27 May 2026

Mr GAFFNEY (Mersey) - Thank you, Mr President. I rise to speak to the 2026-27 Budget. A budget that has been characterised by both the Premier and his Treasurer as getting the balance right has also come with a supremely optimistic aim of reaching an operational balance within two years and a fiscal balance in four. Broadly, this Budget is an unfortunate reality facing Tasmanians. The functions of state government are stymied beneath the mountain of net debt with no way to pay it without hurting Tasmanians and causing them pain, in all walks of life.

Decisions made by government about their use of resources can quite easily be boiled down to opportunity cost. As every young adult learns when they get their first paycheque, a dollar spent on a want means a dollar less to spend on other things they might really need. Another fiscal lesson learned by many, often enough through a hard education, is that credit is a risky tool. It can be used to maximise outcomes, but it can come with the downside. It takes away future spending capacity and must be paid back at some point.

It's important to keep these concepts of opportunity cost and future spending capacity in mind when discussing budgetary fiscal policy, because the state government is not so dissimilar to a person receiving a paycheque or accessing a line of credit, although the decisions government make have an impact on every Tasmanian now and into the future. These people, indeed, the Tasmanian government, make decisions based on priorities. They assign value or utility to different choices and make the ones which they think will provide the best return for the dollar spent.

Sometimes wants are balanced against one another, and basic needs must overtake spurious wants. A person will find him or herself in fiscal strife if the expenditure on needs, and indeed wants, outweighs their budget or earning capacity. To keep the same lifestyle, a person might then turn to a line of credit, but unless there exists a means to repay it efficiently, this person simply pushes this cost further down the line, kicking the can down the road, so to speak. Sometimes it is even pushed so far down the line that it will be inherited or forgiven on this person's debt.

The government of the day must follow many of these same principles, making decisions based on its priorities and balancing wants and needs within its budgetary capacity. Unfortunately, though, when government pushes costs further down the line, it does not have as many options to make more income or otherwise relieve itself from debt. Rather, repayment of the lines of credit that are extended to the government assumes substantial portions of its future income.

To decrease this debt, a government will often need to burn significant political capital by imposing fiscal conservatism, and/or new taxes, something until now the government has chosen not to do. Repayments do not directly deprive the decision maker in the government of anything; unlike a person drowning in debt, the decision makers still get paid. Rather, it deprives others of support from which they would otherwise benefit. Decisions that increase state debt directly correlate to a reduction in future capacity of the government to outlay as much money in support of its constituents.

In this sense, there is a heightened onus placed upon the government to make the right decisions. The government has access to countless resources with which to forecast outcomes, come to rational conclusions and analyse the opportunity cost of different choices; but if it makes the wrong decision, it risks imposing a generational burden upon its constituents. It's important not to lose sight of this when crafting responsible fiscal policy, as indeed governments have and continue to do.

Indeed, the current Tasmanian government is as guilty of it as any, if not more. Over the last decade we have seen the imposition of more net debt to Tasmanians than we've ever seen before. As I've already said, a representative government makes decisions based on the needs and wants of its constituents. A government acting in good faith will make decisions that it thinks will maximise benefits to its constituents or, in some cases, to those vested interests it might prefer. The AFL is a case in point.

Of course, perceptions of maximising benefits differ. Governments and their supporters argue that the benefit of expenditure is maximised by investment in different priorities. For example, some believe a prioritised investment in health will maximise the benefit of dollars spent to Tasmania, others an investment in community, and even others in an overpriced stadium blotting out a beautiful cityscape.

A budget paper is a sort of statement of priority of intent. When the government, acting in good faith, puts forward its proposed expenditure for the next year, it reveals what its priorities are. It reveals what it believes, rightly or wrongly, will be the correct way to achieve the best outcomes.

This Tasmanian Budget has been recognised by many as the first serious attempt by the Tasmanian government to address the mountain of debt that's piled up on top of it. As economist Saul Eslake puts, this is the first time in a decade that the budget has, 'Genuine, serious, for the most part, credible attempt to impose some restraint on the Tasmanian government spending and borrowing.' The Treasurer himself spoke of the time when there was a season for deficit budgeting and declared now as a season for balancing the books and returning to sustainable budgeting.

It's interesting to see his enthusiasm for those classic verses from Eclastees -

Ms Forrest - Ecclesiastes.

Mr GAFFNEY - That's it. I've been practising that, too.

Ms O'Connor - He got it wrong.

Mr GAFFNEY - He got it wrong, too. I think he thinks God got it wrong.

Yes, a book that, according to Rabbinic tradition, was written by King Solomon. Dare I suggest that he's taking the author's preference to heart in a budget that brings the judgment of Solomon down upon so many of our essential services.

Perhaps the Treasurer needs to take note of public concern over the government's rapacious spending of its unfunded larger project. Our concern is perhaps best reflected in the famous existential question from the same good book which states,

Sheer futility, Qoheleth says. Sheer futility: everything is futile! What profit can we show for all our toil, toiling under the sun? A generation goes, a generation comes, yet the earth stands firm for ever. [Catholic Bible - Ecclesiastes 1:2-5]

Tasmanians are increasingly frustrated with the government that promises so much in talking the talk and then avoids accountability when it comes to answering questions on how it's all going to be paid for, and by whom. If only the promise of an attempt to balance the books came a year earlier before the stadium commitment, or a year earlier than that before the TT Line debacle, or in any of the 10 years before that. We would not be in this position, then, and we'd be free to invest far more to maintain social services, healthcare, education and justice, to improve the lives of all Tasmanians, not just those who can afford footy tickets, bespoke accommodation or a suite on the TT Line.

We are now up to spending $880 million this year alone simply to service the debt we have, more than half of which is interest and part of which we will repay some of the principal. This figure alone would cover our annual deficit with millions to spare. Imagine what our community organisations could do with that. I understand the rationale for this Budget, but it's extremely disappointing that the government has put Tasmania in this position in the first place.

It was incredible to watch how easily the government pivots between supporting incredible financial outlays, such as the TT Line fiasco or the Macquarie Point Stadium, whilst justifying reducing hundreds of jobs through the public sector. I wonder how employees in health or education feel about being asked to reduce a large portion of their headcount. These areas have been crying out for assistance for decades. I wonder if they or, indeed, the majority of Tasmanians, think that this should happen to pay for an already grossly over budget stadium and badly built boats there's still nowhere to load. There are areas that have significant economic benefit investment, providing the building blocks on which economic gains and future efficiencies can be had. For its discussions of the importance of preventative healthcare and improved educational outcomes, there seemed little by way of prioritisation in the budget for these.

To quickly digress, I note the unfortunate irony of the government calling for a review of workers compensation legislation to reduce workplace mental health claims right after announcing that a quarter of the employees at the Department of State Growth, and thousands across the government will be cut. Without even telling them who will not have a contract come next year. I can only imagine the mental health impact of finding out through Pulse Tasmania that you have a 25 per cent chance of not having a job next year. Let's not forget, it was the Liberal government who instigated the Department of State Growth to be the driving force behind Tasmania's economic success. It is not a cheap exercise to set up a new structure or department, or to rebadge it as another entity or way of operating. Some might say it is shuffling the deckchairs after a poorly considered thought bubble. Moving on.

It was interesting to hear the Treasurer quote Margaret Thatcher in presenting the Budget, saying, 'The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.' This implies we should not be using other people's money. Irrespective of the accuracy of the statement, it is not very reflective of Tasmania's reality or the reality of the last 10 state budgets. Tasmania costs more to run than it generates in revenue, draws disproportionately more GST than it contributes, relies on Commonwealth funding constantly and requires more money than other states due to its demography. Sadly, we are the very definition of a medicant state. The very budget put forward relies on other people's money for a positive pathway forward by way of Commonwealth support and a hopeful perspective on more GST allocation than it currently receives. The unfortunate reality of Tasmania is that we rely on the money of other people. Reliance on such ideology is not realistic in the Tasmanian situation and that is important to recognise. We should be aiming to improve our outcomes and our ongoing financial health, but not at the cost of 'dinosaur-ity' based on Thatcherism. All that will do is hurt our economy and hurt our vulnerable, of which there are many.

Of course, where this quote is correct is in implying that irresponsible spending leads to dissatisfactory and unacceptable outcomes. Such a consideration leads one to question the delivery of key state infrastructure by the current government. Repeatedly, the government has failed to deliver key infrastructure on time. The TT Line blowout, which the Treasurer labelled as essential necessary spending, is a perfect example of mismanagement. I recently read an article in The Monthly titled 'Ship of Fools'. It is a [inaudible] article that goes front to back through the TT Line debacle timeline, makes astute observations and discusses the ongoing government mismanagement and failure in communication that gave way to such a disastrous spend.

This led me to contemplate how the commitment to, and mismanagement of, infrastructure projects affects Tasmania. Similarly to overspending, these projects have the very real risk of leaving future Tasmanians with a host of problems that may come through debt spending, or just through fixing and managing future outcomes of mismanagement. This transcends to day to day government practice. The government vests itself with power to deliver these builds, either through legislation or just by funding them. Sometimes, when their proposals are shot down by proper planning procedures, they've forced them through parliament, reliant on political pressure and almost populist politics, painting concerned Tasmanians, reputable analysts, and concerned businesses in a poor light along the way. Having granted themselves the sole power to ensure the delivery of these builds, the government then proceeds to not deliver on time or on budget. In the case of the TT Line, through massive mismanagement and miscommunication, we found out seven years after the project began that the docks are inadequate for the size of the ship. One must question, with a $60 million budget, how such a failure in planning is possible. Of course, when I say miscommunication, I actually refer to actors within the state government ignoring concerns of many different parties, saying one thing and doing another. A shocking example of mismanagement was given in the article I was reading, it says,

[…] emerged that the Treasurer and Infrastructure minister Michael Ferguson had been aware of concerns about TT Line's berth 3 problems since October 2023, but for nine months had failed to mention them to the public. In August 2024, he told a parliamentary inquiry that he had raised this issue with TT Line at the time, but had been firmly assured that the project was on track. As to which track, it wasn't clear, but TasPorts' chair, Stephen Bradford, told the inquiry he'd been consistently concerned about TT Line's progress in upgrading berth 3 since even earlier, October 2022, and regularly raised the issue with both TT Line and Ferguson. 'Why is it TT Line, as a ferry company, leading a major infrastructure upgrade to the port?' asked Josh Willie, a Labor MP and the current opposition leader. 'Why isn't it TasPorts?' Ferguson replied that it was within TT Line's authority to decide to manage its own berthing arrangement, despite being shareholder minister responsible for monitoring the broader role of government business, his hands were apparently tied. When asked: You've got one company, TasPorts, that has a history of infrastructure upgrades around ports and you've got another company, TT Line, that doesn't have such a history and is a ferry company. Did you have any concerns about the risk being loaded onto TT Line for that upgrade? [tbc 11.35]

Ferguson replied that he valued the TT Line board and management and had accepted their assurances while reiterating that these were decisions only the board could make.

The inquiry also revealed that TT Line's tender with the proposed build of the berth 3 upgrades had fallen over months earlier during the election caretaker period and the project had to be re tendered entirely causing further delays. Quote: (tbc 11.36)

'This is a surprise for me, as Minister for Infrastructure formerly the minister for Transport', Ferguson said grimly. TT Line issued a statement that same day. The board of TT Line Company Pty Ltd has disputed elements of the evidence presented to the inquiry. Chair Michael Grainger look forward to setting the record straight when he appeared before it. The media was salivating. Premier Jeremy Rockliff instead asked Granger to resign with immediate effect.

Such mismanagement, miscommunication and misrepresentation to the public comes with its own set of costs that do not arise in a year on year budget. Such disasters take years, often decades to fix. They impose generational cost. One must wonder the number of operational efficiencies - code for gutting the public service - that we would not have to find if we do not have to fork out for TT Line.

Speaking of the new Spirits, it's gratifying to finally see the construction of the new berth unloading facility in East Devonport come together after all the mismanagement and stuff ups that brought us to the farcical situation where we have two new ships and no way of using them.

What has come as more of a shock than a surprise is the latest $507 million bailout to keep TT Line afloat. It's almost like they are sailing on a sea of $50 and $100 notes to try to stop the whole show from sinking. Yet the budget states $200 million upfront and the rest to come at a later date. So, why does it need another $307 million? Or is that just a contingency for the next blowout? I have to wonder how it has got to that point. I know with perfect hindsight, it's too late to right the many wrongs, but with last year's [inaudible 11.37.33], were at the thick end of the $600 million, on top of all the additional funding that's gone into the new Spirits.

What it does indicate, and maybe with perfect foresight, is that we potentially have an even bigger financial time bomb in the new stadium, complete with a fizzing fuse that's just been lit. The government, for now, is sticking to its $1.13 billion cost estimate for the stadium. Even the budget papers cast doubt on what the final cost might come to. Maybe that's where the Treasurer's right size mantra comes in: whatever the final bill, it will be exactly the right size for his government and the right size for him, in his role as Minister for Macquarie Point Urban Renewal. The bigger question is: will it be the right size for our economy or will it be the final weight at the bottom of Tasmania that drags us under and into bankruptcy?

I can't help noting the increasing public concern from the leaders of the mainland AFL clubs as to the financial risks and viability of the AFL's Tassie Devils team. I say that deliberately as it's very much an AFL owned team; it's a very private entity, no matter how much we say it's ours. The AFL owns it and says what goes. We are just the funding partner carrying all the risk and liability for every penalty and compensation clause built into the Premier's hasty contractual agreement with the AFL.

For a Liberal government that purports to support private entities, the government seems intent on the public management of and liability for these infrastructure builds. Ironically, their subsequent mismanagement leads credence to the they say, 'fair principles', which they consequently attempt to rely upon to sell off our private enterprises for a short term surplus, an idea put up as a possible solution before it was rightly shot down by all sides.

This is not an isolated issue either - housing commitments, Marinus, the North West Transmission Developments, the stadium, health builds well behind their promised schedules and the Kingston bus interchange are just a few. It is unfortunate because other state governments give proof that this does not have to be the case. Our public manager of infrastructure should be better. Maybe Tasmanians would be less sceptical of proposals if they had confidence in the government to deliver them.

What is obvious from the table of operational efficiencies in budget no. 4 is the who would have thought it coincidence between the $1.467 billion of projected savings, a figure that will possibly cost the entire cost of the new stadium, the Kingston High Performance Centre and maybe part of the sewerage plant relocation costs. It's a classic case of Peter to pay Paul, or in this case robbing central services to pay tribute in fealty to the AFL patriarchy in its agreement with the present Premier. We know full well and what will be paying the price, it will not be the government or its ministers.

The other risk is the classic bait and switch. The government is a signatory to the National Health Reform Agreement, which comes with an additional $700 million in health funding from the federal government. In a classic case of cost shifting, the Treasurer is now demanding $708 million in operational efficiency savings from the Department of Health. No wonder the federal government gets shirty as its additional funding contribution is neutralised to offset the cost of the government's pet projects.

Of course, just earlier this year, our own honourable Julie Collins MP said the following.

I continue to raise for the Tasmanian state government the lack of action on a range of infrastructure projects in my electorate. My big message here today is that the federal government keeps stepping up to the plate and providing funding, but the Tasmanian state government doesn't keep delivering. (tbc 11.41)

Of course, we saw in the most recent federal budget that the Commonwealth has once again stepped up to the plate to provide funding. Once again, we received hundreds of millions for infrastructure builds. Our request for more GST, right as they are, are simply another example of reliance on the Commonwealth for bailouts, without any guarantee that we will use the money wisely.

There is an uplift in federal distributions that will arrive as additional revenue over and above what was expected only six months ago. Over the next four years, it will amount to $1.7 billion, as $738 million from GST and $938 million in grants for specific purposes. As golden geese go, these are particularly welcome, the benefits of which must not be squandered. We must ensure these funds are used for their intended purpose and not used to offset government wins.

Education is another department that relies on co-funding agreements with the federal government and again the federal government is keen to prevent cost shifting in its education funding agreements. To quote once again the operational efficiency mantra as the new vernacular for devastating cuts, I see that education is coming in as a close third place to state growth in the race to remove the largest chunks of flesh.

It's $228 million of cuts as a key deliverable over the next four years is a bitter pill for our school communities to swallow. It's on the back of a previous expectation that DECYP was to find $80 million of cost savings from previous budgets. Now, we're looking at $308 million and maybe more. The Treasurer assures us that it will focus on right sizing the back-office areas of DECYP, a move which I'm sure will do little to reassure those staff members whose jobs are on the line.

In ancient history terms, they face the literal decimation of their numbers. 10 per cent may not sound like much to the Treasurer, but for the 150 jobs that are facing the axe, I'm sure it will have huge consequences for those staff members and their families. It's an Alice in Wonderland move of drink this to shrink or face the red queen running around shouting off with their heads.

So where else can these operational efficiencies come from? Education is a perennial topic of discussion and lots of outsiders telling educators what they should be doing. One of these ongoing policies has been the government's desire to appease the demand of these outsiders by imposing year 11 and 12 on every high school in the state, regardless of need or distance from a nearby college. We're now in the situation where the year 11 and 12 extension plan has been put into practice. That's a period of over 12 years with no review of the efficacy of this grand experiment. In a government that's so keen on oversight and accountability, surely that's more than simple negligence.

We're now to adopt the mantra of operational efficiency. When will it be applied to what must be close to $200 million spent so far on the extension experiment that is year 11 and 12 in every high school. Can the Treasurer insist on operational efficiency evaluation for year 11 and 12 as a common sense and rational move? There are a few high schools in my electorate where there are perhaps three or four kids at most in year 11 and 12. What does that mean for our resources?

In last year's Estimates, the minister for education stated that there are seven high schools with no year 11 and 12 enrolments at all, and eight with one to five enrolments. If we look at the median enrolments per school, it comes out as nine in year 11, and five in year 12 per high school across the state. Hardly an overwhelming measure of success for $200 million in spending and the redistribution of year 11 and 12 teaching staff away from colleges.

If the government's so keen to find savings, why hasn't it examined the year 11 and 12 extension program in our high schools? I can give you one good reason why: it would mean admitting that it's not working as intended, unless the intention was to undermine the college system that's colleges with an absolute student centric approach and all the experience of working with year 11 and 12 and teaching TASC subjects; the college system that, endorsed across the mainland, irritates the hell out of the top down bystanders that love non government schools. In simple terms, why not say for year 11 and 12 to continue in a high school within 30 kilometres of a college, it must enrol a minimum of, say, 25 year 11 and 12 students in that school. It could then consolidate the efficiencies back into the college system where they really belong. It would give viable class sizes for specialist subject teachers in short supply and maybe save the thick end of the $200 million that has mostly been wasted thus far.

Despite all the darkness and hidden corners, there are some bright lights in the budget. The extension of fare free public transport for another year is one that builds on past fare amnesties. The initial indications of a 30 per cent uptick in the use of public transport shows just how important it has been in the cost of living crisis. The other side of this is that it brings to an end the unfair postcode lottery that applies to student transport, especially when it comes to our high school and college students. The Treasurer, in his previous role as minister for transport was a keen defender of fare free transport for rural and regional students. He has also been a defender of charging fares to the same cohort of students attending the same year grades where their bus route happened across an urban boundary. It's been an ongoing issue in my electorate for at least the last seven years, where rural students attending their nearest high school and never leaving the municipality were compelled to pay fares on student only contract bus services and again when they went on to Don College. The same is true for students across Tasmania, and that includes Kingston as well.

In reality, it came at a cost of up to $800 per year for the families for every student in that position. It was a perfect postcode lottery and one that affected every rural or regional student that was enrolled in year 11 and 12 at their nearest college. Given the Minister for Education's desire to see better attendance and year 12 completion rates, it will make a real difference to those families struggling to make ends meet. If the scheme has to be wound back at some time in the future, it must be retained for all school aged students and end forever the unfair postcode lottery. Speaking of Don College, I note that none of our year 11 and 12 colleges are on the list for new or improved facilities. In the budget overview I can't help but note the educationalese references to 'transformational upgrades', with the statement:

New and improved facilities support student learning by delivering modern and fit for purpose environments.

Don College, now in its 50th year, is quite falling apart. The dedicated staff do what they can with what they have. As an example, what were to be temporary, relocatable classrooms have now been in place for decades and are now beyond their usable life. Even Devonport City Council refuses approval for reasonable adaptations that could extend their life. The college itself is a famous brutalist design with crumbling bakelite light fittings that are beyond repair, a wi-fi network defeated by the faraday effect of the concrete reinforcing, and plumbing with dissolving copper and blocked waste pipes, which means toilet and kitchen facilities have to be regularly closed off. Dare I suggest the Minister for Skills and Jobs, as a plumber by trade, might like to visit with his bag of tools to make a proper assessment of the situation? If the government is so keen to deliver improved year 11 and 12 retention and completion rates, can it address its own mantra with tangible support for our college infrastructure rather than wasting it by diluting year 11 and 12 upgrades into our high schools?

Speaking of making ends meet, there's another bright light in the expansion of the Ticket to Wellbeing, and the continuation of the Ticket to Play, both with a focus on making sporting and recreational activities accessible to those on limited incomes. However, there is a but: whilst it allows activities such as archery, cadets, croquet, dancing, shooting and tenpin bowling to be eligible, it doesn't include active recreational activities such as community bands, choirs, community theatre and universities of the third age (U3A), all of which should be equally eligible under the scheme. I encourage the government to revisit its criteria, as I know that within my electorate, the City of Devonport Brass, the Latrobe Federal Band, Crescendo Choir and its music hub, Exhale Community Choir, Right on Cue Choir, the Devonport Choral Society, and Port Sorell U3A all have a focus on wellbeing and active participation by their members. Please remember: these are the fully inclusive team sports for people that are not in traditional team sports.

Another shining gem is the promised $46 million funding for 32 of our 35 Neighbourhood Houses. I understand that the funding model is under review, and I assume that the almost even distribution of the $46 million reflects this. I would also welcome more information on the modelling; if the previous Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA) assessment is still the basis of the funding model; and if the government's A and B funding categories are still in place. There was a problem where the Deloraine house was rated as B for baseline funding when it should have been A with higher needs funding. Has the review of all houses been updated to reflect their actual need or is it simply an equal share model? The reason I ask this is that in the cost of living crisis, Neighbourhood Houses have been facing unsustainable demands on their resources, many of which are providing support for community members far beyond what might be termed their natural home areas.

Despite the government's love of large infrastructure projects, football and brightly painted ships, it has already addressed the growing need for community mental health services, many of which were previously only available in our major cities. Besides the $40 million for the mental health precinct at the North West Regional Hospital, there's been a particular welcome for the previously announced $7.6 million of funding for the new Devonport Mental Hub as a community walk in suite of services for those experiencing distress and needing ongoing support. While it's in its planning stage, I hope that it can still meet its 2027 completion date.

There is an ongoing matter of hidden stress in our community. It's what we might term funeral poverty: that's where the cost of the funeral arrangements for a loved one can overwhelm a family's means to pay it. It can be especially distressing as not everyone has the many thousands of dollars required for even a basic, unattended cremation. Care Beyond Cure has been advocating for many years to establish Tender Funerals Tasmania as Tasmania's first not for profit, community led funeral service. Lynne Jarvis, as its spokesperson, has been meeting with the government and the Director of Local Government to make the case for government support for this initiative. As Lynne says:

While grieving, many people are also being asked to make significant financial decisions at a vulnerable time. For too many Tasmanians, the cost of a funeral can mean debt, distress and fewer choices about how they farewell someone they love.

The funeral business is very much a business that charges thousands of dollars and, sadly, they missed out in the budget. I hope that there can be increasing recognition of the need for tangible support for economical, family led funerals, support that is freely available in other jurisdictions. It was also pleasing to see some relief of community and social services in the Budget. However, as TasCOSS notes:

Many of the positive measures announced in the Budget were short term and temporary at a time when the uncertainty facing Tasmanians demanded a long term investment.

It was extremely disappointing to see a significant, 43 per cent reduction in funding for Palliative Care Tasmania (PCT). It is especially concerning as we're in the midst of a three year review of the End-of-Life Choices (Voluntary Assisted Dying) Act 2021. The review will no doubt be considering the provisions of palliative care services within Tasmania as part of its deliberations. As PCT put in their budget response:

This cut in funding comes when we know that those needs are increasing year on year and when hospital and residential aged care settings are challenged further in the face of similar budgetary constraints and escalating pressures. As a result, that pressure is felt statewide. It is felt by those facing the most vulnerable time of their lives, not only families and friends, but often this impacts whole communities. The need for good quality palliative care across Tasmania has never been felt so deeply. We know that this will not ease in times to come.

This is further reinforced by the CEO of Queen Victoria Care, who stated:

Residents are entering care later, with higher acuity, greater frailty and increasingly complex end of life trajectories. The role of organisations such as PCT in supporting the sector through education, advocacy and community programs is critical to maintaining both quality and dignity of care. We are particularly concerned about the potential impact on projects and service innovations that strengthen capability across the system.

Initiatives that support grief, bereavement and community understanding are not ancillary; they are essential elements of a compassionate, sustainable model of care. Any contraction in these areas will inevitably shift pressure back onto already stretched providers and families.

It's worth noting that PCT received close to $1.2 million in core funding last financial year. While that's no small amount, it's just a few decimal percentage points when compared to the many hundreds of millions of dollars we have committed for no justifiable reason to the TT-Line or to give the stadium a roof.

Hand-in-hand, in palliative care is the support for carers themselves. These are the unpaid and unsupported family and friends that go out of their way to care for people they love. I'd go further as we need to recognise there's not $1 of new investment for more than 87,000 unpaid carers who keep this state functioning.

The parents caring for children with disability, the partners supporting loved ones with chronic illness, the adult children caring for ageing parents or ageing grandparents caring for younger grandchildren. They save the government billions every year, yet this budget offers nothing for them.

Worse still the government's failed to fund the next Tasmanian Care Action Plan, the very framework that's supposed to give effect to the Carer Recognition Act. As Samantha Fox, the CEO of Carers Tasmania, said;

A caring community is one that funds its carers and on today's evidence, Tasmania is not yet that community. Carers and the Tasmanians they care for, are the heaviest users of the health system. When efficiencies are extracted from health, it is carers who pick up the shortfall. Unpaid, unsupported and increasingly exhausted.

Mr President, one must question the morality of stripping resources from organisations supporting our most vulnerable, to pay for the mismanagement of infrastructure builds. One must also question the morality of financially undercutting departments that have been calling for more resources for years, again to pay for infrastructure we can barely afford to pay for.

Despite the sage of advice from Saul Eslake, the government is focused on cuts and the absence of revenue raising measures. It cites it as an unbreakable election promise, no new taxes. I'm not sure that washes with anyone now with the Premier's happy abandonment of any number of election promises to suit his purposes. We only have to look about his about face on greyhound racing and the now failed idea of TasInsure, state-owned insurance underwriter. That's now to be a regulatory [inaudible 11.57]. It's yet another result of naive policy thinking on the fly. It's almost as if government policy is now produced by throwing mud at the wall and seeing what sticks.

Given these constraints, the Treasurer's has made a valiant attempt to bring back a reasonable budget that has half a chance of balancing the books. Many commentators disagree, citing hidden detail, missing information and new fees that Tasmanians have to pay for. However, the government has spent itself into a corner and is looking to break down some walls to escape its self-imposed predicament. That's not saying much as the writing has been on the wall for many years, and maybe finally the government is trying to do something. Is it a little too little too late, who knows?

What we do know is that we have a government that's a fan of big infrastructure projects, and less so of considering the consequences of when they go wrong. In these cost cuts, the government will undercut the frontline services which support Tasmania while also undermining those resources they rely upon to do the job.

The answer in part to our exploding debt liabilities tend to be balanced with increasing contributions from the federal government as a lucky windfall, and the Treasurer's enthusiasm for what he calls operational efficiency, to constrain the departments of his fellow cabinet ministers with what appears to be ambitious budget constraints.

However, the budget risks a shameful outcome where the government is compromised in the present reality of our younger generation. A generation which will have to eventually pay for the political hubris of our current leaders, both in increased taxes and fees and reduced public services. That is the legacy that may define the 12 years to date for the Tasmanian Liberal government.

In closing, Mr President, I can recognise the steps the government has taken to correct course of state finance. Nonetheless, this is not a situation that Tasmania ever should have to be placed in, and the cost to our communities will be hard to bear. I would leave you with a final appeal that the government considers spending priorities wisely and takes greater care in its management of our state's finances, and our vulnerable Tasmanians.

Mr President, I note the 2026-27 Budget.