Search terms: BARNETT |
Tuesday 21 May 2019
The
Speaker,
Ms
Hickey
,
took
the
Chair
at
10
a.m.,
acknowledged
the
Traditional
People
and
read Prayers.
Housing Crisis - Numbers of New Homes Built
You
have
promised
Tasmanians
that
you
will
build
900
new
homes
by
June
to
address
the
housing
crisis.
You
have
said
this
repeatedly,
including
in
your
Government's
pre-election
glossy
brochure which said, and I quote -
We
are
already
committed
to
building
over
900
new
homes
under
our
affordable
housing strategy four year action plan which commenced in 2015.
As
of
today,
with
a
month
to
go
until
the
deadline
you
set
yourself,
how
many
of
these
900
homes - not homes and lots - have been built to address Tasmania's housing crisis?
ANSWER
Madam
Speaker,
I
thank
the
member
for
her
question.
We
are
the
first
government
to
have
brought on a 10-year, $200 million affordable housing strategy for Tasmania.
Members
interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER
- Order, please.
Mr
JAENSCH
-
If
the
previous
government
had
done
this
the
situation
would
be
quite
different right now.
We
stand
by
our
targets.
We
stand
by
the
$200
million
of
state
money
invested
in
affordable
housing
for
Tasmanians
who
need
it.
The
Opposition
will
have
had
the
opportunity
to
have
a
look
at
our
last
quarterly
housing
report
which
shows
that
we
are
on
track
to
deliver
the
homes
that
we
have
committed
to
provide
for
Tasmanians,
and
to
provide
opportunities
for
people
to
move
from
rental stress into affordable housing.
Yet
again,
in
here,
I
need
to
school
the
Opposition
that
when
they
speak
to
us
about
the
rental
crisis
at
the
moment
and
the
people
who
have
incomes
that
have
enabled
them
to
rent
in
the
past,
they
have
been
saving
for
a
home,
their
rents
have
gone
up,
they
have
no
longer
been
able
to
save
and
that
has
put
them
into
rental
stress,
we
are
addressing
their
needs
too
because
they
are
the
new
entrants to housing stress in Tasmania through this period of increasing rental prices.
Madam SPEAKER
- There is no point of order.
Mr
JAENSCH
-
As
I
was
saying
the
provision
of
housing
that
meets
the
needs
of
Tasmanians
who
are
in
housing
stress
right
now
includes
new
housing
built
for
them
but
also
opportunities
for
them
to
move
into
housing
that
they
can
afford
within
the
private
market,
or
to
build their own home and get themselves out of the rental cycle or out of social housing entirely.
Our
affordable
housing
strategy,
our
action
plan
1,
and
our
new
affordable
housing
action
plan
number
two
addresses
the
full
spectrum
of
need
including
provision
of
new
social
housing.
I
am
happy
to
advise
that
we
remain
on
track
to
meet
our
target
for
delivery
of
social
housing
targets
before
the
end
of
this
financial
year.
Before
the
end
of
June
we
will
deliver
the
houses
that
we have promised. They are on track right now.
I
am
proud
of
our
record.
I
am
proud
of
our
$200
million
affordable
housing
strategy
and
I
just
wish
that
the
Labor
government
had
done
something
slightly
like
this
when
they
were
in
power because they would have addressed this need ahead of time.
Housing Crisis - Availability of Housing
Ms WHITE
question to MINISTER for HOUSING
,
Mr JAENSCH
[10.08 a.m.]
You
know
that
on
any
given
night
1600
Tasmanians
are
homeless.
You
know
many
hundreds
more are couch surfing relying on family and friends, and sleeping in sheds and in their vehicles.
gallery
today
is
Nikki
Russell.
Nikki
is
a
single
mother
of
four
children
aged
under
10.
Until
six
weeks
ago
she
was
living
in
a
shed.
Now
Nikki
and
her
children
are
living
in
a
women's
shelter.
In
the
next
two
weeks
she
will
have
to
leave
the
shelter
and
she
has
nowhere
to
go.
Nikki
is
on
the
Housing
Tasmania
waiting
list
along
with
more
than
3200
other
Tasmanians
who
will
wait an average of 56 weeks, more than a year, minister, to be housed.
Today
you
are
telling
Tasmanians
that,
after
half
a
decade
of
unacceptable
inaction
on
housing
affordability
and
homelessness,
your
Government
is
bringing
forward
some
funding.
We
already
know
that
you
did
that
last
year.
You
brought
funding
forward
but
you
failed
to
spend
it.
Today you cannot even tell us how many homes you have built.
After
half
a
decade
of
talk
and
inaction
can
you
tell
Nikki
Russell,
who
is
in
the
gallery
today,
where she and her children are supposed to live in two weeks time?
ANSWER
Madam
Speaker,
I
thank
the
member
for
her
question.
I
have
great
empathy
for
all
the
people
out
there
in
Tasmania
who
find
themselves
in
housing
stress
at
the
moment.
We
know
that
there
are
many
of
them.
We
know
that
there
are
people
who
are
homelessness
and
there
are
people
in
housing stress.
We
are
taking
action
to
respond
to
them.
I
can
reassure
them
their
needs
are
top
of
mind
for
us.
That
is
why,
in
the
case
of
homelessness
services,
this
financial
year
we
have
invested
$1.2
million
in
an
outreach
service
which
is
out
there
every
day
where
we
know
people
gather
when
they
need
shelter,
who
are
visiting
people
who
are
sleeping
rough,
who
are
responding
to
people
who
are
arriving
at
shelters,
assessing
their
needs
and
connecting
them
with
the
services
available
to
them.
I
stress,
again,
like
the
need
for
housing,
the
needs
for
people
in
acute
housing
stress
are
very
individual
and
they
need
an
individualised
service
response
and
that
is
what
we
are
providing.
Certainly,
there
is
brokerage
funding
in
there
to
secure
accommodation
for
them
and
shelter
when
they
need
it.
We
are
moving
out
into
the
community
to
find
and
connect
with
people,
to
understand
their
individual
needs
and
to
connect
them
to
the
wide
range
of
services
that
are available to them out there.
Can
we
prevent
people
getting
into
housing
stress?
That
is
a
bigger,
longer
conversation
for
us
to
have
but
we
are
putting
the
resources
out
there
to
respond
to
people
in
need.
I
encourage
all
members
here
and
those
in
your
networks
who
are
concerned
about
or
know
of
people
in
housing
stress
to,
in
the
very
first
instance,
call
the
1800
number
for
Housing
Connect.
This
is
the
service
that
we
have
set
up
to
receive
those
concerns
and
to
respond
to
them
comprehensively.
I
am
confident
that
through
Housing
Connect
and
their
network
of
services
we
have
the
resources
out
there
to
respond
to
people's
needs.
I
encourage
anybody
who
finds
themselves
in
housing
stress
to
contact Housing Connect in the first instance.
Coordinator-General - Right to Information Request for Release of Diary
[10.12 a.m.]
is
a
public
servant
under
the
State
Service
Act.
He
is
paid
$446
000
to
cosy
up
to
business,
travel
internationally
-
mostly
to
China
-
and
initiate
trade
in
public
assets.
Mr
Perry
is
a
public
servant.
Therefore,
how
he
spends
his
time
on
the
taxpayers'
coin
is
a
matter
of
public
interest.
Your
Government
in
its
ongoing
erosion
of
the
spirit
and
intent
of
the
Right
to
Information
Act
2009
is
refusing
to
release
this
extremely
highly
paid
public
servant's
diary.
Is
this
not
giving
the
middle
finger
to
the
public's
right
to
know?
How
do
you
justify
this
secrecy
and contempt for transparency?
ANSWER
Madam
Speaker,
I
thank
the
member
for
her
question
and
correct
her
assertions
by,
again,
confirming
that
this
Government
has
strengthened
our
RTI
laws.
Our
processes
were
exactly
the
same
as
was
applied
under
your
government,
the
Labor-Greens
government.
Our
RTI
officers
are
independent
people
so
at
every
turn
when
opposition
parties
criticise
the
processes
they
are
criticising
these
independent
officers.
A
number
of
them
served
under
the
Labor-Greens
government.
It
is
important
that
they
be
allowed
to
operate
independently
and
to
ensure
that
the
act is applied appropriately as it is under my Government and I would hope it was under yours.
With
respect
to
the
Office
of
the
Coordinator-General,
which
is
an
important
one,
it
has
not
been
supported
by
the
Labor
Party
all
the
time
-
sometimes
it
has.
It
was
a
great
example
of
the
Labor
Party
wanting
to
take
an
important
government
resource
out
of
Launceston,
to
strip
the
Government
of
an
important
facilitator
of
economic
growth
and
investment
in
our
state
which
is
supporting
jobs
and
Tasmania's
economic
prosperity.
It
is
important
that
we
have
an
office
that
is
equipped to ensure that Tasmania continues to have such a strongly performing economy.
With
respect
to
the
RTI
request
to
which
the
member
refers,
on
16
May
it
was
reported
in
the
Mercury
newspaper
that
the
Department
of
State
Growth
has
signalled
that
it
may
not
release
the
diary
details
of
the
Coordinator-General
being
sought
under
the
Right
to
Information
laws.
Under
the
act
there
are
potential
considerations
around,
not
only
third-party
consultation
with
meeting
participants
in
regard
to
personal
information
but
also
commercial-in-confidence
matters
that
would
warrant
assessment.
It
is
entirely
appropriate
that
any
person,
any
public
officer,
including
parliamentarians
who
meet
with
individuals
or
organisations,
that
we
should
allow
those
individuals
or
organisations
to
also
be
aware
of
their
rights
under
these
laws,
and
also
ensure
that
where there are matters that occur in commercial-in-confidence, that they be respected.
We
are
not
like
the
Labor-Greens
coalition
-
all
care
and
no
responsibility
about
these
matters.
They
are
important
if
we
are
going
to
continue
to
see
such
strong
investment
in
our
state,
which
is
the
highest
in
the
country.
We
need
to
ensure
that
our
businesses
and
the
investors,
wherever
they
are
from,
can
do
so
confidently
in
Tasmania
knowing
that
the
Labor
Party
or
the
Greens
are
not
going
to
use
them
as
political
playthings
and
damage
their
confidence
in
our
state,
which
is
also
the highest in the country.
In
this
case,
the
request
is
being
assessed
by
departmental
RTI
officers:
again,
I
say
importantly
at
arms-length
from
government
and
also
from
the
Coordinator-General.
I
am
advised
that
in
communications
with
the
Mercury
the
department
advised
the
RTI
request
would
involve
a
large
amount
of
staff
time
and
resources
to
fulfil.
The
RTI
request
is
not
being
refused,
as
has
been
made
clear
publicly,
including
to
the
Mercury
.
It
remains
in
progress
and
once
a
decision
has
been
made,
there
are
avenues
for
review
should
an
applicant
not
agree
with
the
assessment
of
the independent RTI officer.
Federal Election Result - Impact on Tasmania
Mr SHELTON question to PREMIER, Mr HODGMAN
[10.17 a.m.]
Can you update the House on what the results for the federal election mean for Tasmania?
ANSWER
I
thank
the
member
for
his
question
and
the
opportunity
to
talk
about
what
was
a
remarkable
victory
for
the
Morrison
coalition
government.
It
was
a
bolt
from
the
blue,
against
the
odds
and
against
the
polls.
It
was
an
understanding
endorsement
for
the
Coalition
and
the
plan
for
our
economy,
for
Tasmanian
jobs,
for
national
jobs,
for
more
investment
into
health
and education, into infrastructure to secure our schools and to protect our way of life.
These
are,
of
course,
the
same
priorities
that
our
Government
took
to
an
election
just
over
a
year
ago.
It
does
look
like
the
return
of
another
majority
Liberal
government,
as
it
was
here
just
a
year ago.
I
congratulate
Prime
Minister
Scott
Morrison,
the
messiah
from
the
shire,
and
his
team
on
a
stunning
result.
I
also
take
the
opportunity
to
acknowledge
all
those
who
ran
in
our
state
for
public
office,
and
those
who
were
unsuccessful.
I
want
to
include
in
that
the
former
member
for
Braddon,
Justine
Keay;
former
Labor
senator,
Lisa
Singh,
who
was
unceremoniously
dumped
by
Labor
members
and
that
is
regrettable.
She
served
in
this
place
with
distinction
and
in
our
federal
parliament. I thank all of them for their service to our state and to the federal parliament.
I
congratulate
the
newly-elected
member
for
Braddon,
Gavin
Pearce,
on
a
tremendous
result
on
the
magnificent
north-west
coast.
While
the
count
is
still
tight,
Bridget
Archer
in
Bass,
is
another
sensational
turnaround.
Claire
Chandler
will
represent
the
Liberal
Party
in
the
Senate,
and
it is wonderful to see two outstanding Liberal women being elected to our federal parliament.
To all those who were re-elected, my congratulations.
It
was
a
strong
endorsement
of
the
Morrison
government.
It
was
a
strong
endorsement
of
its
policies,
its
plans
for
our
state,
its
focus
on
the
budget,
on
the
economy,
on
investing
in
essential
services,
building
the
infrastructure
our
state
needs,
and
supporting
businesses
and
industry
to
grow
and
create
jobs.
It
was
also
a
recognition
of
what
we
have
achieved
together
-
our
Government and theirs supporting great outcomes for our state.
I
want
to
remind
members
of
this
place,
and
anyone
else
who
has
an
interest,
of
the
wide
and
diverse
spread
of
commitments
that
we
have
secured
-
support
for
our
schools
and
hospitals,
$107
million
into
health
commitments,
$30
million
for
affordable
housing
in
Greater
Hobart,
$100
million
for
irrigation
schemes,
$56
million
to
progress
our
vision
to
be
the
nation's
renewable
battery, and $70 million for an innovative blue economy research centre.
We
have
secured
support
for
Cradle
Mountain,
Freycinet,
and
our
booming
visitor
economy,
and
major
commitments
for
road
infrastructure
right
across
the
state,
including
$130
million
for
the
south-east
traffic
solution,
$25
million
for
congestion-busting
initiatives
in
Greater
Hobart,
$40
million
for
the
Sidling
Road
upgrade
in
the
north-east,
and
$64
million
for
the
Illawarra
Main
Road.
These
are
only
some
examples.
Tasmanians
will
also
benefit
from
lower
taxes,
instant
asset
write-offs
for
some
small
and
medium
businesses,
and
assistance
for
first
home
buyers.
That
will support Tasmanians right across the state.
In
conclusion,
there
is
still
much
more
to
do.
This
was
a
strong
endorsement
of
the
Morrison
coalition's
policy.
It
was
certainly
a
very
strong
rejection
of
Labor,
Bill
Shorten
and
their
policies
and
plans
for
the
nation
-
untried,
untested
and
unconvincing
and,
I
must
say,
very
similar
to
what
we
saw
this
time
last
year
after
our
election.
On
this
occasion,
there
was
a
gracious
concession
speech
from
the
leader
of
the
Labor
Party.
I
have
heard
and
seen
some
very
disappointed
Labor
members
very
unhappy
with
the
result,
drowning
their
sorrows,
and
very
bitter
about
what
went
down,
cursing
the
result,
not
accepting
the
will
of
the
people
and,
worse
still,
basically
telling
Tasmanians that they are stupid and did not know what they were doing.
As
we
did
last
year,
and
as
we
are
doing
now,
we
will
get
on
with
the
job
this
week.
We
will
deliver
a
budget
that
continues
the
momentum
and
growth
in
our
state.
I
will
always
stand
up
for
our
state,
every
single
part
of
it.
Our
state
is
best
served
by
having
a
Morrison
government
returned in Canberra, working alongside a Liberal government here in Tasmania.
Government members -
Hear, hear.
Housing Crisis - Availability of Housing
Ms WHITE
question to PREMIER, Mr HODGMAN
[10.22 a.m.]
Nikki
Russell,
who
is
in
the
gallery
today,
is
in
such
a
desperate
situation
that
she
took
the
time
to
send
this
hand-written
letter
to
both
you
and
me.
If
you
had
taken
the
time
to
read
it,
you
would
know
that
Ms
Russell
is
in
an
extremely
desperate
situation.
Have
you
made
yourself
aware
of
Ms
Russell's
situation?
Do
you
agree
that
her
story
is
not
unique
in
the
housing
crisis
your
Government
has
overseen?
What
do
you
say
to
Ms
Russell
and
hundreds
of
other
Tasmanian
families who are unable to access a fundamental human right to have a roof over their heads?
Madam
Speaker,
as
the
minister
has
said,
we
are
very
conscious
of
the
housing
stress
in
our
community.
The
sad
state
of
Tasmanians
needing
a
home,
homeless
Tasmanians,
and
those
suffering
housing
stress
across
the
spectrum
is
of
great
concern
to
me
and
our
Government.
We
are
approaching
this
with
great
priority
and
urgency.
We
are
approaching
it
in
a
different
way
to
former
governments.
We
have
been
prepared
to
engage
with
stakeholders,
including
the
Opposition,
to
formulate
new
ways
of
dealing
with
this
matter
and
to
ensure
that
we
as
a
government
are
investing
all
we
can
into
better
housing
outcomes
off
the
back
of
historic
affordable
housing
plans
which
have
historic
levels
of
funding
and
are
being
delivered
as
collaboratively, effectively and as efficiently as we can, as the minister has previously outlined.
Our
concerns
are
with
all
Tasmanians
suffering
from
the
lack
of
a
home
or
housing
stress.
We
are
doing
all
we
can
to
deliver
on
better
outcomes
as
quickly
as
we
can.
Our
Budget
will,
as
it
has
on
previous
occasions,
and
again
with
the
support
of
the
Commonwealth,
the
coalition
Morrison government, that has also increased its investment into housing in Tasmania -
Ms O'Connor
- Has it? It has not.
Mr
HODGMAN
-
They
made
a
commitment
during
the
federal
campaign.
It
is
one
of
the
positive
things
that
will
be
delivered
by
a
coalition
government
and
we
will
certainly
do
all
we
can to continue the progress of improved outcomes for Tasmanians needing a home.
Budget 2019-20 - Financial Management and Revenue Downgrade
Mrs RYLAH
question to TREASURER, Mr GUTWEIN
[10.25 a.m.]
Can
you
please
update
the
House
on
the
Hodgman
Liberal
Government's
record
of
strong
financial
management,
and
how
will
the
Government
address
its
significant
revenue
downgrade
in
GST receipts and stamp duty in this year's Budget?
ANSWER
Madam
Speaker,
I
thank
the
member
for
her
question
and
her
support
for
this
Government's
strong
financial
management.
The
Hodgman
Liberal
Government's
record
of
strong
financial
management
is
there
for
all
to
see.
We
inherited
$1.1
billion-worth
of
cumulative
deficits
but
we
have
turned
that
around.
We
delivered
three
surpluses
ahead
of
schedule
and,
instead
of
seeing
red, the Government is back in the black.
A
balanced
budget
provides
confidence
in
the
business
community
and
the
wider
community
and
ensures
we
have
sufficient
funds
in
reserve
as
an
insurance
policy
to
cover
the
cost
associated
with unforeseen events such as fire or flood, and respond to the circumstances at the time.
year,
the
surplus
meant
that
the
Government
was
able
to
respond
to
unprecedented
increases
in
health
demand,
and
we
invested
in
an
additional
$105
million
into
health.
The
surplus
also
provided
us
with
the
capacity
and
the
flexibility,
in
conjunction
with
the
Australian Government, to respond to this year's wildfires.
As
I
have
announced
recently,
the
2018-19
Budget
is
on
track
to
achieve
a
modest
surplus
which
will
be
the
Government's
fourth
surplus
in
a
row.
At
the
same
time,
our
growing
economy
and
strong
budget
position
provides
the
capacity
to
invest
back
into
services
and
into
infrastructure. With confidence comes investment, jobs and economic growth.
In
terms
of
the
service
levels
we
are
delivering,
when
you
look
back
at
the
previous
government
when
the
then
minister
for
health
sacked
a
nurse
a
day
-
and
it
must
be
a
family
thing
because
her
brother
was
sacking
police
as
well,
over
100
-
in
the
first
term
of
our
Government
we
hired
375
nurses,
142
teachers,
over
100
doctors,
more
than
50
paramedics,
over
60
allied
health,
and
over
113
police
officers.
These
results
are
only
possible
with
strong
budget
management
and
Tasmanians can expect that we will continue in that vein.
Today
we
have
announced
some
changes
to
the
foreign
investor
duty
surcharge
-
FIDS
-
which
ensures
that
foreign
investors
will
pay
a
fair
share
of
state
taxation
and
do
not
artificially
drive
up
prices
by
reducing
the
supply
of
housing
and
primary
production
land.
The
2019-20
state
Budget
will
increase
the
rate
of
FIDS
on
the
purchase
of
residential
properties
from
3
per
cent
to
7
per
cent
and
will
bring
Tasmania
into
line
with
other
states
and
territories.
The
rate
of
FIDS
on
the
purchase
of
primary
production
land
will
also
increase
from
0.5
per
cent
up
to
1.5
per
cent.
These
increases
will
be
implemented
from
1
January
2020
and
there
will
be
a
review
of
the
definition
of
'foreign
persons'
to
ensure
we
remain
consistent
with
the
Government's
original
policy
intent.
During
2019-20,
the
Government,
in
consultation
with
stakeholders,
will
also
develop
a
foreign
investor
land
tax
surcharge
to
ensure
that
all
market
participants
pay
their
fair
share.
As
I
previously
updated
the
House,
we
have
faced
a
writedown
of
more
than
half
a
billion
dollars
in
receipts
from
stamp
duty
and
GST.
More
than
half
a
billion
dollars
less
in
revenue
has
meant
the
Government
has
also
had
to
look
closely
at
its
expenditures.
We
will
act
in
a
considered
and
responsible
matter
to
meet
these
challenges.
We
will
need
to
ensure
that
the
public
sector is as efficient and effective as possible.
The
2019-20
Budget
will
include
a
very
modest
efficiency
dividend
to
ensure
the
public
service
is
as
efficient
and
effective
as
it
can
be.
The
Government
will
work
with
agencies
to
deliver
these
savings
and
the
focus
will
be
on
expenditure
such
as
consultants,
travel
and
transport,
advertising
and
promotion,
together
with
targeted
vacancy
control
and
natural
employee
attrition
without
affecting
frontline
essential
services.
These
measures
ensure
that
we
can
deliver
the
services
Tasmanians
expect
from
the
Government's
commitment
to
protect
essential
services
and minimise the impact on service delivery remains, as I have said.
We
have
had
to
make
some
difficult
decisions
but
we
are
determined
that
we
will
unashamedly
continue
to
invest
in
infrastructure
which
will
help
drive
our
economy
to
deliver
increased
investments
into
health
and
education
and
will
support
the
employment
of
thousands
of
Tasmanians during the construction phase.
I will have more to say on Thursday about these matters.
Kangaroo Bay Foreshore Development - Office of Coordinator-General
Dr WOODRUFF
question to PREMIER, Mr HODGMAN
[10.30 a.m.]
The
Kangaroo
Bay
foreshore,
once
public
land,
was
sold
to
the
Shandong
Chambroad
petrochemical
company
behind
the
closed
doors
of
the
Office
of
Coordinator-General
despite
massive
community
opposition.
Now
taxpayers'
funds
are
being
spent
to
fly
Mr
Perry
to
Binzhou
China
on
a
rescue
mission
for
this
divisive
development.
Despite
Mr
Perry's
assertions
there
is
no
reason
other
than
the
Kangaroo
Bay
development
for
him
to
visit
Binzhou,
it
is
an
oil
refinery
centre
not
a
centre
for
agriculture
or
education.
It
is
a
very
long
way
from
Tasmania's
established
relationships in Fujian.
We
understand
there
is
significant
fragility
in
the
Chinese
petrochemical
market
and
Chambroad
may
be
under
substantial
pressure
from
China's
big
three
national
oil
operators.
The
last
thing
the
people
of
Clarence
need
-
given
it
never
had
community
support
-
is
a
dodgy
developer
with
shaky
financials
to
half
build
a
hotel
and
leave
an
unfinished
eyesore
on
prime
Kangaroo Bay foreshore.
you
really
sending
the
Coordinator-General
over
to
Binzhou?
What
is
the
actual
problem and will you release the cost to taxpayers for this rescue delegation?
ANSWER
Madam
Speaker,
I
thank
the
member
for
the
question
and
the
very
clear
illustration
of
the
difference
between
this
Government
which
supports
economic
growth,
progress,
investments
in
important
things
like
education
and
the
anti-development,
anti-everything
Greens.
The
contrast
could not be clearer.
This
project,
which
includes
a
boutique
hotel
linked
to
the
international
hospitality
college,
will
be
a
game
changer
for
the
sector,
also
for
the
eastern
shore,
in
a
very
special
part
of
the
eastern
shore.
As
a
local
member,
I
know
many
people
in
the
community
support
what
is
occurring
by
way
of
development
in
that
area.
It
is
certainly
normal
process
and
practice
for
meetings
to
occur
between
developers
and
key
stakeholders
of
which
the
Office
of
the
Coordinator-General
is
one.
It
is
an
$85
million
redevelopment
that
will
deliver
a
globally
leading
international
hospitality
management
college
linked
to
the
boutique
hotel,
restaurants
and
conference facilities.
The
forthcoming
meetings
in
China.
which
will
be
attended
by
the
Mayor
of
the
Clarence
City
Council,
Doug
Chipman,
and
the
Coordinator-General,
John
Perry,
will
include
meetings
in
the
cities
of
Binzhou
and
Boxing
to
emphasise
that
bringing
the
Kangaroo
Bay
development
to
fruition
is
a
priority
for
the
Tasmanian
Government
and
the
Clarence
City
Council.
It
is
vital
that
we
continue
to
promote
our
state
as
a
place
to
invest
in
and
that
includes
in
China
as
our
largest
trading partner.
It
planned
that
the
Coordinator-General
and
the
Mayor
of
Clarence
City
Council,
Mr
Chipman,
will
visit
China.
The
purpose
is
to
strengthen
the
relationship
with
Shandong
Province
in
China
and
to
demonstrate
support
for
existing
and
future
Chinese
investment
in
Tasmania.
It
is
also
to
assist
in
building
our
strategic
relationships
to
emphasise
the
importance
of
international
trade
and
investment
to
our
state.
Meetings
will
occur
with
the
government
of
Binzhou
during
the
mission
to
discuss
investment
in
agriculture,
tourism
and
education,
and
to
articulate
the
importance of the Kangaroo Bay development. It also provides an opportunity -
Members
interjecting.
Mr HODGMAN
- You asked why they are going and I am telling you.
It
is
an
important
opportunity
also
for
the
Clarence
City
Council
to
build
on
its
friendship
city
cooperation
in
line
with
the
memorandum
of
understanding
between
the
cities
of
Clarence
and
Binzhou
which
was
signed
in
May
2017.
A
meeting
will
also
occur
with
the
Chairman
of
Shandong
Chambroad
Holdings
to
emphasise
that
bringing
the
project
at
Kangaroo
Bay
to
fruition
is a high priority, not only for this Government but for the Clarence City Council.
Any
costs
that
are
incurred
the
state
will
be
disclosed
at
a
time
that
they
are
known.
I
am
not
going
to
speculate
as
to
that
until
those
costs
are
known.
That
also
demonstrates
that
the
Greens
are
not
interested
in
the
facts.
They
are
only
interested
in
whipping
up
fear,
hysteria
and
talking down development opportunities for our state.
Ms STANDEN question to PREMIER, Mr HODGMAN
[10.35 a.m.]
Nikki
Russell
and
her
four
children
aged
10,
8,
4
and
18
months
will
be
homeless
within
a
fortnight
with
absolutely
nowhere
to
turn
because
they
were
forced
out
of
the
unaffordable,
private
rental
market
and
have
very
little
hope
of
accessing
public
housing,
despite
being
on
the
priority
waiting
list.
This
is
the
human
face
of
the
housing
crisis
and
Ms
Russell's
story
is
certainly not unique.
Ms
Russell
and
her
children
are
on
the
verge
of
having
to
live
on
the
streets.
The
Examiner
newspaper
today
tells
the
shocking
story
of
a
family
of
four
living
in
a
shipping
container
as
winter
approaches.
We
have
been
contacted
by
a
disabled
pensioner
who
is
living
in
his
car
in
Sorell.
Another
man,
from
Hobart's
northern
suburbs,
has
been
living
under
a
bridge
for
more
than a year.
What
do
you
say
to
these
people
who
are
in
desperate
situations?
Can
you
confirm
that
Tasmanians
caught
in
the
housing
crisis
are
being
told
by
your
Government
that
current
public
housing tenants will need 'to die' before people on the waiting list are housed?
ANSWER
[10.36 a.m.]
as
I
have
said
and
as
the
minister
has
said,
we
are
certainly
aware
of
Ms
Russell's
circumstances.
Housing
Connect
is
best
placed
to
help
and
to
connect
her
and
anyone
else
in
need
to
be
connected
to
a
range
of
services
that
are
available.
Housing
Connect
is
charged
with
the
responsibility
of
helping
to
find
Tasmanians
safe
and
secure
accommodation
in
a
state
that
is
suffering
great
stress
in
this
sector,
which
we
know
of,
which
we
appreciate
and
which
we
are responding to.
As
announced
through
our
Affordable
Housing
Action
Plan,
we
are
frontloading
our
investment
as
well
to
bring
forward
the
opportunities
for
more
Tasmanians
to
have
access
to
social
and
affordable
homes.
We
are
well
aware
of
the
issues.
It
is
why
we
are
responding
with
the
urgency and the priority, as is evidence by our commitment.
Housing Crisis - Availability of Housing
Ms STANDEN question to MINISTER for HOUSING, Mr JAENSCH
[10.38 a.m.]
Families
like
Nikki
Russell's
are
being
torn
about
because
your
Government
has
failed
to
provide
housing
for
Tasmania's
most
vulnerable.
Ms
Russell
and
her
four
children
will
be
homeless
within
a
fortnight
and
face
the
terrifying
prospect
of
living
on
the
streets.
In
those
circumstances,
this
desperate
young
mother
faces
the
very
real
prospect
of
her
children
being
taken away from her.
You
that
the
average
cost
of
caring
for
each
child
in
the
child
safety
system
is
$300
000
a
year
and
you
know
that
a
much
better
and
cheaper
option
would
be
to
house
this
family
of
four
together.
Homelessness
is
having
a
devastating
impact
on
the
ability
of
Tasmanians
to
care
for
their
children.
How
many
children
have
been
taken
from
their
families
and
placed
into
care
because of a lack of housing, which is contributing to this as a factor?
ANSWER
Madam
Speaker,
I
thank
the
member
for
her
question.
It
was
unclear
at
the
end
of
that
how
it
framed
as
a
question,
but
I
am
happy
to
respond
to
the
issues
that
the
member
has
raised.
I
reiterate
what
I
have
said
before
and
what
the
Premier
has
also
We
have
absolute
respect
for
the
sensitivities
of
the
individual
circumstances
of
people
who
find
themselves
in
housing
stress.
I
do
not
have
permission,
and
I
do
not
have
the
intention
of
speaking
about
the
circumstances of individual people in here without their permission -
I believe
the most
important thing,
and what
is happening
is that
the publicly
funded services,
the
services
that
have
been
stood
up
over
the
last
12
months
that
have
been
part
of
our
affordable
housing
action
plan,
which
are
trained
and
resourced
to
reach
out,
to
speak
with,
to
match
services
to people's needs -
Ms
STANDEN
-
Madam
Speaker,
point
of
order.
It
goes
to
relevance.
The
question
was
very
clear.
I
would
like
the
minister
to
explain
how
many
children
have
been
taken
from
their
families because they have no roof over their heads?
Madam
SPEAKER
-
I
am
going
to
have
to
rule
that
it
is
not
a
point
of
order,
but
a
point
of
clarification on your question. The minister did state he did not understand the question.
Members
interjecting.
Mr
JAENSCH
-
The
member
in
her
clarification
has
identified
that
she
is
conflating
two
complex and very sensitive issues, in terms of families -
Opposition members
interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER
- Order. Please allow the minister to respond.
Mr
JAENSCH
-
The
circumstances
under
which,
for
their
safety
children
may
be
removed
from
a
family,
and
the
circumstances
of
a
family
that
finds
itself
in
acute
homelessness
or
housing
stress
are
very
individual,
very
complex.
I
will
not
comment
on
them
generically,
let
alone
join
them
together
as
if
I
have
a
column
in
a
report
with
a
number
on
it
that
I
am
going
to
respond
that
way. No way.
We
have
services
dealing
with
child
safety.
We
have
services
aimed
at
addressing
homelessness
and
housing
stress
which
are
geared
to
appreciating
and
responding
to
the
complex
needs
of
the
individual
cases.
I
will
be
speaking
about
the
details
of
those
cases
here.
It
is
wrong
to characterise them more generically to make a political point.
What
I
am
confident
of,
is
that
this
Government
is
investing
more
state
resources
than
ever
before
in
providing
for
homelessness
and
affordable
housing
solutions
for
Tasmanians
who
need
them.
I
am
proud
of
the
affordable
housing
strategy
that
our
Government
has
brought,
that
we
continue to invest in and that this week's budget will see increased investment in.
TasWater - Trade Waste Policy
Ms DOW question to TREASURER, Mr GUTWEIN
[10.42 a.m.]
In August 2017 you said -
minded
trade
waste
policy
is
having
a
devastating
impact
on
hundreds
of
businesses
around
the
state.
In
fact,
I've
been
told
it
has
actually
contributed
to
businesses
shutting
down.
It's
absolutely
ridiculous
and
it
needs
to be stopped now before it destroys more Tasmanian businesses.
The
fact
is,
businesses
are
closing
because
you
have
failed
to
fix
trade
waste
despite
claiming
that you have. TasWater has written to Labor saying -
It
is
important
to
note
that
the
of
complying
with
environmental
regulations
also
jeopardises
the
viability
of
many
smaller
commercial
operations
like
local
bakeries,
cafes
or
hairdressers
who,
though
small,
collectively
employ
You
are
now
a
part-owner
of
TasWater
and
you
said
you
had
fixed
this,
but
is
it
not
the
reality
that
you
have
done
nothing
more
than
talk
about
it
while
small
mum
and
dad
businesses
have
been closing?
ANSWER
As
this
House
is
well
aware,
we
have
recently
established
a
partnership
with
TasWater,
one
which I have to say that side of the House fought tooth and nail to stop us from doing.
Since
we
have
established
that
partnership,
as
members
would
be
aware,
we
have
agreed
to
invest
$200
million
into
TasWater
to
ensure
that
we
can
keep
prices
lower
but
importantly
we
can
accelerate
the
$1.8
billion
infrastructure
spend.
That
$200
million,
as
an
investment
from
the
state,
is
money
very
well
spent.
We
had
known
for
decades
that
we
needed
to
do
more
in
respect
to
water
and
sewerage
in
this
state.
It
has
taken
this
Government
to
step
up
to
the
plate
and
form
that partnership and begin that investment program.
I
understand,
in
terms
of
the
matters
that
the
member
has
raised,
and
we
have
spoken
with
TasWater
in
respect
of
these,
that
they
already
offer
a
range
of
support.
In
fact,
TasWater
offers
a
no
interest
repayment
scheme
to
small
business
to
help
cover
the
cost
of
installing
or
upgrading
a
compliant
trade
waste
pre-treatment
system.
I
encourage
anybody
who
runs
a
small
business
that
has
an
issue
with
pre-treatment
of
waste
to
ensure
that
they
engage
fully
with
TasWater
and
use
the assistance that is provided.
As
I
understand
it,
the
no
interest
repayment
scheme
to
help
cover
the
cost
of
installing
or
upgrading
compliant
trade
waste
pre-treatment
systems,
that
under
this
scheme
repayment
contracts
are
available
to
owners
of
properties
that
house
TasWater
category
2
trade
waste
customers
and
will
provide
for
up
to
80
per
cent
of
the
total
cost
of
works
and
equipment
required
to meet the trade waste compliance.
Members
interjecting.
Mr
-
The
Leader
of
the
Opposition
asks,
'What
have
you
done
about
it?'
I
just
explained
that
we
have
invested
$200
million
to
improve
water
and
sewerage
outcomes
in
We
have
engaged
with
TasWater
in
respect
of
this
issue
and
they
now
offer
a
no
interest
repayment
scheme
and
I
would
encourage
small
business
to
engage
fully
with
TasWater
and
utilise
the
mechanisms
that
are
available
to
them
to
enable
them
to
upgrade
their
waste
pre-treatment systems.
_______________________________
Madam
SPEAKER
-
Honourable
members,
I
welcome
the
Legal
Studies
3
class
from
Rosny
College. And I remind members that your debating skills are on show.
Members
- Hear, hear.
_______________________________
Housing Demand
[10.48 a.m.]
Can
you
update
the
House
on
the
measures
that
the
majority
Liberal
Government
is
ANSWER
Madam
Speaker,
I
thank,
my
colleague,
Mr
for
his
question
and
his
interest
in
the
matter.
I
am
pleased
to
confirm
for
the
House
today
that
this
year's
Budget
will
see
the
Liberal
Government's
investment
continue
in
essential
services
and
infrastructure
that
our
growing
state
needs,
including
housing.
The
Liberal
Government
is
maintaining
the
momentum
and
investing
for
growth
in
this
year's
state
Budget
and,
in
doing
so,
we
are
working
hard
to
Whilst
a
strongly
performing
property
market
is
welcome
for
Tasmania's
economy,
it
is
important
that
we
ensure
that
all
Tasmanians
can
afford
housing
that
meets
their
needs.
That
is
why
we
have
announced
a
range
of
initiatives
to
increase
the
supply
of
housing
in
across
the
entire
spectrum
of
need.
This
includes
our
second
action
plan
as
part
of
our
10-year
affordable
housing
strategy
which
I
launched
earlier
this
year.
We
brought
forward
$25
million
into
last
year's
budget
in
recognition
of
increased
demand.
To
further
accelerate
the
building
of
more
houses
to
address
supply
challenges
we
have
decided
to
heavily
front
end
the
funding
for
our action plan 2 over the next four years.
Today
I
announce
that
the
total
funding
allocated
in
the
next
financial
year
out
of
the
$125
million affordable housing action plan will be $40.5 million.
Mr O'Byrne
- Is there any additional money?
Mr
JAENSCH
-
Of
the
five-year
allocation
that
we
announced
in
last
year's
budget,
around
a
third
of
that
will
be
invested
in
one
financial
year
to
address
and
respond
to
the
continuing
critical
The
budget
papers
will
also
show
a
further
$27.4
million
allocated
for
Housing
Tasmania's
capital
program
this
financial
year,
including
the
purchase
and
construction
of
new
social
housing
to
support
the
initiatives
in
our
second
action
plan.
This
means
the
Budget
we
will
bring
down
on
Thursday
will
see
almost
$68
million
invested
to
boost
the
supply
of
new
social
and
affordable
The
2019-20
state
Budget
is
focused
on
maintaining
the
momentum
in
Tasmania's
nation-leading
building
and
construction
sector
to
help
more
Tasmanians
into
a
home
of
their
own.
Our
action
plan
2
will
further
boost
the
construction
sector
and
create
more
jobs
in
building
and
construction,
strengthening
our
economy
and
providing
a
pathway
for
young
Tasmanians
into
apprenticeships.
The
investment
adds
to
the
$30
million
we
secured
from
the
federal
Morrison
government
through
the
City
Deal
to
facilitate
more
than
100
new
social
housing
dwellings
across
Greater
We
recognise
that
we
need
to
address
supply
across
the
entire
housing spectrum.
To
assist
Tasmanians
into
their
first
home
the
2019-20
state
Budget
also
extends
the
successful
first
home
builders
grant
for
an
additional
12
months
to
30
June
2020.
There
is
no
doubt
that
the
attractiveness
of
as
a
place
to
live
and
work
is
driving
strong
demand
in
Tasmania's
property
market.
To
plan
for
this
growth
I
am
pleased
to
report
that
the
2019-20
Budget
extends
a
range
of
the
Government's
successful
housing
affordability
programs,
including
the
first
home
owner's
duty
concession
of
up
to
$7000
on
established
homes
until
30
June
2020,
a
duty
concession
of
up
to
$7000
for
pensioners
downsizing
their
home
until
30
June
2020,
a
land
tax
exemption
for
former
short-stay
accommodation
properties
that
are
converted
to
long-term
rental
until
30
June
2023
and
the
land
tax
exemption
for
newly
built
housing
made
available
for
long-term rental until 30 June 2023.
We
are
confident
that
these
initiatives,
together
with
our
ambitious
targets
under
both
action
plans
which
we
are
on
track
to
deliver
on,
combined
with
the
$30
million
housing
investment
under
the
City
Deal,
nation-leading
building
approvals
in
the
private
market
and
new
tourism
hotel construction will ease the pressures for Tasmanians currently experiencing housing stress.
TasWater - Trade Waste Policy
[10.53 a.m.]
TasWater
has
written
an
extraordinary
letter
pleading
for
assistance
to
deal
with
trade
waste.
The
letter
claims
that
the
closure
of
the
JBS
Abattoir
in
Devonport
has
increased
demand
on
other
small
local
abattoirs
driving
up
the
volume
of
trade
waste
they
produce.
TasWater
says
in
relation
to industrial customers:
The
cost
of
environmental
compliance
going
forward
will
place
a
number
of
these
businesses
under
significant
financial
pressure,
potentially
affecting
their
viability.
TasWater
says
it
is
going
to
cost
$70
million
to
fix
this
problem.
Treasurer,
will
you
step
up
and
fix this in this week's Budget?
ANSWER
Madam
Speaker,
I
thank
the
member,
Dr
Broad,
for
that
question.
To
be
frank,
I
say
good
on
TasWater
for
lobbying
both
sides
of
federal
politics.
I
think
I
have
a
copy
of
a
similar
letter
here.
I
might
ask
what
did
federal
Labor
announce?
Did
they
announce
anything?
No,
they
did
not.
What did you manage to get out of them, you hypocrite?
Members
interjecting.
Madam
SPEAKER
-
Order.
For
goodness
sake,
this
is
just
chaos.
Let
us
have
a
little
bit
of
parliamentary
discipline
for
a
few
seconds
and
hopefully
we
will
get
through
all
of
the
questions.
We might even have a bit more time, if everyone behaves, for another question.
Mr
-
As
I
was
saying,
the
hypocritical
nature
of
that
question
shows
that
Dr
Broad
is
looking
for
additional
funding,
but
what
has
he
done
about
it?
What
announcement
did
you
get
out
of
federal
Labor?
That
was
what
the
letter
was
doing,
lobbying
federal
Labor,
and
what did they provide - zilch.
On
this
side
of
the
House
we
are
investing
$200
million
already
into
TasWater
to
fix
the
problems
that
have
been
evident
for
decades.
There
are
mechanisms
available
for
small
business
to
engage
with
TasWater
and
to
receive
interest-free
loans
to
fix
these
problems.
It
begs
the
question
-
will
it
be
in
Labor's
alternative
budget
next
Tuesday?
Will
this
be
a
priority
in
your
alternative budget on Tuesday? That is the question that they need to answer.
On
Thursday
I
will
bring
down
our
Budget.
Once
again
it
will
invest
record
amounts
into
TasWater.
Our
priorities
will
be
clear
for
all
to
see,
but
I
will
be
waiting
with
bated
breath
for
next
Tuesday
to
see
what
the
hypocrites
on
that
side
of
the
House
bring
forward
in
their
alternative
budget.
Heritage Register
[10.56 a.m.]
Over
the
course
of
the
past
five
years,
your
Government
has
cut
resourcing
to
Heritage
and
slashed
by
hundreds
of
properties
the
number
listed
on
the
Heritage
Register.
We
now
know
that
the
Heritage
Register
is
further
compromised
by
a
lack
of
due
diligence
in
registrations,
with
coordinates
for
properties
incorrectly
recorded
and
incomplete
entries
raising
questions
over
the
protection
of
heritage
treasures
such
as
the
Cataract
Gorge.
How
concerned
are
you
about
these
failings
and
what
steps
have
you
taken
to
ensure
Tasmania's
heritage
treasures
ANSWER
Madam
Speaker,
I
thank
the
member
for
the
question
and
point
to
our
strong
support
of
our
heritage
assets,
Heritage
and
our
action
to
deal
with
what
was
an
inadequate
register
on
coming
to
government
and
to
ensure
that
the
integrity
of
it
could
be
improved
to
better
protect
and
strengthen
the
quality
of
the
register.
It
is
an
important
statutory
tool
and
holds
a
repository
of
our
historic -
Ms O'Connor
- Blah, blah, blah.
Ms O'Connor
- Well, you are not saying anything.
Mr
-
Would
you
even
let
me
start?
I
am
only
through
my
second
sentence
and
already
she
is
making
stupid
noises.
Come
on,
listen
to
some
facts.
You
asked
me
about
the
register
and
I
would
like
to
be
able
to
tell
you,
if
you
are
serious
-
and
I
will,
in
any
event,
because
I am sure other members of the House are.
It
is
an
important
thing.
The
register
contains
over
5000
entries
that
represent
a
diverse
range
of
places,
from
relatively
modest
cottages
in
places
like
Battery
Point,
Evandale
and
Stanley,
to
visitor
attractions
like
the
Cataract
Gorge
and
Port
Arthur.
It
is
managed
and
maintained
under
the
In
March
2014
amendments
were
made
to
the
Historic
Cultural
Heritage
Act
by
the
then
Labor
government
that
proclaimed
to
validate
all
existing
entries
on
the
register.
Each
entry
remains
protected
and
subject
to
the
heritage
works
approval
process
under
the
act.
Between
1997
and
1999
a
large
number
of
entries
that
contained
limited
detail
were
made
in
the
Heritage
Register
and
that
is
why
the
Government
has
conducted
a
series
of
reviews
in
recent
years
that
have
helped
to
establish
the
quality
and
integrity
of
these
early
entries
and
identified
areas
where
further work is needed.
One
of
these
reviews
conducted
between
2016
and
2018
was
an
audit
of
the
accuracy
and
location
of
boundary
details
of
each
entry.
Correcting
inaccuracies
commenced
immediately.
Given
the
importance
of
this
work,
resources
have
been
allocated
to
the
task.
Two
new
research
officers
and
a
data
spatial
officer
were
appointed
in
2018
so
we
have
actually
put
in
additional
resources and taken this seriously.
External
expertise
has
also
been
engaged
as
required.
The
Heritage
Council
has
worked
hard
to
target
the
entry,
review
and
amend,
and
the
replacement
of
existing
entries
in
the
Heritage
Register
that
warrant
it.
Importantly,
the
Heritage
Council
is
also
developing
a
registration
plan
that
will
help
guide
any
work
to
improve
the
quality,
accuracy
and
currency
of
the
Heritage
Register and to facilitate greater access to the information it contains.
This
is
a
serious
matter.
It
has
been
taken
seriously
as
indeed
is
the
integrity
of
the
register
which
goes
to
ensuring
that
all
our
heritage
properties
and
those
that
are
appropriately
on
the
register
are
properly
protected
and
that
there
is
an
awareness
of
their
value
to
our
state.
We
have
put additional resources in place and additional personnel to help us through this task.
Ms O'Connor
- You never strengthened the act.
Mr
-
I
would
have
thought
the
Greens
would
welcome
an
improvement
to
the
register,
strengthening
its
integrity
and
ensuring
that
our
great
heritage
asset
is
protected
and
preserved for many generations to come.
Budget 2019-20 - Infrastructure Investment
[11.00 a.m.]
Can
you
inform
the
House,
how
the
majority
Liberal
Government's
unprecedented
investment
in
jobs
creating
infrastructure
in
this
year's
state
budget
is
maintaining
the
momentum
ANSWER
Madam
Speaker,
I
thank
the
member
Mr
for
his
question
and
his
interest
in
this
matter, particularly as the member for Lyons.
to
government
in
2014,
the
Liberal
Government
has
had
a
strong
plan
to
continue
to
invest
in
job
creating
infrastructure
that
needs
for
our
state's
future
to
support
new
investments,
jobs
and
to
connect
our
communities.
Over
the
last
five
years,
we
have
seen
record
investments
in
our
roads,
bridges
and
our
rail
system.
has
come
a
long
way
in
the
last
five
years
and
there
is
no
better
way
to
maintain
the
momentum
and
invest
in
growth
than
by
investing
in
building
the
infrastructure
that
will
benefit
Tasmanians
for
generations
to
come.
The
2019-20
state
Budget
will
deliver
an
unprecedented
$1.6
billion
into
our
roads,
rail,
bridges
and
transport
infrastructure
across
all
parts
of
and
is
all
about
maintaining
the
momentum
in
and
investing
for
growth.
It
is
infrastructure
that
creates
jobs
and
helps
us
to
deliver
better
essential
services.
The
infrastructure
package
in
this
week's
state
budget
will
help
drive
our
economy,
to
deliver
increased
investments
into
health
and
education
and
will
support the employment of thousands of Tasmanians in the construction phase.
It
will
build
the
job
creating
transport
infrastructure
our
growing
state
needs,
to
help
address
congestion
in
our
cities
and
suburbs
and
to
deliver
safer
freight
corridors,
better
travel
times
and
deliver
upgrades
to
a
number
of
important
regional
tourism
routes
to
benefit
visitors
and
locals
alike.
An
example
of
this
is
our
investment
in
the
$24.3
million
Road
Master
Plan.
Yesterday
the
Treasurer
and
I
were
on
the
ground
in
this
fantastic
agricultural
production
and
tourism
region,
the
Coal
River
Valley
where
I
announced
the
next
package
of
tenders
to
upgrade
further
sections
of
this
important
corridor
and
build
the
new
Link
Road
from
Acton
Road through to Richmond Road.
Our
partnership
with
the
newly
re-elected
Morrison
coalition
government
has
never
been
stronger.
Together
we
are
delivering
massive
infrastructure
programs
like
our
$500
million
Midland
Highway
10-Year
Action
Plan
and
the
$240
million
Tasmanian
Freight
Rail
Revitalisation
Program,
rebuilding
key
freight
and
commuter
corridors
and
supporting
Tasmania's
valuable
job
creating
productive
industries.
This
funding
is
now
locked
in
from
both
federal
and
state
Liberal
governments
to
replace
the
Bridgewater
Bridge.
This
is
something
that
the
Labor
government could not deliver in 16 years, but we are delivering it.
The
federal
coalition's
$2.7
billion
investment
in
infrastructure
commitments
to
all
parts
of
over
the
next
decade
including
$1.4
billion
to
the
City
Deal.
We
are
working
with
the
Prime
Minister
Scott
Morrison
and
the
Deputy
Prime
Minister
and
federal
Infrastructure
The
member
also
asked
if
I
was
aware
of
any
alternatives.
No.
I
am
not.
In
our
2019-20
state
Budget
we
will
deliver
an
unprecedented
$1.6
billion
to
our
roads,
our
bridges
and
our
rail
across
all
parts
of
north-west,
north
and
south.
I
will
be
the
proud
Minister
for
Infrastructure, along with the Treasurer, in delivering it.
Time expired.
TABLED PAPER
Public Works Committee - Richmond Road Projects
Mrs
presented
a
report
of
the
Public
Works
Committee
on
the
following
reference:
Road
Projects
-
Section
1
Link
Road
and
Sections
3,
4
and
5
Road together with the evidence received and the transcripts of the evidence.
Report received.
CONDOLENCE MOTION
________________________________
[11.10 a.m.]
That so much of Standing Orders be suspended to debate the following motion:
That
this
House
expresses
its
deep
sadness
at
the
death
of
Robert
James
Lee
Hawke
AC
GCL,
who
was
the
third
longest-serving
Prime
Minister
of
from
1983
to
1991,
and
places
on
record
its
appreciation
for
his
significant
achievements
including
laying
the
economic
foundations
for
twenty-first
century
and
further,
that
this
House
respectfully
tenders
its
sincere
Motion agreed to.
________________________________
Ms
(Lyons
-
Leader
of
the
Opposition)
-
Madam
Speaker,
it
was
a
very
sad
day
for
the
Labor
movement,
and
for
many
across
when
Bob
Hawke
passed
away
at
the
age
of
89.
I
regard
him
as
one
of
the
most
immense
figures
that
this
country
has
seen
in
politics
and
he
was
an
immense
figure
for
the
Labor
movement.
He
was
a
colourful
man,
a
colourful
character,
a
smart
man
-
a
Rhodes
scholar
-
completely
dedicated
to
the
Labor
movement
and
the
Labor
family
and very committed to this country.
He
loved
He
spoke
passionately
about
our
country
and
he
has
a
wonderful
legacy
that
I
am
very
proud
to
be
able
to
speak
about
in
this
place
and
to
put
on
the
record
my
regard
for
him.
My
sincere
condolences
to
his
family
who
grieve
for
him
at
this
time.
That
includes
the
broader Labor family.
He
has
been
a
part
of
our
lives
for
so
long.
I
was
born
the
year
he
became
the
Prime
Minister
of
in
1983,
so
I
have
never
known
a
time
without
Bob
Hawke
in
my
life.
I
feel,
as
I
expect
many
Australians
did
at
the
time
of
hearing
of
his
death,
that
they
had
lost
something
that
was almost a part of them because he had always been there.
He
is
a
hero
in
the
Labor
movement.
He
is
a
legend
among
legends
and
he
will
be
regarded
as
such
for
ever
more.
He
has
such
an
enduring
legacy
that
today
remains
a
constant
in
our
community and in our nation.
He
was
elected
in
1980
to
the
Australian
Parliament,
became
leader
in
1983
and
won
an
election
in
the
same
year,
just
a
month
really
after
he
became
leader.
It
was
an
extraordinary
feat.
He
is
the
longest
serving
and
the
most
successful
Labor
leader
in
history
for
our
nation.
He
won
a
record four elections.
He
had
a
character
that
could
bring
people
together
and
he
demonstrated
that
with
his
leadership.
He
was
a
consensus
leader.
He
worked
across
different
groups
to
bring
them
together
to
find
common
ground
and
work
in
the
best
interests
of
the
people
to
provide
the
best
outcomes
possible.
He
will
be
remembered
for
his
reforms
such
as
Medicare,
of
which
we
are
incredibly
proud,
reform
that
has
assisted
millions
of
Australians
to
access
health
care
using
their
Medicare
card and not dependent upon whether they had a credit card.
He
created
Landcare.
He
was
well
remembered
on
his
passing
for
his
environmental
credentials
and
the
way
he
looked
after
places
like
Kakadu
and
of
course
the
Franklin
in
our
own
state, and the way he cared for the land and the people who depended upon that land.
responsible
for
helping
shift
our
focus
as
a
country
to
the
north,
looking
to
Asia
and
trading
with
our
closest
neighbours
there,
and
creating
APEC,
a
grouping
of
nations
to
look
at
how we could advance our interests in this region.
He
floated
the
Australian
dollar.
He
advanced
extraordinary
financial
reforms
during
his
tenure
as
prime
minister
that
led
to
a
complete
change
in
the
way
we
operate
as
a
nation.
It
took
a
lot of courage at those times for him to do those things.
He
introduced
compulsory
superannuation
and
was
a
fierce
advocate
for
the
working
person.
That
was
not
just
in
his
time
as
prime
minister
but
was
shown
throughout
his
time
as
leader
of
the
trade
union
movement.
He
joined
the
Australian
Council
of
Trade
Unions
in
1956
and
was
revered and loved amongst the movement until the day he died.
He
was
also
a
fierce
advocate
for
investments
in
public
health.
He
spearheaded
the
campaign
for
investment
in
public
health
and
awareness
campaigns
around
HIV
and
AIDS
during
the
1980s,
providing access to health treatment and care for people who desperately needed it at that time.
He
was
a
champion
for
equality,
fairness
and
justice.
He
spoke
passionately
about
the
need
to
end
apartheid
and
worked
tirelessly
to
do
whatever
he
could
to
bring
that
end
about.
He
spoke
with conviction about the need to look after people who were vulnerable and required assistance.
Over
the
weekend
I
watched
videos
of
speeches
he
had
given.
He
was
an
emotional
man;
he
spoke
with
passion
and
was
not
afraid
to
display
those
emotions.
I
believe
Australians
understood
where
he
was
coming
from
and
why
he
was
doing
the
things
he
did
when
he
spoke
with
such
passion.
In
one
of
the
videos
I
saw
he
was
speaking
about
the
Tiananmen
Square
massacre,
an
horrific
mark
in
the
history
of
our
world.
He
granted
asylum
to
all
students
from
who
were
studying
in
at
that
time
to
enable
them
to
have
a
safe
place
to
live
and
refuge
in
our
country because they were fearful of returning home.
He
spoke
of
people
in
a
way
that
was
meaningful.
He
took
action
at
a
time
when
sometimes
people
would
question
why
you
would
do
that,
particularly
today,
to
contrast
how
narrow
and
small the targets of government have become.
He
was
bold,
he
was
courageous,
he
was
reforming,
he
was
colourful,
he
was
a
character,
and
he
will
be
remembered
for
things
that
perhaps
are
not
synonymous
with
politicians,
like
having
the
record
for
skolling
a
beer.
Everyone
will
remember
the
time
he
wore
that
colourful
jacket
when
won
the
America's
Cup,
and
he
made
that
very
funny
statement
about
people
not
going
to
work
the
next
day
and
if
their
boss
was
grumpy
about
it,
they
were
a
bum.
They
are
not
the
phrases
you
would
expect
to
hear
from
politicians
today,
but
Bob
Hawke
could
do
those
things.
Mr
Deputy
Speaker,
he
will
be
very
much
missed.
He
was
very
loved.
loved
him,
and this parliament passes on our sincere condolences to his family at this very sad time.
Members
- Hear, hear.
[11.18 a.m.]
Mr
(Franklin
-
Premier)
-
Mr
Deputy
Speaker,
I
support
the
motion.
I
acknowledge
the
very
heartfelt
comments
of
the
Tasmanian
Labor
Leader
and
acknowledge
Australia's
twenty-third
prime
minister,
Labor's
longest-serving
prime
minister
and
the
third
longest-serving
Australian
prime
minister
of
all
time
behind
Sir
Robert
Menzies
and
John
Howard.
He
was
a
great
Australian
prime
minister
and
a
great
Australian.
He
defined
a
generation
and
he
shaped
our
nation.
Regardless
of
political
persuasion,
he
was
seen
clearly
as
a
political giant.
On
his
rise
to
the
top
he
had
a
remarkably
short
spell
as
opposition
leader
before
becoming
prime
minister,
which
is
something
I
am
very
jealous
of.
It
is
a
great
way
to
do
it
and
to
those
of
us,
really
most
of
us
who
were
at
a
relatively
young
age
during
the
Hawke
years,
it
would
be
hard
not
to
be
impressed
by
someone
who
was
a
confident,
colourful
character
on
the
national
stage
and
would
bring
a
nation
together
in
accord
and
implement
important
reforms
but
could
also
skol
a beer at the cricket, or cry before the nation at China's slain, or indeed as a father for his daughter.
young
person
then,
and
certainly
as
an
older
one
now
and
a
father
myself,
I
have
always
related
to
his
very
public
and
heartfelt
plea
that
while
we,
in
this
line
of
work,
can
expect
to
be
the
subject
of
fierce
criticism,
he
said,
'You
do
not
cease
to
be
a
husband,
you
do
not
cease
to
be
a
father, and my wife and my children have a right to be protected'.
He
did
not
hide
his
emotions.
It
was
a
fascinating
but
heartening
characteristic
that
he
displayed
as
our
national
leader.
I
am
sure
that
is
something
we
can
all
relate
to.
A
larrikin,
a
Rhodes
Scholar,
a
charmer
of
presidents
and
royalty.
He
fiercely
loved
his
country
and
it
is
certainly
something
we
would
all
relate
to.
He
was
a
most
passionate
advocate
for
the
trade
union
movement.
He
was
a
masterful
politician
and
a
tough
one.
My
father,
often
at
the
wrong
end
of
a
spray,
would
sometimes
speak
about
it.
He
also
played
a
significant
role
in
shaping
our
political history in the future of our state.
On
Commonwealth/state
relations,
his
legacy
for
our
environment
and
for
Antarctica
will
be
long
lasting
and
profound,
and
significant
economic
and
fiscal
reforms,
such
as
deregulation,
floating
the
dollar,
and
initiating
the
Asia
Pacific
economic
cooperation
to
promote
growth
and
participation
with
our
nearest
neighbours.
The
introduction
of
Medicare
and
occupational
superannuation,
to
end
apartheid
in
South
and
to
outlaw
sex
discrimination
in
the
workplace.
Without
exception
each
of
these
reforms
have
endured
and
have
been
built
upon
by
successive governments but they started with his government.
On
behalf
of
the
Liberal
members
of
this
parliament,
I
am
sure
all
members
of
our
great
party,
I
pay
due
respect
to
Bob
service
as
our
nation's
leader
and
to
his
many
achievements.
He
is
one
who
has
been
described
by
so
many
people
across
our
country
as
one
of
our
great
prime
ministers.
I
offer
our
sincere
sympathies
to
his
family
and
friends
who
have
lost
one
who
was
a
great part of their lives.
[11.22 a.m.]
Ms
O'CONNOR
(Clark
-
Leader
of
the
Greens)
-
Mr
Deputy
Speaker,
on
behalf
of
the
Tasmanian
Greens
I
support
this
condolence
motion.
I
want
to
say
a
few
words
about
one
of
Australia's
truly
great
prime
ministers.
I
was
in
grade
11,
16
years
old,
when
Bob
Hawke
was
elected
prime
minister
of
this
country.
I
remember,
very
strongly,
that
feeling
of
optimism,
of
possibility
for
this
country's
future.
I
remember
feeling
proud
to
be
Australian.
I
remember
listening
to
him
say,
'No
child
will
live
in
poverty',
within
a
relatively
short
space
of
time.
Although
he
could
not
bring
that
pledge
to
the
Australian
people
to
bear,
there
is
no
question
that
at the time that he said it he absolutely meant it.
In
terms
of
the
kind
of
prime
minister
he
was,
he
was
inclusive,
big
hearted
and
courageous.
He
came
from
an
era
of
politicians
where
they
were
not
so
afraid
to
say
what
they
really
thought.
They
had
the
courage
to
do
things
that
might
not
have
been
popular,
but
they
could
argue
it
through.
I
do
not
think
we
have
political
leaders
of
that
kind
of
calibre
and
courage
unfortunately
in
either
major
party
today.
It
was
a
different
generation
of
leaders.
For
anyone
who
wants
to
see
a
little
bit
of
the
real
Bob
Hawke
unguarded,
Sabra
Lane,
over
the
weekend
posted
a
YouTube
clip
of
about
17
minutes
of
press
gallery
questioning
of
the
then
opposition
leader
at
the
press
club.
One
of
the
questions
that
was
asked
of
him
was
about
this
honeymoon
that
he
had
with
the
media
and
when
was
the
honeymoon
going
to
end.
He
said
something
like,
'Well,
I
was
ACTU
leader
and
people
said
then
I
had
cordial
relations
with
the
media.
In
opposition,
people
are
accusing
me
of
benefiting
from
the
honeymoon.
Well,
if
it
is
a
honeymoon,
it
is
a
very
long
one
and
it
about
time
we
consummated
it'.
This
was
the
kind
of
raw
honesty
that
marked
Bob
Hawke
as
prime
minister.
bite
out
of
her
ice-cream
and
then
he
let
this
lovely
woman
clean
his
face.
He
was
the
kind
of
leader
who
was
easy
to
love.
Before
I
discovered
the
Greens,
I
most
certainly
voted
for
Labor
and
Regarding
the
contribution
that
Bob
Hawke
made
as
prime
minister
to
this
country,
it
is
really
important
to
remember
that
many
of
them
were
made
with
Paul
Keating
as
treasurer
at
his
side
and
they
were
a
team
and
a
potent
team:
a
team
that
could
argue
the
case
for
reform,
for
big
changes
for
this
country.
They
had
the
courage
to
do
it
and
delivered
groundbreaking
reforms.
has
prepared
a
short
list
of
only
nine
ways
that
the
Hawke
Government
changed
The
first
was
to
bring
us
into
the
global
economy
by
floating
the
Australian
dollar,
which
previously
had
been
pegged
to
the
pound
or
the
dollar,
opening
the
Australian
economy
to
global
competition,
removing
some
of
those
sanctions
and
trade
barriers.
That
was
a
hard
road
for this country to go down but ultimately it was exactly what we had to do.
Today,
every
Australian
should
be
thankful
for
Bob
Hawke
for
delivering
universal
healthcare
through
Medicare.
It
is
a
profound
and
important
reform
that
unfortunately
has
been
eroded
by
conservative governments at the federal level.
He struck an historic Accord with the unions that led to a substantial peace in the workplace.
Mr O'Byrne
- It was more than the workplace. It was social wage.
Ms
O'CONNOR
-
Yes,
I
agree.
After
beating
Malcolm
Fraser
in
the
1983
federal
election,
Bob
Hawke
as
prime
minister,
passed
the
World
Heritage
Properties
Conservation
Act
1983
which
along
with
legislation
already
passed
by
the
Whitlam
government,
enabled
the
Commonwealth
to
protect
Australian
World
Heritage
sites
from
threatening
actions.
Now
we
know,
history
tells
us
that
those
threatening
actions
in
contemporary
can
come
from
the
Australian
Government
and
the
Tasmanian
government
themselves,
which
sought
to
wind
back
extensions
to
the World Heritage area in 2014.
From
a
greenie's
point
of
view,
one
of
the
most
profound
and
meaningful
gifts
that
Bob
Hawke
as
prime
minister
gave
to
and
to
this
country
was
a
wild
Franklin
River.
That
was
a
long,
hard
fight
by
conservationists,
on
the
ground,
on
the
banks
of
the
Franklin
River,
back
in
1981,
1982,
1983,
defending
that
wild
river
from
Robin
Gray's
plans
to
dam
it.
Today,
the
community
of
Strahan
and
the
West
Coast
indeed,
are
the
beneficiaries
of
that
move
by
the
Hawke
government
to
save
the
Franklin
River
from
damming.
We
have
a
vibrant
economy
on
the
West
Coast
in
and
around
Strahan
as
a
result
of
a
wild
Franklin
and
the
Rivers
Ms
O'CONNOR
-
Prime
Minister
Hawke
banned
uranium
mining
at
Jabiluka
in
Arnhem
Ms O'CONNOR
- Yes, totally. Badge of Honour. On her Green CV.
The
Hawke
Government
banned
new
uranium
mining
at
Jabiluka
and
then
gave
highly
publicised
priority
to
the
World
Heritage
listing
of
Kakadu
National
Park.
Prime
Minister
Hawke
advanced
the
cause
of
women
in
this
country
and
equality
by
banning
gender
discrimination
in
the
workplace.
Mr
Deputy
Speaker,
did
you
know
that
our
national
anthem,
Advance
Fair
,
is
a
legacy
of
prime
minister
Bob
Hawke?
I
personally
think
he
made
the
wrong
decision
there;
I
think
that
I
Still
Call
Home
is
a
better
national
anthem,
but
still,
our
national
anthem
Advance
Fair
is
thanks
to
prime
minister
Hawke.
Also,
he
formally
recognised
and
declared Australia's colours would be yellow and green.
June
this
year
it
will
be
30
years
since
the
tanks
rolled
in
to
Tiananmen
Square
and
crushed
the
democracy
protests
that
had
been
going
on
since
early
April
that
year.
Thousands
of
dissidents,
democracy
activists
and
students
were
killed
by
the
Chinese
government
who
feared
the
seeds
of
democracy
that
were
growing
amongst
the
Chinese
people.
It
was
Bob
Hawke
who
opened
our
hearts
to
Chinese
students
in
and
said,
'You
are
welcome
here
and
this
is
your home', and that again was a huge positive change for this country.
I
want
to
end
with
a
quote
from
Dr
Bob
Brown,
who
has
written
in
the
Australian
-
they
actually published him in the
Australian
- where he said:
At
the
twenty-fifth
anniversary
celebration
of
the
saving
of
the
Franklin
River
in
in
2008,
Bob
Hawke
referred
to
the
growing
stoush
over
global
warming:
'and
as
you
look
at
the
arguments
and
the
positions
of
political
parties
today,
you
see
a
complete
replication
of
what
we
experienced
back
there
in
1983.
The
conservatives:
they
never
change,
they
never
learn.
What
was
their
argument
back
then?
You
can't
do
this,
it
will
cost
jobs.
It
will
cost
economic
growth. You can't do it, you mustn't do it.'
And as Bob concludes -
Many
in
the
audience
wished
he
could
be
our
prime
minister
once
more.
Bob
Mr
Deputy
Speaker,
I
miss
Bob
Hawke
from
our
political
scene.
I
miss
the
kind
of
leadership
Members
- Hear, hear.
[11.32 a.m.]
Ms
O'BYRNE
(Bass)
-
Mr
Deputy
Speaker,
last
week
our
nation,
gripped
-
or
perhaps
overwhelmed
-
by
a
federal
election
campaign,
collectively
caught
its
breath
and
paused
at
the
news
that
Robert
James
Lee
Hawke
had
died.
The
loss
of
Bob
Hawke
impacted
profoundly
on
many of us, perhaps almost as profoundly as he impacted upon the lives that we lead today.
We
were
shocked,
despite
his
age
and
recent
health,
perhaps
because
he
always
seemed
so
absolutely
irrepressible
and
so
constant;
perhaps
because
he
defined
us
as
a
generation
of
Australians
and
giving
us
hope
and
pride
in
our
nation
in
a
way
in
which
we
had
never
had;
or
perhaps
just
because
we
loved
him
and
his
very
human,
larrikin
brilliance.
We
loved
this
Labor
leader.
I
grew
up
with
Bob
Hawke
being
much
larger
than
life
than
any
other
political
leader
I
had
ever
seen.
We
grew
up
in
a
family
that
adored
Gough
Whitlam,
but
Bob
Hawke
was
huge
in
our
family.
As
a
union
leader
he
inspired
our
union
delegate
dad
to
campaign
and
fight
even
stronger,
knowing there were voices speaking at every level of government for working Australians.
As
prime
minister,
he
took
us
to
the
world
stage.
I
was
in
grade
10
at
the
time
of
the
1983
election
and
we
were
all
absolutely
captured
by
it.
It
was
really
fundamental
in
shaping
the
political
structures
and
values
of
so
many
of
us.
We
even
had
a
parrot
that,
when
you
approached
the house, would call out, 'Give Bob the job'.
My
father
adored
him
and
my
mother
loved
him
and
yet
they
were
able
to
reconcile
their
individual
loves
for
him.
He
would
regularly
stay
and
enjoy
the
hospitality
of
Mary
O'Byrne
and
at
each
event
that
he
would
run
into
our
Mum,
he
would
remember
her
and
speak
to
her
each
time,
and she adored that common and engaging touch of his.
I
wanted
to
touch
on
a
couple
of
things
he
did
that
have
profoundly
impacted
on
the
life
that
we
live
now.
Obviously
there
is
Landcare,
the
Accord
and
Medicare,
but
I
wanted
to
talk
about
what
Bob
said
himself
about
one
of
the
proudest
moments
in
his
life.
In
2009
he
was
awarded
the
party's
highest
accolade
of
life
membership
and
in
his
speech
at
Darling
Harbour
to
the
delegates,
he said -
If
I
think
of
all
the
proud
moments
in
my
career
as
prime
minister,
there's
nothing
that
would
beat
Nelson
Mandela
walking
into
my
office
...
he
took
my
hand
and
said
and
he
wasn't
only
talking
about
me,
'Bob,
if
it
wasn't
for
you,
I
wouldn't
be
here.'
That
we,
a
small
country,
could
be
so
instrumental
in
bringing
to
an
end
that
vicious,
unfair,
unethical
regime
is
something
that
this
great party should be forever be proud of.
Speaker,
my
husband
was
born
non-white
in
South
under
apartheid.
The
marriage
we
have
and
our
children
would
have
been
precluded
there
under
the
Morality
Act.
The
breaking
down
of
apartheid
through
that
work
that
started
at
CHOGM
in
1987
in
Vancouver,
where
Bob
Hawke
was
instrumental
in
implementation
of
investment
sanctions,
had
a
fundamentally immediate impact on the members of my extended family.
We
saw
again
how
he
embraced
those
who
fled
in
to
the
acts
in
Tiananmen
Square,
and he showed us you could be a strong leader and also a genuinely compassionate one.
His
appointed
Susan
Ryan
as
the
first
women's
minister
and
from
there
the
fundamental
shifts
in
the
Sex
Discrimination
Act
still
protect
women
from
all
kinds
of
discrimination.
There
was
specific
policy
towards
indigenous
women,
migrant
women,
and
women
with
disability,
and
recognising
older
women
needed
support
through
pension
reform
and
changing
the
dependent
spouse
tax
rebates
which
meant
that
women
could
get
them,
were
fundamental
shifts
to
women's
independence.
Guaranteeing
child
maintenance
payments
for
parents
and
also
the
appointment
of
the
first
female
high
court
judge,
Mary
Gaudron,
fundamentally
shifted
the
way
that
women
can
I
want
to
read
a
message
that
was
put
up
on
Facebook
by
David
Cox,
a
friend
in
Launceston.
He said -
In
1989
I
was
living
in
when
Bob
Hawke
visited
the
village
I
was
living
in
to
commemorate
Australia's
sacrifice
in
World
War
1.
The
mayor
of
the
little
village
of
Bullecourt
with
whom
I
was
close
friends
had
been
trying
to
sell
the
Australian
Government
a
field
on
his
farm
to
build
an
Australian
memorial
but
had been turned down several times.
Seeing
his
chance
at
this
remote
gathering
with
the
Prime
Minister
of
he
asked
me
to
translate
for
him
as
he
pitched
his
idea.
When
I
conveyed
to
the
prime
minister
the
mayor's
offer,
Bob
asked
me
why
we
hadn't
done
it
yet
and
I
told
him
because
the
mayor
had
been
told
there
wasn't
a
budget
for
it.
Bob
turned
to
me
and
said
in
that
inimitable
way,
'Oh
bullshit
-
tell
him
it's
sold.'
From
that
conversation
there
now
stands
a
statue
of
a
digger
in
the
fields
of
Mr
Deputy
Speaker,
the
Labor
Party
is
collectively
celebrating
Bob
achievements
and
genuinely
grieving
his
loss.
Our
thoughts
are
with
his
family
and
his
very
many
friends.
We
are
forever
changed
by
his
legacy
and
we
now
go
gently
into
a
world
without
him
-
a
world
that
is
so much greater for his being.
[11.38 a.m.]
(Franklin)
-
Mr
Deputy
Speaker,
I
rise
to
add
my
voice
to
this
House's
emotions,
feelings
and
best
wishes
to
the
Hawke
family
and
all
those
who
knew
Bob
and
all
those
in
the
Labor
movement,
not
only
in
but
across
the
world.
Bob
was,
through
his
actions
and
his
deeds,
a
globally
loved
figure
because
as
prime
minister
of
this
country
he
not
only
impacted
on
this
country,
he
impacted
on
so
many
issues
internationally
who
other
speakers
have
referred
to
-
his
actions
around
Tiananmen
Square,
leading
the
fight
in
CHOGM
against
the
apartheid
regime
and
a
whole
range
of
economic
and
social
issues
that
he
advocated
effectively
from the day he was born to the day that he passed.
We
all
knew
Bob
was
not
well
and
when
he
was
not
able
to
make
the
ALP
national
campaign
launch
in
we
knew
he
was
very
unwell,
because
anyone
who
knew
Bob
knew
he
would
turn
up
to
a
Labor
campaign
event
even
if
he
was
at
his
sickest.
We
knew
when
he
was
not
able
to
make
the
launch
that
things
were
not
well
and
his
time
on
this
planet
was
finishing.
It
was
with
great
sadness
that
we
heard
the
news
on
Thursday.
We
were
all
hoping
on
this
side
that
Bob would give his last great gift to the country but it was not to be.
Bob
was
an
amazing
character.
He
was
a
guy
who
could
walk
into
a
room
with
heads
of
state,
royalty,
significant
players
nationally
and
globally,
and
hold
court.
He
could
also
walk
into
the
front
bar
of
any
bar
in
this
country
and
hold
court
and
build
the
same
rapport,
the
same
relationship
and
have
the
same
respect
from
both
rooms
equally.
That
is
a
unique
skill
and
ability
that this fellow had.
Bob
was
no
saint.
He
was
a
character
who
loved
a
laugh
and
a
beer
but
he
was
very
serious
about
his
work.
From
early
days,
the
values
and
the
environment
within
which
he
grew
up
really
shaped
his
journey,
his
value
system
and
shaped
his
sharp
intellect
in
terms
of
how
he
was
going
to
lead
his
life.
A
Rhodes
scholar,
he
loved
his
sport.
We
all
know
how
much
he
loved
sport
because
on
that
great
day
that
won
the
America's
Cup
he
wore
that
ridiculous
jacket
and
said
that
anyone
who
sacks
a
worker
for
not
turning
up
today
'is
a
bum'.
For
a
Prime
Minister
to
say
those
words
and
to
get
away
with
it
is
remarkable
but
he
loved
his
sport.
He
loved
this
country and when those two things combined he was in his element.
He
first
came
to
the
national
stage
as
an
advocate
for
the
ACTU,
a
passionate
and
fierce
advocate.
In
fact,
in
the
history
of
the
ACTU
he
was
the
movement's
finest
advocate.
He
argued
the
case
for
minimum
wages.
He
argued
the
case
for
pay
equity
for
women.
He
argued
the
case
not
just
around
wages
policy
in
this
country
but
he
argued
and
used
all
of
his
efforts
at
the
ACTU
to
argue
for
consumers'
rights
in
terms
of
competition
in
purchasing
various
goods
that
were
only
available to certain people given our tariff circumstances.
Even
at
the
ACTU,
Bob
was
a
rock
star
in
terms
of
advocacy.
I
remember
that
even
after
he
retired
as
a
parliamentarian
the
ACTU
brought
him
back
to
argue
a
case,
to
advocate
a
case,
for
a
rise
in
the
minimum
wage.
His
arguments,
his
passion,
his
intellect
was
phenomenal.
He
had
no
peer
in
industrial
tribunals
around
this
country.
He
held
that
position
all
the
time
he
was
in
the
advocate
role
in
the
ACTU.
Since
then
no-one
can
hold
a
flame
to
the
arguments
and
to
the
He
was
a
passionate
advocate
for
equality
and
social
justice,
whether
at
the
ACTU,
whether
in
a
whole
range
of
community
organisations
that
he
played
a
role
in,
advocating
for
fairness
for
the Australian people, a fair go for Australian people.
Upon
being
elected
to
opposition
leader
-
and
the
Premier
has
made
reference
to
that
short
period
of
time
-
and
we
all
would
hope
if
that
was
the
journey
for
all
of
us,
but
he
was
able
to
take
on
that
role
and
to
win
that
election
in
1983.
From
day
one,
Bob
Hawke
led
a
team
that
changed
the
country
for
the
better.
The
beautiful
thing
about
Bob
leadership
was
his
ability
to
bring
people
together.
His
Cabinet
-
a
Cabinet
of
equals.
His
Cabinet
of
supremely
talented
people
all
with
various
and
individual
ambitions
but
he
was
able
to
harness
all
of
the
strengths
of
that Cabinet to implement a range of reforms that this country is still feeling the benefit of.
The
Leader
of
the
Greens,
Ms
O'Connor,
referred
to
the
Accord.
The
Accord
was
not
just
about
a
wage's
accord:
this
was
a
globally
leading
approach
to
economic
management
with
fairness
and
no
other
country
took
that
path.
In
the
and
in
you
saw
Thatcherism
and
Reaganism
where
a
whole
range
of
the
liberalisation
of
the
economy
was
being
undertaken.
The
difference
with
the
Australian
experiment,
the
Australian
quality
response,
led
by
Hawke
and
Keating in his Cabinet, was to do it with fairness.
The
implementation
of
the
superannuation
guarantee
so
that
workers
were
able
to
put
some
money
away:
they
allowed
that
to
pass
through
in
exchange
for
a
lack
of
wage
increases.
They
allowed
that
superannuation
commitment
to
be
made
so
that
by
the
time
workers
reached
their
retirement
they
could
retire
with
dignity.
Retire
with
dignity.
The
modern
superannuation
system
in
this
country,
pension
funds
as
they
are
referred
to
in
other
countries,
is
the
envy
of
the
world.
This was Hawke.
Floating
the
dollar,
privatising
assets
which
was
controversial
at
that
time
on
the
Left,
liberalising
the
economy
but
doing
it
on
the
basis
that
he
had
formed
an
Accord
which
has
people
who
disagree
with
it,
but
the
Accord
laid
the
foundations
for
a
modern
economy
but
with
fairness.
It
did
not
abandon
working
people
and
had
minimum
wages
and
minimum
conditions.
They
had
the
universal
health
care
system
through
Medicare.
That
is
one
of
Bob's
greatest
legacies
for
this
country.
The
compulsory
superannuation
system
has
allowed
workers
to
be
able
to
retire
with
dignity
by
the
time
they
get
to
their
retirement.
A
whole
range
of
reforms
in
the
social
welfare
net
whilst
combined
with
liberalisation:
this
was
the
most
fair
and
comprehensive
reform
of
any
modern
global economy.
You
look
at
the
social
dislocation
that
occurred
in
the
and
the
social
dislocation
that
occurred
in
the
and
the
winners
and
the
losers,
with
more
losers
than
winners.
In
Other
speakers
have
referred
to
gender
equality.
He
stood
on
the
global
stage
in
reforming
and
fighting
against
injustice
wherever
he
saw
it,
particularly
as
I
referred
to
in
apartheid
in
South
Nelson
Mandela
acknowledged
the
role
that
Bob
Hawke
played
in
bringing
down
such
an
Personally,
and
my
sister
Michelle
has
referred
to
a
couple
of
family
stories,
every
time
you
saw
Bob,
he
would
always
ask
after
the
family.
How
is
your
mum,
how
is
your
dad?
My
mum
recalls
the
time
she
met
him
once
on
a
campaign
rally
in
the
late
1970s,
one
of
Whitlam's
campaigns,
and
Bob
saw
her
in
a
room
in
a
large
hall
in
Launceston
after
many
years.
He
walked
up
and
said
'G'day,
Colleen,
how
are
you?'
You
hear
so
many
people
say,
I
met
him
once
years'
ago
and
he
remembered
my
name.
Bob
had
this
great
capacity
to
connect
with
people
to
remember them and to ask after them.
I
remember
a
time
when
I
was
the
economic
development
minister
and
it
was
the
30th
anniversary
of
the
signing
of
the
Protocol,
which
is
the
protocol
which
protected
the
Antarctic
Continent.
Bob
Hawke
tells
the
story
that
he
was
sitting
at
the
Lodge
on
a
Sunday
afternoon
reading
the
Cabinet
papers
and
a
Cabinet
paper
had
come
across
his
desk
where
effectively
we
had
signed
up
to
an
agreement
to
allow
mineral
exploration
and
other
forms
of
exploitation
of
the
Antarctic
Continent.
It
is
very
unparliamentary,
and
I
will
quote
Mr
Hawke
when he said:
They want to do what? Bullshit. We won't be doing that.
I
apologise
for
the
language.
He
led
the
charge
to
change
that
Cabinet
paper
and
to
lead
a
global
negotiation
to
sign-off
on
the
Protocol
to
ensure
that
the
Antarctic
Continent
was
protected.
I
was
fortunate
to
be
at
the
celebration
of
the
30-year
anniversary
where
the
then
French
Prime
Minister,
Michel
Rocard
was
in
I
remember
a
press
conference
outside
the
Antarctic
Division.
We
had
a
number
of
speeches
and
Michel
Rocard
was
off
to
the
side
smoking
-
as
all
Frenchmen
do
-
and
Bob
was
holding
court
with
a
large
gaggle
of
journalists
asking
various
questions.
One
question
that
came
forward
was,
'Mr
Hawke,
where
do
you
think
the
Antarctic
will
be
in
10
years?'.
Bob
said,
'Probably
the
same
place
where
it
is
now'.
He
had
this
ability to take questions and have a sense of humour.
His
passion
for
recognising
things
of
global
significance
and
other
members
have
spoken
about
his
environmental
record
-
Kakadu,
the
Great
Barrier
Reef,
the
Antarctic,
the
Franklin
River, and a whole range of really globally, historically significant decisions.
Bob
was
a
larrikin.
Every
time
you
saw
him
he
was
always
up
for
a
chat
and
to
ask
how
you
were,
how
the
family
was.
For
someone
to
lead
the
country
to
four
election
victories
for
such
a
period
of
time,
to
be
equally
as
comfortable
at
Castle
in
as
skolling
a
beer
near
the
hill
at
the
SCG
cricket
test,
for
someone
to
be
able
to
be
both
of
those
and
to
be
universally
loved is a special human being.
to
his
family
and
to
all
those
who
loved
him.
He
was
loved
by
so
many
Bob, love your work, mate, you will be missed.
[11.49 a.m.]
Ms
HADDAD
(Clark)
-
Mr
Deputy
Speaker,
it
has
been
a
joy
to
hear
so
many
beautiful
stories
shared
about
Bob
Hawke
today
on
this
condolence
motion.
I
add
my
sincere
condolences
to
Bob
family
and
loved
ones
and
share
that
grief
with
the
broader
Labor
movement
at
his death last week.
I
was
a
kid
when
Bob
Hawke
was
prime
minister.
I
have
lots
of
memories
of
watching
my
parents
get
involved
with
the
Labor
Party
and
the
Labor
movement.
They
loved
Gough
and
voted
for
Gough,
but
they
joined
under
Hawke.
That
was
the
very
early
time
of
my
childhood,
going
along
with
my
parents
to
hand
out
how-to-vote
cards
during
term
as
prime
minister,
watching
my
parents
develop
their
political
commitment
during
that
time
and
indeed
fuelling
my
love
for
the
Labor
Party
under
leadership.
I
did
meet
him
just
once
when
I
was
president
of
Young
Labor
in
2002,
here
in
It
was
during
the
review
that
Bob
Hawke
and
Neville
Wran
ran
of
the
Labor
Party
at
that
time.
As
others
have
alluded
to,
I
was
just
so
struck
by
his
ability
to
connect
with
each
individual
he
came
across
and
met
with
and
spoke
to.
As
a
very
junior
person
in
the
room
at
that
time,
as
young
Labor
president
I
certainly
felt
involved
and
respected
by
him
in
conducting
that
review.
Sadly,
it
was
before
the
time
everyone
had
cameras
and
camera
phones
with
them
so
I
do
not
have
a
nice
selfie
to
mark
that
one
time
I
met
Many
of
the
people
who
have
spoken
today
have
talked
about
his
impact
on
gender
equality
and
I
wanted
to
touch
on
those
things
as
well
very
briefly.
In
1984,
early
in
his
prime
ministership,
he
introduced
the
Sex
Discrimination
Act
which
outlawed
sex
discrimination
in
the
workplace.
Later,
along
with
Susan
Ryan,
he
moved
the
Affirmative
Action
(Equal
Opportunity
for
Women)
Act
1986
that
has
since
been
superseded
by
other
acts
of
parliament
that
ensure
gender
equity.
Those
things
also
led
to
the
affirmative
action
rules
within
the
Australian
Labor
Party
which
have
led
to
increasing
numbers
of
women,
not
only
as
rank
and
file
members
of
the
party
and
office
holders
within
our
great
organisation,
but
also
more
women
in
parliaments
state
was
adopted
in
1984
during
his
prime
ministership,
he
actually
changed
the
original
lyrics
from
'Australia's
sons
let
us
rejoice'
to
what
we
have
today,
which
is,
'Australians
all
let
us
rejoice'.
He
was
absolutely
committed
to
gender
equity,
even
thinking
about
what
the
lyrics
of
our
national
anthem mean in terms of representing our country.
He
was
a
visionary
man
who
had
a
lasting
vision
for
that
was
ahead
of
its
time.
It
was
bold,
it
was
brave.
I
fear
we
do
not
have
leaders
like
that
very
often
in
politics.
He
was
one
of
a
kind
who
showed
us
that
people
can
be
both
strong
and
compassionate
leaders
and
indeed
that
is not seen very often.
I
wanted
to
share
two
short
letters
I
have
read
since
his
passing
that
people
have
shared
which
I
found
quite
remarkable.
They
go
to
how
he
connected
with
people
but
in
particular
the
way
he
connected
with
young
people.
These
letters
have
been
popping
up
all
over
Facebook
and
social
media
since
he
died.
One
of
them
was
written
to
Robbie
Moore,
who
is
a
friend
of
mine
and
a
member
of
the
Labor
Party
and
a
senior
union
official
in
He
wrote
a
letter
as
a
primary
I
understand
you
met
Senator
Nick
Sherry
at
the
opening
of
the
school
extensions
on
Friday
29
November,
19991.
He
tells
me
that
you
are
interested
politics.
You
will
need
to
study
hard
at
your
school
work,
as
well
as
being
a
good speaker if you want to be successful.
He
went
on
to
talk
about
some
other
things,
really
connecting
with
a
young
primary
school
student.
That
person,
Robby
Moore,
has
gone
on
to
remain
committed
to
the
Labor
movement
and the union movement. I think that is a beautiful thing.
I
will
finish
on
this
one.
It
is
not
from
someone
I
know
but
I
saw
this
letter
shared
as
well.
He
wrote
it
to
a
very
young
person
in
July
1985,
who
had
written
to
him
because
she
was
really
sad
that
her
grandmother
had
died.
It
is
quite
beautiful
that
young
people
would
write
to
the
prime
minister
-
I
am
not
sure
whether
many
do
now
-
to
seek
their
advice
and
solace
on
the
passing
of
their grandmother. She wrote to the prime minister and received this response:
Thank
you
for
writing.
I
am
sorry
that
it
was
not
possible
to
reply
to
your
letter
sooner.
The
question
you
asked
me
about
dying
is
very
hard
to
answer
and
I
think
that
most of us have different ideas about why we do eventually all die.
Some
people
die
because
of
unfortunate
accidents,
sometimes
because
they
become
so
ill
that
doctors
are
unable
to
help
them
to
recover.
Perhaps
when
we
grow
very
old
our
bodies
get
worn
out,
or
certain
parts
break
down,
like
parts
in
an
old
car.
None
of
us
can
be
sure
of
how
long
we
will
live.
Because
this
is
so,
I
think
you
should
try
not
to
think
too
much
about
dying
but
think
about
all
the
nice things around you that make life so precious to us all.
My best wishes to you and your parents.
That
made
me
shed
a
tear
when
I
read
that
he
wrote
that
to
a
young
girl
and
encouraged
her
to
think
not
too
much
about
dying
but
about
all
the
nice
things
around
her
that
made
life
so
precious
to
us
all.
Certainly
across
the
great
Australian
Labor
Party
and
the
Labor
movement
we
will
continue
to
live
Bob
legacy
as
best
we
can
and
try
to
think
about
those
positive
things
that we can contribute to public life following in his mighty, mighty footsteps.
[11.55 a.m.]
Dr
BROAD
(Braddon)
-
Mr
Deputy
Speaker,
I
add
my
voice
to
this
condolence
motion
that
recognises
a
great
PM,
one
of
the
best
PMs
has
ever
seen,
in
Robert
James
Lee
otherwise known to everybody as Bob.
I
remember
vividly
the
1983
election;
it
is
probably
one
of
my
earliest
political
memories.
Staying
up
late
watching
the
election
results,
I
remember
the
optimism
and
excitement
of
my
family
and
especially
my
father
watching
that
election.
When
Bob
was
successful
and
Labor
became
the
government
he
said
that
this
election
would
change
for
the
better.
We
had
seen
the
firestorm
of
the
Whitlam
years
and
then
we
had
seen
the
Fraser
government,
but
I
As
we
have
heard,
Bob
was
not
just
a
prime
minister.
He
was
a
leader,
and
I
mean
a
leader
in
the
true
sense.
He
led
a
team
and
had
fantastic
talent
in
his
Cabinet.
What
they
did
changed
for
the
better
in
so
many
different
ways,
and
we
have
heard
that
today.
The
majority
of
the
political
operatives
in
that
time
knew
what
had
to
be
done
but
did
not
have
the
courage
to
do
what
had
to
be
done.
Bob
and
his
team
did
it
and
they
changed
and
set
us
up
for
the
growth
of
our
economy.
The
successive
years
of
growth
and
making
us
probably
one
of
the best economies in the world can all be laid down to the work that started in 1983.
He
floated
the
Australian
dollar,
deregulated
the
economy
and
the
financial
systems
and
cemented
in
Medicare,
despite
all
the
battles
to
keep
that
going
and
the
active
sabotage
from
conservative forces trying to stop that happening. We have Medicare thanks to him.
He
also
did
other
important
things.
We
have
heard
about
gender
equality
and
how
he
changed
the
lyrics
'Australia's
sons
let
us
rejoice'
to
'Australians
all
let
us
rejoice'.
Imagine
getting
up
at
school
events
nowadays
and
singing
God
Save
the
Queen
.
How
ridiculous
would
that
be
for
us as a nation? He was the one who changed that, who led the charge.
He
also
called
out
racism.
This
is
something
we
should
be
seeing
today.
Instead
what
we
are
seeing
is
a
lack
of
courage
and
dog
whistling.
He
would
not
stand
for
that
one
little
bit
and
he
called
it
out
when
he
saw
it.
Indeed,
he
took
courageous
action
after
the
Tiananmen
Square
massacre
to
allow
Chinese
students
to
stay
in
despite
calls
that
it
would
be
unpopular.
He
pushed
on
through
and
said,
'If
people
don't
accept
this
tell
me
what
I
have
to
do
to
make
them
listen'.
When
the
rest
of
the
world
was
equivocating
about
the
HIV-AIDS
epidemic
the
government
took
action
and
as
a
result
we
had
the
lowest
rates
of
HIV
infections
in
the
world.
This
was
at
a
time
when
people
were
using
every
excuse
and
it
was
just
something
that
did
not
affect
them,
yet
Bob
and
his
government
recognised
that
this
was
an
issue
that
affected
everyone.
We
all
remember
the
Grim
Reaper
bowling
ball
advertisements
that
had
an
impact.
As
a
result
of
that
courageous
decision,
instead
of
pushing
it
on
to
marginalised
communities
like
the
gay
community
and
drug
users
and
so
on,
he
recognised
that
this
was
a
massive
issue
and
took
leadership. That is the sort of prime minister we really deserve.
We
have
heard
about
compulsory
superannuation
and
confirming
that
green
and
gold
were
our
colours
when
representing
so
I
have
Bob
to
thank
for
the
colour
of
my
rowing
suits
in the cupboard. I did not know it was him who had done that.
Like
every
Labor
family,
there
are
Bob
stories.
Every
Labor
supporter
has
a
Bob
story.
After
Bob's
passing,
which
we
all
knew
was
going
to
happen
at
some
stage
but
yet
we
grieve,
I
asked
my
mother
because
my
mother
has
always
been
a
staunch
Labor
member
but
also
somewhat
of
a
Labor
groupie,
'Did
you
ever
kiss
or
hug
Bob?'
and
she
said,
'Yes,
indeed'.
She
had
managed
to
give
him
a
hug,
and
I
asked,
'Where
was
it?',
and
she
said,
'Well,
it
was
at
the
South
Burnie
Bowls
Club',
and
she
went
on,
and
she
knew
exactly
the
moment
that
she
had
managed
to
hug
Bob.
She
was
obviously
very
proud
of
that.
But
it
is
not
only
that,
people
are
posting stuff on Facebook.
There
was
a
message
from
my
Uncle
Rodney.
My
cousin
was
a
flight
attendant.
She
was
flying
from
to
and
Bob
was
one
of
the
passengers.
As
she
was
serving
Bob,
she
said,
'I
would
just
like
to
say
that
my
father
is
a
lifelong
Labor
supporter.'
Bob
wrote a note to my uncle which says:
With
best
wishes
for
your
support
and
congratulations
on
producing
(with
offers
of help) such a lovely daughter.
Always
that
sense
of
humour,
but
I
think
importantly
about
this
note,
is
that
my
uncle
still
has
it
and
that
is
the
impact
that
Bob
had.
Not
only
did
Bob
take
the
time
to
write
what
was
a
simple
message
on
a
bit
of
Qantas
paper,
but
he
still
has
it
and
these
are
how
highly
One
more
note,
as
I
was
saying,
my
mother
especially,
was
a
massive
Bob
fan.
We
actually
had
a
cat
named
Bob
which
did
lead
to
quite
an
interesting
or
rather
delicate
situation
once.
My
younger
brother
had
written,
I
think
it
must
have
been
in
prep
or
grade
1,
how
Bob
had
been
locked
in
the
house
one
day
and
had
crapped
in
the
sink.
So,
my
parents
were
hauled
in
for
a
'please
explain'.
Yes,
imagine
that
conversation.
But,
like
the
real
Bob
Bob
the
cat,
lived
to
a
ripe
old
age
and
even
when
the
poor
old
thing
could
barely
walk, he still could manage to catch a rabbit here and there.
Bob
was
a
fantastic
prime
minister.
He
was
a
beacon
in
what
leadership
should
be
and
Labor
supporters
grieve
and
this
motion
reflects
that.
On
reflection,
I
think
our
nation
grieves.
Our
nation
grieves
for
not
only
the
loss
of
his
intellect
but
also
a
loss
of
a
time
when
politics
was
about
the
changes
you
could
make
and
how
we
could
make
the
country
better.
I
really
hope
that
modern
politics
can
look
back
more
to
those
days
and
do
what
is
needed
instead
and
push
through
and
bring
your
people
along
with
you
and
make
changes
to
make
this
country
a
better place.
[12.03 p.m.]
Ms
BUTLER
(Lyons)
-
Mr
Deputy
Speaker,
I
have
a
few
words
about
Bob
today.
I
remember
as
well,
1983
and
the
landslide
victory
and
the
subsequent
four
terms
of
victory.
Most
of
my
childhood
was
spent
with
having
Bob
as
our
prime
minister.
I
think
most
Australians
were
proud
to
have
him
as
our
prime
minister.
His
approval
rating
in
1984
was
74
per
cent, and that is a huge approval rating for a prime minister.
always
that
person
who
was
there
in
the
background
during
most
of
my
childhood.
Being
from
a
very
strong
Labor
home,
we
always
felt
vindicated
that
Bob's
way
was
'the
way'.
It
was
very
much
our
family's
way
of
thinking,
our
values,
our
'norms',
and
we
really
valued
having
him
as
our
prime
minister.
We
just
loved
Bob
and
he
made
us
so
proud
to
be
a
Labor
family
as
well. I will always thank him for that.
Generally,
Bob
showed
consensus
leadership.
He
represented
values
such
as
respect
for
other
people,
to
think,
to
read,
to
learn,
and
to
contribute
to
your
community,
and
to
give
everyone the same access to the means of improvement and access to services in the community.
He
slashed
tariffs
and
laid
the
foundations
of
three
decades
of
economic
growth.
We
can
thank him for where we are today as a country.
He
introduced
and
assisted
with
Medicare,
child
endowment,
child
support,
and
protection
of
Antarctica.
Amazing
and
very
forward-thinking
economic
reform,
including
mass
education
reform
with
the
improvement
of
retention,
making
sure
that
not
only
the
wealthy
people
in
were
educated
any
more.
Everybody
had
the
same
access
to
the
same
education
and
means for improvement.
I
recently
found
an
electoral
poster
of
Bob's
that
my
grandma
had
held
onto
and
it
was
from
1963.
Bob
was
not
actually
successful
at
this
stage.
My
colleague
talked
about
how
he
went
on
to
work
with
the
ACTU
for
that
period.
The
poster
itself
is
a
remarkable
piece
of
Australian
history
and
it
tells
the
story
of
insight
and
progress
from
such
a
long
time
ago.
His
economic
reforms
were
significant.
The
combination
of
economic
and
social
reforms
really
made
him
stand
out
and
made
our
country
grow
up.
When
I
was
reading
through
this
poster
it
had
that,
'Money
spent
on
social
welfare
is
an
investment
in
Australia's
future'.
It
would
be
good
if
people
today
could adhere to some of this as well.
A
vote
for
Bob
is
a
vote
for
family
security.
He
moved
to
double
child
endowment,
double
maternity
allowance
and
an
immediate
rise
of
10
per
cent
for
married
pensioners,
free
public
medical
services
based
on
public
hospitals,
increases
to
the
Pharmaceutical
Benefit
Scheme,
free
medical
attention
for
World
War
I
veterans.
These
were
his
election
promises
in
1963.
We
will
not
see
the
likes
of
a
Bob
again.
His
personality,
lack
of
tolerance
for
extremism
and
bigotry
-
he
hated
racism
and
people
using
differences
in
race
to
further
their
own
political
gain.
For
him
to
see
the
results
of
Saturday
night,
it
would
have
been
such
a
slap
in
the
face
for
him.
For
a
man
who
worked
so
hard
to
forward
our
country
to
prize
acceptance
and
tolerance,
he
would
have
been
horrified
with
the
rise
of
the
likes
of
One
Nation,
Clive
Palmer
and
the ultra-conservative and the bigoted politics.
I
hope
that
in
time
we
have
an
opportunity
to
champion
his
direction
and
get
our
country
back
on
track.
Vale,
Bob
You
changed
our
community
and
you
made
me
so
proud
to
be
a
Labor supporter.
Motion agreed to
nemine contradicente
.
That
a
copy
of
the
foregoing
resolution
and
a
transcript
of
the
debate
be
First Reading
MATTER OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Homelessness
[12.12 p.m.]
That the House take note of the following matter: homelessness.
This
Government
knows
that
1600
Tasmanians
are
homeless
each
night.
In
fact
that
data
was
drawn
from
the
2016
census
and
this
Government
and
this
minister
know
that
that
number
has
doubtlessly
risen.
That
figure
of
1600
Tasmanian
people
homeless
every
night
does
not
include
the
countless
numbers
of
secondary
homeless,
people
who
are
couch-surfing,
living
in
containers,
living in sheds and garages.
The
faces
of
these
Tasmanians
are
not
of
the
dishevelled
older
alcoholic
that
is
in
so
many
people's
minds.
The
faces
of
these
Tasmanians
are
like
Nikki
Russell
who
has
so
bravely
told
her
story
today
-
a
young,
single
mother
with
four
young
children
who
was
in
private
rental
accommodation
over
the
last
nine
years
and
struggling
to
make
ends
meet,
the
stress
of
the
circumstances
sadly
resulting
in
the
breakdown
of
that
relationship
and
being
forced
out
of
the
private
rental
market
and
into
the
in-laws'
shed
with
four
young
children
and
one
still
in
a
cot.
Without
running
water
and
a
bathroom,
can
you
imagine
living
in
a
shed
with
four
young
children
and
trying
to
keep
a
stable
home
environment
for
those
children
to
be
attending
school,
to
be
searching for work and so on?
This
minister
knows
that
there
are
more
than
3200
Tasmanians
on
the
public
housing
wait
list
and
that
they
wait
for
more
than
a
year
to
find
a
roof
over
their
heads.
That
is
two
Christmases,
two
birthdays
-
that
is
more
than
a
year
and
that
is
just
an
average.
I
have
spoken
with
individuals
and
families
who
have
been
looking
for
a
roof
over
their
heads
for
much
longer
than
that,
more
than five years on one occasion.
Today
we
heard
the
desperate
circumstances
of
Nikki
Russell
and
her
children.
Despite
her
best
endeavours,
desperately
unable
to
make
ends
meet,
ending
up
in
a
shed,
with
a
relationship
breakdown
that
she
hopes
one
day
might
be
repaired,
she
has
unfortunately
resorted
to
housing
in
emergency
accommodation
with
her
four
young
children.
She
wants
to
keep
that
family
together.
The
funding
that
is
available
through
this
Government
allows
for
emergency
accommodation
to
be
provided
for
some
six
weeks,
as
I
understand
it.
Having
visited
a
number
of
these
shelters
over
the
past
months
I
understand
the
absolute
dedication,
compassion
and
willingness
of
these
shelters
to
extend
from
crisis
accommodation
to
transitional
accommodation
if
it
is
available
and
do
everything they can to keep these people with a roof over their heads.
The
reality
is
that
Nikki
Russell
is
facing
homelessness
within
a
couple
of
weeks
and
as
of
today
she
is
fearful
that
not
only
will
she
be
turfed
out
of
this
accommodation
onto
the
streets
but
that
as
a
consequence
lose
custody
of
her
four
children.
This
is
a
respectable
woman
who
has
tried
her
very
best
to
keep
her
family
together
-
and
she
is
not
alone.
Today
she
has
spoken
out
bravely
to
tell
her
story
in
the
hope
that
not
only
a
solution
can
be
found
for
her
but
for
the
many
thousands of people living in such circumstances.
The
shelter
this
woman
is
living
in
is
just
one
of
many
shelters
across
the
state,
and
it
is
astounding
to
me
that
nearly
2500
people
a
year
to
date
have
been
turned
away
and
have
been
unable
to
be
assisted
by
that
shelter
-
2500
calls
for
assistance
for
tenancy
that
have
been
unable
to
be
addressed.
On
average
an
astounding
223
people
are
turned
away
per
month.
In
the
last
couple
of
months
it
was
nearly
300
people
per
month.
Yet
what
does
this
minister
have
to
say
about that? These people are in the most terrible of circumstances.
I
believe
this
minister
has
a
heart,
yet
he
has
the
gall
to
stand
here
and
trumpet
$40
million
that
will
be
brought
forward
in
this
year's
Budget
to
assist
the
housing
and
homelessness
circumstances
of
these
desperate
Tasmanians.
What
is
his
answer?
Forty
million
dollars
that
cannot
be
trusted
because
last
year
this
minister
stood
in
this
place
and
announced
that
$25
million
would
be
brought
forward
to
assist
with
housing
and
what
do
we
have?
We
have
broken
promises.
This
minister,
upon
questioning
this
morning,
refused
to
answer
how
many
of
the
900
homes
that
he
and
his
Premier
have
committed
to
deliver
by
the
end
of
June
this
year
have
been
delivered.
He
knows
that
the
figures
are
around
30
per
cent
only
of
that
target.
In
desperation
he
has
been
using
smoke
and
mirror
tactics
to
talk
about
lots
of
land
and
homes.
I
feel
like
a
broken
record
when
I
say
that
he
has
been
talking
about
blocks
of
land
and
homes,
and
refurbished
homes
even,
not
new
homes
which
he
has
clearly
promised
in
the
past.
He
has
had
half
a
decade
to
deliver this.
There
is
precisely
nothing
new,
not
one
dollar
in
housing
and
homelessness
over
the
coming
term
of
this
Budget.
Money
is
being
brought
forward
and
that
is
to
be
commended,
but
let
us
be
clear
about
this,
it
will
not
result
in
one
new
dollar
into
assisting
homelessness.
As
winter
approaches,
as
the
weather
is
becoming
cooler
and
damper
and
the
daylight
hours
shorter,
not
one
new
dollar
is
going
to
assist
those
families
who
are
struggling
with
homelessness
and
not
one
new
dollar will result in a new home being built in this state.
This
minister
knows
that
it
is
around
an
18-month
wait
to
contract
a
builder
to
build
a
new
home.
He
knows
that
bringing
forward
some
money
is
effectively
resourcing
an
over-choked
market
that
is
hopelessly
in
crisis.
Whether
it
be
building
for
social
housing
or
private
rental,
the
pressure
will
not
be
taken
off
in
this
circumstance.
He
is
offering
nothing
new.
For
many
of
us,
this
is
the
time
of
year
that
we
look
forward
to
cosy
nights,
perhaps
an
open
fire,
family
movies,
a
glass
of
red
wine
or
a
cup
of
tea
in
our
hand,
but
for
an
estimated
1600
Tasmanians
or
more
on
any
given
night
this
is
not
the
reality.
These
people
are
living
rough,
they
are
living
in
tents,
containers, sheds, garages, cars and they desperately require a solution.
[12.20 p.m.]
Ms
O'CONNOR
(Clark
-
Leader
of
the
Greens)
-
Thank
you
to
Ms
and
the
honourable
member
for
Franklin
for
bringing
this
Matter
of
Public
Importance
debate
on
today.
It
is
important
that
we
acknowledge
in
this
place
that,
right
now,
there
are
people
who
are
so-called,
sleeping
rough,
sleeping
under
bridges,
crashing
at
their
friend's
houses,
sleeping
in
shipping
containers, caravans and in highly unaffordable and unsuitable accommodation.
Let
us
be
really
clear
about
where
this
began,
where
this
crisis
started.
It
started
in
2014.
That
is
a
fact.
The
Labor-Greens
government
delivered
2200
new
affordable
energy
efficient
homes.
It
was
a
massive
investment
in
increasing
the
supply
of
social
and
affordable
housing.
It
all
stopped
when
the
Liberals
were
elected
to
the
Tasmanian
parliament
and
when
the
Liberal/National
party
was
elected
to
the
federal
parliament.
One
of
the
first
things
that
Tony
Abbott
as
prime
minister
-
and,
hello
everyone,
how
great
was
that
result
on
Saturday
night
-
one
of
the
first
things
that
Tony
Abbott
did
as
prime
minister,
with
Joe
Hockey
as
his
treasurer,
was
to
slash
the
national
rental
affordability
scheme.
From
then
on
there
was
a
chronic
underinvestment
in housing at a federal and state level.
Even
in
the
last
federal
budget,
which
was
brought
down
before
Scott
Morrison
went
to
an
election,
there
is
a
$200
million
cut
to
the
National
Affordable
Housing
Agreement
in
real
terms
over
the
forward
Estimates.
There
is
an
$800
million
cut
to
the
National
Partnership
Agreement
on
Homelessness
over
the
forward
Estimates.
That
is
the
kind
of
chronic
under-resourcing
that
we
are dealing with here.
results
for
people
who
need
a
home
in
come
when
all
three
levels
of
government
are
working
together
and
are
prepared
to
invest
in
increasing
the
supply
of
social
and
affordable housing.
In
the
last
term
of
the
parliament,
for
three
years
and
three
state
budgets,
there
was
no
substantial
increase
in
funds
for
social
and
affordable
housing.
At
the
same
time
the
Government
was
allowing
unchecked
expansion
of
new
listings
for
short
stay
accommodation
and
underinvesting
in
increasing
the
supply
of
social
and
affordable
housing
and
rolling
over
to
the
federal
government
who
chronically
and
callously
underinvest
in
people
right
across
the
spectrum
of social services in this country.
Every
member
of
this
place
knows
because
of
our
engagement
with
our
constituents
that
the
single
most
important
foundation
for
life's
successes,
for
your
capacity
to
access
education,
training,
employment,
recreational
opportunities
is
a
secure
and
affordable
home.
I
quote
from
a
letter
that
was
sent
to
Mr
Jaensch
by
a
Tasmanian
woman,
a
homeless
Tasmanian,
a
divorced
50-year-old,
highly-educated
homeless
Tasmanian,
a
full-time
carer
to
a
now
adult
and
also
homeless
autistic
Tasmanian.
I
do
not
know
if
you
recall
this
letter,
Mr
Jaensch,
but
it
should
have
arrived
with
you
in
late
March,
early
April.
This
woman
says
at
the
end
of
her
letter
to
the
minister:
Homelessness
and
rental
distress
is
damaging
our
community
in
more
ways
than
the
narrow
economic
view
your
Government
takes,
not
knowing
where
you
are
going
to
live,
whether
you
are
going
to
be
able
to
send
your
children
to
school,
whether
you
will
be
forced
to
move
away
from
your
support
network
or
how
you
will
be
able
to
afford
to
move
when
forced
to
has
a
deep
emotional
impact
that,
in
the
long
run,
costs
us
both
in
terms
of
social
cohesiveness
and
mental
health.
So,
with
that
I
will
leave
you
with
the
words
of
another
member
of
my
support group.
Quote:
When
they
measure
the
impact
of
homelessness
it
is
all
bricks
and
mortar
and
logistics.
They
do
not
measure
the
lasting
trauma,
they
do
not
even
acknowledge
it.
This
is
a
conversation
that
must
be
had
with
our
Government
so
that
people
like
me
and
those
less
fortunate,
are
not
having
to
live
with
what
is akin to post-traumatic stress disorder, due to not having housing security.
Every
member
of
this
place
wants
Mr
Jaensch
to
succeed.
Mr
Jaensch,
we
want
you
to
meet
the
targets
for
delivering
new
affordable
social
housing,
but
you
cannot
even
be
upfront
about
how
many
houses
of
the
900
that
were
promised
by
the
end
of
this
financial
year
will
have
been
built.
That
does
not
instil,
certainly
in
the
Greens,
a
great
sense
of
confidence
in
your
capacity
to
deliver
or
optimism
that
life
for
homeless
Tasmanians
and
Tasmanians
living
in
acute
housing
distress will improve.
People
are
not
pitching
their
tents
on
the
lawns
of
Parliament.
The
Showground
has
closed
to
people
who
do
not
have
a
secure
home,
so
the
obvious
evidence
that
was
before
us
as
parliamentarians
of
this
homelessness
crisis,
it
is
not
right
in
front
of
us
but
that
is
not
that
it
is
not
there. It has been pushed outside.
what
happens
in
places
like
authorities
push
the
problem
out
of
sight
and
out
of
mind.
What
is
happening
is
that
people
are
living
in
shipping
containers.
There are more people sleeping up on the Domain and winter is here.
This is a crisis.
Ms
O'CONNOR
-
Yes,
that
is
right.
We
have
a
situation
where
the
housing
waiting
list
has
gone
from
its
lowest
level
in
a
decade
under
the
previous
Labor-Greens
government
to
now
its
highest level in a decade with more than 3200 Tasmanians on the housing waiting list.
Minister,
when
you
stand
up
in
here
and
you
seek
to
answer
questions
with
decency
in
response
to
the
questions
that
came
from
the
Opposition
this
morning
and
you
suggest
to
homeless
people
that
they
call
an
1800
number,
it
is
incredibly
tone
deaf.
Minister,
you
need
to
do
better. You need to get out more and talk to more people who are living in housing distress.
[12.27 p.m.]
Ms
(Bass)
-
Madam
Speaker,
on
any
given
night
in
1600
people
are
homeless
and
a
further
600
are
living
in
insecure
and
unsafe
environments,
3200
families
sit
on
social
housing
waiting
lists
with
an
average
waiting
time
of
over
one
year.
Meanwhile
houses
sit
empty.
People
are
living
in
sheds,
shipping
containers,
cars
and
even
under
bridges.
Some
people
living
like
this
are
children
and
some
are
babies.
These
are
real
people:
Tasmanians
living
in
third
world
conditions
often
without
electricity
or
running
water
or
even
water-tight
accommodation.
The
main
causes
of
homelessness
are
poverty,
unaffordable
rent
and
family
violence
along
with
a
significant
shortage
of
available
housing.
Those
who
do
have
accommodation
are
struggling,
with
a
number
paying
in
excess
of
50
per
cent
of
their
income
for
rent.
Private
rental
is unaffordable for half of all rental households. It is simply outside their reach.
It
is
all
well
and
good
to
tell
desperate
people
to
call
Housing
Connect's
1800
number.
Those
working
for
housing
and
homelessness
services
can
do
very
little
to
help.
They
are
overwhelmed
and
turn
more
people
away
than
they
take
in.
Most
of
the
time,
support
workers
can
do
little
more
than
make
clients
feel
better
about
being
homeless.
Sometimes
food
vouchers,
sometimes
blankets,
sometimes
waterproof
sheeting
to
put
on
the
floors
of
abandoned
houses
so
that
the
water cannot seep up through the floor.
The
reason
for
this
is
simple.
The
houses
listed
for
rent
are
too
expensive
for
their
clients
to
afford
so
then
there
is
emergency
accommodation,
but
there
is
very
limited
emergency
accommodation and it is all short term.
may
get
one
or
two
nights
in
a
motel
and
then
they
are
required
to
pay
for
their
own
accommodation
until
their
money
runs
out.
Then
they
are
back
on
the
streets
and
back
in
the
cycle
again.
They
call
the
1800
number
and
they
go
back
to
the
provider
and
the
workers
who
then
try
and
find
them
some
short-term
accommodation
they
can
pay
for
until
their
money
runs
out
again,
and
we
go
around
and
around.
It
is
a
revolving
door.
It
is
like
this
because
there
are
simply
not
enough
houses
available
for
those
who
need
a
home.
Anyone
of
those
workers
will
tell
any
one
of
us
that
there
is
just
not
the
bricks
and
mortar,
and
there
is
a
real
human
cost
to
this.
Their
clients'
health
disintegrates
while
they
are
out
there
desperately
looking
for
housing.
Mental
health
becomes
an
issue
for
people
it
was
never
an
issue
for
before
and
the
physical
health
of
people is affected and more and more of them end up in our hospital system.
Again,
we
have
a
revolving
door;
the
merry-go-round
that
keeps
going
around,
and
it
is
getting
worse.
Even
those
housed
in
emergency
accommodation
have
time
limits
placed
on
them.
Often
they
have
to
move
out
without
anywhere
else
to
go.
They
may
get
two
weeks
or
three
months,
and
in
some
cases
I
know
of
young
people
who
have
had
six
months,
but
those
young
people
were
still
too
young
to
rent
a
place
on
their
own
but
had
to
leave
the
accommodation
they
were
in
because
there
is
a
limit
on
how
much
funding
can
be
allocated
and
time
limits
on
where
they
are.
They
were
attending
school,
they
had
part-time
work,
and
once
they
were
homeless
they
could
not
do
any
of
those
things,
so
they
are
caught
back
in
the
poverty
trap
again.
No-one
is
immune from the looming threat of homelessness.
Those
seeking
assistance
from
Housing
are
not
only
those
receiving
government
payments.
Many
are
working
families
with
children
and
many
are
youth
in
insecure
work
who
do
not
know
what
their
income
will
be
from
one
fortnight
to
the
next.
More
recently,
the
group
at
increasing
risk
of
homelessness
are
single
women
over
50,
many
of
whom
are
working,
but
minimum
wages
mean
that
most
private
rental
properties
are
out
of
their
reach
and
they
are
ineligible
for
social
housing
because
they
earn
too
much
for
that,
so
they
are
caught
in
the
middle.
This
is
a
poverty
trap in itself.
As
these
women
age
they
will
become
even
more
vulnerable.
One
such
case
presented
to
me
recently
was
of
a
single
working
woman
in
her
early
60s.
She
has
worked
her
entire
working
life
in
retail
and
has
a
long
and
excellent
history
as
a
tenant.
The
property
she
lives
in
has
been
put
on
the
market
as
the
owner
is
elderly
and
will
be
moving
into
a
nursing
home
and
she
has
just
weeks
to
relocate.
Despite
a
perfect
credit
rating,
a
stable
income,
a
spotless
rental
history,
there
was
little
advertised
that
was
affordable.
There
was
nothing
advertised
that
was
affordable,
which
would
be
30
per
cent
of
her
income.
Eventually
she
found
a
rental
property
but
the
rent
alone
will
consume
something
like
48
per
cent
of
her
income,
placing
her
in
rental
stress.
This
solution
is
not
a
long-term
one.
In
a
couple
of
years
this
person
will
retire
and
be
unable
to
afford
private
rental
again.
Their
health
will
not
allow
them
to
continue
to
work
past
the
age
of
retirement.
She
will
not
be
the
only
one.
What
will
become
of
people
like
her
in
retirement?
There
is
already
a
housing shortage and demand will only continue to increase as the community ages.
The
only
solution
to
homelessness
is
more
affordable
housing,
long-term
secure
housing
designed
to
meet
the
changing
needs
of
the
community,
and
short-term
emergency
housing
must
be
made
available
to
homelessness
services
to
assist
them
in
immediate
need.
Housing
Connect
cannot
fulfil
its
role
without
the
resources
to
address
client
need.
The
current
situation
is
dehumanising
for
clients
and
demoralising
for
staff
trying
to
assist
them.
It
is
not
sufficient
to
advise
desperate
people
to
dial
an
1800
number.
More
must
be
done
and
services
must
be
properly
resourced.
Many
of
the
emergency
accommodation
services
are
reliant
on
hotels
and
motels
and
increasingly
they
will
not
take
these
clients.
They
will
not
take
people
that
are
being
referred
and
paid
for
by
Housing
Connect
services.
They
reject
them
out
of
hand,
even
if
they
do
have
space,
so
the
pool
of
available
housing
in
the
private
market
is
shrinking.
Increasingly,
they
live
in
caravan
parks
for
one
or
two
days,
but
an
unfortunate
side
effect
of
the
economic
boom
in
tourism is that that does not leave very much for anyone else.
[12.35 p.m.]
Mr
JAENSCH
(Braddon
-
Minister
for
Housing)
-
Madam
Speaker,
I
thank
Ms
for
bringing
forward
this
item,
and
others
for
their
contributions
and
those
we
are
yet
to
hear.
When
Ms
Standen
opened
she
made
a
comment
that
the
face
of
homelessness
is
not,
and
I
am
paraphrasing
her,
but
something
like
the
shabby
alcoholic
image.
It
is
the
faces
of
the
family
that
she referred to earlier on in acute housing stress.
I
believe
Ms
is
wrong
to
try
to
characterise
homelessness
as
one
thing
and
not
another.
It
is
both
of
those
things
and
everything
in
between
and
many
things
besides.
The
circumstances
that
result
in
people
becoming
homeless
or
in
housing
stress
are
complex,
diverse
and
individual.
One
of
the
reasons
why
the
answer
to
this
question
about
what
services
you
are
providing
go
to
Housing
Connect
is
that
we
have
to
have
a
front
door
service
that
can
understand
that person's needs.
Amongst
the
speakers
we
have
heard
from
they
have
described
everyone
from
a
substance-
addicted
person
sleeping
rough
on
the
Domain
with
their
dogs
through
to
a
family
in
rental
stress.
The
reasons
that
they
are
homeless
are
very
different.
The
solutions
to
their
homelessness
are
very
different
as
well,
and
they
are
not
only
about
the
availability
of
a
house,
a
fire
and
a
glass
of
red
wine
with
Ms
Standen.
The
needs
vary
and
there
needs
to
be
many
solutions
to
the
many
problems people face and the great diversity of them out there.
why
our
effort
has
been
focused
on
two
things
-
the
capacity
of
the
system
to
receive
and
shelter
people
-
and
I
will
go
through
some
of
those
and
the
plans
that
we
have
for
the
next
stage
of
our
plan
as
well
-
but
critically
the
capacity,
the
mechanism,
the
service
that
can
find,
speak
to,
listen
to,
understand
and
connect
people
with
service
is
absolutely
fundamental.
There
is
not one solution for homelessness.
While
we
are
busting
some
myths
I
will
go
to
Ms
O'Connor's
comment
and
channelling,
if
I
can
for
a
moment,
the
Bob
that
we
have
been
hearing
from
this
morning,
the
idea
that
homelessness started here in 2014 is bullshit. That is wrong.
Ms O'Connor
- I beg your pardon?
Madam SPEAKER
- I am sorry, that is not a very parliamentary word.
Madam SPEAKER
- For a man of your dignity.
Ms O'Connor
- I said the seeds of this problem started in 2014, and they did.
Mr
JAENSCH
-
You
cannot
introduce
the
circumstances
of
homelessness
and
say
this
started
in 2014.
Ms O'Connor
- I didn't say that. You're misrepresenting what I said.
Mr
JAENSCH
-
We
know
that
there
are
people
experiencing
housing
stress
and
homelessness
in
We
know
that
their
circumstances
vary
differently
and
the
response
needs to be as complex and diverse as the need.
In
our
first
affordable
housing
action
plan
we
have
delivered
a
number
of
places,
111
so
far,
built
accommodation
capacity
for
people
in
homelessness,
including
Eveline
House
in
Devonport,
Colville
Place
at
Moonah,
extensions
to
the
women's
shelters
including
installing
backyard
units
in
the
backyards
of
existing
public
housing
to
provide
a
home
for
a
young
person
who
might
otherwise have become homeless.
In
our
affordable
housing
action
plan
2
over
the
next
four
years
including
starting
in
2019-20
with
what
has
now
been
acknowledged
as
extra
funding
brought
in
to
address
the
urgency
of
need,
there
will
be
increasing
and
continuing
rapid
rehousing
initiatives,
the
Housing
Connect
outreach
support
service
that
I
have
spoken
about,
the
homeless
accommodation
for
women
extension
here
in
the
south,
House
Women's
Shelter
will
be
extended,
the
Wirksworth
integrated
aged
care
facility,
homeless
accommodation
for
older
men
in
the
north-west,
expansion
and
relocation
of
the
Bethlehem
House
men's
shelter
down
here,
a
new
men's
shelter
for
men
with
kids
in
the
north-west -
Mr
JAENSCH
-
the
new
Burnie
Youth
Foyer,
the
new
Youth
Foyer,
expansion
of
Thyne
House,
the
new
Youth
at
Risk
Centre
in
Launceston
and
a
new
youth
shelter
in
Burnie.
All
of
these
things
are
in
our
Affordable
Housing
Action
Plan
and
that
is
why
we
have
brought
forward extra money.
The
question
has
been
asked
of
how
much
of
that
is
new?
The
money
brought
forward
is
new
because it comes from 2022-23.
Mr
JAENSCH
-
We
are
bringing
it
forward
because
what
we
are
hearing,
what
we
are
told
and
what
we
know
is
that
the
need
is
now.
We
had
the
money
in
the
budget
and
we
have
management
of
our
budget
in
such
a
position
that
we
can
bring
forward
money
and
spend
it
now
when it is essential and when it is needed to do so.
Mr
JAENSCH
-
That
is
what
we
are
doing,
Madam
Speaker.
This
Government
has
a
plan
and
we
have
budget
management
under
control
to
the
point
where
our
committed
funds
from
out
years
can
be
brought
forward
to
address
urgent
need
right
now.
Of
the
list
of
initiatives
that
I
have
talked
about
here
today
and
what
is
now
$68
million
in
the
2019-20
budget
-
how
much
of
that
is
not needed or necessary or you do not believe is going to do anything?
We
have
absolute
hypocrisy
from
the
other
side,
saying
we
have
done
nothing,
we
have
no
money,
there
is
no
new
money,
it
is
not
going
to
achieve
anything,
demanding
that
we
put
more
resources
into
this
and
bring
out
a
plan
and
tell
us
what
we
are
going
to
do.
Then
we
do
that
and
a
job
to
do.
We
have
consulted
heavily
on
our
plan.
We
are
delivering
on
our
target
and
everybody
over
there
who
says
that
we
have
broken
promises
and
we
have
not
met
our
targets
before those targets are due is just wasting our time.
Mr
JAENSCH
-
The
Opposition
will
know
that
when
they
have
read
the
last
quarterly
report
that
252
of
372
social
housing
dwellings
have
been
delivered
and
that
we
have
over
200
nearing
completion.
I
am
confident
that
we
are
going
to
meet
our
targets
before
the
end
of
this
financial
year and we will continue to through the next four years.
[12.42 p.m.]
Ms
(Lyons
-
Leader
of
the
Opposition)
-
Madam
Speaker,
the
minister
has
just
confirmed
that
it
is
from
the
2022-23
financial
year
that
the
money
has
been
brought
forward
but
also
confirmed
in
the
same
breath
that
it
is
not
new
money.
These
were
promises
that
the
Liberal
party
took
to
the
people
of
You
said
that
you
would
spend
a
quantum
amount
of
money
on
housing.
You
have
now
confirmed
there
will
be
no
additional
funds
provided,
even
though
we
have
heard
stories
like
Nikki's
today,
even
though
there
is
the
front
page
of
The
Examiner
with
a
family
living
in
a
container.
I
have
constituents
contacting
me
-
pensioners
living
in
cars.
The
Burnie
Chamber
of
Commerce
has
spoken
to
me
about
the
levels
of
homelessness
in
your
own
I
am
concerned
the
minister
has
still
been
unable
to
confirm
how
many
homes
have
been
built
of
the
900
that
were
promised.
He
reluctantly
went
to
the
question
today
but
failed
to
answer
it.
It
is
not
appropriate
for
the
minister
to
say,
'Wait
until
the
end
of
June
to
see
how
we
are
going'.
He
should
be
able
to
give
an
up-to-date
figure
for
today
on
how
many
homes
have
been
built,
not
lots and blocks.
The
promise
was
clear;
it
was
in
the
brochure.
The
promise
and
the
commitment
you
gave
to
the
people
of
Tasmania
at
the
election,
Mr
Jaensch,
through
you,
Madam
Speaker,
was
that
you
would have built 900 homes - roofs over people's heads by the end of June this year.
All
we
are
seeking
is
an
update
on
how
you
are
tracking
to
meet
that
commitment.
We
do
fear
that
you
will
not
deliver
on
that
promise.
We
hear
from
you
that
you
are
now
including
lots
as
a
part
of
that
commitment.
That
is
not
what
you
told
people
when
you
went
to
the
election
and
promised
them
900
homes.
You
should
be
able
to
come
into
this
place
and
give
an
update
on
how
you are tracking to meet that promise you made to Tasmanians.
I
was
very
disappointed
today
in
the
response
the
minister
gave
to
the
question
we
asked
about
Nikki,
that
she
should
contact
the
1800
number
of
Housing
Connect.
I
understand
they
are
the
front
door
but
had
you
read
the
letter
that
she
wrote
to
the
Premier
and
myself
and,
no
doubt,
yourself
as
the
Minister
for
Housing,
you
would
see
that
every
week
-
multiple
times
a
week
-
she
does
contact
Housing
Connect.
She
is
desperate.
She
is
in
a
shelter
and
in
two
weeks
she
and
her
four
children
are
looking
like
they
are
going
to
be
homeless.
Her
family
has
broken
apart
already.
She
is
frightened
about
what
will
happen
with
her
children.
You
came
in
here
and
you
could
have
given
a
much
more
empathetic
and
sympathetic
response
without
going
into
the
details
of
an
individual, but you did not. You told people to call a 1800 number.
It
is
not
good
enough
that
today
you
have
failed
not
only
to
given
an
update
on
responsibilities
in
your
portfolio,
but
you
have
also
failed
to
show
the
heart
required
for
a
minister
for Housing, given the very dire circumstances so many Tasmanians are facing.
I
am
incredibly
concerned
that
the
minister
has
confirmed
that
there
will
be
no
new
money
in
this
budget
for
housing.
It
is
only
money
brought
forward
that
was
already
allocated
across
the
forward
Estimates
of
his
portfolio.
This
is
despite
the
crisis
that
we
are
facing
in
this
state,
despite
the
problems
we
are
seeing
in
accessing
emergency
accommodation,
a
transitional
accommodation,
supported
places,
public
and
social
housing.
There
is
not
a
single
extra
dollar
that
the
minister
has
been
able
to
guarantee
for
Tasmanians
that
is
additional
to
what
was
promised already at the election.
That
is
what
the
minister
has
confirmed
and
that
makes
me
very
sad.
They
failed
to
take
action
on
short
stay
accommodation
and
regulation
and
it
is
not
only
people
seeking
accommodation
in
the
private
rental
market
who
are
feeling
the
consequences
of
that.
It
is
also
businesses that are operating in the traditional B&B accommodation sector.
I
talk
again,
what
is
going
on
in
your
own
electorate
of
Braddon
where
I
have
members
coming
to
me
from
chambers
of
commerce
up
there
expressing
their
concern
that
they
are
now
operating in an environment that is uneven and unfair against those in the sharing economy.
You
look
at
the
Tasmanian
Visitor
Survey
data.
It
shows
the
number
of
properties
now
accommodated
by
visitors
to
our
state
has
increased.
Double
digit,
over
30
per
cent,
the
number
of properties being utilised by visitors in the traditional B&B sector is down by the same amount.
People
are
operating
with
an
uneven
playing
field
in
the
private
sector.
That
is
of
concern
but
also
it
is
shutting
people
out
of
the
private
rental
market
because
those
properties
on
short
stay
have
been
removed
from
the
supply.
You
have
not
been
able
to
keep
your
promise
to
build
900
more houses by the end of this year.
If
you
were
on
track
to
meet
that
target
to
build
900
more
homes
and
provide
roofs
over
people's
heads,
you
would
have
been
in
this
house
today
and
talking
about
that.
You
did
not
mention it.
Mr Jaensch
- I told you we are on track.
Ms
WHITE
-
You
did
not
go
anywhere
near
it.
You
gave
a
figure
that
you
are
going
to
build
252
social
housing
properties
or
you
have
built
that
many
of
your
272
target.
That
is
not
900
homes.
It
is
a
third
of
what
was
promised.
That
is
terrible.
Awful
for
people
like
Nikki
to
hear.
It
does
not
matter
one
bit
how
much
money
you
bring
forward
if
you
do
not
spend
it,
if
you
do
not
actually deliver on the targets and the promises that you gave to the people of Tasmania.
I
do
not
care
how
much
money
you
bring
forward
if
you
do
not
use
it
wisely,
if
you
do
not
actually
use
it
to
put
roofs
over
people's
heads.
It
is
only
a
statement
to
get
you
a
front
page
on
the newspaper and nothing more. It is shameless.
It
is
not
meaningful,
it
is
not
action
and
it
does
not
help
those
people
who
are
being
turned
away from the Women's Shelter, over 230 of them every month and that is only in Hobart.
You
say
you
have
increased
the
number
of
rooms
at
the
Hobart
Women's
Shelter.
You
did
do
that.
You
did
not
increase
the
resources
for
them
to
actually
support
those
women.
You
did
not
increase
their
operating
budget.
They
have
to
care
for
more
women,
more
desperate
people
and
they
have
to
do
that
with
the
same
budget.
It
is
hard
for
them
to
do
that
and
at
the
same
time
deal
with the emotional impact that dealing with people like that has on them and their everyday life.
How
are
they
supposed
to
tell
Nikki
in
two
weeks'
time
that
with
her
four
children
she
has
to
vacate
that
property.
She
has
nowhere
to
go.
You
are
putting
your
staff
in
incredibly
difficult
positions. You are putting Tasmanians in incredibly difficult positions.
incredibly
deceitful
of
you
to
say
that
you
have
brought
forward
funding
and
that
will
make
a
difference
when
you
have
not
met
your
targets
this
financial
year
or
any
time
during
your
tenure as a Housing Minister and people are missing out.
Time expired.
Matter noted.
WORKERS REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION
AMENDMENT BILL 2019 (No. 20)
Second Reading
[12.49 p.m.]
Mr
FERGUSON
(Bass
-
Minister
for
Police,
Fire
and
Emergency
Management
-
2R)
-
Madam Speaker, I move -
That the bill be now read the second time.
The
purpose
of
the
bill
is
to
amend
the
Workers
Rehabilitation
and
Compensation
Act
1988
to
remove
wage
step-down
provisions
applying
to
police
officers
who
are
incapacitated
as
a
result
of
an operational-related injury.
Under
the
existing
act,
all
workers
who
are
incapacitated
by
a
work
injury
have
their
pay
reduced
to
90
per
cent
after
26
weeks
of
incapacity,
and
further
reduced
to
80
per
cent
after
78
weeks
of
incapacity.
Police
officers
who
are
injured
whilst
protecting
our
community
should
not
be subject to these step-down provisions.
unique
in
that
police
officers
not
only
put
themselves
at
risk
for
the
public
benefit,
but
they
do
so
in
circumstances
where
the
injuries
sustained
are
often
a
consequence
of
being
attacked.
I
acknowledge
that
there
are
other
occupations
whose
members
suffer
injuries
while
providing
services
for
the
public.
However,
policing
is
the
only
occupation
where
we
expect
employees
of
the
state
to
routinely
attend
situations
of
violence
and
where
it
is
not
uncommon
for
that violence to be redirected at them.
A
police
officer's
duty
requires
them
to
put
public
safety
ahead
of
their
own.
This
duty
is
imposed
by
law,
and
it
is
unconscionable
that
the
state
require
this
commitment
and
not
fully
support police officers who are injured.
In
this
state
we
have
had
police
officers
who,
while
serving
the
community,
have
been
shot,
stabbed
and
otherwise
assaulted.
It
is
simply
not
reasonable
that
we
would
expect
our
police
officers
to
respond
to
such
danger
while
knowing
that
they
will
suffer
a
loss
of
income
should
they be injured.
As
an
example,
there
was
a
very
public
case
in
2006
where
a
police
sergeant
who
intercepted
an
erratic
driver
was
shot
in
the
face
before
being
shot
a
further
two
times.
He
suffered
life-threatening
injuries,
and
under
the
current
legislation
had
his
pay
stepped
down.
This
is
not
a
situation
we
want
to
see
repeated
and
the
Government
is
moving
this
legislation
to
ensure
this
does not occur again.
The
bill
inserts
a
new
subsection
2DA
into
section
69B
of
the
Workers
Rehabilitation
and
Compensation
Act
1988
which
will
ensure
police
officers
who
are
incapacitated
by
an
operational-related
injury
will
continue
to
receive
100
per
cent
of
their
wage.
The
subsection
provides
that
the
existing
step-down
provisions
do
not
apply
to
a
police
officer
'if,
had
the
person
not
been
a
police
officer,
it
is
unlikely
that
the
person
would
have
been
in
the
circumstances
as
a
result of which the injury was suffered.'
This
wording
is
to
make
clear
that
the
wage
step-down
is
only
removed
in
those
circumstances
that
are
unique
to
the
policing
role.
For
example,
if
a
police
officer
is
injured
apprehending
an
offender,
they
are
covered
as
the
circumstances
in
which
the
injury
was
suffered
were
a
result
of
them
being
a
police
officer
-
the
policing
role
being
what
required
them
to
offender.
Similarly,
a
police
officer
injured
undertaking
search
and
rescue
operations
would
also
be
covered,
those
operations
being
something
undertaken
in
the
policing
role.
However,
a
police
officer
injured
by
falling
from
a
chair
in
an
office
would
still
be
subject
to
the
step-down
provisions,
as
it
is
not
unlikely
the
injured
officer
would
have
been
in
those
circumstances
if
they
had
not
been
a
police
officer.
This
ties
the
removal
of
the
wage
step-down
to where the incapacity is a result of an operational-related injury.
The
bill
also
introduces
a
new
section
164BB
into
the
act
to
make
clear
the
removal
of
the
step-down
provisions
only
applies
to
new
claims
post
the
amendments
becoming
law.
As
much
as
the
Government
would
like
to
provide
for
every
police
officer
who
has
ever
been
injured,
it
is
not
possible
to
provide
this
compensation
retrospectively.
As
a
consequence,
the
date
of
claim
will
be
the
cut-off
for
when
the
removal
applies,
this
being
based
on
advice
from
WorkSafe
as
to
what
is
most practical to implement.
Madam
Speaker,
the
bill
will
become
law
on
the
day
on
which
it
receives
royal
assent.
I
commend the bill to the House.
[12.54 p.m.]
Ms
O'BYRNE
(Bass)
-
Madam
Speaker,
I
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
comment
on
the
introduction
for
the
first
time
on
an
exclusion
paragraph
within
the
Workers
Compensation
Act
in
relation
to
step-down
provisions.
I
thank
the
department
for
the
briefing
they
provided
and
the
very
frank
conversation
that
was
had
and
I
genuinely
respect
and
understand
the
particular
circumstances that their membership finds them in.
I
note
that
because
the
police
are
bringing
this
bill
before
the
House,
it
is
impossible
for
them
to
comment
in
a
briefing
on
what
the
minister
responsible
for
workers
compensation
might
be
able
to
answer
in
terms
of
the
impact
to
the
broader
engagement.
I
absolutely
respect
the
information
that we received and did find it very useful.
I
do
note
that
this
is
coming
as
an
initiative
through
police
and
not
through
workers
compensation
which
does
limit
our
ability
to
get
information
and
understanding
about
the
impact
of step downs to other classes of work.
The
minister,
in
his
second
reading
speech,
quite
rightly
says
that
there
are
occasions
when
our
serving
police
officers
are
at
significantly
increased
operational
risk
by
the
nature
of
the
jobs
that we ask them to do.
What
we
also
know,
from
speaking
to
the
Police
Association,
is
that
more
and
more
occasions
are
occurring
where
police
are
called
in
to
circumstances
that
might
have
been
dealt
with
by
other
responders
in
the
past.
Due
to
demand
pressures,
those
other
responders
are
struggling
to
make
those commitments.
Dr
Broad,
will
talk
a
little
bit
about
how
that
has
been
impacting
on
some
of
our
paramedics
and
when
the
ambulance
responders
cannot
come,
sometimes
our
police
are
called
in
to
those
situations.
Not
being
an
ambulance
officer
or
a
paramedic
able
to
provide
that
support,
that can create increased risk for them in those circumstances, so we do appreciate that.
I
do
have
one
question
firstly
for
the
minister,
and
he
might
want
to
take
some
time
to
resolve
that.
During
the
discussion,
the
minister's
representative
did
make
some
commentary
around
the
workers
reviews
that
are
being
undertaken.
I
know
that
there
were
a
number
of
reviews
being
undertaken
by
the
WorkCover
Tasmania
Board
and
we
have
tried
to
find
out
the
scope
of
those
and
what
is
being
referred
in
relation,
particularly
to
PTSD.
The
minister,
Ms
Courtney was unable to provide that information.
It
would
seem
reasonable
to
me
that
when
the
minister's
adviser
said
that
step-downs
are
being
included
in
that
review,
that
that
was
actually
taking
place.
I
understand
that
is
not
taking
place.
WorkCover
does
not
currently
have
a
review
on
step-downs.
What
they
have
a
review
on
is
section
88,
I
believe
it
is,
which
is
the
issue
of
older
workers,
which
will
have
a
financial
impact
to
workers
compensation.
They
also
have
before
them
a
number
of
questions,
a
referral,
around
the
extension
of
PTSD
to
support
for
other
workers,
presumptive
PTSD
recognition
for
other
workers.
The
minister
has
been
unable
to
provide
to
us
what
of
the
PTSD
review
was
given
to
the
WorkCover
board
so
we
do
not
know
how
extensive
that
is,
but
I
have
been
told
that
they
do
not
have before them a step-down review.
I
would
be
really
interested
if
they
did
but
I
actually
think
that
might
be
a
conversation
for
a
greater
period.
So,
if
the
minister
could
just
confirm
whether
or
not
that
is
happening,
perhaps
a
conversation
where
we
are
both
talking
at
cross-purposes
which
certainly
can
happen.
I
do
want
to
clarify
whether
or
not
there
is
currently
a
review
in
front
of
the
WorkCover
board
for
step-down
provisions.
If
that
is
the
case,
is
that
the
most
appropriate
body
to
have
it?
As
the
minister
is
now
bringing
to
this
House,
he
is
recognising
that
step-down
provisions
in
circumstances,
in
this
case
for police officers, he believes that is an unfair circumstance.
I
would
contend
that
step-down
provisions
for
other
people
who
are
also
at
increased
operational
risk
also
have
a
significantly
poor
impact
on
people
who
have
been
put
at
increased
operational
risk.
I
also
have
to
say,
particularly
in
times
of
economic
stress,
and
the
growth
in
economic
stress
that
we
are
seeing
in
Tasmania,
that
any
time
where
you
are
into
that
work
and
your pay becomes less after 26 weeks, it is actually hard to survive.
If
you
are
a
cleaner,
earning
somewhere
in
the
mark
of
$40
000,
and
suddenly
your
salary
goes
down
to
80
per
cent,
when
you
are
injured
at
work,
through
no
fault
of
your
own,
and
I
point
out
the
Workers
Compensation
Act
is
supposed
to
be
a
no-fault
act.
Yet
we
are
punishing
workers
who have an extensive period of workers compensation by giving them less money to live on.
Madam
Speaker,
you
would
know
that
the
end
point
of
that
is
the
financial
pressure
that
is
put
on
people,
and
that
pressure
is
sometimes
that
they
go
back
to
work
when
they
are
not
really
ready
to
do
so.
They
will
settle
their
workers
compensation
and
try
to
get
work
somewhere
else
because
they desperately need to support their families.
Before
the
bells
ring,
I
do
want
to
say
that
we
do
support
this
legislation
and
we
will
be
acting
to support it.
However,
there
is
a
broader
conversation
that
we
need
to
have
as
a
parliament,
as
a
community,
about
the
decency
and
the
integrity
of
the
actions
that
we
take
as
a
government,
when
we
sanction
reduced
salaries
for
people
who
have
been
injured
at
work
in
a
no-fault
circumstance.
Those
cases,
I
remind
members,
are
heavily
contested.
I
recognise
that
Tasmania
Police
are
actually
very
supportive
of
their
workers
with
workers
compensation.
We
are
talking
about
eight
people at the moment who would have been entitled had we done this legislation earlier.
Police
are
not
talking
about
large
numbers,
and
police
do
support
their
staff
when
they
have
been
injured
in
an
operational
circumstance
because
those
things
are
often
clear
and
easy
to
define. That is not the story of other workers.
Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2.30 p.m.
WORKERS REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION
AMENDMENT BILL 2019 (No. 20)
Second Reading
Resumed from above.
Ms
O'BYRNE
(Bass)
-
Mr
Deputy
Speaker,
we
were
debating
the
Workers
Rehabilitation
and Compensation Amendment Bill brought forward by Mr Ferguson.
This
is
an
act
that
amends
the
Workers
Compensation
Act,
an
act
that
is
the
responsibility
of
Ms
Courtney.
As
I
understand
it,
the
bill
has
come
through
this
process
because
it
is
firmly
limited
to
the
implications
on
our
serving
police
officers
who,
from
the
commencement
of
this
act,
are
involved
in
an
incident
where
they
are
injured
and
remain
injured
for
a
period
great
than
26
weeks.
Therefore,
the
step-down
applications
apply
to
them.
However,
they
were
injured
in
a
circumstance
that
is
so
peculiar
to
their
job,
because
of
the
nature
of
the
increased
operational
risk.
That is where we were.
The
point
that
I
was
making
is
that
whilst
we
do
recognise
the
increased
operational
risk
that
serving
police
officers
are
in,
and
the
nature
of
the
incidents
that
they
attend
and
the
minister
has
referred
to
some
within
the
bill
that
is
brought
before
the
House.
He
is
talking
particularly
about
those
circumstances
where
you
are
required
to
put
public
safety
ahead
of
your
own,
which
is
something
peculiar
to
certain
classes
of
employment
within
our
public
sector,
within
our
community sector, but not limited to police. I do understand that this is an impact for police.
Some
of
the
questions
that
we
had
were
that
the
legislation
has
had
to
be
drafted
in
such
a
way
as
to
not
identify
the
circumstances
that
would
qualify
because
we
cannot
necessarily
anticipate
these
circumstances.
I
did
ask
some
questions
at
the
time,
minister,
about
how
the
process would be undertaken.
After
implementation
of
the
bill,
if
a
serving
police
officer
is
injured
in
a
circumstance
which
may
be
questionable
as
to
whether
they
are
at
the
increased
operational
examples
that
you
have
given
in
the
second
reading
speech
as
opposed
to
the
example
which
is
commonly
used
of
falling
off
a
chair.
The
phrase,
'falling
off
a
chair'
does
make
it
sound
like
someone
has
acted
in
a
less
than
clever
way
but
as
we
know
those
sorts
of
incidents
do
occur.
People
can
be
genuinely
quite
badly hurt through those processes.
I
guess
the
process
was
that
as
a
police
officer,
the
police
department
will
need
to
accept
that
the
injury
occurred
during
the
workplace
environment.
If
police
argued
that
the
type
of
incident
was
not
enough
to
give
you
qualification
to
get
this
sort
of
support,
what
process
would
that
police
officer
then
need
to
participate
in
through
the
Workers
Compensation
Act?
Normally
you
apply
for your claim. The claim is accepted or denied. If it is denied you then have a claim.
Do
they
have
to
pursue
two
claims
is
the
question?
One,
for
the
claim
to
have
the
injury
accepted
and
the
second
to
allow
them
access
to
the
removal
of
step-down
provisions.
One
of
the
issues
is
we
do
not
really
know
how
that
will
play
out
because
the
legislation,
by
its
very
nature,
has had to be broad enough to allow that flexibility.
The
issue
that
I
raised
in
the
briefing,
minister,
you
would
be
aware
that
I
mentioned
that
we
would
ask
you
to
put
on
the
record
how
this
would
be
reviewed?
When
we
have
done
legislation
in
workers
compensation
in
areas
that
are
new
and
we
are
not
really
sure
about
how
the
implementation
might
work,
we
are
not
really
sure
if
we
are
going
to
capture
the
groups,
say
presumptive
cancer
was
one
of
them
and
PTSD,
we
have
actually
talked
about
bringing
in
review
periods. Presumptive cancer for fire officers is probably the first one.
We
put
in
a
review
that
was
after
12
months
which
given
the
small
cohort
of
people
who
are
picked
up
was
considered
to
be
too
short
a
time
but
there
is
no
review
period
in
this
legislation
at
all.
It
might
be
because
we
are
dealing
with
so
few
numbers
that
it
would
take
a
very
long
before
you
could
get
that
cohort.
If
you
let
us
know,
minister,
what
process
might
be
undertaken
if
down
the
track
we
recognise
that
we
have
got
serving
police
officers
who
it
was
intended
this
bill
would
capture
but
are
not
captured
for
whatever
reason.
How
do
we
then
clarify
the
bill
or
get
a
process
where the bill might come before the House again to clarify that process?
In
your
second
reading
speech,
minister,
you
talked
about
those
circumstances
that
are
unique
to
the
policing
role,
such
as
apprehending
an
offender
and
undertaking
search
and
rescue
operations.
There
may
be
some
circumstances
in
which
you
may
be
apprehending
an
offender
and
you
might
have
tripped
when
you
were
apprehending
an
offender.
Does
that
qualify
or
do
you
have to be almost assaulted by that offender in order to been at increased operational risk?
We
need
to
get
an
understanding
of
exactly
what
the
threshold
point
is
before
that
provision
would
be
accessed.
If
in
the
case
of
a
disputed
claim
how
that
provision
would
be
accessed,
or
if
it
was
only
in
the
circumstance
where
police
said,
'no
worries
at
all,
it
clearly
happened
in
the
course
of
their
duty,
it
clearly
happened
during
that
process'.
The
reason
we
need
it
spelled
out
is
that
I
do
think
that
Tasmania
Police
are
probably
a
little
more
accepting
of
some
of
those
claims
because
they
do
have
a
very
defined
view
of
what
is
taking
place
and
a
very
clear
incident
reporting
process.
That
would
not
necessarily
be
the
case
for
other
workers
but
given
that
we
have
been
quite
broad
in
the
language,
it
is
probably
something
for
which
we
do
need
to
have
an
explanation.
That
leads
us
to
recognising
those
other
professions
that
provide
an
increased
operational
risk.
We
can
think
of
them
immediately
-
there
are
paramedics,
prison
officers,
child
protection
workers
and
they
can
be
ED
workers.
In
the
last
workers
compensation
bill
that
this
House
dealt
with,
there
was
a
significant
issue
in
the
way
the
public
sector
and
private
sector
workers
would
be
treated.
A
public
sector
nurse
working
in
an
ED
under
the
previous
legislation
we
dealt
with
only
weeks
ago
would
be
covered
by
presumptive
PTSD.
A
private
sector
nurse
employed
by
an
agency
is
not
a
public
sector
employee
and
could
be
in
the
same
circumstance
and
yet
is
not
covered.
It
also
leads
us
to
that
it
provides
information
towards
that
broader
conversation
around
what we are doing for private sector workers as well.
There
are
a
number
of
professions
in
which
there
is
an
increased
operational
risk
and
whilst
we
do
think
of
our
first
responders
and
our
emergency
services
quickly
in
that,
you
can
be
a
linesperson
working
at
a
very
great
height
and
you
are
an
increased
operational
risk
because
of
the
height.
Should
you
necessarily
then
be
encumbered
with
step-down
provisions?
The
step-down
provisions
historically
were
there
for
two
reasons:
one
is
that
very
clinically
they
reduced
premiums and there is an economic argument for them.
There
was
also
an
argument
that
would
assist
workers
to
actively
engage
in
their
rehabilitation,
to
actively
seek
to
come
back
to
work
because
there
was
an
economic
pressure
to
not
come
back
to
work.
There
is
good
intent
in
that,
in
terms
of
working
with
people
to
encourage
them
to
participate
in
the
rehabilitation
program.
This
is
however,
by
necessity,
the
other
side
of
it
in
that
people
might
be
encouraged
to
come
back
to
work
too
early
so
there
is
the
fundamental
challenge with step-downs.
Before
the
lunch
break
we
talked
about
the
sort
of
circumstance
where
the
people
might
not
be
able
to
afford
to
pay
their
bills.
They
may
be
receiving
significant
pressure
to
return
to
work
and
they
may
be
receiving
significant
pressure
challenging
their
claim.
There
would
not
be
a
member
of
this
parliament
who
has
not
dealt
with
workers
compensation
issues
where
the
worker
has
been
followed
incessantly
by
private
investigators,
who
has
not
been
sent
time
and
time
again
for
medical
reports.
Some
of
those
medical
reports
can
conflict
with
the
medical
reports
they
have
already
received,
it
is
highly
legislated
and
it
is
highly
complex.
For
those
people
receiving
or
seeking
workers
compensation,
it
is
incredibly
stressful.
I
doubt
that
any
of
the
more
complex
workers
compensation
cases
that
I
dealt
with
in
my
previous
role
and
also
as
a
member
of
parliament the person I have been dealing with is under extreme pressure.
become
very
difficult
so
anything
that
acts
to
get
people
to
take
a
settlement
that
does
not
cover
their
ongoing
medical
costs
or
forces
them
back
into
the
workforce
before
they
are
ready
and
safe
is
a
significant
issue.
There
are
many
injuries
that
actually
preclude
you,
so
you
might
take
your
settlement
because
you
are
being
pressured
substantially
and
then
you
cannot
get
another job because your injury precludes you from another job.
In
their
applications
many
employers
ask
if
you
have
had
any
workers
compensation
claims
in
the
past
or
whether
you
have
any
pre-existing
medical
conditions.
One
of
those
pre-existing
medical
conditions,
and
this
is
my
absolute
favourite,
is
a
pre-existing
degenerative
complaint.
We
all
have
a
pre-existing
degenerative
complaint
-
it
is
actually
called
'age'.
As
we
get
older,
we
heal
slower;
as
we
get
older,
we
injure
ourselves
more.
So
there
are
many
workers
who
are
captured
in
that.
So
with
their
workers
compensation,
it
takes
longer
to
heal
so
they
are
moved
into
the
stepped-out
position
earlier,
but
they
are
then
penalised
because
when
they
continue
to
try
to
get
that
support,
they
are
old.
They
are
not
going
to
heal
better
and
they
actually
do
have
a
pre-existing degenerative condition, and particularly that applies to soft tissue injuries.
In
the
briefing,
police
mentioned
that
there
were
some
eight
police
at
the
moment
who,
had
this
legislation
been
in
place,
would
be
impacted
by
step-downs.
Now,
of
those
eight,
whether
each
one
of
them
would
necessarily
meet
the
test,
would
have
to
be
tested,
but
there
was
a
general
view that that is probably the number that we are talking about.
I
appreciate
that
in
the
sphere
of
police,
we
are
not
talking
about
large
amounts
of
money;
we
are
talking
less
than
$150
00
to
implement
this
change.
So
it
is
cheap,
it
is
efficient,
and
it
is
a
nice
fit.
However,
we
cannot
have
this
conversation
without
thinking
about
the
equity
for
other
employees.
Whilst
the
minister
responsible
for
workers
compensation
is
not
bringing
this
bill
through
and
it
is
a
little
unfair,
I
think,
to
ask
this
minister
to
give
huge
commentary
on
the
Workers Compensation Act, it is something that we take very seriously.
We
did
consider
actually
bringing
in
an
amendment
that
removed
step-downs
entirely.
We
did
consider
that
because,
philosophically,
I
know
I
have
a
significant
problem
with
step-downs.
I
know
that
they
are
causing
significant
harm
or
concern
for
people
who
receive
them.
However,
we
understand
that
advice
is
being
provided
that
should
we
pursue
such
a
pathway
the
Government
would
withdraw
the
offer
to
police.
One
argument:
you
might
say
that
is
a
bit
petty
and
mean
and
a
bit
political;
the
other
is
it
might
be
because
we
generally
do
not
understand
the
actuarial
impact
of
extending
it.
We
do
not
want
to
cause
additional
stress
for
police.
We
understand
that
this
is
a
Government
commitment.
However,
we
genuinely
want
to
pursue
a
better outcome.
The
previous
minister,
Mr
Hidding,
when
we
looked
at
the
workers
compensation
provisions
for
PTSD,
when
we
asked
questions
around
extending
PTSD
to
other
frontline
workers,
and
that
debate
was
happening
more
broadly,
accepted
that
we
did
not
know
enough
about
it
in
order
to
make
that
decision
as
a
government.
We
said
he
could
have
done
it
at
the
time
and
in
the
end,
it
worked
out
okay
because
we
have
actually
worked
further
and
extended
PTSD
even
further,
so
it
was a good outcome for workers.
I
will
circulate
this
as
soon
as
I
have
worked
out
the
most
appropriate
place
to
slot
this
clause
in
-
which
is
my
challenge
at
the
moment
-
but
we
will
seek
a
similar
review
of
the
impact
of
step-downs
on
workers.
So
as
not
to
cause
an
impact
and
deny
access
to
this
to
our
serving
police
officers
who
are
at
increased
operational
risk,
it
will
not
be
an
amendment
that
limits
it
to
a
scope
of
workers
and
carves
out
a
scope
of
workers.
From
an
ethics
and
equity
position
I
do
not
believe
in
carving
out
some
workers
in
separation
to
other
workers.
I
believe
your
workplace
should
be
safe
and,
if
your
workplace
is
not
safe
and
you
are
injured,
the
no
fault
processes
should
be
that
you
are
supported,
regardless
of
who
you
are.
There
will
be
police
officers
not
covered
for
this
who have injured themselves and are on step-down and it causes significant concern for them.
that
we
will
seek
to
move
will
simply
be
to
call
for
a
review.
We
will
reflect
the
language
that
was
used
by
the
former
minister,
Mr
Hidding,
in
calling
for
a
review,
and
creating
and
requiring
that
that
review
be
presented
to
parliament.
It
does
not
bind
the
Government
to
implement,
but
it
does
allow
the
Government
to
do
some
work
to
understand
how
many
people
are
impacted
by
step-downs.
Of
those
people,
how
many
they
may
believe
to
be
of
increased
operational
risk.
It
can
have
a
look
at
what
we
know
to
be
the
impact
of
workers
who
are
impacted
by
step-downs,
and
also
it
can
have
a
look
at
the
potential
cost
of
extending
such
a
mechanism, which we do need to understand.
Right
now,
the
WorkCover
Board
is
looking
at
two
issues
that
may
have
an
impact
on
costs
for
workers
compensation,
that
being
the
retirement
age
of
older
workers
and
the
ongoing
payments.
We
are
now
asking
workers
to
work
for
much
longer;
the
act
does
not
cover
them
after
a
certain
age,
and
I
believe
we
all
think
that
is
inequitable.
The
WorkCover
Board
is
reviewing
that.
They
are
also
reviewing,
on
a
fairness
capacity
and
equity
issue,
the
extension
of
presumptive PTSD to all workers, not just public sector workers.
There
are
two
issues
that
we
know
may
have
an
impact
on
cost.
We
are
cognisant
of
that.
But
we
do
believe
that
this
information
that
we
should
understand
because
if
we
accept,
as
we
clearly
are
today,
and
we
clearly
will
when
this
goes
to
the
upper
House,
that
it
is
not
fair
for
some
workers
to
lose
salary
when
they
are
injured,
who
might
find
it
harder
to
pay
their
bills,
find
it
harder
to
meet
their
economic
circumstances,
to
have
to
manage
their
mortgages
with
less
pay,
then by extension we must accept that applies to anyone who is injured at work.
We
talk
about
workplace
accidents,
but
let
us
be
honest,
workplaces
have
accidents
because
we
do
not
put
enough
work
around
requiring
safe
workplaces.
We
must
have
an
obligation
and
a
legislative
framework
that
requires
workplaces
to
be
safe.
The
more
pressure
we
can
do
to
do
that, then the better outcomes we are going to have for workers.
It
is
not
good
to
have
a
worker
off
on
workers'
compensation.
It
costs
money
and
not
in
police
where
they
do
not
back-fill
because
of
the
establishment
costs
-
the
minister
may
wish
to
address
whether
that
might
be
something
that
he
is
looking
at.
In
other
areas
across
the
public
service
and
in
other
employment
areas
when
a
worker
is
off
on
workers'
compensation,
you
need
to
back
fill,
and
there
are
additional
costs.
It
is
far
better
for
all
of
us,
as
a
society,
to
have
workers
in
safe
workplace
environments,
adequately
supported
and
adequately
supported
to
transition
back
to
work
as
well
as
possible.
That
was
the
intent
of
the
Workers'
Compensation
Rehabilitation
Bill.
That is why it has rehabilitation as a primary focus, because we want people to go back to work.
We
also
need
to
be
looking
at
those
structures
we
can
put
in
place.
Whether
they
are
around
industrial
manslaughter
provisions,
which
is
another
conversation
that
we
will
have,
or
whether
they
are
about
more
pressure
points
to
require
employers
to
act
in
the
interests
of
their
staff
and
not the interests of income, then we need to do that. That is our job as legislators.
required
to
legislate,
in
a
sense,
for
the
lowest
common
denominator,
for
the
worst
outcome.
There
are
always
employers
who
do
the
right
thing.
The
vast
majority
of
employers
who
do
the
right
thing.
However,
there
are
employers
that
knowingly
allow
unsafe
circumstances
to
occur,
and
people
get
hurt.
They
are
the
ones
who
pay
the
price.
Through
our
legislation
if
we
can
create
a
framework
that
puts
pressure
on
them
to
do
the
right
thing,
then
that
is what we should do.
The
only
questions
I
have,
to
summarise,
were
around
whether
the
WorkCover
Board
did
have
a
referral
for
step-downs,
which
we
may
have
been
confused
about,
and
how
this
will
be
implemented
in
terms
of
a
disputed
claim
as
opposed
to
an
accepted
claim.
We
will
be
seeking,
and
I
will
give
you
a
copy
of
the
draft
without
the
position
of
it
yet
as
I
seek
some
advice
from
that,
to
have
an
independent
review
done
that
allows
us
to
look
at
what
the
impact
would
be
in
a
broader
context.
It
does
not
bind
the
Government
and
it
should
in
no
way
act
to
preclude
the
work
that has happened today.
We
want
to
support
this
legislation.
We
see
it
as
a
positive
step
towards
recognising
the
inequity
of
step-downs.
We
also
recognise
the
very
strong
concern
that
has
been
raised
by
police
officers.
I
will
finish
with
one
piece
of
information
that
was
evidence
given
to
the
Senate
Inquiry
around
PTSD.
The
Police
Association
made
a
very
compelling
case
to
that
inquiry
around
the
impact
of
PTSD
for
frontline
serving
police
officers.
Subsequent
evidence
to
that
point
did
very
clearly
say
that
they
are
not
the
only
workers
for
whom
there
is
a
significant
risk
PTSD.
When
it
talked
about
the
impact
of
step-downs
for
PTSD,
that
evidence
suggested
that
there
were
other
workers,
and
I
would
say
all
workers,
with
increased
operational
risk
of
which
step-downs
is
an
inequitable
response
and
an
almost
unkind
response
for
the
risks
that
we
ask
them
to
take
in
their
day to day business, the risk that we ask them to take in relation to the protection of us.
Whilst
today
we
are
talking
about
police
officers,
we
are
very
clearly
talking
about
paramedics,
prison
officers,
people
on
the
front
line
in
ED,
child
protection
workers
and
arguably
we
are
talking
about
the
cleaner
on
$36
000
or
$40
000
a
year
who
is
injured
at
work
and
cannot
pay
the
bills
because
we
have
decided
that
under
this
no-fault
system,
they
should
get
less
money
because they are injured.
[2.49 p.m.]
Dr
WOODRUFF
(Franklin)
-
Mr
Deputy
Speaker,
this
bill
provides
a
unique
exemption
for
police
officers
from
the
step-downs
in
weekly
workers'
compensation
payments
that
are
prescribed in section 9(1)(b), the period for which benefits are payable.
by
acknowledging
the
spirit
of
this
bill
and
we
commend
the
Government's
concern
to
support
police
who
have
been
injured
because
of
the
very
real
dangers
that
they
actively
confront
for
all
of
us
in
the
work
they
do
on
a
daily
basis.
Police
officers
in
Tasmania,
as
elsewhere,
enter
a
profession
knowing
that
part
of
the
work
they
do
will
inevitably
mean
they
have
to
go
into
situations
that
are
highly
dangerous
and,
sadly,
life-threatening
in
certain
situations,
and
they
do
this
for
all
of
us.
We
commend
them
for
that
and
support
the
Government's
intention
to
recognise
that
for
people,
through
no
fault
of
their
own,
who
have
been
placed
in
life-threatening
situations
and
have
suffered
injury
as
a
result,
should
not
have
their
salary
penalised because they are unable to continue to work for a period of time.
We
have
concerns,
however,
about
who
this
bill
does
not
speak
for.
I
have
heard
from
paramedics
and
other
early
responders,
and
have
spoken
to
doctors
and
nurses
who
work
in
emergency
departments
about
the
injuries
and
serious
mental
health,
such
as
post-traumatic
stress
injury,
they
have
suffered
as
a
consequence
of
the
work
they
do
where
they
are
also
professionally
committed
to
put
themselves
in
situations
which
are
dangerous.
Currently
in
our
emergency
departments
in
hospitals
in
Tasmania
it
is
increasingly
dangerous,
where
there
is
real
stress
and
people
who
are
either
suffering
the
effects
of
drugs
or
who
are
angry,
violent
or
frustrated
let
their
violence and anger out physically onto staff in those situations.
I
understand
from
the
minister
that
the
Government's
view
is
that
there
is
a
distinction
between
the
police
and
everybody
else
who
works
in
those
sorts
of
jobs
in
Tasmania
on
the
basis
that
the
police
are
required
to
go
into
situations
that
expose
them
to
potential
or
real
violence.
I
do
not
see
that
to
be
a
real
distinction
because
in
reality
paramedics,
volunteer
ambulance
workers,
emergency
department
staff,
child
protection
workers
and
family
violence
workers
are
also
professionals
who
willingly
go
into
dangerous
situations,
not
necessarily
understanding
that
the
result
of
that
is
going
to
be
violence,
but
they
expose
themselves
because
of
their
professional
commitment to all of us to provide service to highly dangerous situations where injuries do occur.
Although
the
Government
is
making
a
case
for
a
difference,
I
do
not
see
it
to
be
a
meaningful
difference.
I
actually
think
it
is
a
problem
because
it
is
picking
out
a
group
of
people
who
are
in
this
situation
of
being
professionals
who
work
on
our
behalf
and
expose
themselves
knowingly
to
violence
and
aggression
through
the
work
they
have
committed
themselves
and
signed
up
to
doing.
I
do
not
think
it
is
helpful
for
us
as
a
community
to
pick
one
group
out
-
in
this
case,
police
officers
-
and
essentially
elevate
them
and
their
experiences
above
other
people,
for
example,
a
paramedic who is attending an event and the police are not there.
I
have
experienced
this
myself
at
a
festival
in
southern
Tasmania
where
on
the
side
there
was
a
family
dispute
that
was
going
on.
A
person
was
highly
charged
on
methamphetamines
and
had
been
fighting,
attacking
and
causing
a
lot
of
damage
to
the
public.
The
first
person
who
was
there
was
the
paramedic.
There
were
no
police
available
to
go
in
but
that
person
went
in
to
calm
the
person
down
and
successfully
did
so.
I
had
so
much
respect
for
their
ability
to
be
able
to
go
into
a
highly
dangerous
situation
and
use
their
skills
and
resources
to
defuse
the
situation
and
give
that
person some sort of medical treatment and effectively make other people safe.
I
do
not
think
it
is
a
good
space
for
us
to
be
in
where
we
start
to
pick
groups
out
-
and
essentially
what
we
are
talking
about
is
100
per
cent
of
their
salary
without
any
step-down
provisions
-
without
also
considering
who
else
and
under
what
circumstances
other
categories
of
public service workers should also be included.
I
a
few
other
questions
about
the
intention
of
the
Government
with
this
amendment
bill
because
I
am
not
convinced
it
is
doing
what
it
is
intended.
It
might
be
that
I
have
not
properly
understood
some
underlying
parts
of
the
Workers
Rehabilitation
and
Compensation
Bill
but
in
the
minister's
second
reading
speech
he
says
its
intention
is
to
ensure
that
police
officers
who
are
incapacitated by an operational related injury will continue to receive 100 per cent of their wage.
This
bill
will
create
not
just
a
difference
between
police
officers
and
other
first
responders
in
the
public
service,
but
it
also
creates
a
different
category
within
police
in
relation
to
workplace
incidents
that
result
in
injury.
I
believe
the
intention
is
to
try
to
single
out
an
operational-related
injury
and
situations
where
a
police
officer
will
knowingly
go
into
a
violent
situation
and
then
receive
an
injury.
To
me
this
raised
a
plethora
of
questions.
How
would
it
be
determined?
I
will
give
an
example
that
just
came
to
my
mind.
A
police
officer
is
called
to
respond
to
a
speeding
car
and
ends
up
in
some
sort
of
car
chase,
not
that
I
am
suggesting
that
that
is
something
that
is
actively
done
in
Tasmania,
I
know
that
is
not,
but
a
situation
where
through
pursuing
a
potential
offender
the
police
have
a
car
crash
and
a
person
suffers
an
injury.
Would
that
injury
and
access
to
full
salary
be
distinguished
from
a
situation
where
a
police
officer
was
sitting
parked
in
a
car
park
and
somebody
backed
into
the
police
car
and
they
got
whiplash?
Is
that
sort
of
injury
going
to
be
different
to
an
injury
where
somebody
walks
into
a
house
where
there
is
a
domestic
violence
dispute
and
they
get
shot,
where
they
are
clearly
knowingly
going
into
a
dangerous
situation?
How are we going to differentiate what an injury is?
I
am
also
wondering
what
we
mean
by
an
'injury'.
Recently
the
post-traumatic
stress
disorder
amendments
went
through;
very
important
legislation.
I
spoke
quite
strongly
for
us
to
consider
looking
at
our
wording
regarding
post-traumatic
stress
disorder
because
globally
it
is
now
being
considered
as
an
injury
-
post-traumatic
stress
injury.
Given
that
section
69B
is
proposed
to
be
amended
so
that
it
specifically
talks
about
the
result
of
which
the
injury
was
suffered,
I
am
seeking
some
clarification
on
whether
that
could
be
interpreted
to
mean
post-traumatic
stress
injury.
happen
for
a
person
some
years,
months
or
days
later.
It
depends
on
the
person
and
the
situation.
It is clearly complex.
What
I
am
concerned
about
in
the
way
this
is
drafted
is
that
we
have
a
situation
where,
if
we
are
talking
about
some
police
being
able
to
access
full
salary
and
others
not,
what
sort
of
hoops
would
people
have
to
jump
through
in
order
to
be
able
to
prove
that
it
was
a
so-called
operational
circumstance that is unique to the policing role, that it is 'an operational related injury'?
The minister said:
For
if
a
police
officer
is
injured
apprehending
an
offender,
they
are
covered
as
the
circumstances
in
which
the
injury
was
suffered
were
as
a
result
of
them
being
a
police
officer
-
the
policing
role
being
what
required
them
to
apprehend the offender.
The
minister
has
used
the
words
'apprehend
the
offender'.
Is
that
the
only
time
this
would
be
enacted,
this
particular
amendment
clause?
How
would
'apprehend'
be
interpreted?
It
is
all
starting to sound very legal. Some clarification around that would be useful.
We
are
also
concerned
about
what
the
bill
does
not
do,
which
would
be
important.
One
of
the
problems
for
people
seeking
to
access
workplace
compensation
is
the
difficult
and
complex
dispute
process
which
can
sometimes
leave
vulnerable
public
servants,
including
police,
without
any
payments
if
the
employer
disputes
their
claim.
Under
the
act,
the
government
can
choose
to
dispute
the
claim
within
the
84-day
time
frame
or
as
the
result
of
an
independent
medical
assessment. The onus is then on the injured employee to take the matter to the tribunal.
Arbitrated
hearings
of
the
tribunal
involve
legal
representation,
the
cross-examination
of
witnesses,
presentation
of
medical
specialists,
testimony
and
all
of
that
is
very
legal.
It
requires
professional
expertise
and
support.
The
government
is
able
to
engage
specialist
lawyers
to
represent
the
government's
interest
in
the
tribunal.
However,
the
injured
worker
is
left
to
foot
the
bill
for
the
legal
representation,
much
of
which
most
people
cannot
afford
and
often
valid
claims
have
been
abandoned.
We
have
certainly
heard
of
cases
where
people
feel
that
they
are
unable
to
prosecute their interests properly because it is a very onerous process.
I
would
like
to
hear
from
the
minister
what
the
Government
is
intending
to
do
to
increase
justice
for
those
workers?
At
the
moment,
Worker
Assist
has
two
lawyers,
with
most
of
their
time
being
taken
up
providing
phone
assistance.
There
is
really
no
actual
time
available
to
stretch
their
work
to
include
court
appearances
and
the
preparation
of
cases
for
individual
people
at
the
level
of
detail
that
is
required,
especially
given
that
some
cases
are
fairly
complex
and
hard
to
argue,
essentially.
If
you
think
of
a
person
with
complex
mental
health
injuries,
including
post-traumatic
stress
injury,
but
not
only
that,
who
is
making
a
claim
that
they
suffered
that
injury
in
the
course
of
the
work
that
they
were
doing,
it
is
very
difficult
for
that
person
to
be
able
to
bring
to
bear
the
emotional
resources,
as
well
as
the
financial
ones
to
organize
the
case
properly.
They
should
not
be
left
unsupported
to
mount
a
legal
case.
I
would
like
to
hear
the
minister's
comments
about
what
support
would
be
increased,
given
that
there
is
a
concern,
obviously,
for
police
officers,
but
in
order
to
go
the
full
mile,
I
suppose,
people
need
to
be
assisted
properly
to
be
able
to
make
the
claims if there is a dispute.
With
respect
to
a
full
review,
I
have
not
seen
the
final
wording
from
the
Labor
Party
on
what
they
have
foreshadowed
in
an
amendment,
but
I
can
say
that
we
do
support
the
Government's
intention
to
support
police
who
have
been
injured.
We
do
not
think
it
is
fair
or
reasonable
to
focus
only
on
police.
It
sends
a
signal
that
other
workers,
especially
those
who
commit
to
putting
themselves,
actively
and
professionally,
in
situations
where
violence
may
be
experienced,
such
as
paramedics,
doctors
and
nurses,
child
support
workers
and
family
violence
workers,
that
those
people are not as important. We do not accept that they are not as intrinsically at risk.
We
support
the
legislation
but
not
the
narrow
focus
on
the
police
but
I
can
say
that
we
do
support
this
bill.
We
support
an
extension
towards
other
workers,
and
we
support
a
review
of
how
that
should
be
conducted
because
we
accept
there
may
be
valid
arguments
for
different
categories
of
workers
and
different
types
of
work.
It
is
a
complex
legal,
financial
and
ethical
issue.
It
should
have
a
proper
review
and
it
is
past
time
for
that
to
happen
in
Tasmania.
I
have
heard
stories
of
people
who
have
been
trying
to
prosecute
cases
and
whose
pay
has
been
stepped-down
over
years
and
it
is
very
difficult
for
them.
As
a
state,
we
do
need
to
look
at
this
for
our
public
service
workers, all of whom are working on our behalf.
[3.08 p.m.]
Mr
TUCKER
(Lyons)
-
Madam
Speaker,
as
a
community
we
depend
on
those
who
put
themselves
on
the
line
for
others
and
as
a
Government
we
are
working
to
make
sure
they
are
looked
after
in
return.
The
Hodgman
Liberal
Government
firmly
believes
that
police
officers
who
are
unable
to
return
to
work
as
a
result
of
being
injured
protecting
the
community
should
not
be
subject
to
any
step-down
provisions.
That
is
why
we
have
committed
to
remove
the
step-down
provisions
that
apply
to
police
officers,
ensuring
that
they
will
continue
to
receive
100
per
cent
of
their pay while they are on workers compensation payments.
I
would
like
to
talk
about
the
uniqueness
of
policing.
This
bill
recognises
that
a
police
officer's
duty
requires
them
to
put
public
safety
ahead
of
their
own
safety.
This
duty
is
imposed
by
law.
It
is
unconscionable
that
the
state
requires
this
commitment
and
does
not
fully
support
police officers who are injured.
The
Police
Service
Act
2003,
section
35,
states
that
a
police
officer
must
undertake
the
duties
assigned
to
him
or
her.
Section
36
states
that
an
officer
must
take
an
oath
of
affirmation
to
swear
that
they
will
faithfully
execute
the
office
of
police
officer
in
Tasmania
and,
that
to
the
best
of
their
power,
without
favour
or
affection,
malice
or
ill-will,
will
cause
the
peace
to
be
kept
and
preserved
and
prevent
all
offences
against
persons
and
properties
in
Tasmania,
and
that
to
the
best
of
their
ability,
skills
and
knowledge,
will
discharge
all
the
duties
of
a
police
officer
according
to
law.
This
is
what
makes
policing
a
unique
occupation.
Police
officers
not
only
put
themselves
at
risk
for
the
public
benefit
on
a
daily
basis
but
they
do
so
in
circumstances
where
the
injuries
sustained
are
often
as
a
consequence
of
being
violently
attacked
in
situations
that
often
they
are
not prepared for.
not
an
occupation
where
risk
mitigation
measures
can
always
be
put
in
place.
Like
other
occupations,
this
reflects
the
dynamic
and
unpredictable
nature
of
the
situations
that
police
officers
are
so
often
faced
with.
A
police
officer
never
knows
what
scenes
they
will
be
confronted
with
when
they
start
their
shift.
Tragically,
some
officers
do
not
make
it
home
to
their
families,
yet
we
still
expect
our
police
officers
to
put
their
lives
on
the
line
to
protect
our
communities
and
our
loved
ones.
We
also
expect
our
police
officer
to
act
with
bravery
and
perform their duty without fear or hesitation, often in the face of great danger.
In
this
state
we
have
had
police
officers
who,
while
protecting
our
community,
have
been
shot,
stabbed,
run
down
by
cars,
and
otherwise
assaulted.
It
is
simply
not
reasonable
that
we
would
expect
our
police
officers
to
respond
to
such
danger
while
knowing
they
will
suffer
a
loss
of
income
should
they
become
injured.
I
acknowledge
that
there
are
other
occupations
whose
members
suffer
injuries
while
providing
services
for
the
public.
However
policing
is
the
only
occupation
where
members
actually
take
an
oath
of
office.
This
oath
often
requires
our
sworn
police
officers
to
routinely
attend
situations
of
violence
that
they
are
unable
to
retreat
from
and
where it is common for that violence to be redirected at and targeted towards them.
The
involvement
of
police
is
often
the
risk
mitigation
measure
for
many
of
our
other
frontline
service
providers
who
call
on
police
officers
to
with
violent
or
dangerous
situations
that
they
themselves
do
not
face.
I
wish
to
take
this
opportunity
to
thank
all
our
1254
police
officers
in
Tasmania
for
the
fantastic
job
they
do
in
protecting
us
and
keeping
us
safe.
Their
dedication
and
contribution
to
our
community
each
and
every
day
ensures
that
Tasmania
remains
the
best
place
to
live and raise a family.
I
would
like
to
outline
a
couple
of
examples.
In
2010
Constable
Mark
Wolfe
from
Hobart
was
working
on
the
waterfront
in
Morrison
Street
when
he
approached
a
male
who
was
seen
to
be
drinking
alcohol
in
the
street
and
clearly
under
the
influence
of
liquor.
After
initially
walking
away,
he
returned
in
a
non-threatening
manner
when,
without
warning,
the
male
punched
Constable
Wolfe
flush
on
his
left
cheek
with
great
force.
The
king-hit
punch
was
such
that
it
knocked
the
constable
off
his
feet,
forcing
him
to
fall
backwards,
striking
his
back
and
then
head
on
the
footpath,
rendering
him
semi-conscious.
He
sustained
massive
tissue
trauma
to
the
left
side
of
his
face,
suffered
pain
in
his
cervical
spine,
was
unable
to
report
for
duty
and
unable
to
perform
day-to-day
activities
in
his
home
life
for
a
significant
period
of
time.
The
assault
left
Constable
Wolfe questioning himself with long-lasting memories of the assault.
In
another
example,
in
2007
Constable
Dennis
Coad
was
struck
from
behind
to
the
back
of
the
head
with
a
full
stubby
of
beer
while
working
at
a
festival
on
New
Year's
Eve
on
the
east
coast
of
Tasmania.
Constable
Coad
had
only
recently
graduated
from
the
police
academy
and
the
assault
was
completely
unprovoked
and
only
due
to
the
fact
that
he
was
a
police
officer.
The
assault
was
so
severe
Constable
Coad
was
required
to
be
airlifted
from
the
scene
to
the
Royal
Hobart
Hospital.
He
suffered
significant
physical
and
mental
trauma
as
a
consequent
of
the
assault,
was
unable
to
report
for
duty
for
a
period
of
time
and
was
made
nonoperational
due
to
his
injury,
requiring
medical
intervention
to
stabilise
his
neck
which
had
degenerated
as
a
result
of
the
initial assault. The incident has left Constable Coad suffering PTSD.
In
another
example,
in
2006
a
police
sergeant
intercepted
a
vehicle
reported
to
be
driving
dangerously.
Upon
initially
speaking
to
the
driver,
he
attempted
to
return
to
his
vehicle.
At
this
point
the
offender
-
Patrick
Burling,
the
driver
-
exited
his
vehicle
and
shot
the
police
sergeant
three
times
the
back
and
in
the
face
and
left
him
on
the
side
of
the
road
for
dead.
Miraculously,
the
sergeant
survived
but
was
never
able
to
return
to
duty
as
a
result
of
this
incident
and
had
his
life irreparably changed forever on that day simply because he was a police officer.
In
another
example,
in
2009
constables
attending
a
Glenorchy
address
to
assist
mental
health
professionals
were
confronted
with
a
male
holding
a
large
knife.
After
negotiations
failed,
the
male
lunged
at
the
attending
officer
and
ran
from
the
house.
A
struggle
ensued
and
Constable
Brierley
was
stabbed
with
a
large
kitchen
knife
twice
in
the
back.
The
constable
suffered
two
deflated
lungs
and
required
emergency
surgery.
The
incident
left
Constable
Brierley
with
lifelong
reminders of the incident.
now
mention
some
of
the
other
related
initiatives
the
Government
is
doing
to
help
police.
The
Hodgman
Liberal
Government
is
committed
to
supporting
our
frontline
emergency
service
workers
to
ensure
that
they
are
provided
with
proactive
professional
support
and
assistance
where
they
experience
a
workplace
injury,
illness
or
medical
condition.
Earlier
this
year
Tasmania
became
the
first
jurisdiction
in
Australia
to
legislate
a
presumptive
provision
for
workers
suffering
from
PTSD.
Police,
firefighters
and
other
emergency
service
workers
are
susceptible
to
PTSD
and
other
mental
illnesses,
both
on
account
of
the
severity
of
incidents
they
attend
and
the
cumulative
effect
of
incidents
attended
over
a
long
period
of
time.
This
amendment
aims
to
remove
barriers
to
public
sector
workers,
the
first
responder
volunteers
diagnosed
with
PTSD,
from accessing workplace support.
The
Hodgman
Liberal
Government
has
also
committed
$1.5
million
per
annum
for
a
proactive
and
preventative
health
and
wellbeing
program
that
supports
both
the
physical
and
mental
health
of
our
emergency
services
personnel.
Significant
work
has
been
undertaken
in
health
and
wellbeing
space
to
ensure
that
our
emergency
service
workers
are
supported
in
the
critical
service
they
provide
to
our
community.
The
health
and
wellbeing
program
will
provide
a
mix
of
proactive
and
preventative
measures
to
detect
and
respond
early
to
health
and
wellbeing
risks
that
may
impact
the
ability
of
our
people
to
perform
at
their
optimum
level,
support
and
promote
wellbeing
across
our
agencies
and
achievement
of
target
outcomes,
and
educate
and
empower our workforce to maintain or improve their wellbeing.
In
addition,
recruitment
is
underway
to
two
additional
wellbeing
statewide
officers
which
will
establish
four
dedicated
officers
statewide.
Recruitment
of
these
additional
roles
allows
the
client
base to be extended to include Ambulance Tasmania employees.
This
bill
is
strongly
supported
by
the
Police
Association
of
Tasmania.
Yesterday
the
president
of
the
Police
Association
of
Tasmania,
Colin
Riley,
urged
all
members
of
parliament
to
pass
this
bill to end pay cuts for officers who are injured in the line of duty.
[3.19 p.m.]
Dr
BROAD
(Braddon)
-
Madam
Speaker,
what
we
have
before
us
is
a
relatively
simple
bill
that
goes
through
the
process
of
striking
out
wage
reductions
for
police
officers
and
it
is
quite
a
neat bit of work in the way it acts. It is a simple amendment which goes along to say:
Despite
subsection
(1),
a
weekly
payment
in
respect
of
a
worker
who
is
a
police
officer
is
not
reduced
by
a
percentage
specified
in
subsection
(1)(b)
or
(c)
if,
had
the
person
not
been
a
police
officer,
it
is
unlikely
that
the
person
would
have
been in the circumstances as a result of which the injury was suffered.
This
raises
a
number
of
issues.
As
a
bill,
this
is
a
very
neat
instrument
to
achieve
what
it
seeks to achieve.
I
will
talk
about
huge
pressures
on
police
officers.
Police
officers
are
working
in
what
is
a
dangerous
environment.
As
Mr
Tucker
aptly
read
out,
the
police
officers
do
take
police
officer
affirmation
which
I
will
read
into
Hansard
.
The
affirmation,
or
oath,
depending
on
your
religious
beliefs, says:
I
(insert
name)
affirm
that
I
will
faithfully
execute
the
office
of
police
officer
in
Tasmania
and
that
to
the
best
of
my
power,
without
favour
or
affection,
malice
or
ill-will,
will
cause
the
peace
to
be
kept
and
preserved
and
prevent
all
offences
against
persons
and
properties
in
Tasmania,
and
that
to
the
best
of
my
ability,
skill
and
knowledge
will
discharge
all
the
duties
of
a
police
officer
according
to
law ...
That
is
different
the
rest
of
the
public
service.
That
means
that
police
officers
are
obliged
to
take
action.
They
are
obliged
to
keep
the
peace
and
take
on
somebody
who
is
assaulting
the
public
or
breaking
the
law.
That
is
part
of
the
oath
of
office.
We
accept
that.
There
is no doubt that is the case.
We
know
there
are
huge
pressures
on
police
officers.
It
is
not
only
the
danger
of
their
day-to-day
work
but
there
are
bigger
issues
such
as
fatigue.
The
police
in
Tasmania
desperately
need
a
fatigue
management
plan.
Fatigue
is
a
massive
issue
and
there
is
a
substantial
drop-out
of
police
officers.
Police
officers
take
the
time
to
join
the
force,
go
through
all
the
training,
to
work
as
police
officers
but
there
obviously
is
a
problem
when
we
see
that
police
officers
are
dropping
out
of
the
force.
Part
of
that
is
the
issue
with
rosters,
for
example,
putting
pressure
on
their
personal
lives.
Shift
work
is
always
difficult
for
any
section
of
the
workforce
but
we
know
the
police are fatigued.
There
are
also
increased
administrative
pressures
from
laws
that
pass.
For
example,
the
body
worn
cameras
that
are
now
being
rolled
out
around
the
state
are
fantastic.
However,
there
is
an
administrative
burden
that
probably
has
not
been
dealt
with
and
now
police
officers
are
finding
that they are spending time having to log their footage from their police cameras.
Increased
pressures
on
other
sectors
of
the
public
service
more
pressure
on
police.
The
stretched
health
system
means
that
when
there
is
no
ambulance
available,
we
are
seeing
police
officers
being
sent
to
incidents
to
triage,
in
effect,
and
provide
first-aid
when
there
is
no
other
option.
This
is
a
duty
that
was
very
rarely
used.
Increasingly,
we
are
seeing
police
officers
used
instead
of
ambulance
officers,
not
only
to
back
them
up
but
as
our
health
system
is
stressed
and
there
are
ambulances
ramped
and
no
ambulances
available,
we
are
now
starting
to
see
police
officers put into situations they should not be in. They are providing frontline health services.
Increased
pressure
on
child
protection
and
lack
of
mental
health
services,
et
cetera,
are
leading police to be the front line of child protection and mental health as well.
We
heard
from
the
member
for
Lyons,
Mr
Tucker,
about
assaults
on
police
officers.
There
is
no
doubt
that
police
are
assaulted.
I
was
reliably
informed
during
our
briefing,
which
I
thank
the
members
in
the
gallery
for
providing,
according
to
them,
there
were
273
assaults
this
year.
That
is
up
to
the
most
recent
data.
The
average
over
the
past
five
years
has
been
about
229,
which
works
out
to
about
four
a
week.
There
is
no
doubt
that
police
officers
are
subject
to
assaults.
There
is
no
doubt
that
police
officers
put
themselves
in
danger.
The
average
of
claims
is
about
103
per
year
and 38 of those roughly, account to an immediate incapacity.
At
the
moment,
in
the
detail
from
the
briefing
I
received,
there
are
eight
police
officers
in
the
state on step-downs. They are subject to the step-down provisions this bill seeks to strike out.
We
know
that
between
26
weeks
and
78
weeks,
according
to
the
existing
legislation,
there
are
two
police
officers
who
are
subject
to
a
90
per
cent
step-down.
We
know
there
are
six
police
officers
who
have
been
injured
and
are
on
workers
compensation
for
greater
than
78
weeks,
so
six
police
officers
are
subject
to
an
80
per
cent
step-down.
I
am
reliably
informed,
at
the
moment
as
it
stands,
there
are
eight
police
officers
this
legislation
actually
applies
to.
I
am
not
exactly
sure
of
the
costs
of
what
it
would
take
as
soon
as
this
bill
is
enacted
-
and
we
do
support
this
bill
-
as
soon
as
this
bill
is
enacted
there
will
be
eight
police
officers
who
will
no
longer
be
subject
to
step-down
provisions
but
maybe
the
estimate
is
around
$150
000
a
year
in
additional
costs.
These
police
officers
will
receive
in
the
order
of
$150
000
back
in
their
pay
packets.
It
may
be
a
bit
less:
the
figures
are
actually
rather
hard
to
calculate
on
my
feet
here
now
because
you
have
to
know
their
rank, et cetera, to be able to do the calculation.
This
step-down
provision,
as
it
stands,
only
applies
to
eight
people
so
while
step-downs
apply
across
the
board
more
generally,
and
there
are
far
more
people
in
the
public
service
than
this
eight
that are subject to step-downs, as we speak.
This
bill
also
sets
out,
without
wording
it
as
such,
that
the
injuries
should
occur
during
an
operational
duty.
We
have
every
confidence
that
the
police,
fire
and
emergency
management,
the
police
section,
is
likely
to
pay
out,
or
likely
to
be
a
good
faith
litigant,
to
act
in
good
faith.
If
somebody
is
injured,
they
would
definitely
receive
workers
compensation
and
would
not
be
dragged through the wringer, but it can happen.
that
in
this
financial
year,
as
at
31
March,
a
number
of
police
officers
were
on
workers
compensation.
There
were
74
soft
tissue
injuries,
eight
fractures
or
traumas,
and
eight
psychological
injuries.
That
is
as
we
stand,
so
that
gives
you
an
idea
of
the
number
out
of
the
police
force
of
1200.
As
at
31
March
there
were
90
workers
compensation
claims.
If
these
figures
are
incorrect,
I
apologise,
and
maybe
the
minister
can
correct
me
with
the
appropriate
figures. I am trying to quantify the level of what we are actually talking about here.
This
bill
does
a
couple
of
other
things.
I
have
already
how
police
officers
are
different
from
the
rest
of
the
public
service.
However,
what
this
actually
does
is
to
pit
police
against
other
workers,
unfortunately.
Mr
Tucker
mentioned
already
that
there
are
other
members
of
the
public
service
who
do
put
themselves
into
positions
of
danger
and
have
dangerous
duties.
We
know
that
firefighters
can
be
attempting
to
rescue
people
in
burning
buildings
and
they
will
be
subject
to
step-downs.
We
know
that
search
and
rescue
staff
may
be
rappelling
down
a
cliff
to
rescue
somebody.
If
they
fell
and
hurt
themselves
in
that
duty,
they
would
still
be
subject
to
step-downs.
The
issue
is
really
about
step-downs
themselves
rather
than
whether
police
are
more
deserving
than
others.
We
understand
that
police
have
an
oath
of
office,
we
understand
that
police
put
themselves
in
danger,
but,
then
again,
so
do
others.
This
bill
pits
one
group
against
another
and I do not think that is particularly appropriate.
Also,
this
could
potentially
pit
an
officer
against
another
officer
because
the
way
that
this
is
defined, it says:
…
had
the
person
not
been
a
police
officer,
it
is
unlikely
that
the
person
would
have been in the circumstances as a result of which the injury was suffered.
If
we
have
a
police
officer
who
does
not
meet
that
definition,
they
will
be
subject
to
step-downs,
whereas
other
police
officers
who
were
on
operational
duty
will
not
be
subjected
to
step-down.
Within
the
police
force
you
could
very
realistically
a
circumstance
where
you
have
one
police
officer
on
step-down
and
another
not
on
step-down.
I
understand
that
the
way
this
is
drafted
it
is
more
about
the
circumstances
of
the
injury,
et
cetera,
but
you
will
have
that
tension
within
the
force
that
you
have
people
on
step-down
and
people
not
on
step-down,
even
within the police service itself.
One
of
the
disappointing
aspects
of
this
bill
is
the
threats
made
to
the
Police
Association
in
that
the
association
is
of
the
understanding
that
if
Labor
or
anybody
else
attempted
to
extend
the
range
and
remit
of
the
step-down
provisions
to
other
first
responders,
et
cetera,
it
would
mean
that
the
minister
would
not
proceed
and
that,
in
effect,
it
would
fail.
I
do
not
think
pitting
the
Police
Association
against
other
emergency
service
associations
is
a
particularly
good
way
to
try
to
get
a
bill
debated.
There
is
no
doubt
that
the
Police
Association
want
this
and
we
want
this
too.
We
want
it
so
that
when
police
are
going
into
a
dangerous
situation
they
do
not
have
in
the
back
in
their
mind
that
their
injury
will
cost
them
90
per
cent
or
80
per
cent
of
step-downs.
But
what
happens
if
you
are
a
firefighter
heading
into
a
dangerous
situation?
There
is
a
house
burning
down
with
somebody
inside,
and
if
that
person
gets
injured
in
the
line
of
duty
they
would
be
subject to a step-down.
Part
of
our
argument
is
that
police
officers
are
exceptional
in
their
oath
of
office
and
their
duties
but
there
are
other
emergency
services
personnel
and
first
responders
who
also
put
themselves
into
dangerous
situations.
We
have
ambulance
officers
assaulted
as
part
of
their
duties.
I
have
heard
stories
from
family
members
who
have
been
ambulance
officers
of
being
in
a
situation
where
they
are
trying
to
assist
a
patient
and
there
is
some
drunk
boyfriend
or
idiot
who
gets
very
frustrated
and
is
not
thinking
straight
and
assaults
them.
If
that
happens,
this
person
who
is
trying
to
render
first
aid
in
a
dangerous
situation
will
be
subject
to
these
step-down
provisions.
We
are
not
arguing
that
police
do
not
deserve
it.
We
are
arguing
that
there
are
other
people
who
deserve
it
too
and,
indeed,
the
whole
concept
of
step-downs
is
a
bad
idea.
Getting
rid
of
them
altogether
would
be
a
far
more
appropriate
approach.
We
are
not
going
to
interfere
with
the
passage
of
this
bill
because
we
believe
that
police
officers
deserve
it
but
we
also
believe
other
emergency
services
personnel
and
indeed
workers
all
around
do
not
deserve
step-downs.
Things
do not get cheaper when you are injured. People still have bills to pay.
Going
to
some
of
the
situations
that
were
described
by
the
member
for
Lyons,
Mr
Tucker,
he
highlighted
some
horrendous
assaults
on
police
officers,
and
these
happen
far
too
often.
One
of
the
hopes
is
that
body-worn
cameras
can
reduce
this
level
of
assault.
We
have
seen
more
assaults
this
year.
What
I
am
really
hoping
for
is
next
year
the
body-worn
cameras
result
in
fewer
assaults
on police officers. Let us just hope that technology is part of this solution.
detailing
the
horrendous
and
unjustified
assaults
on
Constables
Wolfe
and
Coad,
one
thing
Mr
Tucker
did
not
clarify
was
whether
these
constables
were
subject
to
step-down
provisions.
Given
the
injuries
they
suffered
maybe
they
could
not
come
back
to
work
for
more
than
26
weeks.
I
assume
given
the
descriptions
that
maybe
they
were,
but
one
of
the
key
aspects
that
would
have
added
value
to
his
contribution
was
to
detail
that
they
were
subject
to
step-down
provisions.
Otherwise
he
is
describing
assaults
on
police
officers
and
not
the
actual
implementation of this act. Maybe they were, maybe they were not.
We
have
a
firefighter
who
was
injured
in
his
line
of
duty,
Rob
Boost.
Not
only
has
he
had
to
battle
workers
compensation,
he
has
had
to
battle
Allianz
as
an
insurer
which
has
put
his
family
through
the
absolute
wringer.
I
think
he
must
be
getting
close
now
to
26
weeks
so
he
will
be
subject
to
step-downs
as
well
as
an
insurer
that
makes
his
life
a
living
hell
by
not
giving
him
adequate
pain
medication.
Firefighters
have
another
battle
to
fight
as
well
in
that
they
are
insured
with
Allianz
and
I
will
continue
calls
for
the
Government
to
insure
firefighters
using
the
same
system,
the
Tasmanian
Risk
Management
Fund,
to
look
after
firefighters
rather
than
making
a
precedent
by
having
them
insured
by
Allianz
which
has
dealt
with
a
number
of
firefighters
and
put
them
through
the
wringer
and
at
times
reinjured
them
psychologically
by
the
way
they
have
been
treated.
Rob
Boost
was
fighting
a
fire
and
was
hit
by
a
tree.
He
put
himself
in
a
dangerous
situation
but
he
will
be
subject
to
step-down
provisions.
We
are
arguing
that
that
is
inequitable.
Given
we
accept
that
police
officers
have
their
oath
of
office,
we
are
not
arguing
that
they
do
not
deserve
step-downs.
We
think
that
step-downs
should
apply
more
generally
and
indeed
it
would
be
far
better for everybody if we got rid of step-downs all together.
These
are
the
arguments
we
will
be
putting
up.
We
will
not
stand
in
the
way
of
this
bill
because
we
believe
that
it
is
appropriate
to
pass
it
given
all
the
arguments
that
have
already
been
put.
We
know
that
assaults
on
police
officers
are
horrendous
and
police
put
themselves
in
danger.
Mr
Tucker
described
the
assaults
on
constables
Wolfe
and
Coad
as
one-punch
assaults.
This
legislation
sets
up
a
potential
grey
area
where
if
those
police
officers
had
not
been
police
officers
it
is
unlikely
that
the
person
would
have
been
in
the
circumstance
as
a
result
of
which
the
injury
was suffered.
When
these
police
were
assaulted
they
were
performing
their
duties,
but
is
that
a
duty
only
of
police
officers?
They
were
not
arresting,
they
were
not
confronting
and
they
were
not
exercising
any
of
their
police
powers.
We
could
have
a
situation
where
there
is
a
grey
area
on
whether
or
not
those
constables
would
have
been
covered
because
their
one-punch
assault
was
in
a
situation
where
that
could
happen
to
anybody
in
the
street.
You
would
have
to
mount
the
argument
that
those
police
officers
were
assaulted
because
they
were
police
officers,
and
we
know
that
there
are
one-punch assaults that happen.
Unfortunately,
we
had
an
academic
from
UTAS
killed
by
a
one-punch
assault.
We
know
that
one-punch
assaults
happen
but
I
am
mounting
an
argument
that
it
is
more
than
likely
that
constables
Wolfe
and
Coad
would
be
covered
under
this
provision
if
they
were
indeed
subject
to
step-downs.
However,
you
could
have
a
situation
where
it
could
be
argued
that
maybe
they
were
not
actually
assaulted
because
they
were
police
officers;
maybe
they
were
assaulted
because
this
guy was drunk and could not see properly and he is a real idiot.
Ms Archer
- Are these cases in court?
Dr BROAD
- I do not know.
Ms Archer
- You want to be careful.
Ms Archer
- I just said be careful.
Dr
BROAD
-
I
am
trying
to
make
a
point
that
if
you
wanted
these
constables
to
not
be
subject
to
step-downs,
one
way
to
do
that
is
to
remove
step-downs
for
everybody
and
then
we
know
these
constables
would
be
covered.
You
could
have
a
situation
where
there
could
be
potential
for
a
grey
area.
The
police,
in
our
briefing,
assured
us
that
would
not
happen;
they
tend
to
look
after
their
officers
and
they
should
be
commended
for
that.
However,
if
you
want
them
to
be covered 100 per cent, get rid of step-downs for everybody.
It
would
be
interesting
to
get
the
figures.
Today
we
are
trying
to
achieve
a
greater
understanding
of
how
much
it
would
actually
cost.
What
are
we
talking
about?
We
know
with
police
officers
as
it
currently
stands
we
are
dealing
with
eight
people.
How
many
public
servants
are
on
step-down
provisions?
If
we
can
quantify
that
number,
how
much
would
it
actually
cost
if
we
got
rid
of
step-downs
for
those
public
servants?
That
is
an
important
question.
If
it
is
not
a
significant
amount
of
money,
why
do
we
still
have
step-downs?
If
it
is
a
significant
amount
of
money, how can we budget for it?
We
need
to
know
the
quantum;
what
we
are
actually
talking
about
here.
We
know
with
police
it
is
eight.
How
much
is
it
for
other
public
servants?
That
is
why
it
would
be
great
to
have
that
information.
That
is
why
in
doing
a
bit
of
research
and
having
it
presented
to
parliament
would
be
a good thing.
[3.40 p.m.]
Mr
O'BYRNE
(Franklin)
-
Madam
Speaker,
the
Labor
Party
has
indicated
our
support
for
the legislation. I will flag some issues that we will work with.
I
put
on
the
record
my
appreciation
of
the
work
of
the
fine
men
and
women
of
Tas
Police.
They
do
a
tremendous
job,
year
in,
year
out,
generation
after
generation,
in
supporting
the
Tasmanian community and keeping them safe.
I
had
the
pleasure
of
being
police
and
emergency
services
minister
for
just
under
three
years
and
I
must
admit
it
was
a
difficult
time
politically.
I
inherited
a
budget
that
was
framed
at
the
time
around
some
significant
financial
issues
for
the
state
and
working
with
the
commissioner,
the
deputy
commissioners
and
commanders
across
the
states,
we
worked
extraordinarily
hard
to
ensure
that
those
budget
restraints
did
not
have
the
impact
that
some
people
may
have
said
they
had on the Tasmanian community. We worked extraordinarily hard to minimise the impact.
Chamber
there
is
a
whole
lot
of
banter
about
all
the
police
officers
that
I
allegedly
sacked,
almost
like
I
had
walked
around
to
every
police
station
and
started
sacking
people.
There
were
no
sackings.
Unfortunately,
we
could
not
maintain
the
numbers
to
the
level
that
we
had
as
a
party
supported
historically.
There
was
an
attrition
that
we
were
not
able
to
sustain
but
that
did
not
in
any
way,
and
should
not
be
seen
as,
a
lack
of
respect
for
the
important
role
of
Tas
Police
and the work they currently do every day.
I
have
known
members
of
Tasmania
Police.
I
went
to
primary
school
and
high
school
with
a
number
of
serving
officers.
I
call
them
friends.
I
played
football
with
and
against,
cricket
with
and
against
police
officers
and
some
of
them
I
would
call
my
close
friends.
We
share
a
beer
and
talk about their experiences.
As
minister,
I
was
fortunate
to
be
able
to
regularly
visit
police
stations
and
sit
down
with
the
men
and
women
of
Tas
Police
and
talk
about
their
day-to-day
challenges
and
the
environments
they
are
sent
into,
the
complex
and
dangerous
circumstances
and
situations
they
are
forced
to
go
into.
As
with
many
emergency
services,
the
normal
citizen
runs
away
from
these
circumstances.
We
ask
our
emergency
service
workers
-
and
particularly
the
members
of
Tasmania
Police
-
to
go
into
these
dangerous
circumstances,
to
make
people
safe
and
to
minimise
the
impact
of
anti-social,
violent,
aggressive
and
illegal
behaviour,
day
in
day
out.
The
Tasmanian
community
should
not
forget. We take for granted sometimes the work of the men and women of Tas Police.
I
have
visited
many
stations:
Queenstown,
Smithton,
along
the
north-west
coast,
and
in
my
electorate,
Huonville,
Cygnet,
Kingston.
I
was
fortunate
to
visit
the
serving
officer
on
Flinders
Island
when
I
was
over
there
for
infrastructure
ministerial
duties.
Sitting
down,
having
a
cup
of
tea,
chatting,
talking
and
understanding
the
day-to-day
stories
of
members
of
Tas
Police
and
the
pride
they
take
in
being
able
to
represent
Tas
Police
but
also
making
sure
they
can
protect
people
in their homes, their communities and their workplaces. They should be absolutely commended.
No-one
should
be
under
any
doubt
that
the
Tasmanian
Labor
Party,
previously
or
now,
would
have anything other but the highest respect and regard for Tasmania Police serving officers.
Over
many
years
I
have
not
supported
stand-downs
for
any
worker
who
has
been
injured
or
has
become
ill
due
to
their
occupation.
The
belief
that
when
people
go
on
workers
compensation
you
work
on
the
assumption
they
are
malingerers
and
they
are
not
wanting
to
come
back,
therefore you need to invoke a financial penalty or pressure. In my view this is a moribund view.
Whilst
in
any
system,
you
will
have
some
people
who
may
not
follow
strictly
by
the
rules.
Overwhelmingly,
people
who
are
injured
or
sick
because
of
work,
the
best
thing
they
want
for
themselves
and
their
family
is
to
get
back
to
work,
to
return
to
a
normal
life
and
be
able
to
provide
for
their
family.
The
concept
of
step-downs
is
something
that
I
do
not
support.
It
actually
does
not
mean
workers
go
back
to
work
any
quicker.
If
you
are
genuinely
sick
and
you
are
ill
and
you
have an appropriate rehabilitation program, those workers will go back to work.
In
terms
of
this
particular
bill,
it
is
acknowledged
that
Tasmania
Police
officers
go
into
some
of
the
most
dangerous
circumstances.
It
is
not
the
exception;
it
is
the
rule.
It
occurs
on
a
day-to-day
basis
and
I
commend
the
work
of
the
Police
Association
for
doing
their
job.
That
is
to
advocate
for
their
members
to
ensure
that
one,
they
have
the
safest
possible
workplace;
two,
they
get
the
equipment
and
the
services
and
support
they
need
to
conduct
their
work
appropriately
and
safely; and three, that they are not financially disadvantaged by virtue of an injury at work.
I
commend
the
efforts
of
the
Police
Association
of
Tasmania
and
despite
a
couple
of
moments
in
my
history,
we
have
had
many
conversations
with
the
Police
Association
of
Tasmania,
apart
from
a
short
period
of
time
where
there
were
a
few
issues
with
the
then-leadership.
That
has
changed
and
whilst
I
was
always
very
keen
to
have
an
open
door
to
the
Police
Association
of
Tasmania,
I
never
lost
respect
for
them.
We
had
a
disagreement;
there
were
circumstances
which
we
were
both
the
victims
of
in
terms
of
the
financial
circumstances
of
the
state.
We
had
to
make
do,
given
the
circumstances,
and
people
had
to
make
decisions.
At
no
stage
did
I
or
our
party
lose
the
respect
for
the
role
that
the
association
played
and
I
commend
them
for
their
lobbying
and
their advocacy on behalf of their members.
The
issue
and
the
concern
that
has
been
raised
by
other
members
though,
I
would
echo.
You
look
at
the
circumstance
where,
for
example,
an
officer
of
Tasmania
Police
and
a
paramedic
are
attending
the
same
call
and
they
are
confronted
by
the
same
violent
response,
hypothetically.
They
are
both
injured
and
they
are
both
in
circumstances
where,
under
the
current
workers
compensation
scheme,
they
will
be
subject
to
step-down
provisions.
All
of
a
sudden
after
the
26
weeks,
the
police
officer
maintains
their
wage
but
the
paramedic
does
not.
I
am
not
saying
that
the
Tasmania
police
officer
should
therefore
suffer
a
step-down.
In
those
kinds
of
circumstances,
there
is
an
injustice.
There
is
a
double
standard
to
say
to
a
Tasmania
police
officer
that
we
value
you
and
your
contribution
more
than
we
value
that
of
the
paramedic.
That
is
a
fundamental
question.
We have indicated
we are supporting
it is a
good step forward
and a return
to
circumstances
where
there
are
no
step-downs.
We
think
that
is
important
but
there
is
a
fundamental
problem
where
you
have
emergency
services
workers,
paramedics,
firefighters,
nurses - particularly in emergency rooms, and we are seeing violent acts.
If
you
look
at
the
potential
of
that,
there
is
no
doubt
Tasmania
Police
go
to
more
dangerous
circumstances
over
their
career.
I
am
saying
that
anecdotally;
I
have
not
seen
the
statistics,
but
based
on
my
experience
in
talking
to
workers
in
those
environments,
there
is
no
doubt
Tasmania
Police
are
in
a
whole
range
of
circumstances
which
are
dangerous.
When
you
have
frontline
emergency
service
workers,
they
go
to
the
same
incident,
the
same
call-out
and
the
same
unfortunate,
sad
and
tragic
result
occurs
where
they
are
injured
and,
unfortunately,
the
paramedic
or
the
nurse
or
the
firefighter
will
suffer
a
financial
disadvantage
compared
to
a
Tasmanian
police
officer.
From
the
perspective
of
the
Police
Association
they
are
advocating
on
behalf
of
their
members.
As
a
former
union
official
of
many
years,
I
have
the
utmost
respect
for
them
to
argue
their
case.
The
response,
then,
is
with
the
Government
to
make
the
decision
about
looking
after
all workers. Philosophically, I have never believed in step-downs.
not
funny.
This
is
serious.
You
have
two
workers
who
are
in
emergency
services
heading
to
an
incident;
they
both
get
injured,
they
both
get
leave
for
the
same
period
of
time
but
one
loses
money,
one
does
not.
I
have
never
philosophically
believed
in
step-down
provisions.
It
is
something
that
has
caused
great
harm
amongst
workers
who
are
injured.
In
the
contributions
by
our
shadow
minister
and
the
shadow
minister
for
police,
we
have
made
it
very
clear
that
this
is
a
good
first
step.
This
is
an
acknowledgement
that
step-downs
harm
workers.
Step-downs
do
not
actually
force
people
back
to
work
earlier.
It
does
not
deal
with
a
rehabilitation
environment
where
you
are
working
with
someone
who
is
injured
or
ill
because
of
a
workplace
event
or
illness.
The
carrot,
I
suppose,
is,
'You
will
be
right,
come
back
to
work
earlier
because
you
get
back
to
full
pay',
because
you
may
be
losing
your
house
or
you
may
not
be
able
to
afford
the
rent.
So
you
are
starved
back
to
work
but
you
come
back
to
work
sick
or
injured.
You
do
not
make
the
person
better.
You
do
not
make
the
person
healthier.
There
is
a
philosophical
issue
about
this
that
the
Government, for whatever reason, is choosing not to acknowledge.
Having
said
that,
for
Tasmanian
Police
Officers
we
support
that,
but
let
it
be
very
clear
that
from
our
side
of
the
House
we
think
there
is
much
more
work
to
do
on
that.
Our
message
to
emergency
service
workers
across
the
state
and
to
workers
in
this
state
is
that
the
Labor
Party
does
believe
that
this
matter
needs
to
be
resolved.
However,
we
will
not
stand
in
the
way
of
some
workers benefitting from a change in the legislation.
In
summary,
I
acknowledge
the
fine
and
inspirational
work
of
Tasmanian
Police
Officers
across
the
state.
They
do
amazing
work
and
they
keep
our
state
and
our
community
safe.
When
I
was
minister
the
amazing
amount
of
work
in
terms
of
the
crime
rates
were
dropping;
despite
a
couple
of
high
profile
incidents
the
crime
rates
were
dropping,
the
clearance
rates
were
up
and
the
investigations
and
a
whole
range
of
major
challenges
-
including
international
terrorism
and
motorcycle gangs - the work, the professionalism, the forensic approach is something to behold.
I
remember
on
a
Friday
night,
I
went
to
the
briefing
before
shift
about
what
had
been
going
on
in
the
day
and
what
they
were
expecting
on
the
night,
did
the
walk
around
with
the
PORT
team
and
then
sat
in
a
paddy
wagon
and
went
out
with
the
commissioner
and
a
few
others
to
a
couple
of
events.
I
saw
first-hand
some
of
the
stuff
they
had
to
deal
with.
It
was
not
an
eye
opener
because
you
expect
things
to
happen,
but
the
professionalism
and
work
of
Tas
Police
was
inspiring
in
how
they
calmly
went
about
their
work.
There
was
no
panic;
just
clear
and
consistent
response
that
made
the
community
safer.
I
put
on
the
record
my
utmost
respect
for
the
fine
men
and
women
of
Tasmania Police.
[3.53 p.m.]
Ms
BUTLER
(Lyons)
-
Madam
Speaker,
I
congratulate
my
colleagues
for
their
input
on
this
very
important
issue.
In
short,
I
support
the
removal
of
wage
step-down
provisions
for
injured
workers.
I
have
never
supported
under
compensating
workers
for
injuries
acquired
whilst
working. I completely support the removal of step-down provisions for police officers as well.
I
do,
however
find
the
action
taken
by
the
Government
to
essentially
get
rid
of
step-down
provisions
for
one
element
of
its
frontline
over
other
elements
of
its
frontline
somewhat
bizarre.
My
thoughts
were
shared
in
the
2018
report
of
the
findings
of
the
Australian
Senate
referred
inquiry
into
the
role
of
the
Commonwealth,
state
and
territory
Governments
in
addressing
the
high
rates
of
mental
health
conditions
experienced
by
first
responders,
emergency
service
workers
and
volunteers.
The
Senate
referred
the
inquiry
to
the
Education
and
Employment
Committee
to
ascertain looking at the mental health conditions experienced by our first responders.
provisions
were
discussed
during
the
hearing
and
inquiry,
and
the
step-down
provisions
involved
in
long-term
illness
or
conditions
identified
as
a
critical
factor
for
some
first
responders.
The
Police
Association
of
Tasmania
described
how
these
provisions
cost
first
responders financially and add to the stress of an already difficult situation:
The
conditions
that
our
members
are
currently
subjected
to
reduce
their
salary
from
100
per
cent
after
26
weeks
on
workers
compensation.
Their
salary
drops
between
27
to
78
weeks,
and
then
to
80
per
cent
thereafter
until
such
time
as
they return to full time work.
That
creates
another
level
of
stress
for
a
member
who
happens
to
be
off
on
an
accepted worker's compensation claim.
Representatives
from
the
association
noted
the
current
Tasmanian
Government's
commitment
to
exempting
Tasmanian
Police
from
these
step-down
provisions.
Other
witnesses'
families'
commitment
from
the
current
Tasmanian
Government
to
be
lacking
as
it
does
not
cover
other
Tasmanian first responders:
We
just
find
it
quite
bizarre
that
the
Government
might
announce
a
policy
for
reducing
or
essentially
getting
rid
of
step-down
provisions
for
one
element
of
its
workforce,
given
what
we
know
particularly
about
the
frontline.
That
is:
nurses
in
emergency
departments,
ambulance
workers,
firies,
et
cetera,
as
to
why
there
would
be
some
favouritism
applied
in
those
circumstances,
particularly
given
that
the
statistics
in
relation
to
PTSD
in
ambulance
are
that
it
is
higher
in
our
space.
There
does
not
seem
to
be
any
science
around
that
decision
at
all.
It
is
quite
concerning
and
upsetting for us that that is the approach that the state Government is taking.
The
purpose
of
this
bill
is
to
amend
the
Workers
Rehabilitation
and
Compensation
Act
and
to
remove
those
step-down
provisions
applying
to
police
officers
who
are
incapacitated
as
a
result
of
an
operational-related
injury.
Under
the
existing
act
all
workers
who
are
incapacitated
by
a
work
injury
have
their
pay
reduced
to
90
per
cent
after
26
weeks
of
incapacity
and
further
reduced
to
80
per cent after 78 weeks of incapacity.
I
am
in
agreeance
that
police
officers
who
are
injured
whilst
protecting
our
community
should
not
be
subjected
to
these
step-down
provisions.
To
be
injured
at
work,
especially
as
a
first
responder,
is
an
atrocious
occurrence.
In
fact,
I
do
not
support
the
principle
of
step-down
provisions
for
workers
at
all.
Step-down
provisions
imply
or
suggest
that
somehow
the
injured
worker
may
have
been
injured
on
purpose
or
should
have
an
injury
that
mends
in
a
set
amount
of
time,
or
that
workplaces
that
injure
people
are
not
responsible
for
the
environment
they
provide
workers to work. Why should any worker be disadvantaged who is injured at work?
Workers
do
not
set
out
to
injure
themselves
-
that
is
the
philosophy
behind
my
disagreement
-
at
work,
yet
they
are
penalised
financially
and
sometimes
socially
for
being
injured
and
not
being
able
to
return
to
their
normal
hours
and
duty.
The
social
stigma
associated
with
return
to
work
programs
in
a
lot
of
industries
is
dire.
It
causes
great
mental
strain
on
workers,
not
just
police
officers, not just first response workers and public servants, but in all industries.
If
we
have
a
look
at
some
of
our
manufacturing
industries
here
in
Tasmania
and
the
degree
of
injuries
in
that
sector,
they
may
not
be
such
a
high
concentration
of
mental
health
injuries
in
those
factors
but
there
are
still
manual
handling
injuries.
Many
of
those
injuries
take
a
lot
of
time
to
heal.
Those
workers
are
also
penalised
and
treated
as
if
they
were
meant
to
be
injured
or
they
have been injured on purpose.
In
short,
the
bills
do
not
become
cheaper.
The
salary
and
the
wage
in
which
the
worker
was
working
should
continue
to
be
afforded.
We
know
that
inflation
is
at
1.6
per
cent
and
the
current
step-down
provisions
are
just
not
fair.
I
support
the
Tas
Police
Association
for
their
work
in
protecting
their
workers.
I
also
know
that
it
is
a
fabulous
recruitment
tool
as
well
if
you
can
prove
a
culture
of
looking
after
your
workers
and
making
sure
that
if
they
are
injured
at
work
they
will
be
properly
compensated,
looked
after
and
managed
in
a
professional
and
effective
manner.
I
believe that should be extended right across the board, not just for our Tasmania Police workers.
Showing
that
respect
for
our
workers
is
very
important
and
going
right
across
different
industries
as
well,
not
just
first
responders.
We
need
to
make
sure
that
we
treat
all
workers
with
respect
and
make
sure
that
if
you
are
injured
at
work
you
are
compensated
appropriately,
and
that
you are not subject to any step-down provisions.
[4.00 p.m.]
Mr
FERGUSON
(Bass
-
Minister
for
Police,
Fire
and
Emergency
Management)
-
Madam
Speaker,
that
has
been
a
really
terrific
debate.
I
genuinely
thank
members
of
the
House
for
their
contributions.
I
particularly
thank
members
of
the
Labor
Party,
the
Greens,
and
my
colleague
from
the
Liberal
Party,
Mr
Tucker,
for
their
clearly
and
unequivocally
expressed
support
for
what
the
bill
attempts
to
do.
I
and
the
Government
appreciate
that,
because
it
guarantees
the
passage
of
an
important
commitment
made
by
our
Government
before
the
election,
and
also
delivers
on
a
significant
wish,
I
suppose,
if
I
can
put
it
that
way,
that
has
been
expressed
by
the
Police
Association for at least 11 years and perhaps longer.
I
will
attempt
in
my
summing
up
to
respond
to
a
range
of
issues
and
concerns
and
will
attempt
to
clear
up
any
misunderstandings
which
may
have
developed,
and
trust
that
that
will
satisfy
all
members
of
this
House
that
not
only
is
this
the
right
thing
to
do
for
our
police,
but
there
are
also
ways
in
which
we
can
ensure
that
government
and
parliament
in
future
can
be
informed
about
potential
other
policy
measures
to
ensure
our
workers
compensation
system
is
fair
for
all,
not just police.
I
will
commence
with
a
reminder
to
the
House
about
the
real
point
here.
I
have
to
pay
special
tribute
to
Rene
Hidding,
one
of
our
former
members,
who
was
the
first
member
of
this
House
to
attempt
to
achieve
the
removal
of
step-down
provisions
for
sworn
Tasmanian
police.
It
was
interesting
when
I
went
back
to
the
record
on
this
because
Rene
Hidding
may
have
been
the
first
mover
of
the
first
private
member's
bill
-
which
was
opposed,
for
the
record,
by
the
then
Labor
government
-
but
in
his
second
reading
speech
I
was
able
to
uncover
that
it
was
at
least
in
part
in
response
to
the
very
substantial
2008
review
of
the
act
which
I
understand
was
done
by
Mr
Alan
Clayton,
described
as
a
respected
actuarial
expert.
I
assume
he
had
been
commissioned
by
the
then
government
at
that
time
to
the
matters
generally.
In
his
prosecuting
of
the
argument
in
2008
Mr Hidding said -
In
the
review
of
the
Tasmanian
workers
compensation
system,
respected
actuarial
Alan
Clayton
commented
on
the
controversial
step-down
arrangements.
I
do
not
think
Mr
Hidding
was
claiming
that
this
was
Mr
Clayton's
particular
view,
but
Mr
Clayton states in page 60 of the report -
The
present
arrangements
do
appear
to
have
created
a
particular
concern
in
the
policing
environment.
The
uncertainty
of
risk
in
that
environment,
together
with
the
public
benefit
aspects
of
police
and
services
means
that
difficulties
and
hardship
resulting
from
the
operation
of
the
step-downs
in
this
area
are
deserving of attention.
I
know
it
is
a
long
time
ago,
but
that
is
when
this
debate
started,
11
years
ago,
in
2008,
in
that
report.
continued
to
read
through
the
parliamentary
debate
at
the
time,
it
was
the
then
minister
for
infrastructure,
Mr
Sturges,
who
explained
why
the
government
at
that
time
was
not
supportive
of
Mr
Hidding's
and
the
Liberal
opposition's
bill.
Mr
Sturges
made
the
observation
that,
at
that
point
in
time,
the
government
had
not
yet
responded
to
that
report
and
no
doubt
it
would
consider
it
through
the
usual
government
process.
I
found
it
compelling
that
way
back
in
2008,
a
major
review
of
the
act
had
established
that
there
was
an
area
deserving
of
attention
around
one
group
of
workers
in
the
state
-
not
that
they
are
public
sector
employees
who
are
police,
just
that
they
are
police.
I
will
now
leave
aside
Mr
Hidding's
comments,
only
to
repeat
the
point
that
police
officers
are
sworn
to
intervene
and
protect
the
peace.
They
are
sworn
to
do
so,
as
Mr
Tucker
so
well
articulated.
I
am
sure
I
will
come
back
to
that
again
but
that
is
the
historical
environment
we
ourselves
in.
I
have
to
point
out
as
well
that
this
has
been
a
long
campaign
by
the
Police
Association
on
behalf
of
their
members
and
I
will
certainly
be
making
further
comments
shortly
that
will
I
think
set
aside
some
of
the
more
unfortunate
comments
that
have
been
made
at
least
by
one member of this House.
I
take
the
opportunity
to
thank
my
colleague,
minister
Sarah
Courtney,
for
her
work
in
this
area.
We
have
been
working
throughout
the
day
to
ensure
that
the
good-faith
comments
that
were
made
in
the
briefing,
while
not
entirely
accurate,
I
want
to
clarify
those
today
before
the
House
and
also
establish
that
the
Government
will
make
good
on
the
commitments
to
ensuring
that
the
matters
that
are
of
concern
to
a
number
of
members
of
this
House
can
nonetheless
be
considered
in
a
proper
way.
I
would
argue
that
will
set
aside
the
need
for
any
amendment
to
this
bill.
I
hope
to
do
that
in
a
way
so
that
members
will
feel
satisfied
that
the
issues
they
have
raised
are
being
responded to properly.
I
thank
Ms
O'Byrne,
the
member
for
Bass,
for
her
comments.
I
particularly
make
the
point
that
I
found
little
in
her
contribution
that
I
would
disagree
with.
There
would
be
a
few
years
where
we
might
have
different
points
of
view
and,
indeed,
the
record
I
have
pointed
to
demonstrates
that
while
members
of
parliament
and
members
of
the
community
will
have
strong
views
on
the
justice
or
otherwise
of
certain
elements
of
our
workers
compensation
and
rehabilitation
system,
a
responsible
government
on
behalf
of
the
Tasmanian
people
must
find
a
balanced
approach
in
responding
and
ensuring
that
the
law
is
not
only
fair
but
also
takes
account
of
the
needs
of
industry
as
major
employers
in
the
state
who
have
to
pay
workers
compensation
premiums and ensure we get the balance right.
While
we
are
focusing
today
on
step-down
provisions
there
is
a
whole
range
of
other
entitlements
which
have
time
limits
that
nobody
has
touched
on
in
this
debate.
The
point
made
here
is
that
there
is
an
overarching
need
to
ensure
that
the
system
is
fair
for
the
employer
but
most
importantly fair and just for a worker who is injured while undertaking their employment.
I
recognise
that
Ms
O'Byrne
would
have
significant
experience
in
individual
concerns
and
complaints
around
workers
compensation
matters
and
appreciate
those
comments
that
have
been
made.
to
pick
up
on
one
other
point
that
I
feel
members
of
this
House
would
benefit
from
hearing.
I
do
not
know
if
it
was
in
the
Clayton
review
or
not,
but
Mr
Sturges,
the
minister
of
the
day,
in
explaining
why
the
Labor
government
would
not
be
supporting
the
Liberals'
bill
to
remove
step-down provisions for police officers - which was defeated on the floor of the House - said:
Historically
these
limits,
including
the
weekly
payment
step-downs,
have
been
justified
as
a
trade-off
for
not
having
to
establish
fault.
I
think
it
is
relevant
that
I
make
that
point
so
you
have
an
understanding
of
that.
Police
officers
were
specifically
excluded
from
the
Workers
Compensation
Act
1927,
and
it
was
through
the
introduction
of
the
1988
act
that
police
officers
were
brought
into
the general compensation scheme.
I
will
now
respond
to
a
number
of
comments
and
concerns
that
have
been
made
during
the
debate.
In
response
to
Ms
O'Byrne's
comments
which
were
reasonably
made,
although
I
think
there
is
a
misunderstanding,
but
also
more
pertinently
in
response
to
Dr
Broad's
comments
which
were
inflammatory
and
inaccurate,
I
will
make
it
very
clear
for
members
of
this
House
that
no
threat
of
the
nature
that
has
been
described
has
ever
been
made.
That
is
false
and
misleading.
If
it
is on the basis of a misunderstanding I will leave it to Dr Broad to clear the matter up.
I
can
assure
you,
Madam
Speaker
and
members
of
this
House,
that
is
not
how
this
Government
operates.
However,
it
is
true
to
say
that
this
is
a
very
important
legislation.
We
do
not
make
such
threats
at
all.
What
I
have
done,
and
I
am
happy
to
put
on
the
record
again
today
in
saying,
it
has
been
very
important
to
the
Government
to
let
people
know
that
this
legislation
is
too
important to be amended or meddled with, frustrating its success.
Indeed,
the
President
of
the
Police
Association
of
Tasmania,
Mr
Riley,
has
contacted
me
and
he
has
had
this
to
say,
which
I
will
repeat
for
the
benefit
of
the
House.
He
said
to
me
this
afternoon:
In
our
discussions
the
PAT
never
indicated
we
were
threatened
that
if
the
bill
did
not
remain
unchanged
it
would
not
pass
through
the
lower
House.
We
stated
our
concern
was
that
if
it
changed
from
its
current
format
it
would
get
bogged
down
in
reviews
and
political
gaming.
This
is
a
12-year
journey
for
the
PAT
to
get
this
legislation
considered
by
the
Parliament
and
hopefully
progressed
for
our
members
who
are
regularly
subject
to
violence.
The
PAT
is
appreciative
of
the
leadership
shown
by
the
Minister
for
Police,
Fire
and
Emergency
Management
to actively progress this bill after being approached by the PAT to do so.
I
did
not
ask
Mr
Riley
for
those
comments.
He
has
provided
them
to
me
after
witnessing
the
debate
that
has
gone
on
before
just
now.
It
is
helpful
and
supports
my
claim
that
Dr
Broad
is
out
of line in saying things that are not true in this House.
Madam
Speaker,
I
will
clear
up
something
that
I
could
appreciate
politicians
on
the
other
side
of
this
House
may
wish
to
say
but
are
not
true.
There
is
no
attempt
by
this
Government
to
try
to
create,
or
pit
one
group
against
another.
That
is
unhelpful,
untrue
and
it
is
not
what
this
bill
was
motivated by, nor was it in 2008.
Picking
up
Dr
Woodruff's
comments
I
wrote
down
the
suggestion
that
this
bill
would
create
a
difference
between
police
and
other
employees.
I
would
put
it
differently.
I
would
say
it
recognises
the
difference
between
police
and
other
employees.
We
all
want
all
of
our
employees
-
privately
and
publicly
employed
-
to
enjoy
the
benefits
of
a
strong
and
fair
workers
compensation
and rehabilitation system. I believe we all agree on that.
The
point
the
Liberal
Party
has
been
making
for
11
years
is
that
there
is
something
unique
to
policing
that
renders
them
that
they
should
not
be
subject
to
step-down
provisions
because
of
an
injury
that
occurred
in
the
course
of
policing.
Through
the
legislation,
we
have
made
it
clear
that
it
is
not
about
being
a
police
officer,
it
is
not
about
wearing
the
uniform
or
the
badge:
an
injury
is
caused and you are entitled to and benefit from not having step-down.
We
have
made
it
clear
the
bill
that
even
a
police
officer,
if
they
are
injured
in
the
course
of
their
work
that
does
not
relate
to
the
special
role
of
the
policing
then
they
would
be
subject
to
step-down
provisions
just
like
every
other
employee.
It
is
not
the
personality
of
the
police
officer.
It
is
the
nature
of
the
work
that
is
different
that
we
wish
to
protect.
I
say
that
as
minister
responsible
for
quite
a
number
of
other
emergency
service
personnel
for
whom
our
track
record
is
extremely
strong
in
wanting
to
protect
in
a
range
of
different
ways,
including
in
sentencing
reform.
We
have
never
said
that
police
are
more
deserving
than
other
workers.
That
is
debunked.
It
does
not
pit
one
group
against
another.
That
is
debunked
and
rejected.
I
absolutely
reject
Dr
Broad's
false
claim
that
it
would
pit
one
police
officer
against
another.
It
is
a
misrepresentation
and
I
have
to
caution
Dr
Broad
that
it
is
creating
mischief
in
the
Tasmanian
community
when
you
say
things
like
that.
Coming
from
an
Opposition
which
promised
a
third
of
what
this
Government
promised
when
restoring
police
numbers,
no
commitment
to
our
mandatory
sentencing
reforms;
indeed
you
opposed
them
just
a
fortnight
ago.
You
even
opposed
a
loyalty
payment
to
police
who
took a wage freeze and you claim that it is not fair to remove step-down provisions for police.
We
are
doing
this
because
we
recognise
that
police
are
sent
into
situations
where
they
are
not
only
subject
to
risk
but
subject
to
attack
and
nonetheless
they
are
sworn
to
protect
the
public
peace.
I
will
focus
on
the
uniqueness
of
policing.
Mr
Tucker
has
spoken
on
this
so
I
will
not
repeat
everything
he
has
said.
There
are
other
occupations
where
there
is
risk.
I
have
spoken
about
that
at
length
in
previous
debates
and
I
hope
we
can
speak
about
that
again
in
sentencing
reform.
Unlike
other
occupations
where
risk
mitigation
measures
can
be
put
in
place,
there
are
sometimes,
where
for
police,
risk
mitigations
cannot
be
put
in
place
for
circumstances
where
police
are
expected
to
perform.
This
reflects
the
dynamic
and
unpredictable
nature
of
the
situations
that
police officers are so often faced with.
We
still
expect
police
officers
to
put
their
lives
on
the
line
to
protect
our
communities
and
ones.
We
expect
them
to
act
with
bravery
and
to
perform
their
duty
without
fear
or
hesitation
and
it
is
not
reasonable
that
we
would
expect
police
officers
to
respond
to
such
danger,
knowing
that
they
will
suffer
a
loss
of
income
should
they
be
injured
in
that
role.
Not
in
the
occupation,
in
the
role.
Not
because
of
the
nature
of
their
employment
or
the
award
under
which
they are paid, but for the activities that they are engaged in.
In
relation
to
Ms
O'Byrne's
question
on
how
a
claim
would
be
assessed:
great
question
and
I
have
a
simple
answer
which
I
think
will
help.
First,
before
step-down
would
apply
at
all,
the
injury
would
have
to
be
accepted
as
a
work
injury
in
the
first
place.
If
a
worker
felt
that
an
unfair
decision
had
been
made,
they
would
have
recourse
to
the
tribunal.
There
is
a
second
stage.
If
it
was
a
work
injury
and
step-down
was
an
issue,
there
would
also
have
to
be
an
assessment
about
whether
or
not
it
was
operationally-related
as
the
bill
proposes
to
provide
for.
If
the
department
determined
that
it
was
not
the
employee
could
take
that
issue
to
the
tribunal.
In each case the recourse is the same but there would be two avenues for that recourse.
you
also
asked
me
about
police
establishment
numbers
and
maybe
it
was
in
the
context of back fill?
Ms
O'Byrne
-
No.
It
was
more
explaining
why
there
might
be
pressure
points.
The
other
question
was
to
do
with
the
process
to
review
to
see
that
we
are
actually
capturing
the
group
of
workers we want to capture.
Mr FERGUSON
- I am not sure how to answer that. I will come back to you on that.
Ms
O'Byrne
-
As
clarification,
with
Madam
Speaker's
indulgence,
with
PTSD,
when
we
do
presumptive
cancer,
we
put
a
review
period
in.
The
review
period
in
fairness
was
actually
too
short.
There
were
not
enough
people
picked
up
to
get
a
proper
assessment
of
it.
I
understand
the
issue.
Do
we
actually
put
in
a
mechanism
for
a
piece
of
legislation
that
we
had
no
idea
really
how
it
would
capture
people?
I
am
not
really
sure,
because
the
nature
requires
it
to
be
quite
broad,
whether
it
will
capture
everybody.
Are
you
planning
an
internal
review,
given
that
there
is
no
legislative review? What will you do to make sure the workers are picked up?
Mr
FERGUSON
-
I
understand
the
question.
If
you
would
bear
with
me
as
I
approach
that
matter toward the end of my time.
Ms O'Byrne
- Sure, that is fine.
Mr
FERGUSON
-
I
have
the
comment
you
want
to
make.
The
determination
is
whether
the
injury
occurs
in
circumstances
that
result
from
a
policing
function.
If
the
circumstances
are
brought
about
by
the
policing
role,
then
the
employee
would
be
covered
to
not
have
step-down.
If
the
circumstance
is
not
directly
related
to
the
policing
role
but
could
have
happened
to
any
other
worker, then step-down provisions would continue to apply.
Mr FERGUSON
- That was in response to your question.
Dr
Woodruff
-
How
would
it
solve
that
situation
so
the
person
who
is
in
the
carpark
who
is
still sitting there waiting to go -
Mr
FERGUSON
-
It
would
be
determined
by
the
employer.
In
this
case
it
would
be
Tasmania
Police,
and
if
the
employee
felt
that
the
wrong
decision
had
been
made
by
the
employer
they are entitled to take that to the tribunal for reconsideration.
Dr Woodruff
- Is it going to be more clearly defined?
Mr
FERGUSON
-
It
is
the
business
of
this
House
to
set
the
legislation.
We
have
had
it
professionally
drafted
so
that
it
makes
it
clear
in
the
bill
that
if
it
is
operationally
related
to
the
role
of
policing
it
will
be
covered
without
step-down.
If
a
police
officer
is
injured
at
work
but
it
is
not
an
injury
related
to
their
operational
duties
then
they
would
be
covered
but
over
time
they
would
also experience step-down payments.
Dr
Woodruff
-
Would
'operational'
mean
any
time
they
are
in
a
vehicle,
or
anytime
they
are
called
out
to
an
incident?
Would
that
all
be
covered
by
'operational',
whereas
if
they
were
in
the
police station that would not be operational?
Mr FERGUSON
- In the office?
Mr
FERGUSON
-
You
have
borne
out
a
distinction
I
provided
in
the
second
reading
speech;
it is exactly that kind of distinction which we offer in explaining the wording of the legislation.
Dr Woodruff
- So office/non-office is the understanding.
Mr FERGUSON
- That is one way to express it.
Ms
O'Byrne
-
But
tripping
over
a
curb
when
you
are
on
your
normal
beat
is
different
from
chasing someone in a dangerous circumstance in which you fall and get hurt.
Mr
FERGUSON
-
That
is
another
reasonable
way
to
put
it.
I
am
advised
the
police
department
is
supportive
of
its
workers
and
will
not
be
disputing
valid
claims
and
does
not;
it
has
a
very
good
reputation
in
this
area.
Some
may
have
different
points
of
view
of
that,
but
the
employer
has
a
duty
to
ensure
that
valid
claims
are
supported
and
claims
that
are
questionable
are
not, or at least allowed to go to the tribunal for final assessment.
I
hope
that
clarifies
the
matter
of
the
distinction
that
applies
in
the
bill.
One
option
available
to
the
Government
was
to
give
blanket
coverage
to
the
occupational
group
of
police.
On
advice,
we
believe
the
arguments
that
sustain
this
bill
needed
to
be
specifically
recognised
in
the
legislation.
We
are
not
singling
out
people
who
are
employed
under
a
particular
award;
we
are
singling
out
people
who
are
employed
under
an
award
who
do
a
specific
function
of
policing
and
are sworn to protect the public peace.
I
have
other
advice
here
regarding
Dr
Broad's
comments.
The
distinction
with
police
is
not
an
issue
about
the
importance
of
different
workers;
the
Government
values
all
our
employees.
The
distinction
with
police
is
that
we
require
them
to
attend
situations
of
violence
knowing
that
the
violence
may
be
redirected
at
them.
The
difference
is
we
send
police
to
situations
where
they
will
be
attacked.
Although
others
may
be
injured,
we
do
not
intentionally
send
them
into
those
situations of violence. We have had examples of these provided to the House.
an
example
raised
in
the
debate
about
pursuit.
A
pursuit
would
be
exempt
from
step-down
because
pursuing
an
offender
is
a
police-specific
function.
With
a
car
that
is
parked
and
accidentally
backed
into,
I
am
advised
it
would
be
unlikely
the
circumstances
would
have
occurred
if
the
person
was
not
a
police
officer,
but
the
above
is
only
an
issue
if
they
are
incapacitated by the injury and step-down only applies if the worker is incapacitated.
Finally,
the
example
of
assaults
that
were
brought
into
the
debate
were
intended
to
demonstrate
the
unique
situation
that
police
face
in
that
they
are
attacked.
There
have
been
statistics
in
the
hundreds
each
year
illustrating
that
point.
Paramedics
and
child
protection
workers
are
attacked,
other
workers
are
attacked
and
people
in
the
private
sector
are
attacked.
We
are
talking
here
about
a
group
of
people
who
are
employed
for
a
specific
function
where
we
know
they
will
be
attacked
and
indeed
are
sent
into
situations
to
protect
somebody
who
is
suffering
an
offence and they are there to separate the victim from the offender and to protect the victim.
Not
only
are
they
injured
as
a
result
of
those
attacks
but
they
are
injured
because
someone
has
intentionally
decided
to
hurt
them.
In
regard
to
the
individual
cases,
some
resulted
in
step-downs
but
not
all,
but
that
was
never
the
point.
The
point
is
this
is
a
dangerous
occupation
and
because
they
are
employed
specifically
in
this
area
and
are
sworn
to
protect
the
public
peace
they
should
not be subject to step-down provisions.
I might have covered most, if not all, of the issues and questions that were raised.
Ms O'Byrne
- Minister, you were going to touch again on that review issue.
Mr
FERGUSON
-
I
am
coming
back
to
that
now.
I
am
aware
of
Ms
O'Byrne
and
the
Opposition's
wish
to
have
a
review.
I
would
like
to
clarify
and
clear
up
any
misunderstanding.
I
understand that it may have been stated previously in the briefing,
Ms
O'Byrne
-
My
apologies,
minister,
I
did
not
mean
that
review.
Given
that
there
is
not
a
review
on
the
efficacy
of
the
impact
on
police
you
were
going
to
address
the
issue
of
whether
or
not
you
had
a
process
internally
of
making
sure
that
it
was
capturing
the
police
who
needed
to
be
captured,
in
the
same
way
that
we
did
with
the
presumptive
cancer
legislation.
We
said
that
there
would
be
a
review
to
make
sure
that
we
had
taken
care
of
the
right
people.
That
review
is
not
about
extending
it
anywhere
else
but
merely
about
making
sure
that
in
the
intent
of
this
bill
alone
we do not miss the people that we genuinely want to pick up.
Mr
FERGUSON
-
I
understand
the
question.
I
think
this
will
be
helpful.
I
would
like
to
make
it
clear
that
the
WorkCover
Tasmania
board
is
currently
undertaking
a
broad
review
of
the
operation
of
the
benefits
structure
for
workers
compensation
schemes.
It
was
understood
that
the
board
would
specifically
look
at
step-down
provisions
as
part
of
its
forward
work
plan
later
this
year.
I
apologise
if
anybody
has
been
given
to
understand
differently
that
it
was
already
underway;
it
is
not.
That
was
part
of
its
forward
work
plan
so
I
apologise
on
behalf
of
the
Government for that misunderstanding.
that,
I
am
happy
to
commit,
having
spoken
throughout
the
day
with
my
colleague
minister,
that
the
responsible
minister,
Ms
Courtney,
Minister
for
Building
and
Construction,
will
direct
the
board
today
to
undertake
a
review
of
step-down
provisions.
The
Government
has
today
consulted
with
Kath
Morgan-Wicks
who,
apart
from
being
the
secretary
of
the
department,
is
also
the
chair
of
the
WorkCover
board
which
also
includes
union
representation,
and
she
as
has
indicated
that
the
board
is
able
to
undertake
this
task
within
an
18-month
time
frame,
which
is
an
extremely
positive
development
and
extremely
efficient
to
make
that
undertaking.
I
note
the
WorkCover
board
has
broad
representation,
including
that
of
unions.
The
direction
Minister
Courtney
will
be
providing
to
the
board
is
a
far
more
appropriate
method
to
direct
the
board
to
formally
carry
out
a
review,
which
could
happen
quickly,
rather
than
the
legislative
review
option.
I
offer
that
in
good
faith.
It
is
not
often
that
we
have
to
clear
up
a
briefing
matter
outside
the
House
in
the
House
but
I
do
so
for
the
benefit
of
clarity.
I
furthermore
indicate
that
while
we
cannot
and
must
not
give
any
sense
of
what
that
process
may
lead
to
because
that
is
genuinely
an
open-ended
question
for
government
policy
and
this
House
indeed
which
no
doubt
will
have
budget
implications,
ramifications
for
other
entitlements
within
the
act,
we
make
that
commitment.
As
soon
as
the
minister
has
finalised
her
written
direction
to
that
board
we
are
also
more
than
happy
to
table
it
in
this
House
for
the
benefit
of
members.
I
say
all
that
in
a
hope
not
just to advance the issue -
Ms
O'Byrne
-
I
am
being
quite
genuine
in
this.
I
going
to
make
sure
that
the
report
would
be
tabled
in
the
parliament
and
is
a
commitment
that
you
have
which
is
one
thing
that
the
legislative
mechanism
would
ensure.
The
issue
though
is
that
if
it
is
18
months
then
we
are
looking
at,
once
this
parliament
has
risen
in
2020
and
we
do
not
come
back
again
until
potentially
late
March
2021,
so
we
are
looking
at
quite
an
extended
period.
I
appreciate
the
18
I
think
12
months
is
probably
enough
but
I
appreciate
the
intent
around
18
months,
but
if
we
could
bring
it
in
before
parliament
rises
next
year
then
at
least
we
would
have
the
capacity
to
work
on
it
while
parliament
is
not
in
session.
If
it
is
18
months
it
does
not
come
in
until
after
we
rise
and
then
there
is
another
three,
maybe
three-and-a-half
months,
before
we
see
it
and
it
gets
tabled
in
parliament
and
then
we
have
a
response,
so
we
are
looking
at
not
18
months
but
two
years.
I
am
not
trying
to
be
problematic
at
this
point
but
if
we
could
get
a
commitment
that
it
would
be
tabled
perhaps
in
16
months,
not
18,
that
would
at
least
bring
us
into
it
being
tabled
within the 2020 parliamentary year.
Mr
FERGUSON
-
I
would
express
it
like
this.
I
think
we
are
both
being
reasonable.
I
will
undertake
to
discuss
that
with
my
colleague
minister
but
I
think
the
right
approach
at
this
point
in
time
for
our
House
is
to
be
satisfied
that
the
review
is
kicking
off
and
the
direction
is
kicking
off
immediately.
Please
understand
also
that
the
time
frame
has
been
on
advice
from
the
department
and
the
WorkCover
board
chair
herself
as
to
what
would
be
an
appropriate
time
frame
to
get
the
job
done
properly
and
fulsomely.
As
for
reporting,
public
release
and
government
response,
I
would
not
be
empowered
to
make
any
guarantees
on
that,
standing
here
as
I
am
today.
I
would
submit
to
the
House
that,
that
is
a
pretty
good
arrangement
to
satisfy
the
concerns
that
have
been
raised.
Madam
Speaker,
I
will
conclude
my
remarks
by
again
saying
some
difference
of
opinion
on
where
to
go
from
here.
I
hope
that
the
record
clearly
shows
that
this
is
overdue,
it
is
a
congratulatory
message
to
the
Police
Association
of
Tasmania
and
its
executive
and
its
former
executive,
together
with
its
members,
for
their
campaign
on
this.
I
particularly
thank
those
who
have
hung
in
there
with
us
on
this
journey
and
hearing,
as
I
think
I
do,
the
support
around
the
House
for
this
bill.
I
appreciate
that.
I
submit
and
commend
this
bill
to
the
House
for
approval
so
that we can get on and do it.
Bill read the second time.
WORKERS REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION
AMENDMENT BILL 2019 (No. 20)
Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 -
Section 69B amended (Period for which benefits are payable)
Ms
O'BYRNE
-
Minister,
I
am
not
sure
that
I
got
the
answer
to
the
question
and
that
is
probably because we were dealing with a number of the issues at the same time.
In
the
pure
intent
of
this
bill,
to
capture
police
officers
who
are
injured
in
the
line
of
duty,
what
process
will
be
undertaken
to
ensure
that
the
implications
of
the
bill
be
reviewed
to
make
sure
that
we
capture
those
workers
we
want
to
and
they
are
not
inadvertently
interpreted
out?
I
understand
why
the
drafting
has
been
done
the
way
that
it
has;
it
makes
absolute
sense.
However,
until it is tested, we do not know that it will necessarily pick up the cover that we need it to.
Whilst
we
are
not
suggesting
that
there
is
a
formal
review
of
the
very
small
numbers
that
we
anticipate
being
picked
up
by
this
bill
in
itself,
we
do
want
to
have
some
comfort
that
there
is
a
mechanism
that
assesses
whether
or
not
the
bill
has
done
what
I
think
every
member
of
this
House
supports it doing.
Mr
FERGUSON
-
Thanks,
Ms
O'Byrne,
for
the
question.
If
you
were
suggesting
that
the
wording appears a little clunky, I would agree with you.
Ms O'Byrne
- I did not say that.
Mr
FERGUSON
-
You
did
not
say
it,
then
I
think
I
will,
but
it
is
professionally
drafted
to
provide
for
exactly
as
we
want.
You
have
acknowledged
that,
and
I
thank
you
for
that.
To
ensure
that
it
achieves
the
purpose
stated,
I
am
assured
by
Tasmania
Police
that
the
agency
wants
it
to
work.
They
will
be
closely
monitoring
it,
and
certainly
wants
to
see
step-down
removed
for
police
who,
we,
in
this
debate
have
agreed
should
have
it
removed.
I
am
assured
that
in
the
course
of
implementing
this
in
the
future,
Tasmania
Police
take
the
view
that
a
worker
injured
in
the
course
of
duty
finds
themselves
unable
to
obtain
the
benefit
of
the
removal
of
step-down
provisions
that
it
will
be
raised
with
me
and
any
future
minister.
I
do
not
have
to
take
advice
on
this and I fully would expect as well that the association would do likewise.
Ms
O'BYRNE
-
My
second
question
is
another
one
that
comes
into
the
complexity
of
the
PTSD
issue.
This
only
applies
to
new
claimants.
If
we
have
a
person
who
has
previously
made
a
PTSD
claim
that
has
been
accepted
and
who
has
a
new
injury
and
not
a
current
claim,
but
as
we
know
could
potentially
be
cumulative,
if
they
have
already
made
a
claim
in
the
past,
will
that
prevent
them
from
accessing
step-downs
in
the
future?
In
the
nature
that
you
have
already
made
a
claim
for
an
existing
injury
then
you
would
not
qualify,
but
under
PTSD
we
are
dealing
with
a
slightly
different
cumulative
effect.
Do
you
have
any
advice
as
to
what
would
happen
in
that
circumstance?
-
Thank
you,
Ms
O'Byrne.
The
advice
is
as
follows:
if
it
is
a
new
claim
because
it
is
a
new
injury
post
the
passage
of
this
legislation,
the
answer
is
yes,
they
will
not
be
subject
to
step-down
provisions.
I
will
put
it
a
different
way.
If
it
is
a
new
claim
it
is
because
it
is
a new injury, then there will be no step-down.
If
it
relates
to
an
existing
injury
with
an
existing
claim
then
they
would
continue
to
be
subject
to
step-down
provisions.
As
my
second
reading
speech
indicates
it
does
not
attempt
to
capture
retrospectivity
on
existing
claims.
However,
to
the
nub
of
your
question
to
a
new
claim
that
relates
to
historical
cumulative
effects
in
relation
to
a
PTSD
diagnosis
then
that
would
be
considered
a
new
claim
if
it
was
considered
a
new
claim
in
relation
to
that
injury,
that
diagnosis
of
PTSD. It would not be subject to step-down.
Ms
O'BYRNE
-
I
have
a
new
clause
5,
a
new
clause
after
clause
4.
Just
checking
the
process
that
we
now
agree
with
this
new
clause
then
I
seek
to
introduce
a
new
clause
after
clause
4.
Making sure we are all clear on the process before I do it.
Clause 4 agreed to.
New Clause A -
Review in relation to weekly payments
-
For
the
benefit
of
those
members
who
have
not
been
part
of
the
ongoing
conversations,
I
do
thank
the
minister
for
engaging
in
them
with
me.
We
raised
a
concern
in
the
debate
our
position
around
the
broader
implications
of
step-downs
and
what
they
do
to
workers
and
whether
or
not
they
are
fair
or
equitable.
We
also
raised
the
issue
that
this
bill
applies
only
to
a
small
part
of
the
minister's
responsibility.
That
is
clear
in
this
bill
and
we
have
no
intention
of
undermining that intention.
However,
we
feel
that
there
is
an
opportunity
for
us
to
look
at
the
broader
scope
of
issues
of
step-down and that this should be done independently of the department.
The
way
that
the
conversation
has
gone
on
-
and
I
appreciate
the
Government
engaging
with
us
on
it
-
is
recognising
that
that
is
a
good
piece
of
work
that
could
take
place
and
we
could
review
the
implications
of
step-downs.
We
could
then,
as
a
parliament,
have
an
understanding
of
how
the
step-downs
are
impacting
on
all
workers
but
in
particular
those
workers
who
we
talked
about
today,
but
that
all
workers
should
be
covered
by
it.
It
should
be
reviewed
and
also
some
advice
could be garnered on what the actual cost implications of that are.
The
minister
has
said
that
his
colleague,
the
minister
is
not
responsible
for
this
bill
but
is
responsible
for
workers
compensation
and
rehabilitation
and
is
comfortable
to
direct,
as
of
today,
that
such
a
review
take
place.
I
thank
the
ministers
for
doing
that.
However,
I
am
still
uncomfortable
that
it
may
sit
off
in
the
never-never.
One
of
the
things
that
did
come
out
of
the
review
that
was
put
into
the
legislation
around
PTSD
was
not
only
a
defined
time
frame
but
also
the
obligation
to
report
back
to
this
House
in
a
manner
in
which
we
could
respond
to
it.
Directing
the
WorkCover
Board
to
do
some
work
does
not
mean
that
this
House
ever
gets
to
see
what
that
work is and what that work finds.
The
reason
that
I
know
that
is
that
when
I
asked
the
minister
about
the
other
matters
that
have
been
for
minister
Courtney
-
I
apologise
for
doing
it
too
-
in
the
PTSD
legislation
that
other
work
that
had
gone
to
the
WorkCover
Board,
the
minister
was
not
able
to
give
me
a
full
list.
He
said
that
he
had
sent
a
number
of
matters
to
them.
I
do
not
want
to
have
that
sort
of
vagueness
about
a
matter that is so important, and I think that people in this House genuinely do agree with.
I
am
also
conscious
that
the
minister
wanted
18
months.
If
we
were
going
to
do
this,
Mr
Ferguson
intimated
that
we
might
be
able
to
update
the
House
on
that
after
18
months.
Eighteen
months
from
now
the
parliament
will
not
be
sitting
and
there
are
some
months
before
parliament
resumes.
So
we
are
not
talking
about
18
months
before
we
see
something.
We
are
talking
about
something a bit longer.
I
have
an
amendment
to
move
that
I
would
seek
the
Government's
concurrence
-
and
I
do
not
do
it
in
any
way
to
undermine
this
bill;
support
this
bill;
we
respect
the
commitment
given
by
the
minister,
but
we
think
that
it
gives
greater
effect
and
some
control
of
the
parliament
to
this
piece of work and reporting on this piece of work.
Ms
O'BYRNE
-
Do
you
want
me
to
talk
through
the
amendment
first
and
then
you
can
respond? I am happy to do that.
The
amendment
will
seek
for
a
review
to
be
conducted
in
relation
to
the
weekly
payment
determined
under
section
69
-
the
impact
of
workers
receiving
less
than
100
per
cent
of
the
weekly
payment
after
the
first
26
weeks
of
the
period
of
incapacity
following
the
date
of
the
initial
incapacity.
That
this
review
would
be
carried
out
by
people,
in
the
minister's
opinion,
who
are
appropriately
qualified
for
that
task
and
include
people
are
not
employees
of
the
state
or
commonwealth.
As
I
am
advised,
this
wording
reflects
the
wording
in
the
PTSD
review
that
we
did
and
that
the
minister,
at
that
stage,
it
may
be
minister
Barnett
or
it
may
have
been
minister
Hidding,
somewhere
in
that
mix,
that
did
go
to
WorkCover.
WorkCover
did
not
conduct
the
review themselves but they did commission that work to be done.
I
was
wanting
it
to
be
done
by
30
June.
It
would
be
great
if
the
minister
wants
to
do
it
today.
That
is
fine
but
I
do
believe
that
we
could
realistically
have
a
reporting
date
to
the
parliament
by
30
September,
and
that
would
give
this
House
enough
time
to
look
at
that
work
and
for
the
Government
to
make
decisions
about
what
it
may
chose
or
chose
not
to
do,
but
also
inform
this
debate
more
broadly.
We
could
have
a
genuine
conversation
about
what
step-downs
look
like
in
the
future
and
who
they
pick
up
and
what
impact
is
made,
not
only
to
those
workers
but
also
to
the
premium
cost
because
we
do
need
to
understand
that,
in
particular,
in
the
light
of
the
other
reports
that
we
are
still
expecting
from
WorkCover
on
older
workers
and
on
extension
to
PTSD
to
the
private sector. We need to understand it in light of all of those.
I
will
wait
and
see
what
the
minister
has
that
may
provide
us
some
advice
but
at
this
stage,
minister,
I
am
inclined
to
move
with
this
formal
amendment.
If
the
minister
can
achieve
it
in
greater
time
than
that
then
that
is
fantastic.
But
it
does
provide,
I
believe,
a
safety
net
for
this
House
because
we
do
not
have
another
mechanism
to
open
this
up
again.
I
would
rather
we
dealt
with
this
downstairs
than
upstairs
because
we
then,
as
members
of
the
lower
House,
have
some
control about what we agreed and the upper House is in control of its own destiny and decisions.
Mr Ferguson
- They do their best work when they review legislation, not make it.
Ms
O'BYRNE
-
Minister,
I
completely
agree
with
you.
The
upper
House's
role
is
to
review
legislation
and
therefore
we
should
send
to
them,
the
best
legislation
and
if
we
can
resolve
matters
down here, we should and if we can do it collaboratively that would be great.
Mr
FERGUSON
-
I
am
in
a
position
now
to
provide
the
House
a
signed
letter
of
direction
from
the
minister,
which
has
changed
in
the
time
since
I
last
rose.
We
have
sought
to
do
everything
we
can
to
address
the
reasonable
comments
that
were
made
by
Ms
O'Byrne.
This
is
us
at
our
finest
and
this
will
achieve
the
outcome
desired.
It
also,
in
Ms
Courtney's
direction,
it
be
provided
to
her
in
time
for
tabling
in
this
House
by
no
later
than
the
last
parliamentary sitting day in 2020.
Ms O'Byrne
- Can you filibuster for a while so I can have a look at it?
Mr
FERGUSON
-
Of
course.
I
have
three
copies
of
the
same
letter
unsigned.
I
will
speak
to
that
for
a
moment
longer
which
is
to
make
the
point
that
in
moving
to
an
18-month
time
frame,
we
initially
were
at
two
years.
This
is
a
large
piece
of
work.
It
will
require
consultation
and
significant
analysis.
This
is
not
a
rushed
job.
I
am
not
accepting
the
argument
from
the
Opposition
that
there
was
the
potential
for
a
longer
period
of
months
when
the
house
would
not
be
sitting
which
would
potentially
be
said
to
delay
the
matter.
The
minister
worked
in
very
good
faith
to
mitigate
that
concern
and
to
address
it.
It
is
not
plausible
that
it
could
be
done
in
a
sooner
time frame. That is the advice I have been provided.
What
the
member
wishes
to
do
is
entirely
a
matter
for
her
and
the
Opposition.
I
felt
that
was useful to inject into the debate. The letter of direction has been sent to the board -
Ms Courtney
- I understand it has been signed.
Mr
FERGUSON
-
If
the
direction
is
active,
it
is
in
place.
It
is
quite
unusual
in
this
House
to
see
the
Government
move
so
swiftly
on
something
like
this.
We
have
done
that
in
order
to
ensure
the safe passage of this legislation without members to feel the need for amendments.
Ms
O'BYRNE
-
Minister,
I
have
question
about
the
letter,
which
may
still
be
in
the
ether
about to go.
I
note
that
it
only
asks
them
to
look
at
occupational
groups
within
the
public
sector.
We
know
the
WorkCover
Board
can
look
more
broadly
at
those
implications.
The
only
reason
I
raise
this,
minister, is the discussion we had before about PSTD.
It
is
the
nursing
ED
who
is
a
public
sector
employee,
one
of
your
employees
who
is
involved
in
an
altercation,
injured
and
is
covered
and
develops
PTSD.
They
are
covered
by
the
PTSD
legislation but the agency nurse working beside her in the same circumstances is not.
It
still
goes
to
the
equity
issue.
I
feel
like
I
am
being
belligerent.
I
apologise
because
I
appreciate
the
Government
has
moved
substantially
on
this
and
attempted
to
respond.
I
appreciate
the time issues but it does not give us a lot of time to raise questions or talk about it in the House.
If
it
is
tabled,
can
I
seek
advice,
minister,
is
it
your
understanding
whether
or
not
it
becomes
a
disallowable
piece
of
work?
Is
there
a
certain
time
limit
before
we
have
to
respond
after
tabling?
What does that mean? Does it mean that parliament cannot deal with it until we sit again?
Ms
O'BYRNE
-
We
then
would
not
be
able
to
raise
questions
about
or
discuss
in
this
House
until
late
March.
So
we
are
still
in
the
same
time
constraint.
I
am
trying
not
to
be
obstructive.
I
appreciate you have worked very hard and Ms Courtney, you have worked very hard too.
Mr Ferguson
- We have.
Ms
O'BYRNE
-
I
am
still
of
a
mind
to
move
the
amendment
that
we
have.
Putting
on
the
record
the
fact
that
we
recognise
how
far
you
have
moved,
simply
because
I
do
want
a
commitment
that
is
legislative
in
this
House
as
opposed
to
a
letter
which
could
be
changed.
A
new
letter
could
come
from
the
WorkCover
Board
saying,
'There
is
no
way
we
can
get
it
done
in
time.
Can
we
have
another
six
months?'.
The
minister
could
write
back
and
say,
'Yes,
that
is
fine.
Make
sure
I
can
table
it
by
June'.
All
those
things
are
possible
outside
the
legislative
framework.
I
know
it
sounds
a
little
unfair
to
be
so
untrusting
but
we
have
all
been
in
places
where
circumstances
have
changed.
I
want
to
put
on
the
record
my
thanks
for
how
far
you
have
moved and your desire to do so but I am still of a mind to move the amendment.
Mr
FERGUSON
-
Understanding
all
that,
the
purpose
of
the
amended
last
sentence
of
the
letter
which
is
now
signed
and
active
is
that
it
would
address
the
concern
that
had
earlier
been
raised
about
lack
of
information
over
a
longer
period
when
the
House
is
not
sitting.
I
should
emphasise
that
there
is
no
suggestion
that
this
would
be
legislation
or
a
regulation
that
would
be
changing
the
law.
I
also
have
to
emphasise
that
because
we
do
not
know
what
the
outcomes
of
that
investigation
will
be,
it
would
not
be
plausible
for
this
to
be
assumed
that
the
Government
is
necessarily going to take any particular action that could be disallowed.
Ms O'Byrne
- I apologise. I did take us down a bit of a rabbit hole then.
Mr
FERGUSON
-
We
are
simply
undertaking;
indeed,
we
are
now
initiating
that
this
work
be
done
so
that
Government
can
be
informed
about
what
the
actuarial
implications
would
be
of
a
policy
change,
what
the
implications
would
be
for
agencies
to
implement
such
change
-
implications
for
the
extent
to
which
it
might
support
or
impede
genuine
return
to
work
and
of
course
budget
issues.
Any
attempt
to
bring
in
private
sector
employment
brings
in
a
whole
new
kettle
of
fish.
I
will
make
that
point
gently
because
at
this
point
in
time
we
would
just
be
guessing.
I
say
this
with
respect,
we
have
come
in
here
today
to
do
a
job,
that
is
to
support
our
police
who
are
put
into
dangerous
situation
in
response
to
the
oath
of
office
that
they
have
taken
in
doing
so
to
protect
the
public
peace.
We
are
not
prepared
today
to
move
any
further
than
we
have
already
done
so,
which
I
think
is
in
extremely
good
faith.
If
the
House
still
wishes
to
consider
an
amendment that is obviously out of my hands.
Ms
O'BYRNE
-
I
now
seek
leave
to
move
the
amendment
in
my
name,
that
after
clause
4
I
move -
(A)
Review in relation to weekly payments
After Section 69B by inserting the following new section:
(1)
In
this
section
a
review
is
to
be
conducted
in
relation
to
the
weekly
payment
determined
under
Section
69
and
the
impact
on
workers
of
receiving
less
than
100%
of
the
weekly
payment
after
the
first
26
weeks
of
the
period
of
incapacity
following the date of the initial incapacity.
(2)
In this section review means a review carried out by persons who -
(a)
In the Minister's opinion are appropriately qualified for that task; and
(b)
Include
one
or
more
persons
who
are
not
employees
of
the
State
or
Commonwealth, or of any agency of the State or Commonwealth.
(3)
The
Minister
is
to
cause
to
be
commenced
by
30
June
2019
a
review
as
to
whether
this
Act
should
be
amended
to
remove
provisions
relating
to
reduced
weekly payments.
(4)
The
persons
who
carry
out
the
review
are
to
complete
the
review
and
give
to
the
Minister
a
written
report
on
the
outcome
of
the
review,
as
soon
as
practicable
but in any case before 30 September 2020.
(5)
The
Minister
is
to
cause
a
copy
of
the
report
to
be
tabled
in
each
House
of
Parliament on or before 30 September 2020.
I
do
move
that
now
-
and
I
appreciate
that
Government
members
can
vote
against
it
-
that
is
entirely
up
to
you.
The
numbers
may
not
fall
my
way
on
this.
However,
my
concerns
are
one:
it
seems
to
be
bizarrely
designed
not
to
have
a
legislative
framed
time
work
around
it,
which
is
odd
given
this
a
precedent
set
by
the
Government
to
have
a
legislated
review
process,
which
I
was
a
bit
critical
of
when
it
came
in
but
it
turned
out
it
worked
quite
well.
I
learnt
something
from
that
and the Government's precedent turned out to be not a bad idea.
Two,
I
do
not
think
it
should
be
limited
to
public
sector
workers.
If
we
are
going
to
get
that
actuarial
advice
it
would
be
good
to
have
all
of
that.
Clearly,
that
advice
can
then
step
out
the
difference
if
you
were
to
extend
a
removal
of
step-downs,
what
it
would
mean
for
other
emergency
services,
other
frontline
workers,
public
sector
workers
and
of
course
what
it
would
mean for private sector workers. That work is capable of being done.
I
want
the
work
to
be
tabled
in
the
House
in
a
timely
manner
for
this
House
to
be
able
to
deal
with
it
and
not
have
to
wait
a
lengthy
period
of
time
before
we
could
ask
the
minister
questions
about
the
review
or
seek
further
advice.
It
being
tabled
in
a
time
that
allows
us
to
deal
with
it
before
the
last
sitting
day
does
give
us
some
scope
in
capacity.
It
would
be
after
the
budget
period
so
we
are
not
looking
at
a
period
of
time
that
is
heavily
intensive.
It
is
the
middle
of
the
four
years, after the third budget.
We
are
in
a
reasonably
good
space
to
be
able
to
manage
a
discussion
around
it.
It
is
a
discussion
that
we
as
a
community,
as
a
government
and
as
a
parliament
should
be
having,
around
the
impact
of
this
sort
of
legislation.
We
need
to
know
what
it
does
to
people,
what
it
means
to
people
and
particularly
low-income
workers,
who
if
they
lose
20
per
cent
of
their
pay,
on
the
incomes
that
we
are
talking
about
they
struggle
to
meet
their
bills
every
week.
You
are
injured
so
you
already
have
a
significant
restriction
on
your
life,
your
engagement
and
participation
with
your
family,
your
participation
in
work.
I
have
never
dealt
with
a
person
on
long-term
workers
compensation
who
is
not
horribly
depressed,
whose
personal
life
has
not
been
horribly
impacted
by
the
injury
that
they
have
sustained.
To
give
them
even
less
money
to
live
on,
putting
that
kind
of pressure on them, is unconscionable.
I
know
that
there
are
people
who
have
taken
settlements
because
they
need
to
get
back
into
the
workforce,
despite
their
horrible
pain
because
they
cannot
afford
to
pay
their
bills.
They
cannot
afford
to
live.
We
are
talking
about
cleaners
and
low
paid
workers
who
get
paid
bugger
all
money
to
be
honest.
Life
is
getting
far
more
expensive.
Even
today
we
talked
about
how
much
more
expensive
it
is
to
get
housing,
how
much
more
expensive
it
is
to
live
in
Tasmania.
To
give
these people less money, under a system which is supposed to be no fault is unconscionable.
This
amendment
does
not
impact
on
police;
we
support
the
bill
before
House.
It
simply
says
we
should
use
this
opportunity,
when
we
are
recognising
as
a
parliament
that
it
is
unfair
to
have
police
on
step-downs
that
maybe
we
should
have
a
look
at
how
fair
it
is
elsewhere.
That
does
not
mean
that
the
parliament
is
bound
to
extend
it.
It
does
not
mean
that
the
parliament
is
bound
to
change
it.
It
does
mean
that
we
all
in
this
House
choose
not
to
change
it
with
the
understanding
of
the
implication.
Any
debate
in
this
house
that
is
better
informed
is
a
better
debate
so
on
that
basis
I move the amendment in my name.
Dr
WOODRUFF
-
It
is
good
that
the
Government
has
recognised
the
importance
of
moving
on
the
issues
that
both
the
Labor
Party
and
the
Greens
raised
in
the
second
reading
speech
about
our
concerns.
We
think
it
is
an
unsubstantiated
focus
only
on
police
in
this
particular
instance
on
the
basis
that
they
have
a
special
and
different
relationship.
I
do
accept
what
the
minister
said.
They
do
have
a
particular
special
and
different
relationship
but
I
do
not
think
that
it
is
different
enough
from
others,
particularly
emergency
workers,
first
responders
who
every
day
around
Tasmania place their lives at risk because of the professional work they do on our behalf.
They
do
not
undertake
an
oath
to
do
it
in
a
particular
way
but
they
sign
up
to
it
by
virtue
of
it
being
their
profession.
By
their
very
professionalism
and
commitment
to
caring,
they
do
actively
put
themselves
in
extreme
danger.
We
can
all
think
of
the
firefighters
who
fought
the
flames
on
our
behalf
earlier
this
year,
for
weeks
on
end.
We
can
only
all
agree
that
they
put
their
lives
on
the
line.
We
believe
that
this
needs
to
be
explored
in
more
depth.
We
support
the
need
for
a
review.
We
do
not
want
to
start
a
wedge
in
any
way
between
police
and
other
groups
in
the
public
service
who
are
exposed
to
these
extreme
risks.
I
hear
the
minister's
concerns
about
raising
expectations
and
whether
we
like
it
or
not
by
virtue
of
this
bill
being
before
us,
expectations
will
be
raised.
Concerns
will
be
had
and
we
cannot
be
responsible
for
all
of
them
but
we
can
act
as
quickly
as
possible
to
come
to
a
considered
response
and
a
proper
review.
I
would
hope
that
this
could
be
an
independent review. It does need to happen sooner rather than later.
We
cannot
disagree
with
the
Labor
Party's
amendment
because
it
does
say
essentially
what
Ms
Courtney's
letter
has
said
which
was
tabled
by
you,
minister.
It
says
the
same
thing
except
essentially
it
is
focusing
on
bringing
it
forward
and
September
next
year
is
quite
a
long
time
to
do
this
work.
This
has
been
a
point
of
discussion
for
a
very
long
time.
This
concern
about
step-downs
and
who
it
should
apply
to
and
in
what
circumstances
and
the
need
for
a
review
has
been in the public discussion. We agree with the amendment and we will support it.
The Committee divided
-
Mr
CHAIRMAN
-
The
results
of
the
division
is
Ayes
12,
Noes
12.
Therefore,
the
Chair
has
the casting vote and I cast my vote with the Noes.
Bill read the third time
.
BIOSECURITY BILL 2019 (No. 15)
Second Reading
[5.09 p.m.]
Mr
BARNETT
(Lyons
-
Minister
for
Primary
Industries
and
Water
-
2R)
-
Madam
Speaker,
I
move -
That the bill be now read the second time.
Tasmania's
agri-food
production
had
an
estimated
gross
value
of
$2.4
billion
in
2016-17
and
the
combined
agriculture,
forestry
and
fishing
sector
employs
about
13
000
Tasmanians.
Then
there
is
tourism
and
hospitality,
which
provides
direct
employment
for
15
000
Tasmanians
and
contributes around $2.3 billion per annum to the state economy.
The
growing
success
of
these
industries
is,
in
no
small
part,
due
to
the
Tasmanian
mainland
and
its
many
smaller
islands
being
free
from
many
pests
and
diseases
that
are
rife
elsewhere.
Biosecurity
is
essential
to
our
state's
agricultural
productivity
and
market
access,
to
our
reputation
for
high-quality
primary
products,
and
to
the
health
and
beauty
of
our
natural
environment,
but
we
face increasing challenges in managing biosecurity.
Globalisation
of
trade,
internet
commerce,
and
the
modern
ease
of
travel
establishes
new
pathways
for
the
introduction
of
pests
and
diseases
to
the
state.
Climate
change
could
mean
that
Tasmania
becomes
a
niche
for
invasive
species
that
previously
did
not
pose
a
serious
threat
to
us.
In
January
of
2018
we
faced
the
first
ever
outbreak
of
Queensland
fruit
fly
in
this
state.
We
must
all
consider
how
to
deal
with
such
biosecurity
threats
across
the
'biosecurity
continuum'
-
that
is,
before they reach the state border, at the border, and after they have passed the border.
Tasmania
needs
a
modern
regulatory
system
that
operates
extra-territorially
to
cover
the
entire
biosecurity
continuum,
one
that
provides
an
appropriate
level
of
protection
from
the
risks
of
new
pests
or
diseases
being
introduced,
and
one
with
the
capability
to
manage
pests
and
diseases
that,
unfortunately, are already here.
Until
now,
we
have
managed
our
biosecurity
under
eight
disparate
pieces
of
legislation,
namely:
•
the Seeds Act 1985;
•
the Biological Control Act 1986;
•
the Animal Farming (Registration) Act 1994;
•
the Plant Quarantine Act 1997;
•
the Weed Management Act 1999; and
•
the Vermin Control Act 2000,
although
these
acts
served
us
well
and
were
developed
incrementally
over
three
decades
and
in
a
piecemeal
fashion.
As
a
result,
it
was
clear
our
biosecurity
laws
were
becoming
increasingly
disjointed, duplicative and outdated.
2014
saw
the
beginning
of
significant
reforms
to
enhance
the
management
of
biosecurity
in
this
state.
The
Government
established
Biosecurity
Tasmania
and
initiated
a
comprehensive
policy
review
of
Tasmania's
biosecurity
system.
The
review
was
to
make
sure
Tasmania
has
practical,
modern
biosecurity
legislation
capable
of
furthering
the
principles
and
objectives
in
the
Tasmanian
Biosecurity
Strategy,
while
minimising
red
and
green
tape
for
business
and
the
community in general.
review
process
involved
input
from
industry
groups
such
as
the
Tasmanian
Farmers
and
Graziers
Association,
the
Tasmanian
Seafood
Industry
Council,
the
then
Primary
Industry
Biosecurity
Action
Alliance,
the
Tourism
Industry
Council
Tasmania,
local
government
and
other
key
stakeholders
such
as
the
Tasmanian
Conservation
Trust
and
Invasive
Species
Council.
A
draft
position
paper
setting
out
policy
positions
for
proposed
regulatory
reform
was
released
for
public
consultation
in
March
2016,
and
a
draft
future
directions
paper
outlining
a
new
legislative framework for biosecurity was released in November that same year.
In
line
with
the
main
recommendation
of
this
review,
the
Government
made
a
decision
to
replace
seven
of
Tasmania's
biosecurity-related
acts
with
a
single
piece
of
framework
legislation
-
the Biosecurity Bill that is now before the House.
For
the
sake
of
maintaining
national
consistency,
it
was
determined
that
one
of
our
eight
existing
biosecurity-related
acts
-
the
Biological
Control
Act
1986
-
should
remain
as
a
standalone
act.
That
act,
which
we
recently
amended,
is
part
of
a
national
scheme
of
uniform
legislation
to
regulate the release of biological control agents such as rabbit calicivirus across Australia.
The
Biosecurity
Bill
now
before
the
House
overhauls
and
consolidates
Tasmania's
biosecurity
laws
and
aligns
Tasmania
with
the
recent
biosecurity
reforms
of
New
South
Wales,
Queensland, Western Australia and the Commonwealth.
The
bill
has
six
equally
important
objectives.
First,
to
ensure
that
responsibility
for
biosecurity
is
shared
between
government,
industry
and
the
community.
Second,
to
protect
Tasmania
from
threats
posed
by
pests
and
disease
to
land-
and
water-based
industries
and
environments,
public
health
and
public
amenities,
community
activities
and
infrastructure.
Third,
to
provide
a
robust
and
fair
regulatory
framework
for
biosecurity
in
Tasmania
that
is
based
on
sound
risk
assessment
and
evidence.
Fourth,
to
give
effect
to
state,
national
and
international
biosecurity
agreements
and
strategies,
such
as
the
Tasmanian
Biosecurity
Strategy.
Fifth,
to
facilitate
the
trade
of
Tasmanian
produce
by
ensuring
it
meets
national
and
international
biosecurity
requirements,
and
sixth,
to
promote
compliance
with
a
'general
biosecurity
duty'
through
emergency
preparedness,
effective
enforcement
measures,
and
communication
and
collaboration between government, industry and the community.
This
new
legislation
will
also
form
part
of
the
Tasmanian
Resource
Management
and
Planning
System
-
or
RMPS
-
and
furthers
the
general
RMPS
objective
of
promoting
sustainable
development
which
is,
in
a
nutshell,
to
ensure
the
use
and
development
of
our
natural
resources
meets
the
needs
of
the
present
without
compromising
the
ability
of
future
generations
to
meet
their
own needs.
reforms
will
be
introduced
by
this
bill
to
achieve
these
objectives?
To
start
with,
the
bill introduces
a range
of new
legal concepts
and definitions
that reflect
the terminology
now used
in
contemporary
biosecurity
systems
in
Australia
and
overseas.
I
want
to
explain
some
of
these
concepts because they are critical to understanding the bill.
First,
the
bill
establishes
the
concept
of
'biosecurity
matter',
which
is
any
animal,
plant
or
other
organism
apart
from
a
human
being.
It
includes
animal
and
plant
pests
and
diseases,
disease
agents,
prions
-
a
particular
form
of
biological
matter
implicated
in
animal
diseases
-
contaminants
and
animal
and
plant
products.
For
example,
bovine
animals
and
foot
and
mouth
disease,
a
disease that affects bovines, would both fall within the definition of 'biosecurity matter'.
The
bill
also
defines
a
'carrier'
of
biosecurity
matter.
A
carrier
includes
any
living
or
non-living
thing
that
has,
or
is
capable
of
having,
biosecurity
matter
on
it,
attached
to
it
or
contained
in
it.
For
instance,
a
vehicle
may
be
a
carrier
of
a
cow,
while
the
cow
in
turn
may
be
a
carrier
of
foot
and
mouth
disease.
Examples
of
carriers
include
vehicles,
animals
and
plants
(dead
or
alive),
soil,
sand,
gravel
and
material
such
as
packaging,
clothing
and
agricultural
equipment.
A
carrier
does
not
include
a
human
being
but
does
include
things
that
are
worn
or
carried
by
a
person such as clothing, footwear and personal baggage.
Most
human
activities
involving
biosecurity
matter
or
carriers
fall
within
the
bill's
definition
of
'dealings'.
Common
examples
of
dealings
include
keeping,
breeding,
selling
or
transporting
biosecurity
matter
or
carriers;
importing
biosecurity
matter
or
carriers;
and
propagating,
growing,
cultivating,
experimenting
with
or
supplying
biosecurity
matter
or
carriers.
Dealing
also
includes
arranging
for
or
causing
a
dealing
to
occur,
so
a
person
who
arranges
for
biosecurity
matter
to
be
imported
into
Tasmania
via
the
internet
will
be
dealing
with
the
biosecurity
matter
for
the
purposes of the act.
Finally,
there
are
the
concepts
of
'biosecurity
impact'
and
'biosecurity
risk'.
A
biosecurity
impact
is,
to
paraphrase
the
bill's
definition,
an
adverse
effect
on
our
environment,
community
or
economy
arising
from
the
presence,
spread
or
increase
of
any
plant
or
animal
pest,
disease,
or
contaminant.
The
loss
of
market
access
for
fruit
exporters
associated
with
an
incursion
of
fruit
fly
in
the
state
-
an
economic
impact
-
is
an
example
of
a
biosecurity
impact,
as
are
the
environmental
impacts
of
a
plant
disease
like
myrtle
rust
on
our
wild
native
flora,
or
the
impacts
of
an
animal
pest
like
European
carp
on
our
inland
waterways.
A
biosecurity
risk
is
simply
the
risk
of
a
biosecurity impact occurring.
These
are
certainly
not
the
only
new
legal
concepts
in
this
bill.
However,
they
are
key
to
understanding many of the bill's main features, which I will now explain.
I
indicated
earlier
that
this
new
bill
is
in
the
nature
of
framework
legislation.
As
framework
biosecurity
legislation,
it
sets
out
the
overarching
legal
concepts,
principles,
functions,
and
machinery
to
support
biosecurity
management
in
Tasmania.
It
also
enables
more
detailed
measures
to
be
tailor-made
for
managing
specific
issues,
activities
or
impacts,
and
implemented
via subordinate legislation.
House
knows,
before
any
subordinate
legislation
is
made
it
must,
in
accordance
with
the
Subordinate
Legislation
Act
1992,
be
assessed
by
the
Department
of
Treasury
and
Finance
to
not
impose
any
unreasonable
cost
or
burden
on
any
part
of
the
community.
A
regulatory
impact
assessment
involving
public
consultation
must
be
carried
out
unless
the
secretary
of
Treasury
determines
that
it
is
not
necessary.
So,
for
example,
if
a
new
fee
or
levy
is
set
by
regulations
made
under
this
bill,
it
would
be
open
to
review
and
disallowance
by
either
House
of
Parliament,
as
is
the case for all subordinate legislation.
An
example
of
an
existing
biosecurity
system
that
will
be
implemented
through
regulations
under
the
bill
is
the
National
Livestock
Identification
Scheme,
or
NLIS.
As
most
farmers
could
tell
you,
the
NLIS
is
a
national
scheme
for
the
identification
and
traceability
of
livestock
sold
or
moved
anywhere
in
Australia.
It
is
recognised
as
a
world-leading
biosecurity
initiative
and
was
established
because
animal
traceability
is
fundamental
to
managing
both
animal
health
and
the
integrity
of
food
produced
from
livestock
-
predominantly
meat
and
dairy
produce.
Tasmania
implements
the
NLIS
under
the
Animal
Brands
and
Movement
Act
1985.
That
act,
which
is
more
than 30 years old, is cumbersome and outdated, and will be replaced by this bill.
Unlike
Tasmania,
other
states
implement
the
NLIS
through
regulations
made
under
their
overarching
biosecurity
or
animal
health
legislation
rather
than
through
a
special
NLIS-related
act,
so
using
regulations
under
Tasmania's
new
biosecurity
legislation
to
implement
the
NLIS
is
a
sensible reform that will bring us into line with other states.
The
bill
includes
improved
governance
with
industry
engagement
enshrined.
The
bill
establishes
the
Minister
for
Primary
Industries
and
Water
and
the
secretary
of
the
Department
of
Primary
Industries,
Parks,
Water
and
the
Environment
-
which
I
will
simply
refer
to
as
the
department - as the two key decision-makers who can delegate their powers.
The
two
principal
authorised
(scientific)
officers
are
the
Chief
Veterinary
Officer
and
the
Chief
Plant
Protection
Officer,
both
of
which
have
deputy
positions
attached.
The
Chief
Plant
Protection Officer is a new statutory position created under the bill.
Under
the
bill's
framework,
high-level
decisions
that
are
likely
to
have
broad
strategic,
social,
economic
or
environmental
ramifications
are
the
responsibility
of
the
minister.
These
include
decisions
on
the
listing
of
permitted,
prohibited
or
restricted
matter;
issuing
emergency
orders
and
control orders; approving biosecurity programs; and reimbursement schemes.
The
secretary
is
primarily
responsible
for
high-level
administrative
functions
such
as
appointment
of
authorised
officers,
business
registration,
approval
of
accreditation
authorities,
granting of general permits and general biosecurity directions, and government cost recovery.
The
Chief
Veterinary
Officer,
the
Chief
Plant
Protection
Officer,
their
deputies
and
regular
authorised
officers
will
be
responsible
for
most
day-to-day
technical
and
operational
functions
under
the
act.
These
officers
on
the
ground
are
likely
to
be
first
responders
in
a
biosecurity
emergency.
bill
requires
the
minister
to
establish
a
biosecurity
advisory
committee
with
broad
representation
from
industry
and
other
community
groups
to
provide
advice
to
the
minister
or
secretary
on
biosecurity-related
issues
referred
to
it.
No
such
committee
exists
under
the
seven
pieces of legislation to be replaced by the bill.
In
with
the
new
biosecurity
acts
of
New
South
Wales
and
Queensland,
the
bill
introduces
a
statutory
general
biosecurity
duty.
This
duty
provides
that
any
person
dealing
with
biosecurity
matter
or
a
carrier
who
knows,
or
ought
reasonably
to
know,
that
a
biosecurity
risk
is
posed
or
is
likely
to
be
posed,
has
a
legal
duty
to
ensure
that,
so
far
as
is
reasonably
practicable,
the
biosecurity risk is prevented, eliminated or minimised.
The
general
biosecurity
duty
will
operate
as
a
statutory
'duty
of
care'
in
respect
of
biosecurity.
It
is
legally
enforceable
and
non-compliance
with
the
duty
may
be
penalised
by
criminal
sanction,
as is now the case in New South Wales and Queensland.
Tasmania's
Biosecurity
Bill
makes
it
an
indictable
offence
for
a
person
who
deals
with
biosecurity
matter
or
a
carrier
to
breach
the
general
biosecurity
duty.
A
significant
breach
that
is
intentional
or
reckless
will
be
an
aggravated
offence
that
carries
the
highest
maximum
penalty
in
the
bill.
An
example
of
an
aggravated
breach
of
the
general
biosecurity
duty
would
be
a
person
causing
a
significant
biosecurity
impact
by
deliberately
releasing
an
invasive
pest,
such
as
live
fruit fly or European carp, into the Tasmanian environment.
This
bill
is
more
evolutionary
than
revolutionary.
We
are
building
on
what
has
been
successful
to
date
in
protecting
our
biosecurity
status.
Our
new
legislation
will
retain
many
of
the
components
of
the
existing
legislation,
albeit
in
modernised
and
improved
form.
A
good
example
of
this
is
an
improved
system
for
regulating
the
importation
of
plants,
animals
and
other
material
into Tasmania from interstate and the management of them once they are here.
The
bill
does
away
with
the
confusing
and
opaque
listing
regime
we
currently
use.
To
illustrate
that
point,
I
want
to
go
through
some
of
the
discrete
statutory
list
categories
we
now
have in our existing legislation.
plant
pests,
List
B
plant
pests,
List
A
plant
diseases,
List
B
plant
diseases,
prescribed
matter,
prohibited
plants
and
prohibited
plant
products.
Under
the
Weed
Management
Act
1999
we
can
have
declared
weeds,
emergency
declared
weeds
and
non-declared
weeds.
Under
the
Vermin
Control
Act
2000
we
can
have
rabbits,
foxes,
other
unspecified
declared
vermin
and
non-declared
vermin.
Under
the
Animal
Farming
(Registration)
Act
1994
we
can
have
a
list
of
prescribed
animals which at present comprises just one animal, the emu.
None
of
our
existing
legislation
provides
express
criteria
or
guidance
in
respect
to
listing
decisions
or
explanation
of
what
their
list
categories
actually
mean;
it
is
all
left
open
to
interpretation.
By
contrast,
the
new
Biosecurity
Bill
has
just
three
self-explanatory
list
categories
-
prohibited
matter,
permitted
matter
and
restricted
matter.
All
are
listed
in
the
same
way,
under
the one act, and in accordance with clearly expressed statutory criteria relating to biosecurity risk.
Prohibited
matter
is
biosecurity
matter
or
carriers
of
greatest
concern.
It
must
be
assessed
to
pose
a
significant
biosecurity
risk
to
Tasmania.
For
example,
most
current
List
A
and
List
B
pests
and
diseases
under
existing
biosecurity
legislation
would
be
likely
be
classed
as
prohibited
matter
under
the
new
legislation
and
declared
by
notice
in
the
Gazette
.
A
person
cannot
possess
or
deal
with prohibited matter without a special prohibited matter permit.
is
biosecurity
matter
of
least
concern.
It
is
assessed
to
not
pose
a
biosecurity
risk
to
Tasmania
or
an
acceptable
risk
that
is
manageable
with
conditions.
Permitted
matter
is
declared
by
formal
notice
in
the
Gazette
following
risk
assessment.
It
can
be
brought
into
Tasmania
without
a
permit
so
long
as
any
conditions
relating
to
import
and
dealing
with
the
matter
are
followed.
A
failure
to
comply
with
a
listing
condition
will
disqualify
the
relevant
biosecurity
matter
from
being
considered
permitted
matter.
This
means
it
will
revert
to
being
restricted
matter
in respect to importation into the state.
Restricted
matter
is
a
catch-all
which
covers
any
plant
or
plant
product,
animal
or
animal
product
or
a
plant
or
animal
disease
that
is
not
listed
as
either
prohibited
matter
or
permitted
matter.
The
minister
may
also
declare
some
restricted
matter
in
the
same
way
that
prohibited
or
permitted
matter
is
declared.
Restricted
matter
cannot
be
imported
into
Tasmania
without
a
permit.
This
approach,
known
in
the
biosecurity
world
as
a
'permitted
list
system',
embodies
the
precautionary
principle
and
is
used
in
Western
Australia
and
New
Zealand.
It
is
particularly
suited
to
geographically
isolated
jurisdictions
such
as
Tasmania
where,
with
our
maritime
borders,
we
have
greater
ability
to
control
imports
from
other
states,
and
it
provides
a
consistent,
proactive
approach to assessment of imports rather than a reactionary system.
Listing
will
be
by
ministerial
declaration
and
notified
in
the
government
Gazette
.
An
objective
statutory
test
is
included
to
ensure
there
is
solid
evidence
to
support
the
declaration.
An
objective
statutory
test
means
that
the
minister
of
the
day
must
have
reasonable
grounds
-
normally
appropriate
scientific
advice
and
assessment
-
on
the
level
of
biosecurity
risk
before
making a decision to declare something as either prohibited or permitted.
This
bill
establishes
a
system
of
enterprise
level
regulation
that
corresponds
with
the
newest
systems
of
other
states
and
the
Commonwealth.
Group
and
individual
permits
may
be
granted,
which
can
authorise
a
person,
or
classes
of
persons,
to
engage
in
activities
that
would
otherwise
contravene
the
act.
Permits
are
a
key
biosecurity
management
tool
because
they
allow
action
by
exception,
and
have
valuable
roles
both
in
emergencies
and
business-as-usual
situations.
For
example,
a
permit
might
allow
a
person
to
import
restricted
matter,
deal
with
prohibited
matter,
or
move
cattle
during
a
foot
and
mouth
disease
emergency.
These
are
all
things
that
would
otherwise
be unlawful.
The
bill
also
provides
that
certain
dealings
with
biosecurity
matter
or
carriers
may,
by
regulation,
be
made
regulated
dealings.
In
order
to
undertake
a
regulated
dealing
a
person
must
become
a
registered
entity.
Registration
allows
for
the
rapid
identification
and
tracking
of
activities, which facilitates quick contact with those engaged in the activity in times of need.
I
this
was
something
that
was
recommended
by
the
Legislative
Council
Subcommittee
B
in
its
recent
report
on
blueberry
rust
in
Tasmania.
Recommendation
7
of
the
committee's
final
report is, to quote the report directly, that -
a
comprehensive
grower
database
and
system
of
property
identification
for
blueberry growers be developed that can be applied across other industries.
The
biosecurity
registration
system
in
this
new
legislation
will
help
deliver
on
that
recommendation
for
blueberry
growers
and
other
industries.
For
example,
commercial
bee-keeping
could
be
prescribed
as
a
regulated
dealing.
It
would
then
be
compulsory
for
a
person
to
be
registered
in
order
to
participate
in
the
honey
industry.
It
is
worth
noting
that
beekeeper
registration
has
been
compulsory
in
all
other
states
for
a
number
of
years
under
the
National
Bee
Biosecurity Program.
In
the
event
of
a
disease
outbreak
involving
commercial
honey-bees
such
as
colony
collapse
disorder,
occurring
in
North
America
and
Europe,
the
number
and
location
of
Tasmania's
beekeepers
would
be
known,
allowing
rapid
communications
and
tracing
of
the
disease
spread.
Without
a
registration
system,
the
disease
could
prove
impossible
to
trace
and
thus
impossible
to
control.
Registration
is
by
the
secretary,
or
a
delegate
of
the
secretary,
and
will
be
valid
for
the
dealing
or
dealings
specified
in
the
registration
notice
for
up
to
five
years.
It
is
anticipated
that
this
registration
system
will,
among
other
things,
replace
the
system
of
'approved
quarantine
places'
for
receiving
plant
imports
that
has
been
operating
under
the
Plant
Quarantine
Act
1997
for
the
last twenty-odd years.
of
the
new
registration
system
over
the
old
system
of
approved
quarantine
places
is
that
a
business
can
operate
across
multiple
sites
under
the
one
registration.
Under
the
Plant
Quarantine
Act,
each
site
needs
a
separate
approval
as
a
quarantine
place,
even
where
all
sites involve the same activity and are managed by the same person.
Registration
can
be
with
or
without
conditions,
so
if
a
commercial
supply
of
biosecurity
matter
or
carriers
of
a
particular
type
-
say
fresh
fruit
and
vegetables
-
was
made
a
regulated
dealing,
then
registration
to
undertake
the
activity
could
be
conditional
upon
certain
hygiene
or
transportation
standards
being
met
and
verified
by
independent
audit,
or
product
inspection
and
certification under a recognised industry certification scheme.
This
leads
me
to
another
important
new
feature
of
this
bill
-
the
way
it
promotes
shared
responsibility
for
biosecurity
and
co-regulatory
arrangements
with
the
private
sector.
The
bill
provides
opportunities
for
business
to
choose
to
work
cooperatively
with
others
in
their
industry
sector,
or
with
government,
to
manage
biosecurity
risks
and
impacts.
We
already
have
some
examples
of
self-management.
TT
Line
personnel
undertake
clearance
of
inbound
movements
at
embarkation
in
Melbourne,
and
Tasmanian
cherry
exporters
may
be
accredited
to
inspect
their
own produce.
The
bill
enables
the
state
Government
to
recognise
non-government
organisations
as
accreditation
authorities,
who
in
turn
may
accredit
private
certifiers
and
auditors
to
audit
and
inspect
business
operations
and
provide
product
certification.
Among
other
opportunities,
this
could
see
government
recognising
industry-based
quality
assurance
schemes
for
regulatory
purposes
where
appropriate.
One
such
scheme
already
operating
across
Australia
is
the
Interstate
Certification
Assurance
Scheme,
a
national
system
of
plant
health
certification
based
on
quality
management principles.
The
problem
we
have
with
our
existing
biosecurity
legislation,
particularly
the
Plant
Quarantine
Act,
is
that
they
are
not
specifically
designed
to
regulate
the
operation
of
industry
certification
schemes.
As
we
saw
with
the
recent
fruit
fly
incursion,
these
schemes
can
sometimes
fail
to
deliver
intended
outcomes.
For
example,
a
situation
may
arise
where
someone
on
the
mainland
who
is
not
appropriately
accredited
to
perform
that
task
is
certifying
produce
as
being
pest-free, enabling the importation of high-risk material to Tasmania.
To
avoid
those
sorts
of
problems
with
industry
schemes,
we
need
a
robust
legal
framework
to
govern
their
operation
here,
and
this
new
bill
provides
that.
Under
the
new
legislation,
industry-based
biosecurity
certification,
auditing
and
accreditation
activities
will,
to
the
extent
they
are
connected
with
this
state,
be
subject
to
regulatory
oversight
by
Biosecurity
Tasmania,
even
where
some
of
the
activity
occurs
on
the
mainland.
A
private
certifier
who
fails
to
meet
with
Biosecurity
Tasmania's
regulatory
standards
can
have
their
accreditation
to
operate
in
Tasmania
cancelled or suspended, and may even face criminal sanctions in certain circumstances.
The
bill
also
provides
a
legal
structure
for
the
development
and
implementation
of
biosecurity
programs.
These
can
be
administered
by
government
or
by
industry
groups
such
as
Oysters
Tasmania
or
Fruit
Growers
Tasmania,
or
a
non-profit
environmental
organisation
such
as
Landcare or the Tasmanian Land Conservancy.
Biosecurity
could
be
established
to,
for
example,
eradicate
weeds
or
feral
animals
from
a
particular
area
or
region
or
to
promote
the
adoption
of
industry-wide
disease
control
and
prevention
measures
by
a
particular
commodity
sector.
Biosecurity
programs
must
set
out
in
writing
the
actions
which
the
various
parties
will
undertake,
and
also
how
the
program's
costs
will
be
met.
This
may
be
through
sector
or
industry-specific
mechanisms,
co-funding
by
government,
or other means.
This
bill
sets
out
the
range
of
circumstances
in
which
owners
of
plants,
animals
or
other
property
may
be
reimbursed
for
biosecurity-related
loss
of
that
property.
Currently
in
Tasmania,
reimbursement
in
respect
to
biosecurity
is
effectively
limited
to
animals
or
plants
destroyed
in
a
biosecurity
response
when
it
is
covered
by
one
of
several
national
cost-sharing
deeds
entered
into
between
the
states,
the
Commonwealth
and
the
relevant
industry
body.
These
deeds
typically
only
cover
pests
and
diseases
that
are
exotic
to
Australia.
They
do
not
cover
pests
and
diseases
that
originate
within
Australia
such
as
Queensland
fruit
fly.
This
shortcoming
was
evident
in
recent
state-based
responses
to
blueberry
rust,
where
landholders
were
unable
to
be
directly
recompensed
for the loss of plants destroyed on their properties.
Under
this
bill,
owners
will
be
entitled
to
reimbursement
for
the
death
or
destruction
of
animals, plants, or other property in the following circumstances:
●
animal,
plant
or
property
is
covered
by
a
biosecurity
cost-sharing
agreement
which provides for reimbursement;
●
where
it
is
destroyed
under
a
government
biosecurity
program
which
specifically
provides
for reimbursement;
●
where
it
is
destroyed
under
an
approved
industry
or
community
biosecurity
program
which
specifically provides for reimbursement; or
●
otherwise in circumstances that may be prescribed by regulations.
To
maintain
general
affordability
and
to
prevent
creating
situations
of
moral
hazard,
there
will
be
no
statutory
entitlement
to
reimbursement
for
indirect
or
consequential
losses
associated
with
biosecurity
responses,
such
as
compensation
for
loss
of
potential
profits
or
future
income,
nor
for
the
death
or
destruction
of
any
animal,
plant
or
other
property
that
is
connected
with
a
breach
of
the act by or on behalf of a claimant.
The
scope
and
nature
of
reimbursement
schemes
will
be
determined
through
proper
consultation
with
relevant
stakeholders
and
the
general
public.
Of
course,
this
process
would
need
to
include
discussion
around
the
proportion
of
funding
for
reimbursement
that
is
appropriately
provided by the public purse versus those involved in activities associated with biosecurity risks.
Like
the
legislation
it
replaces,
this
bill
provides
the
necessary
legal
framework
for
dealing
with
biosecurity
emergencies.
The
state
will
continue
to
be
guided
by
national
approaches
such
as
national
emergency
response
deeds
and
agreements.
However,
these
will
be
implemented
through
a
simpler
and
more
flexible
regime
of
statutory
instruments.
The
bill
establishes
a
three-tiered
hierarchy
for
biosecurity
emergency
management.
The
choice
of
which
statutory
instrument
to
use is determined by the relative urgency of the response required.
In
the
most
urgent
situations,
the
relevant
minister
of
the
day
can
make
an
emergency
order
which
will
expire
after
six
months
unless
remade.
A
court
cannot
issue
an
interim
or
interlocutory
injunction
to
stay
the
operation
of
an
emergency
order,
however
a
court
is
not
prevented
from
making
final
orders
to
that
effect.
Where
the
risks
of
a
biosecurity
impact
are
significant
but
do
not
require
the
same
degree
of
urgency
as
an
emergency
order,
the
minister
can
make
a
control
order.
A
control
order
can
be
in
effect
for
a
period
up
to
five
years
without
needing
to
be
remade.
Where
long-term
management
of
a
biosecurity
issue
is
required,
biosecurity
zones
can
be
made
by
regulations.
These
will
generally
be
ongoing
until
the
risk
or
impact
being
managed
is
addressed
or
accepted.
However,
as
the
House
knows,
regulations
normally
expire
after
10
years
unless
remade.
Biosecurity
zones
could
target
established
populations
of
animal
pests
such
as
feral
rabbits
or
cats,
or
weeds
such
as
gorse
or
blackberry.
Alternatively,
a
particular
region
or
part
of
Tasmania's
archipelago,
such
as
Flinders
Island
or
Maria
Island,
could
be
made
a
biosecurity
zone
to
enable
the application of particular management measures in that area.
While
emergency
orders
may
mandate
special
measures
such
as
requiring
people
to
undergo
an
external
treatment
to
decontaminate
their
clothing
before
entering
or
leaving
an
area,
the
types
of
measures
will
likely
be
similar
across
all
three
tiers
of
biosecurity
response.
Response
measures
may
include,
but
are
not
limited
to,
spatial
zones
or
areas
where
different
biosecurity
requirements
apply;
measures
to
control
the
movement
of
biosecurity
matter
and
carriers;
and
measures
relating
to
the
treatment,
seizure,
testing,
destruction
and
disposal
of
biosecurity
matter
and carriers.
Both biosecurity
zones and
control orders
can also
be used
in conjunction
with, or
to
complement, biosecurity programs.
At
present,
a
Tasmanian
biosecurity
officer
who
is
authorised
to
exercise
powers
in
relation
to
plants
under
the
Plant
Quarantine
Act
1997
would
require
another
separate
authorisation
under
the
Animal
Health
Act
1995
in
order
to
exercise
similar
powers
in
relation
to
animals.
Under
the
new
act,
the
appointment
and
functions
of
authorised
officers
will
be
streamlined
and
far
less
prone
to
confusion or error.
The
bill
requires
the
secretary
to
be
satisfied
that
any
person
appointed
as
an
authorised
officer
holds
appropriate
knowledge,
skills
and
experience
to
perform
regulatory
functions
under
the
act.
The
bill
also
enables
the
minimum
qualifications,
skills
and
experience
of
authorised
officers
to
be
prescribed
by
regulation.
Following
feedback
from
stakeholders
in
the
last
round
of
public
consultation,
a
requirement
was
added
for
the
secretary,
who
appoints
authorised
officers,
to be satisfied that a person is suitable - or 'fit and proper' - to be appointed as an officer.
All
officers
will
be
operating
under
the
same
legislation
and
be
able
to
exercise
common
functions
in
relation
to
all
biosecurity
risks,
as
opposed
to
having
discrete
powers
applying
to
plant
and
animal
biosecurity
under
different
acts.
This
reform
will
simplify
the
task
of
training
and
supporting
authorised
officers
in
the
performance
of
their
work.
It
will
greatly
improve
the
ability
of
Biosecurity
Tasmania
to
carry
out
its
regulatory
responsibilities
in
a
consistent and efficient manner.
Officers
will
have
a
similar
range
of
powers
and
functions
under
the
new
legislation
to
what
they
have
under
existing
legislation,
but
their
functions
can
only
be
used
for
an
authorised
biosecurity-related
purpose
under
the
act,
and
have
limits
placed
on
them
in
certain
circumstances.
For
example,
an
authorised
officer
cannot
destroy
anything
that
is
over
the
value
of
$5000
unless
he
or
she
is
specially
authorised
to
do
so,
or
is
acting
under
a
control
order,
emergency
order
or
specific power granted in regulations.
When
carrying
out
any
functions
on
any
private
property,
officers
are
under
a
statutory
obligation
to
exercise
due
care
and
do
as
little
damage
as
possible.
Officers
are
empowered
to
use
only
'reasonable
force'
when
it
is
necessary
to
gain
entry
to
premises
or
vehicles,
or
open
containers and other equipment for an authorised purpose.
This
bill
also
promotes
a
flexible
risk
and
performance-based
approach
to
compliance,
which
includes
measures
to
avoid
the
need
for
costly
criminal
investigations
and
prosecutions
in
every
case.
Two
such
measures
in
the
bill
are
biosecurity
directions
and
biosecurity
undertakings.
These
can
be
used
when
a
person
is
engaging
in
an
activity
that
contravenes,
or
may
contravene,
a
requirement of the act.
something
in
order
to
comply
with
the
act.
For
example,
a
direction
could
be
given
to
ensure
a
person takes certain actions to comply with the general biosecurity duty.
direction
can
be
individual
or
general.
An
individual
biosecurity
direction
may
be
given
by
an
authorised
officer
and
applies
to
a
specific
person
or
business.
A
general
biosecurity
direction
may
be
given
by
the
secretary
or
delegate,
the
Chief
Veterinary
Officer
and
the
Chief
Plant
Protection
Officer.
It
can
apply
to
the
general
public
or
to
a
specified
class
of
persons.
In
cases
of
emergency,
an
emergency
biosecurity
direction,
both
individual
and
general,
may
cover
wider
powers
of
inspection
or
control.
A
right
of
appeal
lies
against
an
individual
biosecurity
direction,
but
not
a
general
biosecurity
direction
or
an
emergency
biosecurity
direction.
As
an
alternative
to
issuing
an
individual
biosecurity
direction,
an
authorised
officer
may accept a written biosecurity undertaking from a person.
Undertakings
-
which
will
not
be
treated
as
an
admission
of
criminal
wrongdoing
-
are
offered
and
accepted
by
mutual
consent
as
a
way
of
achieving
compliance
in
an
agreed
time
and
manner.
However,
once
accepted,
a
biosecurity
undertaking
will
be
enforceable.
Non-compliance
with
either
a
biosecurity
direction
or
an
accepted
biosecurity
undertaking
will
be
an
offence
under
the
act.
In
to
biosecurity
offences,
we
need
appropriate
penalties
to
serve
as
an
effective
deterrent
against
unlawful
activity.
The
bill
and
regulations
that
are
to
be
made
under
it
will
create
biosecurity-related
offences
and
other
mandatory
requirements
that
are
specific.
The
bill
refers to these as specified biosecurity requirements.
Where
a
person
has
committed
a
specific
biosecurity
offence
such
as
breaching
a
permit
condition,
the
person
may
be
charged
with
the
specific
offence
or,
alternatively,
the
offence
of
breaching
the
general
biosecurity
duty,
or
both.
The
general
biosecurity
duty
will
also
apply
to
any
risks
not
covered
by
specified
biosecurity
requirement.
However,
to
prevent
double
jeopardy
of
punishment,
a
person
found
guilty
of
two
or
more
biosecurity
offences
arising
from
the
same
conduct can only be punished for the one most serious offence.
Under
Tasmania's
current
legislation,
maximum
fines
and
limitation
periods
for
biosecurity
offences
are
disproportionately
low
in
comparison
with
other
states.
Tasmania's
highest
maximum
biosecurity
fine
on
2016
rates
was
almost
$70
000
less
than
the
lowest
of
the
other
states
with
a
single
Biosecurity
Act
(Western
Australia),
and
is
more
than
$2
million
less
than
the
highest
(New
South
Wales).
Furthermore,
biosecurity
investigations
can
be
complex
and
it
often
takes
time
to
detect a statutory breach or determine the cause of a biosecurity impact.
The
limitation
period
for
prosecuting
an
offence
under
both
the
Animal
Health
Act
and
Plant
Quarantine
Act
is
six
months
from
the
date
of
the
offence
-
basically
the
default
time
limit
for
minor
summary
offences
in
the
Justices
Act
1959.
In
practice,
six
months
is
often
not
enough
time
to
allow
a
proper
investigation
of
a
biosecurity
incident
to
be
completed
and
risks
an
important matter not being able to be progressed to court.
This
bill
extends
the
limitation
period
for
commencing
a
prosecution
to
three
years
from
the
date
of
the
offence,
with
the
possibility
for
that
to
be
extended
further
by
the
court
in
special
circumstances,
such
as
when
discovery
of
an
offence
was
delayed
due
to
fraudulent
behaviour
on
the part of the offender.
will
also
introduce
a
three-tiered
penalty
regime
that
matches
the
nature
and
gravity
of
biosecurity
offences.
The
highest
fine
is
10
000
penalty
units
for
a
corporation
($1.63
million
on
2018-19
rates)
or
four
years
imprisonment
for
a
natural
person.
This
penalty
will
only
apply
to
cases
where
a
person
is
convicted
of
an
intentional
or
reckless
breach
of
the
general
biosecurity
duty, resulting in a significant biosecurity impact.
The
next
level
is
a
maximum
fine
of
3750
units
for
a
corporation,
or
two
years
imprisonment
for
a
natural
person.
This
will
apply
to
an
offence
requiring
proof
of
fault
or
negligence,
such
as
a
breach
of
the
general
biosecurity
duty
that
was
negligent,
rather
than
reckless
or
intentional.
The
third
level
is
a
2500
penalty
unit
fine
for
a
corporation
or
500
penalty
unit
fine
for
a
natural
person.
This
is
the
standard
maximum
penalty
applying
to
most
offences
in
the act, including offences of strict liability, such as importing restricted matter without a permit.
Mr
Deputy
Speaker,
I
will
finish
my
outline
of
the
bill's
features
with
its
provisions
for
natural
justice
and
transparency
in
administrative
decision-making.
Like
other
RMPS
legislation,
the
bill
provides
appropriate
rights
of
appeal
to
the
Resource
Management
and
Planning
Appeals
Tribunal for decisions that directly concern private interests.
Appeal
is
available
for
decisions
about
individual
biosecurity
directions,
biosecurity
registrations,
accreditation
as
a
biosecurity
certifier,
appointment
as
an
auditor,
approval
as
an
accreditation
authority,
claims
for
reimbursement,
cost
recovery
orders
and
individual
permits.
Appeals
to
the
tribunal
are
not
available
in
respect
to
high-level
decisions
applying
generally
to
the
public,
or
to
broad
classes
of
people.
Examples
of
such
decisions
include
emergency
orders
and
control
orders,
listing
declarations
by
the
minister
and
the
issuing
of
a
group
permit
or
general
direction
by
the
secretary.
Nor
is
appeal
to
the
tribunal
available
for
decisions
in
respect
to
emergency
permits
or
directions,
permits
relating
to
prohibited
matter
-
known
as
'prohibited
matter
permits'
-
or
permits
authorising
a
prohibited
dealing
-
known
as
'prohibited
dealing
permits'.
However,
the
Government
is
fully
committed
to
upholding
the
principles
of
natural
justice
and
ensuring
that
officers
performing
functions
under
the
act
meet
the
highest
ethical
and
professional
standards.
Decisions
or
conduct
that
cannot
be
appealed
on
the
merits
to
the
tribunal
can
still
be
reviewed
administratively
within
the
department,
or
by
the
Tasmanian
Government
Ombudsman.
The
Supreme
Court
can
also
review
the
Government's
biosecurity
decisions
on
a
range
of
legal
grounds,
for
example
a
denial
of
natural
justice,
manifest
unreasonableness,
or
failure
to
consider
relevant
evidence.
That
is
the
normal
right
of
review
under
the
Judicial
Review
Act
2000
available
to
an
aggrieved
person
with
a
proper
interest
in
the
subject
matter
of
a
government
decision.
The
Judicial
Review
Act
also
enables
an
aggrieved
person
to
request
written
reasons
for
a
decision
made
under
the
act.
For
example,
an
industry
representative,
or
other
affected
person,
can
request
that
the
minister
provide
written
reasons
for
a
decision
to
prohibit
imports
of
certain
products
or
a
decision
to
make
an
order
under
the
Biosecurity
Act.
The
minister
must
then
by
law
provide
written
reasons
for
the
relevant
decision
within
28
days.
A
request
for
reasons
can
be
made
whether
or
not
the
person
making
the
request
wishes
to
appeal
against
the
decision or go through a court process.
In
response
to
stakeholder
concerns,
we
have
also
added
a
requirement
in
the
bill
in
respect
of
control
orders
for
the
minister
to
specify
reasons
for
a
decision
to
manage
rather
than
attempt
to
eradicate
a
new
disease
or
invasive
pest
found
in
the
state.
In
any
event,
it
is
the
Government's
intention
that
we
will
be
proactive
in
the
active
disclosure
of
statements
of
reason
for
high-level
decisions made by the minister and secretary under the bill.
Along
with
appeal
provisions
the
bill
requires
publication
of
a
Tasmanian
Biosecurity
Compendium
on
the
department's
website
to
aid
in
transparency
and
promote
public
awareness
of
Tasmania's biosecurity requirements.
The
compendium
will
contain
up-to-date
lists
of
all
prohibited
matter,
permitted
matter
and
restricted
matter
declared
under
the
act.
It
can
also
include
any
explanatory
and
supporting
information
concerning
listing
decisions
and
other
biosecurity
requirements
that
the
secretary
considers
appropriate.
A
good
example
would
be
information
on
how
to
comply
with
the
general
biosecurity duty in particular situations.
Access
to
the
Biosecurity
Compendium
will
be
free
and
I
anticipate
it
will
quickly
become
an
invaluable
plain-language
resource
that
contains
forms,
guidelines
and
supporting
information
necessary
to
assist
the
business
community
and
the
general
public
to
understand
and
comply
with
Tasmania's biosecurity laws.
represents
one
of
the
most
significant
reforms
of
Tasmania's
agricultural
and
environmental
laws
in
decades.
It
is
very
important
for
Tasmania
that
we
get
it
right.
That
is
why
we
had
such
a
thorough
and
lengthy
public
consultation
process
to
develop
the
bill.
It
has
been
an
exacting process but well worth the effort.
The
Government
would
like
to
acknowledge
and
thank
the
stakeholder
groups
and
individuals
who
have
engaged
with
the
Government
in
good
faith
and
over
an
extended
period
to
provide
submissions
and
feedback
to
assist
in
the
formulation
of
this
bill.
These
include,
but
are
certainly
not
limited
to,
the
Tasmanian
Farmers
and
Graziers
Association
(TFGA),
Tasmanian
Seafood
Industry
Council,
Fruit
Growers
Tasmania,
Wine
Tasmania,
Poppy
Growers
Tasmania,
the
Tasmanian
Agricultural
Productivity
Group,
Primary
Employers
Tasmania,
Oysters
Tasmania,
Nursery
and
Garden
Industry
Association,
Tourism
Industry
Council,
Primary
Industries
Biosecurity Action Alliance, the University of Tasmania and the Tasmanian Conservation Trust.
Mr
DEPUTY
SPEAKER
-
I
need
to
inform
you,
minister,
that
your
time
-
40
minutes
-
has
expired.
Mr ROCKLIFF
- I move -
That the minister be granted an extension of time for a further 10 minutes.
Motion agreed to.
Mr
BARNETT
-
Thanks
to
their
efforts
and
others;
we
now
have
a
better
bill,
which
has
broad
support
within
primary
industry
and
the
general
community.
Just
to
give
the
House
some
added
comfort
in
regard
to
this,
I
would
like
to
take
the
opportunity
to
quote
some
recent
feedback
on
the
bill
from
relevant
stakeholders.
The
first
is
from
a
letter
the
TFGA
provided
to
the
department in March of this year:
The
TFGA
is
grateful
for
the
opportunity
to
make
comment
on
the
revised
Biosecurity
Bill.
The
TFGA
believes
this
bill
is
vital
to
the
protection
of
Tasmanian
agricultural
industries.
The
amalgamation
of
a
single
bill
covering
biosecurity
within
the
state
is
important
to
ensure
streamlined
and
effective
legislation.
The
TFGA
has
been
involved
with
revision
of
the
Biosecurity
Bill
since
2017.
We
have
worked
closely
with
the
Department
of
Primary
Industries,
Parks,
Water
and
the
Environment
during
this
time
and
worked
through
several
versions
of
the
bill.
The
TFGA
was
glad
to
be
able
to
once
again
consult
with
the
department
and
discuss
the
current
version
of
the
bill.
After
a
productive
consultation
with
the
department,
the
TFGA
is
comfortable
with
the
current
version.
The
next
words
are
from
Fruit
Growers
Tasmania,
a
group
whose
members
were
directly
impacted
by
the
recent
Queensland
fruit
fly
crisis,
the
largest
and
most
expensive
biosecurity
emergency Tasmania has faced in modern times:
This
bill
has
undergone
an
extensive,
iterative
consultation
process
since
2014,
which
has
enabled
all
Tasmanian
industries
to
provide
input
and
engage
with
government on this issue throughout the review process.
As
a
peak
industry
body
for
Tasmania's
fruit
sector,
FGT
strongly
supports
the
proposed
introduction
of
a
general
biosecurity
duty
which
clearly
lays
out
the
expectations
and
responsibilities
of
both
agriculturalists,
service
providers,
and
members
of
the
general
public.
FGT
is
supportive
of
the
overarching
structure
of
the
proposed
act,
which
will
provide
a
holistic
approach
that
eliminates
any
potential gaps between the existing acts.
In
consideration
of
all
its
improvements
over
the
existing
legislation,
FGT
strongly
supports
the
proposed
Biosecurity
Bill
2019.
In
our
view,
it
represents
a
legislative
framework
for
biosecurity
management
that
is
transparent
and
fair,
yet also flexible and adaptive to Tasmania's evolving biosecurity needs.
Of
course,
while
the
Government
is
pleased
to
hear
there
is
stakeholder
support
for
the
bill,
we
must
not
take
it
for
granted,
and
our
work
does
not
finish
when
the
bill
receives
royal
assent.
The
implementation
of
any
major
new
legislation
like
this
bill
will
require
the
development
of
new
administrative
practices,
regulations,
programs
and
standards.
In
leading
that
process,
the
Government
will
consult
widely
and
will
work
with
primary
producers
and
other
stakeholders
towards
our
common
goal,
which
is
ultimately
to
protect
the
Tasmanian
environment,
community
and economy from biosecurity risks.
In
conclusion,
this
bill
will
keep
the
biosecurity
functions
that
have
protected
our
state
for
the
last
30
years,
will
streamline
and
modernise
them
so
that
they
can
continue
protecting
us
for
the
next
30
years.
At
the
same
time,
the
bill
will
give
us
new
tools
to
manage
the
types
of
biosecurity threats and the opportunities that may arise in the future.
will
be
reduced
to
one,
making
our
biosecurity
system
simpler,
easier
to
understand,
and
more
efficient.
The
basic
responsibilities
for
managing
biosecurity
risk
held
by
all
Tasmanians,
all
visitors
to
Tasmania,
and
all
who
do
business
in
our
state
will
be
given
legal
force through the general biosecurity duty.
Mr
Deputy
Speaker,
I
believe
that
current
and
future
generations
of
Tasmanians
will
recognise
the
introduction
of
this
bill
as
a
watershed
in
the
development
of
our
world-renowned
primary
industries
and
for
the
protection
of
our
magnificent
natural
environment
and
our
way
of
life.
The Government fully supports the introduction of this bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the bill to the House.
[5.55 p.m.]
Dr
BROAD
(Braddon)
-
Mr
Deputy
Speaker,
in
the
time
that
I
have
left
before
the
bell
strikes 6 o'clock, I would like to discuss the Biosecurity Bill.
This
is
significant
legislation.
It
is
342
pages
long
and
is
an
immense
amount
of
work
that
the
department
has
undertaken
over
an
extended
period.
That
is
why,
I
must
admit,
I
was
very
disappointed
when
the
minister
rose
to
start
what
was
a
23-page
second
reading
speech,
that
he
was
the
only
member
on
that
side
of
the
parliament
to
hear
it.
Probably
for
the
first
10
minutes
he
was
the
only
Government
member
present
in
the
Chamber,
apart
from
the
Deputy
Chairman,
and
then halfway through the former minister, Mr Rockliff, arrived, and then later, Mrs Rylah.
I
did
not
want
to
call
for
a
quorum
because
I
did
not
want
to
hold
things
up.
However,
this
is
significant
legislation
and
it
should
have
due
respect.
I
acknowledge
the
amount
of
work
the
department
has
undertaken.
This
is
framework
legislation
but
this
is
legislation
that
has
seen
three
ministers
look
at
this
over
the
journey.
There
has
also
been
a
blueberry
rust
outbreak
and
a
fruit
fly
outbreak
that
the
department
has
had
to
deal
with
all
the
while
undertaking
this
significant
work, so they have to be commended.
I
commend
them
for
affording
me,
not
one
briefing,
but
actually
three
briefings
over
the
journey.
The
first
briefing
I
received,
from
memory,
was
November
2017.
I
remember
coming
into
this
parliament
and
I
was
afforded
the
privilege
of
being
the
primary
industries
spokesperson
for
Labor.
It
was
not
long
after
entering
parliament
that
I
heard
murmurings
about
the
Biosecurity
Bill and the significant issues that stakeholders were discussing and the concerns that they had.
Unlike
other
bills
that
we
have
seen
before
the
House,
the
Government,
and
the
department
especially,
should
be
commended
for
going
back
and
redrafting
and
resubmitting
and
re-consulting
at
each
stage.
As
a
result,
we
have
significantly
improved
legislation
and
they
should
be
commended
for
that.
We
have
seen
times
in
this
place
when
bills
are
pushed
through
and
I
know
that
would
have
been
very
difficult
given
the
issues
that
the
various
industry
players
had
with
the
initial
drafts.
I
am
not
sure
how
many
drafts
it
went
through
but
it
was
probably
in
the thirties or more - and I am getting nods.
I
had
the
first
briefing
in
November
2017,
followed
by
February
this
year,
and
even
subsequent
to
that
briefing
in
February
where
the
exposure
draft
was
provided
and
discussed,
there were 30 changes after getting six submissions.
What
I
really
appreciated
were
things
that
I
had
mentioned
in
the
briefing,
in
good
faith,
trying
to
improve
the
bill,
which
the
department
took
into
account
and
modified
the
legislation.
I
have
had
the
opportunity
to
provide
input
in
a
pre-legislative
manner,
rather
than
having
to
try
to
seek
it
out
in
parliament.
I
really
appreciate
the
efforts
that
the
department
has
undertaken
to
take
on board some of the things that I have been saying.
In
February,
one
of
them
was
an
issue
around
the
date
of
when
something
could
be
considered
indigenous
or
not.
The
department
had
picked
the
date
of
1770
and
in
questioning
that
and
pointing
out
that
Abel
Tasman
actually
came
to
Tasmania
in
1642
and
why
were
we
using
that
date
as
opposed
to
another,
the
department
took
that
on
board
and
actually
removed
1770
and
found another way, which I may get time to discuss.
Also,
there
have
been
a
number
of
concerns
expressed
by
industry
and
they
have
gone
to
great
lengths
to
look
after
those
and
assuage
those
concerns,
things
like
absolute
removal
of
doubt
over humans being carriers, et cetera.
Debate adjourned.
ADJOURNMENT
Ten Days on the Island Festival
[6.00 p.m.]
Ms
ARCHER
(Clark
-
Minister
for
Arts)
-
Mr
Deputy
Speaker,
I
rise
tonight
on
the
adjournment
to
mention
the
success
this
year
of
Ten
Days
on
the
Island,
a
little
bit
belatedly
but
nonetheless I wanted to do it.
We
have
had
an
enormously
successful
Ten
Days
on
the
Island
Festival
this
year.
Since
its
inception
in
2001,
Ten
Days
has
been
a
cultural
highlight
of
Tasmania.
It
delivers
a
festival
every
two
years
presenting
a
program
that
balances
Tasmanian
arts
and
culture
with
national
and
international work and, of course, a lot of local content has been the focus this year.
The
2019
festival
was
a
significant
milestone
for
the
organisation
as
it
marked
the
festival's
10th
anniversary.
This
year
for
the
first
time
a
new
format
was
trialled
where
the
festival
was
spread
over
three
separate
weekends
in
more
than
50
locations
across
the
state
with
events
in
the
north-west
held
between
8
and
11
March,
events
in
the
north-east
held
between
15
and
17
March
and
events
in
the
south
held
between
22
and
24
March;
totalling
about
10
days,
although
we
did
have an extension into the Huon, which I will mention in a minute.
format
proved
to
be
an
outstanding
success
giving
people
across
our
state
the
opportunity
to
engage
with
performances,
exhibitions,
discussions
and
forums
as
well
as
through
the wonderfully inclusive and welcoming community events which are a highlight.
As
Minister
for
Arts
I
was
delighted
to
officially
launch
the
2019
Ten
Days
on
the
Island
festival
in
Devonport
on
8
March.
Some
of
the
highlights
of
this
year's
festival
-
which
is
certainly
not
an
exhaustive
list
but
just
mentioning
some
of
the
things
that
were
highlights:
Mapali-Dawn
Gathering
,
which
saw
hundreds
of
local
performers
and
community
groups
gather
to
greet
the
dawn
at
the
Devonport
Surf
Lifesaving
Club
in
a
moment
of
quiet
reflection
and
ritual;
Here
She
Is
,
which
celebrated
the
local
community
by
gathering
memories,
stories
and
artefacts
representing
the
experiences
of
those
in
the
north-west,
particularly
local
women.
I
was
honoured
to
open
this
very
touching
exhibition
on
International
Women's
Day.
That
would
explain
why
I
missed
all
the
festivities
down
here
that
day
but
it
was
certainly
a
really
special
opening.
We
also
had
our
very
own
Tasmanian
Symphony
Orchestra
which
presented
the
classical
tale
of
Peter
and
the
Wolf
to
enthusiastic
family
audiences
in
Launceston
and
Scottsdale,
demonstrating that the value of quality art and cultural experiences can bring to people of all ages.
Nationally
renowned
dance
company,
Dance
North,
and
Tasmania's
own
Liminal
Studio
jointly
presented
contemporary
dance
work
Dust
,
in
Glenorchy
which
has
been
short-listed
in
the
prestigious
2019
Australian
Interior
Design
Awards
for
its
breathtaking
use
of
space
and
design.
So well done Peta Heffernan in particular.
This
year
was
the
first
festival
for
Ten
Days'
incoming
artistic
director,
Lindy
Hume
who
brought
her
wealth
of
experience
and
unique
approach
to
the
festival
to
build
such
an
exciting
and
diverse festival program.
I
take
this
opportunity
to
highlight
some
interesting
and
positive
comparisons
between
the
recently
completed
new
format
festival
and
the
previous
festival
held
in
2017.
In
2017,
Ten
Days
presented
eight
free
events
with
a
total
of
840
attendees
whereas
in
2019
the
festival
presented
13
free
events
with
a
total
attendance
of
8496
people.
In
2017,
Ten
Days
sold
3839
tickets
whereas
in
2019
the
festival
sold
almost
double
this
with
6061
sold.
In
2017
the
average
ticket
price
for
the
festival
was
$46.48
whereas
in
2019
the
average
ticket
price
was
down
to
$25.91,
making
more
events
more
affordable
for
Tasmanians
to
attend.
It
really
was
about
bringing
local
community
to
a
lot
of
these
events
and,
as
I
said,
there
was
a
large
local
content
component
to
the
festival.
Attendance
figures
for
the
festival
show
more
than
15
000
people
attended
Ten
Days
on
The
Island
events
over
three
weekends.
Almost
200
Tasmanian
artists
were
engaged
in
the
2019
festival.
As
we
know,
because
of
bushfires
we
decided
to
add
some
additional
funding
to
the
Huon
region
to
hold
additional
screenings
or
showings
of
various
events.
All
in
all,
it
was
a
highly
successful
event
that
provided
opportunities
for
Tasmanian
artists
while
attracting
visitors
and
growing
and
celebrating
connections
within
our
regional
communities.
This
is
why
our
Government
is
proud
to
be
contributing
more
than
$5.36
million
to
the
organisation
over
four
years.
Mr
O'BYRNE
(Franklin)
-
Mr
Deputy
Speaker,
I
am
also
on
an
artistic
theme
and
I
am
sure
the
Minister
for
Arts
will
be
very
interested.
I
am
glad
the
minister
for
Education
is
here
as
well
because
last
year
I
updated
the
House
on
a
marvellous
performance
by
the
Rosny
College
performing
arts
team
last
year
of
The
Drowsy
Chaperone
.
They
have
done
it
again.
Last
week
I
was
fortunate
enough
to
be
in
a
large
crowd
of
supportive
guests
to
see
the
opening
night
of
The
Addams
Family
,
a
fantastic
comedy.
I
remember
growing
up
with
Morticia
and
Gomez
and
watching
their
antics
on
the
television
program,
then
there
was
the
film
and
in
around
2007
they
took the show to Broadway and it became a stage show.
Last
I
was
fortunate
to
see
a
magnificent
performance
of
the
musical
The
Addams
Family
at
Rosny
College.
The
singing,
the
music,
the
production,
the
comedic
timing,
the
rapport
and
the
stage
presence
of
some
of
these
young
students
was
just
magnificent.
They
did
a
tremendous
job
and
we
had
a
fantastic
night,
all
of
us
laughing
and
smiling
on
the
way
out
and
talking about how great it was.
It
is
important
we
acknowledge
that
in
our
public
system
we
have
such
professionals
not
only
in
terms
of
teachers
but
those
who
help
our
educators
work
with
our
young
students
to
put
on
such
an
amazing
performance.
It
was
a
very
funny
program,
with
a
couple
of
small
changes
to
the
script
to
reflect
local
circumstances.
There
was
a
reference
to
home
schooling,
a
reference
to
the
cable
car,
which
was
all
very
funny,
and
a
few
other
contemporary
Tasmanian
references.
It
was
fantastic and very funny and it is important that we acknowledge them.
On
the
record
I
acknowledge
the
director
extraordinaire,
Darren
Sangwell,
and
his
production
team,
including
Claire
Latham,
who
is
working
as
a
drama
teacher
and
helping
out
Darren
and
the
team.
Claire
has
been
selected
as
an
ambassador
of
public
education
as
a
part
of
the
Department of Education's 150 year celebration.
I
acknowledge
Andrew
Castles,
who
held
the
band
together
and
brought
the
team
together.
Music
was
such
a
big
part
of
the
night
with
the
songs
and
the
dramatic
pieces
of
music
which
added
to
the
drama
on
the
stage.
In
terms
of
the
production
crew
we
had
Christy
Baker,
Nicole
Ottrey,
Tony
Sayer,
Suze
Quinn,
Chris
Oakley,
Aron
Webb
and
Alex
O'Brien
all
doing
amazing
work.
It
is
important
we
also
acknowledge
the
young
actors
who
did
a
fantastic
job
in
portraying
the
various
characters.
There
was
Sophie
Williams
as
Wednesday
Addams,
Alexander
Tye
as
Lucas
Beineke
and
Elowen
Killion-Bradley
as
Morticia.
The
singing
of
Sophie
as
Wednesday
Addams
and
Elowen
as
Morticia,
was
magnificent
in
their
strength
and
ability
to
hold
the
notes
and
hold
the
audience
as
well.
Paul
Dellas
was
Gomez
Addams
who,
for
the
whole
performance,
really
nailed
the
kind
of
character
that
Gomez
was;
he
was
hilarious
during
the
entire
performance.
Bryce
Tollard-Williams
as
Pugsley
did
a
fantastic
job.
In
some
respects,
I
do
not
want
to
overshadow
the
other
actors,
but
Jacob
Golding
as
Uncle
Fester
did
a
cracking
job.
The
pinnacle,
his
attachment
to
his
love,
the
moon,
was
a
very
funny
piece
to
finish
up
with
at
the
end
of
the
play.
The
ensemble
cast,
all
the
students,
did
a
magnificent
job
with
the
dancing
and
singing
and
the
ensemble
roles
they
played.
It
really
was
a
testament
to
public
education
and
the
Rosny
College
production
team
-
the
technical
and
stage
crew,
all
the
band,
well
led
by
principal
Anthony
Coe,
who
is
very
proud
of
the
work
the
production
team
have
done.
It
was
fantastic.
It
is
on
again
on
Thursday,
Friday
and
Saturday
night
so
you
have
three
more
chances
to
have
a
look
at it.
There
were
many
funny
lines
during
the
performance.
One
in
particular
was
when
Gomez
was
talking
to
Wednesday
and
imploring
his
daughter
to
listen
to
him.
He
was
saying,
'Happy
sad,
happy
sad,
like
the
bull
when
the
matador
put
the
sword
into
him
and
he
looked
at
the
matador
and
said,
"Nice
job
-
I
hate
you"'.
Well
done
to
the
kids
and
the
students
and
all
those
involved in that production. It was tremendous.
St Helens District Hospital
[6.11 p.m.]
Mr
TUCKER
(Lyons)
-
Mr
Deputy
Speaker,
I
rise
to
talk
about
our
brand
new
$12.1
million
St
Helens
District
Hospital,
officially
opened
on
Thursday
16
May.
It
is
a
purpose-built
facility
on
Annie
Street
which
has
been
designed
to
cater
for
the
current
and
future
needs
of
St
Helens
and
the
greater
east
coast
community.
The
land
purchase
of
10
Annie
Street,
St
Helens,
from
Break
O'Day
Council
was
finalised
on
30
June
2017.
Construction
of
the
new
St
Helens
District
Hospital
was
approved
by
the
Parliamentary
Standing
Committee
on
Public
Works
in
June
2017
to
replace the existing hospital that was constructed in 1975.
Following
an
open
tender
process,
Fairbrother
Pty
Ltd
was
selected
as
the
builder
and
work
commenced
on
the
site
on
7
November
2017.
The
new
St
Helens
District
Hospital
is
now
substantially
complete.
The
project
has
delivered
a
fit-for-purpose
facility
on
a
new
site,
built
in
line
with
contemporary
health
facility
standards
with
the
capacity
to
cater
for
the
current
and
future needs of the St Helens and greater east coast community.
Our
hospital
features
10
inpatient
beds,
four
emergency
bays,
four
consultation
rooms
and
two
physio
rooms.
It
also
provides
allied
health,
radiology,
community
nursing,
oral
health,
education and training, community nursing and treatment and community activities.
The
new
hospital
provides
greater
security
of
access
to
health
care
services
by
eliminating
the
risk
of
flooding
events
that
have
been
experienced
on
the
current
hospital
site.
The
contemporary
facility
improves
working
conditions
for
staff
and
much
more
pleasant
surroundings
for
patients
and their visitors.
Importantly,
the
east
coast
community
will
have
a
most
dignified
palliative
care
facility
which
will
give
families
access
to
better
services
that
can
and
should
be
available
in
the
local
area.
This
has
been
a
wonderful
joint
effort,
with
many
in
the
Break
O'Day
community
actively
contributing
towards this in-community health care project.
In
an
extraordinary
effort,
the
St
Helens
Hospital
Auxiliary
raised
more
than
$100
000
towards
the
new
hospital
and
furnished
the
palliative
care
family
suite
and
patient
rooms
with
generous
community
donations.
The
Government
pays
special
tribute
to
the
auxiliary
for
the
exceptional efforts that they have given to support our new district hospital.
[6.14 p.m.]
Ms
BUTLER
(Lyons)
-
Mr
Deputy
Speaker,
last
week
I
wrote
to
the
Minister
for
Health
seeking
support
to
increase
funding
for
the
Bridgewater
Community
Centre
NSP,
which
is
the
needle
and
syringe
program
run
through
Jordan
River
Services
as
part
of
the
primary
outlet
south
area.
The
Bridgewater
community
has
the
highest
level
of
disadvantage
and
drug-related
issues
in
Tasmania.
Despite
an
increase
in
demand
and
usage
of
the
needle
and
syringe
outlet,
the
program
has
not
received
an
increase
in
funding
for
many
years.
In
fact,
Jordan
River
Services
cover
the
shortfall
between
health
funding
and
the
required
cost
to
run
the
program
safely
and
to
meet
demand. This is not the way to fund and treat a program that saves lives.
Given
the
financial
circumstances
of
Jordan
River
Services,
the
NSP
is
now
at
a
critical
point
and,
without
an
increase
in
funding,
Jordan
River
Services
will
be
unable
to
continue
to
deliver
the
program.
The
Jordan
River
Services
did
receive
an
additional
funding
of
$45
000
through
neighbourhood
houses.
However,
the
stipulations
of
the
funding
did
not
allow
for
the
Bridgewater
Community
Centre
to
use
that
funding
towards
the
NSP.
Just
as
a
note,
sometimes
having
such
a
strict
directive
as
to
how
money
can
be
spent
for
neighbourhood
houses
and
community
centres
can
be
very
limiting
and
you
might
not
get
the
best
'bang
for
your
buck'
from
the
funding
because
those
people
really
know
where
the
gaps
are.
If
you
limit
the
criteria
as
to
what
they
can
spend,
you could end up shooting yourself in the foot.
The
Bridgewater
Community
Centre
NSP
provides
a
wide
range
of
sterile
injecting
equipment
for
injection
of
licit
and
illicit
substances
including
safe
sharps
disposal
containers.
The
centre
is
also
a
safe
sharps
collection
point.
The
NSP
reduces
the
incidence
of
blood-borne
virus
and
bacterial
infections
and
is
a
vital
point
of
contact
and
support
for
some
of
the
most
marginalised
and
vulnerable
people
in
the
community.
Bridgewater
NSP
clients
are
provided
harm
reduction
information
and
are
able
to
access
a
wholistic
service
with
a
range
of
other
services
located
on
site
to
support
people
in
housing,
emergency
food
relief,
family
support
and
other community programs.
The
Jordan
River
Services
has
over
30
years'
experience
in
supporting
the
Bridgewater/
Gagebrook
and
wider
communities.
It
is
deeply
connected
and
hugely
respected,
making
it
well
placed
to
provide
any
of
the
higher
levels
of
service
if
the
funding
were
available.
Ensuring
this
essential
service
is
maintained
and
increased
funding
is
essential.
The
program
saves
lives,
not
just
for
people
of
that
community.
The
annual
statistics
provide
insight
into
the
people
who
travel
to the area, as there are no other options between there and Launceston.
I
hope
funding
is
increased
to
the
people
who
really
need
it.
It
does
save
lives
and
we
must
make
sure
that
we
do
not
force
these
people
to
beg,
borrow
and
plead
for
funding
for
a
program
that does work.
[6.20 p.m.]
Dr
BROAD
(Braddon)
-
Mr
Deputy
Speaker,
I
rise
on
adjournment
to
discuss
a
very
serious
issue
that
is
having
a
massive
impact
on
small
businesses
all
around
Tasmania,
but
especially
you
can see it is evident on the central coast, and in my home town of Ulverstone.
What
we
have
is
a
situation
where
grease
traps
-
yes,
grease
traps
-
from
TasWater
are
still
a
problem
but
we
are
getting
to
the
stage
now
where
these
are
forcing
businesses
to
close
and
people
to
walk
away
from
their
businesses
and
their
livelihoods,
losing
everything
but
the
equipment
that
they
can
sell.
This
is
a
very
serious
issue
and
it
is
one
that
has
seen
even
TasWater
wring
their
hands
and
search
for
answers.
As
discussed
today
earlier
in
parliament,
we
have
seen
the
letter
from
TasWater
chairman,
Dr
Stephen
Gumley,
to
Labor
Leader,
Rebecca
White,
highlighting
the
desperate
situation
faced
by,
not
only
the
mum
and
dad
operators
of
small
businesses,
but
also
our
large
industrial
trade
waste
customers.
The
bit
in
the
letter
that
is
relevant
especially to the small mum and dad operations is this section which says -
It
is
important
to
note
that
the
expense
of
complying
with
environmental
regulations
also
jeopardises
the
viability
of
many
small
commercial
operations
like
bakeries,
cafes
or
hairdressers,
who,
though
small,
collectively
employ
just
as many people in Tasmania, especially in our regions.
Many
of
these
mum
and
dad
operators
are
in
difficult
positions
as
they
can
neither
afford
to
comply,
nor
can
they
sell
a
non-compliant
business.
TasWater
estimates
the
cost
of
compliance
for
these
mum
and
dad
businesses
statewide
is
approximately
$5
million.
That
$5
million
is
actually
the
figure
that
the
Labor
Party
took
to
the
election
as
a
promise
to
help
solve
this
issue
for
mum
and
dad
operators.
This
is
a
good
confirmation
that
we
had
the
right
ballpark
figure
of
$5
million to fix this problem, which has been totally ignored by the Government.
This
letter
was
also
sent
to
the
Treasurer.
What
responsibility
is
the
Treasurer
going
to
take,
especially
now
that
the
Treasurer
is
actually
a
shareholder
in
TasWater?
We
dial
the
clock
back
to
16 August 2017 where the Treasurer, Mr Gutwein, said in a press release that:
TasWater's
single-minded
trade
waste
policy
is
having
a
devastating
impact
on
hundreds
of
businesses
around
the
State.
In
fact,
I've
been
told
it
has
actually
contributed
to
businesses
shutting
down.
It's
absolutely
ridiculous
and
it
needs
to be stopped now before it destroys more Tasmanian businesses.
The
is
now
a
shareholder
in
TasWater
so
what
responsibility
is
the
Treasurer
going
to
make
to
these
mum
and
dad
businesses.
This
impact
is
real.
We
have
seen
the
situation
at
Ulverstone,
which
was
formerly
well
known
for
its
café
culture,
down
three
cafes
specifically
due to this issue of grease traps.
We
have
had
a
situation
with
The
Archie
Secret
Café
where
Janice
Archie
was
on
ABC
radio
discussing
the
difficulties
that
she
had.
It
is
also
pitting
landlords
against
their
lessees.
In
her
particular
example,
she
had
a
sale
for
her
café
business
but
that
sale
fell
through
because
it
was
a
non-compliant
business.
It
did
not
have
a
grease
trap
and
if
there
was
going
to
be
a
grease
trap
in
that
business
it
would
have
to
be
put
in
the
ceiling
of
all
things.
That
is
another
issue.
How
do
you put in grease traps?
It
saw
Ms
Archie
walk
away
from
that
business,
lose
all
the
goodwill
that
she
had
built
up
over
seven
years
because
she
could
not
sell
it
as
an
ongoing
business
concern.
The
only
thing
that
she
could
sell
was
her
equipment
which
meant
that
she
lost
well
over
$70
000
because
of
this
issue that the Government is doing nothing about.
We
have
seen
other
businesses
shut
in
Ulverstone.
This
spreads
across
the
whole
municipality.
I
have
been
shocked
as
I
have
been
speaking
to
small
business
owners.
I
talked
to
my
local
shop.
Yes,
they
were
having
trouble.
Hairdressers,
yes,
they
were
having
trouble.
Cafes
were
having
trouble.
This
was
such
a
prominent
story
The
Advocate
put
it
on
the
front
page.
I
was
talking
to
Sky
Muir,
the
owner
of
Thirty
Three
Cups,
which
is
quite
a
well-known
Ulverstone
café.
She
had
to
move
across
the
road
because
there
was
no
way
that
she
could
put
in
a
grease
trap
in
the
Thirty
Three
Cups
business.
She
has
moved
across
the
road,
the
former
site
of
The
Depot.
The
Depot
Café
is
actually
a
new
building
and
in
that
new
building
a
grease
trap
was
put
in
and
this
is
very
fortunate
for
her
but
it
means
that
Ulverstone
is
down
another
café
because
of
it.
She
has
two
years
left
on
the
lease
on
her
former
site
so
now
she
is
having
to
develop
another
business
and
I
wish
her
all
the
success.
She
is
going
to
put
in
a
juice
bar
but
the
only
sort
of
cooking
she
can
use
is
a
sandwich
press.
This
is
having
a
significant
impact.
Another
café
in
West
Ulverstone
has
exactly
the
same
problem.
They
cannot
sell
their
business;
they
have
had
buyers,
they
have
had
people
who
want
to
take
it
over
but
they
cannot
because
there
is
no
grease
trap.
Fifteen
thousand
dollars
is
roughly
the
price
and
the
price
has
been
going
up,
as
Sky
Muir
talked
about
in
The
Advocate
today.
It
started
off
probably
$4000
or
$5000
and
now
it
is
$15
000
plus.
What
is
the
Government
offering?
We
heard
the
Treasurer
today
talking
about
interest-free
loans.
That
does
not
cover
the
entire
cost
and
that
business
has
to
pay
back
that
cost.
As
Janice
Archie
said
$15
000
may
not
sound
a
lot
of
money
to
some
but
how
many
coffees
was
she
going
to have to sell to make up that $15 000?
Mum
and
dad
businesses
are
not
always
making
a
lot
of
money
and
this
is
pushing
them
to
the
wall
and
making
them
leave,
making
them
walk
away
from
their
businesses.
It
is
halting
sales,
it
is
stressing
people
out.
The
Treasurer
knows
about
this
and
yet
all
we
hear
are
platitudes,
no
responsibility,
and
no
funding.
This
is
causing
carnage
all
around
the
state
and
needs
to
be
fixed.
The
minister
has
to
do
something
now
instead
of
fobbing
it
off.
He
knew
about
the
issue
back in 2017 yet he has done nothing.
The
Government
is
now
a
shareholder
and
they
have
to
take
responsibility.
They
have
to
do
something about this before more businesses take the only option, which is to walk away.
S-Box Rally - Alex and Cameron Ives
Vicki Purnell - 2019 Tasmanian Local Hero
Ulverstone Rowing Club -
Annette Dolbel
[6.24 p.m.]
Recently
I
had
the
privilege
to
meet
two
young
men
from
Ulverstone
who
had
donated
a
great
deal
of
their
spare
time
and
money
in
preparing
a
car,
which
they
had
to
buy
for
less
than
$1000.
This car was to take on the great cancer charity car rally and I will call it the S-Box Rally -
Mr O'Byrne
- S stands for?
Mrs
RYLAH
-
something.
Travelling
some
of
Australia's
dustiest
outback
roads,
it
has
been
held
annually
for
the
past
10
years
and
the
rally
is
the
largest
independent
fundraiser
for
the
Cancer
Council
nationally.
Last
year
the
rally
raised
$1.974
million.
I
tried
to
look
up
to
see
what
they
have
done
today,
but
I
could
not
get
the
figures.
What
I
have
learned
about
this
rally
is
that
it
is incredible fun. Camaraderie, mechanical wizardry extraordinaire. It is a great charity.
assistance.
My
brother
was
in
a
helicopter,
going
across
the
Nullarbor
and
saw
some
of
these
guys in their cars. They landed and had a chat and some photos, so it was pretty amazing.
Previous
rallies
have
been
a
seven-day
situation
but
this
year,
because
it
was
the
10th
anniversary
of
the
rally,
they
made
it
a
10-day
affair.
Leaving
Perth
on
back
roads
with
buddy
teams
of
eight
cars,
each
team
has
to
arrive
as
a
team
at
that
night's
destination
where
they
get
meals
and
all
sorts
of
stuff.
They
sleep
in
their
swags
on
the
ground.
Gaffer
tape
wire,
ingenuity,
on-road
repairs,
working
as
a
team
trying
to
get
all
the
cars
there
every
day,
apparently
it
is
tremendous fun.
Alex
and
Cameron
Ives
were
the
team
Tassie
Toy
Soldiers
and
held
many
fundraising
events
along
the
coast,
several
that
I
attended.
The
events
raised
more
than
$12
000
towards
the
cancer
charity before
they left.
It was
my pleasure
to present
Alex and
Cameron with
the Tasmanian
flag
to
adorn
their
Toyota
Camry.
Think
Priscilla,
Queen
of
the
Desert
and
you
get
the
idea
down
the
Oodnadatta Track with the Tassie flag hanging out the back; fabulous photo, a bit of fun.
Alex
and
Cameron
successfully
reached
Sydney
and
their
car,
along
with
the
other
cars
that
survived
the
rally
are
being
auctioned
by
Manheim
and
all
the
funds
are
going
back
to
cancer
research.
Alex
and
Cameron
have
advised
me
that
they
have
to
bring
their
car
back
to
Tasmania
so they are going to buy it back at the auction so they can bring it home.
I
Alex
and
Cameron
on
the
outstanding
job
that
they
have
done
and
the
great
fun
they have had being ambassadors for our state.
In
my
electorate,
we
have
a
proud
reputation
for
doing
great
things
to
help
others
less
fortunate.
These
deeds
often
go
unnoticed
by
the
wider
community
but
are
very
much
appreciated
by those that directly benefit.
came
to
my
attention
that
Vicki
Purnell,
the
2019
Tasmanian
Local
Hero,
is
bringing
some
brightness
to
the
lives
of
many
people.
Vicki
is
making
quilts
for
the
Warrawee
Women's
Shelter
in
Ulverstone.
Warrawee
offers
short-term
emergency
accommodation
for
women
and
children
escaping
family
violence,
sexual
assault
and
who
are
homeless.
These
quilts
have been very warmly received and are colourful, amazing updates to the rooms at Warrawee.
Ms
Purnell's
tireless
efforts
do
not
end
there.
After
a
friend's
child
was
stillborn
in
2013,
Ms
Purnell
found
that
hospitals
were
not
equipped
to
clothe
tiny
stillborn
children
to
enable
the
respectful
grieving
of
this
tiny
life
and
so
began
Bridie's
Blossoms.
Ms
Purnell
spends
70
hours
a
week
sewing.
In
the
five
years
since
she
began
the
project,
she
has
sent
out
460
packages
to
grieving
parents.
Ms
Purnell
uses
her
skills
and
talent
for
sewing
to
ease
the
trauma
for
parents
of
stillborn babies.
Vicki
Purnell
is
a
deserving
2019
Tasmanian
Local
Hero
recipient
and
I
am
proud
to
say
she
is a constituent in my electorate of Braddon.
The
weekend
before
last,
member
for
Braddon,
Dr
Broad,
and
I
were
at
the
Ulverstone
Rowing
Club.
I
was
very
pleased
to
be
able
to
name
the
newest
boat
the
Annette
Dolbel
,
a
double
scull.
The
boat
was
named
in
honour
of
Annette
Dolbel,
a
very
long-serving
member
of
the
Ulverstone
Rowing
Club
who
has
worked
tirelessly
for
this
club.
It
was
through
a
commitment
of
$15
000
that
I
was
able
to
get
for
the
club
from
the
Hodgman
Liberal
Government
to
enable
them
to buy the latest boat to make sure their equipment was current and competitive.
This
club
has
a
long
and
proud
history
of
rowing
on
the
Leven
River;
in
fact
they
have
been
rowing
on
the
Leven
since
1854
which
makes
it
one
of
the
oldest
sporting
clubs
in
the
state.
With
over
50
registered
rowers
today
and
a
swathe
of
social
members,
this
club
is
a
vibrant
and
important part of the Central Coast community.
Annette
has
served
this
club
for
over
30
years,
with
over
25
years
of
service
managing
the
kitchen,
training
and
supervising.
As
we
all
know
in
this
place,
kitchens
and
all
that
goes
with
them
are
very
important
places
in
clubs.
Further,
Annette
has
given
years
of
service
at
Lake
Barrington,
in
particular
at
national
finals,
and
Annette
served
for
many
years
as
secretary
of
the
Tasmanian
Schools
Rowing
Association.
She
assisted
her
husband,
Rod,
while
he
was
club
president
and
has
supported
two
sons
who
are
still
rowing
at
Ulverstone.
Collectively
it
is
an
outstanding
contribution
and
due
recognition
was
given
to
Annette
for
her
longstanding
sterling
efforts by the naming of the boat.
I
congratulate
the
club
in
recognising
such
a
wonderful
contribution.
I
recognise
Andrew
Streeter, the president, vice president Simon Jones, and Rodney and Annette Dolbel.
Legislative Council Election Results
Women in the Tasmanian Parliament
[6.31 p.m.]
Ms
HADDAD
(Clark)
-
Mr
Deputy
Speaker,
I
rise
this
evening
to
congratulate
the
members
for
Pembroke
and
Montgomery,
Jo
Siejka
and
Leonie
Hiscutt,
on
their
recent
re-election
to
the
Legislative
Council
and
to
recognise
the
amazing
although
ultimately
unsuccessful
campaign
run
by
Labor's
Michelle
Rippon
for
the
seat
of
Montgomery.
I
also
note
and
welcome
the
newly
elected
member
for
Nelson,
Meg
Webb,
to
the
parliament.
There
is
a
huge
historical
significance
on
the
election
and
re-election
of
these
women
to
parliament,
and
that
is
that
for
the
first
time
in
Tasmania's
history
women
now
make
up
the
majority
of
both
Houses
of
the
Tasmanian
Parliament.
In
March
last
year
Tasmania
became
the
first
state
to
elect
a
majority
women
lower
House
and
I
am
proud
to
say
that
we
are
now
the
first
state
to
do
likewise
in
the
upper
House.
It
is
not
lost
on
me
as
a
woman
in
this
parliament
that
the
very
fact
I
am
speaking
here
and
recognising
the
election
of
these
other
women
to
the
two
Chambers
of
parliament
owes
a
great
deal
to
the
outstanding
women
who
have
come
before
me
and
before
all
of
us,
because
it
was
not
always
this
way.
Parliament
House,
was
constructed
in
1840
and
it
would
not
be
for
another
64
years
before
women
would
be
allowed
to
vote
for
the
people
who
would
represent
them
in
this
place,
a
place
paid
for
with
their
taxes
and
authorised
to
make
laws
that
apply
equally
to
them
as
it
did
to
their
husbands
and
other
men.
It
would
be
another
17
years
beyond
that,
1921,
before
women would win the right to stand as candidates for election to the House of Assembly.
Less
than
100
years
ago
women
were
not
even
permitted
to
stand
for
election
in
this
state.
At
the
1922
election,
the
first
election
in
which
women
were
able
to
run,
there
were
just
three
women
candidates.
of
them
was
Alicia
O'Shea
Patterson
who
contested
the
seat
of
Denison,
now
Clark.
O'Shea
Patterson
was
a
tireless
advocate
for
women's
suffrage.
From
1903
she
held
mock
elections
in
which
only
women
candidates
were
eligible
to
nominate
and
held
them
at
every
election until women won the right to stand as candidates in actual elections.
She
was
described
by
the
papers
as
having
the
courage
of
her
convictions.
They
said
she
was
aided
and
abetted
by
a
ready
wit
and
a
frankness
of
expression
that
often
turned
the
spotlight
of
public
curiosity
on
her.
It
is
interesting
to
note
the
use
of
that
phrase
'aided
and
abetted'
in
the
media
at
that
time,
carrying
as
it
does
the
implication
that
there
is
something
criminal
about
speaking
up
for
women's
rights,
because
O'Shea
Patterson's
tenacity
did
not
go
unpunished.
After
standing
as
a
candidate
she
faced
lots
of
public
harassment
including
legal
harassment,
eventually
being
fined
£50
-
I
am
told
about
$4000
in
today's
money
-
for
refusing
to
move
a
fence
which
she
had
been
given
permission
to
erect
on
her
property.
She
could
have
avoided
the
fine
by
agreeing
to
move
the
fence
but
instead
she
told
the
Supreme
Court
that
she
would
rather
go
to
jail
than
comply
with
the
order,
such
suspicion
and
derision
there
was
towards
a
woman
who
would
dare
to
stand for parliament at that time.
O'Shea
Patterson
was
not
just
an
advocate
for
women's
suffrage,
she
was
also
an
active
member
of
a
number
of
pioneering
women's
organisations.
As
vice-president
of
the
Women's
Health
Association
she
launched
schemes
for
child
welfare
and
bush
nursing.
At
the
time
of
her
death
she
was
on
the
executive
of
the
National
Council
of
Women
and
the
State
Council
of
Workers
Educational
Association.
She
was
an
advocate
for
criminal
law
reform,
particularly
regarding
violence
against
women
and
girls,
and
was
apparently
well
known
by
members
of
the
government
for
her
outspoken
suggestions
to
ministers.
'No
flowers
at
my
funeral'
was
her
last
request before she died in 1923.
When
I
was
born
no
Tasmanian
woman
had
ever
served
as
a
minister
in
a
Tasmanian
government,
nor
had
a
woman
served
as
a
leader
of
a
political
party.
It
is
only
in
my
lifetime
that
these
important
milestones
have
been
reached
for
women
in
Tasmania's
Parliament.
When
my
two
daughters
were
born,
14
and
11
years
ago
respectively,
Tasmania
had
never
seen
a
woman
leader
as
Premier
or
seen
a
woman
serve
as
Speaker
of
the
House
of
Assembly.
These
things
have
happened in that very recent time.
I
end
with
a
call
to
the
women
in
this
Chamber
and
the
Legislative
Council
and
all
women
outside
of
this
parliament
never
to
forget
how
far
we
have
come,
but
equally
to
never
let
go
of
how
much
more
we
have
to
achieve,
to
use
our
voices
and
our
votes
to
improve
the
lives
of
women and girls and indeed all of us here in Tasmania.
Justine Keay - Tribute
Federal Electorate of Braddon - Election Promises
National Volunteer Week
[6.36 p.m.]
Ms
DOW
(Braddon)
-
Mr
Deputy
Speaker,
I
rise
tonight
to
pay
tribute
to
my
friend
and
colleague,
Justine
Keay.
Justine
is
smart
and
incredibly
driven
and
was
a
hardworking
local
MP
whose
door
was
always
open
with
her
office
assisting
many
thousands
of
people
during
her
time
in
office.
I
want
to
thank
Justine
for
her
service
to
the
Braddon
community
and
her
unwavering
commitment
to
improving
the
lives
for
the
people
who
live
in
our
community
and
giving
all
members
of
the
community,
despite
whatever
their
political
affiliation,
a
voice
locally
and
in
the
Parliament
of
Australia.
I
enjoyed
very
much
working
closely
with
Justine
and
her
team.
In
fact
our offices worked very well together and I will indeed miss working with her now.
During
her
campaign
in
the
by-election
and
the
recent
federal
election
there
were
a
number
of
very
important
commitments
to
the
electorate
which
were
made
and
some
which
were
matched
by
the
Liberals
but
others
which
disappointingly
were
not.
These
included
ambulatory
care
centres,
an
upgrade
to
the
dredging
of
the
Burnie
Port,
development
of
a
manufacturing
hub,
flood
mitigation
in
Latrobe,
a
coastal
pathway,
Wynyard
waterfront
development
and
the
list
goes
on,
including
investment
in
regional
football
and
investment
in
the
North
West
Regional
Hospital.
These
were
some
great
grassroots
commitments
that
would
have
benefitted
regional
Tasmania
immensely.
respect
that
the
people
of
Braddon
have
spoken
with
the
election
of
Gavin
Pearce
I
want
today
to
put
on
the
record
that
as
a
state
Labor
member
working
in
and
across
Braddon
I
will
be
holding
the
coalition
government
and
the
Tasmanian
Liberal
Government
to
account
over
the
next
three
years
when
it
comes
to
making
sure
the
huge
number
of
commitments
they
have
made
are upheld, funded and delivered. The list of these commitments is huge.
Of
particular
interest
to
me
will
be
those
commitments
made
by
Senator
Steve
Martin
who
will
no
longer
have
a
seat
in
the
parliament,
and
I
want
to
know
whether
the
Coalition
will
commit
to
delivering
those.
A
couple
that
are
of
interest
to
me
are
the
King
Island
worker
accommodation
and
service
hub
and
the
Burnie
cultural
precinct
and
west
coast
sports
and
recreational
facilities.
I
will be watching those with great interest.
Finally,
it
is
National
Volunteer
Week
I
was
to
extend
my
sincere
thanks
to
all
those
volunteers
who
have
given
of
their
time
as
part
of
our
campaign
efforts
across
Braddon
and
our
state
and
country
during
the
recent
federal
election.
We
could
not
do
what
we
do
as
local
members
of
parliament
or
run
election
campaigns
without
them
and
we
are
sincerely
grateful.
To
the
wonderful
volunteers
who
work
in
my
office,
Mitchell
and
Theresa,
I
thank
you
so
much
for
your
support
and
hard
work
every
week.
To
all
those
wonderful
volunteers
who
I
get
to
know
in
my
role
as
a
local
member,
I
thank
each
and
every
one
of
you
for
the
valuable
work
that
you
do
in
and around our communities and the difference you make to individuals' lives in our communities.
United Nations Intergovernmental Science Policy Platform on Biodiversity and
Ecosystem Services - Summarial Findings
[6.39 p.m.]
Dr
WOODRUFF
(Franklin)
-
Mr
Deputy
Speaker,
I
rise
to
read
into
the
House
the
summarial
findings
from
the
United
Nations
Intergovernmental
Science
Policy
Platform
on
Biodiversity
and
Ecosystem
Services.
The
report,
tabled
on
6
May
this
year,
was
a
summary
for
policy
makers
around
the
world
of
their
global
assessment
on
the
state
of
the
world's
biodiversity
and
ecosystem
services.
It
was
a
very
wide
and
highly
august
panel
of
many
scientists
around
the
world
representing
national
governments.
Their
findings,
their
key
messages,
were
that
nature
and
its
vital
contributions
to
people,
which
together
embody
biodiversity
and
ecosystem
functions
and
services, are deteriorating around the world.
Both
nature
and
its
contributions
to
people
are
vital
for
human
existence
and
the
good
quality
of
our
lives.
We
know
that
more
food,
energy
and
materials
than
ever
before
are
now
being
supplied
to
people
in
most
places
by
nature.
This
is
increasing
at
the
expense
of
nature's
ability
to
provide
the
other
contributions
that
we
need
for
our
health
and
wellbeing
and
for
our
very
survival; things like water quality and sense of place and pollination.
The
biosphere
upon
which
we
all
depend
is
being
altered
to
an
unparalleled
degree
across
all
space
and
scales,
and
biodiversity;
that
is
the
diversity
within
the
species
and
between
species
and
of ecosystems, is declining now faster than at any time in human history.
Mr
Deputy
Speaker,
they
find
that
nature
plays
a
critical
role
in
providing
food
and
feed,
energy,
medicines
and
genetic
resources,
and
that
more
than
2
billion
people
rely
on
wood
fuel
to
meet
their
primary
energy
needs.
An
estimated
4
billion
people
rely
primarily
on
natural
medicines
for
health
care
and
some
70
per
cent
of
drugs
used
for
cancer
are
natural
or
are
synthetic
products
produced
by
nature.
Nature
sustains
us
through
the
quality
of
the
air,
fresh
water,
and
soils
on
which
we
all
depend.
It
distributes
fresh
water,
regulates
the
climate,
provides
pollination
and
pest
control,
and
reduces
the
impact
of
natural
hazards.
More
than
75
per
cent
of
global
food
plot
types,
including
fruit
and
vegetables
and
some
of
the
most
important
cash
crops
around
the
world,
rely
on
animal
pollination.
Nature
underpins
all
dimensions
of
human
health
and contributes to every aspect of the quality of our life.
are
that
most
of
the
globe
has
now
been
significantly
altered
by
many
human
drivers
and
that
the
great
majority
of
ecosystems
and
biodiversity
are
showing
signs
of
rapid
decline.
Seventy-five
per
cent
of
the
land
surface
is
significantly
altered;
66
per
cent
of
the
ocean
area
is
experiencing
increasing
cumulative
impacts;
and
85
per
cent
of
all
wetland
areas
across
the
globe have been lost.
Approximately
half
the
live
coral
cover
on
coral
reefs
has
been
lost
just
over
the
last
century,
and there is, as we all know, accelerating losses in very recent times.
The
average
abundance
of
native
species
in
most
parts
of
the
world's
land
surface
has
fallen
by
at
least
20
per
cent.
This
decline
has
mostly
taken
place
in
the
last
20
years.
An
average
of
around
25
per
cent
of
species
are
now
assessed
by
the
United
Nations
as
being
threatened
and
around
one
million
species
face
extinction
within
many
decades
unless
action
is
taken
very
quickly to reduce the intensity of the drivers that are creating this biodiversity loss.
Without
strong
and
quick
action,
there
will
be
a
further
acceleration
in
the
global
rate
of
the
species
that
become
extinct.
The
extinction
rate
is
already
at
least
tens
to
hundreds
of
times
higher than it has been over the past10 million years.
The
rate
of
global
change
in
the
past
50
years
is
unprecedented
in
human
history
and
the
land
use
change
is
having
a
massive
impact
on
nature.
They
find
it
is
being
caused
by
the
over-exploitation
of
animals,
plants
and
other
organisms,
mostly
because
of
harvesting,
logging,
hunting and fishing at unsustainable levels.
The
goals
they
find
for
conserving
and
sustainably
using
nature,
and
becoming
sustainable,
will
not
be
met
on
the
current
approach.
The
current
trajectories
we
have,
and
the
goals
for
2030
and beyond will only be achieved by a transformative change.
They
also
note
that
climate
change
is
expected
to
become
the
increasing
and
major
driver
of
the rapid increasing acceleration of the loss of species.
Even
for
the
global
warming
of
1.5
to
2
degrees,
which
seems
increasingly
difficult
to
achieve,
the
majority
of
terrestrial
species,
that
is
species
on
land,
are
projected
to
profoundly
shrink.
Nature
can
be
conserved,
they
find,
and
it
can
be
restored
and
used
sustainably
while
we
also
meet
other
social
goals.
That
is
the
point
that
we
must
take
on
board.
Although
this
is
an
incredibly
devastating
assessment,
an
unprecedented
global
emergency
and
we
really
are
in
the
midst
of
a
mass
extinction
of
all
species
that
has
been
created
under
our
own
hands,
there
is
a
response and we are capable of turning around this mass extinction.
The
conclusion
they
make
is
that
we
need
action
and
we
need
it
now,
within
the
next
18
months
at
the
global
level,
some
really
direct
action
on
restoring
landscapes,
ending
the
deforestation
of
native
areas
of
recovery
plans
for
plants
and
animals:
all
the
sorts
of
things
that
we
should
expect
to
be
hearing
from
this
government.
Funding
directed
as
a
form
of
urgency
in
this
budget
towards
those
things.
Landscape
restoration,
working
with
farmers
to
increase
soil
health,
as
we
have
seen
in
that
good
news
story
from
the
north-west
today,
with
the
dairy
farmer
who
has
been
taking
that
approach
and
finding
it
not
only
benefits
the
environment
but
it
massively benefits the output and the productivity for that farmer himself.
People need hope and they will get it when governments take action.
Volunteers Week
[6.46 p.m.]
Ms
WHITE
(Lyons
-
Leader
of
the
Opposition)
-
Mr
Deputy
Speaker,
I
pay
tribute
to
the
many
thousands
of
volunteers
across
Tasmania
during
Volunteers
Week.
We
take
the
opportunity
to
acknowledge
and
respect
the
work
they
do
and
recognise
how
huge
a
contribution
it
is
to
our
community.
I
take
time
to
particularly
mention
a
couple
of
volunteer
organisations
in
my
electorate
of
Lyons and particularly from the Break O'Day community.
I
had
the
pleasure
of
going
to
St
Helens
on
Friday
and
attending
the
Bowls
Club
dinner.
Jane
Pickett,
the
president
hosted
a
terrific
event
as
she
always
does.
I
pay
tribute
to
the
work
of
that
volunteer
committee
for
the
way
they
organise
and
support
members,
particularly
junior
members,
to participate in the sport of bowls.
We
had
a
great
night.
There
was
lots
of
food
and
wonderful
prizes
for
those
who
were
fortunate
enough
to
win
them.
I
acknowledge
the
important
role
that
sporting
clubs
play
in
the
fabric
of
our
society
and
how
important
they
are,
not
only
for
providing
opportunities
for
physical
activity
but
for
the
friendship
they
offer
and
the
good-hearted
competition
that
occurs
in
our
sporting clubs across the state. Most of them are run by volunteers.
I
also
had
the
opportunity
to
take
a
look
at
the
St
Helens
History
Room
and
meet
with
Kim
Matthews.
I
recognise
that
quite
a
lot
of
work
curating
those
exhibits
is
done
by
volunteers
and
they work tirelessly.
I
was
fortunate
to
work
with
Kim
to
secure
a
grant
from
the
Premier
from
his
Discretionary
Fund
to
help
them
purchase
some
shelving
so
they
can
better
look
after
their
collection
and
store
other
items
and
make
sure
they
can
prepare
for
a
very
busy
time
they
have
coming
up
during
the
long weekend in the middle of winter.
the
opportunity
to
meet
with
some
of
the
sewers
from
the
Break
O'Day
Community
Boomerang
Bags
who
were
working
very
hard
at
the
St
Helens
Neighbourhood
House.
This
is
something
I
have
not
come
across
but
I
am
sure
members
in
this
House
have,
where
this
group
had
worked
to
find
recycled
fabric
that
is
either
donated
or
repurposed.
In
some
cases,
they
were
sewing
curtains,
and
making
them
into
bags
to
place
in
some
of
the
shops
in
St
Helens
for
visitors
or locals alike, to pick up to use and reuse.
The
idea
behind
a
'boomerang
bag'
is
as
it
sounds,
that
you
borrow
and
reuse
it
and
that
it
circulates
in
the
community.
They
have
these
terrific
badges
on
their
bags
that
talk
about
the
Break
O'Day
region.
By
all
accounts,
visitors
travelling
to
St
Helens
look
for
them,
pick
them
up
and
take
them
away
as
a
souvenir
and
use
them
as
they
are
going
around
Australia.
That
is
terrific
promotion for the east coast.
I
will
put
in
a
little
plug
for
them
because
they
are
always
on
the
look-out
for
volunteers.
If
you
are
happy
to
go
along
and
participate,
they
will
welcome
anybody,
even
if
you
have
no
experience
sewing,
cutting
or
ironing
which
are
the
primary
tasks
involved,
and
join
them
at
the
St
Helens Neighbourhood House. They meet there every Friday between 2 p.m. and 4 p.m.
I
happened
upon
them
by
chance,
but
I
was
pleased
I
did
and
they
were
incredibly
friendly
so
I
have
no
doubt
that
anybody
who
wanted
to
go
along
and
take
part
and
become
a
member
of
the
Break
O'Day
Community
Boomerang
Bag
sewers
group
would
be
more
than
welcome
and
it
is
a
very
worthy
cause.
As
volunteers
they
do
a
huge
amount
of
work
and
that
is
just
one
project
in
the
community.
There
is
a
number
of
different
projects
and
a
number
of
very
hard-working
volunteers
who
I
pay
tribute
to
and
thank
for
the
work
that
they
do
every
single
day
to
make
our
community a much better place.
The Addams Family -
Rosny College
[6.50 p.m.]
Ms
STANDEN
(Franklin)
-
Mr
Deputy
Speaker,
I
am
going
to
very
quick
because
I
know
that
my
colleague,
David
O'Byrne,
has
already
given
a
wonderful
overview
of
the
Rosny
College
performing
arts
production
of
The
Addams
Family
that
I
had
the
absolute
pleasure
of
attending
last
Wednesday
night
for
their
gala
night.
I
wanted
to
add
my
accolades
for
the
wonderful
efforts.
Bravo
to
the
superb
cast
and
crew
of
this
wonderful
production
of
the
Addams
Family.
It
was
such
a
pleasure
to
be
in
the
audience
that
night.
Congratulations
to
the
students
and
to
the
amazing teachers who have guided them.
I
am
old
enough
to
have
watched
some
of
the
black
and
white
shows
from
the
television
series
of
1964
to
1966
-
it
was
a
joy
to
revisit
-
and
the
movies
in
1991
and
1993.
The
overview
from
the
wonderful
director,
Darren
Sangwell,
ends
with
the
darkness
you
will
never
see the stars'.
I
had
to
say
there
were
so
many
stars
in
this
production.
From
Claire
Latham,
who
is
a
former
hockey
playing
colleague
of
mine,
who
is
not
only
a
wonderful
production
manager
for
this
effort
but
a
former
proud
member
of
the
Rosny
College
alumni
who
went
on
to
graduate
with
a
BA
in
journalism
and
marketing
management
as
well
as
a
Bachelor
of
Teaching
honours
from
UTas.
She
has
a
long
history
in
stage
productions.
To
have
her
selected
as
an
ambassador
of
public education is just a wonderful achievement and I wanted to congratulate her on that.
Andrew
Castles
would
be
well
known
to
many
in
the
arts
community
as
a
percussionist
and
music
educator
extraordinaire
including
with
a
number
of
schools
around
the
Hobart
area.
The
production
crew
-
Christy
Baker,
Nicole
Ottrey
who
was
the
costume
co-coordinator.
I
had
the
pleasure
of
having
a
quick
chat
with
her
and
the
corners
that
they
cut
in
order
to
come
up
with
the
wonderful
costumes
and
the
major
expense
was
the
make
up
on
the
night.
David
has
listed
the
number of others on the production crew.
I
wanted
to
add
my
thoughts
about
the
show
players.
In
particular,
Paul
Dellas
as
Gomez
had
a
faultless
accent
that
never
broke
all
night.
Bryce
Tollard-Williams'
Pugsley
had
a
dark,
brooding
look
about
him
that
was
just
infectious
and
a
joy.
But
Uncle
Fester
played
by
Jacob
Golding,
I
would
have
to
say,
was
more
brooding
still.
The
fun
that
they
had
in
the
love
affair
that
he
developed
with
the
moon
was
a
joy
to
watch.
The
leads,
Sophie
Williams,
Alexander
Tye,
and
Elowen
Killion-Bradley,
playing
Morticia
on
the
night,
had
such
strong
voices.
Together
with
the
entire
cast
and
ensemble
it
was
a
thoroughly
enjoyable
experience.
I
encourage
anybody
who
can
get
along
to
see
the
production
by
this
Saturday
night.
I
promise
that
you
will
not
be
disappointed.
Congratulations to them all.
Miandetta Primary School - Zac Sallese Mural
[6.54 p.m.]
(Braddon
-
Minister
for
Education
and
Training)
-
Mr
Deputy
Speaker,
I
rise
tonight
to
speak
about
how
I
was
honoured
to
have
recently
visited
Miandetta
Primary
School.
I
was
invited
there
by
the
Student
Council
members,
Lyla
and
Ari,
at
the
school
to
view
a
mural that was created in memory of Zac Sallese, a student who passed away last year.
Zac
attended
the
Miandetta
Primary
School
in
Devonport
from
kindergarten
until
year
5.
He
suffered
from
health
problems
from
a
very
young
age
but
was
not
diagnosed
with
brain
and
spinal
tumours
until
he
was
nine
years
old.
The
principal
of
Miandetta
Primary
School,
Mandy
Beard,
said
that
Zac
was
a
dear
member
of
the
school
community
and
the
student
council
and
the
council
wanted
to
remember
and
honour
Zac
in
some
way.
The
council
decided
to
do
that
by
creating
a
farm-themed mural adjacent to the school garden which was an area that Zac loved to visit.
To
help
fund
the
mural
the
student
council
held
socials,
a
careers
day
and
other
functions.
Zac
loved
gardens
and
he
particularly
loved
farms
and
farm
animals,
so
it
was
suggested
they
do
a
mural
and
call
it
'Zac's
Farm'.
The
mural
was
painted
by
Mrs
Fereleth
Lee
and
contains
cows,
sheep,
alpacas,
pigs,
tractors
and
farmhouses
and
was
very
reflective
of
Zac
and
serves
as
a
happy
reminder
of
him
that
makes
us
all
smile.
It
was
quite
a
moving
experience.
If
anyone
gets
to
Miandetta
Primary
School
in
their
travels,
and
please
do,
you
will
be
taken
there.
It
was
wonderful
to
experience
that
and
I
was
very
moved
by
the
amount
of
thought
and
care
Miandetta
Primary
School
staff
and
students
had
taken
to
ensure
that
young
Zac
would
be
remembered
as
a
brave and enduring student who had a wonderful sense of humour.
I
particularly
make
mention
-
and
all
members
would
agree
with
this
-
that
our
schools
are
a
reflection
of
our
community
values
in
many
respects.
The
Miandetta
Primary
School
community
is
to
be
congratulated
for
their
care
and
dedication
to
their
young
people.
I
encourage
everyone
to
visit
and
pay
tribute
to
Zac
and
his
family
and
the
young
leaders
and
staff
of
the
school
community.
I
agree
with
and
endorse
all
the
comments
made
by
the
member
for
Franklin,
Mr
Byrne,
and
Ms
Standen
and
I
am
sure
Mrs
Petrusma
would
also
agree.
We
were
all
there
on
opening
night
and
it
was
fantastic.
I
will
not
repeat
everything
that
has
been
said
but
it
was
just
a
thoroughly
enjoyable
and
relaxing
evening
with
the
very
talented
people
involved
in
The
Addams
Family
-
cast
and
crew.
Congratulations
to
Rosny
College
for
that
wonderful
event.
I
particularly
mention
Darren
Sangwell.
I
met
him
a
few
years
ago
because
he
was
successful
in
achieving
a
Hardie
Fellowship
and
travelled
to
the
US
to
study.
It
was
only
the
next
day
when
Ms
White
and
I
were
down
at
Tasman
District
School
for
the
opening
of
the
new
development
down
there
when
Darren
rocked
up
and
took
a
year
11/12
class
as
part
of
the
extension
program.
He
is
a
very
busy
person
who travels quite extensively -
Mr O'Byrne
- He's also a Blues Brother.
-
Yes,
I
have
read
a
bit
about
him
since
that
time.
He
is
a
very
talented
person and a great educator and we should be very proud of him.
The House adjourned at 6.58 p.m.