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.

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.

When I was the federal member for Bass, the Liberal government funded the RFDS with $5m from the 2007 Federal Budget. This provided funding for primary health care services to people on our remote Bass Strait islands, including a place I hold dear in my heart, the community of Flinders Island. I know it has meant a great deal to the community, and I’m proud of my role in assisting the RFDS.

But what of the Bartlett plan to downgrade or move our RFDS base to Hobart?  Of course the Bass Labor MPs haven’t wanted to talk about this issue because the Bartlett plan is obviously totally misguided. The Flying Doctor service is not an area to look for savings, and moving the base south would mean much longer wait times for people needing urgent medical attention in the north, and longer travel times for transfer to Melbourne.

We can’t trust Giddings and Bartlett to preserve and protect the RFDS.

A Hodgman Liberal Government will safeguard the future and guarantee Launceston remains the home of the Royal Flying Doctor Service in Tasmania, while delivering innovative new “flying clinics” to Tasmanians in remote areas.

By entering into a strategic and capital-sharing partnership with the Royal Flying Doctor Service (a not for profit organization), and the Australian Government, the benefits for Tasmanians will be significant.

This partnership will benefit Tasmania by –

• Introducing a new fully equipped King Air B200C in 2011 to provide inter-hospital transfers and emergency retrievals;
• Retaining the existing fixed wing aircraft as a back-up for maintenance and to deliver new “flying clinics” to Tasmanians such as the West Coast, East Coast, Bass Strait islands and far North-West;
• Retention of more than $1 million in infrastructure invested by the RFDS in Launceston;
• Keeping the leading edge aero medical simulator (currently being commissioned in Launceston), making the State a national centre for excellence for flight paramedic training in Australia;
• Retention of Commonwealth funds facilitated by the RFDS for primary health services to the Bass Strait islands.

This partnership is exciting for Tasmanians living in remote areas of the State, including the North East and Flinders Island.

It means we retain a much-loved and respected iconic service in Tasmania, we retain a professional workforce and an organization with an excellent reputation and national networks, and the RFDS is also committing to redirect all funds raised by their activities in Tasmania into their traditional services in the State.

The exciting and added bonus of our plan is a second aircraft which opens up opportunities for “flying clinics” to be operated by the RFDS as it currently does in other States.

These “flying clinics” would see regular visitation programs by health professionals and allied health services, including dental services, into remote areas of the West, East and North-West Coasts, as well as the Bass Strait Islands.
Tasmanian taxpayers also win; it is estimated this partnership will save in excess of $6.8 million in capital expenditure, and approximately $823,000 per annum in operating expense savings.

Under the Liberal plan those savings will be redirected into providing the “flying clinics” on a regular weekly basis.
Importantly, the total cost to the Government and taxpayers to provide a significantly enhanced level of service to the community will be substantially lower than any contestable State contract could achieve.

If the RFDS were lost to Tasmania – and the State Labor Government has foreshadowed reconsideration of its contract – Tasmania will also lose millions of dollars of investment in infrastructure including the Launceston hangar and new simulator, a professional workforce, Commonwealth funds (only available to States that deliver “traditional” RFDS services).

A profit -based operator would need to duplicate similar infrastructure or purchase RFDS assets at a significant premium.

The Liberal-RFDS plan would require the Australian Government to contribute 33% or $2.76 million of the capital cost of the new aircraft, with the balance shared equally between a Hodgman Liberal Government and the RFDS at $2.75 million each.

Having met with the RFDS and local aero-paramedics about the importance of their service and affirmed my strong support I am delighted with this policy position. I recognise and congratulate my Liberal Leader Will Hodgman and our Health Spokesman Brett Whiteley for their joint announcement (above) 14 January 2010.

Drive our Economy Forward
Backing Business to Invest in Renewable Energy
Four-Lane Midland Highway
Getting Better Returns from Government Businesses
Making Tasmania a Magnet
Protecting and Creating Jobs in our Tourism Industry
Statewide Residential Planning Code
Tasmania’s World Class Tarkine – Growing our Tourism Potential
Fixing Tasmania’s Critical Infrastructure
Farming for the Future
Urgent repairs to the Midland Highway
Building Better Regional Roads
Abolishing Land Tax
Putting Tasmanian Products on the World Stage
Deliver Accountable Government
A New Culture of Accountability and Transparency
Fixed Terms
Greater Budget Honesty
Achieve Better Health Results
Smarter Health Care for the North
A New Generation Royal Hobart Hospital
At-Risk Children
Better Quality of Life for Tasmanians with Disabilities
A Fairer Tasmania
The Sooner the Better: No more Endless Waiting Lists
Upgrading the Mersey
Equity for North-West Cancer Patients
Exciting new health services for Tasmanians with the Royal Flying Doctors
More step down beds for the Huon
Raise Education Standards
Free Bus Travel for Students
Pathway Planning
Supporting students with Autism
A better deal for Teacher Aides and Support Staff
Better retention and results – ending the experimentation with our education system
Protect our lifestyle & strengthen our community
Continuing to make our Roads Safer
Double Demerits
Forest Protests
Linking Responsibility – At School and on the Road
Mandatory Employment Screening For All People Working with Children
Parole Board
Police Highway Traffic Patrols and High Visibility Police Vehicles
Police Workers Compensation
Road Safety Authority
Sentencing Advisory Council
Sex Offender Programs
Tougher Sentences for Sex Crimes
Vehicle Impoundment Program
Saving lives – providing specialist smoke alarms
Light Rail in Hobart

Fixing Labor’s Water and Sewerage Debacle
Using social media to reduce street violence
Supporting our Surf Life Savers
Strengthening Penalties for Arson
A Plastic Shopping Bag Free Tasmania
A New ‘Chance’ for young people in Glenorchy
Lights for King George V Oval, Glenorchy
Tackling Tamar Silt
Protecting Launceston from Flood
Devonport Aquatic Centre
Recognising and supporting grandparent carers

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.

On Health: People in the north-east are doing it tough on health and are rightly angry about the debacle surrounding the treatment of Dr McGinty. But Health Minister Lara Giddings today had the solution to people needing health care in the north-east. She said that anyone with a problem should: “…ring 000 like everybody else in this state does”. That’s a healthcare “solution” Labor-style.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/08/25/2666478.htm

On Housing: Labor tried to deal out its usual big serving of spin today, but the attempt fell apart when upset by a few facts. The Human Services minister was trying to talk up Labor’s public housing record when Liberal MP Brett Whiteley raised the issue of an elderly couple who’d been living in their car for three months, unable to get help from Housing Tasmania. The Human Services Minister then said the problems dated as far back as the 1960s and that public housing needed to be overhauled. She’s right about that! After 11 years of Labor, public housing waiting lists have increased from 1248 in 1998 (according to Shelter Tasmania) to more than 3000, according to the May Housing Tasmania KPIs obtained by the Liberals.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/08/25/2666187.htm

On Ethics: Every now and then Labor tries to make noise about establishing an ethics commission. But not too much noise because that’s slippery terrain for Labor. So usually it’s just a few nice words that commits to nothing and talks about the possibility of perhaps setting something up at later time, maybe. When real ethical issues arise you see Labor’s true position. Like today, when the Legislative Council started debating an interim report on senior appointments. One of the committee members who released the report today said: “I just find it extraordinary that the government chose not to address the substance of the report, or the select committee’s report.” The report described the evidence of former premier Lennon and former deputy premier Kons as “unreliable” and recommended they face the privilege committee. Bartlett doesn’t even want to go that far, instead claiming the report was “flawed”. Contrast this constant evasion and delay with the Liberal position: The Liberals will establish a powerful Anti-Corruption and Ethics Commission and fund it with $7 million over the forward estimates.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/08/25/2666188.htm

That’s a day in the life of Labor.

The good news in politics today? Liberal Vanessa Goodwin was sworn in as a member of the Legislative Council after her victory in the seat of Pembroke. Congratulations to Vanessa and the people of Pembroke.

Change is coming.

Earlier this week, I attended the Scottsdale public meeting to support Dr Paul McGinity along with more than 200 angry locals.

Anyone who took the time to attend and listen to the range of speakers could only have concluded that there is an agenda to pursue Dr McGinity at the expense of due process and natural justice.

He has been treated appallingly. And as a result, so have his many loyal patients, who are suffering the indignity of not having ready access to their doctor of choice.

There has been plenty of coverage as to how this issue evolved and there’s no shortage of commentary. However I want to throw the following key points into the mix:

Protecting the community

We do need robust processes that protect the community when there are well-founded serious concerns about the competence of a health practitioner.  If there are serious allegations then they should be fully investigated.  That’s not the issue here because that’s something we all agree on.  The key issues here are to do with due process, integrity in government and natural justice.

Access to health services

The North East must not be deprived of proper health services, including access to GPs.  While this saga has now been dragging on for 18 weeks, there is no clear end in sight.  Dr McGinity wishes to provide health care and his patients want it.  From the little we are told, it seems clear that he hasn’t been suspended on the basis that he isn’t a danger to his patients or done anything immoral or illegal.  (If he was a safety risk, why would he be allowed to practice 18 hours per week without oversight?).

Extraordinary costs

Because of Medical Council conditions, Dr McGinity must be overseen by a locum (a relief GP) which is costing upwards of $5,000 per week.  The Government should provide some assistance to Dr McGinity for additional costs arising from this drawn-out debacle given that Lara Giddings continues to run the limp line that her “hands are tied” on the behaviour of the Medical Council and that she is clearly responsible for the appointment of members of the MCT and the law governing its operation.

Conflict of Interest?

I make no allegation here, but I raise an important issue.  The point that must be publicly resolved is whether or not the Medical Council President has a potential conflict of interest, and if so, how it is being managed.  Dr Peter Sexton was on the sub-committee which purported to initially suspend Dr McGinity and was then found by the Supreme Court to have acted wrongly.  He has also been the spokesman for the MCT and in spite of talking in an inflammatory way about serious allegations linked to patients who have since died (and who therefore of course cannot speak for themselves), he has subsequently revealed on ABC radio that the complaints against the doctor related to him working too many hours!  His direct quote (see ABC Website) was “Where we have serious concerns about a particular component of a doctor’s medical practice, the only powers we have to control that are to suspend the doctor and then invite the doctor through undertakings to agree to restrictions on his practice”.  Isn’t that just being heavy handed?  Now, Medicare Australia holds confidential and privileged records of all doctors’ bulk billing records, including the number and duration of consultations with patients.  Dr Sexton is Tasmanian state director of Medicare.  The public must be satisfied that privileged information gained in one job could not have been used in the Medical Council deliberations.

Where is Labor?  Missing in a crisis, again.

Elected Labor representatives must come out of hiding on this issue.  It was certainly telling that the Labor Party failed to show up (except a silent note-taker) to address the meeting.  It’s clear that the culture of “wait and let it blow over” continues to be the political strategy being employed by Michelle O’Byrne, Jodie Campbell and other labor wannabees.  All Labor MPs must show an interest and make some comment in support of the cause or give reasons for their reluctance to support the community.  We need their support to get the best outcome.  So even though I am a natural rival of the ALP, I encourage them to change strategy and help us achieve what is good for the whole community.  Remember, all we are asking from anyone is for due process and proper health services.  Who could possibly have a problem with that?

Labor mates

Perhaps Dr Sexton’s past membership of the ALP is relevant in explaining Labor’s reluctance to do anything or ask any tough questions on this critical issue.  Is he still a member?  At the very least we know that under state law all members of the MCT are nominated by the Bartlett Labor Government.

Congratulations to some great people!

Finally congratulations to the support committee for their advocacy of due process, natural justice and access to a GP.

Vision and leadership

Tasmania’s economic circumstances do not just demand a response.

They demand change.
They demand a brand new direction.
They demand leadership and vision for the future.
The last thing the State needs right now is more of the same from a tired, stale Labor government that puts its political survival and self-interest ahead of the long term interests of our state, and is letting Tasmania down.
We are seeing some of the consequences of that now.
Tasmania is heading into recession.
More and more Tasmanians have joined the dole queues and thousands more are set to follow. Households are struggling to make ends meet. Talk to any small business and they will tell you things are grim. And the State Budget has also been significantly affected by the global financial crisis.
We cannot blame this all on external events.
A decade of strong economic growth and record GST receipts has been frittered away.
The tough decisions, the long-term planning and the structural reforms – were never made.
This Budget demands strong fiscal discipline and a plan for the future.
But Labor has no plan for the future beyond the next election.
And after a decade of waste, excess and inefficiency, a complete change of culture is required to deliver the fiscal discipline Tasmania needs, not just now, but in the years ahead.
Tasmania needs leadership to make the tough decisions that are in our long-term interests.
To level with Tasmanians, and call it as it is, not shy away from the truth and sugar coat everything with spin.
But also to inspire hope and show Tasmanians that the situation we are in presents opportunities too; if we’re courageous enough to seize them we can emerge from this downturn stronger than ever before.
So we must start looking to the future and planning for prosperity now.
My vision is for a Tasmania where the government is trusted to make the right decisions; for the right reasons.
A place where local business is backed to create local jobs
A place renowned for its strength and unity – envied by the rest of the nation
But we won’t get there without leadership and vision, or without change.

Budget framework
We have framed our budget response so that it fits broadly within the same parameters as the Government.
Taking this approach also puts the Liberals and the ALP on the same fiscal footing in the lead up to the election.
It also means that we accept the Government forecasts on growth and employment and other measures as set out in Budget Paper 1.
We have done this because, at the time of the next election, the financial year will have only three months to run. It would not be possible to alter this year’s Budget.
This also puts an end to all Labor’s dishonest scare campaigns.
We both start from this Budget.
If either side wants to spend more it must say where the money is coming from – either how it will raise it or what spending it will cut to pay for it.
All the measures I outline today are paid for by identified cuts in Government spending, new revenues or unallocated funds.
The bottom line is that the operating result is improved under the Liberal plan compared to Labor.

Budget responsibility
There are some tough decisions that have to be made now.
And we must get our priorities right, now.
Tasmania’s finances have changed drastically since I addressed this House in response to the Budget last year, so we must adapt.
That’s why today, I announce that the policies the Liberals will take to the next election will be those that we announce between today and polling day.
The policy platform that we took to the 2006 election was framed in a different economic time.
We are a responsible Opposition and we cannot ignore the fiscal situation the State is now in.
I commit that Liberal policies will be affordable.
Today I will also outline additional savings and how these savings will fully-fund new policies, and those that I recommit us to today.
I am not interested in outspending the Labor party or throwing taxpayers’ money around to try to buy votes. That is not leadership.
And before I announce these I want to explain the fiscal strategy that will guide the shaping of our policy framework.
Under a Hodgman Liberal Government, the budget will return to the black by 2012-13 with both the net operating balance and the fiscal balance in surplus.

Under a Hodgman Liberal Government, Tasmania will remain net debt free.

Under a Hodgman Liberal Government we will do more for business by reducing the tax burden and making Tasmania a much more competitive place to do business.

Under a Hodgman Liberal Government capital expenditure will, at minimum, equal depreciation on a rolling four year basis.

And I will ensure that risks to the Tasmanian economy are managed to ensure that, even in these difficult times, Tasmania’s credit rating can be maintained.

Quarterly Financial Reports

A sound fiscal strategy requires clear parameters under which policies are developed. And importantly, I believe it also needs a commitment to honesty, transparency and accountability.

To provide for greater budget honesty, a Hodgman Liberal Government will legislate for quarterly transparent Financial Reports to be tabled in the Parliament.

These will report on revenue and expenses for government agencies, the number of Full Time Equivalent employees in government agencies, the number of new positions created in agencies and progress on budgeted infrastructure expenditure.

The last eight months have shown how quickly economic circumstances can change, and revenues plummet. Governments must not be able to pull the wool over taxpayers’ eyes and spend up big at the same time revenues are bleeding.
Other States and Territories provide quarterly financial reports to their taxpayers – one even issues monthly reports. But Labor abolished quarterly reports in 2003 in a bid to evade scrutiny, and that was in the good times.
We will be a government that really values honesty and transparency, fiscal responsibility and accountability.
And a Hodgman Liberal Government will produce quarterly budget reports for greater fiscal accountability.

Sullivans Cove Waterfront Authority
Mr Speaker,
A government I lead will be one that offers vision and leadership, and one that delivers results.
The Lennon-Bartlett Government has amassed an extensive resume of unfulfilled promises, failed projects and wasted opportunities.
This government struggles to deliver results.
A prime example is the Sullivans Cove Waterfront Authority.
It has lasted longer than the First World War but hasn’t delivered on the important task of progressing appropriate development in this exceptional part of Tasmania.
Over seven and a half million dollars spent, and there still isn’t a Master Plan for the precinct.
It would be laughable if it weren’t so serious.
A government I lead will immediately axe this extravagance.
It should be abolished immediately.
Its planning functions should be returned to the Hobart City Council. The Master Plan should be developed in the Office of the State Architect, with appropriate input from the Council and other interested stakeholders.
Waterfront development can be overseen by the Department of Economic Development and Tourism, in collaboration with the Hobart City Council.
This will save the state over $7 million over four years.
A Hodgman Liberal Government will immediately abolish the Sullivans Cove Waterfront Authority.

Anti-corruption and ethics commission
Mr Speaker,
David Bartlett admitted when he became Premier that his government was a mess. Since then, things have only got worse. Abuse of process, shonky decision making, cronyism, secrecy and evasion are hallmarks of this tired, 11 year old government.
The Premier promised to fix the mess, yet Labor’s budget provides not a single dollar for the establishment of an independent anti-corruption and ethics authority our state needs.
Once again, hollow words from this Premier.
Mr Speaker,
We will use the money saved from abolishing the Sullivans Cove Waterfront Authority to set up and fund an independent anti-corruption and ethics commission.
I also reaffirm today my commitment in government to apply a strict new code of conduct for Ministers, advisers and public servants, and implement a radical reform agenda to change the culture of government and make open government the law.
It’s a question of having the right priorities.
And my vision is of a Tasmania where the government is trusted to make the right decisions.
So it is a priority for the Party I lead to implement these policies without delay.
A Hodgman Liberal Government will establish an independent anti-corruption and ethics authority
Budget restraint
Mr Speaker,
For months now the government has been warning of the massive belt-tightening that is required, threatening public servants with pay freezes, even their jobs.
Yet this budget shows that elected Ministers have ducked the tough decisions and hand-balled them to agency heads.
Much of the budget pain has of course also been shamelessly deferred so that it doesn’t hit until after the next election.
This year’s Budget is one designed to get Labor through to the next election, not Tasmania through the economic challenges.
But now, more so than ever before, waste and inefficiency is not acceptable, and tough decisions must be made.
Mr Speaker, I announce today that we would:
• cut support for Ministers to save $4 million over four years;
• cut the government car fleet to save $6 million over four years;
• cut government advertising and promotion by $4 million.
• and cut fees payable for government boards and committees.
Tasmania has over 200 boards comprising some 1,500 members, and given that we all have to tighten our belts, we will be reducing payments to them by a further $1 million over four years.
We must make every dollar count in this economic climate if we are to look after Tasmania’s long term interests. Labor, however, would rather spend it on self-interest and self-promotion.

Mr Speaker,

Currently, the Tasmanian State Service has 285 Senior Executive Service officers. This number has grown by over 41 per cent since 2002, more than doubling the rate of growth across the broader public sector for the same period.

The Government has announced a reduction of 25 SES. We don’t believe that this goes far enough.

A Hodgman Liberal Government will reduce the number of SES by another 25 positions, saving $5 million per year for the next four years.
Mr Speaker,
As I have previously committed we will improve efficiency in government, and we will make the tough decisions necessary to do so.

Government businesses

In 2007 I said we need to investigate ways we can ensure government business enterprises have the best opportunity to prosper, and therefore enhance their returns to the state.

I can announce, Mr Speaker, that a Hodgman Liberal Government would establish a taskforce to investigate how to get better returns from government businesses.

The taskforce will be comprised of representatives from government agencies – State Treasury and the Department of Economic Development – and it will also include eminent economic and management specialists from the private sector.

The taskforce will receive an allocation of $250,000 and administrative support from those departments to undertake this analysis and report within 6 months on ways to improve efficiency and returns from all Government businesses.

On behalf of the shareholders – the people of Tasmania – a Hodgman Liberal Government will act to improve the returns we receive from government businesses.
Mr Speaker,
I don’t expect these decisions to be popular. But real leadership is not a popularity contest. It’s not about endless photo opportunities and ribbon cutting.
These savings are required to put our economy in the best possible position to emerge from this downturn stronger than ever before.
They will also promote a practice of restraint in government that is clearly beyond the current Labor government.
But today, also, I want to emphasise key elements of our policy agenda.
Our agenda, which differs starkly from that of the tired Lennon-Bartlett Government, is one which will;
• drive our economy forward;
• deliver accountable government;
• achieve better health results;
• raise education standards;
• strengthen our community and protect our lifestyle.

Small business
Mr Speaker,
As I have said previously, I fundamentally believe that a strong economy where business and enterprise can prosper is the best way to achieve that policy agenda.
I have repeatedly said that my vision is for Tasmania to be the most competitive and most attractive place in the country to run a business.
And I will back Tasmanians and Tasmanian businesses to get us through these challenging economic times.
In Tasmania, so much of our economic engine room is the small business.
And I believe that if we have the courage to put in place reform now, we can emerge out the other side of these economic challenges more resilient and better placed to realize our potential.
So today I announce key policy reforms that back business, and provide it with a better environment to prosper and to create more local jobs.
Our fully-funded business and jobs package will:
• cut land tax
• streamline planning approvals
• match payroll tax rebates
• protect and generate jobs in tourism
• and boost exports
And as economic times improve, so too will the capacity for greater reform and change. Our commitment and our policy agenda to back business will remain.

Land tax
Tasmania has the second highest Land Tax burden of all Australian states.
A recent Institute of Public Affairs Report concluded that “measures to reduce Land Tax liabilities are necessary if Tasmania is to promote a more business-friendly environment.”
Part of my vision is for Tasmania to be the most competitive place to do business, and today I reaffirm the Liberal Party’s aspiration to ultimately abolish land tax in this State.
I accept it would not be responsible to abolish Land Tax immediately, given the current financial climate, but nor can we afford to unduly burden Tasmanians and Tasmanian businesses.
As a sign of my commitment to making Tasmania the most competitive place to do business, today I announce that a Hodgman Liberal Government will make land tax cuts in its first term of office.
We will raise the threshold to $65,000, which means that almost 19,000 properties in Tasmania would not have to pay Land Tax, an increase of over 14,000 on the Government’s policy.

Planning
Mr Speaker,
Tasmania’s twenty nine local councils administer thirty eight planning schemes.
This is just ridiculous.
We cannot make our state attractive to business investment with a cumbersome planning system.
We need to seriously streamline our planning system, with an independent planning commission.
We need to remove inconsistency between different schemes, duplication, delays in approvals, and the miles of red tape.
It is holding up investment, and stifling new jobs.
Labor’s been talking about fixing it for 11 years, but despite one expensive review after another, little has changed.
At no additional cost to the Budget, my government will establish a single statewide, residential planning code.
We will use the successful regional template adopted by North West councils.
The consolidation of the thirty eight planning schemes to a statewide approach would significantly reduce the planning bureaucracy and deliver more consistency in the format, provision and application of planning schemes.
And in line with the intentions of the North-West Coast Regional Planning initiative, a statewide residential code would improve the operation of local planning schemes and planning outcomes whilst ensuring that regional planning considerations are preserved.
And we will work closely with local government and other stakeholders to develop such a code, and I will deliver it within my first year of government.

Protect and generate jobs in tourism
Mr Speaker,
We recognise that the tourism industry is a vital asset to our State, creating thousands of jobs and generating great economic and social activity.
But it also represents a glaring example of where the Lennon-Bartlett government has headed in the wrong direction.
Whilst other states are marketing themselves to the domestic market, aggressively chasing more tourist dollars for their State, in Tasmania the Labor government cuts the tourism budget; dismisses repeated calls for destinational marketing; cuts funding to our parks, and dismantles the Department of Environment, Parks, Heritage and the Arts.
Labor is not only missing an opportunity, but also damaging the brand we have worked so hard to build.
And Labor persists with spending $23 million on its flawed Tarkine plan it knows may actually damage tourism and the Tasmanian wilderness brand.
Because I back small business in this State, I back tourism to the hilt.
My government will invest an additional $5.5 million over three years in tourism promotion, to bring more tourists, and tourist dollars to our state.
And I’ll fund that by cutting waste from the government’s budget.
This is a higher priority than the absurd number of cars in the government fleet, or glossy government advertising, or spin doctors for useless ministers.
And our visionary Tarkine Plan will also provide a much needed boost to the industry, especially in the North West.
Our plan will directly boost jobs and tourism businesses in the North West region through
• $18 million for capital works on the South Arthur Forest Drive Loop, including the establishment of a visitor centre and upgrade of the western explorer road
• $500,000 for Tarkine eco-tourism capital infrastructure grants for environmental innovation
• $2.5 million for marketing of the region and the provision of tourism information services and upgrades and
• $1.5 million to the parks and Wildlife Service to ensure a high quality visitor experience within the Tarkine.
And, Mr Speaker, I can announce that under a Hodgman Liberal Government, there will be a Department of Environment and Parks.

Exports
Mr Speaker,
Nearly one in four jobs in Tasmania is in the export sector.
As an island state we have to export to survive and prosper. And we need to support those businesses in export markets.
Exporters are doing it tough, but there is still potential to tap into new markets, grow the level and value of exports in existing ones and help the Tasmanian economy emerge stronger once the economic storm clouds pass.
Labor, in a typically short-sighted way, cut export facilitation funding in the Budget.
My government will reverse that, providing $2 million over four years, because my government will be all about backing business to create jobs.
Mr Speaker,
A central policy commitment of a Hodgman Liberal Government is to back local business, and provide it with a better environment to prosper and to create more local jobs.

Infrastructure
Mr Speaker
We must invest in infrastructure that will generate wealth and productivity into the future.
It is an absolute disgrace that this government is still just talking about producing a State Infrastructure Plan – after 11 years in government.
Is it any wonder our roads are substandard.
Is it any wonder rail is at its knees?
We are committed a long-term State Infrastructure Plan, and a central element of it is to build a four-lane Midland Highway.
This is a National Highway, our main arterial highway, and even the Infrastructure Minister concedes it is a ‘goat track’.
And yet Labor does not believe that Tasmanians deserve better – now or in the long term.
Labor has not secured a better deal from the Federal Government for Tasmania.
A four lane Midland Highway is a major, long term project.
This is a 20-year plan.
But it’s Labor that thinks that the current state of the Midland Highway adequate.
The Tasmanian Liberals do not.
We will not accept second best for Tasmania.
Our plan allows for the high speed sections of the highway to be upgraded progressively.
The initial estimates of the costs associated with the works on the high speed sections of the highway, which together amount to about 120 kilometres of road, is expected to be approximately $400M.
Consistent with AusLink funding arrangements, we will seek federal funding at 80% of the cost as this is a National Highway project.
Planning will commence in 2011/12 and we will allocate funding to begin this work.
Mr Speaker,
A Hodgman Liberal Government will act on the vision to upgrade the Midland Highway to four lanes.
Mr Speaker,
Importantly, we will also continue to advance our vision to build a state water grid to usher in a new era for irrigated agriculture in Tasmania.
And of course, Tasmania needs an efficient, working rail system.
It is essential to our industry, to our transport and export links, and to minimise the amount of heavy freight on our roads.
This Labor Government has overseen our rail system grinding to a halt
And federal money allocated four years ago specifically for rail remains largely unspent.
The Tasmanian Government has the obligation to take charge and to find a solution urgently.
The Shadow Minister for Infrastructure will elaborate on these, and other important infrastructure challenges in his reply speech.

A smarter Tasmania

Mr Speaker,
We have a fundamental commitment to a creating a smarter Tasmania.
And given the government says it shares the community’s concerns about our low school retention rates, we simply cannot understand Labor’s decision to end Pathway Planning for Tasmanian high school students.
I announce today that a Hodgman Liberal Government would invest $2.5 million a year into Pathway Planning for Tasmanian high school students. The money will go directly into our high and district high schools, to ensure that up to 35.5 FTE Pathway Planning positions are available to work directly with students, schools, training providers, industry and the community.
Their role will be to help students understand, plan and develop potential pathways to engaged future learning, training and qualifications, and job futures.
This is a vital service to also help students that are disengaged, have special needs, contribute to absenteeism in high schools, and need to find a positive focus toward work, learning, and self worth.

A fairer Tasmania
Mr Speaker,
Just eight months ago the Joint Committee on Community Development tabled a substantial and yet damning report that highlighted the inadequate funding of the Community Equipment Scheme.
The report found that children needing wheelchairs had outgrown them by the time they arrived and people were bedridden for weeks while parts were sought for their wheelchairs.
This is certainly not a kind, clever and connected Tasmania.
A Liberal Government will inject an additional $1.5 million per year into the Community Equipment Scheme which provides equipment, aids and technology to Tasmanians with a disability. This amount will be indexed annually.
The timely provision of equipment and technologies to people with disabilities should be seen as a social investment as it helps to prevent the deterioration of conditions that would otherwise need more intensive and costly interventions.
More importantly, it helps to restore dignity to the individual.

Health infrastructure for the future
Mr Speaker
We have to fix our public hospitals and improve health services to Tasmanians.
Despite record amounts of spending, under Labor hospital waiting lists have increased dramatically.
And for 11 years, Labor has presided over the deterioration of Tasmania’s major public hospital.
For the last three years they have been obsessed with building a new hospital on the waterfront.
And now, after three years of mismanagement and millions of dollars wasted, they have abandoned their warped plan and promised a $2 billion hospital somewhere down the track that is not costed, or funded.
This is a Bartlett black-hole.
This appalling episode typifies a tired government that makes poor decisions and can’t deliver major projects.
What a waste of 11 years in government.
Tasmania needs a New Generation Royal Hobart Hospital and we will build one.
And our New Generation Royal Hobart Hospital will be built without taking Tasmania into debt.
TOTE Tasmania represents a truly Tasmanian asset. It is held in trust by the government on behalf of the people of Tasmania. Now it is up for sale, it is essential that all Tasmanians benefit from the proceeds.
We know, given that the Treasurer did not include a sale price in the budget papers, that this Labor government intends to squander the proceeds from the sale of TOTE on short-term vote-buying for its own political survival.
That is unconscionable.
Any money from the sale of TOTE must be used to benefit all Tasmanians.
I announce today that we will establish a New Generation Infrastructure Fund from the revenue of the sale of TOTE Tasmania.
Its prime purpose will be to fund a New Generation Hobart Hospital, and also to upgrade hospital and other capital infrastructure around Tasmania.
Mr Speaker,
A Hodgman Liberal Government will build a New Generation Hobart Hospital.

School bus fares

Mr Speaker,
A Hodgman Liberal Government will also make bus travel free for students travelling to and from school, using a funding model that will ensure there will be no change to the contractual arrangements currently in place for private school bus operators.
We believe in improving public transport options and making school more accessible and less expensive for all parents, whether they choose to send their children to a public school or a non-government one and regardless of where they live.
We estimate this commitment to Tasmanian parents and their school-age children will be an ongoing annual cost of up to $8 million, and we will fully fund that by cutting the government’s wasteful budget.
A Hodgman Liberal Government will make bus travel free for students travelling to and from school.

Conclusion
Tasmania is facing dark economic times but our potential remains immense and our future is bright – if we make the tough decisions that are needed now, and plan properly for our future.
I will lead a financially responsible and disciplined government.
I am not interested in outspending a Labor party more interested in its own short term interests, than the long term interests of our state.
These financial circumstances demand more than a survival plan for a Labor government.
They demand change.
A more disciplined and responsible approach to how we manage our finances.
And change in how we spend that money to deliver Tasmanians the services and the infrastructure the state needs and deserves.
Mr Speaker,
I remain committed to an action agenda that;
• gives business the best environment to prosper;
• builds infrastructure for our future;
• gives Tasmanians the quality health and education systems they deserve.
• And protects our lifestyle and strengthen our communities.
And despite the immense challenges of the day my vision for Tasmania remains.
Where the government is trusted to make the right decisions; where local business is backed to create local jobs; and where all Tasmanians have the opportunity to achieve their potential.