and connection, identity and belonging, good governance and access and services.
Having a set of wellbeing indicators will help prioritise where we need to invest more of our time, energy and creativity so that we can make a real difference to Tasmanians who currently aren’t sharing in the benefits of our prosperity in the way they should.
I am so pleased to see that announcement and I remain hopeful that we will see it well executed as we see the strategy consulted on and developed over time. I am heartened by the indication that there will be benchmarks and targets put in place, and that there is such a comprehensive approach to the different areas of people’s lives that need to be part of wellbeing. It is exactly the sort of framework, with benchmarks and measurable targets, that I have spoken about many times in this place.
I was a little disconcerted by the fact that this media release on 4 May was put out by the Premier so quietly, without fanfare; I do not believe it got any coverage in the media when it was put out. I have not really heard any mention of it since, but during Estimates there will be an opportunity to speak more about it. If it is the Government’s priority and something the Government has a genuine intention to invest in and bring forward in a way that has impact and can be foundational and transformative for us, I would have thought they would trumpet it a little more loudly.
There are a few areas that I will save my thoughts on for the Estimates and explore my questions there.
I have come to the end of my contribution. I suggest that Tasmania is not immune to the tectonic shifts within the political landscape that we have seen recently playing out in the federal election. Such shifts rarely occur overnight; they come about more gradually. Just as some social commentators are pointing out, there really was no excuse for political players, whether parties, observers or even the media, to be taken by surprise by the particular manifestation of community mood that we saw in that election. There is also no excuse for our state Government to be out of touch with the Tasmanian population, recognising the sudden key personnel change within the Government this April. Despite that, it is sadly surprising to see such a minimalist business-as-usual approach set out in these budget papers. Despite the loud assertions of agility and success, what I see is the Government’s failure, via this Budget, to anticipate, recognise and catch the zeitgeist train to prove otherwise.
An agile government would provide a fiscal plan detailing strategies for reducing debt levels over the forward Estimates which does not rely on the blunt tools of cuts and wage suppression, a fiscal plan which also does not rely on interstate posturing and fist-waving, but instead includes meaningful and rigorous tax reform. An agile and compassionate government would have focused on identifying and addressing any synergies and disparities in our COVID‑19 recovery plan and the growing cost of living challenges.
I am disappointed at the lack of transformative investment into many of the areas that are our state’s biggest challenges.
To conclude, members here are no doubt familiar with the famous Mahatma Ghandi quotation which always springs to mind during budget sessions, for me at least: ‘The true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members.’
Despite some good and sound initiatives, such as provisions to address matters arising from the Commission of Inquiry into the State Government’s Response to Child Sexual Abuse and the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability, and the reviews we see being undertaken of the State Service, this Budget’s investments are to some extent underwhelming for our major challenges. This Budget as a measurement tool by which to evaluate the delivery of the Premier’s vision of an inclusive and supportive Tasmania remains oblique. That zeitgeist train is moving further away from us toward the horizon.
Mr President, I note the 2022-23 Budget.
