Tasmanian State Budget 2021 – Speech in Reply

Ms WEBB (Nelson) – Mr President, I rise to respond to the State Budget 2021-22.

I welcome the many long-awaited initiatives and commitments contained in this budget.  I welcome the explicit recognition that merely delivering on election commitments is insufficient when tackling the responsibility to charter rigorous, comprehensive and inclusive pathways to a post-pandemic, just and equitable future Tasmania, at least well beyond the next election cycle.  I welcome a budget that focuses on and tackles the deep fault lines and entrenched schisms of disadvantage in an attempt to address intergenerational inequity.

I welcome the recognition that we must invest in the robustness of our democratic institutions, particularly to ensure ongoing accountability, transparency and inclusiveness of those institutions.

Importantly, the promised comprehensive independent review of Tasmania’s COVID-19 response is very welcome, as is the overhaul of the Integrity Commission.  I also consider the Gender Impact Assessment provided with this Budget a very significant breakthrough catching up with interstate jurisdictions in scrutinising the Budget’s impact to drive necessary social reforms and cultural change.

Finally, I welcome the commitment to address the long-overdue structural reform of the state’s taxation system.  Indeed, the initial first step of doing away with tax cuts for a favoured few big businesses and other forms of corporate welfare in the form of foregone revenue is a welcome and brave move from this Government.

Mr President, I beg your indulgence. 

Clearly, those opening remarks were not in fact in relation to this Budget.  Rather, they were the opening remarks I would dearly have wished to make in relation to a Tasmanian State Budget delivered for 2021‑22.

State budgets set out the delivery of a government’s social and public policy agenda and are an expression of its values.  Those points that I raised just now represent many of those things that I believe should have been included in the central focus of any responsible Tasmanian government with a vision for transforming our state for the better.

I will come back to some of them later in my remarks but for now, alas, I will step out of the reach of the realm of fantasy and direct my attention to the actual budget that we are presented with.

Let me start my comments with an observation that fundamentally this Budget reflects a tale of two financial states.  We see one tale presented in the Government’s own budget narrative versus the second, and a different story set out by other commentators and in other documents such as the Treasury Fiscal Sustainability Report released in June.

Government’s Tale

Let us look first at the Government’s narrative set out in both the Premier’s budget speech and the budget papers.  We are told this Budget is securing Tasmania’s future and delivering our plan.  This apparent plan is based upon reiterating a sense of confidence despite COVID‑19 chaos.  We are told that confidence is up which I find interesting because, of course, that depends on who you are talking to and whose fortunes – in both senses of that word – you most value.  We are told jobs are up and the unemployment rate is down.  Yes, a positive indicator, but without the equally important consideration of underemployment and employment participation rates, it is misleading, if not distorted, to depict the current state of play in that way.

Other statistics rattled off in the Premier’s speech emphasised the fact the state has managed apparently to utilise the pre-pandemic strong financial position to continue to grow the economy using fiscal tools such as stimulus and other support packages.  So basically, in this narrative Tasmania has come out of, or at least is keeping pace with, the unforeseen pandemic in a relatively healthy manner financially.

We are presented with the Government’s tale of stability, good fortune, everything is ticking along as a matter of routine and a not insignificant degree of self-congratulation is the cherry on top.

Treasury’s Fiscal Report

In contrast to this is the Treasury Fiscal Sustainability Report 2021 released in June which, as members will know, is a legislated requirement under the Charter of Budget Responsibility 2007 and it tells a different tale.  This report transcends the election cycle by providing a 15-year projection period for analysis, consistent with the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD) guidance on long-term reporting.

As outlined in the report, it considers the longer-term sustainability of the state’s finances under four different revenue and expenditure growth scenarios.  Now is not the time to provide an in‑depth analysis of the fiscal report.  However, its conclusions are very pertinent to our assessment of this budget, particularly the following statement on page 7:

For all scenarios analysed, the results show projected fiscal outcomes that are manageable in the short to medium-term. However, the size of the corrective action required to maintain fiscal sustainability increases over the projection period.

That is further compounded by the following summary points on page 8:

The analysis undertaken in this and previous Fiscal Sustainability Reports has established the importance of the following:

• early action to correct fiscal deterioration will mitigate the severity of the measures required to effectively maintain fiscal sustainability;
• given the composition of the State’s revenue base, it is not possible to rely entirely on economic growth to maintain fiscal sustainability;
• any action to maintain fiscal sustainability must recognise and address major drivers of a deterioration in the Budget position; and
• it is likely that effective action to maintain fiscal sustainability will require the successful implementation of a range of measures.

Basically, the Treasury narrative as provided in this report presents an emphasis on the need for structural corrective action.  This goes to the heart of the 2021‑22 Budget, a budget focused squarely on election commitments.  Relying on a business-as-usual approach does not ensure our state is placed on a sufficiently robust footing capable of withstanding future pandemics or other negative external shocks.

Now 18 months on, it is appropriate to ask whether and to what degree we have learned those lessons thrust upon us by the COVID-19 experience.  What long‑term structural reforms have we put in place to ensure Tasmania is placed on the most robust and flexible fiscal footing?  How are we closing those social fissures that entrench disadvantage, in order to ensure intergenerational equity? 

This Budget does not provide satisfactory answers to those questions. 

Further, the Treasury analysis in the Fiscal Sustainability Report also raises the question:  Do we want to see any such corrective action hastily cobbled together on the run when things are getting desperate?  Perhaps so; in a slightly politicised process with an eye on an upcoming election campaign.  Or, do we want to establish a rigorous, transparent, accountable mechanism to undertake the necessary taxation and fiscal structural reform needed in this state?

Proposed State Taxation Structural Reform Review

It is important to note that this call for structural reform of the state’s taxation base and revenue streams is not new, nor is it a challenge only faced by Tasmania.  At a Commonwealth level we saw Australia’s Future Tax System Review, otherwise known as the Henry Tax Review, which commenced in 2008 and was published in 2010.  The ACT’s commissioned panel review of its revenue streams to assess the overall efficacy and equity of the ACT’s taxation system was released in May 2012.  New South Wales is currently undertaking state taxation reform with its 2020‑21 Budget, including the launch of a public consultation process canvassing a range of reforms for stamp duty, payroll and land tax.  Other jurisdictions are recognising and acting upon the need to undertake public reviews of their financial structures to evaluate and improve the fairness and efficiency of their respective taxation systems. 

It is worth noting that Tasmania has also previously recognised this necessity and attempted to undertake similar fundamental economic structural reform.  In 2011, the Parliament established a tripartite State Taxation Review Panel, which some members here may well remember.  I am sure the member for Murchison, who participated in that panel, remembers that former effort at cooperative reform. 

Unfortunately, my understanding is that despite some strong and meaningful work undertaken and broad input received, the review panel determined not to continue or complete that review due to a range of factors, citing the challenging economic climate at that time. 

That unfinished and truncated effort cannot be the last word on this matter for our state.  We cannot continue to keep putting this fundamental work in the too-hard basket.  We know the cost of living pressures are rising, that state wages and salaries are not keeping up with the rental, housing, education and other quality of life indicators.  We know currently employment figures do not reflect the equally telling underemployment rates.  We know we cannot offer actual interstate wage parity for our teachers, our medical and other professionals.  We know demand for services is growing and will continue to climb.  We know our GBEs are debt-laden, and we know we still have the ongoing uncertainty of the unfunded superannuation liability lurking in the shadows like the proverbial millstone around our fiscal neck.

At the same time, we know our share of the GST pie may come crumbling down at any time in the future, and will certainly fall off dramatically in 2026-27 when the no-worse-off guarantee comes to an end.  We know we do not have anything up our sleeves to fill the gap when that occurs. 

We all know that an accepted definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.  Relying upon pulling the same tax and revenue levers just a little harder, when those levers cannot currently keep up with the needs and priorities of our modern community would qualify for that definition of insanity.  We need an independent review into our state taxation and revenue system to ensure it is as robust as possible and pulling appropriate levers to drive necessary sustainability reforms while improving its fairness and efficiency.

I believe the clear purpose of such an independent review would include the following:

(1)     Reviewing the state’s narrow taxation and revenue base and seeking potential modern, fair, equitable and efficient means to broaden the tax base.

(2)     Reviewing whether the current mix and emphasis of the state tax and revenue base provides the stability and certainty necessary to deliver important community services.

(3)     Reviewing whether the current taxation and revenue mix supports – or risks undermining – modern public policy direction and demand.  For example, the potential impact of reducing or removing taxes on positives such as employment, while redirecting tax focus on to damaging practices such as pollution and other incentivising taxes that encourage social and sustainable reforms.

(4)     Reviewing any current revenue-forgone options formalised within our current state tax and revenue mix.

(5)     Identifying any required transitional arrangements and time frames and support, including funding to assist those most affected by any proposed reforms.

With that purpose in mind, what would such a review look like? 

Ironically, perhaps, for those here who are well aware of my views of the shortcomings of PESRAC, it is potentially the PESRAC final report – delivered in March this year – which offers us a workable model to look to.  If we look at the process by which PESRAC recommends that local government structural reform should be undertaken and examined, which you will find on page 78 of their final report, we see that it recommends an independent panel of experts be commissioned by Parliament to inform a pathway forward.

I propose this model be adopted to establish an independent expert panel commissioned by Parliament to undertake a review into state taxation and revenue reform.  This model would deliver four things: Parliament’s oversight and ownership of the independent review and its outcomes, assisting in the de-politicising of that process and outcomes; public transparency and accountability; independent and targeted expertise brought to bear; and a legislated and clear terms of reference, focus and time frames for such a review to be undertaken.

I note for its proposed local government reforms, PESRAC believes that the model they propose will deliver, and I quote:

A robust evidence-based set of criteria and benchmarks against which reform options could be assessed and recommended.

This statement of intent could also be applied to reform a state taxation and revenue. In a similar way, we can substitute the concept of state taxation and revenue structural reform into PESRAC’s following advice:

The process we envisage would be undertaken by an independent panel of experts, with expertise in local government [substitute taxation and state revenue] in Tasmania and reform in other jurisdictions. 

 

It would be supported by an appropriately sized and resourced secretariat.  Parliament would set its terms of reference, this could be by way of specific legislation as was the case with the Electricity Supply Industry Expert Panel in 2010.

PESRAC’s additional comments would also apply.  They were: 

Importantly the process must recommend how to manage structural changes including transitional arrangements. 

 

Consultation will be an essential element of the work program, but the temptation of open-ended dialogue and engagement must be managed.  The process would be given a challenging, yet achievable, 18 months to deliver recommendations to Parliament.

The Government has adopted in principle PESRAC’s recommendations and, although they are tweaked slightly and conditions placed upon actioning this specific local government reform proposal, the proposed parliamentary commissioned independent expert panel model itself remain consistent with PESRAC’s deliberations.  As such, it should be considered just as feasible and workable for this other, and equally urgent, substantial reform agenda we require in this state.

Further, such a rigorous start to undertaking the long overdue and necessary state taxation and financial structure reform is consistent with the Premier’s express goal of delivering, and I quote, ‘an even stronger, more diverse and resilient economy’.

As economist Mr Saul Eslake stated in his published commentary on the state Budget last week:

Reform of Tasmania’s state taxation system ought to be an integral part of ensuring the sustainability of Tasmania’s overall fiscal position, which State Treasury argued in its Fiscal Sustainability Report, required corrective action in order to be sustainable.  And that fiscal sustainability could not be attained solely by relying on economic growth or by any other single solution such as constraining health expenditure.

It is not sufficient to quickly dismiss the Treasury Fiscal Sustainability Report released just in June, as the Premier has attempted to do recently in media, and is now saying is out of date and made redundant by this state Budget.  Some figures may be different, but the fundamental cracks in the foundation of our economic and financial structures remain.  We need to invest in ensuring Tasmania is on sound fiscal footing, robust and resilient enough to withstand any potential external shocks, whether it be a reduced slice of GST pie, global markets, winds of fortune, future pandemic or natural disaster impacts, while still delivering a socially inclusive and diverse Tasmania and intergenerational equity.

To quote Mr Eslake further on the imperative to finally hold meaningful financial structural reform:

If governments can’t bring themselves to contemplate reform when, as the Premier’s said in his budget speech, ‘our economy is strong and our businesses and our people confident,’ and, as he went on, ‘when we are in the state of the extraordinary, where our unique is our advantage, when on earth are we going to do it?”

I thoroughly agree with Mr Eslake.  If a third term government cannot muster the confidence, expertise and political capital to show leadership in progressing this crucial area of reform, then no government is every likely to be in a position to do so.  And that is of grave concern, given we know clearly from the Treasury’s own modelling the need for reform is pressing.

Such investment in structural reform should underpin any claim of securing Tasmania’s future or delivering on a plan and should do so as a matter of urgency.  I believe an independent expert panel to review Tasmania’s tax and revenue system, as I have outlined here today, would provide a valuable circuit breaker in the current lack of political will situation that has continued to block reform attempts so far, while providing an expertise driven evaluation to inform and shape any future structural reform efforts.

Broader Vision Needed

Speaking of structural reforms, members may recall I previously raised in this place, such a dream in my Governor’s address and reply speech in June this year, the need for measurable benchmarking and progress indicators to be developed and incorporated systematically within key government processes such as the state Budget.  We need to catch up with other jurisdiction which are already implementing transparent policy progress reporting mechanisms to enable more meaningful monitoring and evaluation of delivery.

Mr Valentine – If you cannot measure it can you take proper action?

Ms WEBB – Indeed.  And nothing has occurred in the interim to change my view and I wish that it had.  I wish I could stand here and welcome the fact a process is underway to establish a set of rigorous comprehensive whole‑of‑government policy progress performance indicators involving community input and which are to be independently auditable.

As I have previously brought to the attention of this place, the New South Wales progress policy performance model is independently auditable. 

In 2018, the New South Wales Auditor-General conducted a progress and measurement of the Premier’s Priorities performance audit on the initial 12 priorities in that state and made improvement recommendations.  Significantly, New South Wales’ social change advocates such as the NSW Council of Social Service have seen an improvement in policy delivery and accountability since the implementation of this public benchmarking reporting model.

The common element of the existing different interstate and international models is a shift from budgetary and reporting mechanisms focussing on policy outcomes, rather than just financial inputs and outputs.

As the Victorian Model Report document states, and I quote:

Good public policy and service delivery must demonstrate its value to the community.  In the past government has measured what it does, not necessarily what it achieves.

 

Often government focusses on outputs (what activities, products, services it is providing) and how much it costs to provide them.  Just monitoring and reporting on outputs does not provide evidence of the impact of our work.

Clearly, there are direct budget-related considerations of a comprehensive benchmarking reporting framework that will enable a cohesive and coherent whole-of-government delivery on policy outcomes and provide a more accurate evaluation of both delivery and success of those policy initiatives.

Imagine how much more meaningful state budget papers would be across the community for either MPs, stakeholders working at the coalface on so many pressing public policy areas, the media, and for the broader community.  Imagine how much more productive the Budget Estimates Committee Hearings would be with this framework in place.

Crucially, such a rigorous framework of benchmarks and metrics for evaluation can help to include the broader community, particularly in this extraordinary period of rebuilding a post-pandemic Tasmania.

When the Premier’s Economic and Social Recovery Advisory Council was established many voices were warning that merely going back to pre-pandemic Tasmania is not necessarily a good or desirable thing for many Tasmanians. 

With all due respect, I do not believe the PESRAC process produced a transformative plan to seize the moment.  However, despite not providing an integrated comprehensive reimagining plan – as many had hoped – the final PESRAC report did recommend the Government adopt the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals to help inform and drive the rebuilding of Tasmania.  Hence, I was hopeful of perhaps seeing the SDG framework reflected throughout the Budget papers.  This framework could have provided the basis for a benchmarking and metric evaluation system, helping that transition from outputs only to include outcomes and measurable policy impact, as our interstate counterparts are already implementing.

Sadly, this component of the PESRAC Report either has not been taken seriously by Government or was unfortunately forgotten.

For those here who may be unfamiliar with the United Nation Sustainable Development Goals, these 17 goals were designed by the UN to provide a blueprint for developing a better and more sustainable future for all by 2030.  They seek to provide a measurable and deliverable mechanism by which to address challenges, including poverty, inequality, climate change, environmental degradation, peace and justice.  They can be implemented locally as well as globally.

In September 2015, all 193 UN member states, including Australia, adopted what is known as the 2030 Agenda.  Member states, whether having conservative or progressive leaning governments at the helm, have taken the challenge seriously and are moving to implement an SDG framework within their own jurisdictions.

It may interest members to know in 2019 our Commonwealth Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Reference Committee delivered its United Nations Sustainable Development Goals Report.  This committee’s membership included Liberal, Labor and Independent MPs.  The Tasmanian representatives at the time: Senator Eric Abetz and Senator Lisa Singh.

Now is not the time to discuss this complex and detailed report in detail; however, it provides a very interesting summary of other international jurisdictions’ attempts to deliver on SDGs in a domestic setting.  For example, Denmark has developed an action plan supported by 37 national targets on which the parliament receives an annual progress report.  At a sub-national level –  another example quite pertinent to Tasmania – the state of Paraná in Brazil is acknowledged as a state government, that is, and I quote:

Leading nationally and globally with an integrated approach to SDG implementation.

That is on page 82 of that committee’s report. The Senate report makes numerous recommendations that the Australian Government work with state, territory and local government tiers to develop and implement their own plans supporting the implantation of the SDGs in their jurisdictions. To some extent, we also saw this acknowledged by PESRAC in its final report.  To assist in the reconceptualising of our approach in Tasmania along similar lines, I am going to place the remainder of my state Budget comments and analysis within that UNSDG framework.

I will not attempt to go through every one of the 17 SDGs nor the hundreds of supporting targets and indicators that sit under them.  Instead, I will use the grouping of the sustainable development goals that the UN and other jurisdictions adopt for similar purposes and those are: people, planet and prosperity.  You may note very similar group things to the established triple bottom line fiscal approach, of community, environment and economy.

Health

The first of those three groupings of the SDGs is under the banner of people.  It encompasses goals one to five relating to poverty, hunger, health and wellbeing, education and gender equality.  I will highlight some matters in the Budget that align with these areas of focus, starting with health.  All of us here will be well aware of the challenges our state faces in health outcomes and the provision of high-quality timely health care.  We know that expenditure on health already constitutes one third of the total Budget, and on current trajectories that proportion will considerably increase.

We also know that spending on acute health care, no matter how high a proportion of our budget it is, will not change this trajectory.  The only way we change our trajectory and ultimately rein in, not just the escalation of our spending on health but importantly the burden of ill health borne by our community, is to make substantially increased and evidence-based investment in preventative health and the social determinants of health.

Sadly, we are let down yet again on the preventative health front in this Budget.  It is agreed internationally, on robust evidence, that to be transformative the investment in preventative health needs to be at least 5 per cent of the budget expenditure in a jurisdiction.  I have not done the calculation, although I know there are other stakeholders who will be able to provide the figure, but I would suggest based on previous form that the investment in this Budget on preventative health would sit somewhere in the 1 to 2 per cent vicinity of our total health expenditure – if we are lucky.  That is far short of where we need it to be.

Notwithstanding this lack of transformative investment in preventative health, I point to some modest examples of the positive and much needed investment the Government has included in this Budget:

• Funding for the next Healthy Tasmania Strategy. 
• Funding over two years to trial three community health and wellbeing networks to deliver community-led health and wellbeing services based on the needs of locals in Ulverstone, Huonville and Scottsdale, which is very positive. 
• $2.3 million put aside over two years to boost community mental health services to address increase in demand – again, very positive.
• There is $52 million for much needed palliative care;
• $30 million for stage II of the Kingston Health Centre with construction to start in 2023 – I am pleased to see that, it is in my patch – and
• 5 million dollars to deliver an additional 20 000 dental appointments state wide. 
• Dental care is fundamental to overall health and investment in that space is very welcome.
• Finally, there is investment for an additional 29 000 elective surgery procedures across the Forward Estimates. 

I believe we are all pleased to see that, knowing that so many Tasmanians are languishing on those wait lists.  I do note though, that many well-credentialed stakeholders in the health space have also raised questions and concerns in relation to the current investment commitments falling short; the ability of our health systems to recruit the required doctors, nurses and allied health staff; and also, the lack of a long-term clinical services plan.  I wait to see how these things play out and how we assess the success of the investments placed in this Budget.

Cost of Living and Food Security 

Remaining within the same sustainable development goal grouping of people, I will briefly mention the areas of cost of living and food security. 

This is an area that remains a challenge for our state, and it is well understood as a factor in entrenched disadvantage.  It is part of the picture of the ‘two Tasmanias’ we often we talk about.  Both cost of living and food security are connected to some of those larger structural issues such as escalating housing costs and insufficient, insecure employment whose flow-on effects mean that too many Tasmanians struggle to meet the basic cost of living and face deprivation in their daily lives.

This Budget makes some particular investments towards cost of living, including for energy efficiency measures in public housing and towards energy bill supplements for 90 000 Tasmanians on low incomes.  Also, in the area of food security I note that there is $3 million over three years towards emergency food relief and food security to help the most vulnerable, including the delivery of Tasmania’s first Food Security Strategy, and an extension also very welcome of the School Lunch Program to a further 30 schools over the next three years.

While it is important that we do as much as we can to support Tasmanian families with these daily cost-of-living and food security challenges, we need to acknowledge that many of these efforts outlined in the Budget are what we would regard as a bandaid approach.

Later, I will talk about some of those areas of investment and planning that seek to address the structural issues of housing and employment that when failing, place Tasmanians in situations of being vulnerable to cost of living and food security challenges.

Education

Also, under the grouping of ‘people’ in the SDGs is Goal 4, Quality Education.  I am pleased to see a focus in this Budget on investing in education and the transformative potential that holds for our state.  I celebrate the further investment over three years for six new Child and Family Learning Centres statewide to be located at East Tamar, Sorell, Kingborough – again, my patch I am pleased to see, Glenorchy, West Ulverstone and Waratah-Wynyard.  These are community-building as well as educationally-focussed centres.  They are community-led and deliver on local priorities and need.

I also note an investment over four years has been allocated to provide free access to speech pathologists, psychologists and social workers in Family Learning Centres.  I wonder how far the investment of $3.8 million into this will go, to meet the need that is there?  Without meaningful metrics and reporting, we will not necessarily be able to hold the Government to account on that.

I also acknowledge that the original planning, investment and rollout of the network of Child and Family Centres was a visionary initiative under a previous Labor Government in the state.  I am pleased that the current Government has not played partisan politics and tried to undermine or dismantle such a successful and important opportunity for Tasmanian communities, but rather has looked to extend that network.

I am particularly pleased to see in this Budget

• some investment within our schools to increase school literacy coaches;
• an investment in trauma support, including a new professional development program for school leaders, teachers and teacher assistants in trauma;
• $56 million over four years for educational adjustments to support students with disability in public schools, although on that one I believe more clarity is needed on whether we are appropriately and effectively supporting students with disability in schools under the new funding model that has been badged as ‘nation-leading’ when it was introduced but it is yet to be reviewed. 

We will wait to hear more on that.

I am also aware that even with the investments promised in this Budget, we are still falling desperately short of meeting the need for support in our education system from specialists such as speech pathologists, occupational therapists and psychologists.  For every child who goes through our public school system waiting years to receive the support they need to fully engage with their education, we are not only failing in our responsibility to that child, we are failing to best serve the future interests and success of our state.

While we are talking about this area of education, I will also touch again on TasTAFE as it is featured in this Budget.  On two previous occasions this year, I have spoken in this place about my reservations regarding the plan to restructure TasTAFE into a Government Business Enterprise (GBE), as proposed in the final PESRAC Report and immediately adopted by the Government.

I remain unconvinced of the nature and extent of the perceived TasTAFE problem.  I do not believe it has been comprehensively identified and analysed.  I remain concerned that consultation with students and staff did not occur as the first and central process for driving reform for TasTAFE.  Further, I remain distinctly unconvinced that the GBE proposal is the best solution.  Unfortunately, it is still my view that this proposal has arisen from a pre-COVID -19 ideological agenda.  It remains to be seen how this proposed reform of TasTAFE will be progressed on the tight timelines that have been laid out for it. 

Setting to one side the significant misgivings I have about the GBE proposal, I was pleased to see investment into our national award-winning TasTAFE in this Budget.  In particular, I note funding for an extra 100 teachers, short courses for job readiness, upgrades to facilities and the development of a virtual campus for students in rural and regional areas.  These are all welcome and positive investments into TasTAFE. 

I have not discerned from the budget papers the specific allocation that has been made for the actual transition to GBE process.  No doubt, it will come to light during Estimates and we will add that into the discussion as we assess the merits of that proposed path forward. 

Gender Analysis of the Budget

Gender equality is the fifth Sustainable Development Goal and it is clearly relevant to the Tasmanian community here and now, as well as into the future.  At the risk of sounding like a stuck record – in fact, I am not going to apologise for reiterating on the public record the necessary work that still needs to be done to address the ongoing and institutionalised challenges faced by Tasmanian women and girls.  I place firmly on the record my serious disappointment in the gaping hole that is the missing state budget gender impact statement. 

I am truly flabbergasted by this Government’s refusal to fill in this blank, given its rhetoric and keenness to be seen as sensitive to the current political and community environment on gender‑related matters. 

This measure, which is called for by a number of members in this place, is nothing contentious.  It does not require a u-turn on policy, nor would it require a separate standalone funded entity.  Other jurisdictions produce some form of budget gender impact statements within their budget papers as a matter of routine. 

Last year, when responding to the 2020‑21 State Budget, I raised as an example the routine Victorian statement and what had been, previous to 2014, the standard federal budget gender impact statement.  Since last year’s budget session here we have seen the federal government reintroduce its women’s budget statement in 2021‑22, when it brought down the federal Budget in May this year. 

I note that during last year’s budget Estimates hearings the then Minister for Women, Sarah Courtney, did undertake to examine the feasibility of implementing a Tasmanian gender impact budget statement, but at this stage nothing appears to be forthcoming on progress on that front.  Perhaps the new Minister for Women, a member of this Chamber, will step up to the plate and demonstrate a more active commitment to delivering this standard yet significant tool in progressing gender equity in our decision‑making and in our community.

There are some good initiatives and election commitments funded in this Budget relating to Tasmanian women.  I highlight the acknowledgement of, and provision for, funding to address period poverty in schools as a practical and effective initiative to support Tasmanian girls.  However, there is minimal detail in Budget Paper 2, Volume 1 explaining the rather dramatic drop off in funding for outputs such as women’s policy across the forward Estimates.

A budget gender impact statement would draw together the proposed, perceived and evaluated impacts of other budget items.  It would give us insight into how the Government’s proposed competitive tax system initiatives will benefit, or not, Tasmanian women.  Similarly, it could look at the expected cost and/or benefits of the proposed new infrastructure investment when evaluated against gender considerations, or show what a gender analysis would tell us about the planned elective surgery blitz funded in this Budget.  Are these equitable allocations?  The same would go for the education, other health investments and the new renewables, climate and future industries focus.

If the Government wishes its women‑friendly rhetoric to have and be recognised as having solid foundations in fact, there is no justifiable reason for the lack of a budget gender impact statement.  Fair warning, I will continue to emphasise its absence for as long as I am doing this job in this place. 

Planet

The third grouping of the Sustainable Development Goals is under the heading, ‘Planet’.  There is growing discontent with the Government’s ongoing erosion of any recognition that our unique natural environment and biodiversity is a fundamental contributing factor to Tasmania and our health, wellbeing and economy across many sectors, as well as our brand and our international reputation.

There is considerable consternation in the community that the Government’s attitude to our natural home and other creatures and plants with which we share it is that unless a buck can be made from it, it is valueless.

I am sure others will continue to go further into details about these concerns.  Suffice to say these concerns appear to be substantiated by disparate and ad hoc initiatives mentioned almost in passing within the Budget instead of being a comprehensive and coherent focus.

In this context, I will discuss briefly Sustainable Development Goal number 13, which is climate action. 

Climate Change – Human Rights ramifications

Many Tasmanians were hopeful that Tasmania would apply itself with rigour to addressing both the opportunities and the challenges posed by climate change when the Premier took it on as a dedicated portfolio.

While acknowledging the state’s Climate Change Action Plan is expected to be released later this year, the lack of a substantial vision for climate change as a key public policy delivered by the state budget is very telling.  Disturbingly telling. 

Yes, the new Renewables Climate and Future Industries Tasmania entity was announced in this Budget with funding of $15 million to support its work.  However, on the minimal information thus far provided it appears given the new entities housing within DPAC and State Growth, its main role is to package up that which should already be bundled with relevant departmental support: Renewables Tasmania in State Growth, the state’s hydrogen plan, Marinus Link and Battery of the Nation projects.

Other than the passing reference to the climate change officer’s current focus on adaptation and mitigation, this new entity just appears to be a repackaging of current programs into another administrative body with an additional top-up of funds.

How much of those funds will now go into paying the salary and on-costs of a CEO and any support staff the position may receive? 

My other concern about the Government’s minimalist approach to climate change is that it appears to be again falling behind other national and global developments, the key one being other jurisdictions recognising the need to urgently grapple with climate change as a fundamental human rights challenge.

Tasmanians need to see their government and parliament recognise it as such:  planned for and addressing the serious broad human rights implications of climate change. 

Once again, I draw attention to international moves to explicitly recognise the link between climate action and human rights, with international governments developing holistic policy responses recognising the climate change implications for human rights as well as environmental, economic and cost of living implications at the domestic level.

Further, the European Court of Human Rights has clearly established that the various types of environmental degradation currently experienced under climate change pressures can result in violations of substantive human rights.

There are moves to establish a United Nations special rapporteur on human rights and climate change.  Closer to home, in May this year we saw the Australian Federal Court deliver what is described as a landmark judgment determining that the Environment Minister owes a duty of care to Australia’s young people not to cause them physical harm in the form of personal injury from climate change.

We know that issue is still ongoing with the Minister Ms Ley appealing that decision.  However, it is a sit up and take notice development.  More recently, the New South Wales Land and Environment Court again, in a so-described landmark decision, ordered that the New South Wales EPA has a duty to protect the state’s environment from climate change and that the EPA had not fulfilled its duty.

It is interesting to note that this case was brought by the Bushfire Survivors for Climate Action, a group of bushfire-affected survivors including those rendered homeless, firefighters and local councillors.

The successful plaintiffs’ case referenced the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change arguing that by law the New South Wales EPA is required to protect the environment.  By extension you cannot protect the environment without addressing climate change and, importantly, by protecting the environment, people’s human rights are also protected.

These legal examples in other jurisdictions should serve as a warning to Tasmania that there is a growing precedent of people seeking justice via courts against those considered responsible for inaction, which has resulted in damage to both the environment and to the human rights.

However, how the new Renewables, Climate and Future Industries Tasmania body, will have the scope to evaluate and develop a climate crisis human rights plan for this state, and also reflect the serious social and ecological duty of care determinations set by courts, is distinctly unclear at the moment.

It is a fair expectation that the Premier, holding both the Treasury and Climate Change portfolios, should see a more detailed, integrated, holistic and coherent climate change focus expressed through these budget papers.  Instead, we must hope the yet to be released Climate Act and promised action plan will provide such a focus, including addressing the well-established human rights and intergenerational equity implications.  Maybe, it will also include progress benchmarks and metrics providing for genuine progress delivery evaluation and scrutiny.  We live in hope.

Prosperity

I move onto the third grouping of the Sustainable Development Goals: Prosperity, under which I look at Sustainable Development Goal 8, Decent Work and Economic Growth.  Again, it draws to mind the diverging paths we see here in Tasmania.  I note and appreciate in the Sustainable Development Goal 8, economic growth does not stand alone as an end, but is linked inextricably with the concept of decent work.  When I look at the directions we are taking in Tasmania, we also need to more closely and purposely bond these two elements.  I am mindful certain directions of economic growth, while looking good on paper for the bottom line, work further to set aside, rather than to preserve the central importance of decent work.

The Government is investing in a range of ethics that are seeking to deliver economic growth and provide jobs for Tasmanians.  This Budget contains investment in a planned infrastructure blitz which if delivered, will apparently underwrite an estimated 28 000 jobs.

However, this figure is derived from economic modelling and does not come with a detailed or specific breakdown of the sectors and the jobs it will support.

I welcome initiatives that support jobs in Tasmania.  Here are a few of the ones I would like to highlight. There is funding in this Budget to establish four new jobs hubs in the regional communities of Brighton, Huonville, St Helens and Burnie.  Funding over two years to pilot the Youth Connections Program, which will work within Sorell, Glenorchy and George Town to focus on getting young Tasmanians into work.

The funding over two years to help migrants into employment.  Funding set aside for a community services-based project team to drive research to help reduce barriers to employment. And funding over four years for the NILS Micro Business Loan Program, to encourage more small businesses to start up.

I note there are many investments into particular business sectors including construction, tourism and events, culture and creative arts and agriculture.

However, I remain concerned because it is not necessarily the case that just any job is a good job.  I am concerned we have the situation in Tasmania where there are high levels of underemployment, where people have some work but not enough work to provide for a basic decent life for them and their families.  I am concerned we have low participation rates and they are not expected to rise on the Government’s projections.

The expectation appears to be the jobs created will go to new entrants into the labour force, either from within Tasmania or from interstate and overseas.  What does this mean for those Tasmanians already struggling to find and secure what we would regard as decent work?

For all the job creation planned and hoped for in this Budget, will we see Tasmania’s material standard of living lifted?  Will we see more Tasmanians in permanent full-time work that can deliver the economic security they and their families need to live a good life?

I am concerned we may be missing the mark as we shoot for on-paper improvements and model for impressive sounding jobs numbers, while at the same time risk lurching further away from the boardwalk of decent work.

Staying within the broad sustainable development goal grouping of prosperity, and thinking specifically about SDG Goal 10, which is Reduced Inequalities and Goal 11, which is Sustainable Cities and Communities.  I would like to touch on the area of housing and homelessness.  This Budget is delivered at a time we continue to see an escalation of a housing catastrophe in this state.  This is not simply a housing crisis, it is a catastrophic failure of government policy – both state and federal – over a number of decades which has reached the point now of imperiling the economic success and social cohesion of our state.  The social housing wait list has grown 21 per cent in the past 12 months and now sits at over 4200 people.  The waiting time for priority one applicants on that list is 59.2 weeks.  Our rental vacancy rate is 0.5 per cent, and a mere fraction of a rate regarded as market failure.

In the face of this proof of a housing and homelessness train wreck the Government are very fond of listing activity.  What we do not see is any inclination to commit to firm outcomes, measurable results in fundamentally addressing and solving this issue.  Yes, we can acknowledge some good housing initiatives are being invested in and that investment is significant.  Let me help the Government by listing the things I am pleased to see in this Budget:

• There are 3500 social houses being planned to be built by 2027. 
• There are transitional youth units planned for Burnie, there are some social housing units planned for Moonah and other areas of high need across Tasmania. 
• I see funding over two years towards two new supported accommodation facilities for older Tasmanians in the north and north-west. 
• Funding over three years for new youth housing and homelessness initiatives, including an under-16 Lighthouse Youth Project.  This is especially a long-needed option for a cohort of children we have sorely neglected in this state until now.  Even with this initiative planned, we will only be scratching, at best, the surface of the support needs of unaccompanied children under 16 that exist in this state.

While I have helped the Government with that list and while this Budget does contain a raft of initiatives, for the Government to make hollow claims it is investing record amounts into this area is a meaningless descriptor.  The stark reality is we are still not planning to solve this issue – point very clearly made by TasCOSS shelter and many other stakeholders at the coalface dealing with the impact of our dire housing situation. They all point to the data, research and modelling which said Tasmania needs twice as many houses as are currently planned to even meet demand trends.

Housing is a fundamental human right, homelessness is not inevitable within our community.  We could and should plan to solve this issue. If we do not and continue to partially respond to need and fail to adjust the policy settings exacerbating the problem, we continue to drive inequality and disadvantage in our community.  We continue to undermine all our other efforts in addressing intergenerational disadvantage, our efforts at boosting employment and participation, supporting mental health, wellbeing and delivery a step-change in education.

A secure, affordable home is the basis for all those efforts.  When we fail to deliver on that fundamental human right, we additionally fail our community across all those other areas.  We can and must do better on this. 

Democracy

Sustainable Development Goal 16 is Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions.  It recognises strong civic institutions are also a reliable indicator of a society’s prosperity, both at a national and subnational level.  If Tasmania were to adopt the SDG’s – as policy progress indicated – this category is where we would evaluate just how strong and robust our democratic and governed institutions really are and the level of public trust in those same institutions.

Once more, the state Budget papers should be an integral component of that evaluation as they would clearly indicate what we value and invest in when it comes to integrity and effectiveness of our democratic processes and our governance institutions.

In this area, I will be reflecting in many instances on what I see are the shortcomings and gaps in this Budget.  For example, the long-awaited legislative reform of electoral funding and political donations.  I welcome the release of an exposure draft for public comment.  I welcome many of the current provisions.  There are some very good aspects to that proposed draft bill. 

However, this is my first opportunity to place on the record that I have serious reservations about the proposed donation declaration threshold of $5000 in that legislation.  This is an unacceptably and unnecessarily high threshold that will deprive our state of having the best practice, nation‑leading political donation laws.  I will leave further discussion of that for a future debate in this place.

Presuming some form of electoral donation reform will be passed by the parliament, hopefully relatively soon, it is safe to expect there will be associated implementation costs.  For example, the development of an appropriate submission of donation declarations portal on the Tasmanian Electoral Commission website, which would then require new means of checking the accuracy of those declarations as well as making them public in the specified time periods legislated.

However, the apparent lack of designated funding for this major reform in the Budget is disappointing.  It may reflect a lack of urgency by the Government in seeing those much overdue reforms passed before the next budget is delivered.  Hopefully, that will not be the case as we will, at least, see the next May periodic Legislative Council election and, possibly, a by‑election where these electoral reforms may well be pertinent.

It is also pertinent to note, when discussing budgetary implications for the health of our democracy, a note within the Justice portfolio section of Budget Paper No. 2, Vol. 1, note 8 on page 194, which flags:

The overlap of the 2019 periodic Legislative Council elections and the Australian Government election may have affected voter turnout and resulted in an increase in costs due to the need for an increased public awareness campaign.

Why is that of interest, Mr President?  The warning of additional expense as one problematic issue of running overlapping or conjunct elections was fobbed off and ignored by the Government when raised in light of this year’s conjunct state and Legislative Council elections.  We know that not only are there additional public awareness costs involved with overlapping elections, but also serious and now proven risks of voter disenfranchisement and potential polling venue and post‑election complaints review costs.

This is another illustration of why the establishment of a joint house select committee of inquiry into the 2021 state and Legislative Council elections is needed.  The members of this place have supported the establishment of such a committee and we wait to see whether the Government will demonstrate its commitment to a strong Tasmanian democracy and give support to it in the other place. 

The May elections of this year also highlighted the growing awareness of the fundamental limitations of the Tasmanian Integrity Commission, yet the Government has remained silent on any moves to address those concerns, let alone beef up the powers and scope of the Tasmanian Integrity Commission. 

It is arguable that if we can find $15 million to repackage and administer established programs such as it appears in the new Renewables, Climate and Future Industries Tasmania entity, surely even half that amount could be prioritised for a comprehensive review of whether the Tasmanian Integrity Commission is currently fit for purpose.  Also, whether the commission has the full range of appropriate powers and resources and whether its scope should include, perhaps, private and/or corporate sectors, to name only a few areas of concern that could be addressed.

The cynical among us will point out, perhaps, that it is clearly to the advantage of a government of the day to allow a dangerously hamstrung integrity oversight entity to operate.  It would be incredibly sad to think this may be the reason this Budget is silent on action to improve our Tasmanian Integrity Commission. 

It would be remiss to not reiterate the outstanding need, which we could have seen progressed in this state Budget, of a formal parliamentary independent and accountable COVID-19 impact and response review process, a process that would ensure we capture all the lessons learned.  Members have heard me raise this on numerous occasions so I will not repeat all the detailed reasons provided in other debates why such a review is a healthy and responsible course of action.

I point out that other jurisdictions are investing in and progressing such reviews particularly as it has now become evident that there will not be a smooth return to pre‑pandemic situations.  Instead, we are grappling with the need to develop living with COVID‑19 plans. 

When voting to defeat the previous joint house select committee inquiry on this matter last year, the Premier did flag that it was a matter of timing and he was not ruling out such an inquiry later down the track, presumably once we came out the other side of the pandemic.

Now we know that there may not be such a clear demarcation and it would be wise to undertake an inquiry sooner rather than later as it would contribute to informing any ‘living with COVID-19 plan’ that may eventuate.

Even Boris Johnson recognises the need for such an evaluation review with the UK’s intended process to commence in 2022 and the devolved Scottish Parliament has also announced its intention to hold an equivalent inquiry into Scotland’s pandemic response and lessons learned.

For such a review or inquiry to not be announced alongside this State Budget is a disappointing omission to say the least and it short-changes Tasmania in our efforts to best prepare for future challenges.

Gaming Reform

Further consideration of this Budget under Sustainable Development Goal 16, Peace, justice and strong institutions, prompts me to consider other matters that add to or detract from the integrity and strength of the pillars of our democracy.

To my mind, this is where we must mention gaming reform as a key part of this Government’s agenda.  For a government intent on delivering its plan there was scant mention in the Budget of this major reform the Government is undertaking in relation to licensing, taxation and regulation of gambling, especially poker machines in this state.

If passed by parliament this reform has ramifications for the Budget across the forward Estimates in this Budget we are examining:

• They include the cost of implementing the reforms which is briefly referenced in these Budget papers. 
• It includes the new taxation revenue including community service levy amounts to be derived from the reforms not reflected anywhere in the figures presented in this Budget. 
• It includes increased harm and subsequent increased need and demand for other services including health, mental health, family support, emergency food relief, housing and homelessness, criminal justice, employment support and more, also not reflected in this Budget.

Yet again, the Government appears to be sticking to its tactic of the less said the better on the topic of poker machines, a tactic, I might add, that the Labor Party also strongly subscribes to on this issue.  Yet again, in this Budget we see a government that is prepared to actively withhold key details from the Tasmanian people on this issue.

We need to talk about the issue of gambling vested interests and these reforms in relation to their intersection with electoral and political donations reform, with the limitations of the Tasmanian Integrity Commission, and with the erosion of public trust in our democratic elections.

There is a dark history in this state when it comes to the influence of vested interests in our political landscape and both major parties sit in its shadow.  There are numerous examples, historical and current, of industries and particular companies holding sway over political representatives in our Tasmanian parliament.  There are examples of those industry interests or particular companies buying access and policy outcomes through their financial support. 

The glaring recent example readily identified by the Tasmanian public of the poker machine industry capturing not just this Government, but also the Opposition, is the greatest clear and present danger to the integrity of democracy in this state.  We cannot go past the facts on this matter.

There are members here in this Chamber and in the other place, from both major parties, who have received funding from the poker machine industry to assist in their election to Parliament.

Members who do not have the integrity to declare that financial backing to the Tasmanian people, even knowing that we will soon be in a position of voting on legislation that directly relates to serving those self-same vested interests.

People often hide things that are shameful.  In this instance, hiding pokies industry donors will deny the Tasmanian people the opportunity to make their own judgements about whose interests each member here is putting first: Tasmanian communities or electoral donors?

Who are the pipers calling the tune for each member here?  Is it the committee that elects them, or is it the donors that you and your party, perhaps, are indebted to?  Who will be pulling the strings for each member here, when the time comes to vote on the future gaming markets legislation?

Just as the financial details of the gaming reforms are hidden in this Budget and its Forward Estimates, we know that secrets and shadowy deals sit behind this reform for both the Liberal Government and the Labor Opposition.  A secret memorandum of understanding (MOU) between Labor the Tasmanian Hospitality Association (THA) was dragged into the light during the election campaign this year.  A paid lobbyist of the Federal Group sits in the inner sanctum of Labor’s Policy Committee.  On the Government side, a fundamental element of its policy – the tax rate on casino-based poker machines – relevant to the Forward Estimates in this Budget was deliberately kept secret from the Tasmanian people until after the 2021 election.

Right to Information (RTI) documents have recently revealed that the dramatically discounted tax rate for casino poker machines had been confirmed by the Premier with the Federal Group in December 2020, months before the election was called.  And yet, leading into and after calling the election in March, the Premier refused to answer direct questions on what that casino-based pokies tax rate would be under his reforms.

The Government has also refused to confirm when Cabinet first considered and approved the intended tax rate.  Was it prior to the Premier writing to Federal Group in December 2020?  Was it prior to the May 2021 election?  Did all members of the Liberal Cabinet go to the May 2021 election withholding significant information from Tasmanian voters about one of their key policies which had substantial implications for state revenue in this Budget?

Since we are talking about the state Budget, and since the relevant figures relating to the revenue implications of this policy have been omitted from this Budget, let me put some figures to it. 

I had economic modelling done by independent firm ACIL Allen. I asked them to model the state revenue that would be foregone under the policy decision to provide a discounted casino pokies taxation rate instead of setting it the same level as that for hotels. 

For reference, the proposed taxation rates, inclusive of the Community Support Levy, are 38.91 per cent for hotel-based pokies and 13.91 per cent for casino-based pokies.  That is a massive discount for casinos with no credible reason for giving it.  Core state taxation rates on poker machines have always been the same in this state, regardless of location.

That modelling showed that if it is the government’s policy to tax casino pokies at the same rate as hotel pokies, it would amount to $248 million in additional state revenue over the licence period. 

Yes, you heard that correctly, Mr President. 

The government’s decision to give a massive tax discount on casino pokies is a quarter of a billion-dollar gift to Federal Group at the expense of Tasmanian hospitals, schools, public housing, mental health services: you name it.  I am sure every Tasmanian would readily nominate any number of community priorities that they would put ahead of a quarter of a billion-dollar gift to one private business, in fact, one family who have been major donors to the Government.  Withholding the key piece of information from Tasmanian people in an election period is significant.  Candidate and parties should make the case for their policies and defend them during election campaigns.  Deliberately hiding the policy details, indicates the Premier and the Liberal Party knew it would be electorally damaging for them to have it publicly known.

This willingness to avoid democratic accountability in an election reflects poorly, I believe.  No mandate can be claimed for that element of the reforms, when such flagrant, undemocratic deception has been enacted on the Tasmanian people.  It is crystal clear that with these reforms that government is putting vested interests of party donors ahead of the best interests of the Tasmanian people.  And skulking around behind the government, hoping not to be noticed perhaps or put on the spot is the Labor Party – which is yet to prove they too are not shamefully compromised on this issue.

No doubt the budgetary elements of the gaming reforms will be given further consideration during Estimates and we will all be called on to fully consider this, when legislation soon comes to this place. Tasmanians will be watching.  They will be watching to see whose interest each one of us here will put first when this legislation comes.

Mr President, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, State Budgets set out the delivery of a government’s social and public policy agenda and are an expression of its values.

In conclusion and summary.  I note and acknowledge the many positive efforts from the government that are evident in this Budget.  I have mentioned some of them in my contribution today.  At the same time, I implore the government to fulfil its potential and fully grasp the opportunity it has to plan and invest in transformative, structural change for our state.

And last, but far from least, I beseech the government to stop trashing the foundations and institutions of our democracy, through neglect, disdain and misbehaviour.

Mr President, I note the Budget.

See more of Meg’s parliamentary speeches