Eye of the storm … Premier Giddings and financial advisers … The Libs’ strategy is equally facile …
One lesson from the recent Federal election is that the successful campaign relied more on dissatisfaction with the incumbents than the alternative policies offered.
The State election campaign seems to be following a similar pattern.
When it comes to describing the State government’s position and prescribing alternative solutions we are yet to proceed beyond a few slogans.
The final State accounts for 2012/13 were issued at the end of October to an underwhelming response from the media and the alternative government. Talking about the State government’s financial position for a few days once a year at budget time in May is scarcely enough to run an informed discussion, a necessary prerequisite if ever we are to reverse our lemming like progress over the precipice.
Tasmania will survive despite what governments may decide in the future. Survival will be easier if the government gets its own house in order and that necessarily requires a much better understanding of our situation and a more enlightened exchange by Giddings, Gutwein and Hodgman.
As the government is essentially a cash operation the best understanding of a government’s financial health is to look at the cash flow statement.
The cash deficit for 2012/13 was $205 million. Don’t worry about trying to understand net operating balances, underlying fiscal balances and all the other labels politicians hide behind but rarely understand, just look at the cash deficit and its components.
Operating expenses represent 97% of operating revenue. For a State that can’t print money and can’t borrow, because it can’t repay, this is not sustainable. It needs to be less than 90%, preferably 85%.
Only 3% of operating revenue remained after payment of operating expenses. The net amount spent on new capex and investments in government businesses was only 2%. This is disastrous. Only $198 million was spent on capex. The fiscal strategy was to spend a bare minimum of $246 million. The budgeted amount was $434 million. Whenever there’s a cash flow problem, capex, the Royal Hobart Hospital for instance, is either abandoned or deferred. Only 45% of budgeted capex was spent for the year.
We should be spending at least 5% on investing activities, not 2%.
Finally the amount spent on financing activities was 5% of operating revenue. This won’t change a lot, possibly creep up to 7% to 8% of operating revenues in the next 10 years as the unfunded superannuation liability peaks.
The overall actual result for 2012/13 was therefore a deficit of $205 million, equal to 4% of operating revenues.
The cash deficit for 2013/14 is budgeted to be $223 million, a further deterioration. The major differences are an extra $145 million of revenue from government businesses and extra $147 million in capex.
The following year, 2014/15, revenue from government businesses is budgeted to rise by another $69 million before crashing back to 2012/13 levels by the end of the forward estimates in 2016/17.
The one chance Tasmania had of repairing its fiscal situation will be lost with the abolition of carbon pricing. The alternative government has cheered the demise of carbon pricing but as yet hasn’t addressed the problem of the resultant hole in the State’s finances.
The alternative government produced a plan in May 2013 which it claimed would improve the net operating balance (the operating loss) by $28 million. As all proposed budget adjustments were cash items it’s reasonable to conclude the Libs planned for a cash deficit of $177 million instead of $205 million, negligible given the size of the problem. It was just part of a silly game of my-bottom-line-is-better-than-yours, rather than a responsible attempt to chart a sustainable way forward.
Both plans lead to an unsustainable government.
A closer look at the savings suggests most are not achievable anyway.
Thus far Tasmania has been funding cash deficits by spending amounts set aside for other purposes.
At 30th June 2013 there was supposed to be $1,351 million in government deposit and trust fund accounts. Ignoring the temporary overnight borrowing designed to restore the rightful balances for accounting purposes, there was only $451 million, the rest had been internally borrowed and spent on other things.
The three largest accounts are:
• Australian Government Funding Management Account $501 million. This comprises specific purpose grants paid in advance, the $270 million Royal Hobart Hospital funds for instance, the so-called Wilkie money, plus other specific purpose grants.
• Risk Management Account $190 million. The government is a self-insurer and puts away funds to meet liabilities. Unfortunately it has all been internally borrowed and spent.
• TFA funds of $49 million received as at 30th June but unspent as intended at that stage.
The three largest accounts total $740 million.
There are many smaller accounts held by Finance-General (part of Treasury) adding up to a total of $922 million.
All but $22 million has been borrowed and spent as at 30th June 2013.
Another $205 million has to be found to fund this year’s deficit.
Where from?
We haven’t been told yet? The only bank accounts left are those used by departments and agencies for ordinary operations.
One would have expected Hodgman and Gutwein to raise questions as to how the government proposes to:
1. Fund the extra deficit this year? Will the temporary overnight borrowings become permanent?, and
2. Repay amounts owing to special deposit and trust fund accounts which by 30th June 2014 will exceed $1.1 billion.
As is well known the government has few external borrowings. Most debt is held by government businesses who borrow from Tascorp, the government’s finance company. What is not well known is that in order to minimise future refinance risk of its portfolio of wholesale loans of varying size and maturity, Tascorp has borrowed roughly $5 billion and only on-lent $3 billion to government businesses, mainly the electricity companies. It still has $2 billion sitting in the bank.
So there’s plenty of money there. Except as presently structured repayments are impossible because the general government is still running cash deficits.
We can probably only afford one more year, the current year, of cash deficits. We in no way resemble the Australian government where debt financing is easily accommodated. We don’t have many lives left.
But as yet no Plan B. Instead just an unrealistic hope that forward estimates may be correct for once. It’s a 10 to 1 outsider.
A cursory look at the components of government revenue suggest all risks are on the downside. The sensitivity of revenue upside to parameter changes, to use the macro-accounting jargon, is slight.
GST revenue is linked to a national pool, specific purpose grants often locked in for five years at a time, State taxes and charges will lag rather than lead, which all implies that increasing State revenue by parameter changes will be slow.
Policy changes are required.
Everyone avoids addressing revenue shortfalls. The broken-down tax system is ignored. The alternative government’s only extra revenue-raising policy change is to raise another $3 million in fines (currently about $20 million pa), although when faced with another cash deficit approaching $200 million the Libs flagged raising an extra $750,000 from the proceeds of crime.
Fair dinkum, that was their response to the budget emergency. It’s hardly likely to cover increased incarceration costs as more forest protesters are locked up.
Assuming Messrs Hodgman and Gutwein understand the problem, although this is by no means certain from their public pronouncements, the reason for avoidance of budgetary issues may simply be tacit acknowledgment that their entire plan for the future is built on the same shaky foundations as the government’s budget.
Why don’t the media ask a few more probing questions?
Or will it be similar to the way Tony Abbott was treated with kid gloves before the election?
The losers in all of this are the voters of Tasmania, who will have to decide between two parties, who either don’t understand and/or are quite willing to conspire to withhold the true state of the State’s finances and the absolute ineffectiveness of the current proposed solutions.
Mr Hodgman seems determined to outperform Jaymes Diaz http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2NDewpz1mY with his mindless repetition of his six? point plan to save the State….we’re open for business…..no Will that’s a slogan, what’s your plan? …. we’ll get rid of red and green tape…..no Will we can read your placards? Just tell us about your plan…… and so it will go…..for another 3 months at least?
A recent Mercury poll of journos, movers and shakers recently awarded Peter Gutwein the accolade of the State’s best politician, ahead of his leader, one remarking he had a good grasp of economics.
The last few months heading towards an election will be an opportune time to demonstrate this well-disguised trait, how his alternative plan will succeed in achieving sustainability and how realistically Tasmania will be able to repay $1.1 billion missing from government deposit and trust accounts needed to fund capex such as the Hobart hospital project.
Ms Giddings was described by those polled as doing the best with the cards as dealt, but she’s leading us off a cliff while still babbling about a pulp mill when she knows or at least should know, at least half the current inadequate resource won’t ever be replanted. Maybe she’s saving up the bad news for the Mid Year economic report due before 15th Feb 2014 or even the pre-election update required under the Charter of Budget Responsibility Act.
It may be a merry Xmas but the chances of a happy new year are remote.
The full analysis plus data tables can be found on Tasfintalk, here
• John Lawrence, earlier on Tasmanian Times: Tasmania is run by unrepentant idiots …
phill Parsons
December 23, 2013 at 09:53
Abbott’s rescue plan remains to be implemented along with his car industry transition plan. Still that one can be delayed for four years.
If the Abbott chrissie preso fails to materialize even after the March election [What happens if Will doesn’t get his way, do we not see a rescue by the Feds?] do we march to a financial crash, Tasmania reduced to junk status.
Certainly the Liberal plan to crash the TFA is setting the stage for this when Ta Ann closes it’s doors as industrial scale forestry moves to an artisanal activity devoid of international high price markets.
As an example of Peter and Paul rubbery figures a drive on the State Highway system can be instructive.
80k zones because white paint is unaffordable.
The passing lane work west of Elizabeth Town had a long long winter break. Almost complete now it awaits a dozen posts for the safety barrier separating the lanes.
Perhaps they are available but else where you notice replacement posts of varying colours not matching the original installation.
Maybe this is a new monafoma tourist attraction but to me it indicates the coffers are empty.
Will McKim offer a way out?. This would be a responsible role for the third choice.
John Hawkins
December 23, 2013 at 10:52
Every time I read these well researched detailed documents produced by John Lawrence and published on TT I am in awe of his ability to reduce complex matters to simple truths.
I ask are those elected to power in this state capable of understanding such matters?
Have they ever rung you up John?
Asked you in for a chat?
Any one Green, Blue or Red?
There is a complicit silence from all those elected into our state parliament on the subject of the public accounts.
Put simply matters of finance are beyond them.
Come on Gilmour get off your backside and hire or allow your happy bunch of campers to write up a few facts, back a few winners such as John Lawrence, support the interests of your community and call these political deadweights to account.
Sorry, I have forgotten, in the world of the Examiner it is all the fault of the Greens?
Greg James
December 23, 2013 at 12:53
John, thanks, but it is only half the story. Added to this future must be the complete lack of management experience of the incoming ministers who are also dealing with policy left overs from the 90’s. Their lack of understanding of the imminent population implosion and the budgetary implications of carrying infrastructure and services for a state built for 500,000 people but with only 400,000 citizens.
We are in need of a civil revolution, that cuts out dead wood and re organises services. At the top, why do we have a $3 million Governor with nothing to do and at the bottom, why so many police with an ageing, declining population base? Simple questions, but no one capable (in parliament) of leading the conversation and able to manage the change politically. We have departments like Economic Development and Tourism that have consistently failed for twenty or more years. Neither has been able to achieve or exceed national growth in their comparative performances, so why employ these departments when they achieve nothing but long term liabilities, stall real growth and fail every measure of entrepreneurship.
Without a civil revolution, we will walk then run towards bankruptcy and the beurocrats themselves will be the ones taking the haircut, as they lose their super. Remember not one of them put their hands up In protest when the RBF was stripped of its cash in the airport purchase. No investigation of breach of fiduciary duty was demanded of the RBF board and the bank involved. Typically Tasmanian, everyone shut up in case they lost their job and access to their super, which by shutting up they lost anyway.
The blame game, during the end game will be amusing but way to late.
HNY.
Mark
December 23, 2013 at 13:30
I commented below in John Hawkins’ article about the hypocrisy and ignorance of economics by the state and federal LNP. Revenue and expenditure (budget) represent adifferent debate but with the same hypocrisy and ignorance.
Revenue needs tax reform. The only reform threatened is the potential reduction of GST.
Reforms to expenditure still include the amalgamation of councils, reduction in schools and closure of the Mersey hospital. Any politicians with courage? No, I didn’t think so. ..
Mike Bolan
December 23, 2013 at 16:24
Tasmanians are progressively suffering as their income fails to provide enough money to cover the escalating costs of non-discretionary expenses.
Of course, in the looking-glass world of government, food is a discretionary expense while land tax, towards which the government contributes nothing, is non-discretionary.
It’s past time for a change.
Fortunately the new technologies of internet and social media provide a means for the population to find out things for themselves and make their own decisions. GetUp and Avaaz can get a petition together from millions of people in a few days so why can’t we vote on issues that we think are important?
John’s excellent article and the ensuing comments point out the likely consequences of our political parties and public services insouciance in our governance.
Australia is supposed to be a democracy (in name anyway) so why do we need party ‘representatives’ at all? Why cannot citizens make their own decisions about matters that affect their futures and livelihoods? Why do we need to pay (failed) representatives to make our decisions for us?
The police state in Australia is likely growing in response to the perceived threat of the citizens finally working out what our political system is doing to them.
May we live in interesting times!
john hayward
December 23, 2013 at 18:33
We have a political system perfectly designed to produce spivs, hucksters and parasites. If we want capable leaders, we really need to start again from completely different stock.
It’s no accident that John Lawrence and his competent ilk aren’t found in the corridors of Tassie power. The alarm system would be deafening.
John Hayward
davies
December 23, 2013 at 20:04
Once again great forensic work. But then we get to the solution…
“Everyone avoids addressing revenue shortfalls. The broken-down tax system is ignored.”
What revenue shortfall? Revenue $4.79B in 2013-14. It was $3.74B in 2007-08. And $2.13B in 1999-2000.
Surely the problem is ballooning expenditure. This Government, along with many others, needs to cut spending. With a wage bill alone of over $2.8B per annum (in 2000 it was slightly over $1B), it would be easy to find several hundred million dollars of savings per year WITHOUT the slightest effect on services.
Tax increases are not the solution.
Just the couple of proposals from #4 would save a couple of hundred million per year. Cut 2000 public service jobs (around 6000 jobs have been added in last ten years of which at least 80% were back office) saving another $200M.
A state-wide planning scheme and cuts previously identified in red and green tape in the agricultural sector and you will be getting close to $500M savings per year.
Cut the payroll tax and any other taxes that impede job growth, stop giving tax payers money to unsustainable businesses like the current forestry sector, and generally stop the Government from trying to pick winners.
With a bit of effort, it would not surprise me that we could find $1B in savings per annum.
TGC
December 23, 2013 at 23:55
#7: Is financial support for such as irrigation schemes and the West Coast Railway other examples of “Government trying to pick winners”
or are they exempt?
mike seabrook
December 24, 2013 at 11:02
don’t like the odds of the wilkie memorial hobart hospital proceeding with $270 million paid over by the feds to the tassie lab-greens & now missing – been effectively stolen, but not by honest wilkie.
David Obendorf
December 26, 2013 at 10:49
A few months ago, political and social commentator and University of Tasmania lecturer, [b]Tony McCall[/b] told ABC radio talk back that the resident population of Tasmania had already fallen below 500,000 inhabitants and he went on to explain the unique and unsustainable demography that is Tasmania.
The silence remains deafening.
The greatest problem facing Tasmania is mediocre political leadership and a politicised bureaucracy which represents such a large proportion of the State’s employment base. To have such a large population of employed workers paid directly by the taxpayer per capita of a State’s population has not been addressed by any State government.
Check out the Tasmanian Goverment Registry and see the listing, the surnames of families on the public purse. [It does not include Tas. Police, Corrections Service and Justice staff]
I came to Tasmania over 30 years ago and was told: It is not what you know, but who you know that will secures employment in the public service. [I lasted 17 years in ‘the system’!]
Will any political party in Tasmania cut the head of this threatening, greedy and slothful snake? I think not.
In our lazy summers, we are now conditioned to ‘enjoy’ the Cricket, the Sydney-Hobart and the Taste of Tasmania!!!!
davies
December 26, 2013 at 12:11
#8 West Coast Railway is a loss-making company. Why has the Government stepped in? Firstly, it will never make a profit. And secondly, nothing new (which may be profitable) will be tried with the existing infrastructure. So this is not exempt.
Irrigation schemes…in theory they are supposed to provide a return. If Government stays out of decisions on what farmers can grow and produce and the water price is set by the market (again with no Government involvement) I can see a case for Government spending tax payers money on building irrigation schemes.
But there has to be a strong business case for it.
mike seabrook
December 26, 2013 at 12:45
#10
simple
this current lab-green government (& lab governments elected with “bought” green prefs for the past est. 17 years) simply hand-balls the debt & contingent liabilities(nightmare) to the ignorant uninformed lib pollies who will replace them after March.
more a job for an administrator/official manager/liquidator
William Boeder
December 26, 2013 at 21:44
Given that the people of this State have been misled and lied to by the State government of Lennon then by those that followed Premiers, then by the glut of consecutive chairmen and directors of Forestry Tasmania, how about the gung-ho’s of Gunns Ltd, also we have had the misfortune of that singular champion of the mono-species plantations, our ‘anti-the-Tasmanian-people’ mate Senator Erich (trust me, just buy into this MIS schemery) Abetz.
Is it any wonder that this State’s finances are floundering lower than a flounder fish.
Another significant fiddler of the truth was this State’s treasurer in Michael ‘the racecourse tout’ Aird, he and his shifty mien were looking after the State’s finances for quite a number of years.
Of course you all must remember how Michael Aird held the ship afloat, why he would simply slip his treasury IOU’s into the State’s RBA holdings and claim all is well on board the ship Tasmania.
(Tasmania’s economy.)
Were Tasmania a mainland State, there is no way that the allegations directed to those in the above would escape a lengthy vacation … not even if they were to have the defence of a certain Mr Hollywood during those former poorly regulated and justice absent times.
Yes, these were the ‘supposed rich and economically successful times’ that were at that time heroically boasted of by each of the above, but sooner than soonest that nonsensical clap-trap was to be cast open, to blitz its display of its period of un-precedent-ed lies and falsity of claims as were then being played out upon the people of Tasmania.
Look no further than to our former political Shyster’s Humbugs and Cockroaches, for there you will find the genesis of today’s severe economically trying times.
The sale of the Hobart Airport was as crooked a deal as could ever be got, yet there was no out-cry from any of this State’s supposed prudential-minded regulators during that process!
Yes Tasmania has indeed become another Hollywood.
David Obendorf
December 27, 2013 at 11:08
Please remember that our politicians – Blue, Green or Red – have much more in common with each other than they have with their rusted on constituents!
The faux theatre that passes as combative jousting in the Parliament is purely that – deceptive performing. These individuals are taking home huge salaries and perks. They do deals when it suits them and they do ‘pick up the phone’ or not when it suits them.
Don’t be fooled by erstwhile ad-men, union heavies and lawyers who become professional politicians.
So … shere are the authentic ‘make-a-difference’ political candidates that Tasmania desperately needs?
Who will you vote for in March 2014?
mike seabrook
December 27, 2013 at 12:29
#13
royal commissioner will be costly & solve nothing in a state populated by voters of a mendicant mentality & who demand that the world/canberra owes them a living (unearned by locking up hydro , non subsidised forestry & coastline/waterfront options & massive red & green tape & having an economy which panders to cronys with special deals)
expect that future tasmanians will have to wait until (30-50 years) there is a strong expectation of tassie being 2-3 degrees warmer & sydney & qld being 2-3 degrees hotter & then tassie will boom
unfortunately beyond my lifetime.
when there is loose money available (fleeing) from say china, this is for a short window in time & if investment environment is not appropriate tassie will not get any.
john hayward
December 28, 2013 at 15:48
When Peter Gutwein is voted your best politician, you know you’re competitive with Monty Python.
John Hayward
Peter Henning
December 28, 2013 at 22:28
#16 David, I’ve already answered that question. Remember?
I doubt that you’re going to get too many more responses to a question you’ve now asked so many times in the past.
My guess is that most people are too embarrassed to respond, even anonymously, although there was one response which maybe typified some kind of general attitude.
It went something like this – start from the bottom of the barrel of scum and vote backwards to the top.
It’s become as mad as that.
No wonder the phrase that we deserve the politicians we elect is held aloft.
We have reached the pits where people reckon that democracy is all about voting for the least evil, the least reprehensible, the least less likely to ….
Pathetic. We deserve to vote for political careerists. That is our entitlement.
So who are you voting for, and when you ask the question again – why?
More to the point. Who cares?
What I find more interesting is why you bother to keep writing comments about this and other matters on this forum. Tell me.
Robin Charles Halton
December 28, 2013 at 23:32
#18 John Hayward, then who is to be our new and dependable leader to rid us of the rut that Lara and Nick has left us in! Fair enough question!
Mark
December 29, 2013 at 10:26
John Lawrence’s article referred to Tasmania’s budgetary position and the policy-free zone of the last Federal election. The Abbott government has since implemented programs hand in hand with its corporate sponsors. It has dismantled or attempted to dismantle a number of programs (eg Gonski, NDIS, NBN, bulk billing, GST, marine reserves etc) while its Commission of Audit, staffed by representatives from the Business Council, reviews how our taxes should be spent (eg remove Carbon tax, mining tax and other business taxes eg payroll tax.
Can anyone imagine Woolworths, Westpac or Rio hiring more staff because the disincentive to employ (payroll tax) has been removed? The Rudd-Gillard government missed a golden opportunity for tax reform and the voters have now passed the baton to business lobby groups under Abbott. The Giddings government is repeating the same mistake.
Tax reform at the state level is needed and payroll tax may need to be removed but this does not mean the corporate sector should be forgiven of its responsibility to pay an efficient tax.
Unfortunately, the above thread reflects the same policy-free zone John Lawrence highlighted except with the voters. No wonder the political parties feel no pressure to debate policies.
John Wade
December 29, 2013 at 11:35
“… who is to be our new and dependable leader to rid us …?”
The person who is prepared to have their head handed to them in a basket, that is unless their support group is determined, resilient and capable of rebuffing threats and intimidations [within the law, is suggested].
I would love nothing more than to see a structured democracy made up of elected political clergy that determines the essence of social advancement rather than capitalist stricture.
Ben Quin
January 1, 2014 at 17:59
I would commence by SLASHING the State’s health expenditure. (Not threatening to slash, or just trimming.)
I envisage this will serve several strategic purposes.
It will cause an immediate and sustained public uproar, which will catalyse a proper debate on the state of Tasmania’s finances.
It will force Tasmanians to confront the consequences of a slothful lifestyle and retake primary responsibility for their own well-being, including adopting the simple, low cost and proven formula of balanced diet and exercise.
The mix of adrenalin and fresh air derived from 1 and 2 will spur new thinking amongst voters about the size of Tasmania’s bureaucracy and the need to participate in selecting quality political representatives.
Once we get used to the new, hard mattress, then we can all remember how good life really can be in Tasmania when everyone does their bit.
William Boeder
January 1, 2014 at 18:00
I wonder if it would be less costly to our State government and its diminished revenues if it were to pay unemployment benefits to a certain volume of our State’s seat-shining public service personnel, than it would be to keep that volume of people in their same old designated nil-productive position of employment?
I understand that neither major political party in this State have the interest nor any at all desire to provide Tasmanians with a proud bona-fide (for the people, as against them) system of State government.
After all what’s in it for the Lib/Lab ministers, as this would mean they would have to change their ways, their attitudes, their entire thinking processes, then in the fact that they would be frightened s–t-less in having to become responsible and to be held accountable for their claims and promises et al.
There are no statesman like persons among them, our current governance system these same persons are more often seen as a fat-ego-ed fraternity of fumblers that continue to allow this State to dwell in the chaos that it has duly become during the past 10 or so years.
When one considers the only long-term activity that this collective Labor government Brains Trust held was to wood-chip the State’s iconic Old Growth Forests and gift a poker machine licence to Greg Farrell of the Federal Group.
So in terms of what to expect from Will Hodgman and his fellow ministers,in my opinion, little more than a ramping up of begging letters sent across the water to Tony Abbott and his team of power-players.
So, apart from the anti-the-Tasmanian-citizen Senator Erich Abetz idea “of pulling down the World Heritage walls” there seems little else that this, (if their lucky) Liberal State government could offer for our futures and to advance this State’s economy.
As for Scruffy I note she has not engaged in issuing any feckless political gibberish, nor any self-serving media releases to try to fool the people, so I believe she is still in with a good chance of becoming our next State Premier.
As to Scruffy’s mathematics, she will be on equal footing with the other hopefuls contesting this election.
Interesting it is that Scruffy has not engaged in any sordid nocturnal entertainments as have been alleged against a certain couple of our ministerial heavy-weights, indeed she has the perfect character and pedigree to fill the soon vacant chair of Premier.
(What’s the latest ‘goss’ on Scruffy’s popularity ratings?)
Mark
January 1, 2014 at 21:36
Thanks Ben for your suggestion on health policy. I would like to hear more on the detail eg Mersey, specialist roles for RHH, Launceston and possibly Melbourne or the use of regional “superclinics.”
A review of Aurora subsidies to big business could be part of a larger review of business taxes to foster actual investment. I would like to see business vehicle registration such as rentals and transport paid to the Tasmanian government and not registered interstate. If not, undercut the NT government and attract national registrations here.
Philip Lowe
January 2, 2014 at 00:07
Ben Quinn No23.Mate,I am so much in agreement with you.What Tassie needs is more people like you
instead of the cronyistic buttock kissing B grade
neppotistics who hog the media limelight like invisible garment watchers at the Emperors parade.
500,000 people?Why do you need so much hog wash for such a small population?Get out of your platform shoes and get in touch with reality.Stop the baccy and alcohol abuse society.Stop supping with the devil in the gambling can of worms.Is this the best that we can do with a ‘new’ society or are you fated to just recycle some of the very worst aspects of the old world?
Ben Quin
January 2, 2014 at 10:47
According to Treasury budget papers, delivery of health services in 2012-1013 accounted for approximately 27% of State expenditure, an amount just over $1.3 billion.
Further, expenditure on health related infrastructure is budgeted to account for 39% of all state infrastructure investment for the same period. (Although as John Lawrence has pointed out, the actual expenditure we can expect is somewhat misty.)
For this massive spend, we have achieved
– unacceptably long surgery waiting lists,
– an obesity epidemic,
– a mental health crisis,
– an epidemic of drug and alcohol abuse,
– a critical shortage of aged-care facilities,
– inadequate support for people with disabilities,
– a bloated health bureaucracy.
This is a completely unacceptable result. If there was a prize for featherbedding, I reckon DHHS in Tasmania would win hands down.
Tasmania needs, (and can barely afford) only one surgical hospital. We should invite Launceston and Hobart to submit competing bids for the prize of being the host city. Mersey hospital should be closed down immediately. Complex procedures should be delivered in Melbourne.
Local health services need to be put firmly back in control of local boards, with a tight focus on emergency triage, community preventative health, aged and disability services. There must be an expectation that communities will support their local health service, through organisation such as service auxiliaries and meals-on-wheels. Dividends should be paid to communities who achieve the best outcomes.
Patients using ambulance should pay for the service, or contribute to an ambulance insurance scheme. Insurance cover would be invalid where drugs or alcohol are implicated in the ambulance call.
That’s enough to start. Once we get the hang of this self-reliance stuff, who knows where we might end up.
Mark
January 2, 2014 at 11:21
Any Tasmanian government will receive resistance from the general public and/or vested interests once a tax or expenditure target is identified. We saw this with the recent education reforms. These were directly linked to class-school attendance levels yet people complained.
As I understand the state public service, the government has been implementing a program of voluntary redundancies and wage restraint. If the government is to target significant savings then it needs to target areas of significant expenditure. These are usually the health and education portfolios. Smart savings should be coupled with initiatives and innovations. The public will also have to contribute to savings and this might include travel time and/or service standards.
The improved roles of technology and transport would allow greater areas to be serviced for less expenditure.
A reinvigorated youthful employment profile could also drive some innovations. I assume there is an aging demographic in health and education. Does Tasmania have a robust staff replacement and development program or are vested interests (eg unions) blocking any attempt at reforms? I know where my money would be with regards education and teachers.
By way of example, I have a nephew interstate who has honours in history and has worked casually for three years as a teacher. He seldom received any response from his applications for a permanent position. He cannot get a housing loan on a casual wage. He applied for three jobs in England and received three immediate interviews. He took the first offer and departed three days ago.
Education and health are both sick in Australia and Tasmania. The teaching of mathematics and science has suffered for decades. It is time to reinvent education and health for a regional economy in the 21st century. Our youth can revitalise spending and investment if given the opportunity of employment.
Mark
January 3, 2014 at 10:36
Thanks Ben. It’s not too far from my thoughts. I would like more flexibility on specialist services between Hobart and Launceston while the future role of Burnie should be more as a satellite centre. Not only does Tasmania need capable government but senior bureaucrats capable of delivering change.
john hayward
January 3, 2014 at 20:33
#20, Robin. Being as we’re effectively limited to a leader from one of our two in-bred, kleptocratic ,major parties, we don’t have a real choice.
The Opposition is run by the former director of Australia’s greatest Ponzi scheme.
John Hayward
Pete Godfrey
January 4, 2014 at 10:57
Ben Quin #28, you make sense when you write about what we get from our “Health System” except it is not a health system at all it is a system designed to transfer wealth to pharmaceutical companies, medical machine suppliers and fat cats who make policy.
What we need is a system that like you say teaches people to be responsible for their own health.
With Governments addicted to tobacco, alcohol and betting taxes we are pushing a smelly cart up a steep hill.
A very good place to start cutting government expenditure is on the money wasted on studies. Studies that are done to tell the government what they want to hear.
A few examples.
50 plus studies done on the Tamar Silt problem, ( when blind freddy can see that silt is from the upper reaches of the rivers and needs to be kept there)
A multi million dollar study to see if a toxic site on the Hobart waterfront was a good place for a new hospital, even though access would have been a nightmare. (guess who was health minister then).
Studies into the benefits of fictitious pulp mills benefits.
Studies into anything else that manages to transfer public wealth to mates pockets.
You and I know that government is an industry, the members are not there to represent us at all they are there to find ways to keep their bums on the seat and their mates who give them donations happy.
That system needs to be done away with.
So “No more studies that point out the obvious”
A health care system based on education and responsibility.
Less fat cats.
No more dynastic families who get members into parliament just because of their name.
Of course we could all change our names to one of those family names to get elected.
Then again I am refusing to be involved in the fraud of elections from now on. That is until I have the choice to vote for only the people I want to vote for an no more.
TGC
January 4, 2014 at 23:18
#33 What is meant by the last sentence? Is it “I may wish to vote only for one person-not a number in some order?
Basil Fitch
January 5, 2014 at 00:29
Thank you Tony Abbott P.M. for your under reported Xmas presents, namely $8 p.w. increase in my Private Health Insurance and $6 p.w per visit to my G.P, up to 12 visits!
Will you now increase the Pension by approx. $10 p.w to cover these iniquitous increases?
I thought John Howard, when he introduced the 10% GST said…all these taxes and ‘niggling’ little increases, would be abolished?
Come on Andrew Nikolic Bass MHR, stand up for the battlers, aged and self funded retirees struggling in Bass. Basil
TGC
January 5, 2014 at 11:38
#35 Petition that ALL medical services should be absolutely free.
Robin Charles Halton
January 5, 2014 at 12:42
Welcome to the New Year folks.
I am hoping that PM Abbott will have a field day punishing those Climate Change zealots who like a pack of spoilt school kids raced off to the Antarctic in a hired Russian ship the Akademik Shokalskiy which is not an icebreaker, desperate to make a name in history for themselves to get to Mawsons Hut at Commomwealth Bay to re inact Sir Douglas Mawsons scientific findings in the glorious name of Climate Change.
The responsible thing to do is to abort further Antarctic research expeditions until the total cost of what is turned into a Maritime Search and Rescue extravaganza has been accounted for.
I have been suspicious about some of the approved scientific research objectives for some time now, the recent event which now involved four ships is beyond belief, two trapped in sea ice, one on standby and now a US Coast Guard icebreaker on its way in an attempt to free the Russian and Chinese ships.
Where are Climate Change zealots Christine and Bob in what is now looking more like a contradiction of their beliefs.
This is not a responsible use of taxpayer money at all, in future there needs to be a clear path for scientific research with a responsible budget.
The junketing must stop immediately, I will watching closely as the events unfold, hopefully the Akademic Shokalskiy wont be breached while it is trapped in sea ice as the future of Antarctic Division could depend on the outcome of this irresponsible junket.
So much for the Climate Change fanaticism, the idiots can show up in the most unexpected places, by now that are costing the taxpayer far more than their worth.
William Boeder
January 5, 2014 at 16:59
Robin Charles Halton, you do make some rather outrageous claims and statements, especially that of which are held in your #37.
Maritime search and rescue extravaganza.
Interesting that you know better than the collective of maritime experienced and responsible persons that engage in Scientific exploration.
You seem to believe Australia will be better served if it abandons its research bases in our division of the Antartic territory?
I note you spend an inordinate amount of your time at your keyboard expounding the benefits of
the further denudation of our peoples Old Growth Native Forests, this being regardless to the fact that this has been proven to be an enormously mentally defective and hugely expensive pursuit that now has this State’s least creditable and definitely the last affordable junket GBE of Forestry Tasmania, their holding of so high an amount of accrued borrowings, letters of comfort, debts and financial obligations, (all being rather stupidly accrued debt’s) in the region of some $400,000,000-00.
So much for your insight philosophy and endorsements you have given to the matter of our peoples forests.
We are pummelled by your opinions and claims in that you declare that this rampant type of logging activity is vital to Tasmania in order to have such as a forest logging industry.
(Albeit that there are only a small number of people convinced by you that agree with this sentiment) Evan Rolley for example, he being one of this State’s most determined of carpet-baggers and a powerful advocate of broad-scale deforestation logging to ever participate in Tasmania’s ultimately forest denuded State, as is currently being carried out under his direction simply to benefit an aging Asian Oligarch.
Now returning to the subject matter of this article, the very moment that Australia’s occupation of its Antartic territory is relaxed, well then we would see quicker than quick that any of the lesser ‘well-intentioned Countries’ barging onto this Australian zoned area to lay claim to Australia’s (per your claim above) abandoned division of this extremely valuable Southern territory.
Then you go on to claim that this ‘junketing’ must stop as it is a nil responsible use of taxpayers money.
Fair go Robin, what is it that you have that sees you positioned to declare your North Hobartian judgements in this matter are undoubtedly the best and most intelligent way forward?
Then in the context of your comment you attempt to lay some veil of blame upon both Bob Brown and Christine Milne as the pre-emptors of this Climate Change zealous pursuit.
This comment of yours certainly tops anything that your forest-denuding colleague in the name of George Harris could dream up and submit to Tasmanian Times, then you seek to include the crap-house malarkey intelligences and actions of Abbott’s Liberals (including the Greens hating Senator Eric Abetz) each of them displaying their stupefying ignorance’s to the way of our ever evolving climate.
With your claims opinions and endorsement that I have touched on in the above Robin, this will have Eric Abetz himself seeking you out and have you join their merry throng of mind-warping fact-denying charlatan Liberal party members.
I was formerly of the opinion that you had a good grasp of the life’s realities both here in Tasmania and in general that of Australia itself, yet your comment above seems to cancel out my earlier respectful fair-minded opinion.
Good luck with your new futures and your possible association with Senator Eric (the MIS advocate) Abetz.
Regards,
Friend William of Rosebery.
Robin Charles Halton
January 6, 2014 at 02:39
#38 William Boeder, Welcome to Extravaganza Antarctica. I hope that I did not shock you too much being so early into the New Year.
Although I may be looking like a potential Liberal voter, Eric Abetz is not a close associate nor do I wish to mingle my recent and very practical disclosures of forestry practices with those of the ongoing events being played out 1600km south of Hobart.
Possibly you could read my further comment on today’s Mercury site re financial wastage on a grand scale of the ill fated Mawson 2013 voyage.
“Antarctic expedition head Chris Turney justifies the scientific value of the trip”, my comment 12:34 pm today. Other comments indicate a similar view.
I think that the Ship of Fools saga needs an Inquiry into why all of the haste for these party animals and attention seekers were allowed this junket believed to have been approved by the Australian Antarctic Division at the taxpayers expense.
At this point I am not wanting to predict the worst outcome but my guess is there is a real risk of pollution of marine life in the region of the scene of the overly ambitious voyage …who have now abandoned the hired Russian ship which is not an icebreaker and left those 22 persons on board at the mercy of God.
Remember that the reputation of the AAD is at stake here, this is not some minor incident or a freak event of nature after all, is it.