On Friday The Examiner sat down with Premier Peter Gutwein to discuss how the state budget would impact Northern Tasmania.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Part one of this two part series was published on Saturday and focused on health and infrastructure spending. Today we look at fiscal policy implications and how the government plans to improve the health of the Tamar River.
JW: About $42 million was allocated to rejig the water infrastructure around Launceston. Some would argue this was an opportunity to really transform the health of the Tamar and invest big. Did the government consider that?
PG: Interestingly enough it is actually not a $42 million dollar project. There is $42 million from the state government, $42 million from the federal government and there's around $42 million that has been put in by TasWater and the council as well.
In other news:
So you actually end up with close enough to a $130 million project which will transform the sewerage system on both sides of the Tamar and ensures that it improves the water health moving forward.
JW: Are you happy with how the program is going at the moment?
PG:
When we set up the partnership with the federal government it was for a $94 million project, between ourselves and the federal government, of which around $10 million was designed to be utilised immediately to improve the health of the river in the catchment.
That work has now been underway for a couple of years. So what we are seeing is in terms of the Tamar River basin is work that is occurring in the upper catchment that is actually improving the basin itself.
What you need to know about the state budget:
I think the steps that we are taking are working and now that we have got a project plan in terms of the funding, with the federal government, council and TasWater, we can get on and get the job done.
The work will be done by TasWater not the state government.
JW: Is the about $126 million a costing for redoing the sewerage or is that an estimated cost?
PG: That is a matter for TasWater but that is their current estimate as I understand it.
JW: Did you have to change your fiscal policy given the nature of the budget?
PG: In terms of the fiscal strategy, which I put in place now seven budgets ago, that has stood the test of time. What this budget does is actually meets all the requirements of the fiscal strategy moving forward even when we're making such a significant investment in terms of the infrastructure spend.
What you need to know about the state budget:
In terms of the broader budget I have made no apologies about this being a big spending budget. One of the key things I want to do is to build intergenerational infrastructure - better schools, better roads, better hospitals and more houses - at a time when the state needs that economic stimulus.
Those assets will stand the state in good stead for not just the 50 years, they will stand the state in good stead for the next 100 years.
JW: You've set a target to be back in surplus by 2023 but you've not given us an economic forecast for that period. Why?
PG: We've only ever provided a forecast for one year and then the three out years for the budget have been projections based on long-term trends. As you can imagine the impact of the coronavirus has had a dramatic impact and the long-term trends really don't count too much at the moment because the circumstances have changed.
What Treasury did was they provided a forecast for the budget year and also for the next year. They wouldn't normally do that.
What you need to know about the state budget:
Coronavirus provides uncertainty for everyone. I'm hopeful that we can continue with the very sensible progression that we've been on, return to a more COVID way of life and that the rest of the country can remain safe as well. If that occurs I have got no doubt at all that we will return to surplus in those years.
JW: Borders will be opening to the majority of Australia as of the 27th. Are budget forecasts based on those borders staying open and no international travel? Or have you counted international travel?
PG: We haven't counted international travel. I think that will be some time before that comes back. It actually says in the budget that the reopening by Christmas to other jurisdictions is something that the budget takes into account.
JW: There was a $2.5 million investment to get women into male dominated industries. What industries are those?
PG: In terms of the jobs that were lost, and there were around 20,000. Of the jobs that have now come back, which is almost two thirds of that, more than 55 per cent of those jobs have gone to women which is really positive. In terms of the industry sectors that are probably more male dominated - if you look at building, construction, civil works even mining and forestry to some extent.
I think it's important that we ensure that the opportunities that are available are made available to everyone regardless of gender. What this program will do will be provide opportunities for women to learn more about the opportunities in those industries.
JW: More jobs returning for women is probably because more women lost jobs during the pandemic, is that fair?
PG: Certainly in terms of the hospitality sector there is a heavier weighting but I think the key thing that we need to do moving forward is to prove opportunity for everyone regardless of their gender, regardless of where they live, regardless of their circumstances. That is what this budget aims to do.
JW: Marinus is a project for TasNetworks and Hydro Tasmania [but] are there any contingencies within the budget or is the government planning for any ability to fast track those projects?
PG: We are working with the federal government and obviously there are a range of matters that need to be taken into account. The design phase and the approvals phase is well underway. That's designed to be completed mid 2022.
Off the back of that obviously we are engaged with Victorians as well because we need to get the link across and with the federal government. It is looking very positive.
What do you think? Send us a letter to the editor: