The estimates process gave me the opportunity to raise a number of matters relating to my Innovation, Science and Technology portolio as well as some local issues with the minister responsible – in this case Mr O’Byrne.  I’ve uploaded here Hansard in two parts:  i) the estimates committee which is a free-flowing question and answer discussion and ii) the debate in the Parliament following the estimates hearings. 

Subjects raised particularly include:  Digital Futures policy; budget cuts to all but one of the David Bartlett pre-election promises to the ICT sector; NBN rollout failure; the (hopefully) future role of the AMC in the new Institute of Marine and Antarctic Sciences; and Riverside High School road safety issues.  Interestingly, a question I asked of the minister resulted in him inadvertently making a $30m funding announcement that he then had to go away and check!  (Following that up this week….)

ESTIMATES COMMITTEE – WEDNESDAY 29 JUNE 2011

CHAIR – Minister, have you an opening statement?

Mr O’BYRNE – Thanks, Chair. It is not quite the first drop but maybe the first opening batters are gone.

In terms of Economic Development it has been some of the toughest times the Tasmanian economy has felt for many, many years and that is due to the global financial crisis, the strong Aussie dollar making export markets difficult, the two-speed economy experience with the mining boom and of course the drop in revenue for Tasmania from the GST receipts. This has been an enormous challenge for the Tasmanian economy and a part of our response is the launching of the Economic Development Plan, which will be a comprehensive framework to guide the State’s development over the next decade.

I acknowledge it has been a bit of a process to get to this point but it will be an extremely comprehensive project that will create a framework for a whole-of-government approach to economic development. A tremendous amount of work has gone into that in terms of work within the department but also consultation with key industry groups and community organisations across the State and it will be launched at the end of July.

The goals that we have identified through the EDP process for economic development have absolute broad support through those consultations. The goals are to support and grow businesses in Tasmania, to maximise Tasmania’s economic potential in key sectors, to improve the social and environmental sustainability of the economy and to support and grow communities within regions. In terms of the regional approach to the EDP we will convene three new regional reference groups to guide appropriate development strategies in the north, south and north-west. We have convened four industry advisory committees to cover our key economic sectors, whose work will be integrated with the regional reference groups to provide a multi-layered strategy covering Tasmania’s sectorial and geographic diversity. It is in this strategic context we have looked at every aspect of the portfolio of Economic Development so that we have the best possible structure that we can to deliver target intervention where it is needed most in the Tasmanian economy. As you can see, there has been a reorganisation of the outputs and the department is restructuring to ensure that we can deliver on the goals of the EDP.

It is important that I touch on a number of the election commitments that were made. For instance, there is the Start-up Support Program that began earlier this year and the Growing Business project that is being delivered by the Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. These pilot programs have been rigorously assessed to guide funding decisions in future years. The Business Boost program is also being delivered this financial year and the north and north-west of the State has received $20 million into its economy from the north-west and northern Tasmanian industry assistance package, a combined State and Australian Government initiative and, of course, our enterprise centres received extra funding this year.

We have a number of programs and initiatives that will no doubt be touched on through the questions today. We have a very diverse economy. The role of the Economic Development department is to ensure that all of the parts of the Tasmanian economy and industry and businesses reach their full potential, and the role of the Government is to assist or enable them to grow. A substantial amount of work has been done in a whole range of the output levels and we are very confident that even given these testing times we will be able to see the back end of the GFC, the back end of troubled economic times and build a stronger economy for Tasmania.

Mr HODGMAN – With the fairly limited time we have available, just so you are aware, Minister, of what we intend to do to cover off on a few bases, I will be dealing predominantly with economic development generally. Mr Ferguson has some matters relating to IST. Mr Brooks will be here at some stage to discuss small business matters.

Mr O’BYRNE – I would be disappointed if he wasn’t.

Mr HODGMAN – He is just warming up as we speak.

Laughter.

Mr O’BYRNE – That is an image I really do not want to look at.

Laughter.

Mr HODGMAN -

CHAIR – I will ask a few questions in between.

Mr HODGMAN – That is right; you are not actually part of our team yet -

CHAIR – That sounded like an offer.

Laughter.

Mr HODGMAN – Mr Shelton will have some questions on regional development.

Can I start, Minister, by asking what the department’s commitment is by way of helping to achieve the Government’s budget savings strategies and if you can outline what steps will be taken in that regard and in relation to programs and also personnel within the department?

Mr O’BYRNE – I will ask the secretary to talk about some of the staffing changes. We will have to reduce the number of staff we have and, of course, we have quite a diverse department. The secretary reports to a number of different ministers; in Tourism, you heard from Scott, who has outlined some of the staffing reductions there. In terms of grant programs we are either in the final stages of a number of grant programs yet to be completed, or we have removed some of our activities or are lining up our activities on a constructive basis to the development of and rollout of the economic development plan. In terms of specifics, I will hand over to the Secretary, Mr Kelleher.

Mr KELLEHER – The overall reduction for the Economic Development portfolio for 2011-12 is around $8.5 million reduction. That is made up of some forward Estimate programs and assuming that you would know, some component of the budget is fixed-term programs and as they finish, new ones come in as replacements, so part of the reduction of that $8 million is there.

Mr HODGMAN – Are you able to provide the committee with the details of which programs will lapse?

Mr KELLEHER – Yes, we will be able to provide that for you.

Mr HODGMAN – Thank you. Do I need to put that in writing? Are you able to do that now? That is great.

Mr KELLEHER – The ones that lapse in the coming year are most of them – I think there is only one that goes on another year or so. The Enterprise Growth Program reduces from $1 million to $500 000. The Springboard Incubator program finishes. I think they were the two main programs. In addition to that, other reductions in programs have been the staffing reductions of, for the first year, 6 moving to, by the third year, around 20 staffing reductions out of the area.

Mr HODGMAN – So that’s 20 by 2013-14.

Mr KELLEHER – Yes. We had a number of other election commitments that -

Mr HODGMAN – Has that been specified or is it indicative?

Mr O’BYRNE – We have outlined, in terms of the reductions, the completion of the 2010 election commitments you have the Gas to Ulverstone project, which is $3 million and that is where, when you look at the output, it looks like a significant drop; it would give the impression that a whole lot of activities are no longer being fulfilled but really we are just finalising election commitments and the money is out the door. We have the Gas to Ulverstone, we have the Imaginarium which is the Devonport City Council grant, we have the investigation of the central labour pools for hospitality, the strengthening of the economy, and the Western Tasmanian Industry Corridor Study so you have the completion of the 2010-11 commitments and that totals about $4.2 million. The other program reductions that I mentioned earlier together with some staffing reductions for the first year total $1.7 million. The remainder is the ceasing in the forward Estimates numbers of Menzies Centre redevelopment – there is an increase for that year. There was the Bass Strait electricity interconnector feasibility study provided for at $250 000. There were call-centre grants that are coming off from previous years, $620 000; enterprise growth program, $300 000. The Tasmanian Brand project, which has had long-standing funding provided for that over a number of years, has come to end, at $1.8 million. There were two major packages that went out last year, the north-west assistance package of $2.2 million and the Forest Contractors Support Program and you would recall there were two lots of $1.8 million announced there, so $3.6 million. Those other movements total $3.2 million, so the $3.2 million from those plus the $4.2 million for the election commitments and then $1.7 million for the first year of other budget reductions.

Mr HODGMAN – Is it accurate to say that everything else is ongoing, at least for the forward Estimates?

Mr O’BYRNE – Within the IST portfolio, under the digital future strategy, there are a few things that probably Mr Ferguson will cover on that we have had to rejig.

Mr HODGMAN – I wonder if it is worth doing that now as well in this overview.

Mr KELLEHER – As the minister said at the opening, the ongoing funding application has gone through a pretty major reshaping process as part of the Economic Development Plan.

Mr HODGMAN – So you might outline that in a moment as well.

Mr FERGUSON – Minister, you have asked a question for me so it would be great if you would outline what is happening with digital futures policy and capital funds and related matters.

Mr O’BYRNE – The predominant work was announced in the midyear financial review where there was a significant restructure around the digital futures strategy. A number of programs were cut at that time. The digital pavilion was cut – half a million there; the wireless waterfront extension at $350 000; the smart grid trial was $1 million over 2010-11 and 2011-12; the in-home health care of $1 million; and education connected classrooms, $1 million. As has been announced in the midyear financial report, there is a significant reduction. What remains is a number of programs: the Digital Futures Advisory Council, which is headed by Paddy Nixon from the university. We have allocated them $50 000 for four years to fund their work to come up with a whole-of-government and a whole-of-economy strategy in the digital futures space, the e-economy. That council has already had its first meeting and they are starting to work on a strategy and recommendations to government. We have the Virtual Communities, which is $200 000 for four years to undertake demonstration projects. We haven’t determined what they are because we are waiting for the Digital Futures Advisory Council to advise us on some of the ideas. We have the business participation in the digital economy and essentially that is digital-ready and funding has been reduced. There is $680 000 for the new digital-ready initiative, that is down from $850 000; and Government 2.0 which has enabled online service. We have rebadged this as Business Tasmania Online, and we have allocated $1.69 million over the four years. That is a key part of the Economic Development Plan, to make sure that all government services are working with other tiers of government pulling together a whole range of licensing regulations, requirements, information to the one portal, so that makes it easier for Tasmanian businesses to access government services.

Mr FERGUSON – Does that mean there is no longer a digital futures capital fund?

Mr O’BYRNE – Essentially that is the virtual communities $200 000 over the four years for demonstration projects. We were not able to fund the level of projects that were initially outlined, so what we have done is allow the Digital Futures Advisory Council to work up a strategy and make some recommendations. At this stage we have $200 000 over four years for them to identify. There are a number of private sector ICT companies and others that may take up opportunities and may come to Government with proposals. But ultimately in terms of Government money we are very much focused on getting a strategy out of the Digital Advisory Council.

Mr FERGUSON – Just to follow that, so a year ago there was $3.6 million spread over a range of different specific initiatives like connected classrooms digitally and wireless waterfront smart-grid trial and virtual in-home health, so they have all obviously been targeted for savings, so I understand that. But the $200 000 over four years is, at this stage, being used as $50 000 a year for the cost of the -

Mr O’BYRNE – No, no, that is separate, there is $50 000 allocated to the Digital Advisory Council to bring them together to resource them. There is a separate fund for virtual communities of $200 000 for them to make recommendations on actions the Government can take. And again, there is also the NBN for Business program that we are funding, the four peak bodies across the State, the Tasmanian farmers and – sorry – I have probably given you the impression it is only $200 000, it is $200 000 per annum over the next four years, it is $800,000 sorry, yes, so it is $800 000, it is $200 000 per annum.

Mr FERGUSON – Slightly more encouraging.

Mr O’BYRNE – Yes, sorry. And in terms of the NBN for Business, we have funded the Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association, the Tourism Council of Tasmania, the Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the Small Business Council to basically work with their members to become more E-aware and to become more engaged with E-business. Unfortunately Tasmania has some of the lowest business rates that are engaging in E-business and we want to make sure that they are able to – and they are best placed to do it and they know their members, they know how their members work – so we have relied on those organisations to roll that out, the education with their members.

Mr HODGMAN – What performance benchmarking have you done across each of those since their implementation, or the implementation of those programs to encourage uptake.

Mr O’BYRNE – I think we are in the final stages of finalising the deed for the terms of their responsibilities under that grant. There was a situation where the Chamber of Commerce, I think, attempted to load a number of information sessions around the State, and some were very successful, some were not successful. The Chamber of Commerce made a decision that they wanted to be as effective as possible and they thought the current process of roll out of information was not as successful as they had hoped, and now they are very much aligning it to the roll out of the NBN, for example. With stage 2 at Deloraine they are organising a forum and I am not sure what they are titling it – an information session or a process where they can utilise, because the information they got back is that, well, you can go and have sessions anywhere about the NBN, but if the NBN is not coming their business is not necessarily engaged. So at Deloraine, with the second stage rollout, they will be doing some work and some information sessions around that rollout.

Mr HODGMAN – They can hardly get a school connected, let alone a business.

Mr O’BYRNE – I think there are some issues with that.

Mr HODGMAN – What performance criteria are you applying to each of these organisations though, and what is a satisfactory output from the insofar as this funding allocation is concerned?

Mr KELLEHER – Well, the grant deeds have got certain deliverable segments, I am sure they will be controversial, but provide those and so it is mainly about them actually attracting certain numbers of people. It is really primarily awareness in advance, but it cannot be too far in advance and I think that is where the difficulty arose with NBN Co’s schedule was expected to be earlier than it has been. Finally now, at stage 2, it is starting to roll out. So the actual connection of premises will be some time beyond that because that schedule is for the optic fibre. But, nonetheless, I guess, the other conclusion, in talking to the four bodies, even before NBN comes out there is a job to do re digital-ready businesses anyway, a bit like we covered with the tourism portfolio before where that has been, whilst we want more take-up, it has been a pretty effective program.

Mr HODGMAN – The funding to these bodies was provided a year ago and you still have not yet established deeds of arrangement with these?

Mr KELLEHER – The deed are done, the implementation has not gone out because the timing has not been there in terms of what’s all this NBN and when is it going to arrive. Now that stage 2 is going out and also NBN Co itself is now taking a much more prominent role, rather than having to rely on the State to do it all, we can leverage off that.

Mr O’BYRNE – There was an announcement by the Federal Government around the NBN and the national digital economy strategy. The new initiatives that were announced, you probably are aware, is on the digital communities initiative which is to create digital hubs in the first 40 NBN connected communities which will enable local residents to experience NBN powered services and technology and access the education and training. We need to get into the homes and get into the businesses to skill them up to take the maximum advantage of what this opportunity presents. Also, the digital enterprise initiative, is to help small to medium-sized enterprises and community organisations to benefit from the NBN.

Being a State at the forefront of this roll out, we have been to feedback and we have lobbied pretty heavily with the Australian Government to say, it is one thing just to get it out, we have to start supporting -

Mr HODGMAN – Are we still claiming to be at the forefront of this, though? I am worried that this little window of opportunity that we were told that we had here in Tasmania is slammed shut.

Mr O’BYRNE – Not necessarily.

Mr HODGMAN – It appear, from what you are telling us here, that there has been a not inconsiderable delay in progressing some of the objectives of these programs because of the delay in the NBN roll out here in Tasmania. Is that accurate?

Mr O’BYRNE – The responsibility of the NBN is with the Premier. My role is in the IST portfolio in Economic Development, to do the work around that. We are still very confident that we will be the State most connected in the next five years.

Mr HODGMAN – Are the organisations meeting the objectives outlined in their deeds, by and large?

Mr O’BYRNE – By and large, my understanding is, I think I explained the issue that the Chamber of Commerce had. This is the first time that they have attempted to do this and I think they could have continued through with a process which may not have been as successful as they hoped, but they took the right decision and said some of these road shows are working pretty well but some of them are not and let us rejig the strategy to make sure we can get maximum benefit. I think what they have done, or I understand they are doing in the Deloraine case, is a prime example of that. Do it at the time when people’s interest has peaked and get them along. It is probably like your first computer lesson, you get on the software, you do it and then, two weeks later you forget it all again. But if you constantly use it, if you are constantly shown access to it, you start to cement some of the learning and get a maximum output.

Mr HODGMAN – What is your interaction or the department’s interaction with these organisations to plot progress? How regular to you meet with them and assess their performance against the deeds?

Mr KELLEHER – We have ongoing interaction, not only with this but a range of matters with those various bodies, particularly, I guess, as part of the consultation process with the Economic Development Plan. We would be meeting, probably, at least monthly, maybe fortnightly.

Ms HARVEY – The actual deed is in two parts. There is a stage 1 and a stage 2. Stage 1 is around the education -

Mr HODGMAN – With each organisation?

Ms HARVEY – Yes.

Mr HODGMAN – Are they basically the same thing?

Ms HARVEY – No, because in stage 2 we are looking for demonstration projects of how to work with each of the organisations with their constituents and we are very constantly meeting with them at the moment to finalise their project proposals of what they want to do.

CHAIR – Could we invite you up to the table because Hansard cannot hear you from the back there. I would ask you to repeat that, if you could, thanks.

Ms HARVEY – The grant deed has two parts to it, there is a stage 1 and a stage 2 and the stage 1 is really about the education process, which the minister has already explained. In the stage 2 of the grant agreement it has a process for each of the bodies to put forward proposals on how they can demonstrate benefit and that is particularly relevant to their constituents because each is quite different. We are in very, very constant contact at the moment finalising those. It has been difficult until you get NBN fibre connection to get a critical mass, if you like, to make the projects work but we are in constant contact and support with those organisations finalising projects.

Mr HODGMAN – Minister, you said you would be happy for the deeds to be tabled or made public?

Mr O’BYRNE – I will need to consult with those organisations but, as a matter of principle, I do not necessarily have a problem but we will talk to those organisations and I can get back to you on that.

Mr FERGUSON – Minister, has your department got to the bottom of what went wrong because stage 1, the education stage of the NBN for Business Program, where only five meetings were held out of somewhere around 20 that were planned, only one of those was in place where the NBN was going to in the NBN rollout stage, which was Smithton. The Scottsdale one was cancelled I think the night before it was supposed to be held, and just to assist you – and I am not trying to be clever here – I do not think the TCCI were the lead agent there, I think it was a cooperative arrangement between the four, but I could even be wrong there. What went wrong? Why could it go so bad and even in a place like Scottsdale where it was a principal rollout town that could not even attract enough interest from people to warrant a meeting with businesspeople and educators?

Ms HARVEY – We did have a good discussion with all the organisations involved and I think the minister explained that with the rollout it is hard to get people engaged until it is more immediate to them. The other thing that we realised is that we really need to have very good collaboration with the NBN Co that is responsible for building its own marketing. We are in the process of negotiating an MOU with NBN Co so that we can coordinate that messaging. I do not think that Tasmania is alone in this; it is a new initiative and we are trying to make sure that we have the most effective communication strategy around that. We have been very heartened that NBN Co has put a community liaison person in place in Tasmania, which has made that collaboration a lot easier.

Mr HODGMAN – When did that occur, roughly?

Ms HARVEY – It was only two or three months ago.

Mr HODGMAN – Very recent.

Ms HARVEY – Very, very recently and a very good initiative. It has made a big difference.

Mr O’BYRNE – Again, in a perfect world you would want the rollout to occur smoothly and the education to go smoothly but, being the first State in the country, it is no surprise that we get some teething problems with this. I think those organisations should be congratulated for acknowledging that the structure they had probably was not the most successful and they have rejigged that to be more effective and to have greater impact on the community.

Mr FERGUSON – We look forward to future updates on that. Obviously, we want it to be successful, too, from our side of politics.

Mr O’BYRNE – Is that State and Federal?

Mr FERGUSON – I speak for this side of the table, shall I say. We want it to be successful for Tasmania, and with such a big investment of the taxpayers’ funds you would think that we should all be interested in seeing, first of all, significant numbers of people in their homes and businesses connecting to it. It has not been a good record so far for Tasmania. It has been an appalling record, has it not, with around half of people accepting the fibre to their home but then only around 15 per cent to 20 per cent of people are actually using it and, unfortunately, the Tasmanian Government’s own schools in those towns are not even connected.

Mr O’BYRNE – I think in relation to the schools, Minister McKim will talk about that but there have been some issues. The Education department has an Intranet and the security of their information is crucially important and we need to work through those issues.

CHAIR – Minister, I want to turn to a fairly pressing and important matter and that is around the approach that has been made to your department from Aprin Logging’s subsidiary company, I think technically, but it doesn’t matter, Fibre Plus. When was first contact made between them and your department? I do have a series of questions.

Mr O’BYRNE – First contact was made with my office on Friday 3 June. Mr O’Connor contacted my office and wanted to seek support. I wasn’t able to meet with him but two of my staff members met with him and a couple of his colleagues on 7 June. I just want to make the point that I receive approaches from companies – Tasmanian, international, Chinese, European, all over the world virtually every day seeking government support and seeking a government role in a whole range of ventures. So essentially it comes to me, we meet with them -

CHAIR – That is one of my next questions.

Mr O’BYRNE – we do the g’days and then we refer them to the department officials, for the department officials to meet with them, ascertain what their potential needs are, and then either no action is taken, some action is taken or we move forward from there.

CHAIR – Okay, so your officials met with them. What was the nature of the request that they put? I understand that -

Mr O’BYRNE – I think you know, I think it has been reported.

CHAIR – they have asked your department for a loan of some money.

Mr O’BYRNE – Yes. And, again, it is not unusual for businesspeople, organisations or industry delegations to come to the Tasmanian Government seeking some form of assistance or support. The Tasmanian Development Board, which was established under the Tasmanian Development Act of 1983, has a separate loan portfolio, so they have a separate assessment and a separate role from the Consolidated Fund. The TDR board has a role to play to assess, and their role is essentially to encourage and promote the balanced economic development of Tasmania by sustaining an effective partnership between business and government which fully utilises the strategic advantage and human resources of the State. So that was set up under the act in the early 1980s to try to remove the politics and the cherry-picking, I suppose, of certain developments and certain business proposals.

The TDR board, over many years, has played at arms-length an independent role to assist companies, by way of grants, loans and underwriting. There is a whole range of different activities that they have undertaken over 30 years and they have done it pretty well. There is a whole range of companies that I can list that they have supported over the years – Cadbury-Schweppes, JB Swift, Huon Aquaculture, Verwood, Marinova, which is to assist the establishment of a pharmaceutical-grade extraction facility in Cambridge in southern Tasmania, Vodafone, Sitel, Incat. They have a whole history in assisting Tasmanian businesses, either when they are going through a financial difficulty or they need the Government to play a role for the sake of an industry or for the sake of economic development or for jobs in Tasmania. Because that happens quite regularly, the applicant then went to the department and the department went through the details and what they were requiring and prepared the matter for the board to consider.

Mr HODGMAN – So that is your reference, is it, to the TDA? It is to refer it to them for assessing?

Mr O’BYRNE – Essentially, and I think that is the reason, quite strategically -

Mr HODGMAN – In this case, I mean, not generally.

Mr O’BYRNE – Absolutely in this case, and whenever there is a company that seeks the support of a Tasmanian business we refer them through the department and, if it is appropriate, through to the board, for the board to make an independent, arms-length assessment of the proposal. It is very rigorous and a whole range of things are taken into account.

CHAIR – Can we get the process clear? I am very interested in what happens. So your office essentially is the front door?

Mr O’BYRNE – Sometimes, sometimes people go straight to the department.

CHAIR – So there are a few possible paths of entry, but a reference is then made to the department which compiles a brief for the Tasmanian Development Authority. What do they do with it before they refer it to the board?

Mr O’BYRNE – Essentially particular information is sought and examined by departmental officers and that is: a business plan; historical and financial statements including balance sheets, profit and loss statements and cash flow statements; cash flow projections; company searches through ASIC; credit checks on applicants and lay individuals. In that process the board also engages the Crown Solicitor’s Office to provide legal advice and documentation and to either have a look at the documentation to ensure the Government’s interests are looked after. At times they have sought external consultants where appropriate to provide formal advice and support. Also, in the broader context of the role of the board, they make an assessment of the benefits and the key risks. They manage their own loan portfolio.

CHAIR – Can we just stop at each of the gateways? So within the department -

Mr O’BYRNE – For this case or just normally?

CHAIR – As a rule. You department compiles this information and passes it off to the Tasmanian Development Authority.

Mr O’BYRNE – To the board.

CHAIR – Right. What is the authority? Who is the authority?

Mr O’BYRNE – What do you mean?

CHAIR – The Tasmanian Development Authority has a board.

Mr O’BYRNE – There is an act which governs the actions and activities of the board. It is the Tasmanian Development Act 1983. There are responsibilities under that act and under that act is established the board. The board is to consider the financial activities. They have been allocated an amount of money and that becomes their loan portfolio. It is not a part of the Consolidated Fund. They have money separate from day-to-day government money and their role is to support Tasmanian business appropriately with rigorous assessments. They meet monthly and their loan portfolio is managed based on what they have in there at the moment, what money is coming back in, so you do the fiduciary responsibility of any organisation managing a loan portfolio.

CHAIR – So the authority itself is really just a notional idea? It is the board that is the important part. Is there anyone who receives a pay packet or has a job description that says they work for the Tasmanian Development Authority?

Mr KELLEHER – As well as my role as secretary of the department, in relation to the Economic Development portfolio I am the CEO of the Tasmanian Development Resources Board. I don’t receive a pay packet because I already get one. I am an officer reporting to that board. Essentially the department supports the operation.

CHAIR – They then make a recommendation to you, Minister?

Mr O’BYRNE – To the Treasurer and me.

CHAIR – So that recommendation goes to both at the same time.

Mr O’BYRNE – It depends on the size of the loan.

CHAIR – Or is it to you first and then, subject to your approval, off to the Treasurer?

Mr WATSON – It is specified in the act as to what the different levels as to whether the board can approve it themselves or not.

Mr O’BYRNE – Obviously the lower levels the board makes the approvals and as you move up the scale it comes to me. A recommendation is made to me and then I make my decision and it goes to the Treasurer and Treasury. It then goes back to the board because most of the loans usually have conditions precedent. In the case we are talking here, the applicant, there are a number of conditions precedent on that application. Essentially the structure of the request is made to the board, the board makes a decision and a recommendation, depending on the size, it goes to the Economic Development minister and then the Treasurer; it then goes back to the board to fulfil their obligations.

CHAIR – Right. What is the size of the loan portfolio in total perhaps?

Mr O’BYRNE – I do not have that in front of me

CHAIR – Can you identify what the total capacity is and what, as of this day, its loadable capacity?

Mr O’BYRNE – That does ebb and flow depending on the activity.

CHAIR – That is right so I am asking two questions.

Mr KELLEHER – As long as you are happy to have not a total exact number but a picture.

CHAIR – Yes.

Mr KELLEHER – The overall capacity of the loan portfolio can be up to $100 million but the current broad level, bearing in mind the repayments, is around about $30 million currently of the loan portfolio.

CHAIR – Right, so it has plenty of spare capacity.

Mr O’BYRNE – You have some people on the board who are very conservative and they probably would not have that view. They would want to make sure that they are rigorous in their process.

CHAIR – Absolutely.

Mr O’BYRNE – They treat it as their money, Tasmania’s money; it is very important and it is a very responsible role they have and they manage that portfolio alone – I would say, conservatively, but also prudently to support Tasmanian business, industry and jobs.

CHAIR – Thank you; that is very good.

Just coming back to the request from Aprin, can you inform the committee as to how much that request was for?

Mr O’BYRNE – I am not able to do that because the process is still -

CHAIR – No, but I am able to ask the question.

Mr O’BYRNE – Yes, but I am not able to give you an answer at this stage because the process is still working through. There are a number of conditions and a number of things to be resolved so I am not able to, at this stage. If the process concludes and a loan is granted, we have, from time to time, been able to make the details available but only to the extent that it does not compromise commercial activity.

CHAIR – That is fine. I do not have a problem with that. Can you tell me where this loan is up to in the process?

Mr O’BYRNE – Both the Treasurer and I have accepted the recommendation of the board. It is now back with them because, as I said, there are a number of conditions precedent on the approval of that loan which need to be resolved and are yet to be resolved so it is back with the board.

CHAIR – Thank you very much. The Treasurer, I think it was, indicated that the first stage for any company is to go out and seek a commercial loan and it is only if there is peculiar circumstance or special circumstances that they might not be able to do that. The key one is that it might not be able to be backed by security of land or a mortgage or something like that. Is the security that is being offered for this loan the letter of intent from Forestry Tasmania, that Minister Green referred to in the Parliament a couple of weeks ago?

Mr O’BYRNE – As I said, the process is still going through; I am not able to give you those details until the board has concluded its work. It may very well be that the company cannot meet the condition precedents and therefore there is no loan given. It would be inappropriate for me to give that information at a time when the process is still live and, as you have said, it is absolutely a requirement; usually the first question we ask of anyone who comes and asks for Government support is have you gone to your own financers. With this case, as it has been with a number of cases, there are multiple points of financial support to any development and the Government is but one bit. Again, the board goes to absolute lengths to ensure that the risk to the loan fund is mitigated.

CHAIR – Right. I have one last question and then over to Mr Hodgman. Are you satisfied that Aprin has been able to demonstrate that they have a market for any product that would be exported from Triabunna and can you inform me as to whether that market is one that involves woodchips or wood pellets?

Mr O’BYRNE – The board has made a rigorous assessment on the application of the loan. There are a number of conditions precedent to that. I am not going to speculate on what they are but I support the deliberations of the board to ensure that the risk and the potential risk to the loan and to that applicant not funding that loan or being able to meet the obligations of that loan will be met. I am not going to speculate on a market or potential market or not, we are still live in the proceedings of the assessment of the applicant’s loan, so will say that the board has exercised its duty extensively and appropriately, and issues such as the viability of the company to meet any loan that we give it has been considered.

Mr HODGMAN – Okay. On the overdue but highly anticipated Economic Development Plan, firstly as to the reasons for its delay, as far as I can see there has been no explanation given as to why – not the fact that is was supposed to be out in June, not July I hasten to add – but a longer-standing commitment of government to develop an economic development plan which went back as far as 2008, I seek your response as to why that is the case. But also in relation to the timing of its release, there has been some discussion, understandably, as to how this plan intersects with the State Budget and why it was not released in advance of the Budget, and how it has, in fact, intersected with – as a longer-term plan for the economy – with the Budget in the current context.

Mr O’BYRNE – Since 1998, with the industry and sector analysis that was established by the then Treasurer, David Crean, the Department of Economic Development, in concert with other departments, have been working. So to say there was no activity, which is the inference of saying you have not got a plan, there has been a whole lot of work that has been done in this space over a long period of time in terms of supporting industry, supporting businesses, export facilitation, inward investment facilitation, a whole range of work. What bubbled up in 2008 as a response to needs from industry, they were saying that they wanted skills strategies, so we responded with a skill strategy to the immediate need of the industry.

In terms of infrastructure there was a request from industry to come up with an overall infrastructure plan, which we have responded to. Innovation came as a response from a number of industries that were taking advantage of changing global circumstances or changing market circumstances and we wanted to encourage and facilitate the talk around the innovation strategy. We got to the point where there were a whole range of activity being undertaken, massive – I think – diversification over the last 10 years of the Tasmanian economy, from being reliant very much on a couple of key industries to being more broad and quite diverse. It came about that we wanted to come up with an overall economic development plan which acts, not just out of Economic Development or just out of Treasury or just out of DPIPWE, but a whole overarching economic development plan to respond to the changing needs and to the needs of industry in the Tasmanian economy for the next 10 years.

So we worked on a consultation document which was released last year, and we have been consulting with industry, the industry advisory councils, with Unions Tasmania, Tasmanian Council of Social Service; there is a whole range of organisations that we have been consulting with to ensure that we get all of the elements right. So it is not just an industry analysis, it will be that, but it will also talk of an implementation and also talk about issues such as sustainability and liveability in the broader Tasmanian context. I think we saw the comments of the Social Inclusion commissioner today, David Adams, who has been involved in those consultations and I personally fronted a number of groups and he is saying we are absolutely on the right mark, not just to purely look at a thin line in terms of what an industry does, what is their contribution to GSP, what is their employment level, what are the infrastructure needs, it really is a whole-of-community, whole-of-State approach.

Mr HODGMAN – It was promised last year, so to be delivered last year, was the task too big to fit within that time frame?

Mr O’BYRNE – Maybe that is an inference, but it has always been my understanding that there was going to be – we launched the consultation document in December last year, in fact it was probably the first job -

Mr HODGMAN – I think your predecessor used to make claims about it.

Mr O’BYRNE – If you want some detail, I became minister in December and my first job was to launch the discussion paper and I have personally fronted a number of these forums that we held around the State to consult with business and people.

Mr HODGMAN – So why have you chosen to release it after the Budget? It was due for release January-February this year, so close enough to last year.

Mr O’BYRNE – The most pleasing thing has been that once we launched the consultation document, which is a substantial document, a whole range of industries and key groups within our community wanted to have a say and wanted to contribute, which I think is fantastic. This plan is too important just to try to push it through and say, ‘Close enough is good enough’, so we have allocated a few extra months and in the scheme of things that is not a tremendous amount of time. We have allocated a few extra months to make sure that we get it right so it will be a plan that can be implemented and that can fundamentally improve the Tasmanian economy. Ros Harvey has been leading the consultation.

Mr HODGMAN – I get the sense of the body of work that has gone into it. You mentioned in your overview something about the establishment of industry advisory councils. What does that mean for the existing industry councils?

Mr O’BYRNE – What we have established under the EDP is a new hybrid arrangement of consultation with regions and industries. We established the four industry advisory councils, and they are very broad. They are Food and Agricultural IAC, the Building and Construction Industry, the Manufacturing Industry and the Science and Research Sector Advisory Committee. We established those four committees particularly because of the opportunities and the potential and importance of those industries to Tasmania. We have also had broad consultation with the Tasmanian Minerals Council, the Forest and Forest Industries Council, the Tasmanian Maritime Network, the Tasmanian Renewable Energy Industry Development Board, the Tourism Industry Council, the Tasmanian Polar Network and the Tasmanian Antarctic Gateway and the Tasmanian IT Organisation. They will still exist as industry groups that we will consult with.

Mr HODGMAN – The other industry councils, do they still exist?

Mr O’BYRNE – They were wound up last year. What we have established under the EDP is regional groups and we will be announcing the membership of those at the announcement of the EDP. The industry advisory councils, as we have given to you, will play a key role in advising Government on the rollout.

Mr KELLEHER – I will just add one thing. Essentially the role for establishing these bodies is where there isn’t an effective industry body that is already there, such as the Tasmanian Minerals Council. There was a food council before but the role of that was not exactly what we thought could add the most value together, so we wound that up and formed the Food and Agriculture IAC so that we got a whole value-chain approach rather than just having one end of it. Generally the new councils are a value-chain approach so that we can look across the whole sector in the economy and have those provide the advice for their sector where they see the priorities for government are.

Mr O’BYRNE – This has been with complete consultation with these groups. Some of the membership of the old and the new are very similar.

Mr HODGMAN – Does the Economic Development Plan confirm the Government’s intention to create 15 000 jobs over the term of this Government?

Mr O’BYRNE – There are targets within the Department of Economic Development in terms of job creation as a direct result of their activities. I think that is something different from the broader economy but the detail of the Economic Development Plan, we have not launched it yet so I am not going into that.

Mr HODGMAN – The reason I asked, though, is that it was a commitment made by a former Premier that has been half adopted by the current Premier/Treasurer and as you are not the minister -

Mr O’BYRNE – We are absolutely committed to the budget growth.

Mr HODGMAN – you are saying your commitment to achieving that target of 15 000?

Mr O’BYRNE – Absolutely. The Government is absolutely committed to working towards achieving that goal.

Mr HODGMAN – And does the advice and input you have had into the development of the Economic Development Plan tell you that that will be achieved?

Mr O’BYRNE – The specifics of what we are going to announce in the Economic Development Plan, you are going to have to wait and see, and then we will talk about that.

Mr HODGMAN – I thought you might have released it today.

Mr O’BYRNE – The Economic Development Plan is really a framework of activity and defining the role of government and where we can assist in making a difference to the Tasmanian economy over a 10-year period. There will be goals from time to time that we will report on and when we announce the Economic Development Plan we will work through that and I will be pretty consistent and transparent.

Mr HODGMAN – Does the Economic Development Plan cover the potential impact to communities around the State with the proposed school closures? I would be interested, Minister, to know what involvement you and your department have had, as will Mr Ferguson, in the discussion, for want of a better word, that is now taking place within a very short period of time. It has school communities suddenly grappling with a very major disruption to them but also without doubt clearly has not only educational ramifications but also socioeconomic and I would be very interested to explore this department’s role in this process?

Mr O’BYRNE – Decisions on the schools, and they are not yet to be made, come from the Education minister on educational grounds and a criteria that has been established to ensure that we can provide the best educational environments for our kids.

In terms of the Economic Development Plan, obviously regional communities are crucially important and it is important that we respond as a government from an economic perspective supporting industries and supporting companies in regional areas to grow, take advantage of either national or international markets and build jobs and do economic activity. I think the example is where the Government has responded. For example, there has been pretty massive demographic change around the Port Sorell area and that is why we built a new school. What we are seeing in the decision -

Mr HODGMAN – The decision has been made to build it.

Mr O’BYRNE – We are building it so it is going to be built, so when you make those sort of decisions as a response to changing demographics again, on the other end of that equation, you will have to make some decisions in other areas to make sure that you can provide – I am not Education minister – that is, ultimately. Clearly, the drop in school numbers in certain areas is a response to demographic change and changing industries in those regions.

In terms of our specifics in terms of the schools we have not played a major role in that because the school decision ultimately is a response of what is happening around that community. Our role within the Economic Development Plan is to support regional communities and I am sure in the future, like we have at Port Sorell where circumstances demand it, we will reinvest in government facilities.

Mr HODGMAN – How can an assessment, though, not include an economic analysis of how a school closure will impact on a community, especially those in regional areas but all around the State? How can it not be better informed, the decision making process, without input and I do not, frankly, with the greatest of respect to these school communities, believe they are especially well equipped to provide that information or make that case?

Mr FERGUSON – Minister, if I can supplement the way the Leader has made the question to you and that is to just advise you that the Education minister does have to consider economic impacts.

Mr O’BYRNE – Sorry, run that again.

Mr FERGUSON – Well, you were interrupting my question. If the minister does have to consider economic impacts?.

Mr O’BYRNE – That is ultimately a matter for the minister who is going through a consultation process. I will seek to have consultation with him over those economic impacts. But ultimately the demographic changes, if you just keep schools open purely because of a job they provide in a regional area, that is probably not the only criteria. What they have got to do -

Mr HODGMAN – Some of these schools are actually growing, the one we were at last night -

Mr O’BYRNE – We have not closed any yet, we are going through a process that the Education minister is responsible for, and that is ultimately within his responsibility. You have asked my view on the economic development plan, part of the key plank is to build regional communities and work in that, and again, with the Port Sorell school as an example, we responded as a Government to demographic change in communities.

CHAIR – On what date did you approve the recommendation from the board in relation to Aprin, and what date did the Treasurer approve?

Mr O’BYRNE – I can give you the date on the return, I accepted the recommendation of the board on 22 June, and I referred that to the Treasurer-Premier. I am not exactly sure of the date but I think it was referred back to the board either late last week or early this week. It could have been last Friday, it could have been Monday, but I understand as early as this week it was referred back to the board on Monday, I think, I understand.

CHAIR – It would be at odds with the Premier’s statement on – well, I suppose it could have been late Monday.

Mr HODGMAN – It is a very good point.

CHAIR – It was at that point, when she was sitting where you are, she had not approved it.

Mr O’BYRNE – I do not know off -

CHAIR – I do not expect you to know the answer now. Mr Sturges, do you have a question?

Mr STURGES – I have a question but it may better fit into one of the output groups, although I think we have been pretty broad, and I do raise this quite sincerely because this issue really does have a significant effect on our economic development in this State. Last month we reached a very significant milestone in celebrating the Antarctic centennial year, and I was just wondering if you might be able to outline what would be happening further, from a Tasmanian perspective, to celebrate this major milestone and the relationship, of course, that we cherish and nurture with the Antarctic.

Mr O’BYRNE – Well, clearly we are Australia’s gateway to the Antarctic, it produces over 800 jobs and over $150 million worth of economic activity. We have two international secretariats; we have the greatest proportion of Antarctic and Southern Ocean researchers in the country. It clearly is a big part of Hobart’s past and obviously a part of our future, and yes, we are celebrating the Antarctic centennial year this year, which I did launch recently, and it started this month. We are hosting a number of internationally significant Antarctic conferences, which coincide with two important centenaries in Antarctic history. We are branding this 13-month period as the Antarctic centennial year, which is celebrating our enduring endeavour in the Antarctic.

There are over 30 events that will be held and included in the festivities will be international conferences, forums, significant Antarctic centenaries and numerous cultural events and exhibitions, Graham. We are not obviously directly responsible for all of those, but we will be providing key support with people from the department. And the first centenary that we are celebrating is Douglas Mawson’s departure from Hobart on the Australasian Antarctic expedition in December 1911. And this expedition gave us one of our first national heroes and laid the basis for our current 42 per cent claim of the continent and we are going to hold a public commemorative event, planned for the River Derwent and the foreshore.

The second centenary is out of Norwegian, Roald Amundsen’s announcement that he had become the first person to reach the South Pole, beating Robert Falcon Scott’s unfortunately tragic attempt. He announced his success at the Hobart GPO. So we will be staging a public re-enactment of that event. I am sure we will invite all of your along.

Mr HODGMAN – You’ll be starring as -

Mr O’BYRNE – I think I have been looked over and I am a bit disappointed. I did offer myself up. I think he was six foot, like myself, so I think we had a striking resemblance.

CHAIR – You will have to kneel. But he probably had a beard.

Mr O’BYRNE – They are two examples of the essential role that Hobart has played in Antarctica and we want to celebrate that and it is of global significance.

The most high profile event of the calendar, though, is the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, which will be held in Hobart in June of next year. This is a fantastic opportunity for us to really showcase Hobart and the vibrant Antarctic hub that we are and also help to grow the Antarctic business.

The third annual Sub-Antarctic forum is also planned for August, highlighting our pre-eminence in the important field of research in ecotourism. CCAMLR will be holding its thirtieth annual meeting at its Secretariat in Macquarie Street and obviously there will be a number of other events that we will be able to celebrate.

I think, from an economic development perspective, really highlighting Hobart and Tasmania’s role and our connection to the Antarctic and Southern Oceans, is crucial. It is extremely important and this, hopefully, will be. We have already held discussions with the Federal Government about the role that they can play in supporting the Tasmanian community and really building on what we are already doing in the Antarctic space.

Mr HODGMAN – I wholeheartedly agree with the value of this sector to our economic and social fabric. It is critical we retain our status as the gateway to the Antarctic. What is of concern to me, and you would be well aware of this because there has been some public discussion already on the state of the infrastructure at the wharf from an incoming brief to your good self or at least your predecessor in 2011 and I am not sure a lot has changed in this time. It states very clearly, in detailing real concerns with the wharf infrastructure, particularly that and I quote:

‘If port facilities are not improved, there is a risk that Tasmania will lose the AAD and its Antarctic and Southern Ocean science and logistics sector. This would be a considerable loss to the Tasmanian economy and brand and would threaten the range and activities of the Antarctic organisations in Hobart, jeopardising the significant employment and income benefits these bring to the State.’

Where is this at and what can be done?

Mr O’BYRNE – I think it is important. In the Tas Polar Network and when dealing with Antarctica, it is really important that we have some bipartisan about that. I was a bit disappointed that you chose a media strategy to highlight these issues. That was a point in time. In terms of the incoming brief, I could have talked you through the steps that we were taking to respond to that. There is always going to be an infrastructure challenge within Tasmania and that advice was a point in time.

Mr HODGMAN – Has it changed, though?

Mr O’BYRNE – Absolutely it has changed within TasPorts. We have the GBE scrutiny hearings. The port is fit for purpose but there are obviously some challenges that will need to be met in the coming years to ensure that we not only maintain but we build, and we are working on that on a whole range of fronts. TasPorts is investing significant dollars in ensuring that the port facilities are fit for purpose. They have a maintenance strategy of the port.

Mr HODGMAN – It is not just me saying this but, at the time, others who are expert, were saying that there are load capacity issues that would suggest it is not fit for purpose.

Mr O’BYRNE – I have said to you and the polar network acknowledged that the port is fit for purpose but there are some challenges. We have to acknowledge with the Tasmanian ports, a whole lot of industry has left Hobart and moved to the northern ports to bring in their freight. You have a large facility that has some challenges but you do not necessarily have the economic activity to completely justify TasPorts, alone, doing a complete and rolled-gold upgrade of the facilities.

What we have been able to do is work with TasPorts to ensure that they can support the Antarctic activities and the wharf and the wharf area is fit for purpose. What we have also done is acknowledge the strategic importance of the Antarctic connection and the Antarctic facilities and that is why, within the Infrastructure Australia bid, we have a significant application with them, not only for a $25 million upgrade of the Hobart ports but also looking at an upgrade of the Hobart airport to really solidify the air link between Hobart and Antarctica. I have personally spoken to the head of Infrastructure Australia, Michael Deegan, about the importance of that to us. So we are working on meeting those challenges and, as you know, Mac1 is up for tender and that is potentially an income stream for TasPorts that they can reinvest in the port facility; we have Mac2 that we are working on that will be the gateway for not only the Antarctic services but also the cruise ships, and they have become an important hub for tourism activity. So we are working on those things.

Obviously the Tasmanian Polar Network and people involved in the Antarctic community are very passionate about this but, if you have any concerns or questions, please come to me first and, if I have not clarified them for you to your satisfaction, by all means do what you have to do. I think it is important that we send the message to the rest of the community and the Australian Government and also the international secretariats that are placed here, that we have a bipartisan approach to this.

Mr HODGMAN – Oh yes, without doubt, but when the minister at the time, in February this year, gets a briefing saying there is a real risk of losing all this then it is a fairly significant -

Mr O’BYRNE – It was an FOI request. I know that politics plays a part in all of these things but if there is one industry that we can try to be bipartisan on and work together for the benefits of Tasmania, probably Antarctic is the one.

Mr HODGMAN – It used to be forestry but you broke up on that one.

Mr O’BYRNE – We are responding to changes globally, mate, so if you do not want to catch up with us then we cannot drag you along with us all the time.

Mr HODGMAN – You can shut it down without any help from us.

Mr O’BYRNE – I offer that as a bipartisan approach in terms of the Antarctic; let us work together on this because -

Mr HODGMAN – I do not see how any of that is compromised.

Mr O’BYRNE – this is of generational significance for Tasmania.

CHAIR – I advise at this point that we have a particular ritual here – the six o’clock ritual which is about to take place. When the lights go out, this is just a little thing to remind us about the automatic system for energy saving in this building, but they will be switched back on again very shortly afterwards.

Mr HODGMAN – Hands on the table.

CHAIR – No, free time. The questioning can continue and it shall continue; Mr Ferguson.

Mr FERGUSON – Minister, while we are on Antarctica, can you give an update to the committee on the status of the new Institute of Marine and Antarctic Sciences which I know you take an interest in? In particular, as a person who is very committed to the Australian Maritime College which is now legally a part of the University of Tasmania, I would like to know what role you would like to see for the National Centre for Marine Conservation and Resource Sustainability. I hope that your answer will be positive in that regard because I think that some encouragement from your Government to the university would be good.

Mr O’BYRNE – We have an excellent relationship with the University of Tasmania and I have had a number of discussions with the new Vice-Chancellor, Peter Rathjen, about how we can continue to improve the good relationship that we have from the State Government. I think that you will see that the university plays, across the State, a unique role and is a key part of the Tasmanian fabric. Not only is it a big employer and a big generator of activity within the economy, it also is a big part of the contribution towards, I suppose, the broader sense of what Tasmania is. I think we are in a unique situation where there is one university as opposed to in other States where there are multiple universities and multi-relationships. We have one university across the State working with the State Government and we can work together to really maximise the benefits for both organisations.

Mr FERGUSON – I vigorously agree with what you have just said.

Mr O’BYRNE – Good stuff.

With the IMAS we have committed $30 million over 10 years towards the building at the Princes Wharf site and related research activities. We are working through the final stages of the negotiations with University of Tasmania on property. There is quite an in-depth property negotiation going on with the university involving Domain House, the clinical school on the site, and the site down at Princes Wharf, which will be the Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies facility. Once we have concluded that we will get into the planning phase and we will go through with that.

Mr FERGUSON – You have committed $30 million over 10 years toward the infrastructure establishment; is that in kind or is that cash? Have you just made a funding announcement?

Laughter.

Mr O’BYRNE – I will qualify what I have just said; I have been given some advice which may be contradictory. In terms of the building development, we are working through the final negotiations with the University of Tasmania about the location with IMAS and the building facility, and also the other buildings and properties dotted around Hobart. Once we have concluded that they will get on with the planning and building of it.

Mr FERGUSON – But what are you qualifying? The funding that you just mentioned earlier?

Mr O’BYRNE – Yes, I qualified that.

Mr FERGUSON – Could I ask you then, because it might be just an inadvertent or whatever issue, would you report back to the committee?

Mr O’BYRNE – Yes, I undertake to get that back to you.

Mr FERGUSON – Will you make comment regarding the National Centre for Marine Conservation and Resource Sustainability? It is an element of the AMC in Launceston. I am inviting you to make some positive comment about it playing a role with the IMAS, which of course is a decision for the university. I think in your role as Science and Innovation minister it would be worth hearing your perspective.

Mr O’BYRNE – I will not go into any specifics but I am obviously talking with the university and having a look at a whole range of their activities across the State including the Maritime College and its activities in the north. I have had an invitation to go around and have a look at some of the activities, and I will undertake to do that.

Being an island, the Maritime College plays a crucial role in training a whole generation of marine engineers, responding to needs of the maritime industry, responding to challenges to boats and vessels and whatever the maritime environment throws up. Clearly the university, with the Maritime College, invests a lot of money to ensure that that is appropriately resourced. I am really looking forward to visiting. I have visited there once.

Mr FERGUSON – I thank you for your comment. All I would do is draw the distinction between maritime and marine. This is an institute that I am particularly interested in; I am particularly interested in the marine aspect. Sadly for them they have the worst name in the world – it is an awful mouthful – but what they have there in their capacity is really unique. It is a national centre so I ask you take that on notice and give thought to how you might approach that issue. It is a good opportunity for Tasmania and it would allow the IMAS to not just been seen as a Hobart-based institution of the university.

Mr O’BYRNE – With those decisions we need to work with the University of Tasmania. They have been very good at dispersing their work and their campuses around the State to support regional areas.

Mr FERGUSON – I put it to you that if you have inadvertently made a funding announcement then that gives you some opportunity to press the point.

BUDGET DEBATE FOLLOWING ESTIMATES: 6 JULY 2011

Mr FERGUSON – Minister, I love your enthusiasm but I need to say a few things. I enjoyed my time across the table from you last week at Estimates. Thank you for your frankness with the answers, and I genuinely mean that. I think often it is unfortunate that the time is so pressing and it is our job in Opposition, our unfortunate task, to divvy up the time as we see best to get the best value from the 63 hours of scrutiny we have. Nonetheless, I have a few comments to make in relation to the report of the committee.

I would like to make a few remarks around the Innovation, Science and Technology portfolio, which I shadow the minister on. I would also like to make a couple of other comments on some local issues. In particular, with the Innovation, Science and Technology portfolio I note that this year, as with last year, there are no outputs that are specific to this portfolio, which I think is unfortunate although  understandable. There are no mentions of the portfolio in the Budget specifically. I think it is a little unfortunate for the importance of the portfolio that it does not seem to gain more elevation of the important role that the Government sees for the portfolio in having a minister dedicated to it. I would encourage that that be considered as the minister and the Government frame up the Budget in future years. There are some negatives, and we have already touched on this in past debates. It is an obvious issue that with the midyear financial report, which came down in January-February, there were significant cuts made in this portfolio. I think it is fair to say they were all of the pre-election promises made by the former Premier to the ICT sector in Tasmania, except for the one program, which had already commenced. Even that one lonely project, the NBN Industry Assistance Package, has not covered the Government in much glory at all.

I am speaking about the Connected Classrooms Program, which was a $1 million project; the Digital Pavilion Experience Centre, which was a half million dollar project; the extension of the Wireless Waterfront Initiative, which I assume is ongoing but that the extension has been cancelled, at $400 000; the Smart Grid trial $1 million; and the in-home healthcare demonstration trial $1 million – all scrapped. It actually is quite a stunning back down on the many exuberant promises made by the former Premier in relation to the role that the Tasmanian Government saw for itself in playing in Tasmania, which, as we all know, is the first State to take advantage of the NBN project by the Federal Government.

My natural disappointment is that Tasmania is losing, has lost, the early mover advantage that we did have for a period there. Coming back to the NBN Industry Assistance Package, with $1 million in taxpayers’ funds being handed out to four big-body organisations and sadly with virtually nothing yet to show for it, my knowledge of that project was that funding was granted to the four organisations in May 2010. Money has been deposited into a trust fund to be drawn down upon as appropriate, and that 14 months later the Government now says that they are now at the final stages of finalising the deed for the terms of their and the recipients’ responsibilities under the grant. So have you ever heard of such a situation? Many questions remain on that. It is most unusual, I find it very unusual, I really do. There is no need for anyone to think that the Opposition is accusing anyone of those four grant recipients of any wrongdoing, but what is clear is that the Government did want – quite desperately I think – to rush money out of the door, and were it not for the case that the funds had already started flowing during last year, prior to the midyear financial report, then I can only imagine that possibly that fund, that project, too, may have been scrapped. But I guess we will never know.

This is what we do know about the fund. The first stage of the program was supposed to take a road trip around Tasmanian towns to increase knowledge and excitement for the NBN and to try to encourage and stimulate take up, and also the economic advantages and opportunities that would be available, particularly to small business and medium business, when previously unavailable bandwidth becomes available. And of that road trip it only went to five towns. Incredibly only one of those five towns was an NBN stage 1 town.

Mr O’Byrne – We explained it- they’re sitting on the couch.

Mr FERGUSON – I know you have explained it. It still is quite extraordinary. The organisers have admitted that something was wrong and they stopped the forums the night before the Scottsdale one, again one of the NBN stage 1 towns, in order, I understand, to review and to try to get better value for the future. That is unusual though, I have to say, with stages two and three still undefined.

In any event NBN company now have positioned a PR person in Tasmania, I think that is good, but I think that it is quite clear as well that the Government is really starting to distance itself from the fact that Tasmania did have that early-mover advantage. I really feel that history is showing -

Mr O’Byrne – We will be the first State to have it rolled out across – we will be the first State within five years. That is the plan.

Mr FERGUSON – Nonetheless, Minister, as you know, there was a big red button pressed by the Prime Minister and the former Premier in southern Tasmania some time ago, I think it was just in time for the Federal election. The computer says go. Yet we have just not seen that the Government has enabled the local community to take advantage of it. Pity the schools in those first stage 1 towns. Your own schools are not connected so what hope have the community and businesses got? What now remains, though, is that the Digital Futures Advisory Council was funded at $50 000. The minister might just reply when he gets a chance as to whether or not that was annually or was it over four years.

Mr Rockliff – You look really rapt.

Mr O’Byrne – You couldn’t see me from where you were; you’re making this up.

Madam DEPUTY CHAIR – Order.

Mr FERGUSON – Then there was the Virtual Communities Fund of $200 000 per year for four years to act on recommendations of the council. There is still the faint hope of an economic development plan that has been much talked about. I hope it is good and I trust as well that it will take into account the digital futures policy and strategy. I am sure it will, but we look forward to seeing,

Mr O’Byrne – No, it probably will not, based on your submission.

Mr FERGUSON – There you go. Dashed our hopes. The minister should not think that everything said across the Chamber needs to be sarcastic or negative.

Government members laughing.

Mr FERGUSON – Well then you do. Okay, well that will be your choice but I do want to encourage the Government, as I have said quite a number of times, Minister, I call on you to make innovation real to small and medium business because I do believe that has been a shortcoming. I call on the minister to elaborate on the issue that I raised with him at Estimates regarding the role of the National Centre for Marine Conservation and Resource Sustainability. That is something the minister did make a commitment to coming back to me on, but I especially ask and beg the minister to elaborate on this statement, that may or may not have been needed to be qualified, where he said – and it seemed like an inadvertent announcement of $30 million over 10 years to the Institute of Marine and Antarctic Sciences. I quite genuinely ask the minister to elaborate on that during his response.

I know time has got away on me. I do blame the minister for at least one of those 10 minutes but I would call on him in his role as Minister for Infrastructure to really have a genuinely close look at what is occurring outside Riverside High School on the intersection at Brownfield Lane. It is traffic chaos there and it is frightening to stand and watch the line of buses trying to cross three lanes of traffic. I would urge you, minister, to see that as a priority in your role and I do understand there is a traffic engineer’s report which has been commissioned I believe by your department, possibly Education.

Mr O’Byrne – There is not. If you have got a copy then get it through.

Mr FERGUSON – All right thanks. I do not think I have access to it but I understand it has been done.

Mr O’Byrne – No.

Mr FERGUSON – Can you undertake, Minister, to contact Education?

Time is away on me, Chair, so I might just close by saying I urge the minister to take on board some of those comments and I look forward to next year.

I have been lucky enough to represent the people of Bass at both a state and federal level. As the Federal Member for Bass I fought for increased funding for roads in Bass and in particular the East Tamar Highway.

I was particularly pleased to secure $60 million of funding for the East Tamar Highway upgrade in 2006 on behalf of the community and I welcome the completion of the works and the opening of the Highway today.

For many years, the East Tamar Highway was the poor cousin of the state’s highway network and I hope that the area and the community can now benefit from improvements this infrastructure upgrade will bring.

Pulling the pin on Roaring 40s puts the Musselroe development in Tasmania’s north east under a huge cloud.  Musselroe has the potential to underpin the northern and north eastern economies during some very tough times, but once again, we are seeing the Green-Labor Government failing to deliver.

The communities in the north east would be forgiven for thinking that the Green-Labor Government has completely abandoned them, given that the Government has stood by and watched as major employers have left the area and promised investments have failed to materialise.

The Green-Labor Government has been saying that Musselroe is close to commencement for years, but the reality is they clearly have no idea when, or even if, Musselroe will be built. This project is too important to fail and the Energy Minister, Bryan Green, has some explaining to do.

Where is the Green-Labor Government’s renewable energy strategy? Where is the investment in renewable energy that Labor and the Greens have been promising for years? Musselroe represents one of the best opportunities for renewable energy generation not just in Tasmania, but the entire country. If the Green-Labor Government can’t even get this project off the ground then what hope is there for other developments?

Matthew Groom is the Shadow Minister for Energy

The complete lack of competence and financial accountability of the Labor-Green Government in delivering the promised NBN has again been exposed – with speculation mounting that they have simply given up.

From day one, under the guidance of former Premier David Bartlett, the project seems to consist only of hollow promises, wasted taxpayer dollars and dumped election promises.

The Minister responsible for the NBN, David O’Byrne failed today to even reveal how much has been wasted on the NBN travelling roadshow, with revelations that only five out of the 17 towns on the target list received a visit.

What is even more alarming is the fact that the roadshow didn’t even visit Scottsdale, a town pinpointed by Labor and the Greens as one of the three stage 1 roll-out locations. It makes a mockery of the Labor-Green Government’s so called support for the NBN and its false claims that the Tasmanian Liberals have not supported improved broadband infrastructure.

At last, Tasmanian taxpayers are learning that the hype created by Mr Bartlett when the NBN was launched was simply a front to hide the Government’s incompetence and lack of understanding about how it could be successfully rolled-out. Even the Federal Government seems to have recognised this, having dumped the Tasmanian Government from the former joint venture, Tasmania NBN Co Ltd.

The Tasmanian Liberals remain strongly supportive of improved broadband infrastructure and have consistently put forward policy to help make it a success and to improve appalling low take-up rates. However it is clear that this Labor-Green Government has simply lost control and wishes to withdraw from its previously stated goal of supporting content-rich and innovative applications for the new services.

Minister O’Byrne needs to familiarise himself with his portfolio and come to grips with the issues that are confronting the ICT sector in Tasmania. The waste of precious taxpayers’ money and giving false hope to a hungry industry must stop.

News that the Tasmanian NBN company (Tas NBN Co) Chairman Doug Campbell has resigned prompts even more questions about the NBN rollout in Tasmania. The NBN joint venture with Aurora has been axed, and now the Tas NBN Co Chairman has apparently jumped from the sinking ship.

With Aurora downgraded from partner to contractor, a massive turnover of directors and policy on the run regarding rollout – it looks like the Tasmanian implementation has been severely undermined by a Premier who is more interested in glamorous predictions than getting it right for Tasmanians.

Who is in control of the NBN rollout in Tasmania? What role is the Tasmanian Government playing? If there is no Tasmanian input then how can we make sure that Tasmania’s interests are at the fore, rather than just the Federal Government’s?

Just this week we’ve seen the Federal Government completely ignore Premier David Bartlett’s requests for assistance for our forestry industry, so who’s to say Canberra won’t ignore the Premier again on the NBN?

The Tasmanian Liberals support improved broadband infrastructure in this state, which is why we are so concerned that Tasmanian interests seem to be poorly represented in the rollout. What a soap opera!