As voting day approaches, Tasmanians deserve more from their politicians

Australia Broadcast Center

2 days ago

It was an election Tasmanians did not want and could not afford.
Forced upon the state by either a "wrecker" opposition leader and crossbench, or a premier who refused to resign (depending on who you ask).
But Tasmania had only just had an election 15 months ago — and that too was early.
Turns out, not only was the public not ready for another election, the politicians weren't either.
With the odd exception, this campaign has been lacklustre.
Forget the chocolate fountains and new public hospitals on offer last time; this year it's been a merry-go-round of red-tape reduction, structured numeracy lessons and LNG fuel.
Yes, given the state of the budget, it's the kind of election Tasmania had to have — if it was going to have one.
That doesn't mean it's been fun or inspiring.
So, if you cannot splash the cash around, surely it becomes about a 'contest of ideas'.
People like to joke about how they struggle to see the difference between the Liberal and Labor parties — beyond their founding principles, of course.
But by the time you have a very moderate Liberal leader in Jeremy Rockliff matched up against a right-wing Labor leader in Dean Winter, that joke seems to carry a little more weight.
Look at the one and only leaders' debate.
Sure, there was the usual bickering and finger-pointing, but how often did they disagree on actual policy or ideas?
Banning native forest logging? Lockstep. Support for the aquaculture industry? Lockstep. Macquarie Point stadium? Lockstep.
Labor's real point of difference is — they are not the Liberals.
They are not the ones who have been in government for 11 years, so they are not responsible for the 5,000-plus people on the social housing waitlist (which has more than doubled since the Liberals came to power).
Labor did not fail to build a berth for the new Spirit of Tasmania ships, costing the state more than a billion dollars.
Nor is the $13 billion of debt the state is projected to be in in 2026-27 Labor's fault.
A big point of difference for the Liberals is that they are not Labor.
Speaking of that debt, the state of Tasmania's finances was one of three reasons Labor moved its motion of no-confidence in Jeremy Rockliff, so it stands to reason that the election should be partly fought on it.
Despite the state of the budget, both parties have spent a bit during the campaign, albeit far less than normal.
There has also been more focus than usual on how parties would pay for the promises.
The Liberals, who mostly made health promises, have funded many from the existing health budget, while Labor is funding its from the Budget Repair Plan.
The party has correctly identified if it was going to trigger an election due to the state of the budget, it would need a plan to fix it, and has claimed $1 billion in potential savings.
But there were more than a few issues with that plan — like announcing it would cut eight Associate Secretary jobs, when only three are filled.
Or the intention to "save" $171.5 million in capital spending by simply pushing the spending beyond the forward estimates. Not exactly a saving.
Then there's $1 million Labor said it would save by cancelling the sale of the Treasury Building.
The Treasury department was unable to cost that policy due to "insufficient information", but noted that there would likely be "costs incurred in relation to the finalisation of existing consultancy contracts".
And, of course, Labor says about a fifth of the savings will be used to fund their election commitments.
But at least they have a plan.
The Liberals have yet to admit there is even an issue, denying there is a need to get the budget back on track.
They have rolled through the election campaign relying on a budget plan that got them into this mess in the first place.
And they have given up one of their ways to make some money — selling off assets, even if it is a sugar hit rather than real reform.
Indeed, despite Treasury warning that savings and growing the economy will not be enough to address the budget issues, neither party has any real plan to find new money.
It is only the Greens who are keen to raise revenue by making salmon companies pay for the use of state waters or increasing mining royalties to bring them in line with other states.
However, the state's finances may not be not top-of-mind for most people
What matters is core issues — like cost of living, health and housing and that is what the parties' signature policies aim to address.
The Liberals have run so far from their potential privatisation plans that they are now hoping to add to the state's government businesses with its own insurance company, TasInsure, announced with merchandise and a shopfront.
Still, a rather odd move for a Liberal government that is meant to be all about small government.
While Labor accused the Liberals of cooking it up during the campaign, Mr Rockliff has claimed the idea has been brewing for a while.
To most Tasmanians, the idea of saving up to $250 a year on insurance sounds great (or up to 20 per cent for small businesses, say the Liberals).
The issue is, the modelling has not been released — so voters have no way to know how accurate those figures are.
And just as many groups which have praised the idea, have criticised it.
Not to mention the fact the Liberals are claiming it is cost-neutral because it will be an extension of the Motor Accident Insurance Board — a questionable claim at the very least.
Labor's signature policy is TassieDocs, a plan for the state government to set up and run doctors' clinics, allowing doctors to pass on the full benefit of bulk-billing.
It is an idea so appealing, the Liberals ripped it off on day one, although they have committed to building only five clinics to Labor's 10.
Like TasInsure, TassieDoc is a policy that can cut through. It goes to the heart of what is impacting Tasmanians at the moment.
The Liberals are trying to capitalise on it, but many still know it was originally a Labor policy — the party has done the work and its "powered by Medicare" slogan screams Labor.
But why introduce it so late in the game?
This is an election in which one in four eligible Tasmanians have voted before polling day.
Labor could have let that sink in a little longer, instead of rolling out policies like ensuring the Spirits are home by Christmas.
If the majority of the polls are any indication, things are not going to look too different come July 20 or whenever the final result is actually known.
The Hare-Clark system may cause some seat shuffling within the parties, but if the numbers remain or shift only slightly, both majors are going to need to take a good, hard look at themselves.
The one near-certainty is that Tasmania will end up with another hung parliament.
That means dealing with independents and minor parties.
Neither Mr Rockliff nor Mr Winter have been able to figure out how to work with those on the crossbench whose values differ greatly from them.
Calling them "radical independents" certainly is not helpful.
But each and every one of those politicians was voted in by Tasmanians and their place in the parliament should be respected, even if just for the fact that we've seen what happens when they wield their power.
For that matter, the crossbench also needs be more open to compromise and aware of the consequences of their actions.
There will be many lessons from this election, but one is already clear, it will be everyone's responsibility to make it work — lest we see Tasmania votes 2026.
Follow live coverage of the Tasmanian election on Saturday night with the ABC News blog