Budget Reply
[8.53 p.m.]
Ms BURNET - Deputy Speaker, the budget Estimates process provides one of the few opportunities for this parliament to properly scrutinise government spending, test ministerial claims and assess whether public money is being directed towards the priorities that matter most to Tasmanians. Over the course of Estimates, I sought answers from ministers and departmental officials on a range of issues including climate change, housing, health, public sector reform, the spending on grassroots and women's sport compared to elite sport, industry assistance, local government and transport. A more comprehensive list can be found on my socials. The questions were on behalf of Tasmanians, and they were asked to go to the heart of the issues that are real to Tasmanians.
The answers to those important questions, for the most part, are uninformative but I'd like to thank all of those people, as individuals or from organisations, who provided questions that I could ask on their behalf, but I'd also like to thank the ministers and their departmental staff and the committee members and MPs who asked questions and held the government to account and, of course, the parliamentary staff who made everything tick along well.
I share my fellow independent, David O'Byrne's, concerns about the Estimates process and entirely agree with his suggestion for reform and this will be the topic of my MPI for tomorrow, and I look forward to hearing from other MPs on some thoughts about reforms of the Estimates process.
Back to the Estimates report. I want to speak first about two big ticket items for facing Tasmanians. That's climate change and housing. The picture that emerged from Estimates was a government that speaks often about long-term challenges but whose budget decisions and overinflated claims frequently undermines its stated objectives.
On climate change and resilience, I began by raising the need for a dedicated minister for climate change and I welcome the Premier's decision to appoint the Deputy Premier to that portfolio. Climate change deserves ministerial leadership and accountability, and I wish for minister Barnett's success in this role. However, the government lack of action to date, sits uneasily alongside its rhetoric.
The Premier, at his appearance on day one of Estimates, was eager to discuss disaster resilience and recovery. He tabled the government's Disaster Resilience Strategy, which acknowledges that Tasmania has experienced 22 disasters in the past five years, 16 of them weather-related events. The strategy recognises the growing risks associated with climate change and correctly identifies the needs for a coordinated whole-of-government response. Yet while the government speaks about integration and coordination, it is simultaneously moving responsibilities around the bureaucracy in ways that risk creating duplication and silos.
The Climate Change Office is being relegated to NRE while the agency responsible for resilience planning sits in DPAC. Most concerning were the substantial reductions to the operational funding of the Climate Change Office and environmental management programs. When asked to justify the these cuts and explain their impacts, minister Abetz, who was covering for the former minister Ogilvie largely, avoided these questions. Tasmanians deserve to know why some of our smallest but most important agencies are being asked to shoulder such a disproportionate share of budget savings. A strategy is only as valuable as the actions that follow it. There is little point acknowledging climate risks on paper while reducing the capacity of the very officers responsible for addressing them. In 2020, the premier and minister for climate change, premier Gutwein, announced an ambitious and well-intentioned target of 100 per cent government fleet electrification by 2030, but chances of us getting anywhere near that target are net zero.
During budget Estimates, I asked the Transport minister how the government was progressing meeting its target. According to the response on notice, in the six years since announcing the target, the government has managed to reach an electric battery vehicle percentage of just 1.4 per cent of the fleet. Of the $4.5 million set aside in previous budgets to cover the cost to electrify the fleet three years ago, $1.6 million remains unspent. The government must do better in relation to that. It's just not acceptable that we have such a small percentage of the government car fleet which has been electrified.
On 15 April 2026, I moved a motion in the parliament calling on the government to, amongst other things, take climate change seriously, and during the response to my motion, the then environment minister, the former minister Madeleine Ogilvie, claimed:
There are 98 cross-government climate actions underway supported by more than $250 million committed funding.
I was astounded by that figure, thinking that it was somewhat excessive considering the government only committed $13 million worth to its 2023‑2025 plan to tackle climate change, which it called the Climate Change Action Plan. Concerned about where the extra $237 million came from, I asked acting Environment minister Abetz this question in Estimates, which he took on notice, and I will take you through some of the big‑ticket items, just remembering we're talking about taking action on climate change here. There was $45 million for electricity subsidies to give people energy price relief: not a bad thing in itself. There was the container recycling scheme, at $11.4 million. and there was the south irrigation infrastructure at $51 million, irrigation which scientists are concerned might negatively impact river health in the Derwent catchment area. I'm surprised that they didn't include the subsidies they're giving Sustainable Timber Tasmania each year to continue logging in our state forests as part of that climate change catch‑all list of the $250 million of committed funding. It's just astounding that this could be conflated in such a way.
I move now to the issues of housing. Housing remains one of Tasmania's greatest challenges. The government has a target to deliver 2000 social and affordable homes by 2027, which now rapidly approaches, yet progress remains well behind schedule. I sought updates on major housing opportunities, including building homes in the northern suburbs of Hobart close to transport and existing facilities, and the proposed Dowsing Point development. Unfortunately, there appears to be little certainty about delivery on timelines. Both projects are likely a decade away from delivering desperately needed houses, if they are realised at all.
At the same time, the significantly reduced budget allocation to the State Planning Office risks slowing the very reforms required to increase housing supply and approve improve affordability. On short‑stay accommodation, I was concerned to learn that the government is not tracking how many properties have moved from the long‑term rental market to short‑term visitor accommodation. Without this information, policymakers are effectively making decisions in the dark, and dashboards have come up in speeches already today, and the inaccuracy leaves a lot to be desired.
I go now to population growth and economic development, on which I questioned the Premier about the government's population strategy. He spoke about retaining young people and recognised the importance of housing, childcare, education, transport and community services; yet the reality confronting young Tasmanians is stark. As I've said, rental vacancy rates remain extremely tight, less than 1 per cent in Hobart, which is a ridiculous lack of housing. The housing affordability continues to deteriorate, and this Budget reduces funding across a range of services that make Tasmania an attractive place to live and work. The government population strategy is about population growth, but its policy settings and some of its media releases or social media posts from certain ministers increasingly suggest otherwise.
A major theme throughout Estimates was the government's claim that it's improving efficiency, although it was very unclear how these efficiencies will be achieved. That task is being left to the departmental secretaries. The most striking example is the dismantling of the Department of State Growth. Yet response from senior bureaucrats during Estimates suggests that the Premier's announcement in March of this significant machinery‑of‑government change was an idea without any detailed planning or forethought.
Agencies, staff and stakeholders remain uncertain about where functions will ultimately reside and what impacts the changes will have on major projects and reviews, budgets and staffing. This couldn't have come at a worse time for agencies like transport, housing and infrastructure, all of which are tasked with delivering the government's oversized infrastructure plan, trying to manage a global fuel crisis and respond to arguably the most pressing issue we are facing in the state: the housing crisis, and it's very similar, it's in the same vein as the TT‑Line decision to replace two ferries simultaneously, a folly yet in recent living memory, as we all well know. Meanwhile, the man in charge of the department heads off on 16 weeks of paid leave.
The government continues to cite the 2021 Watt review when discussing public sector reform, yet only a fraction of these 77 recommendations have been fulfilled, so instead of going through all of these Watt review recommendations, it has cherry‑picked the easier ones and has very much given up on the rest, preferring to impose budget efficiencies and leave it to the heads of agencies to figure out how to do more with less.
Equally concerning was the inability of agency heads to explain how substantial operational funding reductions would affect staffing levels. Some agencies face cuts of extraordinary magnitude over the forward Estimates, yet ministers and officials were unable to provide clear answers about workforce impacts. There is no clear pathway to downsizing, how to retain key staff, functions of government departments, and this raises concerns and serious questions about whether the government fully understands the consequences of its own budget decisions.
As I said in my budget reply speech, the Tasmanian State Service is an important part of the economy, and it galls me to think that public servants are being treated with such disdain by this government. Public servants shop at Tasmania's 40,000 small and medium‑sized businesses, they buy locally; but when you cut the public service deeply, you don't just cut bureaucracy, you cut demand, you cut jobs and you cut economic activity. The deeper the cuts, the deeper the economic impact, the further afield Tasmanians must go to find jobs and housing. What a loss for Tasmania.
The day after the Budget was delivered, thousands of public servants attended an online Teams meeting where they were informed after the Budget as to what their future might be with the disassembling of State Growth, as to the efficiency dividends and work of the ghoulishly named Efficiency Productivity Unit. Their service to their community, their expertise, amounts to nought. This is one of the cruellest indictments of this Budget: 36,000 Tasmanian public servants have a less certain future because of this Abetz Budget.
There were also questions that I raised in relation to workers compensation. There are growing pressures, as we know, on the workers comp system. Claims are increasing, costs are rising, and many participants report dissatisfaction with the current arrangements. The Treasurer appears focused on limiting financial exposure by capping claims, but that approach treats the symptom rather than the underlying problem. Tasmania needs comprehensive reform that addresses efficiency, fairness and outcomes for injured workers rather than simply reducing liabilities.
There is a dilemma the government has, and that's how to spend on corporate welfare and industry assistance. The government's growing willingness to subsidise large industrial operators, and we've seen that recently, has significant financial ramifications. Tasmanian taxpayers have provided tens of millions of dollars in assistance to major multinational companies, including support packages for Nyrstar and Liberty Bell Bay; and just last week, after budget Estimates, we learned of another $105 million handout going to Nyrstar. It's a difficult choice for governments to make, but while minister Ellis described the factors the government says it considers when making such decisions, the analysis as to how they get to those decisions remains hidden from public scrutiny and seems to be highly reactive. Without transparency, Tasmanians are entitled to ask when will governments stop pouring public money into businesses that may never become financially sustainable without ongoing assistance. I also questioned the government about the funding being used to offset electricity cost increases for major industrial users arising from Marinus Link and sought information about the value delivered from investments in Bell Bay Green Hydrogen Hub.
The handouts to overhyped green hydrogen projects was a question taken on notice and we found out, when they were tabled yesterday, that a number of green hydrogen facilities were championed by the government, to little real effect as can be seen in the question to minister Ellis. Is it really delivering? You have to question this because the information provided on notice, on various projects, was that $32 million was provided for these projects since 2023‑24, and of that $32 million, $9.04 million has been spent, and one has to question whether these investments in green hydrogen are really delivering.
There were several issues I questioned the Health minister on, and I noted that the timing of the release of the government's preventive health strategy occurred immediately after the minister's appearance at Estimates. I don't know that you can get timing right all the time, but the timing inevitably raises questions, and was the government seeking to avoid scrutiny? There were a lot of things that were tabled, a lot of reports were tabled during Estimates; this certainly wasn't one of them.
I really want the government to deliver on this preventive health strategy. It's really important that we do this because it's a necessary leap we must make to deliver long‑lasting, better health outcomes. We cannot keep doing the same thing with Health and expect a different outcome.
I also highlighted the absence of dedicated active transport funding in this Budget. Active transport delivers benefits across health, transport, climate, congestion and community wellbeing, yet the government increasingly appears to rely on councils and the Commonwealth to fund these initiatives.
I asked questions about medical imaging, and will have more questions in the future because I think there is more to find out about other diagnostic services such as pathology.
I welcome confirmation that Tasmania remains committed to establishing a virtual emergency department. This initiative has the potential to reduce pressure on hospitals and ambulances. However, Tasmanians are entitled to ask why the service had not yet commenced despite earlier commitments.
I did ask the Director of Public Health and minister about the risks of antimicrobial resistance associated with antibiotic use in salmon farming, which was a key theme in many other MPs questions, and I'm dismayed that that questioning from me and others was dismissed, really, when evidence suggests otherwise. I believe that's a major health concern.
Within the Justice portfolio, I highlighted the contradiction between the government's stated commitment to legislative reform and the substantial funding reductions facing the Law Reform and Development Unit. Many important pieces of legislation remain outdated, the Health Complaints Act 1995, for example, is more than three decades old. Reform work has been underway for years, yet progress remains slow. I asked the ombudsman about this particular reform and was pleased to learn that he has completed his review and provided a series of recommendations to the Department of Justice for reform of the act.
I also questioned the future of the Integrity Commission's proposed lobbying code of conduct. The commission confirmed it lacks the resources necessary to implement and administer the code, and at the same time it remains of the view that legislative backing would strengthen its effectiveness. If the government is serious about improving integrity and transparency, which is much of the discussion today, this is an issue that deserves urgent attention.
There is limited use of community-based alternatives for people struggling with fine debt. Other jurisdictions have adopted more flexible and rehabilitative approaches. Tasmania should be examining those models and will have the opportunity with the upcoming bill to amend the Monetary Penalties Enforcement Act 2005.
Finally, I questioned minister Vincent about the evaluation as the effectiveness and benefits of free public transport. Passenger numbers matter, but they are not the only measures of success. We should also be assessing impacts of congestion, on household budgets, social inclusion, and emissions. I raised concerns about the common ticketing system, which has consumed substantial time at estimates over the years, asking the same questions, and it's also consumed substantial resources while delivering little visible progress. I also highlighted the absence of meaningful funding for public transport electrification, despite the government's emissions reduction commitments. Tasmania has an opportunity to lead in this space, yet progress remains painfully slow.
Treasury's Fiscal Sustainability report released in February of this year, highlighted choices that the government had to raise revenue to rein in spending and to reduce debt overall. The government has choices, but Treasurer Abetz's budget shows no wisdom in using all levers available. Inevitably, this will lead to more pain, a weakened Public Service, and an ideologically driven smaller government. The recurring theme throughout budget Estimates was a gap between what the government says and what its budget actually delivers.
The government talks about climate resilience while cutting climate capability. It talks about population growth while reducing investment in the services that attract and retain people, like health, education, and housing. It talks about public sector reform while implementing only a fraction of the reforms already recommended. It talks about housing while falling well behind its own housing targets. It talks about long term planning while making term budget decisions that weaken the capacity of agencies to deliver essential reforms.
Tasmanians deserve better. We see over forward Estimates the worst is yet to come with greater austerity. It does not have to be this way. So, please take the time to let the government MPs know you do not accept their Budget choices and tell them to change course.