51st Parliament Commencement Speech
Hon. Mike Gaffney MLC
Member for Mersey
​
22 May 2024
​
​
​
Mr GAFFNEY (Mersey) - Mr President, I rise to speak at the commencement of the 51st Parliament of Tasmania and perhaps, like many of us, I have a strong sense of déjà vu, as once again we are at the start of another new parliament, when ordinarily there should have been at least a year of the previous one yet to run. Maybe this is now modern government policy or common practice, to pull the pin early in a four‑year sitting period in order to continue into power for another term or part thereof.
The Premier declared that the previous minority government with two Liberal defections to the crossbench, was unworkable. However, the current minority government in an expanded lower House seems to have left this government in a similarly precarious state. Seeking safety in an early election and getting rid of the perceived problem, rather than having a willingness to compromise and to continue leading the state, has actually given Tasmania more of the same. Hence my strong feeling that we have been here before.
The result is minority government, and this time with a new coalition that bodes for some interesting times ahead in the other place. No doubt, there will be an initial honeymoon period in the lower House, but once the rubber hits the road, with sensitive, divisive and difficult legislation being debated, one wonders if the lower House will function in the manner it should, or is expected, or is hoped to operate.
It is my pleasure to warmly welcome and acknowledge the three new members from Elwick, Hobart and Prosser. All members possess knowledge, experience and profile expertise from diverse backgrounds to draw on and act as a House of review. I always come away from an upper House debate having a better understanding of the legislation before us, the issues within it and the possible impact on other members' electorates and the wider Tasmanian community.
With a greater proportion of independents in this place, members would benefit from and hear a greater diversity of opinion, instead of having just one Labor or Liberal member speaking on behalf of four or five electorates, which, unfortunately has been the case in recent years. I acknowledge there has been occasions when all party members have spoken, albeit on legislation with similar considered party responses. It is what it is.
A disappointment for me, as has been mentioned by other members, from the southern election, is the missed opportunity to hear the retiring speech of the member for Hobart. In my eyes, Rob Valentine is the embodiment of an honourable member in a way that perfectly mirrors the strengths and just nature of this place. Rob's astute analysis, deep compassion for our community, empathy, and informed debate embodies all that is best in an independent member. At the same time, if he was ever uncertain or anxious of what might be the better approach to a complex issue, Rob was never afraid to say so and explain why that might be the case. This is a rare quality in a politician, as often we are expected to have a quickly settled, predetermined and adamant opinion on almost every issue that surfaces in the media, sometimes on that very morning of its release.
I shall miss Rob's dry wit, his honesty and his courage to challenge the established order without fear or favour. I have always enjoyed Rob's developing sense of humour, still a journey in progress. I wish Rob and his beloved Margaret the very best in their future endeavours.
I will also take this moment to more formally welcome our new members for Elwick, Hobart and Prosser. I know that this year's intake has been particularly strong, with two mayors who have close ties with their communities, together with a learned and highly experienced orator from the other place. I very much look forward to the interesting and valuable contributions, passionate debate and diverse opinions from all three, and wish each of them the very best.
The early election has left much still to be done and some individuals might present the argument that the proroguing of parliament and the associated election actually was a handy circuit breaker for a government under enormous pressure. The recent election result was far less than an enduring vote of confidence in the previous government, or for that matter, a raging endorsement of the new one, and it has left the opposition in a quandary too. Maybe both the government and the opposition should be mindful of the phrase 'never let a good crisis go to waste'. Neither has a mandate in their own right, either in government or indeed in the numbers, in opposition. Perhaps this is actually a failure of leadership in both major parties, as neither of them has inspired the electorate to fully adopt or support their way of thinking with an absolute majority. There is no mandate here, no matter which way the government spins it. Thankfully, we will not be subject to the previously overused nonsensical statement or premise that we have a mandate to introduce any legislation we want because we were voted in by the majority of Tasmanians.
I am not certain the Tasmanian electorate has demonstrated that it truly values an independent alternative voice in state politics. Or rather, that the Tasmanian public did not enjoy what was happening with both major parties that were exceptionally closely aligned and perhaps in recent times, one might suggest that they are now even closer. I would ask all members of the suitably humbled main parties to reflect on this as debates unfold in both places.
What is apparent is whilst the lower House has grown to 35 members, primarily the new additions have gone to three additional Greens, three new members of the Jacqui Lambie Network, a trio of Tasmanian independents, a development that will usher in a fascinating new chapter in the history of the Tasmanian Parliament and one which will either receive acceptance and applause or rejection and jeers. We will wait to see what transpires.
Perhaps, in this election we have witnessed a new form of politics emerge, one that has attracted a significant number of voters that I assume are tired of the usual political rhetoric from the traditional major parties and looking for something different. As mentioned previously, I would implore both government and the opposition members to be wary of believing that they have a mandate for this four-year term. Both parties must truly listen to the more reasonable and holistic voices in our community.
I hope, as do many in my electorate, is that the necessary coalition government, that the Premier has assembled can function as intended and is expected to govern in the best interests of Tasmania and its people, with an openness and a transparency that it can at least restore much-needed trust in our political system.
In reflecting on the increase in members of the other place to 35 it is salutary to remember that it is the current government that brought this situation into being. If I remember correctly, it was suggested that the increase, in part, was to allow the ministerial workload to be spread amongst more members and reduce the number of multiple ministries that a minister might be accountable at the same time to increase the numbers for the government on the backbench.
It did not pan out like that at all, and whilst we have another 10 members of parliament, it does seem that everyone in the Liberal government still has multiple ministerial responsibilities of some kind, with obvious exceptions being ignored, like our most important portfolios, including climate science and men's health and wellbeing. The coalition does offer a potential knowledge and experience base to share some of those responsibilities in partnership.
However, it seems that the Premier is currently unwilling to even consider it, a mistake in my view. There are experienced and qualified members in both parliament chambers who would be able to assist in creating a stronger Tasmania.
I also recall that in my speech and during debate in this place regarding increasing the size of the lower House, I did not support an extension of the House of Assembly to 35 members, and I spoke and voted against the increase of numbers. As I stated that time, I thought it was a missed opportunity to closely investigate, consult and discuss with the Tasmanian public what do we want our parliament to look like in the next 10, 20, 30 years and beyond. Surely we can improve on the current processes and protocols of what some would consider an outdated not fit-for-purpose Westminster system?
We had an opportunity to look at different options, not just go back to an increase in numbers. What has astonished me and many of my friends reading media articles highlighting requests by some crossbench members in the other place for additional staffing, resources and support, I can recall seeing requests for 3.5 full-time equivalent staff members for individual members, with additional specialised individual briefings and meetings with the Premier or his delegate.
A point that has been already raised in a question in the other place, I assume that there are ongoing private discussions on this with the government's coalition partners and independent members as they settle into their new roles. I am not certain when our Treasury declared a bottomless pit for Tasmanian taxpayer funding. We as members of parliament are all accountable to the members of our electorates and must be responsible in our requests. Every day we read articles and hear interviews about individuals, communities and organisations doing it tough. Members of this place, in this parliament, must also act responsibly in their requests.
Justification for this apparent largesse appears to be to allow members to be fully across up‑and‑coming legislation and government business. Oh, please, Mr President, such riches are something we in the Legislative Council can only dream of. With now less than half of the total numbers of the other place, we essentially have a single FTE staff allocation to support both our electorate and parliamentary work as well as our committee responsibilities.
As a house of review and often at times experiencing perhaps a more complex workload, as we seek to ensure that every piece of legislation that passes this place meets the necessary probity, fairness and rigour in its drafting and enactment, our role is one that is not impacted by party political manoeuvring.
Members of this place are also able to introduce legislation, some of it highly significant; it can be controversial and far‑reaching. Independent Legislative Council members achieve that with only one full‑time staff member. It is a matter of effective management, hard work and getting on with it.
I have previously asked in this place questions of the government in terms of how additional allocation of staff and resources are made to individual members of the House of Assembly. The responses have led me to understand this is very much at the Premier's discretion, subject to negotiation. One could ask the question, is that an appropriate, transparent and proper way of working? I find that process questionable. It begs the question; will I get more staff and resources if I support the government of the day? That is hardly appropriate, Mr President.
Given that, soon after I asked the questions in this place and it was answered, the staffing information for all members on the public‑facing side of the government staff directory website somehow disappeared. How might members of the public now know who has what staff and in which roles. With public expectations of greater transparency from the government, when or how might this information, which is very much in the public interest be restored, is one I will watch with interest.
Ms Webb - Not just FTEs, but also the levels at which they are paid.
Mr GAFFNEY - I agree. Additionally, one of my previous questions also requested information on the progress towards financially accommodating the additional 10 members and their staff.
Given this election was called a year early, I have to ask again, how is this extra financial impost being explained, justified and accounted by the government, especially with shameless demands of extra staff, additional staff, officers and the like and at what cost to the Tasmanian taxpayer to sweeten the coalition deal?
If we again for a moment consider almost everyone in Tasmania is struggling with the cost‑of‑living crisis, it seems totally indefensible the government appears to have an unlimited budget in accommodating this expansion of the lower House.
I would like to think that a record and breakdown of this additional expenditure was made available to us so Tasmanians can examine it more in detail in the coming budget processes.
The election has flow‑on impacts and may have acted as a catalyst in a change in the state service leadership with, for example, the retirement of the head of the State Service, Ms Gale and the placement of Ms Morgan‑Wicks into that position. Ms Morgan‑Wicks moved from Health Secretary which I am certain will allow her to address the challenges faced across the board as well as by our health services and staff. Ms Morgan‑Wicks will also have a keen understanding and know‑how of the potential to improve these essential services.
I was also greatly encouraged by Ms Morgan‑Wicks' capacity to implement change with her astute observations during last year's health estimates, where she spoke of the importance of trauma, informed care and health services. Given that the government must address the findings and recommendations of the commission of inquiry, together with the expected report of the Wolcott review and the now‑question processes around the Blake review, I hope that Ms Morgan‑Wicks has the full support of the government to properly address what needs to be done to keep the young people in our institutional settings safe from harm or abuse.
Additionally, whilst I acknowledge and congratulate those responsible involved with the recent positive advertising campaigns by the Health department to attract additional staff, I have to ask what can be done within Tasmania to further support the recruitment and training of desperately needed medical and allied health professionals.
The recent federal government's announcement of payments for mandatory work placements for student teachers, nurses, social workers and midwives, whilst welcome and timely, can be improved. For example, this new scheme excludes students studying physiotherapy, medicine, radiography, occupational therapy and paramedics. They are all essential occupations in demand here in Tasmania and nationally. For instance, I know of a medical student from my electorate who is expected to spend the whole of 2025 in an unpaid full-time, mandatory regional hospital placement, pay full university fees and study at the same time, ready for the end of year exams. I think a placement payment of some kind would make the world of difference to this future doctor, and every other health professional currently in training in similar compulsory placements would feel very much wanted and supported.
The recent release of the final report of the Independent Review of Tasmania's Major Hospital Emergency Departments is to be welcome and I note the government's support for its findings and recommendations. I also hope that the government will provide all the necessary resources to implement them all in full and in a timely manner, and not just saying to blame the federal government. Buck passing can be so annoying.
Our dedicated health professionals deserve every support possible to better serve the health needs of our community and to flourish in their chosen careers in health. For example, in my electorate, the recent potential loss and the now resurrection of the East Devonport Medical Centre has highlighted the fragile nature of what so many vulnerable patients rely on. I commend the Mayor of Devonport City Council, Alison Jarman, for her enthusiasm and efforts in both raising the importance of the issue, pushing the process and facilitating the community's response. The stakeholder meetings Mayor Jarman chaired gave all sides the opportunity to understand the importance of maintaining local GP services in the East Devonport community. I would also like to commend Health Minister Mr Barnett, the state government advisors and other key industry and local stakeholders who have all worked collaboratively under tight timelines to reopen the practice.
Whilst we tend to focus on the political aspects of health, it is accessible health services in our most vulnerable communities that make a real difference to community health and well-being. By accessible, I mean available to those that do not necessarily have access to public transport, a car or someone that can give them a lift.
Whilst we have also witnessed the recent opening of the Medicare Urgent Care Clinic in Devonport, a move that complements the existing clinics in Hobart and Launceston, it seems to exist as of kind of a halfway house between a GP practice and emergency department that will hopefully take some of the pressure off both services. However, the Devonport clinic is, dare I say or suggest on the wrong side of the river for the East Devonport community and essentially unavailable to many individuals on that side of the river as confirmed by collective statistics who do not have their own transport and our transport services are lacking.
I observe that since the East Devonport GP crisis, there have been many other practices across the state that have suddenly closed or had to restrict their operations due to a shortage of GPs. This is not a surprise. We knew this was coming. Each of these closures causes a huge upset and distress within communities as vulnerable patients are often left feeling as though they have no equivalent alternative service in close proximity.
I was interested in this particular section of the Governor's Address and quote directly from her speech -(tbc 3.26.27)
A GP Now Rapid Response Team is being established with a dedicated team of 10 GPs to be deployed to places of GP shortage while longer term options are investigated. Where a GP practice closes on short notice, the GP Now Rapid Response team will be deployed so the community has continued GP access.
I take heart from this positive initiative to address this ongoing issue as there must be a way in which struggling GP practices can be supported before they implode. I also have to ask where these 10 spare GPs might be found, as GPs do seem to be in very scarce supply at the moment, a bit like the old phrase, as scarce as a hen's tooth. However, I will take this opportunity to thank the government for this initiative. As a short term solution, it is a good first step and one that might allow the breathing space for longer term sustainable supports to be established for medical professionals in Tasmania.
Members will recall I have spoken about men's health and well-being on many occasions in this place and also at community functions and events. It is another policy issue I would like to see greater emphasis on from this government and hopefully, the Jacqui Lambie Network members, the independents, the Greens and even the Labor party members in the other place will support a greater focus on men's health and well-being. This would ideally begin with the drafting delivery of a Tasmanian men's health strategy that can reflect the existing National Men's Health strategy, one that seems to have escaped us here in Tasmania with potential to prevent the early death of nearly 200 men each and every year in Tasmania.
We can and we must do better. With men dying from suicide at a rate up to four times higher than women, together with a natural reticence to seek timely medical care, we are losing too many men before their time. The devastating impact on their families and the communities with this level of loss cannot be overstated. However, it is often silently borne by those families. I urge the government and others to address men's health with the same vigour that is rightly given to women's health. Men need to be represented at a policy level in a much more obvious way, similar to women's groups, so we can actively be involved in the solution to many of the issues impacting families within our communities (at times) perpetrated by men.
What the election has given us in the Legislative Council, perhaps uniquely, is to have both the Minister for Education and the opposition shadow in this place. As an aside, I was a teacher and was involved in Tasmanian public schools for 27 years. My wife had 40 years in public education, over 20 of those in the college sector. My comments, therefore, come from, I suppose, lived experience at the coalface of education.
I will take this opportunity to highlight the ongoing negotiations for a new bilateral agreement under the new National Schools Reform Agreement. I also remind members that in 2018 this government, along with all the others of every flavour across Australia, willingly chose to shamelessly underfund their legislated share of the Schooling Resource Standard for their own public schools. They insisted that the federal government should allow them to do so. Instead of their full 80 per cent responsibility of the Schooling Resource Standard, they aim to reach 75 per cent. At the same time, they are requesting time to reduce their overfunding of their share of the Schooling Resource Standard to non‑government schools. This is a truly disastrous outcome, one that six years later has still to be resolved. I will try to explain this a bit further.
Up to 4 per cent of that notional 75 per cent for public schools is attributed to depreciation and student transport which, by and large, is an accounting sleight of hand. This is a measure excluded from Tasmania's Schooling Resource Standard allocation for non‑government schools. Therefore, we can confidently state that our public schools are already more than 9 per cent underfunded compared to their non‑government colleagues.
There are declarations from states, including our own, that the federal government needs to make up this difference that states have chosen to enforce. The federal government has come back to suggest increasing its contribution by 22.5 per cent. Will this government meet them in the middle by guaranteeing 77.5 per cent, and also eliminate the 4 per cent depreciation furphy at the same time?
Mr President, there has been much pre-election comment and ongoing speculation by apparently learned bystanders about attainment rates. I take issue with the recent biased commentary from those who really do not understand regional Tasmania, many of whom have no educational expertise or any experience working in the college base. The attainment number they have quoted recently in the media is highly selective and partial interpretation of a complex set of data. The opinions expressly ignore the Productivity Commission's numerous and specific cautions. In the interests of clarity, I would like to share some of them with you, as a point of reflection. The commission says:
This indicator should be interpreted with caution as:
-
Assessment, reporting and criteria for obtaining a year 12 or equivalent certificate varies across jurisdictions.
-
Students completing their secondary education at technical and further education institutes are included in reporting for some jurisdictions and not in others.
While we do have a nationally consistent years K‑to‑10 Australian curriculum, each state and territory has its own unique take on year 11 and 12 core structures and assessment. There is no danger any time soon of a nationally consistent year 11 and 12 curriculum breaking out. as each state and territory knows it has the best approach that will be very happy for the others to adopt. However, it is acknowledged that the Tasmanian Certificate of Education (TCE) has one of the more rigorous assessment protocols, especially when compared with the more lenient and accommodating, often cited South Australian equivalent. This fact seems to escape those who eagerly and continually criticise our schools and colleges, and, by inference, the students and teachers within them.
I also take issue with those that claim that a student ticking all the right boxes for a TCE is still regarded as the critical measure of success. The tragedy is that if a student wins an apprenticeship or succeeds in gaining employment and leaves before ticking the boxes, they are seen by the system as failed. This fallacy damns the student when it should damn the system. We can and must do much better by our next generations and celebrate their transition into adult life by whatever route is correct for them.
A recent example is the electro‑technology course at Don College, which started the year with nearly 20 students. By the middle of the year, all of them had won trade apprenticeships and left Don College. I know that the college staff were generally thrilled for their students and mindful that the system and its critics would regard them as failing to complete their senior secretary education. Are the critics willing to publicly state that you failed if you leave school or college before getting a TCE to take up an apprenticeship? I know that almost all families are thrilled when their child has won such a life-changing opportunity.
There is a method by which an apprentice can apply for a retrospective TCE after a period in training, but why would they bother? The TCE, while nice to have, often has little relevance to a student's future life and lifelong learning other than a flag for education bystanders to wave around as the talisman of what they say makes for a successful school education. They would say it ends in year 12 and may be measured as a passport into a university degree that increasingly does not offer the future guarantees of a well-paid job - unless, of course, you are a fully tenured professor in the same uni.
The real‑world value of purely academic school or university education is being questioned by increasingly sceptical students and their families. This is especially relevant when considering the overwhelming industry demand for skilled trades, which come with a variety of very well‑paid and secure jobs, where the training comes with a salary free of tuition costs and free from the burden of future HECS indexation and repayments.
I am sure many of us can remember previous attempts to reform senior secondary and post‑secondary education in Tasmania - in particular, the debacle that was Tasmania Tomorrow. I am mindful that the Department for Education, Children and Young People (DECYP) has every reason to take a more pragmatic and considered view of such changes. In fact, with all the demands for review, the instigators may have been ignorant of the fact that our Education department is actively examining the whole future of senior secondary education in Tasmania, and has been for the last four years.
Only last week DECYP hosted the latest We Are More [TBC] as a second day‑long workshop led by Learning Creates, which also included delegates from South Australia and the Northern Territory. This event saw 170 students, educators, employers and education leaders looking to redefine the future of learning assessments and how to record skills and learning outcomes. This is about establishing how we measure the skills and capabilities of our younger generation in the world where the ATAR is becoming increasingly outdated and irrelevant. These are the real‑world skills and capabilities employers value beyond the narrow definitions of success defined in the current academic curriculum and often developed in the community outside the school classroom. School‑age students spend more than 80% of their time in their communities beyond their school gates. I am sure we can all think of examples of school‑age students who are involved in volunteering, community sport, part-time work, caring, and many other examples of extracurricular activity. The Australian National University (ANU), in particular, demands evidence of at least three such activities before it will even consider an enrolment application from a future student. The challenge, then, is how to evaluate and record these skills - something a TCE fails to do.
Not to belabour the point, if we were to take another look at the Productivity Commission Report on Government Services 2024 data, and its most recent year 10 to year 12 retention information, it makes for interesting reading. Members will recall that the retention rate was the previous clarion call that education bystanders used to criticise our public schools and colleges. I think you will find these percentages fascinating.
If we were to consider the source of the TCE attainment rate number, which is in the Productivity Commission's Report on Government Services 2024, which ironically has 2022 as its most recent data, including the TCE attainment rate, we can see a breakdown of year 10 to year 12 retention rate information across a range of criteria. It makes for particularly interesting reading and it is not something we hear in the media. The retention rate for our Tasmanian public schools is 76.1 per cent, against the national average of 73.5 per cent, and actually way above that of New South Wales, which is 66.5 per cent; Queensland with 74.4 per cent; and very close to Victoria with 76.2 per cent. But those are not the figures that we are given in the paper by some learned experts. It all seems good there. However, the national average for non‑government school retention rates is 87.2 per cent, which is a laudable outcome, whereas the retention rate for our Tasmanian non‑government schools is 64.3 per cent, the lowest ranking of the classrooms across all states and territories in Australia, including the Northern Territory. They are virtually 23 per cent below the national average for such schools and almost 12 per cent below that of our Tasmanian public schools, but they are more appropriately funded.
I wonder what assistance the government can or should offer to address this problem in our non‑government schools. Maybe we need a specific review of the Tasmanian private school system to get to the bottom of this conundrum, especially as almost all of these schools integrate years 11 and 12 into a year 7‑12 high school model, with budgets that our public schools can only dream of.
Every school can always do better. Teachers know this; we know this. It is part of their professionalism in what can be a highly fulfilling career. I also know that the dedicated staff in our public schools and our private schools across Tasmania are constantly seeking improvement, looking to do what they can with limited resources. They have an entirely student‑centric approach that focuses on the students' needs rather than those of the institution they are taught in. And yet this government persists in having years 11 and 12 in every high school, even those in urban centres within easy reach of our colleges. Given the reported exceptionally low year 11 and 12 enrolments in almost all extended high schools, should the focus be on supporting the colleges to do more of what they do so well? Especially when we have an ongoing shortage of teachers, as we heard from the member for Murchison this morning, that could be far more effectively utilised with larger classes in colleges. In fact, does the ongoing teacher shortage finally give the government a dignified position from which to reconsider the push to extend year 11 and 12 into every high school?
The government needs to be objective and practically reassess this situation. Indeed, the waste of money in pursuing this goal is unbelievable. I walk and talk with school staff on a regular basis, and I wish those staff could speak freely with what is on their mind and tell those in control of the limited educational budget how much is being wasted on this farce. Indeed, many see it as a cruel joke. It is recognised and acknowledged that there is some success, especially in the isolated communities. I do not take that away from those.
Ms Webb - Rural and regional.
Mr GAFFNEY - Yes, with the government's 11‑12 initiative. That is very good. But when I go into schools in my area that have two or three students in year 11 and 12 at the high school taking up staffing resources, that is a nonsense. I note with interest that DECYP is in the middle of a statewide consultation on improving school attendance. I am assuming that this is in conjunction with its recent Every School Day Matters campaign. It makes sense. In a post‑COVID world, attendance has been a problematic issue; although it should be acknowledged that it was a pre‑COVID problem as well. I am sure that growing cost‑of‑living pressures in our community have not helped either. A combination of these factors has seen attendance fall again.
I have recently written to the new Minister for Education and the Minister for Transport, highlighting the opportunity to help this with the simple measure of bring fare-free student travel to all schools in Tasmania, not just for those bus routes that happen, through a quirk of fate and mapping, to cross an urban boundary. This is a nonsense. This is an issue that affects a number of schools in my electorate, and many others across Tasmania. What we have in reality is a postcode lottery, where you win the prize of having to pay a fare each way if you cross a notional line, drawn on a Department of State Growth map, and no fares at all if you do not. The result is some families having to pay $800 per year for their child to get to school and back, and others pay nothing at all. This is so ad hoc, and hardly a fair and equitable system, with a solution that could well see both an increase in school attendance and cheaper overall bus service contracts.
I have raised this issue previously with very little consistent response, as ministerial responsibilities are continually changing with this government. However, I look forward to further discussions with the ministers and their advisers to address this concern and seriously consider other ways of operating.
It needs to be acknowledged that the Greens and the Jacqui Lambie Network members were obvious winners in the recent election. Both groups are not supportive nor happy with the idea of a brand new AFL stadium at Macquarie Point as an integral part of the AFL licence deal. I have to ask, is our community and state of Tasmania going to have to carry the burdensome obligations in the current AFL contracts for generations to come? Especially when we were already carrying an enormous debt loading as if we have the sword of Damocles hanging over us. I am not sure a roof of a stadium could save us from this perilous situation, and I am not keen to test it either.
What will it take for the government and AFL to recognise that we already have a suitable stadium in Launceston and Hobart, with Launceston often touted as having one of the best playing surfaces in Australia and one that is pretty much equidistant from anywhere in the north-west or south of Tasmania. Indeed, some of the AFL games at grounds around Australia are far less inviting and professional than either Launceston or Hobart. I cannot recall many occasions when either stadium has been sold out.
However, the Tasmanian Labor Party has recently also succumbed to the media push for a new, roofed, multi-purpose stadium and Mr Winter has stamped his mark. Supporting the ambitions of the AFL in the south is more important than prudent and pragmatic investment in regional Tasmania. I have been astounded by the number of people in my electorate who have spoken to me about the Labor backflip. Dean Winter may think that he is kicking goals in his electorate, but I can sure you, in my electorate he is definitely on the bench.
Regardless of my personal viewpoint, this election has clearly demonstrated that there is definitely no mandate for the stadium for either the Premier or the Leader of the Opposition. Indeed, if Mr Winter had not succumbed and changed courses, the Macquarie Point stadium would more than likely not have been passed in the House of Assembly.
If the much trumpeted talk of the economic benefits of an AFL team and high- performance centre could equally apply to the economy of Launceston and its surrounding community, why does it matter so much that this stadium has to be sited in the very limited and constricted space available in the already thriving Hobart economy? As has been pointed out by many hospitality businesses, the northern end of the state would also welcome the UTAS Stadium as the epicentre of AFL in Tasmania, and north-west and west coast and Bass Strait island fans could easily attend games in Launceston. The prohibitive barriers of attending a game in Hobart - too far, too expensive - and it just shifts any economic benefits of AFL away from the north and north-west into Hobart.
This is an opportunity cost for our region with potential spending that is lost to our local economy, and our local communities will suffer as well. Again, the Government and Opposition have no mandate here, with the increase in voter support to elect additional Greens, JLNs and independents who are primarily all for an AFL team - but are not supportive of a new, roofed stadium. It is also fascinating to see that even with the current heightened and febrile atmosphere of footy love in the south, the most recent AFL game played in Hobart on 27 April only attracted 4724 spectators - with the suggestion from some, that a significant number of these were free tickets given away to boost attendance numbers.
If we look back to 2023, the highest attendance in Hobart was 8034 in a stadium with a 20,000 capacity. As a contrast, the game played at the UTAS Stadium on 11 May in Launceston had an attendance of 15,112 - over three times over the one a couple of weeks earlier. To be fair, St Kilda and Hawthorn are both well supported in Tasmania, so I acknowledge that; but remind me again why we need a new stadium? Oh that is right - that is the AFL special deal between our current Premier and a number of AFL dignitaries and lawyers. I hope that the Premier walked into the room with professional Tasmanian lawyers, not just 'Here, shake hands and take you at your word' like his good rural person background.[TBC - it was a bit garbled] I consider we have been sold a pig in the poke by the AFL.
Obviously, a two stadia reality is really one too few, and therefore a three stadia solution must be perfect; and it must have a roof as well - albeit, as reflected in rainfall between 1 March and 30 September over the last two football seasons, Hobart is the second driest capital in Australia. Do we know of any other AFL team that is spoilt for choice like this, with potentially three stadiums to choose from in their home state? It is simply an absurd proposition - a 'Goldilocks and the Three Stadia' scenario where the AFL decides which one is just right, and our community for generations will have to foot the bill and pay any penalties in the open-ended deal
In all the heated media one‑sided debate about supporting the stadium, the Project of State Significance Process (POSS) seems to have been entirely forgotten as a more objective consideration of the project, almost like the outcome of which is a foregone conclusion. The estimated cost of relocating the wastewater plant to make way for the stadium has come in at $314 million, with additional tens of millions of dollars to be spent on various consultants, architects, engineers and the like. This is four years ahead of the planned completion date, $314 million, yes, right.
I have to ask at what point will clear heads prevail as this is financial absurdity. Nationally, infrastructure builds have been recently cancelled due to the increase in costs that have blown the budget, whilst the recently commissioned architect seemed noticeably confident, what makes anyone think our Mac1 or Mac2 is going to be any different to the failed infrastructure builds on the mainland?
The Leader of the Opposition has committed his party to support the government on the new stadium and I assume everything that comes with it. I am genuinely astonished that he has not made this conditional on the outcome of either the POSS process or the Gruen review and simply force the whole thing on us. These were two separate continuity and supply demands made on the Premier from his previous crossbench rebels and now with the Gruen Review as one of the JLN's conditions. Perhaps instead of a new stadium in Hobart, it is time for some of that wealth and investment to be shared with our wider community where there is a true need and not just a focus on a few acres in the Hobart CBD.
I am sure we have all seen the 2024‑2025 TasCOSS Budget Priorities Statement. It makes for sobering reading in the way that it highlights the distressing and increasing levels of poverty in our state. It rightly acknowledges the measures taken by the government to begin to address these issues. However, government policy always seems to be playing catch-up with the reality of cost-of-living pressures faced by our communities which, according to the report, equates to about 21 per cent of all Tasmanians currently living in poverty. That is one-fifth of our population living in poverty.
We have a desperate shortage of affordable housing that can only be exacerbated if the skilled trades and apprentices are tied up building another stadium. What could the hundreds of millions of dollars intended for the AFL stadium project deliver if it was instead added to the budget of Homes Tasmania? This would surely create enough leverage to guarantee work to keep every trade and apprentice busy for the next 10 years and beyond, and give our children somewhere they can afford to live and raise a family.
Like many Tasmanians, I have registered as a supporter of the Tasmanian team. I love my football. However, it does not mean that I, or thousands of other supporters, agree with the new stadium build. That circumstance has not been tested. We are losing too many young people to the mainland as it is, and with the scarcity of rentable housing we have seen a 51 per cent increase in median rents over the last five years. We will all be relying on the next generation to look after us in our old age so why can we not look after them now to ensure they have somewhere to live and keep them in Tasmania? Why would we place an intergenerational burden on our children and grandchildren for the sake of a few games of football? It is just a sport.
The other issue with the increase in cost-of-living pressures is the reduction of time for people to volunteer in their communities as they seek additional paid work or simply cannot afford to give their time for free. I have witnessed this first hand in my electorate as the patron of Mersey Community Care. This is an organisation that provides excellent transport, home maintenance, social and home support services via a variety of schemes. As with almost all community service providers, fewer volunteers, increasing transport, wages and regulating expenses are making it exceptionally difficult to maintain their current levels of support, let alone meet the ever-growing demand for their services, with a growing population experiencing a rapid rise in the cost-of-living pressures.
If we look to Volunteering Tasmania, an organisation keenly aware of the challenges faced by both volunteers and the organisations that rely on them, they know that between 2019 and 2023 formal volunteer participation decreased by 11 per cent. That is taking no account of informal rates where people simply stepped away. Volunteering Tasmania also noted that volunteers can mean the difference between regular and irregular welfare checks for isolated members of the community, access to health care for those whose barriers to transport would mean they would go without, and faster, more effective responses in the face of natural disasters. What happens when they are not there? Who will replace them and who will pay the cost?
The increasing cost of volunteering to both volunteers and organisations that need them has necessitated the scaling back of essential community services, and anecdotally we know that a dollar given to a volunteer-based organisation needs at least $10 to fund a government paid equivalent -
Whilst the love of AFL is deeply embedded in our community, it is possibly waning at a local playing level with many clubs facing renewed challenges in viability. We also have the incredible growth in soccer with the Devonport Junior Soccer Association that has over 900 participants in its program, together with its three‑day Devonport Cup competition in June, when it caters for teams from across the state. That has a real economic benefit to our region at a quiet time of year
There is the incredible success of the JackJumpers basketball team which, in just three seasons, has won the NBL Championship finals. This tremendous success has led to an increase in demand for basketball courts at all levels, with my own club of Latrobe Demons and Devonport Warriors leading the charge in my electorate, together with cross‑party support for the new $60 million indoor stadium sporting facilities at the Devonport Oval precinct.
The JackJumpers have welcomed the long-awaited decision on their high‑performance centre that will also be available for community use. We know that they have a proven record of success with statewide support and yet seem to be second to the AFL in the government's priorities. It should be noted that whilst we have a few Tasmanians playing at the NBL level, the majority of the Tasmanian JackJumpers' players come from the mainland or overseas.
As mentioned previously, regarding increasing costs, we also had the recent decision of Tasracing to not proceed with the proposed new north-west harness and greyhound racing track at Wesley Vale. This project has also seen costs more than double over initial estimates to almost $40 million, perhaps another victim of the trade shortages and material cost explosion. Perhaps a mixed bag of capital investment into significant local capital projects would be the way to go.
What we do have in Tasmania is an increasingly diverse range of grassroots level community sports and activities that engage the whole community, from the highly successful Masters Games this year with 30 sports and 1500 competitors, to the expansion of the Ticket to Play sports taster program from primary schools into high schools.
The Ticket to Play is a fabulous program that gives our younger generation the chance to try out a sport free of losses and other commitments, to enjoy the fun of taking part in something new, with $100 towards the cost. That can include sports, scouts, guides, swimming and dance.
Ms Webb - Should be doubled. Tripled, actually.
Mr GAFFNEY - Should be. It would be terrific to see this opportunity open up to other activities such as music and drama; the team sports for non‑sporty people. Perhaps any activity which supports a social connection in an organised group setting may be something for the government to consider.
In terms of non‑sporting events, the community art scene has always run on the smell of an oily rag and it is the one scene that facilitates so many community events and economic activity that commercial businesses come to rely on. I am very much looking forward to attending the Devonport Choral Society production of The Full Monty.
I also watched the Uni Revue last week and it definitely lived up to my expectations. However, I expect The Full Monty to be another sellout run and it will be fascinating to see how modesty is maintained, although I have heard that there is truly a dazzling final scene.
With the successful restarting of Latrobe's Henley‑on‑Mersey event, the Latrobe Federal Band sold‑out concert in April, Devonport Jazz set for July, the Latrobe Chocolate Winterfest in August and the inaugural International Men's Day event at Bells Parade in November, we are seeing a resurgence in community activities which is deeply gratifying after years of recovering from the COVID downturn.
In closing, perhaps the government can focus on remembering and furthering support for the grassroots of our community in addressing local needs and give less attention to the wants at the top end of the corporate city‑centric sport that demands increasing levels of fealty by committing us to decades of debt and penalties.
Corporate sport exists in a corporate culture. Winner takes all in the race to the top. The challenge it faces is competition with other sporting codes as it seeks to be the most important and to entice new participants to support the commercial success of that code, whereas community and youth sports are all about enjoying physical activity, keeping fit and healthy with a sense of connection and community.
The mental health and physical wellbeing benefits of any activity, especially when part of a highly social environment, is well‑known and we need to do more to support this, be it sport, volunteering, the arts and/or performances.
Our state finances are perilous enough without a government committing us to huge spending commitments on bread and circuses. I cannot help thinking that the government and opposition may have misjudged the wider community mood on the stadium and the election results perhaps demonstrate this. I want Tasmanians to aspire to keep active physically, emotionally and socially.
The AFL stadium Mac1 decision is just unfathomable to me. Whilst the members of my electorate are fully supportive of the stadium project, part of my role is responsible stewardship of the government's finite resources.
Mr President, let us bring on the Tassie Tigers as a team, and can we wait for the outcome of the POS process and the Gruen Review before we go any further?
Mr President, I note Her Excellency's speech.
