Motion - Reply to the Premier's State of the State address 2025

MOTION

Noting - Premier's Address – Wed 12 March 2025

[3.10 p.m.]

Ms ARMITAGE (Launceston) - Mr President, I also note the Leader's last contribution. It is sad, Leader, that it is your last state of the state contribution. I guess it is too late for you to change your mind.

Ms Rattray - Nominations have not closed yet.

Ms ARMITAGE - There might be a family member not very happy with it, that was all.

Moving on. I believe 2025 is going to be a big year. I agree with the member for McIntyre that it is important that we all work together for the betterment of the state, yes, including the government.

Just a few moments - I have a short contribution to reflect on the Premier's Address and what it means for northern Tasmania and my electorate of Launceston in particular.

Health, to me, is a real priority for Tasmanians and for us in this place. Proper resourcing and top‑level care for Tasmanians who rely on our health services to live long, good, happy lives is front of mind whenever we consider our state's overall health. To this end, I know that many, many policies are designed to improve our health services, ensure we have the best‑trained doctors, nurses, healthcare support staff and allied health workers, and that these services are available to Tasmanians when and where they need them. I note, as you were saying earlier, the difficulties of getting a doctor sometimes when you need one; it is not easy.

We read in the Mercury newspaper about public pathology services struggling to meet demand. How stressful for people awaiting a result, whether it be from a colonoscopy, polyp, breast biopsy or other. I know how much money we put into health and how expensive private health is for many. However, there is nowhere like our public hospital system when you are really sick. It is where you have to go. Waiting lists for procedures such as endoscopies and colonoscopies must be dealt with, as finding problems early saves lives and saves money. It is much easier to deal with something in an early stage than coming in as an emergency.

The ongoing issue of resourcing in health is a tricky issue. I know it does not matter how much money is put in; it always needs more. There is no doubt that especially in the north and the north-west of the state there is difficulty attracting and retaining health workers, which is made even worse given the higher need for those workers and services in those areas.

In his address, the Premier said that 2300 new healthcare workers had been recruited in the past 10 months and that ramping in hospitals had been cut by more than 11,000 hours. I know how hard our doctors, nurses, paramedics and support staff work in our hospitals. I think we can all agree it is up to us to make sure it is as easy as possible for them to do their jobs. All too often we criticise our hospitals and forget just how hard those people work and the conditions they work under.

Ms Rattray - I could not agree more.

Ms ARMITAGE - Providing staff and patients with a suitable and comfortable place to work and recover is of significant importance. That is why I have been so concerned. I have been up to the hospital and spoken to some staff about the overheating and the lack of air conditioning in D wards, in particular Ward 6D at the Launceston General Hospital.

My understanding is these wards were built in the 1980s. It is now at 2025, for anyone who is just not sure, and they still do not have air conditioning. It is unbelievable that the LGH should be experiencing an issue like this in a first‑world country such as Australia.

Over the past few weeks and months Launceston has experienced its typically hot summer - and I would say very hot summer - and it has been untenable for the patients who have to lie in that heat and the staff who have to work in it. I believe the worst-affected ward is the stroke ward and another ward that is affected is the cancer ward.

When I asked about these issues, I was told that $4 million was spent recently on heating, ventilation and air conditioning to address the issues, but unfortunately it only assisted the nurses stationed in the corridors.

Madam ACTING PRESIDENT - I heard that the nurses were actually out in the corridors doing their work.

Ms ARMITAGE - Yes, the only areas that were cool.

This is not good enough. I accept that up until COVID, fans were used in the rooms. Just imagine, during COVID - and someone mentioned this to me the other day, because they were a nurse during that period - the nurses and staff, with all their PPE gear, working in rooms with no air conditioning or fans. Absolutely unbelievable.

A nurse who spoke to The Examiner last month indicated that this has been a problem for eight years. As I understand it, icy poles and cold flannels were being used to keep patients cool. I will let that speak for itself.

Air conditioning units were provided to the ward, but unfortunately, they were not able to cool down the area as much as it was hoped. I am led to believe that the infrastructure of that building makes it difficult to install or retrofit a more permanent, ingrained solution for cooling the ward. However, I understand that engineering experts have been engaged to identify longer-term solutions. I am absolutely amazed they are engaged now and had not been engaged years ago. As I said, my understanding is it was built in the 1980s.

As we have seen, the hot weather is not over yet. It was absolutely stifling in Launceston on Monday - so hot - and I have to feel for the staff. However, I will be keeping a very close eye on the issue to ensure that next summer, staff and patients at the LGH are not subjected to this same heat again. It is simply not an option.

If we want to be attracting and retaining energised and invigorated staff to Tasmania to work in our healthcare sector, it is exactly these sorts of issues that we need to be addressing. The longevity and good health of Tasmanians depends on it.

I have always believed it is very important not to criticise our hospitals; our hospital is an amazing place. Ask anyone who goes there when they are really ill; the staff are absolutely fantastic. I really do not often hear a complaint. I believe it is very important that anyone googling the hospital, if they are looking to come and work here, see that it is a great place to work and is very well supported.

Though the Premier did not directly mention it in his address, I will take a moment to speak on the container deposit scheme as it is something I have taken a great interest in over the past few years.

I am very pleased to see construction begin on the reverse vending machines at Meadow Mews, in the Launceston suburb of Kings Meadows. The CDS is slated to begin on 1 May, which is not very far away at all. As you may recall, I have taken a very keen interest in the CDS for a number of years now and had many discussions with community groups, beverage organisations, and members of the community.

Madam ACTING PRESIDENT - I believe you did a study tour to WA.

Ms ARMITAGE - I did. I looked at many of the different systems over there, and I am very sad that the government chose not to take up that system. I suppose I tried hard on that one and lost; one has to move on.

As I said, I have had discussions with community groups, beverage organisations and members of the community, who have all expressed their interest in certain features of the policy. In fact, this policy was something which began way back in 2020. In Tasmania, the container deposit scheme is really past due, but it is better late than never. After some fits and some starts, I believe we are surely about to see it take off. I know our community groups and the environment will be the better for it.

What the community might not have been entirely aware of was the type of model which was to be implemented here in Tasmania. Many community groups and organisations advocated for a model whereby people would be able to return their containers to them directly, and where they could retain the refund payments. They were good arguments to be made that this social model meant that a greater share of the refund could be retained by community groups and boost rates of recycling at the same time.

Then, there is a split model where a scheme coordinator oversees the scheme's finances and administration, while an independent network operator establishes and runs a network of consumer refund points. The split model is the one which the government ultimately decided to implement. Although I advocated for the former model, it is still progress towards having a cleaner environment.

I would like to see our community groups, social enterprises and organisations be able to maximise the opportunities the CDS will provide to them. As the refund scheme rolls out, I look forward to seeing our community get cleaned up, and people finally being able to trade in their containers for a little bit of pocket money. For many of the sporting clubs, when you look and see the amount of cans, whether it be cordial, beer, something else, there is a lot of money there that has been going to waste.

It is necessary to address one of the main policies the Premier noted in his speech, the plan to assess privatising state‑owned companies, including the Motor Accidents Insurance Board, Metro and ownership share of Momentum Energy and the Land Titles Office, although ruling out the possibility of selling Hydro Tasmania. The most recent Revised Estimates Report contains information on the risks from the ownership of government businesses, including the underwriting and equity contributions of borrowings made by the Tasmanian Public Finance Corporation, the cost of significant energy projects and the funding delivery of the Tranche 3 irrigation scheme program with Tasmanian Irrigation. These all contribute to the risks posed to the Tasmanian economy.

Metro is a good example of a business that does not make money but provides a service. Should it be privatised? A business would need to make money. That questions the provision of services to many areas considered unprofitable and disadvantaged, and to many people already possibly disadvantaged. I believe in this place we should not be afraid of having tough conversations or exploring new ideas about what we should be doing in the best interest of Tasmanians. But something of this magnitude needs to be done carefully, with serious consideration and detailed consultation with the Tasmanian people, especially those who work in the organisation slated to be privatised and who will be affected the most.

I am sure the Premier has the best of intentions, but I believe privatisation of public assets generally ends up costing more for our community. Receiving the funds for selling assets like these will of course be a shot in the arm but what are the longer-term implications? How can we possibly know if, say, selling Metro will actually result in better, cheaper, more efficient bus services? I think it very unlikely.

Will the MAIB claims be processed and paid as efficiently as they have been up until now? There is so much to consider and it is not something we can simply dive into.

Ms Rattray - And the lack of scrutiny.

Ms ARMITAGE - Absolutely. Serious, considered assessment of the short-, medium- and long-term implications needs to occur and we can only make good decisions if we have as much information available to us as possible. To me, it is short-term gain for long-term pain. I would need a lot of convincing to support it. In fact, I doubt I could be convinced. We also need to be able to have a sensible conversation about the matter. With a huge policy announcement such as this, many details are yet to be released or even decided. When we are talking about matters that can affect people's jobs, their livelihoods, then of course we get panic, speculation and division. I find it hard to believe that the government has thought through thoroughly what would be lost forever with the sale of our GBEs and state‑owned companies.

Essentially, we have an information vacuum, and as with all information vacuums, they get filled with anything and everything. Interestingly, I note in 2011 in the media, the state opposition at that time, the Liberal Party, failed in parliament to block the sale of TOTE. The then premier, Lara Giddings, said the sale price was double what she expected:

'I'm actually surprised by the sale price that we have been able to attract in this climate and believe that in fact it's an excellent result.

The TOTE call centre jobs will continue and the business of TOTE will continue for the foreseeable future,' she said.

But the Shadow Treasurer, Peter Gutwein, says it looks like a dodgy deal.

'TOTE today has been sold for two thirds of the value that respected analysts suggested it was worth,' he said 'There's absolutely no doubt that this panicked Premier is in a position now where she's now effectively giving away assets.'

A parliamentary committee investigating TOTE's ongoing viability recommended any sale would be 'premature'.

How interesting. A different colour at the time.

Ms O'Connor - It is a bookie. Why would the government be a bookie?

Ms ARMITAGE - It is a lot of money, and it is a lot of money coming in, but it now appears that Labor has seen the light. It is interesting when we look back. I wonder now how much money would have come into the state if we still had TOTE. We know that the state's financial position and outlook is poor. Unfortunately, that is not a matter of opinion, but one we know is fact. Saul Eslake's detailed analysis of the most recent Budget and the most recent Treasury Revised Estimates Report do not paint a pretty picture for the months and years ahead.

At the very least, at this point in time, a calm and sensible conversation is warranted, and a balanced approach to ameliorating the state's financial position while ensuring that services these state‑owned companies provide will not be compromised in the future.

Like anything, whether it be running a household or a state budget, you cannot spend more than you earn. That is not sustainable in the long term.

I have asked time and time again why the government would not consider stadium proposal 2.0 ‑ talking about money ‑ at Regatta Point. To date, I really have not had an answer. That is a question I am asked regularly in the community.

I accept there are no easy answers ‑ but we cannot keep borrowing. I believe it is getting to the stage that no party will want to be in government given the liabilities in the state of our finances.

Should we sell off our assets ‑ our GBEs and state‑owned companies ‑ to pay a few debts? Then they are gone. I do not believe so.

Madam Acting President, you mentioned TT‑Line and I too hear from many people in the community who ask me about TT‑Line and my opinion. Like you, I am very pleased to hear that they are coming home. I would hate to think of Tasmanian people having second‑hand ships. As you say, I have no idea either where they can go or what they can do, but I would rather we were paying the money to ourselves ‑ whether it be to TasPorts or whoever, at least it is a GBE ‑ than giving it to a foreign country. I would hope that both ships come home.

It is worth mentioning, while we are talking about selling the farm ‑ and just to be clear, the Greens, unfortunately, sold the farm literally.

Ms O'Connor - Which farm is that?

Ms ARMITAGE - Hayes Prison Farm, if I am talking about selling farms.

Ms O'Connor - No, that is true, but that was at a time when the global financial crisis ‑

Ms ARMITAGE - I still do not believe there is any reason for selling the farm, but Parliament Square ‑ how many people in the community and people I mention it to realise that the people of Tasmania do not own -

Madam ACTING PRESIDENT - Could we have a quorum back in the Chamber, thank you? It is not my job to do it, it is the members' job. Given the importance of this contribution, we need more members. We have six.

Quorum formed.

[3.28 p.m.]

Ms ARMITAGE - Now we have seven, okay. Madam Acting President, as mentioned, I wonder how many people in the community and people I speak to are not aware that the people of Tasmania do not own Parliament Square, that it is actually owned - well, it was owned by the Citta Property Group. I am not sure who owns it now, whether they have sold it.

Ms O'Connor - That woman from Macquarie Bank.

Ms ARMITAGE - We pay rent for the offices. To me, it is a bit along the lines of selling our state‑owned companies or our GBEs. I can remember, at the time, I believe the rent was set for a certain period of time, then after a certain amount of years it went to market value. It is not like we can actually move our offices out ‑ it surrounds our Parliament House. I am pleased to say I did not support the bill back in the time when it came before us. I do recall our current President telling me, when he was Leader, that I would have a tent on the lawns as a result. Fortunately, I do not have a tent, particularly in the weather that is out there now.

Madam ACTING PRESIDENT - You might have to share an office, though, if we lose Parliament Square access.

Ms ARMITAGE - That is possible. It shows that even Parliament Square does not belong to the people of Tasmania. I have always thought that was an absolutely terrible decision. If you ask the average person in the street, they are actually shocked when you tell them, because they do not believe that the surrounding offices to our Parliament House do not belong to us.

The state of our state is concerning, but on a positive note, when things look bleak, the only way is up. I am pleased to see that there is some good news on the horizon. It is a shame that the Minister for Parks is not there. I have an issue before the Minister for Parks which he has not been giving me much joy on. I was pleased to see that the Premier says they are a government with heart, which I tried to remind the minister about yesterday - that they are supposed to be a government with heart. I would like to see the heart come out.

It is pleasing to see some of the areas that are happening: the reduction in red tape ‑ that has become a bit of an issue. It is pleasing to see that the government is looking to try to assist in those areas.

Another thing worth mentioning is UTAS Stadium. We talk about the stadium in Hobart. It is pleasing to see the work that is happening at UTAS Stadium because it looks as though that is going to be the stadium for our football team for quite a while. I know I would like it to be.

Ms O'Connor - Yes. York Park, home of the Devils.

Ms ARMITAGE - Yes, I believe it should be the home of the Devils. The interesting thing is that the current capacity is 19,500. That is before the works. It is 13,106 seating; 5400 standing and approximately 994 administration. After the works, it is actually less. It is 19,500 now, but once they have updated capacity it goes back to 17,400. I know ‑ go figure. Seating goes up to 14,670, but standing goes from 5400 back to 1765. Even though it is not being recertified, that is based on what it would be on today's certification ‑ even though it is not being recertified and certification was done differently in the past. It is a bit of a strange situation to see that after the redevelopment, it is actually going to have less capacity, which is a bit concerning.

You also mentioned the TasTAFE email that we received from the gentleman in Hobart. I can understand when there are difficulties if you have a lack of students, but my understanding is I do not believe it is a shortage of students, and to see that teachers will be losing - this will see five of 10 teaching staff made redundant. Are we not trying to increase TAFE to try to get more tradies? We are pushing the universities, but we all know that tradies are the millionaires of today. They are the ones who we need out there when we need, as you say, like your grandson, whether you need a plumber or you need a builder. Try to get a plumber. I mean, I talk to doctors and doctors say to me, 'Try to get a plumber to come out at 2 a.m. We get called out and we go to a patient, but you try to get a plumber.'

To be cutting in that area, I find it really interesting. It will be interesting to meet with this gentleman to find out what the situation is. I am always very happy for things to be in Launceston and, obviously, that is where it will be. However, if that becomes overcrowded, that is not good for our students either to have too many in a class. I believe it should be shared around the state, it should be north-west, north and south, so that every student has the opportunity to be able to do their trade.

While I am mentioning that, one little slap I always like to give the Premier about education. While we are talking about things in all areas, I still find it very difficult ‑ and I have heard from many of the schools ‑ having years 11 and 12 in every high school, when particularly in the cities such as Launceston and Hobart, we have perfectly good colleges within a kilometre or two, making it very difficult for some of the students in 11 and 12 to have qualified teachers.

We simply do not have enough of the teachers required for 11 and 12 in the colleges and every college. I know that some of them do it online, but from my perspective, doing it online is not the same as being in the class with your peers and having that extra encouragement. I really would like to see some changes made there. I do not believe that was a good move. I understand for places like Scottsdale, Bridport and other areas that it certainly works well, but I do not believe in this situation that it is the right thing to do.

I believe we should all be working together. There is no room at the moment in our state for opposition purely for opposition's sake, whether you are an independent or a different colour. We all need to work together to try to improve the situation that we have. I believe that when it comes to the sale of our assets, I hope that common sense will prevail. It may very well be a case of thank goodness for the upper House.

Ms O'Connor - Yes.