Community service providers react to Tasmanian election promises tackling cost-of-living pressures
The growing cost-of-living issue in Tasmania has been described by some as a crisis.
Now it's a staple of Tasmania's snap election, with both major parties jostling to prove they are the right ones to ease living costs in the state.
But there is no magic wand to fix a situation that has been steadily growing worse for years.
According to the Tasmanian Council of Social Service (TasCOSS), 120,000 Tasmanians are living below the poverty line, meaning they don't have the resources to meet basic needs.
One in five — or 50,000 — Tasmanians are experiencing energy poverty, meaning they can't pay their electricity bills so they ration energy use, go into debt or make cuts to other essentials.
And more than 5,000 people are on the social housing waitlist.
The ABC spoke to several community service organisations about what they wanted to see parties doing to address cost-of-living issues this election.
As the manager of Goodwood Community Centre, a Neighbourhood House in Hobart, Natham Reynolds is at the coalface.
"Our numbers coming through the door are really huge at the moment," Mr Reynolds said.
"Each week we have more than 1,000 people.
"We've just had a Christmas in July lunch where we had 70 people here."
Mr Reynolds has been the manager for more than two years. He says the demand for services increases week on week.
He also said the work is difficult and challenging but worth it.
"It really takes a bit of a toll on you," he said.
"You like to leave your work at home, but you're always thinking when you go home, 'Is there any more I can do or where else can we help?'
"You find you're always trying to think of new ideas or different support systems to help people, even once you finish work."
Simone Zell is the chief executive of Neighbourhood Houses Tasmania. She said there needed to be a fundamental shift in how we address cost of living.
"So that we have priorities that are about supporting people to have access to the basics," Ms Zell said.
Ms Zell said access to earlier intervention when it comes to healthcare was crucial.
"We need to make sure that people can have access to healthcare where they are so they are not in those more crisis situations and they are not presenting at hospitals," she said.
The Salvation Army's Amelia Natoli said the issue for many in the community sector was ensuring adequate funding for existing programs.
"For many of our programs we're on the same level of funding that we might have got five or 10 years ago, and everyone's aware that the cost of doing anything has gone up," Ms Natoli said.
"For us, we're actually not able to deliver the same level of service for the same price as we could five or 10 years ago.
She said without increased funding the organisation could not "keep the lights on" at its family and domestic violence refuge or at its alcohol and other drugs space.
"But until we can actually just keep the current services running at the level that they need, it's really hard for us as an organisation to ask, 'Can we have further funding to be able to add another six beds at our family violence refuge?' Because we just don't know that we'll be able to staff it and keep everything running," Ms Natoli said.
Loaves and Fishes chief executive Andrew Hillier said one-in-five Tasmanians were facing food insecurity, and innovative solutions were needed.
He said he wanted to see the parties embrace a food-systems approach, bringing together different organisations to deal with issues.
"Organisations like Eat Well Tas that are focused on education, Neighbourhood Houses that distribute food and … farmers who grow and in some cases their food gets rejected."
Mr Hillier said the Liberal government held a roundtable before the election was called, but it needed to go beyond facilitating discussions — he said the ideas needed resources.
"[We want to make] sure we've got markets and ways of buying food, creating alternative markets for local, small and medium farmers and producers, so that food can be available at lower cost."
He also said it was essential to support the grassroots community organisations on the frontline delivering support.
Labor has been coming out hard on cost of living, offering everything from a price cap on electricity prices (they won't be able to rise more than 2.5 per cent) to freezing car registrations for a year, which will save the average person $15 a year. Apprentices would be eligible for half-price registrations.
The party also has a policy to allow people to pay all government-issued bills monthly at no extra charge compared to annual payment, including car registrations.
It would invest in Loaves and Fishes' food strategy, providing it with $5 million over five years.
The Liberals have an energy-saver policy in place: the renewable energy dividend. Most recently it resulted in $60 shaved off Tasmanian power bills.
The Liberals' big cost-of-living promise this campaign is TasInsure, a Tasmanian-owned insurance company the party claims would result in Tasmanians saving up to $250 a year on insurance bills, while businesses would save up to 20 per cent.
The party has also announced half-price bus fares would be extended for another year.
The Greens have a whole raft of policies designed to address cost-of-living pressures, including putting a stop to "unreasonable" rent rises and introducing means-based fines.
Community sector leaders are generally positive about the policies announced during the campaign so far, but the feeling is most pledges do not go far enough.
Ms Zell said some of the policies could be better targeted at vulnerable Tasmanians.
The Salvation Army's Amelia Natoli said even a $15 discount for those who are struggling would provide relief.
"I do think the impact it would have if it is particularly focused on those individuals that we work with could certainly be quite high," she said.
"We really need to look at how we keep our most vulnerable front of mind."
Ms Zell said in the end, many of the policies were just "tinkering around the edges".
"I really hope that in these last two weeks [of the election campaign] that we actually see some brave vision around 'let's actually do things differently'," she said.
"We do have so many Tasmanians right now really struggling and we're looking at how we can shift that situation so that we can see people's lives being changed."
To see more of the parties' promises to address cost of living and more, go to the ABC's election promise tracker.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


SBS Australia
2 hours ago
- SBS Australia
As ACT lifts the age of criminal responsibility to 14, where does the rest of Australia stand?
Children in the ACT can no longer be arrested, charged or sentenced under territory laws until they turn 14. Rather than facing charges, children will now be referred to therapeutic support services that will seek to address the root causes of their behaviour. Youths who commit serious crimes such as murder, serious violence and sexual offences will be exempt from the reforms, which took effect on 1 July and raised the age of criminal responsibility from its previous place of 10 years old. Other Australian jurisdictions have some of the lowest ages of criminal responsibility globally, falling well below international standards set by the United Nations. 'The ACT has looked at the evidence' Jonathan Hunyor of the Justice and Equity Centre said locking up 10-year-old children only worsens social problems. "The ACT has looked at the evidence, and the ACT is obviously serious about making their community safer because we know that locking up kids makes the community less safe," he said. "What locking up kids does is it cruels their chances, it takes them away from positive influences." Rather than helping kids build social capital, "what we do is place kids in a situation where they build criminal capital," Hunyor added. "They go to the university of crime, they get taught that they're criminals." 'Programs need to run inside communities, not prisons' Dr Faith Gordon, an Australian National University youth-justice researcher, said the ACT is now in line with "what international evidence has been telling us for years". Pointing to countries such as Norway, she notes that "big jumps in funding for programs that are run inside communities, not prisons" had led to "big drops in the number of children locked up". Here's where the rest of Australia stands when it comes to the age of criminal responsibility. Victoria Victoria raised its minimum age from 10 to 12 under the Youth Justice Bill passed in 2024 and has promised a formal review of a further rise to 14 in 2027. Tasmania The Tasmanian government will raise the minimum age of criminal responsibility from 10 to 14 years and will increase the minimum age of detention to 16 years by developing alternatives to detention for children aged 14 and 15 years. Implementation is expected be completed by July 2029. Northern Territory The Northern Territory briefly led the nation when it raised the age of criminal responsibility to 12 in 2023. A change of government reversed that decision in August 2024 and the minimum age is back to 10. NSW Australia's most-populous state has held the line at 10, despite medical and legal bodies urging change. A joint statement from Mental Health Carers NSW and BEING NSW this year renewed calls to match the ACT's standard. Queensland Queensland's Adult Crime, Adult Time laws, introduced at the end of 2024, kept the age at 10 and allow some serious offences by children to be dealt with in the adult system. South Australia Adelaide is consulting on whether to raise the age to 12 but has not drafted a bill. Western Australia Western Australia has also kept it at 10. Legal Aid WA confirms the age in its current guidance and the government has given no timetable for reform. The federal position The national minimum age is 10, but balanced by the safeguard principle of doli incapax, which requires prosecutors to prove a child aged 10 to 13 understood their actions were seriously wrong. In July 2024, then attorney-general Mark Dreyfus was asked about a national change at the National Press Club. He said the issue remained "under consideration" and argued it was less urgent for Canberra because "we have no children presently convicted of Commonwealth offences". Gordon said the "patchwork of legislation across the country is impractical and unfair". "A child in Canberra now gets health and family support. A child an hour away in NSW can still be taken to a police cell. We need a single national rule so every child, no matter where they live, has the same chance."

ABC News
2 hours ago
- ABC News
Tasmanian Labor says it's confident Jess Munday is eligible to contest this month's state election
The Tasmanian Labor Party says speculation about the eligibility of one of its Franklin candidates Jess Munday should be over, after the party released legal advice stating she was able to contest the July 19 state election. The Liberals have claimed the Unions Tasmania secretary's position on the WorkCover Tasmania board means she falls foul of section 32 of the state's Constitution Act, and is ineligible to be elected. It released legal opinion from barrister Chris Gunson SC that said he believed Ms Munday was ineligible to nominate for Franklin, and to be elected as an MP, because of her appointment to WorkCover Tasmania's board. Mr Gunson said an application to the Supreme Court of Tasmania contesting her eligibility would be "likely to succeed" and would likely lead to the results in Franklin being "declared void", and a by-election held. He said it was possible Ms Munday's involvement in Labor's statewide election campaign could lead to the Supreme Court declaring all election results void, sending voters back to the polls again, but he said it was "impossible to make any reasonable assessment of that risk" at this stage. "To do so would be merely speculative absent all necessary facts," Mr Gunson's opinion, provided to the ABC, said. But on Friday afternoon Labor released its own advice, prepared by former solicitor-general Michael O'Farrell SC, which found the act "does not operate to prohibit Ms Munday from being capable of being elected to, or of holding a seat in the House of Assembly". The argument surrounds Section 32 of the state's Constitution Act, with the Liberals arguing Ms Munday is ineligible because she holds an "office of profit under the Crown". Labor points to an amendment passed in 1944, the Constitution (State Employees) Act, which states that the section does not apply to people who hold "any office of profit or employment in the public service of the state, or in any business or undertaking carried on by any person, body or authority on behalf of the state". In his opinion Mr O'Farrell said he did not think "there can be any doubt that the WorkCover Board is engaged in an undertaking, and carries that out as a body or authority on behalf of the state". "Accordingly, in my view, Ms Munday is a person to whom [the 1944 amendment] applies," his opinion said. On Friday morning Liberal MLC Jo Palmer criticised Labor for not producing legal advice earlier, saying voters casting their ballots at pre-poll booths around the state needed to know whether Ms Munday was eligible. She did not answer whether the party would lodge a Supreme Court challenge to Ms Munday's eligibility, while a Liberal spokesperson said the party was considering its options. The party would have 90 days after the election to lodge an appeal. Labor MLC Sarah Lovell said there was no question over Ms Munday's eligibility, and the Liberal Party's questioning of it had "blown up in their face". "We have been 100 per cent confident in Jess Munday's eligibility as a candidate, there has been no question for us because we understand the law, we know there are provisions in the act that leave no doubt over her eligibility to be a candidate," Ms Lovell said. "We have sought advice today because the Liberal Party has stooped to such lows and that behaviour needs to be called out. "This was the only way to call that out, there should be no question for anyone now about Jess's eligibility to be a candidate." Ms Munday accused the Liberals of engaging in "Trump style politics of misinformation and negativity and desperation that don't belong in Tasmanian politics". "I have always had confidence in my eligibility and my ability to represent the people of Franklin well in the parliament," she said.

ABC News
3 hours ago
- ABC News
A silver lining to US research funding woes
Belinda Smith: Hi, this is The Science Show, and I'm Belinda Smith, keeping Robyn Williams' seat toasty and warm for the next few weeks. Few activities are as satisfying as making something, whether that's baking the perfect pavlova or knocking up a nesting box. But how would you even begin to create, I don't know, a brand new flavor or bring back to life an extinct species of frog? Those stories are coming up but first is the US experiencing a brain drain? News Grab: Good morning. It's now 5.35 here in the east. We are allowing all of our stations across the country to join us. Now with the breaking news, we are projecting at this hour the 47th president of the United States. Uh, Donald Trump will be, uh, elected to return to the White House. Belinda Smith: Since President Donald Trump retook office, the state of scientific research in the States has been well precarious, to say the least. The administration immediately implemented a federal spending freeze, so that included government funded grants and has proposed billions of dollars in cuts to science and health research. Billions with a B. It's just so hard to keep up with all of this, and it's not even been six months. The silver lining is that other countries like Australia are taking advantage of the situation and targeting programs at US researchers. ABC Health reporter, Olivia Willis, has been looking into this and she joins me now. So Liv, what's the latest out of the states when it comes to research funding? Olivia Willis: So since Trump's return to office in January, there's been. As you say, a real frenzy of government funding freezes, cuts, executive orders, all of which have had a major impact on scientific and medical research on national science and health agencies in the us um, but also science and health funding in, in many parts of the world that are reliant on US funding and that includes, uh, researchers in Australia. We know that so far. Well over a thousand research grants have been terminated at government agencies, including the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, and NASA. Together, those total, several billions of dollars, and there's many more grants that have also been flagged for review. And then on top of that, hundreds of staff have been cut from some of these federal agencies that I mentioned, as well as. The Centers for Disease Control, the FDA and the Trump administration has also targeted specific universities, many of which are Ivy League schools, places like Harvard and Columbia, and frozen their federal funding if they don't comply with a set of demands that the government has laid out. And they're often things related to affirmative action, diversity initiatives, um, campus protests and so on. Big picture for year, the White House budget. Their proposal now is to cut. The National Institutes of Health, their budget by 40%, and the National Science Foundation's budget by 55%. So very, very significant. I will say that thinking broadly about these cuts, the government has said that they're essentially about eliminating waste and bias in government funded research. But I think, you know, they're also the result of efforts to combat what the Trump administration has described as gender, ideology, um, and an executive order to end diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts. So we know that many of the cancel grants or grants under review focus on marginalized and underrepresented groups, uh, racial and ethnic minorities. So groups that have, have been largely understudied historically, and the Trump administration perhaps doesn't see this type of research as benefiting broadly the health of all Americans. Belinda Smith: What other areas of faced cuts? Olivia Willis: There's also research areas that have lost funding simply because they're not priorities of the Trump administration or, or I guess the government doesn't see them as fitting in with their own scientific agenda. So things like research into vaccine misinformation, uh, hiv aids, climate science, clean energy. I should note that this is a really fast moving situation and things will probably change. So we know that a number of lawsuits have been launched against the government regarding these funding freezes and cuts. Some of them have been successful. Just a couple of weeks ago, a federal judge ruled that the cancellation of more than $1 billion in research grants at the National Institutes of Health. That they were illegal in order for them to be reinstated. It looks like the government will file an appeal on that judgment, but in the meantime, staff at at certain agencies have been instructed not to cancel any further grants. So it's definitely a fast moving, unfolding dynamic situation. I. Belinda Smith: And may get dragged through the courts for months and months to come. Olivia Willis: I think so. Belinda Smith: Mm. What have these cuts done to researchers? Olivia Willis: Well, I think it's probably important to think about the context of how significant the US is as a player in research funding globally. So. It's, it's one of the biggest funders in the world of research and development. The National Institutes of Health alone is the biggest funder of medical research globally. A huge number of researchers around the world would benefit off funding from that agency. Um, and in 2023, it was estimated that the US actually provided 30% of all global r and d funding. So you can. Get a sense there from just how much they contribute to what those cuts would mean in terms of specific research fields. There's, you know, we're seeing areas of research, I guess, that have been threatened because huge chunks of their funding have been wiped out. And then for the researchers. The people who work at these federal agencies, a lot of people have lost their jobs, um, or their funding. That of course includes principal investigators and professors, but also early career researchers, PhD students, people who rely on scholarships. And I think the other thing is that for many scientists, it appears to have really created, I guess, a climate of, of fear and worry about their jobs and the viability of their research long term. Belinda Smith: You are listening to Belinda Smith on the Science Show, and I'm talking to health reporter Olivia Willis, about the state of research funding in the United States. Now, I've seen reports of countries that are seeing this as an opportunity for them to really beef up their local scientific expertise and try and get that US talent to relocate to their countries and establish their research programs There. What's been going on in that space and what's Australia's done? Olivia Willis: Yeah, we are, so there's several European universities that have set up initiatives. Um, countries like France and Canada are actively recruiting. The European Commission recently announced 500 million euros to make Europe a magnet for researchers in the next two years. So I suspect that's going to be a popular location for some US scientists when it comes to Australia. There are a number of research institutes. That I know have received really significant interest from US researchers since these cuts have happened. And recruiting scientists is something that the Australian Academy of Science is actively working on. So in April, they set up a program to nationally coordinate this recruitment effort. It's called the Global Talent Attraction Program, and I recently spoke to the academy's chief executive, Anna Maria Arabia, about this. Anna-Maria Arabia: We know that talent is everywhere. Uh, but opportunity is not everywhere. And, uh, this is a, an initiative to attract to Australia leading talent that we know, uh, builds capability in Australia that builds our, uh, scientific talent pool. Um, that enables scientific advancements and industries, um, to be seeded and to grow. Um, importantly, talent like this train and mentor, the next generation of young Australian scientists, uh, we know it creates jobs. Um, and, and we know science and technology is part of a really, um, rapid, uh, global race at the moment. Belinda Smith: So the Australian Academy of Sciences calls this a global talent attraction program, but it sounds quite targeted to the us Olivia Willis: Yeah, that's right. So at least initially it is specifically for US scientists, um, and also Australian scientists in the US who are wanting to return home. As I mentioned, in April, they launched the program and that was about essentially getting funders for it and people to kind of support this research. But it was actually just this week that they've announced that applications for the program are now open. Belinda Smith: So it's early days yet really in terms of getting people involved in the program that might be interested in coming to Australia. Do you know if the Australian Academy of Sciences has any priorities in terms of the, the types of research that they're particularly interested in attracting? Olivia Willis: So the program itself, they've described as discipline agnostic, meaning I think that it, it's not limited to any specific areas of research. That being said, when I spoke to Anna Maria Arabia about it, she told me that one of the reasons they wanted to launch it was so they could assess applications against Australia's. What they call capability gaps. So she talked about areas like data science, statistics, mathematics, um, all being areas that as a kind of research landscape we need to bolster and also touched on issues about the fact that our population is aging, that we need to decarbonize. So it sounds like there will be. Some kind of strategic considerations that are made when they're looking at the types of, um, the, the areas of research that they want to bring more expertise in. Anna-Maria Arabia: We are also looking at areas where there is just outstanding talent that we know if they were to come to Australia, there is no doubt that the multiplier effect and the impact of their contribution, uh, would be many times, uh, what it costs to bring them here. It is the story of Australia. Uh, so many of our leading scientists today were born overseas. We look at our own fellowship, who Australia's most distinguished scientists, and we did account since 2017. Um, the fellows elected to the academy. 42% of them were born overseas. It is the Australian story. Uh, our research effort is relatively young and since World War II and so many of our stellar scientists, you only need to think of Professor Michelle Simmons or Lydia Roka or Brian Schmidt, all born abroad, all bought their capability here as young scientists who, who seeded, uh, talent here, who nurtured the next generation and have now built Um, research sectors and industries we could have only dreamed of. Olivia Willis: So what does this program involve? So once the academy has identified scientists that they're interested in bringing to Australia, they'll work with universities and research institutes to look at. Basically where they can place them so the universities and the research organizations will host them. And my understanding is the Academy's talent attraction program will provide the research funding and the relocation support. Belinda Smith: Mm-hmm. And what about like local researchers? You know, it, it's, it's a, it's a tough old grind being scientists having to apply for grants and. Olivia Willis: Is there any support for local people? It is a great question and it's something I put to her as well. You know, as you say, research funding is extremely competitive in Australia. A lot of researchers miss out, and so I asked whether that was a concern, you know, pouring funding into US scientists or international researchers when many of our own researchers are struggling to get grants. Anna-Maria Arabia: I think we should do everything we can in Australia to nurture young talent, but I feel that these are related, but separate strategies. Uh, so to those young researchers, I would say, uh, through this program we are attracting to Australia, uh, individuals who will inspire you, who will mentor and train you. Um, and provide opportunities that don't exist today. They are not taking away money that would otherwise go to support early career researchers. In fact, they create opportunities for them. Belinda Smith: That was Anna Maria Arabia, CEO of the Australian Academy of Science and ABC Health reporter Olivia Willis, filling us in on the US research funding situation. And now a story of scientific endeavor from our shores. Come with me and let's take a trip back to 2013.