2024-25 Budget Reply Speech
LAND USE PLANNING AND APPROVALS (STONY RISE DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL) BILL 2024
Governance issues erode public trust
This Opinion Piece is a summary of my Election Updates to date to fill a void in the mainstream media and public commentary on critical issues that should be considered and front and center of the election campaign.
The Macquarie Point stadium debate is fast becoming Tasmania’s political Bermuda Triangle—swallowing scrutiny, sinking fiscal transparency, and leaving any dissenting voices marooned as “anti-Tasmanian.” With both major parties now on a unity ticket for the $975 million stadium project, rational debate has all but vanished. Instead, we’re witnessing a theatre of handshakes, hard hats, and high-vis photo ops, while Tasmania’s fiscal future hangs in the balance.
Let’s get one thing straight: the $240 million in federal funding is for the precinct, not the stadium. That money comes with strings attached—housing outcomes, wharf upgrades, facilities for the Nuyina and the national interest.
The rule of law and the strength of our institutions is what is supposed to help make us a civilised society. Developing a set of guardrails for responsible budgeting was perceived to be a missing link which was addressed by the Charter of Budget Responsibility Bill 2007.
The then Premier, in his second reading speech to the House of assembly on 18th April 2007 explained it as follows:
The Board of Marinus Link (MLPL) has recommended proceeding with the Marinus project and each of the three shareholders now need to make a decision before jointly convening to decide.
The decision to proceed wasn’t unexpected. It would have been surprising if they had voted themselves out of a job.
The Tasmanian government owns a 17.7 per cent share alongside the Victorian and Federal governments. But we pay 27.6 per cent of Marinus fees (plus 100 per cent of any associated transmission development in Tasmania).
With the election in progress, caretaker provisions apply to decisions by government. The Liberal government is still the government with full legal powers of a government, but it should refrain from making major decisions which will bind a future government without at least consulting with the opposition. That’s the convention. Not legally binding, just a convention.
Now that the major parties are on a unity ticket for the development of the Mac Point stadium there’s no incentive for them to raise peripheral issues, and anyone outside the tent who does so is jumped on by the majors as negative and misguided in what’s best for Tasmania.
It is now recognised that the Federal grant of $240 million is for the Mac Point precinct, not specifically for the stadium itself.
Nevertheless, when the cost of the stadium is bandied about, specifically how much we will have to borrow, the grant is always deducted in full from the stadium cost to derive a figure for net borrowings required, (which some then convert to a multiple of the number of weeks of health spending this equates to, in order to trivialise the sum involved).
Federal grants are sometimes quarantined from GST calculations meaning future GST distributions won’t be affected.
There is a critical need for budget honesty and transparency, writes Ruth Forrest
In any democracy, clear, honest budgeting is the foundation of public trust. The Tasmanian government's 2025-26 Budget, however, risks undermining that trust not because of what's in the budget, but because of how key decisions are being presented or, more accurately, concealed.
At the heart of the issue lies a littleunderstood but crucial document: the Policy and Parameter Statement (PPS). This section of the Budget Papers is supposed to give Tasmanians a clear view of the government's policy decisionswhat's new, what's changed, and what those decisions cost.
So far the election campaign has seen a few high vizzes making fewer mostly forgettable promises, but as yet no attempt to tackle the big issues.
One of the crucial issues going forward is raising more of our own source revenue. Distributions from government businesses is an important component.
Income from government businesses suffered a marked reduction in the latest yet to be passed budget with $154 million or 36 per cent being removed from last year’s forward estimates from future income expected from Hydro Tasmania. That’s a significant loss of revenue for a small state government.