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

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

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

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

Hansard, Monday 28 June 2010 – Estimates Committee A

3.1 Information and communications technology policy development and implementation

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

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

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

Mr BARTLETT – No.

Mr FERGUSON – Is it your signature on the document?

Mr BARTLETT – No.

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

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

Mr FERGUSON- And from the Commonwealth?

Mr BARTLETT – Stephen Conroy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr FERGUSON – Ten years!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr FERGUSON – Would they be assuring the same bandwidth?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My two media releases issued that day:

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

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

After a long series of questions that highlighted the inadequacy of getting less than 50% of homes and businesses connected to the fibre rollout, Mr Bartlett conceded that there had not been any consideration given to changing the rollout from an “opt-in” to the more comprehensive “opt-out” model.

The Liberals have proposed that proper consideration be given to making changes to the rollout that would ensure that all homes and businesses are provided with a fibre-optic cable “drop”.  By doing a cable drop at the time technicians are already in the area would reduce overall costs to the consumer, make the rollout more efficient and increase take-up rates.

The Premier’s last minute back flip where he stated that he would raise the matter with Doug Campbell, Chairman of Tasmanian NBN Co Ltd was a welcome relief.

While the Premier attempt to play his trademark divisive politics on the issue of the NBN rollout, the Liberals have done some of the work for him in providing evidence of the shortcomings of the current rollout together with a common sense suggestion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hansard, Tuesday 6 July 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Hidding – But not personal or anything.

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

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

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

Mr Best – I think pink sounds good.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Hidding – He has a lovely radio voice.

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

Mr Hidding – They were too busy talking about you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Secondary Colleges (Restoration) Bill 2010 has been tabled, and will now be open for consultation, input and possible improvement from stakeholders, including other political parties.

The Bill abolishes the Tasmanian Academy and the Tasmanian Polytechnic from 1 January 2011. It also provides transitional arrangements to protect the employment of teaching and other staff in both organisations.

Staff would return to be employed by the Department of Education, as they were before Mr Bartlett’s experiment started.

This legislation does not affect the Skills Institute, which is one part of the changes which has actually worked.

If the legislation passes both Houses of Parliament, it will be incumbent upon the Government to make the necessary administrative and regulatory arrangements to fully implement the will of the Parliament or else leave Tasmanian students and teachers in limbo.

Unlike in other States, the Opposition is not provided with any legislative drafting assistance by the State Government in Tasmania. Therefore, while the Bill has been prepared with a clear intention, it may contain drafting flaws. I will be happy to accept amendments from either the Tasmanian Greens or Labor which improve the effect of the Bill, but not any amendments which undermine its clear purpose. I will also be introducing a consequential amendment bill in due course to deal with other necessary changes.

As the Liberal Party and the Tasmanian Greens both took to the election similar policies to overhaul the Tasmania Tomorrow failure, which has significantly disrupted the education of young Tasmanians, I hope the Greens will indicate their support for our Bill at the earliest opportunity.

Key points:

Michael Ferguson MP

Shadow Minister for Education and Skills

Wednesday 5 May, 2010

Tasmania Tomorrow was supposed to address issues of absenteeism and retention in our post-year 10 education system, however after the first year of operation student attendance figures have got worse, and there is apparently no data available on the crucial retention rates.

This is despite David Bartlett telling the parliament on the 29th September last year that there was a 95 percent retention rate at both the Academy and Polytechnic:

“I can also report that both the CEO of the Polytechnic and the CEO of the Tasmanian Academy reported to me just yesterday that there is a 95 per cent-plus retention rate into third term, which has never been seen before in our colleges. I repeat – a 12 per cent improvement and a 95 per cent-plus retention of students.”

No wonder Mr Bartlett didn’t want to continue as Education Minister – his own Department’s report fails to back the claims he made to Parliament.

In the absence of updated statistics on retention, I challenge the Education Minister to release a snapshot of daily attendance at the Polytechnic and Academy, compared to enrolment. To be fair to Ms Thorp, I would even be happy for her to choose the day!

No amount of selective listening and consulting by Ms Thorp will change the fact that the Tasmania Tomorrow experiment has comprehensively failed Tasmanian students and that it needs to be overhauled.

The Tasmanian Liberals remain committed to fixing the post-year 10 education mess and are currently considering options for advancing our policy position.

Michael Ferguson MP
Shadow Minister for Education and Skills
Thursday 29 April, 2010

It’s the first sign that the government may have heard the message from parents, students, teachers, industry and now the voting public.

However, I am sceptical about the Minister’s talk of confidential meetings with college “focus groups” and what such meetings are really capable of telling her that we don’t already know!

The strong message we received from the community is that Labor got it wrong both in policy and the implementation of that policy.

If retention was the goal – it has failed. Tasmania’s retention rates have gone backwards since 2004. And anecdotal evidence is that they continued to fall under Tasmania Tomorrow, while absenteeism went up. There were also major problems with resourcing, information management, staffing, weakening of pastoral care and sidelining parents with the abolition of College Associations.

One of the fundamental problems with Tasmania Tomorrow – and it was the same with Essential Learnings – is that there was not enough consultation about it with teachers in the classroom. It is all very well for Education bureaucrats to dream up new structures, but I know many teachers despair of new policy being imposed which took no account of their actual experience in day-to-day teaching, and the needs of their students. Surely the teachers themselves are some of the best judges of what works, and what doesn’t.

The Tasmanian Liberals went to the last election promising to overhaul the college reforms; returning all colleges to their proper and proven function of giving year 11 and 12 students education choices in both academic and technical fields. Additionally, we believe that the best way to tackle low retention rates is to focus on the critical middle years and high school.

The Tasmanian Liberals stand by our opposition to the current structure of Tasmanian colleges and will work to return all colleges back to their proper function of offering both academic and vocational/technical training education from 2011; while largely retaining the Skills Institute which we accept has been a worthwhile change.

Michael Ferguson MP
Shadow Minister for Education and Skills
Friday 23 April, 2010

While driving, I listened to the live broadcast of the caretaker Premier Bartlett breathing his pathetic attempt to argue that somehow Will Hodgman had “failed to form a government” despite Labor’s supposed best efforts to facilitate the change.

Lie.

The truth is that two things happened in the last two days that have led to Labor exending their 12 year rule on power to 16 years – and both illustrate the desperate measures that dishonourable parties have been willing to take in order to cling to power that the voting public denied:

• Labor reneged on its undertaking to genuinely support a Liberal minority government by failing to give the promised and needed undertakings when they were sought. 
• Greens decide to support the Labor government that for the last few years they have described as corrupt, incompetent and dishonest.  McKim has shape-shifted.  This is a significant change and one which will rightly lead many Tasmanians to feel that their vote has been utterly abused and misappropriated.

These two dishonourable acts are an ugly stain on Tasmanian politics. 

The Liberals regard this Labor/Green government as illegitimate and we will move a vote of no confidence from the floor of the House of Assembly at the earliest opportunity.

I am certainly not concerned personally about being in opposition.  Being elected to the Tasmanian Parliament with such a strong show of support from the people of Bass is a massive honour.

But I am devastated for Tasmanians – knowing that their hopes for a better future and a government they can be proud of have been utterly dashed.

From here we continue to stay close to everyday Tasmanians, to focus on our current and future needs, to shine the bright light of scrutiny on the desperate Labor/Green government and to stay focussed on winning a Liberal Government at the next opportunity.

Please stay with us.  Your support is needed more than ever.

If you are not a member of the Liberal Party but would like to be, then now is the time to get motivated -  please contact me and allow me to introduce you asap.

Our feedback from the school communities is that the process has been rushed and there has simply been inadequate discussion on the needs of students and parents.

Under a Hodgman Government, proper process would take place, and everyone affected would have a good and fair opportunity to express their views.

That will mean that the decision which is ultimately taken will be properly informed.

I have been contacted by several parents of WPS students who are angry at the way the merger has been promoted and so-called ‘ballots’ counted.

Clearly, counting unreturned ballots as a ‘yes’ vote is a rort.

This lack of integrity in the process is compounded by:

• The poor communication with parents regarding the information session and confusion regarding the date of that session.
• The fact that people who reside in Waverley and have an affinity with the school but do not currently have students enrolled were excluded from the consultation which did take place.
• The fact that the neither the school, the department nor the minister released the results of the ballot, or even the level of participation.

As a result of these concerns I conducted an independent and voluntary survey of the community, which showed the following results:

Question 1 – Parents of WPS students only

Did you complete and return the survey form issued by the school which asked if you were in favour of a merger with St Leonards Primary School?

• No, I don’t remember receiving this (32%)
• No, I did receive it but didn’t return it (10%)
• Yes, I voted in support of the merger (0%)
• Yes, I voted against the merger (57%)

Number of parent responses: 40

Question 2.

Do you believe that parents who did not return a survey should have been counted as a “Yes” vote by the State Government?

• Yes (0%)
• No (95%)
• Undecided (5%)

Number of responses: 57

Question 3.

How do you feel about the plan for Waverley students attending WPS from K to Gr2 and then moving to the St Leonards campus for Gr3 to Gr6?

• Satisfied (0%)
• Dissatisfied (98%)
• Undecided (2%)

Number of responses: 57

As a result of these survey results I will be proceeding with discussions with both parent representatives and the Tasmanian Liberal leader Will Hodgman regarding an appropriate way forward for Waverley children which in my mind must include the possibility of running a proper and robust community consultation.

We will also expand police ‘move on’ powers to provide a new provision for a 24 hour ban, at the discretion of the police.

People in Launceston want real change when it comes to security concerns – this police booth and expanded police powers is part of our plan to deliver real change for public safety in Launceston, and across Tasmania.

The expanded powers will mean that if a person is asked by a police officer to leave a public place when the police officer believes on reasonable grounds that the person may commit an offence, endanger the safety of another person or be likely to commit a breach of the peace, that period can be for a set 24 hour period.

The current ‘move on’ powers under the Police Offences Act only specifies a period of “not less than 4 hours”, but it needs to be clear to police on the beat and to the community that a 24 hour ban can be imposed, without the need to take the person into custody.

Failure to obey such a police direction already makes a person liable to be arrested.

The police and information booth will be developed in consultation with the Launceston City Council, Cityprom and Tasmania Police to ensure its style and precise location is suitable.

The booth will be able to double as a place for a periodic police presence, and also an information point for visitors and locals alike on services and attractions in the Launceston area.

The Labor Government has claimed that it will continue the A-Team under a review regime through to June 2010; however it is clear that the Government is starving the program of student places, undermining the role of staff and ultimately planning to terminate the program.

As David Bartlett has refused to respond to letters and phone calls from members of the Support Group, an attempt was made to engage the Premier via Facebook.

We now know that:

• Vacancies will not be filled as it is only for continuing 2009 students; in some recent sessions, only one student has been present.
• There is now no new professional development for school-based teaching staff available.
• The review has apparently commenced and excludes the input of the support group in either the design of the review and its conduct.
• Even more embarrassingly for the Premier, is that although the review has apparently commenced, the department has not even consulted with Autism Tasmania regarding timeline, process and parameters etc.
• It is also now clear that the department, through Learning Services North, has taken direction from the caretaker government to have nothing further to do with the support group or parents.

In a letter sent to the A-Team support group in February, the General Manager of Learning Services North, Liz Banks, confirmed that the Bartlett Government will “transition” students out of the A-Team.

Concerningly, Ms Banks also cancelled a proposed meeting with the A-Team Support Group scheduled for 8th February, without giving any reason why.

It is now abundantly clear that a re-elected Bartlett Government will abolish the A-Team, and worse, they are now not even prepared to talk to affected parents about it.

So much for Mr Bartlett’s claim that he is “listening”.

Furthermore, at a National Disability Forum pre-election debate on Monday, Labor’s nominated representative refused to cooperate with requests to facilitate the promised meetings – saying only that his excellent connections would allow him to contact employees in the department.

In contrast a Hodgman Liberal Government will provide an additional $1.3 million for the A-Team (Autism) model program, which will not only fund the continuation of the program in the North, but will see the program rolled out around the State for a three year trial.

Under a Hodgman Liberal Government, there will be no more experimentation with our childrens’ education.

We will overhaul Tasmania Tomorrow based on strong feedback from teachers, students, parents, industry, and the community that Labor has got it wrong.

Mr Bartlett’s education experiment has divided Tasmania’s community and forced students to choose too early in life (just 16 years old) whether they want to pursue an academic or technical career, at a time when international researchers were warning against early streaming.

We will tackle retention, improving our qualifications outcomes and absenteeism by putting an increased focus on the critical middle schooling and high school years.

Tasmanians have had enough of noisy and glossy reform announcements such as Essential Learnings, and Tasmania Tomorrow, which have failed to deliver the educational outcomes that Tasmanian students need for the 21st Century and beyond.

What we will do:

We will overhaul Tasmania Tomorrow.
Tasmania Tomorrow is a failed educational experiment. We do need to improve education outcomes in this state but David Bartlett’s policy has made things worse, not better, with retention rates continuing to fall and students forced to choose between academic and vocational futures too early.

It is a fact that Tasmania’s retention rates have gone backwards under Labor since 2004, and have fallen still further under the first year of Tasmania Tomorrow.

Under our plan, all Colleges which have transitioned to the Polytechnic and the Academy will be returned to their status as Colleges, and will offer both academic and vocational/technical training education from 2011 onwards.

In addition, regional and rural high schools will take on an expanded role to years 12

The Tasmanian Liberals recognise that some parts of Tasmania Tomorrow have worked, in particular, the Skills Institute. For that reason, rather than returning to the old TAFE system, we will retain the Skills Institute and expand its operations to cater for adult vocational and technical skills training, second chance and adult education which has been the responsibility of the Polytechnic.

We will revitalise our high schools
The Tasmanian Liberals understand that a good High School education is a vital ingredient to post-year retention. That is why we will invest an additional $12 million ($4 million per year) to support the revitalising of our middle and high schools in Tasmania.

We will expand Rural and Regional High School educational responsibility to Year 12
We will ensure that the 16-18 year old learners in their community are accessing, actually participating in, and completing academic and vocational training whether that is through the local Trades Training Centre, The Skills Institute, the High School, or an alternative training system.

Expanded capital works program
We will establish a Renewing Our High Schools Capital Works Fund of $8 million over four years for the redevelopment of secondary school facilities throughout the State.

Pathway Planners
We will invest in and valuing pathway planning officers in our students career and vocational learning pathways by providing an additional $7.5 million to support up to 35 new Pathway Planners in our schools and colleges.

More professional development
We will invest in improving teacher quality and capacity to make a real difference to improving education outcomes for our children by providing $1.95 million ($650,000 each year over the next three years) to our schools for additional teacher professional development.

Labor has failed Tasmanian students. For too long, our kids have been treated as guinea pigs in an educational experiment of the Labor Party.

Mr Bartlett has made it is clear that he will not making changes to his failed Tasmania Tomorrow experiment.

On March 20, Tasmanians will have a choice – four more years of experimentation with our children’s education, with worse results, or the real change and results focussed plan put forward by the Tasmanian Liberals.

For full details on this exciting policy, please visit www.tasliberal.com.au