Reply Premier’s Address 2022

Ms WEBB (Nelson) – Mr President, I welcome this opportunity to respond to the Premier’s annual state of the state address and thank other members for the contributions they have made, all of which have been really valuable and very interesting to listen to.

At the outset, I want to acknowledge that the Premier’s speech contains some initiatives and commitments that will be welcomed by a range of Tasmanians. Some of these initiatives were new while others were an update of process already underway, as is appropriate for an annual update such as the formal Premier’s Address to parliament.

The annual state of the state speech, otherwise known as the Premier’s Address, is currently required by the parliamentary Standing Orders to be delivered within the first six sitting days of the parliamentary calendar year. This specific required time frame reflects that the key purpose of this annual address is agenda setting not only for spending initiatives, as the budget session provides for that but for policy priorities and the proposed legislative agenda moving forward.

While the address delivered by the Premier on 4 March presents some declarations of intent and actions, overall the picture presented appears to be a rather selective series of highlighted issues rather than a comprehensive or holistic evaluation of the state’s current status or a corresponding comprehensive plan moving forward. In fact, the address provides more insight into the state of this Government and its priorities than it does into the state of Tasmania’s capacity to house, feed and educate our community; for them to create, to work, and to play. There were also some significant absences and silences which warrant discussion.

To start with, I was struck by the almost non-presence of the COVID-19 pandemic throughout the Premier’s address; it barely casts a shadow there. This once in a hundred years global pandemic that sent a catastrophic shockwave cascading around the globe, that saw ‘unprecedented’ become one of the most overused words of our lexicon, is barely mentioned except in passing.

I have heard of invisible pandemics, but this disappearing act is truly remarkable. We know that COVID-19 has not disappeared. We know that well over 50 000 Tasmanians have contracted COVID-19, and likely thousands more who were either asymptomatic or perhaps did not get tested when ill. We know that the majority of 12 years of age and younger cohort are not yet fully vaccinated. We know that Public Health experts are still unsure about the need or effectiveness of a fourth or even successive rounds of booster vaccinations. We know that many vulnerable Tasmanians, in particular those living with a disability, are very anxious about their health and safety as mask mandates have been lifted. We know the ramifications of long COVID-19 are yet to be fully understood. We also know that the state’s Public Health Emergency Declaration was extended yet again under section 15 of the Public Health Act 1997 on 11 January this year for a further 12 weeks, which by my calculations takes us to around 5 April. Yet, we do not know whether the Public Health Emergency Declaration will be extended again in April or not. Inexplicably, the important ‘here is our plan’ statement by the Premier – the state of the state address – is silent on this matter.

It would be a fair assumption, given the increased emphasis on Tasmanians needing to transition to living with COVID, that the agenda setting plan for this year would include an update on the status of the emergency declaration and future plans. For example, what are the evidence-based threshold indicators necessary in order for the Public Health authorities to recommend the lifting of that emergency declaration?

Further, we do not know the evidence-based reasoning for the lifting of the mask mandate when a public health emergency declaration remains in place. There are many unknowns and unanswered questions regarding the Government’s COVID-19 response, too many to list here and examine in detail.

Let me reiterate, if the worst of the pandemic is truly behind us, and of course we all hope that that is the case, then it would be a fair assumption for the Premier’s significant address at the resumption of the parliamentary year to contain a comprehensive and detailed pandemic report and evaluation.

Ideally an agenda-setting state of the state address would announce a public COVID-19 response evaluation process. It was not just the scale and health impact of the pandemic which catapulted it into the realm of the ‘unprecedented’. Its duration of two years and counting was not foreseen by the Tasmanian Emergency Management Arrangement, TEMA, nor the state Tasmanian Disaster Resilience Strategy, 2020-2025, which underpins those arrangements.

I have previously mentioned in this place the fact that the Emergency Management System is based on the assumption that such emergencies would either be natural disasters or some form of hazard-sparked situation. The potential of pandemics being overly disruptive was not rated of high concern, as the documentation states the most likely candidate would be influenza, for which it regarded us to be well prepared. So, yes, the Government announced last year that we would review the Emergency Management Act 2006, but that is just one plank of our state emergency infrastructure, as I have mentioned. We need to forensically examine all arenas and tiers of governance, command structures and social and economic protection measures put in place over the last few years, particularly those measures which required many freedoms to be suspended temporarily.

What lessons have we learned? How can we be better prepared should we be confronted in the future by another seismic shock to our health, our economy and our freedoms? As members may recall, on 3 June 2020 this Chamber voted in support of a proposal for a joint house select committee to be established into Tasmania’s COVID-19 response and recovery.

Imagine the real-time data and lived experience such a committee would have collated by now and continue to add to, as is occurring in other states. One point of interest emphasised in the current Tasmanian Emergency Management Arrangements documents, under the heading Continual Improvement, is the following:

All sectors continuously learn and innovate to improve practices and share lessons, data and knowledge so that future emergency management is better and the overall cost of impact of emergencies and disasters is reduced. Continuous monitoring, review and evaluation should examine the processes, timelines and outcomes of plans. Review informs communities and displays transparency and accountability. Review also enables facilitation of the adaptive change process with communities.

That is from the Tasmanian Emergency Management Arrangements, Issue 1, 2019, page 19.

It describes a review that we are still waiting for. Instead, Tasmania’s status report is presented as ‘transitioning to living with COVID-19’. That transition is primarily described as a reopening, so not even a rebuilding, a reimagining or a restoring, all of which are variations on a theme prevalent when we were at the height of the pandemic in 2020-21, which saw people discussing the Tasmania they wanted to emerge from the unprecedented pandemic experience.

At the time many of those re-emergence themes emphasised that with the challenges of the pandemic also came opportunities to re-evaluate, rethink and reposition our state as a compassionate and equality-driven community. That community-focused transformative ethos does not appear to be reflected to the extent that I would like to see in the Premier’s Address. I fear it appears that the pre-pandemic blinkers that previously obscured a clear focus on social health, education and social justice inequalities are being strapped back into place once more.

I am also prompted to reflect on the impact of COVID-19 on our democracy. In an oped piece that I wrote and was published in the Mercury newspaper on 13 February this year, amongst other matters I asked, where is our ‘Back to a safe, strong, parliament plan? Where is the guarantee that we have robust arrangements in place to main the business of democracy in the face of COVID-19?’

I note that we are now seeing the regrettable impact of COVID-19 on our parliament and our democracy. Just this week we observe absences from our Chamber and from the other place. I note comments in the media today from the Government that seem to dismiss the import and consequence of these absences with implication that provision for the pairing of votes is sufficient to make up for the absence of members of both Chambers.

I strongly suggest that the absence of elected members of parliament – and I would say especially the absence of Independent members of parliament has consequences for our democracy beyond the simple outcome of votes taken. I regard the suggestion that pairing arrangements on votes ameliorates the impact of that absence to be both ignorant and disrespectful. Every member of this parliament is here as an elected representative and voice for their community. Any impediment to the full participation of an elected member of parliament is a diminution of our democracy and its service to our community.

Case in point for our Chamber is the absence this week of the member for Murchison. At many points during the week, we have commented on the member’s absence in our proceedings and noted the impact of that absence. To be clear, the contribution that is missing when an Independent member is prevented from participating is not just the end point of where their vote on a particular bill or amendment may have landed.

The contribution made by Independent members of this place to the scrutiny and review of legislation is substantial. It is in this contribution that considerable additional value is provided by this Chamber of review, as it is distinct from the contribution and already fixed positions of parties which have been prosecuted in the other place. The second reading contributions by members, including the questions raised for government response, are part of a complete parliamentary record on the passage of any bill. Similarly, the questions raised and the answers interrogated during the Committee stage of the passage of any bill add important detail and clarity to the parliamentary record.

This complete parliamentary record is important for the accountability of the government of the day. In fact, it can even have legal consequences if matters relating to a piece of legislation later become a matter before the courts. That is why it is a significant concern that for the past two years the Government has so sorely neglected to make appropriate arrangements for our parliament to function in the readily-anticipated constraints that COVID-19 presents.

As the opening of our borders was planned for 15 December 2021 and we clearly knew that COVID-19 would re-enter our state, the Government prepared on many fronts through the second half of last year but made no provision for the full functioning of our parliament should members be impacted by COVID-19 isolation requirements. Why not, is my question. Other parliaments have done so. It is not an insurmountable ask if we place appropriate value on the full functioning of our democracy. It concerns me that the Government seems to have given it no regard whatsoever and so readily appears to brush aside the democratic consequences that we now see play out.

I have no doubt that the member for Murchison, as the member here so directly impacted this week, will have a view to share on this. I believe the Government owes the parliament and the Tasmanian community an explanation as to its neglect in being dutiful custodians of our democracy through its absence of proactive steps taken to ensure the full functioning of our parliament.

In previous contributions in this place I have raised the need for rigorous and consistent benchmarking indicators, facilitating meaningful and consistent measurement of progress, not just government activity. I have previously outlined other jurisdictions, such as New South Wales and New Zealand, who provide such frameworks of key indicator benchmarks, which are reported against consistently. I am not revisiting details here again in this contribution. I will reiterate that the incorporation of this form of more nuanced and reflective measurement mechanism would make successive state of the state addresses more robust, accountable and meaningful.

Over its lifetime, a government would be able to report against set indicators and demonstrate how its policies have, or have not, successfully delivered on specific targets. The lack of any meaningful reporting framework incorporated in the Premier’s Address is surprising, given the fact that the Premier’s Social and Economic Recovery Advisory Council (PESCRAC) recommended the adoption of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (the STGs) which could readily provide such a framework. While the Government apparently accepted all PESRAC recommendations, I am not aware of any indication that this one is being progressed. There is certainly no sign of the STGs or any other accountable benchmarking framework for measuring progress in the state of the state address that we are speaking about today. Once more, we are largely left a list of activity and spending commitments rather than an accountable report on outcomes.

I mentioned previously that the timing of each annual state of the state address is stipulated for the beginning of each parliamentary calendar year. This timing is to facilitate not only an evaluation of previous actions, but also to lay out the Government’s plan for the year, which is why I find the absence of any detailed legislative agenda in this year’s state of the state address to be absolutely extraordinary. I reread the transcript numerous times thinking I must have missed it, but no, the gap, the absence, is very real. It is notable that the Premier’s speech emphasises financial and expenditure commitments and any enabling legislation for those I presume is to be assumed, or in large part, they are process which bypass parliament in the main.

One has to wonder then, about how and why any government would consider silence on a legislative agenda to be a good thing. Surely, it opens up the Government to criticism that it either does not have a work plan or it is struggling to deliver it for whatever reason. It may also raise concerns that the Government is deliberatively avoiding forewarning the community of potentially controversial or divisive legislative plans and instead will possibly drop bills into the parliament at short notice. Or perhaps, it indicates an arrogance that it just has not occurred to the Government that there is a fair expectation on behalf of both the electorate and the nongovernment members of our parliament that the intended legislative focus and priorities should be publicly outlined in a timely manner to encourage engagement and involvement in the decision-making processes that surround it.

One matter that I will continue to champion at every opportunity as a priority legislative reform for our state is the establishment of a human rights act. While we will not at the front of the pack on this, noting that Victoria, Queensland, and the Australian Capital Territory, all have some form of human rights legislation, it would be a significant shame for Tasmania to lag behind and find ourselves, yet again, trailing the pack to the detriment of the citizens of our state. We have already explicitly acknowledged human rights as a foundation in some pieces of legislation in this state. An example would be the Education Act 2016, which explicitly references rights of children. I believe it is inevitable that we will move towards a legislative instrument that recognises and protects our fundamental human rights and becomes a mechanism by which we assess and hold accountable government policy and budgetary decisions. I look forward to that day coming.

Speaking of a legislative agenda, one glaring absence in this Premier’s Address was an update on the state of our long promised and long overdue political donations and disclosures reform. I note the member for Hobart has discussed this in his contribution. Given Tasmania’s recent controversial history and disquiet over the perceived influence of political donors, plus our continual embarrassment on the national stage for having the worst and the weakest political donation disclosure system, it beggars belief that any government claiming to be in touch with the public would fail to even have the courtesy of providing an update in this foundational parliamentary address for the coming year.

To recap for members, following the community outrage and anger over the blatant intrusion of gambling vested interest dollars during the March 2018 state election, the then premier, Will Hodgman, promised political donation disclosure reform in May of that year, 2018. Four years, and another election later we are still waiting. Eventually, the exposure draft of the Electoral Disclosure and Funding Bill 2021 was released for public consultation in August last year with a submission period closing late September.

Despite the Justice department website currently stating that unless specified as confidential, all submissions will be released publicly in accordance with the publication of submissions received by Tasmanian government departments in response to consultations on major policy issues policy, submissions received on that draft bill have yet to be made publicly available. And I note on quite a few others, which have been consulted on in times even more distant.

It was inexcusable for the Government to not have this reform in place prior to last year’s state election. It remains inexcusable for it to be languishing on the bottom of the pile, it would appear, of government priorities. Not only do Tasmanians deserve a formal update on the proposed time frame by which to expect to see this long overdue legislative reform, they also deserve reassurance that any eventual bill will reflect community expectation for the most rigorous and transparent regime possible. It must include genuinely real time disclosures and an aggregate disclosure threshold of no more than $1000, as is the case in a majority of interstate jurisdictions.

On this matter, the Australian Electoral Commission released the latest available political donations data in February, just last month. With no disclosure threshold of our own in this state, currently, we default to the Commonwealth threshold of $14 300. Far in excess of the disclosure threshold in any other state in our nation.

The data released last month, in February, showed the Tasmanian Liberals had an income of $4.3 million in 2020-21, of which $262 000 was disclosed. A mere 7.6 per cent. Interestingly, in other AEC reporting data, donors to the Tasmanian Liberals themselves disclosed a further $395 578, which means an overall total of disclosures from both the party and the donors was $657 578. That amounted to 19.22 per cent of the overall income.

For just over 80 per cent or specifically $2 763 304, we have no disclosure and no visibility when it comes to the money flowing into the Tasmanian Liberal Party.

If we turn to the Tasmanian Labor Party to see what was disclosed in the February data from the AEC, we find the Tasmanian Labor Party in the 2020-21 financial year had an income of $1 170 441. That party disclosed the source of $180 160 of that income. Other donors disclosed a further $148 250. The overall origin of 28 per cent of the Tasmanian Labor Party’s income was disclosed, leaving over 70 per cent with no disclosure and no visibility.

For completeness, I will detail the data on the Tasmanian branch of the Australian Greens released in the February AEC figures. The Tasmanian Greens had an income of $877 047 in the 2020-21 financial year. Of that, $219 613 or 25 per cent was disclosed in the AEC data. In addition to that, on their website, the Tasmanian Greens also disclosed seven individuals who had donated over the party’s voluntary disclosure threshold of $1500 in the 2020-21 financial year. Those seven donations amounted to a further $66 459, meaning that in total the origin of 32 per cent of the Tasmanian Greens income was disclosed. We know that any donations contributing to the remaining 67 per cent were under the $1500 voluntary disclosure threshold that they apply. That is a lot of numbers.

I want to make the point. There is no justifiable reason for this important reform we have had dangled before us for the past four years to be delayed any further and these numbers reinforce that fact. It is simply not good enough that the vast majority of the money flowing into the parties in this state is invisible to us in terms of its origin.

The Premier has made public comments that the bill will be introduced in the first half of this year and yet he has failed to make any mention in the state of the state address.

Certainly, it does not look to be anywhere in sight and the submissions on the draft bill made in September last year, are nowhere to be seen on the Department of Justice website.

We cannot even see and gauge community expectation in anticipation of that bill coming to us.

Madam Acting President, the Government has been stringing the Tasmanian public along on this matter for the past four years. It is well past time that a firm and specific date is set for the introduction of this reform bill to this parliament.

With the AEC data release in February, we certainly now know exactly how pointless also, the promises of a voluntary donation disclosure were from the Gutwein Liberal Government in May last year.

I note there has been reporting on this on the Tasmanian Inquirer new site. Despite the commitment made by Premier, Peter Gutwein, that his party would voluntarily make public all donations over $5000, the data released tells us that the Premier and his party failed to do that. A total of almost $70 000 in donations above that threshold was made during the election campaign period and yet hidden from voters in the May 2021 election. Having promised Tasmanian voters when the election was called on March 26 2021 that his party would voluntarily disclose all donations of more than $5000 within two business days, Premier Gutwein apparently failed to disclose on the party’s websites six donations that exceeded that amount made during the campaign period. The news site that reported on this detailed those six donations. Those six undisclosed donations amounted to $69 600. There were also another six donations, all for exactly $5000 and therefore I suppose technically able to be regarded as just under the Liberals’ expressed voluntary disclosure threshold for the election period of over $5000.

Honoured though it was even during the campaign, as far as I am concerned, after the end of the campaign period the Liberal party and Premier Gutwein were more than happy to drop their commitment of disclosure of donations above $5000. I believe this is very telling. If it is good enough for an election campaign, why stop doing it? We know from the AEC data that between the May election and the end of the AEC’s closure 30 June 2021, a further $24 000 in donations above $5000 was made to the Tasmanian Liberal Party.

The intent of political donation disclosure is to provide transparency on where financial support to political parties is coming from. This is so the public can make assessments as to the extent of the influence any financial support may have on public policy and public investment. We would all recognise the potential to influence public policy and public investment through financial support to political parties and candidates is not just limited to campaign periods. It applies equally to political donations made throughout the year and throughout the election cycle. To suggest otherwise would be utter nonsense.

To finish on this matter, I also note the new incoming Premier of South Australia has his eye on donation reform in that state. He wants to ensure that the election in which he just came to power, and I quote:

-will be the last state election where private money plays any role.

He further stated on Twitter:

If we can do one thing to improve public confidence in our democratic institutions, it is this: ban all donations for elections. No more private money for political party’s campaigns. Not business money, not union money.

Hear hear, I say.

The proposal from Premier Gutwein in the draft election donations reform bill we saw last year was to emulate South Australia’s disclosure limit of $5000. A figure our Premier described, having looked around the country apparently at all other states with lower limits, as being ‘about right’. How interesting it will be once we finally do have a bill come to us for Tasmania to contemplate pegging ourselves to the level of a particular state, South Australia, whose current political leadership is disavowing the appropriateness of that self-same level of disclosure. Plenty of further discussion to be had on this topic I believe.

If there was to be an honest state of the state evaluation of Tasmania’s democratic system of governance and probity, I fear we may not score highly. Additional to the need for a rigourous state-based political donation disclosure regime, another significant raised by many as fundamental to the health of our democracy is the need to restore the numbers of the assembly.

I acknowledge the member for Hobart spoke about this in his contribution.

Mr Valentine – I did not read your notes, alright?

Ms WEBB – No, that is alright. No collaboration or correspondence was entered into. I appreciate the convention not to reflect on the activity of the other place and further that on matters of MP numbers I understand there is an informal agreement to let each Chamber decide for itself its makeup. I do note the precedent of former president, the honourable Sue Smith MLC who made a point of stating during her valedictory speech in this place on 18 April 2013, that despite voting for the 1998 cuts to MP numbers, she came to consider the cuts to the Assembly to be a mistake. I know some members here now were also here when Ms Smith made those comments in her valedictory speech. You would no doubt be aware one of the reasons given by Ms Smith for the change in her position was her observation of how the reduced number of assembly MPs had negatively impacted upon the capacity of the parliament’s committee system to function efficiently and effectively. The member for Hobart spoke to this point also.

Given the Premier stated, during the Assembly budget Estimate scrutiny hearings last year, that in principle he agreed the Assembly is too small, combined with his many assertions that our state economy is a strong one and one of the best national performers, then maybe it is time that a similar investment is made for the health of our democracy and parliament by restoring the lower House numbers to ensure Tasmanian parliamentary democracy is strong, capable of being one of the best national performers also.

The global pandemic has certainly reminded us that all life is vulnerable and a fragile thing. I must say current global events, when we look to Ukraine, are now reminding us that so too is democracy at times a fragile and a vulnerable thing. We need to not take our precious democracy for granted, but rather we must actively invest in it to ensure it is robust.

The Premier’s Address did include an important update on progress towards developing an agreed truth telling and treaty process with the Tasmanian Aboriginal community. I reiterate my former statement supporting efforts towards a genuine treaty process. I am heartened to recognise the parliament should be kept informed on developments. Of course this is not going to be an easy or straightforward process. It will be difficult and at times it may be confrontational, but it does need to occur.

As the Premier’s Address states unequivocally, whatever the processes that eventuate, they must be co-authored by and move the Tasmanian Aboriginal community. Clearly this link to truth telling is going to be as important as the telling. Listening is fundamental to this exercise. Undoubtedly neither the telling nor the listening will be easy. A key part of the listening will be the recognition of responsibility via a range of institutions representing the state, including the institution of parliament, which is why it jarred a little last year when he pathway to truth telling and treaty report by Professor Kate Warner, Professor Tim McCormack and Ms Fauve Kurnadi was tabled in parliament on an extremely busy final parliamentary sitting day. Ideally, I would have thought a report of this significance would have been provided with the gravitas of a formal response via parliamentary debate. Something of this significance also warrants hearing, more directly from the affected community.

Members here may be aware of the significant precedent set on 13 August 1997, when the House of Assembly passed unanimously a motion moved by the then premier, Tony Rundell, apologising for the trauma of the Stolen Generation. What was so extraordinary about that debate was that a representative of the Tasmanian Aboriginal community, Ms Annette Peardon, was invited to address the parliament directly from the bar in the Assembly. Now, it may be that it is not considered appropriate or an even desirable option to undertake a similar process, which would be a representative of the Tasmanian Aboriginal community address parliament directly in this instance at this point in time, it is worth placing on the public record we are aware of that earlier precedent and hopefully in that spirit of co-authorship endorsed by the Premier in his speech, an appropriate mechanism will be found and identified ideally by the community itself that would bring forward that voice to parliament and tell us their truth directly, rather than just via a tabled report. In the meantime though, I certainly wish all involved in progressing this very important process and piece of work all the very best, and again reiterate my support for it.

It is always informative to give some attention and notice to the language that is used in public communications and political communications. Choices of language can indicate the values base and the priorities of the speaker. I was interested to note some of the language used in this year’s state of the state address and to reflect on that in light of previous years. Two years ago, Premier Gutwein, in his first state of the state, very soon after his ascension to the role of Premier, made a commitment that his would be a government of compassion. That was a prominent message, readily seen as appropriate for the time, as COVID-19 loomed on our doorstep.

I said then in my reply to the Premier’s Address in 2020:

I believe that acts of compassion build trust and a government that acts with genuine compassion in words and in behaviours and decisions will garner the trust of the community.

We have certainly needed all the trust in government that we could muster these past two years. I believe that we still do, given that we are still in the midst of navigating our way through and managing the ongoing impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Given that, I note that there is a distinctive change in language in this year’s Premier’s Address. I did not hear messages of compassion come through strongly. What I heard most strongly were messages centred on aspiration and confidence. Others in their contributions here have picked up on this language used and noted it also, which I think confirms for me that it was likely the intended takeaway narrative from the Premier’s Address.

For many Tasmanians, that narrative will resonate. For some in our community, that narrative will accurately reflect their own lives, their values and their priorities. I certainly accept that there is a positive place for aspiration and its focus on achieving material progress and success but I cannot help but also reflect that many other Tasmanians will feel a disconnect with the tenor of the language and narrative of aspiration and confidence and may look in vain to see themselves represented in it. Almost as an afterthought or footnote, there is a mention in the closing stages of the Premier’s Address of the need to:

Create opportunities for Tasmanians, regardless of their background or circumstance.

This is virtually the sole acknowledgement that we are battling structural social inequalities, some that have been ingrained over generations and some reflecting recent shifts of our social tectonic plates, if you will.

Structural inequalities in our state have long been lamented as creating what is often called ‘two Tasmanias’. What we know without a doubt is that while some Tasmanians may have a ‘quiet confidence’ to use the Premier’s term, there are far too many Tasmanians living with a ‘quiet desperation’. Here I think of the quiet desperation of those struggling to find an affordable home for their family; the quiet desperation of those who have retreated to home isolation as Public Health measures have been lifted and their disabilities or vulnerabilities putting them at higher risk in the face of others relishing their freedoms. I think also of potentially the quiet desperation for some of those who have been and continue to be at the forefront of health and social care during COVID-19 and who have borne the brunt of supporting and caring for our community with little to compensate for the personal burden they have carried on our behalf.

Put simply, reflecting on the language used and the narrative created in this year’s Premier’s Address, I note that unlike the Address of two years ago in 2020, which could be seen to speak to all Tasmanians in that message of compassion, I fear that in this year’s Address we have seen a return to a government who speaks primarily to only one of the two Tasmanias.

A major announcement in the Premier’s Address was the disbanding of the Department of Communities Tasmania, which the Premier described as:

moving from a siloed government approach, in order to lift capabilities across systems, policies, processes and procedures.

This is quite puzzling as the Department of Communities Tasmania has only been in existence, I believe, since 2016. It was created by this same Liberal Government specifically to, wait for it, ‘break down silos and align government services that had natural connections’. Fascinating that we can have the same rationale provided to create a new department and then within a few short years disband that self-same department.

What comes to my mind are questions. In what ways did the Department of Communities Tasmania experiment fail? Which structural aspects of the departmental responsibilities and activities proved themselves to be ineffective? What exactly was being monitored and measured to assess how successfully the Department of Communities Tasmania was meeting its intended outcomes? Are we to presume that it was in the monitoring and measurement of specific aspects of the functioning of the Department of Communities that indicated a failure of such catastrophic proportions that the disbandment of the whole department was warranted? How are we to know? We are yet to have a clear and comprehensive explanation from the Premier or the Government as to exactly what problem the Government is proposing to solve with their decision and what measurable improvements in outcomes or specific increase in capabilities it will deliver

Creating or breaking apart a government department is no small thing. It is a complex and costly undertaking. It can be incredibly disruptive to services and cause considerable uncertainty for staff and for government-funded programs and services in the community sector. The abruptness of this announcement prompts me to question the true purpose of the decision. Where is the evidence base for making these changes? The Premier has certainly not presented us with any.

What indication do we have that it will improve outcomes for the Tasmanian people and communities, especially given that it relates to services that provide support to some of our most vulnerable community members? Given that vulnerability, what evidence do we have that this decision will not serve to create perverse outcomes or unintended consequences, especially, if it is a decision that was taken in haste and also looks to be planned to be implemented in haste?

The very least we can certainly say is that it came out of the blue. We had the Watt review of the State Service delivered last year. While I believe the Premier tried to link this dramatic axing of a government department to that report, I do not believe anything of this sort was recommended in the Watt review. The two most discussed elements of this breaking up of Communities Tasmania, are two very fundamental changes: the transformation of Housing Tasmania into a statutory authority and the shifting of Children and Youth Services into the Education Department. Many questions arise and I would like to talk through some of them.

I note, interestingly, commentary from HACSU on this decision to disband the Department of Communities Tasmania which points to a similar departmental shift that occurred in South Australia in 2012, where the South Australian Department of Family Services was combined with the Department of Education in that state.

A couple of years and a royal commission later, South Australia reversed that decision when it was identified, I understand, that the department with the business of child protection as its focus did not belong in the Department of Education. Now, every state has its own circumstances, but we do look to other jurisdictions and seek to learn from them.

It is not clear to me, that this decision to bring our child safety and family support services into the Department of Education is well indicated or backed by expert evidence or experience. I am fully prepared to be made aware of otherwise, but it has not been presented to us thus far. Quite frankly, the only problem that I can readily see that this move may be designed to solve is a political one for the Government.

We currently have a commission of inquiry in progress, which, when it reports, is likely to have some significant, if not damning findings and recommendations in relation to Children and Family services and Youth Justice in this state. What better way, I cannot help but think, to have an immediate deflection of any of those findings or recommendations than by having already restructured those particular areas in advance of the anticipated criticism. This unseemly rush, is what it looks like, to pre-empt criticism is a significant missed opportunity. I think it sells our state short on gaining full benefit and full healing from a commission of inquiry process.

This Government could instead have had the courage to wait for that commission of inquiry to play out, to hear and understand the findings and recommendations that it makes and then carefully and consultatively seek to make changes and improvements informed by that important process. Our state is to be deprived of that opportunity. We appear to be rushing into a major restructure of key departments related to that commission of inquiry without a clear motive for doing so, without a credible evidence base to guide us and without any articulated improvement of outcomes by which the Government could be held to account for its decision.

Perhaps this government – or at least, key members of its executive – do not expect to be here to pick up the pieces three, four, five years down the track once the dust settles and we see the impact of this hasty restructure. As part of the disappearance of the Department of Communities Tasmania, the decision to take Housing Tasmania out of a government department and transform it into a statutory authority is worth examining. It will be a costly and complex process to some extent, yet another skills-based board and bureaucratic framework to create, and it will involve the removal of responsibility and accountability from the minister, putting it at arms-length instead, where any political heat will be felt much more mildly by executive government.

The proposal is to align the new authority with Infrastructure and State Growth, but we know 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, as it is now, covers the planning, funding and oversight of the full suite of Housing Connect services, including homelessness services and rental supports, as well as public and social housing provision and management and policy planning.

Currently, it is embedded in the community sector and intrinsically connected with a range of other social and health services where it is located in the Department of Communities Tasmania. We have to ask ourselves, what happens to these connections and the provision of that integrated effective service 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, and 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 accountabilities required to plan and administer them be successfully undertaken by an independent statutory authority under a skills-based board? It will be very interesting to see the proposed skill mix of that board.

The Government’s commitment to substantial additional public and social housing development over the next decade is a very welcome announcement. It is significant and, if it comes to pass as planned, it will make a difference over time to the situation that we currently find ourselves in. We would also need the federal government to step up and make similar commitments to funding an increase in the supply of social and public housing to complement that and to really put us ahead of the game, rather than just playing catch up. This Government’s commitment – although very laudable – will still only see us do that for quite some time yet.

While those future commitments are welcome and needed, we are left with a question: what will alleviate the urgent crisis now? Infrastructure Australia’s report, Regional Strengths and Infrastructure Gaps identifies Tasmania’s major infrastructure gaps as the availability, diversity and affordability of housing, noting that Hobart is the least affordable capital city in Australia. With our 0.3 per cent vacancy rate in Hobart in January, which is apparently half what it was at the same time last year, we have gone light years beyond a market failure in our private rental market under this Government, which begs the question, why would a government not be taking every available opportunity to redress this catastrophic failure? I think it is plain to see that this Government’s ideology stands in the way of some of the measures that would immediately improve the housing situation in the rental market of vulnerable Tasmanians. This Government has available to it numerous other policy levers right now that could provide more immediate alleviation.

The thing that prevents this Government from pulling those levers appears to be outright ideology and the prioritisation of those who would have more over those who may have least. Interestingly, in the urgency of the pandemic, we saw that conservative state and federal governments were willing and able to set aside ideology and make policy decisions that would otherwise be distasteful to them. They did this because it was an emergency. They knew such measures were urgently needed for the health and wellbeing of the community. They did it because despite their ideological objections, they knew those measures would work. Here I am thinking of things like, the increase in welfare support to livable levels, the evictions protections put in place and other forms of economic stimulus rolled out.

It is interesting to contemplate where the line for that kind of response is drawn. When is it enough of an emergency to set ideology aside and do what is needed and what will work? Is it, as the pandemic appeared to demonstrate, that action is only taken when the emergency starts to hurt those people who are the usual beneficiaries of government policies? Then, when the crisis is deemed to have sufficiently subsided, is it back to ideology, back to policy that prioritises what can only be regarded as the needs of the haves over those of the have-nots?

We see that return to ideology-driven form in the recently-promised land tax cuts and the utter nonsense suggestion that this will put downward pressure on rents. This attempt to frame an outright gift to owners of multiple properties as some form of positive for those desperate and homeless and unable to access private rentals is complete rubbish. Not only does that emperor have no clothes, he is dancing down the street doing puppetry with his privates as far as I am concerned. There is not one skerrick of evidence that reducing the cost to landlords will result in reductions in rents. Not one. I stand here saying that right now as someone who is both a landlord and a tenant. I challenge the Government to commit right now to independent monitoring of that land tax initiative and an assessment after 12 months of whether it had any impact at all on rents or rent increases.

I find the most distasteful aspect of this to be the dishonest narrative from the Government that it is doing all it can to address horrific damage being caused to Tasmanians by the catastrophic lack of accessible, affordable homes in this state. But for an ideology that prioritises the haves over the have-nots, why would we not seek to shore up our private rental market with targeted regulation for the short-term housing market to stem the bleeding of whole properties out of our long-term rentals and into the tourism accommodation market?

Mr Valentine – I think it something that is actually going to be debated at the Hobart City Council on Monday night.

Ms WEBB – We could do more to support it from the state government and the state parliament level. But for an ideology that prioritises those wealthy enough to own property over those who do not, why would we not overtake the long-overdue and long-called for review of the Residential Tenancy Act to seek to provide contemporary and effective protections and security for vulnerable Tasmanians in private rental? But for an ideology that prioritises building the wealth of landlords over protecting tenants from homelessness, why would we not look to stabilise skyrocketing rents in this state through sensible regulation?

This one, as far as I am concerned, is an absolute no-brainer. It is large jumps in rent that have been an all-too-frequent factor driving Tasmanians out of what had been secure rentals into homelessness and onto our public housing waiting lists where they will currently wait for 71.5 weeks to get a home. With the only current limiting factor for rent increases under our current legislation being market equivalence, we are seeing a race to the top when it comes to rental increases in the state. Every member will have heard stories of this I am sure. For example, capping annual rent increases to CPI would stabilise rent increases for the short-tomedium term and act to prevent the fall of Tasmanians from being a secure renter into homelessness that we see all too often around us. There is no detriment to landlords in measures such as that. Their property will still rise in value. Their wealth will still build. They will still collect rent that has been sufficient to date and can increase to accommodate CPI increases.

Ireland, Scotland, Spain, and Canada are among some nations around the world that utilise a form of rent stabilisation to assist in very tight rental markets.

Australia itself has utilised this notably during the Second World War, when the Commonwealth itself fixed rents at 1940 levels. Independent tribunals then, for those who may not be aware, administered variations to the rate of rent through to 1948, at which point the states took back over again, and in their own time, wound back those measures as required.

More recently, we had a version of rent control through the National Rental Affordability Scheme which successfully created thousands of affordable private rentals. Sadly, that scheme is now ending and members here may have been contacted as I have been by tenants in what were previously NRAS properties, who are imminently facing homelessness due to the scheme ending and their rents about to jump massively as a result.

Tragically, we certainly are not doing all we can to ensure all Tasmanians and especially those most vulnerable, are protected from homelessness and the disabling effect that has on all other aspects of one’s life.

This Government is only countancing measures that provide no disadvantage or indeed provide direct benefit, to those in the Tasmanian community that it appears to value most.

Under that approach we have seen some positive things. We have seen an extension to the Homeshare Program. This is a positive measure to be sure. It provides no disadvantage to those ideologically supported by the Government and it will benefit some Tasmanians to secure a home.

We have also seen the doubling of the Private Rental Incentives Program. Again, a positive measure. No disadvantage and indeed, potentially a benefit to those typically ideologically supported by the government. Those are positive things.

But, if you are going to stick with these ideologically palatable initiatives and spurn those that have a whiff of placing the needs of a vulnerable tenant or homeless person above those of a property owner. Why not at the very least then, devote a substantially greater investment to the palatable ones and why not provide a higher incentive to attract participation into them, so, you at least, double, triple, quadruple the effect they will have if they are the only palatable ones you are going to contemplate.

I will move on from housing related matters and look at some other aspects of the proposed restructuring in the Department of Communities Tasmania. What we will see in that dismantlement is a shift of disability and community services from the Department of Communities Tasmania to Department of Premier and Cabinet.

What do the disability sector and Tasmanians with a disability think of this move? I do not know. I have not gone out to consult widely on it. Did the Government before it made the decision? Was the disability sector or Tasmanians with a disability who will be affected by this change consulted?

At a time when we know many Tasmanians with a disability have felt disregarded and inadequately protected by the Government, in the COVID-19 reopening strategy for our state, have they also been ignored in the decision making for this major shift of departmental responsibility?

As a reminder to members here, it is the disability sector that has long asserted that very fundamental maxim of nothing about us, without us. I wonder if that is what we saw here. If we are proposing to dismantle Department of Communities Tasmania, another outcome would provide an ideal time to reassess the appropriate placement of the Gambling Support Program in this state.

Both the mental health and the alcohol and drug services are situated in the Health Department. As gambling addiction and gambling disorders are diagnosable mental health conditions and could be seen as similar in the response and services required to substance related addictions, it would be most appropriate for the Gambling Support Program and the associated services to be shifted to the Department of Health.

Instead, I understand they are to be shifted to DPAC and yet again, we must be prompted to ask what is the rationale for this move.

Along with every other element of the removal of the Department of Communities Tasmania, no rationale has been provided and no expected improvement of outcomes has been committed to in terms of situating the Gambling Support Program in DPAC.

I suspect that is because this Government will continue to resist at every turn the accurate characterisation of gambling addiction as a health issue. They all continue to resist this because it will shine a massive spotlight on their failure to provide effective evidence-based expert-recommended harm minimisation and consumer protection to the product that is the leading cause of gambling addiction and harming the state – poker machines.

Imagine if this Government put gambling support services where they belong in the Health Department, alongside for example, services and programs related to tobacco addiction. That would provide a stark contrast between the comprehensive medical and sociological evidence-based approach taken in relation to tobacco addiction, compared to the industry dictated evidence-ignoring pandering we see in the area of gambling addiction.

How exposing that would be? How devastating yet again for the tens of thousands of Tasmanians affected by gambling harm, that this Government will continue to sell them out in the interest of clinging to support from a politically power industry as a major party donor. And what is that we hear from the opposition? Crickets. From the party that has shown themselves to be equally compromised and beholden to the gambling industry, and willing to sell out its community in the service of political-self-interest. Shame on both the Government and the Opposition for the deplorable dishonourable failure to the Tasmanian community on this topic.

Moving on to the area of education, Madam Acting President. There are an incredible number of challenges faced in our education system at this time. The additional planning, preparation and management of COVID-19 that has been required have caused relatively new challenges. But these come on top of and compound the significant long-standing issues experienced, such as our falling literacy and numeracy standards, which despite the initiatives and investments made, are described as dire by workforce demographer and quantity researcher Dr Lisa Denny in her recent analysis and report from the last ten years of our NAPLAN data. Dr Denny made a very clear call for increased teaching resources, professional learning and additional support for students in need.

Students with a disability are a vulnerable cohort of students who are now been funded under a new needs-based funding model. Kristen Desmond, from the Tasmanian Disability Education Reform Lobby, says the state needs to urgently review that new reasonable adjustments funding model to assess whether it is meeting the needs and delivering the outcomes for students it intended. Where is the Government’s commitment to undertake such a review? It is time that they make one.

In relation to education with the escalation in mental health issues experienced by children in our schools and certainly exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic. We see the failure to adequately respond to this distressing situation in a chronic shortage of school psychologists to provide the support in schools that is needed. Much of that support needed then falls back onto already overloaded teachers and support staff.

There are of course other challenges faced with our education system as it exists now, which certainly prompt us to wonder about the substantial additional equally complex portfolio areas being added into an expanded department as a result of the disappearing Department of Communities Tasmania. While there may be broad correlation in their connection to children, the separate areas of education on the one hand and child safety and family support on the other, both warrant a focus that is dedicated specialist and purpose-built from policy planning through to implementation, resourcing and continuing improvement and reform. I, for one, am far from convinced that the bundling of the Department of Education with these elements of the Department of Communities is well indicated or well advised. Suffice to say, I hold concerns about the impact of the changes proposed through the abolishment of the Department of Communities Tasmania and the reallocation of its component parts.

I agree with comments made by professor David Adams from the University of Tasmania in an opinion piece on this topic in The Examiner three weeks ago on the 2 March, where he said and I quote:

The Watt Review focus was all about reorientating the public service towards people and communities and the importance of open and transparent decision-making.

 

Abolishing Communities Tasmania appears to be another case of an important policy shift that bypassed the Parliament, bypassed the community and community stakeholders and, apparently bypassed engagement with the public service.

 

There is a deep irony in the government advocating for more public service focus on people and communities by abolishing the one department set up to focus on people and communities.

Ironic indeed. There will no doubt be many people, me included, keeping a close eye on the implementation and the future impacts of this decision. We will certainly be looking for the evidence to be presented and for the measures that will be put in place to ascertain effective outcomes achieved by this proposed way forward.

I will move on to another abrupt announcement that came in the Premier’s Address, as others have touched on before me – a proposal to put a stadium on Hobart’s waterfront. I brought this up in a light-hearted way yesterday as ‘the edifice in the room’ during our debate on the stadium bill. But today I will mention it again briefly, but in more seriousness. While we laughed yesterday when I pointed out the storyline in the television series, Utopia, in which a major stadium in Tasmania is proposed as an appealing announcable from the government of the day, I have to reflect more soberly on the fact that any government which finds itself taking an action that has been pilloried in a biting satire of poor government decision-making needs to take a good hard look at itself.

As a resident of Hobart, when I saw depicted on the front page of the paper, completely out of the blue, a massive stadium development on the river frontage of our city, I blanched. I believe the residents of Hobart are intensely proud of and attached to the visual beauty, the topographical sense of place and the unique character of our city. One would expect that any major development proposed that would impact on that beauty, that sense of place and that unique character would be carefully and respectfully brought forward. I do not believe that that is what we saw occur with this proposal; with this abrupt announcement and unveiling on the front page of the paper of this stadium proposal. I do not regard that to be careful. I fear that many would have found it to be disrespectful to the people of Hobart, to our council for the City of Hobart. I wonder when this Government might learn its lesson on the inadvisability of announcing and progressing developments without having undergone an appropriately comprehensive community consultation process to ensure there is community support and agreement.

I think of the Westbury prison and of the Burnie courthouse just this week. Certainly those are two recent salutary lessons that would be available to the Government, should it care to learn them. We heard, in our briefings on the Stadiums Tasmania bill, that the proposed Hobart waterfront stadium would require three things to move forward: decision by the AFL to grant a Tasmanian team licence; adequate funding secured from a range of sources; and planning approval. Each of those is no small hurdle to clear. That may set some concerned minds at ease as to the likelihood of that proposal proceeding.

However, I have not heard clearly enough expressed by the Government that the very first priority should be a comprehensive and respectful public consultation and discussion on the proposal with the residents of Hobart. The member for Hobart, in his contribution on the stadiums bill yesterday, suggested that should such a project be taken forward on the planning front, it may well be dealt with under the Major Projects (Land Use and Approvals) Act. If that were the case, the City of Hobart Council would be effectively sidelined as a decisionmaker on this. Indeed, the opportunity for the local community to have a say would be diminished in that process. I find that prospect concerning.

That does not even touch on the broader discussion for our state as to the appropriate way to invest considerable funding on sports stadiums or on other urgent priorities for our community, such as Health, Education, Housing and others we may care to mention. Many others here and in the community more broadly have raised this matter and suggested that there would be better direction for considerable funding of that nature. I will not labour further in this contribution outlining that, but this will be another area that I and others will closely monitor in terms of progress.

There are, of course, a myriad of other issues which could be discussed in relation to the Premier’s Address. Other members here have canvassed some of them very well and I thank them for doing so.

To conclude, as I have detailed, there are some elements of the 2022 state of the state address which I consider positive but alongside that there remains some disturbing and significant gaps and omissions. There are elements which raise equally serious concerns, I think, regarding the Government’s priorities.

To reiterate, the actual status of the state’s COVID pandemic response remains unclear, as are any evidence-based plans for the next stages of that response, including the systematic public review and evaluation of our pandemic response, ensuring corporate knowledge is captured and lessons learned.

The state of our state’s democratic, sociopolitical infrastructure and governance culture remains neglected, in my view, and not as healthy or robust as Tasmanians deserve. The state of our state’s social contract with the community to govern for the least powerful and the most vulnerable is fraying, if not actively eroding.

No amount of back patting and self-congratulation about simple economic statistics will change the plain reality in Tasmanian homes and communities. In those communities, we still see too many of our fellow Tasmanians struggling with the basics: access to an affordable home; to basic health care; to a quality education. We are all far too old and wise here to fall into any empty rhetoric about aspiration that is based on a trickle-down philosophy. It is simply a lie. You can’t just lift those at the top and expect to benefit those who are struggling most. COVID-19 reinforced that for us. Leaving anyone behind holds our whole community back.

Madam Acting President, on that I note the Premier’s Address. 

 

See Meg’s previous State of the State responses: 2021, 2020