Mr ADAMS(5.30 p.m.) —There are two issues that I would like to bring to the House's attention today in this grievance debate. The first is an exciting new initiative happening in Tasmania. Previously, Tasmania's clean green image has been to do with air and water and, supposedly, its farming. However, just like the rest of Australia, Tasmanian farms use chemicals and have lots of chemical inputs in their production.

A new company, Green Life Tasmania, will see this `clean green' image restored to the state. The company is in the process of trialling a totally organic rain farm and dairy in the state's far north-west corner, where the world's purest rainwater is proven to drench the soil. Green Life Tasmania intends to collect the water and milk and market them worldwide. They are involved in teaching how to use natural resources to bring life back into the soils.

The bottom line of making things green and clean is to go totally organic, otherwise you have no credence whatsoever. The Liberal government in Tasmania has made `clean green' their policy over the last few weeks, with a total lack of direction. They cannot possibly label products `clean green' when they have been saturated to the heavens with chemicals.

Green Life Tasmania will use the organic fertiliser Vitec and use previously unfarmed soils for its farms. It will be the first truly chemically free, large scale clean green farm, teaching the government to practice what it preaches. This was brought to my attention by Sari Schmidt, a Mount Carmel student from Hobart, who is in the parliament today. I thank her for giving me the opportunity to make those comments.

I would also like to raise another matter, a very serious issue, and draw it to the House's attention—that is, the plight that Tasmania finds itself in. I believe it is because of the withdrawal of considerable amounts of federal funds, the fact that the marketplace has failed in Tasmania and the fact that the current Tasmanian Liberal government does not have a clue about how to stimulate any growth in our economy.

One of the headlines in the Hobart Mercury newspaper on Tuesday, 27 May was that Tasmanians are in peril. The state's population forecast is to drop 11 per cent in the next 50 years. We currently have a population of fewer than half a million, and this means a decline in the number of people in Tasmania by 55,000. Those who remain will have an average age far greater than the national average. This is of particular concern to me in Lyons because the loss of population is most likely to affect the people in the smaller towns. They are the ones who are desperately seeking work. Young people are leaving in droves for interstate because there is nothing happening in our economy.

All the state government has come up with is a scheme to try to attract people to come and live in the state. When a number of people have approached the government to see what it has to offer, the reply has been a lovely glossy brochure with all sorts of pretty pictures and a prize of an odd piece of land should their names be pulled out of a hat at some point in the future. The government added to this some technological dream the Premier had of providing a technological centre based on something happening in New Brunswick in Canada. The idea is basically okay, but it is not the saviour for the state of Tasmania.

Contrast this with what South Australia is offering, which is an all expenses paid removal plus some subsidised accommodation until people settle themselves in; and, if people were serious about changing states for just lifestyle, it would be more of a conducive offer. I think Jim Bacon, the new opposition leader in Tasmania, hit the nail on the head when he recently responded to this government's flights of fantasy by saying that piecemeal population drives and a focus on one emerging industry would not halt the population decline.

Bells, whistles and pretty pictures do not provide jobs, as you know, Mr Deputy Speaker. The government has come up with some incentives. The federal government has given Tasmania away and our federal government members are just letting it. They are not saying anything to stop what this federal government is doing to Tasmania. The state government is no better. All they can do is blame Pauline Hanson. This argument is going to wear thin. She is not responsible for the economic ills of Tasmania; she is merely another symptom of the discontent and disillusionment of the Tasmanian people.

Money has to be invested in industry plans, in infrastructure and in regional development if the Tasmanian economy is to survive. We need a proper transport system, which includes rail. The present minister is selling the whole caboodle of it without really understanding or fitting it into any sort of planning situation for the Tasmanian transport system. We need to have a transport system which includes rail, sea and air. We need the freight equalisation scheme to remain, which is under challenge by this government, which is gradually being pulled away. We need a second ship to transport goods and tourists. We need to stop mucking around with the councils, with our local municipalities, and help them organise themselves with an economic base.

Tasmania has a lot to offer, but it cannot compete with the rest of Australia without the same sorts of initiatives that other states enjoy. The state government really has to analyse the true nature of the problems in Tasmania. We thought we had a bit of an opportunity for this to occur with the Nixon report. Mr Peter Nixon, who was a long-term member of this House and served in coalition governments, is doing a report or updating our previous economic statement, the Callaghan report.

The Premier's direction statement came out without reference, as far as we know, to the Nixon report. So we are left with a few tired politicians chasing pipedreams that cannot possibly come to anything, the latest being Tasmania's belated push to have the Antarctic treaty nation secretariat established in Hobart, against the federal government's better judgment. What about some new ideas, folks? How about assisting the industries we already have? There are plenty of ideas there. With a little constructive help and support from such bodies as Tasmanian Development and Resources, some emerging resources could actually take off and make jobs for the state. Incat has done it. Others can too.

Jobs will strengthen the economy and then there will be some incentives for people. Young people need those incentives to remain in Tasmania and we need incentives to attract others also. You know what they say about rats deserting a sinking ship? The state is sinking and the federal government has scuttled the lifeboats. Tasmania does need a rescue mission.

In recent changes to the upper house in Tasmania, we at last have two women in that formerly male bastion. I believe this is the beginning of change in Tasmania. Silvia Smith, once the federal Labor member for Bass, now has another victory under her belt, and I congratulate her on her election to the Tasmanian upper house last weekend. Mike Aird, another ALP member, retained his seat of Derwent, which is part of the federal electorate of Lyons, with an increased majority of the Labor vote. Sue Smith has also been elected to the upper house after a distinguished career in local government.

Tasmania is ripe for change and the Labor Party's new leader, Jim Bacon, will lead a young and energetic party to victory whenever the next state election is held. They will be looking for a future for Tasmania that will seek to help the people who have a vision for the state—help them and their enterprises become the backbone to encourage new things to happen and entice people to settle in our state. We do not need any more tinkering around the edges. We need some decisions to be made to get our state back on track. We can only do that with a future state Labor government.