Ross Hart (Bass, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

As I said before the interruption, there are also factors, such as the age profile of Tasmanians, their health profile and their lack of educational attainment, which is reflected in significant social disadvantage, which in turn mean that there are additional demands upon services, particularly health services, in our public hospitals, which impose additional financial burdens upon the state budget. On a number of occasions, I've risen in this place to offer my contribution about what can be done to improve the economic performance of Tasmania, improving health outcomes and education outcomes with long-term investment in education, health literacy and sustainable economic growth. But the fact remains that there are vital services—particularly our presently ailing, stressed health system—which are sustained to a large part by Tasmania's share of GST revenue.

There's recently been public discussion about whether the present Tasmanian Liberal government has been devoting a sufficient share of GST revenue towards health funding. I agree with the general proposition that health is being underfunded from Tasmania's GST revenue. Nevertheless, future state governments need flexibility as to how GST revenue is expended, given that it is untied revenue and can be spent in the best interests of a state. It's up to the present state Liberal government—indeed, any future government of any persuasion—to justify how it spends GST revenue, particularly if economic analysis suggests that there may be an underspend with respect to a vital service such as health.

Given the size of the Tasmanian budget and the disproportionate role that GST revenue plays in the provision of services in Tasmania, the provision of a legislated guarantee such as is incorporated in this bill is vitally important. Having regard to the statistics—indeed, the furious agreement by all state premiers and treasurers that a legislated guarantee was necessary—what was this government's response, at least initially? For weeks, the government, led by this Prime Minister as Treasurer, denied that such a guarantee was necessary. Even as the premiers and treasurers called for a guarantee that no state was left worse off under the changes to the GST, including Premier Will Hodgman and his Treasurer, Peter Gutwein, the Prime Minister ignored those calls. Indeed, he waited until the last possible moment to give a guarantee that no state or territory would be worse off under changes to the GST. If the Prime Minister really cared about Tasmania and the share of GST that funds Tasmanian hospitals and schools, he would have committed to a guarantee immediately.

Labor recognised that a legislated guarantee was necessary, and I'm very pleased that the government finally realised that a legislated guarantee was appropriate. I would like, nevertheless, to place on record my concern and the concern of my Tasmanian Labor colleagues as to what might happen at the end of the period under which the guarantee is legislated. Given the reliance that the Tasmanian state budget places upon Commonwealth payments as a proportion of total income and, indeed, the fact that services like health and education take the lion's share of budget expenditure, there will need to be very careful consideration of the long-term sustainability of Commonwealth payments to the Tasmanian budget. There is to be a Productivity Commission review at that time to consider the effectiveness of the transitional arrangements.

I would not want—nor would any Tasmanian want—to be accused of being a beggar or a mendicant for seeking what is necessary to place the funding of essential services on an equally reasonable footing with other jurisdictions under any system which is to replace the current system of horizontal fiscal equalisation. Tasmanians—and, for that matter, the residents of any other state—need to understand that, at the end of the transition period, there may be a requirement for further adjustment and further support and/or grants through other means to support essential services within a state jurisdiction. Likewise, it would not be reasonable to have the Productivity Commission insist that, for example, any particular jurisdiction would be required to sell state owned assets as a condition of enjoying further Commonwealth support. I sincerely hope that, at the end of the transitional period, there will be a federal Labor government that will be in a position to act upon these concerns and, in particular, the concerns expressed by the shadow Treasurer for the future finances of Tasmania.

The present Prime Minister is no friend to Tasmania. My good friend the member for Franklin has written an opinion piece on this very issue. It's useful to recount what she's said as to the Prime Minister's record in his dealings with Tasmania, particularly in the recent past. I must refer to the recent past because the simple fact is that, as Treasurer in this term, he spent more time in Germany than in Tasmania. He does not understand the limitations imposed upon the Tasmanian budget, which are, in the main, unrelated to decisions which might be made by either a state Liberal or a state Labor government. When he finally visited as Prime Minister this month, he came with no new ideas and no new plans for our state. Indeed, his visit to our state just highlighted how Tasmania had been forgotten by him and successive Liberal governments since 2013. In Queenstown, for example, he re-announced the government's NBN solution for the west coast of our state with great fanfare but overlooked some important facts. Only after a community campaign and Labor's promise to deliver fibre-to-the-premises NBN did his government finally commit to second-rate fibre to the node. When he visited Lake Plimsoll to highlight the Battery of the Nation projects, he offered no firm commitment to fund the pumped hydro projects and he forgot to mention that he has no energy policy whatsoever.

Under the Liberals' watch, we've also seen a significant decrease in the number of public sector jobs—jobs that would help support the Tasmanian budget. Since 2013, the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government has slashed almost 500 Australian Public Service jobs from Tasmania. I again express my thanks to the shadow Treasurer, the member for McMahon, for his advocacy on behalf of Tasmania and in ensuring that all states receive some measure of protection with respect to their fair share of GST in this legislation.

See this speech in context