Mr DEAN (Windermere) - Mr President, I will simply make some general comments in relation to this. I do not think there is much point going back through the history of it as that has been well articulated. I will make one short reference to that in a moment.

I have been contacted by people from both sides. Those in opposition to the bill certainly have been very few but have been very strong in their position, as the member for Rosevears has correctly identified. They have a very strong position and very clearly are not happy for it to move on in this way, but I must say that it is not a position that I subscribe to. I will support the bill. I think it is a good bill and I think it will allow the trust to move on in a very positive way.

I just wanted to start with what I believe is a positive for the current board which I can see continuing, and there has been some comment made already about it. I wanted to mention the volunteers, Mr President, who work within the National Trust area. These people are the ones who commit an incredible amount of time and energy to maintaining and improving the assets of the organisation. They undertake incredible work and are vital to the success and future of the trust, in my view. They do much towards maintaining the buildings and one only has to go to, as the member for Rosevears has mentioned, Franklin House at Launceston to see the magnificent work that those people are doing out there. I commend them and take my hat off to them because it is absolutely amazing.

These people do not get much kudos; they do not put their hands up and they do not ask for it. I take the opportunity also, Mr President, to commend the Examiner on their supplement of this week where they recognise 100 local heroes. They are the type of people - and I have not read it thoroughly yet but I suspect there may well be some in that supplement - who are involved with the National Trust. I do commend the Examiner for going down that track and wanting to recognise these people who do so much for us.

To gain a little better understanding of this organisation, I recently met with Mr Ray Foley who may well be known to some of you. He is the ex-President of the National Trust and a former director of the Australian Council of National Trust and Mr Foley took the opportunity to come to me to give me some insight and background into the National Trust, where it is going and where it should be going. I should say right from the outset that he is delighted with the content of this bill, saying it is a very positive step forward. He is a man who ought to know as he has worked there and he has worked in very senior positions, Mr President, and I take on board a lot of what he said. He explained to me that his father-in-law, Mr Dick Green, who in fact was a former mayor of Launceston, and Mrs Biddie Craig, who I think may well be known to you, Mr President, the wife of Dr Clifford Craig who is well known in the Launceston area, he himself a wonderful author, had a meeting in Launceston - and that was back in the early 1960s, as I understand it - and the trust was formed from there in this State. This was about 1961.

Mr Foley was involved with the trust until 1988 and at this time the trust had a membership - and I was quite staggered by this - of about 4 600 or 4 700 members, so it was a big organisation with a huge membership. It was robust and very strong but, sadly, the other side of the story is not so good. It is no longer robust nor strong. There are many problems in the current structure of the trust. That is the reality and because of this reality something needs to be done. A strong direction for the future of the trust had to be taken and I commend the Government and those people who have worked in this area to get this moving in the right direction. Membership now I am told has declined to approximately 790.

Mr Finch - It is rebuilding. It is over 900.

Mr DEAN - It did come down to about 790, according to Mr Foley. So it is rebuilding. That is probably an indication that people now have been able to see its future direction and perhaps that has enticed a number to come back, which is good. I suspect there may well be an improvement on those numbers with a very clear direction hopefully after today.

Mr Finch - Under administration it has been rebuilt 17 per cent.

Mr DEAN - As was indicated to me by Mr Foley, unfortunately it appears that a number of people within the National Trust took their eye off the ball, as it were, and became involved in internal squabbling for whatever reason and that this eventually caused the downfall of the trust and the administrator was brought in. It is sad that that should have been the case because these members are passionate. As I have often said in another area in which I have some responsibility, if you do not have these people with a strong passion you do not always get the best results. Unfortunately in this instance I believe some of those with that strong passion have not always looked at the right reasons and have not always been able to move forward in the right way. There has probably been some personal interest as well and I think that that has been sad.

The National Trust very clearly is reliant on government funding as mentioned by the member for Rosevears or the member for Rowallan and I doubt the trust will ever be self-funding. One would like to think it would be although I see that as very difficult but I guess it is a goal to aim for.

When an administrator was identified for the National Trust, Mr Foley, obviously a man of great credibility, was asked to come back into the National Trust to help move it in the right direction. So he is a man, Mr President, that I can take a lot from and I have accepted what he has told me in relation to this matter and this bill. I do not think that he would have been approached to come back if he were not a man of that standing who had done a lot of good for the National Trust.

The trust, as Mr Foley indicated to me, certainly needs to have a creditable board that needs to be put in place quickly and the quicker that that happens the better it will be for everybody. I do not have any concerns with the way the board is going to be structured because I think that it will provide the right outcomes at the end of the whole process.

I would just like to make some comment here that those members who have been very vocal in not wanting the trust to change in any way raised the issue that the new National Trust will go and sell properties whenever and however. It has already been mentioned and I want to add to it. The current act, and this is the one that is now in place, gives the trust the ability to sell property as we know the trust has done in the past. The member for Rowallan went through a number of buildings that they disposed of; buildings at Oatlands, the Grange at Campbell Town; Bennell House in Launceston. We know this was a building owned by Mr Errol Stewart and that building was provided, as I understand, by Mr Stewart to the National Trust. It was not long after that occurred that the National Trust saw fit to sell it. Mr Stewart was so incensed that he became involved and repurchased the building. There is also evidence of other properties being sold - Staffordshire House, which is now the Law Society building in Launceston, was given to the trust and was disposed of. Also there are a number of other buildings around the State - a number of cottages. What this demonstrates to me is that what these commentators say they are afraid of happening in the future, has already been done by the trust. I do not see it as an area they ought to be too critical of, although I cannot see it happening in any event.

Another issue raised by the group was that there is concern that items given to the trust in perpetuity would be sold or given away. Is it likely that the trust would dispose of properties given to it in this way? If they did, their credibility would be enormously damaged, so I cannot see that happening.

Many Tasmanians have a real passion for the National Trust. As I said earlier, this is evident by the large number of dedicated volunteers within the organisation. Another comment made by some of those people opposed to this bill was that there has been no government funding for either Clarendon House or Franklin House. I am not quite sure where they are coming from because I understand the position is that the Government provides a pot of money to the National Trust and it is then up to the National Trust as to where that money is spent and on what buildings. The Treasurer has heaps of pots of money and will probably make a lot more available to them anyway.

Comments have been made in relation to Mr Chris Tassell. Mr Tassell was an extremely valued employee of the Launceston City Council and it was their loss when he left that organisation, as they said. But I think that he will be very good for this organisation. He has the motivation, the interest and the ability to move this trust forward. I think this bill will give him the opportunity to do so. He needs a good, strong bill to work under and I have every confidence in his ability.

I am told that of all the National Trust buildings registered in this country, at least one-third are Tasmanian buildings. I think that is the right position. It is a significant bill for us, it is a bill that we need to make sure is right. It is a bill that we need, I guess, to be confident will allow us to protect and maintain our national buildings into the long term. I am satisfied that it will. Again I commend those people who are involved in putting this bill and the way that they have gone about it. I think it is a great bill for us and I will be supporting it.