Ivan Dean, Speeches Index

Thursday 17 March 2011

PREMIER'S ADDRESS

Mr DEAN ( Windermere ) - I will try not to repeat too much of what has already been said about the natural disasters that we have had. It has been a horrific start to the year, hasn't it, when you look at it? From about December through to now all of this has happened all at the one time, absolutely catastrophic to say the least. I guess we in Tasmania live in a good State. We do not seem to have those same types of natural disasters and let us hope that that is the way it continues to go, but you never know. We need to be prepared for it and there are probably a lot of things that we can learn from what has happened.

The disaster in Japan, I am not quite sure what the numbers are now, but it obviously is going to be tens of thousands.

Mr Wing - In the order of 10 000 deaths so far.

Mr DEAN - It is just unbelievable that that should have happened. We can only send our best regards and any support and assistance that we can. People are being asked now to support all of these things and people will stand up in this State and this country. They will provide support in every way they possibly can to assist these people. We are sending out police, emergency workers, and fire service personnel, and so we should. Our State and our Government are to be commended for the action that they take in respect of all of those matters.

I do not want to go on too much about the financial situation. I think that has been covered pretty well. It is probably fair to say that many people are pretty disgruntled with the situation that we currently find ourselves in. We went through many good times, many good years. I remember the Treasurer of the time handing down two or three budgets and he attached some names to the budgets. One budget was a heart of gold budget, where it identified all of these things that we were going to do, the spending that we were going to have, but it would seem that right through this whole process never at any one stage did it dawn on anybody that we should put away a fair amount of money for those days when it would not be so good. Then came along the global financial crisis, which threw us into turmoil and then on top of that we had the stimulus package money and that boosted spending in the State.

Madam President, I wonder how well thought out that has been. We know of the experiences on the mainland with the insulation and the issues and problems there that came from the stimulus funding. I suspect that some of those problems may well come out here in Tasmania in due course as well. I would be surprised if it did not because there was a lot of it occurring here in this State. I would be interested to see over time whether any of those things do surface. I often wonder whether or not there has been enough notice taken of the extra infrastructure, Madam President, that requires other expenses on top of that. It requires the ongoing maintenance of all of this new infrastructure. It requires more staffing in many instances, a lot more technology, all of these other things that go with it to maintain it. I just wonder how that will now impact when we talk about all of the cuts that have to occur to personnel within the State service for a start. It is going to be interesting just to see really where this does end up. It will be a pretty ordinary situation, Madam President, to have all these lovely facilities and buildings, and not being able to operate them or not having the staff to have them open.

I think there are lots of issues there that will cause us heartache in the future. It will be interesting to see how these cuts occur and who will be losing their positions. We have been told it is going to be a large number of people and we are told it is going to be from just about every government department, right across the board.

I raise an issue with regard to increased spending and the increased funding that is necessary to cover some of our areas. It has always concerned me that in the half-yearly financial reports I do not really recall one of those reports where Health or Education has not been identified as being in difficulty. We are halfway through the year and already they have had difficulty with their finances. In my view that means that they were originally underfunded and that the budget did not provide sufficient funding for them, poor management or unforeseen circumstances. I find the latter point difficult because it happens year in and year out and one would hardly think that there would be these unforeseen circumstances year after year after year. I think that we would probably say it was probably underfunding in the first instance for some of those departments.

Police, on the other hand, have come in on budget and done it now for a number of years. The midyear financial report has been very good for Police. For all that good management of their finances and everything else they too will be penalised as a part of this. That is how they will be rewarded; they will be rewarded by having to cut resources and staff, and having to drop off services that were previously provided. You sort of wonder why that has to be the situation. Police certainly will take it hard, there is no doubt about that. The Tasmania Together program very clearly set up and identified targets to be met over a 20-year period. The police, in a big part of those areas, have met targets so far. In fact, in some cases they are well and truly under target. Crime is one area where they are certainly well and truly already under their target that was set for this part of that 20-year program. It would be a tragedy if, by having to cut staff in areas like criminal investigation, crime control and patrol, crime went back to where we were, say, 10 or 15 years ago. I do not think that the public would wear that too well at all. It is all very well for the minister to make the motherhood statements - I see them as hollow statements - that core service responsibilities will be met when, at the same time, the minister makes the statement, and it was in a press release, that other areas of policing will be cut in the first instance. It really would be rather upsetting to a lot of police for some of these comments to be made. I quote from the press release headed 'Bid to Calm Police Fears', where the minister says:

'Police Minister, Lin Thorp, says community programs, travel expenses and manning levels will be cut to the bone before frontline police are affected by foreshadowed budget cuts. However, Ms Thorp said she could not rule out job cuts which unions believe could reach up to 200, about 15 per cent of Tasmania's 1,198 strong police force.'

It is interesting that those sorts of comments are being made. With the greatest respect to the minister, to say that cuts can be made in those areas of policing and it will not have any impact on the core policing responsibilities - front-line policing - really is nonsense. If you look at community policing in particular, that is police working in schools, that is police working in Neighbourhood Watch, that is police -

Mr Parkinson - The minister hasn't announced any cuts yet, has she?

Mr DEAN - No, but this is what she is saying would happen in the first instance. I just quoted what was said.

Mr Parkinson - I think you're speculating a bit. There haven't been any cuts and she hasn't announced any cuts. It's difficult to be debating it.

Mr DEAN - This is what she is saying will happen. I would now be urging the minister not even to think that way because cuts to community policing mean more police work out there in the public arena. If you are not working with kids in school, it is those kids who are then creating the problems outside of school. If you are not working with kids in U-Turn and all of these other community policing programs, those kids are out there causing a lot of the problems that the police are dealing with on the streets - so there will be more problems out in the streets. That is what I am saying. You cannot cut community policing and say it will not have an impact on the police out in the field, as it were, and that is why these programs are set up. I just cannot understand how those sorts of statements can be made, to be quite frank with you.

I will be interested to see if that happens. The police are already talking about some actions if that should occur to them. They are talking about walking on Parliament House and doing these other things and so on. I would think that the police would look at that very carefully. They are not a group of people who would take that sort of thing lightly.

Mr Parkinson - It sounds very dramatic.

Mr DEAN - They have done it before; in fact I was one of the strength when they did it before on Parliament House and some of you people sitting around here today might recall the time.

Mr Wing - You didn't put signs up on the front, did you?

Mr DEAN - No, and we did not climb up on top of the building and hang off.

Mr Parkinson - Were you asked to leave by police officers?

Mr DEAN - I cannot remember a lot about it now, to be quite frank with you, but I know that there were no arrests made.

Mr Parkinson - Peter Cundall might be interested in this one.

Mr DEAN - There were no police left up in the streets to arrest anybody so no arrests could be made, but I think they stuck to the law when it came to their protest action and that is the difference between police and some other groups. They are very careful not to break the law and there would not have been any need for any arrest. But this is how they are talking currently and the reason the police talk this way is the service that they provide to the public. That is the reason they talk like this. It is not self-serving, it is not to make them better people or what have you, it is because they know that an impact on them will impact on the community and that is their concern.

Mr Wing - And that's why a number of them are in favour of being assisted by volunteer police, too.

Mr DEAN - Absolutely right. The member for Launceston raises a very important issue; we talked about it yesterday and it will probably be raised again. Very clearly, as I said yesterday, it is a matter that now needs to be seriously considered.

Mr Parkinson - How could you expect anybody to do policing on a voluntary basis?

Mr Wing - About 15 000 do it in England, including a member of the House of Commons, as I mentioned.

Mr DEAN - Nobody has said that the volunteer police should be out there pulling up and arresting people. Nobody has said that and I understand the member for Launceston has not said that. What the member for Launceston - and he will explain it better than I will - is saying is that those non-core responsibilities where the police are not arresting people and tackling people who are misbehaving and all of that, there are some of those other areas where you could have volunteers assisting police in some of their responsibilities.

Mr Wing - Including crowd control and matters like that, as they do in Denver.

Mr DEAN - I visited Denver in Colorado and they are very strong on volunteer policing. They rely heavily on it and there are many activities and functions that they undertake in the state of Colorado. I did indicate to the member for Launceston that it would have been worth his while if he could have gone there and had a look at how it functions in that country because it is well done. We will move from there.

Mr Wing - I am pleased you raised that subject.

Mr DEAN - The interesting thing about this is that at the same time we are talking about police having to give up certain things to pick up on their budget, to save money et cetera, you have government members, ministers, calling on police to undertake what I see as not police responsibilities, or core responsibilities, and it was mentioned by the member for Pembroke in relation to police having to serve at the gaol, having to take over the responsibility of warders. Is that a police responsibility? No, it is not. Should police be involved in investigating the leaking of papers and the leaking of information and so on? No, they should not be, in my view.

With the greatest respect to the minister involved, I believe that is the greatest waste of police resources that I have probably ever seen and I do not think that is what the police are there for. If there is leaking of information or papers or whatever from the gaol, then let some other inquiry be undertaken to identify that but to call police in is quite interesting. I do not know how many police were involved in it. I suspect it did get underway and the minister said it was going to occur but it would be interesting to see how long police will be involved in that; what the cost will be to the police to undertake that when they should be out investigating real crime and performing real police functions, real police issues. I just see that really as an abuse of police - but there you go, it has happened.

I just wanted to mention a little about the courts again. I went into it in some detail yesterday and it is interesting that the Premier, in one of her media statements, refers to the fact that the Government regrets that they cannot continue with their program to remove police from the courts because of the budget constraints and the budget issues. I just say what I said yesterday there, Acting Madam President, I have lost my train of thought.

Mr Wing - Madam Acting President.

Mr DEAN - Madam Acting President, but where was I before that?

Mr Wing - Talking about police.

Mrs Taylor - Volunteer police.

Mr DEAN - I was talking about police in the courts, wasn't I, where the Premier refers to it in one of her media releases, the fact that they could not do it now because of the budget constraints, that is where I was. Why couldn't this have been done when times were good and that is the question I raise because it has been on the drawing board now for about 15 years, probably longer. Ever since it happened in Hobart it has been on the drawing board to do it in Launceston. That is how long it has been about for.

Mr Wing - You mean the police in the courts?

Mr DEAN - That is the police doing court duties.

Mr Wing - They were doing it when I started practising law in 1962 and they have been doing it ever since in Launceston as far as I know.

Mr DEAN - They were doing it in Hobart too. They were doing it in Hobart at one stage and that is where I did some work moving out of the recruiting courses - on those occasions you did some of the court duties and those sorts of things to get a feeling for policing in different areas, so police in Hobart were doing it too at one stage but they were relieved from the courts in Hobart - the Leader might know more about this than I do - I think it was probably in the 1970s or 1980s, 1980s or 1990s, but they have been out of the courts in Hobart for a long period anyway - and they certainly should be.

Mr Parkinson - Police were still there when I was practising in the 1990s.

Mr DEAN - I was still a police prosecutor in the 1970s and early 1980s and the police were doing duties then, so it had to be the late eighties or nineties that they were removed from the courts.

Mr Parkinson - It would have been the nineties, I reckon. I thought the police did a good job.

[5.45 p.m.]
Mr DEAN - Oh there is no doubt about that. They do an excellent job there and they relate well to the prisoners and they relate well to the witnesses. They relate well to the presiding authorities. But that is not the point. It is a function where you do not need to be a sworn police officer and have to have all the police training. The security officers are very good. They do an excellent job, I understand, in Hobart. They are very professional and they do it every bit as well as the police. That is the point.

Going to one or two other points I want to refer to. The rural speed limit has been referred to at some length and I am not going to go into any great detail there other than to say that there is a lot of angst in relation to this. It would be interesting to see just what sort of support there would be from around the State in relation to it if a survey was done. I do not think there would be a huge amount of support for it. People are concerned, once again, that this has been taken as an easy way out to cut fatalities and serious crashes. It is of concern and needs to be looked at very closely. Yesterday I asked a number of questions, Madam President, because Launceston City Council aldermen based a decision made on a lot of the information that was provided by the Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources where they referred to statistical data and to the number of fatalities and the number of serious crashes that had occurred on rural roads in the past 12-month period. The reason I have asked those questions in question 31 is to find out how many of those fatalities, how many of those serious crashes occurred where the posted speed limit has been complied with. In other words, if it is a 100 km/h zone on a rural road, how many of those serious crashes and fatalities occurred where the speed limit was not exceeded, where alcohol or drugs were not involved or some other element was not involved. What I am trying to find out is, if these fatalities and these serious crashes have occurred on these rural roads where the speed limit has been complied with and that has been the reason for it, then those figures are reasonable. It is reasonable to refer to them but what I am saying is that, in the report they need to say just what makes up those figures. I did say this in another area. For people to rely on that to make a decision was fraught with some risk in that situation.

Madam President, as people have said, we have got better education of our drivers, but still not good enough. The road safety report that the member for Launceston chaired was very clear in its position on that. We say it should be starting in the schools and that all of these people are going to be drivers in the future and should be educated at that stage. We have got drivers that really are being better educated. The roads are safer and being made safer all the time. We have safer vehicles. I refer to the vehicle that I am currently driving - some of the instruments on it are unbelievable. It has a lane indicator and it is just a small vehicle. It is one of the lower class of vehicles. It has a lane indicator, so if I move out of my lane it tells me that I am moving out of my lane. I do not need to dip my lights - it dips the lights automatically. It is all done. The windscreen wipers come on automatically. The lights come on automatically if it gets dull. It is unbelievable some of the things that it does.

I am finding out these things as I drive it. Last night I found out when you switch it off and lock it up that the mirrors all close up, come in on the windows so that no-one can break them off. It is amazing some of the things.

Ms Rattray - Through you, Madam President - do you sit the driver's seat or the passenger seat?

Mr DEAN - I was in the driver's seat.

Ms Rattray - It is a wonder that it doesn't drive for you.

Mr DEAN - It virtually does. You only have to steer it. That is all you have to do. Adaptive cruise control slows you down and takes off when you need to so you do not need to touch the thing. It is quite unbelievable and that is just a Ford Mondeo. The point I am making is that we have safer vehicles, extended policing - there is more policing out there now than there ever was before - and, as I said, better drivers. But yet there is this emphasis on trying to reduce the speed limit. It needs a lot more work on it before that should occur.

I wanted to mention briefly the hospitals. On page 6 of the Premier's address there is a comment:

'I believe an efficient public health system is about ensuring that everyone has access to safe, high-quality health services, not just those who can most afford it.'

Time and time again, Madam President, we have raised some of the issues within our public hospitals that patients have had to go through. We often refer to elective surgery being postponed and all of those other things. On the weekend I had the unfortunate position of talking to an elderly patient, an elderly lady who does not want to be named and her next of kin, her daughter, to quickly tell her story. She was admitted to Launceston General Hospital on the Monday morning, this is the advice that I have received, in excruciating pain, agony, and was continually vomiting. She vomited for six to eight hours and unfortunately there was not a lot that could be done. They had her X-rays and so on and it revealed that she had an obstruction in the bowel and it was later identified that she had a perforated bowel. She was on a bed in a passageway room somewhere - I could not quite identify where it was where they had to keep moving her to get access to the things that they needed because they did not have anywhere to put her. There were a number of other patients. On Tuesday night, a person from the hospital rang the next of kin and told them that unfortunately they could not operate because of political reasons.

The words 'political reasons' was used. Once again this is the advice given to me by the next of kin. She was so upset that she did not query what was meant by it so she wrote it in her diary.

Mr Parkinson - It sounds very strange.

Mr DEAN - She said she wrote it down in her diary. I later spoke to the patient and she told me the same thing. Whether they had talked to one another or not I do not know. It turned out that the operation was not completed until Wednesday evening. So from Monday morning to Wednesday evening this lady was in agony, pain. Listening to her was horrible. She was becoming emotional. I was becoming emotional. It was not a good mix at all. It was sad to hear of that happening. As was said during that discussion Madam President, it is pretty right. She said if you had an animal and it was in excruciating pain, if it was suffering and the RSPCA or somebody else knew about it and you let it go on and on -

Mr Wing - You wouldn't want that because they'd put the animal down.

Mr DEAN - That was the comment made. When it was being discussed that is the comment that was made, that the animal would be put down, but you would probably find yourself charged. You would probably find yourself in difficulty if you had an animal that was in agony requiring urgent and immediate treatment and you let it go on for two-and-a-half days then you would be in trouble. That is just a point I make. I can hear what the Premier is saying there so I think we are all saying -

Mr Parkinson - It's a bit unfair to even raise it without knowing the full facts.

Mr DEAN - I have related those facts as were given to me by the next of kin and by the patient -

Mr Parkinson - But you don't have any facts on the reasons for the delay.

Mr DEAN - I was trying to speak to the doctor but could not but I understood from the family that a doctor had said that she was wanting to complete the operation immediately and urgently but unfortunately could not get access to the theatres or a room.

Mr Parkinson - And again, it would be handy to know what the reasons for lack of access were.

Mr DEAN - I am told that the hospital, in fairness to it, had a lot of people to deal with. This is not an attack on the hospital, Madam President. The Launceston General Hospital staff and doctors are extremely hardworking, committed people, as you find when you go there. It does not matter how much they are rushing around and what they are doing, they will always try to give you some support and ensure that they are doing their tasks properly. Resources still seem to be a problem and there still seem to be a number of other issues there that really do need fixing. I understand it takes money. I am not quite sure what or who is to blame but things certainly need addressing. As I said, the Premier encapsulates that in her statement where she makes some reference to the hospital.

Smoking is also referred to among the media releases by the Premier. She refers to smoking and a need to move forward in regard to legislation. I urge the State to move this ahead as quickly as they possibly can because right at this moment local government is leading the way there and if you look at the actions that have been taken in Hobart and in Launceston in recent times you will see that they have taken a very strong position in relation to this. It is a pity that the rest of the local governments around this State would not stand up and be counted as well. They know very well what smoking does and that it is an insidious activity and they know that passive smoking is equally dangerous. I just hope that other local governments take it on because local government can do it much quicker than a State government can because they have to go through all the processes and get the legislation through and so on. I realise that Minister Michelle O'Byrne is working hard on this to try to get some more legislation in place to control smoking even further so I would just ask that the State move it ahead as quickly as they possibly can. I think a lot of local governments currently are sitting back waiting for the State to take that action. In fairness to them, some local councils have simply said why should they move down that track when they know that the State Government is already looking at it and that they are likely to bring in legislation in due course.

The issue with that, Madam President, is the time it will take the State to do this. I did make some inquiry when I was involved in a motion in Launceston and found that by the time it goes through all the processes and the legislation is done it could be up to two years before any legislation is given royal assent and is actually put into place. It could be that period of time and I believe that we need to move more quickly than that.

[6.00 p.m.]
The member for Apsley referred to the problem of the timber industry but I am not going to go into that too much -

Ms Rattray - Don't talk about the war.

Mr DEAN - The pulp mill is right in the middle of my electorate, Madam President, as everybody is aware. I have copped a fair amount of abuse and three or four weeks ago I received a postcard which I thought I had brought down with me, Madam President, but I could not find it. It was sent by five ladies. There were five bare backsides across the photograph -

Member - Dear oh dear.

Mr DEAN - It will not inspire you all that much, I might admit, and the caption reads: 'Social licence my bottom' - I will use that word - and was signed 'Women against the pulp mill'. It was addressed to me and a couple of other things were written in there for me as well. I have been receiving quite a little bit of information along those lines and some of these postcards and so on.

Ms Rattray - Through you, Madam President - I'll be expecting my postcard in the mail any day now after my contribution.

Mr DEAN - You will probably get yours as well, I would say. You could well be singled out. I would be very surprised if you are not.

Mr Gaffney - It's still part of the Premier's state of the State address and you are talking about bottoms.

Members laughing.

Madam PRESIDENT - It is a grievance debate.

Mr Parkinson - Was there an address to reply to?

Mr DEAN - No, there was not and I asked my EA to find out where it had come from because I intended to write back to them.

Ms Rattray - Did you recognise any bottoms?

Mr Gaffney - Are you sure they were from your own electorate? You'd have your ways.

Members laughing.

Mr DEAN - My opening comment was going to be that there was nothing in the postcard that inspires me or excites me.

Ms Rattray - Whoops.

Mr Parkinson - Apart from that you could send them back your last election results.

Mr DEAN - I could have done and that is the point I was going to make.

Mr Parkinson - It was a major issue in your last re-election.

Mr DEAN - That was a point I was going to make. The member for Bass, Mr Booth, is very good at saying that the people in the Tamar Valley are against this pulp mill. This is not right. There are some people in the Tamar Valley against a pulp mill but in my election, Madam President, the votes that I attracted and the votes that Kathryn Hay attracted I think were up around 75 per cent of the primary votes in that area. They voted for both of us and we stood strongly on support of the pulp mill.

Mr Wing - It just shows how tolerant the electors are.

Members laughing.

Mr Wing - And you find them forgiving.

Mr DEAN - It probably does. The member for Launceston has probably made a good point.

Ms Rattray - Except for five individuals.

Mr DEAN - They probably felt sorry for us.

With the economy the way it is, Madam President, we have to have development and we need development of this type. With the latest reports that we have and what happened the week before last or last week, whenever it was, when the Federal minister imposed new conditions on the mill, I am convinced it will be an environmentally clean mill. Nobody wants it if it is not and I have always said that I do not want to build it if it is not environmentally clean and I do not think anybody could ever support one that was not that.

I think this mill will meet all of those requirements and all of the reporting and monitoring conditions that are in place, of which there are a few. Madam President, we do need that.

I get annoyed when - and I cannot think of the lady's name now, the hyphenated name of the lady on the Tamar Valley -

Mr Hall - Lleyton-Bennett.

Mr DEAN - Yes. She wrote to me recently about the pulp mill. It was a long letter where she set out all the reasons for the mill not going ahead. One reason was that the mill is being built in an absolutely pristine and picturesque valley. Another was -

Mr Wing - Surely it is.

Mr DEAN - I will go into that in a moment, member for Launceston.

Mr Parkinson - Notwithstanding the industrial development.

Mr DEAN - When I answered the letter - and I will cover that right now - I wrote back on some points and said that she had failed to mention to me - and I expect the other people that she was sending the letter to - that it is right in the middle of an industrial area and that she had forgotten to tell people that there are two chipmills there already, Rio Tinto, Temco, a gas-fired power station that was coal and all the rest of it.

Mr Wing - But so far no 21-storey buildings.

Mr DEAN - She then went on to say that it would cause horrendous pollution and that we needed to concentrate on all of the vineyards in the area. My reply to that was, did she realise that the vineyards in this State must use a number of poisons and sprays and so on for grapes to be produced in this State and that nearly all the vineyards in the Tamar River slope down into the Tamar River, and where will the residue go that is being used in these vineyards? I said also that a complaint had been made to the Launceston City Council only recently by people living at Relbia, next to these vineyards, complaining about the sprays and the poisons that were being used and that they had said that when they came into the council on another matter.

Mr Parkinson - It's only sulphur.

Mr DEAN - I raised that in the letter back to this lady as well and there are some other points, but I am not going there. Suffice it to say she has not responded to my letter. That was about three weeks ago so it does not look as if I will get any response.

Mr Hall - You might get another postcard.

Mr DEAN - Yes, I might get another postcard. Interestingly today, what should arrive on our desk, the Pulp Mill Assessment Repeal Bill. We have all got that today, people. Not only does the bill want the assessment act repealed but it also wants every permit and everything else that is issued as a part of the mill to be withdrawn as well - the lot. I think the chances of that getting through are probably not all that great, but it is interesting.

Mr Hall - Democracy.

Mr DEAN - You are right.

Mr Parkinson - It's called playing to an audience.

Mr DEAN - I think it is probably a little bit of a charade and a little bit of acting, a bit of publicity and all the rest of that. I think that is what it is all about.

Mr Parkinson - I just wish Kim Booth would acknowledge the science around the whole process instead of deliberately misleading people all the time.

Mr DEAN - That is exactly right. I got myself into trouble very early in the piece. I think it was that very first march they had in Launceston where it has been said there were 10 000 people, but I certainly do not agree with that. I came out and said there is unfortunately too much misinformation around. I got lambasted over that statement but that statement was very accurate. Since that time the word 'misinformation' has been used prolifically by many people because there is a lot of it around. As at one of the briefings we were given: there are two mills being built, apparently - the real mill and the fantasy mill - and it is the real mill we should be dealing with, not the fantasy mill. Timber is a problem and we need to get that straight moving forward.

Cost of living, Madam President, is another area that rates a mention and quite a big mention by the Premier in her state of the State address plus in some of the media releases that were provided as a result of that. We know that they are spiralling and we know that they are causing a huge amount of angst out there to the people, particularly in my area. I often refer to it here, that I have a responsibility. The member for Windermere covers many of the lower socioeconomic group areas of the State, in fact it is pretty well right throughout my electorate. A lot of people are in low-cost housing, a lot of people are on the breadline and they have difficulty in making ends meet. So cost of living is a huge issue for me. The majority of the matters I deal with are housing issues and cost-of-living issues - paying accounts, paying energy bills and it will not be long before it will be paying water bills, I would think, once those bills start getting out to all of the people.

That covers the majority of my work from the people in that area. I don't think a lot of us really realise that some people ration their wood. A lot of people in my area ration their wood. They have two pieces of wood or three pieces of wood they will use a night - they can use no more than that - that is their supply. They ration closely their electrical heating, they have blankets and they go to bed early and all of those other things. Some don't use their heating - don't use it at all ? they sit up with blankets all around them. Some of them have cars - they can't drive their cars because they can't put the fuel in them. It just goes on and on. Some can't pay their power bills.

Professor Adams refers to some of these issues in his last report about what is going to happen and what sort of relief we have provided people who can't pay those accounts. Will they have their electricity cut off? The same thing with water bills. Those who won't be able to pay their water bills - and there will be quite a few, I would think - will their water be cut off? You would hope not, but just where it will go, I am not too sure.

Of course, many ration their food very closely. If you look in some of these homes - and I have - I have been asked to look in the refrigerators of some of these homes, and food is sparse. It really is sad because that also is impacting on people's health, as they are not getting the quality food that they should be having. It is a huge issue.

I think that we can get some relief here. I am aware of one local government that is currently working in a tripartite agreement with the State and the Federal governments to try to get a strategy in place to roll out gas to some of these areas where they should have gas - some of the areas that are doing it pretty tough. I was talking to a family recently who just had gas put on. They were able to afford the conversion and the new appliances that they needed. They said that their energy bill for the quarter compared with their energy bill of the year before - same period, same quarter - had been cut by half. I did not argue with that. They said that their bill had been cut 50 per cent and they had used it freely and they had not changed their use in any way. So there are obviously huge savings there in converting to a natural gas connection.

The problem is that people cannot afford to convert to gas. I think that is what the gas services are saying, that people out there are not connecting who should be. They are not getting as many as they wanted to get. They say it is because of the cost of the connections and the cost of the changeover of the items within their own homes - the cost of the cylinders and whatever else they need, their stoves and all of these other gas appliances. That is where the cost is and that is putting people off from moving down that line of having gas in their homes.

So I think something needs to be done. As I said, the Launceston City Council is working with both the State and the Federal governments to try to get a program in place to provide support to these people, so I would like to see that happen. But I think the State is conscious of that and I think the State has looked at it and considered it, and I know that they are anxious to try and move that forward as well - whether more can be done, I am not too sure, but I would hope so.

Mr Parkinson - If you're going to continue for much longer, I might get you to consider moving that the debate stand adjourned.

Mr DEAN - I will probably go for another 15 minutes or so. Do you want me to adjourn now?

Mr Parkinson - I'm not trying to put pressure on you but if you could move that the debate stand adjourned, I would be happy.

Mr DEAN - Madam President, I move -

That the debate be adjourned.

Debate adjourned.

Resumed from 16 March 2011 (page

[12.35 p.m.]
Mr DEAN ( Windermere ) - Madam President, I thought the briefing this morning was very good on where things are. It is a fairly bleak future in relation to this State and its finances and the recovery plan that is probably in place unfortunately is going to bring a little heartache with it for a lot of people. A point made today was for government-owned businesses to become non-reliant on government support. If that is the situation, that support that has been provided by the Government to a lot of these government business enterprises has to come from somewhere else, so where does that extra funding come from? I suppose you could say that for the majority, that extra funding will come from the consumers in these areas. They could be looking at steep increases in some of the areas where these government businesses operate. Of course there will the resources and staff cuts and all of those other things that will pick up some of these issues, but that brings a lot of pain and suffering with it in any event.

The comment made that front-line positions will not be quarantined in this instance sends a shudder through my spine. Those front-line services were protected to some degree in the previous changes that occurred where departments were required to make savings. Some saw fit to remove staff or resources and some saw fit to mix it up a bit as to how they would make the necessary savings a couple of years ago. In my mind, it is going to create a lot of problems. Very clearly the message is that the front-line services will be cut.

Mr Parkinson - You're full of doom and gloom.

Mr DEAN - Well, it is doom and gloom, isn't it?

Mr Parkinson - We might have to bring in a bill to reduce the size of Parliament again.

Mr DEAN - You're right, it could happen; one doesn't know what is likely to happen.

As was mentioned in the briefing we had this morning, much of the fat that might have been there has well and truly been removed, so there is not a lot more there and therefore there has to be a considerable impact on the people.

Madam President, I want to go over a couple of the issues I raised yesterday, and add a bit to them. The rural speed limit was raised and I note in the Mercury today in 'Letters to the Editor' there was an interesting letter from a member of the public. I do not know if this is right but I simply raise it because the answers will come back through the questions I have asked, I hope. He is saying he has done research in relation to it and according to his research no crashes, no fatalities occurred in the 2010 and 2009 years and, he also believes, in the 2008 year where vehicles on country roads were outside of the posted speed limits. He finishes up with saying that the ministers should be aware that a negative road toll would require raising the dead. The statistical data is very important and it is very important to understand exactly what it means. It is all very well to have these things thrown up at you but you need to look at it closely to see where it is going.

Yesterday, I referred to the pulp mill and to a postcard that I had received. I found that postcard and I display it for members to see. I thought it was quite an offensive postcard and I certainly do not condone that type of activity.

The member for Launceston raised the subject yesterday of the height of the building and the chimneystack on the pulp mill, a chimney Mr Booth says that will emit more than 100 tonnes of particulate pollution annually. He goes on then to say, and that is in the Mercury today -

Mr Parkinson - He regularly gets his facts very wrong.

Mr DEAN - Doesn't he, absolutely, he gets them wrong and I think he knows very well that they are wrong. It is just misleading. He then goes on to say, 'under a special exemption granted by the Labor Government granted in 2005'.

What special exemption? The pulp mill must comply with tougher requirements than are required in the Tasmanian air quality policy, the water policy and other environmental policies. He makes these statements, in my view, deliberately taking them out of context, not adding in all of the information that surrounds it, to give it a meaning that he wants it to have. I think that is a poor position to adopt and absolutely unfair. It is nothing short of scaremongering and it is not acceptable. The member for Launceston would be aware that almost next door to the proposed pulp mill site there is already a tall building -

Mr Wing - How many storeys is it?

Mr DEAN - I am not quite sure of the storeys of the gas-generated power station but the chimney of the old oil-generated plant there is not that much short of the height of the chimney that will be erected for the pulp mill. There is not a lot of difference. There has been little comment made in relation to that building or that chimney.

Mr Wing - That building would be dwarfed by the massive nature of the pulp mill at 21 storeys high.

Mr DEAN - The building may be. I am not saying that, I am talking about the overall height, and a lot of people take into account the chimney; there is not a great deal of difference in the height of those two as I understand it from the information that I have been provided.

It is not a building going into, in Anne Layton-Bennett's words, a 'pristine, undisturbed location'. That is not the case at all. Another interesting matter that I failed to mention yesterday was that we read quite a few letters in the paper about the devastating impact this mill has had and will have on property sales in the area. Members might have noticed in the paper only last week, I think, that Rebecca Gibney who purchased her property nearly directly opposite the mill in the member for Rosevears' area for about $600 000 now has sold it, three years later, for in excess of $1 million.

Mr Wilkinson - Is that right?

Mr DEAN - A nice increase of about $400 000.

Mr Wilkinson - In three years?

Mr DEAN - In about three to four years - a fairly short period of time in any event. I am aware of another property that sold directly opposite the pulp mill, quite a large farm, where the person selling that property got a greater price for it than he put it on the market for. There were so many people interested in purchasing that property. It makes a bit of a mockery of these people who continually go around espousing the fact that the property prices in that area will fall. I do not accept that. I myself have a property not that far from the mill site so I do know the area reasonably well.

Mr Harriss - I bet it would be worth more than $1 million.

Mr DEAN - I would like it to be. Unfortunately that is not quite the case.

I want to touch on some other matters. One is the air ambulance service that has hit the press once again. I understand that there is a likelihood that it will go out to a tender process. I thought this matter had been dealt with. I thought it had been resolved, but now all of a sudden it seems to be back on the agenda.

[12.45 p.m.]
What is really disturbing is that we currently have a Royal Flying Doctor Service, which is northern based, providing exemplary service and sometimes in some fairly difficult conditions. The service is absolutely exceptional and it brings with it a lot of Commonwealth funding, and I understand if it does go out to tender, and depending on what happens, there could be a loss of some of that funding for that service.

I would think that there are other agendas here. We do know that there is another organisation interested in operating the service, but in my opinion to go down this track would be a backflip from what I have been told by the Greens. They supported the Liberal Party's position in this matter where they were opposed to it and would not support it going out to tender. But now, as I understand it, the Greens have jumped ship and they may now support the Labor Government's position in putting it out to tender.

I think it is an absolute tragedy, to be quite frank. I have been there. I know how it operates and I understand the hard work put in by the organisation that currently provides this exemplary service. If it occurs, which it may well do now, it will not be in the best interests of this State, in my view.

In the state of the State address and in a lot of the recent media releases on where we are going there has been reference to salaries. I want to make a comment about the salaries being frozen. You have the Minister, Nick McKim, saying they should be frozen and it should be controlled. There is a household that is bringing in almost half a million dollars a year, a number of cars, a number of vehicles involved as well, and I would have thought that he would have left it to somebody else to make that sort of statement. If it was going to be made it should have been made elsewhere. Some of the comments made about that have been interesting.

I mentioned Professor David Adams yesterday and some of the issues that he raises and I will go back to that again. Child and family centres, Madam President, have been referred to at page 9 of the minister's state of the State address. I congratulate the Government for providing these facilities around the State and in the areas most entitled, perhaps, at this time. There is one at Ravenswood which is under construction. There is another to be built in the Mowbray area. The one that is currently causing grief is in my electorate in George Town. It is interesting that it has been talked about for some time and the difficulty for the people - and the outcry in the community is getting stronger - is where will this building be located. Regent Square has significant historical value and currently there are a lot of questions being asked about the integrity of that square should this building go ahead.

When it came before the council in the first instance for rezoning what happened there is, and I have a quote from the Examiner:

'The State government wants to build the new LINC to incorporate library facilities, an online centre, child and family services and Service Tasmania facilities under one roof.

The George Town Council deferred the decision to the commission on whether to rezone Regent Square to enable the construction of the LINC in the heart of the Northern Tasmanian town.'

The council deferred it to the commission for the commission to make a decision on it. There is angst within the council about its location because they are very protective of Regent Square; they want to protect that site at all costs.

The other point I want to make is that human services were also referred to and they are interesting issues here, Madam President. The category one list continues to blow out - that is in low-cost housing - and it will be interesting to see just where we go in relation to that and how that list is decreased. I am not quite sure how it is going to occur but an issue raised with me recently is that we now have in many of these low-cost houses people whose conditions have changed significantly since they took up their occupation. In some cases those people are reasonably well and off still occupying these homes. We know that if you have one or two working from one of these homes you pay a higher rent. I am not quite sure how that is calculated but the rent is higher. The fact is, though, that those people still remain in a low-cost house and I suppose it would be difficult to say to somebody who has lived in the house for 30 years that they are now out and should find their own home somewhere.

I think what they need to do is have a policy where some incentive can be offered to those people to purchase. An incentive could be provided to those people to either purchase that home or to consider moving off and purchasing their own home if that is what they want to do. We know that these houses are very much in demand. We know that the category one list is increasing so we really do need to see whether we can go with that. It is an interesting matter.

I will just finish by saying that unfortunately the future for this State at the present time is fairly bleak and there is a lot of work to be done to try to recover our position. There will be a lot of heartache and particularly to those services that are providing very close contact with the public 24 hours a day, seven days a week. People like the police service, for instance. If you start seeing their services cut then it can have tragic consequences at the end of the day. It really concerns me, it concerns that department and it would concern everyone who expects a high-quality service which is what we get from Tasmania Police. To drop back in any way is not in our best interests.

I guess we are all interested in where we are going.

Return To Main Page. Return To Speeches.