Tuesday 28 November 2017

The Speaker, Mr Shelton, took the Chair at 10 a.m. and read Prayers.

QUESTIONS

State Service - Resignations

Ms WHITE question to PREMIER, Mr HODGMAN

[10.02 a.m.] With just four months to go until the election, your Government is in chaos. Can you confirm the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Premier and Cabinet has now also resigned following the formal resignation of the Secretary last Thursday?

ANSWER

Mr Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the question. It is not the case that this Government is doing anything other than continuing to provide good, strong leadership for our state and to deliver on what is important to Tasmanians; that is, to see the continued growth in our economy, the budget back into balance which means better investment into important things Tasmanians care about such as health, education and supporting the most vulnerable in our community.

I cannot confirm the second part of the Leader's question.

State Service - Auditor-General's Report

Ms WHITE question to PREMIER, Mr HODGMAN

[10.03 a.m.] With just four months to go, it is true that your Government is in chaos as we head towards the next election. Last week a damning report from the Auditor-General exposed a culture of unacceptable nepotism in the public service. The report stated:

Conflicts of interest were not reported or managed by the selection panel for three of the eight positions examined.

And:

Earlier recommendations made by my Office and the Integrity Commission have not been implemented by agencies or incorporated into the framework by SSMO ...

You have allowed a culture of dishonesty and secrecy to thrive, despite repeated warnings. When will you take responsibility for the chaos enveloping your Government? Why have you allowed Tasmania's most senior public servant, Mr Greg Johannes, to be the scapegoat of this scandalous situation?

1 28 November 2017 ANSWER

Mr Speaker, I thank the member for the question. I reject the assertion. I take it with a grain of salt because this is coming from a member of the Labor Party whose own mentor was not able to be cleared by the Supreme Court for a most serious charge of corruption. He was back on the weekend launching the campaign in Braddon. It is not the ghost of Bryan that lives on; he is still very much mentoring the Leader of the Opposition, Rebecca White.

We take these matters very seriously. They are the recommendations of the Auditor-General, which is why I was very clear from the outset in stating the Government's clear understanding and expectation that the recommendations from the Auditor-General would be adopted, and processes would be in place to improve practices in government. Much has been done and I will talk about that.

Opposition members interjecting.

Mr SPEAKER - Order.

Mr HODGMAN - That is demonstrating leadership and taking responsibility for matters that can be improved. I made it very clear.

It is interesting. On the one hand I get criticised for taking a strong and decisive position and requiring the state Government and its executive work to improve practices. Imagine what would have happened if I had said that everything is fine, it is all under control and we have been doing all these things all along - a lot of which we have. I would be equally criticised.

I will point to some of the matters raised in the audit. It examined eight appointments made over 18 months that go over four departments. There have been improvements in that time. Importantly, the audit did not find any major breaches or concerns that the appointment processes of senior officers and employees is flawed, inappropriate or lacking in merit. That hardly sounds chaotic. Nor did it find there has been poor selection outcomes and the audit did not relate to any appointments in my own office, despite it being reported wrongly that was so.

It did point to some compliance issues and that documentation is not up to scratch. That is not good enough in a modern public service, in our view. I agree with the Auditor-General that those issues need to be fixed. That will be a priority for the new acting secretary, Ms Gale.

The second point is that appointments to the senior executive service, including the recruitment process and selection, are handled by the public sector, not the Premier's Office, not a minister's office and rightly so. They are handled by the public sector at arm's length from the political process.

Ms O'Connor - Unless they are a judicial appointment.

Mr HODGMAN - That is an outrageous claim. I challenge you to repeat it outside this place.

2 28 November 2017 That is a demonstration of what concerns the Opposition - grubby politics and the politics of personalities. We know it is the place of last resort for the Opposition coalition that has nothing positive to offer and that cares only about besmirching the reputations of people in our community who have done no wrong. While I am prepared to accept it every day from this lot because I have had it every single day I have been in this place, it speaks a lot to the reckless attitude of members opposite that they would stoop to these low levels.

We are taking and we take responsibility for what happens in the State Service. While the audit helps to identify areas where there can be improvement, much improvement has been made in the past 18 months. For example, since July 2016, all SES level 3 and 4 selection reports have been examined by the SSMO for compliance and appropriateness prior to being considered by the head of the State Service. Many agencies are implementing declaration of interest policies and procedures based on the work undertaken by the SSMO. The SSMO is working with the Integrity Commission to have practices and policies in place which support the declaration and management of conflicts of interest across all aspects of employment and business management.

Employment Direction 17, related to SES arrangements, is being reviewed to support contemporary practices as part of the examination of the employment framework. In March this year, all departmental secretaries and deputy secretaries completed unconscious bias training, which included consideration of unconscious bias and methods to support diversity in recruitment to further ensure selection processes are effective and merit based.

Much has been done during this term of government. There is still room for improvement, as the Auditor-General has demonstrated through the report. We accepted that. I said that at the very first opportunity we would get on with the job of improving things and still members opposite complain.

State Service - Auditor-General's Report

Ms O'CONNOR question to PREMIER, Mr HODGMAN

[10.09 a.m.] Last week the Auditor-General released a damning report, pointing to a culture of nepotism and poorly managed conflicts of interest in the public service you lead. This follows on from a 2014 Auditor-General's report, warning about inadequate recruitment processes in the State Service. A year later, the departing head of the Integrity Commission, Murray Kellam QC said that public servants were escaping prosecution because your Government is complacent and that he feared this would give a green light to corruption in this state.

In 2015, your party voted against our bill, which would have brought Tasmania into line with other jurisdictions, to establish an offence of misconduct in public office, again a recommendation of the Integrity Commission. Last year the Integrity Commission again warned about poorly managed conflicts of interest and a failure on the part of agencies you lead. Despite this litany of warnings to you, Premier, as head of the State Service, you failed to -

Mr FERGUSON - Point of order, Mr Speaker. I draw attention to the speech that has been given and ask you to ask the member to get to the question.

3 28 November 2017 Mr SPEAKER - On the point of order, as members know, there is always substantial leniency given to putting the question but I ask the member to get to her point.

Ms O'CONNOR - Premier, despite this litany of warnings to you as head of the State Service, you repeatedly failed to act and last Thursday you effectively threw Greg Johannes, an outstanding secretary of Premier and Cabinet and highly respected within the public service, under a bus in order to deflect from the Auditor-General's report. Do you accept responsibility for Mr Johannes' resignation the next day and a loss to Tasmania of a public servant of the highest integrity, who will be sorely missed across all agencies, or is it again somebody else's fault?

ANSWER

Mr Speaker, I thank the member for her question. I point to the fact that Mr Johannes has said that he left of his own choosing. For the member to disingenuously come into this place and claim to be his friend, when she would so willingly and dishonestly purport the reasons as to why he left, is an example of the lack of integrity and honesty by the member who asked the question.

I will also point out the irony of the member asking the question, which opened with a reference to a 2014 report on the processes in place in government, which was the government that the member who asked the question was a member of. It was the Labor-Greens government. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. It is one rule for the Greens and one for the rest of us. It was a report into her government. It is a little unusual that the member for Denison would ask about a report which pointed to bad practices related to her own government but that is how far they will twist the truth and reality to make a petty political point.

I have accepted responsibility for the need to make improvements and have outlined to the House the improvements that have been made over the four years of our government after the Labor-Greens government.

Hodgman Liberal Government - Achievements

Ms COURTNEY question to PREMIER, Mr HODGMAN

[10.13 a.m.] Tasmania has come a long way since the 2014 election but we know there is still more to be done. Can you outline to the House some of the achievements of the Hodgman majority Liberal Government and our plan for the future, and are you aware of any alternatives?

ANSWER

Mr Speaker, I thank the member for the question and her interest in the future of our great state. It is important to reflect on the last four years and recall that four years ago Tasmanians voted decisively for a change in direction and a brighter future. They voted for a majority Liberal government to deliver its plan to kick-start our economy, to fix the budget mess we inherited from Labor and the Greens and to reinvest in essential services. That is what we have been doing.

There is no doubt that Tasmania is a very different place now from when we came into government. Back then 10 000 jobs had been lost from the Tasmanian economy. Under this

4 28 November 2017 government over 10 000 jobs have been created. Under a Labor-Greens government the economy had slipped into recession. Under a majority Liberal government our economy is now strong and has continued to grow, building investment is up, and Tasmanian businesses are amongst the most confident in the country. Under Labor and the Greens they were at the lowest levels of business confidence.

When we came into government we inherited a Labor-Greens budget that had $1.1 billion of deficit across the forward Estimates. Today, through strong financial management, we have returned the Budget to balance, with modest surpluses forecast for each of the budget and forward Estimate years. When we came to government, our elective surgery waiting lists were amongst the longest in the country; today they are the shortest ever on record. When we came to government, our education results were falling short; today our students are getting better results.

This has not happened by accident or chance, as some would suggest. It has happened because we have stuck to our plan to build Tasmania's brighter future and we have had a strong and stable majority government to deliver on our plan, not being held captive to the sorts of political whims, deals and trading that was so evident under a minority Labor-Greens government.

There is no doubt that in relative terms things are good, but this is certainly not as good as it gets. We want to take Tasmania to the next level to ensure that all Tasmanians feel the benefits of a strong economy and our strong investment into essential services, while we also want to protect everything that is special about living in our state.

From the economy to education, infrastructure and health, we are setting a bold new range of targets. Between now and the election we will be releasing more policies as to how we will achieve them. We will set targets; it is our vision for this state because we did so in coming into government. Our plan is delivering and we are outlining our vision for the next term of a majority Liberal government.

In a few months Tasmanians will face a very clear and important choice. It is a choice between a majority Liberal government with a clear plan to take Tasmania into the future, to build on our momentum and take our state to the next level, or a return to a Labor-Greens minority government that does not have the courage to say what it believes in, arrogantly thinks it will slide back into government with an easy ride and, as we are seeing today, is more interested in politics than people. Worst of all, it will present a risk to our state, and that is to take Tasmania backwards. That is a risk the state cannot afford.

Mr Greg Johannes - Resignation

Ms WHITE question to PREMIER, Mr HODGMAN

[10.17 a.m.] It is clear you are being dishonest about the circumstances surrounding Mr Johannes' departure. On Friday your original statement said Mr Johannes had offered his resignation and you accepted it. You then hastily released another statement with that explanation removed and attempted to play down the change of language on Saturday, saying:

5 28 November 2017 As often happens, media releases can be altered and re-issued. I think you are perhaps reading a lot more into this than you should.

However, an email from Mr Johannes to your media office states:

THIS IS WRONG. My resignation was not accepted, and it was not offered - I resigned.

Why have you attempted to cover up the circumstances surrounding Mr Johannes' resignation?

ANSWER

Mr Speaker, I thank the member for her question but it is entirely untrue and founded on conspiracy. It is a demonstration of a point I just made, which is that members opposite are more interested in political games than they are about the state and its future. They are more interested in political playtime than in developing good policies and plans for our state, and are fixated on the insignificant. That is what this is.

Mr Johannes made it clear that he resigned of his own choosing. He did so, he told me, because it was the right thing for him and the right thing for the State Service. A media release was issued, which Mr Johannes did not have an opportunity to view. He disagreed with it, which is why we changed it. That is the fact of the matter. Mr Johannes was unhappy with the wording used and we changed it. It adequately and accurately reflected the fact that he resigned. I accepted his resignation with some disappointment because I have enjoyed working very closely with him and the things he has done to improve the State Service in the time we have worked together.

The Opposition has little else to offer other than political games and word games, which is politics 101. It does not go to the things Tasmanians are genuinely interested in.

Hodgman Liberal Government - Economic Achievements

Mr JAENSCH question to TREASURER, Mr GUTWEIN

[10.20 a.m.] Tasmania has come a long way since the 2014 election but we know there is still a lot more to be done. Can you outline to the House some of the economic achievements of the Hodgman majority Liberal Government and our plan for the future and are you aware of any alternatives?

ANSWER

Mr Speaker, I thank Mr Jaensch, the member for Braddon, for that question and his interest in this very important matter.

When we were elected to Government in 2014, something the former failed finance minister knows full-well, the budget was in a very different and poor position. Over 10 000 jobs were lost under the previous Labor-Greens government. Remember that?

6 28 November 2017 Members interjecting.

Mr GUTWEIN - The economy had been driven to recession. Remember that? Business confidence had been shattered.

Members interjecting.

Mr FERGUSON - Point of order, Mr Speaker. I am the closest set of ears to the Treasurer and I cannot hear him with the excessive noise on the other side, deliberately conducted to drown out what the Treasurer is saying.

Mr SPEAKER - I know it is the last sitting week of parliament but members know where the limits are. It was getting beyond that point. I ask all members to respect the Standing Orders and allow the Treasurer to complete his answer.

Mr GUTWEIN - Thank you, Mr Speaker. I can understand why they would want to interject and why they would not want to hear this.

The difference today is stark. In recent months employment levels have hit record highs. Since the election, 10 000 jobs have been created. The unemployment rate has dropped to 6 per cent. The unemployment queue is lower. Retail trade has had 16 consecutive months above $500 million. Our tourism sector is booming.

Members interjecting.

Mr SPEAKER - Order. The House will come to order before I ask the Treasurer to continue.

Mr GUTWEIN - The number of visitors to the state is up 8.7 per cent in the year to June and visitor expenditure is up over 10 per cent. Our housing sector is doing well. In September 2017, the number of housing finance commitments was the third strongest of all the states. The number of dwelling approvals was 46 per cent higher than at the same time in the previous year. Exports are up by more than 8 per cent. New capital expenditure is up by 15 per cent. Importantly, our population is growing at the fastest rate of growth in six years.

It is little wonder that business confidence is up. Under the previous government, two out of three small businesses thought the Labor-Greens government was working against them. We know there is much more to be done and more to be achieved. For that reason, we set out 43 targets to build Tasmania's future. We will deliver a stronger economy and more jobs. We have set ambitious targets, including aiming to have the lowest unemployment level of all the states. We will reduce the youth unemployment level to below the national average. We will be aiming to deliver -

Ms White - How? What lever will you use?

Mr GUTWEIN - One way we will be doing that is stopping a Labor-Greens government from getting back in and trashing the economy. Unlike us, those opposite have no plan. They have no policies. All we are getting are glib statements and small target thought bubbles. Ms White continues to walk both sides of the street. The interview this morning, half an hour on ABC and you would not know what the Leader of the Opposition stood for or wanted to do. All

7 28 November 2017 motherhood statements, more conversations than Richard Fidler. Even Leon Compton, who on most days would be trying to help you, sounded confused and frustrated by the fact that you had no policy.

The only thing we know for sure from this morning, is that Ms White will write the unions a blank cheque on wages policy, drive the budget back into deficit, and we know that a 1 per cent increase in wages policy will add $25 million to the bottom line, year on year.

Tasmania should not forget that under that lot, when you were finance minister, the failed finance minister, Tasmania went backwards. There were 10 000 jobs lost, the unemployment rate had an eight in front of it, business confidence crashed and they put a wrecking ball through the finances.

Tasmanians only have to have a look at what happened under Labor and the Greens and they should not risk another Labor-Greens government. The only option for continued economic growth is a majority Liberal government.

Supreme Court - Appointment of Judge

Ms O'CONNOR question to PREMIER, Mr HODGMAN.

[10.26 a.m.] In the midst of nepotism concerns within your agencies, can you confirm that your Government ignored the recommendations of the select panel to appoint Philip Jackson SC as the next Supreme Court judge and instead, appointed Mr Gregory Geason to the role? Can you confirm that Mr Geason is a long time friend of yours and was in fact best man at your wedding?

Can you also confirm that Mr Geason did not apply for the role, but that he was prompted by your Government?

What kind of example is set when the government of the day apparently ignores the selection process prescribed in the protocol for judicial appointments for one of the most senior legal roles in Tasmania?

How do you explain to Tasmanians, who are becoming increasingly concerned about the evidence of nepotism on your watch, why you ignored the recommendation of the select panel to appoint Philip Jackson SC as Tasmania's next Supreme Court Justice?

ANSWER

Mr Speaker, I note the question from the member for Denison and the appalling new depths that she will stoop to make a political point and to try to inflict some political damage, in this case, sadly in the process undermining a protocol which was followed; a process which I excused myself from, given a relationship with Mr Geason. As a member of the legal profession, one who worked in the same firms as Mr Geason, it was appropriate for me to do so. I categorically reject the suggestions of the member who makes these claims.

8 28 November 2017 Trying to smear the judicial appointment process which was followed in accordance with the protocol, under the watch of the Minister for Justice, who undertook the necessary consultations as per the protocol for judicial appointment. I excused myself from the deliberations before Cabinet for the reasons I have outlined.

I make the point again: here we are in the final week of parliament, before the election, when I imagine most Tasmanians would be wondering about what our plan is for the state's future, what we can continue to do to keep the state heading in a positive way, yet we have the most negative of politics being played by the member who asked this question, and indeed by the Opposition.

I would love to see the day when they are held to account for this. They will come in here and say anything, no matter how scurrilous, how damaging it is to individuals who are not able to defend themselves.

Ms O'Connor - Point of order, Mr Speaker. It goes to relevance. I did ask the Premier if the advice of the selection panel was ignored and why.

Mr HODGMAN - And I said that the protocols and the processes have been appropriately followed, including me excluding myself from the deliberations.

It will not matter to members opposite how they damage the reputations of Tasmanians, including the latest judicial appointments.

Members opposite are completely carefree about that; they undermine a judicial appointment for their own political ends. It is a disgrace. It is another example of opposition members coming in here and saying anything they want, inflicting whatever damage they will do in the process, without having the strength of conviction or the integrity to back it up with some substance.

The latest effort from the Leader of the Opposition is that she has made an assertion with respect to a deputy secretary of the Department of Premier and Cabinet. I am advised that, as is often the case, the Leader of the Opposition is saying things in this place which are entirely untrue. I am advised there has been no resignation, as the Leader of the Opposition has asserted. She should apologise for again coming into this place and saying things which are entirely untrue, and not caring at all for any factual foundation. I ask the Leader of the Opposition on what basis did she make the claim in this place this morning that a deputy secretary had resigned. What was the basis for you to make such a claim? It was equally without foundation, as was the question asked by the member for Denison.

State Service - Heads of Agencies

Ms WHITE question to PREMIER

[10.31 a.m.] The wheels are well and truly falling off your Government, just months out from an election. Chaos is on display, even in this Chamber right now, for all Tasmanians to see. Losing one head of agency in sudden and unexplained circumstances could be considered unfortunate, but Mr Johannes is not the first department head you have lost this term. Since the election you have sacked the former secretaries of DPAC, DIER and economic development. You have lost a

9 28 November 2017 secretary of health, a secretary of justice, the head of the Integrity Commission, and failed to renew the contract of a secretary of education.

How can Tasmanians have any confidence that you can provide the stable government that you claim you can, when it is quite clear that your relationship with the public sector is horribly and irreversibly broken?

ANSWER

Mr Speaker, I suspect there were some last-minute changes to that question. As I have said, the Leader of the Opposition has already today, as she has done before on many occasions, come into this place and made false allegations, which she is quite happy to stand by. Where is the honesty, transparency and integrity in that? It is time that the Leader of the Opposition was held to account. She should be asked to explain why it is she uses this place as a political playfield, to make political points and to point the finger at individuals in the public service who, as Mr Johannes has done in this instance, made a decision of their own volition.

Opposition members interjecting.

Mr SPEAKER - Order. Ms O'Byrne, order.

Mr HODGMAN - During this term of government the Labor Party has changed leader. There are members not wanting to be in this place and members of the Labor Party not wanting some of the members to be in this place either. In the term of the Labor-Greens government, it lost the secretary of Education, the secretary of Treasury, the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, another secretary of the department of Treasury and Finance and the head of the prison service.

Hodgman Liberal Government - Achievements in Primary Industry Sector

Mrs RYLAH question to MINISTER for PRIMARY INDUSTRIES and WATER, Mr ROCKLIFF

[10.34 a.m.] Tasmania has come a long way since the 2014 election, but we know that there is a lot more to be done. Can you outline to the House some of the achievements of the Hodgman majority Liberal Government in the primary industry sector, and our plan for the future? Are you aware of any alternatives?

ANSWER

Mr Speaker, I thank the member for her question and her interest in this matter, her passion for our primary industry sector, particularly in the electorate of Braddon.

I have met with farmers across Tasmania, farmers who have been through some very tough times in the past 18 months to two years. With droughts, floods, bushfires, the dairy price crash and other unfortunate circumstances. It has been a challenging couple of years but confidence in the future of agriculture is returning.

10 28 November 2017 Confidence is returning because the majority Hodgman Liberal Government has a clear vision backed up with a comprehensive plan that is delivering results. The latest agribusiness scorecard proves we are on track to grow the value of agriculture tenfold to $10 billion by 2050. The gross value of agriculture grew by 3.3 per cent in 2015-16 to $1.48 billion. This is an outstanding result, further demonstrating the resilience of our farmers and the value of the state's investment in irrigation in mitigating the then drought conditions. This is why we are investing $50 million towards delivering the tranche 2 irrigation program with farmers and the Commonwealth. Our 43-point plan sets out the additional target to double the amount of water available through Tasmanian irrigation schemes by 2025 and a potential tranche 3 irrigation program is already undergoing a comprehensive feasibility study.

Rabobank's latest rural confidence survey confirms that the long-term confidence in the Tasmanian agri sector remains sounds with strong investment and viability indicators. Apples, cherries, wine and our traditional beef and wool sectors lead the way, all increasing in value. Other sectors are holding firm, which all adds up to good news for the more than 7500 people who are employed in Tasmanian agriculture. No wonder the last four years has delivered more certainty and seen more delivered for Tasmanian agriculture than any time under the Labor and disastrous Labor-Greens experiment.

We have delivered for the industrial hemp industry so it can achieve its potential and we have strengthened our poppy regulations so the industry remains a world leader. We have invested more into boosting farm, orchard and vineyard productivity and modernising agriculture research and we have strengthened the right to farm protections.

We have invested in our agri skills and have made agriculture education part of the curriculum from kindergarten to grade 12. We cut red tape, making it simpler to build a farm dam and made it easier for farmers to protect their crops from browsing animals and we did not ban 1080. There is more money for biosecurity, doubling the detector dog teams, boosting frontline services, doing the Powranna truck wash, and more for tackling weeds, pests and invasive species.

We are investing in stock underpasses to make farms more efficient and made safe farming a permanent fixture. We are supporting families with outreach services such as Rural Alive & Well and rural financial counselling; investing in more landcare works on rivers; and working to grow Tasmania's place in the high-value seed industry.

Our record is very clear. Our comprehensive agrifood plan is available. The actions for the past four years is there for all to see.

When I compare with those opposite though, it has nothing. Not only is it the most inexperienced alternative government the state has seen, it has no plan for agriculture. I am waiting for a policy on agriculture. The best I can find is a token 36 words mentioning agriculture. That is in their economic correction statement where they talk about marketing. You will have to do a lot better than 36 words to gain the confidence of Tasmanian farmers.

It is clear that our record is strong. I commend our resilient farmers who are doing a terrific job in really tough times. I welcome the opportunity to put forward more comprehensive plans to the next election.

11 28 November 2017 Mr Greg Johannes - Resignation

Ms WHITE question to PREMIER

[10.39 a.m.] Can you confirm that the relationship between Mr Johannes and your chief of staff has been toxic for some time and that you had been preparing to remove Mr Johannes before the election? Did you or anybody else in your Government have conversations with the Secretary of Education about becoming the head of the public service prior to Greg Johannes resigning?

ANSWER

Mr Speaker, I thank the member for her question. The answers are no, no and no. Again, we have a leader of an opposition party that is so desperate, so cocky, so policy-free but politically charged that it will say anything to damage us but take out any innocent people on the way through. I reject the assertions made by the Leader of the Opposition and, as we have seen in the past, it is typical that they come without any foundation of fact. We have had the Leader of the Opposition come into this place today and make assertions about a deputy secretary resigning and I am advised it is entirely untrue. It begs the question which deputy secretary the Leader of the Opposition is talking about. I invite the Leader to correct the record, apologise, or at least inform the House on what basis she would make such claims.

This is the Leader who also came into this House and made baseless accusations under parliamentary privilege about the former children's commissioner's contract not being renewed, when she asked us to confirm that, due to criticism of the Government, it was so that Mr Mark Morrissey was told his contract would not be renewed. Again, it was entirely untrue but it does not stop the Leader of the Opposition making those statements with no foundation in fact. We have seen it again today and I reject the latest claims made by the Leader of the Opposition, who really should be held to account for these things.

Caretaker Convention Protocols

Ms WHITE question to PREMIER, Mr HODGMAN

[10.41 a.m.] Mr Johannes was close to finalising the new caretaker conventions to govern acceptable behaviour during election campaigns. It is understood that these conventions would have placed considerably tighter restrictions on what your Government could get away with in terms of using public funds for advertising campaigns and handing out grant money during the upcoming campaign. Can you rule out attempting to relax caretaker conventions now Mr Johannes is out of the picture? Can we expect to see a repeat of the publicly funded propaganda which accompanied your failed TasWater takeover and health funding spin campaign?

ANSWER

Mr Speaker, I thank the member for her question. It has shown that she is no different from her predecessor. This is exactly the sort of thing we would have got from Bryan Green, delivered in a different way, I admit, but delivered nonetheless by a political player who has been well

12 28 November 2017 trained in how to make political mischief. Having worked in political offices herself, she clearly well knows some of the grubbiest ways you can make a political point and inflict some political damage. That is what we are seeing today.

I can assure the member that notwithstanding her conspiracy theories - which is what they are, and which are baseless and have no foundation - the new secretary of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, who was as surprised as me that might be in that position at this point in time, will continue the excellent work that was being done by Mr Johannes, not just in that regard but in a number of ways he was improving the public service to the extent that it is a much stronger, more robust public service now than when we came into government.

There will be no diminution of the important work that is underway, including the recasting of the caretaker convention protocols by which we will abide.

I can assure you, no matter how much they try to pretend that they will do the same, if their behaviour is anything to go by, they will do and say anything to make a political point.

Glenorchy City Council - Board of Inquiry Report Update

Mr STREET question to MINISTER for PLANNING and LOCAL GOVERNMENT, Mr GUTWEIN

[10.44 a.m.] Can the minister update the House on the Glenorchy City Council board of inquiry report?

ANSWER

Mr Speaker, I thank the member for his interest in this very important matter. I established the Glenorchy City Council board of inquiry on 14 October 2015 in response to significant concerns that the council was not acting in the best interests of the community. On 8 February 2017, I suspended all 10 councillors and appointed the Hon. Sue Smith as commissioner. The suspension was extended in August 2017. As members are aware, the latest appeal in relation to the board of inquiry process was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 15 November 2017. The board then finalised its report and provided it to me on 16 November.

The report has made a significant number of findings in relation to the governance, management and operations of the Glenorchy City Council. In summary, it is scathing and highly critical of the council and key staff, and makes three overarching recommendations: that the minister recommend that the Governor, by order, dismiss the councillors in accordance with section 226 of the Local Government Act; that a commissioner be appointed in accordance with section 231 of the act; and that the commissioner immediately implement an extensive review of management practices of the council.

More specifically, the report includes the following key findings: a number of aldermen failed to effectively monitor council's performance, council's assets and the performance of the general manager; aldermen failed to undertake their duties and responsibilities as authorised by the council and prescribed in the act; the number and consistency of potential breaches of the code of conduct by the aldermen indicate that the council was failing in its duties to comply with the act; and the general manager failed to comply with a number of functions under the act in

13 28 November 2017 regulations. The findings clearly demonstrate the failure of the council to perform many of its functions, that the council failed to provide good leadership and governance to the city, and that major reforms are needed to establish a properly functioning council.

These findings support the Government's actions to introduce special purpose legislation to dismiss the councillors and set 16 January 2018 as the closing date for a standalone council election. With the Glenorchy City Council (Dismissal of Councillors) Bill 2017 receiving royal assent on 22 November 2017, the councillors have now been formally dismissed. In line with the board of inquiry's recommendations that a commissioner be appointed, I have appointed Sue Smith as the commissioner until new councillors are elected and appointed. I intend to consult with and issue directions to the commissioner in line with the board's recommendations to begin the process of improving governance and accountability at Glenorchy City Council. I also note that I was advised by the commissioner this morning that the general manager, Mr Brooks, is no longer employed by the council.

I made a commitment that I would publicly release the report before the end of the month and I will table it later this morning. I have taken advice and the full report as provided to me by the board will be tabled. As I have said, it is important that the Glenorchy community has time to consider the report's findings as well as all of the information it contains. The people of Glenorchy now have the opportunity to make an informed decision in the upcoming council election. I am confident that they will accept both this opportunity and the responsibility to elect a council in the best interests of their city.

The Local Government Division is currently assessing any possible offences under the act. Any further action to investigate or refer matters to other bodies on the basis of the board of inquiry findings and recommendations will be made in due course. The release of the board of inquiry report today marks a major milestone on the long journey to restore public trust in the Glenorchy City Council.

I thank the Glenorchy community for their patience and wish them well as they now determine the council that they want to lead their community into the future.

State Service - Auditor-General's Report

Ms WHITE question to PREMIER, Mr HODGMAN

[10:48 a.m.] The chaotic nature of your Government is demonstrated by your chaotic handling of the nepotism scandal uncovered by the Auditor-General. Last week you said you had told the secretary of your department to immediately action the Auditor-General's recommendations on staff recruitment. You subsequently said you had written to him but did not know if he had received the correspondence. Did you actually speak to Mr Johannes about this matter, or did he learn about your instructions via the media? Was that the straw that broke the camel's back and forced his resignation?

ANSWER

14 28 November 2017 Mr Speaker, I thank the member for the question. It is becoming a little farcical. Following a set of questions I have received from the media, which again highlights an Opposition that has very little thoughts of its own and very little ideas, it is true to say that I have spoken with Mr Johannes about the Auditor-General's report. I confirmed in writing my expectations as to what the Government would do to further improve processes. Mr Johannes said to me that he would undertake work with the Auditor-General and the SSMO to commence processes to improve recruitment practices in the State Service, so once again the question the Leader of the Opposition asks is entirely baseless. There is no conspiracy theory and worse still, there is not credibility to the dishonest, baseless claims the Leader of the Opposition continues to make in this place.

Electoral Act - Alleged Breach of Section 188

Ms DAWKINS question to PREMIER, Mr HODGMAN

[10.50 a.m.] Your party's policy on poker machines in pubs and clubs is well known. Tasmanians understand you are prepared to ignore the 80 per cent who want action on the removal of pokies and to allow social harm, the loss of lives and livelihoods to continue. Your major donors, the Federal Group and the Tasmanian Hospitality Association, are likely very happy with this position. Tasmanians, therefore, would not be completely surprised to see you agreed to let pokies lobby group, the THA, shout free beer at your pub test events. Do you agree this looks like an attempt to bribe voters with free alcohol?

We have sought advice from barrister Roland Browne. In a detailed opinion he writes that those involved with the supply of alcoholic beverages to people who came along to the pub test on various dates after July this year have a case to answer for a breach of section 188 of the Electoral Act. The Electoral Commission is now investigating this.

Do you agree that you have a case to answer over the decision to allow THA to pay for drinks with your voters?

ANSWER

Mr Speaker, I thank the member for the question and will await the findings of the Electoral Commissioner and not necessarily agree with the view of the Greens' lawyer on this matter. It is the Electoral Commissioner's view that matters here, not the Greens' lawyer.

I am confident we have done nothing wrong. It is a great way for us to engage with people, over a beer. Often that is when people are at their most comfortable to tell us what they think. We have had people come to pub tests and tell us that they do not agree with our view on gaming, that they are anxious about the Labor Party's lack of a policy on gaming, that they appreciate that our state is now in better shape than it was when we came into government.

What we are going to do next to support the most vulnerable in our community is to grow our economy, to invest in health and education. These are the things we have spent our time discussing in the pub tests we have undertaken right around the state. It is a lot better than the things members opposite have asked us today.

15 28 November 2017 State Service - Recruitment of Secretary of Department of Premier and Cabinet

Ms WHITE question to PREMIER, Mr HODGMAN

[10.53 a.m.] When will you advertise to recruit a new head of the Department of Premier and Cabinet? Can you confirm whether this will occur before the election, or is it your intention to leave DPAC and Education in a state of limbo and uncertainty?

ANSWER

Mr Speaker, we will be taking advice as to the appropriate courses of action with respect to these very important appointments. We will not do what the former government did and at the eleventh hour before an election sign up senior executive positions, which we inherited.

Ms Giddings - We did not do anything inappropriate.

Mr HODGMAN - Yes, you did. There was a great example of that under the former Labor-Greens government where contracts were signed. Given we are three or so months from the election, we would consider it the appropriate course of action not to do the sort of thing the former government did but to ensure the appropriate people are in place to take on these important roles, as Jenny Gale will do.

I note the lack of confidence exhibited by members opposite. We have every confidence in Ms Gale performing the functions of the acting secretary of the Department of Premier and Cabinet with excellence. The appropriate processes will be put in place to ensure the longer term appointments in due course.

Hodgman Liberal Government - Achievements in Forestry and Mining

Mr BROOKS question to MINISTER for RESOURCES, Mr BARNETT

[10.54 a.m.] Members interjecting.

Mr SPEAKER - Order. When the House comes to order I will ask Mr Brooks to continue.

Mr BROOKS - Mr Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to ask this important question.

Tasmania has come a long way since the 2014 election, but we know there is still a lot more to be done. Can you outline to the House some of the achievements of the Hodgman majority Liberal Government in creating jobs in the forestry and mining sectors and our plan for the future? Are you aware of any alternatives?

ANSWER

16 28 November 2017 Mr Speaker, I thank the member for Braddon for his question and his strong support for the resources sector. The resources sector has come a long way, since the dark days of the Labor-Greens government, where two out of three jobs in the forest sector were lost and where, in the words of Rebecca White, she has no regrets for those dark days.

Under the Hodgman Liberal Government, jobs and production in the forestry and mining sectors have rebounded strongly. We have rebuilt and continue to rebuild the forest industry. The State of the Forests 2017 summary recently released by the independent Forest Practices Authority confirms the turnaround under the Hodgman Liberal Government. The FPA states that since the low point in November 2013, 1 000 jobs have been gained in the forestry sector. The quantity of wood produced from Tasmania's forests has increased from a historic low of 2.5 million tonnes in 2011-12 to 4.4 million tonnes in 2015-16. Private hardwood plantation pulpwood production increasing from 200 000 tonnes in 2011 to 1.7 million tonnes in 2016, with the value increasing tenfold to $149 million.

Private hardwood plantation pulpwood production has increased big time. The sharply rising trend has continued over the past year. You have seen the log trucks on the road. That is testament to more jobs in the forest sector.

Tasmania's forests produce a total of 5.3 million cubic metres of wood fibre, a 21 per cent increase from 2015-16 and a 60 per cent increase from 2013-14. Exports are up. Wood products total $3.74 million 2016-17, a 21 per cent increase from 2015-16, and an increase of two thirds since 2013-14.

In mining, ABS jobs shows 700 new jobs have been gained in the sector in Tasmania, between February 2014 and August 2017. The most recent ABS figures show the highest quarterly employment in the mining sector in Tasmania, in more than four years.

As a result of the increased activity in the year until the end of June, mineral royalties more than doubled, from $15 million to $39 million in the 2016-17 year. That is testament to the re-growth and the re-bounding in both of those sectors.

Exports - $1.67 billion. The mining and mineral processing sector provided 55 per cent of our state's total exports value. It has rebound on the Hodgman Liberal Government's watch. We have evidence of this with the re-start of the Diversified Minerals' Henty goldmine creating 100 jobs. We have the new mining lease to Stellar Resources for the Heemskirk tin project near Zeehan. NQ Minerals has purchased the Hellyer mill and tailings dam and plans to be re-treating the rich Hellyer tailings within 12 months. Metals X has reported progress on its $205 million project to expand its Renison operations by re-treating old mine tailings. Dundas Mining has purchased the Avebury nickel nine with the intention of bringing it back into production, creating significant new employment on the west coast.

At Mt Lyell, jobs are returning to the site thanks to projects critical to the restart of the mine, funded by the Government's $9.5 million investment in these projects.

The Hodgman Liberal Government has a clear plan for improvements in both these sectors. The 43-point Building Your Future plan sets out our target for a 50 per cent increase in new mining ventures over five years to double the forestry timber harvesting and wood fibre industry value to $1.2 billion by 2036, and to double production from Tasmania's hardwood plantations by 2022. The Labor Opposition blocked our legislation in the upper House to unlock our production

17 28 November 2017 forests. Shame on them. They have no policies and no plans. They have a track record of doing deals - the Labor-Greens opposition, Labor-Greens government. We know what happens - the economy slides into recession, 10 000 jobs lost, two out of three jobs lost in the forestry sector. We know they are doing deals. Labor has said nothing. It has remained mute about the stark raving mad claim for another 10 per cent of Tasmania to lock up another 10 per cent in the so-called Tarkine national park and World Heritage Area.

Labor's position is mute. What is Labor's position? They have said nothing. They want to do another cosy deal with the Greens; that is where they are heading, and they should be ashamed of themselves.

Ms O'BYRNE - Point of order, Mr Speaker. We are very careful in this House about how we refer to mental health issues and using the phrase 'stark raving mad' certainly does not comply with that. I ask the minister to withdraw or rephrase that.

Mr SPEAKER - The Standing Orders indicate that if a member is personally offended - it was not directed at a specific member, but if the member wishes to claim that I will ask the minister to withdraw.

Ms O'BYRNE - On the point of order, Mr Speaker, that is if someone has taken personal offence, but it is a convention of this House that we do not make light of mental health issues.

Mr SPEAKER - I say to the Chamber that we need to respect each other. As we are entering this last week of the parliamentary calendar, I ask everybody to reflect on the words they use to describe individuals so it becomes a more respectful place. I ask the minister to wind up, please.

Mr BARNETT - The Tasmanian people need to be very clear they have one choice: a majority Liberal Hodgman government or a Labor-Greens minority government, where the economy will either grow or shrink, either create more jobs or lose them, and Labor is setting itself up to do a deal with the Greens.

PETITION

Healthcare System

Ms White presented a petition signed by approximately 1025 citizens of Tasmania praying that the Government stop cuts to the healthcare system and properly fund the New Norfolk Hospital.

Ms O'Connor interjecting.

Petition received.

Mr SPEAKER - Ms O'Connor, you are very lucky to be still in this Chamber. The Clerk was on his feet reading a petition and you were interjecting. Any more of that today and I will be forced to ask you to leave.

18 28 November 2017 Ms O'CONNOR - Thank you for your advice, Mr Speaker, but on the point of order I note that Ms Archer and I were in conversation. It is just that her voice is quieter than mine.

Mr SPEAKER - I am qualifying what I saw in this Chamber. There was only one person speaking while the Clerk was on his feet and that was you, Ms O'Connor. I have given you a warning. Any further interjections and I will ask you to leave.

TABLED PAPERS

Public Works Committee - Kingston Health Centre Development

Report presented by Mrs Rylah of the Public Works Committee on the Kingston Health Centre development, together with the evidence received and the transcript of evidence.

[11.07 a.m.] Mrs RYLAH (Braddon - Motion) - Mr Speaker, I move -

That the said report be received and printed.

Motion agreed to.

Public Accounts Committee - Review of the Public Accounts Committee Act 1970

Report presented by Ms Courtney of the Parliamentary Standing Committee of Public Accounts on the review of the Public Accounts Committee Act 1970.

[11.07 a.m.] Ms COURTNEY (Bass - Motion) - Mr Speaker, I move -

That the report be received.

Motion agreed to.

EVIDENCE AND RELATED LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2017 (No. 45) FAMILY VIOLENCE AMENDMENT BILL 2017 (No. 51)

Bills returned from the Legislative Council without amendment.

SENTENCING AMENDMENT (PHASING OUT OF SUSPENDED SENTENCES) BILL 2017 (No. 55)

Bill returned from the Legislative Council with amendments.

Mr FERGUSON (Bass - Leader of Government Business) - Mr Speaker, I move -

That the latter message be taken into consideration at a later hour.

19 28 November 2017 Motion agreed to.

THREATENED SPECIES PROTECTION AMENDMENT BILL 2017 (No. 67)

First Reading

Bill presented and read the first time.

MOTION

Standing Committee on Community Development - Reporting Date

[11.13 a.m.] Mrs RYLAH (Braddon) (by leave) - Mr Speaker, I move -

That the reporting date for the Standing Committee on Community Development in relation to its Inquiry into Donor Conception Practices in Tasmania be extended until 31 December 2017.

Motion agreed to.

MATTER OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE

Auditor-General Report No. 3 of 2017-18

Ms WHITE (Lyons - Leader of the Opposition) - Mr Speaker, I rise to discuss the Report of the Auditor-General No. 3 of 2017-18, which was handed down a little over a week ago, in relation to nepotism and conflicts of interest within senior executive service appointments in the Public Service here in Tasmania. It points to a government in chaos and dysfunction, with clear conflicts between the executive wing of government and the public service. It is not a nice place to work right now. We have a culture that is being led by the Premier, and responsible, because of the way he has handled things since coming into office in 2014.

If you take a look back at what has happened, the Auditor-General's Report has some very important findings in it. From 2014 the Premier should have been taking action to address some of the problems that exist in the public service to ensure there were not issues of nepotism and conflicts of interest around appointments continuing to prevail. The Premier failed to take any action. The summary of findings and recommendations from the Audit Report No. 3, 2017-18 says:

Earlier recommendations made by my Office and the Integrity Commission had not been implemented by agencies or incorporated into the framework by SSMO relating to:

20 28 November 2017 • selection panel members having sufficient knowledge of relevant legislation, policies and guidelines

• declaration and management of conflicts of interest

• consistency in recruitment and selection processes and procedures across agencies

The Premier was warned in 2014 that he needed to improve these practices. The Integrity Commission findings warned him to improve these practices. Now we have another Auditor-General's report handed down to the Premier, calling on him to implement the recommendation from the findings to improve the practices for a workplace culture that prevails under his leadership.

The Premier has failed to take responsible action to swiftly address these cultural problems when they were first brought to his attention in 2014. It is because of his lazy, hands-off attitude, the good-news Premier has failed to be involved with addressing these issues. They are his responsibility. He is the premier of the state. He is ultimately the one responsible for the culture that prevails in this Government and the problems we see in the public service.

We have an issue where the Premier has allowed this culture to seep across his front bench, where the culture of secrecy means we do not have access to the audit into TasCOSS, as promised by the Minister for Education and Training. In a media release in September this year it was promised that there would be quarterly findings shared with the community from that audit process, which was later reneged upon. There is a lack of transparency from the Minister for Health, who has fled the Chamber because he does not want to share the findings of a Deloitte report into the state of the Tasmanian health system - a report that I believe shows the dysfunction and chaos across the health system.

It should be made clear to Tasmanians what is happening across the public service so we can understand where the challenges are and how we can work together to provide solutions.

There is secrecy with a letter that still has not been disclosed by this Government between the former Energy minister and the Treasurer in relation to the sale of the Tamar Valley Power Station. There is secrecy on what is happening with the member for Braddon's email audit. There is still no disclosure from this Government about what we can expect as a timeframe for a resolution to that ongoing saga.

It seems this Government has no interest in being transparent with the people of Tasmania. It has no interest in being honest with them about what is happening in our public service. The Premier has no interest in fixing the problems that have been brought to his attention now by the Auditor-General and the Integrity Commission and last week saw the resignation of the state's most senior public servant, Mr Greg Johannes.

The culture that prevails right now in the public service and its relationship with the executive arm of government is quite toxic. It is about time the Premier did something to fix it. We all have a responsibility here in this place to work on behalf of the people of Tasmania. If we are fortunate enough to win government next year, we will be working collaboratively with the public service to

21 28 November 2017 deliver the essential services that people depend upon in this state. We will ensure the recommendations handed down in this Auditor-General's report are fully implemented and that we do that willingly and quickly as opposed to this Premier who has delayed things now for nearly four years.

We have seen the actions of this Government and it is not good enough. We have three days left in this place for this Government to make a clear statement about its intention to fix these problems - to disclose the audit report, to disclose the audit of emails, to disclose the reports into our health system, to finally be transparent with the people of Tasmania. Three days left. They are not up to it. They do not have any interest in disclosing any more information to the people of Tasmania about what is happening in the state's public service. Its reign will not last forever. People will not return a government that continues to show dysfunction and chaos and that continues to be secretive and manipulative and arrogant about what it is doing right now.

The arrogance of the Premier when he answered a question stating that 'only the Liberals can form government in majority' is gobsmacking. That is not the case. We all start from zero when that election is called. Right now, based on the results we have seen in Pembroke, Rumney, Elwick, and in the federal election, there is a swing back to Labor. We will win seats and you will lose seats.

There is no doubt there is dysfunction on the Government benches. The Premier's house of cards is falling down around his ears. Resignation after resignation, dysfunction and chaos prevails every day of the week. The culture of secrecy and the toxic relationships that exist on the front benches of this Government, in his executive arm and their relationships with the public service will not last.

The summary findings and recommendations from the Auditor-General's report are matters the Premier should have addressed four years ago. They could have prevented some of the scandals that have plagued the public service since that time. If the Premier was serious, he could have changed the culture upon coming to government.

[11.22 a.m.] Mr ROCKLIFF (Braddon - Minister for Education and Training) - Mr Speaker, the Labor Party is desperately seeking conspiracies. That is what this matter of public importance is all about. It is desperately seeking conspiracies because the Tasmanian public is desperately seeking policies from the Labor Party, which it does not have. The Leader, Ms White, was on radio today trying to explain her year 11 to 12 high school policy. We are none the wiser when it comes to the education policies of those opposite.

The report that the Auditor-General released publicly is concerning and actions are being taken. The audit examined eight appointments made over 18 months ago over four departments during the 2015-16 financial year. The audit did not find any major breaches or concerns that the appointment processes of senior officers and employees is flawed, inappropriate or lacking in merit. Nor did it find that there had been poor selection outcomes. It did identify some compliance issues and that documentation was not up to scratch. This needs to be improved. The Government has taken responsibility for fixing this. This will now be a priority for the new acting Secretary of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, Ms Gale.

22 28 November 2017 Senior executive appointments are handled by the public sector, not by ministers. This is appropriate. They are handled by the public sector at arm's length from the political process. The other fact that those opposite are failing to address is the improvements that have been made in the past 18 months. It is wrong for the member to assert nothing has happened over the course of the past 18 months. As the Premier outlined today, since July 2016 all SES level 3 and level 4 selection reports have been examined by the SSMO for compliance and appropriateness. Many agencies are implementing declaration of interest policies and procedures based on the work undertaken by SSMO. The SSMO is working with the Integrity Commission to have practices and policies in place that support the declaration and management of conflicts of interests across all aspects of employment and business management.

Employment Direction 17, related to SES arrangements, is being reviewed to support contemporary practices as part of the examination of the employment framework. In March this year all departmental secretaries and deputy secretaries completed unconscious bias training, which included consideration of unconscious bias and methods to support diversity in recruitment to further ensure selection processes are effective and on merit.

This MPI is a smokescreen for the inexperienced Opposition and its lack of policies. They want to avoid scrutiny on that as well, but that is not going to work today. This Government has got the state back on track. Check the Hobart skyline, for example, and the cranes in the sky. There is economic activity. Talk to farmers, shopkeepers, teachers, business people and they will tell you things are a lot better under this Government than they ever were under the Labor-Greens government. Under Labor the economy was desolate and unemployment was high. We have seen a reversal of that under this Government. With proper budget management, the economy is growing, confidence is returning to the state and people are being employed - 10 000 additional people are being employed.

Ms O'Byrne - It is the international and national market that has an impact there and investments made by previous governments. You have done nothing.

Mr ROCKLIFF - The Deputy Leader of the Opposition might want to be a little quiet here when I talk about health. Ms O'Byrne was a disastrous minister for health. It was a complete mess under this government and particularly under the stewardship of the member, Ms O'Byrne.

This is what Tasmanians care about: health, education, being employed, confidence in the economy. There was $500 million worth of cuts in our health system under the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. There were 100 hospital beds closed, $58 million was ripped out of the elective surgery budget. The member is famous for sacking a nurse a day for nine months - 287 nurses in our hospitals gone under her watch. Think what that did to the health system and what we are doing now to improve it.

Ms O'Byrne interjecting.

Mr ROCKLIFF - You took a wrecking ball to the health system and we are improving it. Education is the same -

Ms O'Byrne interjecting.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER - Order, Ms O'Byrne, cease your interjections. The Deputy Premier has the call.

23 28 November 2017 Mr ROCKLIFF - Education was also a complete mess. We had the lowest educational attainment outcomes in the country under the Labor-Greens government. We are improving because we have taken bold decisions and reforms, such as our year 11 and 12 extensions, investment in the early years, more teachers in our schools than there were under the Labor-Greens government. They got rid of 100 teachers in their time between 2010 and 2014. We have more school psychologists, social workers, speech pathologists all supporting our schools. It was fantastic to be at Port Dalrymple the other day to launch another very good program in Beaconsfield, Deloraine High School and Sorell with the Beacon Foundation and the Paul Ramsay Foundation. That is a $15 million investment in schools, particularly in schools that will benefit.

Time expired.

[11.29 a.m.] Ms O'CONNOR (Denison - Leader of the Greens) - Mr Deputy Speaker, I note for the public record for anyone who is watching today that the Minister for Education and Training spent 7 minutes on his feet talking about it always being somebody else's fault. Then he starts talking about the Liberals' track record on education but did not have the courage to show up to the AEU council meeting yesterday where Ms White and I presented. There was an empty chair there for Will Hodgman, there was no minister for Education. They could not even wheel out Ms Courtney, who usually turns up to the opening of an envelope. Mind you, she did manage to get out a press release in the afternoon, calling the AEU pointing out the Premier wasn't there a stunt.

What we are seeing in the last week of the last year of the Hodgman Government's term is a government that is dissembling and coming apart before our eyes. We have been watching it in question time in recent weeks and it was no more obvious than today, because there has been chaos during the term of this Government. This Government has completely abandoned any notion of ministerial accountability. It mouths the word 'transparency' while it fiddles and manipulates the right to information process. We have had a succession of ministers in this place mislead the parliament.

It has been an appalling four years in Tasmania with the Liberals in government, coming into this place with their majority after 16 years in opposition, arrogant and completely full of themselves. They have treated this place with contempt and now their chickens are coming home to roost, because they never got out of opposition mode, they never got out of the spin cycle. They are fundamentally dishonest by nature, and we saw that again from the Premier this morning trying to tell Tasmanians there are only two choices in this election, a majority Liberal government or a minority Labor-Greens government. That is another lie.

I refer the Premier and anyone else who wants to spout that lie publicly to the advice of the previous Governor, Justice Underwood, who said to David Bartlett, the then premier faced with a minority parliament, 'The premiership is not yours to give away'. That is exactly what will happen to Will Hodgman, should the people of Tasmania, in their wisdom, elect a balance-of-power parliament.

I was having a meeting with a very senior stakeholder in the community sector the other day and at the end of the meeting when we started to talk about Tasmanian politics, the question this person asked was, 'Who is Will Hodgman?' Four years after he became Premier, people are still

24 28 November 2017 asking that question. What we know about Will Hodgman is that he is a personable and nice enough man, but he is not a courageous man. He is born to rule and is not a leader, because if he were, we would not be in the situation in parliament today where an outstanding secretary of Premier and Cabinet resigned from a position that we know he loved and worked very hard in. We know he was intending to stay in the role because in late October, Mr Johannes, fulfilling his role as secretary of Premier and Cabinet, informed the Greens that new caretaker conventions were being developed and it was thought they should be released at the end of this sitting in November-December. On 20 October, not much more than a month before he resigned, Mr Johannes was working on the caretaker conventions, clearly committed to his role as secretary of Premier and Cabinet, a role in which people in the State Service in Tasmania held him in high regard. There is a sense of grief within the state sector following the resignation of Mr Johannes, given his integrity, his sense of honour, his enormous intelligence and his work ethic.

You never see the Premier in the hard times. You rarely see him in the good times. There was obviously a strategic decision made at the start of this Government to make the Premier a small target, which is why he earned the nickname 'Good News Will'. That is not what leaders do. Leader are there in the good times, in the hard times, the bad times, and they take responsibility for their own actions and the actions of their team. Every single time we hear of a probity question, a transparency question, an accountability question, or a question about the conduct of the Liberals in office, it is always somebody else's fault.

It is a feature of the Liberals in government. They cannot accept responsibility for the fact they have spent four years trapped in a spin cycle, behaving like an opposition, blaming the previous government for everything that is wrong. Every question time for four years we have had to listen to garbage come out of the mouths of the Premier and his Liberal ministers and backbenchers. It is always somebody else's fault. Is it somebody else's fault that the advice of two integrity commissioners and two auditors-general have been largely ignored by the Premier?

The Deputy Premier got up here earlier and talked about the progress that has been made in the State Service, but that is progress that has been made despite Will Hodgman and the Liberals. It is progress that has been driven by senior people in the public sector, committed bureaucrats who have been here a lot longer than the Liberals in government and, thankfully, will be here after the Liberals are out of government.

In 2014, we had an Auditor-General's report warning about inadequate recruitment processes in the State Service. A year later, the departing head of the Integrity Commission, Murray Kellam AO, said public servants were escaping prosecution because the government was complacent and he feared this would give a green light to corruption in this state. In 2015 the Greens, acting on the advice of the Integrity Commission, because there had been no action on this, tabled a bill to establish an offence of misconduct in public office in Tasmania, which was voted against by the Liberals and Labor. Tasmania is the only jurisdiction in Australia which does not have on its statutes the offence of misconduct in public office. We could have had it in place by now if either of the major parties in this place had the courage and foresight to vote for our amendment bill.

Last year the Integrity Commission again warned about poorly managed conflicts of interest and a failure on the part of agencies the Premier led. Today in question time we asked another question relating to potential nepotism and conflict of interest, and the answer from the Premier was wholly inadequate. The appointment of the most recent judge in Tasmania raises legitimate questions.

25 28 November 2017 Time expired.

[11.37 a.m.] Ms O'BYRNE (Bass) - Mr Deputy Speaker, the culture and practices at the highest level of the public sector do matter. This Government would have you believe these are minor administrative issues but they do matter. Our public servants - our teachers, police, firies, cleaners, scientists, parks officers, health workers and many more - need to have confidence in the work environment and procedures they work under and, importantly, so do all Tasmanians. This matters. This is the kind of attitude we have had from this Government, a government that is prepared to pretend things are not happening.

We have seen the failure to release the TAFE report, despite repeated commitments to do so. The Minister for Health is sitting on the Deloitte health report. He is a minister who is very quick to criticise anyone in previous governments sitting on a report and refusing to release it. We have the events leading up to the Tamar Valley Power Station sale that are still under a cloud and the behaviours that took place by ministers then. We are still waiting for an audit from the member for Braddon and former minister. Then we have the reports commissioned that are then ignored, such as the ACER Report for $250 000, and we have no idea where that is. I am not quite sure what happened to the $300 000 spent on a school report for a school on this side of the river in Hobart. Then there is the debacle when this Government tries to pretend it has consulted when it has not - for example, the debacle we saw with the Early Years reforms and TasWater.

I am not surprised the Premier is not here because it typifies the attitude to leadership he has. Under the Westminster system and the way this government structure behaves, the buck stops with the elected members and the premier, but this Premier will clearly throw anyone under a bus. He will sacrifice anyone to ensure he is never touched by any of the things that go wrong. We have heard the whispering campaign that says, 'Honestly, Will's a great guy, it's just all his ministers and the public service that let him down'. That is the kind of story that is out there and the sort of thing that is being said to protect the Premier, who chooses to have no responsibility for any of the decisions.

The Premier is continuing to wash his hands of the chaos and dysfunction that is enveloping his Government. The standard you walk by is the standard you accept, and if this Premier is happy for his ministers to come in here and say things they know not to be true, if he is happy to bully public servants, if he is happy to have this sort of behaviour happen and not take responsibility, that is a sign that he thinks it is okay to behave in that way. A licence has been given because of the weakness of this Premier. He has set the tone, set the standards he expects of his workforce. We are seeing the outcome of that. It is a toxic culture of nepotism, secrecy and a conflict of interest festering within his Government.

Next year, 2018, is fast approaching. We have 100-odd days until the election, less until the caretaker provisions commence. We do not even know what the new caretaker provisions are to be. We know that the person charged with tightening them up, the person who was going to make sure that the Government could not make dodgy announcements during that time, is no longer there. We do not know what the 'recasting' of the conventions will look like. Will they be true to the conversations and engagements that are about ensuring a proper and transparent process? Or are they being recast again as we speak because the Secretary of Department of Premier and Cabinet has been thrown under a bus.

26 28 November 2017 We have a culture where public servants are frightened to speak. They say they are not allowed to speak because that is what the State Service Act says - the way this Government chooses to interpret the State Service Act. It uses it as a mechanism to silence and bully people. That is the kind of culture that happens under this Government. This Government would have you believe that it is transparent and open but what we have seen is senior public servants who are no longer in the position of being able to give frank and fearless advice because it is not accepted. It is not welcome. It is not the way this Government chooses to behave.

The Government would have you believe that the circumstances they have come to now are purely administrative, simple things that can be resolved, nothing problematic. The Integrity Commission of 2014 made recommendations directly to the Premier concerning conflict of interest which have not been acted upon. The following year the Auditor-General recommended the 'right job, right person' framework. Explicitly, Executive Summary 8 - 'Recruitment practice in the State Service require all panel members to declare and attest their conflict of interest status'.

Here we are with about 100 days until the next election and the Premier has done nothing. Last week the Auditor-General found the following -

• earlier recommendations made by my Office and the Integrity Commission have not been implemented by agencies or incorporated into the framework of SSMO relating to:

• selection panels having sufficient knowledge of relevant legislation, policies and guidelines

• declaration and management of conflicts of interest

• consistency in recruitment and selection processes and procedures, across agencies

• quality assurance reviews by human resources functions have not been formed effectively.

In addition, a good number of practices such as the declaration and management of conflicts of interest and the use of pre-appointment checks, were not built into the framework. As a result, agencies did not have procedures to ensure such good practices were adopted.

The Premier cannot scapegoat the public service and the secretary of DPAC. The Premier is ultimately responsible for the things that take place under his watch. This smacks of scapegoat, sacrificing the career of a senior public servant to protect his own political interests. That is what has happened under this Premier and he should be ashamed.

[11.43 a.m.] Ms COURTNEY (Bass) - Mr Deputy Speaker, in the final week before the election I thought the Leader of the Opposition, given the opportunity for an MPI, would have come in here and shown some genuine leadership; articulate a policy; talk about her plans. But instead, we hear more motherhood statements. The Leader said that the Premier was 'lazy and hands off' yet we have seen more nurses, more teachers, more hospital beds. We have more kids in school. We

27 28 November 2017 have more Tasmanians in jobs. We are spending more money on infrastructure. We have more investment in tourism. We are investing more money in addressing family violence. We kept the lights on when they lowered the dam water levels and when the then opposition Leader was calling for forced power rationing. I am not sure what bizarre planet Labor is sitting on the moment.

Ms O'Byrne - You sacked the workers. You have no idea.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER - Order. Ms O'Byrne, I caution you. I will not have you screaming across the Chamber like that. Interjections will cease. Ms Courtney has the call.

Ms COURTNEY - Mr Deputy Speaker, for the other side to assert that the Premier and the ministers from the Liberal Party are lacking action is bizarre. That is what we are seeing from the other side. The opposition Leader said, 'It's about time you fixed it'. It is about time you that you guys had a plan or a policy or alternative budget. You have nothing. There is a vacuum on the other side of the Chamber with regards to what they would do if they were given the opportunity of government. That is scary. It is a risk to a lot of people in Tasmania. It is a risk to those 11 000 jobs that have been created. It is to risk to kids at school in regional areas who are hoping to continue into years 11 and 12. Tasmanians know they cannot risk another Labor-Greens government.

The Leader of the Opposition said that they would work in collaboration with the public sector. That is really good but we still have not seen a wages policy. How on earth do you have any credibility about managing the budget when you do not even know what your wages policy is? Heads down, no idea - more motherhood statements. They have nothing. We have four months until the election and we have seen nothing. No credible alternative budget. No wages policy, nothing. We know that any promise they make is a vacuous one. They come in here and make allegations. Saying that 'we all know there is dysfunction, chaos and crisis' does not make it true. Repeating the statement does not confirm it. What we are doing over on this side is standing up for what has happened - 11 000 jobs: more teachers, more nurses, more kids in school and more investment in our infrastructure.

We are very proud to stand on our record and are looking forward to talking to more Tasmanians over the coming four months about not just what we have done, but our clear 43-point plan of what we will do should we be re-elected. We have a proven track record. We have shown that we can afford to reinvest in Health. We can afford to reinvest in Education. We can do that because the Treasurer has the Budget back in the black. Fear would reign in the business community should Scott Bacon have control of the budget in this State.

I am hearing from the community in northern Tasmania; they know what it will mean. They saw the chaos under the last Labor-Greens government and they know that will happen again. They know that because Ms White has still not been able to outline what she would do in northern Tasmania - sort of close the Office of the Coordinator-General, sort of not, depending on who you are talking to. Business communities and Tasmanians see through her. We know that given the opportunity to govern, the Leader of the Opposition will not be able to show any leadership. She is over there on the other side, half her team is leaving her. They have a range of views on a range of random issues. The Leader of the Opposition has failed to show any type of leadership or vision on anything: she is lacking in substance; lacking in policy and a plan.

28 28 November 2017 These are not baseless allegations. We saw it with salmon and we saw it with the Arthur Pieman. We are continuing to see it with pokies. Considering the election of someone in the other place who has a clear view on pokies they still do not have a view. They are going to crab walk their way to the election, thinking 'if we whisper a few ideas to different people, try to make enough people happy to get ourselves over the line with a few of the Greens and we can form a government'. That is not what Tasmanians want nor need.

The risk, should Rebecca White be premier of this state, is enormous. The risk to jobs, the risk to schools in regional areas, the risk to pubs and clubs, and the risk to the aquaculture industry. There is nothing on the other side. We have failed to see any type of policy or leadership.

We have seen what happens with business. Businesses are more confident under us than in any other place. On the other side, small businesses want to shut up shop and leave. We have seen it. We know that it will happen again. Tasmanians simply cannot risk another Labor-Greens government because that will throw the state not only into chaos but into reverse. We saw it with the economy last time. They will do anything to try to get over here. They will say anything in here; make any allegation; slander people who cannot defend themselves. We saw it this morning, talking about a deputy secretary and allegations. Ms O'Connor was singing from the same song sheet.

Their inability to articulate here or in the community what they would do is frightening. Today's form is not unusual. We saw it only a few weeks ago when there were accusations from the other side over the TasTAFE CEO contract. The Integrity Commission dismissed that.

I mentioned the Office of the Coordinator-General's because the number of different positions that the Opposition Leader and the Opposition treasurer have had is extraordinary. We are still not quite sure where she has landed on that. There are a whole lot of motherhood statements. Tasmanians cannot trust another Labor-Greens government.

Time expired.

Matter noted.

SENTENCING AMENDMENT (SENTENCES OF IMPRISONMENT) BILL 2017 (No. 54)

Second Reading

[11.50 a.m.] Ms ARCHER (Denison - Minister for Justice - 2R) - Mr Deputy Speaker, I move -

That the bill be now read the second time.

As the Government has said repeatedly, incorrect prison releases are unacceptable. The Hodgman Liberal Government has been open and transparent about the extent of these challenges and taken action to investigate and fix what is clearly a longstanding systematic issue.

In May 2016, the Hon. Dr Vanessa Goodwin MLC directed that an audit be undertaken in relation to the incorrect release dates of prisoners. This audit was undertaken by KPMG. The objective of the audit was to understand the inadequacies in the existing system and improve

29 28 November 2017 compliance with the processes for obtaining, entering and validating sentence and remand orders, and calculating release dates. The audit report produced by KPMG was released by the Government on 8 March 2017. The report includes a suite of recommendations for reforms to address the factors that contributed to the incorrect releases and to improve the accuracy and efficiency of the process for the future.

The KPMG review recommended that the Government review the Sentencing Act 1997 with a view to amending it to provide for a requirement that sentencing orders be made in simple and consistent terms. The Sentencing Amendment (Sentences of Imprisonment) Bill 2017 is the Government's response to this recommendation. The Government is also progressing other KPMG recommendations as a matter of urgency.

For many years there has been a heavy reliance on paper-based forms used in court operations and confirming warrants for custody, and the calculation of earliest and latest release dates is a manual-based process. Issues have arisen when the Tasmania Prison Service - TPS - has not been aware of court warrants, where warrants have not been entered into the TPS database correctly, or through errors calculating release dates. The calculation of sentences can be incredibly complex. They can involve multiple sentences, suspended or partly suspended sentences, they may be concurrent or consecutive, and with or without eligibility for parole.

Varying legal interpretations of the remission regulations over the past 10 years have also resulted in the need to manually recalculate remission eligibility dates. Remission of prison sentences has remained a longstanding practice in Tasmania, despite being phased out in other states and territories of Australia in recent decades. Tasmania is more than 20 years behind other states in recognising the importance of 'truth in sentencing', which means that simply letting an offender out three months early is not appropriate.

As members know, the Government has taken decisive action to deliver truth in sentencing to the Tasmanian community. At the Government's direction, and in line with the recommendations of the KPMG review, the Tasmania Prison Service has also now formed a centralised Sentence Administration Unit which will be responsible for the oversight of sentence calculations, the section 42 leave program and the administration of prisoner classifications.

The creation of the Sentence Administration Unit means there will now be staff specifically dedicated to the task of calculating sentences, as well as managing court orders and the remission processes. This unit commenced operating on 15 August 2016, with additional staff being recruited to further bolster its operation, so as you can see, the Government is taking decisive actions to fix this longstanding systematic issue.

The Sentencing Amendment (Sentences of Imprisonment) Bill 2017 does not confer a power to sentence or provide grounds for invalidating a sentence. Rather, it sets out a range of details that need to be contained in a sentencing order. These include specifying any non-parole period that the offender must serve and specifying whether multiple sentences are to be served concurrently or cumulatively.

This bill is not intended as a reflection on the excellent work done by the state's judiciary. Rather, it is aimed at setting down a checklist of information to be provided through the sentencing order to ensure orders are clear and consistent. This will enable orders to be better

30 28 November 2017 understood by the offender and others involved in the proceeding, as well as allowing the information contained in the order to be more efficiently processed into the relevant database.

As can be seen from the action being taken by the Government, the issue of incorrect releases is viewed extremely seriously and positive actions have been taken to minimise the risk of incorrect releases occurring again. I wish to indicate that I will be moving an amendment to clause (4) of the bill, so a Committee will be required.

I commend the bill to the House.

[11.56 a.m.] Ms GIDDINGS (Franklin) - Mr Deputy Speaker, I believe this will be the last bill I will be speaking on in this House, so it is a bit of a momentous moment for me. It is one of the areas within this Government that highlights the shambles and chaos we are seeing with the Hodgman Liberal Government. This chaos has emanated from decisions made in the 2014-15 Budget, the very first budget of this Government, where they ripped the heart and soul out of the ICT fund, which had been funded by the previous government, to sort out the problems that had started to emerge and become real in the Department of Justice in 2009, as highlighted by the KPMG report.

The KPMG report steps out a bit of a time line about how the Government addressed that issue. The issue of the ICT systems across Justice were highlighted as starting to show fragility and not living up to the expectations of what we would hope of a modern system helping to support a modern justice system. From identifying the problem it takes time to build business cases and put those cases through government processes, so it was not until 2013, from memory, that the business case was presented to government for funding. What did the last government do? They prioritised and funded it. There was a $28 million ICT fund set up to fund these sorts of problems across the public service. The criminal justice system information system was one of the first to be prioritised, because we knew how important it was to the overall backing up of our Justice system. In their wisdom, however, this Government stepped in and decided to abolish that $28 million ICT fund and, in doing so, abolished any investment in CRIMES or any other of the ICT systems that helped the Justice system operate in Tasmania.

Surprise, surprise, the system did start to collapse to the point that we had seven people released wrongly from Risdon Prison over a 12-month period. The former attorney-general then tried to justify it by saying, 'This happened under the previous government as well. It's not just us'. It happened once a year for about three or four years.

It was not the crisis that was allowed to develop under this government because of their poor decision-making when it came to prioritising the ICT needs of the Justice department, which led to seven people being wrongly released, either too soon or too late. These were people convicted of crimes of armed robbery, family violence - and we all know the story of the one around family violence because the victim was not told the perpetrator was being released two weeks early.

That gives us a bit of the history as to why we find ourselves in the position we are in right now. From that we also had a KPMG report commissioned, and it took quite some time for that report to be completed and it was delayed. It was meant to have been done in 2016 and it was not publicly published until March this year.

31 28 November 2017 It recommends the department review the legislated guidance in the Sentencing Act for the provision of orders in simple language and consistent approach to the terms of the warrants, for example, days, months, weeks, total imprisonment term. It comes up with an alternative, to consult with the Tasmanian magistrates group to work through the issues and risks and develop consistent protocols.

The next concern we have with the way this Government has handled these issues is that only 10 days were allowed for comment and consultation on the legislation, of which eight were working days. The key stakeholders are the Chief Magistrate and the Chief Justice. My understanding is that neither of them supported this legislative approach. They felt we, as a parliament, were telling them how to do their job.

Through the consultation process we ended up with this bill. The only reason I know of why there were delays in this legislation coming to this parliament to be debated is because of a letter sent to Legislative Councillors. Not even in the second reading speech the minister just read out did she have the courtesy to outline to this House why there were delays in bringing forward this bill for debate, or to tell us more about the discussions with the Chief Justice which caused the delays, why that amendment is being moved and how that amendment will affect the bill.

We have time in the Committee stage to go through the detail. I expected that would have been outlined in the second reading speech. Second reading speeches are a fundamental part of the interpretation of legislation that courts look at. I have never seen such a political second reading speech in my life. I highlighted what I perceive to be political in it. Orange being the political, and yellow being the bureaucratic standard. There is a fair bit of political speech in this second reading speech. More than half of the back page, I would argue, is a very political speech.

Second reading speeches do not tend to be political speeches. They tend to be fairly dry because they are known to be used by courts to interpret legislation. Ministers have an opportunity when wrapping up the debate to include the politics, if that is how they feel, to rebut what has been said by other members of this parliament. It is the only one I have done this to because most of them abide by that understanding of what second reading speeches are.

What were the alternatives to the legislation? The KPMG report says an alternative is to work with the Tasmanian magistrates group to work through the issues and risks and develop consistent protocols. My understanding is, that is what the Chief Magistrate would have preferred. The changes in this legislation could have been done through the rules that govern the work of magistrates or judges in this state. We did not need to go down this legislative process.

I would like to hear more from the minister on the consultation with the Chief Magistrate and the Chief Justice. What concerns did they outline and did the Government consider an alternative approach, as suggested by KPMG? The pathway the Government has chosen is simplifying the sentencing process, trying to make it clearer. We commend that; we do not oppose that. However we would like to know why they have chosen this pathway, rather than the other when there were concerns from the two people who head our Supreme Court and Magistrates Court?

We will not oppose the legislation. There is some merit in creating simpler language. These areas are complex when you have people serving sentences, then having other matters brought forward in court that are then concurrent to the sentence they are already serving and how those issues relate. Earlier this year there was another muck-up in the Magistrates Court where

32 28 November 2017 somebody who had been in prison was then expected to be in court. They were released from prison but did not turn up to court. They should have gone straight from the prison to court, been sentenced appropriately and then either gone back to jail or not, depending on what that sentence would have been.

We still have problems in the system. We accept they are complex areas for people to work through. We also accept what the KPMG report says, that there is a lot of knowledge that is contained within very few people in the justice system. Those people are experts and generally do a very good job at monitoring and applying the rules around concurrent sentences and when people should be in jail and when they should be released.

When you think about the number of cases that are heard in Tasmania, there have been relatively few problems. I commend those staff for the work they have done under difficult circumstances with ICT systems that are now beyond their use-by date.

There are a couple of questions for the minister. When we get to Committee I want to understand a bit more. The amendment was circulated to Legislative Council members, but not to me as a shadow -

Dr Woodruff - We have not seen it.

Ms GIDDINGS - The only reason I have is because I have a colleague in the other House. I am not sure how it improves the situation -

Ms Archer - The amendment was for a specific purpose. It is not relevant to this House. I do not know what you are complaining about - of course you will get the amendments.

Ms GIDDINGS - It is courtesy, minister. If you are going to be circulating amendments that you are planning to move in this House, then you might have shared it with the two shadows in this House before or at the same time as you sent it to other members, and provide an explanation, as you have.

The reason the minister took the action she did is that she has now run out of time to get this reform done in this term of government, and sought the suspension of Standing Orders in the other House to be able to get this matter debated by Thursday and passed through the parliament in time for the parliament to rise before the next state election. I found that disappointing. The second reading speech was not amended to give us an explanation of what those words mean. I understand from the letter sent to Mr Willie and other members of the Legislative Council that the amendment has been worked through with the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice is now comfortable with the amendment and the amendment related to his initial concerns with this bill, as tabled in this parliament. He raised concerns that the original bill would have administrative burdens on the courts after the bill had been tabled.

The words seem semantic to me. Lawyers are lawyers and hopefully if the Chief Justice is now comfortable with those words, they have the impact that is being sought. I do not see how the changes that are being proposed impact that greatly. I will be interested to hear from the minister more about that when we go into the committee stage.

33 28 November 2017 Having made those comments, and reflecting on that second reading speech, I do not want to hinder this reform that is being taken forward. In bringing it back to where I began with the previous government and how we highlighted the fact we felt this was an area of concern that should be prioritised within funding, I would like to remind the House, since we have heard so much today about what a tremendous job apparently this Government has done in good global and national economic times which has seen revenue in GST in particular increase, that the previous government made these decisions to prioritise ICT, and particularly the Justice system's ICT issues, in a climate where we had lost $1.8 billion from our revenue base due to the global financial crisis hitting Australia which affected GST payments. We saw the importance of this issue and prioritised it because we knew that if we did not, the system would break. However, these apparently wonderful economic managers of the Hodgman Liberal Government, who have benefited from the strength of the national economy, a lower Australian dollar which has helped exports, and GST payments coming in at record levels -

Mr Barnett - Nothing to do with us?

Ms GIDDINGS - Very little to do with you, Mr Barnett. In fact, even the photo of the Premier in the paper with cranes, all those projects happened under Labor. The arts centre next to the Theatre Royal was a Labor initiative.

Mr Barnett - You'd lost 10 000 jobs. The economy went into recession.

Ms GIDDINGS - What is happening with your full-time jobs, Mr Barnett? Are we all going to turn into a society of casual labour and part-time workers? If you start to unpick some of your rhetoric it is not as good as you say it is.

The previous government understood the problems that sat within the Department of Justice underpinned by the issues with ageing infrastructure and the ICT fund. We put money on the table; we put recurrent money on the table as well, not just upfront capital payments only. We also underpinned that with recurrent funding and that was taken away by this Government. As a result, we saw in one year seven prisoners being released when they should not have been released at all. We saw money then having to be spent on a KPMG report to tell them exactly what the Department of Justice had already told them as to the need to invest in the ICT fund. If they did not tell them that as an incoming government, they were wrong not to have done so. But knowing the strength of conviction of those people within Justice and how they pushed the case for that funding through the previous government, I doubt they would have backed away from it with the new government. I have no doubt that the new Attorney-General back in 2014 would have received the advice from the department, 'Do not take this money away from this vital piece of infrastructure or it will collapse because it's already close to collapsing'.

You might forgive the Government for being naive because they were very inexperienced when they came in in 2014. Not one member of the Liberal Party in 2014 had been a minister. The best they had was the member for Lyons, Mr Hidding, who had been a former parliamentary secretary. We had inexperience, naivety and a belief that the Government had to somehow spin that the last government had been appalling, terrible economic and budget managers et cetera and we had to have radical cuts to vital infrastructure as a result. We will never forget those cuts to the Health department - $210 million ripped out of Health at that time, let alone other government departments.

34 28 November 2017 We will not stand in the way of this legislation we are debating here today but we believe this Government should be accountable for the shambles of the way it has administered Justice over the past four years. This is a prime example of how badly wrong they have got it and how that has led to instances of people being wrongly released at the wrong time and also with the system basically collapsing around us.

I will be interested to hear from the minister why she did not take the alternative approach that is recommended in the KPMG report but has chosen to take the legislative approach. Other than that, we will support the bill.

[12.15 p.m.] Dr WOODRUFF (Franklin) - Mr Speaker, I would like to thank very much the member for Franklin, Ms Giddings, who said she expected this to be the last bill she will speaking on in this way. I have to say how much I have enjoyed her contributions and the integrity with which she has presented her debates, and the obvious great depth of experience, personal and professional, she has brought to the contributions she has made on all manner of bills in the Justice, Attorney-General and Corrections portfolios. They are very complex issues and I respect the way she has continued to prosecute an ethical line for justice and rehabilitation in an atmosphere which is doing everything it can to do the opposite and do the wrong thing.

With that, I turn my attention to this bill. As Ms Giddings, the member for Franklin, has pointed out, the words from the minister's second reading speech about the open and transparent approach which she claims this Government has had to this portfolio in contrast with the previous government stand out very starkly to me. It is indeed the case that anyone can selectively be open and transparent about a matter that they have nothing to fear from or have no concern about other people's response to that matter. A much tougher and more accurate test of openness and transparency is to be frank about the things you know will provoke criticism from others.

I look forward to hearing the minister's comments about her discussions with stakeholders. She entirely misunderstands reporting on conversations with stakeholders if she thinks that they are personal and cannot be revealed. That is exactly the point. We need to have openness about the views of stakeholders on all bills and this bill is no different. We need to hear the matter of the conversation and the concerns or congratulations that were offered about the bill. We do not need to hear the individual words or know the time of the conversation and we do not need to know what was drunk at the time, but we do need to know the view of stakeholders about this bill and all bills.

This Government has time and again allowed no time for consultation with stakeholders so we do not get to hear their views because they were never asked, or there is a contracted and inadequate summary of the views and a purpose for disregarding the views which were contrary to those the Government has been trying to push. In the context of openness and transparency, it is ironic that we are hearing this from a government which clearly has no understanding of that term.

I was fortunate to represent the joint parliamentary integrity committee at a conference in New South Wales only a few weeks ago titled the Public Sector Anti-Corruption Conference. The take-home message I brought back from that conference to Tasmania is that the culture of transparency and openness is set by the top, by the leadership. In this case, the governing of Tasmania, is set by the Premier. It is set by the manner in which recommendations of independent investigative bodies that are set up to prevent corruption, to prevent fraud and misconduct, that

35 28 November 2017 those bodies when they make independent recommendations to government, that those recommendations are acted upon. In this term of government we have had a serious number of reports from the Integrity Commission and the Auditor-General that have made recommendations about the manner in which appointments are made in the public service, to reduce the opportunity for nepotism and to reduce conflicts of interest in appointment of senior staff in the public service. These recommendations have not been addressed. They have not been acted on.

The misconduct in public office bill, which we presented into parliament this year was voted down by the Liberal Government despite the fact that the Integrity Commission made a recommendation that Tasmania needs a misconduct in public office law about three years ago. A code of conduct for parliamentarians has been a long time in coming and was strongly recommended by the Integrity Commission, yet the Premier chose not to prioritise bringing in such a code for parliamentarians in this term. Totally outrageous. We have had so much time to discuss that matter.

These are central to the conduct of the governance of this state and to making sure we do not have the corruption, misconduct and fraud rampant in many parts of the public service all over the western world. It is not something which is confined to so-called 'banana republics'. It is not something we can pretend happens in other countries. It happens in Australia. It happens in Tasmania. It happens in every place where power operates if there are not very strong, robust, independent, investigatory processes to make sure that the culture is not set to favour special deals, behind closed door decisions and secret operations.

The minister spoke a lot throughout her speech about this Government taking decisive action. I do not see there has been any decisive action taken in the area of imprisonment, corrections and the management of the corrections system in the areas that count the most. It is not surprising that the minister's second reading speech did not go into detail about KPMG's damming report into the bungled release of Tasmanian prisoners. The report exposed staggering deficiencies in the state's correctional system and levelled criticism at the Liberal Government's failure to respond to the problem. The report was instigated after a series of inmates were incorrectly released from Risdon Prison. In total there were seven prisoners, including armed robbers and family violence perpetrators who were wrongly set free over a 12-month period. The Liberals were forced to apologise to a family violence victim who was not told that her estranged partner had accidentally been released earlier. The KPMG report paints a criminal justice sector that is underpinned by outdated, error prone and complex systems that pose a risk to the community. They said, amongst other things:

There is NO single source of accurate, reliable and verifiable data for information used in the Criminal Justice sector.

And also that:

… this can result in inappropriate release on bail of offenders due to a lack of knowledge of matters held in the other Court.

According to KPMG, the bungles occurred because of the complexity of prisoner processing where each step has a 'prone error risk'. The report said that it was 'compounded by the multiple information systems that do not integrate the complex and inconsistent structure of detention warrants and the manual calculation of sentences'.

36 28 November 2017 The key findings of the KPMG report included that: there are outdated and insufficient IT systems that are not integrated across the prison service, the courts or Tasmanian Police; only a small number of prison staff have sufficient expertise with sentencing issues; there is inadequate staff training; there is inaccurate sentencing data regularly entered into IT systems; that staff manually override sentence calculations for more than 40 per cent of entries in the IT system because it is insufficient; and that manual overrides significantly risk a prisoner being in jail for too long or released before their due date.

The problems the KPMG report identifies stretch back as early as 2009 when the Department of Justice identified an urgent need to upgrade core systems used by the courts with significant risk if this were not done.

In 2013, the Greens' corrections minister, Nick McKim, secured funding for the Department of Justice to fix these exact issues. Incredibly, the funding identified under that previous Labor-Greens government by the Greens correction minister was scrapped by the Hodgman Government to make short-term budget savings at the expense of community safety. In August 2016, the Liberals set up a specialist sentence administration unit to fix the problem of inmates being wrongly released. The KPMG found there were no formal policies, procedures or standing orders that currently exist to guide and inform the unit. They said, 'There are no appropriate safeguards to prevent inappropriate and unauthorised adjustments to prisoner release dates'.

The KMPG report was further evidence of the Liberals' contempt for Tasmania's justice system. The Government cannot simply report this to shape up their tough on crime message, which is what the minister has being trying to do. Unsurprisingly, they have lost total control of the Corrections portfolio because the punitive approach they take is now well understood to increase recidivism; to reduce a culture of rehabilitation' and to have a terrible impact and effect on staff and therefore the culture in the prison.

We should not look at this bill in isolation. We have to look at it in a broader context of what is going on in our prison system. This year's annual report paints a damning picture of a corrections system in utter crisis under the Liberals. At least at the last sittings, the Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management's annual report confirms under the Liberals' mismanagement, serious crimes have gone up by 11 per cent, high risk traffic offences have gone up 8 per cent, and crime in general is increasing. The number of people who are diverted from a path of crime and into drug rehabilitation has gone down by an amazing 22 per cent - 22 per cent of missed opportunities to turn a person's life around, to give them the support they need and to steer them away from a path of crime, blocking up the prison system, putting more pressure on an overcrowded system and removing the opportunities they could have if we focused them into drug rehabilitation instead of a life of crime. The Liberals' tough on crime policies are turning one-time offenders into serial criminals and they are making the community less safe.

Some other shadows have been cast over the Liberals' mismanagement of the justice system with this year's Custodial Inspector's annual report. The report concludes that the prison population here increased 10 per cent on the last year. That follows a 15 per cent increase from the year before under the Liberals' term of government. According to the Custodial Inspector there is no indication that this trend will abate any time soon. They reported that almost every prison is overcrowded and all services are stretched. Their key findings were of double and triple bunking of inmates, minimum security prisoners placed in medium and maximum security prisons, inadequate access to rehabilitation programs, inadequate access to health services in the

37 28 November 2017 prison and then post-release care in the community, and unsatisfactory time outside cells due to excessive lockdowns caused by staff shortages.

That last paragraph was not a Greens' media release. Those were the words of our custodial inspector following the KPMG report, which shows the failure of the Liberal Government to do what is needed, after they removed the money, to patch up at the last minute. We have now, thanks to this Liberal Government, a prison infrastructure that is not fit for its purpose. It has issues with plumbing and electrical systems and cell temperatures. Access issues for elderly and infirm prisoners are terrible, particularly at the Ron Barwick minimum security prison, which was only meant to be used in the short- to medium-term following the Legislative Council select committee report in 1999. Eighteen years later there is still no plan for its replacement. This Government loves to point the finger at the failures of the previous government, but they had 16 years in opposition to work out a strategy on how to do it better. They have had four years in Government and they do not have a vision on how to manage these problems.

The Custodial Inspector notes that the situation at the Launceston Reception Prison is even worse, with prisoners and detainees not having access to natural daylight or fresh air flow. There is no hot running water in the cells, no inmate toilets in the day yard, and inadequate numbers of showers - many of which are broken. The state's only women's prison exceeds its capacity on a daily basis and the Hobart Reception Prison is often bedlocked due to capacity constraints in the other custodial sectors.

That was not a Greens' media release. It was not an unprovided for conversation with somebody who is working in the sector. Those are the words of the Custodial Inspector. They should be a wake-up call for this Government. Funding for the REO program, which was run so well by the Salvos to help people who are trying to create a life for themselves after they leave prison, was cut by this Government. It has been reinstated in name only. It was funded and meant to start this year but nothing has happened. Could it have been approved and is just sitting there waiting for the election so it can be dropped in as evidence of how much this Government really cares about doing something in prisons to deal with the damage they have done over the last four years? Why has that program not been restarted? The people in the Salvation Army who did that good work are waiting to start it again.

Every person who was released from prison in Tasmania, between 1 July and today, could have had somebody there with their hand out helping them to start a new life. They could have had somebody helping them find a job, get into drug rehabilitation, and find a house so they do not get stuck in a situation where out of desperation they are forced to do something they will regret and end up back in prison. That funding has not been granted despite the promises. It is there to serve as a line item and a press release for the Government to use when the Budget was announced. It is a deeply cynical approach to running the Government.

This Liberal Government's legacy will have been about raising the rates of serious crime. This Government's legacy is a crumbling correction system that is going to continue to divert more and more money away from where it is desperately needed. It means less money to fix the broken health system. It means less money going towards educating our children.

The bill does not attempt to address those systemic issues. The Government has had time and it has refused to do anything useful. It is a sad day when we come to the end of the opportunity for the Government to have left a great legacy, to have built on the good work that was done in the

38 28 November 2017 previous term of government, to have done better. It could have reduced recidivism rates even more, increased employment, and increased the housing opportunities for people who leave prison, increased their connection with their family and community and removed the need for people to go down a path of crime when they could have chosen a path of contribution to society. All those things could have been going better, except that is not the narrative this Liberal Government has chosen. Its narrative is to be punitive and to oppose the reforms which we know work.

We will not be opposing this bill. We understand from conversations that the judiciary is sceptical about whether it is necessary. I would like to hear from the minister about conversations she has had and the feedback from people in the judiciary. It does not have to be verbatim; I am happy to have a summary.

Ministers must take some responsibility for their departments. That has never been truer than in the case of Tasmania's imploding prison system, where all the metrics are speaking of a terrible and worsening situation. The succession of ministers who have been in that portfolio have been well warned and advised about the actions they need to take. We look forward in the last few months of this term of government for some action on the rest of the recommendations of the KPMG report.

[12.38 p.m.] Mr BROOKS (Braddon) - Mr Speaker, I support the bill, a bill that is part of our commitment to ensuring we have up-to-date and adequate provisions in place for the management of prisoners. Everyone agrees that it is a bad outcome when you see prisoners released without serving their correct time, which then also affects victims. There is no mistake that we on this side are firmly on the side of the victims. We made no apology for that.

The bill, in response to the KPMG report, sets out a check list, a range of information and detail that needs to be contained in the sentencing order. If you look at the crux of that issue - in my other life I was an asset manager and systems consultant - it comes down to the information that is provided, the information that needs to be available whichever system there was. I heard Dr Woodruff mention integrated systems. I might talk a little bit about that too because it really is an important aspect of life these days as we look at moving towards technology that handles a lot of those outcomes.

I was interested to hear Ms Giddings' comments about political speeches in second reading contributions. Ms Giddings and those opposite say all the time that that was the worst second reading speech ever that contained a whole heap of political spin, written by either the member themselves or the party advisers. They said it to me when I was the minister on numerous occasions about my second reading speeches and Ms Giddings again brought it up this time. It got me thinking about some of the ridiculous bills they brought into this place when they were under the Greens' control, under the Labor-Greens disaster that everyone had to sit through for four years where they not only sold out industry but every principle the once-proud Labor Party once stood for.

We all remember that disgraceful attempt to stop certain people from running for parliament and people having their say in a democracy. That was the 'Robert Mugabe' electoral reform bill they dragged in the last breath of that failed government to try to reform the Electoral Act to save their political skins. Fortunately people saw through that for what it was: a political stunt. The whole bill was a political stunt. The second reading speech was a political stunt and thankfully it

39 28 November 2017 did not come into effect because everyone saw through the rubbish they put up. It goes to show the hypocrisy of those opposite that you have Ms Giddings and her colleagues complain about so-called political content in second reading speeches.

I have read the second reading speech presented by the minister, Ms Archer, and I do not think it contains anything political. It is just the scepticism and hypocrisy of those opposite who want to throw rocks in glasshouses to try to detract from the attention they do not want around their own attempts when their failed government, under the leadership of Ms Giddings, tried to drag in legislation like that.

Mr Speaker, I know you would remember, as would the minister, Ms Archer, and I know my colleague and good friend, Mr Groom, would remember the affront to democracy that they brought in. Yet they come in and whinge today about a second reading speech that I thought was excellent. It did not politicise anything. It was a second reading speech of fact. For Ms Giddings to highlight what she thought was political spin or political statements just goes to show that she is trying to cover up what she did when she was premier.

We all remember the then attorney-general, Brian Whiteman, trying to ram through that legislation in the last sitting days of the failed Labor-Greens government. It really was an affront to democracy, an affront to those wanting to stand and an affront to those hardworking people who might have had a different idea to those opposite. That is ultimately their pathological hatred for anyone who does not follow their line and believe what they think everyone should. That is what that bill was about.

That then leads on to the other. Whilst there are so many disastrous bills that Labor-Greens government put through in that last term, there was the destruction of the forest industry legislation. Apparently that bill was not political, according to the holier-than-thou Opposition that did not do anything like that. 'Oh no, we had nothing to do with that.' The minister's relatively brief second reading speech - four minutes or so from memory - is to the point of what we are trying to do, but they are claiming that was somehow political when we all remember their bill to destroy an industry and sell out jobs in the community - in particular in Braddon. We all remember that legislation, we all remember what those opposite did and what they said, including in second reading contributions, and it was all political spin written by their spin doctors, championed by the then premier, Ms Giddings, and ultimately a failure in the community because they had their say at the last election and threw them out, as they should have.

For the past premier, Ms Giddings, to complain about political speech in second reading speeches when she was the premier who saw the 'Robert Mugabe' electoral reform bill brought in by the then attorney-general and also the destruction of forestry bill -

Ms Giddings - A bit Trump-like in not coming forward with your audit on your emails. Where's that audit?

Mr BROOKS - All we hear is complaining and whingeing from that side. They complained about us fixing their mess. They complain about everything because they think it is a smokescreen of distraction from what they delivered when they sold out every principle they once had to go into a deal with the Greens. We all know the premier lied about that when she said there would be no deals with the Greens.

40 28 November 2017 Ms GIDDINGS - Point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER - I presume it is about the word 'lied' - I ask the member to withdraw that, please.

Mr BROOKS - I withdraw it, Mr Speaker.

We all know the premier misled the community. I am not surprised some people come up to me and say they felt lied to about Labor not doing a deal with the Greens. We all know they will do it again. We know they will roll over on day one and cut a deal as soon as they can. Everyone knows that. The current Leader of the Opposition can say all she wants but we know she is misleading the community and everyone will see through it.

The contribution of Ms Giddings highlights the hypocrisy of those opposite, how shallow they are and how fearful they are of this Government getting on with the job of not only fixing their mess but delivering actual reform for the community. It highlights the difference between us on this side and the rabble on that side that not only could they not put up decent legislation in the last term but they put up legislation such as the destruction of forestry bill and the 'Robert Mugabe' electoral reform bill.

That is the sort of thing we got from the Labor-Greens government. Then they come in here and say, 'That was the worst, most political second reading speech I have ever heard in my life'. They say that every week, so why are we not surprised? A leopard never changes its spots and we know the Greens spots on the Labor leopard will never change.

I would like to spend a bit of time on the system data. It is a very important aspect because ultimately if you look at any system, it is only as good as the data you have put in and your management and processes around that data. This bill sets out a very clear process to help ensure that data is available. We heard from Dr Woodruff about system integration and we would like to see system integration. We saw the Labor-Greens government try to do system integration and we all remember that in 2011; that was a lesson on how not to do an implementation. In 2011 we had the Aurora billing system. All they wanted to do was implement a billing system, but this the Labor-Greens government that did not understand that it should be integrated. Their $15 million budget to implement a billing system - not even integrated one; that is how incompetent they were - had a budget estimate of $15 million. What was the actual cost of that implementation? We know it was more than $60 million. That is how bad they were at not only accounting but managing projects such as implementing systems that provide appropriate data and billing for people who suffer through that. Labor is the same across the country; we saw the disaster of Labor trying to implement a payroll system for the Health system in Queensland, again, not understanding what they were doing.

We have a government led here by a competent, awesome, excellent minister trying to fix the mess by making sure that mechanisms are in place to provide the correct data. That is what this bill does.

The Aurora billing system that cost at least $60 million, apparently, we all know - we on this side would know, you on that side would not know because you are incompetent - we all know that does not include the internal cost to the Tasmanian taxpayer for the implementation. Are the project set-up costs included or is this just the consultancy agreements and the licensing software

41 28 November 2017 prices? Does it include the management in-training and development that the staff had to attend? They are the sorts of things that those lot did not understand and would never understand. That is proven again by their lack of contribution on this bill where all we got from Ms Giddings was whingeing that it was a so-called political speech, which it was not. You only have to read their 'Robert Mugabe' electoral amendment bill 2013 they brought in. It goes into the internal charge and project costs and those sorts of things.

What we committed to as a Government is delivering better outcomes for the community. I have already said this bill is based on the KPMG audit report that there needs to be improvement. We accept that there is more to be done. We accept that there is always continuous improvement, unlike those opposite who did nothing. When they did do something they got it wrong anyway. They were so incompetent they either spent four times plus over the original cost, or they would stuff it up completely and it would effectively turn into chaos. That is why we all remember the chaos of the Labor-Greens disaster. To cover their chaos they would bring in ridiculous legislation like the destruction of the forest industry amendment bill.

This relatively small bill is a crucial part of a government that is committed to improvement, to delivering a better outcome in all realms of what we do. Specifically for this legislation, it is about sentencing and imprisonment of Tasmanian people, and ultimately about protecting the community so that if a sentence is handed out, that sentence is served and that the minimum criteria are set out. That is why the legislation makes sure that certain matters are specified when the sentence of imprisonment is imposed.

No-one is saying that there is not more work to be done. The difference is that this Government is showing an unseen amount of initiative in trying to address concerns after 16 years of Labor dysfunction, of Labor neglect, of Labor completely being absent from the community and of Labor absolving its responsibility to anyone and everyone else because it was not up to it.

We heard Ms Giddings talk about their experience in Cabinet and the fact that this Government did not have the same level of experience in Cabinet. I will tell you one thing, Ms Giddings, I would much rather stack up the real life experience on this side of the Chamber compared to the dysfunctional rabble that you led as the premier and the dysfunctional incompetence you have sitting on that side these days. Of current MPs there are only going to be five returned, maybe. You have two up the back corner who do not want to be here. They are out of here. Then you have the remaining ones who want to be there.

Mr LLEWELLYN - Point of order. I object to that statement. I certainly want to be here and I will be here until the end of my term.

Mr SPEAKER - It is not a point of order.

Mr BROOKS - I did not know you were so sensitive about the fact that you do not want to continue here after the election. The point is, if you look at everything that the Labor-Greens government did in contrast to everything this Liberal majority Hodgman Government has done, we have delivered in spades to the community. You want to talk about any portfolio or any community matter, it is in a better outcome now than what it was under you lot. You only have to look at business confidence. The Leader of the Opposition, the honourable Rebecca White, was responsible for small business confidence in Tasmania in the last government. She was

42 28 November 2017 responsible as the Parliamentary Secretary for Small Business. What happened to small business confidence under you lot? It was destroyed.

What has happened under this Government? We have rebuilt it from the delusion that those opposite had that they were doing a good job. If you look at the real world - the Leader of the Opposition has never had a job in the real world - the real world aspect of what we deliver as a government it is about continuing improvement for Tasmanians. Is all the work done? Of course not. Have we ever said it is? No. What we have said is there is more work to be done. We have put the foundations in place. We are building on those foundations. We have restored confidence. Jobs are up. Investment is up. Construction is up. Retail spend is up. There is a lot more to be done. There are more in the community that need to feel the benefits of the work we have done. That is why we have committed every single minute of every day to delivering for the Tasmanian people. This legislation is an example of what we are doing to continue to improve the lives of Tasmanians. We take advice. We listen to experts. The difference is we act on it.

We do not act on what the political spin doctors tell us to, like that lot did under the 'Robert Mugabe' electoral reform act and the destruction of forest industry bill. We follow advice and deliver on it for the betterment of Tasmania, unlike those opposite. A classic example is our relocation of MRT to Burnie, opposed by those opposite, opposed by Dr Broad, opposed by Bryan Green, opposed by everyone on that side because they do not want jobs coming out of Hobart and going to the north-west coast. Shame on you lot. No wonder you are sitting over there when you have attitudes like that.

You can see those whingeing about it again, even on four-wheel-drive tracks. They are trying to pretend they do not. We know they do because ultimately they are the ones that locked them up in the first place.

This bill is another step in the right direction to restore Tasmania to the place it should be, which is at the top of the pile. Unlike you lot - you sold out every principle you once stood for, sold out industry, sold out jobs, sold out businesses, sold out the economy, sold out policy to appease your Green masters. We know you would do it again. The Leader of the Opposition is misleading Tasmanians. It shows in the lack of experience - she has never had a job in the real world. They do not have the policy framework to back it up, whereas we do. The difference is that we listen to the feedback and we listen to the advice of the experts, such as the KPMG report on sentencing, and we act on it. We act on delivering what this Government does for the people of Tasmania.

Sitting suspended from 1.00 p.m. to 2.30 p.m.

SENTENCING AMENDMENT (SENTENCES OF IMPRISONMENT) BILL 2017 (No. 54)

Second Reading

Resumed from above.

[2.30 p.m.] Mr BROOKS (Braddon) - In summing up, Mr Speaker, I support the legislation. It is another step towards this Government delivering on a better outcome for Tasmanians, including

43 28 November 2017 victims of crime. It is in stark contrast to the no talent team on the opposition benches, led by a leader who has never had a real job in the real world who continues to fumble her way along with a zero policy opposition.

[2.31 p.m.] Ms ARCHER (Denison - Minister for Justice) - Mr Speaker, I thank members for their contributions. In doing so I acknowledge that each member's contribution has gone off topic a little, which is fine. We allow that latitude. I will try to address the questions that were raised in relation to this bill as best I can. I will address the amendments separately and appropriately through Committee.

Ms Giddings raised the subject of information technology funding in her contribution. I would like to highlight Justice Connect, which forms part of the Government's digital transformation strategy and is a response to the IT issues facing the Department of Justice and, more specifically, the KPMG recommendations that this bill deals with today. An amount of $16 million dollars has been committed to Justice Connect which will aim to improve the information sharing amongst agencies, including Community Corrections, both the Magistrates and Supreme courts and the Tasmanian Prison Service. There has been plenty of criticism throughout the contribution on this topic but it is worth noting that action is taking place in relation to IT and digital transformation strategy.

Regarding the consultation process generally, after consultation we amended the bill. Both Labor and the Greens have indicated they do not intend to oppose. It is an indication of highly successful consultation when we are prepared to come in here and amend our own bill.

Ms Giddings asked why the Government proceeded with the legislation rather than simply consulting with the Tasmanian magistrates group. It was an either/or recommendation arising from the KPMG report. This legislation was a key component of that review. It was a recommendation. The Government agreed that the legislation was a completely appropriate way to proceed. We believe it is the best way to achieve our aim of improving the clarity of sentences significantly minimise the risk of incorrect releases. As we have said on a number of occasions, even one incorrect release is completely unacceptable.

In the long term it is important to highlight to the House that entrenching this change in legislation is much more robust than not. It is inter law. Personnel in the courts - magistrates, judges -change over time, but this will remain in legislation. Entrenching it in this way is the best way to proceed in dealing with this issue.

It is not unfair to say that most of Dr Woodruff's contribution was not necessarily relevant to this bill but I will respond as best I can.

Dr Woodruff - Almost of all of it was about the KPMG report's comments.

Ms ARCHER - In my view, Dr Woodruff's comments were not necessarily relevant to this bill. They were not questions relating to this bill. As I was saying, before I was interrupted, I will respond as best I can, as I always try to.

Dr Woodruff mentioned drug diversionary programs. Whilst not relevant to the current bill, I am prepared to respond. As I have said on many occasions, the Hodgman Liberal Government is

44 28 November 2017 increasing the court mandated diversion program from 80 to 120. That is an increase of 50 per cent. It extends the reach in the north and north-west of the state where there is currently higher demand. They are going to have a higher allocation than ever before.

I attended a graduation yesterday. I will not mention any names. There was one graduation yesterday where someone had completed two years of a Court Mandated Diversion program. It was a really uplifting experience to see someone get their life back on track in the way this person has. He has managed to gain partial custody of his children. Before, he was not even seeing them. He is only a young man with very young children and he pleaded to go on the program and nearly was not taken. From the contributions I heard, he was borderline because people thought he would not be able to do it. It was his belief in himself, which is extraordinary in the circumstances, that got him through. There were a few hiccups along the way but nothing that deterred him from forging on. As we know, Christmas/New Year periods can be very difficult for people. He has managed to get through all of that in two years. It was wonderful.

I was pleased the timing of that was such that I could attend. It is very gratifying to see something that has been put into place having results. We do not shy away from that. We have highlighted in this place that Labor has, unfortunately, announced they will scrap this additional funding. That is disappointing. It did not appear anywhere in their funding schedule, if we could call it that.

Dr Woodruff mentioned the Custodial Inspector. Whilst not relevant to this bill, the Hodgman Liberal Government created the Custodial Inspectorate. There was no action from the Labor-Greens government at any stage to deal with existing systemic issues.

Dr Woodruff - What's the point of creating something you do not listen to? They provide recommendations and you do not take them up.

Mr SPEAKER - Order, Dr Woodruff.

Ms ARCHER - I note there was a Greens minister for corrections at one stage yet we still did not have a custodial inspectorate.

The Custodial Inspector's annual report outlines what we have been saying for some time; that the Tasmania Prison Service is facing long-standing challenges. We are not shying away from these issues. The Government is taking action to address the numerous challenges by investing significantly -

Dr Woodruff - You have to now because you cut it in the first budget. That is why it is a disaster.

Mr SPEAKER - Order, Ms Woodruff.

Ms ARCHER - in the -

Dr Woodruff - If you would recognise you made a mistake, that would be very helpful and believable.

45 28 November 2017 Mr SPEAKER - Order. Dr Woodruff, I officially warn you for interjecting. You have had an opportunity to make your contribution. Please allow the minister to contribute on the second reading speech without interruptions.

Ms ARCHER - Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will start this again so that it makes sense.

The Government is not shying away from these issues. It is the Government that is taking actions to address the numerous challenges by investing significantly in the Tasmanian Prison Service with more beds, more staff and planning for the future to address the legacy issues in our corrections facilities. I have addressed this issue in response to a question in this place, so I will not go into all of the statistics, but suffice to say there has been a significant investment in all of those things.

We have been very transparent and upfront about the problems in our prisons. We have not shied away from it. It has taken a majority Liberal Government to legislate and provide for a Custodial Inspector for the state. It is something that was talked about for a long time and it is pleasing that we have been able to put this independent official in place.

Dr Woodruff mentioned prison infrastructure. While not specifically relevant to this bill, as members know the Government has funded 81 new beds in the last two budgets, including 25 beds in the women's prison, which includes a five-bed mother and baby unit, which is a welcome addition to the Risdon Prison complex. We recently called for tenders for that infrastructure.

The Government is also providing more funding for more staff to support this infrastructure. Already we have 47 more full-time equivalent staff within the Tasmanian Prison Service since we came into government. We currently have 18 recruits training as correctional officers. They are set to graduate in coming weeks. The remaining positions of the 30 that we advertised are being recruited. They will train and then proceed to graduation as well. It is very pleasing that all of this happening.

Dr Woodruff also asserted that this Government had not made any significant inroads in this important portfolio area. She then listed a number of key areas that are not particularly relevant to this bill, as I have highlighted, but are areas where the Government has made significant inroads. In my first two weeks as minister I have introduced a number of bills in the portfolios of justice and corrections. It is not a fair -

Dr Woodruff - You cannot take credit for that, surely. That is a bit unreasonable.

Ms ARCHER - It is not a fair indication to say the Government is doing nothing in this space when in the last two weeks alone, which I can talk about because I have been the minister responsible, there have been a significant number of bills taken through this House.

As I have said I will address the issue of the amendment when we get to it in Committee as it is appropriate to deal with it then.

Since becoming minister I have offered briefings on my bills, I have negotiated compromised outcomes, and I have endeavoured to answer questions as best I can. I therefore cannot accept Dr Woodruff's false assertions of secrecy and having no integrity.

46 28 November 2017 I commend the bill to the House.

Bill read the second time.

SENTENCING AMENDMENT (SENTENCES OF IMPRISONMENT) BILL 2017 (No. 54)

In Committee

Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 - Section 92A inserted

Ms ARCHER - I have an amendment to clause 4, which deals with subsection (e). It deals with the main act of section 92A(e). I move that clause 4 be amended by -

leaving out 'whether the sentence of imprisonment being imposed or confirmed' and

inserting instead ', in the case of a sentence of imprisonment being imposed, whether the sentence'.

It had been anticipated the bill would be debated in the week commencing 31 October 2017; however, following the tabling of the bill the Chief Justice raised a concern with the final version of the bill. I had just taken over carriage of that matter. There was a concern that the final version of the bill would impose an unnecessary administrative burden on the court and such an interpretation was certainly not intended by the Government. It was pertinent for us to look at that and amend it in order to ensure there were no unintended consequences resulting from the draft of the bill.

The second reading of the bill needed to be deferred so that could take place, to have a meeting to hear those concerns and to then address the concerns to ensure the Chief Justice was happy. In consultation with the Chief Justice the amendment was drafted and he has advised it addresses his concern.

The amendment will mean that when an appeal court upholds a previously handed down sentence of imprisonment it will not need to comment on whether the sentence is cumulative or concurrent on any other term of imprisonment. The amendment provides that the appeal court will not be required to undertake additional research into whether the sentencing history of the prisoner has changed since the initial sentence was handed down. It is that additional research that would have caused the administrative burden on a sentencing judge in an appeal court. When the court hands down the sentence at the first instance the court would still be required to specify all the elements of information under this bill, including whether the sentence is cumulative or concurrent on any other term of imprisonment.

This amendment specifically deals with that appeal situation. As you can imagine, that is further down the track and very difficult for a court to keep track of all those other types of sentences the Supreme Court or an appeal court may not be aware of. It was felt that was overly burdensome and we did not want to create that nor did we want the whole bill to potentially fall

47 28 November 2017 over or not be the desired outcome, if we could address this issue. We have and we can report so to the House. I am confident this is now workable to the satisfaction of the judiciary. As I was at pains to point in my second reading contribution, nothing in this bill is a reflection on how the court currently conducts itself. This is obviously to eradicate these instances of incorrect releases and it is felt it will assist greatly in the entry of data if on the sentencing order all of the relevant information I have highlighted is contained in it. It is simply that in the appeal situation we are not going to require a full judge to do so further down the chain.

Ms GIDDINGS - May I clarify that reason with you? I have written down with the amendment you would not need to say if the sentence is cumulative or concurrent with another prison sentence - is that what you said? If someone is already in prison serving a sentence then that will not have to be considered by the magistrate or judge? That is where the administrative burden would be in trying to work through what other sentences they might currently be going through. That will not be required, but the sentences in front of the magistrate or judge will have to be clearly articulated as cumulative or concurrent. I believe that is what your explanation was.

Ms ARCHER - I will reiterate something that goes directly to it. The amendment will mean that when an appeal court upholds a previously handed down sentence of imprisonment, it will not need to comment on whether the sentence is cumulative or concurrent with any other term of imprisonment.

Ms Giddings - So it is just on appeal?

Ms ARCHER - Yes. That means it will not be required to undertake that additional research to undertake to put all of that information in there.

Ms GIDDINGS - In some respects I have to take it on face value that this amendment does exactly that, because it is not clear in the amendment that this is to do with cases on appeal other than 1(b) which talks about 'on appeal'. Paragraph (e) does not specify if it is restricted to where a matter is on appeal. That leaves me slightly confused.

My follow-up question in relation to this was that to me the amendment is effectively taking out two words, 'or confirmed'. It is written differently and in my view you could have kept the words as they were and deleted 'or confirmed', because the other words you have put in there are essentially there anyway; it is just slightly reworded. Am I right in saying the substance of that amendment is to effectively delete the words 'or confirmed' and therefore does the 'or confirmed' mean sentences that have previously been passed so they do not have to go back and confirm those sentences? Is that what we are talking about here?

Ms ARCHER - The term 'confirming' only relates to confirming a sentence on appeal. That is the relationship with an appeal. As for the wording we have come up with, I will try to help allay any concern that it has been run by the Chief Justice to ensure that he is content with the wording and that reflects the concern he had in relation to how I have explained it will operate for an appeal court. The word 'confirming' only relates to confirming sentence on appeal. It does not relate to any other instance.

Amendment agreed to.

48 28 November 2017 Dr WOODRUFF - Minister, can you outline where it states what the effect will be if clause 4 - section 92A inserted - is not followed correctly? What will the result be? As I understand it, these are procedural only and are not substantive, or in other words compellable. I am wondering what the effect would be if these were not adopted.

Ms ARCHER - If you look to proposed new subsection (5) it clearly states:

A failure by a court to comply with this section in relation to a sentence of imprisonment is not to be taken to invalidate the sentence.

Therefore it does not invalidate anything.

Obviously we strongly urge the judiciary or the magistracy to follow it. You do not penalise courts for not following these sorts of procedures, but it is in everyone's interests to follow legislative guidelines and requirements, but it will not invalidate a sentence. If anything is missed by a magistrate or judge on a sentencing order that this amendment bill requires them to do, it does not mean that any part of the sentence is invalidated because of that fact. There is no consequence to the offender. It can create more of an administrative burden if it is not completed how this bill intends, but I have every faith that magistrates and judges, being exceptionally intelligent people, will be able to follow it and ensure that they do follow it.

Dr WOODRUFF - I do not quite understand how this works, but from what you said this is really a way of suggesting that the judiciary follow it, because there is no penalty for not adopting it. I am wondering why it has been written into law in the manner that it has been and whether it might have been just as appropriate to have had a respectful conversation about practices. It seems a bit heavy-handed when you look at it from that point of view. There is no ability, according to this bill, to do anything if it is not followed.

I am not inferring that the judiciary would not follow it and would not think it is a good idea, but it does not seem as though it is necessary or has done anything very substantial that could not have been done by a workshop and conversations.

Ms Giddings - Some rules.

Dr WOODRUFF - Yes, some rules, which would not need to take up the time of this House, and all of the other issues recommended in the KPMG report would have been very worthy of the Government spending its time and energies focusing on some of the really big problems in the prison system at the moment.

Ms ARCHER - First, I do not see that it is heavy-handed at all to be clear and concise in legislation so it can be accessed through Austlii and other sites so that everybody, including the offender, is clear as to what should be contained in a sentencing order. It is not a heavy-handed approach. It would be heavy-handed if we penalised anyone for not following it, which of course we would not do. You do not do that to the judiciary. It is clear and concise. As I said in my summing up, it is important to entrench this so that it is a reference point, it is by law, and as personnel at courts come and go and change, there is a consistent approach; it is written down to which they refer.

49 28 November 2017 I am glad the member stated that she would have no reason to believe that people would wilfully not follow it, and I agree. I do not think any judge or magistrate would not aim to follow it, but if in the event there is an error or they err in some way, it does not invalidate the sentence. We have ensured that if that happened, it is not going to completely invalidate the sentencing order.

I do not accept the premise that this is heavy-handed. Quite to the contrary, it is clear, concise and is there to ensure that everybody knows what needs to be contained in the sentencing order. If we did not take a legislative approach we would probably be criticised for not putting it in legislation.

Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5 agreed to and bill taken through the remaining stages.

Bill read the third time.

Quorum formed.

DOG CONTROL AMENDMENT BILL 2017 (No. 60)

Second Reading

[3.04 p.m.] Mr GUTWEIN (Bass - Minister for Planning and Local Government - 2R) - Mr Speaker, I move -

That the bill be now read the second time.

Australia has one of the highest rates of pet ownership in the world, with about 63 per cent of households having a pet. Tasmania has the highest rate of pet ownership in Australia and dogs are the most common pet. It is important to have contemporary dog control legislation. It is also important to those administering the legislation such as councils and to those in the community who own a dog and those who do not.

The Dog Control Amendment Bill 2017 supports councils that administer dog control powers under the Dog Control Act 2000; promotes public health and safety; aligns with the increasing awareness of the community around animal welfare; and supports the rehoming of ex-racing greyhounds. The amendments were overwhelmingly supported during the final consultation period, with 129 submissions being received.

Mr Speaker, allow me to start with one of the most topical amendments to the act relating to greyhounds. The amendment will enable greyhounds that have been trained and assessed by organisations whose programs have been approved by the Director of Racing to be walked on a lead in a public place without a muzzle. This amendment will assist organisations to rehome

50 28 November 2017 ex-racing greyhounds that will be able to go for walks on a lead unhindered by a muzzle with their adopting family.

This amendment was overwhelmingly supported by the community and organisations that rehome dogs. It reflects the recommendations by the joint select committee on Tasmania's greyhound racing industry. It also reflects the community's changing attitude towards the welfare of animals. In the long term it will show people in the community that greyhounds are gentle dogs that make good pets. This will support Greyhounds Australasia to meet the target of zero euthanasia for ex-racing greyhounds. This will also support the sustainability of the Tasmanian greyhound racing industry.

I now want to mention one matter that became a significant social media issue in recent times: an attack by a dog called Kodi on an 11-year-old boy who sustained serious injuries. I am informed that this incident is now the subject of a civil legal action. Future changes to the act may be considered based on the outcomes of the case. While the incident is an emotive one, I urge community members to exercise caution with regard to making comment on it. I also refer members in this place to the police account of the incident, which was publicly released and is materially different to what has been described on social media.

It is also important to note that the existing provisions of section 19(7) of the act provides that it is a defence against prosecution for a dog attack if a dog is being used in the reasonable defence of any person or property, or where the dog is being teased, abused or assaulted.

The majority of the amendments in this bill provide clarity in the legislation and will assist councils to manage and control dogs in their municipalities. For example, dog owners will now be required to include their dog's microchip number when registering or re-registering their dog. This will help councils identify dogs at large.

There is also an amendment to the act that requires the owner of a dangerous or restricted breed dog who is transferring a dog permanently to another municipal area to ensure the relevant council is notified within 14 days of the dog's movement. There is also a new offence provision for failure to notify the relevant council within the 14 day period so that this requirement is consistent with other provisions in the act. The amendment closes a gap in the act and will provide councils with better information on the number and location of dangerous or restricted breed dogs in their municipalities.

We all know there are benefits of owning a dog and being able to enjoy walks with your dog in public places. This is a valued pastime for many people in our Tasmanian community. Having said that, there are times when dogs should be restricted from areas and events to ensure the health and safety of the public. Some examples may include children's playgrounds, sections of parks and beaches, markets and other outdoor events. There are also places dogs should be excluded from to protect other animals and flora, such as birds nesting on shores or migratory birds feeding or roosting. Previously councils could only restrict dogs at certain times or seasons; however the amendment enables councils to restrict dogs permanently from specified council controlled areas. The council will still be required to review declarations of permanent restrictions every five years, notify the public and consider feedback about the declarations.

Increasing clarity of legislation where possible is important, and several amendments have this purpose. For example, there is now clear delineation between what an owner needs to do to

51 28 November 2017 be in control of a dog compared to what an owner needs to do to be in control of a dangerous or restricted breed dog or to be in control of a greyhound.

Another amendment clarifies that councils can seize and/or destroy a dog if the dog has caused, or is likely to cause, injury or death to a person or animal, or if the animal is seriously injured or disabled. The act currently says 'seize or destroy' and the amendment clarifies the provision to reflect the original intent of the act.

The bill also provides clarity for those who have rural properties with livestock for primary production. There are provisions in the act which allow an owner of such properties to protect their livestock from a dog at large on their property. However, it is currently unclear what is meant by 'primary producer' and 'livestock', so these terms have been defined and are now consistent with definitions used in other legislation. These changes will provide some clarity for owners of rural properties, particularly if they are involved in legal proceedings.

An issue recognised by those who have experienced a dog attack on livestock is that the attacks are not usually observed. Therefore it is very difficult to identify the attacking dog, or dogs, and a council is unable to instigate measures to prevent further dog attacks. To address this issue a new provision in the bill enables council authorised officers, who have been appropriately trained, to take a DNA sample from a dog who is suspected of being involved in an attack. Attacks by dogs are not just limited to livestock and therefore DNA sampling of dogs would also be available if a person was attacked. A council will also be able to recover the costs of DNA sampling if a dog is proven to have attacked. This is an important addition to improve the safety of people and animals in our community and will assist councils to resolve investigations in a timely manner using scientific evidence, where deemed appropriate.

The act has been amended to clarify that kennel licences are required for doggy day-care businesses that can be run from residential premises and that care for more than two dogs. This is an important amendment as it enables neighbours to support or object to the operation of these businesses close to their home, as the practical effect on them is no different to a neighbour who owns more than two dogs who does require a kennel licence.

The bill ensures the act is consistent with the Magistrates Court (Administrative Appeals Division) Act 2001. The act permits the owner of a dangerous dog served with a 'destruction of dangerous dog notice' to appeal the decision to a Magistrates Court within 14 days from the service of the notice. The bill amends the period from 14 days to 28 days so that it is the same as the Magistrates Court (Administrative Appeals Division) Act 2001.

This bill will assist local government by providing clarity around the capacity of councils to act in the best interests of their communities. It provides consistency and tools to assist councils in carrying out dog control measures within municipalities. It also promotes the safety and wellbeing of the community.

I commend the bill to the House.

[3.12 p.m.] Ms OGILVIE (Denison) - Mr Speaker, I anticipate this to be the last bill I will speak to before the closure of this session of this term of parliament and it could not be on a better topic.

52 28 November 2017 I am an old-fashioned, hard-core dog lover. There is nothing better we can do, not just for the dogs but for families who love their pups, to make sure as much possible we have safe environments and that beautiful greyhounds are able to be cared for and loved as the beautiful species of pups they are. When I arrived in this parliament, Michelle O'Byrne advised me, 'You can get up and talk about anything in a speech, particularly if you have to fill in some time, but don't talk about your dog'. I had a chance to talk about my Scottish terrier, Winsome, on the eve of the Scottish independence vote, which was a couple of years ago.

I am going to raise Winsome again today because I love her so much. She sleeps on my bed with her head on the pillow and she is a gorgeous girl. The kids love her. We have had a series of dogs. I grew up with an Old English sheepdog named Eloise. I had Oscar, the West Highland terrier when we lived in Sydney. Oscar was subject to a dog attack. We had a frightening experience in a park in Sydney with another dog who was off leash and got into an altercation with young Oscar. He ended up with a very expensive injury to his cruciate ligament that we spent thousands of dollars fixing. It is very distressing for everyone when that sort of thing happens so I see the benefit of having rules and safety around how we interact and getting that balance right. I am a strong and firm supporter of making sure we have adequate space, time and places for dogs to play with each other off leash.

I took the time to have a chat to Karen Fraser of the Tasmanian Dog Walking Clubs. I was taken with her comment that, 'Of course we are very supportive of the move towards making sure that greyhounds can be out and about without muzzles, that they do the program'. I see in the submissions to the inquiry that Launceston City Council asked for a particular tag to identify that they have.

I wanted to raise the power of councils to be able to determine where and how dogs and walkers and kids interact. As a mother of three I am often looking for a place where I can take the children but also let the dogs have a run. I go down to the Derwent Sailing Squadron quite often. The kids can play basketball and I can have the pup on the dog-walking side of the beach. Getting that balance right is important. I have had some submissions from friends and colleagues through the northern suburbs of Denison who want better fenced areas where they can have the dogs off leash and know they are not going to run off. As we getting older - I am heading into my 50th year on this planet in January - I realise it is not that simple to chase a dog that is running away.

Mr Gutwein - I cannot believe you are nearly 50.

Ms OGILVIE - Can I please have some more of that?

Ms Dawkins - I will return the love. You look about 32.

Ms OGILVIE - As I reach that milestone, which weighs heavily on my mind, I realise it is different as you get older and it is not as easy to take off after a bolting dog or child as well for that matter.

Containment and how we manage dog parks and beautiful places to be, not just the beach, and being sure that the community's perspective and views on that is heard, is very important. That is where the local government side kicks in to make sure we hear that community voice.

I have been watching carefully what is happening with residential accommodation, apartment living and Airbnb. How things change as to how we live impacts our ability to keep and maintain

53 28 November 2017 our pets. My very dear friend, Sheila Given, who taught me at Friends' School and who has become a resident of Vaucluse, loved it when I would take my dog down to visit. Having to give up your pets when you move on in life also can be very distressing and might not be a positive thing. I am all for beautiful love between humans and pets and children and families and the robustness of all of that, but with the appropriate balance.

My dog, Winsome, a little Scottish terrier, does sometimes take off. I have been lucky that she has been returned to us as she has had her tags on. That side of things is also very important.

Prior to this job, as a lawyer, I sat on the racing council's integrity body so I am familiar with the issues around the industry. The zero euthanasia goal is one I completely share on many levels. I am not up for euthanasia on any level. It is about a balance of rights. It is about making sure that we look after all creatures on this planet in the best way we can. Rehoming animals is one beautiful way of doing that. I have noticed as I move around West Hobart and South Hobart that more greyhounds are out and about. It is working and we have to keep it going.

I am for the dogs. I am for the dog walkers. I love animals. This is a step in the right direction. I will also, as shadow minister for Local Government and Planning, be keeping a close eye on councils' powers and making sure that everybody has a voice and is engaged in that process.

I have had quite a lot to say on that on the planning side of things as well. It is about putting people at the centre and putting community at the heart of decision making. You guys know what we need to do and how you like to live.

We will be supporting this bill. We do not need to go into Committee unless my Greens colleague wish to.

Ms Dawkins - No.

Ms OGILVIE - We all have different politics, but we can agree on how much we love dogs.

[3.20 p.m.] Ms DAWKINS (Bass) - Mr Speaker, there is no doubt that Tasmanians by and large have a close emotional bond with their animals and take their responsibility very seriously. The bond between human and canine is well documented and has been developing over thousands of years. There is evidence that dogs affect us in a surprising number of ways, from boosting our immune systems to staving off dementia. They are our best friends and our protectors.

We are moving from the idea of being animal owners to being somewhat more people who are responsible for the animal in their care - a small sentence but with huge import. We are moving from to a time where we recognise that the value of animals is intrinsic and not entirely related to human activity. There are roadblocks, however, such as the recent decision of Brexit negotiators in the United Kingdom to effectively declare that all animals, apart from humans, have no emotions or feelings, including the ability to feel pain. That was a retrograde step, as was the recent announcement by the United States President, who changed the rules on trophy hunting because his sons like to kill for pleasure. I find that revolting.

Often people who live with domesticated animals call themselves animal lovers, although I contend that they are pet lovers because they make a determination between pets and other

54 28 November 2017 animals, which are food or clothes. When we start to commodify animals, it is simply not the case that we treat all animals equally. The recent horrible realisation that 52 alpacas had starved to death in Tasmania was one of those instances. Forty-three additional animals had to be rehomed through Brightside and it illustrated the point so well that we do not treat all animals equally. The person responsible for those animals was fined a mere $159, and that was only for failing to properly dispose of the deceased animals - nothing around allowing the starvation of others. I have made inquiries of the minister for Primary Industries who is responsible for this matter and found the response wanting. The person who allowed the animals to die has diminished capacity and I certainly do not want to add to that person's woes, but I wonder what we are going to do if that person in future acquires more animals. There is nothing now to stop them doing so, and other animals could starve to death or be tortured by them if the department does not intervene.

There was a commitment made by this Government to further strengthen the Animal Welfare Act, and those who are concerned with greyhounds in the racing industry would have welcomed the addition of mental suffering, physical suffering and distress as components of the act, but they have not been forthcoming in this term of government.

Those amendments are particularly pertinent to the bill before us because greyhounds are currently muzzled under the law which this bill seeks to amend. Muzzling a dog is an act that causes suffering. The muzzles they currently must wear have misrepresented the breed as dangerous. Greyhounds were chosen as a breed to race not because they have an aggressive nature but because they have extraordinary eyesight; in fact, they were known as sight hounds. They rely on sight over smell and are the only dogs to do that. I would contend that this makes them more likely to need a lead than a muzzle. That rare eyesight has made them the most exploited dog in human history.

We are all aware that any dog can be dangerous if they are trained to be that way or are neglected. Just like humans, a dog that has been mistreated will lash out and be unpredictable. Greyhounds are incredibly gentle and really happy just to sleep and play.

The journey from commodity, livestock, to a family pet has been escalating since the Four Corners Animals Australia exposé and greyhounds are gratefully being accepted into our communities. Only in Australia and Northern Ireland are muzzles still required and other states are much further down the road of demystifying greyhounds as dangerous dogs by instigating 'green collar' schemes for socialised dogs. I have seen images of greyhound puppies recently with muzzles, tiny little puppies with plastic muzzles on their faces, and despaired. I hope these amendments go some way to alleviating their suffering and stopping this from occurring.

We rely on the choices and tastes of the next generations to stop the barbaric practice of greyhound racing once and for all. Millennials are the most connected and most ethical of any generation and as soon as more of them become community leaders, the sooner this barbaric pastime will be ended. With all the entertainment options available to people now, why on earth would beautiful, intelligent, gentle dogs be trained to chase a piece of metal on a lure? This will also be good news for Tasmanian taxpayers, as they could see the $3 million currently allocated from Treasury into the greyhound industry put to better use.

The recent joint select inquiry found that greyhounds suffered in the industry in many ways and in Ms O'Connor's dissenting report there were details around the draining of dogs before they are euthanased in the industry, that blood being used for other, I imagine more 'worthy', dogs.

55 28 November 2017 The poor track design still contributes to animals being often injured and leading to their death through lethal injection. Administering prohibited substances still occurs, with a lead trainer recently convicted of doping and slapped with only a $2000 fine, even after the joint select inquiry into greyhound racing concluded. One has to wonder whether they took the inquiry and the threat of closure seriously or whether they thought they could get away with the practices they have always used.

This summer greyhounds were being dumped from Victoria as the Victorian legislation closed loopholes on euthanasing animals. We found they were being crated and brought to Tasmania where they were being taken to processors of animal meats to be killed. Again Brightside stepped in and took 64 dogs in the first two months of this year alone, an incredible feat for one woman and her volunteers. I pay special tribute today to Emma Haswell. She is an incredible human being. She has to cop the flak from the industry whilst working in the fringes. She talks to greyhound owners and talks them out of killing their dogs and they will give them up to her to rehome. She has the confidence of many people who would never speak out and run the gauntlet of an industry with heavyweights who continue to pretend the greyhound industry has a social licence. She knows the only way to prevent unnecessary animal deaths is to deal with the very people who have created this animal welfare nightmare, and she does it all from a burning desire to defend the voiceless against the tyranny of money and influence.

The industry says it is moving towards zero wastage, and I am grateful to see that the number of pups brought into the industry has reduced, but we all know zero wastage is impossible. There is no capacity for every single greyhound that is born into the industry to find a place in racing. It is simply not possible. Dogs are still being killed unnecessarily and the cost of killing dogs is less than rehoming them through GAP. There is no motivation for people to send their dogs to GAP when they can have them euthanased at a lower rate, even though it is subsidised through the industry. There are still hundreds of dogs being killed every year through injury, illness or unsuitability to be rehomed, and these are the dogs we are concerned for. These are the dogs that will never grace the social media pages with 'forever' homes and peaceful lives. These are the dogs that are the faceless detritus of an industry which is out of time and out of favour.

To turn to the bill before us. I have a few questions I would like answered around proposed new section 18A. Proposed new section 18A gives an indication of how the Director of Racing would be able to define the program in respect of the training and assessment of greyhounds and whether they are suitable to be unmuzzled, but it is not clear who would be accredited or how that accreditation could take place. To the animal welfare activists, some of whom are in the Gallery today, I pay special tribute to the ongoing work this community has done to give voice to the voiceless. We all thank you very much. Without you, there is no voice.

Will all adopted greyhounds have the opportunity to be assessed to be muzzle-free after a fair assessment? That includes animals from Brightside Farm Sanctuary, GAP, the Hobart Dog's Home and the RSPCA. We have also noted there are animals travelling interstate, so we want to know how they could be accredited through the program? If you came here from another state that did not have an accreditation program, how would the information be shared?

I have also noted that greyhounds are still being offered for sale or given away on Gumtree. They are outside those accredited programs. Gumtree is probably not a place one would look for a greyhound. Surprisingly, there are always two or three greyhounds for adoption on Gumtree. I

56 28 November 2017 believe that information needs to be shared there, too. If we are going to do this, it has to be a level playing field and all animals have to be able to go muzzle-free once they have been assessed.

The animal welfare activists would also like to know if revisiting GAP is a good idea for greyhounds that have come through the program. I do not know if you have a dog, Treasurer, but every time we travel near the vet mine get a little shaky. Other people understand that happens. If a dog has come through the industry - as we know many dogs have been caged all their lives - they have not had an opportunity to be socialised appropriately. They go through the GAP and if they are successfully rehomed the last place they want to go is to a place that reminds them of their past. We know dogs have the capacity to remember because we can see it every day. If I turn right rather than left, my dogs know exactly which park we are going to and the closer we get to it the more excited they get. They have great memories. Some of our dogs even remember places we used to live many years ago. We want to make sure they are not taken back to a place where they have had significant issues.

I also acknowledge that when we pass legislation or amendments such as this we are putting the responsibility often onto councils that are not adequately resourced. If we look at the Cat Management Act, we know many of its attributes were appropriate but without enabling local council to fulfil that legislation we have put them in a very difficult spot where they are not adequately resourced to do the job. We have to make sure this information is shared and that our councils are adequately supported to implement the legislation.

I thank this Government for the work it has done to unmuzzle greyhounds. It has not been easy. I know the Liberal Party, in some instances, speaks for the greyhound industry and it is a difficult path to tread, but we hope we see resolution today. This is the first step forward for greyhounds in Tasmania in years to alleviate the suffering they have had to endure because the industry has not seen them like other animals. I plead with you today to make this possible and thank you for the work you have done.

[3.34 p.m.] Mr BROOKS (Braddon) - Mr Speaker, I want to talk about where this legislation has come from. It is not often I agree with my colleague from the Greens, but it has been a lot of work by many people to get to this point. When I was the minister for racing I was approached by many members of the community about muzzling retired greyhounds. They make beautiful and wonderful pets. When I was in the portfolio, even when I was the shadow minister for racing in the previous term, it was a no-brainer. Without dragging this debate into the pros and cons of greyhound racing, if we can help the re-housing of retired greyhounds and allow the process to help them to be taken home as beautiful pets then it is a great thing. It is a positive step. The Government has been focused on delivering that.

The Minister for Planning and Local Government has carriage of this legislation. It was something I was keen to pursue from within the portfolio. I had several meetings with the minister on what we can do to amend the legislation to get this happening. I commend the minister for his work on following this up and delivering on it.

The perception when you see them muzzled in the community is sometimes fear, which is completely incorrect. What is funny about greyhounds is they like to sleep all day. You do not think they are built for speed. The changes we can make through this legislation are positive steps towards making sure the community gets a better understanding of these awesome animals and the sort of pets they can make. Removing the requirement to muzzle under section 18(2) is a good

57 28 November 2017 step. It seems such a simple thing. There has been a long process to get to this point. It is not only the work on behalf of these wonderful animals that those in the public gallery have done that I acknowledge. It is also about a government that is committed to continue to improve Tasmania as a state. If people have an idea or suggestion on how we can fix something or how we can make things better then we want to hear. We might not necessarily agree all the time. We quite often disagree with our parliamentary colleagues on that side of the House when it comes to these matters.

Mr Speaker, I know you are an animal lover and this is a good outcome, not only for the community, but for an action that is supported by all. It is a significant step towards the better welfare, treatment and acceptance of greyhounds in the community. The Government will continue to strive to do what it can to make sure it continues.

[3.39 p.m.] Ms COURTNEY (Bass) - Mr Speaker, it is a delight that the Dog Control Amendment Act is able to prove that Mr Brooks is a softy! There is a lot of unanimity in the room about making sure greyhounds are accepted.

I particularly thank Ms Dawkins, the member for Bass. The authenticity and determination of her advocacy for animals in this place and outside can never be questioned. That needs to be acknowledged. Like Ms Dawkins, people in my electorate have written to me a number of times over the past couple of years, particularly when I was part of the greyhound inquiry, which shows that we do have a strong feeling within the community. It was interesting to learn the number of dog owners we have in Tasmania. I had not realised that we were quite so enamoured with our pets. As a relatively new dog owner I can see why.

It is a delight that we are able to take some practical measures and also support councils. We have had a lot of discussion on greyhounds. I do not need to expand much further. A lot of other steps around local government will provide practical ways for councils and dog owners to have clear expectations of dog ownership. Changes to microchipping and ensuring that people have to report their microchips to council will be practical and helpful. If people lose their dogs, it is stressful for the owner and for the animal. This way we can expedite their reuniting as well as making sure we do not have any unfortunate situations with dogs whose owners cannot be found. As dogs need to be microchipped, these are practical initiatives, particularly those allowing councils, post consultation, to provide restrictions on dogs in certain areas. Again, we all love our animals; we would like to be able to take them everywhere at all times but it is not always appropriate. Not all members of the community are quite as enamoured with animals as we are. These are practical considerations allowing councils the ability, after consultation and after dialogue with the community, to have practical things in place that will assist them.

I particularly acknowledge Rosie Saville, who is in my, and the Treasurer's, electorate. She has been a strong advocate for greyhounds for a number of years for her and her lovely dog Spock. I thank her for her tireless advocacy. I thank all the people who have contributed to this bill. We seem to have a consensus around the Chamber, particularly with regard to greyhounds and I know a lot of work has gone into this. Obviously there was a very large committee process on greyhounds. Having been on the committee, we saw a number of recommendations come out. This was one of the recommendations. It will mean that there is a pathway for more animals to be able to live longer and happier lives in our community and that is good.

58 28 November 2017 [3.43 p.m.] Mr GUTWEIN (Bass - Minister for Planning and Local Government) - Mr Speaker, I thank all members for their contributions, some more colourful than others. Just a couple of matters to touch on. First, thank you for sharing the story about Winsome. I was being serious when you said you were nearly 50. That surprised me.

Ms Ogilvie - I'm entering my 50th year.

Ms White - Is that everyday sexism?

Ms Ogilvie - No, it's just facts. Facts are okay.

Mr GUTWEIN - If it is a fact, then it is fine.

A few questions were asked by the member for Bass, Ms Dawkins in respect to how accreditation will take place. My understanding is that any organisation, whether it be Brightside, the RSPCA or the Dogs Home, will be able to through the Director of Racing to have their program accredited.

Ms Dawkins - It is their program?

Mr GUTWEIN - Ultimately, it is the Director of Racing who will make those decisions. The Director of Racing will be interested in outcomes. There may be a variety of different programs but as long as they have the key outcomes the director and the community is looking for, any organisation if it wanted to be involved in rehoming will be able to be accredited.

Ms Dawkins - For example, could a dog that has come through GAP now go to Brightside or the RSPCA to get their assessment to be demuzzled?

Mr GUTWEIN - I will get clarification on that. Once the program the organisation runs is accredited, it would be up to that organisation to determine what the re-assessment, if any, is required -

Ms Dawkins - For the dogs out there now?

Mr GUTWEIN - Yes. I believe Rosie's dog was from Brightside. Brightside, through the Director of Racing, has its program accredited and then re-assessment would take place if it is required through Brightside.

Ms Dawkins - That is the pertinent point. There may not have to be any re-assessment then for dogs already socialising out in the community now; they could, once this is enacted, stop wearing muzzles?

Mr GUTWEIN - That is a matter for the Director of Racing.

Ms Dawkins - But it is possible?

59 28 November 2017 Mr GUTWEIN - It is possible but it is a matter for the Director of Racing. I imagine the length of time might be an issue. There might be a range of matters the director would take into account.

I say on behalf of the Local Government division, which has done an enormous amount of work on this over time, our intention is to ensure that we can facilitate outcomes as a result. Ultimately the Director of Racing is the person who will make that decision at arm's length from the Government. I am certain there will be a sensible but responsible approach to the way this is done.

In regard to interstate dogs, if they are brought to Tasmania and then go through a program there will be no issue.

As everybody else raised their pets, I have two dogs. I have Timmy, who is a bit of everything, a border collie called Woody, and two goats - whether we should keep them or not -Allan and Teddy, who are fantastic - Allan thinks he is a dog and is delightful - three sheep, four silky chickens and one very good laying Australorp.

Ms Ogilvie - I had a pet sheep when I was younger. I had pet ducks called Starsky and Hutch. It is hard to beat.

Mr GUTWEIN - I think more highly of you now I know you are friendly to goats!

In regard to councils and the other matter. In the main, what the bill does is clarify matters under the act. It does not put an additional workload back onto councils. There has been a lot of consultation as this bill has been developed. Councils have brought forward the major components that impact local government. It has been at their suggestion we have been included. We do not see it is going to be a significant increase in resourcing that is required. Most of the amendments to the act concern clarifying councils' legal position in respect to the actions they take. That has covered most of the matters

I once again thank all those who have been involved in this. Rosie, at the end of the day, you have been nothing but persistent, and I thank you for that. Having been to Rosie's home and having met her greyhound Spock, I was very much taken that day at what a placid, friendly, docile dog they are. Unless you have the opportunity to meet a greyhound under those circumstances, you don't really have any understanding of the breed at all. What has been interesting is that since we started this process, one of my senior advisers has a rehomed greyhound that works for me -

Ms Archer - The greyhound works for you?

Members laughing.

Mr GUTWEIN - No, the adviser works for me and assures me that we are on absolutely the right track here.

To Emma Haswell, for the work you have done in regard to this, you have put a position that has been listened to and I am pleased you were part of the consultation process and that we have been able to land at what will be a good outcome for our community and importantly, for greyhounds as well.

60 28 November 2017 Ms Ogilvie - Hear.

Mr GUTWEIN - I thank all of those involved. I especially mention Mr Greg Brown who has been involved in this from day one. This may be the last bill that he brings through for the Local Government Division so I thank him for his service through that period.

Bill read the second time.

Bill read the third time.

Quorum formed.

AUSTRALIAN CRIME COMMISSION LEGISLATION (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) BILL 2017 (No. 44)

Second Reading

[3.54 p.m.] Mr HIDDING (Lyons - Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Management - 2R) - Mr Speaker, I move -

That the bill now be read a second time.

The purpose of the bill is to make a number of amendments to Tasmanian acts that authorise or facilitate the release of information to CrimTrac. Up until 1 July 2016, CrimTrac was the national information-sharing service for Australia's police, law enforcement and national security agencies. The agency was established in 2000 under an intergovernmental agreement as a Commonwealth executive agency and collaborative partnership between the Commonwealth, states and territories.

In 2002, to counter serious and organised crime in Australia, the Australian Crime Commission was established under the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002. The functions of the Australian Crime Commission include: collecting and analysing criminal intelligence; setting national criminal intelligence priorities; providing and maintaining criminal intelligence systems; investigating federally relevant criminal activity; and undertaking taskforces in conjunction with state and territory police.

In February 2014 a National Commission of Audit recommended CrimTrac be merged with the Australian Crime Commission to better harness their collective resources. This recommendation was supported by all Australian governments and on 1 July 2016 Commonwealth legislation took effect merging CrimTrac into the Australian Crime Commission.

The Australian Crime Commission now performs all the previous functions of CrimTrac, including providing national police information systems to police agencies and nationally coordinated criminal history checks to accredited agencies. It should be noted that the merged organisation is still referred to as the Australian Crime Commission by the commonwealth ACC Act and this remains its name for any legislative purposes.

61 28 November 2017 Four Tasmanian acts authorise the release of information to CrimTrac. They are:

• the Annulled Convictions Act 2003; • the Firearms Act 1996; • the Forensic Procedures Act 2000; and • the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Tasmania) Act 2010.

This bill amends these acts by removing references to CrimTrac and, where required, replacing them with references to the Australian Crime Commission. This will allow the information that would have once been sent to CrimTrac to instead be sent to the Australian Crime Commission.

Finally, the bill also adds a transitional clause into the Forensic Procedures Act 2000. This ensures that any agreements made between Tasmanian government agencies and CrimTrac are in effect ported across to the Australian Crime Commission and thus deemed to be an equivalent agreement with the Australian Crime Commission.

This bill will take effect on the day it receives royal assent. I commend the bill to the House.

[3.57 p.m.] Mr LLEWELLYN (Lyons) - Mr Speaker, this is uniform legislation across all the states and brings into effect the operation of CrimTrac through the Australian Crime Commission and its access across the nation. When CrimTrac was first introduced it brought a new dimension to crime investigation in Australia and has been highly successful over that period. To have something which is uniform across the nation is and was the desire when it was first mooted. What other states are in at this point and finalising their own legislation in regard to it?

Mr Hidding - The same as ours?

Mr LLEWELLYN - Yes. Perhaps the minister could give an indication as to how it has gone in the other states, whether they are all on board. I would be pleased to know that. Otherwise, it is a very straightforward and simple legislation.

[3.59 p.m.] Dr WOODRUFF (Franklin) - Mr Speaker, the Greens will be supporting this bill but do so with a number of reservations I want to discuss and which were raised by members of the Greens at the federal level by Senator Nick McKim when the Australian Crime Commission Amendment (National Policing) Bill 2015 was debated in 2015 and passed by the Australian Parliament.

That bill enabled CrimTrac to be merged into the Australian Crime Commission and CrimTrac was the national repository of criminal information. It caused some controversy at the time because CrimTrac falls under the Privacy Act and the Australian Crime Commission does not. The bill amends Tasmanian legislation to make sure the information that formerly went to CrimTrac will now go to the Australian Crime Commission.

There were several reasons the Greens had concerns about that federal bill. The main one was that there would be a large volume of sensitive information no longer protected by Australia's primary privacy watchdog and would be exempt from privacy laws. The proposed Australian

62 28 November 2017 Crime Commission privacy safeguards do not have any legislation enforcing them and can be changed without having to go through parliament and without the need for public consultation or scrutiny. The Australian Crime Commission will not be required to grant access to or to correct, for example, an individual person's information and data. That is not the case with CrimTrac. As I understand it, people were able to identify where the information was held, what the information was, and if the information was not correct, were able to correct that so the information held was verifying the truth of their life and experiences.

The Greens had another concern in relation to missing persons' information. It is reasonable for adults to exercise their free choice not to associate with family and friends, particularly where an individual may have been subject to a violent or harmful environment and may, for whatever reason they choose, wish to dissociate themselves entirely from their family. The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner made some comments about the merge of CrimTrac into the Australian Crime Commission. The office said:

If the Bill is enacted, the Privacy (Persons Reported as Missing) Rule 2014 would no longer apply to the personal information currently held by CrimTrac (ie national policing information) and the ACC would not be obliged by the Rule to respect any known wishes of persons reported as missing when using or disclosing information about them.

We have concerns about people's rights to not disclose where they are to their family and friends.

There was also a concern stated by the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner in the submission they made to the Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee in relation to the Australian Crime Commission Amendment (National Policing Information) Bill. The commissioner said:

It is not apparent to me why it is necessary to remove the information currently held by CrimTrac from the protections, oversight and enforcement arrangements in the Privacy Act.

…

Given the volume and sensitivity of the information currently held by CrimTrac, I am of the view that there would need to be cogent reasons for exempting that information, and the activities associated with it, from the Privacy Act entirely. I consider that the objectives of the regime could be met, while at the same time retaining the protections and oversight offered by the Privacy Act.

Clearly there are state obligations now that that federal legislation has passed. I assume there are good reasons and state obligations for us to be passing this bill today, but I do not believe we can do that in good conscience without noting that there is some sort of mission creep which develops with the agglomeration of organisations like these that have enormous powers. Let us not forget that the Australian Crime Commission has powers to obtain information through coercive means. I think we just need to reflect on that and understand that when we merge these incredibly powerful bodies we should not at the same time let go of our rights to be able to have access to information about ourselves and have a reasonable oversight of the activities of those bodies to ensure that the liberties of individual people are not trampled on.

63 28 November 2017 They undertake incredibly important duties which involve keeping Australians safe and protecting people from acts of awful violence and harm, protecting Australians from organised criminal activities, trafficking of illegal drugs and all manner of other things that the Australian Crime Commission is responsible for. In the process of doing that, however, it also needs to respect the rights of all Australians, and in this case Tasmanians, to a due amount of accountability and the ability for us to access information about the activities.

We will support this bill with some reservations about the loss for Tasmanians and all Australians in the process of bringing these agencies together. We would like to hear the minister's views about why memorandums of understanding are not sought, and whether the Tasmanian Government made submissions in 2015 around the issues and concerns I raise, rather than the wholehearted jumping into information sharing, which we know can have terrible reverse effects in the wrong hands. With that, I indicate our support.

[4.10 p.m.] Mr HIDDING (Lyons - Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Management) - Mr Speaker, working backwards, Tasmania raised a series of concerns about this deal. We, as a small state, would be subjected to a substantial body of work over and above what we did before. As it was a COAG agreement to do this, we had to participate. While we made representations as to how difficult it was for us, we did not raise the matter of privacy as a barrier to us doing that. To address the matter of privacy, we need to see this sharing of information with a central commission as a clearing house between the states and the Commonwealth for information that should be shared, for instance, on domestic violence, although there is a separate process for that. It is a sharing of information between one police body by the Australian Crime Commission to another police body. Both police bodies are subject to their own privacy laws.

It was clearly argued by Tasmanian Senator, Nick McKim. I suspect he argued that the Crime Commission should also be protected by that in case they provided information to third parties on the guise that the principle role of this commission is to provide information between state police bodies. This is an example of the difference between say Canada and Australia, where Canada has provinces whose police are national police, called Mounties. They do not have a problem sharing between states. We are sovereign states; therefore to share information we would need to set up seven different operations. That is why CrimTrac was set up. CrimTrac has now been backed into this new ACC and the ACIC to be the clearing house of information between all police bodies, each of which has its own privacy structures.

CrimTrac was a poorly named entity because in 1996 it became the repository of each state's firearms owners' databases. If you owned a .22 for shooting rabbits on your farm, you were featured on the CrimTrac database. Clearly the wrong title. Something needed to change. That was not the driver of it. One key stakeholder in the firearms owning community has strongly said to me that she is furious with the notion that all her details are stored on a federal body called CrimTrac when she is demonstrably a law-abiding citizen. CrimTrac will disappear into the history of policing activity in Australia and the Australian Crime Commission will be the repository of this information. We should always be aware, particularly in certain policing circumstances, if a person is involved in criminal activity, whether that person has any firearms and what they are across states.

Mr Llewellyn asked where other states are up to. Queensland received royal assent some months ago. New South Wales commenced their process in January and the debate came on in

64 28 November 2017 October. A number of states are already there, but as this was part of a COAG agreement all the states have to do is mirror this legislation. It would appear we may be in the middle of the pack or towards the tail end of the pack in this legislation going through.

A former minister for police in the House would agree with me that it is a privilege to be Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Management in the state. When I first came to this job I was aware that there was an advanced discussion about merging CrimTrac with ACC. There was a considerable amount of pushback from Commonwealth agencies for these things to not occur. There was a bit of turf war. The states decided at COAG's Standing Council on Law and Justice that this was the right thing to do. This now gives effect to these arrangements.

Mr Llewellyn - What contribution does Tasmania make towards the financial -

Mr HIDDING - Financial contribution?

Mr Llewellyn - Yes.

Mr SPEAKER - I remind the House that we are in the second reading speech. We are not in Committee, but if a certain leniency allows it to progress without going into Committee then I am happy.

Mr HIDDING - Mr Llewellyn and I thought we would try to sneak away from that, but you sprung us. To our knowledge there has been no hit on the states to make a contribution to this. That is because I suspect that CrimTrac had very substantial cash reserves, which would allow for this entire thing to be funded. It was a good deal for Tasmania as opposed to a lot of other federal and national deals that we are in involved in.

It is a pretty simple bill. We used to provide material to CrimTrac; we now need to provide it to CrimTrac under a different name. Therefore our legislation needs to be amended.

Dr Woodruff - Minister, you did not respond to my question about missing persons.

Mr HIDDING - Police determine whether the person is alive and that information can be provided. If that person does not want their location known it is never known, it is not made known. Whether the person is deceased or living is a material question that can be answered.

Let us say there is a missing person's bulletin in Queensland. A 20-year-old person leaves home and does not tell their parents. Sadly it happens. It is one of the most tragic circumstances for families having no knowledge of what has taken place, where the person deliberately wants to separate themselves from the family. They might even hold the family to ransom. An advice goes out that this is a missing person. Tasmania Police find said person in Longford and say:

'We have reason to believe that you are Oliver Jones from Queensland'.

'Yes, I am,' says Mr Jones.

'Well, you are a missing person and we are obliged to report that you are living, but it is up to you whether we give any more information.'

65 28 November 2017 That person, an adult, can say, 'No, I don't want my people to know where I am', but the fact they are alive is not something they can withhold from anybody. That is the rule under which a missing arrangement takes place.

Dr Woodruff - It is consistent across all states?

Mr HIDDING - Yes. That is the protocol that all policing in Australia follows.

Dr Woodruff - Including the Australian Crime Commission?

Mr HIDDING - Yes. This essentially continues the good work of CrimTrac under a different name. I thank the House for its support.

Bill read the second time.

Bill read the third time.

MOTION

Energy Policy

[4.21 p.m.] Mr BARNETT (Lyons - Minister for Energy - Motion) - Mr Speaker, I move -

That the House -

(1) Acknowledges the actions the Hodgman Liberal Government has taken to protect households and businesses from skyrocketing electricity prices on the mainland, including -

(a) capping regulated power price increases to two per cent;

(b) introducing the Tasmanian Energy Efficiency Loans Scheme to encourage investment in energy-efficient products to help reduce energy bills;

(c) reducing the cost of wholesale electricity by about 20 per cent; and

(d) providing rebates to eligible customers to further reduce price impacts.

(2) Congratulates the Hodgman Government on the $125 Special Energy Bonus deliberately targeted to seniors, particularly pensioners, to assist them with their power bill and address the rising costs of living.

(3) Understands the Special Energy Bonus will be paid via cheque prior to Christmas 2017 and is in addition to existing concession payments which

66 28 November 2017 will continue, including to eligible concession customers under the age of 65.

(4) Further understands this bonus is a result of our Tasmanian First energy policy, returning the windfall profits from our energy companies to Tasmanians, rather than retaining them in Government coffers.

(5) Contrasts the Hodgman Government's approach with the record of Labor and the Greens, when in government drained the dams to secure a windfall gain from the carbon tax at the expense of Tasmanian households, advocated for forced power rationing for Tasmanians and slugged hardworking Tasmanian families and businesses with power price increases of 65 per cent over 7 years.

Mr Speaker, I am very pleased to be speaking to motion 1890 on energy highlighting the importance of the issue of energy and the achievements of the Hodgman Liberal Government taken during the course of its term in office, the dreadful record of the Labor-Greens Opposition when it was in government and the fact that we need more action when it comes to the Opposition and a stated position rather than to be mute and do nothing, say nothing, have no policy, plan or option on energy.

I first acknowledge the work of my predecessor, Matthew Groom, for his leadership in this space. I am honoured to have this role under the Hodgman Liberal Government as Minister for Energy. What we have done and will continue to do is ensure that the cost of living is a top priority issue and is recognised by the Hodgman Liberal Government. We have done that in different ways. We know the cost of living is really important to all Tasmanians, but particularly pensioners and those who have been doing it tough. We have had a cold winter, and I will address those initiatives very shortly.

We know the cost of doing business is a top priority issue for small, medium and large businesses across Tasmania. That is recognised by the Hodgman Liberal Government. I come from a business background; I ran a small business for 13 years prior to moving into the Senate and I know how important it is. I was an advocate for small, medium and large businesses during the course of that time in my consulting practice. Energy is a key ingredient to success when it comes to running a successful business. Tasmanian businessmen and women know that.

With respect to the cost of power prices for pensioners, what we have done is a very significant initiative. The $125 special energy bonus has been deliberately targeted to seniors and all pensioners, not just aged pensioners but disability pensioners, carer's pensioners, veterans and the like across the board. It will assist them to cover their power bills and address the rising costs of living. We have had a cold winter and it has not been easy. Many Tasmanians are doing it tough and this will deliver a cheque prior to Christmas for most of them and is in addition to the existing concession payments, which will continue, including to eligible concession customers under the age of 65. It will deliver a special note of support, a special acknowledgment, that they have been doing it tough. This Government is listening to the concerns of pensioners and one-third of households, more than 80 000 Tasmanian households and many more Tasmanians specifically will benefit from the special energy bonus. I wish we could have total support for such an initiative from across all quarters of this parliament, but the lack of silence from the other side is deeply disappointing.

67 28 November 2017 Mr Bacon - Why would there be a lack of silence? We are wholeheartedly supporting it.

Mr BARNETT - We will wait to hear the contribution from the shadow minister and those on the other side of the Chamber. We believe it is an important special energy bonus that will be appreciated to help the cost of living as a top priority issue. Already as a government we have responded to the skyrocketing electricity prices under the previous government - a 65 per cent increase in power prices over seven years of the previous Labor and Labor-Greens governments - and how hard that was for Tasmanians who slugged it out, hardworking Tasmanian families and businesses who suffered and endured the tough times and somehow survived. We have recognised that.

We have also capped regulated power price increases to 2 per cent. We have also introduced the Tasmanian Energy Efficiency Loan Scheme to encourage investment in energy-efficient products to help reduce energy bills. This has been one of the most successful schemes and I am very pleased and proud to mention that for residential and small business customers that was increased to a $20 million fund. We have had more than 3500 applications to date and stage 2 for large loans of up to $40 000 for small business has commenced. The total value of funds made available is approximately $12.8 million based on that recent advice. That is very encouraging. Wherever I go, up hill and down dale across Tasmania, the feedback has been very positive. I know the former minister has been such a key advocate for this program because he knows how positive it is, as do Tasmanians from all walks of life. They can see the benefit you can get from that loan by implementing an energy efficiency saving, whether it be solar or some other energy-efficiency project, and you can see the benefits delivered over that five-year period and then the loan is repaid. That is terrific.

The special energy bonus is a result of the Tasmania First energy policy I announced on day one as the new Minister for Energy. That is the priority.

Mr Bacon - What was the policy before that - Tasmania Second or Victoria First?

Mr BARNETT - Do they support the policy? They have been mute on this.

The Tasmania First energy policy is very clear. It is about the lowest power prices possible. By 2022 our target is that this state will deliver the lowest power prices in Australia. That is our number one priority. Let us be clear: for the first time we have a target to have not just low power prices but the lowest power prices in Australia by 2022. That is the top priority of this Government. For Tasmanians that feeds into the cost of living and the cost of doing business. Energy security is likewise part of that Tasmania First energy policy, which is on the back of the previous government.

On its watch the dams were drained to secure a windfall gain from the carbon tax at the expense of Tasmanian households. The former leader was an advocate for forced power rationing during that time of great difficulty. Hard- working Tasmanians were slugged under the previous Labor-Greens government. Mr Llewellyn, who chirped up during the debate, reminded me of how he publicly expressed his strong opposition to the decision to drain the dams on the watch of his Labor colleagues. He sits with them now, shoulder to shoulder, quite comfortably, it seems. I am not saying how comfortable; that is a matter for him. I will let him decide how comfortable

68 28 November 2017 his position is at the moment. Criticism was aimed fairly and squarely at his colleagues with respect to that poor decision made at the time by the Labor government.

We are the party of low power prices and the Opposition is the party of high power prices. We are a party of secure energy and the other side is a party of insecure energy. Our target is 100 per cent renewable energy by 2022. At the moment we are sitting at 90 per cent. We are targeting 100 per cent self-reliance by 2022. We are putting Tasmanians first, as opposed to the Opposition. It is quite happy to sell to the mainland and adversely impact Tasmanians, whether they are pensioners, low-income Tasmanian families, or small or large businesses.

We are not like the opposition Labor party. We have a target which is self-sufficiency by 2022 and then we can export excess power to the mainland. How will this happen? It will happen on our watch. A majority Liberal government can make it happen because we made a strategic decision, is a 50-50 partnership between the Tasmanian and Australian governments announced last Friday by the Premier and Josh Frydenberg, Minister for Energy and the Environment. I congratulate my federal colleague on his decision. I thank him for his support of a $20 million commitment, a 50-50 commitment with the state government via Arena and TasNetworks working together to advance the next step towards a second interconnector, which will unlock the potential for renewable energy development across Tasmania, whether it is in wind, hydro or other renewable developments.

Let me outline some of those projects. Already we have on board the Cattle Hill Wind Farm development near Lake Echo in the Central Highlands.

Dr Woodruff - You have not done that. I don't remember hearing that. It's not a government-funded grant.

Mr BARNETT - Goldwind is the proponent.

Dr Woodruff - So are you claiming every little bit of private business in this state is something your Government has done. It has nothing to do with anything you have done.

Mr SPEAKER - Order, the minister has the call.

Mr BARNETT - The Greens will oppose every renewable project, dam or wind. Is there one major renewable energy project that it has supported? Not one. It is meant to be the Greens Party that supports renewable energy.

With respect to Cattle Hill, I congratulate John Titchen and the Goldwind team in moving forward with a $300 million project. It is expected to commence in January. Cattle Hill, Lake Echo, Central Highlands - 49 turbines, 144 megawatts, 150 jobs during construction, 10 jobs ongoing. It will be a terrific boost not only to the Central Highlands, Bothwell, and the Derwent Valley but also across the state from the work that will flow as a result of the development over the 18 months to two years of that project. That will help get us towards the 100 per cent of total self-sufficiency under the Tasmania First Energy Policy by 2022.

On top of that we have Granville Harbour, a $280 million project, 200-odd jobs and 130-odd megawatts of power, which will also help us get to the 2022 target of self-sufficiency. We put

69 28 November 2017 Tasmania first before we start exporting, as the previous Labor government did, excess power to the mainland.

The second interconnector will untap the potential renewable energy developments. Our major project is the UPC Renewables project for Robbins Island and Jims Plain on the north-west coast. We are talking major investment and development. I congratulate them on the initiatives already in place. I met with UPC and it said that the second interconnector will bring on an extra $700 million investment by them towards getting this development up and going and to its full capacity. The second interconnector will deliver and help maximise the renewable energy developments that are either planned or underway. Without it, it is very difficult to maximise and reach the full capacity of those particular projects.

I am very proud of this decision. I am very disappointed with the Greens' opposition to the second interconnector. It shows a very strange approach, but then again we should not be surprised. They oppose all developments in Tasmania, whether renewable energy or otherwise. The big question mark will be -

Dr Woodruff - You should look at taking over Basslink 1 rather than talking about Basslink 2.

Mr SPEAKER - Order. Ms Woodruff, the minister mentioning your party's name is not an invitation for you to object. You will have, I presume, a chance later on to make your contributions. If the interjections do not cease, I will be forced to ask you to leave the Chamber.

Mr BARNETT - I was reflecting on the Greens' opposition to the second interconnector and saying how disappointed I was, but then not surprised that they were opposed to not just most developments, but every major renewable energy development that this state has put forward.

Dr Woodruff - No, I just said that you are wrong. That is not true.

Mr BARNETT - No doubt we will hear from the member for Franklin and she can outline all the wonderful support she has provided. We will wait to hear from the Greens. The main point is that I am disappointed they are not supporting this initiative.

The main concern I have now is Labor's position. It has been mute on the second interconnector.

Mr Bacon - Sit down and you will hear it.

Mr BARNETT - I want to hear whether the Labor Party supports our initiative to meet with and work with our federal colleagues to get this up and running, and to untap the potential going forward. It will be fascinating. They have been mute about a whole lot of policies and plans - energy, resources, forestry, mining, and so on.

The federal minister's reference during the announcement that this would be considered national infrastructure was a really important observation. I commend him and thank him for his observation and reflection on the fact that it would be national infrastructure and thus benefiting the national energy market. I hope my shadow minister is listening to what I am saying, because it is a very important point strategically.

70 28 November 2017 With respect to the Hydro development, we know the Prime Minister is very keen on pumped hydro and we acknowledge that. We thank him for his interest in Tasmania and also the Snowy Mountain Scheme. In Tasmania, we are Tasmania First. Under our Tasmania First energy policy, our second interconnector initiative, one of the most important strategic decisions that has been made in the last decade, moving towards a second interconnector that will help maximise the benefits and the outcome of pumped hydro.

Steve Davey and his team at Hydro have been working on pumped hydro for some time. I congratulate them and thank them for their work and their service. They are already working with Arena on up to 15 special projects. They are trying to drill down to ensure we get the best projects possible that will be sustainable, renewable and will deliver the benefits for Tasmania under our Tasmania First energy policy, projects that will put downward pressure on prices -

Mr Llewellyn - How many extra megawatts?

Mr BARNETT - I will outline that for you in a minute, member for Lyons. Under that policy there is an estimate by the Hydro, not by me, of $5 billion, 3000 jobs and enormous benefits for Tasmania over that period.

You asked about the number of megawatts. There are 2500 megawatts, so it effectively doubles our output. It would be 2500 megawatts of capacity to be realised for the benefit of Tasmania and the national electricity market. Over that 10 to 15 year period, 3000 jobs and investment in the order of $5 billion. That is what has been put on the public record by Hydro. I am passing that to members of parliament and the public today. That cannot be maximised unless we have a second interconnector. I am keen to hear the views of the opposition.

In addition, Hydro has committed $1 billion to augment its existing hydro facilities throughout Tasmania over the next 10 years. A few weeks ago I was with Steve Davey and the team at Trevallyn where upgrades have taken place. They will increase the capacity and output and that has delivered jobs, growth and development. That will be very encouraging. Special projects are being looked at to upgrade Tarraleah, to upgrade Gordon Station, and other upgrades around the state of Tasmania. Already they are on the way. This is a very exciting time to be in Tasmania with respect to energy and as Energy Minister. It is a very exciting time to be able to put downward pressure on power prices, deliver security of supply and have renewable, clean energy. We have what the rest of the country really wants.

That brings me to the National Energy Guarantee. I was able to host my energy minister colleagues from the other states and territories and my federal colleague, Josh Frydenberg. I thanked him for his leadership. Having the event here was terrific for Tasmania. I was able to showcase our gourmet food and wine and the beautiful capital city of Hobart. The venue was excellent. I am very proud of Tasmania. We have so much to offer. They appreciated it and that is good news. It was not just the ministers, but all the departmental support and staff. There were meetings with key stakeholders from across Australia. They were all down here. Accommodation was at capacity in Hobart.

Federal Labor is willing to look at the National Energy Guarantee, willing to do further work on it and consider it seriously. What is the Labor Opposition's view of the National Energy Guarantee? You need to get on board. There is only one game in town. It is called the National Energy Guarantee. We will soon learn the position of the Labor Party: whether they want to

71 28 November 2017 remain mute, whether they say nothing with no plans, no policies. If they say nothing in this debate on the National Energy Guarantee, that will be revealing. We will want to know.

There is only one game in town and you are so far behind the eight ball. You ought to talk to some of your colleagues. We support further research and analysis on the National Energy Guarantee. If it benefits Tasmania, we are for it. If it benefits Tasmania and creates more jobs, development and opportunity, if it puts downward pressure on prices we are for it.

Power price is our top priority. We want the lowest power prices in Australia by 2022. They released a graph, which is on the public record. If you did your homework, you would have already found it. You would see Tasmania is already forecast to have the lowest power prices in Australia by 2022, based on the current policy positions. We are determined to get there, but we want to know the position of the Labor Party. When the opposition spokesman stands up, what is the position on the National Energy Guarantee? There were two Labor ministers who opposed it. There were two Labor governments - South Australia and the ACT - that opposed it. What is the position of the Labor Opposition?

I am very pleased to outline this Government's strong position on supporting downward pressure on prices. Under our Tasmania First energy policy, the lowest-possible electricity prices for Tasmanians is our number one priority. We had great success at the COAG Energy Council, working cooperatively and collaboratively with my federal colleague, Josh Frydenberg and his office and department staff. I thank my departmental officers and staff, as well as TasNetworks and Hydro for doing further work. I had the opportunity to meet with the federal representatives from AMO, the Energy Security Board's Kerry Schott, and a range of key stakeholders. They are keen to do further work on the National Energy Guarantee to get the balance right. If there are benefits for Tasmania, if it helps deliver lower prices or downward pressure on prices for Tasmanians, we are very interested. Likewise, we need secure supply, which is something the Labor-Greens government was not able to deliver. That caused serious concern for the Tasmanian people on the back of the 65 per cent price increase under their seven-year regime prior to the last election. We recently released details which showed Tasmanian wholesale prices being the lowest in the National Energy Market from 2021. That is encouraging.

It is important we have a strategy at a national level. Key stakeholders, such as the Tasmanian Small Business Council, recognised the work the State Government was doing. That was noted with the key stakeholders at the Energy Council conference. I was able to speak at the Clean Energy Council conference. Hydro was very involved in that, as were key stakeholders from around Australia. It is important they were in Tasmania for this COAG energy council meeting and meeting with key stakeholders.

To summarise the key achievements of the Hodgman Liberal Government, the regulated prices are lower today than when we came to government. That is a key point that should be recognised and acknowledged. We had a 67 per cent increase in the previous seven years and regulated prices are lower today than when we came to government. That is a fantastic result for small, medium and large businesses and customers galore across the state.

In terms of capping price increases at 2 per cent on 1 July, compared to some states, price increases went up to 20 per cent higher. For non-regulated customers we have seen network costs decrease from 1 July by 20 per cent, we have also had Hydro Tasmania reduce wholesale prices by 20 per cent and the Government introduced the energy rebate that will see customers get some of the lowest prices in the 2017-18 financial year in the National Energy Market. That is a good

72 28 November 2017 result. We should be pleased about that, and I hope that note of commendation can be expressed from all sides of parliament.

We have implemented a review of the whole pricing to see if there is a better method to reflect the Tasmanian advantages rather than reflect the National Energy Market. Tasmanians have what mainlanders want - really low prices, secure supply and clean and renewable energy. We have 90 per cent, heading to 100 per cent target, self-reliant by 2022. We can be very proud of that mix. In terms of renewable energy, there is the Hydro base load, despatchable energy, which is what they are after, and you can see the pressures on the mainland. Look at Victoria and South Australia this coming summer. They are going to be in diabolical trouble. They are already expecting outages over the summer in South Australia and Victoria. It is really serious. The key stakeholders in those states are worried about how they will deal with it.

Dr Woodruff - You really had a big drink of Josh Frydenberg, didn't you - spouting all that rubbish back to us - and you believe it.

Mr BARNETT - This is not rubbish; this is factual.

Dr Woodruff - It is total rubbish.

Mr BARNETT - I do not know who the member for Franklin is talking to but she is not talking to the key stakeholders in Victoria and New South Wales who are very worried, and they know Tasmania has been delivering.

Dr Woodruff - You should get out and go to the energy users of generators, not just your federal colleagues.

Mr SPEAKER - Order. She will not talk to this Chamber either or she will not be in here.

Mr BARNETT - They know Tasmania has what the rest of the country wants when it comes to low prices, renewable energy and secure supply.

I will recap and continue with the achievements we have made. We have implemented that review. We will continue to go further with that target to reduce those power prices by 2022 and we will do a whole lot more.

The Opposition spokesperson asked about the major industrials and the views of the Minerals and Energy Council. I was at the annual meeting a few weeks ago and in more recent times I visited many of the major industrials, including Nyrstar, Bell Bay Aluminium, TEMCO and a number of others. The feedback on our Tasmania First energy policy is positive. The feedback has been terrific so far and they know that is our target, that is where we want to go, and as a result they are responding positively. That means jobs become a priority in that regard because if you can have lower power prices it helps them to be a sustainable, profitable business. All the major industrials are big employers that have been delivering for Tasmania in creating jobs and keeping jobs and we are very pleased about that.

Before I conclude I will make a reference to the UPC's support for the second interconnector and their commitment and statement, responding to that public announcement by the Premier and the federal Minister for Energy and the Environment. They indicated it would promote $700

73 28 November 2017 million in additional investment at Robbins Island alone off the north-west coast, a terrific result and really amazing.

As I have indicated, Hydro Tasmania already has advised that they will continue to work on 'battery of the nation' opportunities, which a second interconnector will be needed for. I have made it very clear that in terms of battery of the nation and pumped hydro opportunities, a second interconnector will maximise the outcomes. I have highlighted the importance of that and made that very clear.

The third party endorsements of the energy strategy show this is a good strategy. As with any business, you establish a strategy and then you have to deliver on it. I believe this is a good strategy. That was at the public hearings last year, from Ray Mostogl in terms of the response to the former minister and his efforts to keep the lights on, keep businesses and jobs going, rather than the scaremongering tactics of the Opposition where they called for power rationing during those very difficult and challenging times during 2015 and 2016.

With respect to third party endorsements of the Tasmanian Energy Efficiency Loan Scheme, Geoff Fader of the Tasmanian Small Business Council on behalf of small business in Tasmania said, 'I congratulate the state Government for undertaking both of these initiatives'. Sustainable Living Tasmania also welcomed the introduction of the Tasmanian Energy Efficiency Loan Scheme, which was launched at the Goodwood Community Centre by the former minister. Todd Houstein, Executive Officer, of Sustainable Living Tasmania, said, 'Upfront costs can also be a barrier and TEELS can help many people overcome that'.

Upon the release of the special energy bonus, which is a key part of the motion before us today, which I am moving and hoping will gain support for in this parliament, I was very pleased that was supported by not just the various RSL presidents in the north when I announced that, RSL Tasmania and the RSL Longford branch, but TasCOSS as well. They responded because we were listening to their concerns and made it clear that it should not just apply to older pensioners but to all pensioners, disability, carers, veterans and the like. Kym Goodes made that very clear on the public record and congratulated the Government for this initiative. I appreciated that and we were able to listen and learn and respond to those concerns.

In conclusion, we are a government of low energy prices and the Opposition is a party of high energy prices. We are a government of a growing economy, with 10 000 new jobs. We know the Labor-Greens opposition is a party of a shrinking economy and an economy that was in recession. This is the contrast. They are a party of throwing onto the unemployment scrap heap 10 000 jobs under the previous Labor-Greens government. There is a very distinct contrast between those on this side of the House representing Tasmanians doing it tough, small business that want to get ahead and make a difference in the world and provide a sustainable, profitable future for them and their families, their workers and their families.

The choice is very clear in March between a majority Liberal government or a Labor-Greens government, a track record of low energy prices under a Hodgman Liberal Government or high energy prices, in fact 65 per cent over that seven-year period, a government that will deliver on jobs, over 10 000 jobs under this Government in less than four years, and 10 000 jobs being thrown on the unemployment scrap heap.

You cannot reinvest in health, education and police unless you have a growing economy and a sustainable budget that is in the black. There was red ink as far as the eye could see with deficits

74 28 November 2017 of $1.1 billion over the forward Estimates when we came to government. We have had to clean up the mess of the previous Labor-Greens government. We have had to get the Budget back into balance. That has been done, to the great credit of the Treasurer, Peter Gutwein. Thanks to his leadership in getting things back into black; now we have black ink as far as the eye can see.

Why is it that we have confidence amongst record highs in business and amongst consumers around Tasmania? It is because the economy is growing; because we are creating more jobs; because the Budget is back in the black. Tasmanians do not want to risk this. This decision will be made at the next election, due in March, 100-odd days away. It is a stark contrast between capable, competent adult managers of our economy, of our Budget, and the Labor-Greens opposition who want to slip into government under the darkness of the night and based on a dark past. That is the position of the Labor Leader of the Opposition, Ms White. She is trying to sneak into government without making any policies and with small target approach. Guess what? If she were to achieve that then you know who the deputy would be? It would be Ms White/Ms O'Connor, the Labor-Greens in bed together as they were previously. That is what we are looking at. This is the stark contrast between Labor and the Greens.

I am looking at the member for Lyons, Mr Llewellyn, over there, who will be concluding at the end of this parliamentary term as the shadow minister for forestry. The new minister for forestry will clearly be Ms Cassy O'Connor. She will be taking the member's role. She will be taking opposition.

Mr Llewellyn - No, she will not.

Mr BARNETT - Yes, she will, if you were ever to be successful.

Time expired.

[5.02 p.m.] Mr BACON (Denison) - Mr Speaker, we have finally found a use for the Minister for Energy. You can rely on the Minister for Energy to come in here and talk absolute rubbish and fill in his time. You can tell when you are a government in crisis because you run out of legislation in the last sitting week of the parliament before the election. When we came into parliament today we saw on the blue a number of important pieces of government business: the sentencing amendment bill, the Dog Control Amendment Bill, and the Australian Crime Commission Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill. There is no mention of notice of motion 1890 which we have heard the Minister for Energy talk about for 40 minutes.

You would find it hard to hear a bigger load of rot anywhere in Tasmania, but particularly in this parliament. We have finally found a use for this minister. It is to fill in time when the wheels have fallen off, when the Government is in utter chaos, when we have scandal after scandal coming out. The best they can do is to send the Minister for Energy to talk that rubbish for 40 minutes.

We have the new Minister for Energy who is at pains to point out to everyone that he announced a Tasmania first policy that he announced when he took over from Mr Groom. We all know that Mr Groom had his ups and downs in that portfolio but the fact he had to flee the Chamber under the withering attack from the new minister shows a new low from the Liberal Party and from this minister in particular. Mr Groom not only set the state up for an energy crisis

75 28 November 2017 but he managed his way through that energy crisis. As the Minister for Infrastructure said, he caused it to rain and saved Tasmania from that energy crisis.

When it comes to energy and the way this Government has handled the energy portfolio since 2014, we only have to go back to the first Budget. We saw Peter Gutwein, the Treasurer of Tasmania, desperate to get his hands on $75 million from Hydro Tasmania. He announced that in his first budget on 28 August 2014. On the same day the chair of Hydro Tasmania wrote to the Treasurer to say that his expectation was that Hydro Tasmania could provide zero across the four years. So $75 million was sitting out there. The Government was going to demand that Hydro Tasmania provide this $75 million. When asked where that $75 million was coming from, the Government had no answers and refused to answer the question. It was determined to squeeze that $75 million out. They did not care about the consequences of that demand.

I looked to see if it was still on the website. We have a media release that the former minister, Mr Groom, says is not accurate. It was issued on 12 August 2015, almost a year from the Government's first budget when they demanded that $75 million. It is titled 'Tamar Valley Power Station' and it says:

The Hodgman Liberal Government is working closely with our energy businesses to ensure they are managing their costs more prudently and are focused on delivering a higher quality customer service.

The former Labor-Green Government burdened Hydro Tasmania when they transferred the debt associated with the purchase of the gas-fired Tamar Valley Power Station (TVPS) in 2013.

Labor inexplicitly paid $160 million above the actual value for the TVPS. Tasmanian taxpayers have been forced to bear the burden of this additional debt.

As outlined at GBE Estimates last year, Hydro has been considering the option of divesting the combined cycle gas turbine at the TVPS and running the remaining turbines as peaking units. This turbine has been sitting unused since June 2014.

The Government has today given approval for Hydro Tasmania to decommission and sell the combined cycle gas turbine. This will allow Hydro to rid itself of a redundant liability and reduce its debt.

The former minister, who issued this media release in August 2015, admits now that it is not correct. It was misleading the Tasmanian people. You would think the Government would take it off the website. Given the Government has admitted the proposed sale - it will not even call it a sale now. It tries to avoid the fact that it gave permission to sell the combined cycle gas turbine. Now it will not even talk about this media release. We know it is still on the website because we downloaded it about half an hour ago. Why will the Government not take this media release down? Do you stand by this media release, minister? Crickets and frogs. He is not interested at all in talking about this media release. Why is it still on the website? Why, when the former minister who issued this media release has said it is not factually correct is it still up for the Tasmanian people to download? Why is that the case?

76 28 November 2017 When the Government - the Treasurer, the Minister for Energy and the Cabinet at the time and we will give Mr Barnett the benefit of the doubt as he was not in the Cabinet then - made that decision to sell the Tamar Valley Power Station to try to squeeze $75 million from Hydro Tasmania, why were they not upfront with the Tasmanian people about it? It sought to mislead the Tasmanian people and now it has left that media release on the website. One would presume that, if it is still there two and a bit years later, it will still be there come election time. It will be interesting to hear what the minister has to say about that media release.

The Government can run but cannot hide forever when it comes to the sale of the Tamar Valley Power Station. The media release is headed 'Tamar Valley Power Station' - straightforward and easy to follow. The letter the Treasurer sent to the Minister for Energy on 9 April 2015 is even more clear in its heading, 'The Sale of the Tamar Valley Power Station'. This letter went from the Treasurer to the minister for Energy at the time, Mr Groom. It said:

Hydro Tasmania wrote to us on 13 January 2015 formally requesting approval to mothball and divest the Tamar Valley Power Station (TPVS) combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT).

In a letter from us to Hydro Tasmania dated 21 January 2015, in which a new strategic direction was outlined, we advised Hydro Tasmania that before a decision would be made in relation to the divestment of the CCGT, a greater understanding was required of the impact of the CCGT on energy security and in relation to gas supply, transportation contracts and gas prices in the state. A further related issue is whether Hydro Tasmania should again have the responsibility for energy security in the state.

I have attached for your information advice that I have received by the Department of Treasury and Finance in relation to Hydro Tasmania's proposal.

Based on this advice, I have instructed the department of Treasury and Finance to -

• provide advice to the Government on the proposal that Hydro Tasmania resume responsibility for energy security, and …

What is the next bit? Very good question. It has all been blacked out under the RTI process. We have seen the farcical situation where under summons to appear before the Public Accounts Committee to produce this document, the Treasurer refused to do so. He fronted up and said he cannot do that because it is cabinet-in-confidence. That is total rot. We know that one minister does not write a letter to another minister and include Cabinet information. This is the biggest furphy perpetrated on the people of Tasmania. It is a clear example of the lack of transparency when it comes to this Government. You have seen it time and time again when it comes to the RTI process. The Government is hell-bent on secrecy, on deceiving the Tasmanian people and on misleading them.

You can see from the media release, which is still on the Government website, and from this letter, the Treasurer is desperate to keep this buried from the Tasmanian people. The way the Treasurer has conducted himself is a disgrace.

77 28 November 2017 Mr Groom knew that the only way out was to resign. There are a lot of guys on the other side headed for the unemployment queue. The end of them is coming in March next year.

We know that Mr Llewellyn will be finished -

Mr Brooks - You do not have to be the village idiot every day.

Mr BACON - Is that right? We know that Mr Llewellyn will stand down in March next year after a distinguished period in the Tasmanian Parliament. He will go with all of our best wishes. We know there are many of those opposite due for the chop. It is well deserved. These guys have been secretive from the start.

Mr Groom was hell-bent on selling the power station from opposition. He went through with that in government as Minister for Energy.

The new Minister for Energy talked about people talking about power rationing when it comes to the energy crisis in this state. We know that the modelling that went into Hydro Tasmania's proposal to sell the power station was built on energy rationing across the economy when it comes to the sale of the TVPS. What did the government do? It signed off on it anyway. Then it sought to mislead the Tasmanian people about that.

The government is hell-bent, not only on keeping secrets, but on squeezing dividends from Tasmanian Government business enterprises. This started with Hydro Tasmania in the 2014 budget. We have seen it extended to the TT-Line. We have seen money squeezed from the MAIB - a $100 million special dividend. This Government is hell-bent on ripping money out of our government business enterprises to make the bottom line look better. That led to the situation surrounding the energy crisis.

Mr Barnett was asked whether he supported a clean energy target in this House. He refused to say when he knows it is in the best interests of Tasmania. He says his energy policy is all about putting Tasmania first. He knows a clean energy target would be in the best interest of Tasmania, yet he refuses to outline whether or not he supports that clean energy target.

Today was about filling in time. We know the Government has no story to tell when it comes to investing in renewable energy. Mr Barnett was right when he said the Greens have opposed every renewable energy development in this state. It is the Labor Party that has built every renewable energy project in this state. One would ask, what was the Liberal Party doing all that time?

[5.15 p.m.] Dr WOODRUFF (Franklin) - Mr Speaker, this is an absurd thing to pop onto the Order of Business, but given what happened at budget Estimates it is entirely predictable. We knew that the Liberals were keeping back the money from the TasNetworks dividend from low-income people. Instead they were holding it over as a Christmas present. To be debating this motion today, which the Government uses, in its own words, to congratulate itself on withholding money from Tasmanians for the past six months then to hand it out as an electoral drip is embarrassing. It speaks volumes about the real priorities of this minister and this Government.

78 28 November 2017 After three-and-a-half years of paying lip service to cost-of-living pressures, this announcement is a cynical attempt to buy the votes of pensioners at Christmas time. There are so many older Tasmanians, disadvantaged households, who have had huge challenges paying their electricity bills. Why did the Liberals not provide this in winter when people really needed it? It has been sitting in the coffers waiting to come out as a gift at election time to sweeten the chances of this Liberal Government getting back in. It is disgusting. It is an outrage to the people they purport to care about who have been struggling with power bills. It is shameful to talk about caring about the interests of people on low income when you have done this.

This $125 looks closely like the $110 discussed at budget Estimates time, when we asked why that money was not being passed on then. Everyone in Tasmania knows that the Liberals chose to keep that money, withhold it from people on low incomes while they were having to balance winter bills, then bring it out in summer so they can have Christmas in some semblance of being able to pay all the things that they have to pay.

Mr Brooks - So you are complaining that we have made it cheaper, is that right? How dare we make it cheaper for people?

Mr SPEAKER - Order.

Dr WOODRUFF - It is not an unexpected windfall; it is a highly expected windfall. It is an attempt at bribery by paying off older Tasmanians who genuinely need that cost of living support.

The best way to provide sustained, genuine cost of living relief to low-income Tasmanians is to do what the Greens minister did under the previous government, and funnel that money into energy efficiency, retro fitting houses for the long term. All that money could have been put into a coordinated, sustained program. In fact, this Liberal Government could have kept it going instead of stopping it. Instead of stopping the upgrade of the poorest people's houses, the appalling housing stock that we have in Tasmania relative to almost everywhere else in the western world - everywhere on the mainland and every other western country; if I ever have someone come to Tasmania they say, 'Gee, you have really bad quality houses here', and yes, we do. - the Government should have continued to put it in a coordinated fashion, rather than withholding it for six months and giving it to people as a Christmas present.

We really should take energy efficiency seriously. Let us not forget that this Government has chosen to give low- to medium-income Tasmanians a $10 000 line of credit at zero interest for three years. This was another big headline thing: the only other big headline thing I can remember this Government has done in its term. It has done these two things, a so-called energy efficiency loan for people and a Christmas bonus package of people's money that should have been returned to them six months ago.

What the then minister, Mr Groom, did was to expose people on very low incomes to the real risk of being left with a large debt at standard bank credit interest rate card rates if they do not manage to pay down the borrowings on their $10 000 loan within three years. Given that these credit loans were specifically designed to target people on low incomes, it is shameful that the Liberals gave credit cards to households on low to medium incomes for three years, knowing full well that at the end of that period the interest will jack right up to the highest market rate. It is a very big stretch for people to whom it was meant to be focused to expect that they would be able to pay back such a large sum of money in a three-year period.

79 28 November 2017 Instead, what was really going on was that the Liberals entered into a $10 million contract with one of the big four banks. It was not about energy efficiency upgrades. That was the by-line for the media. It was about the sizable donations Westpac had made to the Tasmanian branch of the Liberal Party over the last three years. The Greens looked at the donations disclosures made by Westpac in its returns to the Australian Electoral Commission. These were not disclosed by the state Liberal Party but the Westpac disclosure to the Electoral Commission makes it clear they have paid $32 000 to the Tasmanian branch of the Liberal Party between 2013 and 2015. This is the way business is done in Tasmania - you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. It is a game of mates that the Liberal and Labor parties play together and it flip-flops between one and the other. It is about not disclosing the influence, not disclosing the interest. Mr Barnett has had a cosy little chat with his federal colleague, the Liberal Minister for Energy, Josh Frydenberg. That is the way business is done. Tasmanians do not get to have a say in the policy and do not understand the influence that is operating here because it is all done over dinners and special little chats.

The special little chat Westpac had with the Tasmanian Liberals meant that $11 000 was donated one year, $11 000 the next year, and that money was essentially returned to Westpac in the form of a favour through a $10 million credit card scheme, thanks to the influence Westpac managed to secure. Essentially the Government put its interests in Westpac before the interests of low-income households in Tasmania.

Let us talk about how else the Government has misled the public. In the last Budget we found out Hydro's part of the household power bill went up to 30 per cent compared to last year, under a change in the wholesale electricity price the Hodgman Government set up. Then Mr Groom misled Tasmanians by saying the Liberals would be saving households an average of $300 a year. It was under the cover of legislating to keep back a mainland price increase which we debated in parliament earlier this year. Under the cover of that so-called keeping back of the mainland electricity price increase, the Government snuck in an overall power bill increase of 2 per cent. The minister could not point to any change in the cost of Hydro supplying power to Tasmanian homes to justify that price increase. I questioned him on this during the budget Estimates process and Mr Groom confirmed it was 'an arbitrary process' that was used to set the wholesale electricity price being based on an overall increase of 2 per cent.

This is the way that things operate. It is arbitrary and about hiding the real costs and how they are increasing. As to the 30 per cent increase in the price of the electricity component of our power bills, compared to last year we were paying $61.90 per megawatt hour. Under this Liberal Government that price has gone up to approximately $80 per megawatt hour. This is a massive increase. What we are seeing is household electricity prices going up.

Mr Barnett talks about it as though it is an act of God and there is nothing that can be done except to hand out a Christmas present, when it was his government who made an arbitrary decision to increase the electricity component of the bill by 2 per cent, representing an overall 30 per cent increase in the megawatt hour price of electricity. That 30 per cent increase comes from the period 2004 to 2014 during the previous governments and that amount of electricity over that 10-year period was an average of $43, so effectively the long-term average electricity price in Tasmania has gone up from $43 per megawatt hour to $80 per megawatt hour today. That is a big increase and the minister could not point to any reasons for that increase occurring. We asked him to explain but he did not come up with any reasons, other than it being an 'arbitrary' increase.

80 28 November 2017 This Government's energy policy has been based first and foremost on climate denialism. It is because of the climate change denialism of the Liberals that we found ourselves in an energy crisis. It is amusing to look at this motion before us in paragraph 5 where it claims 'when in government the Labor and Greens drained the dams to secure a windfall gain from the carbon tax at the expense of Tasmanian households'. Let us remind ourselves of what happened two summers ago. In December 2015 it was this Liberal Government that drained the dams so that when we found ourselves in the driest summer for many a long year and the undersea cable broke, we had no water to supply electricity for Tasmania. There is a mistake in this motion. It needs to say that it was this Liberal Government, not the former government, that drained the dams because this Liberal Government was speculating and had no plan B when the cable broke.

The Government's energy policy is based on climate denialism. We have no truck with making money from the sale of electricity to the mainland, absolutely not, but the question is about management and having a strategy for managing risk. It is clear that this Government does not believe in the reality of the breakdown of the climate system. It showed that in its failure to take on board the extreme drought that was forecast 18 months before December 2015. We find ourselves in the same situation today. This Liberal Government does not understand the breakdown in the climate system and the imperative to act on national climate change policy to set a target that will bring us into line with the Paris Agreement and stop the most dangerous aspects of climate change, many of which are already unfolding as we speak.

There has been no planning in this term of government. There are no climate change targets. We have had a renewable energy target thought bubble of 100 per cent renewables. We could be there next week if we put our mind to it.

This Government has also taken credit for other people's work. They constantly take the credit for the wind farms that have been established. It is amusing that the best the minister can do is to take the credit for two wind farms that have developed under this Government's watch, by themselves without any support, essentially. I know this to be true because I had meetings with people years ago complaining about the closed doors, the difficulty of getting access and having formal and open conversations. We have never heard any targets that would support the development of wind or other renewables.

This Liberal Government has failed to identify in four years a fair feed-in price for people's solar photovoltaic cells on their roofs. We know that more and more Tasmanians, for many reasons, want to have solar renewables. People want to be able to make a contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. They are concerned about themselves and their children and want to be part of a community that is working together to respond to climate change. People want energy security. If they live in regional Tasmania they want solar cells so they can take control of their power and be able to keep the lights on and the freezer going when transmission lines go down through bushfires, floods or extreme wind events.

This is the sort of support that the Government has failed to provide in three and a half years. It is still refusing to meet with the solar industry and has effectively lost the momentum in the solar industry and all the jobs that went with it. For every couple of jobs they are happy to talk about that may or may not come from salmon farming in parts of regional Tasmania, a very few small number of jobs, many more could have come in the last three and a half years through the solar industry.

81 28 November 2017 The minister talked about the situation with Basslink. This is a great example of planning for the future. We have a number of future options opening up for us in the intensive connection that we need to make with the national electricity grid, but the jump to a second Basslink cable has been widely considered to be a mistake.

Mr Barnett - By whom?

Dr WOODRUFF - By the Australian Energy Market Operator which made it quite clear that we have 730 megawatts of available capacity on the existing Basslink cable. In their view Basslink 1 is underutilised and has enough capacity for the foreseeable future.

Mr Llewellyn - You can't put 750 megawatts across the cable.

Mr Barnett - You're wrong.

Dr WOODRUFF - Mr Llewellyn and Mr Barnett, please read the report of the Australian Electricity Market Operator - there are 730 megawatts of available capacity over the line.

The other expert advice the Liberals refuse to listen to, despite the fact that he is one of their own, is Warwick Smith's report for the federal government released this year, which made it very clear that the case for a second Basslink was not even worth spending the money on a feasibility study for. Not even worthwhile spending the money on the business case. What this Liberal Government has done with their federal Liberal colleagues is jump into wasting $20 million on a business case. What is the point in employing conservative economists such as Warwick Smith to do reports on these things if you do not listen to their recommendations?

Mr Bacon - Is Warwick Smith an economist?

Dr WOODRUFF - Warwick Smith is an economist. He is a conservative who wrote a report which concluded it is not worth spending money on a business case to look at a second Basslink interconnector. Since the Government right now has committed $10 million towards a failed business case that is not even worth proceeding with, why has that money not been directed to low-income Tasmanians? That is the sort of real energy relief money can buy - energy efficiency. We could have energy efficiency targeted in a systemised way for low-income Tasmanians. It is just about buying the next election. Let us say it as it is - it is about Christmas presents for low-income Tasmanians and talking big, as if you have a clue about how to spend money for the future. It is a pie-in-the-sky idea.

Right now we could be investigating the prospect of taking the Basslink interconnector into public ownership. That is a conversation that needs to be happening right now with the federal government. That is an essential part of Tasmania's infrastructure, a very important key asset that is up for sale by Keppel Holding Trust. We need to take ownership of that cable. It should no longer be in private hands. We need to be taking charge of our future. That is the sort of leadership we expect a state like Tasmania, which has renewable energy capacity, to have. There are 730 megawatts of capacity still underutilised on the cable. It has 15-odd years of its service agreement left, so we would expect Hydro would have plenty of engineers and ability to assess the cable and the quality of the infrastructure. The price the market is talking about, $700 million, is a good price to start talking and negotiating hard. We should have public ownership of those key pieces of infrastructure.

82 28 November 2017 We should be talking to the federal government about what its contribution will be. The federal government is desperate to come up with some ideas because they have been refusing to take policy decisions for such a long time. The energy generators and transmitters are demanding some action to stabilise the National Energy Market to allow it to grow and to accept the continual increase in renewables that will occur as a result of the massive reduction in price in solar technology. These things are much bigger than anybody in this room or this state. They are about market forces at the global level. We cannot pretend we can fight against, complain or push back on the changing world of renewables. Renewable power is so much cheaper and it is the only way we can proceed for the planet.

If the minister and this Government wants to really look after the long-term interests of people on low incomes, those are the sorts of decisions they need to be taking and planning for the future so that we have the cheapest and cleanest electricity, and a source which is secure and not dependent on liquid fuels travelling over the oceans in ships, all the way from Singapore. We cannot continue to use liquid fuel in the way we have been. We have to move towards electricity. Luckily the technology is coming online quickly. We have to leap out and get it.

Minister, we expect people on low incomes will be glad to get anything like $125 to put towards their electricity bill. We are very disappointed you did not give it to people when they needed it most, in winter. It was sitting in your coffers and you clearly took the interest on that money. You stole that interest from Tasmanians when you should have given it to them six months ago. It is outrageous.

Mr Barnett - We did not steal it.

Dr WOODRUFF - It is money that was required to be returned to Tasmanians by the network operator. You were directed to return that money, so it is form of theft. That money should have been given to people six months earlier. You should feel ashamed at holding onto it for so long.

[5.41 p.m.] Mr STREET (Franklin) - Madam Deputy Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak on notice of motion 1890 from the Minister for Energy, to back up his contribution, to back up the work that has been done by the Hodgman Liberal Government over the last four years, the work that is ongoing, and the work that is going to take place in the future after the re-election of the Hodgman Liberal Government in March.

The first point in the motion acknowledges the actions the Hodgman Liberal Government has taken to protect households and businesses from the skyrocketing electricity prices on the mainland. These include capping regulated power price increases to 2 per cent, introducing the Tasmanian Energy Efficiency Loan Scheme to encourage investment in energy efficient products to help reduce energy bills, reduce the cost of wholesale electricity by about 20 per cent and provide rebates to eligible customers to further reduce price impacts.

The motion also talks about the $125 special energy bonus, deliberately targeted to seniors, particularly pensioners, to assist them with their power bill and address the rising costs of living. I will talk at some length during this contribution about some of the false statements made by the member for Franklin, Dr Woodruff, about that scheme. I will get to her talk about cosy deals done behind closed doors, because the hypocrisy of the Greens staggers me sometimes.

83 28 November 2017 The motion says that the special energy bonus will be paid prior to Christmas 2017 and that this bonus is in addition to the existing concession payments which will continue, including to eligible concession customers under the age of 65. It points out the bonus is as a result of the Tasmania First energy policy returning the windfall profits from our energy companies to Tasmanians rather than retaining them in the Government coffers.

Finally, the motion contrasts the Hodgman Government's approach with the record of Labor and the Greens when in government, who drained the dams to secure a windfall gain from the carbon tax at the expense of Tasmanian households. They then advocated for forced power rationing for Tasmanians and slugged hard working Tasmanian families and businesses with power price increases of 65 per cent over seven years.

Under the Hodgman Liberal Government, our energy policy will be Tasmania First. This means we work to secure supply for Tasmania at the lowest possible price and it will always be the Energy minister's number one priority. Any energy policy proposed by the federal government needs to be put through this lens and will be. We have made it clear, as a government, we will not give our support to any national energy policy until we are provided with clear detail on how it will help deliver more secure supply, lower prices and renewable energy development in Tasmania. The COAG Energy Council's decision to undertake further work on the national energy guarantee is a sensible one as it allows further exploration of whether it will deliver the stated aims of increased reliability and lower power prices.

The recently released detail shows the Tasmanian wholesale price will be the lowest in the National Electricity Market from 2021 onwards. It is important there is a strategy at a national level to achieve this. For Tasmania, we need to be assured any national strategy supports our Tasmania First agenda of lower power prices and guaranteed energy security. The minister has made it clear that he will continue on all occasions to argue for what is in Tasmania's best interests as he works on the national electricity guarantee. The Hodgman Liberal Government has made it clear we will not compromise on these things.

What is Labor's position? Their record is 65 per cent increases in power prices. Cheerleaders for the carbon tax, draining the dams, a decision that even Mr Llewellyn referred to - I lost the word but it did come back to me. I think 'foolish' is the word Mr Llewellyn used when he talked about reducing the prudent storage levels in the dams. They called for power rationing.

It has been reported in the national media that federal Labor is open to a deal on the National Energy Guarantee. Is Rebecca White going to chastise her federal Labor colleagues for that, or is she going to sit on the fence and have no policy? There is the fallacy that the Liberal Party, both in Tasmania and nationally, does not support renewable generation. We do support the generation of renewable energy, including wind farms. We will not stand for scaremongering from the Labor Party about wind farm projects, which are fully supported by the Hodgman Liberal Government and already have renewable energy certificate deals in place.

The Hodgman Liberal Government has set a target to make Tasmania energy self-sufficient, with an additional 1000 gigawatt hours of on-island renewable energy generation by the end of 2022. We are fully committed to this. The Cattle Hill Wind Farm is a $300 million development, with 144 megawatt capacity, 49 turbines, and 150 jobs in construction and 10 jobs ongoing. Goldwinds has already launched its local jobs participation program. This is a great initiative that

84 28 November 2017 will provide a massive boost to regional economies in the Derwent Valley, Southern Midlands and the Central Highlands. The Cattle Hill Wind Farm already has a renewable energy certificate deal in place from Aurora Energy. Construction is due to start early next year. It is going to go ahead and it will be a great project for Tasmania. It is nothing but blatant scaremongering by Labor to suggest that project is under any risk.

The same goes for the Granville Harbour Wind Farm. It is a $280 million, 112 megawatt project, with 33 turbines, 200 jobs in construction and 10 ongoing jobs, supported by and progressed under the Hodgman Liberal Government. Once again, the Granville Harbour proponents already have an agreement in place for energy and renewable energy certificates with Hydro Tasmania. These projects will move us closer to being 100 per cent self-sufficient in renewable energy and well on track to meet this target by 2022.

On the topic of the second interconnector, we saw last week the Australian and Tasmanian governments commit to the next stage of the second interconnector. A second interconnector will help unlock the massive potential for renewable energy development in Tasmania. Unlike the Greens, we believe that the second interconnector is necessary. It would unlock jobs. It would help us achieve our goal of powering Tasmania with completely renewable energy. We want to be clear that a second cable is all about facilitating additional Tasmanian renewable energy development and the export only of our excess energy. It will not be used to drain our dams at the expense of Tasmanians like Labor and the Greens used Basslink for in the past. TasNetworks will lead this work with an estimated cost of $20 million that will be shared 50-50 between the Australian and Tasmanian governments.

TasNetworks will now work with Arena to confirm the scope of this stage and the final funding amount and commence the work. A second interconnector will enable the Robbins Island project to be developed to its full potential of up to 900 megawatt capacity. The proponent, UPC, advises it is confident the project is progressing as planned and it supports the progress of the second inter-connector. The Hodgman Liberal Government has been a strong supporter of projects like this. Our commitment is to continue to progress these opportunities and, given the Australian Government's endorsement of the role of hydro power and pumped hydro opportunities for the future, then these opportunities can help deliver for Tasmanian energy policy.

The Tasmania First vision clearly differentiates the Hodgman Government from Labor and the Greens. Labor and the Greens slashed the dam storage levels on the eve of the carbon tax to secure a windfall gain at the expense of Tasmanian households. Mr Llewellyn has indicated he did not support this change in prudent water management levels and called it foolish. We now have increased the minimum dam storage levels to 30 per cent and the storages are currently at 44.9 per cent.

Mr Llewellyn - It is only 5 per cent between 25 and 30, you know.

Mr STREET - Consumers will not forget that under the Labor Party electricity prices went up 65 per cent over seven years. In contrast, regulated power prices are still lower today than when the Hodgman Government was elected over three and a half years ago. Who can forget Labor calling for power rationing during the energy issues at the start of 2016, rather than supporting the Government's energy supply plan that kept the lights on, power prices as low as possible and protected the Tasmanian economy? We know they were praying for power outages

85 28 November 2017 to take political advantage of them, but they simply did not happen because of the plan that was put in place.

Labor and the Greens failed to invest in our hydro generation infrastructure. We are investing $1 billion over the next 10 years.

Mr Llewellyn - Come on, that's the capital works program for the Hydro.

Mr STREET - The Australian Government has indicated there is further detailed work to be done and will be providing more detailed work with the states to progress their National Energy Guarantee Scheme.

Last week at the COAG Energy Council more detail was provided that showed the National Energy Guarantee looked likely to deliver the lowest wholesale prices in the action market from 2021 onwards. It also shows that the National Electricity Guarantee will enhance renewable development in the state, taking advantage of the excellent untapped resources we have available in Tasmania. We still need to do more work with the Australian Government and at last week's COAG all states agreed to have this work progressed. Our focus will be to ensure the eventual policy will achieve lower prices, promote renewable development and deliver better energy security for Tasmanians.

Our engagement will continue to be on the basis of our Tasmania First approach and, as I said before, we will not compromise on this. We need to see the detail to understand the implications for Tasmania. With more than 90 per cent of our energy already generated from renewable sources and the majority of this being baseline hydro power, Tasmania is better equipped than any other state to meet both reliability and emission standards.

I point out that the Greens hypocrisy on hydro power is staggering when you consider that both the Labor and Liberal parties in Tasmania were years ahead of the Greens in their support for hydro power. I have seen articles quoting the godfather of the Greens, Bob Brown, advocating the building of coal-fired power stations in Tasmania rather than increasing the available storage for hydro power. It is worth reflecting in 2017 where this state would be if the leader of the Greens at that time had had his way with the building of coal-fired power stations in Tasmania. We can all agree that we are now far better off and at a far greater advantage as a state because of the strength of Hydro Tasmania. As I said, both the Labor and Liberal parties were years ahead of the Greens in support for this company and energy supply.

Any Australian government energy policy should reward Tasmania first. Regardless of what the Australian government energy policy is, the Hodgman Liberal Government has a target to be 100 per cent self-sufficient in renewable energy generation by 2022. With the announcements this year of the Cattle Hill and Granville Harbour wind farms that I have talked about, we have already made excellent progress on this. Both of these wind farms already have renewable energy certificates and will not be impacted by this policy. The scaremongering by Labor and the Greens on this project is irresponsible and they should stop talking the state down.

The Hodgman Government's energy policy is clear that we are putting Tasmanians first. Following the energy crisis our energy supply is now the most secure in the nation, with storages reaching 44.9 per cent last week. I know many people are worried that the errors of the former Labor-Greens government in draining our dams in order to make money from the carbon tax by

86 28 November 2017 exporting energy to the mainland could be repeated. I understand this concern and I want to make sure that it never happens again, and so does both the minister and the entire Government.

The Hodgman Government will continue to pursue increases to our energy capacity, including the battery of the nation, first to ensure a secure, cheap and reliable supply for Tasmania and second, to deliver a return on any excess energy. However, the needs of Tasmanians will always come first. Hydro Tasmania has estimated that the battery of the nation work could see the development of another 2500 megawatts of capacity and in doing so create up to 3000 jobs and over $5 billion in investment over a 10 to 15-year period.

Tasmanians deserve to have the lowest possible power prices and this must come ahead of high dividends or the needs of those on the mainland. The Hodgman Liberal Government has a target to make Tasmania 100 per cent energy self-sufficient. More energy generation in Tasmania is good for lower prices and energy security for Tasmania. That is why we will continue to look at new generation opportunities such as the ones at Cattle Hill and Granville Harbour. We will also continue to invest in our existing hydro generation, helping to create and support jobs for Tasmanians.

Hydro Tasmania is investing $1 billion over the next 10 years to upgrade its facilities and these upgrades will increase the generation by 250 gigawatt hours, which is enough additional generation to power more than 30 000 Tasmanian homes. It will also increase the lifespan of some power stations by an extra 40 years.

I want to talk briefly about the special energy bonus since the member for Franklin, Dr Woodruff, talked about it so extensively in terms of bribery, et cetera. She also talked about cosy deals being done. Isn't the hypocrisy of the Greens interesting? For weeks they have talked about cruise ships being the most destructive things that could possibly happen to Tasmania and that they are evil, except there is one time that that does not hold and that is if they are prepared to berth at Triabunna. The Greens are proponents for that now.

Dr Woodruff - No, not those large ones.

Mr STREET - This is what we are talking about. As soon as they get called out on their hypocrisy, she wakes up, because at no stage have the Greens differentiated between what type of cruise ships they are happy to have at Triabunna and which ones they are not.

Dr Woodruff - Yes, we have. You haven't been listening.

Mr STREET - The reason they advocate for them to berth at Triabunna is due to two things. First, that Graeme Wood purchased the infrastructure at Triabunna and, second, that he donated $1 million to the Tasmanian Greens. It was only after those two things happened that all of a sudden the Tasmanian Greens were happy to advocate for the berthing of cruise ships in Triabunna. Not in Burnie, Devonport or Hobart - no, they are terrible things - but if you are prepared to take the cruise ship to Triabunna where a Greens supporter owns the infrastructure and can make a quid out of it, that is okay. All of a sudden the environmental implications of having a cruise ship melt away and everything is fine again. Please do not come in here and talk about special cosy deals done behind closed doors, because your hypocrisy is laid bare every time.

Pensioners and Commonwealth Seniors Card holders will receive a one-off bonus payment of $125 per household to help cover their energy bills. As a government we are proud to offer this to

87 28 November 2017 the people who are eligible. At this time of year coming up to Christmas, people are accumulating extra expenses and it is good that we are able to return the windfall dividends from Hydro Tasmania and Aurora to these people. We do not think we have anything to be ashamed of, and for Dr Woodruff to use a word such as 'bribery' is downright disgusting. [5.58 p.m.] Mr BARNETT (Lyons - Minister for Energy) - Madam Deputy Speaker, in summing up I want to make it very clear that the Tasmania First energy policy is at stake here. We want to know in this parliament if the Labor Party and/or the Greens support it. This motion makes it very clear that the special energy bonus under our Tasmania First energy policy is critical to the future of more than 80 000 Tasmanian households. We want to know if they will be supporting this motion. Will they vote in favour of this motion to ensure a very positive outcome for Tasmanians? I ask for support for this motion.

Motion agreed to.

ADJOURNMENT

[5.59 p.m.] Mr FERGUSON (Bass - Leader of Government Business) - Madam Deputy Speaker, I move -

That the House do now adjourn.

Wild Fallow Deer - Response to Committee Report

[5.59 p.m.] Mr ROCKLIFF (Braddon - Minister for Education and Training) - Madam Deputy Speaker, today the Government tabled our response to the Legislative Council inquiry into wild fallow deer, which is an important issue for many in our farming, rural and hunting communities.

First, I thank Robert Armstrong MLC and the members of the Legislative Council for their work in reviewing such a complex issue. It has been for many years. The inquiry again confirmed there is a range of views in the community when it comes to the issue of deer management. The committee provided a measured and considered report. Our Government has listened, consulted and, in response to the inquiry's recommendations, we are making some sensible improvements to ensure a balanced approach continues into the future. I thank and commend all the people whom I have spoken to over the course of the last few months, in particular, and their willingness to bring forward their views on this complex matter.

Importantly, we are reinforcing our support for recreational deer hunting for wild fallow deer as a hunting resource. We also support landholders to manage the unwanted impacts of deer on agricultural productivity and the environment and recognise deer farming as a legitimate and important livestock industry.

First, a quality deer management statement developed in consultation with stakeholders will provide clear guidelines for the future management of wild fallow deer. Our QDM approach will be informed by a new, comprehensive statewide census of the deer population. Crop protection permits will be changed to five years and we will explore further opportunities to reduce red tape

88 28 November 2017 to support farmers to manage deer. We will also provide additional support to the deer farming industry in the areas of branding, marketing, processing opportunities and product integrity.

The Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment will coordinate targeted controlled programs to manage unwanted satellite deer populations and those impacting on areas with significant conservation values, including the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area. This includes investigating opportunities for safe, regulated recreational hunting in Tasmania's wilderness and world heritage areas and other reserves where land management frameworks allow. A new independent Tasmanian game council will advise on hunting, game management, browsing animal and deer farming matters. A new game services Tasmania with a primary industries' focus in the Department of Primary Industries will support landholders, farmers and hunters to effectively manage deer and all issues relating game and browsing animals.

We acknowledge there is genuine interest in the potential for game meat products but we must go carefully before making regulatory changes which will see wild deer appear on our menus. This is why the new Tasmanian Game Council will be requested to advise on the feasibility of a limited trial using special permits for farmers and landholders to supply value-added wild deer products for the regulated food or restaurant trade. This is an appropriate first step.

Importantly, our overall approach to deer also aligns with Tasmania's sustainable agrifood plan and our target to grow the value of agriculture to $10 billion by 2050. More detail is available in a response report tabled today on the DPIPWE website. The department will now work with stakeholders to immediately begin to implement the actions outlined in the Government's response.

I acknowledge the very positive response I have received from stakeholder groups today. I particularly note the Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association's comments today applauding the pragmatic approach taken by the Government on a difficult and complex issue. CEO, Peter Skillern's comments include:

This outcome shows what can be achieved with patience and broad consultation and the Government is to be commended for taking this appropriate approach.

I am reading these comments into Hansard as I acknowledge that the TFGA too has a broad membership with diverse views on the issues of deer management. We genuinely acknowledge all those views and note the leadership of the Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association on this issue. I believe we have the balance right.

Ulverstone - Bus Route Changes

[6.04 p.m.] Dr BROAD (Braddon) - Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise to speak about a serious issue for parents in the town of Ulverstone. It was first raised in The Advocate on 14 November and that was the impending changes to the bus routes in Ulverstone. This has created some angst amongst parents and it was highlighted on 21 November. This revolves around the changes of the routes having a negative impact on some of the children, especially children with disabilities but also younger children having to walk increased distances to the school buses.

As a child, I caught the school bus to school every day from Gawler. I remember getting to the end of our driveway and, even as a kindy kid, having to walk about 500 metres to get to the

89 28 November 2017 bus stop alongside of what was a fairly busy road. Luckily for me, I had two older siblings at that stage, and later on a younger brother. I had my older siblings to guide me but 500 metres was a fair distance for a young child.

With the redesign of the bus routes in Ulverstone, a letter went out to parents via their children. It was handed out during the bus service. It alerted parents to some significant changes to the bus routes. This would result in a number of things. It would result in complete route changes with children having to walk up to a kilometre to get to the bus and there were areas that were missed out.

Ulverstone is a difficult town to service for bus routes because there are four primary schools, a high school and then Leighland, which is kindergarten to year 12. The town has a river splitting it almost in half and it also has buses coming in from the outskirts from the rural areas. There is no doubt the bus routes are a challenge to perfect. Even on first blush, having a look at these bus routes, you could see there were areas missed and these areas resulted in children having to walk up to a kilometre. That is far too much for young children.

There is no doubt the bus routes should be simplified but the changes that were proposed were significant and causes some angst. Some mothers of children who did get together, Tracey Clark, Alison Gibson, Kristy Taylor and Kylie Hansch and others who raised this issue in The Advocate and via a petition. This petition gathered approximately 557 signatures, 379 written signatures and 178 online. I thank these parents for inviting me to attend a meeting with Department of State Growth where they could outline their issues. Their issues were not only about the walking distance but also about children with special needs needing to be familiar with their bus drivers. These parents expressed admiration and respect for their bus drivers and had built up relationships with them. They singled out Wallace Coaches - Robert and Tanya Wallace. Wallace Coaches has been around for about 60 years. Robert Wallace has been driving for 31 years and Tanya Wallace has been driving for about 24 years. In some instances, they are into their third generation of looking after children. It was with some regret the parents were informed that Wallace Coaches were to be losing one of their services with the restructure. Part of it is these bus drivers are very familiar with the kids. They know the kids, they know the stops they get off at, and they know how to handle kids with special needs. Kristy Taylor's child has high functioning autism and if this child gets stressed he is a flight risk. This bus driver knows how to handle this.

The significant concern is with the re-design of the bus routes; there were going to be multiple buses going on shorter routes. One bus going clockwise at one time and another bus going anti-clockwise at another time. It could get confusing with the pick-up. If the children were unfamiliar with the bus drivers it can cause significant stress, especially for children on the autism spectrum.

It was great to attend the meeting with State Growth and the staff, John Dawson and Andrew Craft, did a pretty good job, considering that these parents were angry and distressed. They raised their significant concerns about these changes with the staff. I hope State Growth takes on board their issues and makes changes.

Some of the areas that were missed in these loops and required a much greater distance to walk were Westland Drive, Gaffney Street, the Gaffney Street area, Maxwell Street, Dial Street and Water Street. The redesign means children would have to walk significant distances and also have to cross busy roads. That is the last thing we want.

90 28 November 2017 A bus service is an essential service, not only for getting kids to school but also for giving parents certainty. We know that school buses are the safest form of transport to get children to school. It is far safer statistically to be on a school bus than it is to walk and even safer statistically than it is for parents to drive their children to school. School buses are safe. School buses also pick up the children and allow the parents to get to work.

Another issue they were raising was about the pick-up times. Changes in pick-up times can significantly impact on parents, with parents not being able to get to work on time. These parents definitely raised these issues with State Growth and I really hope State Growth takes notice. I thank Tracey Clark, Alison Gibson, Kristy Taylor and Kylie Hansch for bringing these issues up.

In saying that, I seek leave of the House to table a document, which is a petition that has been prepared, but unfortunately does not conform to the Standing Orders.

Mr Brooks - Has it been circulated?

Dr BROAD - Yes, I spoke to Chris.

Leave granted.

King Island - Local Council Issues

[6.11 p.m.] Dr WOODRUFF (Franklin) - Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise to bring the attention of the House to some serious allegations of dysfunction in one local council in Tasmania that have been until this moment actively ignored by the Liberal Government. I am hoping the Premier and the Minister for Local Government will take seriously the issues that have been raised by Jill Munro, a resident of King Island, on behalf of 245 King Islanders. She wrote to the Premier on 23 October 2017 and listed a whole range of concerns about how the island needed to be moved immediately into administration, the councillors dismissed and, if possible, the general manager removed.

There are a number of serious and more mundane allegations of mismanagement and worse that Ms Munro raises on behalf of the 245 King Islanders, including that the council is not listening to the community about the airport freight terminal. Currently, the council is proposing a $700 000 freight terminal with grants of only $250 000, but there is no-one on council who can advise how the system would operate, what the increase in freight cost would be, or why changes are necessary. The 245 people maintain that the majority of the islanders do not want that terminal.

The King Island Cultural Centre in the old Marine Board building is owned by TasPorts and operated by council. It is very important to islanders, many volunteers staff the centre each day and it caters for a broad range of activities. There was a part-time coordinator there for 10 years for 20 hours per week, but the centre is deteriorating in building condition and the council has not offered any assistance to obtaining funding for a coordinator and actively discourages volunteers.

With regards to rubbish, the islanders had a fortnightly rubbish collection until mid-last year at a cost of $182 per year. Many locals actively recycled. This year the council increased the cost to $344 per year and promised a review after ratepayer complaints in August 2016, but that has

91 28 November 2017 not happened. Prices were jacked up but the review has not happened and there is a weekly collection that most people do not want.

People are concerned about unnecessary legal expenditures and litigious pursuits of one island family in relation to building applications. There are allegations the council has not acted in the correct manner in relation to those building applications. People are also concerned about the heritage Naracoopa Jetty. They have a number of concerns in relation to the existing plans and approvals for that jetty and do not support the change of use being proposed. They are also concerned about the lack of accountability on the health trust funds. The residents left health trust funds specifically for the health services of islanders. They have always been administered through the King Island board or advisory committee of the hospital. They are concerned that the total value has inexplicably dropped to a couple of hundred thousand dollars, they cannot understand what has happened and there is a lack of accountability and transparency about that. They say everything is run in closed workshops before council meetings and people in the community are being locked out of decisions that are being made.

This is a letter that was given to the Premier on 23 October but the people are really concerned that nothing has happened and there has been radio silence from this Government. They are calling for the removal of the King Island councillors and the general manager and to go into administration mode. They are very concerned that Mr Rockliff visited the island on 10 November and in a local community radio station interview said, 'From our point of view there is no reason to sack the council and it won't be so'. They are confused about how the minister could have come to that opinion when they confronted him outside the bakery the very same day and he reportedly said he had not seen either the petition of 245 residents or the letter to the Premier. They wonder on what basis he is so sure the council should not be sacked. They are concerned there is a conflict of interest with the son of a major Liberal Party supporter sitting on the council. Although the general manager resigned from his position in September, he will not be leaving until December and they are extremely concerned he will be involved in appointing a new general manager and it will be the status quo, which nobody wants.

On behalf of King Islanders and recognising their sincere desire to have a fresh start and clean, clear and accountable processes on their council, I call on the Premier to make a response to this petition and make clear what the plans are with the Minister for Local Government about this very important issue.

Time expired.

Latrobe High School - Upgrade Horsetail Falls Walking Track Devonport - Defence Reserve Forces Day

[6.18 p.m.] Mr BROOKS (Braddon) - Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise to talk about a couple of community functions I attended in the north-west.

One of them was the opening of the Latrobe High School upgrade. Mrs Rylah, Mr Rockliff, Mr Jaensch and I were there. It was very exciting to see this project. People ask, especially the whingers on the other side, what we have done as a government. One of the best things we have

92 28 November 2017 done this term is invest in high schools on the north-west coast that were ignored by the Labor-Greens government and the Labor Party. Latrobe High had asbestos tiles peeling up in the main corridor and an old wood heater as their main heating, and according to those opposite in particular - the previous minister for education, Ms O'Byrne, who is not here and the Leader of the Opposition, who is above the adjournment, as we consistently see each night - that school was ignored by those opposite. It took a majority Hodgman Liberal Government to invest $10 million in Latrobe High. The school had done the work over many years. I had met with them in opposition and we had been focused on a plan to deliver funding for that school, even from opposition. It was a privilege to be entertained by the school captain, Antoinette Clark, a great, young local leader, and the school principal, Brent Armistead.

The school had done the work; they had put a plan together. They had approached the government of the day, the Labor-Greens government, and were told to go away. They approached us in opposition. Mr Rockliff and I worked on a plan from opposition and then with Mrs Rylah and Mr Jaensch joining the House as a wonderful addition to the parliament this term, we could deliver it as a majority Hodgman Liberal Government. That is the stark contrast.

Parklands High is yet another high school neglected by those opposite as was Smithton High School. They did not put a cracker into it. They wasted all their money on the $10 million feasibility study to put a new hospital on the foreshore and did not deliver one single extra bed. They sacked nurses as well. It was a really great opportunity to be at a positive school that had invested in its own community and been supported by a majority Hodgman Liberal Government. We saw that delivered.

On another note, there was another great opening, the Horsetail Falls Walking Track, as part of the West Coast Economic Working Group. It was a project led by the community for the community. I had the privilege of chairing that committee, but it was about the community coming up with some projects that they thought would be worthwhile. I will admit it took a little longer than we originally envisaged to open that walk, but it is a really tremendous walk, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I know you would have been there and done it. I do not reckon anyone from that side has probably done it yet, because they are too busy fighting among themselves.

We saw a community-identified project work with local contractors to build that amazing walk. It is a remarkable addition to that special place on the west coast. That coupled with adventure tourism avenues such as mountain biking and white water rafting adds another dimension to the tourism opportunities in that region. Nothing will replace the mining jobs that are so crucial to the west coast. While those opposite do not like mining we support it on this side. We would like to see a more diverse economy on the west coast, and we have been able to support the community in that. It is very exciting and with the potential of Mt Lyell reopening again soon and with Henty going very well. Avery may also be recommissioning. It is a really exciting time for mining on the west coast, but it also very exciting thanks to the initiatives put in place to help diversify that economy, including adventure tourism.

I will also talk briefly about the Defence Reserve Forces Day held at the Kokoda Barracks in Devonport. You were there with your husband, Rod. Mr Jaensch was there as well. I believe your husband knocked off the chocolate out of the ration pack. It is the only good thing in those ration packs.

It is really important that businesses in the community support our Defence Force Reserves where they can. It was really great to see so many businesses that have signed on to support

93 28 November 2017 reservists in our local community. They play a very important role in the Australian Defence Force's preparedness to serve the country where required. Ultimately, they provide the blanket of protection that we need in this country. It is commendable that businesses support such an amazing initiative but also recognise that not everyone is a full-time member of the Australian Defence Force. Reservists are very important to not only fulfil community obligations but to also act in emergency relief, to act when there are environmental disasters but also provide defence force capability if required.

Emergency Service Personnel - Commendation Break O'Day Woodcraft Guild and Men's Shed East Coast Vietnam Veterans Association Bicheno Food and Wine Festival Red Cross Gretna Annual Luncheon Bothwell - Cattle Hill Wind Farm Development Port Sorell - Ghost Rock Winery and Men's Shed

[6.25 p.m.] Mr BARNETT (Lyons - Minister for Resources) - Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to thank the emergency service personnel in advance of the summer. I refer to recent visits I have had to the east coast, central highlands and Port Sorell. In recent weeks we have had fires on the east coast and they have been distressing and concerning to those to those in the local community. I want to thank all those fire fighters, volunteer fire fighters included, from not just the east coast but around the state who came together to fight those fires, to support the local community. I commend and thank the local community for their support of the emergency service personnel and the families who are directly affected by these fires and the incidents that do occur.

We should not forget that the bulk of our fire fighters are volunteers. Where would we be without our volunteers? I often ask that question when I go to community groups and various parts of Tasmania, particularly in the rural and regional areas where they are so essential. They are the glue that holds those communities together and I put on record my thanks to them. A report came out a year or two ago that their economic contribution to this state is in the order of $4.9 billion a year. The 700 million hours contributed by volunteers to Tasmania each year is incredible. Thank you to those fire fighters. I hope and pray over the summer there will not be major incidents. I hope they will be under control, but we do not know. We live in a climate and beautiful state of Tasmania where they fires occur so in advance, thank you to those fire fighters and emergency service personnel. The volunteer ambulance officers and the ambulance officers around the state, particularly those rural and regional areas - what they do, the training they go through, is fantastic.

On a recent visit to the east coast I had an opportunity to drop into the Break O'Day Woodcraft Guild and Men's Shed. The coordinator, Leon Johns, was there with other men. It was terrific. I dropped off a tin of Milo thanks to the IGA supermarket and they were grateful. It was good to see the important role the more than 50 men's sheds around Tasmania play in terms of mental health and support for the local community. They do a terrific job. They had a sausage sizzle at the local IGA and I received feedback on the importance of a whole range of issues. The feedback was that we are in better shape now than we were four years ago under our strong,

94 28 November 2017 stable, majority Liberal Government. I received a good deal of feedback on cost of living issues and the importance of keeping energy prices down with a special energy bonus that has been benefiting and will benefit pensioners around the state.

It was good to get that feedback and the importance of a strong economy and jobs and the concern that there may be the possibility of another Labor-Greens government, Labor doing another cosy deal with the Greens. It is of concern to local community groups and families, particularly in those regional areas that were decimated under the previous government, viz a viz the forestry being brought to its knees.

It was good to drop in on the East Coast Vietnam Veterans Association. I am proud to be their patron. They had previously had Remembrance Day and it was well supported by the local community and it is a terrific organisation.

The Bicheno Food and Wine Festival was another highlight. I enjoyed it. I know you were there, Mr Speaker. It was chock-a-block full. It had terrific gourmet food and wine and beer. I enjoyed the craft beer in particular on that day and the music and the company.

In my time in the Central Highlands recently, I visited the Red Cross Gretna annual luncheon. I want to say congratulations to Carol Harvey, Nicky Ball and all the volunteers that did so much to support that in conjunction with senior citizens. I was able to speak and congratulate them on their annual event and their fundraising. It was a lot of fun and a lot of fundraising was done. I was able to speak about Sir John Gellibrand, the Tasmanian war hero and founder of Remembrance Club in Hobart that went onto become Legacy that is now all around Australia. I am proud to say that my grandfather, HS Barnett, was the president of Hobart Legacy for a few years in the 1950s.

With respect to Bothwell, it has been very encouraging in conversations I have had with Mayor Lou Triffitt recently about the Cattle Hill wind farm development, commencing around January next year. This will be a huge boost to Bothwell in terms of accommodation, supporting the local retail stores and shops such as the local bakery; I enjoy dropping in on from time to time. It will be a huge boost for the transport contractors and employees travelling through that part of the world to get to and start building and constructing the $300 million 49-turbine Cattle Hill wind farm. Bothwell will benefit greatly.

I visited the Port Sorell area and Ghost Rock Winery. Congratulations to Alicia and Justin Arnold, the new owners. Justin is the son of Chris Arnold, the previous owner, and it is an icon piece of tourism infrastructure. It is a quality destination and I encourage people to visit and enjoy their time there.

It was a great opportunity to catch up with the Port Sorell Men's Shed. Dale and Keith were there and we had a good chinwag with them and I thanked them in particular for repairing the wooden soup spoon I was able to leave with them a month or two ago. I know my wife, Kate, is very thankful, as am I, for the repairs. It is a very big and long soup spoon and it does the job. I do a bit of cooking at home, not a lot but a bit when I am there, and I enjoy it. The Mens Shed, of which there are over 50 around the state, do a terrific job and that is definitely one of the most active and community oriented across Tasmania.

Mr Llewellyn - Did they make you a new one?

95 28 November 2017 Mr BARNETT - No, I got it repaired. They could have made a new one, I am sure, but I specifically wanted that one. There was a defect; we had rubbed off and broken the end of the spoon part of it and all it needed was a repair and they did the job. We did not need a new one but they could have done, I am sure. They could do many other things. I encourage members of the public to get in there and maybe check out what they can do for you.

Finally, thanks to the Port Sorell War Memorial and Rob Bramich and his great work to support that war memorial.

Time expired.

Moonah - Multicultural Community Hub Moonah Primary School - Canteen of the Year Award

[6.33 p.m.] Ms ARCHER (Denison - Minister for Justice) - Mr Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to talk on some electorate matters tonight which members will know I have not been able to do for some time in this place.

Members may also know that I have worked very closely in my electorate on multicultural issues, particularly when I first became a member in this place in 2010 when I held the shadow portfolio of community development which included multicultural affairs. I have worked closely with our culturally and linguistically diverse communities, of which there are many across Tasmania. We have approximately 170 nationalities represented across the state.

In my electorate alone, the latest statistic is 17.8 per cent in West Moonah alone speaking a language other than English as their first language. The Glenorchy municipality in particular has an enormous CALD community - if I can abbreviate it to that - and members may recall that in 2015 the state Government provided $100 000 to the Glenorchy City Council to develop the multicultural community space plan. That came out of an election promise that I made in conjunction with my colleagues, that should we get into government, which we did in 2014, we would provide $100 000 to investigate and develop options to identify a possible site for a multicultural hub. That is what we are affectionately now calling the old Moonah Arts Centre. That was identified as part of the multicultural community space plan developed by Glenorchy City Council and I congratulate them on that work. Glenorchy Council officers have been deeply involved across the community in conjunction with us on this issue.

The final report released in April 2016 recommended the old Moonah Arts Centre site in Hopkins Street. The new Moonah Arts Centre, being next to my electorate office in Albert Road, is a wonderful space in itself, but it left vacant the old Moonah Arts Centre. I cannot think of a better site than that to provide a community space for our emerging and newly arrived groups in particular, as well as our established multicultural communities. They can hold anything they like at that multicultural hub within reason and the realms of possibility of that site. They have lots of different spiritual festivals and international days emanating from their countries of origin. There is a CALD community which is part of the Indian community who have been very well established since the 1970s who now want to ensure their language does not die out and can keep going, so they are interested in using the site to hold those classes. The site can be booked

96 28 November 2017 through the Multicultural Council of Tasmania, which has now set up its office there after winning the process of being able to manage that hub.

The Government is now providing $200 000 over a four-year period for the hub's operations. The funding is part of the $1 million welcome settlement package to provide on-island support for new refugee arrivals, which we announced in April 2017. MCOT won the tender process to manage the hub. It has relocated its office to the hub so they can provide the necessary support to these communities in holding functions and making bookings. I am very proud of that policy to see it come to fruition. I did not realise the Premier was standing behind me, but he has had a great deal in ensuring that occurs because it comes under his department of Premier and Cabinet and I thank him for making sure this became a reality.

I also want to mention the Moonah Primary School. After we had the official opening of the multicultural hub by the Premier on Saturday, I then went to Moonah Primary School for its annual multicultural feast, which I have been attending now for at least five or six years. This year we managed to combine awarding the school canteen awards for 2017. It was a great honour to present the Minister for Education's Canteen of the Year award for best whole-school approach to healthy eating, and also the Environmentally Friendly Canteen of the Year award. There are only four awards statewide provided by the Tasmanian School Canteen Association and Moonah Primary won two of them, so I am very proud of them for that.

They have a wonderful Stephanie Alexander kitchen garden program, also now assisted by the 24 Carrot program, which members in the south will be familiar with. It is not an overstatement to say that the kitchen garden program has changed many students' lives at that school. I have attended many fundraising dinners with guest chefs coming in. They have a day teaching the students how to cook various dishes using the produce from their garden. They also have a pizza oven, which is wonderful, and they have pizza days for the kids. At those fundraising dinners there are students who do the waiting on the guests as well. I congratulate the school on winning these two prestigious awards.

2017 Tourism Northern Tasmania Champions of Tourism Awards Huon Show Liferaft Systems Australia - Royal Navy Contract

[6.40 p.m.] Mr HODGMAN (Franklin - Premier) - Mr Speaker, I want to note the winners of the recent 2017 Tourism Northern Tasmania Champions of Tourism Awards that were held at the Tamar Valley Resort.

It was a wonderful occasion and celebration of the northern end of the state's bustling visitor economy. There has been strong growth in the north, 11.3 per cent. I was reminded of the fact that over half of visitors to our state spend their time in the north, which is a good thing. The winners of the Champions of Tourism Awards are a fine group of operators and industry leaders. It was wonderful to celebrate with them and a large number at the Tamar Valley Resort. I take the opportunity to thank Tourism Northern Tasmania for organising these wonderful awards to celebrate and recognise the region's outstanding tourism achievers.

97 28 November 2017 The winners were: Social Media Hero, Cathryn Cocker of Low Head Beach House; Standout Food Ambassador, Curly Haslam-Coates of Vintage Tasmania; Event Organizer Extraordinaire, Ryan Limb of Vibestown; First Class Volunteer, Karen Phillips; Service Wizard, Rebecca McDonald of Cataract on Paterson; Trailblazing Innovator, Tara Howell of Blue Derby Pods; Most Dynamic Newbie, Dave and Eve Gibbons of Uncover Launceston; Most Likely to Succeed, Sandy Liang; and Personality of the Year was another award to the irrepressible Karen Phillips.

I thank the Huon Agricultural Society for another wonderful Huon Show - in fact, the 71st of what, in my view, is one of Tasmania's great country shows. The fact that it was again well attended and so magnificently showcased the food, farming, agriculture, horticulture, cookery and craft skills of many all in the beautiful Huon Valley is a testament to the extraordinary efforts of the Huon Agricultural Society led by President Mark Jessup and many volunteers on that committee. It is also supported through the society's Ladies Committee, the Huon, Grove and Upper Huon country fire brigades, Local State Emergency services, volunteers and local service groups. The Kingborough-Huon Rural Youth Club also plays an active role in the show and is responsible for some of its highlights, including the ute muster competition, the animal nursery and the popular dog high jump event. The Huon Valley Council also provides considerable support.

To all those involved in its organising, it was a wonderful thing to be at. It was great to see the grounds in such fine condition. The Tasmanian Government provided $40 000 for surface drains improvements on the ground and it looked superb on 18 November last.

I congratulate Liferaft Systems Australia and the team on their new $3 million contract to supply equipment to the Royal Navy. It's a great Tasmanian business and a tremendous compliment to the LSA team that the Royal Navy will use Tasmanian-manufactured equipment through a contract with defence giants BAE Systems. LSA has been operating since 1992. It employs around 60 Tasmanians and is a tremendous example of an export business that continues to innovate and lead. I am thrilled that the Department of State Growth, through its defence strategy, has provided support to businesses such as LSA to ensure that we get an increased share of defence spend, not just here domestically, but abroad. It was great to hear Mike Grainger, the Managing Director of Liferaft Systems Australia recognise the fact that the recently appointed Defence Advocate, Rear Admiral (Retired) Steve Gilmore, whom we appointed has helped, to lift Tasmania's profile significantly and support Tasmanian businesses in this field to build, expand and promote their defence support capability.

The House adjourned at 6.45 p.m.

98 28 November 2017