18 March 2026

Mr GAFFNEY (Mersey) - Thank you, Madam Deputy President. I rise to respond to the Premier's Address. I cannot help but admire the Premier's ambition in what he sees in the halcyon days in the future of Tasmania. It is a worthy perspective and one that we would all welcome if we can afford it. The Premier focuses his address on the future ahead of the state, discussing opportunities and addressing Tasmania as turning a new leaf into an era of opportunity.

The tone of the Premier's Address was one of excited optimism but not realism. His closing statement, for example, is one which pretends uncertainty and upheaval exists everywhere but in Tasmania. He is right that Tasmania is a land rich with opportunity and possibility, but we must focus on the economic risks on the road ahead and the government must ensure it is doing the right thing by the people.

In the real world, there are learned voices in our community and in this Chamber too, highlighting the perilous state of our finances and the government's apparent refusal to do anything about it, other than to say we cannot afford not to do it. Mismanagement will undermine the potential of Tasmania. Of course, I am not saying that we should not be hopeful for the future, but instead to be realistic about the needs of Tasmanians and the various pitfalls facing this government.

The differences come in how we, as the independent nation state of Tasmania, can grow and support a flourishing economic base and still be able to pay our debts as and when they fall due. It is a simple definition of good governance and it is the defining tenet of any well run entity, board of directors or in this case Tasmania; a Cabinet with the Premier as its head.

Madam Deputy President, I would like to start on a positive note. I can appreciate the efforts that the Premier has made in achieving his vision for the state and genuine attempts at the Tasmanian Government has made to better certain vulnerable areas across the state. Of course, I have concerns about the policy agenda and actions of the government as well as their intentions moving forward, but there are some things that must be recognised as good faith attempts to address serious issues facing Tasmanians. Considering the recent election fiasco - mind you, a fiasco stemming from prior governmental mismanagement and a fundamental misunderstanding of the concerns in the public arena - the government has managed to push forward with a variety of its proposals regarding healthcare, education and housing. Initiatives to increase housing supply, promote first home buyers, ease healthcare burden and provide funding toward educational facilities are all welcome. These are undeniably good faith attempts to ease the issues Tasmanians face. Attempts to reduce cost of living, energy bills and concessions are important as well and much appreciated by vulnerable Tasmanians, especially now. For example, funding bulk-billing GPs, funding existing GPs, and attempts to improve health education are so important to our state. Or one can look to the continuous improvements of educational facilities or the recent funding for first home buyers although the jury's still out on that one.

Whilst the government is, thankfully, backing down on its proposals regarding privatisation, it should be acknowledged that it's commonplace for this government to try to reintroduce legislation, policy and thought bubbles at a time further down the track. One can think of mandatory sentencing and development assessment panels being examples of the way this government operates.

Last time I spoke, I commended the red tape-cutting initiative. I note, of course, the government just recently announced reducing unnecessary red tape from the liquor licensing, and appears to be making inroads in its PlanBuild and other such initiatives. This will hopefully have a direct and positive impact on Tasmanian businesses and businesses in tenders.

The political conundrum is how to accomplish it whilst keeping the community cohesion and support that characterises Tasmania as a state, its people and the ability for our next generation to thrive in the world as it is today. The reference to today is critical. We are in quite a different place to what it was even 10 years ago. Young Tasmanians are very much living in the present and having to make choices with an eye to their future. Long gone are the times of easily affordable housing, cheap transport, and the ability for a single wage to feed a family. We are now in a time where Tasmania's early advantage of low cost living has evaporated, dried up and turned to dust. It is where memories of low prices are the stuff of legends and where the ever-increasing cost-of-living pressures are driving our younger generations to the mainland, with its promise of higher wages and proportionally more affordable housing.

How did we get into this position? Conservative political theory loves the ideas of hands off government and trickle down economics. It has a view that government should actively support large-scale business with grants, tax breaks and lots of publicity and then get out of the way so that economic good times can flow down into our communities. Business can simply get on with the job of making money with little to no government interference. Well, other than getting the essential subsidy cheque from Treasury, and announceable photo op from the minister, complete with high vis vest, safety glasses and a hard hat ready to be spruiked on social media. If only that were true. It does not work and never has.

We have recent examples where businesses have received substantial government subsidies, loans and the like, and yet are struggling to be viable. Think of the Hellyer metals mine and the Liberty Bell Bay manganese smelter as ongoing cases. Add to that the Nyrstar crisis that needed a $135 million rescue package: $57.5 million from federal, $55 million from South Australia and $22.5 million from Tasmania.

However, there's nothing so needy as a business needing government to support it due to potential closures and job losses, and it's a desperate plea that business has learnt to use to good effect. It's almost as if they can't function unless they get taxpayer funding, and even then, success is by no means guaranteed. In the scheme of things, these sums are small amounts compared to the government's commitments in the last few years, but the same governance principles apply. Are these enterprises viable, and will they be in a position to pay their debts as well when they fall due, or without needing a taxpayer bailout?

Of course, this government has its undeniable issues which have, and will continue to impact, on the wellbeing of Tasmanians. Some things I would like to touch on in my response to the Premier's Address include the broadly incoherent government policy base that is portrayed as somehow bettering our state. However, the government is failing to recognise that Tasmania is, in its economic and welfare setting, moving backward, and the government continues to display a concerning attitude toward proper process. These thematic underpinnings of the government's approach to Tasmania directly impact current Tasmanians and those future generations we leave it to. Without proper management and a coherent policy structure, and proper governance, we cannot hope to have a strong Tasmania in which people will prosper, younger Tasmanians stay and their dreams are realised.

The government has not outlined a clear path forward for Tasmania, Madam Deputy President. Instead, it has a set of stated objectives in the 2030 Strong Plan, disjointed legislation and policy, much of which has been achieved through less-than-savoury political means, manoeuvring and sleight-of-hand politics. Instead of focusing on managing Tasmania for the betterment of Tasmanians, ensuring fiscal responsibility and prioritising those of vulnerable Tasmanians who need it most, the government appears focused on media headlines. The Premier states that exciting days and years are ahead of us and of course, it may be exciting to announce a new stadium, or the Spirit being ready. These are great headlines, but they do not acknowledge the impost, financially and politically, which will be carried by Tasmanians for years to come.

There are a set of clear issues that must be addressed by the government, Madam Deputy President. Mental and physical health problems, cost-of-living problems, housing, debt and stagnant state growth are just a few major impediments to the wellbeing of both future and current Tasmanians. The government does not appear to have a clear path forward to address these; rather, it has outlined a haphazard and disjointed plan for Tasmania.

The Premier speaks with great enthusiasm and excitement about the Macquarie Point stadium and auxiliary AFL facilities projects, with its yet-to-be-finalised billion dollar plus bill. He did say that the Marinus project decision was a tough call politically. That was due to it being made during the caretaker period of the last election, and they're still desperately holding out on releasing the unredacted copy of its business case. If the expectation is transparent government, the Marinus project, with its yet-to-be-determined capital costs and expected operational losses that will be borne by Tasmanian consumers, is an ongoing saga of disappointment.

Added to this is the ongoing new Spirits farce, then seeing the government and its wholly owned entities making an absolute pig's ear of that project.

Of course, Madam Deputy President, what should be the priorities for state government have been clearly explained by Saul Eslake, an economist whose advice they seem to heed only when convenient. Some of his footnotes seem to have been accepted, though, in abandoning their privatisation agenda. Unfortunately, it's clear, however, they have not heeded his or many other Tasmanians' calls for governmental fiscal responsibility. Or they have recognised it, but in name only.

The government has, when convenient, recognised the need for responsible spending and adequate prioritisation of expenditure. At other times, it has made massive over commitments, failed to deliver on important projects and emptied the state coffers on countless missteps. In the process of doing so, it bullheadedly refuses to acknowledge that same fiscal responsibility it just earlier used as its basis for another policy decision. In jumping from responsible to irresponsible, depending on the decision, the government is driving the state into more debt and risking our financial viability.

The fact that only a few months ago the Auditor-General found the TT Line to be insolvent is a shameful outcome for a state-owned company. Its chairman took umbrage as he virtually said, it can just do an Oliver Twist to the government any time it needs with, 'Please, sir, can we have some more?' Then, as if by magic, more money will appear. Sure enough and right on cue, there is an extra $75 million bailout in last year's interim budget for the TT Line, and who knows how much else will be in that line item for this one? Can you imagine a Tasmanian family or small business running its finances like that and expecting to be praised and rewarded?

As I said, the Premier and his government are not short of pride and ambition. The greater problem is they have lost the confidence of our community in their ability to manage what should be straightforward projects to be delivered on time and on budget or, dare we hope, under budget. Simply put, Madam Deputy President, the government needs to put forward a united, cohesive front in its policy, legislation and decision making to achieve outcomes. You cannot be the party of a small government, yet dictate private land sales; be the party of responsible fiscal management, yet commit uncapped funding to unnecessary and disgustingly expensive builds; hold the slogan 'jobs and growth', yet cut 10 per cent off all government jobs. The government cannot flip-flop on its policies and priorities, or else it stagnates and fails to help the Tasmanian situation at all.

What these projects have demonstrated is the Premier's ability to divide and totally polarise our community. The jury is still out on whether that is intentional or just a byproduct of his leadership style. Yes, we all have our differences, but overall we give everyone a fair hearing and try to make the best decision; one that is free of invective, and balances risk with opportunity. Tasmania is a place where we care about our future, we care about our community, and whilst we not always agree, we care about being able to trust our representatives to act in our best interests.

Of course, I can recognise the tight situation that the Premier and the government find themselves in. Tough decisions need to be made and cuts are necessary, but those decisions need to be determined in a greater context of proper state management. The government cannot justify one action by reference to Tasmania's fiscal position and totally ignore it in the next. Such decisions cannot be given and taken. The government should not make a small decision into examples of its 'willingness to make tough decisions', or take massive financial decisions and financial mismanagement lightly.

I'm not sure that a large section of our community genuinely believes that any of our major parties do act in their best interests. It's called trust: all too easy to lose and so hard to regain. Does the average Tasmanian trust the government and do they trust the opposition to be any better? I'm not sure if they do anymore. There has always been a natural scepticism in Tasmania about politics and politicians, and we rely on the Premier to be the Premier for all Tasmanians, not just the ones that agree with him. In his opening, the Premier stated:

It is regrettable that last year's political games resulted in an unnecessary election being forced upon the state.

I would say that is entirely on him and his government. I'm not sure the opposition can claim any credit either. What the result did show is that Tasmanians are looking for an alternative to the main parties. We only need to look to the surging poll numbers for Independents in the last election, and the recent explosion of support for One Nation across the state, which might surely chill the hopes of the Premier, his party, and even the opposition. Tasmanians do not want a government which cannot find a straight path forward. They do not want a government which focuses on headlines above proper governance or their futures.

What are our options? We have exploding levels of state debt that are predicted to top $130 billion. There is nothing in place to bring that down, and likely, within a few years, we'll be facing interest payments of $600 million a year that will consume half of our budget. Even that could be accelerated by the knock on effects of the latest Gulf War.

Realistically, we have two blunt options: to reduce spending to match income, or increase income to match our spending. It is my impression that the Premier believes on a third option: to commit us to even higher borrowings in the hope that it can magically put everything right, but I'm not sure it can. In his speech, the Premier talks of bureaucratic reform and to restructure the Department of State Growth into three new entities, a move he will say will mean 250 fewer jobs and save $250 million over the next five years.

Part of the impetus seems to be the abject failure of Homes Tasmania to meet its founding objectives as a statutory authority with an appointed board of directors. One might think that the ability to accurately count the number of affordable houses it built would be a key part of its fiduciary responsibilities. It seems not. It is being brought back under in house government control after only a few years of existence. I must ask, Madam Deputy President, if the government can guarantee that this decision will address the now 5000 plus waiting list for housing that Homes Tasmania was designed to solve. Furthermore, given that ongoing tragedy, should the government cut to the chase and put Stadiums Tasmania under the same roof, as statutory authorities with a focus on infrastructure obviously do not work?

The Premier wears rose-tinted glasses discussing the state of the state. He talks about opportunities, exciting times ahead and the potential of Tasmania. While he's right about Tasmanian potential, there is a level of reality which must inform decision making. The budget is in the bin. The government has not put forward an interim budget to set us on the right track but rather continue to spend frivolously with little in mind to the state debt, revenues and proper process.

As I stated earlier, the government seemed to only recognise the dire financial straits of Tasmania when it suits a particular policy they are making. One need only look to the spending on the stadium, the mismanagement of the Spirit as well as the ongoing mismanagement of our debt.

The recent credit downgrade of Tasmania's credit rating to the lowest of any Australian state is simply indicative of why economists, Tasmanians and even other Australians have been calling for change in Tasmania. The mismanagement of Tasmania is such a problem. We spend too much, do too little, and Tasmania suffers for it. This is probably due to lacking prioritisation in a cohesive policy base.

Yet to be decided in the separation from the remains of State Growth, Tourism, Events and Creative Tasmania which I will assume will incorporate the arts. I noticed the Premier uses the words 'agile', 'streamlined' and 'client centred focus' which I'm sure the LinkedIn algorithm will love. I'm surprised there was not space for 'innovative', a word that sends fear into the most sensible and clear-headed public servants. If we want the correct use of the word 'innovative' it would be to describe David Walsh and MONA, his gift to us all in Tasmania. I would go further and say MONA is the catalyst that revitalised Hobart as a bespoke centre of the arts and the reason we now have a thriving hotel and hospitality scene in what was a fading regional backwater. It is also probably the reason the AFL is so insistent on having a new AFL stadium at Macquarie Point as it wants to elbow its way into what MONA has created. Ironically, the Premier speaks fondly of the arts and his enthusiastic belief that arts empowers community and is an investment in community development, diversity, creativity and cultural identity, together with a variety of honey-eyed words around the new strategic plan to boost arts and culture in Tasmania.

Efforts to promote Tasmanian arts and culture are also well appreciated. The Premier's announcement of the plan to boost the arts and continue support tourism and cultural development in Tasmania is welcome. These areas have an important impact, not just directly on those businesses which they support, but on visitation to Tasmania, on the lived experience of Tasmanians and to continue to grow the reputation of Tasmania as a premium experience.

Recently I attended, as did you, the wonderful Tasmanian Theatre Awards held for the first time on the north-west coast in Burnie. It was a wonderful night where the theatrical fraternity was on show at its brilliant best an extremely exciting, diverse and well-organised program, with even Home and Away nearly winning in a category. Imagine my disappointment to receive an email last week from the Tasmanian Theatre Company and Mudlark Theatre Inc, our oldest professional theatre company in Tasmania, that has been forced to close due to lack of government support, closing after 53 years of effort, hard work and talent.

I think other members would have received it but for Hansard:[tbc]

In late 2025, the board directors of the Tasmanian Theatre Company made the heartbreaking decision to close the company. Closing the oldest professional theatre company in Tasmania was not a choice made lightly, but a lack of government support left us with no option.'

It is going to mean 20 job losses losses that will be keenly felt as paid work in the performing arts are hard to come by and even harder to replace, with its final production due to raise its curtain in Hobart at the end of this month and come down for the last time in Devonport on 2 April. Is the government simply going to wash its hands or can't do something to change the situation?

We've had several ministers responsible for the arts since this government came to power in 2014: the late and the honourable Vanessa Goodwin, from 31 March 2014 to 2 October 2017; the honourable Elise Archer from 2 October 2017 to 29 September 2023; the honourable Jeremy Rockliff from 29 September 2023 to 3 October 2023; and the honourable Madeleine Ogilvie from 3 October 2023 to the present day. Surely someone must be responsible and accountable for the decision to not adequately fund the Tasmanian Theatre Company.

I have to look back on the recent decision to cancel a number of the TasTAFE courses in the creative arts and now an updated review and attempt to find $45 million in savings over the next four years, which will no doubt see even greater reductions to courses in the arts.

The Premier uses a mantra that his government are builders, not wreckers to people who may have the temerity to disagree with him. For the Tasmanian Theatre Company, the government is very much the wrecker of its legacy, when the Premier, with his professed love of the arts, could be its saviour. If only they could incorporate an odd-shaped ball or two with an umpire's whistle into a production, its future would be guaranteed. Perhaps we'll leave that to the Uni Revue. If we had a new beaut centre of excellence for the arts, as we have recently for cricket, basketball and football, we might still have the Tasmanian Theatre Company functioning. But wait... we actually do have a perfectly wonderful theatrical arts precinct; however, we must provide the funding for the creative community to continue to flourish.

What does this mean for our next generation, which might be looking to a career in the arts? They'll have no choice other than to head to the mainland for the opportunities and training they need, and they'll probably never return. Losing our artistic, enthusiastic and creative talent is such a disappointment for this state, now and into the future. It's all well and good to invest in other artistic and creative innovations, but at what cost to our theatrical heritage?

There is an additional delicious irony in the TasTAFE announcement as minister Ellis, as its overarching minister, when asked about the $45 million savings move, was quoted as saying:

Like all government agencies, TasTAFE must operate within its allocated budget, as Tasmanians expect.

I think Tasmanians expect the government as a whole to operate within its allocated budget, and not one they can blithely ignore every time one of its favourite projects runs out of money and needs a top up or a doubling of its budget, sometimes before it's even started, such as the Devil's high performance training centre, which started off at $65 million and is now $130 million within 18 months. Every grand idea in the speech that talks of hundreds of millions of dollars of spending, and particularly in the case of the stadium, has a debt meter that is spinning faster than the dollars and cents dials at our local service stations. The problem is that every dollar added to our state debt is an opportunity cost to everything else Tasmania needs.

Indeed not one of our local councils are in the financial spiral that the state government is in and continuing to deny. If the local government authority was in a similar financial position, there would be serious repercussions, more than likely sackings, and that council would go into administration. This management issue permeates everything in government, not only from an organisational level but the merit of good commonsense proposals suffer when one cannot trust the government to manage them. Look at the proposed TasInsure as an example: A state owned insurance company might be a clever idea, it might end up cheaper and might save Tasmanians money in the long run, but it could also do the opposite, ending up another waste of taxpayer money which could otherwise be spent on healthcare, housing, education or any other priority. Such negative outcomes are all the more likely if it is poorly managed. The current government continues to mismanage projects, from the Spirit fiasco to the Macquarie Point development. I'm not even sure people realise the extent to which the cost of the stadium continues to blow out.

These enabling and once in lifetime projects need effective governance, not just a wing and a prayer with a bit of spin to help along the way. There must be clear final costs and fiscal discipline free of bravado and by the product of wolves. What will happen, when the Spirits finally arrive here, is that there will be a big song and dance and fanfare, which there should be, but there won't be somebody saying 'this mismanagement of this project cost the Tasmanian people an extra so many hundreds of millions of dollars'.

Madam DEPUTY PRESIDENT - I hope you get an invitation to the opening as the local member.

Mr GAFFNEY - I'm probably doubtful now, which is not to say we need more red tape, and I take the Premier's point about the need to reduce it and simplify regulatory processes, but his government has had an ongoing red tape reduction initiative, and his government does have a history of ignoring or looking to bypass inconvenient regulation, on a when-it-suits-basis. We must only look at the Macquarie Point project and Marinus to see two recent examples. Maybe the Premier is foreshadowing future government actions that we have yet to learn of, but if it can streamline processes while keeping transparency, due governance and genuine, authentic community consultation, it could be a good move.

I would like to draw attention to something that the government has made a hallmark of its practices: the bypassing of proper process. In this last year especially, the government has relied upon obfuscation, bad faith lawmaking and a distinct lack of community engagement in enacting its policy agenda. This will inevitably be to the detriment of Tasmanians. Take, for example, development assessment panels and the Macquarie Point build, DAP has failed multiple times. Each time it gets nicked, it rears its head again in a slightly different form in the hope that people will just accept its existence and ignore such a damaging proposal.

Meanwhile, the stadium bill was rejected at nearly every level. At every stage the state government ignored the result. The people were against it, the council were against it, the state legislation did not allow it, yet somehow it was forced through, and yet most people wanted the team. The current government represents a legislature unwilling to be bound by prior legislation, by executive decision or by public will and instead is brute forcing its way through proper process. Such actions do not fulfil the role of legislative power. The government continue to demonstrate their willingness to use their political power in concerning ways.

Similarly, the UTAS sale of land legislation represents the government co opting a popular government promise to require all land sales getting parliamentary approval to attempt to sneak through the very sale that is so controversial. Such underhanded lawmaking is not only bad practice, but it's on the nose. If the Premier is looking for spare cash in the budget to fund its preferred projects, I can only imagine the pressure on DECYP and the honourable minister in this place to find savings.

Education is a perennial topic with lots of current ideas on how it's going to work better and several bystanders giving their own running commentary, usually like, 'they could do better', and often said by commentators with no skin in the game. What has been a great interest to us all and to me, is the government's determination in 2014 to offer years 11 and 12 in every public high school. What is especially puzzling is that despite costing what must be close to $200 million by now, there's been no review of the efficacy of this grand experiment. We do have numerous articles and ministers' comments saying how wonderful it is. However, objective information is hard to come by.

As a context, years 11 and 12 have always been available in our remote and regional high schools. What has changed is the government's insistence that every high school must offer it, even if they are just a few blocks away from an existing college. There are some very good examples. I use Ulverston as an example where it has been very successful and is creating. There are a few schools in my area where there are perhaps three or four kids in year 11 and 12. What does that mean to our resources? In questions in last year's Estimates, the honourable minister replied that there are seven high schools with zero year 11 and 12 enrolments, and eight with one to five enrolments. If we look at the median enrolments per school, it comes out, per high school, as nine in year 11 and five in year 12 across the state. Hardly an overwhelming measure of success for $200 million.

The other issue is attendance, with some high schools quoted as having its year 11 and 12 attendance rates of just over 20 per cent. At the very least, could the government review the year 11 and 12 high school program in our urban suburban high schools that have readily accessible colleges nearby. We would be looking at roughly 20 schools that have just in total of over 300 year 11 and 12 students, many of which would already have dual enrolments with the local college. The additional year 11 and 12 staffing costs for those schools alone must be close to $4 million per year as a duplicate to the staff already based in the college. The other issue is the growing shortage of specialist subject teachers for senior secondary subjects, particularly maths and the sciences. It makes sense to consolidate subject classes as a viable size in a central venue and bring the students to the teacher rather than have them chase their tails around every school in the district. A perfect analogy might be this very parliament. Can you imagine having to travel to each of our electorates so that we might individually engage in debates at our convenience?

I could continue to discuss health, but I'm conscious of time. The recent federal developments in additional GP funding for bulk billing, urgent care clinics and mental health hubs are welcome developments, especially with our ageing population that have an ongoing need. As the Premier says health investment takes up $1 in every $3 for the entire state budget.

Whilst the federal government has stepped up with an additional $700 million for health services, it is essential that the funding is not used in creative accounting to fill a health budget cut.

Madam Deputy President, we are living in unprecedented times. The pressure of our state debt is compounding by the day, and there seems to be little appetite to address it other than to hold out hope of a federal bailout before we go bankrupt.

We are at this stage of needing a miracle. We are, of course, dreaming if we think this could be possible and it may be our only hope - $130 billion is an enormous number, unless, of course, the Premier can develop the Midas touch from acquiring the Marinus and TT Line projects.

Madam Deputy President, farming and farmers are often defined as having hope over experience, as any agricultural enterprise is fraught with an unexpected risk of total failure and financial loss which is the nature of the industry. Successful farmers plan for such failures.

Given the Premier's farming pedigree, it does suggest a certain stoicism in his face of financial risk, which is perfectly fine in its context of a family business with the contained sphere of risk that often has little bearing to the wider community outside of the immediate family.

In our circumstances, we're at an entirely different level. Tasmania is not a single farm business. Tasmania has to balance the reality of experience, which is what we get when we don't get what we want with current reality. In Tasmania's case, it's spiralling debt load from recent and future projects that have blown their budgets, debt that is already overshadowing our future options.

Madam Deputy President, the Premier is a shrewd political operator and has succeeded against expectations and together with a number of policy compromises to form a government. The Premier draws attention to many notable features of Tasmania, labelling it the best state to live, work and raise a family in and with the current world situation, he might very well be right.

Our strong democratic procedure is one such feature, and it is one that requires constant effort by lawmakers to uphold. The people of Tasmania deserve more than a government which will ignore and undermine our system of government. The Premier is a decent and likeable man. I would hate for his legacy to be tainted as the Premier who sends Tasmania out into the world with a begging bowl. It might mean hard choices have to be made regarding infrastructure projects.

In the same note, lack of authentic community consultation that is apparent in various decisions is not good law making. Rather, it is inevitable to result in a disenfranchised Tasmania and disappointed voters.

I do not mention these examples as minor individual rights of the government, rather they represent to me a worrying trend in governmental practices. We need to take care to listen to the people, ensure proper process is followed to a tee and use the power vested in us by the people in the best of faith. These are the hallmarks of good governance, not doing what you want, forcing your way and ignoring those who voted for you.
The lack of information available on government intentions, law making and policy, not only to the public, to the members of parliament in both Houses, is difficult as well. I can certainly speak for myself, operating with only one full-time staff member.

Of course, I'm not accusing the government of intentional conspiracy to undermine proper process, rather I'm attempting to bring to the forefront the fact that the government must be vigilant in upholding democratic values, acting in good faith and doing right by all Tasmanians. It has demonstrated laxness in doing so, at best.

In acting so flippantly, considering common sense, rule of law and standard democratic procedure, the government is undermining its own prerogative to act in the people's interests. A government must follow proper process, parliamentary convention and be engaged with its constituents, else it risks leaving those constituents behind.

Our recent investment commitments need hard boundaries and fiscal prudence. Tasmanians need to know that the government can deliver what it says without an, 'oh, dear, we were not expecting that as it took us by surprise'. We need the government to demonstrate sound governance so Tasmania can pay its debts as and when they fall due.

In closing, I thank the Premier for his address. He is correct that Tasmania is a beautiful state, wealthy not just in amazing landscapes, but amazing people with ideas, dreams and hopes. I'm glad he's optimistic, but I must also caution against overt optimism.

Madam Deputy President, the Tasmanian situation is fraught with risk and our economic situations need strong leadership with a positive, good faith approach.

Thank you, Madam Deputy President. I note the Premier's Address.