Today I want to revisit a number of topics that were highlighted in my own budget response speech but also to provide some reflection on the topics that I raised at budget Estimates committee hearings and other members.

With regard to Tasmania Tomorrow, contrary to the Premier’s statements in this House that the cost of Tasmania Tomorrow was, ‘less than $3 million or $4 million or $5 million’, last week at Estimates we discovered that even the minister was prepared to admit cost was $5.9 million and that is over and above any expenditure on capital improvements. Tasmania Tomorrow is alive and kicking for anybody who is interested, and while the minister was putting it out there at the college level, certainly from the discussion that I attended at Newstead, that change is needed, it is not working well et cetera. However, last week the minister is on record saying that Tasmania Tomorrow is an ongoing reform and this morning I noted that the new term ‘evolved model’ has slipped in.

We also discovered that the minister actually does not believe in her new round of changes. So that was quite gob-smacking and I ask how could you then sell it off as evolution if you do not even believe it? We also received the startling admission that the Greens have put themselves in a pretty difficult position here. Reinstalling the Government helped put them offside with many in the education community, including colleges but more particularly and especially, former TAFE teachers. They can no longer say that none of their policies have changed.

The Hansard of budget Estimates also drew some response from people and a few came forward telling what happened during May and early June. What I understand now is that the Greens chose to honour and prioritise their Labor-Greens deal which predisposes them to work with the Labor Government, and rather than trying to get their policy fully implemented by negotiating with the Liberals, they signed away concessions to the Government. But the most audacious move was to tell the AEU on the weekend before the announced changes that they had no choice in the matter. They made I would say the incorrect and unreasonable statement that the Liberals would have automatically voted down any Greens-sponsored legislation, irrespective of its merits, and intimidated the AEU that it could not go public on the fact that the Greens had compromised their policy position, especially with regard to the position of TAFE. So the secret is out.

With regard to implementation and Minister Thorp’s description of the changes as an evolved model, I have little difficulty with what is proposed. The devil will be in the detail but my key concern now is with the incredibly tight timeline to implement the changes, and that is now the Government’s problem. Any stuff-ups from here on really will be on their heads but, unfortunately, it gets worse because if there are hiccups along the way now in the less than six-month implementation lead time, it will be the students who will be caught up in that, particularly those who have now gone through their fifth iteration of educational change. I express my concern that the implementation advisory task force were not able to see the guide before this week and from reading that document, it now becomes clear, believe it or not, that there is still no implementation plan as such. The guide says that it will need to be developed.

We asked a question about consultancies and on the day the minister advised that the department had spent $5 million on education content and service delivery but she needed some time to get some more detail. That detail arrived late yesterday and was the subject of a question this morning. The detail shines a light on the fact that the department have spent not $5 million but in fact $20.6 million on consultancies. That is an issue in itself, but on a quick analysis – and I only had time to do this with the first batch of primary schools on that document – the value of the architectural consultancies comes to around 11 per cent of the value of the grants that schools were awarded. Clearly this warrants further analysis, especially in light of the Federal guidelines that says that costs such as those should not exceed 4 per cent of the grant amount.

Teacher assistants is an issue that was raised by both the Greens and the Liberals at Estimates. That is quite an important issue. After we discussed the stand-down provisions for TAs and the issues involved there, I asked about the issue of what is, unfortunately, I think, a lack of teacher assistant training opportunities, because I believe that some 50 per cent of TAs do not hold a formal qualification and I know that many would like to, yet they are employed by the very department which should place a premium on skilling up. So I propose that the minister take a closer look at this because I recognise that there seems to be a kind of market failure which has lead to the Tasmanian Skills Institute no longer offering the relevant course suitable for TAs.

Unlike the previous Education minister, the Premier, we finally have some glimmer of hope that this new minister might care about the 30 per cent of families who choose to send their children to a non-government school. I have been contacted by the non-government sector and they have said to me that they hope the minister will not be a minister for State education in the same divisive way as Premier Bartlett was. That is a straight quote from that sector. But it was refreshing to hear Minister Thorp answer positively when I asked her, ‘Are you minister for all education in Tasmania, embracing all sectors?’ Although her answer was affirmative and she even elaborated that she had engaged an advisor to focus on the non-government sector, I was disappointed to have it confirmed to me that she has still not yet taken the time to meet with the sector’s representatives. So I look forward to giving the minister a chance to make good on those commitments and embrace education everywhere.

It was great to see the Government has not kept three out of four with regard to the school psychologists. This is something that all three parties have campaigned for. The Liberals led this last year by campaigning for an additional 12 school psychologists at a cost of $4 million. It is great that that was a kept promise. It remains to be seen when these positions will be in the schools working where they are needed.

Of course, as the minister has conceded or suggested, recruitment will be the major obstacle here. We need to see some evidence of recruitment in the nearest possible term, so that there can be no room for blaming delays on the supply side. The new financial year has started. The Budget will be passed within days, so I would say show me the ads and start to market schools as a great place for psychologists to work in.

The Government does make a great boast about funding three out of four of its promises. In the case of the anti-bullying program promise, we got half. The Labor Government promised $4 million and we have seen $2 million over the budget period. With regard to Raising the Bar Closing the Gap, as well as the other program, Launching Into Learning, we tackled these questions. It clearly is another compromised promise. The Labor Party promised $12 million to provide resources to extend this program into high schools, and they have cut that back to $10 million.

With regard to the programs, the minister seemed to be quite unaware that there were schools – in fact she mocked me when I raised this – who contacted me with concerns. While they appreciated the benefits from being involved in these programs, there were some that will lose access to one or both of these programs. So I asked the minister what schools would be feeling a change, and the minister said none. Unfortunately she was wrong and had to have a departmental person intervene to answer. It was a reasonable question about how that change will be managed in those schools. I really did not expect that response. If schools are going to lose access to those additional resources, they need to be provided with some way of support so that they can at least attempt to continue the support to their local families.

Specialist teachers was a key area. Today is an important day in that regard. The minister seemed to have no pedagogical basis at all for anything she had to say about recognising the value of specialist teachers. I believe, like everyone it seems, that all teachers have a primary role in being able to teach for understanding, to teach students, not just content, but also how to learn and be a lifelong learner. That said, I do place a premium on the unique role of specialist teachers in schools and colleges teaching as much as possible within their area of specialty. To make lazy left-wing statements which generalise that teachers are some sort of homogenous mix of generalists is just nonsense.

What our system does need is flexibility and, as much as possible, local autonomy which recognises that every teacher, just like every student, brings a unique set of skills, shortcomings and opportunities to a workplace. We should value our teachers’ uniqueness. Running away from specialist opportunities because it is easy, given the shortage of teachers in some specialist areas, is not on.

With that in mind, I have already read the executive summary with the findings and conclusions of the Auditor-General which was tabled just this morning with regard to the teaching of science. It was clear from the Estimates process that he is clearly more interested in that issue than the Government. He had identified significant areas of concern. I welcome at least the minister’s promise that she would look closely at whatever the recommendations were from the Auditor-General, and move on them. This is what he has highlighted today: the lack of science curriculum in high schools – that is a damning statement; a poor moderation process; poor school lab facilities; a substantial decline in the proportion of students continuing with science in years 11 and 12; and, believe it or not, little evidence of a coordinated approach to strategic planning of science teaching. My colleague, Mr O’Halloran, and I are both former science teachers so we have actually added to the problem by getting elected.

Ms Giddings – You can always resign and go back.

Members laughing.

Mr O’Halloran – I am not too sure about the quality.

Mr FERGUSON – I would hate to comment on that but we all do what we are good at, I suppose.

I know that it is a bipartisan and tripartisan belief that home schooling is a valid choice for many families to make, whatever their own reasons for making that choice – I recognise that every family is different – so long as there is confidence in what will be offered. It sounds good, but guess what? I learned from Estimates that the Government would actually have no way of knowing if there is a single student who is involved in a meaningful learning environment. I have no doubt that it is happening in most or many homes, but I could not even say a figure. I know people who do provide that environment; I know home schoolers. The Government actually saves a massive amount of money – as Mr O’Halloran pointed out, it is about as much as a college would cost – from about 600 home-schooled students in Tasmania, but has shown very little interest. Instead it actually outsources any sense of quality assurance to the Tasmanian Home Education Advisory Council, with a bit of funding, and basically leaves it at that.

When the minister was asked about this she again had no idea, saying that she was not aware of any information. I find that an incredible admission and really very unfortunate. Her deputy secretary got involved and said that for the first time this year TQA will conduct an early leavers survey of all students who leave year 10 and that includes home schoolers. I welcome that but my response is that 12 years, when you include kinder and prep, is a very long time to wait for some data on performance. Of course if, as I suspect is the case, there might be a small number of children who are not getting a quality education or who are getting a clearly substandard education, it will be too late for them. It will be too late at the end of year 10 to do anything for them.

I do not want to hypothesise or guess the minister’s intentions in this case. I was glad that she listened to that argument. I really feel it is an area where a genuine response is warranted. It is not, by the way, a reflection on THEAC, but it is a comment and a concern that I have raised with regard to the structure and regulations which govern home education in this State.

I will make a comment on special needs. It has been great to see additional funding which has helped to meet the additional needs that schools have, particularly with teaching assistant time, but I think we all need to recognise that we should be prepared to investigate with parents and teachers the opportunities they see as valuable in providing the best educational outcomes for their special and additional needs children.

Mr Wightman – We do.

Mr FERGUSON – I think we can always do better. That is why when I make these statements I do not do them in a way that should come across in any way as inflammatory.

I applaud any initiative which puts food in the tummy of a child who has come to school without breakfast, but I asked the minister how can we can better encourage parents to recognise that it is important for them to put food in the tummies of their children. The minister’s response to that was really positive.

With regard to school mergers, the minister was able to satisfy me that any proposed school merges would not go ahead without the support of the school community. Later in the Estimates I asked her the same question with regard to another school, a college which is a school under the Education Act – the Northern Vocational School. I am very disappointed that, despite the Premier’s statements of last year and the message that was given to the community, she will not afford that same level of protection to the Northern Vocational School. Further, I dispute her statement that this school does not have a school community.

Finally, I comment on Cosgrove High School. As I said in my budget response, I applaud initiatives which allow and encourage schools to specialise. That is something, particularly as a Liberal, I applaud and welcome and I think it is a good direction. What I do not accept, though, is budgeting $18 million in a budget-constrained environment. The minister made the startling admission that the first $1 million of that $18 million will be used for planning and building a business case. I would have thought that after 12 years of government you could have done that before you make such promises.

I thank the minister and her staff for the time they invested in the Estimates and look forward to next year.

Mr FERGUSON – I want to thank the minister for her role in Estimates and for the opportunity that the Parliament provides for members of both the Government and the Opposition. While it might occasionally look fierce and feisty, it is a very good process. I think on reflection, if I may say so for both sides concerned, it helps us all to prepare and be better briefed on our portfolio responsibilities. We owe that to our constituents. If it does occasionally get a bit fiery, that is a small price to pay if it helps us resolve issues of importance to members of the community. In response to the Estimates day that was spent with Minister O’Byrne in her role with Tourism and Health, I have a number of comments I would like to contribute today. To me the most important of all those issues – and of course time does not permit me to go into all of them – is the Launceston General Hospital.

I have consistently said that the LGH is one of the best features of our health system in Tasmania. It is not very helpful today to pore over comparative stats, but the fact is that it performs very well in relation to the funding and resourcing that it receives, and the outcomes that are generated as a result. You need only take the average surgical ward in terms of the specialist staff available – surgeons, anaesthetists and so on – and compare the figures, and you will see that you get a much better bang for your buck at the LGH than at some of its peers.

I have said it before and I say it again today, I am very disappointed with the Government. It promised $130 million over five years to boost staffing at the LGH. I know that the Government will want to continue to say, ‘Well, we’ve only funded it over four years, the fifth year is still an outlying year and we’ll get to that’. I understand that, but the point is that the Treasury costings, which were produced on the basis of the Government’s policy, made it quite clear that the Government’s promise – the Labor Party’s promise – was an annual top up of $26 million for the LGH. When I attended on the committee, the minister at the Table said that -

Ms O’Byrne – The tertiary costings don’t have that for the first two years. It’s the -

Mr FERGUSON – When the minister was at the Table, one of the early comments made was, ‘We intended to have majority government.’ I think that line of thought perhaps might have eventuated in the Greens getting some of the blame for this. The second comment was, ‘We have met 75 per cent of our commitments and we aim to meet 100 per cent of our commitments over the life of the Government’.

Frankly, I would have to say, on listening to the minister on that occasion and on poring over the Hansard since then, that she has set herself an impossible challenge, because what the Government has done is to achieve cost savings to that promise by deferring the employment of the promised 260 staff. So by deferring the employment and making patients wait longer for their health services, you have effectively reduced the need for the lost $69 million. I put it to the minister, does that mean there will be $70 million in the outlying year? I suggest that the lost $69 million will likely never make it back into the system, and that is because by 2014-15, the annual amount of additional funding required to maintain the staff will be more like the $26 million per year.

So I would say to the minister -

Ms O’Byrne – Not until it -

Mr FERGUSON – who interjects, congratulations. Your Government’s decision to defer the employment of staff and withhold the promised health services from your constituents, my constituents, has saved you around $43 million in today’s terms. I look forward to my maths being corrected by the minister if she truly believes I am in the wrong. I would say either show me the maths or show me the money.

What is galling about the position that she has taken now is that we are to somehow take the Government on trust that funding will be available in a budget which is not even expected until after another election. Then the minister said – I think clutching at straws – ‘You just want some media’. Well, this is what I find so annoying from my old nemesis, Minister Michelle O’Byrne. She gets -

Ms O’Byrne – Nemesis?

Mr FERGUSON – Well, I am just being rhetorical there. We have been opposing each other for a while, I guess. She gets very narky when I bring up subjects which highlight her failure to the very people that she so often likes to think of as the people for whom she is working here. Instead of trying to change the subject or questioning the motives of the Opposition in legitimately bringing up this important issue, why not just front up that your election promise of $130 million has gained the status of a lie to voters, as has so often been the case with election commitments, where we are told, ‘Don’t worry, the money will turn up on the never-never’.

I am also very committed on the issue of the Government delivering on its promise that it made to people with Parkinson’s Disease and from the Liberals’ point of view I think we are broadening that out more generally to people with neurological disorders. The Liberals promised three dedicated specialist nurses, the Government matched that promise and then bettered it by saying that they would actually provide four and I know that members of the community with Parkinson’s are very anxious about the absence of any funding in the Budget for this initiative. I have read and understood the minister’s comments and I have to say that I am willing to take her on trust on this but we will need to see some action. I just want to put on the record that I will be looking for and hoping that soon we will see evidence that the Government is undergoing the recruitment process for those nurses and helping them, if they need it, to gain the necessary specialist training.

Time is getting away from me but on palliative care funding I applaud the Government for matching the Liberals’ promised commitment. It came very late in the piece but I am a member of the Northern Hospice and Palliative Care Foundation and I know that they took great comfort in knowing that, irrespective of the outcome of the election, the funding would be there for the additional beds for palliative care. It is a very important issue and, given that we are now facing another discussion on euthanasia, I think it is great that we will see progress and I would be supporting you, Minister, the day that I see evidence of those funds being rolled out.

Finally, can I just come briefly to AFL in Tasmania? It has been a longstanding arrangement that all parts of the community understood that AFL games would be attracted to York Park and that international and shield cricket would be attracted to Bellerive and I would say that my political radar is up. I am sensing ambivalence, I am sensing a changing of language from members of the Government, including the northern members, and I would say that we want to be careful here in listening to the words of the Premier. He is now using a different set of words to the ones that we are accustomed to; he is now saying, ‘Nothing we do in football in Tasmania will come at the expense of the four games at York Park or in the north’ and I just want to say we are watching this process. There was a difference of rhetoric between the Wednesday and the Thursday of last week at Estimates and then suddenly a meeting in Hobart with a member of another football club. So my radar is up and I am watching and I, for one, will speak up for football in Launceston because that is what the community expects from all of us, particularly northern members, to be speaking in that fashion.

Bottom line is that you can’t trust Labor with our LGH – just more broken promises and this in the minister’s own home town!  How I wish we could have leadership at this level instead of captivity to the department.

So, at the minister’s excellent suggestion, below is what I peddled to a the hungry beast that afternoon.  Also, I have copied the uncorrected proof Hansard at the bottom of this article.  Comments welcome.

The Minister for Health, Michelle O’Byrne today confirmed her lack of commitment to the people of Bass and her inability to deliver on the promises made regarding the LGH.

During the state election campaign, Labor promised $130 million over five years to the Launceston General Hospital. Had this commitment been kept, it would have enabled the Hospital to employ approximately 260 more clinical staff.

Today the Minister argued that the Greens have compromised their ability to deliver on their election promises and then attempted to maintain that they might still fulfill its promise on staffing – but over a longer period of time and remarkably, also for less money.

The 2010-11 budget shows just $5 million has been allocated to the LGH for staffing and only $61 million has been delivered over the forward estimates – less than half of the promised $130 million.

Only Labor would have the audacity to claim that providing less than half of the funding promised is a promise kept.

Mr FERGUSON – Minister, we have four of the five members for Bass at the table, and we are all concerned about the Launceston General Hospital. In the election, good news for anybody who cares about the LGH was the Government’s commitment – your commitment – to $130 million. You committed those funds over five years, and your Government said that the funding would enable 260 extra staff for the LGH. The Premier said, in his announcement of that funding, and I quote, ‘to enable the LGH to recruit around 150 more nurses, 54 more allied health professionals and eight more medical specialists over the next two years’. Yet on page 5.4 of budget paper 2 it says that you will provide that over time. The two years is dropped – the funding is not there. In fact, less than half of the funding is there, so what is going on? Why was this promise made if you had no intention of delivering on it?

Ms O’BYRNE – We also promised that we were intending to have majority government -

Mr FERGUSON – Are you blaming the Greens?

Ms O’BYRNE – No, no. We have met 75 per cent of our commitments, and we aim to meet 100 per cent of our commitments over the life of this Government. What we have managed to deliver to the LGH -

Mr FERGUSON – $5 million.

Ms O’BYRNE – in two parts, that by the fourth year – this is $61 million over four years and $130 million over 5 years -

Mr FERGUSON – Is there going to be $70 million in the last year?

Ms O’BYRNE – By the fourth year we will be in a position to employ the 260 staff that we have identified. The area that these staff are going to work in, is still under construction. Not an awful lot of them will be knocking walls down and building walls – I think we might have some demarcation issues if we asked them to do that. Staffing levels at the LGH in 2008-09 have been increased with an extra $3 million – part year – to support increased staffing for allied health and rehabilitation services. That has now risen to $4.5 million annually. Also we would like to meet our full commitment for $130 million. What I have, and what I am honest about, is that we have $61 million over four years to enable us to recruit those doctors, nurses, allied health professionals and ancillary staff. It is $5 million for 2010-11, $10 million for 2011-12, $20 million for 2012-13 and the full annual amount of $26 million will be in place by 2013-14.

Mr FERGUSON – I can read the Budget.

Ms O’BYRNE – The progressively increased staffing levels will ensure the hospital facilities being constructed under the Australian Government and State infrastructure program at a cost of $96.8 million have increased staff as they become operational from late 2010, commencing with the acute medicine unit and to address the significant increase in emergency department activity. Our commitment will provide, by 2013-14, around 121 nursing – you might want these figures – 54 allied health professionals, eight medical specialists and approximately 50 support staff, the support staff being cleaning, technical, orderly -

Mr FERGUSON – I have all those numbers; you have just rephrased it.

Ms O’BYRNE – Yes, I realise you have the numbers but you did ask the question so I am giving you the answer.

Mr FERGUSON – But that is not the question I asked.

Ms O’BYRNE – This is in addition to around 38 nursing positions, created in December 2009 for the intensive care unit, the high dependency unit and the northern cardiac unit and these positions are currently being recruited. The northern cardiac unit commenced operation on 26 April and is a significant injection in the staffing and services at the Launceston General Hospital.

Mr BOOTH – So, is it sufficient money to run the services?

Ms O’BYRNE – At this stage we think that it will be in that it gradually brings staff on, but I am happy to work with John Kirwan and the Northern Area Health Service if there are other challenges within that time. We are looking at a gradual employment of staff. In the past, it has been quite difficult to recruit so if you wanted to recruit this amount of people you would start early. Recruitment does not seem to be as much as a challenge for us now, so we can recruit as we need them. That is something that we will monitor. If there becomes an issue with recruitment then we will work with the Northern Area Health Service to deal with it. This is what we think is a sustainable recruitment plan, and we will deliver the $26 million in the final year. A rough general benchmark for each staff position is $100 000, but it clearly alters according to positions.

Mr BOOTH – So, given the obvious change in commitment from prior to the election to now, what areas in the LGH will not be covered as quickly as they would have been under your original promise?

Ms O’BYRNE – What I am saying is that we probably would have had staff on before we needed them under the original announcement, but now we will be bringing them on line as we need them. If it turns out that the opening of the areas is such that we would need to review that then we will.

Mr FERGUSON – Could you see why a member of the public would be very disenchanted with the pre-election statement and the budget papers?

Ms O’BYRNE – Well I am not going to get into what you think somebody might like or dislike about it. I am here to be examined on the budget estimates about what we are funding. I am happy to address the issue between what we had hoped to give and what we have funded; I think I have done that.

Mr FERGUSON – You have taken me for a ride, haven’t you?

Ms O’BYRNE – Oh, Mr Ferguson, I know that you want some media but please do not be ridiculous.

Mr FERGUSON – To meet your $130 million commitment are you forecasting that in 2014-15 there will be something like $70 million?

Ms O’BYRNE – It may be that we are in a position, if it is needed, to bring additional money in the earlier years rather than the out years of the Budget. We have said that we funded 75 per cent of our commitments and we aim to fund the whole 100 per cent over the life of the Government. If there is a need and an opportunity to bring additional staff on within those facilities, if they open then, of course, we will be looking at that.

Mr FERGUSON – Of course, this is half – not even three out of four.

Ms O’BYRNE – Well, it is $26 million by the fourth year, which will fund the staff that we need for the fourth year.

Wednesday 30 June 2010 – Estimates Committee B

DIVISION 3
(Department of Education)

CHAIR – If you want to begin with your statement, Minister.

Ms THORPE – If I could distribute a visual aid, being a schoolteacher.  You will notice that this diagram is circular, and that is because we are not seeing learning as starting at point A and finishing at point B but actually reconnecting back.  The education and training portfolio strategy guides what we do, and that has developed and evolved from the student at the centre to learner at the centre.  It relates to every stage of life from child to parent to citizen to worker to parent to child, and these stages are connected and dependent on each other, as per the diagram.

If you turn over, this is the statewide figures for the school performance reports.  The focus is on improvement: wherever we are, we can do better.  We are open and transparent with data about how we perform, where we need to improve, we resource and support our leaders.  We can demonstrate good improvement over the three years of using data in schools.  We measure and report on 17 important criteria:  the good excellent criteria has increased from six to 10; the concern or issues has reduced from five to three; nine of the 17 are high; and six are high and stable.

Student attendance has been disappointing in 2009 but it can be directly related to swine flu.  But even though we are high nationally, we want a 100 per cent result.  The Budget has new resources specifically aimed at improving weaker areas, so early years, child and family centres are receiving $5 million, innovative education, $5.4 million and additional funds to Raising the Bar Closing the Gap of $9.975 million.

Our message for parents and carers, teachers and students is to make every school day matter.  There is important work under way in other areas too.  A major construction program, including the end of the Building the Education Revolution.  This work has been of vital importance to economic recovery.  We are continuing a strong construction program with new schools, child and family centres, trade training centres and new LINCs.  Progressing the PY10 reforms into the next phase: the stakeholder task force will meet next week on Tuesday, 6 July, and work is under way to draft amendments to the legislation and to prepare course guides for 2011.

The adult literacy strategy is a big commitment to help bring improvement in this area of adult learning.  Just last week, the Australian Industry Group reported that 75 per cent of national employers believed that their businesses were affected by low levels of literacy and numeracy in the adult work force.

We are also concentrating on improving qualifications and productivity.  That is pretty clearly graphically presented in the third page of that handout around attainment.  We are making progress on reducing the number of Tasmanians who have no education beyond year 10.  This has reduced by nearly 12 per cent between 2005 and 2009.  Compared nationally, we perform well in VET qualifications, particularly at Cert III, but we still have a lot more to do in year 12 and with higher level qualifications.

Budget performance - as part of the Government’s strong financial management in 2010-11, all departments need to continue implementing previously established budget management strategies.  I also want to recognise the efforts of the department to minimise out-of-school costs and to direct these resources to schools and to other service areas.  This is a good graphic demonstration of that.  You will notice that in 2005-06, Tasmania was the second highest when it came to expenditure on out-of-school costs.  So per student $916 was being spent on things other than moneys expended directly to learning.  By 2006-07 we had reduced that amount to $859.  By 2007-08 the amounts reduced again to $750.  In 2008-09 the Australian average was $663 and Tasmania is right down there next to the bottom lowest costs for out-of-school costs per student at $639, and the percentage change is 30 per cent.  Over that period between 2005-06 and 2008-09, we have reduced the amount of money that is spent on out-of-school costs per student by over 30 per cent, which I think in anyone’s language is a good thing.

That has led to very efficient centralised services in the department – in fact, I hesitate to say there is no fat left there.  DoE is effectively managing its resources while maintaining front-line services.  The department has successfully managed its budget this year and we have improved outcomes too, and we will continue to manage responsibly into the future.

Student at the Centre began in 2005 with a money-through-the-gate drive.  From December 2004 to December 2009, school bank accounts have increased by 75 per cent or by $16.6 million to $38.8 million.  This is a big investment that schools can use for their students this financial year to make a big difference and to improve outcomes for their students.  The point that needs to be made is that amounts that schools have in the bank account varies over the year.  It is also fair to say that schools keep money in their accounts on a year-to-year basis for quite good purposes.  However, a concern of mine is to make sure that resources that have been directly given to the school to be spent on a particular student cohort are spent on that cohort.  So that is something we are monitoring quite carefully.  Schools manage their own bank accounts.  But when they receive funds for a cohort of students, it is my position it should be spent on that cohort of students.

Our election commitments provide more resources to schools.  It is important for schools to use these resources for the benefit of all their students wisely and in the year that they get them to make every day count.  By that statement I am not saying that school bank accounts should be empty at the end of every calendar year, because there are reasons why schools need to hold money over for the next year, but money that is directly going through the school gate for use on a particular student cohort should be spent on that student cohort and not on a later one, if you take my point.

Just generally on the Budget, there has been some recent media coverage that there has been a decrease in the budget for education and training.  Unfortunately, that coverage was not soundly based as it did not compare like with like figures from one year to the next.  There are many views on how the Budget is constructed.  For example, table 3.2 of budget paper 2 clearly shows that the output group expenditure budget for DoE has increased from $1.164 million to $1.236 million, a clear increase of 6.2 per cent or $72 million.  However, for the sake of simplicity, I will focus on the Consolidated Fund view, which has been referred to in the media.  It compared the final 2009-10 budget of $1.384 million – table A2.2 in budget paper 1 – with the initial budget of $1.340 million for 2010-11, which is at table A2.4 in budget paper 1, and then concluded that the Budget had been reduced by $44 million.  Unfortunately, there is some basic illogic in that.

Firstly, the same table that has been relied on, table A2.2 in budget paper 1, clearly shows that the initial budget for education in 2009-10 was $1.3 million, and this is actually the comparative figure which should be used.  Secondly, each year after a budget is set and published, budget movements occur that were not known at the time of budget development.  These transactions are then included in the year’s activities and presented in the budget papers as the revised expenditure for the preceding year.

[11.30 a.m.]
Mr FERGUSON – Okay, Minister, can we move on?

Ms THORP – Well, there was one more point.  Thirdly, the $84 million increase in education in the 2009-10 figures include significant one-off expenditure from the Federal Government – $19.2 million for BER, $21.9 million for VET, $8.9 million for digital education and $15.7 million in relation to non-government schools.

Mr FERGUSON – Minister, I have a number of matters I’d like to raise during overview and we might be able to go into detail during the outputs discussion.  I would have to say the biggest concern I hold for your department and you as minister is the latest failed change to education, so I want to concentrate for a while on Tasmania Tomorrow.

Ms THORP – Are you referring to the failed old-fashioned college system?

Mr FERGUSON – I am referring to the failed Tasmania Tomorrow initiative, and it seems that those two words have fallen from the vocabulary of this Government.  Has there been any analysis done as to what Tasmania Tomorrow cost the Tasmanian taxpayer in dollar terms?  In terms of content I am looking for some answers with regard to the cost of planning it, the implementation team, the marketing and advertising of it, the setting up of the statutory authorities and any additional funds that were provided for any of the authorities including shared services.

Ms THORP – Sure.  The implementation project was to establish the three new entities and was managed and funded in 2007-08 by DoE through internal funding sources and that came to a total of $680 000.  Additional funding occurred in late 2009 and was provided in recognition of the additional activity following clarification of the August 2009 census.  There was also support for the new organisations in manning their boards, CEO-related costs and costs arising from reconciling the TAFE and college awards, and these funds also supported the shared services project at the end of 2009 and that came to a total of $5 204 000.  There was also capital funding in that period between 2008-09 to 2011-12 -

Mr FERGUSON – We get to keep the capitals so I am not quite as worried about that.  I’m worried about costs we have paid that we’ll never see again.

Ms THORP – Well, that’s not true so you can put your mind at ease.  What is your question?

Mr FERGUSON – What are the public funds that have been spent on Tasmania Tomorrow that we’ve lost?

Ms THORP – Well, I’d argue that nothing has been lost.  The capital funding is there -

Mr FERGUSON – I’m not talking about capital, I’ve just made that clear.  I’m talking about the recurrent costs -

Ms THORP – Do you want an answer or are you just going to keep talking over the top of me?

Mr FERGUSON – Well, you asked what I meant and I’m clarifying the question.

Ms THORP – All right, you don’t want to know about capital funding.

Mr FERGUSON – I know about capital funding and that’s not an issue because we get to keep bricks and mortar.  What I’m concerned about is the amount of money the taxpayer has spent on Tasmania Tomorrow which has now gone.

Ms THORP – Well, spent money does not imply that it has gone and been wasted because significant achievements have been made with that money.

Mr FERGUSON – But now Tasmania Tomorrow is gone -

Ms THORP – No, it hasn’t.

Mr FERGUSON – Well, would you like to say that Tasmania Tomorrow is still alive and kicking?

Ms THORP – The post-year 10 reform program is still going ahead.  It has been modified -

Mr FERGUSON – So what’s happening to Tasmania Tomorrow?

Ms THORP – Tasmania Tomorrow post-year 10 reform is ongoing.

Mr FERGUSON – It’s alive and kicking?

Ms THORP – It’s ongoing.

Mr FERGUSON – That’s the first time I’ve heard you say that since 7 June.

Ms THORP – You’re not always in the same room as I am, are you?

Mr FERGUSON – No, but the best part of $7 million has been expended on Tasmania Tomorrow, the failed experiment -

Ms THORP – It has achieved significant results.  Would you like to know what they are?

Mr FERGUSON – We can come back to that, but I’m asking at the moment about expenditure, so don’t try to spin it just yet; we can come to that in the outputs if you like.

Ms THORP – Dear, oh dear; I’m sick of the tone already.

Mr FERGUSON – How much of the $7 million would you say -

Ms THORP – Which $7 million?

Mr FERGUSON – You’ve outlined $680 000 out of internal budgets and then you described at the end of 2009 an additional injection of $5 million.

Ms THORP – The $7 million refers to capital works and I thought you were okay with that.

Mr FERGUSON – It is $7 million you’ve outlined that you’ve spent on Tasmania Tomorrow.

Ms THORP – No, I said $680 000 on the implementation project and then $5 204 000 in additional funding around the new organisations and also the increases because of so many more students coming into the system – another indication of the success.

Mr FERGUSON – So of that $6 million, how much value would you say we have had from that?

Ms THORP – We have increased enrolments by 5 per cent and an additional nearly 5 per cent of students have a qualification post-year 10.  That data has been validated by the Auditor-General so I’d call that a success.

Mr FERGUSON – The Auditor-General asked questions about some of the enrolment figures; in fact they were up and down by less than 10 per cent in all campuses, I think, except for Hellyer.  Has your department done any analysis -

Ms THORP – Which is interesting, given that was the one that had the most time to implement the reforms.

Mr FERGUSON – That is interesting and I’d be very happy to hear from you later about the reasons you think Hellyer had such a dramatic and successful increase in enrolment.  Has the department done any analysis as to what the reform agenda has cost, other than those you have just outlined?

Ms THORP – Those are the figures.

Mr FERGUSON – Has anybody asked the question?  Have you asked the department?

Ms THORP – Of course, and those are the figures.

Mr FERGUSON – So in your opinion, what would be the cost in dollar terms of the changes you are now about to embark on?

Ms THORP – If you go to the budget papers and add together the amount for post-compulsory colleges that are still operating under the old traditional college system and add those totals to the amounts for the Academy and the Polytechnic, you’ll get the ongoing funding for post-year 10.

Mr FERGUSON – So you don’t know.  You’ve directed me to the budget papers but I just asked if the department has done an analysis of what the new raft of changes are expected to cost.  Can I just point out that the budget papers assume that -

Ms THORP – We are not creating any more new structures.

Mr FERGUSON – No, the budget papers imply that the current system will be ongoing.

Ms THORP – The numbers were fixed firm before the changes I announced occurred.

Mr O’HALLORAN – This is to do with the 39 per cent increase at Hellyer.  I am curious as to how that increase in enrolment was achieved.  Having worked in the system myself it just seems like a huge increase in the number of students from one year to the next and I would just like some clarification.  It’s not in the Auditor-General’s report, that’s for sure, and he wasn’t able to explain it.

Ms THORP – I’m sorry, it was in the report.

Mr O’HALLORAN – I know it’s in the report but in the briefing I didn’t get any satisfaction from the answer that was given.

Ms THORP – You’d have to take that up with the Auditor-General.  He did his task.

Mr O’HALLORAN – I did, but I think there are people here – or certainly out the back – who could answer the question as to why there was such a dramatic increase of 39 per cent.  The reason I ask the question is that the Premier is using it to support a claim he made last year in Parliament and it has been used again today to suggest that Tasmania Tomorrow has been a success, more or less, so I would like some clarification as to what would account for that increase of 39 per cent.

Ms THORP – Fair enough too, but given that we are in the overview at the moment the representatives from the Polytechnic and Academy did not anticipate your drilling down into that level of detail.

Mr O’HALLORAN – I’m happy to leave it till later.

Mr FERGUSON – We’re all interested, actually.

Mr O’HALLORAN – It was just that you said there was a 5 per cent increase in enrolments across the board but the Hellyer amount accounts for just about all of it.

Ms THORP – I will refer you to pages 16 and 17 of the report.

Mr O’HALLORAN – I’ve read the report.

Mr FERGUSON – Paul is only saying what the Auditor-General said.

Ms THORP – This is what the Auditor-General said:

‘Additional sampling conducted at Hellyer provided reassurance that student enrolment records were correct.  Factors contributing to the increase may have included community support certificated outcomes from compulsory education in a predominantly trade-based area; a greater number of students entering year 10 with a reduction in post-year 10 students continuing at district high schools; proven retention of students from year 11; an increased number of students enrolling from the non-government sector; reduced employment opportunities for young people dure to the economic climate; an enhanced range of options available to post-year 10′ -

Mr O’HALLORAN – Yes – can we come back to that later on, because there are some specific questions I’d like to ask about that.

Ms THORP – Sure.

Mr O’HALLORAN – Regarding the handout that has been given out – and thank you very much for that – can you explain -

Ms THORP – Is it this the one you want explained?

Mr O’HALLORAN – Yes.

Ms THORP – What that is showing is the highest educational attainment from a cohort between 15-64 years, so those three columns reflect Australia in 2009, Tasmania in 2009 and Tasmanian in 2005.  In Tasmanian in 2005 for approximately 42 per cent of that cohort the highest educational attainment was year 10.  In 2009 it was about 32 per cent but the Australian figure is down there at about 23 per cent.

Mr O’HALLORAN – Okay, that’s good; I’m happy with that.

Ms THORP – So we were far too over-represented in the number of our citizens between the ages of 15 and 64 whose highest level of attainments is year 10.

Mr O’HALLORAN – I have another question about school attendance, which is trending down and is clearly an area of concern.  The reason it is an area of concern for all of us, I guess, is that it is symptomatic of other problems.

Ms THORP – The explanation from our point of view is that direct relation to swine flu.  I have the figures for all the States, male and female, by every year from year 1 up to year 10, and in 2007 – which is the most recent of these national figures we have – Tasmania had the highest attendance rates in years 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, was rated second in the country for years 8 and 9, and third for year 10.  Having said that, I want every kid to be there every day, so even if the figures are up there at 99.9 per cent I’d still be saying there is room for improvement.

Mr O’HALLORAN – Okay.  So as a general trend, is attendance trending up or down in Tasmanian schools?

Ms GALE – It is stable.

Mr O’HALLORAN – I am pleased to hear you say that.  It is clear there needs to be a major focus because you have to have kids sitting in classrooms if you want them to learn.  What are doing to address this situation?

Ms THORP – I have just said that we lead the nation in attendance across many year groups but I reiterate that we won’t be happy until it is 100 per cent.  That is probably an unrealistic aim but there is no harm in trying.  The work we’re doing is around making every day count because we believe it is crucial that students develop the habit of regular attendance at an early age.  Do we have copies of this available?  I’m launching that at lunchtime which I think you’ll see is a really good tool.  It is aimed at the parents of children from kinder to year 1, talking about how they can best help maximise their child’s results at school and emphasising right through it that every day at school matters.  It is particularly aimed at the younger group because if you can establish those attendance habits and a family attitude to school attendance early on, that’s the way to go.

As you would know as a teacher yourself, when teachers plan their learning sequence over weeks and months to a term or whatever, everything is in a sequence, so when a child misses one or two days at school, whilst every effort can be made to help them catch up, it does make it more difficult for them, so the message needs to get out there that every day matters, as the brochure is titled.

Mr FERGUSON – Minister, if we can go back to Tasmania Tomorrow, in your earlier answers you described it as an ongoing success.

Ms THORP – It’s an ongoing reform and the results are beginning to show.  For example -

Mr FERGUSON – If you don’t mind, I might just ask the question.

Ms THORP – No, you made a statement and I’m responding to it.

Mr FERGUSON – I’m asking a question.

CHAIR – The minister will respond to the statement.

[11:45 a.m.]
CHAIR – The Minister will respond to the statement.

Mr FERGUSON – Okay, let’s hear it.

Ms THORP – That is, for example with the TCE results we have only had one cohort go through so we have not had the opportunity, in that particular area, to see the full value of the changes that have been made because we have only had half a cohort.

Mr FERGUSON – You would recall the briefing session that you and I attended at Newstead College in mid-May, I think.  You said to the group, I think towards the end of the session, that change is essential, it is not working as well as it should and you could fix this.  You come along today and you described it as an ongoing reform.  You described in very positive terms and you continue to run out statistics that seem to support your argument.  Why are you running these mixed messages?

Ms THORP – I think we need to realise that the reform had certain intentions.  We all know those intentions were to make sure that when kids go on to post-year 10 education at their end of their time at college, TAFE or whatever they would get a qualification.  An extraordinary number of our students were not.  The kinds of issues that you and I heard at Newstead were specifically around teachers having difficulty teaching across both the Academy at the Polytechnic, some students having difficulty in enrolling in subjects that were both offered at the Academy and the Polytechnic.  There were issues around shared services and IT.  There were more subjective issues like the loss of collage identity and people grieving for that sense of place.

I think all of those things more than likely would have been worked through without major changes to the reform, but you and I know the political reality of what occurred of 20 March.  That was, the Labor government went into the election saying that we wanted to keep going with the reforms did not win a majority.  For me as Education Minister tasked across this area I had to find a way forward that would mean that we could keep going with the good parts, the intent of the reform and also address the problems in such a way that you may find yourselves supporting the legislation when it gets to your House and in a form that the Greens were able to support.

If we had stuck to our guns and said that we would not change anything, you guys would have voted the whole thing down and we would have rolled right back to the old-fashioned college system which was failing a considerable proportion of our kids.  I did not want to see that happen and I am sure you did not want to see it happen either.  What we have come up with is a compromise – that is, retaining as far as we can the good intent of the reform while also recognising that the community, via their votes in many instances, said that they had real concerns with the way the reforms were progressing and they wanted to see change.  I think we recognised that.

Mr FERGUSON – The intent of the reforms was really not controversial from the Liberal Party’s perspective, but it is the way that have been implemented and rushed that we have a problem with.  My question is based on everything you have just outlined.  Do you even support the changes that you announced on 7 June?  Do you really want them to go ahead?

Ms THORP – My preference would have been for Labor to have won the election and to have been able to proceed with Tasmania Tomorrow as it was originally envisaged, still acknowledging that when any reform comes in there will be issues that need to be addressed on a daily basis – practical, simple implementation issues, costing issues and funding issues – who pays for what.

Mr FERGUSON – You do not want to do this, do you?

Ms THORP – Preferably not, but I have been quite open about this.

Mr FERGUSON – The Education Minister has just admitted that she does not support the reforms that she took to Cabinet.

Ms THORP – I admitted – although ‘admitted’ is not the right word – I outlined my position on post-year 10 reforms at the Legislative Council committee on Monday.  We are facing the political reality that without making changes to the system – and the changes we are making are considerable, as you know the boards of both the Academy and the Polytechnic have been abolished, all the responsibilities for those areas will go back to DoE, that is pretty substantial.  We are re-introducing separate identities for each of the eight colleges and making sure there is a principal-leader in each of those campuses to overcome some of the go-to issues that people identified at meetings such as the one in Newstead and ones I attended with Mr O’Halloran.

Mr FERGUSON – On the one hand in your media release you described them as ‘refinements’ and of the other hand today you are describing the changes to post-year 10 reforms – if we are no longer calling it Tasmania Tomorrow – as ’substantial’.  If they are substantial and we have just six months in which to implement those changes in time for the -

Ms THORP – How will we get it done?

Mr FERGUSON – That is the question – how will you get that done in six months given that we have wasted three months since the election?

Ms THORP – I would argue that we have not wasted three months.  The election was on 20 March and I was not sworn in as Education Minister until 21 April.  It is now 30 June so that is only about two months and a bit, by my reckoning.  In that time we have managed to realise and recognise that post-year 10 reform as an issue – politically, in the community and particularly for parents and kids – had to be looked at and had to be addressed.  There was confusion in the community about where we were going to go with it given the positions of the parties coming up to the election.

The first meeting of the advisory group about the implementation is scheduled for next Tuesday.  It is under the chairmanship of Mr Tim Doe and I do not think anyone would argue he is anything other that one of the foremost educators in the State, particularly the post-year 10 area.  That group will be made up of representatives of the AEU – in recognition of the considerable interest of the AEU in this area they will have three representatives, one from the AEU in general, one from their secondary school sector and one from their TAFE sector – and representatives of the CPSU, the LHMU, the TCCI, the Parents and Friends Association, the Principals Association and the three boards.

Mr FERGUSON – A representative of the three boards or the three boards?

Ms THORP – A representative of the three boards.  For example, we wrote to the chair of the Academy, Ms Kim Boyer, to invite her or her representative to participate and we did the same for the Polytechnic.

Mr O’HALLORAN – I am interested in this, having been involved in the negotiation.

Ms THORP – And the negotiations were considerable, weren’t they?

Mr O’HALLORAN – A lot of time went into trying to get it right, that is for sure.  The political reality was a 10, 10, five result.  We went to the election with our policy, the Liberal Party went to the election with their policy to restore the colleges and the Labor Party went to the election with a policy to keep going ahead.  Clearly the election result indicated that the community wanted change so we worked together to develop a model to bring about change and address some of the issues.  Some good things have come out of Tasmania Tomorrow, I do not dispute that at all.

Ms THORP – And are yet to come out of it.

Mr O’HALLORAN – But the community had lost confidence and we needed to develop a new model.

CHAIR – Are you asking a question, Mr O’Halloran.

Mr O’HALLORAN – Yes, I will.  I need to get the context sorted now.

Mr FERGUSON – You are about to admit that you are part of the problem.

Mr O’HALLORAN – We needed to come up with a solution to address the community’s issues and a way ahead to address the original intended outcomes of Tasmania Tomorrow. I am hopeful that we will all agree -

Mr FERGUSON – Madam Chair, on a point of order, we are wasting time now which is so much like the time that the Greens and the Labor Party wasted on Tasmania Tomorrow.  Can we have a question, please?

CHAIR – Mr O’Halloran, I would ask you to get to your question.

Mr O’HALLORAN – Are you acknowledging that many elements of Tasmania Tomorrow were flawed?  I can run through them with you if you like, but we have discussed them already.  Will those elements be addressed in the restructured model?

Ms THORP – Rather than a statement as bald as that I would prefer to recognise that this was a reform that was to occur over a period of time.  That time has not elapsed.  At the point when the discussions we needed to have had to happen, there were things that needed improvement.  I could sit here and argue that, given the fullness of time, we could have got through them without radical changes, but that was not the community’s position, it was not the Greens’ position and it was not the Liberal Party’s position.  In the best interests of the children of Tasmania we had to come to a compromise and that is what we have done.

Mr O’HALLORAN – I believe one of the basic failures of Tasmania Tomorrow was its implementation.  I do not think the resources were devoted and enough time and thought were given to the implementation and taking the broader community along with the changes.  We have negotiated on the members an implementation team and I think it is a very representative.  What resources – people and financial resources – will be allocated to make sure that this time we get the restructure right so the community can have confidence in the PY10 sector?

Mr SMYTH – I guess the full resources of the department are going to be supporting the changes.  The task force that the Minister set up have not yet met.  They will be setting an implementation guide to deliberate on and to comment on.  I believe from the work and development of that guide we will be able to work out what resources we have to put to the task.  However, I would say that we are not creating new structures – we are actually going back into some of the existing structures: whether Polytechnic, Academy or college structures they all exist and we are not creating new shared services but are bringing together the services we have.  We are not creating new course guides and such things and there is already a group working between the department, the Academy and the Polytechnic to develop course information for students.  Adult students of the Polytechnic will continue as they have been and the Skills Institute will continue as it was.  A lot of the things that happened when we moved to the new model will not happen as we move through this transition.

With the guidance of the stakeholder group I believe with a fairly light touch we can move seamlessly into the arrangements because naturally some of them take us back to the places where we were.  Another important thing is that all of the staff of the Polytechnic and the Academy – and of course departmental staff – will be in the department and we have whole sets of policies, procedures and practices that we use to manage staffing, teachers and all of those arrangements in the department.  They fall naturally under them, the are no new organisations that have to create new boards and new policies and then try to operate statewide, which was part of the challenge in the implementation I think you were referring to.  Those things will not be necessary so I think this is not a high-cost exercise.  By bringing together the groups of people who are really committed to making this work for young people – which is where we all want it to be – I think we can move through the process.

Mr O’HALLORAN – When you say ‘bringing together groups of people’, are you talking about the implementation team or other groups of people?

Mr SMYTH – There will be the implementation team and we already have a team working on the post-year 10 information so students currently in year 10 will get the information they need to go into the new arrangements next year.  We already have a team working on legislation.  All of that will go forward to the task force for their comment and review.  We have not lost time, we working on it.

Mr O’HALLORAN – Clearly, you have been considering an overall leader who will be in charge of 15- to 19-year-old education rather than the two you have now in the Academy and the Polytechnic.  Is that your thinking.

Ms THORP – Yes, but we have not made any firm decisions about that yet because we want to be informed by the group.

Mr O’HALLORAN – Who will have responsibility for RTI status?  Have you gone that far yet?  Will a proposal go to the task force?

Ms THORP – We have done a lot of work on a draft implementation guide, but I want to be informed by the implementation task force.

Mr O’HALLORAN – Will the implementation task force be the key decision maker?

Ms THORP – No, they will be providing advice.  A lot of work has gone into an implementation plan which will go the advisory group I talked about before.  Once issues have been worked through, that will come back to me.

Mr O’HALLORAN – What if there is disagreement between the implementation task force and you?

Ms THORP – I am the minister and I have to stay in charge.

Mr FERGUSON – Minister, during the one month of negotiations between the Government and Mr O’Halloran, why were you able to come up with a ‘refinement’, as you called it, during that one-month period.  Why is it that during that same time the implementation plan was not drawn up in a parallel process?

Ms THORP – We wanted to hear the advice of the people we went out to speak to first.

Mr FERGUSON – You were able to come up with a plan for change – at least you were able to come up with the refined model – but why is it that, in tandem with that, an implementation plan was not being built within the department or within your office so that we did not waste that precious time, given that today we are on the cusp of a new financial year.  We are six months away from the new school year.

Ms THORP – To do that would have been to pre-empt what I was getting back from all the colleges and campuses that I visited – teachers, staff the TCCI – all the people I spoke to in that period.  At the same time it was necessary to make sure that the concerns, in this instance of the Greens, were realised because had they not been, then no matter what I had done, it would have been a waste of time because it would have been voted down on the Floor of the House.

Mr FERGUUSON – Well, we don’t know that.  By the way, during that time I was certainly unaware that there was a negotiation going on because the Greens were letting us believe that they were dealing with us as well.  Was I wrong?  Was it not a one-month negotiating period with the Greens, or was it shorter?

Ms THORP – I was sworn in on the Wednesday.  During my first week in office we organised the trips all round the State, which I did over the next two-and-a-half weeks -

Mr FERGUSON – So between when you were sworn in in late April and when you announced the changes on 7 June – the best part of six weeks – how much of that time would you describe as a negotiating period?

Ms THORP – Well, I wasn’t actually involved in the negotiations on a direct basis; that was done very much at officer level -

Mr FERGUSON – So you don’t know?

Ms THORP – There were considerable conversations, but I was doing a lot of other things -

Mr FERGUSON – I am sure you were, but underneath all these questions is the big question: why is it that was have an implementation task force, which I can see is a good step – big though it is, I am not sure that you will need a convention centre to get them to meeting – but they still don’t have anything that they can as to what the plan consists of and what the implementation plan is.

Ms THORP – They will have it on Tuesday.

Mr FERGUSON – What guarantee would you give today to parents and students that your refinements will occur on time without further endangering student education?

Ms THORP – I am confident that the refinements will be read for the 2011 school year.

Mr FERGUSON – When will we see legislation and when will the public be able to see what the implementation plan will consist of?  Is it finished?

Ms THORP – It is in draft and it will go to the advisory group on Tuesday to see whether or not they think we are on the right path.

Mr FERGUSON – Have the group been able to see the draft?

Ms THORP – They will see it on Monday afternoon.

Mr FERGUSON – So the group haven’t seen the draft yet and they are meeting in less than a week.

Ms THORP – They will see it on Monday afternoon.  You would understand that I have obligations to my Cabinet colleagues to ensure that they are kept up to speed as well.  Cabinet will meet on Monday, when it will look at the plan, and then it will go to the group on Monday afternoon in time for the meeting on Tuesday.  That will not be their only meeting.

Mr FERGUSON – What matters does Cabinet need to agree to that were not agreed to on 7 June?  I understood that Cabinet had already supported your plan.

Ms THORP – Part of the model, if you like, that I took to Cabinet, undertook future work to develop an implementation plan, which I also undertook to take back to Cabinet – and I am doing that on Monday – and the group’s meeting on Tuesday.  That will not be their only meeting – they are not just having one.

Mr O’HALLORAN – Six weeks to me seems like a very reasonable amount of time to do all the consultation and negotiation.  A lot of work went on behind the scenes, as we both know.  There are certain safeguards built into it, Mike, and I can give them to you right now if you like, and they were negotiated mainly through us, to maintain the integrity of the position that we took to the election.

Mr BROOKS – Is this another statement?

Mr O’HALLORAN – Well, it is really – it is trying to -

Mr BROOKS – Then you’re on the wrong side, Mr O’Halloran.

Mr O’HALLORAN – So do you consider that six weeks was a reasonable time frame to do all that needed to be done?

Ms THORP – Yes.

Mr FERGUSON – Minister, there is a serious concern that the people who are being put in charge of sorting out the Tasmania Tomorrow mess within your department and in the statutory authorities to a lesser degree are in many cases people who stand to lose the most in any restoration of the colleges?

Ms THORP – Concern from whom?

Mr FERGUSON – You want me to name the people who have made known those concerns to me?  Absolutely not.

Ms THORP – So how do I know that the serious concerns are not fabricated?

Mr FERGUSON – Because I am saying it, and I am raising it at budget Estimates, Minister.  What assurances can you give today that personnel who have recently enjoyed significantly increased salaries and European cars are capable of maintaining an appropriate level of objectivity in redefining the Tasmania Tomorrow experiment?

Ms THORP – I am quite confident that that is the case.

Mr FERGUSON – So you are giving me that assurance that this aspect will not be a concern in achieving the best outcomes for students.

Ms THORP – I would like to put on the record my incredible gratitude to people like Michael Vertigan, Kim Boyer, James Creton, the boards of very respected Tasmanians who came together with one ambition, and that was to improve post-year 10 education in Tasmania.  I would also like to place on the record my appreciation of the hard work by Belinda McLennan and people like Mike Brakey, who have done a magnificent job.  They have put their heart and soul into this over a period of time.  If, as you say, there is serious concern -

Mr FERGUSON – There is.

Ms THORP – in the community about the competence and professionalism of these people, I suggest you go back to your source and ask them to substantiate those claims.

Mr FERGUSON – I find it extraordinary that I chose not to name anybody in that question, and you just did.

Ms THORP – Is this a question?

Mr FERGUSON – It certainly was, and I understand that you have just now given me that assurance so all those people who have raised those concerns that you seem to have passed over will be watching this.  My last question on this overview subject – Hobart College in particular will be watching this question -

Ms THORP – I used to teach there.

Mr FERGUSON – Great!  Minister, what date will the legislation be introduced into the House?

Ms THORP – I don’t have a date.

Mr FERGUSON – Do you have target date for when we might see some legislation, or will this be a repeat of 2008?

Ms THORP – What happened in 2008?

Mr FERGUSON – In 2008 the legislation for the following year was tabled in November.

Ms THORP – The legislation is being drafted as we speak.  As you know, it is not, in and of itself, particularly complex legislation.  The chances of getting it through in this session are remote, but I need to take the legislation to Cabinet.  We do have a detailed time line that we are working to, that we do not have here with us.

Mr FERGUSON – Is it a concern though, isn’t it?

Ms THORP – All these things are of concern.  We have a school year starting in 2011 and the teaching, student and broader communities all need to have certainty.  I am very aware of that.

Mr FERGUSON – High schools need certainty too.

Ms THORP – Absolutely.

Mr O’HALLORAN – When will school communities get a closer look at the model that has been prepared?

Ms THORP – It is pretty well out there now.  Basically, all year 10 students will be able to go to their local college and enrol.  Each of those campuses will be a campus of the Academy, but it will also be the task of that group to facilitate enrolment into the Polytechnic.  Prior to that time, there is work going on – and I know you will get to pathway planning later – in all our schools, particularly in year 10, to develop a pathway forward for each of the year 10 students.  Towards the end of the year more interdisciplinary people will be working back in the school communities with those students to ensure that all end up going to their enrolment with a clear idea of the pathway they want to take.  It is my intention – and I hope everyone agrees that this is a good way to go – that if we have a cohort of 100 students who turn up at a particularly campus with their plan for the future in their hand, they are enrolled in the appropriate subjects to get them where they want to go.  At the end of those two years we will be able to measure success by how many of those students have actually achieved what they have set out to do.  I think that is much more realistic than some of the ways statistics have been kept in the past where you have a raw head count at the beginning of one year and raw head count at the end and measure in between.

Mr O’HALLORAN – So the students who are enrolled currently will be enrolled, say, into VET programs?

Ms THORP – For example, a hypothetical kid whom we shall call Tom Smith is currently attending Clarence High School.  The pathway planning work going on in that school is already informing where that student wants to go in 2011 and 2012.  By the end of the year that student should have a clear idea of what they want to do and where they want to go and where they need extra assistance to establish that future plan, that assistance will be provided.  You can go into that in detail later if you like.  That student will then go to Rosny College, turn up on enrolment day and say, ‘This is what I want to do.’  It might be straightforward – they want to go to university and become a teacher, for example.  Or they might want to become a dentist, in which case they know they need to do physics, chemistry and whatever.  Or they might decide they want to become a surveyor through an applied learning plan.  That individual student will then be matched to the subjects they need to do to get to where they want to go.  The situation will not be as it has been in the past – ‘I really don’t know what I want to do’, ‘So how about you go and learn how to grow lettuces for two years’ and at the end of it that student has nothing.

Mr O’HALLORAN – Basically what you are saying is that the local college will become the broker of a learning program for that particular student, which I think is terrific -

Ms THORP – I think that is fair to say.

Mr O’HALLORAN – Now that learning program could be either in the college doing academic subjects or it could be in the college doing a vocational course – for example, in hospitality.

Ms THORP – Yes, but the big difference is that instead of having that artificial barrier that we used to have between certificate I and II and certificate II and IV and advanced diploma, they have immediate access.

Mr O’HALLORAN – That is fantastic.  So basically what this means – and I guess this is down to whoever is involved in the implementation of this – is that there will need to be a syncing up of timetables and IT resources, which should be made much easier now because it is all coming under the DoE.

Ms THORP – I believe that that will sort out some of the issues that the community saw as a real problem -

Mr O’HALLORAN -Well, they were a problem.

Mr FERGUSON – It seems that everyone except the Labor Party recognises that.

Ms THORP – Yes, but we are not flash Harrys; we just want to keep going and work through problems.

We were talking earlier about expertise and the capacity to implement radical change in the education system post-year 10.  Jon, who is sitting next to me, was also the one who made all the huge changes in TAFE in 1988 when Sue Napier was Education minister.

Mr FERGUSON – I don’t think they were quite as rushed.  I am not sure that that is a good comparison for you, but if you want to take up the committee’s time with stuff to do with 1988 -

Ms THORP – No, I am just referring to the fact that I am confident that we have the expertise to ensure that these changes occur well.

Mr FERGUSON – Can we go into the budget strategy – hopefully, still in overview.  I have a series of questions.  I might just give you the flavour of them and it might be more helpful if you are able to guide us through the information that I am seeking, which is to know what the department’s budget management strategy objectives are, particularly relating to redundancies and the Government’s nominal target of reducing the State Service by 800.  What contribution did the department make to the budget commitment of a reduction in 25 SES positions?  I also want to talk about the frontline services security fund.

Mr GLASS – I will probably cover off all of the budget management strategies that the department has followed through.  I think it is fair to say that within DoE there was a very conscious effort as part of our budget manage strategies to continue to resource the frontline services.  I think the minister in a handout referred to what has happened to out-of-school costs.  In fact there has been a significant reduction there.  But in focusing on maintaining and resourcing frontline services, the department is saying that both salary and non-salary budgets in the non-school areas would be reduced to enable us to keep that front-line resourcing at a significant level.

[12.15 p.m.]
There are three or four different budget strategies.  The first one, and probably the biggest one, relates to staffing.  In the non-school area, staffing reductions have been achieved across the following areas and I will list those:  in corporate services as at 31 March 2010, we have reduced corporate services staffing by 52.3; in the Community Knowledge Network area, and part of that was through transitioning to the new organisation of Community Knowledge Network over the last couple of years, we have achieved staff reductions of 31.8; in learning services we have achieved staffing reductions of 45 FTEs; Skills Tasmania, 9.1; and in the strategic policy and performance area, which includes educational performance services and early years, four FTEs – so a total of 142.2 positions as at 31 March this year.  There were five SES positions included in that, and that was our contribution towards the 25 that you mentioned in your question.

Very quickly, how did we achieve those position savings?  It was through a range of things, obviously through attrition, through staff turnover, and redeployment particularly with learning services to school-based roles so at the front line.  We looked at corporate services through operational reform in the review and also through strong management of vacancies and fixed term positions.  Looking at the non-salaried areas of non-school areas: no non-salary indexation provided; motor vehicle fleet reduction where we have reduced our motor vehicle fleet by 37 vehicles or 19 per cent; reduction in mobile phones by 140; and a significant reduction in travel costs across all non-school areas. A by-product of that type of thing, because we have only just recently done the calculation, is that $100 000 has been saved in fringe benefit tax because of less vehicles and less mobile phones.

The final aspect of the budget management strategies is work force management – I suppose ensuring that all areas of the department, schools and non-school business units, are staffed to their budget entitlement only.  We have done that through improving our work force monitoring systems.  We also have an internal group, which is called the work force review group, which I chair.

Ms THORPE – If I may, I think it is important at this point to say that this was all done in a climate that led to continuous improvement in the outcomes for kids.  The Budget efficiencies had to be found and they were tough, but still in an environment where outcomes for kids are improving.

Mr O’HALLORAN – I think it belongs here and it is a bit related to that answer.  I think we would all agree that leadership is fundamental for driving change, and change is always with us, probably more so than now.  It has always worried me that there is not equity in terms of leadership across the sectors, especially in primary schools.

Ms THORPE – What do you mean?

Mr O’HALLORAN – You can have a primary school say of 400 students, who will have a principal but will not have the same number of assistant principals and ASTs that an equivalent-sized high school or college would have.  I am not saying that there should be less for the other sectors, but I cannot understand why, when the most difference you can make to a young person’s life is in early years and primary school, is there not more leadership at least equating to the other sectors when it can make the most difference?  It is so fundamental to driving change.

Ms THORPE – I understand where you are coming from in the sense of recognising the importance of the primary years but I do not agree with the way that you are describing the resource packages for schools – I do not think that is accurate.

Mr O’HALLORAN – I can give you some examples.

Ms THORPE – There are apparent things you are saying, for example, there are no APs -

Mr O’HALLORAN – No, I did not say that.  What I said was there does not seem equity around or equality even - I will use the word equality here - around the number that would be in a high school or college per student population compared with the number in primary schools, especially considering that most primary schools are teaching most of the same.

Ms GALE – Minister, through you, that is one of the subjects of the school resourcing review which is currently being undertaken where we are looking at not only the allocative mechanisms for school resource packages but also the allocations of staffing.  There are several stages to that review, and looking at the staffing allocations and how that works will be in the second phase of the review.  Firstly, we will be looking at the allocations through the school resources package, and then we will be looking at staffing allocations.

Mr O’HALLORAN – The reason I bring it up is that I have an association with Penguin Primary School and their numbers dipped below 500 or 400 and they lost their substantive assistant principal.  I can never understand when the need for change was so great – there were so many initiatives going on – that they did not seem to have the leadership capacity to implement all the terrific stuff that they were doing.

Ms THORPE – The issues that you are raising there, as Jenny said, are being addressed.

Mr O’HALLORAN – I am really pleased to hear that.  That is fantastic.  I had not heard that before, so that is terrific.

Ms THORPE – We are more than happy through this process to provide briefings to yourselves as education spokespeople so that you know what is going on.

Is this a good time, through you Chair?  Earlier on Mr Ferguson asked for some timelines about legislation and I did not have it with me.

Mr FERGUSON – I do not mind except I am conscious of time.  It might be good to come to that.  If you could read it quickly or table it.

Ms THORPE – I can.  For example, develop drafting instructions, 30 June-13 July; drafting instructions signed off, 13-15 July; liaise with parliamentary counsel to develop draft bills, 15 July-1 August.

Mr FERGUSON – Introduce to the Parliament, upper or lower House, I am not fussy.

Ms THORPE – First reading to the House of Assembly, we want it done 21 September, second reading committee, third reading House of Assembly - these dates are only estimates obviously but this is what we are working towards.

Mr FERGUSON – Are you willing to table that?

Ms THORPE – I am happy to do it, but it is a draft.

Mr FERGUSON – That is perfectly good.  Thank you.

CHAIR – Did you have a question, Mr Ferguson?

Mr FERGUSON – I do.  If we can we go back to budget strategy.  Greg, if you could just outline what amount of efficiency dividend in dollar terms, if any, has the department found or been asked to find over the last 12 months other than the staff costs that you have outlined?  Can you put that in context with the budget line item for the additional funding for frontline services and how that fits with everything that is being sought to achieve in the Budget?

Mr GLASS – The task that sat behind the types of strategies that I outlined - I do not have the exact figure but it was in the order of $20 million.

Mr FERGUSON – In total?

Mr GLASS – Yes, in total.

Mr FERGUSON – It was $12.8 million for the coming financial year for extra funding.  I am sorry, you are answering the dividend, okay.

Mr GLASS – Budget management strategies, yes.  Is that the questions you asked?

Mr FERGUSON – Yes, it is.

Mr GLASS – It was in the order of $20 million.  There were many aspects to that and obviously the staffing one was quite a significant one.  Staffing all up would probably return about $13 million, and then other items that I have talked about pick up probably the balance of that.

Mr FERGUSON – How does the Budget line item which is using the words ‘additional funding for frontline services’ fit in with the cost saving measures that you are describing; and how does that funding to agency in a financial sense actually protect front-line services?

Ms THORPE – I am not sure if I am understanding your question correctly.  What you are saying is there is a budget allocation for additional frontline services?

Mr FERGUSON – Yes.

Ms THORPE – That is what the whole management task has been about.

Mr GLASS – Through you, Minister, it is a combination of two things:  it is the figure of $7.83 million added back to our budget for frontline service delivery, and the remainder is the effect of the budget initiatives -

Mr FERGUSON – So the effect is to offset the savings that you have had to find across agency.  Is that a fair comment?

Mr GLASS – A combination of that, plus the budget initiatives that came out of the 2010-11 Budget for new activity.

Mr O’HALLORAN – It is a cross-sector question so I think it belongs here in overview.  I noticed in the Budget there is a three per cent provision for salary increases and a Government commitment to maintain salary relativity like a nexus agreement.  I am just wondering how that is going to work.

Ms THORPE – The next pay rise for teachers is due I believe - please tell me if I get this wrong - about March next year.  The current teaching service industrial agreement contains provision for a further salary nexus increase at the end of February 2011.  On the basis of the pattern over the last 10 years, the next increase after 2011 is not due until March 2012, so that will be an issue for the 2011-12 budget and beyond.

The increase due at the end of February 2011 will be paid as per the terms of the agreement and funded from within the DoE global budget, which has been the case in the past.  It is expected the negotiations for the next teaching staff agreement will commence later this year.  Accordingly, work will be done on the Government’s bargaining position in relation to the next agreement over the coming months.

The current teaching staff agreement contains not only a national salary nexus but also conditions of employment, teacher and student attendance days, et cetera which are linked to the national average.  Basically, the next pay rise that falls within this budget cycle will be at the end of February next year, and that will be in line with the current agreement.  Any changes to that will be subject to negotiations which are already in very preliminary stages, are they?  No, later this year.  We will need then to inform the next budget.

Mr O’HALLORAN – So in principle the Government is committed to the nexus agreement and will fulfil the commitments.

Ms THORPE – We are not going to break agreements, no.

Mr FERGUSON – Minister, a two-part question, and by the way the Opposition will not be getting in between the negotiations; we will adhere to convention, of course.  Does the Government want to indicate a disposition with regard to the salary nexus and if it has been a desirable arrangement; and do you wish to proceed with it based on what it has delivered in the past?

Ms THORPE – One of the important things we need to do is continue to value our teachers.  There is a number of ways we do that, and that includes fair and reasonable remuneration.  But it is also about conditions that are amorphus than that about the way people are treated and perceived in the community.  I see it as one of my priorities in my time as minister to do everything I can to increase the standing and appreciation of teachers in the community.  Clearly, you cannot do that without paying people properly, and I believe we have to make sure that relativities are in place.

Mr FERGUSON – The second part of my question: in light of the fact that you have budgeted for a three per cent salary increase across agency, what would occur if any negotiated outcomes in salary agreements exceeded that amount?

Ms THORPE – That would be a government responsibility.

Mr FERGUSON – Would you fund it from within agency, do you imagine, or would it require an additional appropriation?

Ms THORPE – We would have to have discussions about that, because there is no way -

Mr FERGUSON – You know the reason for the question.  The reason I would ask that question is that I would be wanting to know that school resource packages are protected from any unexpected salary increases that you may agree to as a government.  That is the reason for the question.

Ms THORPE – All of these things have quite a complicated process they go through, including the subcommittee of Cabinet.  Without pre-empting what the outcomes or negotiations will be -

Mr FERGUSON – No, I am not asking you to pre-empt that outcome; I am asking a question about: are you today able to undertake that school provisioning would not be affected by that?

Ms THORPE – I can guarantee that.  We will not be taking money out of schools to fund other things.

Mr FERGUSON – But would that happen around the back door if the agency had to fund it out of its existing budgets?

Ms THORPE – No.

Mr FERGUSON – Minister, what was the total cost of consultancies in 2009-10; and are you able to give any summary of the ones that make up the largest share?

CHAIR – As chair I would argue I have been quite fair and to date you have both had your proportion of questions as to be expected.  I believe Mr Ferguson just asked a question and is waiting for an answer.

[12.30 p.m.]
Ms THORP – This is year to date – 31 May – and these are the contracts over $50 000 that have been awarded.  In the information technology area, in 2007-08 the amount was over $3 million; in 2008-09 it was over $8 million; and this year to date it is $130 000.  In education content and service delivery, in 2008-09 it was $14 million and this years it is $5 million – and I am rounding these figures off.  I can give you exact numbers if you wish.

Mr FERGUSON – Perhaps you could table that.

Ms THORP – It is my internal briefing note but I can make sure -

Mr FERGUSON – Maybe you could take it on notice and provide it later.

Ms THORP – Yes, but basically be assured that this is something people should be pretty happy about because even in those couple of figures I gave there has been a considerable reduction in the amount of money spent.

Mr FERGUSON – Is there any opportunity for you to engage an outside consultant to help you with the now short time frame between now and the end of the year when you need your refinements to Tas Tomorrow to be ready?

Ms THORP – If we decide we need any extra assistance to make sure we make the time line that certainly would be considered, but at this point in time I don’t think it’s going to be necessary.  Then again, I might be being optimistic and further down the track need to reconsider that.

Mr FERGUSON – I do like your optimism; it is one of your best qualities.

Ms THORP – Thank you – I think.

Mr O’HALLORAN – This question has two parts.  What amount of funding has been allocated to the implementation of the Australian Curriculum?  I understand that the rollout will start in 2011 in English, history, maths and science and specifically I would like to know the amount of allocation to educational leadership and professional learning for teachers.

Ms THORP – Under the terms of the National Education Agreement with the Australian Government we are required to have made substantial progress in implementing the curriculum by the end of 2013.  To date we have been involved in consultation trialling processes and mapping of the State and Australian curricula.  We are now ready to plan an implementation time line with input from key stakeholders to ensure that the needs of schools and teachers are met.  Provision has been made within DoE’s budget to employ an initial team of five senior educators from the start of the 2011 school year to support the implementation plan.  The resources required for the completion of the implementation will be considered during 2010-11 with a view to making appropriate provision in the 2011-12 Budget.

Mr O’HALLORAN – Good.

Ms THORP – I am sure it will be of interest to people here that there has been an analysis done on the matching, if you like, of the new Australian Curriculum and the existing Tasmanian curriculum, and on the basis of that analysis it is the view of the consultants that there are no significant implications for either ACARA in English – we have only started with that.  So that’s good news for Tasmania.

Mr O’HALLORAN – There will be an expectation, won’t there, that all government-funded schools will embrace the Australian Curriculum?

Ms THORP – All schools, government and non-government.

Mr FERGUSON – Minister, can you make some comment with regard to – and this came up in last year’s Estimates – the statement that had been made that without the Federal BER funding education expenditure would have been markedly reduced?  I am happy for you to correct me but I’m just repeating what was said last year.

Ms THORP – Yes, but BER was always considered extra.  I mean, thank goodness for it; it was very handy.

Mr FERGUSON – Quite right.  Are you able to provide an indication of the relativity of this year’s education budget in comparison to past years if you were not in receipt of Federal BER funds?  What would it look like?

Ms THORP – Whilst it is true that the Department of Education budget includes the significant impact of the successful negotiation of stimulus package funding and national partnership agreements with the Australian Government to enable Tasmania to target education improvement and reform in a range of important areas, it is also true that other government departments are also benefiting from national partnership agreements and stimulus funding that is enabling them to target priority issues in domains like Health and Human Services.  You would be aware of all the spending for housing, for example.  For 2010-11 the total Consolidated Fund expenditure in the State Budget is $4.509 billion.  Of this, DoE is receiving $1.340 billion or 29.73 per cent of the total.  It is not possible to speculate what share of the State Budget DoE would receive if the BER project had not occurred.

Mr FERGUSON – Why not?  Can’t you just do a subtraction?

Mr GLASS – I can provide a little more information.  DoE’s share of the Consolidated Fund is a reasonably good indicator, and in 2010-11 the department’s share of that was 29.73 per cent.  Last year in 2009-10 it was 30.26 per cent, so it is marginally down.  It is fair to say, as pointed out through the question, that BER is a contributing factor to both those levels.  In 2008-09 the department’s share was 23.64 per cent, and I can give you the figure for that – it was $868 million.  Last year it was $1.3 billion.  The difference between those two of $432 million is not all from BER.  BER was of the order of $200 million -

Mr FERGUSON – National partnerships?

Mr GLASS – Yes – well, there are a lot of things that come in like budget initiatives et cetera.  So BER is a contributing factor to the significant increase in our budget share but not the full factor.

Mr FERGUSON – The document you’re reading from is probably protected.  Is there something you can provide us later on?

Mr GLASS – We can probably provide something.

Mr O’HALLORAN – Another question related to the Australian Curriculum.  You said that all schools are expected to implement all elements of the Australian Curriculum as they come onstream.

Ms THORP – With support.

Mr O’HALLORAN – What if there were schools that refused to become involved in all aspects of the Australian Curriculum?

Ms THORP – Well, I am anticipating that, similar to English, there won’t be huge gaps.  Australian government funding could well be at risk if schools do not comply.

Mr O’HALLORAN – What about Tasmanian funding that would go to a school that refused to comply?

Ms THORP – I just can’t anticipate that happening, quite frankly.

Mr O’HALLORAN – My next question is about teacher assistant stand-down provisions.  You went to the election with a commitment to improve teacher assistant stand-down provisions and we went to the election with a commitment that Tasmania would work under the Victorian model, so I am wondering in the budget what funds have been set aside for a commitment on TA stand-down and over what time frame will the commitment to reduce teacher assistant stand-down be fulfilled?

Ms THORP – I think this response will cover off on any concerns in this area.  The current teacher aides industrial agreement does not expire until March 2011.  The agreement which has been approved and registered by the Tasmanian Industrial Commission confirms that teacher aide employees are permanent or fixed-term, working a maximum of 42 weeks per year.  DOE has had an initial meeting with the two union parties to the agreement – the AEU and CPSU – and at that meeting it was agreed that the respective bargaining positions of each party would be exchanged with the other by the end of July this year.  DOE will formulate its position in accordance with the Government’s State Service wage policy in the coming weeks, following which formal negotiations will commence noting that time frame above.  I can’t really comment any further, particularly in relation to specifics because the bargaining position of all the parties hasn’t been finalised.

Mr FERGUSON – Have you allocated funds in the budget to provide for an outcome?

Ms THORP – It will be dealt with within the budget.

Mr O’HALLORAN – So there is flexibility within the budget to deal with any change in provisions for teacher assistants?

Ms THORP – Yes.

Mr GLASS – On the same issue, it is interesting to note that the last change we did for teacher assistants was in 2008 when we provided a different career structure for them which gave them I think a 5 per cent pay rise, very quickly followed by a 4.5 per cent State pay rise, so they basically got a 10 per cent pay rise within a six or seven-month period.  As part of that negotiated package we also gave teacher aides and school-based employees the option to move from 40 weeks to 42 weeks paid work if they so desired, so it is on an opt-in basis.  In 2008 the number of school-based employees wanting to work 42 weeks was 48.8 per cent, last year it had dropped to 40.2 per cent and this year so far it is down to 10.5 per cent, but we need to recognise that some may opt to work during the September school holidays.  So we could say that the majority of those employees only work 40 weeks because they like to take the school holidays off, maybe with their school-aged children or whatever.

Mr FERGUSON – I was going to save this for output 1.1 but since we are on it, I am advised that only about 50 per cent of teacher assistants have any formal qualifications.  Will you be seeking to address that in some way and is there any intention to provide support?

Ms THORP – So your question is around professional development?

Mr FERGUSON – I am anecdotally advised that the Skills Institute opted to not make opportunity for the relevant course on the basis of demand or the funding was not there.

Ms THORP – I will pass this to Jenny.

Ms GALE – The responsibility for professional learning, be it for teachers or other school-based positions, sits with the principal.  We have a statewide system called Managing for High Performance where we guarantee that every employee has at least one face-to-face meeting with a life supervisor each year to discuss those very issues around professional learning, their skills, their needs and how they can be met in future.  So it is very much a localised decision.

Mr FERGUSON – Yes, but that’s a problem, isn’t it, Minister, if schools have to find that money from their SRPs?

Ms GALE – Money for professional learning comes from SRPs and has done for years.

Mr FERGUSON – What can we do, then, to lift the rates?

Ms THORP – As Jenny said, it is a responsibility at school level with the principals and it surely cannot be a resource initiative; you only have to school bank accounts to see that.

Mr FERGUSON – I’m not sure that your average principal would agree with that point – anyway, we might come back to it.

Ms THORP – Don’t forget too that quite a few teacher aide positions are in admin; they’re not necessarily face-to-face with students.

Mr FERGUSON – Minister, this is a rhetorical question.  Do you see yourself as a minister for education in Tasmania which embraces all aspects and sectors of education in Tasmania, not just State schools?

Ms THORP – Absolutely.  One of the first things I did on getting the position was to allocate a senior adviser to deal with the independent schools sector.

Mr FERGUSON – Who is that?

Ms THORP – Jan Newton is doing it now.

Mr FERGUSON – Since becoming minister in April, have you met with any of the independent and Catholic sector agency representatives?

Ms THORP – Not as much as I’d like but I do have a meeting in my diary for next week with the Catholic schools sector.

Mr FERGUSON – Because the Catholics have been complaining that they haven’t been able to see you, so would you see yourself as wanting to -

Ms THORP – Your point is well made -

Mr FERGUSON – You’re meeting them in July and that’s great.  You’ve been busy.

Ms THORP – Yes, and there people who are probably still feeling aggrieved that I haven’t got to them yet, but your point is well made.

Mr FERGUSON – It’s up to you as minister to manage your own diary and I would never presume to give you advice and I am not, but would you see yourself meeting with, for example, Catholic Education and the Association of Independent Schools four or five times a year so that you can hear their concerns and respond to them?

Ms THORP – Certainly on a regular basis.  Prior to the election I went to the premises of the Catholic Church at New Town, as I did also in my role as Human Services Minister, and heard general comments from across the broad spectrum of issues -

Mr FERGUSON – They do not feel very loved.

Ms THORP – That is a shame.  I hope to go back there.

Mr FERGUSON – I reckon you could prepare that.

Ms THORP – One of the significant things I was asked about was that they thought the Government – because I wasn’t Education Minister then – should have an adviser in the Education Minister’s office with direct responsibility for and a direct relationship with non-government schools.  At that time it was difficult to make the commitment because not only were we coming up for an election but also I was not the relevant minister.  As soon as that was the case, that was David’s task and now it is Jane’s task.

Mr O’HALLORAN – I welcome the commitment in the budget for 12 new school psychologists.  That is right, isn’t it?

Ms THORP – Up to 12 because we have to recruit them.  We have the money.

Mr O’HALLORAN – I know that recruitment is a big issue.  I also know that will bring us to having an average of one trained psychologist for every 1 000 students.

Ms THORP – We have also ascertained that there will be one with direct responsibility for the Bridgewater federation.

Mr O’HALLORAN – Will the Government make the employment of these additional 12 psychologists a priority for the Safe Schools initiative?  In other words, will the psychologists be placed where the need is greatest?

Ms THORP – The project involves both the funds towards the anti-bullying and positions for school psychologists.  There is a natural link.  If I am correct, I think we have decided that we will have one with responsibility for the area of autism and one with responsibility for the Bridgewater federation because there will be significant issues that will probably require extra support from school psychologists there.  There is no specific allocation for the remaining positions, but that will be a matter of consultation with the special and additional needs principal reference group, managers of the school support and learning services staff.

One thing I am keen to do if I am able within the parameters of that allocation is to develop more of a task-force model so rather than have a specific person going to a learning service area and add to the numbers, they will be tasked with specific responsibilities, for example along the lines of addressing early primary school attendance.  I am of the opinion that if you put time and effort in when patterns of absenteeism start showing in quite young kids, years 1, 2 and 3, and address those, those are the kinds of issues that also need the support of school psychologist.

Mr O’HALLORAN – I think you answered my question on where the need is the greatest.

Ms THORP – Yes, and being flexible as well.

Mr O’HALLORAN – The old model was based on a certain number of students.

Ms THORP – It has changed a couple of times.  I was a support teacher for one of the support services and the allocation was to the support service.  A school psychologists might be based in a particular school but have responsibility more broadly than that and also have a responsibility to be part of a team that addressed particular issues in any given school at any given time.  There was quite a bit of flexibility, but some principals decided that they would get better service if those resources were split and put into schools.  If a school was notionally entitled to a social worker once a week but the needs were in another area that schools may feel aggrieved and feel it was not getting its fair share of the pie.  My personal belief is where you have task force-type flexibility you get better results.  I do not have a definitive position at the moment, but sometimes I think having those resources directly embedded into schools means that they do not have a capacity to stand back and look at the school’s needs.  They get very emersed in the culture of their particular school which has positives and negatives.  It is something I want to think more about.

Mr FERGUSON – I have one last question before we leave Overview.  I asked you earlier about the personnel involved in the new round of changes on Tasmania Tomorrow.  I have just been advised that Hobart College staff have unanimously passed a no-confidence motion in the secretary of your department, and no longer wish for Mr Smyth to be involved with any further changes to the post-year 10 sector.  I do not like to raise a person individually, but that is what has happened.  What would be your response to what is happening in one of your colleges?

Ms THORP – I was sent e-mails by about half a dozen different Hobart college teachers over the weekend with copies of the notice of meeting that was planned at noon yesterday at Hobart College expressing their disgust with the agenda.  I didn’t know that it had gone ahead until you told me just then.  I am particularly distressed that the meeting could be called solely for matters relating to teachers – I don’t think the word ’student’ came up in the whole agenda for the meeting.

Mr FERGUSON – Are you talking about Tuesday’s meeting of the implementation task force?

Ms THORP – No, no.  I am talking about the meeting at Hobart College that passed the motion, which I understand took place yesterday at 12 p.m.

Mr FERGUSON – It was a 96 per cent vote.

Ms THORP – Yes, but how many turned up?

Mr FERGUSON – Ninety-six per cent of the staff turned up and the vote was unanimous.  That tells you something.  What is your response to that?

Ms THORP – All right.  I find it very unpleasant, unnecessary and arrogant, and I think it is -

Mr FERGUSON- You have just described the previous Education minister’s approach to Tasmania Tomorrow – unnecessary, unpleasant, arrogant.  How can you blame them?

Ms THORP – They are your words, not mine.  You asked me how I felt about hearing from you right now that that was the result of the meeting yesterday.  I find it very disappointing and distressing personally that someone of the calibre of Mr Smyth, who has made a huge contribution to education in this State, should be treated in such a cavalier fashion.  Mr Smyth – and I apologise, John, for speaking like this in your presence – has a national and international reputation as an educator, and I find it very unfortunate that a small group or a group -

Mr FERGUSON – A college!

Ms THORP – I am not going to argue about numbers – should feel it necessary to say what they did.  It is disturbing and unnecessary -

Mr FERGUSON – Do you blame them?

Ms THORP – I do not approve of it.

Mr FERGUSON – Will you be telling them that?

Ms THORP – Why?
Mr FERGUSON- Will you dock their pay as you did when they took a stop-work action?

Ms THORP – What has pay got to do with it?

Mr FERGUSON – Will you be telling your staff that you don’t approve?

Ms THORP – The AEU can meet and talk about anything it likes -

Mr FERGUSON – It is not the AEU, it is their staff.

Ms THORP – I think you will find that it was an AEU meeting.  What the union decides to do at its different locations is their own business.  Unions call meetings all the time.  We often have them out the front of this building, marching up and down, whether it be for higher pay for firies or cleaners or whatever.  It is common.  The unions have their agendas and they have obviously met and decided there is some value -

Mr FERGUSON – I don’t think it is that common to do what they have done this week – passing a vote of no confidence and it is effectively a vote of no confidence in your decision-making, about how you are going to approach the next six months of reform.

Ms THORP – You can interpret it that way if you wish.

Mr FERGUSON – I do.

Output group 1
Pre-compulsory and compulsory education

1.1  In school education -

Mr FERGUSON – If we are moving to 1.1, there is no question that that is the largest part of the questioning that I have.  I have a series of questions – I hope you are prepared for them, but if you are not, I am very happy for you to take them on notice.  It relates to the education of children who are in State care.  What was the rate of attendance of children who are on care and protection orders?

Ms THORPE – Sixty-eight per cent of children under guardianship and custody orders to DHHS in 2009 attended State schools in 2009, given that children under guardianship and custody orders are not necessarily all of school age – this was 569 children.  Those children not attending State schools were attending private schools, undertaking apprenticeship, were in employment and some had moved interstate.  In 2009, 10 schools had 10 or more students under guardianship custody orders enrolled, and I have the list of schools.

Mr FERGUSON – Of the children that you have as students in State schools, do you know of that group of children what their attendance rate was like?  I am particularly interested in educational outcomes.  I do not want to spend too long in this section but I would like to get some flavour for how the education of those children is progressing.  I know very well that you will have an interest in this.

Ms THORPE – Absenteeism is a good read, if you like.  With students on guardianship or custody orders, the numbers of days absent was 11 109, and that rate of absence is 11.7 per cent compared with all of DoE students who had 950 604 numbers of days absent, which is a rate on average over the State of 9.9 per cent.

Mr FERGUSON – So you would perhaps say it is largely absentee, but not massively so, for those children compared to the State average?

Ms THORPE – I am not happy with either figure.  But I think you are right in identifying the fact that the issues impacting on the lives of kids on guardianship and custody orders often give cause for them to have reasons not to be at school.

Mr FERGUSON – Can you put a bit of meat on the bones where, in your earlier Estimates today, you talked about all children in State care now having individual education plans?

Ms THORPE – That is the expectation.

Mr FERGUSON – Who would draft or create those plans – is it their local school together with the guardians?

Ms THORPE – Yes.  There would be an input for the guardian or foster carer, but it would be no greater than would be the role of any parent in the drawing up of an IEP.

Mr FERGUSON – I will be right upfront with you that I have an example but I will not be obviously naming anybody:  could it be possible that we have children who are in State care and protection orders who are not attending school and in this case hasn’t attended school for a year and a half?  I know I have not substantiated it before you, but how could that happen and how can we address that?

Ms THORPE – You quite rightly say that it is not substantiated.

Mr FERGUSON – Today it is not.

Ms THORPE – No, but I would appreciate where in your capacity you come across cases where you believe the right thing is not happening that you get in touch with me directly so we can take direct action.  My position would be that is not satisfactory.  And they are tracks.  It is not like they go missing.

Mr FERGUSON – I did not think they did.

Mr O’HALLORAN – I will ask a question because right at the start I talked about attendance in school and its importance as an indicator to other issues that need addressing, and Michael has raised it as well.  I know some of them, but could you let me the types of strategies that are used for constant families?

Ms THORPE – For which?

Mr O’HALLORAN – For families that have poor attendance records in schools.  What is the approach the department takes in terms of trying to engage with those families and get the kids to go to school?

Ms THORPE – I think you would appreciate that, where that is the case, there are usually more issues going on within the family than simply whether or not the kids are getting to school on time.

Mr O’HALLORAN – It is the whole of government thing we talked about before.  If you could flesh that out as well.

Ms THORPE – One of the things that I think is having a major impact, and it is not actually part of this portfolio, is the introduction of the integrated family support services.  I think we are really starting to see that bite.  As you say, absenteeism is identified at a school level, so then you get a school intervention.  And then you are going into a complex family environment where there are a variety of other issues impacting on the family.  You may have one family member or more involved with the police, people involved with drug and alcohol services, and a whole range of agencies are involved.  That is inefficient, and I do not think it has the best outcomes for families.  Education needs to be a part of a whole of government – and broader than government too - whole of community approach to families that experience difficulties and problems.

Mr O’HALLORAN – Just a quick follow up to that:  basically David Bartlett signalled the intention to provide additional specialist teachers in primary schools, and I cannot see that reflected in the Budget.  Has it been dropped or is it a broken promise?  I am happy for you to deal with it after lunch.

Ms THORPE – Do you want to make that the first question after lunch?

CHAIR – I think that is a good idea.  We will break for lunch now and deal with that question when we resume.

The Committee suspended from 1.00 p.m. to 1.45 p.m.

1.1 In school education -

Mr O’HALLORAN – I think the question was around additional specialist teachers and the provision of those to primary schools. Was that the one that we were at?

Ms GALE – It is access to specialist teachers. We are going to be addressing that in three ways. The first is continuing to work through our partnership with the University of Tasmania to make sure that we target professional learning for teachers through HECS scholarships to make sure that we then have people with upgraded qualifications in specialist areas. Secondly, to target specialist teachers for recruitment through the Partnerships in Teaching Excellence Program which has been quite successful to date. Thirdly, by exploring resource sharing and networks with schools. Currently, we have some secondary schools who are working with primary schools and there is obvious capacity there for sharing specialist teachers across those networks. We are going to look at those three ways.

Mr O’HALLORAN – That is provided for in the Budget?

Ms GALE – It is through our existing capacity.

Ms THORPE – So it is more a process than a lump of money.

Mr O’HALLORAN – It is just that David Bartlett signalled an intention to provide these additional specialist teachers, so I would have thought that with additional would have been additional funding as well.

Ms GALE – Access to specialist teachers rather than additional teachers is my information.

Ms THORP – That was how we understood it.

Mr FERGUSON – I might jump to another question on that same topic then. I am sure you agree that we want all teachers to be able to teach full stop and then to gain access to their specialisation where most needed, shall we say. At the same time, I am sure from my awareness, there are plenty of teachers who are teaching out of area and in some cases like the shortage areas that is not a good thing. What would be the department’s view on that? What strategies would you be looking at to try to get as many people teaching in area as possible, particularly in those areas such as maths, science and IT where there is the skill shortage?

Ms THORP – Generally, if I can refer back to 1977 when I first started teaching and I was trained as a social science/English teacher, and in my first year I taught flute and biology. I think it is fair to say that whilst there might be a preference – I mean, my husband has a double degree in biology but he did not actually teach biology until the last couple of years when he was at Rosny College the year before last. Whilst there might be an area in which a teacher specialised during their training, the teachers are more generalist than that these days. It is more about your capacity to teach appropriately for the cohort you are with, rather than based on the actual subject matter, if you like, although I do appreciate that there are people with different skills who would prefer to teach in the area in which they have trained.

Mr FERGUSON – Yes, but you would readily acknowledge, would you not, that there is a richness in subject knowledge which only a specialist trained teacher can bring in many subjects, and particularly in the ones that Mr O’Halloran and myself have added to with maths and science teachers?

Ms GALE – Just recently in the area of science, for example, the Auditor-General has conducted an audit into science teaching in secondary schools, and that has been part of his investigation. I am not quite sure what the final outcome is going to be but I know that some of the information that we have provided to that shows that, in the schools that were audited, we had quite high proportions of teachers who were trained in their specialist areas. If I may add, Minister, we have worked really hard with the University of Tasmania through our Partnerships in Teaching Excellence and broader partnership with the university to make sure that we have available HECS-free postgraduate courses for teachers. I will just use science as an example again there, one of those has been about increasing skills in teaching science both from a pedagogical perspective as well as knowledge and skill in current science issues, and they are available to teachers now. As part of the earlier discussion that we had where teachers would meet with their line manager one on one every year at least once a year to discuss their professional learning needs, they can explore those avenues particularly if they are going to teach outside their area.

Mr O’HALLORAN – If I can ask a supplementary question on that as well: in the work that I have been doing in the last three years with the university, I had a lot of engagement with schools and high schools particularly. I was coming across quite a few schools, particularly in middle schooling, where there were teams of teachers, which is a terrific approach, but within those teams often there was nobody with a science qualification. They were the team of teachers who were working with, say, a grade 8 group but the specialised knowledge, I just point out, was not there. It seems to me that it is an issue for sure.

Ms GALE – I think we should wait until we see the Auditor-General’s report.

Ms THORP – If there are recommendations made from that report that point to things that the Auditor-General said we need to address, then of course we will look at them.

Mr FERGUSON – We can talk about it next year.

Ms THORP – We could do that if we are both still here.

Mr FERGUSON – Minister, can I take you to school viability and mergers and the whole subject of population shift and demographic change. It will be impossible to canvass all of that today but if we can just touch on it. What are the statistics of students at public schools; what changes are we seeing in the student population generally; and what is the drift, if any, between government and non-government sectors?

Ms THORP – On the issue of school amalgamations, just to make it very clear: there are a number of reasons where the opportunity for amalgamation may come up or schools may choose to take that opportunity. That may be around where population school enrolments have fallen in a single school or group of schools, the community may have aged over time to increase educational choice and flexibility where social interaction is limited by very small numbers in any given school, where buildings have aged and become unsatisfactory learning environments as such.

Mr FERGUSON – I was coming to that and I appreciate what you are saying.

Ms THORP – If you are talking about the proportion of State government -

Mr FERGUSON – Yes, can you give us a flavour of what is occurring in populations of individual schools across the board? I know there was some recent media on it. I am interested in the movement of students, if any, between government and non-government and the reasons for that.

Ms THORP – There was a decline in the number of full-time students in Tasmanian government schools of 1.3 per cent, or 776 students.

Mr FERGUSON – Is that in one year?

Ms THORP – From 58 840 in 2008 to 57 504 in 2009; that compares to a decline of 1.1 per cent or 646 students in 2007-08.

Mr FERGUSON – So it is about 1 per cent a year at the moment?

Ms THORP – Yes, which is mostly reflective of the demographic. We are also finding that enrolments in some areas are going up.

Mr FERGUSON – In some schools?

Ms THORP – In sectors, so in early special, for example, the variation has been 8.7 per cent up; in kindergarten, 7.5 per cent increase; in primary, 1.5 per cent decline; in second year, 2.2 per cent decline, which is reflective of mainly the number of students in any given age group. That is for all schools.

Mr FERGUSON – Is any of that increase in those early grades reflective of young children who are coming in as part of early learning programs that otherwise may not have been the case? That is actual genuine growth of babies in the last 10 years?

Ms THORP – Yes.

Mr FERGUSON – Where are those 1 per cent going? There is probably a larger percentage in the older grades to make it 1 per cent overall, so what percentage, say, are we seeing shifting in secondary and senior secondary schools out of government education?

Ms THORP – You are talking about a movement between government and non-government?

Mr FERGUSON – Yes. Sorry, I am trying not to be difficult. If it is an overall 1.3 per cent decline across the public school sector but you are telling me that in the younger grades it is a positive number of growth. Where are the losses occurring?

Ms THORP – And where are they going to? It is about the numbers of people in any given age group at any given point in time. What you will find, if you follow that increase in kinder and early special up, is that that will move like a bit of a bubble up through the system and eventually be reflected in increased enrolments in the primary and then later on into secondary.

Mr FERGUSON – Do you have some analysis? Has the department been tracking to see if we are losing students, for whatever reason – we do not need to try to figure that out today. Is there any tracking of students leaving the public system in favour of the Catholic or independent sector? Can you provide that? Could you take that on notice?

Ms THORP – Yes. This is an important figure, but obviously your question requires more detail than we have available here. The Australian average of the whole cohort of school-age students is that 65.8 per cent in 2009 and 66 per cent in 2008 were in government schools. In Tasmania that figure was 71.5 per cent in 2009 and 71.7 per cent in 2008.

Mr FERGUSON – Okay, it is actually trending up marginally.

Ms THORP – Up but very marginally. If you are happy with that, we do have a more detailed breakdown.

Mr FERGUSON – Could you provide it to the committee?

[2.00 p.m.]

Ms THORP – In 2009, in government schools, 61 013 kids, non-government 24 079 with a total of 85 563, which is the 71.6 per cent. The annual variation was a decrease of 471 kids in government schools of the whole group and an increase of 112 in non-government. That cuts out the demographic. Generally speaking, what people can be comforted by is Tasmanians are more generally, percentage-wise, choosing to send kids to government schools. We can get much more detail and what you would read into that, I don’t know.

Mr FERGUSON – Could you provide it?

Ms THORP – It is in the RoGS report so you would have that.

Mr O’HALLORAN – What report?

Ms GALE – Report on Government Services.

Ms THORP – It is produced nationally every year; it compares all the States.

Mr O’HALLORAN – Have a look at Julie Bishop’s seat in Perth – 20 per cent in public education. We have 612 registered students doing home schooling in Tasmania. Do we have any data as to why families choose to home educate and do we have anything about educational achievements and career destinations of home-educated students? I am trying to work this out, since we have an investment in home schooling and it impacts on public schooling.

Ms THORP – Home schooling is a choice, as you know.

Mr O’HALLORAN – Yes, I know all of that but I am asking about the effectiveness of home schooling.

Mr BEST – If you live in the bush, you do the home schooling.

Mr O’HALLORAN – No, they are not only in the bush; there are a lot of reasons for it – that is one of them.

Ms THORP – There is monitoring.

Mr O’HALLORAN – Yes, I know that. Do we have anything on education outcomes for students involved in home schooling compared with students who are at mainstream schools?

Mr BEST – It is pretty important actually.

Ms THORP – I am not aware of any information.

Ms GALE – We do not collect outcomes information for students who are home-schooled except through the monitoring and processes that are put in place by the Tasmanian Home Education Advisory Council. However, for the first time this year the TQA will be conducting an early leavers’ surveys of all students who leave year 10 and who cannot be tracked through year 11 and home education students will be identified through that process. So there will be monitoring of their outcomes through that process.

Mr O’HALLORAN – That was going to be my second question, the issue of retention from year 10 to year 11. Do we have any data about retention of students who are home-schooled?

Ms GALE – We don’t have any current data but we will have from 2009-10.

Mr O’HALLORAN – There are over 600 students so it is quite significant. It is like a college worth of students.

Ms THORP – It is. Interestingly, the actual number of new students going into home-based education is decreasing so the number of new students per year -

Mr FERGUSON – It is a little less fashionable at the moment.

Ms THORP – Yes. Interestingly of the total number, philosophical reasons are the greatest reason for leaving followed by difficulties at school, school refusing them, dissatisfaction with the school followed by religious and the smallest category is that of special needs.

Mr FERGUSON – I am really interested in this. I am aware, and Paul is too, of the Government funding THEAC. It seems to me that there is a gap between you, as the minister, and a home-schooled family, and an appropriate gap – we don’t want you moving in to their home. But at the same time, 10 years is a long time before which you get some indication of how that child is going if they have been there for that long. This is not a criticism, but I would like to know if there is something you can do to keep a closer eye on outcomes such as we do with every other child in the State schools, for example, through NAPLAN.

Ms THORP – That is a fair enough question. There are a couple of ways in which we keep an eye on them, so to speak, to be confident that the outcome is a good one. One revolves around the initial application of whether a family is considered appropriate or not to home school. After the initial application, there is a monitoring at three months, then after 12 months and then either a year or two after the 12-month visit, but a lot of that has to do with a council decision about whether they consider it necessary. Where there are concerns expressed through the council, then those visits are more frequent. The other way that there is monitoring and an eye kept on them, if you like, so we can be confident everything is okay is through distance education, and the support that is provided that way.

Mr FERGUSON – Let us say there is a family who are home schooling, let us say that the education program is substandard and inadequate and the children are in an environment where they are not learning or have much opportunity – how could you find out about that?

Ms THORP – There is a way.

Mr FERGUSON – How could it be addressed in a way that we all feel satisfied that they are not going to fall through the cracks?

Ms THORP – In the first instance, with the vast majority there is no need for that level of alarm, because we are confident that what is going on is okay. That is done through the monitoring officer’s role.

Mr FERGUSON – Of THEAC?

Ms THORP – The monitoring officer, yes. They visit the family on receipt of the family reports and then verify back to council that the program, as stated in the family report, is actually in place and then investigate any concerns that the council may have raised about the family report. They prepare a report for council on each family visit and provide suggestions to parents as to where they might seek further support for their program.

Mr FERGUSON – I accept everything you have just said, but can you see my point that you are putting all of your trust, if you like, from a quality assurance point of view – I mean, you are not the educator and I am not suggesting you are – but if we do care, and we do, about everybody having the best start in life, you are putting your trust in a third party.

Ms THORP – Yes, through the Tasmanian Home Education Advisory Council and the roles that they fulfil. We have the direct link through the departmental representation on the council as well.

Mr FERGUSON – I appreciate everything you have said. This is my last question on this subject: I understand some home schoolers have NAPLAN because they choose to take it. They choose to have NAPLAN in their home.

Ms THORP – You mean the test?

Mr FERGUSON – The test, yes, but not all do. Would you be interested in finding a way to strongly encourage if not mandate NAPLAN testing – can I just put it this way – for all students?

Ms THORP – My preference would always be that when we are doing testing like NAPLAN, because there is important use of the data that comes from NAPLAN, universal coverage would be the ideal.

Mr FERGUSON – I supported you on that.

Ms THORP – Good. That does not surprise me because you are an educator yourself, so you would see the value of it.

Mr FERGUSON – But can we get NAPLAN as a mainstream testing mechanism that all students will do, with the exception of those ones for whom -

Ms THORP – I think we can highly encourage it, but I do not think we can mandate it, because the very nature of home education is that the parents are taking control of the situation. So whilst we can encourage, I do not think we mandate it.

Mr FERGUSON – Would you look into it?

Ms THORP – No, we cannot mandate for anyone.

Mr FERGUSON – Can you check it out?

Ms GALE – The national guidelines for NAPLAN are that all parents have the right to exempt their students from NAPLAN so that would need to be a change in national direction. I do not have the figures in front of me at the moment, but we do have a number of parents in independent schools as well as in government schools who choose to withdraw their students from NAPLAN, and the same would apply for home educators.

Mr FERGUSON – May I just say, I do not want to waste the committee’s time, but the difference here is that, in the other cases that Jenny has just mentioned, they actually have the oversight of an independent school or a State school which has lines of authority involved; whereas the home school situation is different. I raise it as a matter of interest, and perhaps you would check it out.

Ms THORP – Now that you have raised it I will look at it a lot closely.

Mr FERGUSON – I think cost could be an issue, too, by the way.

Ms THORP – In terms of administering the test?

Mr FERGUSON – Yes.

Mr O’HALLORAN – Following on from NAPLAN then, because I was about to mention it later anyway. I was unaware that parents could insist that their students do not do the NAPLAN testing. Could you give me some indication of how many parents asked for their kids not to be involved?

Ms GALE – We may have to take that on notice. I will have a look.

Mr O’HALLORAN – While we are on that there would be a body – I guess this group – who would ensure that everything is above board with regard to students doing NAPLAN testing in schools?

Ms GALE – Would you remind repeating the question?

Ms THORP – It is the oversight of NAPLAN to make sure it all happens properly.

Mr O’HALLORAN – It seems to me that the results can be swayed if you were unscrupulous.

Ms GALE – Education Performance Services plays that role in the department. They provide the national guidelines to all schools and ensure that principals are fully aware of their responsibilities under NAPLAN. They monitor that with the help of staff in Learning Services as well.

Mr O’HALLORAN – I say it because there was the case in South Australia, I think it was, where a teacher got into trouble.

Ms GALE – You asked about the local measures but there are also national measures. In fact, ACARA, the Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority, also conducts analyses of the data after each NAPLAN. They look for anomalies in data and they use that as a way of identifying where possible breaches may have occurred. So not only from a implementation perspective but also from a statistical and analytical perspective there is a check and balance system in place.

Mr O’HALLORAN – Whilst I agree with the use of data to improve educational outcomes in schools and NAPLAN is one of those ways to get data and a really valuable way to address areas of need, the Greens do not agree with comparing school with school. It is certainly my belief that it can entrench disadvantage.

Ms THORP – That is why we assess schools against a multiplicity of criteria – 17 in fact.

Mr O’HALLORAN – Yes, I know that.

Ms THORP – We do not support league tabling and do not support school to school.

Mr O’HALLORAN – I am glad to hear you say that.

Mr FERGUSON – But we live in a free society and information in the public domain is what it is. I think you would agree the media have been pretty good on this in Tasmania. They have not overplayed their hand but we do live in a free country still.

Ms THORP – I have been quite impressed actually, because it was a fear of ours. That is the last thing we want, too.

Mr FERGUSON – I will pay you a compliment in the resourcing that have gone to schools that have had lower performance. Can we go back to school mergers: I listened to what you said in the other place committee and I do not need you to repeat what you said in the other committee with regard to current mergers and so on.

Ms THORP – I have the same information.

Mr FERGUSON – I would not like to waste time on it on the basis that you have already gone through that with the other committee. Could I ask you for a disposition on the way that communities are consulted with. I accept that there will be times where you need to have a difficult conversation with the community about the viability of their school on the basis that, as Minister and at a department level, you are concerned for the educational outcomes for their students. Could I hear from you a disposition about future consultation? I know that you would be aware of my concern, and I appreciate your intervention -

Ms THORP – About Waverley and St Leonards?

Mr FERGUSON – Waverley and St Leonards is not the issue today but it is an example of -

Ms THORP – And you want to be confident that into the future what might happen there -

Mr FERGUSON – You have read my mind.

Ms THORP – I can unequivocally reassure you that there is no hit list, there is no list anywhere of schools that we are looking to close. I can absolutely guarantee there would not be a school closure or indeed amalgamation without the consent of the broader school community.

Mr FERGUSON – Would you give an undertaking that we would not see a repeat of ballots or surveys going home, and where if the survey that is sent home is not returned to the school at all, could you give an undertaking in that situation that that ballot paper that is not returned would not be counted as a yes in future?

Ms THORP – There was some distress amongst some people who felt that was not a proper way to collect the information. That is not what we think, but I do appreciate that some people thought that. Can I pass to you, Jenny, on that?

Mr SMYTH – I was just going to comment, Minister, that process we understand was determined by the school association. But the outcome that we would be seeking would be that the school community and the parents were happy with amalgamation. If they are not happy, we have not gone ahead.

Mr FERGUSON – The amusing and sad thing about the example that we are touching on is that most people did not know it was going ahead and that it had sort of developed a life of its own.

[2.15 p.m.]

I am seeking from you that we be more careful with that in the future and that we make it clearer to people. Let us face it, in some communities parents are disengaged from their school and therefore a survey under the rotten sandwiches at the bottom of the bag is not going to get a community informed.

Ms THORP – I will just reiterate what the secretary said. That process was not generated by the department. That was generated at a school community level.

Mr FERGUSON – Not today. We have other things to discuss, I take issue. I will go to Raising the Bar Closing the Gap next.

Mr O’HALLORAN – My issue is around areas of need again. When we get a student moving from one State to another, when they move special needs students, the criteria for whether special assistance is put in place is different in Tasmania and sometimes higher.

Ms THORP – I would quite passionately argue that the provision of support for kids with special needs is greater in Tasmania. It may well be the case that in other States, for example, that the cut-in IQ rate for assistance might be at 70, but that does not necessarily mean you are getting the level of support that you would hope would be matched by that. So it might be only $10 per student at that level, if you see where I am coming from.

Mr O’HALLORAN – It was more to do with teacher-aid support really. I know of cases where students have moved from the mainland where they have had a teacher aid working with them, and they move here and they do not.

Ms THORP – We cannot always guarantee that what is happening in one jurisdiction will be automatically duplicated in this jurisdiction. But I have complete confidence that the appropriate level of support for that child will be provided.

Mr FERGUSON – Are you able to just paint a picture, as I say, for the way that the department does support students with special needs or a student with disability in the various sectors? Because I believe you channel some Federal resources as well to support disability. Is that correct?

Ms THORP – No.

Mr FERGUSON – Can you just describe that for me?

Ms THORP – I will describe it. The total 2010 special needs budget was just under $60 million which is an increase of just over $2 million from 2009. Going back a couple of years, that is an increase of almost $28 million since 2004. In this year it includes an additional $930 000 to improve the teacher’s starting ratio in special schools with each student attracting 0.266 FTE.

Mr FERGUSON – I do not want to be rude at all but can I just interrupt and say that what I am interested in knowing is: let us say we have three children with an IQ of 55 – I am just making this up – in a public school, in a catholic school and in a low-fee independent school. What support is available to each of those three children?

Ms THORP – That is a difficult one to answer because it will depend completely on the age of the child and the nature of the disability.

Mr FERGUSON – I guess I am trying to compare like with like, and maybe it is impossible for you to answer. But I am asking anyway.

Ms THORP – I think that would be a difficult one.

Mr FERGUSON – Could you take it on notice?

Ms THORP – Yes, I could take that on notice about this level of funding for special needs both in government and non-government schools.

Mr SMYTH – The non-government schools get a grant.

Ms THORP – Yes. Do you want any figures or do you want some figures for them later?

Mr FERGUSON – I would be interested in the descriptive and the number .

Ms THORP – Yes. They get a bucket, if you like, of money from the Government into -

Mr FERGUSON – From you? From the State Government?

Ms THORP – Yes. Into the non-government sector and then each individual school determines how that is distributed.

Mr MAY – The non-government sector is directly supported through a grant to the individual sector, as the minister has mentioned. In addition, the resourcing that is paid by the State Government to the non-government sector on a general educational basis takes account of the level of expenditure that the State makes to special education in government schools. So it is not explicitly identified within the funding that is delivered but the $59 million mentioned that is being spent in government schools influences the pool of money that is delivered under the general education grant to non-government schools.

Mr FERGUSON – If $100 goes to the child in a State school, if that child were to move to a non-government school could you compare what quantum of funds would follow that child if any?

Ms THORP – It does not follow on a child basis. I sometimes wish it could but it is an allocation that is given more globally to – it is a bucket for the Catholics, a bucket for the independents that is comparable.

Mr FERGUSON – Can you speak to me in terms of equivalents? It is probably very difficult for you to do that but can you?

Ms THORP – Well, you can’t really, because it goes into the pool that any given school has at their disposal, and they may choose to spend more of their school budget, or less of their school budget, but they just get the allocation.

Mr FERGUSON – It is vague, isn’t it. It is not a criticism but it is vague, isn’t it?

Ms THORP – Yes. Basically, the resource is given to the non-government schools to spend in the way that they see fit.

Mr FERGUSON – Do you reckon we could – is there a value in making it more transparent or more formula-based? I am just asking a general question.

Mr GLASS – It also relates to the way in which non-government schools get all of their funding. Very broadly they probably get half of their funding directly from the Federal Government, probably a quarter from the State Government and a quarter from other things like fees and that type of thing. They put that together. How they actually spend that, we are unaware of how they would apply that to any particular characteristics. What we can say is that in this year’s Budget there is, as well as the general funding from the State Government to non-government schools that we talked about, there is also a pool of funding for special needs children in non-government schools. That is being doubled effective from this year’s Budget from $390 000 to $780 000. That is structured in the Budget; that is recurrent. So it will double and that is specifically provided to non-government schools to both the AIST and to the Catholic Education Office on behalf of the constituent schools in respect of children with special needs.

Mr FERGUSON – All right. We had better move on but you are detecting my interest in that area and it would be quite good to be able to run some communication on that.

Ms THORP – One of the difficulties is that as soon as we start getting quite specific about what is going on in a school we also have to judge by outcomes.

Mr FERGUSON – Of course and, if I may, I know it is Paul’s turn but I have only got one last question on special needs. This is a genuine question. Do you think that there have been any unintended negative consequences of the application of the inclusion policy at the Department level?

Ms THORP – Oh, how many hours have you got?

Mr FERGUSON – If I can continue, which would be leading to a reduction in the availability of specialist schools.

Ms THORP – I come from a special education background myself; I am a trained special educationist and my personal philosophical position is that all of our kids deserve the opportunity to be educated within a regular school setting because I think there are almost imponderables and immeasurables that a young person gains when they are in the broad school community.

Mr FERGUSON – The difficulty with your philosophical position perhaps is money.

Ms THORP – I think it is more than that too because when I was at Derwent Support Service – I use this only as an example – it was attached to a small school called Timsbury Road School and there were kids enrolled there almost 100 per cent on the desire of parents who felt that their child, in a broader school setting, was more vulnerable, didn’t fit in and there were other consequences. Personally, I felt that those children would have been better off if they had stayed back in the mainstream school but you do have to listen to the concerns of the parents. Of course, this is going back 10 years. Where there is a very strong feeling on the part of the family that they felt their child was better off in a little specialist school setting then that was provided for them.

Mr FERGUSON – So do you hear where I am coming from? We have had specialist schools run down and close because of reduced demand on the basis that students have often been moved into mainstream schools.

Ms THORP – That is choice.

Mr FERGUSON – I would be very careful how I respond to that because there is often a lot of pressure that is placed on parents, certainly in the last 10 years; there has been a lot of pressure placed on parents and I think some of those parents would argue to you that they did not feel that they had much choice. This is a sensitive area but it all about the child; it is not about my or your philosophical meaning.

Ms THORP – I agree with you and my philosophical position is that of course you have got to look at the individual child and what is best for them, but I think that best practice globally is that integration is the way to go. There are all sorts of implications around level of resourcing that needs to accompany that, the level of teacher training there needs to be, the provision of aides even the physical fabric of a building that allows students to get around with wheelchairs. But as John was just saying the principals reference group and the parents advocacy group never raised that issue.

Mr FERGUSON – They do with me. It is in a very gentle environment where people feel free to raise a concern because inclusion has become such a mainstream value and it is important, but to me inclusion has often been about choice not just about the choice being made for you. There are fewer of the specialist schools and I think that represents less choice.

Mr SMYTH – I was going to comment on support schools because we still have support schools. The principals reference group is also a very gentle environment where parents and advocacy groups have been able to come and talk with them and be very frank with them. We had parents sit and say I know within two minutes of walking into the principals office whether my child is going to be welcome into this school. They are not places where people have not held back in their views about how we operate. I have met with the Disability Council over the same issues. In all of those meetings no one has ever raised that issue of choice around support schooling or not having support schooling. They have raised many other issues I can say but that has not been the one.

Mr FERGUSON – I will let it go.

Mr O’HALLORAN – This is to do with Aboriginal education. It is my understanding that at least nine permanent staff positions remain unfilled in this area. Does the minster appreciate and understand that the people who work in this area feel under siege and are concerned that Aboriginal education would disappear in a range of mainstream educational intervention programs? Given this situation how does the Government see many COAG targets for Aboriginal students being reached?

Ms THORP – Some Aboriginal education service positions are currently vacant due to normal staff movements including medical conditions, resignations, staff development and completion of contracts. The positions will be filled but with some changes made in line with the new Aboriginal strategy, additional national partnership funding and to ensure we achieve the COAG targets.

No Aboriginal early years liaison officer positions are currently vacant. Vacancies in the Aboriginal education library have occurred as a result of normal staff movement. However, a new facility is under construction adjacent to Goodwood Primary School to collocate both the English as a second language and Aboriginal library from its current temporary premises at Elizabeth College. One librarian is currently managing both libraries. The appropriate levels of support staffing will be assessed at the new location. Both senior education officer vacancies occurred as a result of completion of contracts but both positions are being filled.

One position will take responsibility for operational management of Aboriginal education services. It will have responsibility to support schools participating in the COAG smarter schools national partnership agreements which include a range of targets for improving Aboriginal student outcomes. Recruitment is proceeding to refill the second position which will focus on early learning. The manager of the Aboriginal education policy and programs is working from the department’s strategic policy and performance unit to implement the COAG National Indigenous Reform Agreement, Smarter Schools National Partnership Agreements and other associated COAG initiatives in Aboriginal education. The position has been responsible for developing the Closing the Gap in Aboriginal Outcomes 2010-15 strategy to be launched later this year.

This new strategy has meant a realignment of staffing in order to ensure that our effort enables us to achieve the COAG targets for Aboriginal students. For example, four of the Aboriginal education officer positions are temporarily vacant to enable us to shift our effort between secondary and primary schools in line with the requirements of the National Indigenous Reform Agreements. These agreements have made more resources available to support Aboriginal student outcomes and have specific targets and trajectories. Aboriginal education officers in schools are particularly important because we need to address those gaps.

[2.30 p.m.]

Mr O’HALLORAN – So are we right to say that you were ready for that question?

Ms THORP – Yes, you are.

Mr O’HALLORAN – So what you are saying basically is that the nine positions will be refilled.

Ms THORP – It is fine.

Mr O’HALLORAN – I am pleased to hear that.

Ms THORP – The concerns raised inherent in those questions are -

Mr O’HALLORAN – I have worked with these people fulfilling this fantastic role and they do get the runs on the board, there is no doubt about that.

Ms THORP – Yes, agreed.

Mr FERGUSON – Minister, can we address Raising the Bar Closing the Gap and Launching into Learning?

Ms THORP – Yes.

Mr FERGUSON – It may be a good idea to do them together because I am very mindful of the time. Is it true that Raising the Bar Closing the Gap funding for some schools will change? Is that correct?

Ms GALE – It was never a fixed amount in an ongoing way.

Mr FERGUSON – I am told that group 3 schools are finishing at the end of the year 2010.

Ms GALE – The Raising the Bar funding was for four years but it was not necessarily for each of those schools for the whole four years. It was dependent on outcomes achieved and that will be reviewed through an independent evaluation being conducted by the University of Tasmania. There were two groups of schools that we funded through State government funding. There was a third group of schools that are Commonwealth funded and that funding lasted only for two years and therefore will cease at the end of the Commonwealth’s contribution.

Mr FERGUSON – Would they be schools that were identified as needing extra support on the basis of NAPLAN scores?

Ms GALE – They were not identified as priorities through our processes but when there was additional money provided through the Commonwealth we identified the next level of schools, if you like, and they were in that level.

Mr FERGUSON – Are they what you call group 3 schools?

Ms GALE – That is correct.

Mr FERGUSON – They are Commonwealth funded, so the other schools – what would they be? That is on a basis of need, is that right?

Ms THORP – Yes.

Mr FERGUSON – A rolling assessment based on need?

Ms THORP – Yes.

Mr FERGUSON – Are you able to tell the committee which schools would be losing their funding, then?
Ms THORP – Under the group 3? When the Commonwealth funding ceases?

Mr FERGUSON – Which I think is the end of this year.

Ms GALE – We might need to take that on notice because we do not have the detail but we do have the names of the school.

Ms THORP – The schools know.

Mr FERGUSON – That’s how I know, they’ve told me.

Ms THORP – Would that be ‘Whiteboard College’, ‘Sandbox Primary School’ or ‘Blackboard High School’?

Mr FERGUSON – I think you closed those schools, didn’t you, Minister?

Ms THORP – For the benefit of the committee who would not know what I was talking about there, I have an e-mail which you sent around to some school principals -

Mr FERGUSON – All school principals.

Ms THORP – All school principals – which I feel like titling ‘Desperately Seeking Godwin Gretsch’ because it is really quite -

Mr FERGUSON – That’s a bit funny. It’s still a free country, isn’t it?

Ms THORP – It’s a bit inappropriate to be coercing principals of schools, or any other public servant for that matter, to be going into the State Service Act.

Mr FERGUSON – I’m not going to concede that. That’s a ridiculous statement, Minister. This is Australia.

Ms THORP – The e-mail says:

‘I am a principal at Sandbox Primary School and I have three students with special needs. My daughter and her friends all attended Whiteboard College in 2009′.

You were even putting words in principals’ mouths and, believe me, it offended quite a few of them.

Mr FERGUSON – What a load of tripe!

Ms THORP – I agree with you – Whiteboard College, Sandbox Primary and Blackwood High!

Mr FERGUSON – Is the minister asking me a question, Chair, or am I asking the minister a question?

Ms THORP – I’m sorry if I’ve embarrassed you but I thought it was quite -

Mr FERGUSON – I’m not embarrassed – I sent it to 220 schools. As if I was hoping it wouldn’t be read out.

Ms THORP – ‘Desperately Seeking Godwin Gretsch’.

Mr FERGUSON – What a load of rubbish! Chair, I just wanted the opportunity to ask my question.

Ms THORP – I just wondered if it came from Sandbox Primary.

Mr FERGUSON – Minister, please put it in a media release. Minister, why did the Labor -

Ms THORP – Blackboard High School.

Mr FERGUSON – Oh, gracious me. Are you ready? Are you finished?

Ms THORP – I can keep going as long as you can.

Mr O’HALLORAN – They exist, don’t they?

Ms THORP – No, they’re made up!

Mr FERGUSON – If you want to swap, no problem. Minister, why did the Labor Party say to the Tasmanian people prior to the election that in government it would provide $12 million to extend Raising the Bar Closing the Gap, and why have you not met that election commitment but rather you have only $10 million in there?

Ms THORP – This is in line with a statement from the Treasurer who stated that the Government had funded 75 per cent of election commitments in the Budget and we have already established a pathway to fully fund the commitments over the next four years.

Mr FERGUSON – So is there a prospect that in fact in future budgets you will top up the missing $2 million?

Ms THORP – I think that’s a reasonable assumption, yes.

Mr FERGUSON – Okay.

Ms THORP – But you would agree, of course, that being able to extend Raising the Bar Closing the Gap into high schools is a terrific initiative.

Mr FERGUSON – So why did you promise $12 million?

CHAIR – Mr O’Halloran has the call.

Mr O’HALLORAN – It is exactly around this I want ask a question. I am a big supporter of these early intervention programs, as you know, and Raising the Bar Closing the Gap are couple of terrific programs that I applaud, and Launching into Learning is another. I am just wondering -

Ms THORP – We are already starting to see real benefits from Launching into Learning.

Mr O’HALLORAN – Yes, I know, I have seen that in operation in schools, it is fantastic. I am wondering on what data the decision was made to extend it into high schools instead of using the funding to spread it out more into primary schools?

Ms THORP – The question here is why didn’t we just give it to more primary schools rather than extend it into high schools.

Mr O’HALLORAN – Basically, what was the data, what were the criteria you used to decide to put it into high schools instead of extending it across primary schools? I’m not being critical, I just wondered what criteria were used.

Ms GALE – It is always a balancing question about how much resource goes to early intervention and how much goes to making sure that students, where there are already gaps, have their learning needs addressed. So it is always an interesting question to ask. The data, though, is based on the significant gap that we know we have between year 6 and year 7 where the gap in outcomes widens, if you like. So the thinking was that we needed to give students the best opportunity in that transition period and so the focus initially will be on those transition years of particularly year 7 and year 8 on the strength of Tasmania’s data for quite some time, where there has been a gap.

Mr O’HALLORAN – That is true, and it does lead into a supplementary question on that. I have talked a fair bit around these key transition points. One is years 6 to 7 and the drop-off that occurs there, but the other one is years 10 to 11 which I don’t believe has been adequately addressed over a number of years because there is a critical drop-off, as you all know, at that stage as well, where many students have to jump on a bus for the first time, for example. I am just wondering what attention is being paid to the transition from years 10 to 11 in terms of additional resourcing to try to do something about increasing retention and therefore increasing educational outcomes for students, in light of the pathways planning situation?

Ms THORP – It is linked to that.

Mr O’HALLORAN – Can we talk about the pathways planning situation and the critical role that I saw them playing in high schools? They are having their numbers cut. I am just wanting to know now what the situation is with regard to that, keeping in mind the year 10 to 11 transition.

Ms THORP – It is an important one. I would really like to be able to put your mind at ease about what is going on.

Mr O’HALLORAN – I hope you were ready for this one.

Ms THORP – I anticipated it, perhaps.

Mr FERGUSON – Can I ask that we please keep the answer a little more condensed because we only have an hour to go?

CHAIR – The minister is entitled to answer as she sees fit.

Mr FERGUSON – We have an hour to go.

Mr O’HALLORAN – I want a good answer, though.

Ms THORP – We just wasted a bit of time then. It is agreed that pathway planning is important. Every high school student is to have a passport to post-year 10, so regardless of the cuts that you refer to with the pathway planners that will still occur. It is becoming more of a mainstream activity in our schools, so it is much more built into the curriculum at years 8 and 9 through GA and home class activities with the specialist pathway planners being more direct in their activities, more into year 10.

Mr O’HALLORAN – So are the pathway planners teachers?

Ms THORP – In years 8 and 9, we are going to be using much more of the classroom teacher -

Mr O’HALLORAN – So will that will come out of staffing quota?

Ms THORP – supported by the pathway planner, and then in year 10, each student is to have a passport to PY10, so that is developed in conjunction with the pathway planner.

Mr O’HALLORAN – Right. I just want to pick up one more thing there.

Mr FERGUSON – No, I don’t think you are. The agreement is two to one.

CHAIR – And you have achieved that, Mr Ferguson, let me assure you.

Mr O’HALLORAN – I am not worried that the pathway planner role will be filled by qualified teachers, that is a terrific thing, but if it is coming out of quota where those teachers would normally be used in classrooms, then I am worried.

Ms THORP – Don’t be because UTAS reviewed it in 2007 and according to their findings, it is clear from the research that greater success can be achieved if pathway planning is part of the culture of the school environment rather than an add-on; it must be a mainstream component. Taking that advice on board, pathway planning is important in the early stages – in year 8 or 9, because we also do not want to be accused of trying to lock kids into particular pathways too early. It is about exploring options much more in 8 and 9, and looking ahead to what you possibly could do and then getting far more organised, if you like, in the year-10 level. Our commitment is that every year-10 student will have a passport to PY10 – that is well worked out – and we have a state team working on this, providing consistent information, PY10 opportunities to schools and communities. This is going on as we speak. We also have brokerage teams: one in the north, two in the south and one or two in the north-west – that number is not established yet – to provide information, as requested by the school, to assist pathway planning and also to organise specialist teams to assist; and also campus teams.

There is a lot of work going on in that space and I am more than happy to provide you with a more detailed briefing outside this environment, about what is going on in the area, and then you can come back to me with any further questions, if you like.

Mr O’HALLORAN – That is good.

Mr FERGUSON – Minister, what action will you be taking against teachers who have contacted me with suggested questions for the Estimates today?

Ms THORP – Absolutely none.

Mr FERGUSON – You have alleged that they have breached the State Service Act.

Ms THORP – My comments were around you contacting school principals and encouraging them to break the conditions of the State Service Act.

Mr FERGUSON – So you are alleging that I have encouraged your employees to break the law.

Ms THORP – I am not alleging anything. I am not alleging, Mr Ferguson, I have the email which was forwarded to me in front of me.

Mr FERGUSON – I can assure you, Minister, it will happen again next year. Will you provide an update on Launching into Learning, any changes that are planned or any impending changes that will be felt at the school level? This is a similar question to the Raising the Bar and Closing the Gap.

Ms THORP – This comes from your in-depth investigations, does it? What would you like to know – the budget, because this is basically budget?

Mr FERGUSON – I am not going to help you. I asked the question and you were not listening.

Ms THORP – I get into trouble from you if I give you too much information, so I was wondering if you would like to be a little bit more specific.

Mr FERGUSON – I have asked you what schools will be feeling a change, will be impacted by any changes to this program.

Ms THORP – None.

Mr FERGUSON – Is Launching into Learning targeted at lower SEI schools; is that correct? Would any school that has been involved in that program in the recent past be assured that ongoing funding will be available for them?

Ms GALE – Those decisions are made at the learning service level so the regional decisions that are made -

Mr FERGUSON – The minister just said no schools will be affected.

Ms GALE – There will be no changes made to the funding.

Mr FERGUSON – The minister just said no schools will be affected.

Ms THORP – No, I gave a one-word answer of ‘none’, which is no diminution of the effort.

Mr FERGUSON – Okay. Because I asked about schools.

Ms THORP – I have the list of all the schools – the hub schools, the lead schools, the ones that come on in 2006-07 and the ones in 2007-08 and new ones that came on in 2008-09.

Mr FERGUSON – What can be done to assist schools that have benefited from the program? It is a laudable program, and I have said so. What can be done for those schools that have been advised that their funding will come to a close?

Ms GALE – We are not certain that any schools have been advised that their funding will come to a close.

Ms THORP – Are you aware of any? So it is Sandbox Primary?

Mr FERGUSON – The other thing that I like about you is your sense of humour.

Ms THORP – Thank you, Godwin.

Mr FERGUSON – I really do think it is still a free country and if you want to suggest to me that I am not -

Ms THORP – You as a member of parliament have access to me on a daily basis. Just pick up the phone. If a principal has been in touch with you and said, ‘Our funding is going to be closed,’ and you want that verified, I can find that out for you.

Mr FERGUSON – Why are you saying things like that. I wrote to you on 24 May seeking exactly that briefing and I have not had a response. You know that I was looking for briefings to better inform myself -

Ms THORP – On Launching into Learning.

Mr FERGUSON – Excuse me – as your shadow, and then you run off and say things in a public audience.

Ms THORP – And your question is?

Mr FERGUSON – Why would you, in front of a public audience, try to suggest it is as simple as ringing up your office, when I have written to you on 24 May asking for a series of briefings, which you offered to me but you have deliberately withheld.

[2.45 p.m.]

Ms THORP – That is not true. I have not deliberately withheld anything.

Mr FERGUSON – There is the letter. You say these things -

Ms THORP – Did the secretary provide you with a two-hour briefing?

Mr FERGUSON – Am I allowed to answer this question, Chair?

CHAIR – Mr O’Halloran has the call.

Mr FERGUSON – I have been asked a question by the minister, Chair; am I allowed to answer it?

CHAIR – Mr O’Halloran had the call before the minister even asked that question.

Mr O’HALLORAN – At the time before I had one question with two bits to it and Mr Ferguson just had one question with about 10 bits to is, so you cannot say this is unfair.

I am interested in the issue of bullying. We all agree that it is an ongoing issue. It is a very destabilising issue and upsetting for children and their parents. Gay and lesbian kids are particular targets, I think you would agree. You can identify the groups that are targets. There are some anti-homophobic programs that reduce bullying. I know there was a bridge report two or three years ago, I think 2007, which made some recommendations around some programs that could be implemented in Tasmanian schools to reduce the impact of bullying on gay and lesbian students.

Ms THORP – I have a meeting scheduled with the very group that wants to see much more of that work being done. I am also working closely with young people, a children’s advisory group, and the Commissioner for Children on those very issues. All schools have their programs to address these problems. It is a school-based issue, but I am not denying that there are good systemic things you could put in place to assist schools to make sure that their environment is an inclusive, non-bullying environment. Only last Friday week I had a meeting with representatives of the Alannah and Madeline Foundation and a subset of their work is Better Buddies, which is about creating safe school environments particularly in primary school. They have also started work and are making a lot of progress in a program they are calling ‘eSMART’, trying to recognise the fact that for people of our generation there are activities that lead to bullying technologically that we may not be completely aware of. I am exploring that with them as well. What we are looking at is supporting schools to have their own safe school environments. We are also looking at systemic system-wide approaches that we can put resources into school to help them and also acknowledging the specific interest groups like the one you just mentioned.

Mr O’HALLORAN – I have talked about addressing areas of need today already. I know there are some schools that are difficult to staff. What is the department doing to address those schools and this issue of hard-to-staff schools?

Ms THORP – When you say ‘hard to staff’, do you mean they are in more isolated locations so they are less attractive?

Mr O’HALLORAN – It is not only more isolated, it is also the socioeconomic status.

Ms THORP – But also perception as tougher schools, for example.

Mr O’HALLORAN – Yes, that is right. There were some incentives around a while ago and you had to do your time in these schools at one stage. The problem I see is you get a lot of young, inexperienced staff in these schools which often does not address the need that is there.

Ms THORP – There are incentives. In remote areas, for example Bass Strait islands and the west coast, there are payments upon appointment of a couple of thousand dollars. I have the exact figures if you want them. They are incentive payments to keep people in those schools, to get them there in the first place and keep them. There is the beginning teacher time release program which provides additional support for teachers in their first year through time release for negotiated professional development. It is more difficult in remote schools and also probably more necessary in some environments. They are eligible if they are permanent or fixed term, working for a minimal fractional load of 0.5 for a minimum of one school term. The total program budget for the 2009-10 financial year is just under $700 000. There is also another program, professional experience in isolated and rural schools program, PEIRS, which supports final-year teacher education and speech and language pathology students to undertake their final placement in a regional, rural or isolated setting by providing a travel allowance and accommodation.

Mr FERGUSON – That will work, that is good.

Ms THORP – And there is more that can be done, I agree with you.

Mr FERGUSON – Minister, with school bank accounts, you touched on it earlier in the overview and you mentioned that there is $38.8 million – I presume it is at the end of March at some point recently – that sort of volume of funds -

Ms THORP – December.

Mr FERGUSON – December last year which I think you said is up 75 per cent.

Ms THORP – From 2004.

Mr FERGUSON – So it is up over six years.

Ms THORP – You can almost see a growth pattern going through the more money through the school gate.

Mr FERGUSON – I wonder would you be prepared to undertake a genuine review into your statements on the matter. I know the TPA have written a paper on it -

Ms THORP – And I have had several discussions with them.

Mr FERGUSON – Yes, that is great – and they have put to you some different views. They are different views to yours with regard to that.

Ms THORP – No, I would not agree that our views are different, because I have been taking advice both from the department and from the Principals Association.

Mr FERGUSON – Would you be prepared to have another look at this? You have made the statement today, which I do not find too much difficulty with, by the way, that funds that are provided for a particular cohort of students should be used for the welfare of those students. Nonetheless, there seems to be a very significant difference of opinion between the principals and that statement. It has been a long-running issue over many years. How are we going to resolve the question?

Ms THORP – It is on the website so parents can see, so hopefully the local school community will looking at it too and asking appropriate questions. I do not want to do any witch hunting with principals and school communities. They have good reasons in many cases for having money in their bank accounts. I am just a bit concerned that, when those balances rise and particularly the kind of amounts we are seeing, some of that money – I am certainly not talking about all of it – should have been spent or should be spent on an existing school cohort that it has been received for. That is all.

Mr FERGUSON – I do not think any of us would disagree with that.

Ms THORP – I certainly do not want this to be a subject of discord between myself and principals, for sure.

Mr FERGUSON – No, but you keep raising it and obviously you believe you need to. How are we going to get to a point where the matter is resolved so that everybody understands what is an acceptable amount of reserve to hold in a bank account? Because of course schools are often required to have ready funds -

Ms THORP – About 25 per cent of the school resource package.

Mr FERGUSON – That is going to be set as a benchmark?

Ms THORP – No, it is the benchmark but there is no hard and fast – if you do not spend it you have to give it back or anything like that happening. But I think it is worth raising the issue because it brings the attention of the school community to it -

Mr FERGUSON – It does.

Ms THORP – The best way to rectify the situation is to have schools make their decisions about how they spend their money, but I am concerned about the quantum and also how it is growing. I am concerned that, if a school receives its school resource package for any given year and does not expend it, that may potentially – I am not saying it does but it could potentially – be having negative impacts on that school cohort because it is not being spent for the kids for whom it was designed. Basically that is it.

Mr O’HALLORAN – I have one more question around the staffing of difficult to staff schools again. There is an issue on Bruny Island where teachers on Bruny Island get special travel allowances, for example. It is my understanding that teachers on Bruny Island have to pay $15 per ferry ride, I think it is, to travel to and from school. I am just wondering if there are any moves to support teachers teaching on Bruny Island.

Mr GLASS – We have just recently been made aware of that issue. I think there has been a change in the operator of the ferry and some change to fare structure. We are advised that teachers who actually live and reside on the island or who are permanently based there but travel from the mainland get a concessional rate, so that is okay. But fixed-term teachers, for instance, who only go in for maybe a term or for a period of weeks are not eligible for the concessional rates. So we are looking at that actively now that that has been brought to our attention.

Mr O’HALLORAN – It will be resolved?

Mr GLASS – Yes.

Mr FERGUSON – Minister, with the incredible growth – it has to be said – in built infrastructure on schools arising largely out of the recent BER, has that or could that have an impact on the opportunity for schools to keep them clean? I do not know what it is but I know there is a formula of some kind which is based on covered roof space of internal areas that then establishes what support will be given for cleaning. So that is a question. And, of course, with all modern buildings these days, particularly learning areas, they have a lot of glass. Are you looking at that?

Ms THORP – Yes. It is an interesting consequence of the BER project that the Commonwealth quite rightly provided the money to build the projects but now we have to find the money to clean them, maintain them et cetera. And with the new buildings, the school footprint increases in many cases. I know there has been concern in my local community at Lauderdale Primary because of the lovely big Ralphs Bay Recreation Centre that has been built down there. School communities are addressing it individually in some instances. I know, at Lauderdale, for example, they have developed a business case about community use for the facility to offset additional costs around maintenance and things like that. This is Andrew Finch, who was responsible for the oversight of the BER projects in Tasmania. He and his team should be commended for how well we have done here.
Mr FERGUSON – With regard to the cleaners?

Ms THORP – That is his area of responsibility.

Mr FINCH – There are a range of different cost items that will be affected in schools, among those energy, maintenance and the cleaning. For example, with the maintenance, we currently have significant programs for maintenance in the order of $16 million over five years for things like roofs, lifts and heating systems. They would have the capacity to pick up on those costs that will be incurred around the schools. With cleaning, there will be some additional costs. We are working with schools to see how we can best help them to meet those costs. We have had some initial discussions with the Principals Association about that and we do have some ideas on how we can work towards helping schools cover those costs. We intend to have further discussions with a representative group of school principals and other stakeholders to work through that issue.

Ms THORP – I wish the BER building project had been accompanied by a commensurate increase – another sum of money.

Mr FERGUSON – We need a CER, a Cleaning the Education Revolution. While Andrew is at the table, if I may proceed on a question to do with Wesley Vale Primary School which I understand is a $2 million BER project. I am told – by a parent, I might add – that it started about two weeks ago with the removal of the main toilet block, a couple of offices, a reading recovery room, a utility room for cooking and it was also used for after-school care, and a hit-up wall. Those things, I believe, were part of the demolition but I understand that that project, having done the demolition, has now stopped or been stalled. Can you bring some light onto this?

Ms THORP – It is very difficult to comment on one specific project, but I can report quite confidently that I am not aware of any major problems with timing. They have been staggered in such a way not to put too much heat into the industry to inflate prices.

Mr FERGUSON – Yes. What I am saying is that it started two weeks ago and it stopped this week. I am presuming, perhaps wrongly, that it is somehow related to a reassessment of the landscape in light of Port Sorell construction. Do you want to take it on notice?

Ms THORP – We would have to take it on notice, and the name of the school would be handy.

Mr FERGUSON – I said it was Wesley Vale.

Ms THORP – Wesley Vale. I did not catch that, sorry.

Mr FERGUSON – I have other BERs but there is not time so I am ready to move on.

Ms THORP – Just before we move on, there with questions asked earlier about figures for NAPLAN parent withdrawals based on reading as a measure. I think it was you, Mr Ferguson, that wanted to know how many parents when we were talking about higher education.

[3.00 p.m.]

Mr FERGUSON – Yes. I was not quite as worried about parent withdrawals from State schools; I was more interested in non-government and home schooling.

Ms THORP – Well, in grade 9, for the whole State, government and non-government, there were 24; in grade 7, 32; grade 5, 31; and grade 3, 49.

Mr FERGUSON – That is great.

Ms THORP – So for all years, in an average, there are 136.

Mr FERGUSON – Well done, Minister. What about the home schoolers, can we get some analysis on that?

Ms THORP – We can.

Mr FERGUSON – And try to be nice as well. I mean, we were brought up in good homes.

Ms THORP – I know. So it is the DoE percentage share of consolidated revenue you asked questions on earlier and also contracts and the summary information on that. You might also be interested in the energy issue related to schools because it is good. This is a compliment to schools, not to the department as such.

Mr GLASS – There is a couple that flow on in relation to your questions about cleaning following BER. A really positive outcome for the department to do with major issues of climate change and environmental change is that we have been working very diligently, particularly across all schools and business units, in relation to our energy usage. In 2007 our total energy usage across the department was 69.4 gigawatts. In 2008 that had reduced to 65.3 and in 2009, the year just ended, we are down to 63.3. So we have shown just under a 10 per cent decrease in energy usage. I suppose we are always looking to manage our costs the best we can.

Mr O’HALLORAN – Those savings go back to schools, don’t they?

Ms THORP – They are paid for by schools.

Mr GLASS – They maintain all of their costs in the budget.

Ms THORP – It is an incentive to the schools themselves, but it also increases their capacity to cover off on some of the increased costs surrounding the issue of the expanded school footprint.

1.2 Learning services -

Mr FERGUSON – I have a series of questions on the A-Team, which was run out of Learning Services North. I want to know what evidence there was for the original decision in 2009 to discontinue the A-Team, although that decision was reviewed. I would also like to know why the evaluation was only commenced in February 2010 when the decision to close the program was made in July 2009.

Ms THORP – As you know, the A-Team commenced before my time and it was a project coming out of Learning Services North. It was around basically skilling up teachers and school communities about best practice on teaching children with autism so that they could operate better in the mainstream classroom environment.

Mr FERGUSON – I know what it was, I’m just wondering about the basis of those decisions. I don’t want to drag us all down. Why did you do decide to close it?

Ms THORP – It was not me; it was a Learning Services North decision, wasn’t it? It wasn’t a closure decision, it was simply a project for a period of time.

Mr FERGUSON – Well, you can say that, but that’s just going to slow us down. It was a pilot and it was about to run out of funding and it would have stopped. That is closure. Call it what you like.

Ms THORP – Then we had an independent review done of it which suggested that funding be continued and it is. So there’s your short, sharp answer.

Mr FERGUSON – Okay. That is the final question, but there are quite a few in between. Why was the evaluation only commenced in February 2010 when the decision to close the program was made earlier? Why say you are going to evaluate a program which is or is not working after you have made the decision to close it?

Ms THORP – There wasn’t a decision made to close it, it was a project that had a particular length. It wasn’t open-ended and then a decision to close it made. It was funded to do a particular task in a particular time frame and that time frame passed.

Mr FERGUSON – Can you indicate, then, why no vacancies were filled and professional development was stopped earlier this year, even though you had extended it with funding to the end of June?

Ms THORP – That is getting back to the reason the programs began in the first place, and that was to support teachers, students – and families to a lesser extent, I suppose – with the necessary skills and procedures to support kids with autism in school. So the changes in personnel were reflecting the move from working together in that centralised area to go out into schools, which was the original idea of the program.

Mr FERGUSON – Well, a lot of the concept of the program was withdrawal as well.

Ms THORP – No, not so much about withdrawal but about having spaces. It was about having spaces appropriately available for students with autism so they could self-withdraw, because it is a symptom, if you like, of autism that noise, change and all sorts of things can put pressure on the child, so to have a facility in the school to enable the student to more successfully stay in the school was the idea with it. So it is not withdrawal of the student as such; it is provision of appropriate space away from the lights and noise levels so that the student could self-withdraw from the classroom in times of stress.

Mr FERGUSON – I don’t think you understand the A-Team program.

Ms THORP – I think I do.

Mr FERGUSON – The program was built around students who had been disengaged and many of whom were involved in distance education.

Ms THORP – The whole point was to get the kids back into schools.

Mr FERGUSON – Absolutely, and I commended you numerous times when you continued the life of it, but then we get to the nub of the question. You’ve said that funding is secured and, by the way, I don’t really mind what instrument you use in the Budget to fund it, but it doesn’t appear. You have said that funding is secure in Distance Education Tasmania but can you show me the money?

Ms THORP – No, I can’t show you in the Budget.

Mr FERGUSON – Why not?

Ms THORP – And I couldn’t point to dozens of others in school programs specifically in the Budget either.

Mr FERGUSON – But do you hear what I’m saying? I mean, you’ve said that funding is secured -

Ms THORP – What you’re concerned about is that the funding may not be there.

Mr FERGUSON – Correct – or that it has to be funded out of existing budgets.

Ms THORP – It will come out of our global budget.

Mr FERGUSON – But won’t that put the squeeze on Distance Education?

Ms THORP – No, there are sufficient funds.

Mr FERGUSON – Really?

Ms THORP – Yes, but I will say that I will never -

Mr FERGUSON – Can you tell me something that I can go back to the parents with that will satisfy that concern?

Ms THORP – Okay. They can be assured that funding will be ongoing with $85 000, I think, to support the program to be re-established within Distance Education. That has been allocated so that money is clearly delineated.

Mr FERGUSON – Yes, I saw that.

Ms THORP – The actual sum required for the ongoing running of the program is part of the general funding pool.

Mr FERGUSON – If you were me, would you see where I’m coming from? Wouldn’t you like to see a line item somewhere?

Ms THORP – Look, there would be a parent group somewhere concerned about a swimming program in another school – they are not all delineated.

Mr O’HALLORAN – I have a question about school improvement boards. They seem to have a fairly low profile and I am wondering what outputs they might be delivered in.

Ms THORP – You know there is one in each district.

Mr O’HALLORAN – Yes, I do.

Ms THORP – They are chaired by people of the calibre of Royce Fairbrother and the rest of the board comprises six principals from the region. I have had initial meetings with each of the chairs of those boards to get the ball rolling on setting some priorities and tasks for the rest of the year. Only this week, I think, Mr Fairbrother was on the west coast meeting with the local community down there with Malcolm Wells, the head of Learning Services North-west. So there is a different level of activity; all four of them are all different and they operate differently because of different personnel. I think they are, to some extent, an untapped resource; I don’t think we have maximised what we can get from them.

Mr FERGUSON – On school improvement boards, I know that they wouldn’t be controlling this process but are they involved in informing any processes around the futures of individual schools; for example, schools where it is seems desirable to close or amalgamate or reshape?

Ms THORP – Not that I am aware of.

Mr FERGUSON – I thought they might have been.

Ms THORP – I have only had initial meetings with them but it is my intention to develop a closer relationship. I have had initial conversations with Martin Rees and he is chair of one with Royce. I do not think we are using them and I think they would appreciate being involved more in different things – setting agendas of how they can help.

Mr FERGUSON – I believe they are unpaid but perhaps get some sort of sitting fee. I do not know, what is it?

Ms THORP – There is a sitting fee for the chair but the principals do not get paid because they are part of it.

Mr FERGUSON – What is the sitting fee?

Ms THORP – Just a normal one. It is set by DPAC for the appropriateness of the level of the task. It is not a sitting fee then it is an overall fee. I will have to change that.

Mr FERGUSON – How much is that?

Ms THORP – It is $18 000 but I think you will find they do not all actually collect it.

Mr FERGUSON – Could you take that on notice, thank you.

Ms THORP – Yes.

Mr FERGUSON – That then leads nicely into my last question on school improvement which is now more relevant. Are these boards, and now I would say in particular the chair, are they subject to any kind of performance review?

Ms THORP – Each of the four of them have a set of data because they match to the regions of course. They meet with me and discuss it. Their whole point is to try to improve the educational outcomes in their area.

Mr FERGUSON – I accept that and I think that is great but are they subject to any kind of performance review even more important given that they have an important role in improving educational outcomes. But then there is a public interest test here as well given that you are spending the best part of $100 000 on them.

Ms THORP – It is nowhere near that. There are only four chairs and the deputy chair. I forgot about the deputy chair. Fair enough.

Mr FERGUSON – Do you think you should have a performance review across those positions?

Ms THORP – I would like the opportunity to have further discussions with chairs and how they see their role into the future before I pre-empted anything here -

Mr FERGUSON – It is a good idea, though, is it not?

Ms THORP – I think it is always important to review performance as a general statement but when you are getting pretty well voluntary expertise of members of the community -

Mr FERGUSON – It is not voluntary.

Ms THORP – No, it is not voluntary but they self-select and -

Mr FERGUSON – You cannot say it is voluntary when you are paying them $18 000.

Ms THORP – It would be matched to remuneration for what they would normally earn out there in the community.

Mr FERGUSON – How would you know if you are not doing a performance review?

Ms THORP – As the secretary has pointed out to me, given the number of days that Royce Fairbrother, for instance, does spend on the west coast we could not afford to pay him.

Mr FERGUSON – No, I will not discuss an individual. That is not what this is about. It is a fair question and will you look into it?

Ms THORP – What you are saying here is an expenditure that comes out of the DoE budget and you want to be reassured or convinced or made confident that there are sufficient checks and balances in place to make sure that money is well spent.

Mr FERGUSON – Yes.

Ms THORP – I will just repeat to you, in the nine weeks that I have been minister I have already had one set of meetings with them and I have more planned and during the course of that we will have more discussions about how each of the regions are going in terms of improving their educational outcomes and how better or how the education improvement boards can play a role in that.

Mr FERGUSON – Can I just finally put it to you that you do not necessarily discuss the prospect of a performance review with someone that you are paying. I think that is your right to say that you are going to have a performance review and then maybe discuss how it might play out?

Ms THORP – What I would like to do, if that is okay, is provide you with a briefing on the original establishment because I am not totally over it and what was put in place in the early days before my involvement and my plans for the future.

Mr FERGUSON – Sure, I accept that and your answers have changed my questions because I had thought they were receiving sitting fees.

1.3 Education performance services -

Mr FERGUSON – This is just an open-ended question. How would you describe the extent and quality of a valuation of teacher performance in our schools?

Ms THORP – I think that is a very big question -

Mr FERGUSON – It is.

Ms THORP – because it operates on so many different levels but what we are looking at here is student outcomes in education.

Mr FERGUSON – You are not paying the students, you are paying the teachers, so how do you measure their performance and student outcomes are naturally part of that?

Ms THORP – We have all sorts of measures that are also taken up in our education performance reports around school effectiveness, staff satisfaction, parent satisfaction, parent satisfaction with reporting, student satisfaction and staff attendance. They are pretty good measures of how things are going in a school.

[3.15 p.m.]

Mr FERGUSON – Sometimes it is a reflection of how you are going as a government, though, and what sort of support is outside the school or outside the classroom, they are having that as well though aren’t they?

Ms THORP – The principal is the learning leader in their school and they have significant responsibility for the quality of the educational programs that are being rolled out within these school communities. So there is a very strong level of accountability there, if you like.

Then there is also accountability at the learning services level itself. Their learning service managers have responsibility for making sure the schools perform in their communities, the best they possibly can. So I believe that, to be honest, that we get very good value from our teachers.

Mr FERGUSON – I pay tribute to all of our teachers. But I am just a little bit concerned now that you are not able to tell me what is the extent and quality of evaluation of teacher performance. An individual maths or English teacher or middle-school teacher, can’t you tell me how that person, during the period of a calender year, how well their teaching abilities and needs for future professional development are discussed with their leader?

Ms THORP – As I have just said, there is a level of responsibility at the school and then there is another level of responsibility at learning service level. Jenny, do you want to go into any detail?

Mr FERGUSON – It is a bit vague. I am finding it is a little vague.

Ms THORP – We do not give them tests every year or anything.

Mr FERGUSON – It is a profession.

Ms GALE – There is a system-wide approach to managing performance and it is called Leading For High Performance. Every employee, including teachers, has at least one face-to-face meeting with their line manager annually.

Mr FERGUSON – Yes, this is what I am looking for.

Ms GALE – So they have at least one meeting annually where things like their current performance, what their skills are, what their gaps are, what their strengths or weaknesses are, what they need into the future to help to improve their work, happens in every school in the State.

Mr FERGUSON – I know that you have said that it happens once a year. It probably happens more than that doesn’t it?

Ms GALE – At least once a year.

Mr FERGUSON – Would it be primarily the principal who leads that process or may it be a AST or can you fill me in on that?

Ms GALE – The principal leads the process for their school but that does not necessarily mean to say that the principal has the discussion with every staff member of their school -

Mr FERGUSON – Sure, it could be a mentor teacher.

Ms GALE – It would vary from school to school. So it would depend on the way in which leadership is devolved in the school and there would be responsibilities according to that in each of the schools that we have.

Mr FERGUSON – Can we ensure that all Tasmanian students are provided with the NAPLAN testing, including home schoolers? We have covered off but I did ask you for an undertaking that you would look into it. Will you?

Ms THORP – Yes, but basically I just reiterate that it is not mandated.

Mr FERGUSON – I appreciate that.

Ms THORP – There may be a whole lot of reasons why different people do not want to do it.

1.5 Grants and financial assistance -

Mr FERGUSON – With regard to the breakfast program, I will start the question by saying I applaud any effort to ensure that a child has food in his or her tummy before they start their first lesson for the day, I really do. Do you have any ideas about how we can encourage more parents to ensure that the children in their care are fed and ready for school at home?

Ms THORP – There has been considerable work done over years to educate parents, things like school canteen projects and multiplicity projects, fresh air exercise programs -

Mr FERGUSON – You could almost say that it goes into this brochure couldn’t you, almost?

Ms THORP – Yes and you will find reference to it there about a proper diet and all the rest of it.

Mr FERGUSON – What can we do to encourage more parents to feed their kids?

Ms THORP – I think that is a social inclusion, whole-of-government response. At a school level, encouraging kids to bring healthy lunches to school. Most of the schools that I am aware of, the newsletters I read, they often have suggestions to parents about what should be in their lunch box. Once again, it is one of these things where you cannot force people. In regard to the breakfast program, you would be aware that in lots of communities there are already programs that are running that are auspiced by neighbourhood houses and other groups in the community. The idea of the breakfast program was not to distribute so much to each individual school, so that they could run their own individual breakfast program. It was more about making that money available, probably at learning service level, I imagine, will do it, so there is a pool of money available there for community groups, neighbourhood houses, the school itself should it wish to apply to run a breakfast program. What I find is that quite often schools can get donations in the way of fresh fruit, milk and bread, but there are other items, like Milo, for example, or vegemite or whatever – that are the cost items. Really, only a small grant of even $100 a term, or $50 a term is enough.

Mr FERGUSON – I think that is great. I guess I am just raising the issue. I would be hopeful that we do not say to parents, ‘We do not need you to send your kids to school without brekkie.’

Ms THORP – I agree with you, and with Launching Into Learning it is a very holistic program, it is not simply about literacy and numeracy, as such. Not that I am denigrating the value of those, but it is also about the whole way one treats a child to best prepare them to start school and start it well.

Mr O’HALLORAN – Does this output concern student assistance scheme?

Ms THORP – Yes.

Mr O’HALLORAN – The $8 million there or thereabouts, is the total amount, is it, of monies paid to the student assistance scheme, plus the other Budget items there?

Mr MAY – It includes that amount that is paid in respect of students in the K to 10 sector in Government schools.

Mr O’HALLORAN – Can I ask why it is dropping off, then, after 2010-11 by about half a million dollars. Is it reflective of the number of students?

Mr GLASS – The key issue there is that $350 000, as was just mentioned, for the order orientation program, that is just in there for one year at the moment because it is a pilot program to see how that goes. So that $350 000 comes out on subsequent years.

Mr O’HALLORAN – Can I also ask, then, it talks about scholarships and student assistance, bursaries and allowances, so what are those?

Mr MAY – There is a senior secondary accommodation allowance. There is special bursaries, which is the provision of money through school social workers to assist disadvantaged families by providing uniforms and the like. There is a spectacles assistance program. There is also some funding that goes out through the minister, some educational grant schemes for support of organisations or individuals with special – meeting the need for additional funding or for separate funding.

Mr O’HALLORAN – Who decides what goes where? Who decides on the disbursal of those funds, is that at a school level?

Mr MAY – No. Each of these special bursaries, spectacles, student assistance programs, senior secondary accommodation allowance, accommodation allowance, etcetera, are run according to a set of guidelines, published guidelines, means tested guidelines, so eligibility for some is determined on the basis of income assessment, generally done through Centrelink and so on. So it is all a highly formal process.

Mr O’HALLORAN – An application would be made through the principal and then go on through -

Mr MAY – In fact, with the student assistance program we have a process now where the students almost stay on the program, once they have come on. So the application process is pretty lean and mean.

Mr GLASS – But we check any eligibility each year, confidentiality, with Centrelink. So we have got a direct linkage there and of course that makes it not resource-intensive at all, and it takes an onerous load away from parents that otherwise would have to apply every year.

Output group 2

Post-compulsory education and skills development

Mr FERGUSON – Minister, with the refinements that you announced on 7 June, you said that the boards of the Polytechnic and the Tasmania Academy would be abolished. Can you add some meat to those bones? Does that actually mean that the organisations themselves will be repealed from law or will they somehow retain their role as a statutory authority without their board?

Ms THORP – Basically they will move to being under DoE, without the boards and then we will have to make decisions around the management, whether we need to put in an equivalent of a CEO position at the head of both the Polytechnic and the Academy. Once again, that is something that has been covered off in the implementation guideline which will be the subject of advice from the implementation task force. Of course, there need to be sensitive conversations with the existing chairs and CEOs of existing organisations about their futures.

Mr FERGUSON – Coming into DoE would imply that the statutory authority nature of those organisations would no longer be the case.

Ms THORP – They would be entities as such but they will not be statutory authorities, no.

Mr O’HALLORAN – Given that TSI will remain a statutory authority and given the inclusion of the Academy and the Polytechnic in the DoE, will current staff from the TSI be given an opportunity to move into the Polytechnic, for example? This is a concern that has come from some staff in TSI.

Ms THORP – That they might be forced to move?

Mr O’HALLORAN – No, that they may be able to move.

Mr FERGUSON – They would like to, would they?

Mr O’HALLORAN – Yes.

Mr WHITE – I think that would be a matter for discussion with the secretary’s project team as the changes are implemented, but the present indication is that if we have productive work for them I would not see that as a normal outcome.

Mr O’HALLORAN – Budget-wise how is TSI operating at the moment? There are some rumours that it is in budget deficit. Is that correct?

Mr WHITE – I do not think it is correct to say it is in budget deficit because, as you will see from the forthcoming reports, I do not believe that is the correct assumption. It is fair to say that when we disaggregated TAFE we used our best estimates of staff changes and revenue as we knew them at the time. We always saw that it would take some period of years to get the fine-tuning on that right.

[3.30 p.m.]

Ms THORP – We have had conversations also involving the chair around what adjustment may need to be made into the future to ensure the ongoing viability of the organisation structurally and financially. There are some sensitivities around that I would not want to canvass here.

Mr O’HALLORAN – I am concerned about viability of class sizes. Given that the TSI sits aside from, say, the Polytechnic, there is no opportunity to combine TSI classes with Polytechnic classes and therefore you can have non-viable classes at both ends, but if they were combined there would be a viable class. In the restructure, is that issue being addressed?

Mr WHITE – The Skills Institute does not work on a class principle. It works with apprentices and trainees. Much of the training is done in the workplace to the employer’s models so we have moved away from concepts of terms, semesters and classes. We are workforce skills developers so a lot of our training and assessment is done on the job. It is quite a different concept from a college or class model.

Mr O’HALLORAN – It used to be the way that it was in for TAFE, wasn’t it?

Mr WHITE – Part of TAFE most certainly and that part of TAFE which has moved into the Polytechnic still would have some characteristics of that model, to a greater or lesser extent. We certainly have moved right away from it.

Ms THORP – It has been some time since it has operated in your space.

Mr WHITE – A long time.

Mr FERGUSON – Minister, what is the Government doing with regard to the matter of former TAFE teachers who have now been virtually divided along the TSI and polytechnic organisations?

Ms THORP – In terms of?

Mr FERGUSON – The TAFE teachers did not come with the same qualifications and teacher registration as college teachers so how is that matter being handled at the present time? I am working on the basis that within the Polytechnic today, you have teachers working side by side who have come from different parent organisations, DoE on the one -

Ms THORP – So you want to know how that is being managed?

Mr FERGUSON – Yes; how is it going and what is the future for that?

Ms CARROLL – The Polytechnic has been working with the Teachers Registration Board for certainly 12 months now on what will be acceptable to the Teachers Registration Board for polytechnic teachers and looking at a particular university qualification that will meet their requirements and will provide a level playing field for all teachers in the Polytechnic. That has been a very positive and collaborative process and we are just about at the point where we have agreed on a qualification and we will be looking to universities to see what they can provide for us. It will be a very customised applied learning-type qualification.

Mr FERGUSON – A bachelor-level degree?

Ms CARROLL – We are open to a number of suggestions but certainly it will need to include what is set up by our quality assurance framework – that is, the certificate for in-training and assessment at the base level – and we will then build on that. So it could be a graduate diploma or it could be a degree.

Mr FERGUSON – Shared services seems to come in for a fair bit of criticism when I move around schools from ’sandbox primary school’ right around to ‘blackboard high’. What would be your response to that? I do not want to embarrass anybody today further, but what would be your comment?

Ms GALE – I think there was a change from what were very localised processes in colleges to a more statewide focus through the shared services for a range of reasons. I think it is true to say that some of the difficulty that was articulated was on the strength of small changes that people were asked to undertake in terms of those systems that were put in place at the beginning of 2009.

Mr FERGUSON – What is the future for shared services? You would be aware of concerns from some board members of the Skills Institute who have told me that they do not feel that they are getting their $7 million worth of value.

Ms THORP – We have had initial discussions and that is one of the issues that we need to have further talk about. I am certainly aware that it is a concern of the Institute and we will be addressing it.

Mr FERGUSON – Can I take it from your answer that you would accept that the Skills Institute – let us not talk a number today – should only pay for the value they get?

Ms THORP – Something we have also talked about is whether or not the Skills Institute should have the opportunity to go out and source its own services in that regard. No firm decision has been made but there is cognisance of the issues.

Mr FERGUSON – I think in your answer you have virtually said that you do believe that they should be able to get value for what they pay if you are possibly going to let them outsource.

Ms THORP – I don’t wish to imply for a moment that I don’t think that value is there. I am just saying it is an awareness we have of one of the things we need to discuss into the future.

Mr FERGUSON – I think that’s fair enough.

Mr O’HALLORAN – My question is about school-based apprenticeships. I am just wondering, under the restructured model, how we will deal with the issue of delivery of school-based apprenticeships. I would also like some clarity around the position that Australian Technical Colleges are playing in this whole new mix.

Ms THORP – We want them.

Mr O’HALLORAN – I would like to know what the plans are around those particular issues because it seems to me that school-based apprenticeships were something we struggled to deliver under the old model, that’s for sure.

Ms THORP – The Australian Technical College became the Northern Vocational School on 1 January with 23 staff that came across into DoE, if I understand it correctly.

Mr O’HALLORAN – So they are now merged with the DoE – is that correct?

Ms THORP – Yes.

Mr O’HALLORAN – Do you have any idea of how many school-based apprenticeships we are offering and how they are being delivered? I am happy to put it on notice; it is just an area I am interested in.

Ms CARROLL – I do not have the precise figures but what I can say is that the school-based apprenticeship model aligns very closely with the polytechnic learning model and dovetails beautifully with what we are attempting to do and has been growing under our guardianship.

Mr O’HALLORAN – So there is the flexibility around timetables and so forth to deliver school-based apprenticeships?

Ms CARROLL – Yes.

Mr FERGUSON – Just on that, Minister, in your new revised approach for Tas Tomorrow, we are returning to eight colleges?

Ms THORP – Each of the eight colleges, as an entity, so Hobart College will be called Hobart College unless they want to have a fancy name change. It could be Mt Nelson College or something, which of course they could do.

Mr FERGUSON – I think they have change fatigue.

Ms THORP – As a former student of Hobart College and a former teacher at Hobart College I’m quite attached to the name, myself. But it has been pointed to out to me that THC also stands for tetrahydrocannabinol, which some people do not think is a good idea.

Mr FERGUSON – Some of us do, but anyway. It’s marijuana.

Ms THORP – So there will be those entities and that will mean that there is a place in each community where people can say, ‘That’s my college’, and that will be the place to which they go to enrol.

Mr FERGUSON – Is that eight colleges and then will you -

Ms THORP – They will be eight campuses of the Academy.

Mr FERGUSON – Oh. That’s the first time I’ve heard you say that.

Ms THORP – It has been in all the models; it has been widely distributed.

Mr FERGUSON – That’s news to me.

Ms THORP – It is still called Hobart College, if you like, but as a campus of the Academy.

Mr FERGUSON – Where does the Northern Vocational School sit? Does it sit within that pool or not? At the moment, what I am foreseeing is that, on 1 January, under your revised model you will have one Tasmanian Academy with eight campuses and then you will have only one senior secondary college standing on its own? Does that sound right? Am I right or wrong?

Ms THORP – There are some issues we need to resolve around it. Not everything is sorted exactly yet, as you would appreciate.

Mr FERGUSON – You’re joking.

Ms THORP – I’ve already told you that. We have a draft implementation plan which will go to the advisory group on Tuesday.

Mr FERGUSON – Will you be looking to protect the Northern Vocational School’s special place in the system?

Ms THORP – I am not going to guarantee that at this stage.

Mr FERGUSON – Your predecessor did.

Ms THORP – That is not me.

Mr FERGUSON – The Premier.

Ms THORP – That is not me.

Mr FERGUSON – Okay. I am listening.

Mr SMYTH – Over the past six months or so the Northern Vocational School’s Launceston campus has built a very strong relationship with Prospect High, Kingsmeadow High and Brooks High, and the Burnie campus with Burnie High School, Penguin and Devonport. We see them as playing a pretty strong role in building pathways between those high schools and those students who want to do some vocational options while they are in year 10 as a pathway to their academy college/polytechnic as the next step. We see that as very much a stepping-stone for high school students but we will certainly be testing that out as we move through the model in the next six months.

Mr FERGUSON – Are you planning to abolish them?

Mr SMYTH – Absolutely not.

Mr O’HALLORAN – But they will be an integral part, won’t they, of the new model?

Mr SMYTH – Yes.

Mr FERGUSON – As facilities or as entities?

Ms THORP – There are lots of details to be worked out but they will not be a -

Mr FERGUSON – It sounds like you’re preparing to wind them up.

Ms THORP – No, absolutely not.

Mr SMYTH – Quite the contrary.

Ms THORP – Absolutely not.

Mr SMYTH – We have made a commitment to them.

Ms THORP – Yes, that’s right.

Mr FERGUSON – Okay. I’m hearing different things here.

Ms THORP – No, you’re not.

Mr FERGUSON – I heard you say just a moment ago that you don’t provide a guarantee to the Northern Vocational School continuing.

Ms THORP – You said that that’s what the Premier said and was I tied to that and I said that is not me. I am not tied to every comment made by every former Minister for Education. I make decisions in my time and my space that are most appropriate for the times in which we live. Now we are in a transitional stage here, as John said, and over the last few months strong relationships have been developed both in Launceston and Burnie.

Mr FERGUSON – That’s great, I’m all for that.

Ms THORP – If something is working well why on earth would you not want to continue it?

Mr FERGUSON – That’s a very good question. The Northern Vocational School is a school, is it not, under the Education Act?

Mr SMYTH – Yes, it is.

Mr FERGUSON – Does that therefore entitle the Northern Vocational School to the very protection that you promised earlier in our Estimates today that no school would be made to close or amalgamate without the support of that school community?

Ms THORP – I don’t see the problem. We have already said that we -

Mr FERGUSON – I am just asking you if that affords the same protection to the Northern Vocational School as you promised for any other school.

Ms THORP – There isn’t a school community as such -

Mr FERGUSON – Yes, there is.

Ms THORP – Not in the same sense as a school in a particular area because it covers -

Mr FERGUSON – I think I might have you there.

Ms THORP – I just don’t know what your point is. We have said that there are no plans to abolish. We have already said that there have -

Mr FERGUSON – Does the fact that the Northern Vocational School is a school under the Education Act entitle it to the protection that you promised just an hour ago that no school would be closed or amalgamated without the full support of its school community?

Ms THORP – We have not quite worked out exactly what the future plans are for that school so I do not want to pre-empt anything at this stage. There is still work to be done.

Mr FERGUSON – Are you carving out the Northern Vocational School for different treatment to any other school?

CHAIR – The minister has responded to your question, Mr Ferguson.

Ms THORP – We have not quite worked out what we are going to do there yet. You can be absolutely guaranteed that whatever happens will be for the benefit of the school community.

Mr FERGUSON – I’ve heard that before, Minister.

Ms THORP – From me?

Mr O’HALLORAN – We talked earlier on the issues of retention and we know that Tasmania Tomorrow was really about retention and improvements in numeracy and literacy outcomes -

Ms THORP – And attainment.

Mr O’HALLORAN – and skills and knowledge acquisition. There seems to be some confusion around the word ‘retention’ so I am wondering -

Ms THORP – We have had conversations about this in the past.

Mr O’HALLORAN – I asked a question in Parliament about it. Do we need a commonly understood definition of and reporting on retention to take the confusion out of it. What exactly do we mean about it? Where are the measuring points, the start point, the end point; what do you need to be called ‘retained’?

Ms THORP – I want to move to a system whereby when each student starts the beginning of year 11, they have a pathway plan that has been developed before they come to their respective institution. I am prepared to discuss this and have my opinion modified, but I think that if someone starts at the beginning of year 11 with a plan to get a particular qualification in the whole range of things that are available to them then the real measure of retention and attainment is about whether or not that is what they achieved over that period of time.

I think we need to get away from numbers that are based on head counts that may not necessarily reflect the reality. For example, you might have 100 kids at the beginning of the year in any one institution, then 10 leave and 20 new ones come in so that you can actually have growth or vice versa, and they do not actually reflect the success of that original 100 kids who enrolled in the first place. That is what we have to work to.

[3.45 p.m.]

We get our data in a whole lot of ways. We get the national school statistics collection. There are a variety of measures and I think that is why out in the community there is often confusion. I think it is deserving of more work and effort to make sure there is a generally understood and accepted way of measuring school attainment and school retention so we can all be confident that what we are all talking about is the same thing. I think that is fair enough.

It has been a problem. One of the arguments through the early part of the implementation of post-year 10 reforms was the fact that we had a cohort of kids at the Academy who had not had the opportunity to complete their course. It is a two-year course so none of the counting actually reflected the fact that they had not completed. Is it fair to say that?

Mr SAYER – Skills Tasmania is a purchaser of vocational education and training. We have moved to purchasing at the completion end so once completions occur we count them and then pay for that.

Ms THORP – The sheet of paper I gave you which had the post year-10 data as part of the budget overview lists under ‘key highlights’ the year 11 and years 12, 13 data, how it is collected and what it reflects. I think that is useful. Do you have that?

Mr O’HALLORAN – Yes, I have. I might come back to that. There was a question earlier about the 39 per cent increase in enrolments of Hellyer last year and I am wondering whether -

Ms THORP – What that was all about.

Ms CARROLL – That increase is reflected in most of the ex-college campuses. Our understanding is that the majority of students who are a part of that increase are attracted by the improved options, the things that they can do now that they could never do before such as the 300 VET qualifications that are now open to them and a combination of that with TCE subjects. The other thing that is attracting students, particularly those who may have been disengaged already or on the verge of disengaging, is the applied learning model that is used in the Polytechnic where they are actually engaged with hands-on and workplace-assimilated courses.

Mr O’HALLORAN – Were they full-time students?

Ms CARROLL – Some will be part-time students so part of what the Polytechnic offers students is the opportunity to work and do part-time study.

Mr O’HALLORAN – Do you have any breakdown of the number who may have been part-time and those who are full-time or is that figure full-time equivalents?

Ms CARROLL – It would be full-time equivalents.

Mr O’HALLORAN – So the 39 per cent increase was full-time equivalents?

Ms CARROLL – That is my understanding.

Mr FERGUSON – Minister, I understand there is a disagreement under way between the Association of Independent Schools and the Government with regard to VET in schools funding. It is my understanding that VET in schools funding to non-government schools is about a 30 per cent reduction compared to 2008. It has been put to me that the relevant funding for Tasmania is only $533 000 and that an appropriate share of that has been allocated to AIST for independent schools – so says Skills Tasmania. However, in the Commonwealth 2009-10 budget papers it states that there is no specific Commonwealth payment targeted to VET in schools at all, it having been rolled up in the new National Skills and Workforce Development specific purpose payment.

The allegation from the non-government school sector is that the decision to reduce the allocation to VET in schools has been taken by the State Government. I am put that before you and ask you for a response. Why has the Government failed to restore VET in schools funding to 2008 levels?

Mr SAYER – Everything you have said is true.

Mr FERGUSON – What a relief.

Mr SAYER – Moneys from the Commonwealth has rolled into specific-purpose payment, as you said. What the Commonwealth did when it rolled all of those funds that you could see transparently for particular programs in the past was looked at again by the Commonwealth and, rather than the way it was treated in the past, it was treated on a population basis. The population did not grow here as fast as the rest of the nation. We did receive a smaller amount of money from the Commonwealth, so you are quite correct. From Skills Tasmania’s point of view, we had to calculate how that reduction of funds would be taken by both the independent schools and public schools. We all copped a share of that reduction.

Ms THORP – The last part of your question was, did Skills Tasmania -

Mr FERGUSON – Peter to pay Paul.

Mr SAYER – We all took an equal share. It is an understandable concern. You do not want to get less money. There was a little less money, yes.

Mr FERGUSON – Does that mean there is less money for government schools from that same package as well?

Mr SAYER – Yes.

Mr FERGUSON – Minister, would you take a look at that? Clearly there is less support for vocational education and training in schools for all school sectors arising out of that.

Ms THORP – There are a variety of ways in which VET in schools is rolled out, as you know. But we are happy to look at it. Your question was premised on the basis that there had been a pool of money and an apparent diminution of what went to one sector with a concern on the part of that sector that they had been unfairly treated. I think Mr Sayer has quite clearly spelt out -

Mr FERGUSON – Everyone is hurting.

Ms THORP – Yes.

Mr SAYER – Yes.

Mr FERGUSON – Would you be communicating with independent schools with regard to 2010 funding soon?

Mr SAYER – Yes, of course.

Mr FERGUSON – Have you yet, or will you soon?

Mr SAYER – No, we have not.

Mr FERGUSON – It is getting a little late in the day, isn’t it?

Mr SAYER – We have not seen the money, what the cut-up will be yet, but as soon as we do we will be in contact.

Mr O’HALLORAN – What was the commercial budget target for TSI in 2009 and what was actually achieved? Also, how are you tracking this year?

Mr WHITE – Last year the commercial budget, from memory, was just under $10 million. This is what I would call competitive income so it covers a range. It was just under $10 million. I think we fell only very marginally short of that. This year we are tracking just over $10 million and we are on track.

Mr FERGUSON – And we are also combining the statutory authorities?

Mr WHITE – Yes.

Mr FERGUSON – I have a question on retention data, Minister. It has been a bit of a game of cat and mouse since April when you released the ‘Education Performance Report 2009′. It was conspicuously missing an important figure, a measure for direct retention, which we are all genuinely interested in. The report said, ‘NA’. Can I give you another opportunity to advise us of either what the figure that was missing from that document is or could you explain what the problem is in providing it?

Mr SMYTH – The February census had incomplete data from the Academy and Polytechnic at the February census date. By the time the student data had been put on it was into probably April.

Ms GALE – Almost June.

Mr SMYTH – Therefore, it would not have been a comparable figure. A lot of the data eventually was collected, but people would have been critical and said, ‘You waited longer until it went up higher’.

Ms THORP – So it was not at that point in time.

Mr SMYTH – It is a point-in-time figure.

Mr FERGUSON – Do you actually have the data from that point in time?

Mr SMYTH – At the end of February the data was incomplete and we do not have that data.

Mr FERGUSON – Why was it incomplete?

Mr SMYTH – New systems, new arrangements, greater number of students, this is February 2009.

Mr FERGUSON – Okay, two months, you are right. That is a shame. That means we will never know.

Mr SMYTH – What will we never know?

Mr FERGUSON – We will never know the figure.

Mr SMYTH – We will know as the handover -

Mr FERGUSON – You will never be able to give it to me.

Mr SMYTH – We will know as they hand out the new skills and we have got the figure from 2008-09 August and from 2008 February to 2010 February. Both of which show very high good sign increases.

Mr FERGUSON – What is the percentage?

Mr SMYTH – If you take from 2008 February to 2010 February

Ms THORP – Enrolments increased 9 per cent overall.

Mr FERGUSON – Sorry to interrupt but that is the problem, is that apparent?

Mr SMYTH – That is the enrolment

Ms THORP – That consensus at that point in time.

Mr FERGUSON – I am not interested in that.

Ms THORP – That is the data that was missing from 2009 February.

Mr FERGUSON – The data that was missing was direct retention.

Mr SMYTH – If you do not have the February data you cannot measure the August data against it in 2009, if that is what you are referring to.

Ms THORP – We wish that we had it too because I am sure that it would strengthen my argument even further.

Mr SMYTH – All the data sets indicate -

Mr FERGUSON – There you go again, being optimistic.

Ms THORP – Could I just take this time to say that the Auditor-General said, about post-year 10 enrolments in his special report of June 2010, that these study patterns are consistent with an increase in participation by students who otherwise would not have engaged in post-year 10 education and training. That is not me saying that, it is the Auditor-General.

Mr O’HALLORAN – May I ask a question for this year, 2010. Have you any indication of the number of students that might have enrolled at the end 2009 to go to year 11? And how they have been retained to date?

Mr SMYTH – Not to date. We are collecting that and we will have it but it is too early yet to draw a line on it.

Mr O’HALLORAN – Is there any indication that numbers have dropped off?

Mr SMYTH – All the indications all the way from 2008, including that comment the minister has just read out from the Auditor-General, suggests growth.

Ms THORP – They are new people, that is the massive thing, not all of them but new people which is what is so encouraging because these are people who were not, in that past, going on have found good reason to now go on to post-year 10.

Mr O’HALLORAN – I will move on because we are running out of time. So in the merged system that is about to occur under DoE all the data collection and IT resources and the timetable will come under the one umbrella I presume?

Ms THORP – For both Academy and Polytechnic?

Mr O’HALLORAN – Yes.

Ms THORP – Yes.

Mr O’HALLORAN – So that should streamline data collection, IT services, time tabling, all of those matters should be dealt with more effectively?

Ms THORP – There will be more responsibility at the local level, if you like. People anticipate, those who did not like the system as it was progressing, anticipate that it will get the results they want. We will just have to see.

Mr O’HALLORAN – It certainly makes sense to me.

Mr FERGUSON – I think in the interests of time the minister may be willing to take some questions on notice from output group 3.

CHAIR – You have got time to ask questions now, Mr Ferguson.

Mr FERGUSON – I have a couple of questions on capital I would like to ask. Would you accept some questions on notice from output group 3 given the absence of time?

CHAIR – The time allocated for committees is known so you cannot put questions on notice.

Ms THORP – If you would like, I will arrange a briefing a with Siobhan Gaskell about all the things that come under that group.

Capital investment program

Mr FERGUSON – As per my letter 18 May, Minister, time permits me to go into only one matter and that is the Cosgrove High specialist sport school. Minister, the budget has an $18 million allocation to convert Cosgrove High School into a sports school. What is the purpose and rationale of this decision? I ask you to answer that in the context of the shock and surprise when it was announced.

Ms THORP – The $1 million allocation for this year will be used to do some immediate works that are required at Cosgrove, the scope of which is being determined. It will also be used to produce a business case that will have community input to make sure that the expenditure in the following years is best spent.

Mr FERGUSON – Why would you commit $18 million to a capital investment when you have not done a business case?

Ms THORP – We know the educational basis for doing it. I am talking about a business case for the effectiveness of the gymnasium.

Mr FERGUSON – You don’t know if it will stack up, yet you have committed $18 million dollars to it.

Ms THORP – I do, because one of the things we need to make sure of is a viable Cosgrove High School. The enrolment at Montrose Bay High, it is fair to say, is almost at capacity. So we would not have a co-ed school all the way from Brighton/Bridgewater area to Taroona.

Mr FERGUSON – You have been minister for only seven weeks, but you have been in government for 12 years, so why didn’t you do the business case last year before you committed $18 million?

Ms THORP – You are getting two issues muddled up. One of the things we want to do is stimulate community appreciation and use of Cosgrove High School because we need it to be viable. If we do not have it then we have the Bridgewater federation, Montrose Bay High – which is virtually at capacity – and if you did not have Cosgrove High operating effectively then you would not have a co-ed school.

The committee suspended from 4.02 p.m. 4.17 p.m.

After a long series of questions that highlighted the inadequacy of getting less than 50% of homes and businesses connected to the fibre rollout, Mr Bartlett conceded that there had not been any consideration given to changing the rollout from an “opt-in” to the more comprehensive “opt-out” model.

The Liberals have proposed that proper consideration be given to making changes to the rollout that would ensure that all homes and businesses are provided with a fibre-optic cable “drop”.

By doing a cable drop at the time technicians are already in the area would reduce overall costs to the consumer, make the rollout more efficient and increase take-up rates.

The Premier’s last minute back flip where he stated that he would raise the matter with Doug Campbell, Chairman of Tasmanian NBN Co Ltd was a welcome relief.

While the Premier attempt to play his trademark divisive politics on the issue of the NBN rollout, the Liberals have done some of the work for him in providing evidence of the shortcomings of the current rollout together with a common sense suggestion.

Michael Ferguson MP
Shadow Minister for Innovation, Science and Technology

I want to provide a response to this Labor-Greens Budget. It is the first such budget in a long, long time and I want to highlight some particular areas of need which I see as being unfulfilled. I want to describe in some general terms some of the thoughts and views that I have on education policy. I would also like, both from within this Chamber and outside, to invite community discussion and debate in that respect.

For any government the annual budget is its signature piece. It speaks most loudly about what you stand for and what you can do and are willing to do to fix problems that are in the community – to seize hold of opportunities that you sense and things that you wish to take advantage of. A budget will say what economic reforms are needed to help Tasmania to keep up with the rest of the world and to maintain, or even hopefully improve, our standard of living. A budget will say whether in government you will keep the promises that you made before an election. This, of course, goes to the very heart of integrity in politics because the voters of Tasmania get rare occasions to say what they think in a meaningful way and to direct government and democracy in Tasmania. These are called elections and they only come up every four years or thereabouts. That is why we as candidates and political parties and independents will go out into the political marketplace and we will sell our wares. We will say to people, ‘If you vote for me, this is what I stand for and this is what I would seek to do.’ Party leaders take it to a new level. They speak on behalf of all their team, whether it is the Liberal team, or team Bartlett or the Nick McKim Dream Greens team. You will say, ‘If you elect us to government these are not just the values and the ideas that we would strive for; this is what we will do.’ These are the action statements. Value statements are very important as I think everybody in this room will agree. I can say that confidently without wanting to overdo it. There are many people of genuine goodwill. It is one of the best things that I have observed coming into this place and I think that is excellent.

Values are very important but when people have these rare occasions to vote at an election not everyone, but almost everyone in the community, really values the opportunity to vote a government in or out. Sometimes they even enjoy it because they think, ‘Maybe I have just had enough of this lot. I want them out.’ Or, ‘I really think these guys are great and I want to get them in.’ Or, ‘This government is so good I would like to see them continue on.’

Put yourself in the shoes of somebody who has a particular important need in their family, such as an educational need or a young person or child in their family with a disability who is not getting the support that they need to reach their potential, or someone in their family or a friend who is sick – they will be a highly motivated voter. In my inaugural speech, I spoke about a group of people who were fearful for their jobs and saw the election as their only chance to speak up.

This Budget tells me Labor believes that near enough is good enough or, if I may mangle an old song, that ‘three out of four ain’t bad’. I am old enough to remember that song, but mostly from the repeats on the radio. Anything goes, so long as it keeps you in power. The lesson for anybody in the community who wants to pay attention to happenings in Parliament this week and last week, is that the new rule for Tasmanian politics is this: it is okay to offer the world, it is okay to have a long list of promises and make them, ‘hand on heart’ to the voters, then, after the election, to change your language and to change what you said, and to boast, as the Treasurer did last Thursday night, that, ‘We have achieved meeting three out of four of our commitments. I think that is undignified, and pretty unfortunate.

How can it be that a government which is clearly in possession of every bit of Treasury advice – advice which is routinely denied to those who are not members of the Cabinet or a part of the Government – and also in possession and control of internal government information as to the state of the finances, would dare to make all sorts of promises to do this, to achieve that, to build that, to spend there, to invest in this infrastructure, only to say, just weeks later, that they will reassess everything?

This morning, the Minister for Resources said, ‘We want to work in consultation or collaboration with local government’, and, ‘We are absolutely keen to see this issue resolved in the long term’ – we are talking about the silt in the Tamar River. That is the sort of thing you normally say before an election. Now, I guess you are stuck with it – you are the minister. You did not make the promise, Minister, but you are landed with it now. The Government told the people of northern Tasmania that something would be done about the silt in the Tamar – there was a promise to spend more than $6 million addressing the issue. I accept that it might not be as straightforward a problem as you would like it to be, but there is nothing in the budget for the Tamar.

Mr Green – There’s $1.4 million in this Budget.

Mr FERGUSON – I accept your correction on that point – the maintenance dredging funds are there – but there is nothing in the Budget to address what was promised. Before the election, many of us, including myself, were frankly gobsmacked at the Premier’s spending spree, before the caretaker mode came into effect. A friend of mine – a Navy war veteran – sent me quite a funny e-mail. It referred to the spending by the Federal Government, but also alluded to our Premier’s spending. The e-mail said, ‘It is not really fair’ – bearing in mind he was an ex-Navy man – ‘to refer to the Labor Party as spending like drunken sailors’. He said that, unlike Labor, when he was a drunken sailor, when he ran out of money, he stopped spending it! But this Government kept spending. We had a pre-election spending spree and then we had a pre-election promises spree. Clearly the Government was so fearful of losing government – and the polls certainly pointed to this – that it decided to risk it all on the basis that if the spending actually paid off and got them back into government, it would be worth it, and that if it did not do the job, then it would probably become a problem for the Liberal Party. It would be someone else’s problem to have to mop up afterwards; that is certainly what people in the community are telling me.

When you consider the Labor members in this House, I would suspect that all 10 out of 10 of our Labor members would say, ‘Great Budget’. They would probably even say, ‘Out of a score of 10 I will give it 10 points’. It may not be quite the case that the 15 members that make up the Labor-Greens coalition would all agree exactly in that way, but how could 10 out of 10 give 10 out of 10 points to a budget that delivers three out of four of your promises. I think the public will be very concerned about this. If anybody wanted to make a comparison with a former Federal government that came to power and used words such as ‘core’ and ‘non-core promises’, I would say that is a fair enough point to make and I would probably expect to hear it. In response I would say, ‘Look at the context. An opposition was coming into government and found that the finances were not as they were presented to be’, which then in later years saw the introduction of the Charter of Budget Honesty. However, in the recent election we saw a government holding onto power knowing exactly the state of the finances. No wonder our Leader, Will Hodgman, would today address this House and criticise the Labor Party for the way it has abandoned its principles before the election.

If anyone wants to make the claim that this Budget is responsible, then that is fair enough too. It probably is a responsible budget in the broad and in context, but the community will be looking at this document and taking a different view. They will say, ‘We were given a set of promises, whether it was health or education or our local roads’. I know that the people of the north-east will be wondering, ‘How is the Tasman Highway going?’, because it did not make it into the Budget although it did make it into the pre-election spending promises.

Our budget response this year demonstrates that were we in government now – and we are not; I am not bellyaching about that, but it is an important principle to make – not three-quarters of our promises would have been funded and delivered; it would have been four quarters. Together with that, there would have been a better budget bottom line.

Mr Best – There’s no detail.

Mr FERGUSON – I will send you the e-mail later on. It was released today at two o’clock.

I am very pleased with many aspects of the Budget that concern education. I am not going to stand here today and be negative about everything; nobody is all bad, just as none of us is all good. There are some exceptions that I will explore but today I will choose mainly to select the positive aspects and indicate our support for them. Much of what the Government is seeking to do in this Budget is praiseworthy and I have no problem saying so. I am pleased that the education budget appears to have been largely maintained from last year, although a large proportion of the Budget is clearly a passing on of Federal funds as part of the BER, so some analysis is needed before we dismiss entirely the possibility that recurrent investment in education, particularly at the school level, is entirely stable. I know that my colleague, the shadow treasurer, said that in 2009-10 education is expected to received $1.384 billion in total funding from the Consolidated Fund, whereas in 2010-11 education will receive $1.34 billion, which represents a cut of $44 million.

There is some evidence, though, that the education budget has shrunk by tens of millions of dollars, with no provision at all for expected cost increases to the agency. In particular, I draw your attention to this question: has the Government made any special provision for extra costs arising out of payment of SEO availability allowances, which has been reported in the news, and very importantly the upcoming round of negotiations with the union regarding teachers’ salaries. If indeed a nexus is achieved again, there seems little scope in this Budget to meet the additional costs that would then arise. That is a question I would flag today as important. If a salary nexus is achieved and the Government needs to outlay more funds, then I would be very concerned if they are somehow expected to come from within existing budgets.

I have no problem with, in fact I pay tribute to the Government for the Raising the Bar and Closing the Gap initiative. It is a good initiative. It may not succeed entirely in everything that it seeks to do. Very few government programs ever do, but I appreciate the initiative. I note that the Government, again, over-promised before the election. In document after document I kept seeing $12 million -

Mr O’Byrne – Over-promised – we’re the only ones, you reckon?

Mr FERGUSON – There you go again; you have just walked in and you are going to be like that again. Well, you have missed much of what I had to say which was -

Mr O’Byrne – I have been watching on television.

Mr FERGUSON – I am glad you made it. You missed much of what I said, which was in fact pointing out that there is plenty in the Budget that I have no difficulty supporting. If you do not mind my saying, I have no problem standing here today and saying so, which I am not sure would have been the case were our roles reversed. However, when you make a promise and you drain them of their vote to get into power then you should deliver what you promise. You really should and that is something you should not disagree with. Instead in this Budget we have $10 million. I support the initiative and I will be seeking assurances from the minister that the funds will be wisely and carefully used so that we can get the best value from what are obviously the available funds. It is $10 million over four years and unfortunately just 10 per cent of that is in the coming financial year. The whole initiative was to extend the program into high schools as well. I support it because this does hold the possibility that we can lift the fortunes of the lowest achieving students in our lowest performing communities.

We need to be careful how we measure the performance. As policy-makers we need to be careful that it is not absolute individual results of students and school communities that matter the most. The performance that matters most to me is the difference that education has made to a child or to a school community over a period. We would like to see that become a mainstream part of our rhetoric here in politics. It is certainly the case that the relationship between SES and school achievement is a strong one. I would ask the question: which one causes the other? It is probably the case that they are one and the same statistic. Each one is causing the other and, in fact, having a reinforcing effect. We do have to do better. I have been briefed on this aspect of our statewide performance and the statistics are quite sobering. You recognise that for many young people who have been raised in a particular social environment it really is not on that they should have their life chances predetermined. It should not be on the basis of the way in which they have come into the world and the community they happen to live in. That is why I support this initiative, but it will come with some accountability. For the Government and the Opposition there is a great role here for backbenchers because it is very important that we keep our departments’ pencils sharp and we ask them, ‘Well, what are you actually doing with these funds because do not expect to come back for more money in the future if you have not delivered on what you promised in the first place’.

The A-Team has been such a small aspect to departmental budgets but it has occupied a lot of our time in this place, out of this place, in the media and certainly in the parent community. I think that is interesting, partly because it demonstrates the great value of this very small pilot program and the benefits it brought to the community and the families involved. I will not rehearse it all again, but I did speak in this place on the adjournment last week and I raised some fears. Sadly, here I go again, I shot my mouth off and congratulated the minister, only to find later on that things were not as they had been put across. I am pretty disappointed by that, I have to say. I feel, until the information I have asked for is forthcoming, as if I have been conned. Even as it was, when I looked at the budget papers it looked like $100 000 because it said 0.1. In fact, on further investigation just $85 000 was allocated to the A-Team – as if that is going to keep it going. Weirdly, it was from the Health and Human Services budget, so I am not sure what is going on there, as it is an Education department program and at $85 000 it is just 7 per cent.

Ms O’Connor – It relates to children with disabilities.

Mr FERGUSON – That is great, but the A-Team program arose from Learning Services North and is being migrated into Distance Education Tasmania, so although I have no problem where the money comes from -

Ms O’Connor – We administer autism services in Tasmania through the Department of Human Services, so you don’t want a silo -

Mr FERGUSON – Yes, Minister, I take the interjection; I have no problem with where the money comes from or where it is appropriated, but it is just 7 per cent of what we all agreed was needed. So when I raised this publicly -

Ms O’Connor – I’d say it’s a work in progress.

Mr FERGUSON – I hope it is, I really do, because as I was saying, it is just 7 per cent of what we all agreed was needed. I believe the Greens matched the Liberals’ costing and promise of $1.3 million – correct me if I am wrong. When I raised this publicly, the minister shot back a response and said that future funding is secure in Distance Education’s budget, so I would just like to say, ‘Show me the money’.

Ms O’Connor – We did get an extra $1 million into autism specialist services in Tasmania.

Mr FERGUSON – Yes, that is a separate issue. Show me the money. There is just no sign in the Budget, and if you want -

Ms O’Connor – I showed you the money.

Mr FERGUSON – If the minister wants to shut me up, just tell us what page it is on, but at this point in time I can assure you and this House, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the autism community are pretty concerned about where it is going. Last week I paid tribute to the efforts of my colleague, Mr Booth, and I just feel as though we have been dudded. These are unanswered questions.

Mr Booth – If we have, that will be resolved on the Floor.

Mr FERGUSON – Excellent. Let us see about that; we are not the Government, we are not able to bring money bills.

Mr Booth – It is a hung parliament, though.

Mr FERGUSON – Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to make a comment on the Cosgrove High School specialist sport school for sports. An amount of $18 million was allocated. I do not want to sound as if I am opposing the initiative because I am not, but I have a few concerns about this. I really do wonder at the decision-making that went behind this commitment. It is even bigger than the cost of building a whole new school at Port Sorell, so it is quite perplexing.

I am told by the community that no-one was more surprised at the time of that announcement than the school community itself. They had not asked for it and it was not a priority. As a Liberal I am very enthusiastic about the idea of schools taking on specialist niche areas. I think that is excellent and there should be more of it, but this particular example just does not show the kind of evidence that the Premier often speaks about when he says that he wants evidence-based approaches, so we will be watching that one very closely.

With regard to the pathway planners, I am not seeing any evidence of progress here. The Liberals have taken a strong position on this and prior to the election we made commitments to support up to 35 new pathway planners in our schools and colleges, which has provided and could in future provide great career and vocational learning pathways advice and support to our students. As to the provision of psychologists and speech therapists, I think that was finally something that my predecessor, Mrs Napier, the Greens and the Labor Party came to some common ground on, so it is great to see that in the Budget again. We do want to see the benefits. Previously I have said, ‘Show me the money’; in this case you have shown me the money, so show me the benefits and let us see how these resources can be carefully and wisely used.

I made a comment already earlier about the SEO availability allowance. There is nothing in this Budget to specifically deal with this potential problem. That is not a criticism but an observation, given that it goes back for apparently 30 years and has only recently been picked up, so it is quite an astonishing bit of history for all of us to have learned. If people have believed that they are entitled to a payment and they have been underpaid I just want to say that the claim should be properly tested and if found owing should be paid, but not at the expense of any school budget. That is why on the day, if there is a day coming where the minister will say that there has been some allocation made, I would like to ensure that that is made at the same time as a new appropriation or some reasonable saving somewhere else in government.

On Tasmania Tomorrow, I do not have a lot of time to comment, but what a lot of rubbish I have heard, particularly over the last few weeks from the Tasmanian Greens, including today’s restatement that their policy has not changed. I find that astonishing. The Tasmanian Greens and the Liberals went to the last election with policies which differed specifically with regard to whether or not to restore the old TAFE. Apart from that, our policies were very close. The Labor Party was being very stubborn on this point and refused to give ground. We went to the election and at the earliest opportunity the Tasmanian Liberals tabled a bill. I met with Mr O’Halloran, the member for Braddon, on 11 May to brief him on the bill and in that meeting Mr O’Halloran asked me a range of questions, including the status of former TAFE students, teachers and courses that had been migrated to the Polytechnic.

I expressed to him then that, although we favoured this being handled by the Skills Institute, I was quite open-minded on that point and would welcome further discussions with him. On the day that I tabled the bill in this place, I issued a media release inviting the Greens and the Government and, indeed, the community to provide feedback on any shortcomings that they saw in the bill or improvements that they felt they could make. Strangely, I found with the benefit of hindsight, that I never heard back from Mr O’Halloran. I never received any comment, feedback or suggestions and it was quite clear, looking back now, that it was all a bit of a ruse and that the deal was to work with the Government. That is fine, but now we are interested in the future.

I am quite concerned now that we have lost so much time with regard to implementing the changes that need to occur, and implementation is the key issue. I know the Greens have made an important point, and I would have to agree, that the implementation is very important, but the implementation plan ought to have been constructed at the same time as the negotiations between the Greens and the Government with regard to the changes that were agreed upon. So that is my concern. I am concerned about lost time. I am concerned that now we have only six months before the start of the 2011 school and college year and I am pretty worried about that. I want to play a constructive role if I can but I suspect I will not because the opportunity will not be there. Nonetheless, that is the responsibility of the Government and given that today the minister outlined the role of the task force and I think she mentioned something like 14 or 15 parties that are part of that taskforce, including a number of boards, they will have to hire a convention centre for their first meeting. So they are some of my concerns right up-front and the Labor-Greens Government, not just the minister, will have to be accountable on that particular point.

With regard to my electorate of Bass, it is great to see some extra money for palliative care. I have been banging on about this for a long time and I have also been a member of the Northern Hospice and Palliative Care Support Group. We need to make sure that this extra money is used for real publicly-funded beds that we can see, not hidden in the acute or sub-acute system. With regard to the LGH funding in general, during the election Labor committed $130 million over five years for around 260 more staff for the LGH. That is fantastic, but in this Budget in the coming financial year there is just $5 million that will be spent on staff and less than half of the proposed $130 million has been delivered. This morning or earlier this afternoon the minister said that the Budget ‘makes a start in fulfilling this commitment’, which I find really dissatisfying.

Madam Deputy Speaker, there are many issues that we can go into and they are all important to all of us. My response today touches on just a few of them. I do want to say today that, in my role as shadow minister for education and skills, I am really delighted to be able to play a useful role in this area. It is something I feel very strongly about as part of Tasmania’s future. I know that is a point that there is no disagreement on in this place. I want to see improved educational outcomes at school. I want to see better retention of all our college leavers, wherever they go to college. I want to see better support for special needs students and I want to explore the role of specialist schools and to work with the community in seeing if we can come up with a better way to support students who have a disability. I want to pursue greater autonomy and more accountability for teacher performance and I want to pursue student development. We need excellence in our schools. We need to allow specialisation to take place and we need to give schools a level of trust that comes with a level of obligation back to the taxpayer.

With those thoughts I indicate that I will be raising many of these issues during the Estimates process and look forward hopefully to being assured on many of those matters and raising issues of concern if need be.

Earlier this year the Government announced it would try and save money without affecting frontline services.  But it looks like the Government’s priorities are to save itself and abandon some of the services that Tasmanians rely on, breaking its promise to Tasmanians to save frontline services from budget cuts.

Last week we found out that the Government was withdrawing support for Lifeline’s victims of crime counselling services in the south and north-west of the State.

Yesterday the Tasmanian Liberals revealed that as many as 80 jobs would be cut at the Royal Hobart Hospital, increasing the workload on the remaining staff and putting an already stretched health system under even more pressure.

Today we see that the Government now has the Royal Flying Doctor Service in its sights. In 2007-08, the Flying Doctors helped 1,654 patients.

Targetting essential services, such as the Flying Doctors, to make savings is absolute madness. Relocating the service to Hobart would also be a mistake. Launceston is the more effective base, because it minimises travel times to the Bass Strait Islands and for transferring patients to Melbourne.

These three examples show that this Government is incapable of making the right decisions. The place to start making savings is in the army of ministerial advisers and spin doctors.

It shows that this Government has warped priorities when it would rather cut funding to Lifeline or the Royal Flying Doctors rather than non-essential services.

Before the Government starts hacking away at vital community services, we need to know if the savings measures in other areas are being made. For example, what cuts have the Premier and Treasurer made to their own budgets, or are they expecting Tasmanians to bear the brunt of the pain while maintaining their own empires?

I have long been concerned that this Government was so focused on short-term politics and looking after itself rather than the long-term interests of Tasmanians.

Anyone who has been following David Bartlett’s attempt to enter the soap opera ratings war will already know that the Labor Party has wasted $500,000 of taxpayers’ money on TV infomercials that were never even broadcast.

I’m not saying that promoting Tasmania to a Tasmanian or national audience on TV is necessarily a bad idea.  We do need to be able to creatively respond to the marketplace to promote our beautiful state and encourage tourists and tourist dollars to come here.

But right now, with job cuts and reductings in government services (including cutting back Tourism Tasmania’s marketing budget) it’s monumentally hypocritical for the Labor Party to be wasting money with such abandon as this. 

The issue right now is not about the idea, its about integrity.  That’s because the Treasurer Michael Aird told Parliament that he didn’t authorise the TV series going to a public tender; the documents say otherwise.  See more on ABC Online.

Why don’t they just tell the truth?  The ABC lodged a Freedom of Information request which came back with news that the Treasurer’s office sent an email saying the Treasurer was happy for the project to “start moving.”  The problem with giving contradictory statements is that it can get you into more of a pickle than if you’d just told the truth in the first place. 

So where is David Bartlett in all this?  Well, it’s really just a case of “Yes, Treasurer”. 

In the latest report, Mr Bartlett says that said he won’t even be asking the Treasurer for an explanation of the contradictory statements.

Of course he won’t – who knows what he’d find if he turned that rock over.

Click here to see ABC Online coverage

David Bartlett is acting like Paul Lennon on steroids.  It’s just the same old Labor and their dodgy ways.

Winners:  Labor mates.

Losers:  Taxpayers and redundant public servants.