Tasmanian State Budget 2020-21

Mr President, our state, our country and indeed our globe have faced an extraordinary year and this Budget is being delivered in circumstances unique in living memory.  I recognise the challenge faced by our state Government in terms of the health, social and economic crises we have experienced this year.  I note the challenge of presenting a state budget in response to these circumstances.

In his Budget analysis, Tasmanian economist Saul Eslake noted that this Budget –

… has been presented in circumstances which are radically difficult from those which have confronted any Tasmanian government in living memory, and that also means that it should be judged by different criteria from those which I and other economists and commentators have used in assessing previous budgets. 

I agree with Saul Eslake.  I believe we should judge this Budget against different criteria, not only from an economic perspective but also equally from a community and a social perspective, and that is the approach that I have taken in noting the Budget today.

Rather than dive into the weeds of the Budget today, I am going to reflect on its broader context and impact.  From that perspective, I will suggest two commitments the Government should consider making in the interests of accountability for this Budget and its impact and for those that will follow it.

The Treasurer began his Budget Speech with a reference to the twentieth century tragedy of World War II as the most recent catastrophic global event comparable in some measure to the COVID-19 pandemic we face today, and understandably so.  Tasmania relied upon twentieth century approaches to deal with crises such as World War II and the Great Depression, with projects such as Ogilvie’s Scar to stimulate the local economy and create jobs.  I am concerned that the Gutwein Government still appears stuck in the trenches of the twentieth century, as its thinking and reliance on construction is very evident in this Budget.   Instead, Tasmania needs an innovative and inclusive twenty-first century plan to take us forward from the circumstances we find ourselves in now.

It is fair to say that in some measure I was disappointed in this Budget but not necessarily because of what is in it – there are a good many positive things in it – but rather because of what it is missing.  What is missing is a vision for our state, bold actions to transform the circumstances of Tasmania and its communities.  It is missing an approach that would match our aspiration which is shared at this time when we look ahead and imagine where we might go to from here. 

Perhaps it is too much to ask that we be visionary and transformative at this time when we are still grappling with a pandemic.  Realistically, because of the delay in delivering this Budget we are nearly halfway through the financial year to which it relates and much of the spending on initial emergency responses has and is occurring.  I acknowledge we are still somewhat on the hop in reacting and responding to the initial crisis, but I find myself in agreement with the comment from the Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry – TCCI – that ‘this budget could have been more creative and disruptive at this time’. 

It is perhaps more reasonable then for us to look ahead.  Perhaps we should be looking to the next budget for a more definite vision and transformation opportunity to be grasped.  Can we expect the Government to get braver and bolder the further we get from the urgency and disruption of the initial crisis from COVID‑19?  We know a PESRAC process is occurring that is supposed to inform future medium- to long-term strategies and that the next report from PESRAC will provide recommendations for consideration in the next budget to be delivered in just six months time.  In fact, the PESRAC tells us –

The Tasmanian Government, together with the Australian Government is also looking at strategies to minimise the medium and longer-term impact on our social fabric and the economy to ensure that the Tasmanian community is well-placed to meet the challenges and grasp the opportunities that lie ahead.  The road to recovery will depend on a range of social and economic factors.  Ongoing containment measures will impact the way all sectors of our society and economy operate.  We need to plan for a different future and look for opportunities to a build stronger Tasmania together.

I wonder whether the opportunity for that different future, that vision of not going back to the way we were but creating something better and stronger, will tend to diminish the more that time passes, especially the more we move on from that sense that we had of community cohesion and public trust in government that was at an all-time high during that initial crisis time.  If we wait, does it become less likely we will see bold vision and aspirational transformation?  Are we more likely to see cemented-in business as usual? 

We have seen certainly that other states can act in bold and transformational ways in their state budgets of late, so we know it can be possible.  The Victorian state government has committed $5.3 billion to public and social housing, an extraordinary amount.  Also, New South Wales in delivering its budget this week, appears to have begun a conversation about tax reform – the ‘third rail’ for a state government almost – something that most state governments tend to avoid at all costs.

Something that concerns me is what this Government might revert, in lieu of being brave and bold, to a previous approach.  My observation would be that since 2014 this Government has had the attitude that the economy comes first, as if the economy is something that exists separately to the social context of our community, and its view is that we need to fix the economy and once the economy is fixed, we can assist people who are disadvantaged and fix the social problems that our state faces.  This has never been shown to be true.  Even in recent years as the Government was crowing about the health and strength of our state’s economy, there was no indication we would shift to part 2 of that approach and begin the helping and the transforming.

While you make supporting those who are most disadvantaged contingent on the stars aligning in a set of ideal economic circumstances, you will never provide the support that is needed.  When you only focus on growing the pie, you will never quite get around to sharing the pie in a fair and equitable way. 

It is worth us asking ourselves:  what did we learn from our COVID‑19 experience during 2020?  COVID‑19 has conclusively demonstrated the false thinking in this economy first approach that we have seen.  People always come first.  Their basic needs are the priority, and economies can be managed to serve the needs of the people.  It is important to consider what we learned from COVID-19 this year as that is the overwhelming context in which we consider this Budget.

We learned that health and wellbeing is the priority above all else.  We can manage to upend virtually every aspect of our lives, our jobs and our economy to protect our health and wellbeing in our communities, when we need to – when we feel there is no other choice.

But there should never be any other choice.  Strong, healthy people are the core of a successful community.

We learned from COVID-19 that in a time of crisis, if we leave anyone behind, our whole community is at risk.  Our communal success is limited by the barriers and risks faced by those who are least among us.  This is true under normal circumstances too, but we more readily ignore it then, and allow people to fall by the wayside.  These crucial lessons were there for us in COVID-19 when we were able to grasp them in mere moments as the crisis emerged and respond accordingly.

The Premier’s Economic and Social Recovery Advisory Council Interim Report acknowledged the fundamental importance of wellbeing in our community –

In developing our first-phase recommendations, we have considered the impacts on all aspects of people’s lives. We see well-being for Tasmanians as a key measure of our recovery.  A well-being focus balances the importance of things that make a good life in Tasmania.

These include having a job, or income security, accessing the basics such as food and housing, being healthy, loved and safe, having access to learning, connecting with culture and family, and participating in all our State has to offer.

A key question for us then:  has this Government learned the lessons of COVID-19 and grasped the opportunity in this Budget to be transformative?  There is certainly a hunger and an aspiration for this in the Tasmanian community.  We can see that again.  PESRAC reported to us in its interim report –

A survey by the University of Tasmania suggests that many people are hoping that a different Tasmania will emerge as part of the recovery process.

Respondents strongly supported improvements in affordable housing, health care, education, and sustainability.

As we reflect on what we are looking for from the recovery, it appears that Tasmanians are focused, not just on seeing our economy start up again and jobs return, but seeing us find ways to improve the wellbeing of all Tasmanians.

Did we miss the boat to achieve these aspirations that were clearly expressed by Tasmanians and reported us through the mechanisms of government and PESRAC?

The COVID-19 pandemic vividly exposed serious pre-existing fault lines in our society, which places us at a crossroads now.  We have been at significant crossroads before, but this time, taking the wrong turn could lead to even more catastrophic outcomes, given our COVID‑19 pandemic context.

We can either take the steep road of addressing seriously the clearly evident fault lines and make the necessary structural changes to address challenges that include inequalities, economic resilience and protecting our environment which underpin all that, or we take the downhill path of short-term and outdated thinking, risking entrenching those fault lines and returning to those inequalities.

Despite being told there is no going back to pre-COVID-19 circumstances, that appears to be exactly what this Government wants to do if we take this Budget as our indicator.

Instead, we need to carve out a new normal focused on building resilience, closing fault lines and building an innovative and inclusive Tasmania – a new normal that would put at the centre of our attention the need to comprehensively address intergenerational disadvantage and inequality.

Although the COVID-19 pandemic has thrown the dangerous fault lines in our community into sharp relief, it has also highlighted how we can look after the community to put people first and invest in the insurance policy of effective social safety nets and government support when we put our minds to it.

I have to mention one key example at the Tasmanian level, which is actually mentioned in the Budget Papers and which worth highlighting –

The recognition of the need for a functional, service delivery-oriented public service.

This is indicated on page 9 of Budget Paper No. 2, Volume 1, where it talks about the removal of all remaining agency efficiency dividend requirements, from 2020-21 onwards, to support the ongoing delivery of Government services and to support the Tasmanian economy. 

This is significant recognition by a Liberal government that small government by itself does not best serve the interests of the community.  It is an acknowledgement, long overdue in my opinion, of the need for the role and the contribution of a functioning and appropriately resourced public sector.  It is an essential service.  We need to take that new understanding and acknowledgement into the development of our new normal, among other lessons learned.

Mr President, I recognise the Government has taken significant economic decisions to invest in our state’s recovery.  I will make some brief remarks in relation to aspects of the economic approach in this Budget.  There is a strong narrative of jobs and confidence.  I must say that I find the word ‘community’ tacked on there as a bit of an afterthought.  From a government Budget media release I note the comment –

We are backing Tasmanian businesses, futureproofing our industries and protecting the Tasmanian way of life.

I dislike blanket statements such as ‘protecting the Tasmanian way of life’ – not only because they have an unfortunate Trumpian feel to them these days, but mainly because it is incredibly tone-deaf to the fact that a high proportion of Tasmanians experience significant barriers and challenges to their quality of life.  I am sure those Tasmanians would prefer quite the opposite of having that protected.  When we lionise the status quo, we further exclude those who are already marginalised by it. 

Returning to the Budget.  Clearly GST revenue has taken a hit with a $347 million shortfall in our share of GST revenue in 2020-21.  That shortfall is a result of lower consumer spending nationally, so our slice of GST is probably smaller than expected.  However, we have also had higher-than-expected receipts from other Commonwealth grants across 2021-22 and 2022- 23.  Those higher specific-purpose grants from the federal government outweigh some of the shortfalls in GST revenue, and in some cases brings us slightly ahead.  We have seen new recurrent spending decisions that have increased recurrent spending by around $2 billion over four years, I believe, in this Budget, which sounds quite alarming.  But with economists such as Tasmania’s economist, Saul Eslake, deeming those decisions, and I quote, ‘quite reasonable’, I am somewhat reassured.

We do see, however, that next year there will be an increase in borrowings from $846 million, handily offset by cash and deposits on hand of $1.2 billion.  That will bring the total to more than $3 billion at the end of June 2021 – that is, borrowings increased by over $2 billion.  That is an absolutely extraordinary number.  If the plan does not work to stimulate the economy and build back from those borrowings – and, of course, we all hope it does – we need to ensure it is not the most disadvantaged Tasmanians who then suffer, that is not those who desperately need services and support who suffer and pay for that plan going awry.  We will need to support every level of government to do its bit to get the economy going again after COVID-19, to ensure that people have the opportunity to feed and house their families, to engage in their communities as contributors, and most importantly, to be safe and well.

If the plan does not work and we need to balance the books at a state level – unlike the federal government, which can print money – I suggest we must not go down the path of austerity, or cutting services to the most vulnerable.  Instead we must be prepared to look at options for raising revenue, to ensure that this fairly eyewatering debt can be managed without hurting the most vulnerable Tasmanians, as has occurred, to some extent, in the past.

Turning now to tax:  I note tax revenues are expected to be broadly similar in this Budget, with no new taxes introduced.  Other than the previously announced land tax waiver for commercial landowners adversely affected by the pandemic-related restrictions, and the payroll tax waiver for employers accessing the JobKeeper program, there are no tax cuts as part of the stimulus strategy in the Budget – and that is a good result.  The Government did not give in to interest group lobbying to cut into our state tax revenue base in the pursuit of doubtful employment benefits.  Again, I note Saul Eslake presenting evidence in his analysis that, and I quote –

Tasmania’s very generous payroll tax exemptions for small business have done next to nothing to create jobs.

The Premier has said we can never tax our way to prosperity, nor can, nor can we cut our way to recovery.  However, we are unlikely to rebalance through economic growth alone.  At some point we will likely need to contemplate either higher taxes or cuts to services and this, as we know, is a devil of a choice, but it is one in which I suggest political expediency and self‑interest should not be prioritised over delivering needed services to the Tasmanian community.  It is well past time that we bite the bullet on tax reform in this state.  New South Wales in its state budget this week has begun steps in that direction, it would seem, and Tasmania should be promptly following suit. 

When we look at how we come out of this current economic situation and contemplate this magical return to surplus, I note again the comment from Saul Eslake –

that just because Tasmania went into the current recession with an economy that was doing better than the national average, does not mean we will do better coming out of it.

I would say that a rush to return to surplus may end up damaging our progress in making a successful recovery. 

Arbitrary deadlines set for a return to surplus – ‘our two-year timeframe is good and your four-year timeframe is bad’ – are mostly political posturing.  We will need to be responsive and strategic in progressing our economic recovery and that must sit alongside the more important task of our social and community recovery.  A surplus in and of itself is not our primary goal.  We need to remind ourselves healthy, happy Tasmanians and a thriving Tasmanian community are our goals. 

Mr President, the centrepiece of this Budget is the $5 billion infrastructure spend over four years.  In 2020‑21, only half the funding allocated to infrastructure will go to roads and bridges.  Hospitals and health, human services and housing, schools and education combined only make it to around 32 per cent of the investment.  In fact, when we look closely, the additional infrastructure spend is quite modest – really only about $300 million of additional general government infrastructure spending has been added since last year’s budget. 

I note that Saul Eslake’s assessment of this modest additional spend is that it is probably okay, given that there are constraints on the construction sector’s capacity to undertake these projects.  This Government and, actually, in matter of fact, all governments historically – because we do not need to be political about this – have a quite poor track record on spending budgeted infrastructure.  Generally, the actual spend is around 70 to 80 per cent of the budgeted amount.  If the same pattern of underspend were repeated in this budget when purchases of around  nearly $1 billion are budgeted, the Government would under-pend on capital by around $200 million to $300 million. 

What will ensure we can deliver on this plan and get the full intended benefit from it?  How robust is our reliance on the full economic results expected to be delivered by this so-far on‑paper investment if we know we could well expect it to be underdelivering in actuality? 

This Budget clearly articulates a goal to create 25 000 jobs in the next four years, largely focused on and driven by that infrastructure spend we just spoke about.  Given the concerns expressed on the capacity of Tasmania’s workforce to deliver the billion-dollar capital spend as it rolls out, is it actually the best approach to protecting the Tasmanian economy from the devastating economic impact of COVID-19?  Would a more measured capital spend combined with more diverse stimulus measures – measures that build human, social and cultural capital – be a better investment? 

Unions have said this Budget should have a wider job-creation path across all industries, and I would tend to agree with that sentiment.  If the objective is supporting employment, would there be a more balanced way of investing in the Tasmanian economy and community – something less solely focused on male-dominated industries, for example?  What we desperately need in this state is more inclusive growth.  Does this Budget really put us on track for that?  I would say no. 

It looks to me as if this Budget presents us with a male-focused, narrow stimulus program that sees trades and fluoro vests as more worthwhile than caring, curing and nurturing.  Of course, in Tasmania we had existing challenges when it came to employment.  We know in this state that it is not just about jobs in terms of raw numbers; it is about having good jobs where we need them.  Pre-COVID-19 we were already seeing workforce polarisation in this state which challenged our productivity, our social mobility and our inclusive growth.  Along with that polarisation, we were experiencing low wage growth, increasing under‑employment and Tasmanians having fewer opportunities for career progression from lower skilled jobs to develop their careers.

The healthcare, social assistance and educational training sectors are the two top industries in regards to hours worked in this state.  The healthcare and social assistance industry is the highest standalone industry for workforce numbers in Tasmania.

The healthcare and social assistance industry is also the industry that makes the highest contribution to our gross state product.  Healthcare and social assistance, education and training, retail trade and accommodation and food services are the industries in which women dominate the workforce.  They are also industries in which employment is more precarious under usual circumstances.  Casual, part-time, gig, under-employment and no entitlements for paid sick or care or recreational leave.  Under our COVID-19 circumstances, they are also some of the hardest hit, either as frontline response services or through being decimated by the shutdowns.

In terms of focusing our massive jobs push in this Budget, have we hit the easy targets instead of the right targets to achieve transformative inclusive outcomes?  I cannot help but reflect on whether a more inclusive and diverse approach to stimulus measures would deliver us jobs plus better social outcomes, jobs plus better health outcomes, jobs plus better housing outcomes and jobs plus breaking the cycles of disadvantage. 

A key plank of the Government’s immediate response to and recovery from the coronavirus pandemic is the Premier’s Economic and Social Recovery Advisory Council – PESRAC.  I would like to speak a bit about that council, its recommendations and how they relate to and are addressed in the State Budget we are noting today.

PESRAC released its interim report a few months back.  It did so to identify immediate actions and inform the development of this delayed State Budget.

The Premier’s media release of 18 August 2020, ‘Government to Implement All PESRAC’s Recommendations’ stated –

Importantly, six recommendations have already been implemented, including further support to Tasmanian businesses, encouraging government agencies to purchase from Tasmanian businesses, and a further strengthening of our Buy-Local-Policy to support Tasmanian businesses.

A further 28 recommendations are currently being progressed, such as providing further support to Tasmanian businesses by allocating an additional $20 million as part of the Small Business Sustainability and Recovery Grant program.

The remaining 30 recommendations proposed by PESRAC will also be supported by Government and be implemented as soon as possible.

Many of the recommendations can be managed from within existing agency resources or have already been funded through the provision of additional resources, and any that require additional funding will be reflected in the 2020-21 Budget.

That is reiterated in these Budget Papers; specifically in Budget Paper No. 2 volume 1, Premier’s Economic and Social Recovery Advisory Committee, which says –

the Government has addressed a further 28 recommendations through allocation of funding for COVID-19 Response and Recovery Measures in the 2020-21 Budget … the remaining 30 recommendations [will be addressed] through the use of existing agency resources, or other funding allocated [in this Budget].

What I see is the Budget Papers failing then to clearly identify and present which of these 64 recommendations are in each of those categories:  Which are the six already implemented prior to the release of the PESRAC interim report?  Where the 28 to be funded through the allocation of funding for the COVID-19 Response and Recovery Measures specified in this Budget?

Nor is there a clear indication of which are the 30 recommendations to be implemented through the use of existing agency resources or the identification of those existing agencies or the identification of those existing agency resources or line items that will now be reallocated to addressing those COVID-19 impacts relating to the recommendations.

We are told in Budget Paper No. 2, Volume 1, page 3, that –

The Social and Economic Support packages implemented by the Government in response to COVID-19 pandemic are unrivalled in the history of the State both in terms of the value of the support and breadth of the measures.  The value of the response to date, has exceeded $1 billion supporting businesses, households, individuals and the community.

Then we are told that not all COVID-19-related expenditure –

… has been able to be explicitly captured and separately presented within the agency Budget information provided in this Budget paper.

On the one hand I can understand this – this is a rolling pandemic.  It has required immediate and ongoing action required.  Inevitably some actions will overlap with others.  Some are immediate, some are short-term, some are longer-term.  Some cross over all those three.  However, if the Government or Treasury, I guess, is able to quantify that the calculated value to date of the state’s COVID‑19 response ‘has exceeded $1 billion’, surely we can also have a quantified amount of the new money provided for in this Budget to COVID‑19‑related expenditure and a clear cross-reference with PESRAC recommendations.  A clear cross-reference tally against the different PESRAC recommendation categories where they apply would be an essential way to offer some accountability around the PESRAC process and how it is playing out, and the impact we can then track and measure as it does so. 

After all, the Government has been able to quantify funding amounts under other sorts of broad headings.  I see in the glossy colour liftouts that come with the Budget Papers that there are things titled ‘Education support’ and ‘Business and industry support’, with a whole range of things grouped under them, so it is not beyond us to group together and present clearly and publicly things that are relevant under certain headings.  I think PESRAC would be a relevant heading under which we would expect to see information clearly shared and made public.

What I find is that of those PESRAC recommendations, we have a lovely table in the Budget Papers that lists recommendations and the agencies responsible for them, but it does not identify which are being funded, which have been completed and which are going to be funded or addressed within existing agency resources.  I do not see that level of detail, and that is a failing because we should be able to track this process and hold the Government to account for it – and also celebrate its success and genuinely understand the impact it has had as we transition through this recovery process. 

I made notes about a range of PESRAC recommendations that I tried to track through to see where they land and where they are expressed, to see whether there is some clarity there.  I have struggled with most of them.  Some, if you go looking for them, are clearly to be found but for others, it is quite puzzling.  I will give one example of that.  When I look at PESRAC recommendation number 61, which is allocated to the Department of Communities Tasmania –

The State Government should develop and provide Tasmanians with a ‘whole of population screening tool’ so the general public can ‘check in’ on their mental health and seek help early if needed.  This should be supported by a public awareness campaign to prevent long-term impacts and raise awareness of the newly-funded access points for help.

That is an excellent recommendation.  It is an important one, but it was not necessarily easy to find in the Budget Papers.  I was also puzzled that it was allocated to Communities Tasmania.  I thought it would probably be under Mental Health, in the Health portfolio.  It was not clear to me where it landed, whether it was going to be delivered with extra funding or through existing resources.  I did identify that Health budget hadCOVID‑19 response and recovery measures, an allocation of $2.1 million which, under a heading of ‘Mental Health Program’ [TBC}, may have been an area that delivered on that PESRAC recommendation, but the Budget Papers did not provide any further detail about what was under that Mental Health Program so I could not cross-check to see whether that was true.

This indicates to me that for Tasmanians to be able to fully scrutinise the PESRAC process and understand its enduring value and ongoing impact, we need to be able to identify if and how we are progressing with its recommendations.  We need the Government to provide clear and transparent presentation, a benchmarking mechanism perhaps, or a way in which we can have a matrix that presents those things going forward, not just attached to this Budget, but it will be relevant to the next budget and further budgets down the track as we see recommendations play out. 

I do not consider this to be an excessive ask.  It is a fairly standard practice to be able to report against.  It brings to mind instances where say the government is providing a response to a report from the Auditor-General or a parliamentary committee that makes recommendations.  The Government might provide information to the public about how such a report is accepted and acted upon, and how the Government is delivering on those recommendations.  That is a standard accountability and transparency measure.

Given the prominence ascribed as the role of PESRAC in consulting so broadly with the Tasmanian community and providing important advice to government, and the significant investment many Tasmanians have made in participating in the process, I consider a clear commitment to thorough accountability and transparency needs to be applied to the Government’s response to PESRAC and its recommendations.  In calling for that to occur, I am in no way reflecting in any negative way about the value of PESRAC recommendations and their appropriateness in guiding how we move forward at this time.  This is not about less efficiency; it is about accountability by the Government in how it is utilising a mechanism it has set up to guide it in this process.

I will also take some time to speak about who is missing out in this Budget.  I will start by quoting from the TasCOSS enews that came out after the Budget; its introduction said –

However, despite the widespread acknowledgement across the political spectrum that a healthy population is the essential ingredient of a healthy economy, there remains a heavy emphasis by government on public and private infrastructure such as roads and buildings as a means to short-term economic recovery.

While an investment in roads and bridges will produce infrastructure to get us where we need to go more safely and efficiently, it is a direct investment in our greatest asset – our people – that sits at the heart of Tasmania’s successful recovery, rebuild and increased resilience.

Now is the time for investment in the known solutions to the entrenched issues that have been a handbrake on Tasmania’s prosperity, such as lack of affordable housing, poor access to health care services in regional and remote communities, and rock-bottom digital and adult literacy rates.

Solving the long-term issues that have plagued our state for generations can be done should the government make it a priority. Just last week, the Victorian State Government announced a $5.3 billion spend on public housing to deliver 12,000 homes over four years. This happened though sheer will, and our State Government can do the same should it make the choice to break the back of our unconscionably long public housing wait list.

Mr President, I thought that was a very nice summary.  It aligned with my view of this Budget – that it is missing the opportunity to best support some social and community outcomes. 

One of the groups I will particularly mention is Tasmanian women.  There is a growing consensus that the pandemic has left women more than men economically disadvantaged through unemployment, underemployment, reduced incomes, increased work insecurity, greater household and family demands and increased risk of family violence.  The PESRAC Interim Report acknowledged this, stating –

In many ways, women have been disproportionately impacted by COVID-19. The reasons for this include:

 –   women heavily dominate the industries that are on the ‘frontline’ of the COVID-19 crisis, including health care, social assistance, education, retail and cleaning;

 –   social norms mean women are more likely to take on additional household and caring responsibilities arising due to COVID-19, such as home-schooling and 0 200 400 600 800 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun 2020 2019 26 Premier’s Economic & Social Recovery Advisory Council Interim Report July 2020 caring for older family members, those with a disability and those who are unwell;

 –   women are over-represented in casual work as well as in industries that are suffering in the crisis, such as accommodation and food services, which makes their re-employment opportunities vulnerable depending how these industries recover; and

 –   a higher proportion of women have lost jobs, compared with men – between March and May, female employment in Tasmania fell by 8 per cent while male employment fell by 6.9 per cent (Figure 4.5). While more women lost full-time employment than men, total employment lost by men and women is broadly the same.

It is also worth noting the impact on women in some other areas, such as education.  Australian Bureau of Statistic data released earlier this month revealed a 7 per cent drop in the 2020 number of women enrolled in Australia’s tertiary sector, universities and some vocational courses, compared with the 2019 figure.  That is a reduction of 86 000 women nationally.  For the same period, there was a drop in male enrolment of 21 000 equating to a 2 per cent reduction.  This is a highly gendered pandemic.  It is evident that the obstacles it presents to women are tangible and significant, and we need to take into account a gendered approach to our recovery and rebuilding.  The example I just gave around the tertiary sector in many cases relates to being a federal responsibility, because universities are a federal responsibility.  It is an indicative example and has real flow-on ramifications in Tasmania.  We need to assess whether the state Government is pulling the appropriate levers in this Budget to address all the worrying components we have identified as being a pink recession, when we are managing and constructing our new normal from this circumstance.

Later the PESRAC interim report says –

The health and community services sector is dominated by female employment, and therefore additional resources that have been deployed into this sector in response to COVID-19 will contribute to potentially creating additional jobs for women.

As with all employment, the most effective way to rebuild the sectors that have higher levels of female employment and continue to be adversely impacted will be the unwinding of the COVID-19 suppression measures.

The PESRAC interim report made recommendations specifically in relation to women on page 60, recommendations –

47.     The State Government should support further industry programs to enhance workplace cultural change and development pipelines for women

48.      The Tasmanian state sector should increase traineeship pipelines within Government and maintain at least gender parity in recruitment

49.      Government agencies should embed flexible working arrangements delivered successfully through the COVID-19 suppression period, to support the recruitment and advancement of women in the State Service.

What have we seen in this Budget?  The Government would say it acknowledges the disproportional impact and is seeking to address it, but I would say the efforts they have made are fairly lip service.  Getting women into construction – I can only think that when the tool you are willing to use is a hammer, everybody needs to look like a nail.  That is unfortunate.  We need to remember that, while not bad in and of itself, is not enough.  It is certainly not enough to deliver on the PESRAC recommendations, let alone what we could think of beyond those first interim recommendations as being required.  It is not just about getting women trained, qualified and technically able to enter an industry, it is also about ensuring that industry is ready, receptive, appropriate and safe for women to enter.

It is a good start to see the Government acknowledging support needs to be provided if we expect women to take up non-traditional employment, that we can assist women into those sectors and begin pioneering a new normal, but to solely rely on that risks appearing tokenistic.  It also risks kicking down the road the actual delivery of outcomes for us.  It takes a while to get trained up and fed through a pipeline into a non-traditional industry.  There are only certain women in our community who are going to find that to be an appropriate and palatable way forward.

I am going to compare that to the New South Wales state budget, which came out this week.  That state government announced a $10 million investment to broadly assist women find employment.  The investment it is making provides grants of up to $5000 to assist women to find work.  Women can apply for the grants through Service New South Wales and be assigned a coordinator to help them return to the workforce.  The New South Wales government will be providing up to $5000 for training and support, $500 for text books, up to $2000 for technology and office equipment, $3500 for child care, including before and after school care, and $500 for transport.  Obviously, there may be more devil in the details warranting close analysis of that commitment in New South Wales, but what we can recognise is New South Wales is seeing more needs to be done than relying solely on a vague wave of a hand at addressing serious and systemic issues when suddenly trying to shoehorn women into traditionally male-heavy and potentially hostile work environment such as building and construction.

The first step to empowerment is self-determination and self-agency.  But I do not believe, or so it appears, that women were asked what assistance they need in Tasmania to help inform either this initial sweeping decision that a construction solution is our way forward for the state or how to make that decision work for Tasmanian women, once it was decided.

While the  COVID-19 pandemic has thrown into sharp relief our pre-existing structural fault lines, with sharp edges to those fault lines and widening gaps, it also highlighted where we have the opportunity to comprehensively address these challenges, to really pivot Tasmania to a permanently, stronger, more equitable footing.

There was an opportunity to really engage with Tasmanian women to see – given the impact of this COVID-19 pandemic circumstances – what would be best, most effective, to provide support going forward.  What would work immediately?  What would work in the medium- and longer term?  It may be our PESRAC process begins to deliver more meat to the bones of that, but if the Government holds back, and so marginally responds to those further potential recommendations, as I believe it has, to the ones presented in the interim report, I fear we are still not going to see an appropriate response here.

We know that in encouraging better gender representation in the State Service – particularly into management roles and positions – there was so much work done in recent years to change the culture of the public service around management, recruitment and all those sorts of things.  It is not just about women being present.  It is about the culture and the environment of an industry becoming receptive to and comfortable and safe for women. 

I am concerned we are intending to funnel women into male-dominated industries, as our gesture towards greater support and a gender balance in our response, what are we doing alongside that funnelling that ensures those industries are being transformed to become less hostile work environments, more receptive to women, more appropriate to the needs that a gender-balanced workforce might have within them?  I am interested to hear more about that.  I haven’t not heard commentary about that accompanying work that would go alongside the pipeline.

I find one of the interesting catch phrases from this Budget, has been about the ‘glidepath’.  When I think about gender in relation to this Budget, and think about what it provides and doesn’t provide for women, I wonder whether this Budget is the glidepath that Tasmanian women were looking for, and I can’t help but think not.  What then to do about that?  How do we better hold ourselves to account?

Nationally, we know there have been calls for the reinstitution of a federal budget gender impact statement, which had been initially introduced under the Hawke-Keating government, back in the day, but which disappeared under the Abbott-Hockey government.

As we move forward, in this state, and develop Tasmania’s ‘new normal’, I think it would be highly beneficial to have our own state-based gender impact statement accompanying the state budget, and the interim fiscal statement updates.  According to national political commentators, gender-responsive budgeting, and I quote:

could make a substantial contribution, documenting the extent to which investment and child care and other services is more likely to create jobs, and jobs for women, than spending on construction.

Further it is worth noting that –

Almost half of the 37 countries in the OECD now have some form of gender budgeting.  The former head of the International Monetary Fund has declared it good budgeting.

So today I am calling on the Tasmanian Government to move beyond narrow and tokenistic efforts to support Tasmanian women, and calling on it to start the task by holding itself to account by instituting a gender impact statement on this, and every future budget.  That would be a genuine way we could know and have confidence in the fact that we are delivering and are planning for all Tasmanians.

Mr President, I would like to mention briefly some other groups that I believe have been overlooked in this Budget.  In some ways the early months of the COVID‑19 crisis were a time of real relief for people who were already marginalised and experiencing disadvantage through things like our higher social safety net payments.  There are many people and certainly many Tasmanians who found that their basic needs in life, their needs for certain support services, were alleviated by those early measures.  Some people had access to the basics in life – things that we would consider essential to a dignified life – for the first time in years. 

What we heard from some community services was that those who had made up, say, 80 per cent of their emergency food relief clients prior to COVID‑19 who were on very low Centrelink payments, were suddenly not presenting for emergency food relief after the COVID‑19 crisis began and social safety net payments were raised.  What that shows us is it was never possible to live on some of those very low amounts prior to COVID‑19. 

When people were given what was really just enough, they no longer presented to services and those services were then available to other groups who came into sharper relief during COVID‑19, and in the case of emergency food relief what we saw was a shift away from those on Centrelink payments towards temporary visa holders who had no support. 

Then, sadly, what we have seen now in recent months as the Centrelink payments have been dropping away again, a return to the more usual cohort of people accessing emergency food relief and that is those on Centrelink payments who have now had that additional support – which really just gave them the basics – taken away. 

Tasmania as a state was incredibly generous with the support provided to households and businesses through the pandemic and we see that reflected in this budget.  So many efforts and initiatives.  Whether it was to households, to businesses, through local government, through state government, through community organisations, Tasmania really shone in much of the support it provided. 

That initial support was enough and will be enough of a boost to help many people stay afloat and get back on their feet but for others it will not be, especially those who are already highly marginalised.  Saul Eslake, again, in his budget analysis quoted the warning from the International Monetary Fund in relation to these COVID‑19 support measures –

Governments should ensure that lifelines are not withdrawn too rapidly.  Improvements in the ability of social protection systems to reach target and deliver benefits to vulnerable people should be preserved. 

They also say –

Governments will need to foster the recovery while addressing the legacies of the crisis, including elevated private and public debt levels, high unemployment, and rising inequality and poverty.

We know here in Tasmania 20 000 people lost their jobs; 12 000 are still out of work from that, and we have dozens of people available for every job vacancy.  Is this Budget delivering on addressing disadvantage?  Is it going to continue to provide that generous support and that effective and targeted support we saw early, or are we going to see it withdrawn here, like we are seeing it withdrawn at a federal level?  I hope not, because that would disappoint Tasmanians on certainly many fronts. 

Children and young people are of concern to me.  I am particularly concerned that we have not yet fully seen and measured and understood the impact of COVID‑19 on vulnerable families, especially children.  Areas such as children and youth services, out-of-home care, family violence and homelessness services for children have received some gestures of extra support and these have been important, but I fear that they are also only bandaids. 

I fear that the small, extra supports will ultimately be insufficient to support the extra need that is generated by the COVID‑19 circumstances, let alone the underlying need that we know was already there.  We will probably see more details around this coming to light during our budget estimates process and I think we will also continue to see it playing out in coming months, if not years.  I am afraid if we miss an opportunity to improve and transform our state and our support for vulnerable children in particular, we will fall even further behind.

Other disadvantaged groups I wonder about in terms of the impact and opportunity presented or missing in this Budget and in relation to that. some of those groups I am thinking about are called communities and also people with a disability.

I recently read a speech from Dr Ben Gauntlett, Australia’s Disability Discrimination Commissioner.  He gave a speech as part of the Columbia Law School’s Human Rights Institute virtual event series in May this year.  He said –

COVID-19 exacerbates disadvantage, but in doing so it highlights the importance of the convention of the rights of persons with disabilities and human rights more generally.

Post COVID-19 there will be a need to be equally vigilant to protect the rights of people with disability.  This is done by including people with disability in the policy decision-making framework.

In conclusion, as the health issues caused by COVID-19, dissipate the economic and social participation concerns for people with disability will arise.

In Australia, as in the rest of the world, a disability inclusive COVID-19 response and recovery strategy is good policy.  It ensures no one is left behind now and in the future, but is made with and not for people with disability.

Those words are really important for us to consider in light of this Budget and future budgets.  Do we have a disability-inclusive COVID-19 response and recovery strategy that would be good policy?  I do not believe we have seen that represented in this Budget and there is an opportunity for us to do better.

Another group I am concerned about in regards to the current circumstances would be the absence of carers in this Budget.  Again, it is a group of Tasmanians who are already highly marginalised in a range of ways.  They face challenges in regards to participation, to accessing services and support, to managing on low incomes and facing poverty.  COVID-19 would have hit our Tasmanian carers very hard indeed and added additional extra pressures, burdens and costs.

Again, some effort and investment made to early support measures was touched on and been important, but again I am concerned it represents a bandaid not a plan.

It looks like this Budget is missing any focus on meeting the needs of carers.  When I say that I am thinking about things like digital inclusion, which is particularly important for carers who may be isolated and unable to be out and about accessing and participating.  Extra support for carers whether that is financial or additional services or respite and those sorts of things that can make life more bearable and more possible.

I am thinking about younger carers in schools and whose additional responsibilities are exacerbated and their educational opportunities challenged in this time.

How are we assisting carers into employment?  What flexible arrangements have arisen during COVID-19?  Are we now proactively applying to assist with carers and their participation in the workforce?

Another matter that I do not see well represented in this Budget, but hope we may look ahead to doing better next time is around meeting the demographic challenge of our population ageing.  This has been a significant challenge for some time particularly, for our regional areas.  Where in this Budget is the strategic medium- or long-term planning and investment to meet that demographic challenge we face as a state, especially in regional areas and especially now in COVID-19 circumstances.

Many local government areas in this state will find that ageing populations restricting their economic and demographic future a factor that must be considered.  As we see progress from here, recovery and rebuilding playing out where is the proactive policy planning and purposeful interventions to address this?

Another nifty catch phrase we have encountered in this Budget is futureproofing.  The Government talks about futureproofing our state.  Futureproofing, we could agree or have a shared understanding of, is about anticipating the future and developing methods to minimise the effect of shocks and stresses.  Is having a plan where you can face the future with resilience.

I absolutely agree with the Government:  there is no better time than now to be futureproofing Tasmania, but futureproofing does not come from business as usual.  It does not come from doing the same things you have always done and expecting a different result.  Futureproofing our state will come from bold, visionary planning and action.  Prior to COVID‑19, despite the claims of a strong economy, we saw increasing polarisation in our community, a widening gap opening up between what we have often called the two Tasmanias.  We saw dire social indicators that were in some cases at best intractably stalled at unacceptable levels and at worst heading further into negative territory.

Genuinely futureproofing our state should come from breaking cycles of disadvantage we have seen and continue to see in our communities.  Transformative steps to ensure we shift these entrenched disadvantages unneeded to create a future but delivers, not just for some Tasmanians but for all Tasmanians.  I was interested to read in The Mercury newspaper the day after Budget date, on Friday, 13 November, an analysis article that had this comment.  It said –

It is a budget for transport, housing, hospitals and schools, with law and order thrown in.  It is a big-spending stimulus budget.  But it is also a budget imagined by bureaucrats, not politicians with a bolder vision.  There are no projects which will transform the state or recast our state’s direction, but we will have better roads and bridges.

While it would be nice to have better roads and bridges, to recast the direction of our State and achieve genuine transformation we need much higher aspirations.  We need to aim to solve our major social challenges with tangible plans that have accountable outcomes and commensurate investment.  For example, futureproofing our state we could plan and deliver – 

• 100 per cent literacy for all school leavers and across our community members
• zero primary homelessness and a minimal public housing waitlist
• minimal incarceration rates and zero recidivism
• accessible alcohol and other drug programs for all who need them in this state
• no children removed from Tasmanian families.

A commitment to even one of those would be genuine futureproofing for Tasmania.  In this Budget real social futureproofing is not evident; it is an afterthought.

My observation is that this reflects the approach of this Government we have seen since 2014 – that social challenges come a distant second, to be given attention once the economy is fixed, whatever that may be.  This kind of thinking has been turned on its head by COVID-19 and I have to wonder why we would return to discredited approaches rather than making the most of this opportunity to reimagine our state.

In conclusion, we are presented with the need to create a comprehensive vision firmly underpinned by social policy, economic policy, strategic industry policy, industrial relations and education and training policy.  That vision needs to be an expression of our aspirations for our state.  What sort of community do we want?  What sort of life style do we want?  What sort of economy do we want?  What sort of jobs do we want?  We cannot just skip to the last part about jobs and pray the other questions are magically answered.

I am looking forward to delving into the weeds of this Budget next week during Budget Estimates which will be important to drill down and gain further insights into the details.  Having made my comments today, I especially want to say thank you to the Premier, to all the ministers, and to the departments that sit behind them for their leadership and for the work they have done this year to respond to the crisis we are faced with.  I have focused today on speaking about the ways in which this Budget falls short and I recognise the work has gone into developing what we would agree is a shared intent we all hold to see our state recover and thrive.

While I am talking in relation this Budget, I also want to recognise and thank the local government in my electorate, the City of Hobart, and the Kingborough Council for the work they have done to support our local communities.  I also thank the community organisations in my electorate who have provided support to the communities and the people wKho have needed it, within in my electorate and throughout the state.  I thank all the small businesses who have struggled through and managed to stay afloat this year, and wish the very best to those who are still struggling to do so.

I give special thanks to the public servants who have kept government services and the governance of our state ticking along – adapting, rising to the challenges of shutdowns and social distancing, and continuing to support the Tasmanian community.  Finally, in particular, I thank frontline workers in the health sector who have really faced the most daunting challenges and the highest risks.  We are not there yet, but we are getting there. 

Mr President, I note the Budget.

Read recent media about  Meg’s budget speech