Legislative Council, Wednesday 12 March 2025

Ms FORREST - Mr President, the reaction to the Premier's state of the state was entirely predictable. Everyone zeroed in on the possible sale of government businesses. A detailed examination of what has caused the catastrophic decline in the state's finances was conveniently sidestepped.

Admitting there is a problem is the first stage to any recovery. Neither the Premier nor the Treasurer have done that yet. Neither did the Leader in her contribution either, but it is her last one so maybe I am not expecting her to have the answers.

The Premier still says our debt is manageable. His state of the state speech told us Labor left a debt legacy, but now under the Liberals that burden debt burden was lifted. That is utter nonsense and delusional. Even if it were true, why would you propose to sell assets if debt is manageable and the debt burden has been lifted. Why would you?

The state of the state speech left me somewhat confused. Everyone knows Metro has negative value. It costs the government $50 million to $60 million in grants and equity contributions each year to provide the vital services. Selling Metro will not make the budget better. Any minor upfront payment, if any, will be quickly swamped by the government having to pay greater subsidies each year.

The Treasurer stated that private enterprise can run businesses more effectively and efficiently or better than government. This may be the case, but some of our GBEs are service deliverers, not businesses in the strict sense. It is important we do not lose sight of that. These are service deliverers. These businesses are needed to provide a service to people. In the case of Metro, areas with low populations are likely to be unprofitable. I think we all know that what that might mean for our outer urban and regional services. Those services have other challenges including passenger behaviour et cetera. The last thing we need are more challenges for disadvantaged Tasmanians seeking to access service such as education and health services. If selling TasRail in the old days was a dumb idea, selling Metro is even dumber.

As for selling or leasing TasNetworks, you think the Premier might have mentioned in passing that it is currently against the law to dispose of, even by way of a long-term lease. The responsible minister sitting in the Chamber here must know this. I am interested in why he perhaps did not tell Cabinet that the Premier's proposal to sell or lease TasNetworks to pay down some of the debt, which he believes is manageable, is actually against the law - our law.

Section 20 of the Electricity Companies Act covers the sale or otherwise disposal of TasNetworks. This includes the 99 year lease that was referred to by the Premier. Section 3 of the act says -

The minister, as shareholder, cannot sell or otherwise dispose of the transmission or distribution system, or even part thereof, if it significantly reduces the capacity of the network.

Then the act actually includes the interpretation of the mention of lease. We need to be really clear about this. You would have to change the legislation to enable that. I am not saying it cannot be done, but you cannot just say you are going to do it - that this is one of our solutions without acknowledging at least that would require legislative change and obviously that requires the approval of parliament.

That is one reason the state of state speech left me a little bit gobsmacked. We have endured an unprecedented 12 months where the lack of due diligence was obvious in so many things this government has done. This is another glaring example.

At the very time the government should be setting out our problems with a view to working out a way forward, we have a government making suggestions without any due diligence about policy options.

To be fair, there are some signs of useful work that has been done by the government, but the government does not appear to understand what is needed to progress some matters a stage further. For instance, the fiscal strategy is a useful piece of work, but rarely does one get an indication that the government has any idea how to achieve its own targets and goals.

The GBE reform paper that came out last year was a useful starting point for discussion about the role of government businesses, but before any discussion has taken place, the Premier has floated the idea of selling government businesses.

The opposition gleefully seized the opportunity to continue to ignore the wider problems of our fiscal sustainability, and was able to respond to the Premier's ill-considered attempt to appear as a strong leader by failing to undertake some of the most basic due diligence on the legislation governing our government businesses.

I will backtrack a little to explain why I think we really have to look at things a bit differently. For anyone closely following events who has bothered reading the government's financials since the Global Financial Crisis back in 2007-08, plus the associated reports such as the fiscal sustainability reports, our current fiscal sustainability crisis was entirely predictable. However, governments past and present have done nothing about it. We keep kicking the can down the road, hoping the rainbow in the distance might be a sign of something promising in the future. Alas, no. We have dithered for so long that I fear we are now past the point of no return.

Remember the old days when we had four options at our disposal to tackle any fiscal crisis confronting the government? We could: one, borrow more; two, raise more of our own revenue; three, cut spending; or four, sell some assets. I am going to look at these four options, which are traditionally available to us or to the state.

First, to borrow more. Labor always says it left the state net debt free when they were tossed out in 2014. That is only half-true. Borrowings in the general government were negligible in 2014; that is true. But Labor was not afraid to ask government businesses to borrow to pay dividends to keep the government afloat. Rather than set aside any cash for superannuation contributions for defined benefits employees - not even the superannuation guarantee amounts - they took advantage of the special exemption available to government defined benefit schemes and set aside nothing.

In 2014 - Labor's last year in government - it would have needed a cash contribution of $142 million to fully fund defined benefits employees for that year. Not setting aside anything meant they had $142 million to spend; pretending the general government was net debt free when they were borrowing from the future was a stretch too far. It has now caught up with us.

The Liberals were always keen to point out Labor was spending super that had been set aside; this is also only half-true. It never really set aside anything in the first place; there was never enough cash. The superannuation provision account was a Clayton's account that was not cash backed. I have talked about this over the almost 20 years I have been in this place now.

Ms Rattray - I can attest to that.

Ms FORREST - Yes. Things have changed in this time. I am trying to give a bit of a history lesson here. Everyone is complicit in this - both major parties.

What did the Liberals do? After their trenchant criticism of Labor, you would think they would start funding defined benefits superannuation every year. Perhaps not the back years - I accept that it is probably a bridge too far - but all the years still to come, because they have been such ardent critics. No, they continue the very same thing. Cynicism and hypocrisy were very much alive and well.

In the Liberals' first year, the 2015 year, the cost to fully fund the defined benefits employees would have been $148 million. They set aside nothing.

You may recall some on the Liberals' side were all for closing down defined benefit schemes. However, when it was pointed out that they would have to start setting aside the super guarantee amounts once employees ceased membership of the defined benefit fund, they reconsidered. At that time, the superannuation guarantee levy was 9.5 per cent of salaries. In 2015, this meant the general government would have had to find cash of about $95 million. To close down the defined benefit scheme meant that the general government would be worse off from a cashflow viewpoint. They continued with the defined benefit schemes and paid nothing for current employees exactly the same as Labor had done and for which the Liberal party berated them, and still do.

Labor chose to spend each year borrowing from the future, rather than borrowing immediately to make contributions; the Liberals have done the same thing. They have not set aside anything for defined benefit employees, not even the superannuation guarantee amounts.

Over $1 billion has been spent on other budget outlays rather than paying superannuation contributions. Fortunately, there are now only 2800 such employees not yet retired less than 10 per cent of the total employees. The current effect of not setting aside amounts for the current defined benefit members is not what it once was. Right now, the actual annual cost for those defined benefit employees is around $45 million, yet the government sets aside nothing.

Were we to close the defined benefit scheme to current members, the government would have to find $30 million in cash for superannuation guarantee contributions currently 11.5 per cent of salary. When the general government is borrowing an excess of $1 billion every year, the problems caused by the defined benefit scheme, still open to more contributions, are relatively minor.

There was a time when there was little or no general government debt and the debt servicing costs mainly related to paying unfunded defined benefit superannuation, and looked like they would be contained at around 6 per cent of outlays. Things were quite manageable. That was one of the targets within the previous fiscal strategies that have since been replaced, mainly around the COVID period.

Not setting aside superannuation for defined benefit employees over a 30 year period not even the superannuation guarantee levy amount choosing instead to spend the money and borrow from the future, which both parties did, we are now lumbered with a huge liability which needs servicing each year. It may not be a debt, as formally defined, but it is a very large liability that needs servicing. Hence, it was disconcerting to hear the Premier crowing about how low our debt is in the state of the state speech. In my view, it is a deliberate attempt to mislead and to shift the focus. For all intents and purposes, the unfunded superannuation is a debt; the Premier is delusional to try to pretend otherwise. We need to pay it. I am insulted that he keeps treating us, and the people of Tasmania, like idiots.

However, it is the growing deficits caused by our other government commitments not just the ordinary operations and infrastructure spending, but other liabilities that are adding to this. I know the Leader mentioned the very important and necessary compensation payments for historic sexual abuse of children. No one is going to stand in the way of that. It is not just a financial cost, it is a huge human cost to those children, and those adults who were children, that were abused in state care. No one is arguing that. However, it has added to the burden because of the actions taken in the past. This has now made our position unsustainable. More debt is required each year just to service existing debt. To say we are going to get a future fund to fix all these problems is a nonsense when, potentially, the money going into it would not even cover the interest repayments on our debt. More borrowings, then, are not a solution.

Plan B to raise more revenue: the government has included the need to lift the production of our own source revenue, which funds spending each year to 37 per cent from the current level of 30 per cent, which, in current dollar terms, is raising another $500 million at least. I spoke about this in my budget reply because that is one of the fiscal strategies to make that change from 37 per cent, our own source revenue, with 37 per cent from the current 30 per cent. That will mean we have to raise on this strategy alone an extra $500 million. I am not sure how much Metro will contribute to that if it were sold.

If we are going to raise our revenue, according to the government's own strategy measure, this will need higher taxes, higher charges for government services, or higher returns from government businesses, which imply higher charges from those businesses. You cannot do it otherwise. It cannot mean anything else, despite the unsavoury taste this leaves in the mouth of everyone and the political minefield that would need to be navigated.

We know the government has categorically ruled out all three options to raise more revenue, which begs the question why they admitted we need to increase our own source revenue and bothered with a target, in its own budget papers, its own fiscal strategy, when it immediately ruled out almost every way to achieve it.

The only conceivable way the government can raise its own revenue equal to 37 per cent of outlays is to institute Plan C. Plan C: reduce spending. That is what is already happening. This is before the DOGE type approach that has been recently suggested DOGE being the horror show that America is in at the moment. Despite the Premier saying the government rejected a slash and burn approach, spending on current operations, excluding the increasing debt servicing costs, are projected to fall in real terms. I spoke about this in my budget reply speech because it was outlaid in the forward Estimates there. It was reiterated in the Revised Estimates Report. If you take out from the current operating expenditure. and we take out the debt servicing costs, expenditure on service delivery falls over the forward Estimates in the budget and confirmed in the Revised Estimates Report.

This is not an idle claim. If you look at the operating expenses in the income statement of the Revised Estimates Report over the forward Estimates, you exclude the interest borrowing and non cash depreciation and adjust for the figure for outlays in the CPI factors that are all in the Revised Estimates Report you will find that in real terms, the figure to be spent on current operations falls every year. This is before they have cut anybody. This is before they have found all those non essential workers. I cannot believe we employ non essential workers anyway.
———————————————————
Recognition of Visitors

Mr PRESIDENT - While the member has a quick break, I welcome to the Chamber students from the year 11 12 legal studies class at Geneva Christian College, which is in the lovely town of Latrobe, which is in the electorate of Mersey. Mr Gaffney is the local member there. No doubt you probably know Mr Gaffney.

Honourable members in this Chamber come from different parts of the state. We all have our own electorates. We are all drawn into this Chamber to review legislation. At the moment the member for Murchison and also chair of committees is looking at the state of the state address that was delivered in the other place by the Premier. All members in this Chamber then have the opportunity to debate that and note the report.

As you can probably gather from your time here, the member for Murchison's I was not going to say obsession but she has a particular interest in the financial matters of the state. That is making up a fair bit of her contribution. Other members will talk about many other things affecting the state.

I do not know if you are planning to stay around for the whole day. If you are, good on you. I am sure all members in this Chamber will make you welcome to the Legislative Council today and hope that you enjoy your time in the parliament.

Members - Hear, hear.
———————————————————

Ms FORREST - I welcome the students from Latrobe. I hope they enjoy their time down here.

Yes, I am focusing my contribution on the financial situation the state finds itself in, because it is the biggest pressing issue facing this state - particularly if we are going to meet the needs of some of the victims of child sexual abuse and other really key matters that we need to fund, as well as other services health, education, all those things. I am not going to branch off into other areas. I will have other opportunities to do that. I am going to focus my attention on this very real challenge that presents and gets more intense each year.

To go back to what I was speaking about, which was referring to the Revised Estimates Report, which confirmed that the government proposes to spend less each year on current operations than the prior year and the current year. This is astonishing. While the government, in one breath, says 'we will not be slashing and burning and we will not be cutting essential workers', I find it hard to believe they have been employing non essential workers in the first place. What an insult to anyone who does get removed. What have they been doing? Perhaps the place they could start is in the ministerial advisory staff. Maybe there is a few too many there in the media office, perhaps; not that that will save the budget. It would not make even a tiny dent on the budget.

When we consider that our service delivery areas health, education, public safety and justice are the areas which contribute the largest part of our operational costs, even acknowledging that there is less spending each year - they are saying they are not going to take a slash and burn to our service delivery. Well, it does not make sense. It does not add up, and the figures tell the story. If we just look at the Revised Estimates Report to see the cost blowout in Health this will be dealt with in a supplementary appropriation bill next sitting. I meant to go back and have a look at my budget reply. I am pretty sure I did mention this then. If I did not, I certainly thought it that Health was underfunded at the outset and someone has to try to help balance the books.

It was pretty clear to me that we went back, certainly with the supplementary appropriation, which we now see $431 million odd for Health, additional to the budget, and maybe there is some other stuff by way of RAF, who knows. We will see that at a later time as an after-the-event additional funding. Health was clearly underfunded in the Budget when the Budget was handed down, so it is no surprise to me that we are here at a later time to approve additional funding. It was no surprise to see that in the Revised Estimate Report.

This reduced operating expenditure is revealed for all to see again in the Revised Estimates Report. There was no reference to that in the state of the state. I know the Premier wants to talk about the nice stuff, shiny things, and trying to distract people over there. However, unless we deal with the very real challenges our state faces, we are on a hiding to nothing.

As the amount of spending falls over the forward Estimates, the proportion of outlays funded by our own source income actually rises up toward the targeted figure of 37 per cent.

The way we are getting toward the target the government has set themselves is to factor in a reduction of spending over the forward Estimates. There is no indication of how they are going to do that, except perhaps they are going to do this slash and burn approach, which they said they are not because they are going to find all these non essential workers to get rid of.

Getting rid of whatever you classify as a non essential worker can mean you undermine the service delivery at the other end. There may well be some people whose positions need to be reconsidered in higher echelons in some areas, but if you start taking support staff out of a health system, you will see the whole system start to crumble.

We know that there have been a lot more people engaged across a variety of departments to deal with the commission of inquiry recommendations and the need to implement those. I would say they are pretty essential.

The government's Revised Estimate Report suggests the government is pursuing an austerity policy. That is their own document that tells us that; it is the only way that they are indicating they are going to lift our own source revenue as a percentage of outlays up to 37 per cent If you cannot increase the numerator by raising more revenue, you have to reduce the denominator by reducing outlays. Grade 7 students know this. I am pretty sure that most of the Cabinet would too.

The latest supplementary appropriation request for the additional $467 million to cover budget blowouts this year, with more sure to follow in the upcoming Budget, means the target for our own source revenue will not be achieved. I hope members take the time to go back and look at the RER, compare it with the Budget and then we get the next Budget in May. You look at this, you have to take out the debt servicing costs and the non-cash depreciation and then factor back in your CPI to get a true figure. It is it is clear that is the money to deliver services and we are a service deliverer. We are not going to raise more revenue. The targets in the fiscal strategy are well beyond reach; we will ignore that one perhaps. I prefer not to ignore targets because if they are there, they are there for a reason.

The supplementary appropriation bill suggests cutting spending has gone as far as it can; otherwise you would not need a supplementary appropriation bill, would we? We do because we have not been able to manage. Talking about cutting red tape and eliminating non-essential jobs are usually code words for signalling the point at which further meaningful cuts can be made has been reached. If we had all those opportunities to reduce the cost, we would not need a supplementary appropriation bill, but we do.

That appears to be where we are now. So what to do? Plan D, sell assets? Hence the Premier's attempt to fly a kite in his state of the state speech. This only makes a modicum of sense if it means debt can be reduced so the new debt is not needed to service the existing debt, which is what is happening now. New debt is needed to service the debt we have, but we are past that point. More debt will be needed to pay for the current needs, let alone cover the past liabilities. Metro, as I said, has a negative value when one considers how much it costs the government each year in grants to provide this vital government service. In the case of Tasmania Networks, as I said, there is a specific clause in the energy companies act preventing its sale or disposal, including lease. Even so, $1.3 billion in sale proceeds, the value of the company and on the government's books, essentially determined by the electricity regulator, will not be near enough to stop our debt from continuing to increase.

Have a look at what our debt is. Imagine if the proceeds were used to offset unfunded superannuation, whereas now the government has to pay 80 per cent of any future superannuation benefit as it arises. That amount may become around 65 to 70 per cent. We are past the point at which asset sales are going to make much difference, even if they make good policy sense from another viewpoint. Let us not be distracted by that.

To explain a little bit more, the defined benefit scheme in the general government books has a liability of roughly $10 billion. That is defined benefit scheme in the general government sector, a liability roughly $10 billion. Over the next 50 or so years, it will be around $20 billion. In current terms, that is about $10 billion. Defined benefit members have contributed roughly $2 billion, including earnings. The difference between the overall liability and the amount funded by members is therefore $8 billion, which is the unfunded portion which the general government is contractually obliged to pay. Each time a pension or lump sum benefit is paid to a retired member, the general government has to pay 80 per cent of that. If the general government pays a lump into the defined benefit scheme following the sale of, say, TasNetworks, assuming it was possible to even do so, then, the general government share of future benefits may be reduced to 70 or even 65 per cent. It is not a great deal in the big scheme of things.

The other government businesses flagged for possible sale was MAIB. This entity is literally the goose that lays the golden eggs. It is a tidy, well-run company. It has paid returns to government totalling $895 million over the last 10 years. That was going back through their annual reports for 10 years to see how much they paid the government, $895 million. Let us not forget that.

Ms O'Connor - How much do they have in the bank? How many billions?

Ms FORREST - They have a large liability, I will come to the liability that offsets it. One other small, tiny problem with MAIB is that it is a GBE, a government business enterprise. No-one but the government can own MAIB, under the act. The entity cannot be transferred to anyone else. Yes, it can dispose of its assets, but the entity itself cannot be transferred. You just need to read the act. In addition, as I read section 10(7) and (8) of the Government Business Enterprises Act, this would require the approval of parliament. I am not saying it cannot be done, but let us be clear.

It would have to remain with the owner, the government. You could sell its assets. Its assets are the investments they have, but they also have a significant liability to fund future claims.

Ms Rattray - But they do not actually know what some of those claims might look like?

Ms FORREST - They actually work those out. They have a pretty clear indication. If it were a state-owned company - MAIB, that is - it could be sold, but not as a GBE. MAIB has a pretty simple balance sheet. Essentially, it has one very large liability, being the estimated value of future claims. Actuaries say this is about $1.4 billion. Those are the liabilities that sit on their balance sheet, but it has $2.1 billion in investments on standby to meet future liabilities. Yes, they have a lot of money in the bank and that offsets their liabilities, which are determined by an actuary, which means that it has a net equity value of $700 million.

If another insurance company believed MAIB's future liabilities were only $1.4 billion, say, it might accept that sum from MAIB to take over the liabilities. Someone has to buy these liabilities; MAIB would have to sell $1.4 billion of its investments to pay a buyer to assume MAIB's liabilities, leaving it with investments of $700 million. Hardly enough to cover the budget blowout we are now experiencing in 2024-25. You cannot just look at the big bank account of MAIB and say, well, that will give us over a billion dollars. Someone has to buy the liabilities.

If one were to attach meaning to the way the Premier measures net debt - he includes cash and investments as offsets but ignores the liabilities with debt-like characteristics - state debt will increase. Our general government debt would increase if MAIB sells its business. Yes, the liability will disappear, which is not included in the net debt calculation, but so too would the $1.4 billion in investments that currently are used to offset against our ballooning state debt. It is a bit of an accounting treatment but what it would mean - if we did do this - our general government net debt would increase. I am not sure the Premier was really clear about that either. If the Premier believes general government debt, as narrowly defined, is a meaningful measure. Then, he must also believe that selling MAIB will lead to increasing total state debt.

Why does he not tell us that? With the style of government businesses, the government will forgo not just dividends but income tax equivalents. This is where the nice profitable GBEs and state owned companies we have come into play. This is something we need to grasp. All those income tax equivalents would disappear.

Most government businesses that are subsequently privatised - and we have seen this in other jurisdictions - pay little or no tax. Privatising leads to social losses. Often, they are infrastructure businesses with guaranteed or regulated income and they have higher borrowings and hence make lower profits and pay less tax. Some shift profits offshore to avoid income tax completely.

Aside from the three companies the Premier specifically mentioned for possible sale and Hydro Tasmania, which he ruled out, there is not much left of any value, even if one is guided by the net asset values recorded in the Treasurer's Annual Financial Report each year.

Sustainable Timber Tasmania has a net asset value of $220 million. This is the value of its native forest. But it is one of the mysteries of life that our audit office still continues to allow Sustainable Timber Tasmania to exclude revegetation costs when assessing the net return to native forest, which form the basis of its valuation of $220 million. It is required by law to replant. Native forest, a perpetual ecosystem, as I said it is mandatory to revegetate but for some reason STT is allowed to ignore replanting costs and pretend it is financially sustainable.

If you include all the non-timber costs that accompany forest operations, the losses from STT operations would be even larger. To think you could sell that and maintain the law that has to be trees have to be replanted would make that one of no value to be sold. The business STT does not have any sale value. Besides, it is a GBE; you cannot have any other owners.

The Premier does not appear to have very good grasp of what our government businesses do if he thinks he can sell them and that will leave us better off. Worse still, he cannot have much of a grasp of our current situation if he thinks selling two or three businesses would make any difference to our financial sustainability. We are well past the point where it is going to make any difference. What do we do if the state's long-term fiscal sustainability is reaching crisis stage?

Unfortunately, the adversarial system and so-called contest of ideas is a shabby front for a vacant policy space. We need to fix it. In the past, I have called for tax reform inquiries. I meant broad reform. However, more inquiries are not what is needed. We are past that point as the options are understood and well documented, even if they are politically difficult.

We need an ongoing structure which has a clear mission made up of members from across the political spectrum. You can call on advice from experts in the area, members who have agreed on a memorandum of understanding or similar to cast aside adversarial differences to investigate policies, reach consensus views, promote and disseminate the issues confronting us. What this structure is is open to suggestions. It could be a joint standing committee on fiscal sustainability, for example, or a similar structure with the powers needed to do this critical work.

We simply cannot go on as we have done. The good stuff, like the government's fiscal strategy deserves widespread approval.

We should all be embracing the good things and helping implement them. We all have parts to play. Labor's fiscal strategy for the 2024 election was a complete abrogation of the statute of responsibility under the Charter of Budget Responsibility Act. Rather than respond to points on policy, Labor instead issued a polemic diatribe which helped render the contest of ideas into another slagging match. We have to do better than this if we are not only to accept the challenges we face, but to do something about them.

I was recently reminded of the role we play as parliamentarians and elected leaders that we are in the state and how this is often lost sight of. This was as reported in The Mercury. Our former colleague from this place, and now shadow treasurer in the other place, passing up any interest in the government in short term in my view. He was quoted as saying:

Labor has accused Independent MP Kristie Johnston of threatening to 'blow up the government' after she publicly declared she no longer 'had confidence' in Premier Rockliff's administration.

Opposition MP Josh Willie said there are other mechanisms at parliamentarians' disposal to achieve good outcomes and hold the minority Liberal government and warned Ms Johnston against withdrawing confidence and supply.

Mrs Hiscutt - Is that where he spoke about throwing the toys out of the cot?

Ms FORREST - I am reading from what it was reported as saying. He might have said that in the other place. This is what was reported in the media. [tbc 12.05]

I do not think there is a political maturity from a minority government to often work in Tasmania and we have seen that play out now with the crossbench.

Mr Willie said.

We had an election less than 12 months ago and these sorts of statements from people like Kristie Johnston are harming the economy, they are harming business confidence. There are other mechanisms rather than 'blowing up the government'.

As I said, our former colleague, Mr Willie, talked about other mechanisms to achieve good outcomes. That is fine, but what are they and let us implement them. Let us do this together.

Ms O'Connor - We never hear it from Labor. We never hear solutions.

Ms FORREST - Let us have a mature discussion. Let us take a mature approach to first acknowledging our situation for what it is and create an agreed way to address the very real challenges we are facing. This takes mature leadership and maturity on all sides of the political landscape in Tasmania. There are other states who are facing challenges too. Let us deal with our own problems.

I believe we need to have further discussions about federal state relations, but I cannot imagine the federal government is too keen to engage that much with us if we are not willing to get our own house in order first. Hopefully, Labor can share some of their political maturity they suggest is obviously lacking in crossbench members and help move the state forward.

Regardless of which party is in power, we need to maintain support and enhance independent institutions. Our Public Accounts Committee has shown it can be effective and, as recommended by Saul Eslake; the Public Accounts Committee is currently inquiring into a parliamentary budget office. I would hope that would become government as well as opposition policy and a structure perhaps like the joint sessional committee covering fiscal sustainability, something like that, that will actually allow open, mature, apolitical discussion about how we are going to move forward in this.

Ms Rattray - Is Treasury not tasked to do some of that work?

Ms FORREST - Treasury tried. Treasury has been telling us in the fiscal sustainability report since 2016 - I think was the first one around that time - they have been saying it for years, you need to do something earlier. The next one is due next year, I think. It is either 2025 or 2026, the next report under the Charter of Budget Responsibility Act or Financial Management Act, whatever it sits under and it is a Treasury report. It is not a treasurer's report, it is a Treasury report. But if you go back and look at those it is writ large. The longer you leave it, the harder it is.

Ms O'Connor - Like climate change.
Ms FORREST - Yes, anyway, the time, in my view, for one upmanship and all that is wrong with the adversarial approach to addressing this challenge; we need to end that now. The people of Tasmania need this. Business in Tasmania needs this. The first thing we need to do is acknowledge that we have a problem, what it is, how big it is, and put all options on the table rather than fiddle around the edges, which is what we have seen in the state of the state speech and try. Look over there and try to divert our attention from the very real challenges and say, yes, we are on track, our net debt is manageable. It is not manageable, not if we are going to continue delivering services to people in Tasmania.

The problem is much bigger and it requires a collective non-partisan response. I am really happy to work with any party, any person to try to address these matters. I know the Leader wants to give a nice positive outlook for her last state of the state. It is not all bad, but I want us to focus on, let us make sure it does not go to hell in a hand basket as we try to deliver services to people who need them in the state. If we do not take a remedial action, that is what we are looking at. You cannot keep doing this.

When you start borrowing more and more and you are borrowing more to pay your interest bill, selling a business will only be a very short-term solution and you have to look at the full picture. We would lose the income tax; you lose the dividends. The golden goose it is, MAIB. We took an extra $50 million dividend out in 2021, from memory. Hydro often has its time of special dividends being pulled out when it is profitable. Some of that, more recently, was paid back to the people in terms of energy concessions. That is the way it should be. Seriously, we have to take a different approach. Pretending it is all okay, not acknowledging we actually have a problem, is part of the problem.

Go Back