Mr FERGUSON (Bass) – I am glad to rise in support of the matter of public importance debate that has been raised by my colleague in Denison, Ms Archer. It is a very important and it is interesting to observe the responses from both Greens and Labor members. The minister tried to give a spirited defence for his own shortcomings, letting down the force and the Tasmanian community.

It was interesting that the Greens spokesman, Mr O’Halloran, and the speaker who has just resumed her seat were offering very nicely worded platitudes on individual issues and initiatives of serving police men and women. It is all very well and good but distracts from the real issue, which is what you are doing to the force. The minister should reflect on the fact that he was elected on a platform of seeing the number of police in our state increase by 30.

It is interesting that Mr O’Halloran, who is presumably the police spokesman for the Greens, was elected on a platform of employing not an extra 30 police but 100. He comes the day before the budget is due to be handed down and says he hopes funding will be able to be maintained.

I wonder if he has attempted to get that into the budget or if he has just left it to the day before to offer that verbal platitude. What a waste of time. This is a man, along with his other four colleagues, are apologists for the Labor Party. That is what is going on here. You promised this knowing that you would not deliver it and there was no intention to deliver it. There was a naked promise of 100 extra police and we are seeing 100 less. The irony is breathtaking. It is a real tragedy of what you are doing to the police service in our state and diminishing its capacity.

In media releases and today in the minster’s speech he ironically talks about Labor having steadily built police force numbers up over its now 14 years in office. That is interesting. Is the minister now saying today that they employed too many police while he is now cutting them down, that they did not really need them, that they were not needed? Is that what he is saying?

Is the minister saying that they should not have been employed? Or is it really the case that the Labor-Greens government has been trashing this budget, over spending funding that was permitted for it to spend by the parliament over the last five and six years to the tune of about $1 billion, spending the barn. David Bartlett famously said that we needed to “get the hay out of the barn” and that is just code for overspending. Then they burnt the barn. You burnt the barn; you have ruined it. You have diminished what the Tasmanian community can expect from its government. In this context you are reducing the service down by 100.

One of the elements of policing that has been a success has been raised by one of my constituents – a college student involved in the junior constable program. While time does not permit me to go into detail he says that while the Minister for Police is cancelling the junior constable program as it will not be resuming until police recruitment reopens, which will take a few more years, he is off to Victoria. That is the minister’s legacy.

David O’Byrne may wish the caravan has moved on, but it hasn’t – and he has serious questions to answer about his failures to properly administer the NBN4Business funding.

Today, David O’Byrne was unable to deny he and his department failed to conduct any risk assessment prior to splurging money on the Government’s NBN4Business program.

In his special report into the Tasmanian Education Foundation debacle in 2009, the Auditor General recommended a risk assessment should be carried out by the government prior to finalising any funding deed with the TCCI to promote education.*

Despite this recommendation, the government has again found itself in the same boat, with funding anomalies occurring – this time over $250,000 provided to promote the NBN and to support Tasmanian businesses getting access to the global digital economy.

It is time David O’Byrne started taking his responsibilities seriously to properly administer and monitor taxpayer funds to projects within his portfolio. Using melodramatic language won’t deflect attention from his own failure to protect taxpayers’ precious funds during a 13-month period of being warned by the Opposition.

* http://www.audit.tas.gov.au/publications/reports/specialreport/pdfs/specialreport84.pdf  

Mr FERGUSON (Bass) – In December last year the Select Committee inquiring into the child protection system in Tasmania presented its report. It contained 176 recommendations, which were made to the government, not just for improvement but also for change. I have to say from the outset how proud we, in the opposition, are of our member for Franklin, Ms Petrusma.

She has been a shining light on the scourge of our society where children have fallen through the cracks of a dysfunctional system. Sad to say, back in 2010 and 2011 the government did not want to be bothered with questions in this House about that failing system. Were it not for the tenacity of Mrs Petrusma in raising these issues, in an entirely appropriate way might I add, we would not be here today discussing the government’s response to any report. The fact is that the Liberals, at the time in 2010, pushed for a genuine Commission of Inquiry.

We wanted it to have the powers of a royal commission but it was thwarted by the Greens. If we had the Greens’ support at the time we would have had a genuine Commission of Inquiry into this issue – but it was overturned when Labor and the Greens combined. They defeated the motion raised by the Liberals – my leader Will Hodgman and my colleague Mrs Petrusma. Instead it was brought down to the level of a parliamentary inquiry. It is very important that we make the point that the Liberals stood for a Commission of Inquiry. It is a matter of record, we are proud of that and we stand on our record and while people who were compromised at the time into agreeing to something that the government much preferred we make the point that we stand firm in the corner of the defence of Tasmanian children and to make sure that the best efforts were made to uncover the issues at play in order for us to genuinely get the best possible child protection system that Tasmania can have.

The Attorney-General makes a comment that it is not possible to have a perfect system. We have not been calling for a perfect system. We have been calling for a functional system where Tasmanian children have a reasonable expectation that they will be taken care of.  But it seems that it was not so important as to result in any immediate action or response by the government when the committee that did eventuate handed down its 176 recommendations in December last year. One would have thought with such a large number of recommendations that some of the more urgent ones could have been seen, even as a smaller sub set, that they could have been considered urgent action items. It is very sad to hear the chair of that committee, Mr O’Halloran, today apologising and making the case for the government, of which he is a part, that that did not occur. I find that quite incongruous, given his position as the chair of the inquiry, that he is now apologising for the government for its delay in its response to that report.

It is clear that the member for Braddon, Mr O’Halloran, is part of the delay because he comes into the parliament today with a prepared speech, including some matters of details that were not even in the ministerial statement. He has been able to name all of the members of the cabinet sub committee. He could not have known that from the minister’s statement because it was not in there, but the member obviously was fully aware of that beforehand and to the point that he was even able to bring it in here.

Mr O’HALLORAN – Point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The ones I named were members of the select committee. That is all I named. (**See below)

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER – It is not a point of order.

Mr FERGUSON – In response to that frivolous point of order from the apologist for the Labor Party over there – the document in my hand is what was placed on members’ desks and how dare you suggest otherwise. You are in it up to your neck. That is a fact, member for Braddon, Mr O’Halloran. Don’t bring your theatrics over here. The reality is that you had more detail in your prepared speech than members of this House have had.  You are compromised and you know it.

To say that it is overdue, Mrs Petrusma says that the report being addressed by the government is five months overdue, is a polite term. That is polite to say the least. Let us remember that it was the events and public scandals of 2010 and before that has caused any inquiry at all to occur and for us to be here today debating and noting the minister’s statement.

I wonder in those five months, and indeed in those two years, what pain and hardship children around our state have had to continue to endure as a result of a government that is more interested in itself, protecting its own standing in the community. We can only imagine that things have indeed got worse and that the system was very poorly positioned given what we now know, to deal with the budget measures now being felt across government.

That includes, as Mrs Petrusma has made clear that today, as a result of the minister’s budget cuts, there are some 20 child protection worker positions that are currently vacant. They are immediate vacancies and they should be performing their role supporting Tasmanian children.

This is a detailed statement and we in the opposition will go through in good faith what the minister has had to say today, and if there are good measures we will support them. If there are any measures that the minister has ignored, for example the three recommendations that have been rejected, if we do not agree with the government’s position, we will say so.

The opposition stands shoulder-to-shoulder and affirm the work of the health professionals, the teachers, the principals, the social workers, the psychologists and school psychologists, the lawyers, the family support workers and the commissioners for children, past and present, and foster carers. We affirm and endorse parents and those organisations that care for children and endorse the wonderful work and support that they have bring to Tasmanian children however limited they are in being able to do that. We thank them for their contribution to the inquiry.

** For the record, this is what Greens Party member Mr O’Halloran said in his earlier address (indeed, quite different to what he falsely claimed to have said in his point-of-order):

I am particularly pleased with the governance model with the Premier chairing a cabinet subcommittee including the ministers for children, education, police, justice and human services to oversee implementation. This is a collaborative, integrated approach and will undoubtedly drive much-needed change. I think it gives teeth to drive the recommendations in the committee’s report.

Last month David O’Byrne told parliament that stage one of the government’s NBN assistance package has been “fully and successfully delivered“.*
Today we find out nothing could be further from the truth.

The TCCI has done the right thing by handing back $130,000 of taxpayer funds provided for NBN4Business as a result of it voluntarily coming forward and addressing its accounting problems. Mr O’Byrne promised last year he would monitor and carefully manage the progress of the $1m NBN industry assistance package.

Not only has David O’Byrne misled parliament over the ‘success’ of the NBN4Business program, he has also clearly failed to meet his oversight obligations to assess the performance and progress of funds provided for NBN activities.

In estimates last year the Minister made a strong commitment to monitor the use of NBN industry assistance funds indicating meetings would be held ‘at least monthly, maybe fortnightly’ with recipients.

Instead David O’Byrne has shown himself to be totally disinterested and hands off.

Based on this Minister’s dismal performance we have less confidence than ever in the Green-Labor government’s ability to maximize the benefits of the NBN for Tasmanians – let alone capture Tasmania’s now-lost first mover advantage.

*Hansard Thursday 19th April 2012

Mr FERGUSON (Bass) – On 23 March this year the Launceston School for Seniors chairman, Mr Barry Lumley, wrote a letter to the Minister for Education and Skills to take certain steps to sustain the school into the future. In that letter Mr Lumley gave the minister the good news that enrolments on their March enrolment day for the first term of 2012 had reached 461 students, which included 103 new students. With further enrolments that occur during the term, they anticipate they may well reach the figure of 500, which would be a record. In fact, at the date of the letter Mr Lumley indicated that enrolments had climbed to 483. Mr Lumley writes:

Once again the question on everybody’s lips is whether we are still under the threat of losing the use of the High Street premises and will we be forced to relocate to a less-suitable venue?

Later in the letter Mr Lumley writes:

In your letter to me of 21 December 2011 you advised that ‘the School for Seniors is now the major tenant of the High Street complex, with the organisation representing more than 50 per cent of the usage.

Surely as a key stakeholder and in view of your statement that your department is committed to ongoing communication with us, you would agree that we should be included in the review process rather than be placed in a reactionary situation when the report is completed.

Minister, we respectfully request that you authorise your departmental officers to enter into a meaningful discussion with us as they seek to complete the review.

Later in the letter, Mr Lumley points out that in February the George Town council passed a motion of support as did the Launceston City council and the West Tamar council. These councils, as local government authorities, have an interest in seeing their older Tasmanian ratepayers in their municipal areas being able to continue to access the very successful Launceston School for Seniors.

He points out that a petition that was tabled in the other place late last year saw the total number of signatures reach 1 775 people. It was the contents of that letter which I used to fashion the motion which I tabled this morning in the House. While I was reading the motion into the House, the minister interjected a number of times and one of the things he said to me was that he has been to visit Launceston School for Seniors. That is correct. I then made a quip myself, that you should answer their letter of 23 March which you have not answered. The minister quipped back.  He said, ‘I have answered that.’

I have gone back to the Launceston School for Seniors. The minister has not answered that letter of 23 March 2012. In fact, the chairman writes to me today and says that in response to the minister’s reactions this morning, on 23 March he forwarded an e-mail to Minister McKim and attached the letter and on 26 March I received an e-mail from Anne Fagan, executive officer and diary manager of the minister, which read only as an acknowledgement. On 24 April he received an undated letter signed by the head of office to Mr McKim, which again said that the minister had asked that the recent letter concerning enrolments for the first term of 2012 be acknowledged.

Mr Lumley makes it clear that no further correspondence has been received and, damningly, continues. He says:

I am extremely disappointed that the letter from Mr Perry simply referred to enrolments when, as you know from the copy that you have, that reference to enrolments was an introductory paragraph explaining our success, which was later forwarded by our request to be included in the current discussions about the buildings in Launceston rather than having decisions foisted upon us as a fait accompli. Either the minister’s staffers are deliberately ignoring the true content of the letter and our request, and are not informing him, or the minister has reached a decision that if we continue to be ignored by him, we will just go away.

He continues by saying:

I can tell you that our members are extremely angry at the moment as they clearly believe they are being ignored and treated as second-class citizens. I did send a copy of the letter of 23 March to our local members who are supposed to be representing us in parliament, asking for their comments and support. We have received acknowledgement and support from Legislative Councillors and opposition members but absolutely nothing from Michelle O’Byrne, Brian Wightman or Kim Booth. Why shouldn’t they be angry? To not even acknowledge the feelings of their constituents is pure ignorance.

We are completely frustrated at the moment by just being ignored, but it is made worse when we are told mistruths.

There is a question for the minister to answer today. The question is that posed in the original letter and I challenge the minister to get off his hands and deal with this issue. Will he ensure that his departmental officers are obliged to enter into meaningful discussion with the Launceston School for Seniors to give them security for the future, to treat them with respect and not expect them to be happy with a lease agreement that runs out in around a year from now. The continuing provisions within that lease agreement mean that if the High Street site is sold, they can simply be shuffled off to York Street premises which are utterly unsuitable for the purpose.

The Liberals stand with the Launceston School for Seniors, and their nearly 500 students, because we believe in lifelong learning. We support the innovative model that has been established, a model which is volunteer driven and draws down nothing from the Government except access to the High Street campus.

I endorse the excellent work they are doing. I sympathise with them in that they have been unable to get a satisfactory treatment from this government. I finally challenge the minister to get off his hands, not just rely on hearsay and what his staff are telling him, but support that school, show the support and give it the tenure it needs.

The motion I tabled this morning reads as follows:

Mr Speaker

I give notice that on tomorrow I shall move that this House:

1) Notes that the Launceston School for Seniors provides a valuable service allowing senior Tasmanians to continue life long learning together with social interaction and inclusion benefits.

2) Notes that at the registration day in March this year over 100 new members joined, taking the number of people who benefit from the School for Seniors to around 480.

3) Notes that the Launceston School for Seniors is self-sufficient with the only government support being the provision of the High Street campus.

4) Notes comments in the Examiner newspaper on 29 March 2012 from the school chair in relation to Mr McKim’s supposed consultation process about the site saying “I don’t know how they can say we have been consulted when we haven’t”.

5) Condemns the Minister for Education and Skills for failing to provide certainty for students by ruling out the sale of the High street campus from under their feet.

6) Calls on the Minister to get his act together, start treating these students with more respect and finally rule out selling off the Launceston School for Seniors site to plug his budget black hole.