Budget reply - June 2025 - Budget Papers 2025-26 & Appropriation Bills (No. 1 & No. 2)

Tuesday 3 June 2025

[4.38 p.m.]

Ms ARMITAGE (Launceston) - Mr President, the annual budget is a key moment every year for any government. A budget is not merely a set of numbers or an analysis of the state's financial position, it is a document which, at its heart, outlines the policy priorities of the government. We are always keen to see what is contained in the budget and what the priorities for the next 12 months will be. Some of them are expected and some are surprises, and there will always be many worthy policies that receive funding and many which do not. That is what makes the budget so important and can be very difficult for governments to get right. So, too, is the budget a document which assesses the performance of the government's financial management over the past few years and the predicted expenditure over the next 12 months and beyond.

Obviously, as a state we are very reliant on receiving funds from the federal government's GST pool. We consequently have very significant responsibilities when it comes to properly and responsibly funding things like health, education and emergency and social services, especially when we look at our performance and compare it with other jurisdictions. We need to have a clear set of policies that acknowledge our performance as a state and devise achievable ways of improving it where it is lacking.

Everything the government does, all public administration, requires resourcing. The better things are resourced, the better services tend to be delivered, but it must be backed up by good policy and needs to maintain a focus on supporting Tasmanians as well as possible. The budget process helps us to determine what works, what does not work, and what can be changed to make sure services are delivered well and for a fair amount of resourcing.

Good government spending is essentially investment in good public administration and the people who make it happen. This is a spectrum that ranges right from our frontline workers to people who research and devise policies.

The headline from this Budget is debt, an 11-digit number with our net debt reaching $10.7 billion. As the Examiner newspaper highlighted, that equates to a debt of almost $1900 for every Tasmanian adult and child and is primarily the result of government borrowings, which are estimated to reach $8.41 billion by 30 June 2026, just a year away. In addition to this, expenses over the Budget's forward estimates are anticipated to be $10.3 billion on average per year and revenue is expected to be $9.7 billion on average per year - a significant shortfall.

If you listen to Saul Eslake, he says that this $10.8 billion debt ignores the debt carried by government-owned entities and superannuation liabilities, making the net debt figure closer to $17.6 billion. Instead of it being $1900 for every Tasmanian adult and child, we are looking at something considerably higher.

Amongst other things, the increase in interest rates and borrowing costs, infrastructure costs, claims against the state by victim/survivors of child sexual abuse and a rise in health spending have been identified as key risks in the Budget.

The Australian published a scathing piece about the Budget, noting the following:

·                $300 million being allocated for a second power interconnector to Victoria, with the government conceding it may never eventuate.

·                Describing the aim to cut the public service by 2500 jobs at a cost of $150 million per year as a raise again.

·                That the government appeared confused about when the record debt being accrued by the state would start being paid down, saying Mr Barnett said, 'The $10.6 billion Budget gets the balance right.'

·                That the Treasurer expressed optimism that a surplus could be delivered in 2029‑30, if not earlier.

·                That the historically high level of debt was manageable and necessary, even though it concerned economists.

·                That 'the Rockliff government will allow net debt, negligible when the Liberals came to power in 2014, to balloon from $5.26 billion this financial year to $10.78 billion in 2028‑29.'

I do not know what more I can say. It is extremely worrying, and people rightly have many questions about the government's spending priorities. When we have record levels of debt that need to be managed, the focus on big ticket, big‑spending items like the stadium makes people feel very unheard, overlooked and wondering if their needs matter at all.

I took note a few weeks ago of some of the other matters of wasteful spending the government has engaged in recently, especially some of the high-priced consultancies that were revealed, including:

·                $76,000 for a financial adviser at the Macquarie Point urban renewal project.

·                $206,223 to a strategy and culture organisation for work that could have been done by existing employees of the State Growth trade team.

·                $137,660 to a Melbourne-based firm to review the governance, financial sustainability and strategic role of the Theatre Royal board; the organisation's relationship with the University of Tasmania; and opportunities presented by the Hedberg redevelopment. This one is not even being undertaken by a Tasmanian firm.

So much money continues to be thrown at third parties, some of which are not even based in Tasmania. To look at uniquely Tasmanian issues or opportunities, I am unsure why our departments and agencies are being resourced to find the best employees to do this work in‑house, when so much of it appears to be outsourced, at significant cost, to some people and organisations that are not located here.

I cannot see how this indicates good performance and good financial management, but I will be open to hearing about how there is return on investment here. It is especially jarring, when we are also looking at cutting the size of the public sector, which are people's jobs and livelihoods.

Adding to the mix, a sale of public assets, things that belong to all Tasmanians. Tasmanians pay the price for the government's debt. Other assets like Metro, I do question who would want to buy it. I think even the most angelic of angel investors would have a hard time justifying the purchase of Metro. This is a policy that the government simply does not have a mandate for, and it should not be done without being taken to an election and voted in emphatically. Spending is a necessary part of public administration, and it cannot all be criticised. Spending money on necessary services in health, education, emergency services and taking care of Tasmanians is vital. Here, I would like to quote Saul Eslake because he sums it up quite nicely:

… The Government is in the financial pickle it's now in because it kept increasing spending without giving any thought as to how that spending (however justified) should be paid for.

And this Budget shows it still hasn't been able to break the habit.

I'm not saying that all the new spending is 'wasteful' or 'bad'; rather, I'm saying … that this spending should be paid for either by cutting spending in other places, or by raising additional revenue. But the government is simply unwilling to do that.

I also note a document from the Launceston Chamber of Commerce, which has been around for a long, long time and I thought was quite interesting, that is Freight Equalisation and the Ability for our Companies to Compete. It states:

Tasmania's ability to compete depends on how well we move goods, people, and data. As an island economy, every delay or inefficiency has compounding effects. The Chamber strongly supports comprehensive review and reform of the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme. Current settings are too complex and out of step with modern logistics needs. We need a fairer, simpler and more inclusive scheme with flat rate subsidies, streamlined digital claims and expanded eligibility for small exporters and time-sensitive goods. We also seek investment in freight consolidation hubs, digital logistics infrastructure and low emissions transport incentives. Finally, we need accelerated support for projects like the Launceston Airport freight and logistics hub. Every dollar invested in freight productivity returns dividends for our exporters, our supply chains and our economic sovereignty.

An issue that has been around for so long and just never really seems to get resolved.

Another one, while we are talking about cutting public service or public administration, I have spoken to some in the public sector who are very concerned about trying to find cuts in things like police and emergency services. My understanding is that the Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management will be required to find $35 million of cuts over the next four years and is budgeting to spend $12 million less on staff than they spent last year. That is the equivalent of 100 police officers.

I find things like that extremely concerning. There is nothing more important than public safety. I know when you speak to people in our community, one of the things they really want to be is safe and I am concerned to see that the Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management is required to find such savings. I am sure at the moment that they operate as effectively on as small a budget as possible.

Every year, health is a significant part of our budget, and it demands resourcing and good policy and planning to work properly. I read a couple of weeks ago in The Examiner that the government was planning to provide $14.5 billion over the next four years, equating to nearly $10 million a day. I was therefore shocked to see quite literally on the next page of The Examiner, the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation (ANMF) claiming that the Launceston General Hospital (LGH) air-conditioning upgrades in D block had not been completed. For years and years, the heat in D block at the LGH has caused issues during summer. It has received some media attention over the past summer owing to the fact that staff and patients alike were suffering. Windows in the block cannot be opened, which is stifling, and fans cannot be used because of concerns about transmissible illnesses. The solution last summer was to provide patients with wet flannels and icy poles. The conditions in that part of the hospital have been described more than once as third world. Simply not on. People go to hospital to get better, not to get sicker. A lot of the people in those wards are unable to move. My understanding is part of it is the stroke ward. How terrible to be in a ward that you cannot get out of and you are in stifling conditions.

I do understand that air-conditioning installation in that part of the LGH requires a significant retrofit, but I do not buy the idea that it is not possible. It has been that way for a very long time and these works have not even started. If record funding cannot help change this, then I do not know what will.

What I do know is that there are many motivated people who will not rest until the issues at D Block at the LGH are resolved. I encourage the Health minister and the Premier to look at ways this problem can be finally fixed and get it done.

It was interesting this morning hearing the member for Huon speak about the person from the Huon area with the colonoscopy and the problems with colon cancer. I have raised this in the past, though I have not asked the question for a little while, about the waiting list and how long the waiting list is for categories 1, 2 and 3 to do with colonoscopies. I am sure that it probably has not changed much and I will ask in the next few weeks, but this is another thing: people get the test kits that are sent to them, I think at the age of 45 or 50, or they go to their doctor, they have a faecal test that shows blood, but then if they do not have private health insurance - and how many people, particularly families, can afford it? - they actually have to wait. They cannot get in to have a colonoscopy done.

We all know the sooner you have treatment, the more likely you are to get a good outcome and a good response. These are issues as well that I think really need addressing. I have asked many questions in the past. I have not asked for a while, but I certainly will, to see what the waiting list is. In the past it has actually been considerable.

Ms Rattray - The gentleman was Matt Duggan.

Ms ARMITAGE - Yes. Another area that I think is worth mentioning is the renal unit at the Kings Meadows Health Centre, and I have been working for quite a long time. I think it is worth mentioning Carolyn Gutteridge, whose husband found out a couple of years ago that he actually needed dialysis and was needing to go to the Kings Meadows site. Carolyn has been working extremely hard to try to have the development, or the redevelopment, done. I believe it was $10 million of federal money that has been sitting there for several years and, of course, every year that it sits there, it is actually worth less. Just reading some of Carolyn's comments, she says:

My concerns remain that the proposed renal facility at Kings Meadows is not providing for the anticipated demand for haemodialysis. There's an urgent need for 24 dialysis chairs, but only 18 will be delivered in stage 1, which is just three more than presently. The proposed building plans have not involved any consultation with patients and there's a distinct lack of windows and natural light, which does not augur well for mental health for patients who are already quite fragile.

Carolyn has met with the Health minister and with many other people, and I think her husband goes three times a week, as do other people, and she said:

For people to be sitting there all day in a sad situation, they can't even see out a window. I think there are a couple of windows in the ceiling.

I am really surprised that this still has not been completed and the longer it goes, the less obviously that the money will be provided.

Our community services are facing a greater strain as well on their resources than we have seen in a very long time. The cost of living is creeping ever into higher‑earning brackets; we are seeing more and more people in need of food, clothing, home necessities and help during times like Easter and Christmas. How appalled I was in recent weeks to have seen Shekinah House in Launceston, which provides all of the above and more to people in need, having had their copper piping stolen.

I do not know if it is the same in Hobart or the north-west coast, but in Launceston it has become quite prevalent. Tasmania Police have told me that it is just such a recurrent thing for people to steal copper piping from businesses. People replace it and then it is stolen again, which is an absolutely shocking situation.

Shekinah House currently relies on more than 50 volunteers and has provided 2750 showers and 2700 loads of washing since opening the facilities in recent years. The theft of the copper piping completely halted their activities. They could not provide people with showering and bathing facilities, laundry services, or use their kitchen to cook and serve food. Truly I am not sure how low you can go, to steal copper piping from such a vital community service, but there you have it.

The government committing $100,000 to Shekinah House to continue their work is therefore extremely welcome. However, with regard to the copper piping, I would like to point out that it has already been fixed, and would have cost around $6000, if not for the outstanding generosity of a plumber and volunteers who had the water back within two days, with a community member who was willing to pay the bill. Shekinah House is supported by dozens of volunteers, and like any other volunteer and community-based organisation, simply would not be able to function without them.

According to the Volunteering Tasmania 2023 State of Volunteering Report, which is the latest I could find: in 2023, 332,100 Tasmanians, or 69.8 per cent of the population, gave time to volunteer. The average hours volunteered per person was 22.4 per month, and Tasmanians volunteered an overall 89.4 million hours of their time during that year. Just imagine the cost if you had to pay those people.

Not only does volunteering add to our communities and our economy, but it also has an unquantifiable impact on personal wellbeing, social cohesion and general happiness. It is a vital part of living in a connected world such as ours and it should be as easy as possible to join in and volunteer with others in our community.

Therefore, seeing the government's initiative to make registering for a Working with Vulnerable People card free for the next two years is a very welcome development. According to The Examiner, it is understood that the registration fee previously forced volunteers to pay $22.44, which is believed to have been the highest cost across the country. In a state where arguably the need for volunteers is higher than elsewhere, it makes a lot of sense to lower the barriers to volunteering as far as possible.

I would like to note that the Launceston community, on hearing about the theft of copper piping, provided an influx of support, with one person buying 17 new tents from Anaconda to donate. It is very clear that Shekinah House has a very special place in the hearts of Launcestonians and I know that this funding will go very far for this organisation. I hope to see continued support for Shekinah House and organisations like it in the years ahead. As we know, the cost of living is simply getting out of control. It has been this way for some time, which is why services like Shekinah House are so important, and why we need more investment in both cost-of-living relief as well as emergency services that people can turn to when they need help.

It is good to see the continued funding of programs like the ongoing energy bill relief for some Tasmanians; Ticket to Play vouchers for kids participating in sport; Ticket to Wellness, which keeps older Tasmanians active and engaged with sporting vouchers; providing concessions and subsidies for transport including taxi fares, registration, air and sea travel and driver licences for eligible Tasmanians; the Energy Hardship Fund, providing support to Tasmanians struggling to pay their energy bills; increased concessions for water and sewerage for eligible Tasmanians; continuing the Veteran Wellbeing Voucher Program with 100 vouchers; supporting 50 community organisations to provide food relief; extending the NILS No Interest Loan scheme for Tasmanians on low incomes; continuing support for neighbourhood houses and emergency food relief providers; and ongoing support for the Patient Travel Assistance Scheme, helping Tasmanians who live far away from healthcare services.

I cannot help but mention the Patient Travel Assistance scheme, as I have a constituent who tried desperately to access it. This poor lady had a heart condition that needed treatment. Her doctor decided that the quickest way she could have treatment was to fly to Melbourne. Unfortunately for her, the treatment had recently become available in Tasmania but with a considerable wait list, obviously. It was in Hobart and there was quite a wait list. We tried and had still been trying 12 months, I would say it has been going on, and we are getting absolutely nowhere.

She was told she is not eligible because the treatment was available in Tasmania, not the fact that her doctor decided she needed it now and she needed to go to Melbourne to have it. She could not really wait to go on a waitlist. We offered her the thought that maybe, what could happen if she had had to go to Hobart, she still would have received some travel assistance. She would have received so much money per kilometre. She still would have had to have accommodation in Hobart and still would have had to have taxis because she had to stay down there and had to drive.

As she did not meet the criteria for Melbourne, they would not even consider it. Time and time again, I have put this request in. There are people out there who need ongoing support; it does not matter they do all the right things. This pensioner and her husband would have been very happy to have just received what she would have received from going to Hobart for the same treatment, which is where they tell me the treatment was available. Unfortunately, it was refused, because she did not meet the criteria. She had gone to Melbourne and they would not even look at providing the money that she could have had, had she gone to Hobart.

I see that, and it brings back to me this poor lady who was so desperate for such a small amount of money. The number of times I went back to the department and through the minister about it, I sometimes wonder the effort and the time that is taken refusing something, think if you put their hourly rate in, I am quite sure they could have paid this lady three times over.

I will get off my high horse about that one, but I have been trying for a long time to get this poor lady some funding, of what it would have cost to go to Hobart, irrespective of the Melbourne trip, to no avail. I will not give up.

Helping younger people is something that the government does sincerely want to do. The MyHome shared equity scheme has helped a lot of first buyers into their own home and get onto the property ladder; in fact, 880 people who might not have otherwise had that chance. Additionally, providing $10,000 in first-home buyer grants for Tasmanians purchasing or building a new home, I hope will help people take the leap from renting to owning. The only sad thing, if I talk from personal experience, was that if you had a first home buyer grant in a different state, you cannot also have it in Tasmania, which I learnt from experience with my son. Savings of up to almost $29,000 on stamp duty is another measure. These are all fantastic initiatives, and the government is earnestly and honestly trying to help young people and first-home buyers and builders to get into the property market.

I appreciate there are some difficult circumstances the government is needing to grapple with at the moment. Uncertain global economic conditions do reverberate into our own budget, and it has not been the easiest 10 years or so to have managed the state's economy. I understand that there are certain economical and financial realities that need to be managed and, in those circumstances, sometimes difficult decisions need to be made.

Tasmania is not the only state in the country facing a cost-of-living crisis. It is everywhere. It is in these moments you need to demonstrate you can properly make financial decisions and manage taxpayer money properly, that you will invest it in the things that need investment. The resources being put into health, education, emergency management and social services are well worth it. I appreciate that those policy areas are particularly difficult to manage. You also need to demonstrate you have the right priorities.

We have funds that are being poured into a stadium that some people may want and others do not. Or is it in the correct site? There are many questions that people have. We have high-priced consultants who are being paid hand over fist for shiny new reports that might not ever result in any new policies or tangible outcomes. We are paying to service levels of debt which we have never had before.

What future are we leaving our kids? A new football team, a new stadium will mean nothing to them if they are working harder and harder for a lower quality of life than their parents and grandparents had.

Thank you. I note the Budget.