Minister for Education Lin Thorp’s total and utter failure today to even acknowledge what is happening in her own department demonstrates complete incompetence and confirms that the Minster is out of her depth.

The Minister failed to confirm a 3.3 per cent decrease in per-capita funding for children with a disability.

In fact, the Minister seemed to have no idea what I was even talking about when I mentioned the proposed cuts.

Unfortunately the Minister is living in the parallel universe – while in the real world children with the most serious disabilities who need funding support for their educational programs are having their funding cut.

I have heard from multiple sources within Ms Thorp’s department about the proposed cuts, from people who know more about the issue than the Minister herself.

The Minister needs to get up to speed and admit that she has got it wrong. She then needs to guarantee that she will address the issue as a matter or urgency.

It is already hard enough for students with disabilities to get a good education, and the least that this Minister can do is show some respect and stand up for these kids.

I am aware that the severe disability register will increase by 40 children from next year, and with extra children, the Government has capped their budgets so there will now be less funding per child.

For the Minister to have the audacity to accuse these children and their advocates of living in a parallel universe is incredibly disrespectful. The Minister should have been up to scratch with what is going on in her portfolio and ensure that these most vulnerable children are given the help they need to get a good education.

The delays with the new Southern Support School (formerly known as Hazelwood) at Howrah are unacceptable and the Education Minister Lin Thorp must explain why proper planning was not done by her Department before construction began.  Tasmanian teachers and students deserve to enjoy a working environment that has been well thought-out and properly executed, and our students with disability need safe facilities the most.

Hazelwood is one of the few special schools left in our state, after the State Government’s well-intentioned but poorly-managed Inclusion Policy effectively shut down many other special schools across the state.  Hazelwood is an important resource and the Tasmanian Liberals support this investment for the benefit of its students.  However this is yet another example of the infrastructure incompetence of Labor. They have proven their failings in rolling out important infrastructure time and time again with the Wesley Vale Primary School, Risdon Prison, the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery, the Royal Hobart Hospital and Hobart’s waterfront precinct.

Labor seems to think that spending on major infrastructure works fixes all its problems, but they need to learn that (half-finished) bricks and mortar on their own are not enough to meet the real needs.  Hazelwood teachers and students should have been at the forefront of the process when designing and constructing the new school.  It’s pathetic that we need to again remind the Labor-Green Government to ensure that good value for taxpayers is delivered as a result of all infrastructure investments.

Mr FERGUSON – I will be leading the response from the Liberals with regard to Minister Thorp’s Estimates. I would like to say I found the Estimates process at times frustrating and at others rewarding. I want to thank the minister for a robust discussion, her general willingness to be helpful with the answers and for also providing her answers to questions on notice. I understand that there are still a couple more outstanding and I look forward to getting those. I would like to say that, frankly, were it not for a robust discussion and our line of questioning, certainly on my part, there can be no doubt that the quality and quantity of information that was received probably would not have been put on the record. That is why I must say I really did find the Estimates process a valuable exercise.

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.

Yet again the Labor-Green Government has adopted the Liberals policy and we are happy the Minister has seen sense and retained the A-Team.  It is unfortunate that it has taken the government so long to properly acknowledge the benefits the A-Team has had for its students – we were convinced months ago.

It has been a long wait for the children and families who rely on the A-Team program and I am pleased Ms Thorp has finally broken her silence and secured the program in the immediate future. With only 15 days until the program would have been wound up, the Minister has kept Tasmanians in suspense and added to the anxiety of parents fighting to retain the program.

Families of autistic children and the Tasmanian Liberal team have lobbied long and hard for the retention of this program which has had great results and enjoys very strong support from the community.

Parents of autistic children have fought a sustained campaign and they deserve recognition for this. Along the way there have been roadblocks put in their way by this government but they have persevered and ultimately succeeded.

While we are pleased the A-Team will be retained, we will be scrutinising the implementation of this decision and we will continue to fight for improved services for autistic Tasmanians in line with the policies the Tasmanian Liberals took to the 2010 State Election.

Michael Ferguson MP
Shadow Minister for Education
Tuesday 15 June, 2010

A Hodgman Liberal Government understands that action is needed now to provide real change for people with disabilities, and their families and carers.

The Liberals have committed over $28 million to deliver new and expanded services that will make a significant difference to people’s lives.

The funding includes $5 million to begin an innovative new direct funding model Your Care, Your Choice to allow people with disabilities, their families and carers, to arrange the supports they require based on their individual circumstances.

In particular, mothers with children with disabilities have specifically told the Liberals this is the model they want to see adopted in Tasmania, because this program is flexible, individual and will make a real difference to their everyday lives.

They have also told us they need more respite options, and we have committed $6.1 million to significantly increase the range of respite available for families caring for people with disabilities in this State.

Unless regular respite can be provided, there is a real risk of families falling into crisis.

We have also provided $3 million for a no-interest loans scheme so that people with disabilities, families and carers can access funding for motor vehicle modifications or purchase, and home renovations.

Mr Whiteley said:

The Liberals’ funding also includes $3 million in additional funding for existing service providers.

We acknowledge there has been funding shortfalls under a State Labor Government, and providers are struggling to meet their service obligations.

Additional funding is needed to meet these shortfalls, and to meet the additional needs of elderly people in residential services who wish to ‘retire’ from attending day support services but are currently unable to do so.

A Hodgman Liberal Government also commits to providing more funding for National Disability Services as the peak body in a partnership to further research into unmet need, ensuring a disability workforce for the future and helping the public sector and business maximize employment for people with disabilities in the State.

The Liberals also begin, with the Brain Injury Association of Tasmania, the overdue process of developing a five-year, whole-of-government strategic plan for Acquired Brain Injury in Tasmania, with $95,000 to determine future services, support and resourcing.

This policy, combined with already announced policy for autism, the A-team, funding for Special Schools and a $4.5 million injection into the Community Equipment Scheme, for equipment, aids and technology, for people with disabilities, shows the Liberals are the only party at this election prepared to stand up for people with disabilities in Tasmania.

And only the Liberals will ensure real change for them, their families and carers.