[3.23 p.m.]

Mr ROCKLIFF (Braddon - Deputy Leader of the Opposition) - I rise in response to the 2009-10 State Budget. I commend the Leader of the Opposition, the honourable Will Hodgman, on his very strong speech this morning. It sets out a clear direction - unlike that of the Labor Party - for this State under a Hodgman Liberal government. I know that under Will Hodgman we will have a government that governs for the best interests of Tasmania and all Tasmanians, rather than, as we have seen over the last decade, the self-interest of the Labor Party and its parliamentary members. This is a Labor government that has not governed; it has merely crisis-managed the State's affairs over the course of the last decade, particularly over the course of the last four years. We have seen a dramatic increase in poor decision-making and scandal and in virtually every aspect of this State Government's responsibilities absolute and utter incompetence. So, scandal, self-interest and the incompetence have really been hallmarks of the last decade in government, but particularly since the 2006 election. Contrast this, of course, with the clear direction under the leadership of Will Hodgman and the State Liberals who will lead a government that will move and drive our economy forward, will deliver desperately needed accountable government, achieve better health results, raise education standards and strengthen our community and protect our lifestyle.

Mr Deputy Speaker, what is clear about the Leader of the Opposition's speech is that under a Liberal government, the Tasmanian economy will be in safe hands because a Hodgman Liberal government will deliver fiscal discipline. It has a long-term plan for economic prosperity and rightly and proudly it backs the engine room of the Tasmanian economy - small business.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I have been doorknocking hundreds of small businesses, which was our commitment during the last budget response. This was not just in my electorate but in other electorates as well. Even before the global financial crisis hit, these small businesses were in desperate need of leadership, in desperate need of easing the burden of regressive taxes and, of course, red tape. Under the Hodgman Liberal government, we will return the budget to the
black by 2012-13 and Tasmania will remain net debt free. So the economy will be in safe hands under a Hodgman Liberal government.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Tasmanians understand that Australia is facing substantial challenges due to the global economic downturn. They understand that Tasmania is not immune from those challenges and they also understand that this means some tough decisions are required. They know that, just as their own household budgets are reviewed in times of stress, government expenditure needs to be carefully considered in order to rein in costs and avoid the worst of repercussions while, at the same time, we spend wisely and in ways that serve to protect jobs and much-needed
services. A Hodgman Liberal government will get that balance right.

I wish to focus mainly on my portfolio responsibilities - infrastructure and tourism. There is a lot to say in both those portfolio areas, particularly how let down Tasmanians have felt in relation to infrastructure in this State and, of course, how let down they feel about where tourism is heading in this State. The Labor Government's handling of infrastructure over the last decade has well and truly been Tasmania's Achilles heel. We have not invested wisely; we have not invested enough and even when there is funding there for the taking, we have not been in a position to capitalise on that, as other States have done. We have failed in one of the single most important areas of economic development and it
is not as though this State Government has not been warned. In 2005 the infrastructure report card by Engineers Australia noted that much of Tasmania's infrastructure required critical changes in order to meet current and future demands. It noted that in order to maintain a quality of life, our environmental sustainability and our economic prosperity, there needed to be a coordinated approach to the provision of infrastructure and long-term strategic planning and funding commitments. Last year the Planning Institute of Australia highlighted a failure of this State Government in terms of planning and infrastructure where Tasmania received a D-rating for governance structures, infrastructure and
transport. Tasmania's road infrastructure was rated the worst in the nation in 2006 by the Australian Road Assessment Program. To cap it all off, Infrastructure Australia's audit report to COAG on Australia's infrastructure priorities, released late last year, confirms what the State Opposition has been constantly saying - that after 10 years of Labor,
our regional road network is an absolute shameful disgrace. In Tasmania, for example, regional roads which will need to cope with increasing freight over the next decade, according to the State Government's own reports, are the weak link in the State's export chain, and are generally not fit to support proper road and freight productivity reforms. Infrastructure deficiencies compounded by a maintenance backlog mean that many roads require major investment.

All these warnings, and we still have no infrastructure plan. This is the product of a government that has been in crisis management for far too long, a government with seven infrastructure ministers in less than a decade, which is just symptomatic of this Government's dysfunction and, sadly, Tasmanians are the poorer for it.

There is no better example of our neglect of infrastructure than the state of our rail services. Tasmania desperately needs a viable and a reliable rail network. We need to ensure that we keep that competitive tension between different modes of transport. At the end of the day this competitive tension will deliver greater efficiencies for business in this
State. In other words, it will cost less to do business in this State. Take rail out of that option and business costs skyrocket, so we need that competition.

Mr Deputy Speaker, without rail there will be huge costs to our community, a cost to our economy, a cost to our environment and, of course, a social cost. These are costs that the community simply cannot afford to bear.
The integrity of any transport system is vital, and anyone in business that is reliant on an efficient freight service will tell you that the number one priority in any transport logistics is reliability. By any measure our rail network, suffering from a decade of neglect under Labor, is anything but reliable.

This is why we must hold the Government to account on its poor performance on infrastructure, but most critically rail. A rail system that has had over 20 derailments in the last two years, averaging one a month. A rail system that requires the locomotives to slow down to ensure the safety of the drivers. That is not an efficient rail network, and we know, as I
mentioned last week in Parliament, that the latest derailment happened when the train was travelling at just 20 kilometres an hour when it simply just fell off the tracks.

By looking at the 2006 ABS census data, , we discover that each reported Tasmanian rail track worker was responsible for 28 kilometres of track, whereas nationally each worker was responsible for just 12 or 13 kilometres, highlighting the under-resourcing that our rail network has received and continues to receive. Can I say on that point, in relation to of the different numbers of kilometres that each track worker is responsible for, nationally we have 40 000 kilometres of rail, whereas in this State we have only 750. So that is absolutely shameful.

Mr Deputy Speaker, of course, the consequence of neglect of rail and the consequence of the closure of the north-south line has seen more trucks on the Midland Highway, which our very own minister, Graeme Sturges, labelled a goat track in July 2007. There are more trucks on the road as a result of the closure of the north-south line and tragically we are seeing more people killed on our roads. That is the social cost that I was referring to before.

Against this back drop of neglected infrastructure and neglected rail in particular - which I have been focusing on - you would have thought that the State Government would have had an infrastructure plan ready to go. What an infrastructure plan enables you to do is take advantage of opportunities which are going begging - such as the $22 billion-worth of Federal funding. You can easily go to the infrastructure plan, identify the needs and the priority areas, and ensure that a comprehensive submission is made to the funding bodies. No such luck in this State - no infrastructure plan, no funding for rail. The Government did not even ask for it. It highlights the fact that this Government has been in government for far too long. They cannot even get their act together to ask for $1 out of $22 billion to improve our rail and road systems in this State.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the $22 billion on offer, which I referred to, came at the same time as the Federal Government claimed it was delivering the most sweeping investment in rail in generations. So where were we when other States were taking advantage of that offer? When we see $8 billion being splashed around the country to improve the rail networks in other States, we could not get our act together to get a drop of that. That just highlights the incompetence of this Government. The minister, Mr Sturges, trumpets the amount of infrastructure funding on offer in the forward Estimates but there was an opportunity to access more funds. That opportunity simply went begging. Other States got their act together. Sir Rod Eddington pointed that out when he said that those States that got the funding did their homework and their homework gained them access to those funds. Those States that did not do the work did not get the funding. What we need in this State is a government that can think and have a vision beyond the next election. Since 1998 we have not had that and since 2002, since I have been in this Chamber, we most certainly have not had that. That is why we will not back away from our commitment to a four-lane Midland Highway. We will not back away from it because it is the right thing to do. The Government's own infrastructure and transport plans are predicting a 70 per cent increase of freight on our major roads over the course of the next 20-25 years and a 40 per cent increase in smaller vehicles travelling on our major roads. Just with those figures you would think there would be a long-term plan and vision to upgrade the Midland Highway to four lanes between Hobart and Launceston - another 120 kilometres is required. We have a dual-lane highway for 47 kilometres between Devonport and Burnie, a road I travel frequently, so why can't we have a four-lane Midland Highway for reasons of safety, transport efficiency and reliability?

Thinking beyond the next election, planning for the future, we plan to irrigate the Midlands area between Cressy and Oatlands, to irrigate 78 000 hectares of ground. Imagine the enormous productivity gains that will have. Those products need to be harvested and transported efficiently, safely and reliably. So we need a four-lane highway to achieve just that, as well as cope with the increase in heavy vehicle freight and smaller vehicles as your Government has predicted. That is thinking beyond the next election, having a 20-year plan of which you are absolutely incapable. We have an infrastructure plan for the Midland Highway for 20 years.

I will now focus on infrastructure. What this Budget also highlights is that Labor is incapable of delivering on its spending promises. We can all read what the Government trumpets. There is $750 million in infrastructure spending but the question has to be: how much will actually be spent? In the last financial year, while the Government planned to spend $350.4 million on infrastructure and new assets in 2008-09, it actually spent far less than that figure. It spent $65.3 million less than was budgeted for. That represents roughly 650 jobs in the Tasmanian economy, which we so desperately need in these challenging times. This Government's continued failure to deliver infrastructure spending puts
Tasmanian jobs at risk and keeps economic growth below its potential. Unless the Government gets on top of this systemic failure to deliver infrastructure spending then it is likely, on its past record, that $140 million of projected infrastructure spending will not be spent in 2009-10. Over the forward Estimates this could mean up to $370 million of planned infrastructure spending not being delivered. The Government has form here. It spent $65 million less than it budgeted for last year. That has its impacts. Rail, of course, is an example there. Some $24 million was announced in November 2007 on the Rhyndaston line, the area where derailments have occurred, but only $1 million has been spent out of that $24 million. That highlights the systemic failure of this Government and it needs to be addressed.

We already have the Government making excuses because the Budget indicates that Treasury is already concerned about whether or not the Government can deliver on its promises and is warning that 'unforeseen delays affecting the timing of this expenditure remain'. So they are already making excuses for not spending the money allocated for next financial year. What that means in real terms is fewer jobs - and we cannot afford to have that given the global financial crisis - more train derailments and the continuing unacceptable poor state of our road network.

There will be no excuses under a Hodgman Liberal government. There will be greater accountability, as demonstrated by the Leader of the Opposition's announcement today that a Hodgman Liberal government will produce quarterly reports for greater fiscal accountability and that will include progress on budgeted infrastructure expenditure.

I will now turn to tourism. We know the tourism industry is vital to our economy, not only in terms of the jobs it sustains and creates but also it is critical to the Tasmanian brand. But where is tourism heading under Labor? Nowhere. The Budget shows that the Government could not meet a single one of its 2007-08 tourism targets. This was from measures such as visitor numbers, visitor spending, market share and advertising awareness, and this was well before the global financial crisis hit. Since the onset of the global financial crisis the Liberals have been calling on the Government to boost tourism as a way to cushion the economy from the worst impacts of the downturn. Sadly, our calls and the calls of the Tourism Industry Council of Tasmania have been ignored. With the low Australian dollar and people watching their spending, and the likely downturn in tourism in Victoria because of swine flu, there was a real opportunity in this Budget to do something positive for our tourism industry, the broader economy, and jobs. Tourism expenditure by the Government has fallen some 12.6 per cent from $36.2 million in 2008-09 to $31.6 million in 2009-10. The Tasmanian Tourism Satellite Account developed by the Sustainable Tourism CRC identified that tourism supports 13 696 jobs directly and another 11 145 jobs indirectly in this State. Ten per cent of the work force, some 24 000 people, depend for their jobs on the tourism industry, but we have seen no real support from this Government at a time when other States are bending over backwards to sustain their tourism industry. In New South Wales, which the Premier today was oblivious to, the mini-budget announced last November injected $40 million in its tourism industry. Today they announced a nearly $52 million investment in the tourism sector. I have in front of me the media release from Tourism minister Jodi McKay. She says:

'This investment recognises the role tourism plays in driving economic growth across New South Wales and how targeted funding can support jobs in the industry during these tough economic times.'

Ms McKay also said:

'$30.4 million of the Budget would fund a wide range of marketing promotions and tourism projects. In addition, more than $5 million in grants will be allocated to regional tourism organisations. This is a 46 per cent increase on last year's investment in tourism projects and grants.'

So they recognise the importance of driving their domestic tourism, and we should be aggressively marketing this State, particularly to the eastern seaboard of mainland Australia - Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland. That is where we should be targeting our funds, but we have not been able to do that in this Budget. Additional funding of $12 million was announced by South Australia over the next four years; Western Australia is increasing their tourism funding commitment by $2.9 million per annum; and the Northern Territory has increased its marketing budget by $9.3 million over the next two years. The Tourism Industry Council of Tasmania says, and I quote:

'Tasmania is the only State where tourism marketing is going backwards and this will inevitably have a negative impact on our competitive position.

'I agree with Daniel Hanna that this is crisis time for the tourism industry. Tasmania is being outspent and outmuscled by competitors interstate and the region, and that is why a Hodgman Liberal government has had the foresight, the leadership and the vision to invest an additional $5.5 million over three years to tourism promotion when we need
it most.

I mentioned the issue of brand to our tourism industry. What a mess this Government has made of Tasmania's brand, particularly when it comes to the tourism industry. The absolute fiasco surrounding the Parks and Wildlife and Environment departments sends a very poor message about how this Government treats our unique assets. The absolute neglect of one of Tasmania's major tourism icons at Stanley that attracts 70 000 visitors a year is in danger of becoming a national tourism disgrace. Speaking of brand, what about their flawed Tarkine plan which no-one wants? I know the Minister for Tourism certainly does not want it.

Ms O'Byrne - Bruce Felmingham didn't think it was flawed. Independent reports don't think it's flawed.

Mr ROCKLIFF - I know that Felicia Mariani refuses to endorse it.

Ms O'Byrne - Oh, you do not know that!

Mr ROCKLIFF - I do.

Ms O'Byrne - You do not, you're making this up as you go along!

Mr ROCKLIFF - Well, I will be very keen to get her point of view on the Tarkine plan during budget Estimates. I know you do not support it, and why would you? We have a major unique tourism icon in its infancy now that will develop and enhance over the next few years and you have trashed the brand. You have trashed the brand of the Tarkine. That is why this Government has lost the plot. Tasmanians are looking for leadership and vision, proper planning and policy settings. When there is $23 million on the table in such difficult economic times it is a difficult environment
to frame a fiscally-responsible budget, so when you are putting $23 million to a particular project it has to be done properly and it cannot detract from the very thing you are there to promote. That is why the Tarkine loop road is not part of the Liberal Party agenda, and that is why we have reallocated funding to much-needed areas, with capital
infrastructure to boost jobs, boost the economy, and to market that unique region, as well as resources for the Parks and Wildlife Service which we know is already under-resourced, and of course $500 000 for Tarkine ecotourism capital infrastructure grants for environmental innovation.

Mr Deputy Speaker, tourism in this State is going nowhere.

Time expired.

[12.08 p.m.]

Mr ROCKLIFF (Braddon - Deputy Leader of the Opposition) - Mr Deputy Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on the TOTE Tasmania (Sale) Bill.  I am pleased the minister has reversed the order of the day, as was done eventually in the upper House.  It is sensible that we debate this bill first, given that the Gaming Control Amendment Bill in fact sets up the deed.  It is important that this House makes a decision on the sale bill first before we proceed with the Gaming Control Amendment Bill.
 
Mr Deputy Speaker, if you had said to me 12 months ago that the Government was going to sell TOTE Tasmania I would have said, even when we were in good economic times, I seriously doubt that because in GBE committees and in budget Estimates the question had been asked a number of times: does the Government intend to sell TOTE?  The answer has always been no. 
 
In October last year we had the announcement that we were at the forefront of a global financial crisis.  On 20 November we debated major reforms to the racing industry in this House.  We were given assurances from the then minister, Minister Cox, representing the Racing minister in the lower House.  He eventually got things right.  He started by reading the wrong second reading speech but then got on track once I pointed it out to him.  That is another indication of the absolute contempt that this Government has for the racing industry in Tasmania and its 3 000 employees.  I asked Minister Cox on that very day: does he intend to sell TOTE?  Is TOTE up for sale?  The minister replied:
 
'You have raised the subject of TOTE being for sale.  As the Treasurer and Minister for Racing has said numerous times before, TOTE is not for sale'. 
 
That was on 20 November last year.  If you had asked me then would I have expected the Government to announce the sale of TOTE in the next five weeks, I would have said most definitely not.  How could they be so stupid after giving assurances to the racing industry, through the so-called consultation phase for the racing reform legislation, that TOTE would not be for sale - on numerous occasions.  How could they backflip so easily?  I would have been absolutely staggered that they would be so stupid, not just because they would have broken a promise after engendering trust within the racing industry that they would not sell TOTE, but also we are in very difficult and challenging financial times so you would assume that now was not the best time to sell a major Tasmanian asset. 
 
Mr Speaker
This legislation is all about trust, about broken promises which we have seen numerous times before, too many times in fact since March 2006.  The first example we had, of course, was Mr Green running around Braddon, putting big ads in the Advocate newspaper saying the Liberals will sell Spirit III.
 
Mr Green - I didn't say that.
 
Mr ROCKLIFF - Yes, you did.  We can get the ad out.  I know Mr Whiteley has had it under his desk for at least three years.
 
That was the first broken promise, but of course we have been through numerous scandals - the TCC and shreddergate.  Just this week we have been asked to believe that the Treasurer just happened to find out that a tender had been issued for a $500 000 television series promoting branding after it had been in the newspapers, even though it was from his own Government, and that he just happened to be reviewing the budget on Monday and just happened to decide to cancel it.  The dodginess continues.  We see the ham-fisted approach over the acting Commissioner for Police.
 
Mr Llewellyn - The member for Denison and the member for Braddon seem to be shaping up to oppose this bill.
 
Mr ROCKLIFF - The dodginess, mistrust and broken promises have been a hallmark of your Government, some would say over 10 years, but particularly over the last three years since March 2006.  The people of Tasmania have to have confidence in their governments.  Like reputations, confidence is hard-earned.  With this TOTE sale and many other scandals and examples of incompetence and waste of taxpayers' money, this Government has slowly but surely squandered it.
 
That brings me to the subject of the bill before the House today.  The Legislative Council has already debated this, and the ERD committee in its report has highlighted the backflips and the half-truths of the Treasurer and Minister for Racing in the lead-up to this bill being introduced, but it is important to state it for the record once again.  Why was it that as recently as 4 September, when asked directly about rumours of an impending sale, Mr Aird said, “TOTE is not for sale.'?” Again, in November, when I raised concerns of the racing industry that there might be a sale without prior consultation, the minister representing the Racing portfolio in this House, Mr Cox, who is so conveniently absent from Parliament this week, said on Hansard, 'As the Treasurer and Minister for Racing has said numerous times before, TOTE is not for sale'.  But suddenly in January Mr Aird was saying, 'That was then and this is now'.  He needs to explain why he gave assurances to Parliament and therefore the public that were less than frank, or if he insists that he was not misleading, why has the Government changed its mind?
 
This is interesting, because under scrutiny from the Legislative Council on 4 December, he referred to rumours and innuendo when asked a question regarding the sale of TOTE, but in May he requested that Treasury seek to find further information with respect to the TOTE sale.  So how can he under parliamentary privilege seriously get upset when a member of one of the three code councils of the racing industry, the greyhound industry, claims that Mr Aird, in fact, lied?  How can he possibly defend the fact that he did not lie?  He went to Treasury in May 2008 seeking advice on options in relation to the restructuring of the racing industry and the sale.  In fact, Mr Challen said, 'We first began work on options in relation to the restructuring and sale on 7 May 2008' - that is from page 91 of the appendix of the ERD committee's report.
 
I firmly believe that he has in fact misled Parliament.  There is absolutely no doubt that he has, so how can he expect that the racing industry and indeed the Tasmanian taxpayer would ever trust a word that comes out of his mouth again?  This is what this bill means for many in the racing industry and for the taxpayer.  They cannot trust Mr Aird and they certainly cannot trust this Government after their dodgy dealings, particularly in the last three years.
 
I will come to some further quotes from evidence given at the ERD committee, on which a number of members of this House sat. 
 
I want to speak briefly about the racing industry itself and its value to Tasmania.  As shadow minister for racing, a part-owner of a horse and a keen punter, it is a great privilege to be representing the racing industry for the State Opposition.  It generates some $90 million into the Tasmanian economy, it employs directly 3 000 Tasmanians, and indirectly up to 5 000, so it is no small industry for Tasmania.  It is the fourth-largest industry employer in this State, so it is an important industry for Tasmania and we cannot deny that fact.
 
Over the years  TOTE has returned a significant revenue stream to the Tasmanian Treasury amounting to tens of millions of dollars.  This is an ongoing contribution to government income which can obviously be spent on other priorities, but most of that income goes back to the racing industry, so the industry feels secure with the TOTE in government hands.
 
I want to come back briefly to jobs.  In this economic climate, job security is at the forefront of everyone's minds.  I know that perhaps 12 months ago job security was not so much at the forefront of people's minds because we were not then in the midst of a global financial crisis, but now we are and people feel very vulnerable.  People in the racing industry feel very vulnerable right now.
 
Mr Green - They shouldn't do.
 
Mr ROCKLIFF - How can you blame them, Mr Green?  How can you blame those in the racing industry for not feeling vulnerable when they do not trust their Government?  They do not trust their Treasurer and Minister for Racing or their Government.
 
Mr Michael Hodgman - That's right, a government without credit or integrity.
 
Mr ROCKLIFF - It has to be remembered that many of those 3 000 direct jobs that I referred to - I know the report commissioned by the Minister for Racing a few years ago said in the order of 3 000; I think it was 2 800 from memory - are very valuable jobs in rural and regional areas.  They are often low-skilled jobs, but as you talk to trainers, breeders and horse owners around the State, they are very valuable jobs.  Those people feel let down and vulnerable as a result of your Government's backflip on the TOTE sale.
 
Mr Green - This will provide a more secure future for them.
 
Mr ROCKLIFF - You say that.  On the surface people think this is not a bad deal for the racing industry, but they do not trust that you will deliver.  That is the problem that you have with respect to selling this legislation, Mr Green.  You would know this given your close association with the racing industry and -
 
Mr Llewellyn - They never used to trust Braidy and your lot.
 
Mr ROCKLIFF - I was not in the Parliament then but I know one thing of Ian Braid and Bill Bonde.  When they look you in the eye and tell you something, you know they are not going to go back on their word.
 
Mr Llewellyn - I do not doubt that.
 
Mr ROCKLIFF - Thank you, you do not doubt that, which is good, but when Michael Aird or Jim Cox looks you in the eye and says that TOTE is not for sale, you cannot trust them. 
 
Mr Llewellyn - The point I was making was that they did not trust Ian, even though I have high regard for his integrity.
 
Mr ROCKLIFF - I wish to get onto the ERD Joint Standing Committee evidence since February.  I commend the chairman, Mr Hall, for setting up that committee.  It was in response to enormous concerns of those in the racing industry.  They had been completely dudded as a result of the broken promises given during the racing reform bill.  In principle it was good legislation and that is why we supported it ultimately in the House in late November.  We did move to delay the introduction of that legislation until March this year because there was not enough consultation with the industry on that restructure.  That is what many in the industry were saying at the time.  That is exactly why we moved to delay the introduction of those bills, to allow for more consultation, a very sensible amendment because the legislation set up the new Tasmanian Racing Board as of 1 January, just six weeks after that legislation went through.  So it was rushed through Parliament and there was virtually no consultation with the industry at all - just a couple of meetings.  A series of questions was put to those who undertook the review.  In the end many went unanswered, except one, of course - will you be selling TOTE?  The answer given was, of course, no.  So they did come good on at least one question and provided and answer, but of course they backflipped.
 
After that legislation went through the three code councils were abolished: the thoroughbreds, the harness racing code and the greyhounds.
 
Mr Michael Hodgman - All have been betrayed, all of them.
 
Mr ROCKLIFF - So where was the voice for the racing industry at that time?  They felt vulnerable anyway because they had no voice, irrespective of the TOTE sale.  They were waiting to have a voice as of 1 January when the new Tasmanian Racing Board was set up.  So when on 8 January, from memory, the TOTE sale was announced, people were horrified - much of them in your own constituency.  I attend many greyhound and harness meetings and many whom I come in contact with are Labor blokes and women.  They vote Labor.  They are all very friendly to me, they accept that I might have different political views on things, but I am well received and warmly welcomed when I go to any race meeting, whether it be harness or greyhound.  I accept the fact that they might not all be politically of my way.  This is also why they feel so aggrieved that their own Government could do such a backflip on a promise given during the racing reform legislation.  Once that happened, there were no code councils before which they could push their point of view; they had no voice.  The new TRB made a deliberate decision not to speak or comment on the TOTE sale, so they were stranded with no-one to support them apart from the State Opposition and other members in the House, and those within the industry that spoke up and expressed their concern as individuals.
 
I wrote to all the racing clubs around Tasmania.  There are 15, I believe, when you include the fact that King Island has both a harness racing club and a thoroughbred racing club.  I wrote to all of them with a questionnaire so they could inform me of their concerns.  I was happy with the response.  One racing club wrote back - and I will not name them - and said that they condemned the lack of consultation.  It was fearful that previous commitments to the industry will not be honoured and does not trust the Government - and there is that word 'trust' again.  What will happen to Tattersalls Park and the TOTE racing centre, which are owned and operated by TOTE?  What will happen to Sky Channel coverage?  What is a guarantee worth?  'We have been continually lied to by the minister and have no confidence', they said.  There was concern about the future of particular venues, concern about the future of country clubs and about the potential for future funding cuts that would put racing facilities and jobs in jeopardy.  They are concerned over the loss of capital funding, of phone-betting jobs being lost interstate, of income from a percentage of turnover being lost.  They have no confidence in the honesty of the minister or in fact the Government.  They are seeking assurance on funding and moneys owing and are very concerned about the lack of advice from government on proposals and future processes.  In many ways there has been a little bit more water under the bridge since that time. 
 
I want to read you a media release from the Devonport Harness Racing Club, a media statement so it is already public knowledge.  This sums up the feeling of many racing clubs -
 
'The impending sale of TOTE Tasmania has evoked feelings of insecurity and uncertainty about the future of harness racing and the racing industry in general in Tasmania.  Despite verbal and written guarantees from the minister regarding ongoing funding and sustainability, DHRC feel deceived.  At recent industry seminars industry participants were assured that the restructure was not part of a plan to sell TOTE.  Without the operational functions that TOTE have previously been involved in we feel now would be the time for focus on core business and concentrate on marketing their product to the wagering industry.' 
 
That was the whole point of the racing industry reforms, so that TOTE could be released from the shackles of the day-to-day governance and administration of the racing industry and concentrate on their core business in the national and international marketplace to grow their business.  I continue:
 
'DHRC is concerned about its future and calls on the Government to provide guarantees regarding infrastructure facilities statewide and the legislation surrounding the sale of TOTE, particularly at north-west venues.  There was a lack of consultation and now a lack of justification regarding the sale in the current economic climate.  Although we support the restructure and involvement of the Tasmanian Racing Board, this announcement has come at a time when the racing codes have not yet been afforded the time to develop methods of collecting thoughts and voicing opinions through this medium, therefore applying pressure to individual clubs and associations to stand alone.  Divide and conquer are the words.  We would hope that once Mr Aird returns from his timely annual leave the industry may receive the much-needed answers it seeks.' 
 
'Divide and conquer' are some key words there, 'trust' is a key word there, 'seeking guarantees' are key words there.  In a way, guarantees have been given under the deed, but if you go to some of the evidence that was given, we find that even though the 20-year agreement was on the table at that time, many in the industry still do not trust the Government.  For example, on page 139 of Appendix 1 of the ERD report, Ms Robyn Whishaw says: 
 
'How do we know just what we are being asked to comment on when the Government has not consulted with our industry at all about the proposed sale … Amazingly, they did not even consult the TOTE chairman, Craig Coleman, on the sale of TOTE.  How can Premier Bartlett possibly claim to have an open, transparent and accountable government?'
 
Mr Paul Bullock, the former Chair of Greyhound Racing Tasmania said: 
 
'One of the problems we have had with all of it is that there has been no consultation with the three codes, no consultation with racing and we have not seen a business plan.  Anyone running a business usually has a business plan.  This bloke just says 'sell' and in today's economic climate we do not think that is on.' 
 
Mr Green - Do you support the bill or not?
 
Mr ROCKLIFF - I will come to that in a second.
 
Ms Denise Fysh, the Chair of Hobart Greyhound Racing Club says on page 75: 
 
'So I agree, and I think that the industry as a whole agrees that we have been deceived by this Government, that we have no trust in this Government and any guarantees that the Government at this point is going to say that they will give, we have no trust in.'
 
You might have a deed out there that is providing $40 million of capital investment, $27 million a year with CPI over the next 20 years.  On the surface, some within the industry might think that is not a bad deal, but the key thing here is that they do not trust that you will deliver.
 
I want to come to the funding.  I mentioned the funding of the $40 million capital investment and said that on the surface this might seem a reasonable deal but of course there is at least $40 million needed right now to upgrade many of the infrastructure facilities around Tasmania.  The Brighton track is an absolute disgrace and an occupational health and safety nightmare.  Lights are needed at the Devonport Harness Racing Club and there is still work to be done at Elwick, another very poorly managed project by this State Government - add it to the list of Spirit III, water development and the gas rollout.  It is another example of your Government's complete and utter incompetence to manage a project.  There have been cost blowouts, there are still issues with the venue with parts of it not being used and the track is still not good.  There is work to be done on the harness track, and this week we read in the Advocate newspaper about the need to upgrade the Spreyton racetrack.  They had to cancel a meeting this week and move to Launceston so there is a massive infrastructure requirement there.  I am pleased to say that that track has broad support in terms of the need for upgrade from right across the State because when Mowbray was out of action last year - and might I say that that track redevelopment is tremendous -
 
Mr Green - Tremendous or well managed?
 
Mr ROCKLIFF - Yes, you did not manage it; that is why it was well managed.  The issue here is that we need three good thoroughbred racing tracks in Tasmania.
 
Mrs Napier - If you'd listened to Casimaty about Elwick you would have had a damn good track, but you wouldn't listen to a Tasmanian.
 
Mr ROCKLIFF - What I am saying is that there is a massive need for capital infrastructure investment in the racing industry now, let alone in 20 years time, and so the $27 million a year now indexed under the deed will support the funding of stake money or whatever else but there also needs to be a requirement there for capital as well.  My prediction is that after the 20-year deed there will still be significant capital infrastructure upgrades needed in Tasmania.
 
Mr Deputy Speaker, I have spoken a lot about -
 
Mr Green - You haven't mentioned Betfair.
 
Mr ROCKLIFF - I will get onto Betfair briefly.  You would certainly know that the returns to the Government from Betfair have not been as good as you blokes promised once again, so I am pleased you raised it.  It shows how out of touch you are.
 
Mr Green - The industry hasn't done any good out of it at all?
 
Mr ROCKLIFF - I have spoken about the mistrust with respect to the racing industry and, sadly, that is an absolute given.  We also have to bear in mind here the Tasmanian taxpayer, those who have nothing to do with the racing industry.  Some do not care about the racing industry although I would argue that they are misguided, but the Tasmanian taxpayer and the ordinary Tasmanian also needs to get a good deal out of this sale of TOTE and the figures we have come up with suggest that that is not likely to happen.  We need assurances with respect to this matter because the Government has committed itself over the next 20 years to $457 million for the racing industry.
 
Mr Michael Hodgman - They say.
 
Mr ROCKLIFF - Therefore the sale of TOTE needs to equal that $457 million just to break even.
 
Mr Michael Hodgman - As a minimum.
 
Mr ROCKLIFF - In other words if the sale does not come up to that figure, others in the Tasmanian community who care about health or education will be dudded.
 
Mr Michael Hodgman - Dudded!
 
Mr Booth - Dudded!
 
Mr Llewellyn - Dudded.  That is a good word to use.
 
Mr ROCKLIFF - Everyone has repeated it so it must be good.
 
Mr Llewellyn - I was repeating what the member for Denison has to say.  He echoes everything the speaker is saying.
 
Mr Michael Hodgman - Your government is dudding the racing industry.  You are a disgrace!
 
Mr ROCKLIFF - When it comes to deals, this Government is not very good at them.  The monopoly pokies agreement is a classic example where Tasmanian taxpayers have potentially been dudded $100 million.  So we cannot trust the Government.  People care about the racing industry and people in the community care about health, education and other social services.  We had a report from TasCOSS this week highlighting the issues of the more vulnerable in our community.  I do not want to see the racing industry on a collision course with people that value social services over the racing industry.  That is unfair on the 3 000 hard-working people in the racing industry.
 
At the moment we have system where TOTE is owned by the Government.  It is scrutinised at the GBEs and by other methods of scrutiny where we can ensure they are complying with all their obligations and managing that asset well.  We know that they are returning a dividend to the racing industry; they are funding the racing industry, keeping people employed and most Tasmanians are happy with that.  I am not sure that, if the sale price of TOTE Tasmania does not meet that break-even point, Tasmanians concerned about social services, health and education funding are going to be too happy with that shortfall and seeing that money going into racing.  It is not fair on the racing industry to set up a fight with another section of Tasmania.
 
Mr Speaker
The State Opposition on the second reading of this bill will not be supporting the legislation as it stands.  We accept the fact that it has gone through the upper House but all we can do from this point is try to improve the legislation.  Therefore we will be moving an amendment during Committee to strengthen this legislation to ensure that the sale price comes back to the Parliament for parliamentary approval.
 
Mr Michael Hodgman - Before the deal is done.
 
Mr ROCKLIFF - Thereby we can scrutinise the value to the Tasmanian taxpayer and the Tasmanian racing industry.  We would expect the Government's support on that.  If we do not have that support from the Government we will be doing on the third reading as we are about to do on the second reading, and that is vote against this bill.
 
[12.48 pm]

[6.02 p.m.]

Mr ROCKLIFF (Braddon - Deputy Leader of the Opposition) - Tonight I wish to express my concern about the level of support services available to many on the north-west coast who have recently lost their jobs due to the economic downturn.

As we all know, the effects of the economic downturn are being felt across the State, particularly on the north-west coast.

Two hundred and eighty workers from Caterpillar alone, along with the employees from other companies such as Delta Hydraulics, together with their families are now struggling to deal with the consequences of the job loss storm. The long-term job security of workers at King Island abattoir remain uncertain, workers at both the Burnie and Wesley Vale paper mills are also anxiously awaiting the decision on their future and many more jobs hang in the balance.

Tragically one of the fall-outs of unemployment and retrenchment is the human cost. People who have worked diligently all their lives, have been sound providers for their families and have significantly contributed to the economic prosperity of their community find themselves suddenly without warning living in drastically changed circumstances.

People who were comfortable in the knowledge that they could pay their rent or mortgage, put a square meal on the table, pay their utility bills, the school uniforms and for visits to the doctor where necessary are now devastated to find that they can no longer do so. For many the pressures and tensions associated with economic difficulty flows over into their personal and family life.

Mr Speaker, I have been advised that staff of organisations such as Centacare and Jobcare have been overwhelmed in trying to deal with the local demand for counselling services and crisis support. Even though these organisations are not in themselves crisis services, they are finding themselves at the front line in dealing with those who have suddenly and through no fault of their own lost their livelihoods.

All in all there is urgent need of support to deal with the consequences of those being retrenched. Men and women with families who are at a complete loss about which way to turn are breaking down in the face of financial and personal pressures. Young apprentices, mostly ineligible for redundancy pay, are now struggling with the loss of their very first job and with the thoughts of how they can now repay their car loan. Even those who still have jobs are struggling with the loss of work mates and colleagues living with the fear that the next job to be lost maybe theirs.
It is therefore critical that everything we can do to assist these people is done - not just in the provision of job creation assistance or economic stimulus but also in the provision of a central support service.

Employment counselling, financial planning advice and timely access to health and wellbeing support services are some of the assistance measures required if they are to successfully weather the impacts of the global economic storm.
Many of those who have recently lost their jobs are men and I am hearing or being told many stories about men who do not know how they will make ends meet, stories of men who can see no light at the end of the tunnel, stories of men who are showing early signs of depression and stories of men who are bottling up all their anxieties and fears.

As we know, it is difficult to engage men in therapeutic services and for too many years men's emotional health has been a no-go zone. Breaking down the barriers to dealing with men's emotional and physical health and wellbeing has been a long, slow process.

After having made the decision to access services, imagine how hard it is for someone to have to wait sometimes weeks for an appointment with a mental health specialist or a counsellor. We must ensure that all the relevant agencies and organisations are geared up with sufficient staff and resources to provide services in a timely and effective manner and I challenge the Bartlett Government to ensure that this does occur.

Many organisations at both national and local level have done much valuable work to address the issues facing those who have lost employment or been retrenched and have been instigated or supported initiatives to assist those in situations. Last Friday evening the Rotary Club of Ulverstone West and the national depression organisation, Beyond Blue, hosted a sell-out gala dinner, at which my colleague, Mr Whiteley, and the member for Braddon, Mr Green, attended.

This event was a testament to the growing awareness of depression and mental health and its impact. It served as a very timely reminder of the challenges that are currently being faced by so many individuals and their families within our community at this time. I warmly congratulate Rotary and all those involved in putting on that most successful event, particularly those involved with that organisation who had the courage to come out in the media and tell their stories of what it is like with depression. I thought that broke down an enormous number of barriers and would have enabled those who are thinking of accessing counselling services to do so.

Sadly, the community aspects of mass unemployment and economic hardship are no strangers to the north-west coast. While it is acknowledged that the government agencies cannot provide solutions to every individual's problems, it is critical that all steps possible are taken to build up and maintain resilience in our communities and that we properly support those individuals in need. I therefore call upon the Bartlett Government to ensure the provision of adequate and appropriate support services to Tasmanians who, through no fault of their own, have fallen victim to the economic storm that is currently shaking the world.

[3.19 p.m.]
Mr ROCKLIFF (Braddon - Deputy Leader of the Opposition) - I welcome the opportunity to support every single word that the Leader of the Opposition uttered in his agenda speech today. 

The Premier delivered a grab-bag of ideas, many that we have heard before and many that stand as a testament to inaction on behalf of the decade-old and tired Labor Government.  In contrast, the Leader of the Opposition demonstrated not only an understanding of Tasmania's needs and aspirations but also the courage to advocate for what is needed to ensure that Tasmania does realise its full potential, where there is hope and optimism for the future and where Tasmanians are proud of the State that they live in and in the Government that leads them. 

I am privileged to hold the shadow portfolios of infrastructure, tourism, resources and racing in this State.  But in every one of these areas, Labor has let the community down.  For years, Tasmanians have lived with the absolute failure of successive Labor governments to maintain and improve the State's infrastructure.  Labor's poor record in attracting Federal funding, its complete abrogation of developing much-needed transportation links and the appalling state of regional road network, our Midland Highway and the subsequent decline in road safety are all well known.

In a State that relies so heavily on road transportation, a situation significantly exacerbated by the Government's appalling record of mismanagement of our railways, we need infrastructure that will generate wealth and productivity long after it has been built.  That includes a four-lane Midland Highway.  Together with the Bass Highway, the Midland Highway is a major part of the national highway network and a major freight and passenger route in Tasmania.  It is one of the most travelled roads in our State.  It is the road where, sadly, there are a staggering number of accidents and deaths and it is the road that the Infrastructure minister called a goat track less than 18 months ago. 

Knowing that there will be significant increases in traffic volumes on all sectors of the Midland Highway over the next 25 years, the Tasmanian Liberals have adopted as policy a progressive duplication of approximately 120 kilometres of the Midland Highway that is not yet dual carriageway.  As it is a national highway, we have also said that we would work with the Federal Government of either political persuasion on this important project.  Since we announced our plan to build a four-lane Midland Highway with the assistance of Federal Government Auslink funds, Labor has made every effort to decry it, from making deliberately misleading claims about the project to the citizens of Tasmania, to effectively seeking to sabotage efforts to attract Federal funds for the project.  Despite clear evidence to the contrary, Labor has misrepresented the route, the volume of traffic using it, the amount of work required and the costs involved.  One can only wonder why.  Given the Federal Government's accelerated spending of the Infrastructure Australia Fund, the Midland Highway duplication is one of exactly the types of investment in productive, long-term infrastructure that should be considered for funding through this initiative.  It will provide a huge improvement to our transport corridor that will help us more fully realise our potential when the economic tide turns again.  If we are going to realise our agricultural potential through irrigation, turning tens of thousands of hectares of unproductive land in the Midlands into productive crop-producing areas, we are going to need a transport system that delivers those products safely, reliably and efficiently to its processing facilities or a port for export destination.  That is why a four-lane Midland Highway is a cornerstone of the Tasmanian Liberals' infrastructure agenda and we will not be shying away from it.

The Government's record on tourism is no better.  Even now, when the global economic downturn has potentially offered opportunities for Tasmanian tourism and Australian domestic tourism, the Government is once again failing to act decisively to exploit the marketing potential of encouraging and supporting tourism in this State.  Sure, marketing an autumn strategy is a positive step and as one who has long been calling for the Government to immediately start an aggressive tourism and destinational marketing campaign to encourage more people to visit Tasmania, I commend this initiative.  However, the reality is that nowhere near enough funding has been allocated to tourism.  There was not enough in last year's budget and not enough now.  As for developing new opportunities for growing the State's tourism potential, you can only consider Labor's Tarkine strategy as an absolute debacle, one that even the Tourism Industry Council says and I quote:

'The new road won't drive more visitors or extra expenditure.'

Where, Mr Speaker, was the Minister for Tourism when this desperate, divisive and ill-considered proposal was announced?  Despite strong expressions of concern and calls for further consultation about the Government's planned route and the proposed additional funding, the issues of damage to existing tourism businesses in the Tarkine area, and the neglect of the need for infrastructure spending throughout the broader Tarkine region, the Government has done little, if anything, in response.  We firmly believe there is little quantifiable evidence to support the idea that building a Tarkine drive link alone will result in greater numbers of tourists.  There is no sound business case to support that link road's development.  Yes, there are potentially attractive estimates relating to the number of jobs and the amount of tourism-related income that could potentially be generated by greater development and marketing of the Tarkine area itself, but these rely on many elements, not solely on the development of a poorly, ill-conceived and divisive link road.

In contrast to Labor's poorly thought out plan for developing the Tarkine, the Tasmanian Liberals would redistribute the $23 million funding allocation in a significantly more strategic, targeted and even-handed way, a way that would help transform the Tarkine tourism development strategy into a reality.  It is a strategy that the taxpayer paid $250 000 to develop.  We do not want to see this well-developed policy left to gather dust through government ineptness and lack of vision.  The Tarkine region is a major jewel in Tasmania's crown, home to many biologically diverse and important flora and fauna, and containing Tasmania's oldest known fossils.  It is Australia's largest temperate rainforest area as well one of the most significant wilderness areas in Australia, one that Tasmania could truly develop.

At the same time it is a region that offers substantial recreational opportunities and provides employment in a variety of commercial enterprises, including rock lobster and deep-sea fishing, as well as a variety of commercial uses such as the production of specialty timbers, honey production, abalone diving and kelp harvesting.  It is clear that pursuing economic objectives for an area such as the Tarkine must go hand in hand with environmental and social responsibility.  Moreover, in these times of increasing economic uncertainty and restraint, the investment of public funds requires application of a sound and considered rationale, together with feasible and well planned stages of implementation.  Unlike the Government, the Tasmanian Liberals have a sound, responsible, sustainable plan which addresses the protection of the extraordinary natural values of the Tarkine, addresses the issue of acquired infrastructure, and at the same time also addresses the need to assist development of sustainable tourism initiatives and high-end specialist products right across the region, sectors we know are essential in growing the tourism potential of Tasmania's unique and beautiful north-west.

We will do this in a range of ways: through appropriate infrastructure, strategic marketing and better management to ensure that long-term sustainable benefits can be achieved.  In terms of infrastructure, we will provide $10 million over four years for major capital works expenditure on the South Arthur forest drive, including repairing the Tayatea Bridge and establishing a visitor information centre at Arthur River township.  This will create a tourism trail from Smithton through Dismal Swamp, Marrawah and Arthur River, through to Tayatea Bridge and back to Smithton, and encompasses the sealing of sections of road, road signage and provision of amenities as required.

We will provide $8 million over four years to upgrade the Western Explorer road from Arthur River through to Corinna.  This upgrade will include the development of managed access points along the coast, creating the ease of access to what will be a corridor of experiences along the drive, for example, picnic facilities, kayaking, walking tracks and lookouts.  Upgrading the Western Explorer would assist in creating a true loop road around Tasmania and ensure that the Tarkine tourism experience is connected to Cradle Mountain, Strahan and the west coast.  Every council in the Cradle Coast region will benefit from that investment.  Of the $8 million, $200 000 would be spent in the first year to research the best way to achieve maximum value for funds.  As the Western Explorer Road is also a road of State significance, Federal funds will be sought to add greater value to the investment we have outlined.

We will provide $500 000 over four years for Tarkine ecotourism capital infrastructure grants of up to $50 000 per grant to provide capital infrastructure or business start-up grants for Tarkine tourism-related businesses for the development of their businesses within a framework of allowing them to become carbon-neutral or lead the way in terms of environmental innovation.  At a total cost of $18.5 million, these infrastructure initiatives would provide an instant economic stimulus and help to unleash the innovation of small business.

In terms of marketing, we will provide $1.8 million over four years for world-targeted marketing of the Tarkine region, including Stanley.  This would include cooperative support for specific marketing campaigns by Tourism Tasmania and the TT-Line.  We would provide $150 000 to local councils in the Tarkine region of the Cradle Coast Authority in the form of a non-recurrent allocation of $50 000 per council for the provision of tourism information services and upgrades at the key entry points to the Tarkine of Corinna, Waratah and the Arthur River.  This makes a marketing budget totalling $2 million.

We also know that ongoing management and maintenance of such unique areas of the Tarkine is critical.  There are three local councils - the West Coast Council, the Circular Head Council and the Waratah-Wynyard Council - encompassing the Tarkine area.  In addition and perhaps more importantly, most of the land in this area is managed under the jurisdictions of Forestry Tasmania and the Parks and Wildlife Service.  It is therefore critical that a planning regime for the Tarkine be developed which provides for the protection of the natural, cultural and heritage values of the region, allows meaningful input from different stakeholders, ensures streamlined and comprehensive planning processes, avoids duplication of effort and decision-making, and provides a system that is fair, universally understood and offers, importantly, investor certainty. 

To address these concerns we will provide $500 000 over four years for the establishment and operation of a joint management group, to be comprised of relevant stakeholders including councils, tourism industry representatives, the Aboriginal community and conservation stakeholders.  This would be chaired by the Cradle Coast Authority and would be responsible for the development of a streamlined planning regime for the Tarkine area which, while conducive to potential sustainable development, is also acutely sensitive to the unique characteristics and natural values of the area.

We will provide $1.5 million to the Parks and Wildlife Service over four years in the Tarkine area to ensure a high-quality visitor experience within the Tarkine through better planning and management including fire and weed management, installation and maintenance of walking and recreational vehicle tracks, camping facilities, and information and interpretive facilities.  The Parks and Wildlife Service is already struggling for adequate resources to maintain the Tarkine region.  If we are going to grow and develop that unique area we have to provide the Parks and Wildlife Service with adequate resources to ensure that people from this State, interstate and overseas who visit the Tarkine area have a quality experience they will remember and tell their friends and family about.

In addition, we would provide $500 000 to the Cradle Coast Authority to oversight specific elements of our proposal.  For example, development of training programs for visitor and information centres, development and implementation of accreditation programs for tourism operators for accessing the Tarkine, and other customer-focused research to ensure achievement of the best possible outcomes for the funds provided.

Taken together, these measures will ensure that the views of all stakeholders are canvassed and taken into account to create a management plan which offers predictability and certainty and also provide investor confidence, particularly for small businesses and tourism operators.  Through the adoption of our well-targeted investment and coordinated planning approach, this plan enhances and supports existing experiences, existing businesses and existing products in the Tarkine area that are already proven and allows them to survive and grow and realise their potential.

Importantly, unlike the Government's proposal, we will allocate $23 million investment in the Tarkine area on targeted investments.  Unlike Labor, we understand that staged and coordinated planning and forging a consensus across our community are essential if appropriate long-term development is to successfully occur and sustainable benefits are to be achieved.

The Leader of the Opposition quite rightly referred to the west coast of Tasmania in his contribution this morning.  One of the many major contributions made to Tasmanian by the west coast has been the wealth provided by its mining industry.  Unfortunately the global downturn of events has resulted in a downturn in the sector and reduced employment and loss to the economy locally and throughout the State.  It is critical that we not let the gains made in recent years be lost to us for lack of effort and that we sustain our mining communities as well as we can through these difficult and challenging times.

We must ensure how we can best sustain both the human and infrastructure capital of our mining communities in this time of economic downturn.  As of just recently, the west coast is now located within the Braddon electorate, and together with my parliamentary colleague, Mr Whiteley, it is now our honour to serve the people of the west coast community, as you have done yourself, Madam Deputy Speaker.  It is a community whose contribution to this State's economy and wealth has long been undervalued and a community that for years has borne the brunt of woeful service provision and lack of amenity. 

Unlike the Government, which has quite literally mined the west coast for all it is worth, the Tasmanian Liberals recognise the significant importance of the region to our State.  What was once 50 years ago a predominantly mining area now encompasses industries as diverse as mining, aquaculture and tourism.  We also recognise the region's need for improved infrastructure such as port upgrades, improved roads, broadband access and better energy provision, and we understand the urgency of creating regional employment initiatives until the mining sector recovers.

The Leader of the Opposition and the Tasmanian Liberals recognise the need and that is why a west coast infrastructure strategy is high on the Leader of the Opposition's agenda.

The forestry sector is suffering in these uncertain times.  The contribution of the forest sector to the State economy and the importance to so many Tasmanian communities of maintaining jobs in forestry and the forest-associated sector must not go unrecognised.

We must examine incentives and remove unnecessary impediments for investment for both the sectors of the mining and the forestry industries.  However, while the rights of forest protestors under law will be respected dangerous behaviours and deliberate damage to machinery cannot be tolerated nor should a workers right to work be at all threatened.  We have listened to the concerns of workers and we have acted by tabling our own legislation in support of our forest workers of which the government have had the time but not the inclination to do. 

I wish to also say something about the racing industry in Tasmania, a hardworking industry sector employing nearly 3 000 Tasmanians.  Today this sector feels completely betrayed by this Government.  The TOTE sale represents a total reneging of a public commitment and has engendered a mistrust of Labor amongst the racing industry, many of them Labor constituency, that will remain for many years to come.  People are angry and rightly so.  A committee of this Parliament, prompted by concerns of members in another place, will closely examine exactly what the Minister for Racing and Mr Cox have said about that in this Parliament.  The State Government's decision to sell TOTE Tasmania is yet another example of Labor's habit of imposing changes without consultation.  It has caused enormous concern across one of Tasmania's most significant industries, the fourth-largest employer in Tasmania, and there is no real confidence in the sector that Labor will stand by its given commitments to even invest in the racing industry in the future.  The racing industry, as evidenced by the decision to sell TOTE, is being used as a scapegoat for poor financial management on behalf of the State Labor Government, and it stands condemned. 

At a time when the global economy is in crisis, when employment opportunities are shrinking and the future for our industries and our communities seems uncertain, the spirit of the general Tasmanian community is humbling.  The generosity of those who often have so little of their own in offering assistance to the victims of the Victorian bushfires, and the spirit of our schoolchildren in rescuing whales on our isolated beaches, are examples.  Tasmanians deservedly have a proud reputation for uniting and pulling together in the face of adversity.  We know that our State has so much potential that is yet unrealised.  We know that the value of our people and our assets is not adequately recognised by this Government, in fact taken for granted by this Government.  We know that our citizens in the regions do not get their fair share of services and facilities that they need and deserve.  We have had years of being foisted off with Labor promises.  Promises are made and then forgotten.  The Liberal message to Tasmanians is not to lose heart.

Now is the time to create a Tasmania that can capitalise on the opportunities that will come to ensure that Tasmania emerges early from the economic challenges and is able to seize the opportunities that are there.  Our agenda is to build Tasmania's much needed infrastructure to support our tourism sector, to sustain the wealth and employment opportunities provided by our forestry, mining and racing sectors - which I have responsibility for - and to expand our opportunities, promote our assets and realise our value.  Labor has taken the Tasmanian community for granted for far too long.

In 2010 Tasmanians will have a clear choice to make.  The Tasmanian Liberals have shown that they have the policies, the agenda needed, the determination and the courage to deliver them.  There is a better way.

[3.44 p.m.]

Thankyou Ladies and Gentlemen

I appreciate the opportunity to be able to speak to you today. I am sure this is not the first time – nor will it be the last – that members of the community have come together to express an opinion on a piece of public art.

So what has bought us to this point?

Firstly, a group of well meaning individuals in our community that quite rightly want to do something positive for Devonport - and here I am referring to the backers of the Spirit of the Sea statue.

Secondly, failure on behalf of the Devonport City Council to implement a public arts policy & thereby a proper process for the commissioning of public art.

Thirdly, an ill-informed and desperate budget allocation of $180,000 dollars on a statue that neither the Minister for Arts nor the Minister for Tourism had even seen.

Let me say at the outset I am acutely aware that there are some in the community who are keen for the project to go ahead, indeed people who have volunteered a lot of time and effort for what they believe is in the best interests of the city and on this front my comments today are not intended to tarnish or undermine them personally.

While I do have an opinion on the merits of the artwork in question I do not stand before you today as an art critic (I will leave that to the experts).

What I am concerned about is due process or in this instance a lack of process.

What I believe we need at this point in time is proper process, consultation and accountability for decision making. All of these things are essential when projects such as this are considered.

When the State Government allocates $180,000 to a project, I for one believe such a project must be subject to the rigors of proper process. The Spirit of the Sea sculpture has not been subject to any such scrutiny. 

With respect to the artwork itself, there has been no wide community consultation, no competition or tender process, no consultation of arts professionals so as to establish the credentials of the sculpture, the artist or an estimation of a reasonable price.

There may well be validity in erecting an appropriate marker on the mouth of the Mersey River. So much of Devonport’s history and culture has developed in and around the water. But in order to establish whether this concept is one that the Devonport community want and a project that truly reflects our city and our region, consultation outside of the statutory planning system should have been the precursor to any other step to progress such a project.

Ladies & Gentlemen, our community is more than capable of getting this right.

Take the Stephen King Poppy Memorial as a case in point

This project was initiated and funded by Glaxo Smith Kline (at a cost of $28,000) – doesn’t that seem like a bargain??!!! - with in-kind support from the Devonport City Council providing for project management and site preparation.

The commission was advertised throughout Tasmania and 3 artists were short listed. Tasmanian sculptor Peter Hjort was selected by a panel comprising representatives from the Devonport City Council, the Devonport Regional Gallery and Glaxo Smith Kline to design and complete the commission.

The Poppy Memorial is a successful public art project, it reflects an important agricultural industry for our region and most importantly it serves as a memorial recognising the contribution of long time Devonport resident Stephen King. It stands as a lasting tribute to his efforts and achievements.

This was a well managed and suitably funded public art project.

However, no such process transpired for the project in question and we now find ourselves in a situation where the statue’s installation is imminent, the community is divided and no one appears willing to accept responsibility for the situation.

But as we stand here today the facts are that the State Government has agreed to enter into a Deed of Grant to provide  $180,000 of public funds towards the purchase and installation of this statue.

Now I am sure we can all think of ways in which that amount of money can be best spent in this city.

However, the state government - although foolishly and naively allocating funds for this statue - a skerrick of commonsense has emerged  in the form of a letter of back down that does present the Devonport City Council with an opportunity.

The Minister for Arts and then Acting Minister for Tourism, Michelle O’Byrne MP offered the Devonport City Council an opportunity of due process.

I quote from the letter:

“Dear Mayor Laycock
I am pleased to confirm that the Tasmanian Government has allocated $180,000 in the 2008-09 budget to support the completion of an icon marker at the entrance of the Mersey River. These funds are payable to the Devonport City Council on the terms to be negotiated…

…I am aware of recent debate in your community regarding the Spirit of the Sea statue and advise that the Tasmanian Government, in allocating these funds, has an open mind regarding the exact nature of the marker and is happy to consider alternatives that have council and community support.”

This is an opportunity for the Devonport City Council to get it right!!

Now the Devonport City Council to its credit has had a draft public arts policy since about 2005… to its detriment it has not been implemented.

If you Google DCC Public Art you will find it!

In that policy it states a number of aims – a few of them as follows:
 
The Policy aims to:

• serve as a guide for all public art works or memorials Council becomes involved in with regard to full, partial or in-kind funding;
• allow Council to determine the integrity, appearance, suitability and relevance of proposed public art works;
• ensure the city does not develop a collection of public art works and memorials with little relevance or importance to the region’s history, culture and environment;
• encourage and manage the installation of appropriate, meaningful and valuable public art works within the Devonport municipality;
• develop an equitable, transparent and informed process for the selection of artists in the development of significant public art works.

All admirable aims: But why has this public art policy not been implemented??

It has been rather cynically put to me that the reason the policy has not been proactively pushed or implemented is that the current statue in question may not stand up to the rigour of due process.

A cynical suggestion indeed!

But sadly further reading of the draft public art document reveals some background notes to the policy:

And I quote:

“At its meeting in October 2005, Council resolved that “Council Officers develop a Public Art Policy for the City for Council’s deliberation”.

A draft was subsequently prepared and work shopped with Council, prior to proceeding to be presented for Council’s adoption.

Council deferred the adoption of the policy whilst it dealt with issues in relation to current public art proposals…”

In other words what the council are suggesting is that there preferred method is this:

Lets erect a questionable piece of art that has divided the community, at a cost to the Tasmanian taxpayer of nine times its estimated value, - subject the Devonport Ratepayers to a lifetime of maintenance expense (yet to be costed) - and put at risk Devonport’s rapidly improving cultural reputation and after all that…only then will we implement a public arts policy for the city of Devonport.

I bet the council wishes those background notes had been recycled!!!!

Ladies  & Gentlemen

In conclusion

Public Art can have enormous impact in the way a city is interpreted and perceived by those who are fortunate to visit our shores.  To this end if Devonport aspires to maintain and further build on to its reputation as the gateway to Tasmania and indeed as a key destination within Tasmania, it is vital that we are strategic in our approach to public art.  
So, Ladies & Gentlemen I call on the Devonport City Council.

To go back and adopt a proper and effective public arts policy and establish an open and transparent process.

If the community wishes to proceed with the development of an icon marker at the entrance of the Mersey River – then let it be an open and transparent and competitive process – that can also include the current statue on offer.

Let the Spirit of the Sea statue stand on its own merits and be part of a rigorous and open public art process.
Ladies & Gentlemen, we have in this state over 180 Tasmanian artists registered as sculptors…Lets also give them an opportunity to put forward ideas - for an appropriate marker that truly reflects the significance of our city and our region.

Thankyou.

PROPOSAL TO CONSIDER A ‘JOINT QUESTION TIME’

[ORIGINAL MOTION MOVED BY Mr BARTLETT -
That the House – noting the appointment of three members of the Legislative Council as Ministers of the Crown, agree in principle to joint sittings of both Houses for the purpose of Question Time and refer consideration of this reform to the Working Arrangements of Parliament Committee for it to report by 18 November 2008, with the Committee’s report to include specific recommendations on the operational and implementation mechanisms required to effect the reform as soon as practicable after that date, and any matters incidental thereto.

AMENDMENT MOVED BY LEADER OF OPPOSITION
- Will Hodgman MP
That all words after “Crown,” be deleted with a view to substituting the following words
1. agree that, should the Legislative Council give leave for members who are Ministers to attend the House of Assembly, those members may appear before the House for the purpose of Question Time, provided
a) They are subject to the same obligations as other Members of the House of Assembly;
b) The Speaker shall have authority over those Ministers who are Legislative Councillors whilst they are present on the floor of the House;
c) The members so attending shall be protected by parliamentary privilege;
d) Ministers who are Legislative Councillors shall be subject to motions of no confidence and censure by the House;
2. this temporary arrangement cease on the next prorogation of the Parliament or dissolution of the House: and
3. this matter be referred to the Working Arrangements of Parliament Committee to report to both Houses on this temporary arrangement by 18 November 2008. ]

Mr ROCKLIFF - Mr Speaker, I rise to support the amendment as moved by the Leader of the Opposition in the House yesterday.
 
We are obviously very interested in good public policy. We are also interested in accountability but the State Opposition will not be fooled by this proposal from the Premier and his Labor Government whose only motivation for parliamentary   reform  is his own self-interest.
 
Mr Speaker, the Premier criticised the State Opposition on Tuesday for raising matters by notices of motion and said that he had given what he called 'pre-notice notice' of his intentions in regard to what he calls  'parliamentary   reform' . I find it extraordinary that the Premier's idea that a media statement relating to a proposal to significantly change how our Parliament operates is somehow better than actually having the courtesy to inform the House first.
 
The amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition does in fact help the Premier out without undermining tried and tested principles of our bicameral system. The Premier has obviously decided that a number of his colleagues in this House are not cabinet material. Politically, of course, the Premier could not appoint three of them, all coincidentally members for Braddon, who have had to resign office for various failures of standards, and he could not appoint one of his members for Denison because she had absented herself from vital votes in this House and the factional Labor chiefs have marked her card, Mr Speaker.

Therefore, the Premier was forced to look upstairs. Might I say, Mr Speaker, there is nothing necessarily wrong with a minister being appointed from the upper House. But it is unprecedented that there be three ministers in the upper House. I have had a look at the  parliamentary  records and I can find cases where there was one minister and a leader for the Government in the Legislative Council but never three ministers. Mr Speaker, anyone who knows anything about question time in the House of Assembly knows that the Opposition gets the call of the Speaker about six times in the hour.
 
Today we had five questions. The Government backbenchers get about three or four calls each question time and the Greens members get about three. These numbers of course fluctuate according to how long-winded the ministers are in their answers but they are about right on average. Mr Speaker, the Government proposes that the 15 members of the other place should join us for the hour. Naturally those members will expect to be more than observers in question time if they are being brought to our Chamber. Therefore, Mr Speaker, the direct consequence is that the Opposition in this Chamber and indeed the members of the Tasmanian Greens will have fewer questions. I need to emphasise that point again, Mr Speaker, because that is the crux of the Premier's half-baked proposal.
 
The official Opposition in this House will have fewer questions. It is unacceptable that the alternate Government in this place will have less opportunity to ask ministers about important matters of public policy and seek information as our standing orders suggest question time is meant to provide. While we have a new Premier, unfortunately his behaviour is classic Labor Party behaviour - try to wedge everyone who is not a Labor member; try to dupe the members of the Opposition into accepting less accountability. The Premier has tried to spin his proposal in the words of transparency, accountability and openness but what his proposal is all about is lessening the opportunity for scrutiny, Mr Speaker. We all know that for years the ALP platform has had the aim of abolishing the Legislative Council.
 
Only three weeks ago at the ALP's State conference in Launceston the Labor Party have reaffirmed their proposal to change the nature of the upper House elections and to dilute their powers to amend or reject legislation. The Premier told Stateline that he supported the bicameral system and did not intend to change the powers of the Legislative Council. Why did he not get on his feet in Launceston and say that to his party faithful? He was there. He had the opportunity but failed to speak up in front of his Labor colleagues in support of the bicameral system. Mr Speaker, the Premier's proposal is the classic wolf in sheep's clothing. Was it not a certain propaganda minister in World War II who said, 'If you say something often enough people will end up believing it.'? The Premier thinks that if he says he is about accountability often enough people will believe it. But as I have said, yesterday in this House, after the failures of this State Government - which continue under this Premier - over the course of the last 10 years, people have stopped listening to this Government.
 
Mr Speaker, he has ministers who will not answer questions in this House. He has ministers who will not provide written answers to questions, as has been demonstrated over the last few months. He has had ministers who will not agree to more sitting days and he has ministers who will not let Estimates hearings be extended. This is not about accountability. The Premier is all about talk. Mr Speaker, the Premier issues a media release about so-called  parliamentary   reform . He does not have the courtesy of writing to the party leaders, much less the courtesy of informing the President and the members in another place. He includes a threat in his published media release to the effect that the Opposition and the Greens had better agree with his reforms or else. 'Or else', Mr Speaker. He has got form. It is not just me who is saying this proposal is flawed, it is also distinguished political scientists, the media and commentators. Many people - public commentators - are saying that the Premier's proposal is deeply flawed. That is why the Leader of the Opposition has moved this amendment.
 
The State Opposition strongly oppose the notion of a joint question time. Not only does it undermine our question time and reduce the Opposition's opportunity to question the Government but it also interferes in the operation of the Legislative Council. I support wholeheartedly the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition. It will actually enhance accountability, help the Premier out of his tight spot and preserve the important parts of our  Parliamentary  system.
 
So I urge all members of the House to support the amendment moved yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition.
 

Mr ROCKLIFF (Braddon - Deputy Leader of the Opposition) - Mr Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on this  matter  of public importance today. Before I do so, however, I welcome the students in the Gallery today from St Brendan-Shaw College, Burnie High School, Spreyton Primary School, Boat Harbour Primary School, Marist Regional Collage, St Peter Chanel Primary School and Ridgley Primary School.

I know my colleague, Mr Whiteley, has been working with Ridgley Primary School in recent times seeking more funding for some infrastructure needs that primary school was after and I hope the Government comes to the party with what Mr Whiteley has been arguing for.
 
The  matter  of public importance today, Mr Speaker, is indeed a very serious issue. As my colleague, the shadow minister for health, Mr Whiteley, was saying, there is a vast inequity in the provision of services across the State, with the south having 10 times more funded organisations delivering services than the north-west coast and four times more than the north. This is unacceptable.

While people with disabilities are spread evenly across the State, there is a discrepancy in the number of government and non-government services and support provided in the south of the State compared with the north and the north-west. There is also a discrepancy between clients accessing services between the regions.
 
Unmet need for disability services in Tasmania is currently growing at a rate of 2.3 per cent, higher than the national average, and it is projected that unmet demand will escalate rapidly by 2010 with an extra 2 000 people with a severe or profound disability needing services because of our ageing population. The south of the State gets twice as much funding that the north and the north-west, even though the number of people with disabilities is spread quite evenly throughout the State.
 
Mr Speaker, I just want to tell the House about the human face of the disability waiting lists and what it means to them year after year to know that they will not get help, services or support from this Government. Angela Dodd is a parent of a child with a disability who is one of the hundreds on the waiting list for an individual support package, and this is the crux of the  matter  of public importance today. Tara is seven years old and lives with her parents and three brothers at Nook, near Devonport.

Tara has Aicardi syndrome, a rare disorder resulting in multiple disabilities; severe intellectual, motor, mobility and visual impairments and severe epilepsy. She is fully dependent on others for almost every aspect of her life and her support needs are complex - therapy, care, medication, continence aids and equipment. As you would appreciate, Mr Speaker, this is all very costly for her family. Although Tara's mother Angela works full-time and Tara's before- and after-school care is provided by a trained worker, school holidays far exceed normal annual leave allocation of parents in the work force, and there are of course times Tara is not well enough to attend school - on average around 15 days per year.
 
Mr Speaker, if Tara had no disabilities, child care would not be an issue as Tara has three teenage brothers, or relatives, friends or after-school care programs could provide her after-school or holiday care needs, as happens in most families. But Tara does not have that option and neither do her parents, so they have rightly sought some level of assistance from the Government from Disability Services. They are still waiting and it is increasingly becoming more difficult for Angela and her family. Angela already owes her company 111 hours in sick leave because she has a disabled daughter, and the Government is refusing to assist her.

Over the latest school holidays Tara was very ill with the flu and in-home care cost the Dodd family - who have other children and a mortgage and the same bills as other families - $900. We are also aware of another young person in the south of the State who has been waiting for a funding package for day options for nearly four years. That person was promised funding but there has been no allocation of funds at all in the funding rounds and meetings since the Budget. Mr Speaker, as you would appreciate, this is causing undue heartache, stress and hardship for most families.
 
The Liberals' 10-point plan - as our shadow spokesperson pointed out in his contribution - provides a solid framework for changing the way disability services are provided in this State and differs from the Government's in that we support a bottom-up approach to service delivery, not a top-down approach. In other words, we support the rights of people with disabilities, their families and their carers to choose and purchase their own supports and services, but the Government's reforms fall well short in this area.

The Liberals' plan moves away from the current bloated, bureaucratically delivered system to a fairer, more streamlined and flexible service delivery model, because of the 40 000 people with a severe disability, just 17 per cent of them get access to some level of support. I know that the minister has lost the Human Services portfolio, which has now gone to the upper House, but I am hoping that the new minister takes note of the needs of people with disabilities in Tasmania and acts appropriately. We - and many families - are hoping that the next May budget finally delivers something substantial for disability services in Tasmania.
 
Time expired.

Mr ROCKLIFF (Braddon - Deputy Leader of the Opposition) - I rise tonight to raise an important issue on behalf on a constituent of mine who operates a beef cattle operation and business on King Island.

This business includes breeding cattle, buying cattle from Tasmania and the mainland and selling cattle off the island to the mainland and Tasmanian outlets. The cattle are moved by semi-trailer and taken direct from farm to vessel - in other words, this company has no need to use the stock facilities at the wharf area on King Island, which is the point of my contribution tonight.
 
My constituents were recently advised that the King Island Ports Corporation has introduced a stock facility levy, which is a levy to maintain and upgrade the stock transit facility at the Grassy port, a facility available to all port users that transport cattle regardless of whether they use the facility or not. Obviously my constituent has concerns in paying a levy for a facility that he has no need to use.

The King Island Ports Corporation is a subsidiary of TasPorts, which is a private company fully owned by the Tasmanian Government. If you look at the value of TasPorts on its web site it states that they will be trustworthy and act fairly and will have the courage to do the right thing. My view is that this is not the right thing by port users. It is not fair to charge a levy for a service that some users do not receive.

I have in my hand a letter that my constituent wrote to the secretary of the Tasmanian Ports Corporation on 1 August 2008. To date I am not sure that he has received a reply, although I stand to be corrected on that. I will quote briefly from the correspondence:
 
'I have a concern about paying a levy for a specific facility when my operation has no need of that facility and where we are otherwise paying wharfage fees for movement of our cattle off and onto the island. In this regard I would be grateful to receive your clarification of the following:
 
(1)  By what legislation or regulation is the raising of this levy authorised?
 
(2)  If a levy is not expressly authorised, will the ports authority immediately cease applying it and arrange a refund of all fees paid?
 
(3)  If a levy or a version thereof is apparently authorised under State Government laws, what promulgation processes were followed to introduce the levy and what public consultation processes were considered in assessing the merits of the levy and its real need?
 
(4)  If the levy is apparently authorised, what arrangements will be made to change practices so that persons not using such facilities are relieved from payment?'
 
It goes on:
 
'I emphasise that I have no objection to paying a fee when using a facility.'
 
Mr Speaker, I raise this issue tonight particularly for the interest of the Minister for Infrastructure, Graeme Sturges MP, so that he can investigate this matter and inform the House when he has obtained the information whether or not they have authorised this new levy, whether the impact on exporters was assessed and the justification for the port in this new impost.

Again, they are being charged a levy for a service they do not use. I encourage the minister to stand up on the adjournment debate in the next 24 hours, once he has found the information - I know he is not in the House at present - and see if he can act upon my constituent's concerns.

Mr ROCKLIFF (Braddon - Deputy Leader of the Opposition) - The State Opposition is still committed to supporting the substantive motion of the Tasmanian Greens today.

We are frankly appalled that the Minster for Health would weaken this motion to such an extent by asking for a review of pensions in Australia, because a review is just another name for a cop-out. This State Labor Government obviously does not care for the plight of  pensioners  in this State or for those  pensioners  around the country.
 
The State Opposition supports the substantive motion as moved by the Leader of the Tasmanian Greens, Mr McKim. I wrote to the Prime Minister, Mr Kevin Rudd, on 17 April 2008 asking him to support an increase in the basic single aged pension in the May Budget. Given events yesterday where the Federal Government blocked the coalition move to raise the pension level, it is indeed a timely inclusion for debate today.
 
I was interested to see whether the Tasmanian members of the Labor Government were committed to  pensioners  that they represent by joining with the State Opposition and the Tasmanian Greens in supporting a move of a $30 per week increase in the single aged pension. Sadly that is not going to be the case, because the Labor members obviously agree with their Federal colleagues who have basically all admitted that they could not live on single aged pension. Yet the minister talks about a review.
 
Mr Sturges - Do not pretend you know how they live.
 
Mr ROCKLIFF - Mr Sturges, you represent a lot of  pensioners  in your electorate -
 
Mr Sturges - That is what I was just saying.
 
Mr McKim - And you've just abandoned them!
 
Mr Sturges - Never! You're just a silver-spooner. You have no idea.
 
Mr McKim - I'm the one who is trying to help them!
 
Mr ROCKLIFF - and you would do well to listen to the contribution.
 
Mr Sturges - This is all about a headline for you.
 
Mr Michael Hodgman interjecting.
 
Mr SPEAKER - Order. The member for Denison, Mr Hodgman QC and the Minister for Infrastructure should stop their interjections. There is a limited time on this and I would ask that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition be heard in silence.
 
Mr ROCKLIFF - I am appalled by the fact that the State Government would support a review which is not due until February next year, therefore it is highly unlikely that there will be an increase in the single aged pension before well into 2009, if the review highlights, as I am sure it will, that the  pensioners  in this country are indeed doing it tough and deserve, at the very least, a $30 increase in the single age pension.
 
The Minister for Health mentioned the pensioner who lobbed up to Prime Minister Kevin Rudd at the Labor Party conference in Launceston recently. Her name is Margot Wall and she has begun a crusade on this issue. What do the State's Labor Government members say to her?

What do they say to the 550 members of the Country Women's Association whose conference last month voted in favour of a motion by the Wynyard branch to lift the single aged pension? Why when the Prime Minister, Mr Rudd, the Deputy Prime Minister, Ms Gillard and Treasurer, Mr Swan, amongst others, all admit that they could not live on the single aged pension, is the Federal Government saying to  pensioners  - and the State Government now by their motion - that they must simply wait for a review? Why, when we have an estimated $21 billion Federal surplus are we making  pensioners  who are in real hardship, as we all know, wait even longer? Why are we not providing meaningful and immediate relief to the thousands of Australians who are on the single aged pension?
 
The Federal Coalition was not prepared to sit by and let older Australians suffer and the Tasmanian Liberal Opposition is actively lobbying the Federal Government, as I have said. I have written to the Prime Minister in support of the coalition's call for an immediate increase in the aged pension. An increase in the pension is needed because of the rising costs of living in this country. Despite the promise by the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, and his Treasurer, Wayne Swan, that the cost of living would decrease under their Government, cost of living pressures continue to rise.

These pressures affect all Tasmanians but more so those on fixed incomes such as carers,  pensioners  and people with a disability. Margot Wall told the Examiner yesterday - after Treasurer Wayne Swan contacted her for advice on how to fix the pension issues and Margot called Canberra thinking the message on her answering machine was a prank call - that  pensioners  could not afford their prescriptions or petrol and they could not wait and needed the extra $30 right now. Unfortunately Mr Swan's response to Mrs Wall was that he would think about it.
 
Ms O'Connor - How callous is that!
 
Mr Michael Hodgman - Mirror man.
 
Mr ROCKLIFF - Before the Federal election, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd promised all Australians that he would take action on the cost of living pressures yet he has failed to produce anything more than a few watching schemes and endless lists of reviews. Do not forget this is the same government that earlier in the year fuelled uncertainty for carers when refusing to rule out cutting the carers' bonus and then reluctantly backed down after pressure from the coalition.
 
In Tasmania we know from various consecutive reports from the community sector that a number of  pensioners  go to bed early because they cannot afford the heating and that electricity prices that have increased significantly since January this year under this Labor Government. In Tasmania,  pensioners  often go without any nutritional food and grocery prices have been found to be consistently higher in Tasmania than the national average. In Tasmania,  pensioners  in private rental accommodation have been affected by spiralling rate increases.

Those still paying mortgages have been hit by increased interest rates and those who own their own homes are paying considerably more in local government rates. In Tasmania,  pensioners  who have a vehicle are penalised by higher than the average petrol prices in this State. Those in need of medical attention or health supplies are spending a disproportionate amount of their pension on these items. Tasmanians may also be asked to pay new taxes this year including a cruel, unkind ambulance levy and an increase in water rates, which we were promised would not happen prior to the 2006 election.
 
Pending reviews are cold comfort to elderly Tasmanians straining to pay their bills. That is why we support the coalition and the Australian Greens in their lobbying for a $30 increase on pensions. That is why we support the Tasmanian Greens' motion today and we are appalled at the weakening of the motion by the Government's amendment.

[3.33 p.m.]
Mr ROCKLIFF (Braddon - Deputy Leader of the Opposition - Motion) - I move -
 
That the House -
 
(1)  Notes that for too long essential infrastructure in Tasmania has been grossly neglected, with no coordinated, whole-of-government plan to address the State's future infrastructure needs.
 
(2)  Notes that with six infrastructure ministers in four years, there are no signs that the State Labor Government intends to rectify its complete neglect of infrastructure in this State.
 
(3)  Notes that Tasmania has a highly dispersed population, and the Government therefore must ensure that Tasmanians are not disadvantaged just because they live outside of one of the major population centres.
 
(4)  Notes the need for Government to ensure that small businesses as well as our agriculture, forestry, mining and aquaculture industries are well served by a variety of competitive, efficient and effective transport options.
 
(5)  Notes that the Tasmanian Liberals' vision is ready to completely revamp our infrastructure network so that communities, small business and major industry can all grow stronger together and generate economic, population and cultural growth.
 
(6)  Calls on the Government to finally develop and implement a long-term, strategic infrastructure plan incorporating but not limited to the three key components, namely water, roads and rail.

During the last 10 years of State Labor Government, Tasmanian infrastructure has disintegrated into a complete state of disrepair. For too long essential infrastructure in Tasmania has been grossly neglected, with no coordinated whole-of-government plan to address the State's infrastructure needs.

With seven infrastructure ministers and counting, there are no signs that the State Labor Government intends to rectify its complete neglect of infrastructure in Tasmania. In contrast, the Tasmanian Liberals have a vision ready to completely revamp our water, roads and rail infrastructure networks so that communities, small business and major industry can all grow stronger together and generate economic, population and cultural growth.
 
In 2005, Tasmanian infrastructure report card by Engineers Australia noted that much of Tasmania's infrastructure requires critical changes to be fit for its current and future demands. The report card said, and I quote:
 
'Current planning and political processes create a short-term focus in an area which will impact the quality of life, environmental sustainability and economy of future generations. There is a significant opportunity to enhance the longer-term planning for management of the State road network. There needs to be a coordinated approach to the provision of infrastructure across all spheres of government that incorporates long-term strategic planning and funding commitments.'
 
The minister, Mr Sturges, has not been prepared to table the State's current infrastructure plan, if one currently exists, or even outline what his top five infrastructure priorities now that he is the responsible Minister for Infrastructure. All Tasmanians and, more importantly, the civil construction industry deserve to know the details and long-awaited commencement dates of many of the infrastructure projects.

Furthermore, when presented with evidence from his own department's corridor study regarding priorities for the Midland Highway, the minister failed to answer why he so readily ruled out long-term plan that included a dual carriageway on that highway. Mr Sturges, just like his predecessors, seems content to leave Tasmanians guessing and waiting. There is no doubt that Tasmanians deserve more when it comes to infrastructure investment and an infrastructure plan for Tasmania.
 
Everyone in the Chamber, perhaps apart from my Burnie-based colleagues, Mr Whiteley, Mr Kons and Mr Green, would have driven to Burnie on the wonderful dual carriageway that now links Devonport and Burnie, thanks to the Howard Government and successive State and Federal governments over the last 20 years of both political colours. This was all about vision and a plan to improve infrastructure in a way that is manageable in terms of costs, and Labor apparently thinks that it is all right for part of the Bass Highway but condemns us for our plan to extend it to the Midland Highway.
 
This Government must, as a priority, finally uncoil itself from its slumber and develop and implement a long-term strategic infrastructure plan incorporating but not limited to the three components, namely, water, road and rail. Moving on to rail, there is not a very good story to tell on rail, Mr Sturges, and your State Government over the last decade. The Government's stewardship of rail in this State can only be described as a complete mess. Pacific National has notified the Government it intends to enter formal dispute proceedings with the Tasmanian Government in relation to unpaid bills of more than $500 000. When asked about this in Parliament recently in Launceston, Mr Sturges was initially unaware of the deterioration of the relationship between his department and Pacific National.
 
Mr Sturges - Rubbish.
 
Mr ROCKLIFF - You did not answer the question.
 
Mr Sturges - You got a heads up about the letter that was sent that very day.
 
Mr ROCKLIFF - It has also been confirmed that Pacific National will terminate its rolling stock investment program. This investment program is valued at $10 million for this year alone. With rail operations now on the market there is real fear that Tasmania will be left without a working rail industry. This does concern many Tasmanians because they do not want to see a rail network that fails and have all that freight on the roads with the safety concerns that will eventuate from that. The Government has shown over many years that it is completely incapable of managing rail infrastructure in Tasmania. If they had been on top of the job with respect to investment in rail infrastructure when they first came into government in 1998, we may well not have the problems that we have today.
 
Moving on to our road network in Tasmania, based on the number of road deaths per 100 000 people, the trend in Tasmania is undeniably going up while the Australian average is heading down. We think this is totally unacceptable. For the five years between 1998 and 2002, the average road deaths per 1 000 people was 9.17 nationally. In the last five-year period between 2003 and 2007, this rate was down to only 7.9 deaths per 100 000 people.

Shockingly, however, in Tasmania the average number of road deaths over the same period rose from 10.25 per cent per 100 000 to 10.33 road deaths per 100 000 people. Not only do we tragically remain in double figures, but our road accident death rate per 100 000 people is 30 per cent higher than the national average. Greater investment in roads is one way to make them safer and hopefully bring that statistic down below the national average, which is what we should be aiming for. The Liberal plan to upgrade the Midland Highway to a four-lane carriageway is a significant step towards better, safer roads in Tasmania.
 
Mr Sturges  interjecting.
 
Mr ROCKLIFF - You have not tabled your costings as per my motion today, Mr Sturges.
 
The Midland Highway is woefully inadequate and needs a long-term commitment to ensure it serves the needs of Tasmania's motorists and the transport sector in the future. The time has come for the State Government, after 10 years in office, to commit to negotiating with the Federal Government to improve Tasmania's major passenger and freight arterial routes, in particular, the Midland Highway.
 
A Hodgman Liberal government will start work straightaway on making the Midland Highway a four-lane highway between Launceston and Hobart. We need a plan for the future and that plan accepts that the Midland Highway will come under increased strain. It will not cope unless we show some long-term vision and commitment to building this important transport infrastructure. It is not safe, in part, for those motorists using the highway and is not conducive to an efficient transport network to grow business and industry in this State.
 
The Labor Government's attitude over a decade has been to place this project in the too-hard basket. A Hodgman Liberal government would not accept mediocrity. Tasmanian motorists and our transport industry need a better plan and vision for the future than they are getting from this State Labor Government. It is staggering that the Bartlett Government is so confused about the State Opposition's vision to upgrade the Midland Highway to dual carriageway between Launceston and Hobart, as evidenced by Mr Sturges' performance in Parliament yesterday. While it is staggering that the Infrastructure minister was so confused, it is little wonder given that he has no vision or no plan for infrastructure in this State.
 
Mr Sturges - Confused? I gave you the facts.
 
Mr ROCKLIFF - No you did not. The State Opposition has been advised by experts in road construction, experts who frequently build similar roads in Tasmania and elsewhere -
 
Mr Sturges - Now you are having another crack at the department's engineers.
 
Mr ROCKLIFF - The total cost to upgrade the Midland Highway to dual carriageway between Launceston and Hobart would, in fact, be less than $400 million. Under current arrangements the Federal Government should fund 80 per cent of this cost as their responsibility under AusLink, leaving Tasmania to fund the remaining 20 per cent, which equates to $80 million, in today's terms, over 20 years.
 
I could not believe that the State Labor Government was chastising the Opposition yesterday for having a vision that extended beyond the next election cycle. We have a 20-year plan for the Midland Highway and it highlights the fact that all your Government can think about is the next election - and not beyond. You have no long-term vision in any of your portfolio responsibilities, particularly infrastructure.
 
The Minister for Infrastructure also seems very confused about his own position. On 13 July 2007 the minister referred to the Midland Highway as 'a goat track that needs urgent attention'. He can smile about it, but we found the media release, Mr Sturges. The State Government entirely agrees with the minister. However, you now seem to be completely against the idea of substantially upgrading the Midland Highway. Perhaps Mr Bartlett's flip-flopping on policy is contagious and Mr Sturges looks like he has caught the disease.
 
I will now move onto another major failure in the plank of the State Government when it comes to infrastructure. I am pleased that the minister for Primary Industries and Water is in the Chamber to listen to this part of my contribution. In 1998 Labor went to the State election promising to drought-proof Tasmania. David Llewellyn was saying it was ludicrous that Tasmania was still vulnerable to drought. He promised amongst other things to investigate irrigation schemes in the north-east, east coast and Northern Midlands regions. None has eventuated. All they can lay their hand on is the Meander Dam project, for which the State Opposition argued passionately, their one major water infrastructure project. There were at least 36 proposals in the water development plan released in 2001. You have about one up, which is not a very good record over 10 years. It is an appalling way to manage our vital resource of water.
 
This year the State Labor Government said that drought-proofing Tasmania is a priority, 10 years since it promised to do so. Our State has missed major economic opportunities because of Labor's failure to deliver. Our farmers, who have been gripped by drought, have suffered more than they should have as a result. This year's budget allocates only $5 million of an $80 million water infrastructure fund for early work on some of our water development projects that Labor has been incapable of advancing over the past 10 years.
 
At a time when the rural sector is being hit by interest rates, limited government assistance, record high fuel and fertiliser prices, the State Government continues to demonstrate a frightening lack of appreciation of the true extent of the problems facing farmers and their families and the importance of the agricultural sector to the Tasmanian economy. In the last 10 years Labor has continually neglected and damaged our economy and our opportunity for growing our agricultural economy now and into the future.
 
The State Liberals' vision for water in Tasmania, whether it be via underground piping, channelling, dam construction or winter water harvesting for use during drier periods, is that our resourceful farmers, through whole-farm planning, look to how best they can utilise the natural advantages of their land and distribute water across properties to maximise their productivity and productive capacity. We should be applying the same strategic thinking to our State's water task, looking to maximise every bit of its productive capacity, subject of course to environmental sustainability, in order to generate wealth now and into the future.
 
We do not build a rail or road system that does not interconnect or link up, nor should we with water. It is our most precious natural resource and a commodity that is intrinsically linked to our future economic growth. The State Opposition's water grid strategy will link our water systems across the State and allow the resource to be distributed where it is needed most on a market-based model consistent with principles of the National Water Initiative. A Hodgman Liberal government would task the Tasmanian Irrigation Development Board with the responsibility of investigating a Tasmanian water grid to ensure interoperability between water development projects and to maximise the productive capacity in Tasmania. In order to best achieve this objective to make every drop count we would facilitate a strategic partnership between the Tasmanian Irrigation Development Board, the Tasmanian Institute of Agricultural Research and the University of Tasmania. Only a Tasmanian Liberal government has the will and capacity for a whole-of-government water plan right across the State, including such areas as the parched south-east, the north-east, the Southern Midlands and the Circular Head regions.
 
Talking about the Circular Head region, as I have raised a number of times in parliamentary debate, that is one area that was promised to have major water infrastructure built to ensure that farmers in the Circular Head region could maximise their productive capacity, but that is just another example of the Labor Government's failure to deliver for that region of the north-west coast.
 
I am conscious of the time because I want to give the Minister for Infrastructure time to contribute. The State Opposition has repeatedly expressed grave concerns surrounding development in Hobart and has launched a stinging criticism of the State Labor Government's abject failure to improve planning systems and to establish a consistent and effective planning process. Labor's ineptitude in matters relating to planning, economic development and major projects can be easily identified and include the absence of a master plan for the development of Hobart's waterfront. Bizarrely, the Government initially felt a master plan was not necessary for the development of the waterfront, but in another classic Bartlett backflip the Government is now busily trying to slap one together, working around the assumption of a hospital placed on the working port. Serious questions surround the viability of the Hobart Waterfront Authority. These concerns have been further compounded following the resignation of its head, Mr Jeff Gilmore. Since 2004-05, the Government has spent more than $7.6 million on the authority and little has been achieved. Sadly, no doubt the resignation of Mr Gilmore will further delay this progress.
 
The proposed building of a new Royal Hobart Hospital on the waterfront is another example of poor planning and the Government's inability to manage major projects. Further, it poses a threat to the working port and the continued viability of many retailers in the CBD. The Government has not even assessed the possible impact of a waterfront hospital on the CBD and, with growing uncertainty surrounding the Myer development, the Government's preferred rail yard site appears to be less and less viable.
 
Recent comments by entrepreneur, Dick Smith, highlight the extreme frustration faced by many people wishing to invest and do business in Tasmania. The planning system is in desperate need of a revision so as to make sustainable investment in Tasmania as efficient as possible. Tasmanians need a long-term, comprehensive infrastructure vision for the future. For too long essential infrastructure has been left to disintegrate under this Labor Government. If we do not have a coordinated, whole-of-government plan then the State Opposition, when we come into government, will fix that. A comprehensive vision for the future will include the three components of rail, road and water infrastructure. In the last 100 years, oil was the most important resource in the world and in the next 100 years water will be the most important resource in the world. Tasmania is in prime position to capitalise on that. As I have said before on water many times in this House, Tasmania represents less than 2 per cent of Australia's land mass but is blessed with 14 per cent of Australia's water resources. That is something that the Minister for Primary Industries and Water agrees on because he quotes those figures often, but sadly has done nothing about it over the course of the last decade in government. Many of those years you have held the Primary Industries and Water portfolios, Minister, so much of the blame can be shot to you with respect to Tasmania's failure to develop our water infrastructure.
 
Mr Llewellyn - I doubled the economic output of the primary sector over 10 years. It has doubled from 1998 to 2008.
 
Mr ROCKLIFF - Okay, whatever you say. No-one believes you because you have failed to deliver. They have stopped listening to you and that is the problem with your Government. You have promised so much over the last 10 years and you have had enormous opportunity to invest in infrastructure, health and education in this State. You have had a fantastic national economy which can largely be attributed to the Howard Government, and with all the extra GST receipts and the enormous land tax receipts, which we read in the newspapers are continuing to rise, you have had an enormous amount of resources in your Government's coffers over the last 10 years but you have done nothing to capitalise on it. This last decade of Labor has been a wasted opportunity and the Tasmanian people have stopped listening to you.
 
Mr Llewellyn - Rubbish.
 
Mr ROCKLIFF - Madam Deputy Speaker, we need to make sure that small business in our agriculture, mining, forestry and aquaculture industries are well served by a variety of competitive, efficient transport options and obviously rail is essential to that vision. Roads, rail and water are the three components that the State Liberals will be focusing on. We have a plan to address the shortfall of this State Labor Government over the course of the last decade. The Tasmanian Liberals have a vision to completely revamp our infrastructure network so that communities, small businesses and major industries can grow stronger together and generate economic population and cultural growth.
 
I look forward to listening to the Minister for Infrastructure but the clear point when it comes to infrastructure in this State is that Labor has no plan, Labor has failed to deliver. The Liberals have a plan and the Liberals will deliver post-2010.
 
[3.56 p.m.]

Mr ROCKLIFF (Braddon - Deputy Leader of the Opposition) - Mr Deputy Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on this  matter  of public importance about the issues that  matter  to Tasmanians: health, education and infrastructure. What will Tasmanians reflect on when they look back on the past 10 years of Labour government? This Government signifies a decade of lost opportunity.

Over the last 10 years we have had record economic growth, largely driven by the national and world economies. Now we have the Rudd Labor Government, which is not handling the economy with the finesse of Peter Costello and John Howard. This Government is under pressure. After a decade of strong economic growth driven by a national government we now have hospital waiting lists that are more than 40 per cent higher than they were 10 years ago. We had a budget delivered this year in which the Minister for Health congratulated herself on record spending of $1.5 billion, but with no outcomes and waiting lists that are projected to increase. That is what Tasmanians are concerned about.
 
They are concerned that country hospitals are being threatened with closure or are being severely downgraded around Tasmania. They are concerned that Tasmania has experienced a 3 000-fold increase in the number of child abuse notifications. There are more than 2 600 people on public housing waiting lists. Any member of parliament worth their salt would realise the pressure that many Tasmanians have in finding a roof over their heads - whether it is being able to afford a house or exorbitant increases in rent. For hardworking Tasmanians wishing to purchase their own home it has become very difficult under the last 10 years of this Labor Government.
 
In our schools Tasmania has the poorest educational attainment rankings of any State or Territory around Australia. This is what Tasmanians are concerned about. We have had a government, particularly in the last two years, that is more focused on its own problems, its own internal issues and who is getting what position than it is on how Tasmanians are positioned in this situation.
 
Mr Deputy Speaker, the Premier just recently made a big deal of the fact that he held a fuel summit, trying to respond, no doubt, to the increased cost of living pressures that many Tasmanians are experiencing. Food prices are going up, fuel prices are going up, and the Premier tried to make a hero of himself by grabbing the front page of the Examiner newspaper in advocating a cut in the fuel excise. Since that headline, I have not heard one mention of this Premier's lobbying for Federal coalition policy to cut the fuel excise to make it that little bit easier for Tasmanians. All this Premier is interested in is grabbing headlines and he does nothing after that.
 
The outcomes of the fuel summit were supposed to make it easier for Tasmanians to access education and health services and combat the increase in cost of living pressures. Nothing has come from that fuel summit; nothing to assist those on the Patient Travel Assistance Scheme, especially those from the north-west coast accessing services to Launceston and Hobart. There has been nothing to address the Patient Travel Assistance Scheme from this State Government and nothing to signify any investment in public transport.
 
What matters to Tasmanians and parents of Tasmanian schoolchildren is this issue of the core passenger review that has put a $400 to $1 000 extra cost on parents who want to send their kids to school. That is what matters to the parents of Tasmanian schoolchildren. This State Labor Government would be very wise to take up the Liberal policy of making student transport free for all Tasmanian students under the age of 18, because that would not only combat the cost of living pressures and the rising fuel prices but it would also make it a lot easier for our children to access their schools. This State Labor Government, in recent times has made sure that parents will pay an extra $400 to $1 000 just getting their children to the school gate, which is disgraceful.
 
Mr Deputy Speaker, this State Labor Government lacks vision. 

[4.16 p.m.]
Mr ROCKLIFF (Braddon - Deputy Leader of the Opposition) - On behalf of the State Opposition can I indicate that the State Liberals will be opposing this bill. We see this as a classic Greens stunt, which we have all sadly become accustomed to in this House, completely ignoring the fact that the pulp mill will only go ahead if it meets the stringent environmental guidelines that have been laid down by independent experts, including the Director of Environmental Management and Pollution Control and Australia's Chief Scientist.
 
Mr Speaker, regarding section 11, we have also done our research, and once the permits are issued exactly the same protections apply and are available to Tasmanians as if the permits had been issued as a result of the RPDC process. The laws of Tasmania as they apply under a range of statutes are not fettered in any way in relation to the ability of ordinary Tasmanians to make claims, to bring forward actions and the full weight of the law if Gunns or any other entity or body covered by the permits breaches the permit conditions. That is a fact. At a State level, there are 800 unique permits that have been condensed into 16 schedules and whilst some of these are quite straightforward, some represent absolutes or hold points at which point development may be forced to cease if they are not met. This applies in both construction and operation of the mill.
 
Mr Speaker, Tasmanians are becoming increasingly concerned about the Tasmanian Greens anti-investment, anti-jobs and anti-value-adding opportunity attitude to development in this State.
 
Interruption from the Gallery.
 
Mr SPEAKER - Order, order!
 
Mr ROCKLIFF - I was absolutely staggered to read yesterday that the Greens are at it again, opposing water development in this State in times of drought.
 
Mr McKim - What do you think this pulp mill is doing to water quality and quantity?
 
Mr ROCKLIFF - Here I refer to the latest attempt by Greens supporters to appeal against the pipeline in the Meander Valley, a pipeline that will deliver water to farmers in desperate need of it and will generate $20 million of gross farm output and result in hundreds of extra jobs, not to mention providing governments with extra capacity to deliver important services to Tasmanians such as health and education.
 
Mr Speaker, in terms of the pulp mill assessment process, the State Opposition has said many times before and we will say it again, that the series of events that led up to the pulp mill project being withdrawn from the RPDC and approved by Parliament were regrettable in the extreme. Sadly, we were witness to yet another example of poor project management by this Labor State Government. Because of mismanagement, this issue has divided the Tasmanian community and led to a massive loss of faith in the Tasmanian Government generally and, sadly, in the project itself. It is a matter of record that, as a result, Parliament was recalled to debate a new assessment process for the pulp mill, a process that was approved by both Houses - democracy in action.
 
Interruption from Gallery.
 
Mr SPEAKER - Order
 
Mr ROCKLIFF - Mr Speaker, while we would have preferred this project to have been assessed by the RPDC, there was no reason why the Parliament could not assess whether or not the proposal should go ahead based on whether it met stringent environmental guidelines. The critical test for the State Opposition was whether the independent regulator's permits and the environmental and operating conditions and guidelines were sufficiently stringent for the sort of world-class development that Tasmania deserves. On the basis of all the information provided in the form of reports, briefings from experts, independent expert advice and consultation with key stakeholders, we formed a considered view that this pulp mill would meet the stringent environmental guidelines set down. On that basis we supported the project and our view has not changed.
 
The Australian Government also assessed the mill. A key point in the summary advice provided by the Chief Scientist of Australia, Dr Jim Peacock, on the project was that the technical and engineering advances that had been made in the design and operation of elemental chlorine-free pulp mills, such as this Gunns proposal, are indeed impressive.
 
Mr Speaker, why have the Greens put forward this bill today? Not because the mill does not meet the environmental guidelines but because, according to a media release issued by Greens' MHA, Kim Booth, it is running behind schedule and finance is looking less secure. The pulp mill was approved against strict environmental guidelines, not on the basis of finance or timing and it should therefore not be repealed on that basis. Imagine if every new development that went through a planning approvals process in Tasmania could suddenly be repealed on the basis of unrelated factors? If we, as a Parliament, were to revoke approvals on the basis that projects run late, then nothing in this State would ever happen and no investor would ever choose to come and invest in Tasmania.
 
This is nothing but a stunt that the Greens have chosen to pull for the Launceston sitting of Parliament. The Greens' logic is flawed and were this bill to be approved it would have disastrous repercussions for business investment in this State.
 
The Tasmanian Liberal Party has long supported the construction of a pulp mill to value-add our timber resource and to provide diversification in our forestry industry, providing it meets strict environmental and social guidelines. This project will provide the biggest private sector investment in the State's history - $2 billion worth of investment. ITS Global assessed the mill and said it would add 2.5 per cent to Tasmania's annual gross State product, equating to an increase in Tasmania's economic output of $6.7 billion over the next two and a half decades. By 2030 the north of the State alone would be $640 million better off, and living standards, property values and social indicators in this region would rise.
 
Unlike the Premier, the State Opposition stands firm in support of this project. We will not flip-flop and pander to the Greens or forget the importance of our resource-based industries to the State's economy. We draw a line in the sand under these important pillars of our economy. We supported the pulp mill last year because we were satisfied that it met the stringent environmental guidelines that were laid down. The upper House, the Australian Government and the Chief scientist all supported the project. These key criteria have not changed. The Greens are trying to move the goal posts as usual. In doing so they are demonstrating that they are not interested in whether or not this project meets the science.
 
This is just about opposing the project for opposition's sake. The Greens' logic is completely flawed. To revoke approval for the bill on the basis of issues such as financing and timing, as the Green's said in their media release a few weeks ago, issues not relevant to the approval of the actual pulp mill permit or to the Federal Government's approval, would be an absolute disgrace. It shows that the Tasmanian Greens never cared whether the mill met the science or not. They are only interested in playing politics and stopping development and jobs in this State dead in their tracks. The Opposition will not be supporting this bill.
 
[4.26 p.m.]

Ladies and Gentlemen is thank you for the opportunity as Acting Leader of the State Opposition to address the public meeting tonight.

Because I recognise and understand, that recent parliamentary events have greatly disturbed the Tasmanian community. 

Confidence in the standards of governance in Tasmania has deteriorated to an all time low, and never before has public trust in the governance of this State has hit such depths and been so blatantly abused. 

We have a State Government that repeatedly treats the citizens of Tasmania with the utmost contempt. 

And it is totally failing any standard of accountability and transparency. 

Standards of probity, that the people of Tasmania both deserve and have an absolute right to expect from their elected government representatives. 

Yet instead, what do they have?

Elected government representatives who are revealed as being caught up in a web of deceit and denial.

Elected government representatives declared as unsatisfactory witnesses by the Supreme Court.

Elected government representatives caught lying in the Parliament and forced to resign.

And elected representatives in a government, whose actions have been described in the national press as being ‘rotten to the core’.

It is no wonder that throughout the State, from every walk of life, and across all shades of the political spectrum, people are feeling betrayed by the failure of their government.

People are angry that their State is being compared to the ‘Queensland of the 1970’s - when cronyism, nepotism and corruption was rife.

We know full well that disenchantment and cynicism now abounds in the community and that the workings of our Parliament have became a matter of derision and tabloid entertainment rather than those of an institution instilling confidence and pride in the Tasmanian people.

We are greatly concerned that a recent Morgan poll showed that not only did sixty per cent of Tasmanians who were interviewed believe the Lennon Government is soft on corruption, but alarmingly that one in ten of them think the government actually encourages it.  These were the worst results of any state or territory - and might I add  - released prior to further scandals that we all recently had to bare witness to.

- That is a damming finding, damaging not only for the reputation of the Premier and the government, but also having potentially serious and long-term damaging implications for the whole of the State - as a place in which to live, to do business or to invest.  We cannot afford to have our State’s reputation repeatedly trashed in such a destructive way.

On behalf of my colleagues, let me assure you that the Tasmanian Liberal Partly have a fundamental commitment to raising the standard of parliamentary behaviour and accountability to make sure that events such as those that have occurred during Premier Lennon’s term of office never happen again.

We believe that integrity and truth are not simply hollow words that can be bandied about, without any accompanying sense of obligation and responsibility. 

The matters that have rocked the Tasmanian government in recent months are serious matters…matters that have once again plunged the government into crisis mode.

The poor handling of these events by the Premier and his Ministers has served also to considerably distract Parliament from conducting other important government business that is also desperately needed for the people of Tasmania. 

At a time when our health service is in crisis, educational standards are falling and business confidence is faltering, we have had to play, in the interests of accountability – ‘catch me if you can’ -with the Premier and Mr Kons.

At a time, when all efforts could be focused on making the State as economically secure, as productive and as sustainable as possible, we have had to listen to Ministerial filibustering and denial.

We urgently need to stop the rot, the denial and the cover-ups, the totally unacceptable standards of behaviour that have permeated our parliament far too often in recent months. 

We need to restore integrity and accountability. 

We need to restore principled and ethical behaviour.

Ladies and Gentlemen in the United Kingdom in May 1995 a report entitled the “First Report of the Committee on Standards of Public Life” was released.

This report has become regarded as the 'measure' for Westminster democracies. 

This report details the seven principles of public life: The principles of:

Selflessness, Integrity, Objectivity, Accountability, Openness, Honesty & Leadership

Ladies and Gentlemen we need an institution in Tasmania that has the resources to promote and the power to enforce the Seven Principles of Public Life.

The Tasmanian Liberals would introduce a number of specific measures giving effect to our commitment to improving governance and accountability, including:

For one, the establishment of an appropriately structured, independent, ethics and anti-corruption authority in Tasmania. 

Indeed, we have been calling for an inquiry into the establishment of such a body since 2004. 

Under our proposals, such an authority would be charged with dealing with cases of corruption and maladministration, as well as with providing advice to parliamentarians on ethics, probity and parliamentary standards. 

Two, the establishment of a Parliamentary Standards Commissioner whose responsibilities would include the monitoring of parliamentary standards and the receiving and investigating of complaints regarding parliamentary accountability.

Including Ministerial responsibility, and adherence to the Ministerial code of conduct.

And three, the enforcement of a rigorous Code of Ethics.
For both parliamentarians and for public officials alike.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

This lack of accountability, this lack of integrity and this lack of humility by the Lennon government has got to stop.

Acts of retribution, evasion, destruction of documents and the misleading of Parliament strike at the very heart of our democratic system of parliamentary democracy and the traditional separation of powers between the executive government, the judiciary and the parliament.

Tasmanians are entitled to better.  Much better. 

They are entitled to know when they will get the quality of government that we so desperately require if this State is ever going to prosper and advance in the way it needs to, and in the way that we know it can. 

Ladies & Gentlemen
Through our actions now as a responsible Opposition, and through our policies for the future should we win government, the Tasmanian Liberals are committed to restoring integrity and public confidence in our governance and public institutions.

Thankyou

Ladies and Gentlemen, Special Guests, Girls and Boys,

It is my very special pleasure, as Patron of the Historical Machinery Club of Tasmania, to be with you all today at this wonderful event.  The Sassafras Heritage Farming Weekend, which is now its third event year, has already become an eagerly anticipated event on the Tasmanian events calendar. 

The last event here in 2006 of course won the Latrobe Municipality event of the year! And no doubt will be in the running again this year.

And it is easy to see why.  The magnificent displays on show here this weekend, together with the exhibitions, the working demonstrations and the huge range of entertainment on offer, all capture the very essence of Tasmanian country life. 

My sincere congratulations go to all the members of the Historical Machinery Club of Tasmania and to the organisers and all of the many wonderful volunteers who I know have worked so hard to make this weekend such a great success. 

It is fitting that at what is perhaps, the most beautiful time of the year, we take time to celebrate life on the land. 

Through fostering an appreciation of how farming life used to be through events such as this we are celebrating times past.  By being here today we are celebrating our present farming community and its achievements, and by bringing our young people and little ones along to look and to learn at what has gone before, we are celebrating their future.

The opportunity this weekend to experience past farming methods and the machinery that once was used, gives us a fascinating window into farming days gone by. 

It may be hard for some of us to imagine now, but shingle splitting and rabbit trapping, hay baling and chaff cutting were once everyday pursuits for many Tasmanian farming families.  Horse and tractor ploughing and the use of drag saws and steam engines were part of their everyday world. 

This weekend’s historic machinery display, the remarkable timber sculpting of Eddie Freeman, the black smithing, milking; and spud bagging, the fascinating  steam carousel and animal nursery are bound to stir memories for some, whilst creating new experiences and a greater appreciation of skills handed down through generations for others.

Not only does this weekend give us an insight into those old practices and to see how farming was done a century ago, but it also gives us a real appreciation of how hard farming life was for many - however much simpler it may sometimes appear. 

What is also very clear is that despite those undoubted times of hardship, there was also an enduring community spirit – a spirit that I am proud to say still lives strongly in the Sassy and broader Tasmanian farming community today.

I hope you will all enjoy the remarkable display of historical machinery, the great range of entertainment and the wonderful demonstrations of how farming once used to be that is on offer here this weekend and that you will join with me now in expressing your warmest appreciation to the organisers of this wonderful event.

Mr Speaker, yesterday, following a Dorothy Dixer from one of her Parliamentary colleagues, The Minister for Economic Development provided quite a detailed description of the history, operation and perceived success of Screen Tasmania.

However, Mr Speaker failed to answer any of the serious accusations made by sections of the film industry and the community generally, such as concerns about the organisation awarding millions of dollars in grants that have delivered very few results, and allegations that a movie producer will film two Tasmanian stories in Victoria because Screen Tasmania would not support his production.

Mr Speaker, in the interests of transparency and accountability, and to dispel the strong sense within the Tasmanian community that the agency is simply a cosy club for a select few whose pet projects frequently gain approval and funding, The Minister needs to answer a number of question:

• whether an interstate production company received $180,000 to relocate to Tasmania;
• Why a filmmaker received $5,500 grant and was never asked by screen Tasmania whether the project was completed.
• Why a film maker received nearly $200,000 for four projects between 2004-06 when only one has been completed.
• Why a cameraman based in Sydney was used for a $20,000 short film Screen Tasmania recently produced, when we clearly have the talent here in Tasmania?

These are just a few of the questions that have been put to me, but in particular, the Minister needs to be able to account for all of the $4.5 million dollars provided to Screen Tasmania that many say have produced too few results for the taxpayer investment. Now if she is unable to do so, why not?

Now if there are legitimate answers to these questions, fair enough. But in the interests of accountability and transparency they need to be answered.
The Minister explained yesterday that since becoming the Minister for Economic Development and Tourism three weeks ago, she called for an urgent meeting to discuss Screen Tasmania’s strategic plan and funding guidelines.

Mr Speaker, I ask the Minister exactly what were the outcomes of this meeting?

I do not expect the Minister to take responsibility for the past actions of Screen Tasmania.

Of course, the Premier needs to be held accountable for the actions of Screen Tasmania and he needs to detail what actions he took while the responsible minister to satisfy himself that appropriate transparency and accountability was being applied to Screen Tasmania grants?

But the fact remains that it is the current Minister for Economic Development that is responsible for managing the current situation, and to answer the many questions raised - I look forward to just that.

[3.28 p.m.]
 
Mr ROCKLIFF  (Braddon - Deputy Leader of the Opposition) - Despite the rhetoric from the minister who has just spoken and the promises of the Lennon Labor Government over the past 10 years, the reality is that its real achievements have been few and far between. Overall, the Government's record has been one of key and, to use the Premier's own word yesterday, unacceptable failures and a rehashing of ideas - a theme repeated in the Premier's state of the State address. It has become a government with no vision, no innovation and no strategic direction. In other words, it has been a government that has demonstrated none of the attributes which are most needed in Tasmania today.
 
Most Tasmanians would have choked on their cornflakes when they picked up the paper last month and read the six issues that the Premier announced as being his key priorities in 2008. They are issues that simply duplicate the promises made by Labor a decade ago and do more to highlight key failures rather than key priorities of his Government. It has been clear for years that Tasmania's infrastructure, for example, is in urgent need of investment and repair in order to ensure the State's continued social and economic development. Yet there has been a failure of action on all fronts, including the planning and rollout of programs to improve our roads and maintain facilities such as our schools and hospitals. Water and sewerage infrastructure simply has not happened.
 
The need for action to safeguard and sustain our water supplies is constantly being deferred. There has been a failure to invest in irrigation schemes, to ensure adequate water capture and storage improvements and to implement other related measures associated with water quality. Action is still urgently required to increase productivity through the building of skills and improving the capacity of our work force.
 
Mr Speaker, this Government has failed our children and their families. It is a disgrace that our standards of literacy and numeracy have fallen to become the worst of all States. It is also a tragedy that the incidence of cases of child abuse in Tasmania has increased dramatically and rocketed to numbers so high that I doubt we can comprehend the damage that has occurred and is continuing to occur.

This Government has also failed our farmers and small businesses. As I said before, commitments to improve water security, transportation hubs and ICT networking have not been delivered, despite the promise of initiatives to ensure improvements in all of these areas.  

Let us just look at the issue of water in more detail. The State Opposition has been highly critical, and rightly so, of the failure of the State Government to develop Tasmania's water resources over the past 10 years. This has cost our farmers and our economy massive opportunities.

We welcome the investment initiatives outlined yesterday and prior to that, in the glossy brochure released last week, but it must be remembered that this has happened some 10 years after Labor released its Growing our Future policy with a media release entitled 'Drought-Proofing Tasmania', and after David Llewellyn was quoted in 1998 saying, 'Given Tasmania's high rainfall it is ludicrous that it is still vulnerable to drought', a statement sadly so true today.
 
There were a few glaring admissions from some of our most productive areas in the State in the new water announcement. Let us take the Circular Head region in my electorate as an example of this. Circular Head is the envy of many parts of Tasmania for the annual rainfall it receives and it is ridiculous that in the productive part of that region it has taken so long to harness this valuable resource of water more strategically and effectively. The Circular Head community and particularly the farmers need to know why key water initiatives originally identified in 2001 have stalled and not progressed. Water initiatives such as Edith Creek and a direct take from the Arthur River need to be looked at again. At a recent meeting of the Circular Head Council they passed a motion highlighting the critical importance of water for agricultural and value-adding purposes to the Circular Head municipality. The council demanded that a dedicated schedule relating to security of supply and expansion form part of any revised partnership agreement with the State Government. The State Government must include Circular Head on its key priority list for water storage options in the region.
 
Mr Speaker, let us look again at the list of priorities of the Lennon Labor Government for 2008, like the promise to effectively promote Brand Tasmania, which has simply languished on the backburner or in some ministerial in-tray and will continue to languish on the desk of the new Minister for Economic Development - but I will speak more on Brand Tasmania a little later. As we all know, Tasmania's small business sector is the engine room of our economy and contributes significant employment opportunities, vital infrastructure and cash flow to the Tasmanian economy, yet Labor has simply ignored small business because their focus has been on the big end of town. The results of the latest Sensis Business Index showed that small business support for the Lennon Government's policies is at its lowest level ever recorded. It just shows how forgotten small business has become in this State.

The State Opposition understands that maintaining and improving the successful operation of the small business industry is critical if Tasmania is to realise its full potential and a globalised, creative and innovation-based economy. Of course we must provide for a flexible workplace and ensure a fair trading environment, and removing rather than imposing regulatory obstacles will also be critical and high on our agenda.
 
As part of our blueprint for moving forward, the State Liberal team will also continue its strong and ongoing commitment in this area of regulatory reform in order to contribute to a better business environment in Tasmania. That is why we have called for and believe in a comprehensive review of Tasmania's taxation system that is fairer for business and why we are committed to the establishment of a commissioner for small business, as announced today by the Leader of the Opposition.

Red tape continues to impede the growth of businesses in Tasmania, with business owners being forced to attribute a growing percentage of their working day to completing the multitude of paperwork associated with red tape. A recent study by the Business Council of Australia highlighted the fact that Tasmania sits near the bottom of the pile when it comes to business regulation and red tape.
 
Tasmania's large number of diverse planning schemes continues to be a source of frustration for many developers and investors, and I take on board the Deputy Premier's comments in relation to planning issues. What developers want are clearly-defined guidelines and greater consistency in local planning schemes. Currently there is a distinct barrier to investment, enabled by the disincentive to developers and other investors because of uncertainty about areas set aside for growth, regional links and the provision of necessary infrastructure. As member for Braddon, I must say I welcome the agreement by north-west coast and King Island councils in October last year to provide a more unified approach to development and future land use throughout the region. The review into the entire planning system in this State is not before time and we look forward to those outcomes.
 
Yesterday the Premier tabled The State of Our Community Report 2007, but this Government has failed our communities. Hospital services are declining and waiting lists for medical services of every kind are increasing. For most Tasmanians, getting to see a GP or a dentist in any sort of time frame that could be considered reasonable is becoming more and more difficult. The recent debacle over funding of ambulance services is yet another example of how far removed from reality the Government has become in dealing with health issues in this State.
 
Home ownership is traditionally a barometer of how well a community in Australia is faring, yet in Tasmania declining housing affordability has put the dream of home ownership out of reach of more and more young families. At the same time, waiting lists for public housing are increasing at a rate of knots. The need for action to address the crisis in public housing supply is only now being recognised by the Lennon Government, but has taken too long in coming. It will require innovative and strategic decision-making to ensure that the rapidly increasing waiting list is substantially reduced and that we never again hear of young mothers with children being forced to live in tents or to sleep in cars.
 
There is a litany of failures under 10 years of this Labor Government. We have the worst productivity in the nation, the worst participation rate, and unemployment is well above the national average. We have the worst school retention rates and the lowest level of infrastructure spending per capita. Shamefully, all of this is happening at a time of unprecedented prosperity and economic growth. The Premier has just woken up to some of these issues at a time when the new Federal Labor Treasurer is warning of a slowing national economy.
 
Leadership, planning and capacity-building have been missing in action, along with responsible and long-term stewardship. There has been no demonstration of government preparedness for meeting future demands or of safeguarding our existing assets. These failures limit Tasmania's prospects of growth and sustainability. They limit our future viability, and if not addressed they will ultimately threaten our social cohesion.  

What is particularly alarming in this is a list of undelivered promises and failures of the Lennon Labor Government during sustained economic wellbeing for the State. Despite the economic good time, we all know that it is only an unexpected surge in taxation revenues that is saving the State Budget from being in the red this financial year. The predicted fiscal surplus of $126 million is due primarily to externalities such as the GST revenues and taxation receipts garnered from businesses, fee revenue, conveyancing duties and land tax rather than to any prudent management by this Government. The Government has shown that without these revenues it has had no plans to save it from budgetary disaster.
 
If this is all the Lennon Labor Government can achieve in the good times, we are entitled to ask how it will possibly manage when times are not so good. The Lennon Government has clearly made no effort to prepare for the challenges that lie ahead, challenges that include our diminishing standard of infrastructure assets, the level of infrastructure spending and our continuing undersupply of skilled workers.
 
The recent Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry survey of business expectations reveals that the availability of suitably qualified employees remained as the number one constraint of business growth. It has now been in the top spot for 16 consecutive quarters. Wage costs, non-wage labour costs, the cost of insurance and the cost of energy continue at spots two through to five respectively. In particular, given the challenges facing industry in the current tight labour market, businesses are challenged to find and retain suitable staff. There is a pressing need for government to concentrate on the provision of vocational skills training and employment readiness programs to ensure that we are assisting businesses to get the right people they need to grow and prosper.
 
I have been a member of a local north-west job placement service provider for the last decade. We were in deep discussion about our strategic direction recently. It dawned on us how much had changed in the focus of our organisation over the past 10 years. A decade ago we were flat out getting jobs for people, and now we struggle to get people for jobs.
 
We also have to come to grips with the changing workplace expectations of our employees, particularly that of generation Y. I recently attended a business function put on by the Devonport Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the guest speaker's topic was how exactly to deal with generation Y in the workplace, and how much the length of tenure in workplaces had changed over the years. For example, the average length of tenure for baby boomers was somewhere between 15 and 20 years. For generation X, which is the generation I belong to, the average length of tenure is 4.7 years. For generation Y, those born in the mid to late-1980s, it is only 17 months. Understanding the needs and aspirations of that generation, as was explained on that morning, is a critical challenge that warrants business and government attention.
 
Mr Speaker, to deal successfully with the many challenges facing small business, Tasmania requires real solutions that will support the long-term viability and economic prosperity of the State, actions that will make a difference. We need to improve our productivity and employment participation through enhancing and maximising our business capability and generating greater employment opportunities. This requires such actions as a review of Tasmania's taxation arrangements, with a view to delivering structural reform that will generate greater business activity, investment and employment.

It requires action to cut red tape and bureaucratic inertia. It requires aggressive pursuit of innovative and high-end industries such as the ICT industry, agribusiness and research and development. We need action to attract investment and skilled personal by offering sound infrastructure and services, and action to develop real measures that will address the skill shortage and make Tasmania attractive to skilled and creative people. We need action to improve our standards of housing, health, education and child care in order to make Tasmania an attractive State to come to, stay in, work in and live in. We need action to ensure a fairer Tasmania so that all Tasmanians, regardless of their socioeconomic status or where they live, have an equal opportunity to be educated, enjoy good health and be well housed. We also need action to adequately protect those assets and market those products that make us special and unique in Tasmania. In other words, we need action to maximise our full potential. Tasmanians are tired of grandiose rhetoric that we know will be repeated again and again, as demonstrated yesterday by the Premier in this House, as promises remain undelivered by a government that is missing in action.
 
By investing in our future we need to ensure that those Tasmanians who are struggling to raise their families, run their businesses or simply survive are not forgotten. A mark of any society is how well it looks after the disadvantaged in its community. The building of a state-of-the-art hospital, commendable as that may be, will not suffice if we still have the hungry and the homeless queuing up, for example, at Gran's Van in Devonport for the comfort of a warm meal, or if we still have families in desperate need of a roof over their head. How successful has Labor's new Tasmania been for them?

I mentioned Gran's Van and I will use this organisation to highlight this Government's warped sense of priorities. Economic pressure such as increased electricity and petrol prices are placing increased demand on a volunteer food van in Devonport known as Gran's Van. They have been left out in the cold by this State Government, which rejected a call for $15 000 to cover the basic operational costs of that volunteer organisation. Those volunteers who donate their time to this valuable service expect that things will only get worse as interest rates rise and petrol and energy prices continue to skyrocket under the Federal Labor Government and the State Labor Government. The fact that the State Government has rejected a plea from this group of people and from the State Opposition to provide $15 000 just to cover insurance costs, fuel and some basic food items to run their organisation really smacks of the arrogance and disregard Labor shows, and is continuing to show, towards Tasmanians in need. These volunteers are required to find the time not only to get food ready for the van and give up their own time to travel around the community but they must also find the time to continually write submissions for one-off funding opportunities. This time could be better spent helping those in need and for the service to plan for the future and to expand to cope with increasing demand.
 
This would not happen under a Hodgman Liberal government. The State Government should admit this is a worthwhile organisation and accept the fact that the review, and actions following the review, into homelessness is going to take some time. They should show some compassion for this organisation and the people it looks after by providing funding security. The amount sought is a pittance compared with the benefits it provides and a pittance compared with the recent budget windfall announced by the Treasurer from the sale of Hobart Airport. I know the value of that particular organisation. I volunteered for it a few weeks ago. I met those involved, the organisers.

I was impressed with the systematic and well-organised way they went about their business, delivering food and offering clothing to those needy and homeless people in the city of Devonport. I was immensely impressed.
 
If members of the Government took the initiative, as announced today by the State Opposition Leader, to go out and volunteer for organisations such as this they would truly understand that there are Tasmanians in desperate need and many volunteers are working very hard for the people of Tasmania and the communities they live and work in.
 
We all know that Tasmania is facing increased competitive pressures from the global economy and other States. We know that we must redouble our efforts to improve our competitiveness and seek new opportunities in new markets if our economy is to grow and provide the jobs our community needs. Enterprises in the economy of regional Tasmania need support and encouragement that recognise their different needs in creating viable industries and sustaining job opportunities.
 
It is critical that we provide the incentives and support necessary to drive investment and develop new business opportunities. Fostering advanced technologies is a prerequisite for raising industry productivity and competitiveness, promoting job creation in future-oriented industries, accelerating economic growth and encouraging expatriates back to Tasmania. We must focus on those areas and niche markets where Tasmania has the expertise to sustain a competitive advantage that suits our geography, scientific ability and population to provide excellence and develop world leadership. We must ensure that good ideas are kept in Tasmania and not exported.
 
I said that I would come back to the issue of Brand Tasmania. Perhaps the Minister for Economic Development might like to explain in her contribution exactly how it intends branding and promoting Tasmania, a brand that has suffered as a result of the poor standards of governance under this Lennon Labor Government.
 
Brand Tasmania was formed to promote place-of-origin branding for the State and assist thousands of small businesses to export their goods and services interstate and overseas. The Government must introduce exciting, progressive strategies that will continue to promote the Tasmania brand and the quality of Tasmanian goods and services.. We also must significantly strengthen and expand the existing good work of Brand Tasmania, as I have mentioned many times before in the House, in marketing Tasmania's goods and services to Australia and the rest of the world, to greatly enhance our ability to differentiate ourselves in a globally competitive environment.
 
For example, there should be an increased commitment to examining the very successful branding campaigns undertaken in other countries, such as New Zealand, and providing Brand Tasmania with a more stable structure to better enable it to carry out its essential functions. We also need a solid commitment to existing highly productive initiatives, such as the visiting journalists program, and aggressive promotion of Tasmania by connecting its recognised natural values to the resourcefulness and creativity of its people. 

As a start, the State Opposition remains committed to increasing the existing funding for Brand Tasmania by providing $900 000 per year to this valuable program rather than the pittance of $300 000 it has had to struggle under since its inception. It is essential that Government be better prepared to deliver responsible solutions to the challenges that the State is facing. It is time to recommit to our industries, businesses and communities and drive forward the innovation and productivity needed to assist Tasmanians to develop skills, expertise, knowledge, infrastructure, and the strong investment needed to maintain competitiveness in Tasmania, drive economic growth and create the jobs and opportunities essential to ensure our future prosperity and standard of living.
 
Good education, good levels of health and other social services, affordable housing and physical amenity and employment security are vital to Tasmania's future. Strong economic development underpins strong social cohesion and community wellbeing, and it is essential if Tasmania is to prosper. During a period when the current State Government says the economy has never been better, hospital, dental and housing waiting lists have ballooned. Vital job-generating initiatives such as the business tax cuts and upskilling the workforce have been neglected. Capital investment has declined and education standards, as was well debated this morning - a key productivity driver - have fallen.
 
With all this in mind, and if we are to believe the Federal Treasurer, we will have to prepare ourselves for a slowing national economy. That will lead to less revenue for governments at a time when our social services are not meeting community expectations in good economic times. What is becoming very clear is that this Government does not have the capacity to deliver. The Premier and his Government have run out of ideas to such a point that they seek inspiration for policy from opposition parties. The Premier knows that his Government's performance has been - and I quote from his address yesterday - 'unacceptable'.
 
Labor Premiers Steve Bracks and Peter Beattie started apologising for their poor performance when they ran out of ideas and they were not fixing the problems. They saw the writing on the wall and resigned. This Premier should do the same.
 

[8.22 p.m.]

Mr ROCKLIFF (Braddon - Deputy Leader of the Opposition) - Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to raise an issue in the House tonight concerning once again some vandalism that has occurred within the CBD of Devonport.
 
Mr Llewellyn - Not again.
 
Mr ROCKLIFF - Yes again, Minister. I raised this issue in the House in April 2004. You were sitting in the Chamber then and you are sitting in the Chamber now. I am pleased you will be able to listen to my contribution and hopefully provide some assistance through your police or provide funding for the infrastructure that is needed.
 
Vandalism and intimidation of businesses remains a concern for many of the retailers within the CBD. Just today I received a phone call from a very concerned and irate retailer who, last night, had the unfortunate experience of having her window smashed in. Not only that, goods were taken or destroyed within the shop. Items that were taken or destroyed were part of the Christmas stock. She was very concerned about the impact on her trade during the time that the window will be replaced, and of course she now has very limited stock with which to trade with over the Christmas period. I understand and empathise with her concern. We all know that this is appalling behaviour that should not be tolerated and the perpetrators of these crimes should be held accountable.
 
I raised the issue again in the House to bring it to the minister's attention to see what he can do. I know that the Devonport City Council are aware of this issue. I particularly want to direct my comments towards surveillance cameras within the CBD and the need to improve community safety through enhancement of the existing CCTV system and to increase surveillance.
 
Mr Llewellyn - Mr Howard has promised a lot in this area. He has promised to provide cameras to everyone.
 
Mr ROCKLIFF - The Howard Government promises a lot to the community of Tasmania. Many of the promises, which will be delivered, are a result of your Government's failure to address those needs.
 
The Devonport City Council have commissioned a report into the camera and surveillance system as it now stands. I have a report in front of me that gives a general overview of the current system. Talking about the CCTV surveillance system, it says:
 
'The entire system is in generally poor condition, with most cameras functioning below standard. Corrosion was evident on a number of camera housings and a number of cameras were found to be inoperative.'
 
Mr Llewellyn - As I recall, we provided the money for these cameras and it is not very good of the city council to not maintain them.
 
Mr ROCKLIFF - The council has its responsibilities, I understand that, but there is a desire to upgrade the infrastructure and that will require a capital investment. I have spoken to council representatives today. There is a report on the situation due to the fact that there is emerging antisocial behaviour, including vandalism and graffiti, that has been identified by a broad range of stakeholders within the CBD. I include in that the Devonport City Council, retailers, the business community, residents, the Community Safety Liaison Group and the police. I believe that our hard-working small businesses deserve better.
 
I encourage the State Government to investigate ways that it can assist the Devonport City Council in upgrading the surveillance system. My understanding is that the capital cost of the upgrade is to the tune of $250 000. As I said, the existing system is in very poor condition. Some cameras are not working and I would hope that by way of a State government contribution that upgrading of the surveillance cameras will at least go part of the way to improving community safety and solving the problem and at least acting as a deterrent, which will assist in the prevention and detection of crime and the identification and prosecution of offenders. The small investment that the State Government could make in assisting the Devonport City Council with capital infrastructure costs will pay for itself in reducing the crime and the cost to businesses.
 
When I previously raised this issue in April 2004 there was a spate of vandalism, with many of the windows smashed in the mall and the CBD area generally at an estimated cost of $30 000. So I would say that over a number of years the investment that the State Government and the council could make to improving the surveillance CCTV system would be well and truly worth it. I urge the minister, who has listened to my contribution, to act upon it immediately.
 
The House adjourned at 8.28 p.m.

Mr ROCKLIFF - I wish to raise a few comments in support of Mr Whiteley's amendment, particularly as it relates to the health aspects but also to the impacts on retailers, or perceived impacts on retailers. As shadow minister for economic development and having some responsibility for small business, I thought it wise that I make a comment on these particular matters.
 
Firstly can I say that I commend the shadow health spokesperson for his amendment and his contribution to the House in the second reading debate. I thought it was thoroughly researched and well delivered; he said that we all have a responsibility as members in this House to do what we can to ensure that what we pass in this House is in the best interests of not only existing generations but also those generations to come. We have a responsibility to our children, to future generations, particularly in the areas of preventive health.
 
While the debate on health issues is often focused on hospitals and associated infrastructure and the resources allocated to that infrastructure, sadly, not enough is devoted to preventive health measures. There is no doubt that smoking is still the leading risk factor for the total disease burden of the nation and Mr Whiteley said in his contribution that tobacco is the leading cause of preventable deaths in Australia, killing 19 000 Australians each and every year and costing the nation $21 billion in health care.
 
The State Opposition's amendments will totally ban the display of cigarettes and tobacco products from retail outlets over a three-year period. It is my strong belief - and I have held this for a long time - that the display of cigarettes sends the wrong message to the community, to our children, to our youth and - the word has been used - normalises the behaviour of smoking. Just taking away that public display sends a message, although it may be only subtle, that this is not normal behaviour, nor is it acceptable behaviour and we should do something to prevent our children from taking up a habit of a lifetime.
 
Our member for Bass, Mr Gutwein, spoke of his personal experiences of smoking and I know many people who have tried and failed to kick the habit, to their detriment. We need to do all we can to ensure that our children do not see this as normal and acceptable behaviour. My mother gave up smoking one day when I came home from primary school. At that time I think I was in grade 5 or 6 and I had seen a video - quite a graphic one of black lungs being wrung out and the like and I went home rather disturbed because my mother was a smoker at the time. I said 'Look, I am worried that you are going to die, Mum', and she was concerned about the way I felt and from that time on she did not touch a cigarette, for which I am thankful. But I know that many other people in the community indeed have a lot more trouble than my mother did in kicking the habit.
 
I want to acknowledge, as shadow minister for economic development, the concerns that small retailers in the State may have with this amendment; they believe that a total ban on the display of smoking products would impact on their profits and the economy and would result in the loss of employment opportunities. However, as the shadow minister pointed out, research clearly identifies that smokers already know and purchase their preferred brand and there is no available data to back up claims that sales would drop off to a level that would impact on employment opportunities or for that matter would dramatically reduce profits. My view is that what the State Opposition proposes today will happen anyway. What frustrates retailers most is the incremental and continued changing of the goal posts. Each time the goal posts are moved you could argue that there is a cost, at least up front, to small retailers as well as the frustration of those changes.
 
Therefore this amendment in the interests of retailers at least provides them with the security of knowing what is in place and what is required within a specified time frame, in this case three years, thereby reducing the impact and the frustrations of retailers. The minister herself has said that there will be further changes and small businesses should be fairly placed on notice that they should ready their businesses for the inevitable.
 
This is what this amendment, brought to the House today by the shadow spokesperson, does - it provides the retailer with the opportunity. As the shadow minister for economic development, I will not support an immediate ban because there has not been sufficient consultation and time for retailers to adjust to change. But this amendment provides them with three years, which is within their capacity and, in the long term, the best interests of the community as a whole.
 

[5.57 p.m.]

Mr ROCKLIFF (Braddon - Deputy Leader of the Opposition) - I wish to briefly raise an issue this evening and to officially, in my capacity as shadow minister for community development, incorporating youth affairs, farewell the long-time executive officer of the Youth Network of Tasmania, Mr Dave Willans. I want to put on the public record our appreciation and gratitude for all the work he has done with the YNOT organisation over a number of years.  

I am informed that Dave was largely responsible for the establishment of YNOT. In fact in 1995, during the term of the previous Liberal Government and after a number of reports called for a State peak youth body, Dave, as the inaugural executive officer of this organisation, approached the job with a statewide focus. He brought together a collection of people working with young people across the regions of Tasmania for a truly representative force for the advancement of youth issues in Tasmania.

Dave also successfully lobbied to move the Office of Youth Affairs out of the Department of Education and into the Department of Premier and Cabinet to better reflect the holistic nature of youth issues. Over the years he has maintained strong links in the national arena in order to ensure that Tasmania has had a voice in national youth affairs.  

I first met Dave in an official capacity recently in my role as shadow minister for community development. I was very impressed with his broad knowledge and enthusiasm on a range of issues, from tackling youth homelessness to ensuring that members of this House really listen to what young Tasmanians were telling us through the newly created Tasmanian Youth Forum.  

Dave leaves a robust organisation that enjoys the respect of government and non-government sectors. I want to put on record my appreciation for all those working in government and non-government sectors in the area of youth in Tasmania. I have been involved with an organisation, Youth and Family Focus, and have been immensely impressed with the dedication of the many staff employed by that organisation for the work they do with the youth in our community and their families.

Admiration for the work of YNOT is in large part due to Dave Willans' quiet strength and leadership, his affable nature and his unbridled enthusiasm for doing what is right for young people in this State. I want to place on record my best wishes for Dave in his future endeavours and thank him for his contribution to the youth of Tasmania.

[11.30 a.m.]

Mr ROCKLIFF (Braddon) - Firstly, I commend the Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry on their budget submission, developing a program for productivity. Can I assure the previous speaker that we do take very seriously all submissions that cross the Opposition's desk, whatever sector of the community they come from. Given the scant regard that the State Government has placed upon taking ideas from the business community over the last few years, we thought we had best bring this debate on today and focus on some of the initiatives in the TCCI report, because rather than listening to the business community on ideas to boost productivity and other important economic indicators, such as a comprehensive review of our taxation system and reducing our barriers to business, the Government has simply relied on the good, strong economic management of the Howard Federal Government and reaped the rewards of the flow-on effects that have come to Tasmania.
 
Mr Kons - We'll see how good it is next Saturday week.
 
Mr ROCKLIFF - We will see how good it is if the Howard Government do not get re-elected, Mr Kons, and see how a Rudd government and the new Treasurer, Wayne Swan, manage the trillion-dollar economy. That is the biggest concern.
 
Mr Kons - Better than Costello.
 
Mr ROCKLIFF - That is the biggest concern, for interest rates particularly.
 
The Leader of the Opposition has touched on the issue of productivity, and this is a key area that the Government needs to focus on. They have said in their report that productivity growth is primarily generated through business investment and capital equipment. On this basis, the TCCI wants barriers to business to become a key performance indicator for the State economy, and the submission calls for a focus on the barriers of taxation, red tape, planning laws and local government, all things the Opposition have been persistently trying to get the State Government to address. The minister smiles across the Chamber, but every single time our shadow planning minister asks you a question about the PAL policy, and the like, you say, 'It will be another couple of weeks, another couple of weeks'.
 
Mr Kons - It's going to shock you.
 
Mr ROCKLIFF - From what I hear it is going to shock a lot of people in the rural community, but we can have that debate at another time.
 
The key areas that the Chamber of Commerce has also focused on are barriers to business, education, skills and training, the performance of government and infrastructure. Infrastructure is one of the issues that perhaps our shadow minister for infrastructure will talk about when he makes his contribution. For some time now we have been calling for a comprehensive review of Tasmania's taxation system. This is important; we must remain competitive with other States, particularly Victoria. Business investors on the mainland view Tasmania as an environment in which they can do business and which is attractive to do business in.
 
If they focus particularly on some of the issues coming through our offices at the moment from small business operators in the area of land tax, which is biting considerably in the small business community. We have had many calls about this, and the windfall that the State Government is receiving through the current land tax regime. I know the Minister for Education agrees with the State Opposition on this point, given that he reflected the concerns of business some two years ago with respect to a need to review the State's taxation laws pertaining to land tax. I agreed with him and so did many small business operators.
 
Madam Deputy Speaker, another barrier to business is, of course, red tape. The State Opposition has been championing the need for red-tape reform in Tasmania for many years now. In fact, the Business Council of Australia's report, entitled 'A Scorecard of State Red Tape Reform', highlights that in Tasmania there is clear room for improvement with respect to addressing this barrier to business which is, of course, the red-tape bureaucratic nightmare that is strangling and preventing many business to grow.
 
The TCCI's budget submission calls on the State Government to implement a number of initiatives to try to address barriers to business - namely, engaging cooperatively the business community to examine opportunities to reform business taxation, as I have spoken about, within the framework of the current fiscal strategy, which of course is important; implementing a regulatory reform agenda for Tasmania with the ambition to be a leader in outcome-based regulation, which the TCCI recommends should occur outside the COAG framework; requiring all regulatory impact statements to incorporate adequate risk analysis; and that the State Government adopt a position on the sustainability of Tasmania's current system of local government and reduce burden of all local governments to a ratio which reflects that of the rest of Australia. They are just some of the initiatives, Madam Deputy Speaker, that need to be addressed by this State Government.
 
Time expired.

Thank you Ladies and Gentlemen for the privilege of being asked to open your Annual Field Day.

The field day no doubt will cover many topics of interest to you all including:

Queen Bee Raising
Disease Prevention and Identification
Medicinal Value of Honey & many others

Can I firstly acknowledge the work of your executive for organizing events such as this and others like it: Charles (President) & Elizabeth (Secretary).

Some of the challenges the industry faces can begin to be overcome through events such as today.

The need for the industry to maintain high quality standards and low disease status;
The constant need for the industry to undertake research, extension, education and   training;
The need to enhance public awareness of the bee industry in Tasmania are just some of those challenges.

I also understand that the membership of the North West Branch of the Tasmanian Beekeepers Association has grown over the past few years and congratulations on that achievement but as Charles said the other day in the newspaper there is a definite need to attract younger beekeepers to the industry and of course workshops and field days are one way of doing just that.

I was looking around the internet the other day catching up on some bee news and I found two interesting pieces of information that fitted in nicely with how much we should value the bee industry.

Because the Bee industry is undervalued. I am a farmer by trade and it was not until I went into parliament and had the opportunity to meet you good folk that I realised the enormous value of the bee industry - not only to our local economy but the existence of mankind.

One bright spark who know a few things – Albert Einstein once said that:

“If the bee disappeared off the surface of the globe then man would only have four years of life left. No more bees, no more pollination, no more plants, no more animals, no more man.”

I would not argue with that:

Worldwide, bees are estimated to pollinate one third of the world’s food crop. In other words one mouthful in three of the food we eat either directly or indirectly depends on pollination by honeybees.

We cannot do without bees and we cannot do without your industry.

The Tasmanian Beekeeping industry contributes a great deal to our community in terms of agriculture, the production of a uniquely Tasmanian product of world class standard as well as generating millions for the States economy.

The beekeeping industry epitomizes the Tasmanian brand. Clean, Green, Natural & Quality

Tasmania’s honey is exported to at least 27 countries worldwide; and this reflects the outstanding quality of our produce.

It is a natural food harvested from wilderness and wet forest areas that can be linked to other Tasmanian products and Tasmania's branding image.

Honey production provides employment across all areas of the State.

Many of the horticultural and small seeds crops grown in Tasmania depend to varying degrees on the honeybee for pollination. The expansion of the seed industry and stone fruit industries are dependent on viable pollination services.

The economic value to the Tasmanian economy of the horticultural and other crops requiring pollination services is estimated to be around $200 million annually.

Indeed, honeybee pollination services contribute around $200 million to the Tasmanian economy.

Tasmania’s fruit, small seed and vegetable crops are dependent upon a type of pollination. Crops ripen more evenly, yields increase with effective pollination.

This reinforces the centrality of the beekeeping industry to Tasmania.

The beekeeping industry, like many in Tasmania’s agriculture sector, has faced notable challenges. Threats of disease and quarantine issues are among the top of the list.

We do have in Tasmania a natural advantage in terms of isolation and relative pest and disease free status the Tasmanian Beekeeping industry is well positioned to capitalize on this situation.

This, however, can only be achieved with the protection of the Tasmanian Bee industry.

Quarantine services must be adjusted and stepped up in order to guarantee Tasmania remains disease and pest free.

Colony Collapse Disorder has been blamed for wiping out a massive one quarter of America’s hives. There is still a lot of speculation as to its cause. Tasmania needs to monitor the situation closely to ensure we are well informed and able to take preventative measures.

The Small Hive Beetle currently challenging the industry on the mainland must be kept from entering the State.

Varroa is another potentially devastating threat to Tasmania and Australia’s beekeeping industry. We are presently the only major bee and honey-producing country in the world that is free of the mite.

It has been estimated that if Varroa reaches Australia, up to 9500 jobs and $877 million a year would be wiped of the horticulture industry.

This mite represents a serious problem for bees; it has the potential to result significantly degreased productivity, weaken and shorten the life of bees, deform emerging brood and can ultimately result in colony death.

While early detection and management of the problem can be achieved to a reasonable standard, the costs of doing so are enormous. The only appropriate approach is prevention.

The ramifications of our failure to do so will be enormous.

The possible devastation of Verroa and other pests demonstrate the urgent need for action.

Quarantine and the Department of Primary Industries and Water need to employ measures that specifically address these threats; they must be vigilant in perusing such measures. The costs of inaction are high, not only for beekeepers but the community broadly.

But is not all bad news – you have a wonderful industry – It is undervalued – but field days such as this go a long way to addressing this issue.

Once again, thank you for the opportunity. I commend you on the topics of the field day.

It is my great pleasure to declare your annual field day officially open and I really appreciate the opportunity to do so and good luck in the growth of your business, your industry and your organisation.

Mr ROCKLIFF (Braddon - Deputy Leader of the Opposition) - I will begin my contribution to the state of the State address by commending the Leader of the Opposition for his reply to the Premier's very disappointing address of yesterday. The Leader of the Opposition was correct when he said that all Tasmanians have a right to share in the State's prosperity and the right to a fairer Tasmania. They are not getting that now.
 
This morning we debated the issue of poverty in Tasmania in acknowledging Anti-Poverty Week. We highlighted a litany of social problems that show clearly that not all Tasmanians are able to share in the State's prosperity. We have a community that is characterised by high levels of disadvantage, lower incomes, higher welfare dependency and disproportionately higher rates of poverty than in any other Australian State. We have people who do not get one substantial meal a day, cannot afford medicines, cannot pay for school activities or books, who are not able to provide a separate bed for each child and who are turned away from homeless shelters because they are already filled to capacity. The gap between rich and poor is widening in the State but the Government has failed to tackle the underlying social problems in our community. The Premier's state of the State address yesterday will do little to alleviate those social hardships experienced by many vulnerable Tasmanians. It has failed to provide real access to services, failed disadvantaged groups and disadvantaged places, and it has failed to reduce the barriers to opportunity and to provide equity to rural and regional Tasmanians. It has failed on delivering a Tasmania where people have rights and respect. That is why we need a plan to create a fairer Tasmania.
 
After constantly hearing the Treasurer talking up the Tasmanian economy and hearing the Premier saying that things have never been better, people are rightly asking, 'Why don't we have a fairer Tasmania now?' The Lennon Labor Government has more money than it would have ever imagined 10 years ago. Mr Aird is the highest-taxing Treasurer in the State's history. The fact is that they are rolling in money and I will highlight that now. This financial year the State Government is expected to receive more than $3.7 billion in revenues. This is approximately $1.7 billion, or 85 per cent higher, than the amount received in 1998-99. This is the equivalent to funding all State government activities outside the Health and Education portfolios. This State Government is experiencing unprecedented increases in revenue. Since 1998-99 the Labor Government has averaged increases in total revenue of 7.2 per cent. This compares with just 3.5 per cent when the previous Liberal Government was in office. The State Government has received a windfall from GST receipts and special purpose payments estimated to be in excess of $100 million each financial year.
 
The 2007-08 State Budget highlighted that the State Government is now expecting to receive an additional $100 million to $180 million a year over the forward period through higher than previously expected receipts from the Commonwealth Government. As highlighted by the Australian Financial Review editorial - and I quote:
 
'There has never been a better time to be a treasurer. The only worry you have is how you are going to spend the money.'
 
It must be nice to find $100 million floating around. The only problem is that the Treasurer tells the Premier, so this money inevitably goes towards paying for his pet projects. That is why many in the Tasmanian community are angry. It is only natural for Tasmanians to get angry when they know that disability services are in crisis and when they see money going to such pet projects as the Hawthorn Football Club. What makes them just as angry is that, despite finding more money in the coffers than previously anticipated, the Treasurer gags for more. This year he slugged Tasmanians for the road safety levy, the ambulance levy, the second consecutive increase to the Fire Services levy, and the stealth taxing of motorists through requiring a special dividend from MAIB. This is after promises not to introduce any new taxes or increase the rate of any existing ones. That is why Tasmanians are angry. Call it what you want - a fee, a tax, a levy - it is all coming out of the pockets of hard-working and struggling Tasmanians.
 
Tasmanians have never had it better - this is the conclusion of the Premier and this State Government. According to the Premier he is the creator of this strong economy - nothing to do with the national economy that has recorded growth for almost two decades or the international economy and the emergence of China and the resources boom. These statements just demonstrate his arrogance, lack of knowledge and mentality in taking credit for the good and blaming everyone else for the bad. That is what this Government will be remembered for. However, the statistics show that the State's economy has not performed that well over the past 10 years when you compare it to national economic growth. Since Labor took office the State has recorded an average annual economic growth of 3.1 per cent, lagging behind the national growth rate of 4 per cent over the same period. This has meant that Tasmania's contribution to Australia's gross domestic product, which in 1992 was 2.2 per cent, has steadily declined to a low 1.8 per cent in 2006. If the State Labor Government since 1998 could have maintained its share of economic production with that of national production then the State's gross product would be more than $1 billion, or 6 per cent, higher than it currently stands. Just imagine where we would be, how strong the Tasmanian economy would be, if this State Government could have been able to attain economic growth equal to that recorded nationally.
 
Every Tasmanian deserves to benefit from economic growth, remembering that, according to this Government, Tasmanians have never had it so good. What about the 20 000 Tasmanian households that are currently in housing stress? What about those living within the boundaries of the one-third of councils that are under boil-water alerts - another failed commitment from a previous state of the State address. What about those who require hospital services but face record waiting lists? Have they never had it any better?
 
To create a strong economy the State has to possess a strong and confident business sector. While nationally business confidence is at an all-time high, this is not so in Tasmania. While we welcome the positive aspects of the Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry's survey of business expectations for the December quarter of 2007, released yesterday, and which does point to improved business confidence, we still lag behind the national average. This follows the Sensis Business Index of August 2007, which highlighted that business support for the State Government has decreased by 53 per cent over the past three years, the second lowest level of support for any government in the country.
 
It is welcome that businesses now foresee a stable, economic future for Tasmania in the short to medium term, but the report also highlights a number of serious issues of concern to Tasmanian businesses that must be heard and must be acted on. Skilled labour remains the number one concern for Tasmanian businesses. The State Government's Competition Index recently highlighted that Tasmania ranks last in the nation for qualified labour and the provision of training courses. The State Government has been told year in and year out by business that skills are the number one constraint on business growth but the State Government continually fails to address this.
 
The imminent increase in the cost of energy by 25 per cent over the next three years is also concerning for business and highlights the gross ineptitude of this State Government in managing the economy. There are many other ongoing challenges that face the Tasmanian business community and that must not be ignored, including demographic change, the historical under-investment in infrastructure, our lagging productivity rate, the continuing exodus of our skilled youth and young people, and of course a record high Australian dollar.
 
I mentioned our lagging productivity. This is one of the key areas needing attention from this State Government. Tasmania has the worst productivity rate in the nation, 15 per cent below the national average. The economic measure of productivity is the economic dollar value-added per hour's work. This is measured by dividing an economy's real gross product by the aggregate hours worked in the economy. This has led the State Government to admit that there has been a long-term and pronounced decline in Tasmania's productivity performance relative to Australia as a whole, which has led to real income and living standards in Tasmania being on average significantly lower than the national average.
 
Given that GSP is calculated from either the State aggregate incomes or aggregate expenditure, there is a direct link between productivity, wages and living standards, as I mentioned in the beginning of my contribution. This long-term and pronounced decline in Tasmania's productivity performance is not good enough. Productivity is primarily dependent upon the capital employed, the infrastructure and the employees, and the effectiveness of these inputs being employed.
 
Productivity is also dependent upon other factors that include systems and market structure, innovation, which is a key plank of our strategies, motivation and technological improvements, amongst other things. A significant proportion of Tasmania's lower productivity may be better understood in the context of the sectors that dominate Tasmania's economy. These factors depend significantly upon the sector the person works in, and the make-up of industry sectors that comprise an aggregate economy.
 
The determination of the relative productivity of each of those sectors and how it compares nationally and internationally will provide information as to which sectors the Government should be encouraging to establish a competitive advantage, and raise the State's overall productivity and thus overall living standards. The Government to date has not indicated that it will do such an analysis.
 
Mr Deputy Speaker, investment in infrastructure from both the public and private sectors will increase the State's capacity for economic growth. That is why this State Government is placing its future economic prosperity at risk when in the 2006 calendar year Tasmania recorded a 25 per cent decrease in total private capital expenditure, while the total private capital expenditure increased 14.5 per cent nationally, and when the State Government is expecting to decrease its investment in infrastructure in the 2007-08 financial year by $10 million or 4.4 per cent. The State Government is currently spending less on infrastructure per capita than all other States, which are therefore expanding their economic capacity faster than Tasmania can do.
 
The strong correlation between infrastructure investment, productivity and economic growth is undeniable. Also undeniable is that the state of Tasmania's infrastructure is appalling, as many have highlighted on this side of the House. Its own water and sewerage task force has recognised Tasmania has the worst water and sewerage infrastructure in Australia. The Department of Infrastructure has advised its minister, Mr Cox, who is in the Chamber, that there is a structural underfunding of road maintenance. The Planning Institute of Australia has highlighted the lack of a long-term growth plan for the Hobart area, and the need for a long-term strategic plan for the State. In 2005 a report produced by the Tasmanian Division of Engineers Australia gave the State a D rating, the worst offered for its provision of infrastructure.
 
Furthermore, they are planning to decrease their investment in infrastructure by around $20 million in 2008-09, and by nearly $100 million over that period. This Government's incompetence is placing the profitability of the State's industries and businesses at risk as other governments continue to provide their businesses with a competitive advantage, spending record amounts on infrastructure.
 
People - our labour work force - are the most important asset of any business. As a small business operator, I know that all too well. Accessibility of skilled labour is the biggest concern of many Tasmanian businesses. This has been highlighted by many reports and surveys over a number of years now. It is the biggest concern for stakeholders within the business and commerce sector and rightly so, with demographic change and the continued exodus of young, skilled labour from the State. With fewer people participating in the State's labour market, it is imperative they are used optimally so the maximum benefit of their services can be attained.
 
For the long-term viability of the State this has to be achieved by providing Tasmanians with the best education outcome possible, not the worst, as indicated by many statistics on literacy and numeracy rates contained within Tasmania's education system.
 
Mr Deputy Speaker, the State Government's own Competition Index highlights that Tasmania was rated last for qualified labour and for accessibility for training courses. Tasmania has the worst retention rate in the nation. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, Tasmania's current retention rate is 61.5 per cent compared to the national average of 75 per cent.
 
In my capacity as shadow minister for community development and economic development, I would like to take this opportunity to talk about housing affordability, which is one of the biggest issues facing this State and the nation. I have to say how much I appreciated the briefings offered yesterday by those within the community sector and welfare sector, including Centacare Tasmania and other stakeholders. I found it enlightening and I appreciated their time. Housing affordability is one of the biggest issues that Tasmania currently faces. But while the Premier continues to peddle the line that Tasmanians have never had it better, 20 000 Tasmanian households are in housing stress, spending 30 per cent or more, deemed an unsustainable level, on their accommodation needs.
 
Today housing is less affordable than ever before. The housing affordability crisis is nothing new. It has been building for some time and for a number of years many stakeholders have been calling for action. The announcement of a housing summit for November 2007 is a case of far too little, far too late. If we had had a housing summit announced in 2003, we may well now be in a position to ease the enormous burden and stress affecting many people. Talkfests never deliver; it is the actions following the talkfests that deliver for the Tasmanian community. After many years of receiving a huge amount of feedback from the community about housing affordability and housing stress, I would have thought the State Government would have acted effectively before now.
 
Tasmania, along with the rest of Australia, is facing a housing crisis, leaving many fearing that they will not be able to attain the great Australian dream of owning one's own property. Tasmanian families need an income of nearly double that of the average in order to keep up with the mortgage repayments on an average loan for the median-priced home - calculations made by using the source from the Real Estate Institute of Australia and ABS figures. These ABS figures once again point to the fact there are now 20 000 Tasmanian households in either mortgage or rental stress and the problem is more widespread than previously thought, hitting all socioeconomic groups across the State. From such a statistic one can see the structural flaws in the current state of the housing market. Spending such a large proportion of income on accommodation reduces people's disposable income for other necessities and luxury goods and services, thus reducing their living standard. This can dampen the economic futures of younger Australians, depriving them of income- and wealth-creating avenues. The increase in demand and the price of rental housing leads to the reduction of the ability of Tasmanians to save and purchase their own homes, thus placing continued pressure on the demand and price of public and private housing.
 
Policies to address such a crisis are to be directed to assist those affected by the current barriers to affordable housing and not allow the assistance to be passed straight into the pockets or profits of other parties. As Saul Eslake recently commented, anything which puts additional cash in the hands of buyers results merely in more expensive houses. Instead, policy needs to focus on increasing the supply of housing, particularly low-cost housing, and reducing the time taken to bring land and housing to markets.
 
What are other States doing at present? The Queensland Government recently announced the creation of a new body to accelerate the release of surplus land, with five initial development sites nominated by the Government covering more than 700 hectares of land to deliver housing for more than 20 000 Queenslanders. The South Australian Government has implemented an affordable housing strategy which includes a target for new developments to contain 15 per cent affordable housing and a housing affordability summit to develop new strategies. The Western Australian Government recently announced that first home buyers would have exclusive access to new home sites at a new residential estate and has also recently launched a shared-equity scheme involving the Western Australian Housing Department. The Victorian Labor Government extended its State-based first home bonus - the $7 000 first home buyers grant has been increased by $3 000 for established homes and by $5 000 where the property is a new home.
 
There are many aspects that this Government needs to focus on with respect to the housing affordability crisis and the many economic indicators and sections of the Tasmanian economy, which I believe they have failed to do. I firmly believe that they have rested on the laurels of a strong national economy delivered by 10 years of the Howard Liberal Government and of course the resources boom overseas, most notably in China. There are many areas of structural reform that the Tasmanian Government needs to address.
 
The State Opposition has existing policies of which the Government can certainly take heed. We have called for a blueprint for Tasmania's economy, including a comprehensive review of tax reform, which is much needed to ensure that we maintain or increase our competitiveness with other States so we can encourage people to invest in Tasmania, keep our young people here and bring more people to Tasmania, thus increasing our population. A detailed analysis of government business performance is needed, and developing a Tasmanian future fund to better provide for the challenges ahead is another welcome initiative by many commentators, which the Leader of the Opposition has announced previously.
 
We have committed to build a network of strategic water infrastructure and to deliver water to farmers across the State, including much-needed rural towns and communities. This is one area that the State Government has continued to fail upon. We welcome the initiative and intervention of the Howard Government to address some of our water infrastructure needs, but it should not have taken an intervention from the Federal Government because the State Water Development Plan, which had many positive initiatives, was released some five or six years ago and the State Government has done absolutely nothing.
 
The State Opposition also intends making Tasmania a truly world-class centre of educational excellence by pursuing high-end industries, increasing skilled migration and arresting the exodus of young people from our State. These are the things that the business community have been calling for for many years now.
 
Mr Deputy Speaker, there are many areas the State Government needs to address. The Premier's state of the State address yesterday failed to deliver across a range of much-needed areas in the State, from the social welfare sector to the business and industry sector, and it is clear that Tasmanians are not sharing all the rewards. There are many who still feel isolated and vulnerable within a rapidly changing world. There is clear evidence from the State Government and the Premier's state of the State address yesterday, and their actions and inaction since they were re-elected in March 2006, that this Government has lost its heart, its compassion and has clearly lost its direction.

[4.04 p.m.]
Mr ROCKLIFF (Braddon - Deputy Leader of the Opposition) - Madam Deputy Speaker, my contribution will be centred on my role as shadow minister for economic development and resources but also include my responsibilities as shadow minister for community development.

My views on the construction of an economically, socially and environmentally sound pulp mill are well known. I have placed on record many times inside and outside this House my support for the value-adding opportunity and large investment that a pulp mill will provide for Tasmania. Value-adding to our resources and produce in Tasmania is essential if we are to grow our economy and sustain and improve our social services. Whether the value-adding takes the form of potatoes into potato chips, milk into Tasmanian premium-quality cheese, or timber into woodchips and then into pulp, downstream-processing of our resources and our produce is vital if we are to build a broad-based economy and provide jobs for our community.

In my inaugural speech to Parliament five years ago I referred to that, and I quote:
'I am a passionate Tasmanian. I love living here; I love working here and one day I would love to raise a family here. I can foresee, as have many others who have come before me, a vibrant Tasmania, a Tasmania that is open for business, where we have limited impediments for investment, where the unemployment rate is at least on par with the rest of the nation, a Tasmania that values and encourages its youth and its entrepreneurs but also welcomes diversity of culture and ideas, and where our communities have the confidence to willingly embrace change. I foresee a State that can, as a result of the right economic policies, afford the best health and education systems that Tasmanians deserve.'
My support for this motion is totally consistent with the values I expressed five years ago and much of what I mentioned then is relevant to the debate today.

I also referred in my inaugural speech to our forest industry. I stated:
'I wholeheartedly support the jobs of timber workers in Tasmania. They are hard-working people, like many others in this State. Just as all industry sectors need to be continually changing practices and looking at new approaches, so too does our forest industry.'

Our forest industry has come a long way since that speech. The Community Forest Agreement signed since that time has seen the area of forest reserved in Tasmania increased to nearly 1.5 million hectares, or from 40 per cent of total public forest to 47 per cent of Tasmania's public forest reserved.
 
The United Nations benchmark for the percentage of land mass for forests in reserves is 10 per cent. We have 47 per cent of our native forests in reserves and protected forever, including 80 per cent of all old-growth forests. We now have 97 per cent of high-quality wilderness reserved, as opposed to 95 per cent five years ago. We have ceased the use of 1080 poison on public lands for control of native browsing animals and are currently investing considerably in research and trials and adoption of alternatives to the use of 1080. We are rigorously testing our waterways around Tasmania for any chemical contamination that may have been caused by our forest and agricultural industries. We have set targets for the reduction of old-growth harvesting under the Community Forest Agreement and we have ceased the conversion, ahead of time, of native forest into plantation.

Since my short time in Parliament the forest industry and the management of our forests has improved greatly, an improvement that unfortunately some refuse to acknowledge and will never acknowledge because it does not suit their political interests. As shadow minister for resources, I am unashamedly a strong supporter of the forest industry in Tasmania. There is little doubt that the future of Tasmania's forest industry lies in value-adding our timber and forest resources.

The pulp mill development at Bell Bay and the development of veneer mills are examples of the type of industry development initiatives that will stimulate investment and drive confidence for businesses to invest in Tasmania. I will continue to support forest industry development and the creation of investment opportunities that will secure the employment of many forest workers in this State. The forest industry in Tasmania contributes about $1 billion each year to the Tasmanian economy. In Tasmania, wood and paper-product manufacturing is the second-largest employment group, representing 22 per cent of the manufacturing industry sector. May I also say that they are a highly equipped and trained work force.

Madam Deputy Speaker, employment via the forest industry is generated in many areas: in the forests themselves, through road construction, harvesting and transporting trees, regenerating harvested areas and establishing new forests, and in forest management, research and development, the preparation of forest practices plans for harvesting and forest and plantation growth information and in manufacturing timber and timber products.

Many of the 10 000 people directly employed in Tasmania's forests and forest product sectors live and work in rural areas and form an integral part of the lifeblood of our smaller, regional communities. Many of them make up my electorate of Braddon. We need to maintain and further develop the forestry sector and support the logical advancement in the forest industry to support these communities while demanding best practice and development that is environmentally, socially and economically sound.

One of the key challenges faced by the forest industry is the need to balance world demand for our forestry and timber products with the need to sustain profitable businesses in Tasmania. If we have the opportunity to value-add to our resource in Tasmania we should be vigorously pursuing it. Australia currently has a balance of trade deficit in the timber and timber products industry of approximately $2 billion; we import $4 billion worth of timber and timber products and export $2 billion worth. This is an unacceptable trade deficit, but one way of addressing this is to value-add through an investment such as the pulp mill. When one compares the price of a tonne of woodchips and a tonne of pulp, it is not difficult to work out that the Bell Bay pulp mill has the potential to reduce Australia's balance of payments in terms of timber and timber products by some $400-450 million each year, up 20 to 25 per cent. This can only be good for Tasmania and good for Australia. It is farcical that at the time same we are exporting our woodchip resource, we are importing pulp. It simply does not make sense and we have the opportunity to correct this imbalance.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I devoted a large proportion of my contribution today to explaining the value of our forest industry in Tasmania because I firmly believe that debate on the pulp mill for some is as much, if not more, about the forest industry and the desire of many to denigrate it, as it is about the pulp mill itself. Tasmania's forest industry is one of the few industries in this State that is attracting manufacturing investment back to Tasmania, with new, major investment in our sawmill sector and the development of two rotary-peel veneer mills. If the pulp mill is approved it will add value to our manufacturing capacity and will also send a message to interstate and overseas investors that we are open for business, a message we failed to send 20 years ago. When the Wesley Vale pulp mill fell over we did send a very bad message to investors interstate and overseas. Investors lost confidence in Tasmania and many Tasmanians lost confidence in themselves.

Throughout this debate there have been many myths perpetuated which have reinforced the negative perceptions of the forest industry. People have written to me expressing grave concerns that our ancient forests will be destroyed if the mill proceeds, when in actual fact, within five years of the pulp being in operation, 80 per cent of the wood supply will come from plantation timber and 20 per cent from regrowth native forests, of which I understand will soon be up around the age of 40 years.  No old-growth timber will be used in this pulp mill.

Madam Deputy Speaker, some in the community fear that we will be overrun with plantations and that all our prime agricultural land will be in trees to feed a pulp mill. This is perpetuated in recent advertisements we have seen. This is not so. According to the report about private property plantations in the Tasmanian landscape released a few months ago, over the five years from 2002 to 2006 there were 1 357 hectares of plantations established on land mapped as being class 1 to 3 land - prime agricultural land. This represents only 2.2 per cent of all plantations established during that period and covers only 1.3 per cent of the total area of land mapped as class 1 to 3 prime agricultural land. Based on those figures, trees are hardly taking over. Nonetheless, they still offer enterprising alternatives for farmers and land-holders.

Tasmania needs its forest industry and without the development of a pulp mill. I am genuinely concerned about its long-term future.

Value-adding of our forest resources is an ongoing feature of Tasmania's forest industry. I fear that if the pulp mill does not proceed it will be a massive missed opportunity and a major setback for our forest and wood-processing industries and the many workers employed in those industries. The future of the export woodchipping industry will face increasing competition from other countries and Tasmania's traditional customers will have alternative suppliers, therefore the long-term future for export woodchipping in Tasmania is less than ideal. It is of note that the Tasmanian woodchip exports to Japan have declined by some 20 per cent over the last four years. This situation has not been helped by the anti-Tasmanian actions of conservation groups, including the Tasmanian Greens, who seem hell-bent on damaging Tasmania's good name in the international marketplace to serve their own political interests, but sadly also to undermine the livelihoods of forest workers, their families and communities.

From the information I have read, there is increasing demand for pulp, not woodchips, in the international marketplace, so the value-adding of woodchips into pulp is vital if we are to sustain Tasmania's forest industry into the future.
There are considerable economic benefits associated with the single largest private investment in Tasmania, an investment of more than $1.5 billion by a Tasmanian company. The pulp mill will add $6.7 billion to the Tasmanian economy with a gross State product of 2.5 per cent, more than half the rate our economy is presently growing.

Construction of the mill will create around 6 000-8 000 direct and indirect jobs and 1 600 direct and indirect jobs during the mill's operation.

Should the pulp mill gain the approval of this Parliament, the State Government is also set to benefit financially over the construction and operation of the project. The ITS Global report indicates that the State Government will be collecting an additional $48 million a year in tax revenue over and above what they would have if the pulp mill did not proceed by the year 2030. This report, while highlighting a number of social and economic benefits that will inherently stem from the approval of the project, also raises a number of potentially negative impacts that will have to be addressed by this Government. The ITS Global report points to a number of management initiatives that the State Government and the proponent, Gunns, can implement to mitigate the negative impacts and thus maximise the total benefits of the project to Tasmania. For the State Government to gain the support of the whole community, it must implement these initiatives from the additional resources it will obtain from the project over and above the normal improvements to the region.

The State Government must ensure that skills development in the State reflects the future demands the proposed pulp mill will place on the State's labour force. The pulp mill will have a huge effect on the State's labour force over its construction and operational phase, as evidenced by the figures I cited earlier. While this project will potentially provide many benefits to those it directly and indirectly employs, it is imperative that the State Government can deal with the management issues and challenges it will inherently create for the business community. The State is already facing a skills shortage in many areas, which will be only further compounded by the onset of demographic change, especially in the trades and through the reduction of the potential supply of employees to these industries. Additionally, as demand for these trades increase, there will be an increase in inflationary pressures on wages. The proponent, Gunns, has planned to draw much of its work force from those who are unemployed, providing them with the necessary skills, which in theory is the most desirable result as it will have the least impact on existing business operations.

The ITS Global report highlights that the State Government must, and I quote:
'Provide the proponent and local businesses with the services to ensure they obtain a necessary level and type of employment, ensure that other Tasmanian businesses, industries and regions are not adversely affected by the large amount of labour this project will consume, and provide additional assistance to education and training providers, including TAFE, to meet the increase in volume, nature and timing of skilled labour required.'

With any large increase in the number of people living in a community inherently there will be impacts on its social structure. The State Government and the proponent must ensure that initiatives are put in place to allow for the full and smooth integration of those working in or on the pulp mill and the general community. With the increase in population there will be a subsequent increase in demand for housing over the short term of construction and over the longer-term operational phase of the project. This increase in demand must be offset by an increase in supply of housing and other ancillary services to ensure that local residents do not get priced out of their homes and communities.

There is also no doubt that this project will impact on the State's transport system. There must be an increase in investment in transport infrastructure to ensure that the costs of transport for business are minimised, the State's productivity is maximised, whilst at the same time improving the standard of living for all Tasmanians by reducing accidents and pollution. An increase in the amount expended on road and rail maintenance to maintain the upkeep of the State's transport system will be essential.

The State Government must also commit to a new strategy for boosting the Tasmanian brand in light of the damage being done by perception of the proposed  pulp mill. Yesterday in Parliament the Premier did concede that more work needed to be done in this area, but he did not outline any action he intends to take. Further, the Premier must commit to a whole-of-government approach to addressing any negative perceptions about Tasmania's brand created by this investment. We do have a reputation for producing clean, green and quality products. Unfortunately, some of the negative publicity generated recently risks our brand reputation.

As is experienced across the world, from Scandinavia to New Zealand, heavy industry such as pulp and paper, and tourism, food and wine and recreational activity based on utilising our natural resources, can coexist and can add value to strong, clean, green, capable and quality brand awareness. Nevertheless a whole-of-government approach and strategy is needed to set the record straight and address any negative impact that has been caused through opposition to the pulp mill development and to reinforce our strong environmental and quality-producing credentials in the marketplace. There is no doubt that, as a starting point, the State Government needs to demonstrate a greater level of commitment to Brand Tasmania, as the State Opposition has been calling for over many years.

Implementation of the initiatives I have just mentioned - and there are many more needed which other members, I am sure, will mention - is only the beginning of the social responsibility of the State Government and the proponent. The benefit the community will receive from the pulp mill will depend on how successful the Government is at managing all the varying consequences of this major development. There will be a need for continuing coordination between and consultation with the relevant government agencies, the proponent and community groups in terms of identifying alternative social issues surrounding this project. The establishment of a community-liaison committee will assist in this process.

The ITS Global report stated:
'Offor Sharp & Associates recommend the development of a community consultation plan, a complaints handling and disputes resolution process and a community liaison committee. Effective communication with local government, local service providers and affected community members is proposed. These measures are important for addressing community concerns about the social impacts of the construction and operational phase.'
The State Government must act with haste on this recommendation.

At this point I wish to place on record my thanks to departmental staff across many agencies for their briefings over the past week. They were as comprehensive as they were informative. I have confidence that we have the right regulations and permit conditions in place to ensure that the pulp mill will comply with all the vigorous environmental standards. This of course will need to be further strengthened by a strong, independent and well-resourced environmental protection authority which the Opposition has been advocating. It is regrettable that 16-18 months after the State election the State Government does not have an environmental protection authority already in place.

Despite my long-held views on the development of a pulp mill for Tasmania, I have not ignored the views of people who have taken the time to write to me or call my office and express their views and concerns on the Bell Bay pulp mill. There is no doubt that the process has caused considerable angst in the community. I recognise that the second assessment process put in place by the State Government was not ideal and, as a result, many Tasmanians lost confidence in the actual process. However, the State Opposition did support it on the basis of our fundamental principle that a development of such magnitude at least deserved to be assessed against the original RPDC guidelines, and assessed it was.

The Tasmanian State Opposition have spent considerable time and effort in rigorously assessing the pulp mill permits and meeting our other State responsibilities concerning the project. Indeed we have undertaken an extensive consultation process with a wide range of community stakeholders to ensure that we raise all issues of concern directly related to the construction and operation of the proposed mill.

I will now turn briefly to the responsibility of the Commonwealth. A small but important number of environmental issues associated with the proposed mill come under Commonwealth jurisdiction. That jurisdiction arises under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, and it refers to the impact on matters of national environmental significance, which are listed - threatened species, migratory species and the Commonwealth marine area. I am confident my Federal colleagues will undertake due diligence in considering the environmental implications of this project on strong scientific grounds. I implore them not to be swayed by narrow, self-serving political interests based on emotion and not on facts. My message to them, once the consultation period is finished, is to do your job thoroughly but not delay the process unduly for political purposes. Make a decision so we can all get on and move forward.

I do not subscribe to the view, expressed by many people who have written to me, that the process by which we are approving the pulp mill is undemocratic. Yes, the process could have been handled much better, but it is not undemocratic. We are debating this motion in Parliament today. We have been elected to do a job to the best of our ability, and to make a considered judgment on behalf of those who have elected us into this House, and our community.

This is a role that I have not and will not ever take lightly or for granted. We live in a democracy, and this motion is before the Tasmanian Parliament. I will exercise my right to vote in this Parliament on this motion and in doing so make a judgment of what I believe is in the best interests of my electorate and of the people of Tasmania, just as the people of my electorate will exercise their judgment on me at the next election. If my electorate does not like the way I vote on this motion, then they have every right not to vote for me at the next election. That is democracy.

In voting on this motion, I will in fact be thinking of future generations of Tasmanians and the opportunities they can have in terms of economic prosperity, social responsibility and comprehensive environmental stewardship. I have much pleasure in supporting this motion.

[11.24 a.m.]

Mr ROCKLIFF (Braddon - Deputy Leader of the Opposition) - I firstly endorse the comments made by our shadow spokesperson, Peter Gutwein, with respect to those matters and commend him for bringing on such an important matter to debate today.

The Opposition and many in the Tasmanian community believe that the latest road safety strategy is big on rhetoric but the real test will be whether it reduces the number of crashes and tragic fatalities that we have recently been experiencing in the State.

My fear is that the Government has no sense of urgency, because there is no funding available for the implementation of the road safety strategy until the end of 2007. The minister revealed in Budget Estimates that this year's $4.3 million allocation for the strategy will not be available until December. Effectively, it is a road safety strategy that is on hold for six months.

Tragically, people are dying on our roads. The road toll is not decreasing and, as was pointed out by our shadow spokesperson, we are one of the few States in this position. This paints a very worrying picture of the Government's capacity to deal with this tragic issue.

If the Government adopted the State Opposition's road safety strategy we would not have a new levy imposed on Tasmanians. All speed camera revenue could be reinvested in road safety. We could have a new road safety authority. We could have compulsory driver education in all schools; we could have driver training for all Tasmanian year 9 and 10 students, and we would have signed up for the Australian Government's P-plate driver education program. We could have compulsory driver education for drivers who lose their licence. We could have incentives for learner drivers to undertake professional driver training.

The Government has continued to rule out advanced or defensive driver training as part of its road safety strategy. This omission has been criticised by many in the community, including Mr Faludi of Devonport's driving academy. Mr Faludi has told the Advocate that alcohol engine interlocks and flexible crash barriers are one thing, but they were not necessarily any more important than quality driver training. He said that barriers will not stop a young driver from getting into a skid, it would only stop the car after this has happened. He does not agree with the minister's often-repeated comments that advanced driving only gives young drivers a false sense of security.

This is nonsense. On the mainland, a number of States have recognised the benefits of professional driver training and that it is not possible to become a less competent driver by undertaking extra training.

Earlier this year Mr John Bowe offered to work with the Government to develop a program to improve young driver skills. The minister's response to any driver training for young people is that it 'teaches them to be full of bravado and it could lead to tears before bedtime'. Instead, he has opted for longer learning hours, when young Tasmanians are telling the minister that because of the high cost of this, log books are being faked or, worse, young people are taking to the road without obtaining their licence.

I wrote to the minister a couple of months ago because I have had a number of constituents contact my office recently about the high accident rate of young drivers. Parents want to do something positive, Minister, to ensure our young drivers are not killed on our roads. One of those constituents has a 19-year-old daughter who had two serious car accidents within five months. She was not seriously hurt, thankfully, but in both accidents the car was a complete write-off. The parents arranged for their daughter to attend a skilled driving course at Rokeby and they were amazed at how much she learned during that course. The parents believe it should be compulsory for every learner driver to attend driver training and defensive driver training courses. Those parents have also written to the minister on this very matter. The response was:

'Research shows that defensive driver courses may contribute to over-confidence and increased risk-taking behaviour for some young drivers.'

Mr Deputy Speaker, this year's disastrously high road toll demands action. The Government were negligent in its failure to put forward any significant road safety policies at the last State election, unlike the State Opposition that had a comprehensive plan to address the road safety strategy. A very good plan it was.

Mr Cox - We'll have to quote from it.

Mr ROCKLIFF - It will take you more than six minutes to quote it because it is a comprehensive document, Minister.
You have been in government now for almost ten years. You have released a road safety strategy without a comprehensive funding commitment in the Budget, and with the road safety funding commitment only to start in six months' time after a serious spate of road accidents involving people being continually hurt and killed on our roads. It demands far more action than a road safety strategy that is big on rhetoric but does little to address critical issues and to save young people's lives on our roads.

Time expired.

[11.31 a.m.]

[3.03 p.m.]

Mr ROCKLIFF (Braddon - Deputy Leader of the Opposition) - Mr Deputy Speaker, this is a budget that most definitely fails the future test. It fails the test of strategic vision for Tasmania, it fails the test of economic sustainability and, by all accounts, it fails the test of decency and fairness for our most vulnerable Tasmanians.

This Budget fails the vision test because absent is an outline as to how exactly the State will meet its future financial tests. These include the funding of the State's health reforms, including the new Royal Hobart Hospital; the funding of vital infrastructure, such as that of the State's failing water and sewerage infrastructure; and how the State plans to meet the constraints of an ageing population, demographic change and the exodus of young people from our State.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the Budget fails the test of economic sustainability because this Government is in an operating and fiscal deficit and is the only State Budget brought down this year that is in deficit. It is liquidating assets and ripping dividends out of GBEs to essentially fund long-overdue and neglected infrastructure and recurrent expenditure. This Budget relies on a mishmash of inconsistent measures, attempting to claim that what is clearly unsustainable is sustainable, while hoping that the Federal Government's good economic management and the global economic sunshine will continue.

This Budget certainly fails the test of decency and fairness for hard-working Tasmanians, low-income earners and the most vulnerable Tasmanians, because adequate funding for mental health and disability services was a crushing omission from this State Budget. There is also no funding for affordable housing. What we have instead is extra taxes in an ambulance levy and the road safety levy and a cut in the fuel subsidy that will increase the price of fuel to those who can least afford it. As I said in the MPI debate this morning, the Labor members should hang their heads in shame, because this is most certainly not a battler's budget.

Mr Deputy Speaker, this Budget puts in no doubt the warped priorities of this Government. There is an appalling level of disability funding and an unacceptable level of youth homelessness, while the budget papers reveal the cost of running the Premier's Office for salaries and wages for this financial year blows out to just under $3 million, an increase of 15.7 per cent over the previous financial year.

Tasmania has enjoyed relatively good economic times recently; we are in the midst of a national and global economic boom. Growth has surged in the resource, banking and IT sectors; sectors that the State has failed to fully utilise and participate in over the past 10 years. The State Government's facilitation of major projects such as natural gas, water development and the pulp mill have been an embarrassment to Tasmania. Now Tasmanians are questioning where all the money has gone. What have we really achieved and do we have a sustainable, economic foundation to position our State well for the inevitable softening of an international and national economy?

The Premier and his ministers often like to reflect on the 1990s and the difficult economic times experienced during that decade. Prior to Labor's taking office nearly 10 years ago the State had recorded an average annual economic growth of 3.1 per cent. National growth of 4 per cent has been achieved over the same period. As a result, Tasmania's contribution to Australia's gross domestic product has steadily declined, from 2.2 per cent in 1992 to a low of 1.8 per cent in 2006.

Mr Michael Hodgman - Woeful!

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER - Order.

Mr ROCKLIFF - If Tasmania were able to maintain its 1992 level of contribution to national production, today the State's gross State product would be more than $3.7 billion or 22 per cent higher than in fact it currently stands. If the State Labor Government had been able to maintain its share of economic production to that of national production since 1998 the Tasmania's gross State product would be more than $1 billion or 6 per cent higher than it currently stands.
It is not enough that this Budget is poorly constructed and a mishmash of old and new taxes and levies and unsustainable spending, but how can the Tasmanian community have confidence in any of the Treasurer's targets?

Mr Michael Hodgman - They cannot.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER - Order.

Mr ROCKLIFF - Last year's Budget estimated that Tasmania would record economic growth over the 2006-07 financial year of 3.5 per cent and during that time create 6 000 new jobs. The estimate, as we all know now, was described as optimistic by many economic commentators. These estimates were revised down in the mid-year budget review and again in this budget, where it is expected that Tasmania will record a 2.5 per cent economic growth and 1 000 new jobs over the 2006-07 financial year, well short of the Treasurer's targets of 12 months ago.

This decrease was largely due to a fall in private expenditure. Over the 2006 calendar year Tasmania recorded a 25 per cent decrease in total private expenditure, while total private capital expenditure increased by 14.5 per cent nationally. Once again, the Treasurer has estimated economic growth in this Budget of 3.5 per cent and once again he has estimated 6 000 new jobs over the 2007-08 financial year. However, these estimates are based on facilitation of new private investment in the State, most notable, the probable start, hopefully, in the construction of the Bell Bay pulp mill. Without this project, however, the Budget estimates the economic growth to be just 3 per cent.

Mr McKim - That is using the Betfair methodology I think you will find.

Mr ROCKLIFF - I will come to Betfair in a minute, Mr McKim.
The Tasmanian economy has recorded an economic decline of 1.1 per cent in the year to March 2007. At the same time national economic growth remains as strong as ever under good, strong leadership of the Howard Federal Government. The release last week of State Final Demand figures by the Australian Bureau of Statistics revealed that the State is, in fact, in economic decline. While Tasmania recorded an improvement of 0.3 per cent in its aggregate economic position over the March quarter for the year from March 2006, the State has been in economic decline. The bottom line is, as far as the State Final Demand - largely an indicator of consumer spending and private and public investment - is concerned, Tasmania has experienced zero economic growth in the 2006-07 financial year.

This highlights the fact that the State Government must take its blinkers off when presented with such economic data because the State Government and the Treasurer have failed to learn from their mistakes which will be, ultimately, to the detriment of the Tasmanian business community and the State's future economic development.

Given the Treasurer's lack of economic vision, his overly optimistic estimates will only serve to highlight his failures throughout the year ahead. There is no funding within this Budget to remedy the fact that Tasmania has the worst  participation rate , productivity rate and the second worst retention rate in the nation. There is no payroll tax relief to foster business growth, which is a key driver of economic growth, at a time when the Government is expecting to receive $226 million from this particular tax this financial year.

Of further note is the phasing out of the information technology rebate over the next four years. This rebate provided the IT industry in Tasmania with a competitive advantage. The potential impact of this decision on the IT sector is a loss of between 50 and 200 jobs interstate and overseas over the next three years as estimated by Tas IT. This is just another example of the State Government failing to see the potential benefits of the IT industry for Tasmania in the twenty-first century and its potential benefits to Tasmania's future economic prosperity.

Mr Deputy Speaker, not only is this Budget a failure because of the introduction of regressive taxes and cost increases to Tasmanian families but also because it fails to ensure the future growth of Tasmanian businesses and productivity in order to address Tasmania's structural deficit. This Budget received muffled applause from the Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry but this assessment to me was overly generous. In looking at the invitation to the TCCI breakfast last Friday, I see that it lists five key budget expectations - a commitment to ongoing business tax reform that will improve Tasmania's business tax competitiveness; an increase in public sector infrastructures funding; monitor and seek out efficiencies in government departments' program delivery; an increase the allocation of vocational education training resources for skilling existing workers; addressing the difficulties in attracting people to skills shortage areas. This Budget fails to deliver on every one of these key points - every single one of them.

Mr Deputy Speaker, business competitiveness is being undermined by the rising payroll tax take. The removal of payroll tax assistance, combined with bracket creep, results in an increase in the payroll tax take of 6.7 per cent this financial year. We have the Commonwealth Government working hard for industrial relations reform to reduce the impediments to small business, which is simply being currently undermined by this State Government. Payroll tax, as we all know, is an inefficient tax, and the Treasurer, if he were serious about addressing reform, would be engaging in community debate in consultation with business on how this tax could be reduced, not increased by stealth. I am very pleased to see the Leader of the Opposition's announcement today about consultation with the business groups, the stakeholders in our community, on an overhaul of Tasmania's uncompetitive taxation regime.

Tasmania has the lowest labour force productivity grade in Australia, standing at 85 per cent of the national average. This is of course down to many factors, including Tasmania possessing the second lowest retention rates in the country, and the current mix of private industries within the State, which includes the lack of significant financial and IT sectors. The State Government has yet to identify a strategy to seriously address this issue, and by unwinding support for the IT industry, as I mentioned before, it has removed a competitive advantage the sector had while doing business in this State.

Announcements on restructuring the State's post-compulsory sector while allowing TAFE infrastructure funding to fall sharply in 2008-09 also indicates that the Government does not have an immediate plan to address the skills and retention crisis. Everywhere I go, Mr Deputy Speaker, every business that I engage with, every chamber of commerce and industry group that I meet in the course of my shadow ministerial responsibilities, all focus on the issue of the current skills crisis.

Mr Deputy Speaker, transport is critical to business growth, particularly given the distribution of Tasmania's population and the distance from mainland and international markets, as many primary producers and exporters fully realise. The State Government is adding to transport costs with the removal of fuel excise subsidies at a time of record fuel prices, and of course introducing the road safety levy. This so-called initiative will hit the forestry industry and farmers, and those contractors within those respective industries, making us increasingly uncompetitive in relation to interstate and overseas businesses.

From listening to the Treasurer's public comments on this issue of the fuel subsidy, I get the impression that he does not understand how the application of the fuel subsidy actually works. This is not an amount factored into oil company pricing at all; end users, such as the logging contractor, claim the rebate. If you take away the rebate, your fuel price rises automatically at a time when these businesses, particularly those in the forestry sector and contractors in the forest industry are already very stretched.

Mr Deputy Speaker, as I said in my introduction, we have the highest taxing State Government in Tasmania's history. The Treasurer's coffers include a huge $80.4 million in motor taxes and fees after introducing a road safety levy in addition to removing the fuel and diesel subsidies. This will leave motorists, as I said before, paying two cents per litre on top of what already are the highest fuel prices in Australia, hurting the battlers of Tasmania and hurting industry, particularly the resource sector.

Payroll taxes are in excess of $225 million, an increase of $14 million or 6.8 per cent above the 2006-07 figures. Revenues from the fire levy will be $45.8 million, an increase of 4.5 per cent above that anticipated in 2006-07 and an 11 per cent increase from the 2005-06 year after two consecutive increases.

As the Leader of the Opposition mentioned this morning, the State Government is again taking special dividends out of its profitable GBEs, in this instance TOTE and the MAIB. As many know, this greedy practice has done nothing for the stretched and strained balance sheet of Hydro Tasmania. It is simply not sustainable to rip special dividends from government enterprises when the end result undermines the ability of those businesses to trade and invest in an effective manner. Speaking of TOTE, it appears from the budget papers that the Tasmanian Government has drastically overestimated its receipts from Betfair derived through betting exchange revenue.

Mr Michael Hodgman - That's an understatement.

Mr ROCKLIFF - In the 2006-07 Budget the Treasurer estimated that the State Government would receive $12.9 million from Betfair through this tax. However, the figure has been drastically revised down in the 2007-08 Budget -

Mr Michael Hodgman - Has it ever.

Mr ROCKLIFF - and it is now expected to reap only $5.6 million in the 2006-07 period and $6.7 million in the 2007-08 financial year.

Mr Michael Hodgman - Somebody should apologise to the racing industry.

Mr ROCKLIFF - This example further highlights the misguided optimism of a Treasurer whose economic estimates are constantly being revised downwards. For the Treasurer to be forced to revise down a tax projection by 48.1 per cent raises the question how the Treasurer could get it so wrong.

Mr Michael Hodgman - And he is also the Minister for Racing.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER - Order. I would ask the honourable member to cease interjecting. Continually interjecting over the top of your Deputy Leader is unparliamentary and I do not think it is assisting him.

Mr ROCKLIFF - I am the shadow minister for racing - and the member for Denison, Mr Hodgman, is quite right in that the Treasurer is the Minister for Racing - and the Treasurer must explain if this is the reason behind the State Government ripping $12 million in special dividends out of TOTE Tasmania over the next four years.

Since July 1998 the State has recorded an increase in employment of 15 per cent, which compares to 21 per cent nationally. As of March, 11 months into the 2006-07 financial year, Tasmania recorded its lowest-ever unemployment rate of 4.8 per cent. We welcome this result; this is a good result for Tasmania. However, under closer scrutiny of the labour market, as of April this financial year the number of employed people in the north of the State decreased by 1 000, or 2 per cent, and in the State's north-west, which encompasses my electorate of Braddon, and yours, Mr Deputy Speaker, the number of people employed has decreased by 2 000 or 4 per cent. Given that the unemployment rate is the percentage of the population that is unemployed but actively seeking employment and willing to work, the question quite rightly is what has caused the decrease in Tasmania's unemployment rate this financial year? The facts are that the number of people employed this financial year to May has increased by 1 600, whilst 2 800 fewer people are in Tasmania's labour force. Therefore a large factor behind Tasmania's falling unemployment rate is that the State's participation rate has decreased over the financial year from 61.2 per cent to 60.1 per cent. A decrease in participation and unemployment rate is inherent with an ageing population and will subsequently result in a major skills shortage, which of course we are experiencing at present. With a looming workers' shortage we can no longer judge a government only on the rate of unemployment. Instead, we must judge the performance of a government on its ability to match the skills of the workforce with the needs of business and maximising participation rate. With this goal the Government has significant work to achieve.

Tasmania is ageing faster than the rest of the nation. The decrease in participation that the State has recorded this financial year could be due to the cyclical nature of the economy or to the first signs of the onset of the single biggest factor affecting the State's future economic prosperity. At the very least the Government must double its efforts to ensure that Tasmania's private sector has access to the skills training needed to support future enterprises.

I wish to briefly touch on the area of housing affordability. There is no doubt that housing affordability under this State Labor Government has worsened. We know it is a serious impediment to our social and economic growth. The Deposit Power and Real Estate Institute of Australia home loan affordability report released last week highlighted the fact that Tasmanian home buyers need 32.5 per cent of median weekly family income to pay the average home loan. This is the case even though the report highlighted that stable interest rates, under the good economic management of the Federal Government, proved to be good news for home loan affordability in the March quarter. Therefore for the average person to buy a house in Tasmania, they have to go into what is called housing stress, which is defined by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare as a level of housing costs that is not sustainable. What concerns me is that the State Government's unfair and cruel budget has eroded further the purchasing power of Tasmanian households through increasing taxes, forcing them into housing stress and pricing them out of attaining their slice of the great Australian dream. A good start in addressing this problem would be to implement the Leader of Opposition's announcement this morning addressing the issue of compulsory home indemnity insurance. As shadow economic development spokesperson, what I look forward to is engaging stakeholders in the coming months and producing a policy that will address this very important social and economic matter for many Tasmanians.

I want to quickly touch on the issue of water development, which is crucial to the economic prosperity of our rural and regional areas. I note in the Leader of the Opposition's contribution this morning the strong reference to this matter and his interest in the primary industry, agriculture and resource-based industry sector in Tasmania. Quite clearly, the Water Development Plan has been an utter failure in the way the State Government has managed this issue. It was launched in 2001; it had 20 projects on the drawing board and not one of them has come to fruition. We are looking forward to the Meander Dam's completion in the coming months, but that will be only one of more than 20 that has achieved some sort of success. I had a call over lunch from a farmer in my electorate who has recently purchased a farm in Riana. He wishes to construct two on-farm dams and he wishes to increase the dam wall of one dam already on the property. He said to me that the bureaucratic nightmare and stalling in getting his water development up and running was quite simply pathetic. He is a dairy farmer, and he said to me, 'if I cannot get water storage on my property I will have no choice but to put that property down to trees'.

I fully respect the right of every landholder to sustainably manage their farm as they see fit, whether it be trees, or crops or dairy. But I strongly emphasise the importance of water development to ensure that we can employ more people through, in this case, the dairy industry, to provide economic growth and economic sustainability and prosperity in regional Tasmania.

But clearly, unless the Minister for Primary Industries and Water addresses this crucial issue of streamlining the current bureaucratic nightmare of constructing on-farm dams in Tasmania, it will be to the detriment of the economy in Tasmania. I find it absolutely appalling that, six years after the launch of the Water Development Plan in 2001, Tasmania had to suffer the driest period on record due to the fact that the State Government failed in its attempts, and failed in its leadership to progress water development in this State.

In the few seconds I have left, I commend the Leader of the Opposition's announcements in his budget reply speech. His speech sets out a plan for the future, a future that is currently being squandered by the ever increasingly out of touch and directionless State Labor Government. I look forward to further scrutiny of this unfair, hollow and economically unsustainable Budget next week during the Estimates session.

[3.32 p.m.]

Mr ROCKLIFF (Braddon) - Mr Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to make a contribution to the Pulp Mill Assessment Bill. Firstly, I endorse the comments that the Leader of the Opposition made earlier today. As shadow minister for economic development and resources, I reiterate the State Opposition's support for the development of a pulp mill in Tasmania, a pulp mill that is socially, economically and environmentally sound. We recognise that this bill deals with the assessment process of a significant economic development in this State.

Given the magnitude of this pulp mill investment, we should at least test the proposal against the established guidelines to ascertain whether it is even possible. To not go beyond this point and to lose a private investment of this scale would be simply devastating, as has been articulated by people before me.
 
As the Leader of the Opposition said, this is an investment value of approximately $1.5 billion. If approved, it is estimated the mill would add $6.7 billion to the Tasmanian economy, create 3 400 jobs during the construction phase and 1 600 direct and indirect jobs when it is operating. This is a project of unprecedented magnitude and should it proceed it would considerably stimulate the economy and generate wealth, which will flow throughout Tasmania, including the electorate of Braddon, which I am proud to represent.

As shadow minister for resources I am also a strong supporter of the forestry industry in Tasmania. There is little doubt that the future of Tasmania's forest industry lies in value-adding our timber and forest resources. The proposed pulp mill development at Bell Bay and the development of veneer mills are examples of the types of industry development initiatives that will stimulate investment and the confidence to invest in Tasmania. I will continue to support the cause of forest industry development, value creation and investment opportunities that will secure employment for the many forestry workers in this State.

We want to maintain and further develop the forest industry sector and support technological advancement in the forest industry and we also want, of course, to see best practice that is environmentally, socially and economically sound.

One of the key challenges we face is to balance the world demand for our forestry and timber products with the need to sustain profitable businesses in Tasmania. If we have the opportunity to value-add to our resource in Tasmania we should be vigorously pursuing it. It is ridiculous, as many have said, that at the same time as we are exporting our woodchip resource we are importing pulp. Again, this is why the State Opposition and I support construction of a pulp mill in this State. An investment, as I have said before, of such magnitude deserves to be assessed alongside our stringent environmental guidelines.

The failure to get to that point would send a very bad message to investors interstate and overseas, a message that Tasmania is no longer open for business and a message we simply cannot afford to convey. That same message was sent in the late 1980s when the proposed investment at Wesley Vale failed. I remember it well. Wesley Vale is only a few kilometres down the road from our farm at Sassafras and I recall as a teenager the despair of many in the community at the loss of that significant investment.

At the time it was not expected that the project would fall over and there were families who had already made significant investments in anticipation of that mill who lost their businesses and their livelihoods. The devastating social consequences of that economic loss were also felt and spread throughout the north-west coast and the State. Tasmania was simply not open for business; that was the chink in Tasmania's armour right throughout the 1990s.

Tasmania's quality of life is not only about the environment. The environment is very important, but it is also about economic prosperity and the social benefits that flow from sustainable development and investment. The Parliament of Tasmania will play a pivotal role to ensure that any pulp mill is world class and environmentally sound. The State Opposition, as the Leader of the Opposition has said, takes this process very seriously.

It is important to remember that what we are looking at today is establishing a process to assess the proposed pulp mill development. As the Leader of the Opposition has said, our support for a pulp mill in this State has been based upon its being subject to rigorous assessment and meeting the high standards that protect Tasmania's environmental, social and economic attributes. Where there have been technological advances since those guidelines were established in 2004, that also should be taken into account when assessing the merits of a pulp mill in 2007. That will only, in my mind, serve to strengthen the assessment process.

I recognise the concern expressed by many Tasmanians about the emissions and the guidelines. We cannot accept anything but the world's best practice in the interests of our environment and our public health when it comes to these emissions. While it is regrettable that the RPDC is no longer able to assess the proposal, we must move forward with a way to ensure that this project is given every opportunity to be assessed against the rigorous guidelines. The critical issue is whether the project can be assessed vigorously and independently.

I endorse the comments from the Leader of the Opposition that Parliament needs to be provided with all relevant information, documentation and expert reports and with access to resources to sufficiently enable us to make a properly considered assessment. This is a significant investment for Tasmania and it is vital for the future generations of this State that this $1.5 billion development is given an opportunity to be assessed against the rigorous guidelines as set out.

When I vote on this bill tonight, I will in fact be thinking of the future generations of Tasmanians and hoping that the opportunities that they have in terms of the economic prosperity we have enjoyed in the course of the last decade in this State continues so they can continue to enjoy with their families the economic prosperity, social responsibility and proper environmental awareness that sustains them, their families and their jobs into the future.

Mr Speaker, I look forward in August to coming back and assessing the expert reports and with those few comments, I have pleasure in supporting the bill.

[6.50 p.m.]

Mr ROCKLIFF (Braddon - Deputy Leader of the Opposition) - Mr Speaker, I rise today to say how proud I was on Sunday to open on behalf of Surf Life Saving Tasmania the Real Heroes Safe Beaches exhibition in Burnie, which was in celebration of the Year of the Surf Life Saver and 100 years of C in Australia.

When you consider in the last three years Tasmanian surf lifesavers rescued about 400 people and undertook approximately 3 000 preventive actions and each year Surf Life Saving Tasmania volunteer members provide more than 15 000 hours of beach patrols, and when you extrapolate these figures Australia-wide, they include 1.4 million hours of beach patrols, it is no wonder the Australian Government proclaimed the year 2007 would be the Year of the Surf Life Saver. This is an honour that no other community organisation in Australia has ever received. The surf lifesaving organisation in Tasmania and right across Australia has much to be proud of and it is fitting that their achievements were celebrated in such a way on Sunday. In many ways it was the two great cultures coming together; the vibrant art sector which embodies creativity, talent and diversity and the surf lifesaving movement which encompasses the spirit of volunteerism, education, skill and team work.

The Real Heroes Safe Beaches display had been developed in partnership with Surf Lifesaving Australia and the artists from Warringah Printmakers in Sydney, the Newcastle Printmakers' Workshop, the Printmakers' Association of Western Australia and Hunter Island Press Tasmania, whose representatives were there on Sunday.

Living in a country with such an extensive coastline as Australia's, it is possible that almost every Australian has visited a beach at some time in their lives. When we think of beach culture images of surf lifesaving and surf lifesavers come into our minds. It is testimony that 79 artists from all over Australia came together to provide this exhibition and pay homage to such a wonderful Australian institution and the men and women who have dedicated their lives over the last 100 years to make the surf lifesaving movement what it is today.

The Year of the Surf Lifesaver acknowledges the fundamental role that surf lifesavers play in keeping Australian beaches safe and in the formation of Australian beach culture. Tasmania also has a very proud beach culture and surf lifesavers are a very integral part of that. We have 11 surf lifesavings clubs, of which seven are located on the north-west coast. Tasmania has about 1 700 members, of which 680 are nippers, all providing good safe beaches across the State.
 

The nipper championships were conducted in Burnie on the weekend. I commend the Burnie Surf Lifesaving Club also for their wonderful vision. The new surf lifesaving club in Burnie is fantastic. I commend the council for their contribution to that piece of infrastructure and also, as was stated on the weekend, the State Government's contribution to making that such a wonderful complex.

Apart from saving lives, surf lifesaving over a number of years has provided water safety education and life savings awards to people - in fact to 6 000 Tasmanians. So there is no question that our beaches would be far less safe and enjoyable without the work of these important community volunteers. As I said on Sunday, the Real Heroes Safe Beaches exhibition was a fitting way to celebrate surf lifesaving in Australia and Tasmania. I congratulate all those involved in what was no doubt an enormous amount of work in putting together such a wonderful tribute. I am very proud to be patron of the Devonport Surf Lifesaving Club and one of the State ambassadors for surf lifesaving in Tasmania for their Year of the Surf Lifesaver in 2007.

Mr ROCKLIFF (Braddon - Deputy Leader of the Opposition) - Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the bill today, and endorse the comments of previous speakers. I also acknowledge the members of the Aboriginal community and their elders in the House today.

The Stolen Generations of Aboriginal Children Bill 2006, like the apology from the Tasmanian Parliament on 13 August 1997, will not right the wrongs of the past nor heal the pain and trauma associated with cultural dislocation, but we do hope it will be a significant step towards reconciliation with the Aboriginal community. We have to recognise and accept responsibility for the fact that there were Tasmanian Aboriginal people who were dispossessed from their land, torn from their culture and separated from their families.

The 'Bringing them home report', released in 1997 following an extensive national inquiry confirmed that Aboriginal children were removed from their families and, as a consequence of that dislocation, their culture, their history and their identity were stolen too. Tasmania's history in this matter is not a proud one. It breaks your heart to read of some of the experiences of Aboriginal children who were removed from their families, and to hear the moving account of the life experiences of Annette and Eddie that they recalled for us today.

Irrespective of the living conditions that authorities at the time found for some Aboriginal children, as a parent, a brother and a son I cannot imagine for one moment the grief associated with forcible removal. The 'Bringing them home report' probably best sums up the feelings of many Aboriginal people who experienced such removal. I quote from the report, from what I understand was a submission to that inquiry:

'We may go home, but we cannot relive our childhoods. We may reunite with our mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, aunties, uncles, communities, but we cannot relive the 20, 30 or 40 years that we spent without their love and care, and they cannot undo the grief and mourning they felt when we were separated from them'.

Mr Deputy Speaker, this bill is an important step in the process of reconciliation following the apology rightly made in this Parliament in 1997. That apology on behalf of all Tasmanians expressed deep and sincere regret at the hurt and distress caused by past policies under which Aboriginal children were removed from their families and their homes. While Aboriginal children may have been taken in good faith due to practices that reflected general community values at the time, and indeed in the belief that such action was in the best interests of the child, there was absolutely no doubt that this practice was clearly wrong.

The way in which Aboriginal children were removed, and the lack of contact with the family and their Aboriginal community, was extremely detrimental to their wellbeing and their cultural identity. Some say this was reflective of community attitudes and values at the time. I do not necessarily disagree with that view, however just as there are people at this time who disagree with so-called accepted community values today, so there must have been people in the community between the mid-1930s and mid-1970s who were appalled at what was happening with respect to the removal of Aboriginal children.

To this end, in researching this bill I was interested to find a reference in a paper entitled The Stolen Generations: Implications for Social Policy Analysis. In it is a reference to my grandmother, Mrs Edna Rockliff who, as a representative of the Status of Women Council, Australian Association for the United Nations, Tasmanian Division, wrote in 1951 to the Federal Minister, Paul Hasluck, the then Minister for Territories, expressing her concern and that of the organisation she represented about taking babies from their mother's arms. Hasluck's response to her was well documented and analysed in that particular report. So I am not sure that all people in generations past condoned the actions in their present that led to the stolen generations.

I do feel that it is appropriate at this time that we acknowledge the foster parents who took Aboriginal children into their care. Of course, as we have heard today, aboriginal children's experiences in foster care varied from good to the very very bad. But no doubt there were very well meaning people and families who unquestionably had the best interests of Aboriginal children at heart in taking those children into their care. To that end I feel it is important that their contribution and their well meaning intention must be acknowledged and that any payment of compensation to children that were in their care is not intended as a reflection on them.

Mr Deputy Speaker, both the Parliament's apology in 1997 and the passing of this bill today are significant steps forward but we must never close the book on reconciliation. It is our ongoing responsibility to do what we can to attempt to heal the wounds of the past by accepting responsibility for our wrongdoing and to move forward with a common goal of true reconciliation.

[6.08 p.m.]

Mr ROCKLIFF (Braddon - Deputy Leader of the Opposition) - I wish to raise two very important issues tonight relating to my portfolio responsibilities of primary industries and water in particular. They concern two climatic events that are seriously affecting both the agriculture and horticulture industries at present. If one reads the last couple of editions of Tasmanian Country, one on Friday 20 October, which has the headline 'Fruit freeze-out', and one on Friday 27 October – ‘Killer Water Cuts’

Mr Bartlett interjecting.

Mr ROCKLIFF - Member for Denison, Mr Bartlett, you will have your opportunity to make a contribution. I am raising two very important matters relating to stakeholders in my portfolio areas and you can listen to me. If you want to speak later, I will listen to you.

The first matter, which was alluded to in Tasmanian Country concerns the dry conditions followed by the frosts that have severely affected livestock producers, farmers and fruit growers in Tasmania. Many would know that graziers in both the northern and southern Midlands - but particularly the southern - are experiencing extremely dry conditions at the moment, as evidenced by 16 000 sheep sold at the Oatlands sales recently.

This year Tasmania has endured one of the driest winters on record - if not the driest - and Hydro Tasmania has recorded the lowest inflows into its catchments for 15 years. To make matters worse, a dry spring is predicted by the Bureau of Meteorology.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the TFGA president, Mr Roger Swain, has said that there are real concerns for Tasmanian farmers. Some have stopped irrigating because there is no water in their dams. This means that some have to go through the unfortunate experience of destocking. Some financially-stressed farmers have been forced into fire sales of properties or farm machinery.

Also tonight I wish to speak about the hardship being felt at present by our orchardists and fruit growers. The dry conditions followed by the recent frosts have hit the stone fruit industry extremely hard and many fruit growers could be crippled by these conditions. The recent big frosts in the south of the State have had a big impact on the stone fruit industry - an industry made up more than 100 orchardists.

Recently it was minus 3 degrees at Plenty, and estimated losses in some blocks of cherries were as high as 90 per cent. Fifty per cent losses were experienced in some of the more protected areas. One particular fruit grower has contacted our leader, Mr Hodgman, saying that they expect a 250-300 tonne crop of cherries to be lost. That is extremely concerning for their families and their income.

The Coal River Valley was also hit hard by frosts and the Huon Valley fared a little better with around 50-75 per cent of their crops being salvaged. But having only 50 per cent of your crop, with all the investment that goes into the orchards, can be quite devastating and, in some cases, sends people to the wall.

Mr Deputy Speaker, many vineyards have been affected, as have walnut plantations. Even the East Coast recorded minus 3 degrees at Cranbrook. I am hearing from fruit growers at the moment and they do recognise that the drought has hit livestock producers very hard, but these dry conditions, coupled with the frosts, are now crippling the businesses of many fruit growers around Tasmania, particularly those in the south.

I am not sure what communication or consultation the State Government has had with the fruit growers of Tasmania, but I suggest that the Minister meets all his stakeholders very quickly to first ascertain the seriousness of the issue facing fruit growers. Then he should convene an urgent round table of these peak bodies - the TFGA and Fruit Growers Tasmania - representing the agricultural and horticultural industries, to discuss what I believe are exceptional circumstances now presenting themselves to both those industries. Those exceptional circumstances are the extremely dry conditions that many livestock producers and farmers are experiencing and, of course, the double whammy of the dry conditions and the frosts that have hit our orchardists. From there I would call on the minister to put together a plan to address the effects of these near-drought conditions and the massive overnight impacts that many fruit growers have experienced as a result of the frosts, so that we can avoid the possibility of some of these people going to the wall through no fault of their own. It is a very serious issue. I speak particularly of the fruit growers who essentially have had a double whammy. I hope that the minister reads my contribution and acts accordingly.

“Tasmanian Produce in the Global Marketplace”

Firstly, thank you for inviting me to this important conference on Tasmania’s future as it relates to Water, Food & Forestry, and may I take this opportunity to congratulate the organisers, sponsors and participants.

It is a pleasure to be here.  I guess I am here today in my capacity as Shadow Minister for Primary Industries but a deal of my contribution will be from the perspective of a farmer.

Some know that prior to my career in Parliament, I grew up and worked on my family’s farm – one of the 640 vegetable farms around Tasmania producing nearly $200 million a year at farm gate value.

But last year, like many farmers, we had to feed a crop of good quality cauliflowers to the sheep because our local processing company, less than 20km away, showed more loyalty to an imported crop from China than they did to their local farmers

And using that example, from a farmer’s perspective it would be fair to say that exploring Tasmania’s future in agriculture can be enormously daunting for a number of reasons.

For one – and I have experienced this - depending on your fortunes or otherwise at the time – a farmer’s political & social philosophy can change like the weather.

We can wake up one morning feeling like a capitalist, come in for morning tea thinking like a greenie, by lunchtime we’re rednecks, and after a hard day’s work - when our head hits the pillow - we can be raving socialists, such is the uncertain nature of farming and threat that many farmers are feeling with the impacts of globalisation.

The global marketplace

Franklin Roosevelt may have been one of the first to refer to globalisation or what we now commonly call our “shrinking planet”.

In 1941, the former US President spoke of the need for nations to know themselves, but also understand the hopes and need of their neighbours within “the narrowing circle of the world”.

Roosevelt hit the nail on the head because narrowing the circle of the world pretty accurately describes globalisation. 

Because ironically, at the same time as widening competition, globalisation narrows the circle of the world, bringing markets to our door that farmers of yesteryear could never have contemplated.

And it is Tasmania’s opportunity to harness those markets.

However, the downside of globalisation is the corresponding competition our producers face from those markets.

Companies and producers are increasingly looking offshore to find ways to cut costs and remain competitive – but the losers, if they do not effectively respond, are local producers.

Many here will recall the Fair Dinkum Food Campaign – and the swarm of tractors rumbling into Canberra.

That campaign was all about our farmers losing market share to cheap overseas imports, crop margins decreasing, the moral vacuum of large supermarket chains, and the challenge to our country of origin labelling.

And it’s those challenges I want to particularly talk about today.
A challenge we have again been reminded of in the last 24 hours with McCain Food Processing plant in Smithton in far NW Tasmania reducing production and jobs due to a down turn in the industry.
The union state secretary, Anne Urquhart, yesterday - put it this way and I quote:
“Certainly there’s a downturn in the industry,  the industry’s been affected now for some time by imported vegetables, I think there’s certainly the push by the supermarkets for their own brand, you now tend to find the supermarket’s own brand and a lot of those own-brand products are being imported in from overseas”.
Australian/Tasmanian Brand

It’s not easy for Australian consumers to find and purchase real Australian products. 

If you walk into a supermarket, it’s a real effort to find the country of origin on those goods.

In fact, to make matter worse in the Tasmanian context approximately 70% of our vegetable and dairy produce leaves Tasmania without a single Tasmanian label – or reference of any association with Tasmania on it.

Often Australian consumers do not know what they are buying, from where those goods originate, and what quality assurances are built into the production line.

But according to polling research, 93% of Australians want to know the origins of a product and 94% of Australians want to buy those products, especially Australian vegetables, and particularly if that product can be clearly shown and identified as Australian.

However, stronger labelling laws are not enough in today’s globally competitive environment to save Tasmania’s food industry - we must look further a field than just the domestic market.

We must better promote our unique brand internationally – vigorously sell the benefits of being GE free – and that’s coming from someone who has an open mind to the use of that technology.

We must market our major points of differentiation and capitalise on our strengths.

To this end, I was pleased to see comments by Rabobank senior agri-business analyst, Mr Tim Hunt, who believes China provides an opportunity for Tasmanian farmers, as China will increasingly face problems with deteriorating land quality and reduced water supplies, combined with an increasing urban population and growing material wealth and westernisation.

The time is ripe to market and export high-quality, premium Tasmanian food into the Chinese marketplace.

As a TFGA vegetable council executive officer, Dennis Leonard, said recently, “We need to focus on what we can put into China rather than worry about their exports into Australia. There is also the fact that our food is coming out of a clean environment and this provides Tasmanian farmers with the opportunity to market to China's millionaire row.”

That is why I have been advocating for some time for the Tasmanian Government to open a trade and business development office in China. A policy that I believe would as sound in principle as it would be in practice.

We are not doing enough to capitalise on the strengths of what Tasmania has to offer in terms of selling our premium produce.
The beef industry is a case in point.
We have the great advantage of all States to market our hormone growth promotant-free beef, the greatest advantage of any State.
The Tasmanian beef industry is currently worth over 150 million dollars to Tasmania, but we could do much more to develop premium price niche markets both nationally and internationally.
Enhancing the customer focus of Australian agriculture
If you look at successful agricultural export nations, they have two major things in common. 
First, they are closely integrated into consumer-driven trends and, second, they maintain a dedicated network of international market specialists. 
Brazil and Chile are two countries that have increased their agricultural exports by over 100% in the decade to 2004 when Australian agricultural exports grew by only half that amount over the same period. 
But the growth in Brazil and Chile has been put down to exports of high value produce, horticultural products and processed products. 
And that's what consumers want - food produced in environmentally sustainable systems that is convenient, but healthy and nutritious. 
The phenomenal growth in the sales of organic food in Europe and North America is a case in point.
Tasmania is well placed to respond to these trends. 
Farmers must understand their customers - not the storer, the handler, the agent or the processor - but the end consumer is the key. 
They should aim for higher value markets and higher product standards and be, in turn, rewarded with greater returns. 
There are no long-term, sustainable growth prospects in producing low-value agricultural products - especially when competing with low-cost developing countries. 
And can I tell you that’s not good for the environment.
Farmers cannot be “green” if they’re in the red.
And I have seen it for myself - farmers being forced to over crop and mine their soil so all their narrow margins in bulk commodity crops added up can just keep their head above water.
Bulk commodities should be value-added and this will require innovation in production, marketing and an ever-increasing responsiveness and focus on what the consumer wants.
Governments can assist too - by helping farmers gain better international customer intelligence and by assisting farmers tap into international markets with trade experts on the ground. 
Other Australian States have a combined number of over 40 trade and business development offices across the globe - a quarter located in China.  And again - Tasmania has none. 
Governments also have a role to play in removing the impediments to competition - cutting red tape and inappropriate charges that impinge on the performance of our agricultural sector and thereby decrease our competitiveness.
The Australian Farm Institute believes the future profitability of Australian agriculture depends on our success in responding to these challenges. 
As one of Tasmania's particular difficulties is our geographically remote location from most of our export markets, I agree that we need a new business model for agriculture or we will miss the boat.
Investment in R&D

Investment in research and development is also critical to the sustainability and growth of our agricultural sector.

And public and private investment is vital.

In the National context - Over the last decade, public investment in agricultural R&D by developing countries outstripped investment by developed countries. 

One such country is China.   Private sector R&D investment is already equivalent to 30% of public sector investment and is growing rapidly.

This is a huge concern for many Tasmanian exporters, as China – one of the fastest growing economies in the world – despite its environmental challenges - is rapidly become self-sufficient in many categories of food production. 

Indeed, they are also becoming major exporters and this is more of a concern for us, as their low labour costs confer a large competitive advantage.

In short we will never compete with countries like China in terms of cost of production and as Tasmanian is still largely a bulk commodity producing state – if we do not change we will be heading for a train wreck.

Globalisation reinforces the need for greater investment in agricultural research and development – new products, innovation, and better yields will ensure we can grow our agricultural sector and that we can remain competitive into the long-term.

Farmer cooperatives

Professor David Hughes, head of Food Marketing at London’s Imperial College, also fears that the emergence of new low-cost agricultural exporting nations is a significant threat that necessitates significant change.

He believes we must find ways to differentiate farm produce, better understand consumer trends for health and wellbeing, get closer to consumers (even to the point of talking to supermarket customers) and establish farmer cooperatives – farmers with similar enterprise mixes, scale and agronomic conditions collaborating and pursuing collective buying and marketing opportunities to reduce costs and improve efficiency.

Collaboration will deliver producers significant cost savings and added value – and assist them to maintain competitiveness, a critical first step for all farmers in a global business environment.

Cooperation and collaboration is one change option, but like any change, there is resistance. 

Very few farmers pursue joint marketing or collaborative purchasing or selling, however examples of good collaborative marketing practices, best evident in Holland, France , Ireland, and also New Zealand underscore the benefits of cooperation.

By combining sales and marketing efforts and embarking upon a comprehensive research and development program there are many examples of farmers turning around their fortunes, much more so than they would have if they had remained independent farmers.

Value-adding is another challenge for our Tasmanian producers, but again conventional wisdom is the farmer does the hard work for little or no reward, and the financial spoils are shared by those further up the chain – producers and retailers.   

So another example of positive collaboration is farmers clubbing together to take full or partial ownership of processing and distribution businesses, past the farm gate.

Admittedly, these can be high-risk ventures and farmers, who are long on farming experience, but short on post-farm gate business expertise, need to go into such ventures with their eyes open.

Again, Governments have a role to play to assist Tasmanian farmers in this transition by  providing resources  to whole farm planning initiatives that investigate different and flexible farm structure and financing and business models.

Conclusion

So to summarise, our farmers need to show leadership in the following areas –

. food safety and food quality;
. consumer trends;
. supply chain management; and
. innovation.

If they do address these issues, I believe they can ensure the sustainability of Tasmanian agricultural and food sectors in the hyper-competitive environment within the global food industry.

Ladies and Gentlemen:

We will not win the battle through market regulation but through innovation.

We have to strike a balance between the economic, social and environmental considerations when it comes to such progress.

As a farmer with a previous involvement in land care and natural resource management activities, I appreciate and advocate the need for a balance of the social, economic and environmental when it comes to farming.

I believe we should utilise our natural resources sustainably in an effort to achieve our aims.

And I believe that only by focusing on what’s commonly called “the triple bottom line” can we hope to achieve sustainability for Tasmanian produce in the ever-changing global marketplace.

Thank you.

[7.57 p.m.]

Mr ROCKLIFF (Braddon - Deputy Leader of the Opposition) - Mr Speaker, I will not take up too much of the House's time. I wish to raise a serious issue on the adjournment debate tonight with respect to issues pertaining to my electorate and most notably, the situation with those in my electorate who are unfortunately battling serious drug and alcohol addictions. I have raised my concerns about this issue on a number of occasions and will continue to do so until such time as the State Labor Government addresses this issue in my region.
Mr Speaker, there are dozens of clients desperate for assistance who are being turned away from the Sulphur Creek clinic. Recently it was reported that there was a six-week waiting list at that clinic. Some of these clients do have multisubstance addictions. Some have drug-induced psychosis and others are deeply depressed and at very serious risk of suicide. While I recognise that the State Government gives $150 000 to the Sulphur Creek facility, unfortunately that funding is only to provide a safe place for the sobering up of intoxicated people referred by the police. The Health department have made it very clear that they are not funded to provide a detox or a much needed time-out program. But from my discussion with the service provider at the Sulphur Creek unit, it is quite clear that what they need is more funding and more resources, particularly for staff.
That might sound like a rather simplistic solution, but extra staff will enable them to increase the level of support to those clients with significant life issues. Extra staff will enable a more comprehensive case management approach and allow for a much greater investment into the lives of the clients. This, in turn, will give staff the opportunity to support clients with appointments and referrals to other agencies and also support them outside the Sulphur Creek unit.
Mr Speaker, I call on the State Government to face up to their responsibilities and provide appropriate drug and alcohol services for people on the north- west coast. People with drug or alcohol-related problems on the north-west should not have to go to Launceston or Hobart for treatment. The executive officer for the Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drugs Council of Tasmania recently said that there was not enough political will - and I quote - 'given to fixing problems in Tasmania's ailing alcohol and drug services'. He also that services have been neglected and in disrepair for years and that, while the Government has a balancing act to provide services to a dispersed population, not all services needed to sit in Hobart - a view that I wholeheartedly agree with. Minister - and I am referring to the Minister for Health and Human Services here - the peak advocacy group is telling you to look at providing services on the north-west coast and that Tasmania also lacks the drug and alcohol services that other States offer.
Drug and alcohol abuse extends beyond just the clients and their immediate families. It is a whole-of-community responsibility and problem that extends across a number of government agencies, most notably the Health and Human Services area for which Ms Giddings is responsible, and also the justice system, which is the responsibility of the Attorney-General, Mr Kons, who is also in my electorate. I am seeking a commitment from the State Labor Government to address the shortage of appropriate drug and alcohol rehabilitation services on the north-west coast. The best place to start would be to consult with City Mission the service provider at Sulphur Creek clinic, to provide much-needed extra resources.

Mr ROCKLIFF (Braddon - Deputy Leader of the Opposition) - Madam Deputy Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to discuss this matter, and there can be no more important matter to speak of in this House today or any day than the issue of child abuse in Tasmania. At the very least, the minister has realised that current policies are failing, and, yes, they certainly are. As we pick up the paper most days we see the plight of our poor children in Tasmania and what they have been subjected to, and this State Labor Government thus far has not done enough.
We must start thinking beyond the next crisis to long-term forward planning for children and families in this State, ensuring that more resources are there for child protection, while at the same time beginning the shift to prevention, early intervention, intensive family support services delivered from both government and non-government sectors. The statistics are shocking, and they have not improved, as we have all acknowledged today in this House. At the end of May this year, as our shadow spokesperson has said, there were 1 441 unallocated notifications which included priority one cases, which is up 1 000 unallocated notifications from January this year. Each of those notifications means that a child is at risk and in danger of even sustaining physical, sexual or emotional abuse.
The number of children on child protection orders has increased steadily from 5.1 per 1 000 children, to 6.1 over the past two years. The actual number of children on care and protection orders at 30 June 2005 is 716, according to the Productivity Commission report on government services. This is shocking in itself, because while more children are coming into State care, correspondingly the number of foster carers has been rapidly dropping, mainly because of the lack of support they are getting from Child and Family Services.
The Productivity Commission shows that Tasmania spends well below the national average on child protection and out-of-home care services per child. The Northern Territory spends $8 million more a year than Tasmania, and the ACT spends $2 million more than Tasmania. A joint government-union review last July found that staff levels over the previous three years had not adequately addressed increases in workload and demand for Child and Family Services. It found that children stayed in protection orders longer because staff could not support families to make changes to minimise risk issues. It found that there was a lack of placement options and the use of costly and ineffective accommodation options such as hotels and caravan parks, as has been reported in my electorate over the past week. A national report shows that Tasmania has one of the highest turn-away rates of children seeking emergency accommodation, and child protection case workers have the highest caseload in the country.
The outgoing Commissioner for Children said publicly in April 2005 that there was a lack of appropriate family support services in Tasmania. He said, and I quote -
'Tasmania has an ever-increasing number of children in out-of-home care, about twice the rate of Victoria. The overwhelming reason is the lack of appropriate family support services that are readily and easily available to families who struggle to care for their children'.
He went on to say:
'The rising number of notifications of child abuse and neglect needs the interest and commitment of the whole of government, and it has gone well beyond just a welfare issue concerning marginalised children'.
He said that 12 months ago. In May 2005, Child and Family Services staff said, and I quote:
'Staff are poorly resourced and equipped to deal with the families who present with multiple and complex problems.'
They said:
'There is insufficient monitoring of placements and support of placements.'
They also said:
'There is a statewide crisis of placement options and a chronic lack of carers.'
Just recently, child protection workers began speaking out, again in frustration over neglect of this issue by the State Government. Workers in the north- west said the system was in disarray and at breaking point, and that vulnerable kids were being neglected and accommodated in caravan parks. They said that the small team of case workers in Burnie and Devonport were responsible for an estimated 517 at-risk children and infants on the unallocated list, and 120 case loads for just four workers. One worker said, and I quote:
'You know children are being re-abused and you just can't do anything about it.'
Workers said staff shortages were leaving potentially abused kids in danger. A depleted team could now follow up only extreme emergencies, which could stretch from King Island to Queenstown - where they say that five category 1 alleged abuse cases have been reported in the last two weeks. They detailed some of those cases. A young boy was recently accommodated at the Ulverstone Caravan Park with a residential care worker because there was no foster or residential care. This system is failing. The minister has admitted to that today and urgent action needs to happen.
Time expired.

Response to the Premier’s State of the State Address

[2.49 p.m.]
Mr ROCKLIFF (Braddon - Deputy Leader of the Opposition) - Mr Deputy Speaker, it is a great pleasure to follow the Minister for Primary Industries and Water because many of the issues that he touched on I will also touch on, particularly the area of water development, where we have hugely different views from this State Government on that matter.

Mr Deputy Speaker, for the last four years I have had the privilege of serving the people of Braddon and representing the stakeholders in a range of areas:  primary industry, water, the environment, and of course the arts.  My contribution will touch on all those areas, some that in many cases are not as rosy as the Premier painted in his state of the State address. 

We live in a wonderful State, but we can do better, and the people of Tasmania recognise this as evidenced by their own benchmarks in Tasmania Together.  Tasmania Together is a concept that of course has my broad philosophical support.  Why should governments not be consulting with their community on the shape and future of their State?  I note the Premier's announcement that, based on community feedback, new goals and benchmarks will be presented to Parliament in a revised Tasmania Together later this year.  That is all very well and good, but I remind the Premier that the Tasmania Together progress report for 2006 outlined a failure by the Lennon Government to meet well over half of its own existing benchmarks.  Of the 97 assessed benchmarks, just 43 were achieved, whilst 51 failed to meet the Tasmania Together 2005 targets in key areas, affecting and deeply concerning many Tasmanians. 

Business confidence was one.  We recognise that over the course of the last eight years things have improved, but we are seeing signs of our economy slipping.  Certainly with the surveys that the TCCI have done very recently, businesses indicate that confidence is slipping.  That is cause for concern for this Government and for many Tasmanian businesses who rely on a strong economy with which to grow their businesses and employ staff.

Exports is another area in which the Government has failed to meet the expectations of Tasmanians.  Others are long-term unemployment, youth unemployment and labour force participation.  Regarding problem gambling, we see the effects of that in our offices every day and out there in the community.  Of course we have also focused on the very serious issues of domestic violence and child abuse which deeply concern all Tasmanians; in fact, we debated those issues in the matter of public importance just this morning.  There are also the issues of literacy and numeracy, dental waiting lists and quarantine services, just to name a few.

So the Premier should be very careful about boasting of his achievements in key areas because the people of Tasmania, whether it be in health, education, infrastructure or economic management, think otherwise and in fact believe that the State Government has consistently failed to properly manage issues that deeply affect them.  Of course this is evident, or it should be evident, to those of us who remain close to and in touch with our electorates.

There is another benchmark that Tasmanians feel very strongly about, and that is the benchmark when it comes to this Government and their elected representatives setting the highest possible parliamentary standards.  The Premier is right; the community does expect the highest levels of accountability, transparency, responsibility and governance from their elected representatives, but they have not got it from this Government.  This Government has not led by example; they have not been open, honest and accountable.  While we welcome the initiatives in budgeting and financial reforms to improve accountability in government, there is the culture of deceit and spin that we have come to expect from this Government, and that will have to change.  It is all very well to change your budgeting and financial reporting methods but unless this Government addresses the serious level of deceit, and its spin in trying to hide its problems from the Tasmanian people, things will remain as they are now, which is simply not acceptable by any standards.

This affects our Tasmanian brand.  The Minister for Primary Industries and Water mentioned the Tasmanian brand.  It is not just about selling and marketing produce and exporting high-quality premium Tasmanian products; it is about all of us reflecting the quality Tasmanian brand. I, for one, was embarrassed to read editorials in major national newspapers reflecting on Tasmania being rotten to the core.  That should concern all Tasmanians and it should concern and be a wake-up call for this Government because their actions and the way that they conduct themselves reflect on the people of Tasmania.

There is no doubt there are some key initiatives of the Premier's address that are welcome.  Indeed, we have been arguing for some time for them but we will continue to push for various objectives that he has mentioned, to see that they are delivered, how they will be delivered and, more importantly, when.

Of course, despite the Premier's spectacular backflip, we welcome the State Government's consultants' report recommending further investigation into a new Royal Hobart Hospital close to or within the CBD.  This is the right decision and puts the lie to the Premier's claims that until now a new hospital simply could not be built.  The State Liberals have maintained that planning for Tasmania's future health needs has to consider the possibility of a new Royal Hobart Hospital, given the overwhelming view of the medical fraternity that the current site and buildings are simply not sustainable in the long term.  We welcome this major infrastructure initiative.  As one who has seen the plight of the hospital system on the north-west coast in recent years, I welcome the opportunity for the planning of new infrastructure at the Royal Hobart Hospital to take into consideration the health needs of the constituents outside Hobart and in my electorate of the north-west coast.

One of the more welcome aspects of the Premier's address was the issue of water and the Premier's announcement that there will be a ministerial task force to plan for water and sewerage infrastructure needs.  Finally the Government has woken up that there is a problem with water and sewerage infrastructure in this State.  Many Tasmanian communities have been wide awake and alert to their water and sewerage infrastructure problems for many years now.  Certainly in Bracknell, where we are told that raw sewage is spilling out onto the ground, running into open street drains and ending up in the Liffey River, people are alert to the very serious problem.  Certainly the 23 communities that have been affected by boil-water alerts in 2004 05 are alert to the problem.

The Tasmanian Liberals have been awake to the problems associated with water quality for many years.  We have consistently expressed the view that every Tasmanian community should have the fundamental right to access clean, fresh, drinking water.  That is why we went to the last election with a plan to address the water quality issues for the benefit of areas and towns right across Tasmania.

The reports released in May and last year show that Tasmania's water supplies are third world.  It is simply not good enough.  One quarter of Tasmania's water supply systems operate with a permanent boil-water alert.  More concerning is that these statistics are unchanged from previous years.  This in itself underscores the continued neglect by the State Labor Government and the urgent need to ensure that Tasmanians have access to clean and safe drinking water, which is a fundamental human right.

The Premier in his speech said that his Government has not been afraid to tackle the big issues and make the hard decisions.  What is so hard about providing clean, fresh and safe drinking water to Tasmanian communities?  What was so hard two years ago about announcing this?  Three years ago?  They have been in government for eight years and these problems have always been there.  We have had the financial means over the course of the last few years to start implementing proper fundamental reforms in this area, yet the Premier announced it just yesterday.

The report card for Tasmanians' water infrastructure scored Tasmania as having the worst standard of drinking water in our cities and rural and regional areas in Australia.  In fact Tasmania barely scored a pass mark in the area of non-metropolitan drinking water.  It received a disgraceful mark of D, the worst in a survey around Australia, and this report has been out for quite some time.

One of the really sad things about the Premier's announcement on water and water quality is that, even if the announcement had been made two years ago, I wonder whether the Government would have been so bloody-minded in knocking back $6.6 million from the national action plan for salinity and water quality from the Federal Government to improve water quality in Tasmania.  That decision showed a complete lack of foresight.  Here we had the Federal Government putting nearly $7 million on the table.  With the water quality situation in Tasmania, which we have known about for many years, this Government still has not the commonsense to match that funding and start putting in a strategic plan to address these issues.  Much of that money and funding could well have supported infrastructure but it certainly would have supported setting up a water-quality task force.  It certainly would have supported the preparation of a comprehensive and holistic water quality report and a strategic plan to implement it and would have gone a long way to addressing and funding some of the infrastructure needs.  The Labor Government should hang their heads in shame.  I remember arguing this across the table from Bryan Green to Judy Jackson to Steve Kons and their complete failure to take up this opportunity.  They should hang their heads in shame.  Those residents across Tasmania - whether it be in Campbell Town, where they have to buy bottled water to drink, Queenstown or other areas, particularly in the electorate of my colleagues, Mr Gutwein and Mrs Napier, where there are boil-water drinking alerts -  can only blame the Lennon Labor Government for their failure to access this funding.  However, that being said, I will do all I can to ensure that we present ideas on how we can assist the Tasmanian community to put forward strategic initiatives and plans to assist the development of getting water quality right in this State.  If it means seeking Canberra's assistance in a funding capacity, such as they offered two years ago, I will be happy to do that and lobby on Tasmania's behalf.

There is no doubt that water will continue to be one of the single biggest issues facing our nation.  We see other States in crisis, communities having referendums on whether or not to recycle their sewage into water.  Some stakeholders such as the Business Council of Australia are calling for urgent changes to management and marketing.  There is  no doubt that the value of water will continue to increase in Tasmania.  We should be in a position to capitalise on this and to use our Tasmanian brand to demonstrate the fact that we are the clean and green State and that we have the capacity to provide clean, fresh drinking water for all our residents and the tourists who come to Tasmania.  I believe that in 50 years' time, if we get this right, this will add enormously to people's desire to tour Tasmania and, more importantly, to live and work here and participate in Tasmania's economy and our great and unique lifestyle.  But we have a long way to go.

I am not sure whether the task force which the Premier has set up will also include areas to address agricultural water and the need for our primary producers to access water.  As I alluded to in my question today, that is where the Government has seriously failed to deliver on their water management plan.  In 2001, the current Minister for Primary Industries and Water stood next to the former Premier and launched the water development plan. At that time, there were 36 proposals on the drawing board.  You would be able to look up on the Internet and the DPIWE web site and see what the water development plan is all about.  You can look at all these proposals right across the State, from the north, southern Midlands, up to the north-west, to Edith Creek, the Circular Head region and the north-east.  We have a number of water development proposals - the St Patrick's River, the Headquarters Creek, the Jetsonville project and others - which simply have not materialised.  Now we  have only three out of those 36 major proposals which the Government will admit are still on the drawing board.  Through Budget Estimates scrutiny, I believe one of those projects will also fail to get up.   I think the only water development project that will see the light of day is the Meander dam.  This is not good enough.  The Government has simply lost its will on water development in this State.

It was wonderful to tour the Meander dam site a month or so ago with my Leader, Will Hodgman, as we interacted with the Meander community.  We went up in the bus and toured the construction site, and how wonderful it was to see.  What a very good job the project team and DPIW have done to get it to this stage in the last 12 months, because I know it has been a hurdle.  Those who showed us around that day are to be commended.  The Meander community on that day were so excited about it.  It demonstrated how important the Meander dam will have become to that community in 10 years' time, and the opportunities that will develop for agriculture within that region - Hagley, Westbury and whoever is able to participate in extracting water from that scheme.  This has been evident in other major water development projects in the late 1980s, for example with the Craigbourne Dam.  That area has simply been transformed from a desolate agricultural area with limited agricultural production capacity to enormous high-value crops such as viticulture and apricots and other forms of horticulture.  That is a very positive thing to do.

Mr McKim - Do you think they might have some salinity issues up there?

Mr ROCKLIFF - Any salinity issues they have can certainly be managed.  We have the capacity now to manage our salinity problems a lot more effectively than before.  This area, our major water development infrastructure, is where the Government have simply failed.  It is where we presented an alternative at the last election with respect to our major water development infrastructure fund. 

There needs to be a rethinking in the department about how we can pursue these water projects.  I believe that there are people in the department, particularly on the environmental side, who are not working effectively enough with those who want to progress water development.  If there is a hurdle, that is simply it.  There is no attitude of offering assistance to overcome the obstacle.  That attitude needs to change and it needs to start from the top with the Minister for Primary Industries and Water.  He needs to show leadership to change the culture within that department.

I will leave water development there, but I note with interest some recognition in the Premier's speech of Tasmania's international economic opportunities with China.  As I have said on a number of occasions, both inside and outside this House, there are enormous opportunities in Tasmania for trade with this country.  That is why I strongly support, at a national level, the bilateral trade agreement we are working on with this country.  This is very important.  It is a very complex area and I know that the horticultural producers in my constituency are fearful that their industry will be traded off to benefit resource based industries such as mining and the like.

However, at the moment we do not have a level playing field with respect to the tariff regime between the two countries.  Take my area of primary industries and horticultural production.  Our peas and beans, for example, being exported into China are attracting a 13 per cent to 15 per cent tariff.  We have imports from China coming to Australia that attract no tariff.  That is unfair and that is not a level playing field.  Any move to at least make that tariff level even would certainly be valuable to our producers.  The critical thing, of course, is access to those markets, and that is why Tasmania needs to be very vigorous in branding their product and selling it in the marketplace.  The Premier gave many examples in his state of the State address where, in a range of industries and fields, Tasmanians are achieving success. 

I mentioned the bilateral agreement on a national level.  I know it is on a much smaller scale, but if we have produced $550 million worth of exports into China, then we should at least be able to double that.  I know the Premier has been overseas but I still fundamentally believe that a constant presence of a Tasmanian business development office in China could add value to increasing our export opportunities to China, because China has grown so much.  This was evident at the ABARE conference I attended about 12 months ago in Devonport, which clearly demonstrated the enormous opportunities for agriculture for Tasmania and Australia in places like China and India because of their enormous growth potential. 

We must do anything we can there to enhance our presence in that market.  This is where we need to differentiate our products a great deal and put greater concentration and effort into branding our high quality, premium products into that marketplace, which is just crying out for it.  There are some very wealthy people in China.  Wealthy people love branded product, as evidenced in the 1980s with Japan, and this is where Tasmania can capitalise in that area, but we need to do more.

I speak of Brand Tasmania, and the Minister for Primary Industries and Water also mentioned it in his contribution.  I just want to touch on the good work that they do.  They are extremely under-resourced and we have recognised this for some time; that is why we had a policy at the last election to increase the resources to Brand Tasmania.  I want to place on record my congratulations to Brand Tasmania for at least doing what they can to sell Tasmanian products in the international and national marketplace. 

It was such a great feeling to be present in the Coal River Valley when they launched the Gourmet Traveller magazine and the DVD with Tetsuya Wakuda, who came to tour Tasmania to sample a variety of Tasmania's good, premium products.  For Brand Tasmania to achieve that level of recognition into a domestic market of a potential readership of 360 000 Tasmanians - I think Gourmet Traveller has 80 000 subscribers - was a very good job indeed.  It just goes to show that if they can be resourced more effectively, what wonderful opportunities that organisation may well bring for Tasmania.  I commend them on the efforts they have made with respect to that area.

Mr Deputy Speaker, how much time do I have left?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER - One minute.

Mr ROCKLIFF - Time does not permit me to extend my contribution beyond Primary Industries and Water and Brand Tasmania and the like.  I was going to touch on a range of other areas, particularly the arts.  I was going to mention what a wonderful experience it was to visit Canberra recently for the Regional Arts Summit.  This is an area where, after talking to other regional arts organisations around Australia, Tasmania really needs to wake up and sufficiently fund regional arts organisations in Tasmania.

Time expired.

[3.19 p.m.]

CRIME - FORFEITURE OF PROCEEDS

[6.04 p.m.]
Mr ROCKLIFF  (Deputy Leader of the Opposition - Braddon) - I wish to raise an important issue that has been brought to my attention by a number of constituents.  Members may well remember the tragic double murder of Mr Anthony McHugh and Mr Lehman McHugh in Penguin in September 2004.  Certainly I do.  It caused an immense amount of grief to the immediate Penguin family on the north-west coast, not to mention the heartache and grief of the friends and family of the victims.  Members may also remember that one of the men who was convicted of committing these murders was a beneficiary of the victims' estate, and managed to sell off furniture and purchase a car with proceeds of the estate.

I raised this issue in a letter to the former Attorney-General, Mrs Jackson, last year, but her answer did not satisfy my constituents.  I wrote again to the new Attorney, Mr Kons, in May this year and to date I have not yet received a reply.

Mr Deputy Speaker, just in case the Attorney-General may not have had the opportunity to read my letter, I will remind him of the contents.  In relation to the McHugh murders, Mr Darren Stokes was convicted of the two murders in October last year, along with another person.  Mr Stokes was a beneficiary of the McHugh estate and, despite being a prime suspect, managed to legally inherit from the estate.  In fact it was reported at the time of Mr Stokes' conviction for two counts of murder that the police stated - and I quote:

'We knew both of them were good suspects three days into it and that suspicion just grew stronger as we eliminated other suspects during the course of the investigation.'

Mr Deputy Speaker, my constituents are seeking a commitment from the Attorney-General and the State Government to review the current law known as the Forfeiture Rule as it relates to this matter. That rule provides that a person should not benefit from their unlawful conduct and in relation to murder its effect is that the perpetrator should not inherit whether by will or intestacy from the deceased.

Mr Deputy Speaker, my constituents believe that the McHugh case is a prime example of someone clearly benefiting from a very serious crime, despite being one of the police's prime suspects.  In the McHugh murders, very clearly the police had their suspicions within days and they also managed to make an arrest 103 days later for which I sincerely congratulate them, yet one of the murderers was still able to get his hands on the assets of the victim.

Mr Deputy Speaker, on the basis of this case alone, my constituents seek a commitment from the Attorney-General to, at the very least, review the Forfeiture Rule as it applies to this particular horrific example.  Further, I seek acceptance from the Attorney-General to agree to meet with some of the family members who were deeply and justifiably affected by the murders and discuss with them some of the problems that they have faced in relation to the McHugh estate since Mr Stokes was allowed to benefit from it.

Tuesday 26 September 2006
[6.19 p.m.]
Mr ROCKLIFF (Braddon - Deputy Leader of the Opposition) - Mr Speaker, I also wish to raise a matter that could be covered under the issue of workplace relations generally. Last week I attended a public meeting at the Penguin Surf Club which was organised by a number of disability workers employed in the non-government sector. They organised the meeting in order to improve wages and conditions for those employees who are the lowest paid health workers in the State. As indicated in the meeting, some of them were forced to work three extra jobs or in excess of 80 hours a week just to make ends meet.
For example, residential workers in the non-government sector receive just $22.80 a night - not an hour - for an eight or nine-hour shift - from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. or 8 a.m. It is very concerning. As a result, experienced disability workers are leaving the industry. In its budget submission released on Monday, ACROD said the industry would continue to have difficulty in recruitment and attracting skilled employees unless wage parity was addressed. That submission also states that the non-government sector wants to be in a position to offer increased wages, but the current level of State government funding to the non-government sector prevents this being a viable option. All those employees who spoke at the public meeting, both in smaller groups of which people such as myself chaired and then at the larger forum, understood the financial constraints which their employers were under. Their real concern is the fact that the overall funding that those organisation which they are employees of were getting and that impacts of course on their wages.
In the first place, wage parity between government and non-government disability support staff must begin with the State Government, particularly if the recommendations of the KPMG report on transferring government residential services to the non-government sector is to be effectively implemented. The State Liberals support KPMG's recommendations but acknowledge those organisations have to be effectively resourced to provide that service. The Government must ensure that an appropriate level of indexation is built into service agreements so the non-government sector can effectively recruit and retain professional staff and lift the wages of  disability support workers to the realistic level advocated at this public meeting. If the Government ignores this issue, more and more disability support workers will be forced to walk away from the sector and the non-government organisations will be in real danger of being unable to meet their service obligations to people with disabilities in our community.
Listening to the workers in the forum in both the smaller and larger groups, they feel very passionate about the work they do. They take a great deal of pride in their work and they do an enormous amount of good for their clients. They put their heart and soul into their work, they enjoy the interaction with their clients and they feel enormously proud of witnessing the positive developments in their clients, but they also have a huge responsibility and in my view wholeheartedly deserve to be appropriately remunerated.
I would therefore urge the Government to consult with disability support workers and the non-government sector and unions to find urgent solutions to this problem as expressed by the workers at the disability forum. I congratulate all those attendees for speaking up, which was not easy for them to do, and particularly the organizers of that particular forum, most notably Mr Matt Wilson for having the courage to organise the workers in that particular sector. I hope as a result of his good work and others that real results are achieved.

ELECTIVE SURGERY - AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORT

Aug 30 2006

Matter of Public Importance

[11.11 a.m.]

Mr ROCKLIFF (Braddon - Deputy Leader of the Opposition) - Mr Speaker, I commend our shadow Health spokesperson, the very hardworking Mrs Sue Napier, for bringing this matter of public importance to the House's attention. Having read the executive summary in detail and other aspects of the Auditor-General's report, I find that it certainly highlights some very concerning matters in our health system. These are largely reflected in the many concerns of constituents who come into my office in Devonport or phone me. Many of these concerns I convey to the Minister for Health and Human Services, Ms Lara Giddings, and hope that things can be addressed in Tasmania's ailing health system.

Mr Speaker, the Auditor-General's Special Report on Elective Surgery in Public Hospitals released yesterday was in fact the third major report into health services since the Labor Government took office in 1998. The other two reports, Public Housing: Meeting the Need and Oral Health Service, Something to Smile About? were equally as damning as the report released yesterday. Unfortunately for the Tasmanian people, since the release of those two reports public housing and oral health waiting lists have increased even further, so the Government's track record on these matters does not augur well for the adoption of the recommendations in the Auditor-General's report released yesterday.

Some of the key findings of the report are that the Royal Hobart Hospital's waiting times exceed national benchmarks and are high compared to other Tasmanian hospitals while, statewide, waiting times for people in key categories also exceed national benchmarks. Nearly 10 per cent of Tasmanians wait more than a year for elective surgery. There is delayed input of admission forms artificially understating waiting list data and there are considerable delays for patients in obtaining an initial consultation with specialists, up to 48 weeks in some cases.

The statewide orthopaedic waiting list at June 2005 was 2 264 yet the Royal Hobart Hospital confirmed recently that up to five beds a day are vacant in this department. Cardiac patients, who should clinically be waiting under one month, are waiting nearly two-and-a-half months for surgery, and 10 per cent of elective surgery patients are being cancelled either before admission or after admission because of a lack of surgeon, anaesthetist or theatre staff and equipment is unavailable or there are no beds.

This is a big problem with the constituents who come into my office. Postgraduate training and in-house training should be explored to increase the number of theatre nurses together with assistance with fees. Contrary to the minister's assertion at Budget Estimates, there are vacancies for staff specialists, doctors, anaesthetists and nurses.

The Auditor-General also highlighted that surgical beds are regularly closed because of nurses taking sick leave in winter and at Christmas when elective surgery is shut down for long periods. Hospital theatres operate well below their practical capacity and doubt has been thrown onto whether there is a need to be currently building two more theatres. Patient management systems are inadequate to form a basis for decision-making and acquisition.

The Auditor-General makes 27 recommendations, many of which have been made to this Government before by Professor Richardson in his report released a few years ago; by other key stakeholders, including the Australian Medical Association; and also, of course, by the State Liberal Opposition. Unfortunately, it would seem that, to date, all have been comprehensively ignored.

I just want to pick up on a couple of those recommendations. First there was a significant correlation found between closed surgical beds and nursing sick leave at the Royal Hobart Hospital - a correlation that is too important to be ignored. There is ample anecdotal evidence to support this as well and we only have to look at the headlines we see in our newspapers during these periods to understand this.

The Auditor-General recommends hospitals should record the down time in operating theatres and closed surgical beds with the availability of nursing staff. But the solutions are in fact quite simple and both the ANF and the State Liberals agree that reinstating agency nurses for periods where there was a high level of nurses away sick, especially in winter periods, is a simple and obvious mechanism that would allow the Royal Hobart Hospital to continue to operate efficiently during those periods.

The Auditor-General states that one way of understanding the factors that drive staff turnover is to hold exit interviews with staff which should be a common practice amongst all workplaces across Tasmania. This, unfortunately, only occurs in Burnie and, according to the report, the department has stated that it plans to develop an agency-wide exit interview procedure. The ANF has previously pointed out to the department that without a retention of staff recruitment will always be a fruitless exercise for it is not possible to keep up with the loss.

A 2002 Department of Health workplace diversity environmental scan recommended to the minister that all staff leaving the department through resignation, retirement or for other reasons complete an exit survey - common practice, I would have thought, in all workplaces around Tasmania or should be. Late that year the minister confirmed the recommendation was not being taken up and was not yet finalised and four years later it is still not finalised. This is a classic pointer to the malaise of a succession of Labor health ministers.

Orthopaedics is another area tackled in this report and it shows that the waiting list at June 2005, as I have said before, was 2 264. The benchmark for waiting was 6.6 months yet the expected waiting time is 10.4 months - pretty close to double. In recent times we have approached the minister's office about several constituents who have been waiting much longer than that and certainly I have done that in correspondence to the previous Health minister, who sits across from me in the Chamber, and to the minister now. The minister's response, contrary to media reports about 10 beds being closed in orthopaedics at the Royal, was that apparently four to five were vacant in this department.

Time expired.

Tuesday 29 August 2006 - Part 2
ADJOURNMENT

HOSPICE CARE ASSOCIATION OF NORTH-WEST TASMANIA
[6.47 p.m.]
Mr ROCKLIFF (Braddon - Deputy Leader of the Opposition) - I rise briefly tonight to speak about the Hospice Care Association of North-West Tasmania. On July 14 I had the pleasure of attending their twenty-first birthday celebrations in Ulverstone. I was very pleased to participate in that function by unveiling the board for the respective life members of that organisation. I wish to congratulate the Hospice Care Association on all their terrific work for and invaluable service to the north-west coast community over the course of the past 21 years. They have a dedicated team of about 84 caring individuals who provide much-needed relief for families caring for a loved one with a terminal illness.
During the past 21 years the Hospice Care Association has given more than 35 000 hours of voluntary work on the north-west and west coasts. Since training began 21 years ago, 322 volunteers in 28 groups have completed the initial training program and three of those participants from the very first group of volunteers are still involved with the association.
The main objective of the Hospice Care Association is to offer respect for a person's rights and dignity, to provide the best quality of care for patients and offer support for families faced with the loss of a loved one.
The Hospice Care Association has continued to lobby the Government for the provision of desperately-needed dedicated hospice beds on the north-west coast, and this would allow the continuity of care for the terminally ill to be linked with existing medical and community services.
They issued a little booklet on the evening of their twenty-first birthday celebrations and I will just quote briefly from that. It says:
'In early 2000, a group of interested stakeholders met to look at the feasibility of establishing a hospice facility on the North West Coast. A working party was formed and after many months of hard work, a proposal was submitted to the State Health Minister outlining the desperate need for such a facility -
I believe Mrs Jackson was the minister at the time -
'and the option of establishing a hospice care facility at the North West Private Hospital in Burnie.
In the ensuing years this proposal was pursued relentlessly with changing Health Ministers, other politicians and through publicity in The Advocate.
In 2003, the Health Minister -
the Hon. David Llewellyn, who is sitting across the Chamber -
commissioned a statewide Palliative Care Review and in mid-2004, the report Palliative Care in Tasmania: current situations and future directions was released. This report highlighted what we had known for many years -
and I am still quoting from the Hospice Care Association pamphlet from that evening -
'… the North West Coast desperately needed many dedicated hospice beds. The concept proposed was the "Hospice without Walls" model. The Health Minister promptly publicly announced that 4 beds would be allocated for this purpose at the Mersey Hospital.'
You announced it very promptly, Minister, but they are not there as yet.
They go on to say:
'This model does not supersede our initial plan for a hospice facility and the dream is to still eventually see the establishment of such a facility on the north-west coast. But for now the "Hospice without Walls" concept is a great start and will provide much needed relief for families coping with a loved one with a terminal illness.'
Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise this matter for a couple of reasons: firstly to congratulate all involved in the Hospice Care Association and the exceptional voluntary work that has gone on in the last 21 years in providing care for families, for the terminally ill and their loved ones; and, secondly, to ask the new Minister for Health and Human Services, Lara Giddings, if she would outline in the Chamber some time this week an update on the establishment of four hospice beds at the Mersey hospital and inform us of the progress.
I still want to put on record the State Liberals' commitment to establishing a dedicated hospice facility on the north-west coast. It has been our policy for quite some time and it remains our policy now because I believe it is still much needed. While we do endorse the Hospice without Walls concept, a dedicated unit is still very much needed on the north-west coast and that came through very strongly to me on that particular evening.
In summing up, Mr Deputy Speaker, I fully endorse the aims and objectives of the Hospice Care Association and encourage the Government to seek additional funds to provide better hospice facilities on the north-west coast. I support the Hospice Care Association's mission statement of, and I quote:
'Working together to promote and provide quality care to support people living with a life threatening condition.'
Once again I congratulate all involved at the Hospice Care Association of North-West Tasmania Inc. on a tremendous commitment to the community over the course of the last 21 years.

July 13 2006

[3.08 p.m.]

Mr ROCKLIFF (Braddon - Deputy Leader of the Opposition) - Madam Deputy Speaker, it gives me pleasure to make a contribution to the House as shadow minister for primary industries, water and the environment on both pieces of legislation. As the minister has alluded to, the State Opposition understand that the bills establish a regulatory basis for protecting threatened native vegetation communities from clearance and conversion. Threatened native vegetation communities are those forest and non-forest vegetation communities that are rare, vulnerable and endangered.

It is fair to say, as the minister alluded to in his second reading speech, that this legislation has caused considerable angst amongst some in our community from both sides of the debate, particularly land-holders who will be affected by this legislation which, depending on how it is implemented, will depend on land-holders' cooperation into the future.

The level of angst has been around for some time, it is fair to say, since the original signing of the bilateral agreement in June 2003. I remember that well because the then minister, Bryan Green, signed it on behalf of the State Government on the day of my first Estimates committee in 2003.

At the time Mr Green said that he was very pleased to announce that he had just that morning signed the National Heritage Trust bilateral agreement, which had also recently been signed by the then Commonwealth Minister for Environment, Dr Kemp, and Warren Truss, the then Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. We then, as Hansard has recorded, briefly proceeded into questions on the impact of land clearing and compensation issues, but as we all know there has been a lot of water under the bridge since that time three years ago.

Under the State Commonwealth Natural Heritage Trust Bilateral Agreement 2003, the Tasmanian Government committed to implementing measures to protect rare, vulnerable, endangered and threatened non-forest vegetation communities from clearance and conversion on all land tenures. Members may remember that the initial proposal was to introduce regulations through local government planning schemes. Since then, local government and the rural community, quite rightly, vigorously campaigned to have local government excluded as the prime delivery agent of these protection measures. Thankfully, the State saw commonsense and agreed to move away from using local government as the primary delivery agent, and to implement the regulation of clearance and conversion of threatened non-forest vegetation communities through a State agency authority. This agreement was formalised under the Tasmanian Community Forest Agreement in 2005.

The key changes established by the new regulatory framework include adding a list of threatened non-forest vegetation communities to the existing list of forest vegetation communities; establishing the new combined list as a formal review able to be listed under the Nature Conservation Act; a new regulation to restrict the clearance and conversion of threatened native vegetation communities; and extension of the compensation provisions for rare and endangered species to now cover vulnerable species and threatened native vegetation communities. The practical effect of the amendments is that all threatened native vegetation communities, non-forest and forest, will be treated the same.

I was interested to read in the regulatory impact statement that, of the total land of around 6.8 million hectares for Tasmania, the area of private land containing threatened non-forest vegetation communities encompasses less than 50 000 hectares, and there is approximately 1.6 million hectares in Tasmania which is used for agricultural production. The native vegetation conservation programs of government will impact on the property rights of private land-holders. The impact will be substantial for some farmers, in particular properties in the areas of northern and southern midlands and the highland municipalities, and to a lesser extent King Island and Flinders Island, and some parts of the north of the State.

I have read with great interest the regulatory impact statement which was released in November 2005. It covered a detailed analysis of the economic, social and environmental impacts of the legislation which we are now debating. There was certainly a need for a regulatory impact statement. It states that in accordance with the Government's legislative review program, the Department of Treasury and Finance's Regulatory Review Unit made an initial assessment that the proposed legislative amendments to restrict the clearance and conversion of threatened non-forest vegetation communities on private land would impose major restrictions on competition and have a significant negative impact on business.

Chapter 4 of the regulatory impact statement is of particular interest, as it outlines the potential impacts the legislation will have on business, and these was divided into four main categories. The first is time, with respect to the delay in commencement of a business activity due to delay to gain approval as a result of the legislation. Second is the issue of uncertainty with respect to the time required for approval and potential of appeals creating an uncertainty that may discourage potential investors, or increase perhaps the cost of loans. Third is the compliance burden on business, where there is a requirement to comply with conditions attached to permits that may require monitoring and reporting. The fourth is the direct financial impact of licences and permit fees, not to mention, of course, the opportunity cost of this legislation, if it is not implemented correctly, for land-holders in the future. It is very clear from reading the impact statement that there will be financial implications for land-holders affected by the proposed legislation.

The State Opposition has been consulting widely on this matter virtually since the signing of the Natural Heritage Trust bilateral agreement between the State and the Commonwealth in June 2003 and the signing of the Community Forest Agreement in 2005. Consultation, particularly in recent times, has included attending various public meetings and discussing the issue with affected land-holders. Members will recall a number of questions that I have asked various ministers on the subject in the House over the course of the last two or three years. Within the limitations of both agreements, the State Opposition has recognised the need for protecting Tasmania's biodiversity but has argued for, within reason, the protection of farmers' rights, the need for education and a voluntary system. Where a regulation does impact on farmers' rights, adequate compensation is a must. I well recall the meeting in Oatlands in January; the Minister for Primary Industries was in attendance as was the -

Mr Llewellyn - The Minister for Health and Human Services was in attendance.

Mr ROCKLIFF - The Minister for Health and Human Services at the time was in attendance and the member for Lyons. This legislation does affect quite a large part of Lyons. Mr Polley was present; the Leader of the Opposition at the time, the member for Lyons, Rene Hidding; the Minister for Primary Industries, Water and Environment; Mr Kons, the Parliamentary Secretary -

Mr Sturges - Madam Deputy Speaker.

Mr ROCKLIFF - I am leaving the best until last - Senator Colbeck and, of course, Ms Butler. I cannot think of any other members who were present. Having attended that meeting, the level of concern within the community was very clear - and quite justifiably so. There was a clear commitment from the meeting, an agreement from the State and the Minister for Primary Industries, Water and Environment at the time, on the need to make as little regulation as possible and allow maximum of voluntary participation for land-holders affected by this legislation.

The issue of compensation has also reared its head virtually since the signing of the bilateral agreement. I put the State Government on notice here, particularly in the light of the debate that I had with the Minister for Primary Industries, Water and Environment, Mr Kons, 12 months ago with respect to the principle of compensation. If the community demands that changes be made in terms of farmer's practices to protect some biodiversity values then it is fair to say that the community should pay. The issue of compensation is one that needs to be fleshed out in a greater amount of detail. I have to be honest and say that when I attended the meeting with the TFGA board just prior to the election, the question was put to me that if we were successful at the election would the State Government pay for compensation. I had to be honest and say it would not be within the capacity of the State Government and the Tasmanian taxpayer to be able to afford compensation which may well be millions of dollars.

Given that there has been a signing by both the Commonwealth and the State with respect to these matters - and, from my observation, it was largely driven by the Commonwealth - the Commonwealth not only has the capacity to pay compensation but indeed should do so. That is the principle I believe in and one that I have conveyed to my Commonwealth colleagues. It is not fair if community values, which largely would be driven by urban populations in Sydney and Melbourne and which Commonwealth governments take notice of, impact on the ground for farmers and land-holders in Tasmania. In the light of that, it is not within the capacity or the responsibility of the Tasmanian taxpayer to foot that bill. It should be driven, in terms of those large compensation payments, at Federal Government level.

I raise the issue of the debate I had with Mr Kons in the budget Estimates a year ago because it is a testament to how vigorously the State Government will pursue this matter and what resources they will put into implementing this legislation. I asked Mr Kons:

'Obviously this will impact, depending on negotiations, which you say will be fruitful, on property rights and future earning capacity of some primary producers. Do you believe in the principle of compensation for these farmers if their rights are taken away? Do you believe that there should be compensation for taking away the property rights, taking away future earning capacity? Should farmers be compensated, like other sectors in the forest industry who have been compensated, for the impacts on their businesses as a result of the CFA?'

Mr Kons replied:

'No, I do not. I do not believe in compensation on those sorts of issues.'

So, while I believe I have been objective in outlining where the compensation should come from, I quite legitimately should ask the question of the State Government's commitment to pursue this matter with the Commonwealth but also provide sufficient resources with which to implement this legislation.

Mr Llewellyn - I have already said that in the second reading speech.

Mr ROCKLIFF - Well, you can ask for it again, if you like. It goes to the will of your Government, not just you, Minister.

We urge the State Government to pursue and adequately fund a voluntary approach in order to secure essential conservation outcomes in a way which is also very fair and balanced to land-holders. In particular, if land-holders are alienated by a regulatory approach by Government, then the environmental values in question, which the minister has alluded to in terms of protecting the biodiversity values of Tasmanian, simply will not eventuate and can be lost.

The Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association has done considerable work and consultation on the legislative package and in lobbying of State Government. In my humble opinion, they have done a very good job in trying to ensure that farmers rights are protected as much as possible within the existing framework of the bilateral agreement and the Community Forest Agreement. It is worth noting that the TFGA has never endorsed or been party to the NHT bilateral agreement or the Community Forest Agreement. I have read the submissions on the legislative package by the TFGA, submitted in February 2006. I quote from the submission:

'The TFGA is extremely concerned that any attempt to restrict vegetation clearing by legislation in the absence of fully resourced, voluntary options will do serious damage to the value of the farming industry. We also believe it is unlikely to deliver the protection of the natural values, which is its sensible objective.'

Following tabling of the new legislation last week, the TFGA released a media statement titled 'Legislative Changes in the Right Direction', and I quote briefly from that release:

'The Tasmanian Government appears to be taking on board some of the real concerns of farmers on native vegetation regulations.'

I cannot speak for the TFGA but I am mindful of the fact that while this is enabling legislation, the real test for the Government will be in its implementation.

There remain three main concerns for the TFGA, as I see it, regarding the implementation of this legislation. If the community values in any way impact on the rights or earning capacity of property owners, it is fair and reasonable that the community should pay - in other words, fair compensation or a reasonable environmental management fee is essential. This comes from their submission. There needs to fair and transparent process by which threatened native vegetation communities are registered and the process by which the registration of a plant community is achieved should not just involve green-minded bureaucrats, but all stakeholders. There should be an appeals process if the land-holder feels that his or her property rights are infringed.

I know the Government has consulted reasonably widely on the matter. I was interested to read the consultation document that was tabled with this particular legislation, which put in detail the efforts of the State Government. I accept the fact that it has not been easy to draft this legislation, but again, the key thing is its implementation. There are some concerns that I would like the minister to respond to. There is concern within the farming industry that there is a lack of clarity with respect to definitions in what is a technically very complicated area, which we acknowledge, and the processes whereby those definitions are set out and revisited. There is a lack of explanation as to how landowners can be assured of access to an arm's-length umpire in the form of an appropriate tribunal to ensure natural justice for landowners where they believe that the Forest Practices Authority has erred in a discretionary decision. There is also serious concern that the Forest Practices Authority is under-resourced for its expanded role. The FPA is resourced for its role with respect to forestry matters, and in general delivers on that role reasonably well. But even in its forestry role there can be significant delays in the processes. Major expansion of its task into the non-forest area means that it will need a substantial increase in resources, both in the range of skills it brings to bear and the number of people it has with which to complete its tasks. There is a real risk that the regulatory process will be established without a guarantee of supporting adequa te resources. If the process is under-resourced, it risks being discredited altogether. This is the point that I make with respect to the State's obligations in making sure that the implementation of this legislation is effectively resourced to achieve the desired outcome that both the State and the Commonwealth have signed up to.

There is more to debate than just these bills; it is the whole regulatory package that we should be concerning ourselves with. The operation of how this will work on the ground is what we really need to focus on in this debate. It is all very well for the minister to table particular legislation, but there needs to be greater fleshing out in detail as to the practicality and the practical implications of how this will work on the ground.

The Minister for Resources, in his second reading contribution, made the point, and I quote:

'My department will continue to work closely with stakeholders to streamline the new system and address concerns regarding its practical implementation and effects.'

This is where the Opposition, and no doubt land-holder and farming representatives, will be putting the Government on notice, particularly around specific attention to definitions, natural justice processes and Forest Practices Authority resourcing. If it is not implemented properly, the legislation risks being unfair and an onerous burden on landowners and, quite frankly, a waste of time for government. It would have a very limited value, in fact, for the vegetation conservation the bilateral agreement sets out to achieve.

The Opposition will be monitoring developments closely with regard to how these issues are addressed by the State Government with a view to holding the Government accountable for adequate outcomes. We need an ongoing commitment by government to voluntary vegetation conservation programs, including adequate provision for funding of these programs.

It would be fair to say that there remains a lot of confusion out there, particularly amongst land-holders and the general farming community.

Mr McKim - And conservationists.

Mr ROCKLIFF - Mr McKim has interjected to say, 'and conservationists'. That may well be the case. The whole point is that across a range of areas, no matter what your view on this particular legislation, there does remain a lot of confusion in the community with respect to the various pieces of legislation we are debating, including the issue of non-forest vegetation which relates to native vegetation.

Many farmers confuse the issue quite rightly, I suppose. It is very difficult to get your head around the various aspects of the bilateral agreement; the particular legislation we are debating today; the Community Forest Agreement where all this fits and the Australian Government's own environmental protection and biodiversity conservation legislation. Many people confuse in their minds how all these interrelate. This is a very important point for the Government because it means that there is a lot more explaining to do to put land-holders' minds at ease with respect to the implementation of this legislation. There have been considerable efforts by farming representatives; Mr Colin Howlett and Mr Don McShane are two individuals who have organised some public meetings on this issue with the Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association to communicate this to land-holders.

It is time for the Government to commit to resourcing a proper communication strategy, whether that be via the media, or letters, or going out to meet individual farmers. You must talk to those affected land-holders and farmers who may never be affected by this particular legislation but feel some sort of insecurity about whether or not it may affect them now or into the future.

My final comment on this is that the State Opposition will be supporting this legislation but we very seriously put the Government on notice. We will be watching the Government very closely as to how they will be resourcing and going about the implementation of this legislation which has very serious implications for land-holders, particularly in the northern and southern midlands and those affected by non-forest vegetation.

[3.34 p.m.]

July 13 2006

[3.08 p.m.]

Mr ROCKLIFF (Braddon - Deputy Leader of the Opposition) - Madam Deputy Speaker, it gives me pleasure to make a contribution to the House as shadow minister for primary industries, water and the environment on both pieces of legislation. As the minister has alluded to, the State Opposition understand that the bills establish a regulatory basis for protecting threatened native vegetation communities from clearance and conversion. Threatened native vegetation communities are those forest and non-forest vegetation communities that are rare, vulnerable and endangered.

It is fair to say, as the minister alluded to in his second reading speech, that this legislation has caused considerable angst amongst some in our community from both sides of the debate, particularly land-holders who will be affected by this legislation which, depending on how it is implemented, will depend on land-holders' cooperation into the future.

The level of angst has been around for some time, it is fair to say, since the original signing of the bilateral agreement in June 2003. I remember that well because the then minister, Bryan Green, signed it on behalf of the State Government on the day of my first Estimates committee in 2003.

At the time Mr Green said that he was very pleased to announce that he had just that morning signed the National Heritage Trust bilateral agreement, which had also recently been signed by the then Commonwealth Minister for Environment, Dr Kemp, and Warren Truss, the then Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. We then, as Hansard has recorded, briefly proceeded into questions on the impact of land clearing and compensation issues, but as we all know there has been a lot of water under the bridge since that time three years ago.

Under the State Commonwealth Natural Heritage Trust Bilateral Agreement 2003, the Tasmanian Government committed to implementing measures to protect rare, vulnerable, endangered and threatened non-forest vegetation communities from clearance and conversion on all land tenures. Members may remember that the initial proposal was to introduce regulations through local government planning schemes. Since then, local government and the rural community, quite rightly, vigorously campaigned to have local government excluded as the prime delivery agent of these protection measures. Thankfully, the State saw commonsense and agreed to move away from using local government as the primary delivery agent, and to implement the regulation of clearance and conversion of threatened non-forest vegetation communities through a State agency authority. This agreement was formalised under the Tasmanian Community Forest Agreement in 2005.

The key changes established by the new regulatory framework include adding a list of threatened non-forest vegetation communities to the existing list of forest vegetation communities; establishing the new combined list as a formal review able to be listed under the Nature Conservation Act; a new regulation to restrict the clearance and conversion of threatened native vegetation communities; and extension of the compensation provisions for rare and endangered species to now cover vulnerable species and threatened native vegetation communities. The practical effect of the amendments is that all threatened native vegetation communities, non-forest and forest, will be treated the same.

I was interested to read in the regulatory impact statement that, of the total land of around 6.8 million hectares for Tasmania, the area of private land containing threatened non-forest vegetation communities encompasses less than 50 000 hectares, and there is approximately 1.6 million hectares in Tasmania which is used for agricultural production. The native vegetation conservation programs of government will impact on the property rights of private land-holders. The impact will be substantial for some farmers, in particular properties in the areas of northern and southern midlands and the highland municipalities, and to a lesser extent King Island and Flinders Island, and some parts of the north of the State.

I have read with great interest the regulatory impact statement which was released in November 2005. It covered a detailed analysis of the economic, social and environmental impacts of the legislation which we are now debating. There was certainly a need for a regulatory impact statement. It states that in accordance with the Government's legislative review program, the Department of Treasury and Finance's Regulatory Review Unit made an initial assessment that the proposed legislative amendments to restrict the clearance and conversion of threatened non-forest vegetation communities on private land would impose major restrictions on competition and have a significant negative impact on business.

Chapter 4 of the regulatory impact statement is of particular interest, as it outlines the potential impacts the legislation will have on business, and these was divided into four main categories. The first is time, with respect to the delay in commencement of a business activity due to delay to gain approval as a result of the legislation. Second is the issue of uncertainty with respect to the time required for approval and potential of appeals creating an uncertainty that may discourage potential investors, or increase perhaps the cost of loans. Third is the compliance burden on business, where there is a requirement to comply with conditions attached to permits that may require monitoring and reporting. The fourth is the direct financial impact of licences and permit fees, not to mention, of course, the opportunity cost of this legislation, if it is not implemented correctly, for land-holders in the future. It is very clear from reading the impact statement that there will be financial implications for land-holders affected by the proposed legislation.

The State Opposition has been consulting widely on this matter virtually since the signing of the Natural Heritage Trust bilateral agreement between the State and the Commonwealth in June 2003 and the signing of the Community Forest Agreement in 2005. Consultation, particularly in recent times, has included attending various public meetings and discussing the issue with affected land-holders. Members will recall a number of questions that I have asked various ministers on the subject in the House over the course of the last two or three years. Within the limitations of both agreements, the State Opposition has recognised the need for protecting Tasmania's biodiversity but has argued for, within reason, the protection of farmers' rights, the need for education and a voluntary system. Where a regulation does impact on farmers' rights, adequate compensation is a must. I well recall the meeting in Oatlands in January; the Minister for Primary Industries was in attendance as was the -

Mr Llewellyn - The Minister for Health and Human Services was in attendance.

Mr ROCKLIFF - The Minister for Health and Human Services at the time was in attendance and the member for Lyons. This legislation does affect quite a large part of Lyons. Mr Polley was present; the Leader of the Opposition at the time, the member for Lyons, Rene Hidding; the Minister for Primary Industries, Water and Environment; Mr Kons, the Parliamentary Secretary -

Mr Sturges - Madam Deputy Speaker.

Mr ROCKLIFF - I am leaving the best until last - Senator Colbeck and, of course, Ms Butler. I cannot think of any other members who were present. Having attended that meeting, the level of concern within the community was very clear - and quite justifiably so. There was a clear commitment from the meeting, an agreement from the State and the Minister for Primary Industries, Water and Environment at the time, on the need to make as little regulation as possible and allow maximum of voluntary participation for land-holders affected by this legislation.

The issue of compensation has also reared its head virtually since the signing of the bilateral agreement. I put the State Government on notice here, particularly in the light of the debate that I had with the Minister for Primary Industries, Water and Environment, Mr Kons, 12 months ago with respect to the principle of compensation. If the community demands that changes be made in terms of farmer's practices to protect some biodiversity values then it is fair to say that the community should pay. The issue of compensation is one that needs to be fleshed out in a greater amount of detail. I have to be honest and say that when I attended the meeting with the TFGA board just prior to the election, the question was put to me that if we were successful at the election would the State Government pay for compensation. I had to be honest and say it would not be within the capacity of the State Government and the Tasmanian taxpayer to be able to afford compensation which may well be millions of dollars.

Given that there has been a signing by both the Commonwealth and the State with respect to these matters - and, from my observation, it was largely driven by the Commonwealth - the Commonwealth not only has the capacity to pay compensation but indeed should do so. That is the principle I believe in and one that I have conveyed to my Commonwealth colleagues. It is not fair if community values, which largely would be driven by urban populations in Sydney and Melbourne and which Commonwealth governments take notice of, impact on the ground for farmers and land-holders in Tasmania. In the light of that, it is not within the capacity or the responsibility of the Tasmanian taxpayer to foot that bill. It should be driven, in terms of those large compensation payments, at Federal Government level.

I raise the issue of the debate I had with Mr Kons in the budget Estimates a year ago because it is a testament to how vigorously the State Government will pursue this matter and what resources they will put into implementing this legislation. I asked Mr Kons:

'Obviously this will impact, depending on negotiations, which you say will be fruitful, on property rights and future earning capacity of some primary producers. Do you believe in the principle of compensation for these farmers if their rights are taken away? Do you believe that there should be compensation for taking away the property rights, taking away future earning capacity? Should farmers be compensated, like other sectors in the forest industry who have been compensated, for the impacts on their businesses as a result of the CFA?'

Mr Kons replied:

'No, I do not. I do not believe in compensation on those sorts of issues.'

So, while I believe I have been objective in outlining where the compensation should come from, I quite legitimately should ask the question of the State Government's commitment to pursue this matter with the Commonwealth but also provide sufficient resources with which to implement this legislation.

Mr Llewellyn - I have already said that in the second reading speech.

Mr ROCKLIFF - Well, you can ask for it again, if you like. It goes to the will of your Government, not just you, Minister.

We urge the State Government to pursue and adequately fund a voluntary approach in order to secure essential conservation outcomes in a way which is also very fair and balanced to land-holders. In particular, if land-holders are alienated by a regulatory approach by Government, then the environmental values in question, which the minister has alluded to in terms of protecting the biodiversity values of Tasmanian, simply will not eventuate and can be lost.

The Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association has done considerable work and consultation on the legislative package and in lobbying of State Government. In my humble opinion, they have done a very good job in trying to ensure that farmers rights are protected as much as possible within the existing framework of the bilateral agreement and the Community Forest Agreement. It is worth noting that the TFGA has never endorsed or been party to the NHT bilateral agreement or the Community Forest Agreement. I have read the submissions on the legislative package by the TFGA, submitted in February 2006. I quote from the submission:

'The TFGA is extremely concerned that any attempt to restrict vegetation clearing by legislation in the absence of fully resourced, voluntary options will do serious damage to the value of the farming industry. We also believe it is unlikely to deliver the protection of the natural values, which is its sensible objective.'

Following tabling of the new legislation last week, the TFGA released a media statement titled 'Legislative Changes in the Right Direction', and I quote briefly from that release:

'The Tasmanian Government appears to be taking on board some of the real concerns of farmers on native vegetation regulations.'

I cannot speak for the TFGA but I am mindful of the fact that while this is enabling legislation, the real test for the Government will be in its implementation.

There remain three main concerns for the TFGA, as I see it, regarding the implementation of this legislation. If the community values in any way impact on the rights or earning capacity of property owners, it is fair and reasonable that the community should pay - in other words, fair compensation or a reasonable environmental management fee is essential. This comes from their submission. There needs to fair and transparent process by which threatened native vegetation communities are registered and the process by which the registration of a plant community is achieved should not just involve green-minded bureaucrats, but all stakeholders. There should be an appeals process if the land-holder feels that his or her property rights are infringed.

I know the Government has consulted reasonably widely on the matter. I was interested to read the consultation document that was tabled with this particular legislation, which put in detail the efforts of the State Government. I accept the fact that it has not been easy to draft this legislation, but again, the key thing is its implementation. There are some concerns that I would like the minister to respond to. There is concern within the farming industry that there is a lack of clarity with respect to definitions in what is a technically very complicated area, which we acknowledge, and the processes whereby those definitions are set out and revisited. There is a lack of explanation as to how landowners can be assured of access to an arm's-length umpire in the form of an appropriate tribunal to ensure natural justice for landowners where they believe that the Forest Practices Authority has erred in a discretionary decision. There is also serious concern that the Forest Practices Authority is under-resourced for its expanded role. The FPA is resourced for its role with respect to forestry matters, and in general delivers on that role reasonably well. But even in its forestry role there can be significant delays in the processes. Major expansion of its task into the non-forest area means that it will need a substantial increase in resources, both in the range of skills it brings to bear and the number of people it has with which to complete its tasks. There is a real risk that the regulatory process will be established without a guarantee of supporting adequa te resources. If the process is under-resourced, it risks being discredited altogether. This is the point that I make with respect to the State's obligations in making sure that the implementation of this legislation is effectively resourced to achieve the desired outcome that both the State and the Commonwealth have signed up to.

There is more to debate than just these bills; it is the whole regulatory package that we should be concerning ourselves with. The operation of how this will work on the ground is what we really need to focus on in this debate. It is all very well for the minister to table particular legislation, but there needs to be greater fleshing out in detail as to the practicality and the practical implications of how this will work on the ground.

The Minister for Resources, in his second reading contribution, made the point, and I quote:

'My department will continue to work closely with stakeholders to streamline the new system and address concerns regarding its practical implementation and effects.'

This is where the Opposition, and no doubt land-holder and farming representatives, will be putting the Government on notice, particularly around specific attention to definitions, natural justice processes and Forest Practices Authority resourcing. If it is not implemented properly, the legislation risks being unfair and an onerous burden on landowners and, quite frankly, a waste of time for government. It would have a very limited value, in fact, for the vegetation conservation the bilateral agreement sets out to achieve.

The Opposition will be monitoring developments closely with regard to how these issues are addressed by the State Government with a view to holding the Government accountable for adequate outcomes. We need an ongoing commitment by government to voluntary vegetation conservation programs, including adequate provision for funding of these programs.

It would be fair to say that there remains a lot of confusion out there, particularly amongst land-holders and the general farming community.

Mr McKim - And conservationists.

Mr ROCKLIFF - Mr McKim has interjected to say, 'and conservationists'. That may well be the case. The whole point is that across a range of areas, no matter what your view on this particular legislation, there does remain a lot of confusion in the community with respect to the various pieces of legislation we are debating, including the issue of non-forest vegetation which relates to native vegetation.

Many farmers confuse the issue quite rightly, I suppose. It is very difficult to get your head around the various aspects of the bilateral agreement; the particular legislation we are debating today; the Community Forest Agreement where all this fits and the Australian Government's own environmental protection and biodiversity conservation legislation. Many people confuse in their minds how all these interrelate. This is a very important point for the Government because it means that there is a lot more explaining to do to put land-holders' minds at ease with respect to the implementation of this legislation. There have been considerable efforts by farming representatives; Mr Colin Howlett and Mr Don McShane are two individuals who have organised some public meetings on this issue with the Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association to communicate this to land-holders.

It is time for the Government to commit to resourcing a proper communication strategy, whether that be via the media, or letters, or going out to meet individual farmers. You must talk to those affected land-holders and farmers who may never be affected by this particular legislation but feel some sort of insecurity about whether or not it may affect them now or into the future.

My final comment on this is that the State Opposition will be supporting this legislation but we very seriously put the Government on notice. We will be watching the Government very closely as to how they will be resourcing and going about the implementation of this legislation which has very serious implications for land-holders, particularly in the northern and southern midlands and those affected by non-forest vegetation.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Quisque congue tristique eros. Nulla facilisi. Quisque sem mauris, ullamcorper ac, gravida id, mattis id, sapien. Nullam adipiscing enim dapibus felis. Fusce a nisi in odio pulvinar fringilla. Nunc blandit interdum metus. Duis leo nunc, sollicitudin ut, fermentum congue, pharetra eu, massa. Suspendisse potenti. Morbi commodo mauris. Ut at pede. Ut id nisi. Donec scelerisque urna quis ligula. Praesent est. Vestibulum scelerisque. Curabitur quam. Fusce rhoncus pellentesque ipsum. Aenean venenatis metus ac quam. Maecenas lacus lacus, sagittis vitae, congue at, euismod eu, urna. Maecenas vitae purus. Praesent eros lectus, porta et, semper nec, molestie eget, tortor.

Mr ROCKLIFF (Braddon - Deputy Leader of the Opposition) - Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise to speak on the 2006 State Budget to support wholeheartedly the comments made by the previous speakers on our side of the House, the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow treasurer, on their assessment of this Budget. I support some of the comments made by the previous speaker, and also some made by the Greens spokesman on the environment.

Last week, during the matter of public importance debate, I said that it is becoming increasingly evident that this Government can no longer claim ownership of sound fiscal and financial management. Twenty-four hours following that debate, and after the first Aird Budget, that statement is clearly a reality.

There are worrying signs on the horizon for the economy, and this State Government has ignored them in presenting this budget to the Tasmanian people. Unfortunately, Tasmania can no longer claim the honour of being Australia's fastest growing economy, as the Western Australian and Queensland economies are now growing faster. Unfortunately, it appears that such indicators as our interstate migration, which is slowing, property prices, which have flattened, motor vehicle sales, which are falling, and employment growth, which is slowing, are real cause for concern.

The Department of Economic Development's own report, the Regional Economic Development and Investment plan, which is designed to provide information that would assist the Government to determine its future economic and social infrastructure needs, points to the following in its assessment of constraints to business investment: labour costs, the economic climate and availability of skilled labour. They are the top three constraints on business investment. Legislation and regulations, rates and taxes, energy costs and levels of debt are also high up the list of business investment constraints.

There is little in this Budget to address any of these matters in any meaningful way. This Budget falls short on driving business investment and arresting the skills shortage that is constraining economic growth. With the Department of Economic Development having a reduction in appropriation, and the Education budget being allocated a mere 3 per cent increase in funding, one wonders where any progress in addressing the skill shortage will be in fact made.

This Government has gambled on the presumption of economic growth in this State, but those growth projections and economic forecasts have been questioned by credible economic commentators. If we are to achieve the forecast growth of 3.5 per cent - and I for one certainly hope that we do - then we must address our tax competitiveness, particularly in the area of business taxation as a key driver of economic growth.

Businesses have been severely let down over successive Labor budgets to the point where its peak lobby organisation has almost given up on being listened to. Its concerns are not taken seriously by this Government. As many businesses in the area of exports would know, our distance from the marketplace, either internationally or domestically, is a cost disadvantage. Therefore, our cost to business in terms of tax and regulations has to make up for the additional cost of business and of our distance from the marketplace, and that we are in a small local market.

Increasing revenue from payroll tax now underpins the Government's Budget, but it is still an anti-job tax and at current rates undermines our tax competitiveness with other States. I question the fiscal responsibility of running a deficit budget with an optimistic 3.5 per cent forecast growth, a forecast growth rate above the national average. If we manage to achieve that growth, all well and good, but there is no margin for error. The question has to be asked: what if we do not achieve a growth rate of the national average? Even if it is just a quarter of a percentage point below the 3.5 per cent, this will create an even larger deficit to burden the Tasmanian community.

We have been fortunate in recent years to live in a boom economy in Tasmania. Investment has been good, but what if there is an economic slowdown, as there is expected to be, in the next few years? As the Institute of Public Affairs report unequivocally shows, Tasmania has wasted the past five years of its fat GST cheques on quick-spending promises rather than on long-term infrastructure and investment improvements. What is more disturbing is that expenditure in the areas of health and education have not resulted in equivalent productivity improvements. Our waiting lists are still the highest in the country and our literacy and numeracy levels are far less than satisfactory.

I will now turn to areas of my portfolio responsibility, particularly in the areas of primary industry and water. The Government makes much of the $22 million package for primary industry, but many in the primary industry sector would question whether this investment is in fact enough. We must remember, for example, as I have stated in the House before, that food, agriculture and fishery industries employ more than 18 000 people. Our farmers and fisheries export almost half a billion dollars worth of product. Importantly, the farm-gate and beach-value of our food in Tasmania is $910 million, and once value-added that figure becomes well over $2 billion. These figures are backed up by the Government's own budget fact sheets.

In the area of primary industries, it does appear that on the surface the Government has delivered on most of its election commitments, although greater scrutiny at budget Estimates will be required because when it comes to this sector, the Government gets 10 out of 10 for rhetoric but two out of 10 for delivery. We have seen this across a number of areas, including water development, biosecurity and food labelling, just to name a few. The Budget is in fact myopic to the extent that it just confines itself to the promises made by government at the last election. But these are not the only matters that need addressing in the Budget by this Government. Meeting election promises does not mean that the issues being faced by our primary industries sector are going to be addressed.

The first action the State Government should take and fund, unlike the State of Growth strategy is the development of a robust and comprehensive strategic plan to take the primary industries sector 20 years into the future, not just four, as predicated by this Budget. One very important area in the Primary Industries and Water portfolio is that of water. The Government's commitment to water development falls way short of the Tasmanian Liberals' election pledge, but it is pleasing to see at least some focus in water development, as we have been calling for for many years now. The up-front costs associated with on-farm dam approvals is significant and it is pleasing to see the Government take up two key initiatives of ours: access to subsidies for feasibility and environmental studies; and financial incentives to boost water development and more resources for the Water Management division. The big negative for water in the Budget is the 30 per cent increase expected to Consolidated Revenue in water fees. This does nothing to ease the cost of production for those intensive industries such as the dairy or vegetable production industries. I remind the House that the Tasmanian Liberals' policy at the last election was to abolish water fees in the interests of lowering the costs of production to farmers.

With respect to the food industry in Tasmania, and in particular food labelling, questions have to be asked about the Government's intentions and their actions in this area. It has been nine months since the Premier's announcement of $4 million and it is reasonable to ask the question, as columnist, John Rich, from the Tasmanian Country asked in his recent article titled 'Nine Months is a Long Time in Politics', and I quote:

'How can the Government make rapid-fire decisions involving millions of dollars about Spirit III and tourism and not be able to action a decision taken nine months ago about the processed vegetable industry, a most important and vital sector of the Tasmanian economy?'

I note that in the budget papers in output group 2, primary industries, there is an extra $1.2 million for marketing and promotion, which relates to expenditure on the integrated marketing campaign for the Tasmanian vegetable industry for this year. I expect to soon hear the minister detail where this expenditure will be allocated and what process will be in place to ensure that Tasmanian produce will be successfully differentiated in the market to the extent that consumers will value our produce more highly, select it over a competing product and be prepared to pay a premium price for it. This is the only way any long-term future of our vegetable industry, that is under threat by low-cost imported product and poor economies of scale, will survive.

I expect that the direction for achieving this aim will have to include, and be aligned to, the values of Brand Tasmania, a body whose funding the Tasmanian Liberals at the last election promised to triple. On that point, I was pleased to read in the TFGA's monthly report that the TFGA vegetable council have met with Brand Tasmania, and I quote:

'During the meeting it was clear that both parties, Brand Tasmania and the TFGA Vegetable Council should develop a good working relationship and that the TFGA, as a peak lobby organisation, should push for extra government assistance to help Brand Tasmania.'

Surely this is a wake-up call for the State Government to resource this organisation far more effectively, but sadly, there is no evidence of this in this State Budget.

While the major initiative in this area is to focus on local and interstate markets - and now I am talking particularly with respect to the vegetable marketing campaign - I believe that the scope is too narrow and will be of little benefit in the long run and that there is a need to differentiate our premium products in much faster-growing marketplaces such as China, India and Japan. It is too narrow a view to focus only on our domestic market in Australia, of which there are only 20 million people, when we can access more expanding economies, particularly in countries such as China and India who are coming to increasingly value our high quality and premium branded products.

There does need to be a greater emphasis on lowering the cost of production for farmers, as I have mentioned before, and all those facing the primary industries sector, including the fisheries industries. But that also includes the secondary industries who are further up the chain than the primary producers. I note that the Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association have stated in their media release following the Budget that:

'The Budget is a disappointment when it comes to removing downstream impediments in farmers' markets. In particular, it is disappointing to see a lack of any tax relief for businesses like meat, dairy and vegetable processors through payroll tax reductions or land tax costs.'.

I remind the House that at the last election the Tasmanian Liberals had a commitment to abolish land tax to drive investment and make our industries more competitive with other States of Australia.

Mr Deputy Speaker, not surprisingly, I believe that we are about to witness the demise of the State of Growth strategy, a document that, while maybe well intentioned, has delivered little in the last three years. It was a blueprint that identified many of the issues confronting our primary industries sector, such as the threat to our potato industry from low-cost producers in New Zealand, but was hamstrung by limited resources from government with which to implement its strategies and it is high time we not only had a five-year plan for our primary industries and fisheries sector, but a 20-year plan where each strategy is clearly and appropriately funded, unlike the soon-to-be-doomed State of Growth strategy.

The Government has committed some funding towards improving the take-up of quality systems in Tasmania. How far this funding will go remains to be seen; however, I am pleased to see that they have finally recognised the importance of this matter. I, for one, was appalled at their decision in last year's Budget to cut Tasmanian Quality Assured's funding, an organisation that has delivered good outcomes for farmers in terms of quality assurance training, but was also vital in going that next step and increasing the uptake of farmers in Tasmania of environmental management systems.

The Vegetable Industry Taskforce Report to the Premier and president of the TFGA highlighted the low take-up of recognised quality systems - just 22 per cent, in fact - among farmers in a processing sector. I would argue that the insecurity around the future of TQA and the appalling bureaucratic stalling on the FarmBis funding compounded this problem. It is vital that we actively encourage farmers to adopt environmental management systems on-farm so that farmers can be more flexible in taking up opportunities of accessing markets and meeting the increasing expectations of consumers, both domestically and internationally.

In my speech on the Address-in-Reply to the Governor's Speech I also raised the issue of the interest rate subsidy on commercial loans for young farmers to access capital, an initiative that the Tasmanian Liberals also had in our Young Farmers Future Fund election commitment, and one that has prompted a number of inquiries into my office since the election. The Minister for Primary Industries needs to now detail where this funding pledge is contained in the Budget, and how he intends to implement it. I was intrigued to read that the Treasurer in his speech mentioned the promised $22.8 million commitment to primary industries in his budget speech, but the Minister for Primary Industries in his budget press release stated a $21.45 million commitment to the primary industries sector. The differential in the two figures is $1.35 million, which is the exact cost of the interest rate subsidy initiative, which the minister also failed to mention in his media release. This is either a major oversight or the beginnings of a broken promise.

In reference to Tasmania's biosecurity, the moving of output group 3, resource management and conservation, now coming under the same minister as output group 6, that of biosecurity and product integrity, is in fact vindication of the direction that we took at the last election of our advocacy for a minister for biosecurity, to enable a more whole-of-government approach to be taken with this issue. I do not believe it was good policy to have a minister in charge of, say, the control of weeds and foxes in the State, as was the case in the previous administration under Minister Jackson, and to have another minister in charge of preventing the incursion of both these pests, as was the case under Minister Kons. At the very least now, we almost have a quasi-minister for biosecurity effectively in charge of the pre-barrier, barrier and post-barrier responsibilities as it relates to our quarantine and biosecurity in Tasmania, although I believe that elevating biosecurity to ministerial status is still worthy of pursuing, as I believe it would give greater impetus to the development and implementation of a whole-of-government biosecurity strategy. This strategy, I might add, has been very slow to implement. It is now almost two years since the Gorrie Report into Tasmania's biosecurity system was released, and by now I would have expected it to be way past the development and implementation stage as stated in the budget papers.

We welcome the extra expenditure into research and development in the agricultural sector via the funding injection into the Elliott and Forthside research farms. This is welcome. The important issue here, however, is that there needs to be a proper strategic plan put in place, and that any research undertaken is driven by the need to drive productivity in this State in the agricultural sector, one that works closely alongside the private sector so as not to waste resources and double up on what research might already have been undertaken.

I will now turn to the matter of the important portfolio of the environment. Anyone would think that there was not a single environmental issue in Tasmania if this Budget is any indication. The budget for environment is as barren as a desert landscape. We welcome the extra funding commitment to research and management strategies, of course, into the Tasmanian devil facial tumour disease, but certainly that funding commitment is the entire extent of the increase in revenue from government annual appropriation in output group 3 of resource management and conservation in primary industries. In output group 4 of environment protection and analytical services, the increase in annual appropriation will be almost entirely swallowed up by the increases in salaries and wages. I would remind the ministers responsible for those two output groups, Mr Llewellyn and Ms Wriedt respectively, that we did have a State of the Environment report released in 2003, a report designed, using their own words:

'For use by the community and policy makers to help informed decision-making across all spheres of government'.

This report pointed to many issues of concern for this government to address, which they have failed to do. In some cases where the money was on the table to address some of the problems, such as the issue of salinity in Tasmania, the Government could not even get their act together to match the Federal funding and address that very serious issue. I await with anticipation the next state of the environment report, which should be released during this term of government, to see what progress has been made across all these areas.

One particular aspect of the State of the Environment report was in fact the issue of water quality in Tasmania. The report stated that remote areas of Tasmania were experiencing significant problems with microbiological quality of drinking water. We had a $20 million commitment at the last election to address this very serious issue because this side of the House certainly believes that every Tasmanian community should have the fundamental right to access clean fresh drinking water. I am pleased to see that the Budget has made provision for an environmental protection authority. I note this was also a commitment by the Tasmanian Liberals at the last election and I wait to see some detail on its implementation. From my research, there are ways to implement an EPA and ways not to. I caution the Government not to make the EPA a large and unwieldy bureaucracy, but rather one that in fact does work with industry to improve environmental standards in Tasmania.

I am pleased to see that there is some funding in the budget for regional art galleries. We have pursued this issue for some time, the need for more equitable funding for galleries, particularly on the north-west coast. I was pleased to hear the minister detail other areas of need across the State. Although it appears that in the case of the north-west galleries the Government have not met our commitment, it is a step in the right direction. I hope the increase will be CPI-adjusted in the future so that we do not end up with the same problems in 10 years time where, for example, the Burnie and Devonport regional art galleries had not had a funding increase since 1995.

I will now turn to some matters within my electorate. I do welcome the initiatives of the Government in the area of dental health. This has been a huge concern right across Tasmania and in particular in my electorate. In fact only a few weeks ago I raised the issue of 400 north-west Tasmanians being forced to wait long periods of time for emergency dental treatment in Devonport alone. According to advice from the Devonport Dental Clinic, a constituent of mine was informed there were hundreds of people in the Devonport area alone waiting for emergency dental treatment. That is quite apart from over 4 000 people on the north-west coast waiting for general dental treatment. My constituent had been waiting for five years for general dental treatment and if this treatment had been received it is likely that she would now not be seeking emergency treatment. I look forward to seeing just how this dental care package will be delivered.

Speaking of delivery, or in this case lack of it, Port Sorell residents and commuters to that huge growth area in the north-west will not have to worry too much about being held up by traffic works on the Port Sorell road. The Government misled Tasmanians, and in particular the residents of Port Sorell, when it said it would upgrade the Port Sorell road during the recent election campaign. The Government gave the clear impression that funding for its north-west election promises would start flowing to the community in the 2006-07 budget. In a slap in the face for the people of Port Sorell, the hard-fought for upgrade has been left out of the Budget. According to reports, work will not start until after the next State election has been held. During the election campaign the Tasmanian Liberals produced a $5 million upgrade of the Port Sorell road, and committed $2 million of this over the first four years, with $3 million to be spent in the fifth year. We were open and honest to the people of Port Sorell about how and when this upgrade would be funded. Sadly, in complete contrast, Treasury officials are reported saying that Labor would not spend one cent of its $3 million upgrade election commitment unless it is re-elected in 2010.

I wish to mention very briefly the area of tourism in this State, but particularly as it relates to my electorate in the north-west coast. Tourism is becoming increasingly important to the Cradle-Coast region, obviously particularly in the last number of weeks with the demise of Spirit of Tasmania III and of course the loss of confidence since the decision of Qantas to pull out of Burnie. Therefore the tourism infrastructure and budget commitments have great significance for the Cradle-Coast region.

The importance of this issue has been somewhat sidetracked in recent days with the debate about the two north-west airports. There is too much at stake to get sidetracked over this issue, and those calling for rationalisation need to understand a few points. These are that we have two airports that are in fact making a profit, albeit a small one, and neither airport requires huge infrastructure upgrades. Closure of either airport would be a huge blow to the community, including the business community. The real challenge is not a debate on airport rationalisation, but a debate on sustaining two viable airports to bring people to Tasmania so sustaining our viable tourism industry in the region, and of course complementing Spirits of Tasmania I and II .

I look forward, as I always do, to the budget Estimates process where closer scrutiny of the issues that I have mentioned will be undertaken, as well as many other area within my respective portfolio responsibilities.

Time expired.

[5.32 p.m.]

Mr ROCKLIFF (Braddon - Deputy Leader of the Opposition) - Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to make a contribution to a very important matter. I congratulate our shadow spokesperson, Mrs Napier, in presenting this motion to the House for debate and commend her on her excellent work with those with a disability - the carers, the staff and employees within that sector. I think her work over the course of the last four years as shadow minister has been exceptional. This was highlighted in our election policy and we were very proud of the fact that we are the only party at the last election to detail a range of specific policies to do with disability services.

I have read with interest ACROD's Tasmanian Division submission to the budget process, and it is interesting to read the cover page of the budget submission because it does highlight the many organisations within the disability service sector. To read just a few of them: Parkside Training Foundation Pty Ltd, the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Tasmania, Coastal Residential Services, Montagu Community Living Incorporated, Royal Guide Dogs Association of Tasmania, the Tasmanian Deaf Society, St Michael's Association Incorporated and there are many more associated with the disability service sector. ACROD represents 16 000 Tasmanians living with a disability. So it is a huge issue out there in the community particularly within my electorate. As has been mentioned before and is mentioned also in the ACROD submission, it is difficult to ascertain the unmet need in regional areas particularly the west and east coast of Tasmania. It is a very significant issue. I was pleased to attend the disability services forum which was conducted by Margaret Reynolds during the election campaign.

As a result of attending that forum I gained a clearer understanding of the huge demand out there in the community and we were implored as political representatives to take very seriously the issue of disability services. Our policy did reflect the fact that we consulted very widely over the course of the last four years, listened to many people with disabilities and their carers and those within the disability service sector. They were saying to us, quite rightly as it turns out, that they were sick and tired of the crisis management approach to disability services that we have had to bear under the Labor Government over the course of the last four years.

They were sick of the long waiting lists and the very high levels of unmet need in our community and in particular, I highlight again, those regional parts of this State where it is difficult to ascertain the level of unmet need. This simply cannot go on. It is a very serious issue. I am not convinced that the minister's response to Mrs Napier and Ms Putt was an adequate response to assure them that the Government will be taking it very seriously. Because, as has been mentioned before, we do need a very pro-active response to service provision within Disability Services, we need a formula-based response to growth in demand and we need to minimise the crisis management that unfortunately we have become accustomed to over the course of the last four years and more.

We certainly need a strategic planning process, based on projected needs as well. The children with disabilities in our community are going right through school to the post-options program. We need to ensure that people with disabilities can move into the work force and ensure that we have businesses out there in the community that are willing to embrace people with disabilities so that they can contribute to the work force.

I have a particular interest in the area of special needs education and I am pleased to see the new Minister for Education in the Chamber. I have had a lot of my constituents coming to my office particularly at the beginning of this year concerned about the level or lack of funding for children with disabilities within schools and special needs education. I believe that the move to the cluster arrangement for schools has impacted significantly on ensuring that funding for special needs education is delivered on the ground. The transition has impacted negatively, particularly within the Latrobe and district cluster. I have had a number of constituents who have children with disabilities come to my office expressing considerable concern about the lack of resources for special needs education. It has been, in many ways, even worse than before under the transitional arrangements from the district way in which we divided up the education area within Tasmania to the cluster arrangement. Hopefully that is just a transitional issue that will be addressed, but certainly there can never be too much funding, I believe, in the area of special needs education.

I was interested to read that Tasmania has more people with a disability than any other State or Territory per population. While the new, improved 2005-10 Disability Framework for Action is a good start, there is clearly, as has highlighted by the shadow spokesperson, much more to be done. This includes strategic planning to determine the level of current and future need, particularly in regional areas, as I have alluded to before, where limited services are available. We clearly received that message loud and clear at the disability services forum conducted in Devonport in the course of the election campaign. As ACROD say, we cannot hope to strategically plan to meet the needs of people with a disability when there has been no comprehensive demographic survey to assess the current and future needs. We also need a program of progressively increasing recurrent funding for individual support packages, day-support options, post-school options, respite and supported accommodation needs. We must ensure that the expected future growth is built into the forward budgets. I will be very interested tomorrow to see where the Government is going in terms of delivering funding to the areas I have just mentioned.

Mr Speaker, there was also need for a greater flexibility in day-support options and a need for improved transitional planning from school to adulthood, as I have spoken about before, training and employment, post-school options and day support. There is a vital need to improve the few choices available to employ and train people with disabilities. I say again, it is very important that as many employers as possible in Tasmania find accommodation in their workplaces for people with disabilities.

More cluster and group homes are needed, with recurrent funding for their operation. More transitional living units are needed for people with disabilities to acquire life skills. Additional respite options are needed in all areas of the State in recognition that, unless families have their respite needs met, those requiring permanent supported accommodation will increase dramatically. What must also happen is that the transfer of the remaining nine government-run group resident homes to the non-government sector must not be delayed any further. I know the minister has tried to explain her way out of that one. However, I was not convinced by her answer. They have had quite some time to deal with this issue. It is very disappointing to hear some of her comments because, as has been highlighted, any further delays only maximise the disruption to staff and clients. Tomorrow's Budget must include a funding package to address the real disadvantage faced by the non-government organisations in recruiting and attracting quality staff.

Mr Speaker, another unmet need in Disability Services is transport services for people with disabilities. I would urge the minister to instruct the current Department of Infrastructure to review core passenger services to ensure equity of access for people with disabilities to respite, education, training and TAFE et cetera. Another complaint that we hear is that appears to be no methodology as to who receives what and when. We recommend a small review, an appeals secretary, to provide people with disabilities and their families with access to independent appeals provision related to services, in recognition of Advocacy Tasmania's comments that there is no transparency in current processes nor independent assessment.

We must also ensure that discharge planning for people with acquired disability begins on day one. We had a case recently where Michelle Whiley was unable to return home from hospital, despite needing just $15 000 for minor refurbishment of her family home. Discharge planning should begin from day one, involving all relevant stakeholders - health professionals, families, advocates, Disability Services and, if needed, non-government residential providers or Housing Tasmania - in recognition of the inordinate amount of time those with acquired disabilities spend in hospital wards. It was three and half years in the case of one person in the north-west in my electorate.

There also needs to be a seamless service delivery for people with disabilities who might have alcohol and drug issues, or mental health issues, combined with their disability. Labor's record on disability services in this area has been particularly abysmal. A hallmark of this Labor government in the whole area of disability services has been a crisis management approach.

Ms Giddings - Come on, Jeremy, don't be like this.

Mr ROCKLIFF - Absolutely and this is clearly -

Ms Giddings - Did you listen to what I had to say at all? From before 2000, prior Liberal governments did not even recognise these people as having disabilities.

Mr ROCKLIFF - It is no good blaming prior Liberal governments, Minister; you are responsible. Your Government has been in power now for eight years and there is a huge issue out there. You go lurching from crisis management to crisis management.

Ms Giddings - You should be very careful about what you are saying.

Mr ROCKLIFF - I am being very careful about what I am saying because I have heard loud and clear, Minister, when I went to the disability services forum in Devonport, about the crisis management this Government has undertaken. They are quite frankly sick of it. This is why it is important that we debate this motion today. Despite the additional funding, there were at least 350 people on the waiting list, Minister.

Ms Giddings - Yes, so there is unmet demand. Nobody is saying there isn't unmet demand.

Mr ROCKLIFF - Well you have known for quite some time about the demand out in the community. ACROD have been vigilant over the course of the last few years in trying to get this Government to listen to their stakeholders' concerns. You have refused to do it, your predecessor refused to do it and it is now your responsibility. We will be very interested to see tomorrow what this government has to offer for those in the disability services sector.

Ms Giddings interjecting .

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER - Order.

Mr ROCKLIFF - We had the Treasurer saying this was going to be a compassionate budget. We will see just how compassionate this budget is with respect to the disability services sector. We will just see how much this Government will try to address the large 350-person waiting list, and how they will try to address what is crisis management within the disability services sector. We do not want to listen to Health ministers who do not take responsibility for their actions and the past actions of this Government, and do nothing but blame other people when they have been in power for eight years now. It is high time it stopped; it is high time the crisis management in disability services stopped. We need to see a compassionate budget delivered tomorrow from this Government to address the huge unmet need in the disability services sector.

[6.31 p.m.]

Mr ROCKLIFF (Braddon - Deputy Leader of the Opposition) - I wanted to raise an issue very briefly with respect to community organisations in my electorate, most notably the Latrobe Bowls Club with particular reference to the Building Act 2000 and the Building Regulations 2004. In the matter of public importance debate this morning concerning the financial state of Tasmania I did discuss the Regional Economic Development and Investment (REDI) report which was handed down yesterday. Many of the factors inhibiting potential growth in Tasmania highlighted by the 1 400 respondents to that particular survey related to the cost of red tape and unnecessary legislation that this State Government has introduced. It does not just affect commercial properties or commercial businesses. In this case, the Latrobe Bowls Club it affects community organisations and within a month's time, almost to the day, many people will have had to comply. In fact all commercial buildings and not-for-profit buildings will have had to comply with buildings inspections as a result of the Building Act 2000 and the associated building regulations.
This is a huge cost burden not only to commercial businesses but also to the not for profit sector. I quote from the letter from Latrobe Bowls Club which was written to the Director of Building Control, Department of Infrastructure Energy and Resources and copied to various members of parliament and various members of the Legislative Council. I am not sure whether it extended further than those members of parliament in my electorate of Braddon. I quote:
'The Management Committee of this Club has asked me to pass on to you our displeasure at the impost being brought on to us by having to conduct the inspections under the above Act and Regulations.'
Here they are referring to the Building Act 2000 and the Building Regulations 2004 -
'The cost of these inspections on an annual basis (of several hundred dollars per time) to engage an appropriate qualified person is an expense we can well do without in view of the fact that we take great pride in the condition of our building and the steps we take to quite voluntarily to maintain and renovate as we deem necessary.'
The letter goes on to say:
'I trust that you can see our concern is not to avoid complying with the Act and Regulations but to minimise the cost of the compliance, which to a Club such as ours means raising membership costs or working so much harder to raise additional funds or cutting back on services to members, none of which are palatable in any sense of the word.
Our Club, like most other sporting and Community service organisations, depends a great deal on the voluntary input of members and this additional impost will not sit well with most of them.'
It is important that members understand, particularly government members, the impact that will inflict on community organisations and businesses around the State when they have to comply with these building regulations. It will be a significant cost. It just adds to the red tape of business and community organisations. It is something the Government needs to seriously consider with respect to how they unfairly have backdoor taxes, if you like, across many areas in this State. The unfair red-tape burden is inflicting many businesses, as highlighted by the REDI report released yesterday.
I notice that my colleague, Mr Whiteley, has a motion on the books to be debated at a later time with respect to this matter. It will be debated in greater detail, but it is important that I bring this to the attention of members, particularly the responsible minister. I have written to the minister with a copy of the letter to ensure that he can answer a number of questions that the Latrobe Bowls Club have put to the Director of Building Control, questions really centred around trying to minimise the cost of this ridiculous, unfair burden and red tape that will inflict many community organisations and businesses. I want to say at this point that the policy that the Tasmanian Liberals took to the last election was to amend the legislation to ensure that this bureaucratic nightmare is not inflicted on business.
Time expired.

[3.50 p.m.]

Mr ROCKLIFF (Braddon - Deputy Leader of the Opposition) - It gives me great pleasure to speak on the Address-in-Reply to the speech of the Governor, His Excellency, William J E Cox, for the opening of the first session of the forty-sixth Parliament of Tasmania. I see it as a considerable privilege also, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I represent the people of Tasmania in this House as it coincides with the 150-year anniversary of the first fully elected parliament in Tasmania.

I firstly wish to congratulate all members of this House on their election and for the trust their respective electorates have placed in them to exercise their judgment to represent the best interests of their constituents, their regions and the whole of Tasmania; and particularly the new members, Ms O'Byrne and Ms Singh. I congratulate them both on their excellent contributions in their inaugural speeches yesterday.

I also wish to congratulate my friend, and our Leader of the Opposition, the honourable Will Hodgman, on his fine contribution to the Address-in-Reply. I am honoured to serve as his deputy and I have great faith in his ability to lead and I am enormously confident that the Tasmanian people will see him in a very good light as a capable, strong alternative Premier of this State.

Mr Deputy Speaker, as the Leader of the Opposition suggested in his contribution, the challenges that face the Government in the forty-fifth Parliament have not gone away as we enter our first session of the forty-sixth Parliament. There is no room for complacency for this Government. There are still massive problems in our health system and I am confident I would not be alone in referring to the current state of our health system as a crisis. To not acknowledge this is to simply ignore irresponsibility. Our education system also faces unprecedented challenges that need addressing, as does our crumbling infrastructure. Also, as has been plainly evident over the course of the last few weeks, more than ever we need greater accountability and transparency in Government and sound financial management.

Mr Deputy Speaker, it does appear that the cracks in this Government are beginning to show as are some of the excesses and ill-founded decisions of a government afforded the luxury of good economic times and associated benefits of federalism and a strong national government.

As my portfolio responsibilities remain unchanged at this stage, I feel it is imperative that I highlight in this instance some of the challenges that lay ahead for these respective areas. I was very pleased with the policy platform that we took to the last election. I believe it was responsible; it reflected what respective stakeholders were calling for over the course of the last four years and it still provides us with a solid base on which to build in this coming term.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the challenges in primary industry and water are greater today than they were four years ago as the global economic and social environment present many challenges in terms of our ability to both compete in and access international markets and, due to the ease with which people can travel, prevent the incursion of exotic pests and diseases that threaten the viability of our primary industry sector and our natural environment. I believe that the Government has only paid lip service to these challenges over the last eight years and it is time for the Government to place its emphasis on substance, not spin, when it comes to the primary industry sector.

Tasmanian primary producers will certainly be expecting the new Minister for Primary Industries and Water, David Llewellyn, to finally implement aspects of the water development plan that he jointly released with the then Premier, Jim Bacon, as the responsible minister way back in August 2001. Those who value the conservation and appropriate management of our most precious natural resource - water - have lost all patience with this Government's lack of attention and action in this area. I strongly suggest that the new minister gives full and positive consideration to some of the progressive policy initiatives released by the State Liberals in recent times to give the floundering water development plan a major boost. This includes providing Projects of State Significance status to major water development projects to ensure key water development proposals in every region are given every opportunity to succeed. This will be enhanced, of course, by the establishment of a $20 million major water development building fund, and will also assist our farmers with their on-farm water storage by streamlining the bureaucratic processes for their water developments and, in particular, providing grants to farmers to advance their new water storages and help defray the costs associated with the approval process of dam construction.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association acknowledges that water development is a key issue. Mr Roger Swain, the TFGA President, on the launch of the prime election commitments of both major parties said - and I quote from the TFGA release:
'Mr Swain welcomed the commitment by the Liberals to provide $20 million for major water developments. There is no doubt that irrigation is the single most important avenue for productivity gain in the foreseeable future, and anything that can done to help farmers capitalise on irrigation opportunities must be welcome.'

We have to strike a balance between the economic, social and environmental considerations when it comes to such progress. As a farmer with a previous involvement in land care and natural resource management activities, I appreciate and advocate the need for a balance of the social, economic and environmental when it comes to farming and utilising our natural resources sustainably, but we must ensure that we get the balance right. The Meander dam is a case in point.

I am pleased to see that the concept of environmental offsets are at least being put on the table so we are able to progress the economic and social advantages of water development. There may well be a small environmental loss in one area, but this can be offset with potentially greater environmental gains elsewhere. The Government needs to respond to this challenge and develop a policy framework where this can be achieved.

At this point, Mr Deputy Speaker, we do need to address the issue of encouraging our younger generation of farmers on to the land. It is pleasing to see that the Government belatedly address one aspect of this with the incentive announced in their policy release of interest rate rebates. I, along with many young farmers who have contacted my office since the election, will be interested in the detail of this proposal. We do need young farmers who are prepared to take risks and have a go in that respect, and it was pleasing to see young farmer, Matt Ryan of Thirlstane in my electorate, win the AusVeg Young Vegetable Farmer of the Year award for his valuable role in the Fair Dinkum Food campaign which had the unanimous support of all three parties in this House.

Mr Ryan was quoted in Tas Country recently saying:
'We need to realise the whole world has changed. Unless we can market and promote the Tasmanian grown vegetables as something different, we are always going to be competing against other countries. We need to promote Tasmanian produce for all the reasons we know it is good'.

Never a truer word spoken, Mr Deputy Speaker, and that is why I will continue to keep the Government accountable to their promise of September last year in the Premier's address to invest $4 million in a marketing campaign. Yes, this marketing strategy needs to be well thought out and link in with national and existing State strategies, but it needs to happen as soon as possible. I will be keen to see a clear direction mapped out in this year's Budget because time is not on our side. As I raised last month, a recent report into the impact of supermarket home brands demonstrate that there is a window of opportunity for strongly market branded Tasmanian food products, including vegetables.

It was interesting to note that the report by AC Nielsen found that the sales of supermarket house brands had fallen over the past couple of years, despite a strong campaign by the big supermarkets to increase the share of sales of these brands. This report demonstrated that there is a market and a great opportunity for Tasmania's quality produce against many home brands, but we must look further afield than just the domestic market. To this end, I was pleased to see recent comments by Rabobank senior agri-business analyst, Mr Tim Hunt, who believes China provides an opportunity for Tasmanian farmers to capitalise on, as China will increasingly face problems with deteriorating land quality and reduced water supplies, combined with an increasing urban population and growing material wealth and westernisation. The time is ripe to market and export high-quality, premium Tasmanian food into the Chinese marketplace. As a TFGA vegetable council executive officer, Dennis Leonard, said recently, 'We need to focus on what we can put into China rather than worry about their exports into Australia. There is also the fact that our food is coming out of a clean environment and this provides Tasmanian farmers with the opportunity to market to China's millionaire row'. That is what the Tasmanian Liberals have been arguing for some time and why I believe our policy to open a trade and business development office in China is as sound in principle as it would be in practice. We are not doing enough to capitalise on the strengths of what Tasmania has to offer in terms of selling our premium produce.

The beef industry is a case in point. We have the great advantage of all States to market our hormone growth promotant-free beef, the greatest advantage of any State. The Tasmanian beef industry is currently worth over 150 million dollars to Tasmania but we could do much more to develop premium price niche markets both nationally and internationally. In this context I remind members that in 2004 this House debated the moratorium on genetically modified organisms. It is fair to say that the moratorium gained the support of all three parties in the lower House, and both the Government and Opposition supported the 2008 sunset clause in the legislation, as amended in the upper House. We will have to debate this issue again during this term of government. It has serious implications and we have to consider carefully the opportunity cost of either lifting or keeping the moratorium, because as we have seen in Victoria the dairy industry there appears to be going down the track of supporting genetically modified food in the form of GM feed and pasture to dairy cows. Should Victoria choose to lift the moratorium it will again have serious implications for our dairy industry in Tasmania. Currently, the industry is a beacon of growth and productivity in agriculture, and a leading light. The dairy industry is to be commended in recent years for tackling the ogre of globalisation and upskilling their farmers to cope with international competitiveness, but will our Tasmanian industry be able to compete if it does not avail itself of such new technology?

Again, Victorian scientists have discovered an antifreeze gene in an Antarctic plant that could be transferred to vegetable or cereal or, potentially, horticulture crops. Such technology would be a huge advantage in Tasmania. If other States avail themselves of this technology then Tasmanian processors could see Tasmania as too much of a risk in terms of reliability of supply and might move their operations elsewhere. I raise this issue because the Government needs to be able to clearly demonstrate their effort, investment and gains made since introducing the moratorium legislation. Either way there will be an opportunity cost and we need to get it right. I look forward to contributing to this debate in the future and keeping an open mind in the meantime.

I note the Governor's address made reference to the cultural and economic value of the arts in Tasmania. I have enjoyed immensely the responsibility of being shadow arts minister over the course of the last four years. As I mentioned in my maiden speech almost four years ago, an investment by government and business in the arts is not subsidising artistic expression; it is an investment in community development, in diversity, creativity and cultural identity. I passionately believe the arts are about empowering local communities. I will continue to be an advocate for governments to invest in and enhance community cultural development. For this reason I was pleased to present to the electorate in 2006 our arts policy of focusing on funding regionally based cultural development positions that would drive community-centred arts projects by working closely with local governments, regional bodies, communities and service organisations to secure additional resources and facilitate community arts-based projects.

Also I am very proud of the policy initiatives of establishing a $100 000 arts-for-school equipment fund to which all government schools and kindergartens can apply annually receive funding to purchase art equipment to assist in getting children involved in the arts. We really need to consider supporting a whole-of-government arts and wellbeing policy that supports a creative, preventive health model in Tasmania, linking different sectors across departmental and government boundaries and reaching out to isolated communities.

I wish to reflect on what a privilege it is to serve in the House and how that privilege has coincided with the 150-year anniversary of responsible parliament in Tasmania. Contrast this with the new democracy of East Timor. How lucky we are and have been to have had a peaceful, stable democracy for 150 years.

I have spent a little time in East Timor, visiting my dear partner, Sandra, when she was stationed there in the mission for the 18 months prior to East Timor's independence. My visit over the Easter of 2002 was a surreal experience having, at the time in question, been on the campaign trail for a number of months, doorknocking my electorate and coming to terms with the individual needs of prospective constituents. Then, over the next few days, I was staying with a friend overnight in the village of Los Palos, 200 km or seven hours drive from Dili, in one of the more established homes in that village, though it contained no roof and no running water, which was really quite an experience. I met and formed friendships with people who had devoted their lives to an independent East Timor. I know now that those same people are truly devastated by the events over the past few weeks. As I speak, the number of people being displaced by the recent violence continues to grow.

I mention this only to highlight just how fortunate we really are, and to highlight the responsibility we all have in this House to deliver to future generations of Tasmanians economic prosperity, social justice and environmental responsibility through stable democracy. I wish to conclude by making reference to the March 18 election, firstly thank all my electors for placing their faith in me to exercise my best judgement for the betterment of our island State. The first four years was as enormous a learning experience as it was fulfilling.

I thank the electors of Braddon for the opportunity and responsibility that they have provided for me. I can assure them that I will be working just as hard, if not harder, over this term of Parliament and always have their best interests at the forefront of my mind during the decision-making process in this House. I wish to acknowledge and thank our former leader, Rene Hidding,