Tasmania's election campaign should be fought on the budget, business leader and economist say
When Labor declared it had tabled a motion of no-confidence in Premier Jeremy Rockliff, it listed three main reasons.
They were the potential privatisation of public assets, the failure to deliver the new Spirit of Tasmania ferries on time, and the state of the Liberal government's budget.
On that budget, here are a few quick figures:
Now, with Tasmania in an election campaign, business leaders and economists are hoping to hear the major parties' plans for repairing the balance sheet.
The Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry's Michael Bailey says as the election is largely about the budget, the campaign should be fought on it.
"Tasmania has a spending problem at the moment.
"We need to make sure that we can get our spending back under control."
That partially refers to the fact the state has a history of spending more than it budgets for, particularly in health.
Here's how the Liberals and Labor have been treating the issue of spending and budget repair:
Elections are often a big-spending affair.
The Liberals have previously been accused of pork barrelling (slang for bribing the electorate for their votes), but they say they are simply listening to community concerns.
Labor also promised a whole heap of community grants last election. The main difference is the relevant department would eventually assess them to decide if they were worthy of spending money on.
There are also a whole heap of other policies, such as the stamp duty exemption for first home buyers, that will cost taxpayers money.
And those spending promises really add up.
Economist Saul Eslake says Treasury data shows the 2018 and 2021 elections each added $1.4 billion of spending to the budget without any mention of how to pay for the promises.
Last year's was even more expensive.
"[The levy is] about the only election commitment that hasn't been met since the election.
"Labor would've spent an additional $2 billion over five years if they had won.
"So, to hope that that wouldn't be repeated in the election campaign would be a bit like Samuel Johnson's definition of second marriage — a triumph of hope over experience."
At the moment, 40 per cent of Tasmania's money comes from the carve up of GST. Around a third is own-source revenue.
Mr Eslake has put forward several options to raise more money, including collecting more payroll tax from businesses, raising car registration fees, adding a duty on the purchase of expensive new motor vehicles — "with appropriate concessions for pensioners and other low-income earners".
He also suggested switching stamp duty to a land tax and increasing mining royalties.
He says Tasmania collects about $40-50 million a year less than it would if its scheme was equivalent to those of other states.
Money could also be found by asking the salmon industry to pay royalties for the use of Tasmanian waters.
"That wouldn't solve Tasmania's problems, of course, but it would make a useful contribution to reducing the deficit over time."
All of these ideas have been rejected by the major parties.
Mr Rockliff also pointed out that legislative changes in 2023 meant the salmon industry now pays for its own regulation.
"The salmon companies cost government. They return that to government, so it's cost neutral and that's been a significant reform under our government," he said.
Another way to raise revenue, selling off state-owned companies and government business enterprises has been ruled out by both major parties already.
As have any new taxes.
Growing the economy is also a big part of how both major parties plan to get the state out of debt.
As part of that, the Liberals have been waging a war on red tape, and if some of Labor's new policies are anything to go by, they're planning to do the same.
When asked about increasing revenue, Labor leader Dean Winter talked about growing the economy by unlocking $25 billion in renewable energy developments.
Premier Jeremy Rockliff on the other hand said investments in key services such as health, education and community safety would help increase revenue.
The TCCI's Michael Bailey is less worried about the revenue side of things.
"You don't give someone with a spending problem more money," he says.
Mr Bailey wants the parties to find efficiencies in the public service, arguing that it's grown by 30 per cent since the COVID pandemic.
"We know that we're borrowing to pay for those wages," he said.
"They do wonderful work, but it's simply too big for what Tasmania can afford right now, so we would argue that that's the first thing that should be looked at."
Both major parties have revealed their plans to find some savings, and they include the creation of new units.
The Liberals' plan, which was announced in March, is called the Efficiency and Productivity Unit (EPU); Labor has the Review and Evaluation Unit (REU).
Two names and slightly different descriptions for two things that will do very similar things — examine the effectiveness and value for money of government programs to try and identify savings.
The Liberals are assuming they will be able to cut spending to the point where in three years' time overall government expenses will be less than they are this year.
They hope to find savings through:
Labor's plans to "save the budget more than half a billion dollars", while not outlined in an alternative budget, were part of leader Dean Winter's budget reply speech.
They hope to do this by:
This list is far from extensive, however, none of the policies have been costed by treasury.
If the party that wins government does not right the ship, Mr Eslake estimates Tasmania is heading to a debt of $16 billion by 2035 with repayments to hit $750 million a year.
"We've gone from in the middle of the past decade, being a net creditor, that is having more money in the bank than the government owes by way of debt, to now having debt and other liabilities," Mr Eslake said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
44 minutes ago
- ABC News
Peabody coal mine workers locked out in wages dispute
Workers from an underground New South Wales coal mine are facing a lockout after taking limited industrial action over wage negotiations. About 160 permanent employees were locked out without pay from Wednesday this week to Thursday next week at the Metropolitan Mine in Helensburgh. The Mining and Energy Union said it would lodge a claim for a 15 per cent wage increase over three years, a one-off market rate increase of $1.50 per hour, plus a $4 increase to crib payments. The president of the union's NSW South West District, Mark Jenkins, said mine owner Peabody was punishing workers for exercising their industrial rights as they sought to negotiate a new enterprise agreement. "The workers enacted their industrial right and took some limited one-hour stoppages across their shifts," he said. Mr Jenkins said there was no warning. "We went into a bargaining meeting with the company on the day of the lockout and found out probably about an hour and 45 minutes after the bargaining meeting that the lockout was taking place," Mr Jenkins said. A Peabody spokesperson said Metropolitan Mine acknowledged that employees had engaged in industrial action, and the union had notified the company of further industrial action to come. "In response, Peabody implemented employer response action, with a lockout of employees commencing night shift Wednesday, 18 June and continuing until day shift Thursday, 26 June," the spokesperson said. The action follows a Federal Court decision last year ruling that 22 Peabody Energy crew members unjustly lost their jobs before being replaced by external contractors at the same mine in June 2020. The court found that replacing full-time employees with labour hire did not constitute "genuine redundancies". The lockout comes at a time when the nearby Tahmoor mine is also under pressure, but for a different reason, as the mine hasn't mined coal since February due to unpaid bills. About 560 mineworkers are still being paid but have been stripped of their regular bonuses. They are increasingly anxious about whether the mine, owned by British industrialist Sanjeev Gupta, and linked to the Whyalla steelworks, will reopen. Independent Member for Wollondilly Judy Hannan said this week the state government was monitoring and negotiating with the mine's owner GFG Alliance. The union has called for the state government to intervene.
News.com.au
an hour ago
- News.com.au
‘Shock': Traveller reveals everything wrong with Australia
If you're like me and you've returned from Ho Chi Minh City after weeks of seeing 'Open 24 hours' signs plastered on every establishment and you're now wondering why you can't get a late-night feed that's not a McDonald's burger – you're not alone. After spending a year soaking up the fast-paced, late-night energy of some of Asia's busiest cities, Sydney woman Fiona Wang thought she'd feel comforted coming home. Instead, she found herself wandering empty footpaths after 5.30pm and not being able to get in to see the doctor on a weekend. 'How do Australians do this?' she said in a social media clip. The 29-year-old business owner and self-proclaimed 'travel-addict' recently returned to Australia after living in Bali, and says the adjustment back to Aussie life has been a culture shock in ways she didn't expect. 'If you're working 9-5, everything is closed by 5.30pm and doctors aren't open on Sundays. 'In Asia you can still contact the banks after 5pm, you can go to the mall 'till 10pm – you can do anything you need to,' she said. Like Fiona, I too had grown used to the 24-hour pharmacies, late-night bar spots and restaurants buzzing well into the early hours. But even mundane errands have now become a mission. 'Back here, I can't even send things by post unless I go during lunchtime,' she added. Amen, Fiona. Though she still loves to call Australia home, the 29-year-old admits she 'needs half-half.' A quick Google search returns results of like-minded night-owls all in pursuit of the answer to this very same question. 'Why does everything in Australia close so early?' In a very brutal Reddit take, one user questioned: 'Does no one like making money in Australia? Or do they just close early to go home and complain about the cost of living? Trying to get food after 9pm is impossible, and don't even get me started on AusPost opening hours.' 'Cafes closing at 1pm needs to be studied,' replied one user. Tim Bennett, insurance expert at Finder told 'We need to be more than a nation of coffee shops at 2pm to deserve the label of a top cultural destination.' 'There's a clear tension between the desire for a vibrant, attractive night-life that draws tourists and boosts local economies, and concerns about public safety and noise,' he said. 'Australian cities absolutely can have both safe and peaceful, while vibrant and world famous entertainment districts, but it requires genuine financial support for venues to make accommodations, protections from noise complaints, and good city planning to get people home safely. 'It also requires an acceptance from residents, especially in existing entertainment districts, that this is part and parcel of living in the inner cities.' Whether Australia is a nation with a rumbling night-life underbelly that's waiting to emerge or one that's permanently transfixed by early morning run clubs and matcha is yet to be seen – but until then, Ho Chi Minh is always ready for a good time.
ABC News
an hour ago
- ABC News
Australia resisted America's gun culture — but couldn't help importing its obsession with oversized cars - ABC Religion & Ethics
Australia is rightly proud of having stood firm against one of America's deadliest exports — gun culture. After the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, our leaders acted with moral clarity and urgency. It was a bipartisan moment that has saved countless lives. While the United States doubled down on its right to bear arms, we said no. But there's another American export which we couldn't resist. In fact, we embraced it. It didn't come with bullets. It came with torque. Today, the vehicles dominating Australian roads are those dreamed up in Detroit and built to American scale. America has long held individual freedom as its highest virtue — often, it's placed above collective safety and social cohesion. Their idea of freedom is shaped less by care for others, and more by the logic of competition: survival of the fittest, the richest, and now, the biggest. Why Australia? The rise of oversized SUVs and utes in Australia is no accident. It's the result of a decades-long campaign by American car manufacturers to sell not just vehicles, but a story and a culture: that bigger is better; that personal dominance matters more than collective comfort; and that power is something to display. American car makers have exported more than vehicles — they've exported a value system. They've invested heavily in the Australian market and spent billions on advertising over the past decade to reshape what it means to 'drive'. They're turning it from an act of mobility into an assertion of identity. Their ads drip with masculinity, entitlement and conquest. Cars are no longer tools; they're statements. This American culture is embedded in the physical form of these cars: long, unapologetically flat hoods; lifted bodies; oversized ground clearance. And we bought it — not just the vehicles, but the idea behind them too. Australia resisted the guns; but we bought the trucks. When resistance to US-style excess emerged in Europe or Japan where space is tight and fuel expensive, car makers adapted. In Australia, with its car-loving culture and softer emissions rules, the American model found fertile ground. The marketing blitz followed — touting their 'utility' or 'sport' appeal (whatever that means), even though most people never tow a trailer or leave the suburbs. Ford spends over USD $2.5 billion annually on global advertising. RAM has flooded YouTube and sports broadcasts with testosterone-drenched imagery. Their campaigns lean heavily on rural imagery, regardless of whether the vehicle is driven by a tradie or an urban dad doing the school drop-off. Who bears the cost? The rise of massive vehicles on Australian roads is often framed as consumer preference. But that framing ignores the external costs borne not by the driver, but by everyone else, especially vulnerable road users: pedestrians, motorcyclists and cyclists. The evidence is unambiguous: large SUVs and utes are more likely to kill vulnerable road users. The pedestrian fatality crisis in the United States is the biggest testament to this. Pedestrian deaths were steadily declining for over two decades until 2009, when large vehicles began to dominate US roads. By 2022, annual pedestrian deaths had surged from around 4,100 to over 7,500 — a jump of nearly 80 per cent. This surge in pedestrian deaths has been directly linked to the growing popularity of these giant cars. And Australia is now on a similar path. We're trailing this trend. Pedestrians and motorcyclists are the only road users in Australia showing a consistent rise in fatalities for four years straight. No such pattern exists for drivers or passengers. And most vulnerable of all are children. In the United States, around 110 children are hit by vehicles each week in parking lots and driveways. The numbers have been climbing for years. Car hoods were once designed to slope downwards, giving drivers a clearer field of view. But today's boxy SUVs jut straight out before dropping off, creating large blind zones where small children simply disappear. You could line up a dozen children sitting in front of some of these vehicles, and the driver wouldn't see the first eight or nine. With certain models, you'd need more than twelve children in a row before one even appears in your view. Why car size is a moral issue We barely talk about car size as a moral issue. But maybe we should. The thing is, for many of us this is a subconscious choice. Nobody walks into a dealership and says, 'I'd like to endanger others.' But when you see enough of the same vehicle on the road it stops feeling like a choice. It starts feeling like self-defence. Especially when you're told that you need one of these to protect your family from all the other giant cars already out there. This imposes real — if marginal — risk on those who can't, or choose not to, participate in the vehicle size race: children walking to school or pedestrians crossing the road. And let's not forget all of us are pedestrians, at least some of the time. Driving tank-sized vehicles through residential streets, with bonnets at eye-level for most adults and towering above children, is a cultural export. And it's unmistakably American in posture — in-your-face, unapologetic, and indifferent to who gets left out. And this means, we're caught in a cycle of reactive consumerism: we buy big because others are big. We tell ourselves it's a personal choice, but how much of it was ever really ours to begin with? Milad Haghani is an Associate Professor of Urban Mobility at the University of Melbourne.
