I am broadly supportive of the review of Tasmania’s residential tenancy laws. The housing crisis that currently exists within Tasmania has increased demand for rental accommodation, resulting in an extremely competitive & unaffordable market. This reinforces the need to provide tangible, genuine and enforceable protections for tenants of rental accommodation. Those protections must also reflect the diverse circumstances of Tasmanians who live in rental accommodation, including private renters, social housing tenants, people in supported accommodation, people escaping family violence, people with disability and those experiencing homelessness or housing insecurity.

In my view, any reforms to the Act should modernise it in a way that improves security and fairness for tenants, ensures that disputes are resolved in a manner that is efficient & minimises the cost to all parties while encouraging fair outcomes. The central test for reform should be whether it makes renting in Tasmania fairer, safer and more secure for the people who rely on it.

Standardised Applications & Privacy Protections:

I support the introduction of standardised rental application forms and improved privacy protections for tenants, including restricting the type of information that can be collected, giving tenants the right of access & correction (if the information on record is wrong) and mandating timeframes for data retention/destruction.

The rental market is characterised by an obvious imbalance in bargaining power. Prospective tenants are often under significant pressure to secure accommodation and may feel compelled to provide whatever information is requested, even where that information is excessive or irrelevant.

A single, prescribed rental application form would provide greater consistency across the rental market and help ensure that prospective tenants are assessed on relevant and reasonable criteria. It would also reduce the risk of unreasonable, unnecessary or intrusive requirements being imposed during the application process. I also support clear obligations relating to data destruction, access and correction. Property owners and agents should not be permitted to retain sensitive personal information for undefined periods after it is no longer required. Tenants and prospective tenants should also have a clear right to access the information held about them and to correct information that is inaccurate.

Bonds & Financial Matters:

I support reforms that reduce the upfront financial burden associated with bonds, including a portable bond scheme, the ability to pay bonds by instalment, and greater flexibility as to who may contribute to a tenant’s bond. For many tenants, moving from one rental property to another requires them to pay a new bond before their existing bond has been returned, as well as an additional two weeks rent up front, placing significant financial pressure on households. Reforms that make it easier for tenants to transfer, pay or obtain assistance with a bond are sensible and would reduce one of the practical barriers to securing rental accommodation. One caveat I would place on the expansion of deposit contributors is that there should be an explicit prohibition against charging a fee or interest for payment of the bond contribution.

I do not support streamlining uncontested bond claims in favour of owners where a tenant simply fails to respond. There is an important distinction between a tenant reclaiming their own money and an owner seeking to deduct money from a tenant’s bond for alleged damage or other costs. A failure to respond should not be treated as acceptance of the owner’s claim. Tenants may not have seen the claim, may not understand the process, or may not be in a position to respond within the relevant timeframe. Owners seeking to retain bond money should be required to prove their claim through a fair process.

Rent & Affordability:

One of the primary effects of the housing crisis is rent has increased exponentially over the past decade, creating an unaffordable market which has placed further stress on Tasmania’s social housing and homelessness services. Access to safe and secure housing is a basic human right, and it is essential that we have the necessary checks and balances to ensure that Tasmanians are not locked out of rental accommodation due to unaffordability.

I support reforms that provide greater clarity and fairness in relation to rent increases and rent reductions. The current test for assessing whether a rent increase is unreasonable leaves significant room for uncertainty and dispute. Stipulating explicit criteria for what constitutes an unreasonable rent increase would assist tenants, owners and decision-makers by making clear what matters are relevant, including the condition and maintenance of the property. This would improve transparency and make the process easier to understand and navigate. I further support the introduction of a “soft” cap on rents, whereby a landlord must apply to an independent decision-maker to increase rent beyond the prescribed limit. While CPI may be an appropriate starting point, it should not operate as an unlimited ceiling. In periods of high inflation, a CPI-based cap can still permit substantial rent increases at the very time tenants are least able to absorb them. For that reason, any CPI mechanism should be paired with a fixed maximum percentage, with the allowable increase being the lower of the two. For example, if the fixed maximum is 5 per cent and CPI is 7 per cent, rent could not increase by more than 5 per cent. If CPI is 3 per cent, the increase could not exceed 3 per cent. I am not suggesting that the fixed maximum should be 5%, and the process for determining any maximum figure should be evidence-based and subject to appropriate consultation with relevant stakeholders and experts.

Similarly, I support the introduction of a formal process for rent reductions where a property is damaged or cannot be fully occupied by the tenant. In those circumstances, tenants should not be required to continue paying full rent without access to a clear and independent mechanism for review. It appears reasonable at face value to empower the Residential Tenancy Commissioner to make such appealable orders reducing rent where it is fair and reasonable to do so.

I also support, in principle, a permanent mechanism allowing a party to apply to end a tenancy early on the grounds of severe hardship. Any such process should be evidence-based, accessible and subject to appropriate review rights. That being said, it may be possible to give effect to this purpose by expanding the circumstances when a fixed-tenancy agreement can be terminated, such as in circumstances whereby tenants are affected by illness, family violence, disability, sudden loss of income or other serious circumstances that make it unreasonable or unsafe for the tenancy to continue. This would then avert the need to introduce a new mechanism for ending tenancies early.

I also support expressly prohibiting landlords and agents from accepting offers above the advertised rental price. Rent bidding places unfair pressure on prospective tenants and undermines transparency in the rental market. The advertised rent should be the rent.

Subtenancy, Shared Housing & Social Housing Occupancy:

I support an expansion, and clarification, of rights and obligations that apply in subtenancy and shared living arrangements. The most pragmatic solution would be making all sub-tenancy agreements subject to the Act, as is currently the case with social housing subtenancy agreements.

There should be clear requirements for informed consent, written explanation of rights and obligations, and access to independent advice where a tenant is being asked to enter into, or accept, a subtenancy agreement. In my experience, it is common for social housing tenants to enter into subtenancy agreements without understanding the consequences of that arrangement.

Any move to clarify subtenancy arrangements must not result in vulnerable tenants being placed into a weaker legal position without understanding the consequences. Accordingly, tenants should have the explicit right of refusal and, further, there should be an explicit prohibition against forcing the tenant into such an arrangement if they refuse. Similarly, the Act should stipulate that requests made by a tenant to enter into a subtenancy agreement should not be unreasonably refused, and reasons must be provided should the landlord refuse such a request.

Any reforms clarifying the status of “approved occupants” in social housing must be approached with care. Clarity is welcome, but it must not become a mechanism for removing tenancy-style protections from people who are already in vulnerable positions. The purpose of reform should be to improve certainty and accountability, rather than creating a second class of social housing residents with fewer enforceable rights. I recognise that the decision of Jordan v Community Housing Limited [2024] TASSC 63 has caused social housing providers some concern. However, approved occupants often live in the house for extended periods of time, and make contributions in one way or another towards the payment of rent. At a minimum, approved occupants should be provided with the option of remaining in the home if the social housing tenant vacates due to reasons other than a breach of lease. Approved occupants should also have the capacity to be reclassified as a tenant through an independent assessment process. As with my above submission on subtenancy arrangements, there should be an explicit requirement for informed consent, with written explanation of rights and obligations provided in advance by the social housing provider.

I also support clarifying the definition of boarding premises and creating a clear process for determining whether a property falls within that category. This is important because boarding houses and shared accommodation often house people in vulnerable circumstances. The Act should provide certainty about when those protections apply, while ensuring that ordinary shared households are not inadvertently captured in a way that creates confusion or unintended consequences. However, we must be cognisant that boarding premises can come in a range of different forms and sizes. However, simply stipulating the “minimum” number rooms required to constitute a boarding premises may have the opposite effect of excluding genuine boarding premises, and a better approach may be requiring all boarding premises to be registered as such.

I acknowledge that the Act can be difficult to navigate in its application to social housing and housing assistance tenancies, particularly because the relevant exceptions and caveats are spread throughout the Act. There may therefore be merit in creating a dedicated Part to improve clarity and administration. However, any dedicated Part must not create a two-tiered system in which social housing tenants have fewer rights than private tenants. If such a Part is created, it must preserve, and where appropriate strengthen, the rights and protections available to social housing and housing assistance tenants. I would strongly oppose any attempt at weaking the rights of social housing and other housing assistance tenants through the introduction of a dedicated Part within the Act.

Social Housing Debt Recovery:

I am concerned by the proposal to allow social housing providers to receive payments from tenants to recover debts other than rent, including debts from previous tenancies.

I acknowledge that there should be some capacity for social housing providers to accept payments for legitimate debts, the discussion paper does not provide sufficient detail about how this power would operate in practice. It is unclear whether it would apply only to admitted debts, whether disputed debts could be included, whether repayment plans could be made a condition of housing, and what safeguards would apply for tenants experiencing financial hardship.

Social housing tenants are, by definition, often among the most financially vulnerable members of the community. There is a real risk that an expanded debt recovery power could place additional pressure on people who are already struggling to maintain stable housing. There is also a risk that tenants may feel pressured to agree to repayment arrangements that they do not understand or cannot afford, so that they do not place their accommodation at risk. A tenant should not be denied housing, threatened with eviction, or pressured into an unaffordable repayment plan because of an alleged debt.

With the above issues in mind, if such a power is considered, it must be subject to strict and rigorous safeguards to prevent its misuse.

Underutilised social housing properties:

I do not support expanding the power of social housing providers to transition tenants out of underutilised properties with fewer than four bedrooms.

Maximising the use of social housing is a legitimate aim, as larger homes are desperately needed by families on the housing register. However, this must be balanced against the reality that social housing properties are people’s homes. For many tenants, particularly older tenants, people with disability, carers and people with long-standing community connections, forced relocation can have serious consequences.

A power to move tenants out of so-called “underutilised” properties could be misused or applied too bluntly. It may fail to take account of family support, proximity to services, disability-related needs, informal caring arrangements, trauma history, or the practical impact of relocation on a tenant’s wellbeing.

Protections for vulnerable tenants:

I support stronger protections for tenants experiencing family and domestic violence. Tenants escaping violence should be able to end a tenancy quickly, safely and without financial penalty. The process should be evidenced-based, trauma-informed, protect the tenant’s privacy and avoid requiring victim-survivors to navigate unnecessary court processes before they can leave unsafe housing. 5

I also support protections preventing a tenant from being listed on a tenancy database where the listing arises from family violence perpetrated by another person. A victim-survivor should not carry the tenancy consequences of violence committed against them.

I support, in principle, reforms requiring courts, tribunals or decision-makers to consider a tenant’s disability when dealing with vacant possession or other serious tenancy matters. However, the Act should make clear how disability is to be considered in practice. Decision-makers should be able to consider whether the alleged breach is connected to a person’s disability, whether reasonable adjustments have been made, whether support services have been engaged, and whether eviction is proportionate in the circumstances.

The Act should also recognise and protect the occupancy rights of people living in specialist disability accommodation and other supported accommodation. People with disability should not be left with uncertain or inferior housing rights because their accommodation is delivered through a specialist or supported model.

I also support reforms to crisis accommodation, but do not support simply extending the existing exemption period. If people are staying in crisis accommodation for many months, or even more than a year, that is not a reason to leave them without basic rights. I appreciate that there may be some merit in a separate framework applying to crisis accommodation, subject to the outcome of consultation with stakeholders. If a separate framework is developed for crisis accommodation, it should include minimum standards, privacy protections, fair processes for ending accommodation, complaint rights, and access to independent review. This framework may also be capable of incorporating into the Act, in a dedicated part similar to the Part applying to Boarding Premises.

No-cause evictions and security of tenure:

I support reform to strengthen security of tenure and limit no-cause evictions, including at the end of fixed-term tenancies. In the current housing market, the end of a fixed-term lease can operate as a no-cause eviction in practice. This undermines housing security and leaves tenants exposed to displacement even where they have done nothing wrong. A tenant who has paid rent, looked after the property and complied with their obligations should not be required to leave their home without a genuine reason.

That said, the reform must be carefully designed. Fixed-term agreements currently serve a distinct function. If prescribed grounds are required at the end of a fixed term, those grounds must be clear, practical and transparent. They must not be so broad that no-cause eviction continues under another name, but they must also be sufficiently clear to avoid unnecessary disputes.

I support a requirement for genuine, prescribed grounds to end a tenancy, including at the expiry of a fixed-term agreement, supported by safeguards against sham reasons and a clear right for tenants to challenge invalid or retaliatory notices. I also support amending the Act to make clear that orders for vacant possession should only be made where the reasons relied upon are genuine and just. Eviction is a serious outcome, and the Act should ensure that tenants are not removed from their homes on technical, artificial or unfair grounds.

Retaliatory evictions, inspections and break-lease fees:

I support introducing clear protections against retaliatory evictions. Tenants should be able to request repairs, complain about minimum standards, raise safety concerns, seek disability-related adjustments or enforce their legal rights without fear that they will lose their home as a result of raising such matters.

The Act should allow tenants to challenge a notice to vacate where it appears to have been issued in retaliation for the tenant exercising their rights. Consideration should also be given to a rebuttable presumption of retaliation where a notice is issued shortly after a tenant has made a complaint, requested repairs, sought enforcement of minimum standards, or raised a protected issue such as family violence or disability.

I also support reform to reduce unnecessary intrusion into tenants’ homes. Routine inspections may be appropriate, but tenants with a strong record of compliance should have a pathway to less frequent inspections. A person’s home should not be treated as a site of constant surveillance simply because they rent.

I support limiting break-lease fees, particularly where a tenant needs to leave because of hardship, family violence, disability, illness, loss of employment or other serious circumstances. Break-lease liability should not trap tenants in unsuitable or unsafe housing.

Minimum Standards, Repairs & Minor Modifications:

I support strengthening minimum standards and giving the Residential Tenancy Commissioner power to order owners to bring properties up to those standards. Rights are of limited value if they cannot be enforced. Too often, tenants are forced into houses that are affected by mould, lack sufficient heating or have other issues that impact on the tenant’s health and safety because they do not have any other option. These powers of enforcement must also be capable of being exercised in a practical and accessible way, without exposing tenants to the risk of retaliatory eviction or other adverse action.

I also support proactive compliance powers. Many tenants, particularly those in vulnerable circumstances, are reluctant to complain because they fear retaliation or eviction. A system that relies entirely on tenant complaints will inevitably miss serious non-compliance.

I support energy efficiency reforms, particularly where they reduce cost-of-living pressure and improve health outcomes for tenants. However, reforms should be practical, staged and designed to avoid unintended consequences for rental supply.

The obligations imposed on both landlords and tenants with respect to repairs would benefit from further clarity, but the substance should remain – tenants are responsible for all maintenance & repairs that are a consequence of their actions, with landlords being responsible for everything else. I do not support an expansion of the repair obligation on tenants which involves working at heights, safety risks or the need to engage a professional. Such repairs would include cleaning gutters, pruning trees or cleaning flues. Further, the obligation of the landlord to replace items that degrade through fair wear and tear should remain, and I therefore do not support making tenants responsible for replacing things such as tap washers or light globes.

I support expanding the range of minor modifications tenants can make without requiring owner approval, provided those modifications are reasonable, reversible and do not cause lasting damage to the property. This is particularly important for modifications that improve accessibility, safety or energy efficiency. Tenants should be able to make modest changes that allow them to live safely and comfortably in their home, subject to an obligation to make good at the end of the tenancy unless otherwise agreed.

TASCAT jurisdiction and dispute resolution:

I support, in principle, moving residential tenancy disputes into TASCAT if it creates a cheaper, more accessible and more specialist jurisdiction. However, transferring jurisdiction to TASCAT will only improve the system if TASCAT is properly resourced. Reform should not simply transfer from one forum to another, without addressing the underlying issues. Before jurisdiction is expanded, the Government should be satisfied that TASCAT has the staffing, funding, listing capacity and specialist expertise to deal with tenancy matters expediently, fairly and at a reduced cost to all parties.

I do not support giving the Residential Tenancy Commissioner power to make orders for vacant possession. Eviction is one of the most serious outcomes under the Act. If such a power is considered, it must be accompanied by strong procedural safeguards, including proper notice, a right to be heard, written reasons, access to review or appeal, and appropriate support for vulnerable tenants. Efficiency should not come at the expense of fairness, particularly for decisions that involve the loss of housing for people who are often already in vulnerable positions.

Conclusion:

Tasmania’s tenancy laws need to be modernised in a way that reflects the reality of the current housing crisis. The Act should provide clear rights, enforceable protections and accessible remedies. I support reforms that improve clarity, security of tenure, minimum standards, privacy, and access to timely dispute resolution. Any reforms to the Act should particularly protect those tenants who are least able to navigate complex systems, including social housing tenants, people in crisis accommodation, people escaping violence, people with disability, and low-income renters.

Within the Westminster system, our system of representative democracy, there are a range of rules, conventions and processes in place to ensure that Governments are not only able to govern but, importantly, govern within a broad accountability framework - particularly when it comes to the expenditure of taxpayer money.

Two key moments in the parliamentary calendar assist all members of parliament in this job: budget estimates and the Government Business Enterprise and State-Owned Company annual scrutiny hearings.

Budget estimates are held once a year a week after the state budget is delivered.  

Government Business Enterprise hearings are held at the end of the calendar year approximately a month after their annual reports are tabled in parliament.

They are two of parliament’s most important accountability mechanisms.

They allow elected representatives to examine how the government plans to spend public money and to question ministers, public servants and GBE appointed chairs and staff about that spending.

Crucially, these processes are conducted in public, in full view of the media and the Tasmanian people.

When they are working well the hearings provide greater, detailed scrutiny of Government spending across all departments and entities.

They also ensure a level of ministerial accountability as Ministers are required to explain and defend their policies, programs, and financial decisions before Parliament.

It is also a useful test of the performance of Government as they provide an opportunity to examine whether previous funding has delivered the intended outcomes.

 The purpose of GBE scrutiny hearings are similar but with a different focus.

Whilst GBEs operate commercially, importantly they still have public responsibilities.

They also in theory assist with risk oversight and, importantly, they protect the public interest because unlike private companies, GBEs are expected to balance commercial objectives with broader public policy goals.

But for anyone who has watched these hearings over the last few years, you will see that they are no longer working.

Apart from a few moments, estimates and GBE hearings have deteriorated into a game of “gotcha”.

More theatre than investigation, more performance than accountability.

In their current form these parliamentary hearings are becoming a waste of time for all and sundry.

Further still, they are a waste of resources in the thousands of hours committed by the public sector workforce in preparing countless briefing papers on every possible issue imaginable.

It would be impossible to completely eradicate the ‘showtime’ of these hearings, but there are things that can be done to elicit greater transparency and value for the resources invested.

I have suggested to the government some simple reforms that would assist greatly.

For budget estimates, MPs should be allowed to provide written questions to Government in the three working days from the handing down of the budget.

These questions must be answered in writing, provided to members on the day of the hearing, and tabled for the public record.

MPs should be able to ask questions directly of Secretaries and other senior public sector leaders at the table.

Questions from members of the Government (Dorothy Dixers) should be prohibited, and all other MPs should be limited to asking questions relating to expenditure or matters arising from the relevant budget chapter.

 Additional days should be scheduled for further budget estimate hearings.

The first in either late August or early September when the expenditure for the previous financial year has been determined and finalised.

The second should be in February so that the mid-year fiscal report can also be examined.

These extra hearing days will allow greater scrutiny and accountability.

GBE hearings should be brought forward to early November, so that any matters arising from annual reports can be addressed by Parliament in a timely way.

At present, GBE hearings occur too late in the year, meaning that issues raised often do not get sufficient attention due to the Christmas rush, and the significance of those issues diminishes with the passing of time.

In terms of questioning, Government Members should again be prohibited from asking questions, and MPs should be able to direct questions to GBE Chairs and senior staff.

Many, if not all, of these processes occur in other Westminster parliaments around the world.

Some people refer to politicians as clowns.

We don’t have to provide them with a circus, but this is exactly what these hearing have become.

Reforms are desperately needed, because Tasmanians deserve accountability – not theatre.

 escription

There’s an old joke about a tourist lost in the West of Ireland asking a local farmer for directions to Dublin. He replies: ‘Well, if I were you, I wouldn’t be starting from here’, this joke seems to fit well when talking about the future of the Royal Hobart Hospital.

Tasmania’s health system is under pressure, and nowhere is that more obvious than at the Royal

The redevelopment of the Royal, whilst continuing to operate, has become one of the most difficult infrastructure challenges the state has faced in years. Patients, staff and families have endured years of disruption, uncertainty and frustration — and many now question whether rebuilding on the existing site can ever truly deliver the modern hospital Tasmania needs. 

And it has also become clear that the design and planning has, in part, been compromised by the need to re-build around a working site.

It’s understandable that calls are growing for a completely new hospital on a greenfield site.

Many sites have been suggested but with the Defence Department potential sell off of land at Dowsing Point that has now become option that many advocate for.

But before we shift the heart of Tasmania’s healthcare away from the city, we should ask a simple question:

Is there a smarter option already in front of us?

Instead of abandoning the city or continuing an endlessly complex rebuild on top of an active hospital, we could expand the hospital precinct in the most practical way possible — across the road.

Directly adjacent to the existing Royal Hobart Hospital across Liverpool street is the Police station, remand centre and Courts, government-owned land that could be repurposed, cleared and redeveloped into a major new hospital facility.

The vast majority of the block between Liverpool, Bathurst and Argyle and Campbell street is owned by the state Government.

This would mean levelling the existing buildings and starting from scratch to create a purpose built hospital facility..

It would also mean rebuilding a police station and courts elsewhere.

Whilst a massive, long-term project, this approach would allow Tasmania to build modern clinical spaces on a more workable footprint, while keeping the hospital connected to the existing campus.

Hospitals are not standalone buildings. The Royal Hobart sits at the centre of a broader health precinct that includes specialist services, allied health providers, training institutions and support organisations built up over decades.  Our very own Menzies centre, one of Australia’s leading health and medical research institutes sits directly across the road.

Moving the state’s major hospital to an outer suburban greenfield site risks making access harder for thousands of Tasmanians — particularly those travelling from regional areas as accommodation options are limited.

A new hospital should improve access, not reduce it.

Keeping the hospital in the CBD also matters for public transport, for families without cars, and for the many older Tasmanians who rely on services being close and connected.

One of the biggest flaws in the current rebuild is obvious: construction is happening while patients are being treated metres away.

By relocating major new construction to an adjacent site, Tasmania could reduce disruption, improve safety, and allow services to transition in stages rather than under constant pressure.

The question would be asked , what would become of what is there now.  There is significant state owned land currently being used with in the CBD with various uses and standard and level of accommodation, sites such as the TAFE building in Campbell street, that could be re-purposed and rejuvenated. It will also allow Tas Police can work out of a purpose built modern facility.

I accept that this would take significant planning and work but something that is more than capable of being completed over the coming years.

Because building a hospital on a greenfield site comes with costs: new roads, new utilities, transport infrastructure, parking, and the duplication of services that already exist in central Hobart.

Tasmania needs a hospital built for the next 50 years — modern, efficient, and fit for purpose.

But the solution does not have to be either an endlessly difficult rebuild or a hospital pushed out of the city altogether.

The government should seriously assess the option that sits directly in front of it: using the government-owned site across the road to deliver a connected new hospital facility, integrated with the existing RHH.

This is a practical, achievable, common-sense option that should be investigated.

When I grew up in Launceston, it was pretty common for many of my friends and school mates to talk about leaving Tassie for work, for life, for adventure.

Whilst it is fantastic for young people to travel and spend time off our island if they can, I would like to be able to be part of a political class that gave young Tasmanians more opportunities to stay or to come home.

I recently had a conversation with a mate of mine from Adelaide Uni when he finally came down to visit.

He said, “Dave I never knew why you came back here, you had escaped the island, but that was until I came here, saw the place and I could see the love of it in your eyes”. 

We agreed. Imagine if we could build careers for more Tasmanians to come home.

It reminded me of the comment made by one of this state’s finest Premiers, Jim Bacon.

Jim referred to Tasmanians and Tasmania, he said we were paupers in paradise.  A beautiful place but an economic backwater, a place destined to have more people leave than arrive.

I am also reminded by the work of the late academic and economist Jonathan West in his well-known 2013 piece for the Griffith Review.

In this confronting article West wrote about Tasmania’s intractable social and economic problems, a culture of underachievement and resistance to change.

West identifies that a third of Tasmanians rely on a government payment, and another third or more is employed in a local, state or federal government job.

He says this often results in resistance to development.

“Little is lost personally by opposing the development or delaying its introduction. If government attempts to expedite the proposal, a large number of Tasmanians will oppose such action as improper. Instances of inconvenience mentioned by opponents of particular projects include more trucks on the road, difficulty finding parking, lights…”

West could have been talking about this stadium and the gripes of those opposed.

There continues to be a radical conservatism at play in Tasmania, born from privilege and middle-class indifference to the lives of others.

Those that are most vigorous in their opposition to this proposal are blind to their indifference and to the hopes and dreams of others. This willful ignorance consumes them.

If those opposed to the stadium have their way, we will still have a terrible budget, our health, education, public transport, housing systems would still be under enormous pressure.

But we will have no Tassie Devils, no uplift in the economy through building and construction, conferences and events and Macquarie Point will still be a car park.

It took a working-class kid from Cleveland, Ohio, who knew something about disadvantage and a working-class chip of his shoulder to inspire us.

He coined the phrase Defend the Island.

This kid is JackJumpers coach Scott Roth, who so quickly after spending time here recognised in us something within him. 

Tasmanians have become used to being told we aren’t good enough, and that we should accept second best.

Roth challenged that and has led The Jackies to successful season after successful season, harnessing the passion, the grip and grind, the working-class attitude personified by hard work and pride.

We all walked taller when we won the NBL championship that season.

There was surge of confidence in our state that followed.

Hard to quantify the benefit cost ratio on that.

Imagine what a Tassie Devils club, run by proud Tasmanians Brendon Gale, Kath MCann and Grant O’Brien leading a team, of skilled Tasmanians many of whom have come home specifically for this opportunity, could do for this island - the inspiration, the hope and the confidence.

The thousands of young Tasmanian girls and boys have already got their heart set on playing for our state, defending the island, being the best they can be.

Who are we to betray them by failing to grasp this moment?

A vote for the stadium is not an endorsement of the Government. It’s not a blank cheque for them. It’s not a free pass on all and sundry.

It’s simply a statement of confidence in the future. It’s a reward for the work thousands of Tasmanians have been putting in for years to build something greater than the sum of the parts.

A vote against this project on the basis of the Government’s poor record does not change that record, it simply compounds the series of poor decisions by parliamentary leaders in both houses and consigns Tasmania to be the basket case many people think we are.

Let’s not make the perfect the enemy of the good. In football terminology let’s not be that full forward that refuses to take a mark if the ball is not lace out. 

Let’s be on the right side of history.

When elected as an independent in 2024 I committed to represent the people of Franklin to the best of my ability, to work constructively with other members of parliament, to allow executive government to form and to allow the parliament to function.

I committed to making decisions that are, on balance, in the best interests of the Tasmanian people.

This is why I provided conditional confidence and supply to Jeremy Rockliff as Premier, in the absence of then Labor leader Rebecca White seeking to form government.

It is also why I voted against the no confidence motion moved by Dean Winter in the Premier in June. 

I voted this way knowing that, if successful, the motion could trigger an early election and destabilise the state.

That is exactly what happened and here we are 10 weeks later with a minority parliament remarkably similar to the last.

In recent weeks I have engaged in many discissions about the way forward. These have been respectful and constructive.

I have listened to a variety of views from not only members of parliament but many people across Franklin and Tasmania.

I did not approach the discussions based on a shopping list of issues but around building trust and relationships that are sustainable over time.

However I made it clear to the major parties they need to be open minded when it comes to policy areas which are important to members of the crossbench.

I want to ensure that an incoming Government has a robust and comprehensive plan for Cabinet Government, effective Parliamentary committees, and a genuine framework for economic and social development, including a cross party, joint house approach in responding to the budget challenges ahead.

On Sunday I announced I would again offer conditional supply and confidence to Premier Jeremy Rockliff.

My decision has not been an easy one. It is a decision that is not only focussed on the vote of confidence on Tuesday but also the many votes that will occur and the many issues that we will need to deal with over the life of the parliament, preferably four years.

Given my family’s lifelong affiliation with the labour movement, people would understand how difficult this decision was.

I have genuinely tried to find a way to support the Tasmanian Labor Party to form government.

I owe it to the people of Franklin and Tasmania to explain my decision.

It is clear to me that Dean Winter will not be able to form a stable workable majority on the floor of the parliament from just 10 seats.

Despite all the issues facing the state and the Liberal Government, at the July 19 election the Labor vote plunged to its lowest in history at approximately 25 per cent statewide.

In contrast the Tasmanian Liberal party had a swing towards it and achieved approximately 40 per cent of the vote. 

Mr Winter failed to secure a quota in his own right, while the Premier received his highest ever personal vote and secured almost three quotas in his own right.

Legitimacy in the eyes of the community has also been a very important consideration for me.

Whilst the Liberal party did not achieve a mandate by any means, it is clear they have greater legitimacy to form executive government than the Labor party.

I welcome the fact that Mr Winter has acknowledged Labor need to change their approach to the crossbench.

However Labor have not presented a plan that convinces me they are equipped to deal with the formation of Government and to respond to the challenges we face.

I have the utmost respect for the Upper House member for Murchison Ruth Forrest and acknowledge her commitment to Tasmania.

However being an independent in the most powerful Ministry in Government whilst sitting outside a Labor caucus has the potential to create a level of instability.

Trust between myself and Labor will need to be built over time.

I judge people by their actions when they do not need something from me, rather than when they do.

Whilst my trust in the Liberal Party is qualified, it is pleasing to see they have made concessions to the crossbench around budget repair and a range of other policy matters as a gesture of goodwill and as a practical demonstration that they have realised to sustainably govern the parliament and the state they need to change their approach.

I have also found my dealings with the Premier and his Government, despite some of their failings, over the last 15 months to be respectful and constructive.

I demonstrated during my last term I was able to achieve some good outcomes, including getting a Bill passed and having some policy wins, without holding the government to ransom over every issue.

My commitment to the 52nd parliament is the same as my commitment to the 51st, to work constructively with others to make the parliament work in the best interests of Tasmanian people. 

WHY WE SHOULD TAKE THE BALL AND RUN WITH IT

It’s no secret that I am a supporter of a Tasmanian football club and the Macquarie Point stadium.

However my support comes with a dose of realism, acknowledging that in life we rarely have a prefect process or set of conditions to allow us to achieve what could be a wonderful outcome.

The stadium has become a divisive issue, and let’s be honest, it was always going to be.

The State Government have been very poor in explaining how and why certain decisions have been made around the stadium.

They have not engaged well with the community on where the project is at, nor have they fully explained the benefits.

The latest episode in this is the release of the Gruen report. For the record I have not met Mr Gruen and have no relationship with him.

Mr Gruen states Tasmania deserves an AFL team – but the stadium is too heavy a price to pay and the deal should be renegotiated.

Well Tasmania has deserved a team now for 30 years and where has that got us?

The AFL is a ruthless organisation, they make hard nosed business decisions, if we want a team we need to get their agreement.

Mr Gruen seems oblivious to the internal politics at play between the AFL Executive and the all-powerful Commission heavily influenced by the club Presidents.

The Gruen report recommends delaying a new stadium for five to seven years despite Macquarie Point Development Corporation documents revealing each year the build is delayed, $80m is added to the cost.

Mr Gruen is right to cite concerns about budget, but can anyone name an infrastructure project that has not been under costed in Australia in the last 30 years?

Impacts on state budget are real, agreed. But in this matter we do not have the luxury of time.

The opportunity is now. If we lose it, we will not only lose our club but also the massive economic uplift that the facility will bring.

Mr Gruen uses a range of methods to come up with his $1.4 bn cost estimate, a figure covering a 30 year period. I question some of these methods.

These include the government’s $91m Devils subsidy as a stadium cost. This would have to be paid no matter whether a stadium was built.

It then follows that the AFL’s $360m contribution to the club should be counted as a stadium benefit. But it is not.

Mr Gruen has come to the position that the stadium is in the wrong place, ignoring the reality that successful stadiums in Australia are in CBDs.

I agree the process was inadequate but that does not necessarily follow that it’s the wrong site, it’s not an ideal site but it’s the only one we have.

Mr Gruen refers to the Regatta point stadium as a possibility without even acknowledging the similar type of public investment required and makes no mention of the many environmental challenges facing that proposal, challenges clearly outlined by planning expert Brian Risby in a recent Opinion piece in this paper.

The report also omits the stadium’s 1500 seat function centre from is calculations - I find this puzzling to say the least.

The function centre will be more than double the size of the city’s current largest venue.

It’s hard to overstate the transformative impact this will have on the state’s economy.

This aspect of the project is to me one of the most compelling arguments for the stadium yet no one seems to know about it.

Mr Gruen compares Mac Point with Rod Laver arena but fails to recognise the market within which it competes. Rod Laver arena has competition in the Melbourne market, the Mac Point development will not, it will stand alone.

Mr Gruen quotes crowd figures to justify his pessimistic position citing the poor crowds when Nth Melb played Carlton in Hobart in 2018/2019, but conveniently ignores when Carlton played in Launceston against Hawthorn in 2016 and 2019 the crowd numbers were 18k and 15k respectively. These numbers reflect the low supporter base of the Kangaroos and mirror their challenges in Melbourne.

Mr Gruen decides that a Tasmania v Collingwood match at the new stadium will not draw higher interstate visitation than a North Melbourne v Gold Coast match at Bellerive. Seriously?

He also ignores the massive potential of ex-pat Tasmanians (40k+ foundation members in Victoria alone) coming ‘home’ to watch their team.

The report does not consider revenues generated from stadium naming rights, conservatively priced at $5m a year ($150m over 30 years). This may be included as part of the $5m “other revenues” but naming rights alone will be at least $5m a year based on Optus Stadium which signed a 10 year deal for $50m in 2017.

Mr Gruen estimates the cost of moving the goods shed at $18m, despite the MPDC estimating the cost to be 6m and the Gruen appointed quantity surveyor estimating it would be $7m. He bases $18m on “conversations” he’s had with other people.

Mr Gruen dismisses the potential economic development around the stadium, citing a US report about US stadiums. No consideration of Australian stadium models and no acknowledgment that this facility will be a massive increase in our capacity, unlike in the US where stadiums are privately owned and are in established markets with comparable and competing venues. How many hotels have been built in Hobart since the opening of MONA?

I will make my last reflection on the Gruen report by returning to the start: The report’s startling claim Tasmania can’t afford a stadium because we have too many social and economic problems.

As a local MP I see the team and the stadium as a way to address some of these challenges.

Give young people and their families in working class areas something to dream about, something to believe in, a reason to stay and for those that have left a reason to come home.

Finally, I do not buy into the argument that funding major infrastructure such as a stadium must come at the expense of essential public services like hospitals and housing.

Good governments can and should do both.

MANAGERS, DIRECTORS WERE PAID TO ENSURE FERRY AND PORTS SERVICES OPERATED WELL – AND WE WERE LET DOWN

The Spirits fiasco has been a collective failure that demands the removal of responsible boards and reform of GBEs, says David O’Byrne.

The delayed, over-budget Spirit of Tasmania ferries and the non-existent Devonport berth upgrades will cost Tasmanians close to $100m directly and will cost our state’s economy over half a billion dollars of economic activity.

The mismanagement of these projects has led to the departure of TT-Line’s chief executive and chairman, and ultimately cost Michael Ferguson his job. But out of this debacle, we are now presented with a unique opportunity for reform – an opportunity for serious reform of government business enterprises, many of which have not been acting in the best interests of Tasmania for quite some time.

When I wrote to the Premier on Sunday about my loss of confidence in Minister Michael Ferguson over this matter, I also made it clear the mismanagement of the Spirits project and the Devonport berth upgrades were collective failures involving two of our biggest government business enterprises GBE). I called on the Premier to act on the incompetence and intransigence of the TT-Line and TasPorts.

I believe the board and senior management of both businesses should be removed from their positions immediately, with interim administrators appointed pending a review of governance and structure. Managers and board directors at TasPorts and TT-Line are paid handsomely to ensure the ferry services and port infrastructure essential to an island state are kept on track.

This has not happened in the case of the Spirits fiasco. Even worse, some GBEs have thumbed their nose to being held accountable to their true shareholders, the Tasmanian people.

Journalists have remarked that getting media comment from some GBEs is at times like trying to draw blood from a stone. During parliamentary GBE scrutiny – which happens too little, too late – some senior managers and directors have made an art form out of not answering questions. Therefore the current leadership of TT-Line and TasPorts should be replaced. Minister Michael Ferguson and the former chair of TT-Line should not be the only casualties of this sorry tale.

Further to this, I am seeking an immediate review of the legislation that governs state-owned companies and GBEs with a view to create sweeping reforms of those institutions to ensure they are compelled to act and make decisions in the best interests of Tasmania, and Tasmanians – not just their own sandpit.

To understand why GBEs behave the way they do, we have to understand how they started. They are a halfway house arising from the major restructure of government activities during the 1990s under the umbrella of national competition policy.

These large organisations, formerly government departments, are at “arm’s length” from government, with ministers acting as shareholders. Increasingly over the years GBEs have become more corporate, more businesslike, and further away from their primary purpose to provide essential services to Tasmania in freight, transport, energy, and so on.

The Premier has said in state parliament this week he wants GBEs to again put the interests of Tasmania first. But as recent history shows, this has clearly not been happening. There have been multiple examples of GBEs performing poorly or outright behaving badly. Metro Tasmania is yet to replace nearly 900 weekly bus services slashed more than a year ago and they seem to be in constant dispute with their employees over wages, conditions amid plummeting morale.

TasNetworks’ approach to recent wage negotiations was some of the worst behaviour I have seen by any company towards workers during an EBA process. The chief executive sought to circumvent negotiations by unions representing underpaid electrical workers with a $6000 cash incentive – an incentive that no one asked for – for all employees. It is estimated this will cost the Tasmanian taxpayer $5.5m, without going anywhere near fixing the very real issue of pay parity for a section of their workforce. A vote was then forced by management while field workers were still reconnecting power after the recent storms.

When it comes to TasPorts, in addition to the non-existent Spirit berthing facility, the company jeopardised Tasmania’s status as the Antarctic gateway, been accused of price gouging by ports users and has a worsening relationship with many customers.

So whether it’s bungled major projects, failing public services, unfair treatment of workers, outrageous golden handshakes or an allergy to public scrutiny – there are problems with GBEs as far as the eye can see. This is a collapse of oversight and governance, and a few stern words and a couple of political scalps simply won’t fix it.

Under pressure from myself and others in state parliament and during recent budget estimates scrutiny, the Premier has finally acknowledged many GBEs are not acting in Tasmania’s best interests

The question is, will he now act?

The University needs to stop the politicking and focus on rebuilding the confidence of staff and community

Both sides of the moving debate have been guilty of dubious claims and we sorely need some clarity, writes David O'Byrne.

The University of Tasmania is one of our biggest public assets and is central to the state's economic, cultural and social life. With annual revenues of $750m, 30,000 students and 3000 staff, it directly and indirectly accounts for as much as 5 per cent of Tasmania's GSP, and trains much of the state's professional labour force.

The university consistently places in the top dozen or so universities by competitive research income ($120m in 2022), and in the top half of the university sector for PhD graduates (1336 in 2022) and underpins much of the innovation and research capacity of Tasmania's economy.

The university's act of parliament establishes its public character but also enshrines its autonomy a universally recognised cornerstone of university governance to ensure it remains free from political interference. But its autonomy can never be absolute, and its decisions should be the subject of informed public debate and scrutiny.

Unfortunately, the public debate about the university's proposed move to the Hobart CBD is mired in policy and political spin from all sides. Data and arguments are routinely cherrypicked making sober assessment of the issues difficult for observers and specialists alike. Good, and perhaps compelling, arguments for the move have been lost amid a welter of inflated claims and counter-claims.

The university overstates the educational access benefits of a CBD location. Poor participation rates for working class people in Hobart's suburbs and regions are linked to low secondary school completion rates and inadequate student income support.

The short journey from the CBD to Sandy Bay is of little consequence the university's own relocation modelling suggests a net gain of only 700 enrolments over 25 years. And it hypes a housing development at the Sandy Bay site as part of a solution to the shortage of affordable housing in Hobart.

While this development may help ease the university's financial pressures, it will make, at best, a marginal contribution to "solving" the housing crisis, particularly as the price of the houses will be beyond the means of most first homebuyers.

Opponents of the CBD move understate the costs of redeveloping the Sandy Bay site and ignore the potential financial returns from the sale, or long-term lease, of some or all of the Sandy Bay site.

And while there is legitimate concern about aspects of the university's shift to online learning, less face-to-face teaching and a reduction in course offerings, opponents conflate these changes with the CBD move.

Retention of some or all of the Sandy Bay site will not reverse this shift, much of which is a response to changing student preferences (particularly to combine work and study).

The ongoing controversy is a huge distraction from the university's core teaching and research work. Its community standing has been eroded by the massive rejection of the CBD move in the 2022 Hobart electors' poll and according to a recent university survey of its own staff only 40 per cent have confidence in the senior leadership.

These outcomes reflect repeated missteps by the university and a critical failure in its governance and risk management processes. The university has destabilised itself.

This destabilisation is now compounded by a Liberal opportunistic backflip which calls for any sale of university property at the Sandy Bay campus to be approved by both houses of parliament.

This is serious overreach. Where other state jurisdictions impose limitations on the sale and disposal of university property, they typically involve ministerial authority, and none of them impose a requirement for parliamentary approval.

While the politicking and spin around the CBD move occupies centre stage, the real issue is a serious decline in Tasmanian student enrolments. Between 2018 and 2022, the university's domestic student load fell by 5.6 per cent compared with an Australia-wide fall of 1.6 per cent; and Tasmanian student enrolments fell by 1440 (or 9.7 per cent).

Mainland student enrolments at the university grew by 970 (or 7.1 per cent) while the number of Tasmanians enrolling at mainland universities grew by 530 (or 10.4 per cent).

This reflects a disturbing longer-term trend. In 2010, only 18 per cent of Tasmanian students were enrolled at mainland universities compared with 30 per cent in 2022. The state's brightest students are leaving in ever-larger numbers.

And in 2022, the university enrolled fewer Tasmanians than it did in 2010. Over this period Tasmanian enrolments fell by 1540 (or 10.3 per cent) while mainland enrolments increased by 11,740 (or 501 per cent).

Remarkably, the university enrolled more mainlanders than Tasmanians in 2022. This points to the need to refocus attention on lifting Tasmania's higher education participation rate.

Improved secondary school retention, more scholarships, better bridging and remediation programs, and enhanced regional outreach are part of this mix.

The university must reset (again) with a focus on rebuilding community and staff confidence.

And the University Council needs to find the courage to set clearer policy and accountability benchmarks for the vice chancellor and senior management.

Defenders of genuine university autonomy should expect nothing less.

Like so many people my family, friends and I were caught up in the traffic chaos on Monday. It was frustrating for us personally but for many people there were serious consequences and my thoughts and best wishes goes out to all those impacted.

Anyone who tried to drive anywhere around the city on that afternoon or evening experienced the sort of city-wide gridlock that would send a shiver down the spine of even the most dedicated Sydneysider.

While these events are thankfully a rare occurrence, it demonstrates just how brittle the Hobart road and transport network is and how susceptible it is to disruption. It is difficult to imagine how much worse it could have been – just think what would have happened if this occurred during the school term.

Hobart city is jammed between a river and a mountain, but although these natural features make our city beautiful and unique it creates challenges for smooth movement of commuters, freight and travelers alike. We know many of us that live in Clarence, Glenorchy or Kingborough either work, play or have friends and family in other southern council areas and have little choice but to travel through Hobart city to get to where we need to be.

Much of the traffic entering or crossing the city is funneled into a combination of the Macquarie/Davey Street couplet, the Brooker Highway, the Southern Outlet and the Tasman Bridge. For those trying to get from East to West, or North to South and vice versa, there’s often only one route you can take.

One incident on any one of those roads then the entire system grinds to a crawl, and occasionally, like on Monday, it comes to a complete stop.

The consequences of intense traffic congestion for our lives, community and the economy are profound. In 2016 the then Liberal State Infrastructure Minister, Rene Hidding, convened a crisis summit on the issue of traffic congestion in Hobart. If it was a crisis then, I am not sure what it is today.

There is no single solution to resolve this issue, but with Hobart’s population expected to grow substantially over the next decade we need to see a comprehensive, layered approach to the problem.

There is no question that we need to significantly increase investment in our public transport network, including buses, ferries and light rail. We also need to increase the use of bikes and walking options for those coming to and from the city, but the reality is that these measures will only suit a portion of the travelling public.

The last major infrastructure improvement that resulted in improvements for Hobart traffic occurred in 2012/13 with the creation of the Brighton transport Hub, which removed the freight rail depot out of the Evans Street Wharf district and moved thousands of daily light and heavy freight truck movements out of the Hobart CBD.

I have long argued that we need to push ahead and create a functioning ring road system for our city. These ideas are not new, but we simply need to agree they are required and get on with building them.

The first is a Flagstaff Gully Link Road that connects Mornington with Bowen Bridge (and upgrades to the East Derwent Highway north of Risdon Vale). This will better connect the Bowen Bridge with the Eastern Shore, giving commuters a viable alternative route when the Tasman Bridge is congested. It will also ease traffic pressures on the East Derwent and Tasman Highways.

The first part of this link road is actually already built, completing the rest of the link road and connecting it to the East Derwent Highway between Risdon Vale and Geilston Bay is only logical. This link road will divert significant freight transport away from the Tasman Bridge.

The second key road upgrade that is needed is a ‘pressure valve’ link road that connects the Southern Outlet near Tolmans’ Hill down through McRobies road gully and connecting with the Northern Suburbs. This would take significant pressure off Macquarie and Davey Streets and the Brooker Highway, allowing traffic to bypass the city and providing an alternative route for Southern Outlet traffic. It would also serve to better connect Hobart’s southern and northern suburbs. The number of locations where this link road connects could be added to over time to disperse traffic across the network and avoid the creation of other choke points.

The State Government need to consider building a small number of short tunnels, overpasses and underpasses to alleviate key pressure points in our road network. To put it simply, there is no more space on our roads and the only way to accommodate more traffic would be to divert it over or under existing roads.

Examples of where these pieces of infrastructure could work include the junction of Davey Street and the Southern Outlet, which would remove the criss-crossing of Northbound and Southbound traffic and remove the massive choke point that this intersection creates. There’s also the potential grade-separation of the Railway (or “ABC”) Roundabout, which was just one of the many suggestions within the landmark 2016 report on Greater Hobart Congestion that this State Government have not followed through on.

We must keep in mind that these large infrastructure projects take years to build, and so if the State Government don’t start working on fixing Hobart’s traffic congestion right away, then we can only expect the situation to worsen over the next few years.

What we need is a transport strategy, including infrastructure upgrades, that not only manages the current demand but will also meet projected growth. A fifth lane on the outlet, an extra ferry or two and a continuation of the under resourcing of Metro will simply not cut it.

GBE SCRUTINY HEARINGS MISSING THEIR MARK AS TANGO TURNS INTO PREDICTABLE TASSIE TWO-STEP

The annual circus of parliament's government business enterprises estimates hearings concluded at the end of last month.

Tasmania's GBEs are large organisations, formerly government departments or newly state-owned companies established to be "arm's-length" from government, but with ministers acting as shareholders.

It's a halfway house arising from the major restructure of government activities during the 1990s under the umbrella of "national competition policy".

One consequence of this hybrid status is that the GBEs are not subject to serious public scrutiny or genuine public accountability. In theory, government ministers who hold the portfolio relevant to each GBE are accountable and responsible for its operations. They provide each company with shareholder expectations of what the government of the day feels the key priorities should be. Aside from an annual report tabled in parliament, and the document outlining the minister's shareholder expectations, the actions of these GBEs are largely hidden from public view.

And ministers are able to hide behind the corporate status of GBEs to avoid responsibility for difficult policy decisions in public good areas such as electricity, water, public transport and Bass Strait ferries.

The veil of "commercial in confidence" obscures any public view of important GBE decisions and processes, despite the fact that these companies are subject to right-toinformation requests like other government departments.

This problem is highlighted by the inadequacies of annual parliamentary scrutiny of GBEs.

Each year GBEs and state-owned companies front either the lower or upper house estimates committees on a rotating basis to have their annual report and activities for the year scrutinised. But these hearings are theatrical rather than purposeful.

The time allowed ranges from one hour to three as a maximum. Lengthy introductions from the minister and board, and government backbenchers asking Dorothy Dix questions, leave little time for genuine scrutiny of complex issues. It encourages "gotcha" questions and usually yields little other than very mundane details.

It's a tango between government ministers desperate to avoid a controversy and the opposition, crossbenchers and upper-house independents, who are all desperate for a knockout punch or a headline to hang their hat on.

The GBEs are often desperate to avoid dancing in the aforementioned tango, which is why they are often less than forthcoming during the hearings. It's a pattern repeated every year. Last month's hearings provided a precious opportunity for MPs to ask questions about the operation of these businesses, but many questions were batted away as being "a matter

for the board", and these boards ultimately face little democratic scrutiny.

Sadly, it's more of a predictable Tassie two-step than a tango and nobody wins a prize, especially not the Tasmanian people.

Hydro Tasmania, one of the biggest companies in the state, is making billions of dollars' worth of decisions that will significantly impact current and future generations of Tasmanians. But it is only for three hours, each second year, that members from either house of parliament can scrutinise these decisions.

And the hearings are held in the first week of December, after parliament has risen for the year meaning that there are three months' hiatus where ministers can avoid follow-up questions in the parliament.

Sometimes important information bubbles to the surface, but usually only because it is required to be publicly reported.

This is why we know that former Hydro chief executive Albertini Evangelista was paid out $475,000, despite only being appointed to the role a few months earlier. And that in 2021 Hydro also paid out $965,000 to the chief operating officer, $542,000 to the chief strategy officer, $669,000 to the previous chief executive and $207,000 to the chief people officer as part of a major executive restructure triggered by the shortlived chief executive. This is waste on a grand scale.

It is not just Hydro, of course. I'm not sure what was in the water in 2018, but the TasNetworks general manager of works and services delivery was paid out a redundancy payout of almost $400,000. I assume that the company still needed somebody to do that job, so the question is why the redundancy was needed in the first place. This person bobbed up again a matter of weeks later, having been employed in a similar role by the biggest contractor to TasNetworks.

Back in 2018, TT-Line awarded a $761,000 termination payout and decided to give this individual a company car for a reason that was neither clear nor defensible.

This year, the outgoing TasPorts chief financial officer received a $303,000 termination payout.

This is all taxpayers' money. While the individuals concerned may be legally entitled to the payments, serious questions need to be answered. Why do the boards and ministerial shareholders of the GBEs allow such remuneration policies and practices? How can such continuing turnover and instability in senior executive ranks be defended?

We set up Tasmania for failure if we believe that the lack of transparency, the lack of accountability and the Punch-andJudy Show environment of GBEs is acceptable. Is the required transparency and accountability demanded of these public institutions being achieved?

Perhaps there are even more important questions about whether the market-based structure and culture of the GBEs remains fit for purpose. Have the GBEs become captured by an excessive commercial culture at the expense of the public interest? Are there better ways to deliver public goods in key infrastructure areas? The parliament needs a robust discussion on Tasmania's future options.

One thing is for certain the current GBE scrutiny hearings do not serve us well, and as a first step we must reform them.

We need robust and extended parliamentary scrutiny of GBE management and culture. The public good demands nothing less.

SHORT-STAY DISTORTS THE RENTAL MARKET

To ease the housing crisis, the state government needs to intervene in the rental market - and set new price signals for investors which would in turn increase affordable supply, writes David O’Byrne.

Tasmania’s rental market continues to be at crisis point. Statewide rents have jumped 45 per cent over the past five years, and the market is the tightest in the country with a chronic lack of social and private-market rental properties. In April, Hobart had a tiny rental vacancy rate of 0.4 per cent – with just 136 vacant rental properties – a vacancy rate four times lower than Sydney, and nearly five times lower than Melbourne.

Insufficient affordable rental supply is not new, and is part of (limited) private market failure in the housing sector. The state government needs to intervene in the market and set new price signals for private investors and increase affordable supply.

Since 2014, Liberal governments have failed to produce an integrated policy. They have trumpeted billion dollar-plus investments in new affordable social housing supply but have delivered just a tiny fraction of their targets. Only 1250 new social houses have been built since 2015, an average of 180 per year. Meeting the 2032 target of 10,000 now requires 875 new builds per year or nearly five times the current output rate.

Meanwhile the number of struggling Tasmanian families unable to afford the private rental market continues to rise. With no immediate access to public or social housing, their situation is dire. Social housing waiting lists have ballooned from 2900 in 2016 to more than 4300 families today, with average wait times now exceeding 72 weeks. That could be 72 weeks in a tent, in a car, or on a couch. And the number of applicants on the register who are successfully housed has fallen from over 900 per year in 2015 to only 800 in 2021. Homelessness strips people of dignity, and is a key driver of wider social problems including mental health and substance abuse issues, and intergenerational inequality.

I have previously argued for the re-establishment of the Tasmanian Housing Commission as a key mechanism to ensure the timely construction of increased state-funded non-market (public) housing supply. But this needs to be supplemented by measures to improve the efficiency of the private market in delivering affordable rental properties.

As well as increasing the public housing stock, government policy should deal with the role short stay accommodation (such as Airbnb) has played in reducing private market rental supply. In this market segment the state government can create incentives for investors to release properties for use as rental accommodation.

The number of listed short-stay properties has nearly doubled since 2017 with 5300 Tasmanian homes now on short-stay accommodation platforms. More than half of these are not primary residences. In the greater Hobart area the share of the private rental market represented by short-stay is nearly seven times that of Sydney and nearly five times that of Melbourne. The gap between returns to investors offering short-stay accommodation and the yields available through offering the same properties as rental accommodation is distorting the market.

This market failure has prompted suggested policy responses such as placing a cap on the number of properties which can be offered in the future as short-stay accommodation and/or increasing council rates on such properties. But these approaches would create inequities and distortions in the market by not treating all investors and owners equally. A future cap gives a big market advantage to existing short-stay accommodation providers, while increasing council rates is a flat tax which takes no account of the wide income differences between bigger and smaller investors in a short-stay market that is becoming increasingly concentrated.

A fairer and more efficient approach is to introduce a simple short-stay state government levy (perhaps called a rental market equalisation levy), calculated as a percentage of the total booking fee and applied automatically at checkout, on all short-stay accommodation booking sites, such as Airbnb. It would apply only to non-primary residences.

This policy has several advantages.

First, applied at an appropriate rate such a levy would reduce the gap between returns on short-stay and rental accommodation. This would provide some incentive for current short-stay investors to move properties back into the rental market, and for current rental accommodation investors to remain in that market. And it would treat all investors equally.

Second, it is simple and easy to administer. Short-stay booking platforms already have the required infrastructure to collect levies – more than $5bn globally is already collected by Airbnb – so there are no extra administrative burdens for owners or short-stay renters.

Third, the income generated by the scheme would be dedicated to homeless services and crisis accommodation. Owners and investors would know that they are making a social contribution while still yielding a significant return on their investment.

Fourth, many investors will still choose to focus on the short-stay tourist market but there would be a more level playing field balancing the interests of other investors, tourists and long-term renters.

This market equalisation levy can be targeted to individual local government areas, and the size of the levy can be modelled using a variety of economic scenarios. The short-term aim should be to encourage at least 500 current short-stay properties to return to the private rental market, and to maintain a better balance between short-stay and long term private rental in the longer term.

This modest but important reform needs to work in tandem with bigger policy measures, including re-establishing a State Housing Commission.