I have a lot of professional respect for Access Economics, but in my opinion they have often been unduly harsh on Tasmania.

In particular they have been surprisingly reluctant to recognize the significant improvement in Tasmania’s medium-term economic performance over the past five years or so; and when they have (belatedly) acknowledged that things have turned out better than they’d previously anticipated, too willing to attribute it entirely to ephemeral factors such as the recent housing boom.

Similarly, Access Economics’ judgement that Tasmania’s Budget Papers are about “20 years out of date in their approach to fiscal transparency” and the “C-” rating they’ve given to the State’s financial reports seems overly dramatic.

It would thus be unfortunate if, in its eagerness to defend itself from unduly harsh criticism, the Government ignored the valid observations which Access has made.

Treasurer Michael Aird says “if there is room for improvement we will make it”.

There are at least four improvements to the presentation of the Tasmanian Budget Papers to which Mr Aird should commit to delivering in next year’s Budget:

1) totals of the impact of discretionary revenue and expenditure policy decisions on the Budget for each year of the four-year forward estimates period (currently this is not even provided for the first year);

2) reconciliations of the differences between the most recent and previous estimates of revenue and expenditure showing the extent to which the differences are due to ‘policy decisions’ by the Government as distinct from ‘parameter variations’ (changes in economic and other assumptions);

3) four-year forecasts or projections for the key economic and other variables on which the forward estimates of revenue and expenditure are based (such as economic growth, employment, inflation, population growth and interest rates); and

4) four-year projections of the operating statement, balance sheet and cash flow statement for the ‘government business enterprise sector’ and for the ‘non-financial public sector as a whole’.

This information is provided in the Budget Papers of most other States and Territories (Victoria, the Territories and the Commonwealth do not provide 4-year forward estimates for their GBE sectors).

I would be surprised if this information isn’t available internally - indeed it would be worrying if Cabinet were making major revenue and expenditure decisions without it - and there is no reason I can think of why it shouldn’t be made available in the Budget Papers and up-dated in the Mid-Year Review. 

If Mr Aird can deliver these improvements in next year’s Budget then Access will be forced to eat their words.

Hydro deals with big corporations.  Brian Greens little ...  Spirit 3.  Forestry going broke and won’t reveal royalty deal with pulp mill.  Pokie deals.  Bet Fair.  Just to name a few .  All clear as mud no shady deals a fully informed public in a pear tree.

Always interesting to read what Saul Eslake writes. May our government respond to his suggestions.

One question to Saul: 

As ANZ is being mooted as a major backer for the proposed pulp mill, I would like to know if ANZ is seriously considering and researching the social and environmental consequences of how this mill will impact on the communities and bio-regions of Tasmania? Surely, ANZ wouldn’t blindly accept what Gunns and the Tasmanian government have to say about it.

Most major corporations operate wthin the guidelines of a triple bottom line, i.e., economic, social and environmental.  Otherwise, to paraphrase you: “it would be worrying if ANZ were making major revenue and expenditure decisions without it”.

Peter, all I can say in response to your question is that ANZ will take into account the environmental (and other) implications of Gunns’ proposed pulp mill in considering its response to any request for additional finance from Gunns, and may seek its own independent sources of advice and information before reaching any conclusions on those matters.

Beyond that, I’m neither in a position nor, more importantly, authorized by ANZ, to make any comment on ANZ’s dealings with individual customers.

Candidate: Saul Eslake

Subject: Transparency in comments made on TT.

Grade: C+

Saul, I am in general agreement with you that Michael Aird could improve the transparency of next year’s budget.

I’m particulary interested in your third and fourth points, given that both Mr Aird and the relevant Department heads were reluctant to provide any future guidance at any of the recent GBE hearings.

As an example, David Crean’s statement that ‘the Hydro is in a comfortable financial position’ without explaining why was about as credible as hearing that Hezbollah is committed to peace in the Middle East.

Nothing in the Budget papers, or in Ministerial statements since explains how the Government can possibly achieve an economic growth rate of 3.5%, or create more than 6,000 new jobs in the current year.

Lovely rhetoric, but totally at odds with recent economic data, and in stark contrast to recent ABS figures showing that jobs growth in Tasmania hasn’t been particularly flash since January (although I will concede that last month’s figures were OK.)

Finally Saul, don’t forget the obligatory disclaimer that you are a State Government employee.

Saul,
Just wondering what ‘enivronemtal’ implications you refer to when saying:

“ANZ will take into account the environmental (and other) implications of Gunns’ proposed pulp mill in considering its response to any request for additional finance from Gunns”

For instance, the RPDC here in Tasmania will not be looking at the impact to native forests or the impacts of plantations establishment.

Does the ANZ definition of environment include forests and plantations with associated management practices of just the infrastructure of the pulp mill itself as examined by the RPDC?

Four excellent suggestions to improve economic reporting from Saul Eslake, however I don’t agree that “Access Economics ... have often been unduly harsh on Tasmania”. 
Many of the current Tasmanian Government politicians are cowboys, financial illiterates, and if they had overseen, in private companies, the type of government bungles Tasmanians have experienced in the last five years, they could have been subject to investigation by ASIC.
One of Saul’s points is particularly relevant in the face of the latest brain surge from government:  “1) totals of the impact of discretionary revenue and expenditure policy decisions on the Budget for each year of the four-year forward estimates period (currently this is not even provided for the first year); “
Former Health Minister Llewellyn, who is now acting as Premier (isn’t that a sickening thought) has backed spending $1.5 million to bring Hawthorn to Tasmania to play football on four occasions (story in The Mercury 17/8)!
He claims that thousands of Victorians will come to Tasmania to watch the games.  Where is the market research to prove his claim?  In the same place as the market research for buying SPOT 111 - in his dreams - it doesn’t exist.
What percentage of Tasmanians would attend the match?  How many followers does this particular club have and how many would pay to travel to Tasmania to watch a game?  If football is so popular, why isn’t it self-supporting? 
It is not the role of the government to pay football clubs to play.  I can immediately think of ten better uses for this amount of public money.
Examples:  pay a scholarship of $10,000 annually for four years to allow 37 low-income students to attend university, on the proviso that they work in Tasmania for two years after qualifying. 
Pay employers to provide extra trade apprenticeships for disadvantaged young people. 
Provide free housing for professionals who are in short supply - dental mechanics, physiotherapists, etc - to encourage them to work in Tasmania for two years. 
Pay the rent of some long-term unemployed, providing they attend TAFE and obtain a qualification. 
Pay for needy children to have dental work. 
Pay for needy children to have private tutoring to overcome learning difficulties. 
Pay for long-term psychiatric counselling for parents who abuse their children.
Provide more courses and counselling for prisoners. 
Pay for needy children to learn to play a musical instrument - or have tennis coaching - or learn golf - to broaden their experience of life and give them something to work for.
Repaint the fading or non-existent lines on Tasmanian roads and streets and erect more signage to help tourists and locals drive safely.
Provide free bus transport for a month to encourage more commuters to use public transport.
Ban private vehicles in the city centres of Hobart and Launceston for a month and provide free buses in both cities to travel the perimeter of the city centres between noon and 2pm, to encourage people to use public transport for lunch-time shopping.
There’s more than 10 ideas to better spend $1.5 million.
Government’s failure to improve the lives of the most needy while wasting millions on various sports to appease rednecks and elites - and ignoring strategic spending for the benefit of a majority (without even looking at the other big issue of mates’ deals) makes this ALP government worthy of Access Economics’ description, The Mercury 18/8:
‘Mr Tregilgas said Tasmania’s bottom ranking had much to do with the paucity of financial reporting by the state’s largest Government Business Enterprises, such as Hydro Tasmania, which hold massive amounts of public debt.
“Tasmania is still very inadequate; in some aspects I would say it was 20 years out of date in its approach to fiscal transparency,” he said.’

I note with alarm Mr Eslake, an ANZ employee, gave as his reasons for not discussing the financing of the Bell Bay pulp 1) he wasn’t in a position to or 2) not authorised to by the ANZ.

I would think the wishes of Gunns Ltd, as an apparent customer of the ANZ bank, far exceed either of those two as a reason.  Funny that Eslake didn’t see it from that point of view.  He would have been more prudent not to have said anything about it.

‘Rat’, whoever he is, may well have been right.

For his benefit, and (perhaps) for that of Peter Adams, Ronald Clifford, ‘Isobelle’, and anyone else who might for whatever reason be interested in my personal views about Gunns’ pulp mill, I can only say that ANZ gives me a fairly wide licence to comment on economic and financial matters, and occasionally to stray into what might by some be considered ‘political’ territory; but I am not permitted to comment on - indeed, I (like every other employee of ANZ) am explicitly prohibited from commenting on - the affairs of individual customers or ANZ’s dealings with them.

I do participate in discussions within ANZ about the economic risks associated with particular industries. And as it happens I also participate in discussions about ANZ’s approach to questions of environmental and social sustainability.

But I play no role in any of the processes by which ANZ makes decisions about individual customers. I am not a spokesperson for ANZ on these matters. And I am not going to put my job at risk, or prejudice ANZ’s commercial interests, by pretending to be one.

If TT readers (or others) are genuinely interested in seeking more information about ANZ’s approach to these issues, they should contact those who are authorized to speak on its behalf about them, namely in our Government, Community and Media Relations offices in our Melbourne head office (03 9273 5555).

Thank you Mr Eslake. I’ll just get my Media Unit to contact your Media Unit. Perhaps then we can get Paul to bring his Media Unit along and have one big Media Unit “Shindig”.

I find it extremely sad that when someone of Saul’s calibre decides to post on this that they act like fools.

But that’s TT for you.

Saul,

I hope you don’t think all the comments directed at you are a jab at your integrity. I, for one, highly admire your thoughts and willingness to think outside the box (in this instance, the box being ANZ).

In the past, your words spoke eloquently and incisively about the need to protect Tasmania’s natural heritage. Quoting from the Future Perfect exhibition catalogue (2003), you wrote:

“......Tasmania’s future cannot possibly lie predominantly in the volume production of essentially unprocessed commodities at lower prices than competitors with better access to larger and cheaper resources of labour and capital, and better access to markets. Rather, Tasmania’s economic prospects depend on its ability to produce and sell highly differentiated goods and services embodying a high intellectual content, for which costumers are willing to pay premium prices.

Tasmania has the potential to be a magnet for the “creative classes”—scientists, writers, architects, artists, professionals and technicians in knowledge industries— on whose efforts an increasing share of economic growth will depend…...”

By participating in the Future Perfect exhibition you put yourself on the firing line by those who opposed the exhibition’s dedicated purpose: the needless destruction of Tasmania’s ancient forests. For this act of selfless behaviour, where you put your personal morals ahead of your position at ANZ or the then, Bacon government, I applaud you.

Part of the forward to the Future Perfect catalogue, written by German novelist, Gunter Grass (today, himself, in the firing line), are these statements:

“....In the past, this was the feared, infamous penal island of Colonial Britain. We want to set a signal on this magical place in the southern Ocean. We want to contribute towards a change in direction for Tasmania. We want to help bring a halt to destruction: the heritage of a bitter, dark past. Now! Not an an indefinite time in the future! There is no point in destroying one’s environment. There never is any point in doing so, for any living species.

The eyes of the world are on Tasmania, on the last remaining old growth forests on this island. We no longer want its strength to be chopped by chain saws, its wealth to be squandered, devalued as copy paper [read pulp] and degraded to chip material!

The in humane attitude of a past prison world must not be allowed to maintain its hostility toward humans and nature by destroying our natural heritage: the irreplaceable ancient forests of Tasmania….”

So Saul, when I write my comments, I do so as someone who exhibited with you in the Future Perfect exhibition. I, therefore, consider you to be someone knowledgeable enough to understand the huge economic, social and environmental problems that face Tasmania’s future if this overly massive and polluting pulp mill goes ahead.

My worse fear is that there is no one in a position of economic or political power who will stop this insanity. My tiny hope is that there are people, like you, working within the system and doing their honest utmost to bring clarity and wisdom to our economic decisions.

Good luck