Dr WOODRUFF – On the Public Trustee and the comments that you were talking about recently, the acting secretary said ‘as we work through the process of responding to the Economic Regulator’. What Tasmanians who are listening don’t understand is that the Economic Regulator has done an assessment and has found areas where efficiencies could be gained or where there are costs that are higher in Tasmania than there are in other states.
There are obviously a range of reasons why that can be the case. Some of them can be managed, obviously, and ought to be addressed by the Public Trustee. Some of them are particular factors in relation to Tasmania and the conditions and situation for people in Tasmania, so obviously there needs to be an investigation. What we don’t understand, and what I want you to explain, is why has the department taken this and decided on the terms of reference for a review which, by the announcement yesterday, is clearly set up to look at privatising parts of, if not all of, the Public Trustee, instead of going back –
Mr BARNETT – That is wrong. Please don’t say that. It is totally wrong.
Dr WOODRUFF – Well, don’t interrupt me. You can respond when I finish my question.
Mr BARNETT – It’s a false allegation.
Dr WOODRUFF – We don’t know where this is going. That’s the point. You’re not being open with Tasmanians –
Mr BARNETT – We have announced it.
CHAIR – Order.
Dr WOODRUFF – about the fact that you’re trying to privatise parts, or all of, the Public Trustee. Why did DOJ have an in-house discussion about what to do about this matter instead of first going to the Public Trustee and pointing to the Economic Regulator’s issues that were raised, and then saying, ‘We obviously need to review the activities of the Public Trustee. We want you to respond to that and then we are going to work with a process to review’. The fact it’s a surprise says you’ve got a predetermined outcome that you’re trying to drive here. Isn’t that what’s really happening? It’s about privatising and taking money into the budget.
Mr BARNETT – Thank you for the question. This is about delivering more effective and cost‑effective services for vulnerable Tasmanians. This is about building a fit‑for‑purpose entity that will deliver better and improved and cost‑effective services to vulnerable Tasmania.
You’ve made reference to the Economic Regulator’s report, which was completed earlier this year. The Public Trustee responded to that report, and the department and likewise Treasury have considered the response and have been working through the findings of that report. I’ve indicated to you some of those findings. It’s on the public record; I draw it to your attention. If you have not already read the report, I’d encourage you to please do so. It makes some very strong findings.
Dr WOODRUFF – Thank you for your patronising comments. I’m here to ask you about your government’s motivation for drawing up a review of the Public Trustee without first going to the board and the CEO, drawing those concerns to their attention and asking them for an urgent response to it. That would seem to be the logical thing to do in this situation, unless you had an intention to privatise the Public Trustee with all the wealth of vulnerable Tasmanians sitting there in assets, and calling that a better outcome for vulnerable Tasmanians. We don’t think that would be the case.
Mr BARNETT – I don’t agree with the foundation of your questions and the allegations made. To be very clear, we have engaged with the Public Trustee since the Bugg review. They have acted on that, the government has implemented all the recommendations, and we’ve then had the Economic Regulator’s report delivered – I think in around February this year.
We have engaged with the Public Trustee. The Public Trustee has responded to that report. We have then further engaged with the Public Trustee. There are regular meetings with the Public Trustee between the Department of Justice and indeed Treasury as appropriate for the responsible stakeholder minister. That is not unusual. We have engaged on an ongoing basis with the Public Trustee, and we are wanting to do what’s best for vulnerable Tasmanians. I think the Economic Regulator’s report is quite revealing and I’ll ask the acting secretary to add to the answer.
Dr WOODRUFF – No, I think that’s enough. My follow-up question is, will you take any change or expansion of the scope of terms of reference for this review from the Public Trustee on board and make those changes?
Mr BARNETT – We will absolutely be consulting with the Public Trustee.
Dr WOODRUFF – That’s not the same thing.
Mr BARNETT – Well, if I can have the chance to answer the question.
CHAIR – Just in the interest of keeping the proceedings as orderly as possible, if the question is asked, let the minister answer the question. But likewise, and I might suggest to the minister, when the questions are being asked, don’t interject while questions are being asked, and you’ll have the opportunity to correct any misgivings you have about the pretext of the question as well. I’ll let the minister answer the question and then I’ll let Dr Woodruff ask a follow-up.
Mr BARNETT – Thank you very much, Chair, I absolutely respect your ruling and appreciate that. In response to the question, to make it clear, there will be a restructure. The question is the design of that restructure and what’s best for vulnerable Tasmanians to ensure that they get not just effective but cost-effective services to support vulnerable Tasmanians. That’s at the forefront of the government’s mind. Having said that, there will be a review over the next six to eight weeks to help make that design.
Dr WOODRUFF – Excuse me, Chair, the Attorney-General is just not answering the question.
Mr BARNETT – Can I finish the question?
Dr WOODRUFF – It’s a very direct question. Will you take on board their terms and change them?
Mr BARNETT – Will you let me finish?
CHAIR – Dr Woodruff, I will let you ask a follow-up; can you let the Attorney-General finish the question.
Mr BARNETT – We will undertake a review over the next six to eight weeks with an independent reviewer, with the purpose of focusing on what is best practice for the new structure. The terms of reference for that review will be prepared and drafted by the Department of Justice with the support of Treasury and Department of Justice. There will be consultation with the Public Trustee on the terms of reference before it is finalised. I can give you that commitment.
In addition, this process will transition over a 12- to 18-month period so that vulnerable Tasmanians should not be concerned in any way, shape or form. The services will continue. We appreciate the good working relationship that we have with the Board of the Public Trustee and the CEO, the management and the staff of the Public Trustee. I want to put that on the record. I thank them for their service and we look forward to ongoing cooperation and collaboration with the Public Trustee.
Dr WOODRUFF – So, you have a six- to eight-week process, you’ve designed it, you’ve talked to Treasury about the outcome, you’ve already worked out what’s going to happen over the next year, you’ve actually decided how you are going to reform the Public Trustee; Treasury and Justice, government have decided how you’re going to reform the Public Trustee. You’ve decided on the process and you’re going to do a sham public pretence of inviting the Public Trustee. Who is the reviewer? Who is doing the review, and you’ve obviously decided who is the person. Will you change the terms of reference if the Public Trustee has things to change about them, to make sure it’s a fair scope? Will you do that?
Mr BARNETT – Thank you for the question. I think it’s a very similar question that you’ve mentioned before. We’ve responded –
Dr WOODRUFF – Which, Chair, the Attorney-General refused to respond to. Just say you don’t want to answer it if you don’t want to answer it.
CHAIR – Dr Woodruff.
Mr BARNETT – I’ve indicated that we’ve responded to the very comprehensive report and recommendations of both the Bugg review and the Economic Regulator, which was released yesterday, I draw it to your attention. We’ve responded to that, we’ve had ongoing consultation with the Public Trustee and going forward there’ll be further ongoing consultation and work, cooperation and collaboration with the Public Trustee. We can give you that commitment. The transition will take 12 months.
Dr WOODRUFF – Who is the reviewer? That was the question. I mean, you don’t want to answer it. It’s happening now, so who is it?
CHAIR – Dr Woodruff, let the Attorney-General answer the question.
Mr BARNETT – Through you, Chair, it’ll take a 12- to 18-month transition in terms of the review of the next six to eight weeks. The reviewer –
Dr WOODRUFF – Chair, this is an abuse of the process of Estimates. This is absolutely abusive. This is a critical issue that’s happening in Tasmania, announced yesterday via media release as you finished upstairs to make sure that no-one could ask you those questions, and here we are today, you won’t even tell us who the reviewer is, it has started now, six to eight weeks, six to eight weeks.
Mr BARNETT – They haven’t been appointed yet.
Dr WOODRUFF – It’s a review cooked up by Treasury and Justice to privatise the Public Trustee. Tell us who the independent reviewer is.
CHAIR – Dr Woodruff, order.
Mr BARNETT – The reviewer has not been appointed.
Dr WOODRUFF – Well, how can that not be when you’re saying it’s going to happen within six weeks? You’re talking about a process which you’ve designed, which is going to be finished and completed, a transition of the Public Trustee within one year. You expect us to believe you’ve got a six‑week process for review – six weeks to review the whole Public Trustee and you haven’t chosen that person. You’ve been repeatedly saying six to eight weeks. You haven’t chosen that person and you haven’t committed to the Public Trustee being able to make the appropriate changes to the scope of reference. This is about privatising a public asset.
CHAIR – Is there a question there, Dr Woodruff?
Dr WOODRUFF – I want him to tell us who the independent reviewer is.
CHAIR – Before this continues, the minister responded to the question and answered in the way that the minister saw fit. I can’t direct the minister to answer a question in a particular way. If the member’s not satisfied with the response, they can ask further questions and you’ve asked plenty of questions. You can come back to it on your next time around, or the member can raise it as a matter of concern in the committee’s report. I can’t tell the minister how to answer a question.
Dr WOODRUFF – Thank you, Chair, for your clarification, but you could at least save the minister from time-wasting for the committee as he is doing repeatedly with three‑minute answers when he’s not answering a question. Just say ‘I won’t answer the question’.
CHAIR – They were very long questions as well. I’m trying to keep this as proportional and fair as possible, but I can’t put words in the minister’s mouth.
I’ll move on to Ms Johnston.
