Legislative Council Tuesday 17 November, 2020
Ms FORREST (Murchison) - Mr President, listening to the Premier's Budget Speech the other day, I was actually having trouble seeing the forest for the trees. The list of spending initiatives was quite bewildering. I will speak about some specific areas, where I am pleased to see additional funding and focus on some areas.
First, I wish to focus on the overall Budget, and the approach to it.
We all know, very well, that this year has been one like no other in our lifetime. We are also dealing with this Budget very late in the year, after passing a supply bill early in the year due to COVID-19 outbreak.
Whilst there have been a lot of emergency measures, legislation, notices and other financial reports, I had hoped for more detail and clarity on a plan for our way forward to actually provide a clearer pathway to recovery.
The Premier has, with the support of health experts, including Dr Mark Veitch and his team, and his other colleagues done a great job of addressing the health and wellbeing of our citizens. They are to be collectively commended, during what has been such a frightening time, and this has come at an economic cost.
The Government has also responded rapidly to these changes, and the impact on the state's finances are here for all of us to see. It is no real surprise.
As a state, we have done well in containing COVID-19, and I believe the economic support from both state and federal governments has been important and needed. When rolled out so rapidly, as we saw, there were bound to be some issues, and some inequities in the initial response. The important thing was getting the money out the door, and the support out the door.
However, now, as a state and a nation, we are in an enviable position if we look at many parts of the world. We should now be seeing a clearly articulated plan for both our social and our economic recovery. This Budget does consider both, to some degree, but lacks any form of clear plan for the medium term, or longer term, and very little in the way of a short-term plan.
As I said, Mr President, the list of spending initiatives was quite bewildering. If this is the first time you have tuned into a budget speech, you could be forgiven for thinking it was Christmas for everyone.
However, for those of us who have been here a while, and heard many budget speeches - and this was the longest I have ever sat through, by a margin - all is not what it may have seemed.
I struggled to get my head around what spending was directed at COVID-19-induced problems, what was extra spending to prevent us from slipping back into the dark hole we were heading before COVID-19 pandemic struck, as outlined in the mid-year update issued in February this year, and what was the extra spending needed to keep existing programs properly funded. It is the same problem every year, unbundling the Budget into what is new and what is a rehash or a reannouncement.
I noticed a comment by Saul Eslake in the Saturday newspapers, indicating he was also trying to unravel what was actually extra spending. In the Mercury, Mr Eslake was quoted as saying, 'the government’s headline figures painted an exaggerated picture'-
'The additional infrastructure spend in the budget - over and above what had already been announced - is actually quite modest,' he said.
'Although ‘general government’ infrastructure spending will approach almost $4bn over the four years to 2023-24 … only $300m of the additional general government infrastructure spending has been added since last year’s budget.
Mr President, I thought 'That cannot be right.'.
The Premier told us his Budget contained the largest and most significant infrastructure program in the state's history, and here we have a respected commentator saying the extra spending is really quite modest.
The policy and parameter statement in the Budget Papers really helps put the spending spree into focus. It pinpoints the additional spending.
Saul Eslake is correct. The new infrastructure spending added since last year over the four years of the Budget year and the forward Estimates period is only $301.4 million. That is the new projects. Not the deferred projects. They are included separately, with parameter adjustments, rather than policy adjustments. It is all separated out in the policy and parameter statement.
Policy changes are new policies or changes to existing policies. Parameter changes occur when existing policies cost more, or are deferred. The parameter adjustments for capex spending dwarf the policy adjustments. Overall the extra infrastructure spending comprises more deferrals than new projects. I have been drawing this Chamber's attention to the constant failure that this describes every year, as we see the same thing occurring, of capex spending falling well short of the budget promises.
In the year just completed, the 2019-20 year, the capex shortfall was a whopping $180 million - a 26 per cent shortfall. When one looks at extra operating expenses, the expense adjustments for this year - the year that sees the most changes - are at $1.23 billion. Let us break up that amount: $772 million relates to policy changes and $461 million are parameter changes; of the policy changes, $410 million are related to COVID-19 responses and recovery; $242 million was extra health funding; and a further $100 million related to the reversal of efficiency dividends announced last year.
The latter is not extra spending per se, but rather the abandonment of a search that would have been a painful and austere reduction in services. A completely inappropriate and quite a dumb idea at the time, it would have been foolhardy in the extreme to continue when the pandemic struck. Hence, only $410 million out of a total of $1.23 billion in extra spending - or roughly one-third - relates to the COVID-19 response and recovery spending. Another 20 per cent - or $242 million - relates to new health initiatives and almost all the rest arises from underfunding and deferral in past years.
That is almost half, because we did not address the issues earlier. All of us who have been here for a while know that every year the actual spend in health is what you need to look at, not the budget from last year's health spending. I will be interested to find out at Estimates whether all the new policy initiatives are actually new, or whether they are really existing policies, by properly funding the operations of the updated Royal Hobart Hospital which has been a work in progress almost as long as I have been in this Chamber.
The question is: Has the funding of the operations of the new Royal Hobart Hospital just been introduced into the Budget and forward Estimates for the first time? If so, if we did not properly account for the expected costs of running the hospital, the hospital upgrade, in the forward Estimates in past years, have we been receiving a misleading picture of the state's true financial picture in past years?
As it is, we need to be honest about this Budget. Our insistence on deferring spending, particularly infrastructure spending, and the relentless underfunding of most services in past years, has meant that when COVID-19 came along we found ourselves with three problems to solve.
So far, I have talked about spending, trying to understand what spending addresses what particular problem, but what about revenue? The policy and parameter statement indicates revenue is more than was expected, over all, in last year's budget. In every year we receive more revenue but most of that comes from the federal government.
There have been a few adverse movements in particular revenue items but, overall, we will get more revenue than expected in last year's budget. The pandemic has hit GST revenues quite hard, coming as it did in March. It meant that the GST pool suddenly shrank due to spending all but stopping except for essentials. Up until then we had been receiving regular interim distributions from the pool, some of which will now have to be repaid in this current year and that is noted in the Budget Papers, if you have seen it.
We have to pay back some of the GST we got that was not anticipated in the pandemic because no-one anticipated that. The current year distributions will be less anyway because the pool is expected to be smaller. We will suffer a double whammy this year. We will be repaying some of last year's overpayment of the GST at the same time as bearing a lower level of receipts due to the expected smaller pool this year.
Yet despite the fall of $347 million in GST receipts in this year's Budget, there will be extra specific-purpose grants, so overall federal grants are down by only $9 million. Over the Budget and forward Estimates, 80 per cent of the extra revenue will all come from the federal government. Our reliance on the federal government goes from 61 per cent in the year just gone - the 2019-20 year - to 67 per cent by the end of forward Estimates in 2023- 24. I can only imagine what the Western Australians will say about that.
We are not doing much to help ourselves. Less of our revenue will be coming from our own sources. Have a look at the chart on page 92 of volume 1 of the Budget Papers. The fall in revenue from government businesses is quite alarming as well. Have the geese which have provided us with a steady stream of golden eggs over the last 10 years suddenly gone off the lay or is it because they were loaded up with so much debt - having been used by the government as a source of working capital for so long that they are not in the same shape as they once were. Will they be able to come back?
Will we ever be able to agree on raising more revenue? The Premier is always quick to undermine the concept by saying things as he did in this Budget, 'We can never tax our way to prosperity.'. Try telling that to the Scandinavians next time you meet one. Ask them whether they would prefer lower taxes and a health system that relies on more private funds like the US model, or not. I think I know what the answer might be.
If anything, this pandemic has dispelled the false notion that lower taxes means greater prosperity. If taxes help fund the services that most people want and many cannot afford, increased taxes will lead to greater prosperity from a macro viewpoint at least. Of course, there will be some at the top end of town who may pay more in taxes than the benefits they receive via the use of community assets and the consumption of public goods - that is what happens in a civilised society - but overall the community is better off. Almost everyone agrees with that notion.
When it comes to doing anything about it, we idly sit by and allow others, many of whom would be considered greedy, self-interested whingers who live amongst us both here in Tasmania and throughout Australia, to determine our chosen path. It is just part of the narrative that people accept, even when the facts that originally underpin the narrative have changed.
As the Trump circus has shown, people accept a narrative. They do not concern themselves with checking the narrative against available facts. It takes a lot to change a narrative and facts will not do it. Donald J Trump is an exemplar par extraordinaire.
But narrative can change. The debt and deficit narrative that propelled Tony Abbott to his ill-fated prime ministership is one such example. The debt and deficit narrative has been put to one side, at least for the time being, because it is no longer of any use in helping us tackle our current problems. Debt and deficits are the only way to solve our problems, especially when we have a state government refusing point-blank to try to raise more of its own revenue.
I saw a media release come through while I was listening to the Leader. The New South Wales budget has just been handed down and they talk about this tax reform agenda they have happening. I have just had a quick look at the media reports, which you cannot rely on obviously as a source of fact, but it seems a bit of toing and froing, lowering the rate of payroll tax but raising their threshold and removing stamp duty and replacing it with a land tax on purchases. That is what it said in the media so it sounds like a bit of shuffling the deck chairs to me rather than a full tax reform agenda, but it seems that discussion is one no-one is willing to have.
What has helped people abandon the debt and deficit narrative is not only the interest rates that are low - that certainly helps with low interest payments to borrowers - but that an increasing amount of government debt is owned by the Reserve Bank. The federal government owes money to its wholly owned subsidiary. In effect it owes money to itself. When and if the time for repayment of principal arrives, there will simply be a transfer from the left pocket to the right pocket. Whether the loan is repaid or written off does not matter. Whatever the proceeds of the loan were used for, whether to spend on physical assets or social capital, these assets will remain and form part of the nation's equity and we will all benefit. That is what nation-building is about or what it should be.
Let me remind you that increasingly the RBA, our bank, is acquiring more of the Tasmanian Government's debt. The RBA is starting to acquire TASCORP bonds, $127 million as at 30 June 2020 according to TASCORP's annual report and there may have been more since. The RBA denies it is financing the state Government, but the pattern will be that it will end up holding more state government debt, even if done indirectly.
All states are facing the same problem as us. The RBA is acquiring more state government debts on the secondary market. If the RBA were just trying to drive down interest rates on state government borrowings, if it intervenes in the market to acquire bonds, the price of those bonds will rise, which means the interest rates the bond holders have appeared to accept will fall, meaning the subsequent new issue of bonds by state governments will be at a lower rate. It is likely the RBA will own increasing amounts of state government debt, in addition to the federal government debt. Welcome to new federalism. That is how it is working at the moment in response to the COVID pandemic.
The RBA has a $200 billion term loan facility in place to lend funds to private banks at 0.1 per cent interest to help reinvigorate the economy. For goodness sake, the best return on those dollars is if they were given to the states on a pro rata basis as the Commonwealth Grants Commission would do, so the states could get on with their own programs. One thing for sure about the states is they are much closer to where the services are delivered and better placed to do so.
The federal government persists with the idea those funds are best given to private banks in the hope that some may trickle down. If state governments want funds, they will have to get their own. Our Government meekly accepts this and pretends its approach, as outlined in the Budget, will grow the economy. It will to a certain extent and that growth will result in increased revenue that will allow the Government to start repaying its debt. This is absolute bollocks. There is no reason to believe this will happen. The current settings will not even produce surplus funds to enable debt repayment. We are living in a world of illusion if you think otherwise. The world has irrevocably changed, but nothing has changed if this Budget is all that the Government is prepared to do, and I am hoping it is not.
Do not get me wrong: the Government has done a wonderful job in its initial response to the COVID crisis, but long term it clings to the delusion that in a year or two we will be back on the path to wherever we were going. We will never get where we should be if this Budget is a guide. We know from the Public Accounts Committee's look at government sustainability, that the Government is currently on an unsustainable trajectory, and that was before COVID. Services are underfunded and they will grow faster than revenue, meaning the funding gap will widen. We need more revenue. The Government will not do anything. We will reach Mars before this Government unilaterally does anything more about revenue. We cannot even have a conversation.
Action at the federal level would be required for tax reform to work. I am not sure how New South Wales thinks it will manage it all on its own. Having not read all the detail, it is a big hard to comment. An action at the federal level would be required to use the overwhelming advantages of having a public-owned central bank like the RBA to assist state governments wherever it can.
All indications are there is no intention at the federal level to work with the states to bring about meaningful reform in this area. Here we go back to the future. This is why I am so profoundly disappointed with the overall intent and structure of the Budget. It is more of the same old, same old, and instead of a more explicit outline of the challenges and possibilities ahead which may trigger meaningful and fruitful community debates, we are presented with a document that will do little to help us navigate our way forward. I certainly appreciate the need for delay of this Budget, but I believe we deserved a little bit more detail in the forward plan after waiting the extra six months.
Before I complete my contribution, I would like to reflect on some of the inclusions and exclusions in this Budget more specific to my electorate and in broader terms making my substantive comments on the overall Budget.
Most regions of the state, including the north-west, were hit hard economically, psychologically and socially during the COVID-19 outbreak and its aftermath, which continues. COVID-19 has clearly exposed our reliance on tourism and hospitality and the need for diversification of industry in our state. It will take a long time for tourism to come back to pre-COVID-19 levels. I cannot see Australian borders opening to international visitors any time soon. A different approach needs to be taken to receiving returning Australians in terms of the management of their quarantines. We have seen in Adelaide in just the last couple of days the very real risk that poses, even with people doing the right thing, which I expect they were. It is a highly infectious disease; we have to manage it, I suggest, in a purpose-built facility somewhere in warmer climes because we know COVID-19 likes it when it is cold.
As a state we can do much more to maximise our manufacturing and agricultural value adding opportunities rather than heavy reliance on tourism. We certainly have the capacity in our state to do this. Look at some of the advanced manufacturing going on up in the north-west particularly. Surely, we can do more of that. We could build our own electric vehicles and mining equipment. I have spoken here in the past about some of the underground electric mining equipment Epiroc has been putting together. It would be good to have electric rubbish trucks around the town too, as now they are so noisy.
Why cannot we be doing this? We could do this. I understand it is much less complicated to build an electric truck or vehicle than it is to build a combustion engine one. We could do that here. Why do we not look at those sorts of things? We can value-add much more to our agricultural product. We know the harm that COVID-19 did to many of our agricultural sectors in terms of the rock lobster industry and that sort of thing which dried up overnight. We have the ongoing challenges with our trade relations with China impacting on a number of agricultural sectors. We need to look more at what we can do in our state to supply our own domestic markets and value-add here.
I note the $400 000 for the Advanced Manufacturing Action Plan. I will be asking more about that when we get to Budget Estimates, if that falls within Estimates Committee A's purview. A lot more can be done. We need to be really open to this. Yes, our worker costs and employment conditions are probably higher than the costs in some of the countries we may engage with, but you have to think about the full benefit, not just the cost, of production. What benefit does that flow through to the community?
One of the serious omissions in this Budget that has deeply distressed me is there is no funding for any work, or consideration, on Montello Primary School. The Minister for Education has visited the school; it is in his electorate after all and he is aware of the tragic state of this school. I offered the Premier a tour with me to see for himself, as the Premier and Treasurer, how substandard these facilities are. I have spoken about Montello Primary School last year on at least one, if not two occasions. I have had communications, written and verbal, with the minister back in 2018. He responded to me back in the beginning of 2019 regarding the facilities, saying in his letter -
… the Government, whilst committed to providing contemporary learning environments, is also committed to being financially responsible, working with available resourcing and delivering responsible budgets to benefit and protect the future of Tasmania.
This is pre-COVID-19, I admit, but we seem to be able to find money when it is needed now. Unfortunately, this means not all priorities can be progressed at once. This is in response to me the end of 2018. He said -
Having said that, -
I go on to what the minister said -
- the Montello Primary School was allocated $315 000 -
Just keep this in mind -
- for 2017-18 ...
So, in the 2017-18 -
- for accommodation and lighting improvements. Additionally, the school has been allocated $91 000 in 2018-19 for retaining-wall improvements -
So, the school did not fall over -
I also understand that Montello Primary School was ranked as a Priority 2 site under the 2018 Capital Works process.
I received an email from one of my constituents related to Montello Primary School and I contacted them to find out how happy they were with the Budget. I am going to quote this letter -
I guess Ruth knows the conditions our students have endured in this OLD, -
In block letters -
- antiquated building having had the tour a year or so back, and starting to fight for us. But what has come to light recently -
Here they quoted an article from The Advocate -
… is that Learning Services North West are moving into the current Penguin Primary School … so they will effectively be working in a beautiful space … far, far better than what our students have! It's has added insult to injury. It seems that votes from our feeder areas just aren't important.
Now, the feeder area for Montello is a low socio-economic, highly disadvantaged community around Montello. There are kids there who are extremely vulnerable, families who are extremely vulnerable. COVID 19 was a massive challenge for this school. They could not do a lot of online learning. They had to print and prepare package after package of hard copy information and hope there was some way in those homes that those children had a chance. They are working in a facility that is disgraceful.
Members who were not here at the time, might like to hear how bad some of this is. The toilet block is a haven for bullies. There are two levels. When I went to school in primary school at Riana Area School, this is how it was set up then - there were two levels, corridors, classrooms on the side and the toilet block was somewhere down underneath out to the side. That is how it is. There are stairs right down to it.
There is no accessible access to those toilets unless you go out around the playground, out in the freezing cold, down to those toilets. There is absolutely no way you can supervise children in that toilet block. It is concrete, cold, disgraceful, with wind howling through because the vents are those open vents, on the southern side of the school.
Mr Dean - Queechy had to shut one of theirs off because it is just not habitable.
Ms FORREST - The good news was, after that, member for Windermere, they built a new toilet block that had some disability access. So, the main street in front of the school comes along - Bird Street - and the main entrance where all the parents and anyone walking along the street going about their normal business walks past the front of the school - the new toilet block was built right there.
When you walk into that toilet block, there are little individual cubicles, and there is a little corridor you walk into that is separate to the main building - it is linked by walkways - but when you walk into it, there is a window that goes onto the front, onto the street. When you go into the toilet, you open the door - these are little kids who sometimes forget to close the door - and you can see straight in from the street.
Now, one could ask, how the hell did that happen? I could not believe it when I walked in there. This is the new toilet block. Talk about substandard. The thing is that it faces the other way from where the supervision occurs behind that building. That is where the kids hang out and play - behind it. The kids, thankfully, do not play on the street. I will go on with this email.
Since Ruth last had contact with Mr Rockliff, he responded by saying that $315,000 had been spent in 2017 2018 for accommodation and lighting improvements …
As I mentioned - I just quoted from his letter
… - yes, in the Annual Report of the Education Department you can see this was 'urgent capacity requirement' and the lighting upgrade was vital as the existing lights were smoking!!
Is this okay? This is fixing a potential fire, but it might have been better if the school had burnt down. How dare I say that? I tell you that it might have made someone sit up and take notice -
And the $91,000 allocated in the 2018 19 Budget for a retaining wall referred to in the same letter - was re-allocated this year to upgrade the tin cans [the demountable classrooms] we were given the 'urgent capacity requirement'! … these rooms now have carpet, natural lighting and adequate space and heating.
Until this year they had none of that and they had been there for some time. This is what we are expecting our kids to learn in - really vulnerable disadvantaged kids. It is hard enough to get them to school in first place -
Our major concerns of access to the school buildings and internal facilities, cold and ill lit learning areas and toilets worse than those of the Upper Takone Football Ground continue to haunt us.
I know other schools in Tasmania have substandard facilities, as recently the member for Windermere has referred to one, but this is an absolute out-and-out disgrace.
I will be speaking to the Premier because the minister himself does not seem to have made it a priority. I hope someone from Committee B might take up the Montello Primary School in Estimates with the minister. I will be doing so with the Premier at a separate occasion because that is not something we can scrutinise in our committee.
To move on, I was really pleased to see support for 'Step In'-style education and training as I spoke about it in the Chamber only last sitting week - the very successful Stepping In program, which gets women into training and qualifications in entry-level skills for energy, manufacturing and mining roles. This fund of $400 000 over two years, to develop leadership and employment opportunities for women in male-dominated areas, is really welcome.
I have seen the results of that very small pilot we did for 20 women. I was talking to Shannon Bakes a couple of days ago and he said another two women had been among the finalists for apprenticeships just recently in areas that have never had females in them. One of them decided she wanted to do something else, but she made it possible for those employers to see there are women out there who are willing and quite capable of doing these jobs.
As I said previously, often these are more highly paid and more stable jobs too, so whilst in the second reading speech the Premier refers to employment for women coming back more strongly, that is because hospitality and tourism started up again, and they are fairly heavily female-dominated areas. Of course so many more women are in nursing and caring roles, and those roles did not diminish as much and have increased as well.
I will not go much into general health because we have a whole day with the Minister for Health next week but I would like to talk about mental health because I know Estimates Committee B has carriage of that. I am sure members have seen in the media the Productivity Commission's report showing the extraordinary costs of mental health to our country in terms of economical cost, not to mention the social and human cost of underinvestment and lack of access to quality mental health care.
This has been made significantly worse during COVID 19 - not just during our lockdown here but also when other states were in extended lockdown, as occurred in Victoria. Many of us have our families there and it does impact on our mental health as well as their mental health.
There are people in Tasmania with relatives in South Australia who had plans for Christmas. I worry about some of these families. They have been hanging out for this catch up so we need to be cognisant of these important decisions being made to protect our overall health and wellbeing and aware of the mental health implications of this.
I saw some really sad -
Sitting suspended from 1.00 p.m to 2.30 p.m.
Resumed from above.
Ms FORREST (Murchison) - Mr President, before the break I was talking about the mental health impacts of COVID, but also acknowledging the significant demand on our mental health services even pre-COVID. I was referring to the people who have loved ones in South Australia. I did tune in at 2 p.m. to listen to the Premier and Dr Veitch. I did not hear all Dr Veitch's comments regarding South Australia. It sounds promising in that they seem to have a pretty good handle on that cluster already, though over the next 24 to 48 hours, time will tell. Hopefully, we will not see an extended period of South Australia being the pariah of the nation.
Once that cluster was identified, many states, including Tasmania, acted swiftly, which I must say we are all grateful for. But there were people who were directly impacted - people who were on their way to or were waiting to see family members in Adelaide, or in South Australia generally; young people at university in South Australia suddenly faced with the prospect of not being able to see them, when they had not seen them for a whole year already.
We need to be very aware of the ongoing mental health challenges that will present while COVID-19 continues to be part of our lives, which we expect may be for the rest of our lives, in one form or another.
As I said, the outbreak that occurred in our state certainly had a significant impact on people of the north-west coast, but all Tasmanians - particularly healthcare workers - were impacted; businesses were impacted; teachers and all associated staff, mental healthcare and education were impacted; exporters were impacted; individuals were impacted, and the list goes on.
There is not a person who escaped some sort of emotional reaction or impact as a result of this pandemic, and that will continue, so we need to be sure that the support provided is not just playing catch-up for what we were already behind.
We need to try to get ahead of this and have really good services. There are matters I will raise that I hope maybe Committee B might be able to follow up on, more so with the minister at the time.
I know people in the north-west and west coast regions are waiting too long to access mental health care - people's condition deteriorates over time without early intervention, making the care they get when they finally do get it less effective, or it takes much longer to bring a person back to good mental health. We know early intervention is the key. We must focus on making sure these services are available.
Mr President, to highlight this, currently there is no social worker on the west coast at all. Not one - and only a part-time one in Smithton, servicing Circular Head, who I understand is actually funded through the Royal Flying Doctor Service.
This is a Tasmanian Health Service responsibility. This is a responsibility of our statewide mental health services. This is not something we should be relying on third parties to do. Sure, the part-time social worker funded through our RFDS is important and should be continued, but not as an alternative to a properly resourced social health worker and other mental health workers who are very much needed.
This is particularly the case in the youth mental health space. We just do not have adequate mental health services for young people.
I do note in the Budget Papers - and we have heard it time and time again since the Labor government was in power. It is not a new problem we have here; it has been going on for a very long time. As I said, if the mental health needs of young people are not met, they become older people with mental health problems. We know undiagnosed and untreated postnatal depression can re-present as depression in a woman in her forties and older, so you have to intervene early. You have to intervene with quality and timely care if we are ever going to get on top of this.
Playing catch-up all the time - which is what we have been doing for almost ever - is just simply not going to work. We do need to put much more in the front end, and I hope they will be really digging deep into that in Committee B, into service provision that we can actually see, that will be delivered, not just what has been promised. I cannot remember how many years we have been promised an adolescent mental health unit.
I know there are some beds at the Launceston General Hospital and some beds in the south, and there is additional funding this year, which I will come to in a minute, but the reality is that young people on the north-west coast cannot access acute mental health services in a timely manner - and certainly not close to home.
These young people need the support of their families. Some of these young people come from quite disadvantaged families, who cannot afford to go to Hobart - but they will if they have to, for the best interests of their child. We must adequately fund and resource our mental health services statewide. We need to have more adolescent inpatient mental health beds opened.
I note the $10 million for the new residential eating disorder clinic to be established in Hobart. This is very much needed. What is the time frame for completion of this? If the Leader is unable to provide an answer, maybe Committee B can follow up on this question. Does the funding allocated - $10 million - include a staffing allocation? Are you looking at another Royal Hobart Hospital - build it and we will see what happens after that? It is no good having a facility and no appropriately skilled staff to handle it. Many people in Tasmania have adolescents with eating disorders who end up going to Melbourne. Sometimes that has been funded by the state, as it should be because we do not have an adequate facility here.
I raised one of those some time ago, when we had a locum psychiatrist in the state who was almost in big trouble for talking to me - but it did not stop him nonetheless, because he saw great injustices being done. This will continue. Again, early intervention in an eating disorder is paramount. I am sure Committee B will follow up on a number of those areas, because they are so crucial to all regions of our state.
I note the additional Child and Family Centres; they are very much needed. I am glad to see the Government is finally getting on with actually building some more. I note there is one in Waratah-Wynyard region, which is really needed and appreciated. It is a high-risk community for many reasons, including intergenerational poverty, disadvantage and a family violence hotspot. It is only when you provide a collection of services in a way that is non threatening and easy to access for people, that they will access these services at times. If you do not provide it in a way they feel safe to access it, they just keep slipping through the gaps. I commend the Government on this and hope we will see more. We need one in Smithton and there are other areas - we have one on the west coast. These are such a crucial part of social infrastructure in our state that actually supports families in a way that is accessible to just about every family. It is a place where they can go and not be going for a particular service, because many services are provided there. That is a really positive inclusion; I commend the Government for doing that.
That brings me to the matter of family violence. I noted in the Budget Papers - I think I read it there - that reports of family violence were stable or lower this year. I do not believe that is accurate at all. We know all the research shows that during COVID-19 the only reason reports were lower was because women were not in a position where they could report it - it was not safe to report it. They could not go online without having their coercive controller over their shoulder. They could not leave the house. Some people in this situation were forced into staying at home, even though they could have notionally gone out for an hour's exercise and perhaps maybe called while they were out - but their phone records are looked at. These are particularly vulnerable people.
The fact reports were down does not mean the problem is getting less. We will see a resurgence of this. Most of us were at the briefing the other day, with Alina Thomas from Engender Equality and Deb, who is a victim of family violence, including non-fatal strangulation, and the member for McIntyre's niece, who is now the chief lawyer at Women's Legal Service. That was very informative and instructive about the need to act in this area. I know the Attorney-General is dragging her feet on this. I hope we see some commitment coming out of this. It is only when we raise these matters as a standalone offence that it becomes safe to talk about and makes it possible for women to realise that is a very serious offence.
We heard both Deb and Alina speak about this and to say they did not identify having their partner put their hands around her throat until almost the point of suffocation was actually something that should be reported as a separate incident. It is a red flag for homicide. We know that, so we need to actually do legislative change in this space, as well as funding support.
I appreciate the Premier and Treasurer putting in extra funding to support that response during the COVID-19 outbreak. We need to continue that - not just providing services that engender equality, and provide counselling and support, for the victims predominantly, but there are some training opportunities there. There are the other organisations as well, but we need to ensure we continue to adequately fund these services. There is heaps of unmet demand out there.
If you look at Engender Equality's annual report - and I acknowledge I am on the board of Engender Equality. If you look at the annual report, the demand has gone up so much - and that is from women who could make a call, could visit the website, could reach out. There is a lot of unmet demand out there, and we need to make it easy, accessible and safe.
We do not want to see more women murdered in this state by intimate partners. Sadly, we still see roughly one a day in Australia, on average, at the hand of their intimate partner, or past partner. We also know that the most dangerous time for a woman is when she decides to leave, and as she is actually leaving. There needs to be complete wraparound support.
We have the Minister for the Prevention of Family Violence appearing before Committee A, so we will be discussing that further then.
The arts: it was good at least to hear the arts mentioned in the Budget. Often they seem to get a very low ranking. Again, I go back to the period during COVID-19 where artists were just unilaterally out of work. Bang, gone. Any live performances were cancelled, and just about every opportunity for any income for artists just dried up.
It was really pleasing to see some support provided to them - but artists were last in line. Absolutely last in line. It is pleasing to see there is some funding to assist the creation of new works, particularly in the screen sector, but let us get a broad focus here.
Let us focus really broadly to ensure that all areas of the arts - not just the screen - the music, the visual arts, participatory arts, because I challenge anyone in this Chamber or in this parliament: all of you would have used and consumed the arts during the COVID-19 lockdown, at no cost to yourself. It would be on Facebook or wherever.
I did share that beautiful - I cannot think of the name of the artist who sang it - 'I've never Bin to Me', the song about the lockdown in Melbourne. I do not know if anyone else saw that, but she was in the wheelie bin out the front of a house, singing. She was sensational. If you have not seen it, I will share it with you. It was a Kate Bush song, Never Been to Me. It was so good.
Here is an artist doing the best she can, and she would not have any income from that, unless people gave her a donation.
I declare my interest in Unconformity, and rest assured Unconformity is particularly pleased to see the ongoing commitment to support Unconformity. We could not hold our festival this year. It is only a festival every two years, and we will be doing the festival in 2021, all things being okay then. I hope you can all get to the west coast for that, but book early, because accommodation books out really quickly, and this is such an important part of our community on the west coast.
It grew out of the closure of Mount Lyell after the deaths, and it has assisted with the rebirth of Queenstown in many respects. There is such a strong arts community there. They have internationally renowned artists like Raymond Arnold living in Queenstown and doing amazing things, as well as a whole range of other artists.
Unconformity fits right into that. We did a very small event this year that obviously cost less to run, but we are planning our major event next year. Those sort of festivals are a really important aspect of the arts, so I thank the Government for its ongoing support.
The Waratah-Wynyard coastal pathway. The Leader, the member for Montgomery mentioned that. That pathway does not actually go into your electorate. It is all mine now, isn't it?
Mrs Hiscutt - It is past my electorate, and into yours. I just had to note it because it has been in my electorate for so long.
Ms FORREST - This project is welcome. Every time I drive along the highway, I look at it and think, 'See all the rails going up.'. You can see two or three major areas of erosion from the highway. The rails are still there, and the sleepers, but you can see daylight under there. It is as if someone has come in and taken a big bite out from underneath the rail line, and off it has gone back to the sea.
Mrs HISCUTT - The ever-relentless sea.
Ms FORREST - That is right. It is very hard to hold back the sea.
This was the stand-off - who was going to repair the erosion? Clearly, in my view, it was the Government's responsibility. My question to the Leader is: will this funding fully address the urgent work that needs to be done with regard to the erosion? It is not just a patch-up job, so we can say, 'Yes, we have done some of it; over to you councils to do the rest.'.
Once my councils take over the corridor manager role, it is then their responsibility. We need to have it staged so that means that they can just get on and build the trail or the pathway.
That is the question. Will it cover the repair of the erosion under the railway lines in two or three spots where you cannot do anything until it is fixed?
Mrs Hiscutt - Through you, Mr President, I shall seek an answer, but I am just pre empting that if the mayor Mr Kons has anything to do with it, he will get everything he needs.
Ms FORREST - Yes - one way or another.
The upgrade to the North West Private Maternity Services Antenatal Clinic has been on the books since the joining together of the public and private sector in terms of north-west birthing services, which hasn't been 100 per cent successful, in my view, from a number of angles.
The midwives working in, and the women accessing, this service have been required to use very substandard facilities for far too long. I hope this will see it built, not just talked about. It is one of these re-announce, re-announce, re-announce things. This has been talked about in the last two or three budgets. I would like to see that this will actually see it built, completed and operational so that we have a decent facility.
I note the Waratah local recreation infrastructure funding. This is welcome funding for Waratah, but its big key issue at the moment is the reservoir. I have been asking questions about that recently. Once you decommission that, this money for the recreation infrastructure will not be so effective because you will end up with only an eyesore in the town, with a decommissioned reservoir that will look pretty horrid and create all sorts of environmental harm.
I encourage the relevant ministers responsible for this to look at it more broadly. I know the member for Braddon, Mr Ellis, was up there recently and understood entirely why the locals are so up in arms about this. Hopefully, he might have some influence in his party, Mr President, to see that the dam is not decommissioned.
Mrs Hiscutt - He is a good young man, without a doubt.
Ms FORREST - Well, let us see how good he is.
I appreciate there is additional investment in TAFE. I do not know it is going to go anywhere near what is needed to fix TasTAFE. I know that the rebuild continues, but it falls well short. If we are going to build all these social houses, which is fantastic, and if we are going to do all these other areas of growth in manufacturing and other things, which are supported in the Budget, we need the skilled tradespeople.
We need TAFE to be much better resourced and with appropriate facilities. That is a matter, I am sure, Committee B will be following up with great vigour.
Ms Rattray - I am making a note of all these areas, Mr President, some which were already in my mind.
Ms FORREST - I am sure some of them already were.
The upgrade to the police housing in Rosebery and Queenstown is really welcome as well, because those houses are pretty shabby, and most people would not be happy to live in them. We cannot expect our police, teachers or nurses to travel to these remote areas to work, if they do not have reasonable housing or a decent standard of housing.
The other tourism aspect is the West Coast Wilderness Railway. I notice it has been provided with $4 million to address the downturn associated with COVID 19. Hopefully that will start to pick up again, with Australians happy to come to see our fantastic iconic railway.
I will be drilling down into a number of other areas next week, and I acknowledge there are a number of other funding allocations I am pleased to see included in this Budget but some of those will relate more to Committee A's work. However, I still remain disappointed with the overall intent, focus and structure of the Budget with more of the 'same old, same old' approach and no clear path. That is an extremely challenging budgetary position and that is disappointing to say the least.
I sincerely hope in the months ahead, and certainly in the 2021 22 Budget, which is not that far away, we get a much clearer sense from the Premier and the Government of the challenges and possibilities ahead. What are we going to do? What is the plan? How are we going to manage this? We need the same sort of leadership that saw us through the worst of COVID 19 in Tasmania to date with effective and meaningful collaboration now as we work towards the future, whatever that will look like.
I appreciate the Premier continuing to engage with me and others outside his immediate circle to discuss ideas, challenges and ways forward, but we need a clearly articulated plan and commentary that will hopefully trigger meaningful and fruitful community debates. I know the Premier’s Economic and Social Recovery Advisory Council has a role in that and it is doing public consultation at the moment. However, I had hoped there would be a little more in this Budget to give us some sense of where we are heading. Even though, despite PESRAC's work, regardless, we need a strong and visible leadership during this time and a plan as to how we are going to get our financials in order and provide all the services we need and rely on. Just saying we will be back in surplus in a couple of years time is meaningless. We have heard it too many times.
I look forward to the further scrutiny and some quite long days next week as we delve into the detail of the Budget.
Go Back