The Governor’s Address-in-Reply
Ms WEBB (Nelson) – Madam Deputy President, I rise to make my contribution to the Governor’s Address-in-Reply. I congratulate Her Excellency, Barbara Baker, on commencing her term as Governor of Tasmania. I am particularly pleased, for only the second time in the history in this state, to see a woman appointed to this role. I also take this opportunity to very warmly extend my thanks to our outgoing governor, Professor Kate Warner, who fulfilled her duty with thoughtfulness, inclusiveness, warmth and grace. As the first female governor of this state, Professor Warner was an inspiration to the whole community in her exemplary approach to this role.
As this is the first time that I have risen to speak in the new term of government, I wish to acknowledge the palawa/pakana of lutruwita Tasmania, the traditional owners and ongoing custodians of this land. I acknowledge the muwinina people, originally of this place, nipaluna/Hobart and mourn that none of the muwinina people survived European invasion to be with us today. I pay my respects to the elders of the Tasmanian Aboriginal community, past, present and emerging. I acknowledge the continued connection of the palawa/pakana to this land for over 40 000 years and the rich and enduring culture that lives in that connection. I acknowledge that after invasion by Europeans, this land was never ceded by the Tasmanian Aboriginal people. It always was, and always will be, Aboriginal land.
I congratulate the members who are new to this Chamber, the new member for Windermere. I wish him very well in this place. I particularly congratulate returning members to this Chamber also, the member for Mersey, who came through quite readily without a contest, and our President, the member for Derwent, who contested his election and was successful.
I also congratulate the Government on its election victory in the state election held in May and those who have been elected to the other place for the first time, Janie Finlay MP, Dean Winter MP and Kristie Johnston MP, and in particular Kristie Johnston MP as the first independent member elected to the other place in its current configuration. I add my acknowledgement to those members who lost their seats in the recent election and my thanks to them for the service that they gave in their time in parliament. In particular, I note the very worthy contribution, the laudable work ethic and the personal integrity of Alison Standen, who I have known for many years due to close work connections prior to both of us being elected to parliament.
Here we are, at the beginning of a new term of government approximately a year earlier than expected. Most of us here share a sense of urgency to make up for the three lost months of parliamentary business since the Assembly was dissolved in late March. Here we are, near the end of June, and in this place we are only in our second sitting week of the calendar year. Further, we will now find ourselves sitting for a mere two weeks and having a further break for winter recess, pushing back even further the ability of parliament to fully undertake its important role in our democracy.
Given that we are still emerging from a pandemic, health and economic crisis, this, I think, is an unacceptable situation. This state has been deprived of appropriate parliamentary scrutiny of the Government for many months. That is quite simply anti-democratic, in my view. My concern is that this orchestration of a protracted period with an absence of parliamentary oversight demonstrates the disdainful attitude to parliament from this Government which risks becoming too familiar.
In reflecting on the Governor’s Address, at the outset I wish to warmly welcome the announcement that Tasmania will at long last investigate the truth-telling pathway to treaty process with our fellow Aboriginal citizens. I felt cautious initially in welcoming this long‑awaited commitment due to the scarcity of information originally provided in the speech and the Premier’s media release that went out, also on the same day. Specifically, I was hoping to be reassured that the Tasmanian Aboriginal community had been appropriately consulted with in formulating the key elements of this announcement, including the appointees charged with undertaking the facilitation process, which will culminate in an initial report to the Government in October.
Subsequent to Tuesday’s announcement, I note that there has been a range of voices from the Tasmanian Aboriginal community embracing and welcoming this initiative. I am particularly reassured by that, to see the endorsement of this way forward. Progressing treaty with the Tasmanian Aboriginal people has been a very long time coming in this state. In fact, Victoria was the first state to pass a legal framework for treaty negotiations in 2018. In 2020 Victoria also became the first Australian jurisdiction to commit to the creation of a truth and justice commission. South Australia had begun its treaty process earlier even, in 2016, when the Labor state government there at the time established the South Australian Treaty Commissioner, and allocated over $4 million over five years to progress treaty negotiations with indigenous groups.
This process looked at establishing about 40 treaties across South Australia. However, it was parked with the election of a Liberal state government in 2018. I note Queensland also established its treaty working group and eminent treaty process panel in 2019, with the Premier accepting recommendations in August last year to progress the path to treaty with First Nations Queenslanders. In 2019 the Northern Territory Government appointed Mick Dodson as Treaty Commissioner to undertake consultation in progressing treaty there.
So here we are finally for our state. What a welcome move forward. I am reassured that key representatives of the Tasmanian Aboriginal community are endorsing and welcoming this long-awaited proposal for Tasmania to have a pathway to treaty process, which has been outlined in the Governor’s Address. I welcome our state’s move. Eventually we finally got there to do it.
Other than this one exciting announcement, I must confess my surprise at the lack of strategic government agenda provided during Tuesday’s speech. While it is to be expected that would be a certain amount of recycled election commitments and previous commitments, I was waiting for a more detailed plan, not only the pre-announced action points, but also something more substantial and transformative for our state. Given the extent of Tuesday’s speech relying upon Government self-congratulatory backslapping and recycled election announcements, many which were in turn derived from that PESRAC process – outlined in March in the Premier’s Address – it again makes me wonder why did we have to go to an early election.
If the Government had just got on with delivering those announcements, instead of interrupting the potentially productive last three months with an early election, it is quite possible many of those initiatives could have been implemented or at least substantially progressed by now. Despite the Government’s rhetoric, we are not presented in the speech and the Government’s plan with a coherent comprehensive plan spanning the term of this re-elected government. Instead, we largely have a lacklustre list of piecemeal action dot points.
Again, I put the commitment to pass the treaty process separate to that and acknowledge it is new and very warmly welcome. Elsewhere, other jurisdictions are crafting and reiterating the need for long-term strategic and transformational reforms intended to address structural inequalities exposed even further by the COVID pandemic, as well as ensuring lessons from the pandemic are learned and opportunities seized as much as challenges are met. We did not receive that in this jurisdiction in Tuesday’s speech or the Government’s presented plan.
In my contribution today I want to focus on a theme of public confidence. Specifically, the fundamental need for the Tasmanian public to be provided with confidence in a healthy and respected democracy, in the highest standards of good governance, in a transparent and accountable government with the vision and leadership to drive transformational change to tackle the biggest challenges faced by our state. I believe this is an unmet need under this current Government and I would like to see that improve across their term.
With that lens of public confidence, I reflect in the recent election on some elements of the Government’s agenda, both inclusions and omissions and want to extend an invitation to the Government for this historic third term Liberal government: to move beyond a day-to-day, week-to-week, grasping at and shoring up of its own power to a mature, visionary, accountable leadership for this state. Accumulated political capital should afford the perfect conditions for this.
It may be the Government does not have as much political capital as it thought it had before the election, given that beyond the Premier’s impressive personal vote cribbed largely – I might add – from his own Bass colleagues, the result of the election was rather less than resounding when we look at the figures, to be honest. I challenge you to look at the figures if you have not already done so. But it is still likely this Government’s current stockpile of political capital is close to what you may imagine will be at its zenith attained through competent management of the COVID-19 emergency.
Now is the time for the Government to put aside empty rhetoric, the tick-box lists of busy work, and the promises that lack accountable delivery. Now is the time for this Government to rise above the unfortunately low bar of simply being better than the alternative. Now is the time for this Government to earn the privilege it has been given by the Tasmanian people with a third term to lead this state in transformational change and to make meaningful progress on the entrenched challenges we face.
Elections
Reflecting on the most important aspect of public confidence, the first matter I would like to turn to is the recent election. This week I have tabled a motion to establish a joint select committee to inquire into the 2021 state election and 2021 Legislative Council elections and matters related thereto. Elections are a fundamental right of the citizens of Tasmania.
It is vital that public confidence in the conduct of elections is maintained. Parliament can and, indeed, must play a key role in maintaining that confidence. In other jurisdictions this is undertaken through the routine practice of conducting a parliamentary review or inquiry after each election. For example, the federal parliament has a Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters which undertakes a routine inquiry after each federal election.
Members from all parties, including the Government, participate freely and openly in that inquiry and as members of that committte. The inquiry I propose will deliver a general review of the administration of the 2021 elections as distinct – I would point out – from the outcome of those elections which are not part of the inquiry. It is in the public interest as an important opportunity to deliver increased public confidence and to strengthen our democracy and it should be a routine priority for this parliament to give this sort of matter due consideration.
We know that a range of serious and significant concerns have been raised by both political and community stakeholders about the recently held state elections. These concerns have included, but are not limited to, the legitimacy of the rationale for calling an early election; concerns over breaches of the caretaker conventions; issues with the preselection and subsequent resignation of Adam Brooks in the seat of Braddon; concerns over potential voter disenfranchisement due to the apparent failure to provide Legislative Council ballot papers at all voting booths; and, of significance for this Chamber, numerous concerns with the appropriateness and the impact of holding concurrent elections with the state and Legislative Council elections run on the same day. The only appropriate and accountable mechanism to examine the many concerns raised is a parliamentary inquiry with broad terms of reference, as I have proposed. I believe it is important for our parliament to show leadership and accountability on this matter, given we have now experienced two state elections in a row that have given rise to community questions and concerns and have diminished Tasmanian citizens’ confidence in our democracy.
It is appropriate for the Fiftieth Parliament to examine the circumstances of its formation and to provide the Tasmanian people with confidence in the electoral process. I hope to have the support of colleagues in this place to establish of a joint House select committee for this purpose. I look forward to speaking in more detail on this when we debate the motion.
Government Agenda
I will now turn to elements of the Government agenda and some omissions which concern me. It is extraordinary that a Government which attributes its re-election in no insignificant manner to their handling of the COVID-19 pandemic has failed to prioritise providing a comprehensive, ongoing pandemic and COVID-19 response plan. A crucial aspect of a response and recovery plan must be an evaluation process.
As members may recall on 3 June last year, this Chamber voted in support of my motion to establish a joint House select committee on Tasmania’s COVID-19 response and recovery measures. Unfortunately, the establishment of that committee was narrowly rejected in the other place. However, the purpose and intent behind the call for such a committee still stands. It would provide a mechanism to give continued oversight over pandemic responses; provide a forum where the community could raise their pandemic experiences and impacts as well as share potential positives and initiatives; and serve as a comprehensive repository of factual information detailing what did and did not work and lessons learned. This would provide a resource to help inform future crises of this scale.
During the debate on whether to establish that proposed committee last year, the point was made by some that it may be too soon for such an oversight and lessons learned forum and that it may make sense to wait until later. It is now 12 months later, and while we experience periodic déjà vu with outbreaks and lockdowns occurring interstate we also have a Government claiming more Tasmanians are employed now than ever before. Just yesterday, the Minister for Trade welcomed the state’s largest ever international merchandise for a 12-month period. The state of emergency declaration was allowed to quietly expire in November last year. Although the public health emergency declaration, scheduled to expire on 30 July this year, is still in place, Tasmanians enjoy more social movement freedoms and fewer COVID-19-related direct disruptions in their daily lives than many of our interstate counterparts. I stress this situation is a result of much hard work and sacrifice across all our community, and we do not want to risk undermining that and our hard-won achievements by allowing ourselves to become complacent.
However, we are now 12 months after the Government said there may be a place for my proposed committee at a later date. Are we now at the time to establish a formal COVID-19 pandemic impacts and response review process, to ensure we capture all lessons to be learned and all relevant experiences, challenges and opportunities Tasmanians from every walk of life have grappled with over the past 12 months?
On some small level, it appears the Government does agree to the need to review and evaluate processes. An election campaign commitment, which is also included in the Government’s first 100 days list of priorities is a review of the state’s Emergency Management Act 2006. This begs the question – why this act, and why review one act in isolation? The Emergency Management Act 2006 comprises one element of the Tasmanian Emergency Management Arrangements (TEMA). The TEMA comprises a range of emergency management committees, advisory groups, strategies, guidelines and frameworks. There is also the Office of Security and Emergency Management, housed within DPAC. Time prevents me from discussing all these different elements here and now, but suffice to repeat, given our experience of a pandemic lasting more than 15 months, why only review one act?
It would be timely for a comprehensive review of the range of measures, processes and arrangements that we have place. A range of discrete specific reviews and enquiries are also occurring on elements of the COVID-19 experience. Some are being undertaken by the Auditor-General and others by the Public Accounts Committee. All of these enquiries will be valuable, but they are, to some extent, ad-hoc and unconnected. There does not seem to be an evaluation and review mechanism in place to provide a cohesive repository to draw together these separate efforts and to identify, and then fill, the gaps in a comprehensive manner. We need a comprehensive and formal evaluation process. We need to rigorously examine what worked and what could be improved. That evaluation needs to be led by the Government, to ensure that we are well prepared for any future eventualities or challenges that may arise in a similar way to the COVID-19 situation.
Such a process could scrutinise and evaluate the role, functions and operations and interrelationships between our government structures and National Cabinet, as well as relationships between the Tasmanian Government, the parliament, local government and the implications for the Tasmanian community during this unique period of our history. How are we capturing all these complex interrelationships, to ensure that we learn from them for the future? A formal review and evaluation process is part of a responsible preparation for future events. I reiterate my long-held position that Tasmania needs to undertake this pandemic response evaluation in some manner. It should be an intrinsic component of any state government providing a comprehensive plan for moving forward.
Gender Equity
I now turn to the important issue of gender equality. I acknowledge there are others here who share concerns and focus about needing to progress gender equity issues. I particularly thank you, Madam Deputy President, as the member for Murchison. You spoke about this in detail in your recent contribution and I believe our comments will align well. I also acknowledge and thank you for putting forward a motion to establish a sessional committee on gender equity. I support this initiative as an excellent proposal for this parliament.
This is not a new issue or challenge. However, the COVID-19 pandemic has shone a spotlight upon the entrenched gender fault lines impacting too many women and girls across the world. Tasmania is not immune to this very serious situation. In May this year, UN Women released a report entitled The social protection response to COVID-19 has failed women: towards universal gender-responsive social protection systems. This report notes that while the COVID-19 pandemic started as a major public health challenge, and I quote:
… it quickly morphed into a protracted socio-economic crisis with which countries are still grappling. This crisis … has been a great revealer, laying bare pre-existing structural inequalities of class, gender, race and migration status, while exposing yawning gaps in social protection systems.
This report identifies that globally, the crisis has had a disproportionate impact upon women generally. For example, women predominate in temporary, part-time, self-employment and informal economies – all of which were hit hard by lockdowns and related economic constraints. Further, a high proportion of female workers compared to male workers are reliant upon sectors hardest hit by the pandemic, such as hospitality, food and beverage industries, wholesale and retail trade and arts and entertainment, to mention a few. Women are also over-represented in the essential frontline services in health care and other social services that are most at risk in pandemic circumstances.
Research and economies have established without a doubt that crises such as this pandemic are not gender-neutral. COVID-19 impact research reveals women internationally and here at home are affected disproportionately and differently from men, affecting access to employment and livelihood, to education, health services and safety from violence. At the national level in March this year, the AMA released a statement on the impact of COVID-19 on women, which corroborates the global research of the UN report. This statement from the AMA includes this:
Research suggests during times of crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic, the challenges and burdens faced by women are exacerbated, with women’s economic security, participation in formal employment, political representation, health outcomes and educational achievements negatively impacted and more so than men.
Further it notes that:
Within the health care sector, nearly four in five healthcare workers in the frontline tasked with managing the pandemic were women, increasing their exposure and potentially their family members to the virus. As pandemic‑related work responsibilities increased, women were more likely to manage increased childcare and schooling obligations, coupled with disproportionate household responsibilities, even amongst dual-earning couples.
In light of the pandemic experience last year, with even more urgency, I called for the 2020-21 state Budget to include gender-impact statement, with other jurisdictions such as Victoria, for example, including it as a matter of course. While it did not eventuate that time around with the budget presented in November, the then minister for women, Sarah Courtney, did undertake during budget Estimates in November to examine the feasibility of implementing a Tasmanian gender impact budget statement.
While it was heartening to see the last federal budget restore the national gender‑impact statement previously abandoned under Tony Abbott’s prime ministership, that does not relieve this state from implementing a similar responsibility and accountability measure. Hence, I reiterate that call now and hopefully we will see a Tasmanian gender impact budget statement to be included when the forthcoming state budget is delivered in August.
Further, I reiterate my call to go further than that, to actually take the same concept and extend it to Cabinet consideration. I call for the template for Cabinet papers to also include, as part of its standard planning and approvals checklist, a gender implications component, as it is my understanding it does have already an economic and financial implication analysis provided. Again, this is a well-established practice in some other jurisdictions, such as New Zealand. These are both a gender impact analysis of the budget and a gender impact component to a Cabinet consideration. These are only small initial steps, but what they seek to do is ensure gender equity implications and ramifications of the Government’s decision-making processes upon the immediate and long-term wellbeing of Tasmanian women and girls is identified, is acknowledged and hopefully addressed in a more meaningful and effective manner.
I have been hopeful the Governor’s Address would provide an update regarding the progress of the inquiry into the parliamentary workplace culture that was agreed to in March by the presiding officers, all three party leaders and the Assembly independent at that time, just prior to the election being called.
It is interesting to note the South Australian parliament has just established a joint committee to inquire into and report on recommendations which arose from the South Australian Equal Opportunity Commissioner’s report into harassment in that parliamentary workplace. That committee has also been charged with drafting an MP code of conduct for consideration of both Houses of the South Australian parliament. They have not only done their harassment assessment of their parliamentary workplace, they now have a committee working on progressing that. We also noted the federal parliamentary inquiry of a similar manner is progressing.
It would be a shame to see Tasmania abandon this worthwhile endeavour and risk falling behind as a responsible parliament that ensures its workplaces are safe.
Political Donation Reform
Something not mentioned directly in the Governor’s Address but present in the Government’s commitments for its first 100 days is the long-awaited and overdue political donations reform. This is a crucial matter when we contemplate public confidence in the integrity of our democracy.
In March in my reply to the Premier’s Address, I noted the conspicuous absence of discussion in that address of the Government’s commitment to political donation reform. Indeed, there was nary a mention. I said in that speech in March it would be a blatant, untenable and unforgiveable breach of public trust should Tasmanians go to the polls again without knowing who has given money to whom. Lo and behold, we soon came to see why the conspicuous silence was maintained.
The Government was, indeed, about to call a very early election that self-same week in advance of making any public progress on meaningful political donation reform. Now we find ourselves post-election with a promise that the reform we have been waiting for since it was first committed to in May 2018 will be brought to parliament apparently in the second half of this year. How convenient to have skated through yet another state election with entirely inadequate accountability and transparency about who funded that election.
It has to be placed on the public record at this time, clearly and unequivocally, that this exercise in political procrastination quite bluntly is unacceptable. It is shameful and it is insulting to the Tasmanian voters. People are becoming more and more cynical and distrustful of this Government as the political donations procrastination drags on. It is over three years now since former premier Will Hodgman’s promise following that thoroughly tainted and controversial state election thanks to the corrosive cloud of vested interest’s money flowing into certain campaign coffers at that time.
After all this time and all these excuses, Tasmanians have a right to expect a nation-leading, platinum-plated proposed electoral funding and donations disclosure reform bill when it is finally released. It must provide for as close as possible to real time disclosure of political donations as we can possibly achieve. It must have a transparent disclosure threshold, not the outrageous $5000 amounts nominated by the Premier as part of the ineffectual voluntary disclosure sham with which concerned Tasmanians were fobbed off during the recent state election.
Other states employ a $1000 disclosure threshold and there would need to be a very good reason indeed presented for Tasmania to adopt any higher disclosure rate than that. Further, if the new disclosure system requires implementation and maintenance funding and resourcing, then it must receive the full required funding and resourcing. This is not a cost but an investment in restoring the perception of integrity to our system of governance.
We know from other transparency mechanisms in this state, such as our RTI system, that no matter how robust on paper, if the necessary adequate funding is not provided to operate the system as designed, it is rendered farcical in its inability to deliver public confidence in transparent and accountable government. For two consecutive general elections now, this Liberal government has dragged Tasmania’s proud democracy into disrepute. Time after time we hear of the lack of trust and respect the community holds for elected representatives of all stripes.
Without swift and decisive transparent action now on political donation reform this loss of public trust and confidence risks calcifying into a crisis of governance in this state. As elected community representatives, all of us – both in this and the other place – must prioritise a firm focus and pressure on the revitalisation of governance, accountability, integrity and transparency. Comprehensive, nation-leading, platinum-plated political donation reforms will be one step in the right direction.
It is with that same intent of revitalising governance accountability and integrity and delivering public confidence that I have tabled that motion this week to establish a joint select committee of inquiry into the conduct of the 2021 state and Legislative Council elections. We should be making these things a matter of routine so the public can come to have confidence in the way we conduct ourselves with governance in this state.
TasTAFE
Another matter from the Government’s agenda that appears to have gone a bit quiet at this time after causing much consternation in the community, is the proposal to make TasTAFE a government business enterprise. While some actions to progress in planning activities related to TasTAFE’s capital works, online campus, rural and regional sites do appear in the Government’s first 100 days document, a dramatic plan to transform TasTAFE into a GBE is not present. I spoke about this intended plan in some detail in my reply to the Premier’s Address in March this year, when the dramatic proposal to change TasTAFE to a GBE was sprung on the community via a recommendation in the final PESRAC report.
Along with all other recommendations in the report, this one was immediately accepted by the Government, apparently without any meaningful further consultation with key stakeholders such as TasTAFE teachers or students. Perhaps, the Government had assumed that the recommendation had arisen out of thorough and wide-ranging consultation in the PESRAC process. Perhaps, the Government had imagined the PESRAC consultation provided a thorough examination of the issues and opportunities relating to TasTAFE, a rigorous examination of expert evidence, advice and due consideration of a range of potential options and solutions. If that is what the Government imagined when promptly they accepted that PESRAC recommendation to make TasTAFE a GBE, it was solely mistaken.
As it has been confirmed, the issue of TasTAFE did come up in the PESRAC consultations. There was broad agreement we need to support the upskilling, re-skilling and initial training of Tasmanians across all sectors and demographics. However, no robust examination of what problems actually need to be solved or new ways of working actually need to be adopted to achieve this was undertaken in that PESRAC context. Therefore, no convincing case was actually prosecuted that corporatising this entity into a GBE is the appropriate course of action. Put simply, I remain unconvinced of the nature and extent of the perceived TasTAFE problem. Nor am I convinced the GBE proposal is the best way forward. Concerningly, on closer examination it also came to light that the only submission to PESRAC that promoted this particular recommendation was made by the NCK Evers Network, of which the PESRAC chair Don Challen has been a key member.
I remain concerned this proposal has the clear hallmarks of the pre-COVID-19 ideological agenda, being implemented by stealth under the cover of COVID-19. And I hold particular concerns as to the appearance of special consideration being given to a proposal put forward by groups with personal connections to the chair of PESRAC. I highlight that concern because I know there were many worthy community groups and community stakeholders who made submissions and valuable recommendations to PESRAC – who, likely, lacked a personal connection to leverage for special consideration.
We know in a state as small as ours, when it comes to having your voice heard and influencing decisions it is all too easy for it to be more about who you know, than the merit of what you know. This is the dynamic that consolidates power and influence among a select few and leads to tainted governance. It actively erodes public confidence and trust and must be fiercely guarded against. It is the duty of those in power in decision-making roles to take particular care to reject and avoid circumstances in which they may perpetuate this kind of exclusive and entitled approach to governance in this state. Or even the perception of it. Given the doubtful provenance of the recommendation to make TasTAFE a GBE and the disruptive uncertainty, particularly for staff and students who are the stakeholders in the centre of this proposal, it is imperative the Government provide clear and timely information on the progress of this proposal. Indeed, whether it still exists as a proposal.
Poker Machine Reform
It will come as no surprise to those in this Chamber that when it comes to discussing elusive matters in the Government’s agenda, one topic I will not let pass without comment is poker machine reform. I say elusive, because it appears this is the policy that must not be named, or at least the policy that must be kept out of sight, so as to be out of mind to the greatest extent possible. Why would this be? Why would it be that this policy, the policy most visible at the 2018 election, indeed the policy that funded the 2018 election for the Government, subsequently appears to have been hushed up and pushed down to the end of the queue? Originally promised to come to this place in the first half of 2020, COVID-19 appeared to provide a reason for its delay. However, if the bill was on track for the autumn sitting of 2020, the exposure draft should have been very close to being ready at the time that COVID-19 struck and able to be progressed at some point during that year once the early stages of the pandemic had abated.
Despite then being promised to be progressed in the first quarter of this year, it did not rate a mention in the Premier’s Address in March, not a whisper. In my reply to the Premier’s Address, I spoke about the Government’s long-stalled future gaming markets reform. Let me remind you briefly of what I said at that time:
… should we be in a position where an early election is called and will be held prior to political donation reform and prior to Future Gaming Market reform, I call on the Government here and now, and all other political parties, to make public commitment not to accept any pre-election donations from any poker machine industry entities or any entities directly associated and financial beneficiaries of the poker machine industry. I call on the Government right now to make that commitment to the Tasmanian people. We deserve to go to the next election with a clear understanding that it is not being funded, bought or influenced by that same industry.
That was a prescient call, as an early election was then immediately called by the Government. Tasmanians went to the polls in May, in the dark yet again as to the full extent of the financial influence brought to bear by the poker machine industry on that fundamental pillar of our democracy, our state election. Yet again. There is a simple way to put paid to the stain that this casts on the integrity of our democracy, a very simple way to restore public confidence. That would be for this Government, and all parties, to fully disclose right now exactly what financial gifts were provided to them by any poker machine industry interests prior to and during the 2021 state election campaign. Make it public, declare it openly.
If they are not ashamed of it, why would they not declare it to the Tasmanian people as a matter of transparency and integrity? The continuing buying of influence, indeed buying of policy and regulatory outcomes, casts a rank shadow over this Government until it has the decency to come clean to the Tasmanian people. We are right to ask questions about that influence. Via the budget Estimates process last year we were told to expect the pokies legislation in the autumn sitting of this year after an exposure draft was to be released and consulted on. During budget Estimates, on 24 November last year, in response to a question on the time frame, the Premier said:
The negotiations that are underway with Federal Hotels regarding casino taxes and fees in Keno are still on foot. I expect that we would conclude those, I would hope, before the end of the year. Next year, legislation, once drafted, will go out for public consultation and then we will introduce it in the autumn session.
That is interesting. So was it actually COVID-19 back in March last year that delayed the progress of this reform, or was it actually the ongoing, unresolved negotiations with the largest vested interest in the industry? Did those negotiations conclude, as expected, by the end of last year? If not, are they still underway? Importantly, most importantly, were those negotiations concluded prior to the election being called?
Well, what do we know about that? The Premier was asked on ABC radio in March, after the election was called, about whether the casino pokies tax rate had been decided and what it would be. The Premier, point-blank, refused to answer that direct question. He did not say it was yet to be resolved and negotiations were continuing. He just refused to answer the question.
It was put to him that voters deserved to know, ahead of the election, what taxation rate a major donor to his party was going to pay. He refused to answer. Voters certainly did deserve to know what special deals had been locked in for Federal Group in regard to its pokies and Keno taxation rates. In refusing to answer this very straightforward question, the Premier deliberately kept voters in the dark on a key piece of information about state revenue which was related directly to the vested interests of a major donor to his party.
Why was not the Premier keen to seek a mandate from Tasmanian voters on that matter, I wonder? This is a government very fond of claiming mandates for things they have taken to elections. If it was resolved prior to the election, why did not this Government take its casino pokies tax rate and Keno tax rates to the Tasmanian people to have their say? If the rate had been decided the only reason to keep that piece of information secret prior to the poll is if the Premier believed it would be politically and electorally damaging to him and his party for it to be made public. Key information about state revenue relating directly to the vested interests of a major party donor. Surely, given the secrecy, we can only expect that a sweet deal has been made.
I wonder what proportion of the taxation discount provided under this reform for Federal Group – money that will go to the profits of a private company instead of Tasmanian hospitals and schools – what proportion of that gifted taxpayer money is making its way back into Liberal party coffers through political donations? Thanks to the deliberate delay in progressing donation reform by this Government we will never know the answer to that. It is disgusting.
After avoiding any voluntary mentions at all of poker machine reforms in the context of that election campaign the Government has also failed to mention it in its first 100 days plan. This is the policy that must not be named, indeed. Perhaps the Government hopes that if it delays long enough and sneaks out the exposure draft at some point the public might go all hazy on the circumstances around this appallingly bad reform. What is the bet that it will be done on a Friday afternoon as quietly as possible?
Let me wrap this topic up with a quick reminder on those circumstances. The policy being implemented by the Government literally was written by the vested interests of the poker machine industry. They wrote it and tabled it in the dying days of the parliamentary inquiry into future gaming markets in 2017. Time prevented the inquiry fully considering the industry proposal but the two pieces of expert comment that were obtained on it at the time by the inquiry both raised serious concerns at its appropriateness.
The first of those, the Tasmanian Gaming Commission, said it would be harder to regulate that model and likely cause increased levels of community harm. The second piece of comment and advice came from the expert economic group, Synergies, who were assisting the inquiry. Their advice questioned whether that model provided the most advantageous economic outcomes for the state or not. Despite those two pieces of advice, within months, the Government had adopted that industry-written policy. This policy, flagged by the Gaming Commission as likely to cause greater harm, is being progressed by this Government without any corresponding preventative harm minimisation which would be very straightforward to implement and commit to. We can easily make poker machines safer in Tasmania with no negative impact on recreational use and no negative impact on jobs directly associated with that industry. We have simple evidence-based measures available. Most are just simple programming matters which would be effective in making pokies safer and protecting Tasmanian families and communities.
There is no reason a responsible government and a responsible parliament would not put the interests of its community first and choose to effectively regulate an addictive product known to cause high levels of harm. Especially when those protective measures will have no negative impact on the recreational use of that product or on jobs associated with that product. The only impact would be to reduce in some measure that proportion of the industry’s profits which comes from users who are addicted. Why would a responsible government choose to protect the private profit derived directly from people suffering a harmful, diagnosable addiction above the wellbeing and health of the people and communities it is supposed to represent? I look forward to exploring that question once we do finally have this policy and legislation progressed. Presumably at some point it will emerge from the shadows.
Human Rights
I want to touch on another omission from the Government’s agenda I believe is important for our state. Many here will be aware of my long-held focus on human rights and specifically the strengthening of human rights for all Tasmanians. There are many elements of my reply speech here, as well as contributions others are also making in this place that touch on, indirectly and directly, human rights issues. Tackling housing waiting lists and homelessness, gambling addiction, gender equity, tackling family violence, addressing discrimination in all forms, and protection of civil liberties to name a few. Currently, the Tasmania Law Reform Institute is reviewing the case for a Tasmanian human rights act which is expected to be released some time in the near future. I am hopeful the Government will keep an open mind regarding that report’s findings.
Climate Change
As we plan for and transition out of the pandemic period, we must incorporate into all our planning and transitioning actions a comprehensive human rights recognition and protection for all Tasmanians, which leads to another gaping hole in the Government’s so-called plan presented to this parliament on climate change. Asserting that Tasmania has achieved its annual net zero carbon emissions target, while encouraging, does not mean we can afford to relax, just as we cannot be complacent regarding COVID. We cannot afford to be complacent about the threat climate change poses to our economy, environment and quality of life.
Fundamentally, climate change is actually a human rights issue and Tasmanians need to see their government and parliament recognise it as such. They need to see them plan for and address the serious and broad human rights implications of climate change. Since the Paris Agreement became the first international treaty to explicity recognise the link between climate action and human rights, international governments are developing holistic policy responses recognising the climate change implications for human rights as well as environmental and economic ones.
Further, the European Court of Human Rights has clearly established that various types of environmental degradation can result in violations of substantive human rights such as the right to life, private and family life, while also increasing the risk of inhumane and degrading treatment.
Earlier this week more than 200 groups wrote to the United Nations Human Rights Council urging member states to establish a new mandate for a special rapporteur on human rights and climate change. These developments demonstrate climate change is not just some greenie issue. Governments, courts and other entities recognise climate change risks the calcifying and deepening of pre-existing and future intergenerational social and economic justice inequities.
I am hopeful the Premier, holding both the Treasury and Climate Change portfolios, will be as keen and diligent to address the current climate change crisis and its human rights implications as he has been tackling the pandemic crisis.
Visionary and Accountable Leadership
As we have heard, the Governor’s Address sets out the Government’s agenda for its entire term as well as some of its immediate priorities. In this context it is well worthwhile revisiting the role of the Tasmanian Legislative Council – us here in this place – as outlined on page 3 of the Legislative Council Annual Report 2019‑20 as follows:
The Legislative Council as the Upper House of the Parliament of Tasmania can be described as democratic with an independent character. The role of the Council is three‑fold:
(i) To authorise the raising of revenue and the expenditure of State monies;
(ii) To examine the merits of legislation; and
(iii) To provide a Parliamentary check on the Government of the day. In modern times the role of the Legislative Council has expanded from the base of being a purely legislative body to a House that involves itself in the examination and analysis of actions, decisions and workings of the Executive Government.
Let me just repeat that third point in case any of us here missed it or perhaps in case the Premier might be listening at some point to this contribution:
(iii) To provide a Parliamentary check on the Government of the day.
It is literally in our handbook. Madam Deputy President, this Chamber is well within its established remit, as outlined in the annual report, to critique, examine and deliberate upon the Government’s priorities and actions. This includes the actions not taken in the context of achieving good public policy outcomes, on behalf of the electorates that we represent and the broader Tasmanian community.
The House of review does not need to be limited, to merely marking off a checklist of government election commitments or other action and busy lists. In this context, on behalf of our constituents, we have the right, and in fact the responsibility, to evaluate any policy shortcomings and identify refinements.
It is the responsibility of our Chamber and every member here, to play a role in delivering the Tasmanian community with confidence in the governance of this state.
Progress Performance Indicators Proposal
With that in mind, members here may recall that I and others in this place, including you, Madam Deputy President, have previously called for measurable benchmarking and progress indicators to be developed and incorporated systematically within key government processes, such as the state budget. I previously raised the need for such a genuine and transparent policy progress reporting mechanism to enable meaningful monitoring and evaluation of the implementation of the PESRAC recommendation. I called for that last year.
The challenges and opportunities facing Tasmania in this brave, new post-pandemic world, present us with a once in a century opportunity to redefine all aspects of our social, economic and sustainability circumstances and priorities.
We have opportunities to shift the leavers pulled by government to address in a meaningful and long-term manner intergenerational inequalities. We have discussed some of these opportunities to some extent in the Chamber last year and earlier this year. We have stressed in those discussions how the manner of delivery of such reforms can be as important as the reforms themselves in strengthening public confidence if they are transparent, have integrity and demonstrate good governance.
The post COVID-19 focus on redefining and rebuilding Tasmania makes it very timely for the state now, as a matter of urgency, to develop and commit to a rigorous set of public policy priority benchmarks and progress performance indicators. Such a benchmarking and progress indicator system, prioritising transparent monitoring and reporting mechanisms, would encourage community confidence in the rationale for, and the delivery of, identified policy priorities and outcomes.
Importantly, a systematic performance monitoring and reporting approach should break our current reliance on short-term action or spending lists in isolation from any accountability mechanism, evaluating actual progress in addressing long-term entrenched challenges.
Let me put that much more plainly. It is very easy for the Government to do three things that give the impression of progress, while in no way holding themselves accountable to making an actual difference in solving the biggest challenges faced by our state. See if these three things sound familiar.
First, the Government says it is investing record amounts in a particular area of policy. It sounds impressive but it is completely meaningless in terms of actual achievement of outcomes. One dollar more than last year is a record investment. It is a meaningless statement. It is the outcomes of that investment that they are committing to achieve that become the meaningful measure of the Government’s success, not the claim to record investment of and by itself. A commitment to accountable outcomes is what the Government must be putting on the record, not crowing about record investments.
The second thing that might sound familiar, is when the Government says it is adding X number of new positions to an area of public policy. Might be teachers, might be police or the like. Sounds impressive, sounds like a very good thing, but in itself it is completely meaningless in terms of accountability to achieve actual improvement in outcomes – its progress in achieving meaningful outcomes and improvements that the Government must be held to account for in the area into which those new positions are being added.
The third common sleight of hand to give the impression of progress that is often used by government is when it says it will establish a new special role or an entity to take lead responsibility for this policy area or identify issues. Those announcements sound impressive. It is a new commission; it is a very special new role with an impressive title but in and of themselves they are completely meaningless in terms of accountability to actual improvement of outcomes. What progress on achieving meaningful outcomes and improvements will the Government be held to account for in establishing that shiny, new, often impressively titled role or entity?
We could almost play bingo with this Government using these three hollow tactics to appear effective. In each of those all too familiar refrains from government what we get is a description of activity without an accompanying commitment to achieving an outcome.
Activity is so appealing, is it not? It looks and sounds impressive. It is easier to have a big list of activities to tick off and crow about than to be held to account for progress on the outcomes of those issue areas.
This very familiar pattern, continuing unchecked, is why we can have a government merrily making announcements, for example, of planning to build impressive-sounding numbers of social houses year after year while across that self-same period of time, we see our social housing waitlist blow out to historic levels.
Ticking off a list of activity is easy. Being accountable for making change, for making progress on outcomes that we seek and prioritise as a community, is all too often completely avoided by this Government. This is why I believe that the opening of a new parliament, reflecting a newly re-elected government is a timely place and opportunity to again reiterate the need for a comprehensive whole-of-government meaningful set of progress performance indicators which are set with community input and are independently auditable.
I have been investigating models in place elsewhere for policy delivery, monitoring, evaluation and accountability reporting frameworks and I can report that in this regard Tasmania is falling well behind other jurisdictions, nationally and internationally. We were doing so even before the 2020 pandemic and definitely since.
The common element of different interstate and international models is a shift to budgetary reporting mechanisms focusing on policy outcomes rather than just financial inputs and outputs.
As the model in Victorian 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 and not necessarily what it achieves. Often government focuses on outputs (what activities, products or 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.
Focusing on outcomes instead of outputs allows us to better identify what we want to achieve for Victoria. It connects our work with communities, experts and service delivery sectors. It also provides flexibility and enables us to communicate what we want to achieve in a way that is meaningful for Victorians.
What an interesting and refreshing approach from the Victorian Government, and indeed in 2019 the Western Australian Government released its set of 12 key priorities in the Our Priorities: Sharing Prosperity program. It claims to set ambitions and accountable targets that, and I quote:
… will require a sustained focus and in some cases, the development of new and innovative approaches.
Currently the Western Australian Government acknowledges that this program has been temporarily suspended in light of COVID-19 as a priority focus. Ideally, a meaningful policy progress framework would incorporate the necessary flexibility to be able to revise and adapt with the purposes of that revision and learning important lessons.
Let us talk about Queensland. They also have a Financial Accountability Act 2009 which requires that the government prepares and tables in its Legislative Assembly a statement of the government’s broad objectives for the community. These priorities are also made publicly available on the government website, along with an individual letter from the premier to each minister outlining each minister’s portfolio priorities in accordance with those published government key priorities. They are referred to as the Premier’s Ministerial Charter Letters. It is expected that the government provides regular status updates against those objectives that have been put forward as their accountable priorities.
I was interested to look at the New South Wales model, because it is quite comprehensive. In 2015, the New South Wales Government launched 12 initial Premier’s priorities. They were subsequently updated to the current 14 priorities announced in 2019. These 14 policy areas are designed to deliver on key transformational goals, and those goals are defined as – a strong economy; highest quality education; well-connected communities with quality local environments; putting the customer at the centre of everything we do; and breaking the cycle of disadvantage.
These are not empty words. The model in New South Wales for each of the 14 policy priority areas lays out measurable baseline interim actual and target indicators that are reported on publicly, and made available online. New South Wales has a Premier’s Implementation Unit – the PIU – to monitor and report on progress with input from the agencies responsible for delivering the specified targets. The Premier receives monthly progress updates, and reports are provided to the Premier and Cabinet every six months.
This approach is also reflected in the New South Wales state budget process and papers, with the 2018-19 budget papers outlining a shift to outcome budgeting rather than the more reductionist output and particular line items spend focus.
Significantly, 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 Premier’s priorities performance audit on the initial 12 priorities which made improvement recommendations. Importantly, social change advocates such as NCOSS, have seen an improvement in policy delivery and accountability. In speaking with them directly, I heard that groups like NCOSS utilise those articulated priority areas to advocate for the social issues that are their priorities. It gives them a common language to talk with government, particularly when it comes to targets, data collection and making measurable progress.
No system is completely perfect, and these New South Wales key goals and the 14 policy priority areas may not be the ones that would be relevant for us here in Tasmania. However, the point is that in other jurisdictions substantial progress is being made and significant acknowledgment is given to the fact that you cannot merely make a list of activities to be ticked off. You have to commit to delivering accountable outcomes. Those models from other jurisdictions demonstrate it is possible to implement models that can be evaluated and reported against, enabling a more transparent accountability mechanism with which the broader community and all stakeholders and policymakers – not only government and members of parliament – can engage.
It is also worthwhile to mention New Zealand in this benchmarking of real progress indicators. Since 2019 New Zealand has released three annual wellbeing budgets. They are structured around collaboratively produced living standards framework, the LSF, indicators. The intent of these indicators is to underpin the goals from budget to budget, to measure whether financial allocations translate into real improvements for people’s daily lives. That is a government that is holding itself accountable to not just announce what they are spending and crow about it, but to measure and report on what real improvement in people’s lives those investments are making. This shift to a wellbeing framework was announced by the New Zealand Government in 2018. Significantly, when announced it was introduced as a framework and management tool which would:
Assist the government in coordinating a cohesive government work program across portfolios. The approach seeks a more comprehensive and accurate representation of the issues New Zealanders are experiencing and that the government is responding to. It aims to provide a broader and more relevant measure of success.
Further, it says this:
At the centre of the Government’s approach is a desire to change the manner in which the Government sets priorities, monitors progress and reports results. The approach seeks a more comprehensive and accurate representation for the issues New Zealanders are experiencing and that the Government is responding to. The Government’s aim is to provide greater transparency across priority areas. What actions have been undertaken to achieve its goals and how have they resulted in change? This approach provides a more relevant and broader measure of success.
We know all this about New Zealand because part of that government’s commitment to transparency is that it publicly releases Cabinet papers, within 30 days of Cabinet meetings. These papers outline all manner of things that have been dealt with in Cabinet, including this wellbeing approach and the recommendation that it be adopted by Cabinet.
Transparency steps in this manner would be wonderful to see with this Tasmanian Government. I am not going to hold my breath on it, but we can all live in hope. Following the 2019 release of the first wellbeing budget in New Zealand, the World Economic Forum held in Davos described that budget as ground‑breaking and said that New Zealand wants to transform its politics to focus on kindness, empathy and wellbeing.
Who here would not agree that Tasmania deserves a similar focus from its government and parliament. However, such efforts need to extend beyond lip‑service and dropping words like compassion into speeches. Words are empty without clear and accountable actions and measurable outcomes to back them up.
There is a global push for a more purposeful capitalism implementing new metrics. For example, the Guardian reported in 2019 that Lord Richard Layard, a program director at the London School of Economics and the Vice Chair of the UK All Party Parliamentary Group on Wellbeing Economics, also publicly called for wellbeing to replace growth as the main aim of UK spending.
We know this concept of community-developed, shared progress indicators and publicly reported updates on social measures is not entirely alien to Tasmanians. The community has previously embraced the notion of a transparent system of performance indicators in the format of the former Tasmania Together process, which intended to measure real progress of agreed priorities for the period 2000 to 2020.
Unfortunately, despite the dedicated and hard work invested into that process we saw it truncated early before its completion. It was picked up and integrated across operations of some sectors, for example local councils, but we did not see it become entrenched within or shape the state budget process in a transformational outcome focussed manner that we are now seeing in New South Wales and New Zealand.
One critical component of the Tasmania Together project which I consider is a strength is that the key priority areas at the heart of that initiative were identified and driven by a comprehensive community consultation process. In contrast, many of the examples that I ran through from other jurisdictions reflected more of a political prioritisation process imposed to a large extent from the top down by governments of the day, rather than developed in a collaborative manner up from the community.
I believe that should Tasmania move to catch up with these more modern responsive and accountable outcome-orientated policy progress frameworks implemented elsewhere, we can become global leaders through incorporating that invaluable Tasmania Together experience by ensuring any identified key priority areas are developed in collaboration with the Tasmanian community. Wherever possible, we should avoid being limited to the top political priorities simply of the government of the day.
I believe that Tasmanians deserve to have this Government invest in their immediate and long-term wellbeing within a transparent and accountable outcomes framework. Such a framework would deliver public confidence in a genuine commitment to achieving real progress on our entrenched challenges. I also believe it is incumbent on all of us, as elected representatives and legislators, to assist with that transition to governance that gauges and measures real, long-term impacts of government policy rather than short-term outputs.
I invite other members here to consider how we can more effectively establish an expectation on government to set, measure and report on progress towards important policy outcomes. I know most of us have areas of particular interest and attention in which we could readily contemplate outcome measurements that would be meaningful when it comes to government accountability. I look forward to exploring this further. There is much we can do to assist with this task.
Madam Deputy President, I note the Address.
See more of Meg’s speeches to Parliament here.
