The Examiner hosted a live forum with the six candidates for the upper house seat of Rosevears on Wednesday morning, questioning them on key issues ahead of the August 1 election.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Discussion topics included:
- voluntary assisted dying
- the independence of the upper house
- Tasmania's COVID recovery
- Tamar River/kanamaluka health
- poker machine reform
- where stimulus spending should be focused
The candidates are:
- Janie Finlay - independent
- Jo Palmer - Liberal
- Jess Greene - Labor
- Jack Davenport - Greens
- David Fry - independent
- Vivienne Gale - independent
Read the transcript of their responses to questions from reporter Adam Holmes, generated via the newsroom and from Examiner subscribers.
Watch the full forum below, including opening and closing remarks from candidates:
Voluntary assisted dying
AH: Janie Finlay, you say the voluntary assisted dying legislation should be "tabled in a form that can be supported". So is the draft bill not strong enough yet to get your support?
Janie Finlay: I 100% support the draft bill as written right now.
I attended both of the information sessions in Launceston and Riverside, and completely support as it is drafted.
My comment about "I trust that it's tabled in a form that can be supported" is that the process of legislation between now and then, may find amendments come through, and I need to consider those at the time.
But the bill as drafted now by independent member Mike Gaffney has my 100% support.
AH: Jo Palmer, you have mentioned that you would like to see safeguards to protect the vulnerable. What additional safeguards would you like to see what aren't already included in the draft bill?
Jo Palmer: I think one of the biggest concerns I have around the bill is the time that I spent speaking with, certainly, the Australian Medical Association and other members of the medical fraternity who are really concerned that a pivotal part of this bill is their involvement.
Here we have a national and state body representing our doctors saying we need to be very careful with this bill and very cautious with it.
I am very much, if I'm elected, looking forward to the opportunity to showing due process to the legislation with any amendments that are put forward, with my concern being, yes, people deserve the right to have a choice in this matter, but we must also ensure the most vulnerable in our society are protected.
AH: So you wouldn't support the bill in its current form?
Jo Palmer: I have concerns about it in its current form, which is why, if I'm elected, it would be a great honour and a great challenge to look at the actual legislation - not draft legislation - the actual legislation with any amendments that are put forward by any other members who currently sit in the Legislative upper house, and look at it in its entirety then.
I believe that's the responsible thing to do.
But I've made it very clear that I very much agree that the people of Tasmania have a right to choose in this matter.
But I also believe that they want us to be really diligent and make sure that the actual legislation that goes through has as many safeguards as possible for vulnerable people in our community.
AH: David Fry, is there any level of safeguards that you would find acceptable?
David Fry: My further concern is that I'm not quite sure whether it's possible to legislate sufficiently to be able to protect people.
I'm aware that we have been concentrating over the last couple of years on the issue of elder abuse, and I think that this legislation opens that up to the possibility of our elderly being abused via this legislation.
I just don't think you can quantify enough protections to be able to ensure that it's not abused.
I would not be supporting it.
AH: Jack Davenport, do you think there are opportunities for people to take advantage of the vulnerable should this draft legislation be passed?
Jack Davenport:
The legislation seems robust to me.
I've read through it a couple of times now and I'm quite confident there are a number of safeguards, there's a number of checks and balances.
I feel that, really, there are sufficient measures there that would protect vulnerable people and allow this process to go through.
AH: Vivienne Gale, do you think there are opportunities for people to take advantage of the vulnerable?
Vivienne Gale:
I support the legislation as it stands because I support the fact that people should be allowed to choose, if they're in that terrible, horrible situation.
Not everyone will be, of course, but those people that are in that situation need choice and by not supporting this bill, in different versions - whatever version that does come through - means that those people will not get that choice, and will not get that choice at this time.
I am therefore 100% behind getting this legislation through, whether it takes amendments, whether it takes a long time of debate, I will put the time in and I will ensure for the people who are waiting for this, people in terrible pain and suffering, that they get their choice as soon as possible.
AH: Jess Greene, do you think there are opportunities for people to take advantage of the vulnerable?
Jess Greene:
I think the legislation is very robust, it's very similar to what's already been introduced in Victoria, and Western Australia, so I support this bill.
I also support the concept and principle of voluntary assisted dying.
I respect that other people hold a different view.
My views on this topic have changed myself over the last couple of years when I witnessed and supported my aunt when she was dying from a terminal cancer.
I think it's important the community know what and who they're voting for.
Palliative care should always be an option for people who are experiencing extreme suffering but we know palliative care cannot alleviate all suffering.
One of the most compelling submissions I read was actually in the Victorian legislation, where a paramedic spoke about when they attend suicides or attempted suicides of people who terminally all, it's always best to provide people with a safe option to allow people to go with dignity.
I think there are adequate measures in this bill to ensure that.
Independence of the upper house
AH: Vivienne, as an individual not in government, what would you actually be able to achieve as an independent, particularly as Tasmania looks to rebuild after COVID:
Vivienne Gale:
The upper house, at the moment, has always been independent.
The upper house reviews legislation going through it.
The role of the MLC is to ensure that the best legislation goes through.
As far as COVID recovery goes, and being able to shape that, that's really not the role of the upper house. That is definitely the role of the lower house and government policy.
If you're suggesting because for instance a party person gets in there, they have the ability to shape what goes on in the lower house discussions, I think you really have step back and go , well that is the case right now, or possibly later, but the governments change and all of a sudden what you think you are buying, you might not get.
AH: Janie, what could you actually achieve as an independent upper house member?
Janie Finlay:
One of the strengths as an independent, and particularly for myself, is my ability to connect and the great relationships I've got across all spectrums of politics, and across all elements of community.
One of the roles that I see is my ability to influence and participate in great conversations, whether that be with the government of the day - which currently is Liberal, but as Vivienne said, may change over time.
In your own newspaper recently Barry Prismall, a former Liberal staffer, mentioned that Guy and I often have different opinions but we worked really well together.
So as an independent in the upper house, my ability to review legislation is strong, but my ability to develop relationships and connect with people across really important conversations is also high and well developed.
I trust in my ability to work across all colours of politics and all levels of community, and I am confident in my ability to shape the future of Tasmania, working in community, and in government, and in opposition, to support a great conversation and achieve the very best outcome, not only for the people of Rosevears, but for the people of Tasmania.
AH: Jo, would you be prepared to vote against your party if it was in the best interests of the Rosevears constituents?
Jo Palmer:
I've actually put it on the record to say that if ever there was an issue or a matter that was going to deeply impact this electorate, I would have no qualms whatsoever going in to fight for what I believe was right for the people, if I'm elected in this role.
Whether that fight took place in the privacy of a minister's office, whether that fight took place on the floor of parliament, I would have no qualms whatsoever.
If there was a matter that was going to deeply impact the people living in the electorate of Rosevears.
They've known me my entire life. I don't back down from a fight.
I've fought for all sorts of things through my career, and through my work in the community. This will be no different.
AH: Jess, would you be prepared to vote against your party if it was in the best interests of the Rosevears constituents?
Jess Greene:
To be honest I can't really see a situation where I would need to.
I joined the Labor Party at 18 because I have Labor values.
And since that time, since I've joined the party, I have always contributed to policy development within our party, I am the president of my branch, I am the assistant secretary of the Tasmanian Labor Party, and I have always felt like I could help shape decisions.
Certainly, if I was elected as the member for Rosevears on the weekend, I know that I could contribute in our caucus meetings to shape policy direction.
As a proud unionist I know the power of working as part of a collective.
I know that you can achieve more working together as part of a team than what you can alone, and I want to work together with the Labor team to achieve great outcomes for the people of Rosevears - for secure jobs, for better public services and for investment in infrastructure.
AH: Jack, as a Green you would largely function as an independent, so what could you achieve? And would you vote against your own party?
Jack Davenport:
I've never been one to sit on the fence.
In this campaign, the fence looks pretty crowded already.
What I would be able to achieve is a voice of integrity fighting for climate action, for sustainability and to clean up politics.
In terms of whether or not there would be any difference of opinion between me and the Greens, the point to remember is that the Greens are not just a political party, but a community and a movement.
Our values are very strong and we're passionate about them, but that's because of the evidence that underpins them.
When we say things like 'we want to save the forests', we're not just talking about the forests, we're talking about the impacts of deforestation on things like bushfire risk, rainfall and pollution.
We do understand and see the wider picture.
Ultimately, I would struggle to see a scenario where I would be forced or compelled to vote against the wishes of my party.
If people want reassurance, at the end of the day, it's that if push came to shove if there really was an issue of such importance, I would, but the scenario for that to occur I can't see that really happening to be brutally honest.
AH: David, you have previously been a Liberal member but have spoken of your concerns about the way the party functions. What could you achieve as an independent?
David Fry:
Firstly, unique amongst the candidates here today, I have had experience in the lower house as a member of a party.
I can tell you the decisions are made inside the party room, and whilst Jo might have every intention of putting her own views forward, she may be able to do that in the party room and in the minister's office, but to do that on the floor of parliament would be very difficult.
And also for Jess, with the Labor Party, that would be almost an impossibility. And even as she said she can't see a position where she might disagree with the party, just as well, because she would be thrown out.
So as an independent, you have an opportunity to scrutinise what the government of the day has put through in legislation.
Apart from that, having been a member of Parliament, I know a lot of these people very well, I have friends on both sides of the Parliament, very good relationships with people on both sides of the Parliament, so I would certainly be in there lobbying on behalf of my community with whoever was in government at the time.
Tasmania's COVID recovery
AH: Data shows that for every job available in Tasmania, there are at least 25 jobseekers, and this is forecast to become worse as the downturn continues. Janie, what role can the state government play in addressing a looming jobs crisis?
Janie Finlay:
There's no more important time, and we've demonstrated this, that as Tasmanians, whether it's government, industry, community organisations, if it's individuals, farmers, small business owners, we need to work together for the solutions.
The government does have the ability to drive recovery here.
This recovery: people are talking about the end of the year, people are talking about next year, the reality is that the depths of the hurt, and the impact of coronavirus, will be with us for years.
So the government has the responsibility to drive through stimulus and support, whatever they can to ensure that people can get back to work, but it's everybody's responsibility to get out there and support people, support small businesses, support industries, support farmers, and together Team Tasmania works to ensure that everyone has the best chance to return to work, to put wages in the pockets, to support families, and to support the entire Tasmanian community.
AH: Jo, how do you think the state government can address the looming jobs crisis?
Jo Palmer:
This is going to take an absolutely huge team effort, a huge team effort.
We've already seen incredible support from governments with regards to small businesses, small family businesses, and this is a major employer of people in this state, especially young people.
So I think the Premier has been amazing in how he really has held the hand of businesses going through this time, and we're all very aware that there's going to be huge impacts with regards to unemployment.
And the really hard thing about it, Adam, is that we're not even sure yet what the full impact is going to be.
We have to continue to give support, especially to the industries that are going to continue going through hardships, in particular the tourism industry.
For me personally, the industries that support so many of our young people.
AH: Jess, what role can the state government play to address the jobs crisis?
Jess Greene:
It's absolutely up to government to drive recovery with 20,000 Tasmanians out of work because of COVID.
But we've had many people under-employed or unemployed prior to COVID.
What's clear is that we need both an economic and a social recovery package, but PESRAC, the Premier's Economic and Social Recovery Advisory Council, does not have a worker voice on there.
There was no one invited from the union movement to serve on that advisory panel, and that is a huge oversight by government.
There were two other oversights on there too, there was no one from environmental groups included on there, and there was no one from local government.
I think the best way that the government could drive growth in this area is, one, to relaunch those business emergency support packages again. They were pretty poorly targeted to begin with. Some businesses missed out entirely. And there is some doubt over whether some of those grants were rewarded on a merit-based process, because certainly some people missed out.
The second thing the government need to do is invest in skills training for Tasmanians, because we've got a huge skills crisis in Tasmania. We shouldn't be flying in contractors to work on major projects here, we need to get people trained in building and construction, aged care and disability care. That's really important, that's how we'll get people into work.
AH: Jack, I assume you would share Jess' concerns about a lack of an environmental voice in the government's COVID recovery?
Jack Davenport:
First of all, the pandemic needs to be seen as a public health crisis first and foremost.
We need to remain cautious and we need to keep following expert opinion.
In terms of economic and social recovery, one thing is clear, we can't return to normal. We can't return to what happened before.
Under the Liberals, construction has actually flatlined, employment and construction has fallen, jobs in retail and financial services have fallen, and so we do need to start shifting towards a new vision, a longer-term vision, a sustainable vision.
The Greens have a plan - the Green New Deal - which looks not just at jobs provision in the here and now, but looking ahead to future generations.
And that includes focusing on environmental needs to make sure that the ecosystem we live in and rely upon is there to support us so that we don't have increased bushfire risk and pollution.
We need to be looking at long-term benefits and goals, and we can do that through green jobs, through renewable jobs, and through thinking about how we can develop in a way that serves public needs and not big donations.
AH: Vivienne, what role can the state government play in supporting jobs in the COVID recovery?
Vivienne Gale:
We have to actually step back and say, we're actually not out of this.
It's a serious public health issue right now.
When we think about opening up Tasmania and balancing the economy against health, we have to look at whether we actually have the health services to cope with the second wave.
We just need to look across to Victoria and see what's happening there.
Our health system, I seriously doubt, can cope with the second wave.
The government needs to be a bit more transparent and actually say how many ventilators we have, can our hospitals cope, can our major hospitals cope, can our regional hospitals cope?
Stepping back from that, and getting some transparency and actually saying our position on ventilators and the ability rather than just going, oh my god, let's call in the Army, we have to say we can't even recover because we haven't got through it yet.
The economy can be built from the inside-out, it's not the new normal, it's the new local.
We have to focus locally.
AH: David, what role can the state government play in supporting jobs in the COVID recovery?
David Fry:
Firstly, I want to put on record my appreciation, and I'm sure the appreciation of most Tasmanians, for the way that the Premier and the current state government has handled this pandemic.
We've come through this reasonably unscathed, as far as our health is concerned, but at some point we need to start moving towards supporting businesses and job opportunities for Tasmanians.
I fundamentally disagree with the Greens candidate Jack Davenport as far as where we were prior to this. I think the evidence is that Tasmania was doing far better economically than all of the other states at that time.
Obviously things are going to change because we're far more affected by the industries that we rely on, in as far as tourism and travel, and we need to make sure that we continue government support at all levels for jobs and for business and industry moving forward.
Tamar River/kanamaluka health
AH: Subscriber Jim Collier describes the Tamar, in particular at Yacht Basin, as a "foul-smelling mud bowl right in the heart of Launceston". Janie, as a Launceston councillor, why hasn't there been any long-term improvements to the river's health?
Janie Finlay:
The report released as recently as last week shows incremental improvement in the health of the Tamar River.
Having so many parties work together now and stitch together, through the City Deal, through the Tamar River estuary river health action plan, there is now very clear detailed actions with outcomes that can be measures to ensure that we do improve the health of the Tamar River.
By committing over $100 million to the redistribution of the effluent flows, and TasWater committing a future capital works program of over $320 million to improve treatment, we will see an 80% reduction in raw effluent spills into the Tamar basin.
My role in supporting it getting to that part, if elected to the upper house, would be that accountability to ensure those actions and improvements are delivered.
AH: David, you've called for an overarching body for the Tamar, but isn't the City Deal already a mechanism to achieve this, bringing all bodies together?
David Fry:
I've called for a single management authority because there are so many different councils and groups involved in this, including so many different experts and people who have made contributions, including Jim, to the debate on this issue.
One expert calls for raking, another expert calls for increased water flow, another expert calls for dredging.
I believe that a single authority with all of these experts in the one room, including all the local authorities, the council, TEMT, TEER, and all the other organisations that have formed to try to do something about this river, speaking with one voice and able to communicate with each other and the people of Tasmania about what they're going to do.
This has been talked about for so, so long. We need action now to continue the improvement in the river - yes, it has improved a little bit - but I think we just need to get everybody speaking with one voice to actually start making improvements to the river now.
AH: Jack, effluent runoff is currently a focus of improving the health of the Tamar. Do you think this is enough for a long-term solution?
Jack Davenport:
We actually need to look, and I have to emphasise this again, at the bigger picture, the strategic vision for what we want for the Tamar and how that fits into our other priorities around environmental health and supporting the ecosystem.
We're facing an extinction crisis.
There's a very real possibility of a collapse in biodiversity, and that would have serious ramifications for Tasmania, as much as anywhere else.
We also need to look at the big picture stuff that's going to affect the Tamar in many other ways.
We can go around the houses about whether we have a single authority, a different authority, or about cleaning up the effluent et cetera, but we do need to look at what our strategic vision, what kind of river and Tamar Valley are we looking for that's going to be sustainable and going to be a healthy environment for future generations, and one that will also support businesses and encourage growth and development.
If we look at something like the pulp mill and decisions like that, that's the best example of short termism, and if the major projects bill goes through, you can clean up all the effluent you like, but goodness knows what vested interests and particularly the Liberal Government have in mind with the major projects bill and the kind of things that would happen if they were allowed free rein over and above public concern.
AH: Janie, you wanted to respond to David?
Janie Finlay:
If I could encourage community members to read the reports around the Tamar River estuary health action plan. One of the strongest recommendations was around community education, because what David's calling for actually exists under the City Deal with the Tamar management taskforce.
All of those parties are actually wrapped into the project and have responsibilities, and the reporting and providing scientific evidence through that.
We heard just in Legana yesterday from TEER - it's their data and evidence that has delivered these projects, so I encourage people to read that report because what is exciting is that, for the first time ever, all of those parties are working together.
AH: Jo, is current plans enough to improve the health of the Tamar?
Jo Palmer:
If I could encourage community members to read the reports around the Tamar River estuary health action plan.
One of the strongest recommendations was around community education, because what David's calling for actually exists under the City Deal with the Tamar management taskforce.
All of those parties are actually wrapped into the project and have responsibilities, and the reporting and providing scientific evidence through that.
We heard just in Legana yesterday from TEER - it's their data and evidence that has delivered these projects, so I encourage people to read that report because what is exciting is that, for the first time ever, all of those parties are working together.
AH: Jess, do you agree with David that we need an overarching body for the Tamar, or with Janie who believes this has already been achieved?
Jess Greene:
I do agree with Janie on this issue.
I think it's great that that report came out last week and said that there had been improvements in regards to the health of the river, which was really excellent.
But I am really concerned at the lack of action in upgrading that sewerage infrastructure. The money was promised some time ago and I think we need to fast-track that funding, because Legana especially is expanding, we're about to get a primary school there, housing developments are happening there all the time.
About a fortnight ago, Rebecca White and I called for the sewerage infrastructure plant in that area in particular to be upgraded, for that money to come quicker.
Just on the topic of a statutory authority, I'm keen to know how much that would cost and if that is a priority right now for the people that already sit around the table that have invested a lot of time and money into improving the health of the river.
I don't think that those parties want to have another layer of bureaucracy with this.
They're already on the right track and great strides have already been made.
AH: Vivienne, do you think current measures are enough for the Tamar?
Vivienne Gale:
The estuary is a really interesting system and has so many inputs, it's very complex, and by adjusting one thing you disrupt something else.
The one I have been looking at before COVID ... was that within the City Deal, and the money is there, and obviously the money comes through assuming the City Deal meets its targets.
My concern is the target for the river is based on a measurement that, through backward processing, means you cannot dredge, you cannot rake.
My real concern is that by focusing on this measure and getting healthy river, we stop the dredging, we stop the raking et cetera, so that over time the silt is building, building, building and eventually one day we will have a flood which will be quite catastrophic.
Poker machine reform
AH: Jo, do you support the government's plan to break up the pokies monopoly model, and what specific aspects of harm minimisation do you think are actually working effectively in Tasmania?
Jo Palmer:
I do support the breaking up of that monopoly.
I think it's really important to remember that gambling is a legal form of entertainment. We don't want to be in a position where we [are] mandating what people can do and can't do.
People have to take responsibility for their own actions.
Then of course we have to have services in place for when that does get out of hand for a small number of people, and make sure they are well supported, just as we do with a number of different things right across our society.
I think it's really important that our charitable groups who work in this area are really well resourced, that they have access to correct data, and that they're very well assisted in how they're actually able to get to the grassroots and get to the people who are in trouble in this area and make sure that they are well supported.
And not just the person who's involved, but also the families of those around them, because it's the families that have to deal with this as well.
AH: Janie, do you support the breaking up of the monopoly model?
Janie Finlay:
The government have a policy but there isn't actually any proposed legislation yet for the changes.
I think when you hear the word "monopoly", people have a negative connotation with monopoly, but often monopolies allow for really strong and consistent legislation.
Like Jo, I think that people should be free to participate in a legal activity, however for a small number of people in our community the harms are horrendous, not only for them, but for their families.
I don't think that support should be provided to organisations once harm occurs. What we need to be doing, and now so much more than ever because of COVID, we're going to see so many more individuals and families struggling.
And when you have mental health issues, when you have addiction issues, when you're challenged financially, you can't put food on the table, you may look to go to gambling as an outlet.
So for me, it's about providing community support, recognising the challenges in the community now, so people aren't on the path to choose to participate in gambling in a way that impacts themselves and their families.
I need to work through that. I don't like the idea of increased access to pokies in communities.
If you want to enjoy a legal activity, you've got to go to get there. That actually puts a barrier between regular and harmful activities.
I'm not about encouraging in small communities on suburb corners poker machines, but I believe as a legal activity it's OK for people to participate, but we can't make it easy and we can't make the harms increase or amplify the harms in families and communities.
Often it's the kids who have the biggest impact by poor choices that are challenges by adults.
AH: Jess, Labor took a policy of removing pokies from pubs and clubs to the last election. Is that idea now dead?
Jess Greene:
Labor took a really strong policy to the last state election on this issue a consulting quite widely with the support groups that support people dealing with problem gambling.
Unfortunately we did not win that election.
When legislation is tabled before the lower house and also the upper house, Labor is going to take a view to that looking at those health and wellbeing impacts.
I really want to see the government show some leadership on problem gambling - not just pokies, but also online gambling - and I think that by investing in community education we could go a long way to addressing this issue.
AH: Jack, do you support breaking up the monopoly model?
Jack Davenport:
I just want the pokies out of pubs and clubs.
The problem we have here is that it's a public health problem, it's a social problem and it's a political problem.
It's a public health problem because we know that addiction is a health issue and the way that these machines are designed is to create addicts.
We really need to face up to the severe ramifications of that.
I think it's quite disingenuous to the reality of the situation to talk about people's choices when we know about addiction. I'm a social worker, I worked with many children and families where addiction is an issue.
It's a social issue because of that knock effects about how it affects families and community.
And it's a political issue because the pokies are major funders of the Liberal Party, they're affecting our democracy, they're undermining our democracy, and it's a good example of why we need to get vested interests out of our politics.
There's nothing good or sustainable about the pokies industry and we need to minimise the public exposure to it.
AH: Vivienne, do you support the government's plans in the area of poker machine reform?
Vivienne Gale:
At the moment, it's really just a discussion point. I don't believe there's anything written for us to seriously have a look at.
As an independent I'm against monopolies and support free markets.
We just have to have an absolutely transparent process, and there are so many ways that people in the community are saying to me that they find that it's not transparent, they don't know what's going on.
This process needs to be completely transparent and it needs to be regulated.
I'm very keen to review the bill when it becomes available, but the general position that I'm having from the constituents is they don't want all this money going to one person, or one family.
If there's money going through, it needs to go to Tasmania, rather than enriching a family, a group, the money is huge.
AH: David, I understand you support individual choice on this issue, but do you have concerns about the breaking up of the monopoly model?
David Fry:
Isn't it a sad indictment that we have to spend so much money funding the ambulances at the bottom of the cliff rather than trying to build a fence at the top?
I was horrified about the $2.5 million lost by Tasmanians I think in the last four or five days in June.
The evidence is that the money is being lost by people living in lower socio-economic areas, where as Jack's quite rightly pointed out, it affects the families and the children far more than it should do.
I think that's a terrible situation.
I'm not supportive of monopolies, I don't think that monopoly should ever have been put in place, and as far as I'm concerned, the less poker machines that we do have around the place, the better.
However, I do support the right of people to be able to entertain themselves with this sort of gambling if they want, but we need to have far better protections and far less proliferation of poker machines around our community.
COVID stimulus spending in Tasmania
AH: We'll allow each candidate to pick one area where they would like stimulus spending to be focused in Tasmania in the coming six to 12 months. Jo, where would you like spending to be focused?
Jo Palmer:
For me personally there's going to be two sides of our recovery.
There's going to be the economic side but there's also going to be the social side.
I feel really strongly that we must ensure that some of our grassroots community groups - whether that be through sports, through churches, or service groups like the Lions and Rotary - will need to be really well resourced so they can reach out to individuals in our community who have been so deeply impacted by what our state's been through.
Through door knocking I have met so many of these people who have been left quite heartbroken, quite isolated, quite scared and I believe it's people on the ground in our community who will actually play a huge role to ensure they don't slip through the cracks.
AH: Janie, where do you think stimulus should be focused?
Janie Finlay:
I think Tasmanians should be proud that our state government and City of Launceston, as an example, went fast and went large with stimulus into keeping people in jobs and supporting small businesses where we can put wages in families and keep people in work.
We're keen to put food on the table and support people in communities.
I think those packages probably need to be repeated into families and small businesses and communities, because as Vivienne said, we're actually not through the impacts yet.
I've been talking to a number of businesses that the impacts for them and the potential of the closure of their businesses hasn't hit yet because of supply.
Supply's about to run out, and they might not be able to continue to provide to their customers.
For me, it's about that stimulus into keeping people in work, getting people into work, putting wages into families and supporting community.
AH: Jack, where do you think stimulus should be focused?
Jack Davenport:
Construction and building houses.
We have a social housing crisis in Tasmania, it's been growing under the Liberals. They are paying lip service to building houses.
We need a thorough and widespread house building program that goes way beyond what they've already proposed, because it just doesn't go far enough.
Homelessness is a choice - not a choice of the people that are homeless, but a choice of government and governance, and we can choose to end this crisis by really investing house building program that will help families, but at the same time it will help create jobs, rather than just some of the short-term showboating that the Liberals tend to engage in like trying to destroy our forests and our natural wilderness.
We need to focus on construction in the areas that will help the most with long-term prospects and benefits, and that's building houses.
AH: David, where do you think stimulus should be focused?
David Fry:
Jack's partially right as far as the house construction issue is concerned, but I think the government also needs to move forward in bringing forward large infrastructure projects, because that definitely has flow-on effects.
Government is going to have to borrow, or go into deficit, to fund a lot of these projects and if they're going to do that, they need to be able to spend money on things that are going to be able to have value for the community or society going ahead.
It's very important that they continue to do that.
I think that we also need to continue some of the other programs that the government has already implemented to support families and people out of work.
AH: Vivienne, where do you think stimulus should be focused?
Vivienne Gale:
As David said, let's look at infrastructure.
Let's actually look at what the government has promised us: a new bridge, West Tamar Highway upgrades, let's focus on that, that's a great way of spending money and stimulating the economy.
And also, getting what was promised to the community.
AH: Jess, where do you think stimulus should be focused?
Jess Greene:
Obviously spending on infrastructure is really important, but the reality is we don't have the workers here, we don't have the trained employees to do that work.
My priority is investing in public services.
Training in building and construction, that is vitally important if we're going to have a focus on infrastructure.
Our public services - Jack's exactly right - we need to invest in public housing, we need to invest in our mental health services, in our family violence services, because this government have underinvested in our public services and that just impacts on the most vulnerable people in our community.
So that's where I would like to see some government dollars spent - it's in our public service, and I fight for the public service each and every day.