Budget Speech 2023
 

Mr President, I rise to share my thoughts on the budget papers and appropriation bills nos.1 and 2, 2023.  I thank all members for their contributions and take this opportunity to congratulate the members for Launceston, Murchison and Rumney on their re-election.  Well done.  I have not had the chance to do that.

 

Most of us in this place have seen many budgets come and go, some of which have supported initiatives that have made a real difference to our electorate and others that have taken us by surprise as we question the thinking and rationale behind them, together with the long-term impact those decisions will have.

 

Then there are the budgets that underwhelm us, with an irrefutable blandness, almost as a caretaking budget where past and future commitments have caught up with a government that has been in office for a long time.

 

Is this Budget one of these, a budget to tidy up?  One that is as far as possible designed to offend the least number of people?  I am not sure it has succeeded in that.

 

I have to wonder if this Budget is a bit of a hybrid of past thinking.  We see some smaller initiatives that can make a difference at the grassroots level and always welcome a boost to Health, and added to this a couple of large elephants romping around it with gay abandon.  With one in particular set to move in not far from here, there looks to be a very large, very white and very bright and shiny dominating feature that has added even more division to this Budget and, sadly, to the state as a whole.

 

Individually, these elephantine initiatives may seem fairly innocuous; however, when combined they have the potential to explode our debt obligations with little indication of long‑term viability or a net positive cash flow into our economy.  Lots of risk of being trampled, Mr President, with little to no reward.

 

If I pause my invective for now and start by looking to Health, a sector that does take the larger share of our spending and one that is of direct interest to every Tasmanian, it is a sector that is always subject to increasing demand and can easily utilise every dollar that can come its way.  In a post-COVID-19 world, the essential role of our health service staff has never been more important, and their commitment and professionalism are evermore appreciated by our community.

 

In my electorate and after many years of uncertainty about its place in our health system, it is gratifying to see additional resources going into the building work, refurbishment and modernisation to the Mersey Community Hospital and its services.  This is together with the other health infrastructure investments around the state that can hopefully address many of our current challenges - well, for now.  However, as I said, Health can utilise every spare dollar that can come its way and I acknowledge that every government always faces criticism for not doing enough.

 

The $96 million in additional funding for mental health and wellbeing services and programs is a welcomed improvement.  In a post‑COVID-19 world, now faced with ever‑increasing cost‑of‑living pressures, tangible support for mental health and wellbeing is vital and has never been more important.

 

With our Premier retaining this portfolio and his ongoing interest and experience in the work of Lifeline, I would like to think this portfolio will continue to directly benefit from his interest, passion and expertise in this area - especially so when it comes to men's health, where the suicide rate for men in Tasmania is four times that of women and 40 per cent higher than the national average.  That is not to say that such initiatives should be focused solely on men, it is just that they tend to be a fairly silent and stoic bunch when it comes to mental health and wellbeing.

 

Additional support for Men's Sheds can only enhance the opportunity of men of all ages to gather and catch up with each other.

 

Like the member for Murchison, I acknowledge the improvement in the 2023‑24 Tasmanian Gender Budget Snapshot from the pamphlet-style approach introduced last year.  However, in this place, we recognise it takes some time for appropriate reporting processes to be put in place.  I congratulate those involved with the Gender Budget Snapshot and I also appreciate there is a need to ensure that women and girls are supported in many ways to achieve their potential and not to be disadvantaged.

 

Indeed, I recognise we have a very enthusiastic and passionate Minister for Women.  I congratulate the member for Rosevears on her work on behalf of the women in this state.  I also acknowledge the ongoing dedication of past ministers for women, with Jacqui Petrusma's recent appointment to the board of Our Watch, a national organisation that does so much good in the national policy arena in addressing violence against women and their children.

 

However, it strikes me as somewhat disingenuous to call it a Gender Budget Snapshot.  As I was reading the snapshot I noticed what was missing:  the other gender.  I thought maybe I was just being a bit myopic; however, on further investigation I decided to test my theory that boys and men have been largely overlooked in this document, not only in this but in the Budget as a whole.

 

In the snapshot that we received, the masculine terms 'male', 'man', 'father', 'son' and 'boy' appear 59 times in the document.  The feminine terms 'female', 'women', 'mother', 'daughter' and 'girl' appear 273 times.  That is absolutely fine, but whilst there is a Minister for Women, there is no recognised equivalent leader of male interests within the Government other than the support for Men's Sheds, many of which thankfully include women, as we saw on Flinders Island as part of the island's electorate tour and I thank the member.  However, there is very little funding in this Budget to support grassroots men's organisations and the broader community sector to maintain continuous best practice in working with men.

 

I spoke earlier about the significantly worse male suicide rate in Tasmania - four times greater than that for women.  Evidence shows suicide prevention services are not currently reaching men in the ways that meet the needs of men and boys.  Another area of concern is the poorer educational outcomes for boys.  According to the latest NAPLAN reports, nearly one in seven Year 9 boys, or 13.5 per cent, did not reach the minimum national standard for reading.  This rate is nearly twice that of the figure for Year 9 girls at 7.1 per cent.

 

Currently, the biggest challenge in Tasmania is acknowledging there are men and boys experiencing poorer outcomes; four out of five deaths from heart disease in people under 65 are male; 10.5 per cent or just more than one in ten women in Tasmania are risky drinkers compared to over one in four males, or 26.6 per cent.

 

Males have a shorter life expectancy than women, higher rates of death from most non‑gender-specific causes across most age groups, and a higher lifetime risk of many cancers and chronic conditions.  Males account for more than 93 per cent of work-related fatalities and over 70 per cent of work-related injuries.  Over 93 per cent of the prison population is male.  There need to be more specific programs to assist men targeting 18- to 35-year-olds who are offenders or are at risk of offending or reoffending or being engaged with the justice system on programs to support the same age cohort who may have family violence orders.

I could continue with further evidence on why we must support financially both women and men to address lifestyle challenges which would, no doubt, have a positive impact on the lives of all genders.  I rarely go elsewhere from my notes, but it was interesting that I have talked about men's resources in parliament before and also the book Of Boys and Men: Why the Modern Male Is Struggling, Why It Matters, and What to Do About It in my research.  It was written in 2022 and I will read the first couple of paragraphs:

 

Boys are falling behind at school and college because the educational system is structured in ways that put them at a disadvantage.  Men are struggling in the labour market because of an economic shift away from traditionally male jobs and fathers are dislocated because the cultural role of family provider has been hollowed out.  The male malaise is not the result of a mass psychological breakdown, but of deep structural challenges.

 

Structural challenges require structural solution, and this is what Richard Reeves proposes in Of Boys and Men:  starting boys at school a year later than girls; getting more men into caring professions; rethinking the role of fatherhood outside of a nuclear family context.  He says:

 

Feminism has done a huge amount of good in the world.  We now need its corollary, a positive vision of masculinity that is compatible with gender equality.

 

Whist I congratulate the Government on its work in the very vital area of women and girls and their challenges, we have to understand we need to put more into men's resources and with men, we are proactive in being able to help men understand their roles and their impact on society.

 

The other challenge faced by our health services is the ongoing shortage of healthcare professionals, both in hospitals and the local community.  Whilst this does appear to be an Australian‑wide problem, it is an ongoing local issue with GP practices struggling to cope, with demand for appointments and the challenges of bulk-billing funding shortfalls with ever‑rising costs.  If we add in the knock-on effect to emergency departments and allied health professionals as people seek timely care outside of the GP system, it becomes an increasingly wicked problem with no simple solutions.

 

The Government can claim added numbers of FTE health professionals and if it is to improve the work scope and standing of pharmacists, nurses and paramedic practitioners in the Tasmanian health system, while some of this is a reflection on the federal government, credit must be given to the Tasmanian Health department for their work and endeavours in this space.  However, the federal government's recent move to double prescriptions to a 60-day supply may help and, in effect, has halved the cost to patients.  This has led to a strong scare campaign by the Pharmacy Guild against this move.  I am not sure they are quite on the side of their customers on this.  There is still doubt if this will make a huge difference with our growing population.  There is a chronic shortage of GPs and appointments that suggest there is far more to be done in this space. 

 

Education is another sector that is having to cope with nationwide shortages of educational professionals.  Whilst there are challenges in addressing student literacy skills, we do have highly capable teachers in our public schools who go above and beyond in supporting our students in their learning, the results of which can be easily seen in student progress indices on the My School website.  I note that in my electorate, Latrobe High School has some exceptional results in student learning progress, and I congratulate the school for this. 

 

I could not find any reference in this Budget of the Government's ongoing and growing support for students in public schools who may have been impacted by trauma.  Tasmania leads the nation in these initiatives and was part of the original 2018 bilateral National School Reform Agreement with the Australian government.  Perhaps it is something that is now embedded with the DECYP's functions, and if so, I wonder if it should be separated out within the budget papers so that it can be clearly visible and properly identified.  Dare I use the word 'transparent'? 

 

However, with the negotiation on the new National School Reform Agreement, a process that has now been deferred for 12 months, there is an opportunity to explore additional funding for trauma, maybe to be included in the school funding calculations as a separate needs-based loading to address disadvantage. 

 

With the disgraceful deal in 2018 where all states and territory governments chose to fund only 75 per cent rather than their full 80 per cent share of the school resourcing standard for public schools, could this be a rational way for the Australian Government to provide the missing 5 per cent to make up for the deliberate underfunding responsibility that states and territories have shamelessly refused to do?  This, at the same time as the states and territories fully funded their share of the school resource services for private schools in their jurisdictions with no reduction whatsoever.

 

I would also add that the Government has once again ignored the opportunity to get more students into school, more consistently and frequently, and thus improve education completion rates, that is by unifying student transport policy, where all students - and not just some - can get to and from their local school without having to pay a fare.  The crossing an urban boundary policy that triggers a fare to be paid is arbitrary and totally unfair.  It needs to change.  It is a postcode lottery that directly impacts family budgets and potentially attendance rates with an annual cost of close to $800 per child.  It is only for those bus routes that cross a notional urban boundary, a line on the map, buried in State Growth's website.  In my electorate, we have families whose children regularly have to miss school or college because their families cannot afford the fare that day.  I see that attendance has been a significant post-COVID issue in many schools, perhaps one that is being conflated by the ever-increasing cost‑of‑living pressures faced by our families.  The Department for Education, Children and Young People has been running what must be a very expensive 'Every School Day Matters' campaign since February, so the issue has been recognised and the department is trying to address it.

 

In fiscal terms, such a change has the potential to be at least cost-neutral, and potentially cash-flow positive if the removal of fare administration and additional contract costs are considered.  I urge the Government to reconsider its policy on this.  Speak to State Growth, which is responsible for student transport, and get it sorted.  Public education is not a for‑profit business; it is a compulsory public good that underpins the future of our children and our state. 

 

I will now return to perhaps the biggest elephant in this Budget:  our projected debt of $5.6 billion, a record-breaking economic loading and handbrake on our state that will be geared against the earning capacity of our younger generations.  It is fair to say that the Government has done well in its management of our interests during COVID-19.  Some tough choices had to be made and the money spent.  That has meant growing our debt roughly by $2 billion.  This has been rightly regarded as an investment in our state's economic stability and viability in a precarious period.

 

At a time of record low interest rates this made perfect sense, where the loading of this additional debt was almost bearable.  However, change is afoot on that front.  The other outcome of this period of exceptionally low interest rates was the exponential rise in the cost of housing, both to buy and to rent.  The consequences of this are still playing out in our communities around Tasmania with many families still struggling to find an affordable place to call home.  There have been some efforts to mitigate this with the work of Homes Tasmania underway and additional funding going into an Affordable Rentals Initiative.  However, these are already too late for those who are homeless through no fault of their own.  We must do better. 

 

What concerns us all has been the impact of increasing interest rates as a blunt tool to moderate inflation, a consequential impact that is putting real pressure on family budgets and businesses alike and is reducing people's spending capacity. 

 

We must also consider the real threat the increasing cost of borrowing will have on us as a state, both now and into the future.  This is brought into stark relief if we look at the projected debt servicing costs, where the estimated net interest costs for this year are $31.6 million whilst for the 2026-27 forward Estimates we are looking at $213.3 million.  This is a nearly sevenfold increase compared to what is roughly a threefold increase in the government financial services net debt over the same period.  If we then factor in that future interest rates could yet be hijacked by current unresolved world events, we could well be trying to contain a dangerous exponential explosion of increasing costs and additional borrowings just to pay the interest alone.  It is enough to put a cold shiver down the spine of most optimistic economists, maybe even the Treasurer himself. 

 

For many Tasmanians, the thought of adding to our debt at such a time is a real risk.  I know the Treasurer tells us that it is entirely manageable in our national context and maybe so in normal circumstances.  In our case, we have the prospect of Marinus Link and the new stadium in the pipeline, both with questionable benefits and every prospect of undefined cost blowouts and processes that appear beyond our control - almost in a 'Trust us, we know best, so get with the program' response from the Government.  I know that many of us would welcome a healthy dose of pragmatism in what seems to be a triumphant milestone of hubris and blind faith over that of a prudent reality and good policy process measures. 

 

You have heard me speak many times of Professor Gary Banks's well-considered approach to policy process measures, where deviations to his guiding principles foreshadow a failure to deliver.  I still contend that Marinus and especially the stadium processes seem to have completely failed in that respect.  Almost as we face new surprises every time, more information emerges, none of which is pleasant.  Bad luck is where something takes you by surprise and I am beginning to wonder how much more bad luck the stadium can cope with. 

 

Talking more of surprises, what has truly astonished us all has been the seismic shift of our Government into minority, with two of its backbenchers resigning from the Liberal Party and moving to the crossbench.  Their public statements suggest that a certain secrecy has surrounded the arrangements with the AFL and the promised stadium.  A point reinforced as part of their deal with the Premier was for him to release the contract with the AFL and move the stadium from a major project to a Project of State Significance, where, as part of that process, it can be openly considered by the parliament.  This is with an additional Greens' step, still to be devised, whereby parliament will have a final say on the project, perhaps. 

 

As to how long this process may take, that too is up for debate.  Listening to a recent podcast, I heard the speaker suggest the POSS process is where major projects go to die in a three- to four-year spiral and that the AFL holds the trump cards in a shameful deal where the state pays at every turn.  This is a tragic turn of events for footy in Tasmania as it seems we are being played for fools by the AFL in a top-down coup.  It fails the pub test in every respect. 

 

The Australian Government seems to have played a blinder as well with the promise of hundreds of millions of dollars of support for the improvements at York Park and for building the new Macquarie Point stadium.  We now find that this might be a little more than a moving of the goalposts and a magician's sleight of hand trick as it seems that this will possibly come from future GST allocations for Tasmania.  In effect, it is a little more than a short-term advance on money that is already ours. 

 

Has our Government been played by the biggest game in the country?  It is not for me to say directly as our Premier is a decent and honourable man who is well liked and well respected in his local community.  I also heard his spirited defence of the AFL deal at the Devonport budget dinner and I admire him for that.  It was well said. 

 

The audience of the dinner were primarily from the business, industry and commercial sectors which could no doubt see advantages to them from the stadium build.  However, at that same dinner there was much less enthusiasm for the AFL build from representatives of the education, health and wellbeing sectors and community organisations already struggling to make ends meet, continuing to be asked to do more with less and touting it as efficiency savings.  I was very pleased that people from many walks of life have provided us all with information.  Many of us were unaware of the information provided by the member for Murchison regarding seeding used across the sports and across the state.  I would like to thank her and Mr Glenn Logan from Victoria for that information.

 

We looked at the incredible sums that are being touted for the AFL initiative and I have to ask if it is good value for the money that has to be spent, what may have to be added or when the inevitable cost blowouts occur.  It will blow up our state's debt obligations and the opportunity cost of this will naturally shift investment, wealth and spending from the north and north-west to an already congested and wealthy Hobart CBD, with very little coming back our way - just a notional few games to keep us quiet and be grateful for that.

 

The Bellerive Oval has always been the natural home of test cricket in Tasmania and York Park the natural home of AFL and it is well situated for easy access for footy fans from across the state.  If Macquarie Point is the home of the new AFL stadium, many west and north‑west coasters will never be able to attend.  A new stadium in Launceston, or perhaps a greenfields site at Brighton seems to be more palatable and more equitable, especially for individuals travelling statewide.

 

I am also not sure how I feel about a shiny, large, new birdbath dominating and dwarfing our capital city skyline and heritage landscape.  For some, the visual impact of the stadium as visitors travel up the Derwent River might need rethinking.  I look forward to the process debate to see how it will unlock these issues.  The arguments for the AFL team about cultural shift for young people's confidence and wellbeing could be equally applied to support for non-sporting activities.  Just imagine if we were to invest a tenth of what is proposed for AFL on music and the performing and visual arts.

 

We have a plethora of well-funded, professionally run sporting events for young people.  If we look to local eisteddfods, community bands, choirs and the lack of instrumental music programs with teachers of the arts always the first to be cut in our schools, just imagine what could be achieved with the level of funding that goes into sport.  So much for art as a team sport for young people that are not into team sports, with all the benefits that come with working with others on a common goal.

 

These non-sporting groups are all struggling to switch the lights on whilst being run by dedicated volunteers all too often in decrepit facilities and operating on the smell of an oily rag.  They are the groups that local councils and communities rely on as a central part of community‑wide events, entertainment and ceremonies.  The arts are the beating heart of our community and we would be all the poorer without them.  By all means, let us have a Tasmanian AFL team wearing our colours and singing our song, but let us not pay the piper, build him a mansion and then let him call the tune.  Do not forget that the arts would design the colours and compose the song. 

 

To my mind, this Budget and its planned spending is a critical juncture for what now is a minority government.  Whilst the two newly Independent members of the other place have both promised supply and confidence in this Budget with some buts, there has to be a huge question mark over the Government's future viability.  I wonder if businesses too are facing growing uncertainty and doubt in their futures from what was previously a stable government that may yet face an early election.

 

I have barely touched on Marinus Link, renewable power, power prices and the environment or mentioned the salmon industry, and only hinted at cost‑of‑living pressures faced by our community.  I look forward to exploring these issues further in Estimates.

 

We have some enormous elephants stomping about in this Budget and I hope that by questioning openly and transparently, we will learn what to do with them.  I like to think we can do something as nothing is not an option and I do not want to be squashed either.  I look forward to hearing others' thoughts on this Budget.