Commonsense has prevailed in awarding the tender for air ambulance services to the Royal Flying Doctor Service (RFDS).  The RFDS has a long and proud history of delivering for Tasmanians, and investing its own funds into health services and health infrastructure in this State.

There should have been no question mark in the mind of the Green-Labor Government that the RFDS was best placed to continue to deliver fixed wing services for Tasmania.  It was only pig-headedness by Labor that it pursued a competitive tender process.

The Greens are no better; they rolled over when required and reneged on their own election policy in the process.  Only the Tasmanian Liberals have stood by the RFDS and fought to have the fixed wing aero-medical contract remain with the invaluable RFDS.

The RFDS is to be congratulated for winning the tender to provide air ambulance services for the next eight years in Tasmania.  Tasmanians living on the Bass Strait Islands and in remote communities will be thrilled.

Jeremy Rockliff is the Shadow Minister for Health

ADJOURNMENT SPEECH: 

F1 SCHOOLS TECHNOLOGY CHALLENGE WORLD CHAMPIONS
FLINDERS ISLAND SERVICE TASMANIA OFFICE

Mr FERGUSON (Bass) – Mr Speaker, I wish to raise two issue on the adjournment tonight. The first is in accordance with something I tabled earlier today, which is to draw attention of the House to the magnificent success of the PentaGliders. This is a team which had its origins in Brooks High School in my electorate of Bass, comprised of three students who have continued on their education journey into college and apprenticeships. In particular I want to congratulate Tristan McCarthy, who so admirably led us in a discussion during Science Week here in the Parliament where science meets Parliament, as well as Amy Winter, Nathan Clark and Jack Ball, who have been fantastic performers in the F1 in Schools challenge which involves 17 000 schools in 31 countries across the world.

Mr Booth – Is this what Nick McKim was talking about last week in the House?

Mr FERGUSON – Yes, F1 in Schools. This is a team which won at the local level, the State level, at the national level for Australia and then went on to represent Australia in Malaysia just last week, and they absolutely blitzed it in so many ways. They won a number of categories. The first of all won the Ashes, which is a grudge match between Australia and the UK. They won best reaction time with a time of 0.010 seconds. They also won fastest car which was covering a distance of 20 metres in just 1.084 seconds, which averages out at over 65 kilometres per hour. This is a car that they designed themselves. It had to be an original concept, different from previous entries. and it was powered by carbon dioxide.

They also won the prize for a best engineered car and, of course, all of these things went towards their points score where they received maximum points on 11 criteria resulting in their ultimately being named first place global champion team, Australia’s Pentagliders.

That is wonderful story for Tasmania. It is a great illustration of the innovation that members of this House talk about as being good for Tasmania, good for our economy, good for our education system and, ultimately, fantastic for our quality of life here. If we can encourage not just these students but students across the board to aspire to that kind of work, we will be doing very well indeed. I want to pay a special tribute to Brooks High School and Murat Djakic who has been their mentor and coach. I know we are all in furious agreement of what a great job they have done.

I also wish to raise the attention of the House to a very important issue that affects members of my electorate in the community of Flinders Island.

Mr Speaker, I do not have to tell you that it is a small community, but they depend on their Service Tasmania office there. It is staffed five days a week, as it should be, providing all of the services that the Tasmanian Government wishes to through Service Tasmania outlets. It is a small office staffed by one FTE; a full-time position shared by two people, but if ever one of those part-time staff is unwell or on some form of leave, can you believe that in the current environment, the Government is allowing that Service Tasmania shop to be locked closed all day?

If a member of my electorate, for example, who lives at Palana, Emita, Lady Barron or Killiecrankie wishes to make a planned trip to Whitemark, the main town, to pay bills or apply for some form of government licence, they will be met by a locked door and a closed sign. I have discussed this with a number of members of the Flinders Island community and the Flinders Island Council. It is unacceptable. The Premier runs Service Tasmania, she should not allow this to occur and she ought to fix it immediately because it is not on. If a member of staff for some reason falls sick or needs to apply for leave for some good reason, the pressure should not be on them to drag themselves into work just so they can make sure that the Service Tasmania shop is open for the day.

It is putting undue stress on the system and the community of Flinders Island is entitled to expect that its one and only State Government shopfront is protected and open every day of the year that it should be.

If there are savings to be made in the Service Tasmania area then make them, but they should not result in individual Service Tasmania shops being shut. I call on the Premier to deal with this matter forthwith and look forward to an appropriate resolution in the near future.

Mr FERGUSON (Bass) – What a sell-out has occurred in this House. The minister has put her case on behalf of the Government as to why she somehow believes she can keep aeromedical fixed-wing services in Launceston when she is not willing to respect the will of the Parliament expressed last November to ensure that RFDS, which is based in Launceston and which has all of its significant infrastructure already housed there, will not obtain government-preferred supplier status.

As for the Greens, I would like to correct the record because Mr O’Halloran, who has just spoken, talked about the Parliament in respect of its decision last year. He has selectively made reference to a motion which did make a referral to the Auditor-General but he has failed to mention, unlike my colleague, the member for Braddon and Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Mr Rockliff, that we had a parliamentary motion here last November to direct the Government to appoint RFDS as the preferred supplier of aeromedical services. That is the current motion which has been passed by the Parliament. That is the current disposition of the Parliament which has directed the minister to do a certain action. The minister has come into the House and has given a range of reasons. No doubt she has her views and the view of the Cabinet, which she has to push in this place. The problem for her, though, is that she yesterday served notice of motion on this House that would bring in a motion, No. 410, which would overturn the decision of early November.

The motion brought in yesterday by the Minister of Health, in part 1(f), says:

‘having regard to the Auditor-General’s advice it is important that a contestable tender process for this contract is finalised as soon as possible…’

So she says, except that she has not brought the motion on for debate today. I note that we have just had an email pointing out that the three condolence motions will in fact come on later today during Labor private members’ time and I totally respect that. Prior to that late-breaking information, though, what motion were Labor going to put up in their private members’ time? A silly motion about the economy, which ends up condemning the Liberal Party for its position on the economy. This minister was not even able to get her motion up today which would have overturned the decision of the Parliament last November. This minister cannot give Launceston and northern Tasmania any assurance or any guarantee that fixed-wing aeromedical services will stay in Launceston.

She cannot say it because she does not know the outcome of a contestable contract. The fact of the matter is 15 members of this House, the Liberal Opposition and the crossbench over here – the temporary crossbench of the Greens – voted 15 against 10 to direct the minister to support the RFDS.

But she has failed to deliver. If she wants to pursue contestable contracts she should bring on her motion 410 and then we will really have the debate and the Greens really will be tested again on whether they will actually stand with the RFDS.

We believe the RFDS is good enough to support. It has a proud and long tradition. In fact, it is regarded as the world’s best community-funded and community-supported aeromedical service. I received an e-mail this morning stating:

‘The Tasmanian operations are an integral part of the largest and most respected civilian aeromedical service in the world and we know that the RFDS in Tasmania has provided aircraft and pilots on a 24/7 basis since 1960. If the air ambulance is to be renegotiated this year it will put the RFDS in a terrible position in this State and they will have to fight for their survival.’

I put it to this minister, who is continually nit-picking with silly interjections, if you really do believe what you say, if you really mean what you said earlier when you said that you have no reason to believe that the RFDS would not provide a competitive tender, why don’t you go and sit down with them? Why don’t you go and negotiate? If you think they are wasting money, why don’t you just say so? If you think they should spend less money on this particular area, why don’t you say so? But, no, you are going to put them through agony. You are going to jeopardise this community-based organisation’s Federal funding by forcing them through a contestable arrangement. I do not accept that you have completely closed off that possibility. You are putting the community through agony.

This Government stands condemned not only for its policy failure but also its disregard for the will of the House. What a lie was put to this Parliament when we were told -

Mr SPEAKER – Order. The use of that word is not permitted.

Mr FERGUSON – Thank you, Mr Speaker, I withdraw it. What a mistruth was put to this Parliament when we were told that some silly idea of a new paradigm would now run this place. It is a fraud, because every time this Parliament does agree on something, if it does not line up with Labor policy they will turn their back on the community.

They are doing it yet again. The Tasmanian Liberals will be the only party in this Parliament who will genuinely stand with northern Tasmania as the  appropriate base for aeromedical services and we will continue to stand consistent with our pre-election pledge; we will stand with the RFDS and this Government stands condemned.

David Bartlett has seen the light.  Maybe someone other than him is capable of an original thought!

At Budget Estimates last month, I played a game of cat and mouse with our Premier regarding what I regard as a flawed model to rollout fibre-optic around Tasmania. The Premier’s model which asked required people to read, understand and return documentation (ie “opt-in”) has resulted in less than half of the eligible homes and businesses to get the fibre dropped to their premises, at no cost to themselves.

My proposal was to turn the model over, and bring fibre to every home and business, allowing those who specifically don’t want the fibre to “opt-out”. The Premier was evasive, rude and dismissive. Now, he’s selling the idea as his own! The whole point is that the Liberals maintain that individuals should have the right to accept or refuse the technology; however we want to ensure that the opportunity is not lost to them in the future if they didn’t manage to give permission while the trucks and the linesmen are installing in their area. (To bring the trucks, cranes and the linesmen back in the future to patch a home that wanted to install would cost a fortune).

What’s not important is whose idea it was in the first place. What is important is getting the best outcomes for the community without being rude and dismissive about the contribution of others.

For the record, I’ve outlined the Hansard of the exchange at estimates which also includes a blistering attack by our ornery premier against me in the Parliament a week later:

Hansard, Monday 28 June 2010 – Estimates Committee A

3.1 Information and communications technology policy development and implementation

Mr FERGUSON – My question relates to the MOU which was raised this morning. Could we have some detail on that? Who were the parties to it and is it a public document?

Mr BARTLETT – I understand the parties to it are the State Government, the Federal Government and Aurora, and no, it is not a public document.

Mr FERGUSON – Is NBN Co. or NBN Tasmania a party to that document?

Mr BARTLETT – No.

Mr FERGUSON – Is it your signature on the document?

Mr BARTLETT – No.

Mr FERGUSON – So are you able to say who, on behalf of the Crown, signed that?

Mr BARTLETT – Michael Aird signed it on behalf of the Government.

Mr FERGUSON- And from the Commonwealth?

Mr BARTLETT – Stephen Conroy.

Mr FERGUSON – Are you able to tell us – and obviously I am not asking you to disclose what is confidential – the nature of document that means that it cannot be a public document?

Mr BARTLETT – I am advised that these are requirements of the Australian Government. Obviously these sorts of arrangements post the NBN announcement have had significant commercial interest from Telstra and other players, so I suspect that all those reasons add up to the fact that in signing the agreement we agree with the Commonwealth and Aurora to not disclose it.

Mr FERGUSON – Can you tell the committee what the MOU consists of, without disclosing confidential information?

Mr BARTLETT – If I told you anything more than the number of pages with type on them, I suspect I would be in breach of the confidentiality agreement.

Mr FERGUSON – Well, you might be able to perhaps tell the committee what actions the Tasmanian Government has committed to on its part.

Mr BARTLETT – The MOU is a mechanism to ensure that the three parties have a similar understanding of what is being negotiated before the costs are incurred. Given the complexity of the planned Tasmanian NBN project negotiations, they incur a cost for all parties, mainly in relation to legal and financial advice, management time and attention.

Mr FERGUSON – So does that aspect of the MOU ever expire, given that work has now begun?

Mr BARTLETT – In reality for us the MOU has been superseded or overtaken by the arrangements between TNBN Co and Aurora. It was a document that was put in place for us to enable those arrangements to be put in place – it facilitated that.

Mr FERGUSON – Are you willing or able to say what actions or facilitations that that actually implies from the Tasmanian Government? What have you done to assist? What have been the practical actions to allow the next step to occur?

Mr BARTLETT – Essentially the MOU set the framework for negotiations for Aurora to start rolling out the NBN in Tasmania.

Mr FERGUSON – So would it be fair to say that if that MOU has been superseded – is that the word you used -

Mr BARTLETT – It is still afoot in that it is still the framework for conversations between the Federal Government and the Tasmanian Government and Aurora, but it has been superseded in its activity by other arrangements.

Mr FERGUSON- So it is not superseded, but perhaps it is an ongoing agreement – the terms of that agreement continue but it has been overtaken by later agreements for actions between NBN Tasmania and Aurora?

Mr BARTLETT – I think that is a reasonable description of it. The agreement that is more relevant to the activity that is going on at the moment in large part is the agreement between Aurora and TNBN.

Mr FERGUSON – Do you think, Premier, there will ever be a time when that MOU might be publicly released? If so, when? The more we talk about it, the more interested I get in it.

Mr BARTLETT – You might have to wait 10 years or whatever time before Cabinet -

Mr FERGUSON – Ten years!

Mr BARTLETT – release of documents. I am not sure. It requires the agreement of the three parties. Even if I agreed to it, I could not release it.

Mr FERGUSON – I understand that. Well, given that we have dealt with that, can we come back to the town selection? We discussed this this morning. What is the Government’s actual role in advising or helping to massage the outcomes in terms of what towns and suburbs are selected for each stage of the rollout?

Mr BARTLETT – I might have been incorrect when I was pressured into answering those questions this morning when I did not have all the facts in front of me. The TNBN Co was established on 13 August 2009, and Senator Conroy and I announced that on that date. It was before that in fact that three towns were nominated. On 25 July, the Prime Minister and I announced the three towns. Again, my understanding was that the recommendation came via what would have been Aurora at that point, I suspect. There was a range of accessibility and speed of implementation issues, but also there was a range of policy issues. It would have been much easier to roll this out in the CBD. If you like, we took the toughest possible route in lots of ways.

Mr FERGUSON – It also lends itself to the backbone that you were talking about this morning, and we do not take issue with that. Is there anything to add in respect of my question this morning that out of the 10 towns and suburbs in stages 1 and 2, the only metro area is South Hobart. Is there anything to say as to how and why South Hobart was selected?

Mr BARTLETT – My only thought about it is that we had TasCOLT rollout there, did we not, in South Hobart. TNBN Co. would have been established by then and selected these areas for the next rollout. Again, a measure of where they wanted tails to go at the extremities, demonstration of a variety of different setups. The thing I know about South Hobart is that the TasCOLT project, which was in no small part the reason why we were able to convince the Federal Government that Tasmania was the right place to roll out NBN first, was a project wholly funded by the State Government. COLT stands for collaborative optical leading testbed trial. The TasCOLT project was a State Government project that we funded to basically prove the concept that you could roll out optic fibre in the manner in which it is being rolled out across Tasmania and it would be successful, and South Hobart was definitely in the footprint there. So it may well be that there is a backbone link or a tail that goes up Cascade Road that makes it easy to link houses off.

Mr FERGUSON – After the initial three-stage rollout which I understand covers something like 100 000 premises, how many premises then are left for future stages or for different technologies?

Mr BARTLETT – For future stages, the original goal is to roll out optic fibre to past 200 000 premises.

Mr FERGUSON – So how many premises does that leave that would not have fibre – any or some or a small number in particularly the more extreme rollouts?

Mr BARTLETT – I think it is between 5 per cent and 10 per cent of premises in Tasmania.

Mr FERGUSON – Do you have a direction that you would be proposing with NBN Co. as to what outcomes you would like to see for those communities?

Mr BARTLETT – We want to see them highly connected. Obviously the national broadband rollout anticipates a percentage of premises that are wireless or satellite served, so we would be looking at those sorts of solutions for the remaining premises in Tasmania.

Mr FERGUSON – What would be the physical capabilities of the technology that would be offered in those communities?

Mr BARTLETT – As in the bandwidth thereof? I think the Federal Government are talking about -

Mr FERGUSON – Would they be assuring the same bandwidth?

Mr BARTLETT – No, the bandwidth for satellite up and down is different from optic fibre, significantly lower. But having said that, these technologies change all the time and improve all the time. The point of the matter is that optic fibre essentially is limitless in terms of theoretically how much data – in theory, one strand of optic fibre can carry every single phone call happening in the world right now simultaneously. The only limit of optic fibre is essentially – in theory anyway – the boxes at either end of it.

Mr FERGUSON – Has the Government expressed a view to NBN Tas or NBN Co. with regard to that? For example, there was a submission that we referred to this morning. Have you made suggestions to NBN Co. with regard to that for the communities that you know would not be reached by fibre?

Mr BARTLETT – At the moment we are focused on the optic fibre rollout. We anticipate that NBN Co., as opposed to TNBN Co., would have a major rollout of non-optic fibre technologies across the nation and that Tasmania would be provided with similar technologies to other regional and remote areas in Australia where optic fibre does not go – and that is what we would anticipate.

Mr FERGUSON – Are you willing to discuss the Government having considered or not considered an opt-out model for the rollout?

Mr BARTLETT – I do not think it is the Government’s to consider; effectively it is TNBN Co’s to consider. I do not have any further information on the opt-in model. I think your logic in simplistic terms sounds reasonable but I would not know what various legislative or other regulatory impacts on that logic there might be. It might be that governments do not have the power to just connect anything to any house and if you do not like it you had better have opted out. Part of the deal of Tasmania being first is to establish answers to a whole range of questions, and no doubt that is one of them. In my mind the proposition you are making sounds reasonable but whether it can be implemented or not, I do not know.

Mr FERGUSON – Could I ask you to get some advice on that on the basis that in these early stages of the rollout -

Mr BARTLETT – It is not about me getting advice. When I next meet with Doug Campbell, the chair of TNBN Co., I am happy to raise it with him and ascertain whether it has been considered.

Mr FERGUSON – I have raised it with TNBN Co. but I am not the minister. That is why I am suggesting that, if we were to proactively resolve if possible that issue, it might assist with the rollout that is currently under way and due to be switched on next month. I am sure there would be plenty of people that would not want the government rolling up onto their property and installing fibre without permission. Nonetheless it would be an enormous cost to the community if we only do get half of our homes connected to the fibre.

My two media releases issued that day:

Michael Ferguson MP
Shadow Minister for Innovation, Science and Technology
Monday 28 June, 2010

After attempting to avoid scrutiny during the Innovation, Science and Technology hearings this morning, the Premier has finally given in to Liberal demands to reconsider aspects of the NBN rollout.

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
Monday 28 June, 2010

In today’s Innovation, Science and Technology Budget Estimates hearings, the Premier has admitted for the first time under questioning that $3.8 million of taxpayer grant and loan funds are in jeopardy following the failure of E-Tech.

In fact, until I asked the question, the Premier was in the dark as to the developments.

E-Tech received some $1.8 million in grants funding from Intelligent Island, which surprisingly seems to be news to the Premier. He seemed only to be aware of a $2 million loan to help E-Tech ‘trade out’ of financial difficulties.

The Premier was only advised by the DEDTA Secretary during the hearing that ASIC has decided not to pursue matters related to the sale of a core business software asset to a related company. However this should not stop the Tasmanian Government from seeking to recover the millions of taxpayer funds from the failed company which ordinarily would be distributed to creditors following liquidation.

This was the climax of a heated hearing where the Premier resorted to continual personal attacks and avoidance of NBN questions which are clearly related to his only portfolio responsibility.

Hansard, Tuesday 6 July 2010

CONSOLIDATED FUND APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 2010 (No. 16)

Mr FERGUSON – The member for Bass, Mr Wightman, has found his voice. That is excellent. We are still waiting. We look forward to that response and if it is worth supporting we will certainly support it. With regard to the NBN, we in the Liberals considered the arguments over what will be the take-up rate with this initiative. Will it be the 16 per cent that one journalist referred to, that the Tasmanian Government had said to the Australian Government would be the take-up rate if fibre were chosen? Or would it be 50 per cent around the State, based on those figures in Scottsdale, Smithton and Midway Point?

We have made a constructive suggestion, which we put to the Premier in those committee hearings; to what extent had the Government explored the option of an opt-out model, as opposed to the current model, which asks householders and business owners to deliberately opt in to the NBN?

It is pretty obvious – when the trucks and the qualified tradespeople who have the skills are in the area, that is clearly the time to get as many premises as possible dropped with fibre. We should be aiming for closer to 100 per cent. I appreciate the Premier’s – well, it seemed reluctant but at least it came in the end – agreement that he would raise this with NBN Co. I look forward to hearing the response on that. It is generating a lot of positive chatter on the Internet amongst digital online communities, who are agreeing that an opt-out model is going to be a better result for taxpayers.

Mr Bartlett – His mate Andrew is out there supporting him, is he?

Mr FERGUSON – There you go again. It will also be good for future consumers who today, Premier, do not realise that they have an opportunity.  With regard to those communities that are not in stage 1, 2 or 3 of the NBN rollout, I want to hear from the Government – not just flicking it off to Tas NBN as their problem – what technologies they will be pushing for, or at least what outcomes they will be pushing for, for communities in outer urban, rural or isolated communities, particularly the islands. I know that Flinders Island is feeling very unloved at the moment because there has been no information flow.

And Mr Bartlett’s attempt at a response, including his description of the opt-out model as bizarre and his abusive rant riddled with made-up lies…

Mr BARTLETT – Thank you, Deputy Chair. Can I ask how long this debate has left?

DEPUTY CHAIR – You have 20 minutes to speak, Premier.

Mr BARTLETT – How long does the overall debate have left?

DEPUTY CHAIR – It can run until 3.23 p.m. so we have another 40 minutes.

Mr Ferguson – If I don’t interject on you, you might be able to get through more in the time you have. How about that?

Mr BARTLETT – I reckon you will be interjecting because I have a bit to say about you, Mr Ferguson.

Mr Ferguson – How about I promise that I don’t?

Mr BARTLETT – Okay. Good, because I have a bit to say about you.

Mr Hidding – But not personal or anything.

Mr BARTLETT – No, not personal, but what I am keen to prosecute and argue is the fact that the Liberals wholly and solely last week gave up their opportunity to properly scrutinise this Budget because they played politics every day. It opened with a Leader of the Opposition who looked as if he did not want to be there and spent more of his time squabbling with the Leader of the Tasmanian Greens than he did asking me questions.

Mr Hidding – You’re only saying that because you looked really silly for that.

Mr BARTLETT – It was the most bizarre scenario I have ever seen. The Leader of the Opposition had some seven hours to ask the Premier questions. He spent the first hour on energy which I comprehensively answered the questions on; he disappeared for a little while, came back after lunch, looked as if he did not want to be there, and then sort of moseyed off some time later in the afternoon. That was complemented by the member for Bass who, while he speaks eloquently, proceeded to endeavour to question me on the portfolio having stumped up to admit, number one, that his Federal party do not support the major infrastructure rollout within the portfolio of optic fibre, and number two, he had not read and knew of none of the contents of Professor West’s innovation strategy and proceeded to question me about whether the colour of cable should be mauve or pink. This is the sort of level of scrutiny that we got out of this mob last week.

Mr Best – I think pink sounds good.

Mr BARTLETT – Pink? Mauve? I guess I am deeply disappointed that the Opposition seem to have completely lost their way and in their haste to trip over one another for the leadership of that party spent more of the time trying to get themselves a headline which, by the way, the member for Bass completely failed at, despite two of the most bizarre media releases I have ever read in my life, which I showed to my staff and we had a magnificent giggle over them. I am not sure what planet the member for Bass, Mr Ferguson, was on – or what Estimates committee, even – but it sure as heck was not the one I was at because they were the most bizarre, laughable media releases I have ever seen, describing events at an Estimates committee that clearly did not exist other than in his mind. It was obvious to me, given that not one word of them was reported by any of the media, that they also agreed with that summary of his so-called interrogation or scrutiny of the Estimates.

It is a great shame, though, that this mob gave the worst performance at Estimates ever by an opposition since I have been in this place. I single out the member for Bass, Mr Gutwein, as the exception to the rule and someone who actually, genuinely – he did play some politics in all that as well – in some way, shape or form endeavoured to scrutinise the budget Estimates which is what it is all about. He did endeavour to do that. I know he will not want my praise – damned by faint praise -

Mr Ferguson – Yes, we all do, actually. We want you to tickle our tummies. Come on.

Mr BARTLETT – I was not going to go back to the member for Bass, but let me remind the House that as shadow minister for innovation, science and technology – I do not know if he has any other shadow portfolios, perhaps education or something – he had not read or knew of any of the contents of the most significant policy document in this portfolio, the innovation paper written by Professor Jonathan West, he has not contacted Tony Abbott to do the best thing he could do in terms of the rollout of optic fibre and explain to him why Tasmania deserves this optic fibre and why the rollout of the National Broadband Network should at least continue in Tasmania, if not the rest of the country. He has not contacted Tony Abbott to do that, he has not written to him or phoned him and as far as I know he has had no conversations with Tony Abbott about this matter.

It is all very well beating your chest in an Estimates committee where no-one is even reporting any words that you actually said, Mr Ferguson – it is a big tough-guy thing to do – but, frankly, if indeed an Abbott Liberal government is elected some time later this year it offers no hope for the people of Tasmania who want to see hundreds of millions of dollars of optic fibre rolled out across this State. What are you going to do about it? Make yourself useful, get down and do some work, stop just lording it about because you have a lovely radio voice and all the rest of it and actually do some work -

Mr Hidding – He has a lovely radio voice.

Mr BARTLETT – He has a lovely radio voice. My wife and I often comment on that when we hear him on the radio, which is rare, and certainly during Estimates week we heard him not at all because not one journalist paid one jot of attention to anything he said. That was great, best Estimates ever.

Mr Hidding – They were too busy talking about you.

Mr BARTLETT – Deputy Chair, the facts of the matter are that he has done nothing in this portfolio to avail himself of the information that he should have as shadow. He has done nothing to change the Federal Opposition’s mind about their backward and frankly anachronistic view of the world. They have gone back to the Howard days whose government he was a member of, of course, that did nothing for broadband for 12 years, and he sits idly by and has not even had the guts to pick up the phone to Tony Abbott or write a letter to tell him how he feels about the situation.

Mr Ferguson – You’re wasting your time. You’re just telling lies, that’s all you’re doing.

Mr BARTLETT – I thought you were not going to interject.

Mr Ferguson – I think you’re inviting it somehow.

Mr BARTLETT – Absolutely, I am. I confess holus-bolus, Deputy Chair, that is exactly what I am doing.

Mr Ferguson – I didn’t think you’d be this precious.

Mr BARTLETT – I am not being precious. What I am saying is that we are determined to make this Parliament and all its machinery work for the people of Tasmania. That is what this side of the House is doing, but it became absolutely apparent on the first day of Estimates and proven day after day last week that this Opposition are not prepared to do the work to hold the Government to account, are not prepared to even lobby on behalf of Tasmania and read a basic policy document and inform themselves. They are not prepared to do it and they come in here day after day, pick up the newspaper in the morning and say, ‘What’s the headline? We’d better ask a few questions about that’. It did not sustain them all the way through Estimates of course but that is exactly what they did – mauve and pink cables, has not contacted Abbott, and did not even read the innovation strategy before he came to the committee.

Frankly, to me, that shows a contempt of this Parliament, it shows a contempt of the position and, while it is not a position in the Cabinet, the Tasmanian people still look to see him fulfil his duties. It shows complete contempt of the Tasmanian people in his duty. He thought he would wander in there with a few questions – a few bits and pieces. He did not address one budget item and it was probably, in my experience as a minister and a backbench committee member, the single worst performance at an Estimates committee I have seen in the six years I have been in this place. It was a shocker. Because the member for Bass had such a shocker, his Leader looked average by comparison. His Leader clearly did not want to be there and had no questions to ask in the Premier’s portfolio or Innovation portfolio – he made an attempt before lunch, but after lunch it was clearly afternoon nap-time, or whatever. But, because Mr Ferguson’s performance was so appalling, the Leader of the Opposition was made to look average.

Mr Ferguson – I think I am almost flattered by your attention here. You have just wasted 10 minutes of your time.

The Estimates process shed light on many other matters regarding education, science, innovation and technology.  To find out more, go to http://www.parliament.tas.gov.au/HansardHouse/

I welcome the announcement from Sharp Airlines that it is taking over Airlines of Tasmania’s routes from 1st September 2010. Sharp’s plans to increase services to and from Flinders Island, and introduce a Melbourne route on Sundays, means the Flinders Island community will be better serviced. It also means more tourists can experience the rugged beauty of the Furneaux Group islands.

I also welcome the commitment from both Sharp and Airlines of Tasmania that the operations handover will be smooth: it’s essential that island residents are able to access the passenger and freight services when needed. And in doing so I take this opportunity to pay sincere tribute to Don Wells and Airlines of Tasmania who have provided dedicated and reliable services over many years. As a regular visitor to Flinders Island I have never been let down by Airlines of Tasmania.