Budget Speech 2025
Hon. Mike Gaffney MLC
Member for Mersey
​
04 June 2025
​
​
​Mr GAFFNEY (Mersey) - Mr President, I rise to give my thoughts on the budget papers and Appropriation Bills 1 and 2 of 2025. I would first like to thank all members for their efforts and congratulate the member for Montgomery for his election and the members for Nelson and Pembroke for their re-election. I also greatly appreciate the budget speech contributions from all members, and it is interesting to hear the views of others.
As always, the Budget provides an important opportunity to both understand the priorities of the current government and evaluate the adequacy of its responses to the issues facing Tasmania. Responsible budgetary practices are fundamental to good governance and as the house of review, the Legislative Council has a duty to promote responsible practices, examine government budgetary proposals and voice the concerns of our constituents.
In the past years, the government has painted an optimistic picture of their vision for Tasmania. They have proposed radical change, the role of government enterprise in Tasmania centred on deficit reduction and suggested various proposals which have the possibility to alter the state of Tasmania's finances for years to come.
This Budget is a combination of some of these ideas. For better or worse, the government has fleshed out their ideas on cutting red tape, reducing deficit spending and altering the financial position of Tasmania. I would be remiss not to note though, the Liberal government have scaled back many of their plans and watered down proposals. At times this is not unwelcome, as less radical change often means less risk for Tasmanians. However, it also does not instil confidence in their planning and commitment to paths that will by any means have great impact on Tasmania. Moreover, the ongoing structural reform to government spending that is so necessary is missing from this budget. The government has continued to spend and failed to implement as much deficit reduction as one would have expected if it were acting responsibly.
I will begin by looking at the positive aspects of the budget before expressing my concerns. I would like to start by looking at the major commitments by the government to fitness facilities across the state. Credit where credit is due. The commitment of $200 million across the state, including for my electorate and for rural Tasmania, is very welcome. I especially would like to recognise the funding allocated to the northwest, for example, in the electorate of Mersey.
The Tasmanian 2025‑26 overview mentions the investment into the multipurpose sports centre at the Devonport Oval, which is an exciting venture for the community and the Devonport City Council. The Port Sorrell Bowls and Community Club also receives funding. I know they applied for funding for synthetic bowls green, external toilets accessible for one and all.
Recently the Premier opened the $220,000 worth of greens at the Latrobe Bowls and Community Club. I can assure you, it is being used constantly by club members, visitors and Latrobe High School students. This will allow the club to thrive over the winter period for social activity, so I am exceptionally excited for the Port Sorrell Bowls Club.
Tasmania has a thriving sport culture and fitness is crucial to positive health outcomes and preventative healthcare. The Valley Road Regional Football Club, which is the home of the Devonport Strikers, and I must declare an interest here, as I am a patron of the Devonport Strikers and the patron of the Devonport Junior Soccer Association.
It opens this weekend, which is great. Not only are there 141 statewide junior soccer teams competing in Devonport for the Devonport Cup, but the finals of the Lako Cup are being played on Monday. Whilst the men's strikers did not make the final, the women's and men's under 21 have made to their grand finals in their respective competitions. This is another important outcome of budget spending which prioritises communities as well as preventive healthcare in the form of fitness.
Additionally, the funding for mental health precincts and continued support of healthcare improvements across the state, including the new Devonport Mental Health Hub is very welcome. As our population ages and demographics change it is important for Tasmania have an effective healthcare service and I hope for future investment, support and continued innovation within our healthcare sector.
I made note the last time I spoke on a budget I commented it was gratifying to see additional resources going into the building work, refurbishment and modernisation of the Mersey Community Hospital and its services. I am satisfied and pleased to recognise this work is coming to its completion and to recognise the substantial investment has been provided in the budget for the health sector.
Ms Forrest - They just have to find the money to pay for the operations of it.
Mr GAFFNEY - Yes. Guy Barnett MP stated in his budget speech the budget will provide an extra $942 million to meet increased demand for health and mental health services. I hope that this investment will work to address some of the strain on our hospital services.
It is obvious, the health sector is one which will put to good use every dollar which goes its way. I am certain that funding towards elective surgeries and maintain funding for mental health care is very welcome. Additionally, access to health care from pharmacists is important and reduces the barrier for Tasmanians accessing health care. Various other positive initiatives have also received funding: nearly $10 billion invested into education, children and young people over four years is admirable and a future‑facing investment; funding for items such as healthy lunch programs; money to progress Closing the Gap; funding for new schools and school improvements; free working with vulnerable people cards; a volunteering strategy; and other such programs.
I note at this point: three of the five priorities listed by Volunteering Tasmania have not been funded, despite a more difficult situation for volunteers and volunteering organisations than ever before. Many of the smaller social initiatives, some of which have received funding, do not eat unduly into the Budget, yet provide benefit to those Tasmanians who need support the most. Are you all right, Mr President?
Mr PRESIDENT – Yes. I just sneezed.
Mr GAFFNEY - Okay. I just want that recorded on Hansard. Some more expensive initiatives are equally important, such as promoting housing for young people and record investment in education. Indeed, the ongoing school building blitz will provide upgrades to education across Tasmania, including the North‑West Support School, Devonport campus, of course. Various other investments across the division of Braddon are very welcome.
However, I also have some key concerns regarding the proposed spending in the Budget. When I last spoke to the previous budget, I raised my concerns regarding healthcare, lack of investment into promoting a positive gender role for both men and women, and the needs of improving educational outcomes. I also mentioned the real threat which increasing the cost of borrowing provides. In this address, I must recognise a more fundamental critique of the Budget. Frankly, the government is not doing enough to address the unfortunate habit of governmental overspending and is continuing our legacy of deficit spending, which it is not elected to do so.
This is not responsible spending and at this rate, as we have heard and has been suggested, we are on track to be spending $650 million annually just to service our state's debt. Turning to the budget Estimates themselves, I have serious concerns. Frankly, it seems we continue to spend a lot of money for not much benefit; moreover, the numbers are somewhat misleading. For instance, the Budget itself notes an estimate of over $10 billion by 202829 financial year, which does not include the net debt of government business enterprises or GBEs, though I must note, as I will elaborate on later, I do not believe the solution is the sale of these GBEs.
While unemployment is low and the operating deficit is estimated to reduce in the coming years, I have concerns, as do many others who have financial and economic expertise, about the likelihood of the level of debt reduction estimated by the government. Additionally, cuts to government services, privatisation and austerity spending comes with your own cost, both financially into the quality of services which are relied on by many Tasmanians, and it is important to get this right.
I question the decision‑making of the government in giving priority to some areas of spending, wasting state finances with bungled major projects such as the Spirit of Tasmania fiasco, which has damaged Tasmania's business reputation both nationally and internationally, at cost to those initiatives which fundamentally would enable and assist Tasmanians to live better lives. The Spirit debacle is not sitting alone on the shelf. Watch this space.
As the member for Murchison said yesterday, there are serious questions to be had regarding the fiscal responsibility ‑ or lack thereof ‑ of the Tasmanian Liberal minority government. The member commented that we, Tasmania, are in the worst possible position predicted in the 2021 fiscal sustainability report, if not worse. It is well accepted that the government is in unsustainable levels of debt and needs to lower its deficit spending. The Tasmanian Liberal government themselves recognise this; however, the Budget fails to do so.
Debt servicing costs will only become a greater issue facing Tasmania. The faster the government moves to address the overspending, the better. It is important that we have an effective and realistic fiscal strategy which strongly addresses overspending and aims to place Tasmania firmly on a path to fiscal responsibility. On this note, I simply do not understand how the government can pass a state Budget which, on its face, pretends to be about deficit reduction and responsible spending and, at the same time, extol the virtues of an unfunded, expensive, poorly-planned football stadium, bypassing accepted and appropriate planning processes; especially when this stadium is likely to blow out and cost further. It already has, and all indications suggest that it will more than likely continue to do so.
Speaking of the deficit reduction elements of the Budget, I am concerned with the legitimacy of the claims that this is a budget which promotes deficit reduction and responsible spending. Instead, I would like to draw attention to the continuation of deficit spending which this Budget represents. The sale of government business enterprises cannot, and should not, replace a responsible spending plan. Saul Eslake is quoted by the ABC:
The government is in the financial pickle it's now in because it kept increasing spending without giving any thought as to how that spending, however justified, should be paid for, and this Budget showed it still hasn’t been able to break that habit.
For example, the cost to the Budget from the cheaper fares on buses is minimal, while the impact of providing nominal-fare fees to average Tasmanians is high. I note Tasmania is a state in which public transport is not synonymous with transport. Many people drive, walk and ride to the places they need to go. Those who utilise public services in Tasmania are often those who cannot afford other services or are otherwise disadvantaged.
Providing low-cost public transport is a boon to less well-off Tasmanians. I should note older Tasmanians are not included in this extension. Meanwhile, in other states, seniors receive free transport options. This is a concern to the Council On The Ageing (COTA), the peak Tasmanian body representing older Tasmanians. While the government has recognised this initiative for students and a narrow base of adults, failing to maintain low prices for public transport will do great harm to less fortunate Tasmanians.
Surely, the minimal increase to the Budget of such a measure is outweighed by the benefits. This is especially so, when, compared to other much more frivolous spending by the Tasmanian Government. I need only to point to Macquarie Point Stadium, the recent blowout of the Spirit berth and other unnecessary infrastructure investments.
To me, this is simply representative of an inconsistent and ineffective budgetary prioritisation fuelled by previously poorly-managed projects and bad ideas. Compare this to necessary infrastructure investments to the Bass Highway in the northwest, infrastructure upgrades to northern roads and upgrades to freight and transport infrastructure across the state. Such proposals provide direct and economic benefits and promote transport, road safety and traffic efficiencies for years to come. They also cost far less than frivolous spending on some other areas.
Prices are beginning to normalise since the COVID-19 pandemic and related aftereffects and interest rates are gradually decreasing. However, this should not stop the government from taking fiscally conservative measures, reducing debt where it can, and not following through with frivolous spending and risky proposals. With that said, there are certain important areas I was disappointed to see that were not given a place in the budget.
One such area is older Tasmanians: in their response to the Budget, COTA has expressed their disappointment and concern regarding what they see as government overlooking Tasmanians. Given the emphasis on health by the government in this Budget, one would expect to see some priority given to older Tasmanians. An important part of an holistic healthcare strategy is to care for the elderly. Healthy ageing represents a benefit to the long-term healthcare costs of the state. It was especially surprising to see the government
It was especially surprising to see the government when posed the question at the state budget breakfast as to whether the budget promoted digitization digital literacy in Tasmania, they dodged the question and by reference to the e-scripts and digitization in medicine. I will acknowledge, however, that the government has been very proactive introducing a new red tape reduction portal in making it easy if Tasmanian businesses and those in the construction industry to report regulatory red tape that may be holding them back or costing them time and money.
All red tape submissions will be reviewed directly by the Red Tape Reduction Coordinator so appropriate action can be considered. Although I must admit, I did hear that term used 10 years ago. A portal for the construction industry, will allow managers and office staff a convenient way to enter, process and provide information over days, weeks, months and even years. That is a big step forward. I am pleased to see that a portal system is being developed by the government to assist our building and construction industry, filling their forms and paperwork.
In more recent times, I have also heard, received and heard comments about health already receiving enough funding. I find that alarming at many levels. However, I am going to take some time now to highlight an issue as an example of the need for further health funding. I have raised the issue before in this place, and I believe it is an issue that can be resolved. I also acknowledge that fellow Members in this place can recognise, acknowledge and appreciate the circumstances of what I will be raising. Last week, I received a phone call from an older Tasmanian male wanting to thank me for the End-of-Life Choices (Voluntary Assisted Dying) legislation as his wife had chosen the pathway a few days earlier. Two weeks ago, I was listening to a band at a relaxed family friendly occasion when a man I did not know sat next to me and spoke about the loss of his 54-year-old wife, who just a few weeks beforehand chose the VAD pathway.
On Monday this week, I presented my 140th VAD forum at the Dementia Day Out in Ulverstone, which is very well attended. People and community groups are very interested in the End-of-Life Choice legislation. I am also aware over 150 Tasmanians have chosen the VAD legislation. I hope someone from the government is listening to this section of my speech, as this is very relevant for us to continue to provide VAD as a legal medical option.
Ms Forrest - I do not reckon they are right now. Sorry to disillusion you.
Mr GAFFNEY - Sorry, yes, but it will be on the record.
Unfortunately, the government has still not managed to provide the funding for a voluntary assisted dying practitioners portal in Tasmania. Tasmania was the third state in 2022 to pass VAD and yet we, our doctors, still do not have access to a portal. A portal would greatly assist our health practitioners be more effective and spend less time filling in paperwork. I have spoken with medical practitioners and administrators from other states and all appreciative of the portal. Many were actually gobsmacked that Tasmania does not have a portal in place. A portal process is the assessed and preferred option utilised in every other state. All other states and territories which have passed VAD legislation, except for NT, appreciate the benefits of an effective portal process. It is an online system, which allows doctors to complete and submit forms, access training and apply for permits to prescribe VAD medications.
I have been informed that a portal in Tasmania was not seen as viable. Unfortunately, Tasmanian doctors personally need to fill in forms themselves and sometimes must be completed in a few days or even hours, not days, weeks, months.
The added unnecessary stress on our doctors with heavy workloads and numerous commitments could be assisted with a portal system. I have included comments from four doctors who are involved with VAD in the state, and these are the comments I received. (all quotes TBC 12.54)
Doctor number one:
I have heard about the red tape reduction and hope that can work with us as well. We have overworked doctors doing a lot of VAD and the process is turning them off. A portal is needed. We are coming up to our third anniversary and still no portal. This government can automatically and instantly accept and justify a $45 million increase for a Centre of Excellence above its original $60 million budget allocation. However, it cannot find any funding for a VAD portal which is so important for doctors in Tasmanians now and into the future.
Doctor number two:
Given there are not many doctors doing PMP work in Tasmania and noting significant workforce shortages in primary care in my specialty, it is essential the VAD process being streamlined and as efficient as possible.
He says:
The current system is clunky and email based and relies on downloading PDF forms, filling them out and emailing them to the Commission. Many of the forms are repetitive and redundant. A portal would make this so much more efficient for me. I could log on and complete my assessments quickly and efficiently. A portal could also measure how much time medical practitioners spend on filling in forms.
The third doctor:
Currently, the forms are sent to us by the Commission. We must wait for them to be emailed before we can complete them. The Commission prefilled the demographic info, which we must go into every form. A well-designed portal should not allow a form to be submitted unless all required areas are completed. A portal would not need any signatures or dates of completion. Currently, if we miss a field or box, the Commission will chase us and then there are a series of emails to-and-fro to amend the error.
For the regular practising medical practitioner, this can be incredibly intrusive into a normal working day. We cannot get forms over the weekend which has affected some applications. With a portal, the doctors could get on with the case, particularly if needed to be expedited, without having to wait for the commissioner every step.
All the Commission do with the forms as they arrive as check for correctness and a portal should be able to do that, before allowing the forms to be submitted. We had one GP walk away, stating that she will consider returning to the space when there is a portal or significant improvement in the form. Given that the biggest issue for getting medical practitioners into this space is a non-remunerated administrative burden, a portal should be a priority.
The fourth and final doctor said:
Recently the Commission ceased sending some of the generic forms to the PMPs. They now send a OneDrive link, this means instead of having the form immediately available as an attachment which can be printed, dragged and dropped, or typed into, we now need to find it. They are not even in alphabetical or numerical order on the OneDrive. Then having found it, we must then download it and manually save it before we can proceed. All the medical practitioners I have spoken to do not like the OneDrive, but none of them have complained to the commission. Let's stay with the slower, problematic version, as we can do it, we can do it for under $300,000, and besides, our doctors can suck it up as they are good people.
To a medical practitioner complaining to the commission, it is a bit like complaining to other regulatory bodies such as AHPRA and the PSB. It is intimidating and they feel that it is a waste of time, so it is not done. Many of the GPs who started in this space after the initial rush have left, all due to the excessive time required and no remuneration. Some have steadfastly stated they will only see their current patients. Two of the original cohorts of doctors have retired.
Health practitioners contact me as they know I have skin in this game, and that perhaps I am able to assist to get some results or at least raise to the members in this place, and the public in general, the concerns doctors have. These concerns have impacts on their professionalism, their health and, importantly, Tasmanians and families who gain so much from their support and assistance. I acknowledge that access to a portal is an important initiative and hopefully the Government will see fit to provide a portal service for our doctors to assist Tasmanians from all walks of life.
The Budget lacks emphasis on preventative healthcare, and fails to address a growing obesity epidemic in Tasmania that will cost Tasmanians for years to come. The Tasmanian Council of Social Services said:
The government has failed to provide adequate funding for its own 20-year preventative healthcare strategy.
Speaking of addressing barriers to digital inclusion, the government has entirely failed to address the digital divide in the state. According to the Tasmanian Council of Social Services (TasCOSS), one in four Tasmanians face some form of barrier to digital inclusion. This is apparently an opportunity of $54 million of potential economic and social benefit. Yet, with this Budget, the government will not unlock a dollar. Failure to do so leaves behind over 54,000 Tasmanians who are either unable to get online or, if they can do so, lack the ability to navigate the online world.
As I foreshadowed, I also have substantial doubts about the privatisation agenda of this government. This agenda is extremely consequential, especially to rural and regional Tasmania, and must be considered in any discussion of this budget. While I am glad some government enterprises have been excluded from privatisation, divestment of organisations such as Metro Tasmania worries me.
Rural and regional areas of Tasmania, such as my electorate of Mersey, do not have the profitability of Hobart or Launceston; therefore, private enterprises which are not adequately regulated have no reason to cater for those needs in this area. While the case can obviously be made for adequately regulated privatisation, simply put, I do not have the confidence in the government to do this.
For all the analysis, positive business cases and economic advice the privatisation proposal has received, the onus still lies squarely on the shoulders of the minority Tasmanian Liberal government to do it correctly. If divestment is not implemented correctly, it will be catastrophic for Tasmanians as well as rural communities.
Most importantly, after this agenda is complete, the representation which is currently available for those communities and people via their elected representatives will no longer exist. Therefore, I fear that there will be no easy way to rectify issues and address shifting needs of Tasmanians in circumstances where there is no profit interest to do so. Moreover, on a platform aiming at promoting small businesses, startups and business enterprise in Tasmania, the Budget does nothing to provide the stability necessary for Tasmanian businesses.
​
Mr President, because we were halted midstream, I think people might have lost the flow of my conversation. I only have a few minutes left.
The GBE sale is not a stable idea. The government continuously changes the parameters and frankly it cannot be trusted to execute it properly. Meanwhile, the government is plunging Tasmanians into unknown levels of debt and continuously bungling projects and proposals. The current state of Tasmania is not one stable enough for start-ups, Tasmanian businesses, and enterprises. The Budget has done nothing to rectify this; rather, it has left Tasmania in even less stable water.
Just Tuesday, the leader of the Tasmanian Labor Party, Mr Winter, tabled a vote of no confidence in the lower House. As Ms Forrest stated on Tuesday, there is a massive trust deficit in this government. To my mind, this is the fundamental flaw which permeates the Budget, the government, and many of its proposals. There are constant questions to their mandate, their transparency, their economic proposals, and their vision for Tasmania. This Budget does not resolve those questions and instead brings more to the table.
I do not bring these individual concerns up with the mind to merely highlight independent funding issues within the current Budget. It is easy to back and forth between line items which are good or bad, but this is not the point. Instead, these issues represent a large problem that the Budget faces. Simply put, it is not a Budget that cohesively aims to better Tasmania while responsibly approaching the Tasmanian financial situation which the Premier was elected to solve.
The budget that Tasmanians need is one which balances the getting of the most bang for its buck in the areas that need it most, while sacrificing where Tasmania can afford to do so. This Budget does neither of those things. It struggles to address issues which should not cost much to rectify, while overspending on items which should not exist at all. To my mind, this Budget is an awkward blend of some minor budget reduction measures and gratuitous spending, underpinned by a fundamentally flawed assumption that the sale of GBEs will pay for it.
While there are various spending items which will support my electorate, the fundamental premise of the Budget is not in keeping with the actions of the government. Indeed, many of the projects receiving funding in the Mersey electorate have already been announced and acknowledged in previous budgets. Spending on a whim on proposals while promising budget reduction can only lead to risky business moves, such as the sale of GBEs. Consequently, risky business moves spurred by financial concerns are not those which a responsible government should support.
The broad problem is that the government have not undertaken adequate spending management, nor have they undertaken the structural reform which should be included for a forward-facing budget. These actions are what the current government do have a mandate for, as a party that prides itself in economic management; not the unprecedented sale of GBEs or ridiculous stadium proposals but instead being a precedent of responsible fiscal management and demonstrate responsible spending practices.
To conclude, I thank members for their contributions on this budget, both in critique and support. It is a challenging endeavour to balance responsible government expenditure with the needs of various sectors, communities and socio-economic groups. I am sympathetic to the difficulty in attempting to gradually reduce the deficit and balance the budget. However, I do not feel that the spending priorities of the government are reflective of their stated budget objectives.
I note the 2025-26 Budget.
​
