Document Search | Parliament of Tasmania

PARLIAMENT OF TASMANIA

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

REPORT OF DEBATES

Tuesday 10

November 2020

REVISED EDITION

Tuesday 10

November 2020

The

Speaker,

Ms

Hickey

,

took

the

Chair

at

10

a.m.,

acknowledged

the

Traditional

People and read Prayers.

STATEMENT BY PREMIER

End of Life Choices (Voluntary Assisted Dying) Bill - Proposed Legislation

[10.02 a.m.]

Mr

GUTWEIN

(Bass

-

Premier)

-

Madam

Speaker,

the

issue

of

whether

to

give

terminally

ill

people

the

legal

right

to

end

their

life

-

and

under

what

circumstances

-

should

be

handled

with

the

utmost

care

and

compassion.

The

member

for

Mersey,

Mike

Gaffney's

private

member's

bill,

End

of

Life

Choices

(Voluntary

Assisted

Dying),

will

have

its

third

reading

today

in

the

upper

House.

Without

reflecting

on

that

process,

should

it

pass

a

third

reading today it will arrive in this place this week - possibly later today.

The

responsibility

for

this

legislation

passing

into

law

will

rest

with

this

House,

and

that

is

a

responsibility

that

places

considerable

weight

on

all

members

in

this

place.

Should

this

legislation

become

law,

it

is

incumbent

on

all

of

us

to

ensure

it

is

the

best

law

possible

and

affords real protections for the most vulnerable in our community.

I

have

given

this

matter

considerable

thought,

and

have

spoken

in

recent

days

with

the

Leaders

of

the

two

Opposition

parties

and

also

with

the

Independent

member

for

Clark

about

the

approach

I

will

outline

to

the

House

this

morning.

I

have

also

spoken

this

morning

with

Mr Gaffney and outlined the Government's approach to debate on this bill.

It

is

our

intention

that

the

legislation

will

be

brought

on

for

debate

this

year

at

the

end

of

the

Budget

session,

and

the

House

will

proceed

with

the

second

reading

debate

on

3

December.

To

provide

an

opportunity

for

all

members

to

contribute

and

express

their

intent

on

the

legislation,

the

second

reading

debate

will

occur

before

parliament

rises

this

year

and

the

parliament

will

sit

an

additional

day

on

Friday

4

December

to

enable

that

to

occur.

Should

the

bill

pass

its

second

reading

in

the

lower

House,

and

to

ensure

sufficient

time

is

provided

through

the

Committee

stage,

with

the

agreement

of

this

House

the

bill

will

become

the

first

order

of

business

for

this

House

when

parliament

resumes

in

late

February

or

early

March next year.

In

the

intervening

period,

so

that

all

members

can

be

fully

informed

on

the

bill,

which

has

had

a

number

of

amendments

in

the

other

place,

Government

agencies

will

be

tasked

with

providing

advice

on

the

implementation

of

the

bill

-

not

the

policy

intent.

This

information

will be provided to all members prior to the committee stage.

Just

as

other

jurisdictions

have

utilised

independent

processes

to

ensure

such

legislation

is

the

most

robust

it

can

be,

I

have

requested

the

University

of

Tasmania

to

establish

an

independent

review

panel

to

consider

the

amended

legislation,

and

provide

their

views

on

how

the

legislation

compares

to

similar

laws

in

other

states

and

around

the

world,

focusing

on

the

protections

in

place

for

the

most

vulnerable

in

our

society.

I

have

also

requested

UTAS

to

provide

a

view

from

the

review

panel

in

terms

of

end

of

life

considerations

such

as

palliative

care

and

advance

care

directives

our

current

framework,

and

what

other

steps

could

be considered prior to the legislation taking effect should it pass this place.

The

UTAS

process

will

remain

independent

of

Government.

However,

I

have

requested

that

the

review

panel

include

experts

in

law,

health

and

the

social

sciences

and

I

anticipate

the

review

panel

will

provide

its

findings

for

all

members

of

parliament

in

late

February

It

is

the

Government's

intention

that

the

Committee

stage

of

the

bill

will

commence

shortly

thereafter

as

the

first

order

of

business

upon

the

resumption

of

parliament,

subject to the agreement of this House.

It

will

be

up

to

UTAS

to

manage

its

own

processes.

However,

I

also

expect

that,

since

the

bill

was

amended

during

its

passage

in

the

upper

House,

key

stakeholders

should

be

able

to

make

submissions

to

that

process

now

the

legislation

is

being

presented

in

its

final

form

to

this House.

It

is

not

the

Government's

intention

to

delay

implementation

of

the

legislation

by

postponing

it

to

the

Committee

stage

to

early

As

members

would

be

aware,

the

upper

House

amended

this

bill

to

extend

the

time

for

implementation

of

the

legislation

from

12

months

to

18

months.

It

is

my

intention

that,

should

the

bill

pass

its

second

reading

in

this

place

early

an

amendment

to

the

bill

be

moved

that

the

effective

start

date

for

the

18-month period be the passing of the bill through the second reading, should that occur.

It

is

the

Government's

intention

to

ensure

that

if

this

bill

passes

that

Tasmania

will

have

the

most

robust

laws

possible.

I

hope

that

the

steps

outlined

today

will

provide

all

members

with

the

opportunity

for

a

more

informed

and

considered

debate

on

this

significant

and

complex issue.

Liberal

members,

as

previously

announced,

will

be

afforded

a

conscience

vote

on

the

legislation.

I

urge

all

members

of

the

House

to

take

a

respectful

approach

to

all

views

that

will be shared through this important debate.

[10.06 a.m.]

Ms

WHITE

(Lyons

-

Leader

of

the

Opposition)

-

Madam

Speaker,

I

acknowledge

and

thank

everyone

who

has

contributed

to

the

debate

on

this

matter

so

far.

Overwhelmingly,

it

has

been

respectful

and

thoughtful.

I

particularly

recognise

the

work

of

Mike

Gaffney

and

members

in

the

other

place

for

their

efforts

to

debate

the

bill.

The

topic

of

voluntary

assisted

dying

is

intensely

personal,

and

I

pay

tribute

to

everyone

who

has

shared

their

own

story

and

made time to contact MPs to convey their views on this bill.

I

am

disappointed,

and

the

Labor

Party

is

disappointed,

that

we

will

not

be

able

to

finalise

this

bill

and

pass

it

this

year.

It

was

our

hope

and

expectation

that

we

would

be

able

to.

I

appreciate

and

thank

the

Premier

for

the

call

that

he

made

late

yesterday

to

update

me

on

the

announcement

that

he

has

now

publicly

made.

Having

discussed

the

matters

with

my

colleagues

this

morning,

we

are

of

the

view

that

the

delay

in

finalising

this

bill

will

cause

unnecessary

hurt

and

confusion

for

those

across

our

community

who

are

desperate

to

see

laws

passed.

I

apologise

to

them

that

the

parliament

will

not

be

able

to

finalise

voluntary

assisted

dying laws this year.

To

Jac,

Nat

and

to

countless

others

who

have

been

at

the

forefront

of

this

campaign,

I

am

sorry

there

will

be

no

final

outcome

this

year.

However,

these

laws

will

pass

because

the

time

has

come

for

us

to

respect

the

wishes

of

people

to

make

their

own

choice

about

how

they

end their life with dignity and in peace.

[10.07 a.m.]

Ms

O'CONNOR

(Clark

-

Leader

of

the

Greens)

-

Madam

Speaker,

I

acknowledge

that

the

Premier

has

put

a

lot

of

thought

into

how

the

House

will

deal

with

this

complex

but

necessary

legislative

reform,

and

I

appreciate

the

conversation

we

have

had.

I

share

the

frustration

and

the

sadness

of

those

many

Tasmanians

who

have

been

advocating

for

this

reform for such a long time.

There

are

many

in

this

House

who

would

prefer

that

the

legislation

was

debated

and

passed

this

year,

but

we

understand

that

is

not

possible.

I

also

apologise

to

all

those

people

who

have

worked

so

hard,

including

Jack

and

Nat

and

Mike

Gaffney,

that

the

passage

of

this

bill will be delayed.

This

is

a

necessary

and

compassionate

reform

to

our

legal

system.

For

those

members

who

watched

the

upper

House

debate,

we

recognise

that

members

of

the

upper

House

applied

themselves

to

this

debate

with

great

thought

and

care,

and

went

through

the

legislation

rigorously

and

made

a

series

of

amendments

-

only

a

small

handful

of

which

are

substantive

in regard to the effect they will have on the bill's implementation.

When

we

see

the

amended

bill,

either

later

today

or

this

week,

members

of

the

House

of

Assembly

will

have

an

opportunity,

for

the

first

time,

to

see

the

amended

bill

as

a

whole.

We

will

then

have

the

best

part

of

a

month

to

five

weeks

to

go

through

that

legislation

while

we

are

doing

the

rest

of

our

work,

and

to

make

sure

that

when

we

come

back

in

here

to

debate

the

second

reading

speech,

we

are

ready

and

that

we

put

the

people

of

Tasmania

first

in

our

contributions.

I

believe

that

the

legislation

will

pass.

I

believe

it

will

be

a

new

day

in

Tasmania.

Victoria

and

Western

Australia

already

have

voluntary

assisted

dying

schemes

in

place.

Queensland

is

moving

down

this

path.

Increasingly,

people

recognise

that

this

is

a

necessary

reform

and

that

it

comes

from

a

place

of

deep,

deep

compassion

and

respect

for

human dignity and autonomy.

Dr

Woodruff

and

I

look

forward

to

this

debate

and

to

casting

our

votes

for

a

safe

legal

framework for voluntary assisted dying in Tasmania.

[10.10 a.m.]

Ms

OGILVIE

(Clark)

-

Madam

Speaker,

I

thank

the

Premier,

as

I

believe

he

has

chosen

a

very

pragmatic

way

forward.

This

is

an

issue

of

the

deepest

importance

to

many

people

in

this

Chamber.

I,

too,

would

like

to

express

my

view

that

the

Legislative

Council

has

done

a

power

of

work.

I

suspect

the

community

mood

has

been

exemplified

during

that

debate.

To

my

understanding,

Premier,

the

proposal

that

you

have

for

the

process

and

the

way

forward

does

not

affect

the

start

date.

That

was

maybe

misunderstood.

My

understanding

is

that

these

two

things

will

happen

in

parallel.

I

support

the

review.

It

is

really

important

in

this

place

where

we

do

have

voices

that

may

not

be

in

the

majority

at

all

times,

we

need

to

be

able

to

come

to

the

table

in

an

independent

way.

I

support

that.

We

all

have

the

deepest

compassion

and

care

for

everybody

who

is

going

through

end

of

life.

In

the

last

couple

of

weeks

I

have

had

the

experience

of

one

of

my

relatives

dying,

so

it

is

top

of

mind

for

me

right

now.

It

is

essential

as

a

diligent

Government,

as

a

diligent

parliament,

that

a

proper

consultation

process

happens.

It

is

acceptable

that

happens

in

parallel

with

other

moves.

All

perspectives

are

welcome

at

the

table

of

government

and

at

the

table

of

democracy.

All

voices

ought

to

be

able

to

be

heard

fairly.

That

is

the

trajectory

we

are

on

here,

so,

I

thank

you, Premier.

QUESTIONS

Small Business Hardship Grant - Publication of Recipients

Ms WHITE

to PREMIER, Mr GUTWEIN

[10.12 a.m.]

The

Public

Accounts

Committee

has

made

it

clear

that

it

believes

that

a

list

of

recipients

of

the

$26

million

Small

Business

Hardship

Grant

should

be

released

publicly.

The

chair

of

the

Public

Accounts

Committee,

Ivan

Dean,

has

made

it

clear

this

issue

is

not

going

away.

He said -

The

committee

is

of

the

position

that

the

information

should

be

provided

publicly.

If

that

does

not

occur

the

committee

will

obviously

consider

the

response

received

from

the

minister

and

we

would

have

further

discussions

on where we would go from there.

The

only

advice

you

are

relying

on

to

avoid

releasing

the

information

is

from

the

very

department

that

administered

the

scheme

-

the

same

scheme

that

has

been

roundly

criticised

as being unfair, confusing and inconsistent. Premier, what are you trying to hide?

ANSWER

Madam

Speaker,

I

reject

the

assertion

in

that

question

from

the

Leader

of

the

Opposition.

As

a

starting

point,

the

secretary

of

the

Department

of

State

Growth,

Mr

Kim

Evans, was interviewed and publicly stated -

We

have

got

businesses,

many

of

whom

are

still

under

stress,

some

of

whom,

sadly,

are

suffering

from

mental

health

issues

and

to

aid

their

recovery

I

don't

believe

it

is

in

the

public

interest

to

have

their

details

published.

That

is

different

from

having

the

operations

of

these

schemes

fully scrutinised appropriately by the relevant bodies.

These

schemes

can

be

scrutinised

fully

by

the

relevant

bodies.

The

Public

Accounts

Committee

has

all

the

details.

The

Auditor-General

is

reviewing

that

process.

It

appears

that

those

on

the

other

side

want

to

release

a

list

and

allow

a

public

shaming

to

occur

of

businesses,

to

pit

small

businesses

against

each

other,

to

pit

Tasmanians

against

each

other.

The

Public

Accounts

Committee

has

that

information

and

they

can

go

through

it

chapter

and

verse. In fact, they had more information than what I had seen on this.

Mr O'Byrne

- That is not the point.

Mr

GUTWEIN

-

The

point

is

you

want

to

put

small

businesses

under

the

microscope.

You

want

to

pit

small

businesses

against

each

other

at

a

time

when

these

businesses

have

had

to

face

the

most

difficult

of

circumstances,

the

most

horrific

of

circumstances,

where

their

livelihoods were taken away from them as the result of the need to deal with a pandemic.

The

Public

Accounts

Committee

has

that

information.

I

cannot

understand

why

they

want to push that into the public domain and publicly shame businesses -

Members

interjecting.

Madam SPEAKER

- Order, please.

Mr

GUTWEIN

-

The

advice

is

very

clear

from

the

secretary

of

the

department.

I

will

finish

where

I

started.

The

secretary

has

said

that

we

have

businesses,

many

of

whom

are

still

under stress, some of whom, sadly, are suffering from mental health issues -

Ms O'Connor -

He is not a mental health expert.

Mr

GUTWEIN

-

You

have

no

qualifications

in

terms

of

mental

health,

but

even

you

can

tell

when

you

are

talking

to

a

business

that

is

under

stress.

I

am

certain

of

that.

I

am

certain that even you would be able to form a view as to whether a business is under stress.

Let

me

finish

where

I

was

going

to.

We

have

businesses,

many

of

whom

are

still

under

stress,

some

of

whom,

sadly,

are

suffering

from

mental

health

issues

to

aid

their

recovery.

I

do

not

believe

it

is

in

the

public

interest

to

have

their

details

published.

That

is

what

the

secretary has said and I have accepted that advice.

Small Business Hardship Grant - Publication of Recipients

Ms WHITE

to PREMIER,

Mr GUTWEIN

[10.17 a.m.]

The

secrecy

surrounding

the

small

business

hardship

grants

program

is

unnecessary.

It

stinks.

You

have

made

what

should

have

been

a

routine

disclosure

into

something

controversial. Former Liberal chief of staff, Brad Stansfield, has called you out. He said -

There

is,

of

course,

absolutely

no

good

reason

why

this

information

should

not be released. In fact, it is standard practice.

The editor of the

Mercury

, Jenna Cairney, was even more scathing -

The

Tasmanian

Government

has

a

well-documented

problem

with

transparency.

Whether

it

is

electoral

donations,

Right

to

Information

requests,

or

in

the

latest

case,

the

recipients

of

business

grants,

the

default

position is always secrecy.

You

have

implied

that

there

is

some

shame

in

businesses

applying

for

assistance

when

it

is

clear

that

no-one

is

begrudging

businesses

receiving

support

in

the

middle

of

a

pandemic.

Why

have

you

unfairly

dragged

all

recipients

of

the

Small

Business

Hardship

Grant

program

through the mud simply to avoid scrutiny of your Government's decisions?

ANSWER

Madam

Speaker,

I

thank

the

Leader

of

the

Opposition

for

that

question.

Again,

she

raises

the

issue

of

secrecy.

The

shadow

treasurer

has

the

information.

The

member

raises

Brad Stansfield - I hardly ever listened to him when he was here anyway -

Members

interjecting.

Madam SPEAKER

- Order, please.

Mr

GUTWEIN

-

I

am

hardly

going

to

take

his

advice

from

the

stands

now.

He

is

not

in this. He is sitting in the stands. He is not out in the arena.

The

Auditor-General

is

reviewing

this.

The

Public

Accounts

Committee

has

been

provided

with

the

information.

We

have

been

transparent.

They

have

the

list.

The

Auditor-General

is

going

through

these

processes.

Under

the

Financial

Management

Act

we

have

met

our

obligations

under

the

law.

I

have

been

provided

with

advice

that

it

may

not

be

in

the

best

interests

of

people

to

release

this

information.

I

take

my

position

responsibly.

I

try

to

act

as

responsibly

as

I

possibly

can,

and

on

the

basis

of

that

advice

that

it

would

not

be

in

the best interest to release that list widely, I have taken and accepted that advice.

As

I

have

said,

we

have

provided

that

information

to

the

Public

Accounts

Committee,

who can pore over that and form their own view. If they form a view -

Members

interjecting.

Madam SPEAKER

- Order, this is most unchivalrous.

Mr

GUTWEIN

-

Madam

Speaker,

if

the

Public

Accounts

Committee

forms

a

view

that

there

are

matters

that

need

to

be

further

explored,

there

are

other

mechanisms

available

to

them.

Their

default

position

is

that

they

want

to

release

it

publicly

and

we

have

been

advised

that

would

not

be

in

the

best

interests

of

some

of

those

businesses.

We

have

accepted

that advice.

I

say

to

members:

allow

the

processes

to

go

ahead.

If

the

PAC

believes

there

has

been

some

form

of

maladministration

or

malfeasance

or

some

other

issue,

they

can

use

the

processes

available

to

them,

but

do

not

sit

there

when

you

have

the

list

and

your

default

position

is

simply

to

play

politics

with

it

and

release

this

publicly

when

we

have

heard

that

this may not be in the best interests of businesses.

Launceston General Hospital - Commission of Inquiry into Child Abuse Claims

Dr WOODRUFF to MINISTER for HEALTH, Ms COURTNEY

[10.22 a.m.]

Parents,

former

patients

and

staff

at

the

Launceston

General

Hospital

are

still

struggling

to

come

to

the

terms

with

the

news

that

six

sick

children

were

sexually

abused

for

nearly

two

decades

by

a

male

nurse.

My

office

has

been

contacted

by

deeply

concerned

current

and

former

staff,

worried

a

pervasive

culture

of

blame-shifting

is

preventing

uncovering

how

our

health system failed young children and enabled this abuser's behaviour to continue.

Your

independent

investigation

has

limited

terms

of

reference.

It

only

examines

THS

systems

and

does

not

go

to

hospital

culture

or

individual

actions

or

cases,

which

does

nothing

to

allay

their

concerns.

This

abuse

being

investigated

occurred

over

18

years

at

the

LGH

but

the

man

in

question

was

also

employed

at

the

Ashley

Youth

Detention

Centre,

on

the

Spirit

s

of Tasmania

and was a long-time volunteer for the Northern Tasmanian Netball Association.

There

is

evidence

of

prior

complaints

made

about

this

individual

that

went

nowhere.

As Emily Shepherd from the ANMF said:

We

have

to

get

everything

out

in

the

opening.

That

is

what

is

owed

to

those

who

may

have

suffered

abuse

or

who

have

fears

for

those

they

love.

We

must make sure this can never happen again.

Will

you

listen

to

the

ANMF

and

your

staff

at

the

LGH

and

establish

a

commission

of

inquiry?

ANSWER

Madam

Speaker,

I

thank

the

member

for

Franklin

for

her

question

on

what

is

a

very

serious

matter

and

I

know

that

all

members

in

the

House

share

my

absolute

concern

around

this and particularly around the allegations that have been raised.

I

want

to

be

very

clear

that

the

safety

of

children

in

our

care

is

our

absolute

priority.

We

have

announced

that

an

independent

investigation

will

be

commissioned

and

we

are

going

to

ensure that this occurs appropriately.

The

charges

laid

and

the

allegations

that

have

been

made

in

various

forums

against

the

deceased

former

nurse

are

abhorrent

and

we

have

acknowledged

the

community's

very

serious

concern

about

this

matter.

We

have

finalised

and

released

the

terms

of

reference

for

the independent investigation and the outcomes will be released to the public.

Maree

Norton

has

been

appointed

to

undertake

this

important

work.

She

has

strong

experience

across

a

range

of

legal

areas

and

the

Department

of

Justice

will

provide

administrative

support

for

the

conduct

of

the

investigation.

The

terms

of

reference

are

now

available

on

the

Department

of

Justice's

website

and

details

regarding

how

members

of

the

public will be able to provide information to the investigation will be outlined shortly.

We

know

this

is

a

very

difficult

time

for

many

in

our

community

and

in

the

Launceston

region

in

particular.

We

are

committed

to

supporting

anyone

who

comes

forward

with

information

and

the

Government

will

take

any

necessary

action.

I

can

assure

the

Tasmanian

community

and

members

of

this

parliament

that

the

Government

is

committed

to

ensuring

the

independent

investigation

is

fully

empowered

to

examine

all

and

any

matters

relating

to

this

issue.

I

have

given

my

assurance

to

the

ANMF

that

the

terms

of

reference

are

designed

to

capture

a

broad

scope

of

investigation.

The

terms

specifically

say

the

investigation

will

address

any

other

matter

relevant

to

the

systems

of

Tasmanian

government

agencies

deployed

in

responses

to

historical

allegations

of

child

sexual

abuse

and

that

the

investigator

identifies

in the course of this investigation as warranting investigation and discussion.

These

terms

were

developed

in

consultation

with

the

secretary

of

DPAC

and

the

secretary

of

Justice

and

included

legal

advice

as

well

as

engagement

with

the

investigator.

The

investigation

is

being

handled

at

arm's

length

from

Government

and

the

investigator

will

be

empowered

to

conduct

their

investigation

as

they

see

fit.

We

are

committed

to

getting

this

right

and

we

are

taking

these

matters

extremely

seriously.

Importantly,

the

outcomes

of

this

investigation will be released to the public.

The

secretary

of

the

Department

of

Health,

the

Premier

and

I

have

all

been

resolute

in

our

commitment

that

these

matters

are

brought

to

light.

Anybody

with

information

continues

to

be

actively

encouraged

to

come

forward

and

people

will

be

supported

to

provide

information

to

the

investigation.

If

there

is

any

evidence

of

criminal

behaviour

uncovered

during

the

course

of

the

investigation,

these

will

be

referred

to

the

police

or

any

other

body

necessary.

The

independent

investigation

will

be

fully

empowered

to

recommend

any

appropriate next steps.

In

the

question

from

the

member

she

referred

to

comments

made

this

morning

by

Ms

Shepherd

around

the

fact

that

we

should

never

have

this

happen

again

and

I

think

all

members

in

this

place

will

join

me.

I

remain

absolutely

committed

to

this.

I

remain

committed

to

the

members

of

the

Launceston

community,

the

current

staff,

the

current

patients,

the

former

staff

and

the

former

patients.

I

look

forward

to

this

inquiry

being

fully

investigated so our community can have comfort about the safety of our children.

COVID-19 - Business Recovery and Job Creation

Mr TUCKER

to PREMIER, Mr GUTWEIN

[10.28 a.m.]

Can

you

please

outline

to

the

House

why

it

is

important

to

support

Tasmanian

businesses

to

help

create

jobs,

rebuild

confidence

and

to

help

our

community

to

recover

from

the impacts of the pandemic?

ANSWER

Madam

Speaker,

I

thank

Mr

Tucker

for

his

question

and

his

interest

in

this

very

important

matter.

The

pandemic

has

had

an

immense

impact

on

our

way

of

life

and

our

community.

It

has

also

had

an

impact

on

our

economy,

but

we

are

in

a

good

place.

We

have

every

reason

to

be

optimistic

about

our

future

as

we

work

to

rebuild

and

seize

the

opportunities ahead.

The

recent

CommSec

state

of

the

state

report

for

the

third

report

in

a

row

ranked

Tasmania

as

the

best

performing

economy

in

the

nation.

Tasmania

came

out

on

top

in

five

of

those

economic

indicators

and

had

the

highest

growth

on

a

decade

average

for

population,

equipment

investment,

housing

finance,

dwelling

starts

and

retail

trade.

Population

growth

was

up

89

per

cent,

home

loans

up

75

per

cent,

retail

spending

up

11.4

per

cent,

dwelling

start-ups

9.5

per

cent,

and

equipment

investment

up

15.2

per

cent

on

the

decade

average.

There

are

more

Tasmanians

employed

right

now

than

this

time

last

year

-

one

of

just

two

jurisdictions in the country to have that level of employment growth.

This

report

is

proof

that

because

we

entered

the

pandemic

from

a

position

of

strength,

with

one

of

the

strongest

economies

in

the

country

and

no

net

debt,

we

were

able

to

deliver

the

largest

economic

and

social

support

package

in

the

nation

as

a

proportion

of

our

economy

at

well

over

$1

billion.

Our

support

has

worked.

It

has

helped

to

sustain

our

economy.

Our

plan

to

rebuild

is

delivering

results.

Building

approvals

grew

18.8

per

cent

and

construction

loans

increased

21.9

per

cent

in

September.

Home

loans

are

35.5

per

cent

higher

and

retail

trade is up over 14 per cent, again higher than September last year.

We

have

plans

to

do

more,

such

as

2300

more

homes

as

part

of

our

$3.1

billion

construction

blitz

to

rebuild

the

state.

We

are

also

working

with

the

federal

government.

I

have

spoken

with

the

federal

Treasurer

and

recently

written

to

the

federal

government

to

encourage

it

to

extend

the

very

successful

HomeBuilder

program

beyond

31

December

2020.

My

leader

provided

advice

that

should

the

Australian

Government

extend

that

program,

then

the

Tasmanian

Government

would

also

extend

the

Tasmanian

HomeBuilder

grant

for

the

corresponding

period.

This

would

enable

the

crucial

support

this

program

provides

to

the

Tasmanian

construction

industry

to

strengthen

the

Tasmanian

economy

and

support

jobs

on

an ongoing basis.

We

are

committed

to

continuing

this

record

of

growing

jobs,

growing

our

economy

and

providing

businesses

with

certainty

and

confidence

that

they

need

to

grow,

hire

and

train

workers. They are the lifeblood of our recovery.

This

week's

Budget

will

include

an

investment

of

over

$22

million

to

significantly

boost

jobs

for

apprentices,

trainees

and

youth

employees.

We

will

extend

the

current

payroll

tax

rebate

for

all

youth

employees

for

a

further

18

months.

We

will

extend

the

current

payroll

tax rebate for apprentices and trainees for a further 12 months.

We

will

extend

both

rebates

to

all

industry

sectors.

We

will

extend

the

Targeted

Apprentice

and

Trainee

Grant

for

Small

Business

to

any

small

business

who

employs

an

apprentice

or

a

trainee

until

30

June

2022.

These

programs

are

already

supporting

nearly

4000

apprentices,

trainees

and

youth

employees.

With

these

measures,

we

expect

that

they

will support a further 4000.

We

entered

the

pandemic

from

a

position

of

strength

-

nothing

could

be

more

true

-

a

strong

economy

and

a

strong

budget

position.

Now

is

the

time

to

use

that

strength,

to

use

our

strong

balance

sheet

as

an

economic

stabiliser

and

as

an

economic

driver,

to

provide

as

many

Tasmanians

and

Tasmanian

businesses

with

the

support

they

need

to

regain

their

lives

and

their livelihoods. Now is not the time to take a step backwards.

On

Thursday,

Tasmanians

can

expect

a

budget

for

our

times.

It

will

underpin

and

generate

jobs

and

provide

the

certainty

and

confidence

that

our

community

needs.

It

is

how

we will recover and reinvigorate our economy while we rebuild a stronger Tasmania.

It

would

be

remiss

of

me,

once

again,

not

to

call

on

the

Opposition

to

release

an

alternative

budget

this

week:

not

some

form

of

alternative

that

is

linked

to

some

form

of

glossy brochure with some jobs in it. Release an alternative budget.

I

am

certain

the

Greens

will

do

one.

Kooky

as

it

will

be,

at

least

they

have

the

courage

of

their

convictions

to

explain

to

the

Tasmanian

people

what

they

stand

for,

and

importantly

how

they

would

pay

for

it.

Labor

has

that

opportunity

this

week.

I

hope

that

the

shadow

treasurer does not, once again, squib that opportunity.

COVID-19 - Access to Vaccines

Ms OGILVIE

to PREMIER, Mr GUTWEIN

[10.33 a.m.]

The

coronavirus

has

ravaged

our

planet

and

it

continues

to

rage

in

many

hot

spots

around

the

globe.

As

we

cautiously

open

our

borders,

our

minds

are

now

turning

to

what

comes

next.

Global

medical

experts

have

hailed

a

dramatic

coronavirus

breakthrough

today,

predicting

normal

life

may

return

by

Easter.

Pfizer

has

announced

its

vaccine

was

more

than

90 per cent effective, wildly exceeding initial expectations.

Every

Tasmanian,

no

matter

what

their

economic

circumstance,

should

have

access

to

the

vaccine.

This

will

be

the

largest

global

inoculation

program

since

polio.

People

are

asking

what

arrangements

are

in

place

to

ensure

that

Tasmania

is

prioritised.

Tasmania

has

an

older

demographic.

All

the

actions

your

Government

has

taken

to

date

have

been

to

prioritise

the health and safety of Tasmanians.

Have

you

spoken

to

the

Prime

Minister

to

ensure

that

older

Tasmanians

will

be

prioritised

in

accessing

the

vaccine?

I

ask

the

question

of

you

because

it

has

some

budgetary

implications

but

if

you

wish

to

ask

one

of

your

other

ministers

to

answer

it,

I

am

very

comfortable with that as well.

ANSWER

Madam

Speaker,

I

thank

the

independent

member

for

Clark

for

her

question

and

her

interest in this.

Let

me

start

with

our

older

generation.

The

Prime

Minister

is

aware

of

the

vulnerabilities

that

Tasmania

has.

Throughout

my

engagement

with

National

Cabinet

I

have

made

it

clear

that

our

first

thought

has

been

to

protect

those

most

vulnerable.

We

have

an

older

and

more

vulnerable

population

than

any

other

jurisdiction

in

this

country.

That

was

the

reason

we

took

strong

action

early.

That

is

the

reason

that

we

were

the

first

to

move

on

cruise

ships.

That

was

the

reason

we

were

the

first

state

to

put

in

place

border

restrictions,

quickly

followed

by

other

jurisdictions

around

the

country.

Australia,

if

it

were

a

ship,

has

a

range

of

watertight

compartments

that

state

premiers

and

first

ministers

decided

they

could

tightly

wrap

up

and

ensure

their

communities

were

safe.

They

were

the

actions

we

took.

We

led

the

country with that.

Regarding

the

roll

out

of

the

vaccine,

what

is

positive

is

that

on

almost

a

daily

basis

we

are

hearing

more

positive

news

about

the

vaccine.

The

formal

advice

I

have

received

is

that

we

should

have

a

vaccine

available

within

the

first

quarter

of

A

point

I

have

made

in

discussions

at

a

national

level

is

that

Tasmania

has

a

good

reputation

for

rolling

out

vaccines.

The

vast

majority

of

our

population

accepts

vaccination.

We

have

a

very

low

level

of

anti-vaxxers.

We

have

demonstrated

with

flu

vaccines

in

the

past

that

we

can

mobilise

quickly and that we can roll vaccines out.

We

will

work

with

the

Australian

Government

in

steps

they

have

taken

and

the

arrangements

they

have

put

in

place

with

a

number

of

providers.

We

are

not

just

backing

one

horse

in

this

race.

As

soon

as

a

vaccine

is

ready,

the

state

will

be

ready

to

roll

that

vaccine

out

quickly,

targeting

where

we

can

those

most

vulnerable

but

ensuring

that

we

get

a

wide

coverage across the state as quickly as possible.

COVID-19 - International Arrivals and Quarantine Program

Ms WHITE

to PREMIER, Mr GUTWEIN

[10.37 a.m.]

The

Prime

Minister

has

told

Tasmanians

that

we

need

to

accept

our

fair

share

of

international

arrivals

leaving

destinations

around

the

world

to

come

home

in

the

wake

of

COVID-19.

Tasmanians

are

demanding

transparency

from

the

Government

about

what

this

arrangement

means

and

how

prepared

the

state

is

to

deal

with

potential

COVID-19

positive

cases.

Have

you

received

any

advice

about

the

percentage

of

these

arrivals

who

will

likely

be

COVID-19 positive?

ANSWER

Madam

Speaker,

I

thank

the

Leader

of

the

Opposition

for

her

question.

The

Prime

Minister

has

told

the

state

nothing.

What

I

have

said

publicly

over

the

past

couple

of

months

is

that

Tasmania

will

always

do

its

bit

for

the

country.

In

the

same

way

that

we

would

not

turn

our

back

on

Tasmanians

when

we

locked

our

borders

early

on

in

the

piece,

we

will

not

turn

our

back

on

helping

Australians,

some

of

whom

will

be

Tasmanians,

returning

from

some desperate circumstances around the world.

At

a

national

level

with

international

visitors

coming

back,

the

level

of

infection

has

been

around

3

per

cent.

Steps

have

been

put

in

place

to

ensure

that

number

is

driven

down

as

low

as

possible.

Any

international

visitor

that

comes

back

on

a

mercy

flight

must

have

a

COVID-19

test

before

they

get

on

that

flight.

They

are

also

provided

with

a

medical

review,

as I understand it, before they get on the flight.

We

have

run

a

successful

quarantine

program

in

Tasmania.

Communities

Tas

has

managed

that

program

exemplarily.

We

will

have

the

support

of

the

ADF

and

police.

They

will

manage

quarantine

in

Tasmania.

We

will

dot

every

'i'

and

cross

every

't'

regarding

best

practice for these people.

I

am

not

sure

if

the

Leader

of

the

Opposition

supports

us

bringing

Australians

back

home.

I

have

said

consistently,

we

will

not

turn

our

back

on

these

people.

They

are

in

desperate

circumstances.

They

are

Australian

citizens,

many

of

whom

have

worked

overseas

on

contract

and

their

contracts

have

ended.

They

have

had

no

opportunity

to

leave.

Unfortunately,

they

have

found

that

in

many

countries,

the

social

security

systems

provide

them with no support at all.

I

know

the

member

for

Clark,

Ms

Ogilvie,

has

been

dealing

with

a

number

of

these

people.

Everyone

boarding

the

plane

will

have

a

COVID-19

test

-

they

must

be

negative.

Everyone

will

have

a

health

review

before

they

board

the

plane.

That

will

ensure

the

chances

of

a

COVID-19

positive

person

being

caught,

is

maximised,

or

being

housed

in

our

quarantine is limited as much as possible.

The

update

I

received

last

night

indicated

there

were,

I

think,

10

positive

cases

across

the

country.

All

of

them

were

in

hotel

quarantine.

All

of

them

were

returning

travellers.

There

is

a

chance

that

we

will

see

a

COVID-19

test

in

one

of

our

hotels.

However,

I

am

confident

we

have

the

systems

in

place

to

ensure

we

can

manage

those

hotels

appropriately,

and to ensure we can manage those COVID-19 positive patients should they occur.

Budget 2020-21 - Mental Health System for Children and Adolescents

Mr

STREET

to

MINISTER

for

MENTAL

HEALTH

and

WELLBEING,

Mr

ROCKLIFF

[10.41 a.m.]

Can

you

update

the

House

on

how

the

upcoming

State

Budget

will

deliver

on

the

Government's

commitment

to

develop

a

more

user-friendly

and

integrated

mental

health

system for children and adolescents?

ANSWER

Madam

Speaker,

I

thank

the

member

for

Franklin,

Mr

Street,

for

his

question

and

his

longstanding interest in this matter and other mental health issues.

The

Government

has

a

plan

to

rebuild

a

stronger

Tasmania,

and

that

includes

strengthening

the

essential

services

Tasmanians

need

and

rely

on.

The

2020-2021

State

Budget

is

focused

on

recovery,

especially

in

our

community,

and

we

are

committed

to

building

a

contemporary,

integrated

model

of

mental

health

care

so

our

children

and

young

people can receive more holistic support at the right place and time.

We

acknowledge

there

are

longstanding

issues

and

gaps

within

our

Child

and

Adolescent

Mental

Health

Services

(CAMHS),

which

is

why

we

commissioned

a

review

last

year.

That

was

part

of

the

recommendations

of

the

Southern

Integration

Mental

Health

Taskforce Report commenced under the previous Health minister, minister Ferguson.

We

welcome

reform

to

CAMHS,

because

young

Tasmanians

deserve

nothing

less

than

the

best

possible

mental

health

supports

and

services.

The

review

is

key

part

of

the

Tasmanian

Mental

Health

Reform

Program

and

was

undertaken

by

independent

consultant

Professor

Brett

McDermott.

Professor

McDermott

has

expertise

in

child

and

adolescent

psychiatry

and

the

development

and

delivery

of

contemporary

CAMHS

elsewhere

in

Australia.

I

am

now

in

receipt

of

the

final

review

report,

which

has

found

that

despite

the

best

efforts

of

the

dedicated

and

skilled

CAMHS

staff,

the

current

system

is

overburdened

and

unable

to

respond

adequately

to

young

Tasmanians

with

the

most

challenging

and

complex

mental

health

needs.

The

system

is

inaccessible

to

those

needing

specialist

care,

inconsistent

around

the

state,

and

needs

significant,

systemic

and

structural

change,

together

with

additional investment to align with contemporary practice.

I

stress

this

is

not

a

reflection

on

the

hard

work

of

the

CAMHS

staff.

They

have

been

hampered

by

barriers

imposed

on

them

over

many

years

by

a

system

that

is

not

contemporary.

The review makes seven recommendations:

●

one statewide CAMHS service needs to be created;

●

CAMHS's

model

of

service

needs

to

better

reflect

the

Australian

National

Mental Health Strategy;

●

CAMHS

needs

to

embrace

a

range

of

model-of-care

service

reforms

to

make

service delivery more efficient, contemporary and cost-effective;

●

current

CAMHS

services

should

be

appropriately

funded,

to

provide

best

practice

interventions

for

consumers

with

severe

and

complex

needs

-

and

in

doing so providing stakeholders with the CAMHS expertise they require;

●

reform

of

CAMHS

should

be

supported

by

dedicated

CAMHS

management

structures and workforce initiatives;

●

mental

health

leadership

strongly

advocates

for

CAMHS

community

clinics

to be provided with suitable accommodation; and

●

reform

of

CAMHS

should

be

supported

by

an

increased

CAMHS

capacity

and service development evaluation and research.

The

Tasmanian

Government

accepts

all

the

recommendations,

and

we

are

taking

action

now

to

begin

implementing

what

is

a

long-term

vision

for

CAMHS.

The

Government's

response

-

which

I

will

have

more

to

say

on

later

today

-

gives

effect

to

the

review

recommendations,

and

captures

the

changes

required

to

reorientate

CAMHS.

One

example

is

improving

mental

health

services

for

children

in

out

of

home

care.

We

recognise

the

importance

of

a

dedicated

service

response

for

children

and

young

people

in

out

of

home

care.

My

colleague,

the

Minister

for

Human

Services,

Roger

Jaensch,

is

very

supportive

of

this approach and I thank him for his advocacy in this important area.

We

will

establish

the

first,

highly

specialised,

intensive

mental

health

intervention

and

consultation

service

for

children

and

young

people

on

an

interim

or

finalised

child

protection

order.

I

thank

everyone

involved

in

the

review

process.

We

are

commencing

this

fundamental

shift

in

the

delivery

of

CAMHS

straight

away,

with

phase

one

of

this

long-term

reform

funded in Thursday's Budget.

COVID-19 - Health Screening at Tasmanian Ports of Entry

Ms WHITE

to PREMIER, Mr GUTWEIN

[10.46 a.m.]

Tasmanians

have

made

enormous

sacrifices

to

achieve

the

enviable

position

that

we

are

in

today

with

no

confirmed

COVID-19

cases

for

months.

Thousands

of

people

have

lost

their

jobs,

businesses

have

gone

to

the

wall

and

all

Tasmanians

have

had

to

give

up

some

freedoms.

We

are

at

a

critical

stage

in

our

fight

against

the

virus

as

we

take

the

necessary

step

to

re-open

our

borders

to

mainland

states.

On

19

October

you

reassured

Tasmanians

that

appropriate

systems

were

in

place

to

screen

people

arriving

in

Tasmania.

You

said,

and

I

quote -

On

arrival

at

the

airport

or

sea

port

terminal

in

Tasmania

passengers

will

undergo

health

screening

including

temperature

checks

and

questions

regarding whether they have any symptoms.

Are

temperature

checks

for

passengers

mandatory,

and

can

you

guarantee

that

all

passengers entering Tasmania will be temperature checked?

ANSWER

Madam

Speaker,

I

thank

the

Leader

of

the

Opposition

for

her

question.

We

take

the

situation

with

our

borders

very

seriously.

When

I

spoke

with

the

Prime

Minister

on

Saturday

morning,

I

was

very

pleased

to

hear

that

although

he

had

flown

in

on

the

VIP

jet,

he

was

temperature checked and health screened when he entered the airport.

Ms O'Connor

- And we let him in anyway.

Mr

GUTWEIN

-

We

did

let

him

in.

It

was

very

positive

to

have

him

here.

I

enjoyed

working

with

Rob

Pennicott

on

Saturday

morning,

and

having

that

very

authentic

tourism

operator in Tasmania spruik the best of Tasmania to the national media. It was fantastic.

Health

screening

at

Tasmanian

ports

of

entry

commenced

on

31

August.

All

travellers

arriving

in

Tasmania

have

been

asked

to

answer

health

symptom

questions

and

have

a

temperature

check

as

part

of

the

COVID-19

measures.

The

health

screening

process

includes

the

completion

of

an

electronic

form

asking

public

health

generated

questions.

Arriving

passengers

receive

an

SMS

24

hours

prior

to

arrival

to

request

they

complete

the

electronic

health

screening

form.

Health

screening

is

focused

on

passenger

arrivals

at

Hobart,

Launceston,

Burnie,

King

Island

and

Flinders

Island

airports,

and

the

Spirit

of

Tasmania

terminal in Devonport. That is a standard protocol.

We

have

situations

at

the

airport

where

essential

travellers

are

coming

in,

but

my

understanding

at

this

stage

is

that

health

screening

is

there

for

all

passengers.

If

the

Leader

of

the

Opposition

has

an

example

of

a

person

not

being

screened

I

would

be

pleased

to

hear

it,

because my expectation is that everyone would be screened.

Future Source of Energy Generation

Ms O'CONNOR

to MINISTER for CLIMATE CHANGE, Mr GUTWEIN

[10.50 a.m.]

As

leader

of

our

state

and

minister

for

such

a

critical

portfolio,

you

have

a

responsibility

to

do

everything

you

can

to

help

secure

a

climate-safe

future.

This

was

never

going

to

be

easy,

but

it

is

the

job

you

signed

up

for.

Unfortunately,

instead

of

transitioning

away

from

climate

destructive

industries,

it

seems

your

Government

is

more

interested

in

opening

new

ones.

We

already

knew

the

Tasmanian

Liberal

Party

supports

a

local

thermal

coal

export

industry,

and

now

your

Minister

for

Energy

has

made

clear

he

wants

to

burn

native

forests

for

energy generation.

As

you

know,

because

we

wrote

to

you

with

the

detail,

energy

generation

via

biomass,

such

as

native

forest

products,

has

been

condemned

by

leading

scientists

for

its

'massive

climate

effects'.

Put

simply,

establishing

forest

furnaces

in

lutruwita/Tasmania

would

be

a

climate and biodiversity disaster.

Your

Energy

minister

wants

any

excuse

to

tear

down

more

native

forests,

but

we

do

not

think

you

agree

with

him

on

this

one.

No

Climate

Change

minister

serious

about

their

portfolio

would

even

contemplate

burning

native

forests

for

energy,

let

alone

condone

it.

Will

you

today

pull

your

minister

into

line

and

rule

out

the

burning

of

wood

and

other

products

from native forests as a future source of energy generation in lutruwita/Tasmania?

ANSWER

Madam

Speaker,

I

thank

the

Leader

of

the

Greens

for

that

question

and

her

interest

in

this

matter.

I

believe

she

acknowledged,

concerning

climate

change,

our

emissions

and

the

position we have at the moment, that Tasmania is doing very well -

Ms O'Connor

- Because of our forests.

Mr

GUTWEIN

-

We

can

both

agree

that

we

are

doing

well

-

four

years

in

a

row

with

zero net emissions, going brilliantly.

Ms

O'Connor

-

You

can

thank

the

Labor-Greens

government

for

that

-

the

Tasmanian

Forest Agreement.

Mr

GUTWEIN

-

We

are

going

brilliantly

and

I

am

very

proud

to

be

the

Climate

Change

minister

for

the

jurisdiction

in

this

country

that

is

not

only

leading

this

country

but

is

one of the world-leading climate change -

Ms O'Connor

- What about biomass?

Mr GUTWEIN

- jurisdictions in regard to actions.

Madam SPEAKER

- Order, please. I am struggling to hear.

Mr

GUTWEIN

-

I

know

we

have

a

difference

of

opinion

regarding

the

need

for

a

native forest hardwood industry -

Ms O'Connor

- Have you replied to the doctors yet? We're with the science.

Mr

GUTWEIN

-

Regarding

what

you

have

suggested,

you

are

completely

wrong,

completely off the page and the minister has recently written to you on this matter.

Ms O'Connor

- Yes, he said 'wood waste' in that letter.

Mr

GUTWEIN

-

Residues

are

a

lot

different

from

knocking

over

a

native

forest

to

put

into,

as

you

put

it,

'the

forest

furnaces'.

I

can

assure

you

that

is

not

going

to

occur.

It

is

simply more scaremongering from the Greens on this.

The

Government

has

been

consistent

and

we

have

always

intended

that

renewable

energy

targets

toward

the

TRET

would

be

based

on

solar,

water

and

wind.

The

harvesting

of

native

forests

specifically

for

renewable

energy

production

is

not

part

of

the

TRET.

We

announced

publicly

weeks

ago,

and

I

understand

the

member

was

briefed

last

week

by

the

minister's

office,

and

the

minister

wrote

to

you

yesterday

again

to

confirm

that

once

more

that

what is in the TRET is solar, water and wind.

Ms O'Connor

- Have you read the letter? Did you read it?

Madam SPEAKER

- Order, Ms O'Connor.

Mr

GUTWEIN

-

To

ensure

that

the

Leader

of

the

Greens

and

this

parliament

are

comfortable

with

what

we

are

proposing,

we

will

be

ensuring

that

any

new

renewable

energy

source

to

be

declared

by

this

Minister

for

Energy

or

a

future

minister

for

energy,

will

be

through a disallowable instrument, giving the parliament -

Ms

O'Connor

-

You're

welcome.

That

was

our

proposal

and

good

on

you

for

accepting

it.

Madam SPEAKER

- Order, Ms O'Connor.

Mr GUTWEIN

- So we are on the same page on that one?

Ms O'Connor

- About that, yes.

Mr

GUTWEIN

-

We

are

on

the

same

page.

I

am

not

sure

what

page

we

are

not

on

this.

Ms O'Connor

- Rule out native forest biomass.

Madam SPEAKER

- Order, Ms O'Connor.

Mr

GUTWEIN

-

I

am

not

sure

what

page

we

are

not

on.

On

this

side

of

the

House

we

accept

that

we

will

have

a

native

hardwood

industry.

You

have

done

your

best

to

make

it

a

much

smaller

one

than

it

was

a

few

years

ago,

but

at

the

end

of

the

day

it

is

an

important

industry that provides jobs for Tasmanians in what is a renewable industry.

I am not sure where the Leader of the Greens is going on this -

Ms O'Connor

- We want you to rule it out.

Mr

GUTWEIN

-

The

reason

I

say

that

is

because

on

so

many

issues

the

Greens

have

changed

their

view.

They

backed

coal

once.

I

remember

when

I

was

a

boy

Bob

Brown

was

backing

coal.

They

backed

hydro

but

they

are

starting

to

go

wobbly

on

that.

Interestingly

enough,

they

used

to

back

wind

farms.

I

can

remember

a

certain

Greens

member

in

this

place

calling

them

parrot-blenders

and

working

hard

to

shut

them

down.

You

will

change

your

mind on matters when it suits you.

The

Minister

for

Energy

has

made

the

Government's

position

perfectly

clear

to

the

Greens.

Regarding

any

change

to

the

TRET,

which

is

focused

on

solar,

water

and

wind,

if

there

is

to

be

any

change

in

any

new

renewable

energy

source

to

be

declared

by

the

Minister

for

Energy,

it

is

this

parliament

that

will

make

that

decision,

whether

it

be

this

current

Minister for Energy or a future one.

COVID-19 - Health Screening at Tasmanian Ports of Entry

Ms WHITE to PREMIER, Mr GUTWEIN

[10.56 a.m.]

You

have

had

months

to

prepare

for

the

safe

reopening

of

Tasmania's

borders.

You

are

about

to

allow

450

from

overseas

to

quarantine

in

Tasmania,

along

with

a

further

700

international

fruit

pickers.

You

have

promised

that

every

'i'

will

be

dotted

and

every

't'

crossed

to

keep

Tasmanians

safe.

However,

Labor

is

aware

that

passengers

on

at

least

one

flight

from

Melbourne

to

Launceston

last

week

were

not

temperature

checked

on

arrival.

How

can

you

expect

Tasmanians

to

have

confidence

in

the

state's

COVID-19

defences

when

holes are already emerging? Are temperature checks mandatory or not?

ANSWER

Madam

Speaker,

I

thank

the

Leader

of

the

Opposition

for

her

question.

If

there

was

a

flight

last

week

where

somebody

got

through

without

being

temperature

checked,

why

have

you waited until today?

Ms White

- Your office was told last week.

Mr GUTWEIN

- I will need to check that, Madam Speaker.

Members

interjecting.

Madam SPEAKER

- Order, please.

Mr

GUTWEIN

-

Very

clearly

our

policy

position

is

that

anyone

coming

into

Tasmania

will

have

a

temperature

check

and

a

health

screen.

If

that

has

not

occurred

I

will

follow

it

up

and

get

more

information

on

it.

At

this

stage

it

has

not

been

brought

to

my

attention.

I

am

presuming

if

it

was

brought

to

the

attention

of

my

office

it

has

been

forwarded

on

to

the

Deputy State Controller, but I will follow it up and see where the matter is at.

Hospitality and Tourism Industry

Mr

TUCKER

to

MINISTER

for

SMALL

BUSINESS,

HOSPITALITY

and

EVENTS,

Ms COURTNEY

[10.58 a.m.]

Can

you

update

the

House

on

how

the

Tasmanian

Government

is

working

with

industry

to

grow

our

skilled

hospitality

and

tourism

workforce,

helping

more

Tasmanians

to

get

jobs,

boosting confidence and supporting our community?

ANSWER

Madam

Speaker,

I

thank

the

member

for

Lyons

for

his

question

and

particularly

his

interest

in

jobs

in

regional

areas

of

Tasmania.

The

Tasmanian

Government

has

a

plan

to

rebuild

a

stronger

Tasmania,

with

the

2020-21

Budget

set

to

create

jobs,

invest

in

our

community

and

provide

certainty

and

confidence

for

a

better

future.

Our

nation-leading

tourism

and

hospitality

was

and

still

is

one

of

our

greatest

competitive

strengths

and

this

Government is its strongest supporter.

Prior

to

COVID-19

industry

growth,

tourism

and

hospitality

enterprises

were

already

experiencing

skills

and

labour

shortages

and

while

these

challenges

are

not

unique

to

Tasmania,

it

is

critical

that

proactive

strategies

are

put

in

place

to

increase

both

the

supply

and

the retention of skilled labour.

It

is

clear

that

Tasmania's

capacity

to

cater

for

our

increased

visitor

numbers

and

deliver

our

outstanding

visitor

experiences

will

be

driven

by

the

skills

of

our

dedicated

workforce.

Today

I

am

pleased

to

announce

that

the

Tasmanian

Government

will

deliver

$1

million

in

the

2020-21

Budget

over

two

years

to

support

the

establishment

of

a

new

not-for-profit

registered

training

organisation.

Led

by

industry,

the

RTO

will

help

build

specific

skills

to

meet

the

demand

of

emerging

markets,

including

training

that

is

not

currently

available

and

training

experiences that reflect a post-COVID-19 industry.

It

will

create

new

pathways

and

improve

access

and

employment

opportunities

for

Tasmanians

living

in

regional

areas

as

well

as

help

businesses

and

industries

grow.

From

apprentices

to

front-of-house

staff

to

chefs

and

restaurant

managers,

we

want

Tasmanians

to

have a wide range of training choices tied to meaningful and sustainable career pathways.

I

acknowledge

and

commend

the

efforts

of

both

the

THA

and

the

TICT

on

their

strong

advocacy,

development

of

position

papers

and

the

industry

engagement

they

have

undertaken

in

putting

forward

the

business

case

and

developing

the

model

for

the

new

RTO.

Informed

by

these

peak

bodies,

the

RTO

will

complement

private

training

providers

as

well

as

TasTAFE's

Drysdale.

To

support

the

investment

in

skills

and

workforce

development

the

tourism

and

hospitality

workforce

advisory

committee

is

currently

being

established

with

representation

from

the

THA

and

TICT.

This

will

align

the

tourism

and

hospitality

industries

with

other

key

sectors

like

the

building

and

construction

industry

that

provide

skills

advice

to

the

Government through a similar model.

The

Tasmanian

Government

has

clearly

demonstrated

its

commitment

to

these

important

industries

throughout

the

pandemic.

We

are

now

focused

on

continuing

to

work

with

peak

industry

bodies

and

the

education

and

training

sector

to

deliver

and

maintain

a

sustainable

workforce

that

will

help

Tasmania

achieve

its

long-term

tourism

and

hospitality

potential.

Opposition members

interjecting.

Madam SPEAKER

- Order, please, order.

Ms

COURTNEY

-

Later

this

week

we

will

outline

the

economic

platform

this

state

needs

to

create

jobs

and

provide

certainty

and

confidence

for

our

community

as

we

build

the

Tasmanian

economy.

This

is

in

stark

contrast

to

the

other

side.

We

know

they

do

not

have

a

plan.

We

know

they

will

not

have

an

alternative

budget.

They

fail

to

represent

to

the

Tasmanian

community

what

they

stand

for.

All

we

ask

for

is

a

fully

costed

alternative

budget.

Land Tax - Increase in Charges

Mr O'BYRNE

to PREMIER, Mr GUTWEIN

[11.02 a.m.]

Over

the

last

few

months

Tasmanians

have

been

receiving

their

land

tax

bills.

Some

of

these

bills

represent

significant

increases.

Some

have

doubled

and

some

have

tripled

in

a

matter

of

years.

The

bill

shock

experienced

by

many,

particularly

those

that

have

had

humble

shacks

in

their

families

for

generations,

has

been

massive.

Shackies

have

voiced

their

concerns publicly.

Mr Barnett

- What about the shack tax. Come on. You are the author.

Mr O'BYRNE

- This is Pavlovian. You idiot.

Members

interjecting.

Mr

O'BYRNE

-

Sorry,

I

withdraw.

Shackies

have

voiced

their

concerns

publicly

saying they believe they have no option but to sell their family shack.

Premier,

you

have

dismissed

these

concerns

out

of

hand,

saying

that

it

is

a

good

thing

the

valuations

have

increased.

You

have

callously

ignored

the

unfairness

of

bill

shock

which

is

undermining

the

Tasmanian

way

of

life.

You

have

not

always

had

this

position.

Let

me

quote some of your comments on the public record from when you were shadow treasurer -

The

Tasmanian

Liberals

have

consistently

argued

that

land

tax

is

an

unfair

tax

that

stifles

investments

and

costs

jobs.

We

have

been

the

only

party

that

has

consistently

been

calling

for

land

tax

to

be

reduced

and

eventually

phased out altogether. To do anything less is not an acceptable option.

How

can

Tasmanians

trust

anything

you

say

when

you

have

so

blatantly

broken

the

commitments you once made?

ANSWER

Madam

Speaker,

I

thank

the

shadow

treasurer

for

that

question.

I

wonder

whether

on

Tuesday

when

and

if

he

brings

down

his

alternative

budget,

he

will

outline

the

costings

of

the

tax

giveaway

that

he

has

just

embarked

upon.

It

is

implicit

in

his

question

that

he

wants

to

either

provide

hand

back

tax

or

change

the

rate

of

land

tax

that

some

people

are

being charged at the moment. It is implicit -

Ms White

- Did you promise to abolish it by 2020? Yes, you did.

Mr

GUTWEIN

-

We

need

to

understand

whether

the

shadow

treasurer

will

provide

a

fully costed policy next week on his land tax give back.

Nobody

likes

to

pay

tax.

The

point

I

have

made

previously

is

that

land

tax

operates

usually

once

every

five

to

six

years

there

is

an

valuation.

Between

valuations

a

factor

is

applied

that

increases

the

value

of

the

property

in

line

with

property

increases

around

the

state

over that period. That factor reduces bill shock. Then a valuation is undertaken.

I

understand

that

people

are

annoyed

at

their

land

tax

bills.

No-one

likes

paying

it,

whether

it

is

this

year

or

last

year

or

the

year

before.

Bills

have

gone

up

not

because

the

Government

has

changed

the

rate

or

applied

a

new

tax.

The

reason

bills

have

gone

up

is

because

property

values

have

increased.

When

we

went

into

this

pandemic,

one

of

the

major

concerns

that

we

had

in

this

state,

as

we

did

right

around

this

country,

was

that

as

a

result

of

the

pandemic

we

would

see

a

crash

in

the

property

market.

I

am

pleased

that

we

have

not

seen

that.

I

am

pleased

that

the

economic

and

fiscal

stimulus

we

have

provided

has

kept

our

economy

strong.

It

has

kept

values

up

and

it

has

ensured

that

those

people

that

own

property

external to their principal place of residence are seeing an increase in their personal wealth.

I

know

they

do

not

like

to

pay

tax

on

it.

We

took

a

policy

to

the

2010

election.

It

was

a

fully

costed

policy

that

demonstrated

a

process.

We

put

that

to

the

Tasmanian

people

and

unfortunately

we

lost

that

election

because

you

lot

got

in

2010

and

then

caused

a

recession.

That

was

a

policy

that

the

Tasmanian

people

did

not

support.

Unfortunately,

what

they

got

was a Greens-Labor government that took us into a recession.

Nobody

enjoys

paying

tax.

The

reason

that

land

tax

bills

have

gone

up

is

that

land

values

have

gone

up.

While

some

people

are

annoyed

at

having

to

pay

additional

tax

this

year, the fact is their wealth has increased as a result of property values rising.

It

was

implicit

in

the

question

that

the

shadow

treasurer

has

a

policy

to

cut

land

tax.

If

that

is

a

policy

that

he

supports,

if

that

is

a

policy

that

side

of

the

House

stands

by

then

it

is

incumbent

upon

them

to

bring

down

an

alternative

budget

and

demonstrate

how

much

this

would

cost

the

Tasmanian

budget.

How

much

tax

would

he

give

back?

In

doing

so

what services would Tasmanians miss out on?

Land Tax - Increase in Charges

Mr O'BYRNE

to PREMIER, Mr GUTWEIN

[11.08 a.m.]

As

shadow

treasurer,

you

repeatedly

promised

to

abolish

land

tax

by

2020.

Now

you

are

Premier

not

only

have

you

broken

that

promise

but

land

tax

bills

are

the

highest

they

have

ever

been

with

many

shack

owners

and

mum

and

dad

investors

facing

significant

increases.

Let me read you a few quotes, Premier -

Land

tax

bills

have

increased

by,

in

some

cases,

tens

of

thousands

of

dollars

which

will

ultimately

lead

to

a

loss

of

investment

and

jobs

and

businesses

going to the wall.

Retirees,

renters,

businesses

large

and

small

are

all

affected

and

ultimately

consumers end up paying as in many cases these costs are simply passed on.

These

are

not

my

words,

Premier,

they

are

yours,

as

shadow

treasurer.

Do

you

accept

that

your

backflip

on

your

commitment

is

costing

jobs,

damaging

investment

and

sending

businesses broke?

ANSWER

Madam

Speaker,

I

thank

the

shadow

treasurer

for

his

question

and

for

the

opportunity

to

deal

with

the

last

part

of

his

question.

This

side

of

the

House

has

a

policy

to

waive

land

tax

for

those

businesses

that

have

been

significantly

impacted

by

the

pandemic

this

year.

The

value

of

that

waiver

is

expected

to

be

around

$40

million.

That

is

a

policy

we

have

that

we

have already announced.

I

am

not

sure

what

your

policy

is

because

I

think

you

have

not

announced

one,

but

I

do

know

what

your

policy

used

to

be.

I

make

the

point

to

these

shack

owners

that

you

are

purporting

to

support,

that

land

tax

rates

in

Tasmania

have

not

changed

and

have

remained

the

same

since

2010.

The

only

thing

that

has

changed

in

that

period

is

that

the

Labor-Greens

government,

including

the

current

shadow

treasurer,

Mr

David

O'Byrne,

removed

the

for

shack

owners.

You

actually

put

the

tax

on

them.

The

hypocrisy,

Madam Speaker. He is arguing against a tax that he introduced. It was him.

Members

interjecting.

Madam

SPEAKER

-

Order.

Clearly

the

House

is

not

able

to

control

itself

this

morning. Let us take a deep breath and remember where we are.

Mr

GUTWEIN

-

Thank

you,

Madam

Speaker.

I

know

exactly

where

we

are.

I

am

not

sure about the alternative universe over there.

The

tax

the

shadow

treasurer

is

railing

about

is

the

tax

that

he

introduced.

At

times

in

this place every now and then you get bowled up a half-volley -

Mr O'Byrne

- Here we go.

Mr

GUTWEIN

-

If

you

would

stop

interjecting

-

I

know

this

is

embarrassing

for

you

but

I

want

to

speak

a

bit

more

about

your

tax

before

I

finish.

Madam

Speaker,

he

purports

to

be

concerned

for

these

people.

I

have

made

the

point

that

unfortunately

no-one

likes

to

pay

tax and the reason that land tax bills -

Ms O'Byrne

- This is actually your defence?

Ms White

- And you're not going to do anything about it.

Madam SPEAKER

- Order, Ms O'Byrne and Leader of the Opposition.

Mr

GUTWEIN

-

have

gone

up

is

not

because

the

Government

changed

the

rate

but

because

land

values

have

gone

up

and,

as

I

have

said,

in

terms

of

our

broader

economy,

that

has

increased

the

wealth

of

all

those

people

who

own

land

or

property.

The

galling

thing

about

this

is

that

he

is

actually

talking

about

the

tax

that

he

introduced

-

David

O'Byrne's

shack tax.

Mr

O'Byrne

-

That

is

rubbish.

People

are

going

to

listen

to

this

and

know

you're

a

tin

ear.

Mr

GUTWEIN

-

I

hope

they

do

listen

to

this

because

the

very

they

should

be

asking

you

is,

why

did

you

put

it

back

on?

Why

did

you

reintroduce

it?

Why

did

David O'Byrne tax shacks?

We

have

not

increased

taxes.

I

will

finish

on

this

point.

This

side

of

the

House

will

not

be

introducing

any

new

taxes,

unlike

that

side

of

the

House

who

introduced

a

shack

tax

which

they now rail against.

Budget 2020-21 - Planning and Development Approvals Process

Mr STREET

to MINISTER for PRIMARY INDUSTRIES and WATER, Mr BARNETT

[11.13 a.m.]

Can

you

update

the

House

on

actions

the

Government

is

taking

to

simplify

the

planning

and

development

approvals

process

and

help

Tasmanians

invest

to

build

houses

and

support

jobs and confidence?

ANSWER

Madam

Speaker,

I

thank

the

member

for

his

excellent

question

and

his

interest

in

supporting a growing economy and our community during these difficult times.

The

COVID-19

pandemic

has

been

very

challenging.

It

is

one

of

the

largest

shocks

we

have

had

for

our

economy

and

our

community

in

our

lifetime.

It

is

thanks

to

our

strong

economy

and

a

strong

balance

sheet

that

the

Government

has

been

able

to

provide

nation-leading

support

and

stimulus

measures

to

keep

our

economy

going

and

to

rebuild

a

stronger

economy.

As

we

rebuild,

we

know

the

best

way

to

get

our

budget

back

on

track

and

create more jobs is to bolster confidence and grow the economy.

To

help

Tasmanians

get

on

with

the

job

of

creating

houses

and

infrastructure

that

was

referred

to

in

the

question,

the

Government

will

provide

further

funding

support

to

both

the

Land

Titles

Office

and

the

Property

Services

Division

within

my

department

in

this

year's

Budget.

These

funds,

an

additional

$1.2

million

over

four

years

for

the

Land

Titles

Office

and

$2.2

million

over

two

years

for

the

Property

Services

Division,

will

help

resource

these

areas

to

help

ensure

timely

decision-making.

The

Land

Titles

Office

and

Property

Services

Division

receive

thousands

of

applications

or

lodgements

annually

regarding

titles

and

the

use

of crown land respectively.

Now

more

than

ever

Tasmanians

want

Government

services

to

be

more

responsive,

more

accessible

and

more

connected,

and

so

they

should

be.

The

additional

funding

the

Government

is

providing

will

mean

faster

processing

of

property

transaction

matters

with

respect

to

Crown

law

and

also

the

timely

release

of

titles

to

market.

The

commitment

will

also

allow

the

Land

Titles

Office

to

commence

work

towards

transitioning

from

a

paper-based system to an electronic conveyancing system, saving time, effort and money.

The

Property

Services

Unit

will

be

progressing

information

technology

improvements

to

its

systems

to

ensure

that

the

needs

of

Tasmanians

are

best

met.

On

top

of

this

support

the

Government

will

also

provide

$2.4

million

over

four

years

to

build

resourcing,

regulatory

and

permitting

processes,

helping

ensure

approvals

are

provided

with

statutory

time

frames

within

those time frames.

This

will

unlock

investment

and

provide

job-creating

activity

in

Tasmania

by

cutting

the

red

tape,

streamlining

the

process,

reducing

the

holdups

and

letting

Tasmanians

and

businesses

get

on

with

what

they

do

best

and

that

is

creating

jobs.

It

is

important

to

note

that

this

is

consistent

with

the

Premier's

Economic

Social

Recovery

Advisory

Committee

recommendations

to

gain

momentum,

build

the

economy

and

inject

further

confidence

into

our economy.

In

short,

we

are

rolling

up

our

sleeves,

getting

on

with

the

job

and

delivering.

That

is

in

stark

contrast

to

the

other

side

that

have

no

plan.

They

are

just

into

gotcha

moments,

relentless

negativity.

We

still

do

not

know

any

commitment

from

the

other

side

as

to

whether

they

will

deliver

an

alternative

budget.

That

is

the

question

and

we

are

waiting

expectantly.

The

Greens

will

be

doing

that.

They

have

already

committed

to

that

today.

They

have

done

it in the past and we congratulate them for that.

In

conclusion,

we

are

getting

on

with

the

job.

We

are

simplifying

the

planning

and

development

approvals

process

to

help

Tasmanians

invest

further,

to

build

houses,

to

support

jobs

and

deliver

further

confidence

in

our

community.

We

have

delivered

before

and

we

are

going to deliver again.

Time expired.

TABLED PAPER

Standing Committee on Subordinate Legislation - Annual Report 2019-20

[11.21 a.m.]

Mr

Street

presented

the

annual

report

for

2019-20

of

the

Parliamentary

Standing

Committee on Subordinate Legislation.

Report received.

JUSTICE MISCELLANEOUS (COURT BACKLOG AND RELATED MATTERS) BILL 2020

(No. 35)

EVIDENCE (CHILDREN AND SPECIAL WITNESSES) AMENDMENT BILL 2020 (No. 31)

NEIGHBOURHOOD DISPUTES ABOUT PLANTS AMENDMENT BILL 2019 (No. 35)

ON-DEMAND PASSENGER TRANSPORT SERVICES INDUSTRY (MISCELLANEOUS

AMENDMENTS) BILL 2020 (No. 34)

RESIDENTIAL TENANCY AMENDMENT (COVID-19) BILL 2020 (No. 37)

BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION (REGULATORY REFORM AMENDMENTS) BILL (No. 2)

2020 (No. 39)

ARCHITECTS AMENDMENT BILL 2020 (No. 6)

RAIL SAFETY NATIONAL LAW (TASMANIA) AMENDMENT BILL 2020 (No. 7)

ANZAC DAY TRUST WINDING-UP BILL 2020 (No. 33)

STATE SERVICE AMENDMENT (VALIDATION) BILL 2019 (No. 52)

VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC AMENDMENT (ROAD VEHICLE STANDARDS) BILL 2020 (No. 8)

TEACHERS REGISTRATION AMENDMENT BILL 2019 (No. 50)

Bills agreed to by the Legislative Council without amendment.

SITTING TIMES

[11.29 a.m.]

Mr

FERGUSON

(Bass

-

Leader

of

Government

Business)(by

leave)

-

Madam

Speaker, I move -

That

for

this

day's

sitting

the

House

shall

not

stand

adjourned

at

6

o'clock

and that the House continue to sit past 6 o'clock.

This is to allow the items on the Order of Business on the blue today to be considered.

Motion agreed.

[11.30 a.m.]

Mr

FERGUSON

(Bass

-

Leader

of

Government

Business)

(by

leave)

-

Madam

Deputy

Speaker, I move -

That the House, at its rising, adjourn until 12 p.m. tomorrow.

It

is

unusual

that

the

House

sits

on

Remembrance

Day.

It

is

happening

tomorrow

that

the

House

will

sit

on

11

November.

When

we

had

a

good

look

at

the

history

books,

the

last

time

that

happened

was

about

2010.

A

very

wise

decision

at

that

time

was

made

to

allow

members

who

wished

to

attend

local

services

to

be

able

to

do

that

and

for

the

House

to

meet

at

a

later

time,

protecting

all

the

business,

which

I

will

move

in

a

subsequent

motion,

but

that

would

allow

us

to

do

that.

Members

remaining

in

the

precinct

will

be

welcome

to

a

minute's

silence on the grounds at 11a.m.

Mr

O'BYRNE

(Franklin)

-

Madam

Deputy

Speaker,

I

indicate

that

we

will

be

supporting

this.

This

is

an

appropriate

measure

for

the

parliament

to

take

to

ensure

that

we

are

able

to

pay

our

respects

on

a

significant

day

in

our

calendar,

not

only

for

the

section

of

our

community

who

have

served

but

for

those

families

that

have

lost

loved

ones

or

had

to

make

sacrifices for those who have served this state and this country in armed conflict.

It

is

an

appropriate

measure.

It

is

something

we

did

when

I

was

here

in

2010

and

it

is

a

small

thing

that

we

do

but

something

that

is

significant

and

important.

We

indicate

our

support for that motion.

Motion agreed to.

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

Order of Business

[11.32 a.m.]

Mr

FERGUSON

(Bass

-

Leader

of

Government

Business)

(by

leave)

-

Madam

Deputy

Speaker,

to

put

that

into

effect

to

allow

members

to

attend

local

services

in

the

community

or

to reflect in their own way with colleagues in this precinct, I move -

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent -

(a)

the Order of Business for Wednesday 11 November next being as follows -

(i)

Acknowledgement of Traditional People

(ii)

Prayers and Reflection

(iii)

Questions seeking information

(iv)

Papers,

Answers

to

Questions

on

Notice,

and

Government

Responses to Petitions

(v)

Messages

(vi)

Introduction of Bills

(vii)

Other Formal Business

(viii)

Matter of Public Importance

(ix)

Private Members' Business -

Opposition members - 3.30 p.m. to 5 p.m.,

Tasmanian Greens - 5 p.m. to 6 p.m.,

(x)

Adjournment

(b)

the

suspension

of

the

sitting

of

the

House

at

the

completion

of

'Other

Formal Business' until 2.55 o'clock p.m.

Members

will

be

aware

that

the

Government

is

forgoing

its

own

time

tomorrow.

We

will

catch

up

in

advance

today,

and

additionally

our

backbench

has

offered

not

to

proceed

with

Government

private

members'

time

to

help

all

these

pieces

fall

appropriately

into

place.

I commend the motion to the House.

[11.33 a.m.]

Mr

O'BYRNE

(Franklin)

-

Madam

Deputy

Speaker,

I

thank

the

Leader

of

Government

Business

for

forwarding

the

exact

motion

to

us

earlier

this

morning,

but

also

indicating

late

last

week

that

this

would

be

the

order

of

the

day

to

allow

us

to

consult

to

ensure

that

we

can

get

through

the

business.

We

acknowledge

that

the

Government

has

tomorrow

forgone

its

private members' time and support the motion as read.

Motion agreed to.

SESSIONAL ORDERS

Amendment to Standing Orders 49 and 63(2)

[11.34 a.m.]

Mr

FERGUSON

(Bass

-

Leader

of

Government

Business)

(by

leave)

-

Madam

Deputy

Speaker,

I

move

that

unless

otherwise

ordered,

for

the

remainder

of

the

Session,

Standing

Orders

49

and

63(2)

be

suspended

and

the

following

Sessional

Orders

be

inserted

in

place

thereof -

'49

Answers to Questions must be in writing

When

Notices

of

Question

are

given,

the

Clerk

of

the

House

shall

publish

them

in

the

Notice

of

Question

paper,

and

the

reply

shall

be

given

by

being

laid

upon

the

Table

of

the

House

within

15

sitting

days,

or

if

the

House

is

not

sitting,

within

30

days

of

being

given,

and

a

copy

thereof

supplied

by

the

Clerk

of

the

House

to

the

Member

who

has

asked the Question.

63

Government responses to Petitions

(2)

A

Government

response

to

each

Petition

that

the

House

has

received,

shall

be

laid

before

the

House

within

15

sitting

days

of

its

communication

to

the

Premier,

or

if

the

House

is

not

sitting,

within

30

days.

If

the

House

is

not

sitting,

the

response

shall

be

provided

to

the

Clerk

of

the

House,

who

shall

communicate

the

response to the Member who tabled the Petition.'

This

was

the

subject

of

a

proposal

received

by

the

Government

from

Madam

Speaker.

It

speaks

for

itself

in

terms

of

its

merit.

I

had

a

good

look

at

the

record

and

governments

over

many

years

have

done

an

appropriate

task

of

responding

to

questions,

but

I

say

that

variously.

There

is

no

perfect

government

on

this

one

and

there

have

been

times

where

questions

have

been outstanding, to the frustration -

Ms O'Connor

- For more than a year and sometimes three.

Mr

FERGUSON

-

I

will

join

you,

Ms

O'Connor

-

sometimes

never

answered

by

previous governments, including the one you were part of.

We

can

clean

this

up

and

do

a

better

job.

In

respect

of

questions

that

are

provided

on

the

Notice

Paper,

there

has

never

been

a

provision

to

allow

a

response

to

be

made

with

any

time

frame

at

all,

so

this

will

do

two

things.

One,

it

will

capture

an

intended

time

frame

of

15

sitting

days,

which

if

you

had

a

run

of

sitting

weeks

would

be

three

weeks,

but

in

the

absence

of

the

House

sitting,

for

example

over

a

recess,

to

accommodate

that

so

that

it

is

still

captured

within

30

days.

The

second

thing

it

does

is

provide

for

the

opportunity

for

it

to

be

done

out

of

session. That is some innovation that is occurring there which makes perfect sense.

The

second

sessional

order

being

inserted

is

to

allow

for

responses

to

petitions.

The

same

comments

could

largely

be

made.

It

is

already

the

case

that

there

is

a

15

sitting

day

provision in the sessional orders.

Ms O'Connor

- Which is routinely ignored.

Mr

FERGUSON

-

What

the

Government

is

moving

for

is

to

establish

in

the

orders

that

in

the

absence

of

the

House

sitting

there

be

30

days,

more

or

less

a

month,

to

allow

a

response

to that petition, but further, that can be provided out of session.

In

respect

of

answers

to

questions,

I

draw

on

the

advice

I

have

received

and

will

read

into

Hansard

and

the

debate,

advice

that

applies

to

our

parliament

concerning

guidance

from

House

of

Representatives

Practice

,

seventh

edition,

edited

by

David

Elder,

Clerk

of

the

House, a very good man. On page 564 under 'No obligation to answer', it says -

It

is

the

established

practice

of

the

House,

as

it

is

in

the

House

of

Commons,

that

Ministers

cannot

be

required

to

answer

questions.

Outright

refusal

to

answer

questions

is

relatively

rare,

being

restricted

largely

to

questions

dealing

with

clearly

sensitive

and

confidential

matters

such

as

security

arrangements,

Cabinet

and

Executive

Council

deliberations,

and

communications

between

Ministers

and

their

advisers.

Further,

if

a

Minister

does

not

wish

to

reply

to

a

question

on

the

Notice

Paper

ultimately

he

or

she

may

choose

simply

to

ignore

it

(despite

any

reminders

given

in

accordance

with

standing

order

105

-

see

page

571).

The

question

then

eventually

lapses on prorogation of the Parliament or dissolution of the House.

Occasionally

Ministers

reply

to

questions

in

writing

by

stating,

for

example,

that

the

information

sought

by

a

Member

is

unavailable

or

that

the

time

and

staff resources required to collect the information cannot be justified.

I

will

not

go

on

but

I

commend

that

advice.

It

helps

shape

the

understanding

that

although

the

Government

is

bringing

forward

this

amendment

quite

happily

and

enthusiastically,

it

needs

to

be

understood

that

nothing

changes

the

fact

that

you

cannot

put

words

in

someone's

mouth.

The

advice

I

have

had

puts

it

this

way:

the

parliament

has

privilege but so does the executive.

I

propose

that

these

sessional

orders

be

given

an

opportunity

to

work

and

members

who

may

have

had

occasion

to

feel

that

their

question

has

not

been

answered

in

a

timely

fashion

will find this very satisfactory.

This

should

not

be

a

debate

right

now,

where

people

would

score

political

points

because

it

would

be

very

easy

and

convenient

for

me

to

do

the

same

in

respect

of

the

time

I

have

served

in

opposition,

but

I

can

say

that

this

is

a

contemporisation

of

our

sessional

orders,

noting

when

bills

have

been

brought

through

this

House

that

require

documents

to

be

tabled

before

the

House

very

often

now,

which

was

not

always

the

case,

out-of-session

arrangements

have been made.

I

hope

this

pleases

members

of

the

House.

I

commend

this

motion

and

thank

Madam

Speaker

and

our

Clerk

for

the

advice

that

I

have

received

that

has

assisted

me

to

move

this

way just now.

[11.40 a.m.]

Ms

O'CONNOR

(Clark

-

Leader

of

the

Greens)

-

Madam

Deputy

Speaker,

I

know

that

it

is

the

Leader

of

Government

Business's

wish

that

we

do

not

overly

debate

this

motion

but

it

is

worth

placing

a

few

truths

on

the

public

record.

The

Greens

warmly

welcome

time

frames

set for answers to questions put on notice but also to petitions.

Under

this

Government

there

has

been

a

degree

of

casualness

at

best

and

contempt

at

worst

for

those

processes

of

the

parliament

where

members

put

questions

on

notice

on

behalf

of

our

constituents

or

stakeholders,

and

they

are

routinely

ignored,

where

we

table

petitions

that have routinely not been responded to.

Of

course

we

support

the

insertion

of

new

sessional

orders

and

hope

that

in

time

they

become

Standing

Orders

of

the

House.

In

part

we

are

having

this

debate

about

changes

to

the

Sessional

Orders

because

of

correspondence

sent

to

the

Premier,

the

Leader

of

the

Opposition

and

me,

and

ccd

to

the

Speaker

of

the

House

of

Assembly

and

the

Independent

member

for

Clerk

from

Civil

Liberties

Tasmania.

They

analysed

government

responses

to

petitions

and

this is what that analysis found -

An

analysis

by

Civil

Liberties

Australia

has

found

the

following

concerning

statistics

for

formal

electronic

parliamentary

petitions

during

the

period

1

April

2014

to

17

October

2020.

This

is

based

on

an

assessment

of

information

on

a

parliamentary

website

as

at

17

October

2020.

I

note

this

is

not

a

new

problem,

and

that

it

appears

a

similar

situation

existed

under

the

previous ALP government.

Our findings:

●

32

parliamentary

e-petitions

are

marked

as

being

'closed'

between

1

April

2014

and

17

October 2020 and are no longer accepting signatures

●

Of

these

32,

18

have

been

tabled

in

the

House

of

a

sponsoring

non-government

Member

of

Parliament

●

The

information

provided

to

the

public

on

the

parliamentary

website

indicates

the

government 'must' table a response to all tabled petitions within 15 sitting days

●

Of

these

18

tabled

e-petitions,

17

have

now

passed

their

government

response

due

date

yet

only

4

have

received

a

government

response.

This

amounts

to

a

24%

response

rate.

This

is

compared

to

a

response

rate

in

the

Legislative

Council

of

73%,

which

is

three

times

higher,

or three times better and more responsive

●

The

13

petitions

which

have

been

tabled

but

not

received

a

response

within

15

sitting

days

were signed by nearly 5,000 Tasmanians (4,920)

●

The

remaining

14

petitions

are

marked

as

'closed'

but

not

yet

tabled

by

the

sponsoring

non-government MP

Mr Richard Griggs, Tasmanian Director of Civil Liberties Australia says -

I

hope

you

agree

this

situation

needs

to

be

rectified

in

the

interests

of

good

governance

and

accountable

government.

We

believe

the

health

of

the

system

of

petitions

is

an

indicator

of

the

health

of

democracy.

Tasmanians

who

take

the

time

to

consider

an

issue

that

affects

them

and

their

community

and

put

their

name

to

a

formal

parliamentary

petition

to

their

government are owed a response.

…

citizens

should

be

shown

respect

and

be

provided

with

a

response

from

government

which

sets

out

the

government's

position

on

the

issue

raised

by

the petitioners.

Civil

Liberties

Tasmania

makes

a

number

of

recommendations,

a

number

of

which

have

been

adopted

through

this

change

to

the

sessional

orders.

I

urge

the

Premier,

if

he

has

not

responded already to Civil Liberties Australia's correspondence, to do so.

Before

I

sit

down

and

I

know

we

will

debate

the

motion

establishing

the

Estimates

Committees

tomorrow,

I

want

to

raise

this

issue

with

the

Government.

The

Liberals

call

themselves

the

party

of

small

government.

What

we

have

for

Estimates

is

a

coagulation

of

36

portfolios.

Some

of

them

are

questionable

as

something

you

would

establish

within

a

portfolio,

for

example

Strategic

Growth.

As

a

result

of

that,

what

has

happened

to

the

Estimates

schedule

is

that

important

opportunities

for

members

to

ask

in

areas

of

portfolio

where

they

have

specific

interest

or

responsibilities

will

be

denied

because

time

has

been

cut

short.

For

example,

for

Environment

and

Parks

we

have

gone

from

five

hours

in

total

to

a

total

of,

I

think,

three

hours.

It

is

highly

problematic.

Most

damning,

is

that

the

portfolio

of

Climate

Change,

the

most

important

portfolio

in

government,

has

half

an

hour.

That

is

simply

not

good

enough.

We

will

be

going

to

the

Leader

of

Government

Business

and

having

a

look

at the Estimate schedule.

[11.45 a.m.]

Ms

OGILVIE

(Clark)

-

Madam

Deputy

Speaker,

I

support

sorting

out

how

we

deal

with

petitions

and

other

communications

from

our

constituents

in

this

place

in

a

more

refined

and

contemporary

manner.

We

can

be

doing

much

better

in

the

digital

space.

With

e-petitions we could be more responsive, but it is right across how we run parliament.

This

is

an

issue

I

have

spoken

on

in

this

place

many

times,

particularly

through

this

pandemic,

where

we

have

had

to

be

more

agile,

we

have

had

to

work

from

home,

we

have

had

to

deal

with

our

constituents

from

our

offices,

from

our

homes,

sitting

on

the

bed,

wherever we happen to be to keep this place going.

We

have

shown

that

we

can

be

agile,

we

have

shown

that

we

can

be

creative,

but

we

need

to

see

in

the

Budget

some

funding

for

the

digitisation

of

parliament,

so

we

can

run

that

properly.

I

would

like

to

see

a

standing

committee

established

to

do

this

task.

We

can

look

at

things

like

how

we

are

dealing

with

our

constituency

enquiries,

the

education

side

of

how

we

run

parliament,

and

documentation

processes.

Everything

can

be

made

more

transparent

and

open.

This

is

something

that

we

can

do

as

a

sophisticated

and

contemporary

parliament.

It

is

something

we

ought

to

do

as

MPs

together.

It

is

not

to

do

with

parties.

It

is

to

do

with

how

we run things in this place.

The

library

does

a

great

job

and

our

IT

guys

do

a

great

job.

We

need

to

get

them

to

work

together.

I

would

like

to

see

that

happen.

Hopefully,

at

some

point,

we

will

see

some

funding.

The

Minister

for

Science

and

Technology

has

put

some

big

dollars

into

improving

how

our

IT

is

managed.

We

need

a

transformation

project

for

parliament.

This

is

something

I

would

like

to

work

on,

and

when

I

am

no

longer

in

this

place

to

look

back

on

these

times

and

say,

we

made

some

real

changes

to

bring

our

democracy

more

directly

to

the

people

through

social media.

I

am

almost

obsessively

interested

in

how

we

can

engage

better

with

social

media,

from

things

like

petitions

but

right

through

to

the

nasty

stuff

that

happens

that

prevents

people

from

wanting

to

participate

in

public

life

or

even

become

candidates

for

parliament.

That

is

my

contribution;

a

third

way

discussion

but

we

need

to

have

it.

I

implore

the

Government

to

listen.

[11.48 a.m.]

Mr

O'BYRNE

(Franklin)

-

Madam

Deputy

Speaker,

we

will

support

this

motion

and

the

changes

to

standing

orders

49

and

63(2)

for

the

remainder

of

this

session.

We

hope

that

this

will

create

a

precedent

that

subsequent

governments

and

parliaments

can

adopt

and

will

form part of the standard operation of this house.

I

will

take

with

a

nice

dose

from

the

Leader

of

Government

Business

that

this

was

welcomed

and

endorsed

by

the

Government,

hence

their

moving

it,

but

let

us

not

pretend

that

motions

such

as

this

and

changing

the

standing

orders

happen

in

a

vacuum.

They

happen

as

a

response to pressure and advocacy, not only outside this House but inside this House.

I

echo

the

words

of

other

members

who

have

spoken

about

their

level

of

frustration

regarding

responses

to

petitions

and

questions

that

we

ask

on

behalf

of

people.

There

is

a

better

way

of

doing

it

and

that

is

what

this

motion

is

trying

to

do.

I

do

not

pretend

that

either

party of government are without fault. It is important that this has been done.

I

acknowledge

the

work

of

the

Speaker

in

giving

voice

to

these

issues

and

facilitating

a

civil

debate

on

these

proposed

changes.

We

consider

the

changes

are

important,

and

they

add

to

the

workings

of

this

House.

They

add

to

the

transparency

and

the

responsiveness

of

this

House to the people of Tasmania, which we should all strive for. We support the motion.

[11.50 a.m.]

Mr

FERGUSON

(Bass

-

Leader

of

Government

Business)

-

Madam

Deputy

Speaker,

I

thank

members

for

their

contribution.

That

is

a

great

little

debate

and

we

can

all

take

a

dose

of

modesty

when

we

consider

these

issues,

because

many

of

us

in

this

place

have

been

in

government and in opposition - and to be a MP you need to have a very good memory.

The

Government

has

a

very

strong

record

of

responding

to

these

issues

but

this

is

an

example

that,

with

the

necessary

humility,

there

is

always

scope

to

improve.

That

is

exactly

what

we

are

intending

to

do.

When

a

petition

is

brought

by

any

one

of

us

on

behalf

of

our

constituency

it

is

actually

not

a

petition

for

the

government.

It

is

a

petition

for

all

of

us

to

consider,

which

is

why

the

Clerk

reads

out

the

words

of

the

petitioners.

Everybody

gets

to

hear

it

and

it

is

good

manners

to

listen.

You

do

not

have

to

agree

to

them

-

that

is

not

the

point.

You

have

to

listen

to

them

and

allow

those

constituents

to

be

heard.

So,

while

the

government

does

respond

to

those

petitions,

it

is

within

the

remit

of

every

member

of

this

House

to

consider

what

their

own

response

might

be.

If

you

strongly

agree,

or

disagree,

with

the

petitioners

there

is

the

opportunity

for

you

to

rise

on

the

adjournment

debate

or

through

a

bill and allow your perspective to be heard.

The

point

is

to

ensure

that

the

Tasmanian

community,

which

elects

us

to

this

place

on

issues

of

the

day,

is

able

to

be

heard

and

represented.

I

am

aware

of

people

who

have

tabled

petitions

they

do

not

agree

with,

and

I

support

that

-

because

only

24

people

in

this

place

have

access

to

the

form

of

the

House

that

is

a

petition.

The

other

half

million

people

do

not.

Their

access

is

through

us,

as

their

local

members.

It

should

not

matter

whether

a

member

tabling

a

petition

agrees

with

its

contents.

You

are

doing

your

job

by

allowing

those

voices

to

be

heard

in this place.

Thank you all for your contributions. I commend the motion.

Motion agreed to.

MATTER OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE

Land Tax

[11.53 a.m.]

Mr O'BYRNE

(Franklin) - Madam Deputy Speaker, I move -

That the House take note of the following matter: land tax.

I

rise

to

talk

about

this

issue,

which

has

had

intense

public

debate

and

interest.

We

have

heard

many

stories

of

people

who

have

issues

with

changes

in

their

land

tax

arrangements,

in

terms of their exposure or their ability to pay.

When

the

Premier

was

on

his

feet

and

said,

'no

one

likes

paying

tax',

on

the

whole,

I

believe

people

in

Australia

want

to

pay

a

fair

tax.

It

is

not

about

paying

or

not

paying

tax.

We

all

understand

our

tax

revenue

funds

essential

government

services

such

as

health

and

education,

builds

roads,

supports

biosecurity

and

invests

in

a

range

of

assets

to

improve

our

community.

In

some

way

or

another,

we

all

benefit

from

a

fair

and

reasonable

tax

regime,

because

it

is

Government

money

that

goes

to

building

the

kind

of

society

and

community

we

hope to achieve.

The

Premier

said,

'people

do

not

like

paying

tax'.

I

do

not

agree

with

those

comments.

Clearly,

some

people

do

not

like

paying

tax

and

they

pay

a

lot

of

money

to

try

to

avoid

it,

and

those

people

should

be

pursued

to

ensure

they

do

pay

a

fair

rate

of

tax.

However,

I

believe

most

people

in

a

country

like

Australia

-

a

social

democratic

country,

that

has

clear

institutions and clear roles of government delivering services - believe there is a fair tax rate.

The

argument

then

becomes

about

the

fairness

of

particular

taxes,

and

the

equity

of

them

-

and

some

of

the

perverse

outcomes.

By

virtue

of

the

current

regime

on

land

tax,

we

have

seen

that

some

people

have

received

bills

over

the

last

two

or

three

years

that

have

not

only doubled, but in some cases tripled - and in some extreme cases, quadrupled.

When

you

hear

those

sorts

of

outcomes,

governments

need

to

listen

and

respond

to

what

are

potentially

perverse

outcomes

in

tax

regimes.

They

should

constantly

review

the

tax

mix

to

ensure

that

fairness

is

applied,

and

there

are

no

extreme

outcomes

which

fundamentally

impact

on

Tasmania's

way

of

life.

This

is

not

an

asset

that

is

monetised

or

is

cashed-in

on

a

regular

or

irregular

basis.

This

is,

for

example,

a

shack

that

has

been

in

people's

families

for

generations;

it

is

a

part

of

their

way

of

life

and

many

are

very

humble

homes.

However,

the

market

has

moved,

resulting

in

some

shack

owners

having

significant

increases in their tax.

That

does

not

necessarily

mean

that

people

should

not

pay

tax.

We

argue

that

there

should

be

a

fair

part

of

tax.

This

debate

goes

to

the

heart

of

the

credibility

of

the

Liberal

Government and the Premier and Treasurer.

Land

tax

has

been

a

debate

in

this

state

for

many

years.

The

Government

has

said

unequivocally

that

it

will

not

review

land

tax.

However,

these

are

the

words

of

the

shadow

treasurer from 2009 -

Land

tax

has

a

massive

impact

on

the

Tasmanian

economy,

especially

on

poor

Tasmanians

and

if

we

cap

land

tax

at

the

time

then

the

budget

will

not

suffer

and

those

people

that

have

been

slugged

with

massive

bills

will

be

able to see some light at the end of the tunnel.

The shadow treasurer then went on to say that -

Reducing

land

tax

in

Tasmania

will

stimulate

the

economy.

Our

plan

is

to

do this in an affordable and responsible way ...

He

also

said

in

a

series

of

press

statements

that

they

'will

abolish

land

tax

by

2020.

The

Tasmanian Liberals are the only party that believe in abolishing land tax'.

This

is

not

calling

for

a

review,

or

a

change

in

circumstances,

or

a

change

in

brackets

or

a

change

in

the

multiplier

effect

applied

by

Treasury.

This

is

an

unequivocal

view

of

the

Liberal

Party

at

the

time

that

they

would

abolish

land

tax.

Another

statement

from

the

then

shadow

treasurer,

'This

is

another

area

where

Tasmanians

will

see

that

only

the

Liberals

are

offering real change by abolishing land tax'.

They

are

the

only

party

committed

to

abolishing

land

tax

in

Tasmania.

The

hypocrisy

of

this

Government;

the

hypocrisy

of

this

Treasurer

and

Premier

saying

when

he

was

currying

support

in

Opposition

that

the

Liberal

Party

is

the

only

party

committed

to

abolishing

land

tax

because

it

is

bad

in

a

whole

range

of

reasons

-

it

is

bad

for

business,

it

is

bad

for

Tasmanians,

it is bad for poor Tasmanians.

The

Labor

Party

has

never

said

we

would

abolish

a

land

tax.

The

Labor

Party

said

it

needs

to

be

a

fair

regime

of

land

tax.

When

elected

to

government,

and

with

the

opportunity

over

the

last

six

and

now

seven

budgets,

the

Treasurer

has

had

the

opportunity

to

follow

through

on

his

commitments

in

opposition.

He

has

had

the

opportunity

to

alleviate

some

of

the

pressures

of

land

tax

on

a

particular

cohort

of

paying

members

of

our

community

but

he

glibly dismisses their views.

There

are

extreme

outcomes

of

doubling,

tripling

and

quadrupling

a

tax

they

have

to

pay

in

a

short

period

of

time.

That

is

clearly

perverse

and

unfair.

It

is

clearly

bill

shock,

which

particularly

undermines

many

people

who

have

shacks

but

do

not

see

their

shack

as

a

financial

asset

in

terms

of

a

monetary

return.

It

is

a

perverse

outcome.

The

hypocrisy

of

the

Premier

to

get

up

and

dismiss

it

and

basically

say,

'Well,

we

understand

no

one

likes

paying

tax'

-

that

is

not

fair.

People

want

to

pay

a

fair

tax.

And

then

to

say,

'Well,

the

values

have

gone

up

and

therefore

there's

nothing

we

can

do'

is

diametrically

opposed

to

his

position

in

opposition.

It

is

not

so

much

about

Labor

and

Liberal

in

terms

of

land

tax

rate,

it

goes

to

the

character

and

credibility

of

the

Premier

and

Treasurer.

He

has

done

it

on

old-growth

logging.

He

has

done

it

on

tax,

claiming

that

they

would

bring

in

no

new

taxes.

He

brought

on

a

point

of consumption tax on the racing industry, a tax they said they would never commit to.

Time expired.

[12.00 p.m.]

Ms

O'CONNOR

(Clark

-

Leader

of

the

Greens)

-

Madam

Deputy

Speaker,

it

is

NAIDOC

Week

2020,

and

the

theme

of

this

year's

NAIDOC

Week

is

'Always

Was,

Always

Will

Be'

Aboriginal

land.

It

is

important,

if

we

are

going

to

have

a

matter

of

public

importance

debate

here

today,

that

we

recognise

we

are

standing

on

the

land

of

the

palawa

pakana

people.

It

was

never

ceded.

That

is

the

truth

that

this

parliament

needs

to

understand

and work towards resolving.

It

galls

me

that

at

the

start

of

NAIDOC

Week

we

are

having

a

debate

about

land

tax,

which

has

a

point

I

have

yet

to

discern

from

Mr

O'Byrne.

We

are

on

Aboriginal

land.

There

has

not

been

true

reconciliation.

Land

returns

have

stalled.

There

has

been

no

significant

return

of

lands

for

almost

20

years.

We

are

no

further

advanced

on

negotiating

a

treaty

with

the

first

Tasmanians.

In

too

many

parts

of

this

island

and

this

country

we

still

celebrate

26

January,

which

is

a

day

regarded

by

Aboriginal

people

as

invasion

day,

and

rightly

so.

We

still

do

not

have

dedicated

seats

in

the

Tasmanian

Parliament.

As

a

member

of

the

inquiry

that

was

established

to

look

at

the

House

of

Assembly

restoration

bill,

I

know

you,

Madam

Deputy

Speaker,

would

support

dedicated

seats

in

the

Tasmanian

Parliament

for

the

palawa

pakana

people.

I

simply

reinforce

to

the

House

that

it

was

a

unanimous

tripartisan

recommendation

to

the

parliament

that

we

work

towards

dedicated

seats

for

Tasmanian

Aboriginal people. It would be a start.

It

might

refine

our

thinking

a

little

so

that

when

it

is

NAIDOC

Week

we

have

a

debate

in

this

place

about

how

far

we

have

yet

to

go

towards

true

reconciliation

-

the

steps

we

need

to

take,

the

truths

we

need

to

hear,

the

land

we

need

to

give

back,

the

special

dates

we

need

to

change.

This

always

was

and

always

will

be

Aboriginal

land.

The

Parliament

of

Tasmania

should

permanently

fly

the

Aboriginal

flag.

I

note

that

it

is

up

this

week,

but

surely

the

Tasmanian Parliament should acknowledge that it needs to raise the flag and keep it up.

On

the

question

of

land

tax,

it

reminds

me

of

growing

up

on

Minjerribah/Stradbroke

Island,

home

of

the

Quandamooka

people,

where

the

locals

were

priced

out

of

the

island

because

land

values

went

up

so

far

and

so

fast

that

low-income

people

just

could

not

afford

to

stay on the island.

We

have

to

be

very

careful

here

in

Tasmania

because

we

are

not

a

wealthy

state

and

for

many

Tasmanians

their

wealth

is

in

their

shack.

We

recognise

that

this

is

the

system

we

have

and

the

land

tax

rates

that

have

been

set

and

applied

this

year

are

what

are

in

place,

but

if

the

Government

can

provide

relief

to

small

businesses

for

land

tax,

why

can't

there

be

some

gesture of relief to property owners?

I

will

read

into

the

Hansard

some

correspondence

from

my

constituent,

Mr

Appleby

of

Sandy Bay, who writes:

I

am

writing

this

letter

in

the

fervent

hope

that

Residential

Landlords

might

be

spared

the

manifestly

excessive

increases

in

Land

Tax

for

the

20/21

financial

year

and

I

wish

to

add

my

voice

to

others

who

have

already

raised

this issue.

Land

values

have

been

rising

consistently

in

Tasmania

for

a

number

of

years

and

it

would

appear

that

I

(and

many

others)

have

now

been

catapulted into the highest land tax bracket.

Due

to

the

highly

regressive

nature

of

the

land

tax

table

this

has

caused

a

catastrophic

increase

in

my

land

tax

assessment

which

has

risen

by

46%

this

year

after

a

25%

increase

last

year.

This

constitutes

a

significant

financial

impost

which

will

cause

me

(and

others)

considerable

hardship

at

this

very

trying time.

This

comes

at

a

time

when

residential

leases

have

been

temporarily

invalidated

by

emergency

measures

imposed

by

the

State

Government.

This means that -

1)

I am unable to Increase Rents.

2)

I

am

unable

to

Evict

Tenants,

even

when

they

refuse

to

pay

their

rent.

3)

Any

tenant

can

refuse

to

pay

rent

even

if

not

affected

financially

by the pandemic.

4)

I

am

encouraged

to

negotiate

with

tenants

for

lower

rents

where

necessary.

I

have

negotiated

a

lower

rent

with

one

tenant

and

renewed

a

lease

with

another

at

the

same

rate

and

thus

I

am

already

facing

a

significantly

reduced

income

for

this

financial

year.

This

is

despite

my

costs

(Rates,

Land

Tax,

Water

Rates

and Insurance to name but a few) increasing significantly.

I

am

a

fully

self-funded

retiree

relying

on

two

streams

of

income.

These

are

-

1)

Shares …

2)

Property Rentals …

This

has

resulted

in

a

significant

reduction

to

my

income.

I

would

also

like

to

point

out

that

I

have

not

received

one

cent

of

assistance

from

the

Federal

Government.

Ms

O'Connor,

I

fervently

hope

you

will

give

my

financial

situation

(and

that

of

others

in

a

similar

position)

due

consideration

and

lobby

the

government

to

support

the

reversal/deferment

of

the

Land

Tax

increases

for

the

20/21

financial

year

and

lobby

to

revise

the

structure

of

the

land

tax

rates

to

reflect

the increased land values which now apply in Tasmania.

Like

many

members

in

this

place,

that

is

only

one

piece

of

correspondence

I

have

received

from

a

constituent

in

relation

to

their

shock

when

they

opened

their

land

tax

bill

this

year.

I

simply

urge

the

Premier

and

Treasurer

to

consider

whether

there

is

any

relief

that

can

be

provided

to

land

tax

bills

in

this

year,

because

all

across

the

community

people

are

suffering.

People

have

been

dealt

financial

impacts

and

government

should

be

able

to

adjust

its policy somehow in order to provide a measure of assistance.

Time expired.

[12.07 p.m.]

Mr

FERGUSON

(Bass

-

Minister

for

Finance)

-

Madam

Deputy

Speaker,

I

thank

members

for

their

contributions

so

far

and

can

say

that

I

have

listened

to

a

number

of

passionate speeches from the shadow treasurer. That was not one of them.

We

know

many

Tasmanians

are

doing

it

tough

due

to

the

impacts

of

the

pandemic

and

the

Government

has

and

will

continue

to

do

everything

we

can

to

respond

and

support

people,

particularly

those

who

are

doing

it

the

toughest

and

struggling

with

businesses,

struggling

with employment and struggling with the costs of living. We have responded.

That

is

precisely

why

this

MPI

is

about

land

tax.

One

thing

that

has

so

far

failed

to

be

mentioned

is

the

fact

that

the

Government

waived

the

final

tranche

of

land

tax

accounts

for

the

2019-20

financial

year,

announced

earlier

this

year,

a

direct

intervention

into

supporting

people

during

a

period

of

incredible

uncertainty

and

financial

hardship.

We

did

not

interrogate

each

and

every

one

of

those

accounts

and

see

who

needed

help

the

most.

We

needed to intervene quickly and take pressure off in a policy sense and we did that.

It

is

surprising

to

me

that

the

Labor

Party

would

ever

want

to

have

a

debate

on

land

tax.

The

Premier

has

already

given

a

very

decent

account

of

himself

in

responding

to

the

questions

around

commitments

made

by

the

Liberal

Opposition

at

an

election

that

we

did

not

win.

That

is

why

I

am

still

surprised

that

the

Labor

Party,

in

the

week

of

the

Budget

and

in

the

week

before

their

expected

alternative

budget

-

which

if

time

permits

I

can

come to but time will probably beat me - to bring up land tax.

It

is

the

Labor

Party

that

wants

to

bring

in

the

vacant

shack

tax.

It

is

the

Labor

Party

who

is

pretending

to

suck

up

to

people

who

are

in

receipt

of

land

tax

notices

when

they

are

the

ones

who

actually

removed

the

shack

exemption

on

land

tax.

I

was

here

in

2011.

I

believe

I

was

sitting

in

Mr

O'Byrne's

seat

and

it

was

Mr

O'Byrne,

sitting

in

that

seat

and

the

premier,

Ms

Giddings,

sitting

in

that

seat

and

Rebecca

White

sitting

in

one

of

those

seats.

It

was

that

government

that

went

to

the

2010

election

promising

shack

owners

they

would

not

be

paying

shack

taxes

or

land

taxes

on

their

shacks.

It

was

that

government

just

one

year

later that removed that exemption. Do not forget your history, I say to the Labor Party.

We

are

supporting

people

through

difficult

times.

Any

suggestion

that

the

Government

has

in

some

way

amended,

changed,

altered,

increased

those

tax

rates

is

without

foundation.

We

have

not

laid

a

finger

on

that

calculation

rate,

which

is

set

in

the

2010

legislation.

We

have

not

increased

it.

We

have

not

changed

it.

We

have

not

changed

the

revaluation

time

frames.

We

have

not

changed

the

adjustment

factor

time

frames.

None

of

those

things

have

happened.

We

understand

that

it

was

a

decision

by

this

parliament

in

2010

to

avoid

bill

shock:

instead

of

having

people

getting

a

massive

increase

every

six

years

it

would

be

smooth.

That

was

a

decision

taken

by

whomever

was

the

Treasurer

at

that

time

and

this

parliament.

I

accept

and

I

am

sympathetic,

as

is

the

Premier,

to

people

who

might

be

struggling

at

the

moment.

That

is

why

we

brought

in

the

waiver

in

the

last

financial

year.

It

is

why

the

Government

brought

a

bill

through

this

House

to

allow

for

provision

for

more

waivers

on

commercial

land

where

owners

are

experiencing

hardship,

which

they

do

need

to

be

able

to

demonstrate, during the pandemic, providing land tax relief in this financial year.

We

understand,

as

the

Premier

has

outlined,

that

not

everybody

wants

to

pay

tax.

I

am

not

sensing

any

real

policy

statement

by

the

Labor

Party.

If

Mr

O'Byrne

and

the

shadow

treasurer

are

fair

dinkum

about

this,

and

I

do

not

believe

they

are,

they

would

do

a

number

of

things.

They

would

explain

why

they

removed

the

exemption

in

2011.

They

would

develop

a

policy

on

this

and

say

how

much

it

would

cost

and

what

they

would

cut

to

pay

for

it.

They

would

dump

their

shack

tax

policy,

which

they

took

to

the

last

election.

I

say

through

you,

Madam

Deputy

Speaker,

to

the

shadow

treasurer

and

your

Leader,

Rebecca

White,

you

took

a

policy

to

the

last

election

that

said

if

you

own

a

shack

and

you

do

not

live

in

it

or

you

do

not

rent

it

out

to

a

residential

tenancy

then

there

will

be

an

extra

tax

put

in

place

to

punish

you

for

being so greedy that you would have a shack. That is precisely the policy.

Mr O'Byrne

- That is not for Tasmanians and you know it. Do not mislead the House.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER

- Order. The member for Franklin has had his turn.

Mr

FERGUSON

-

The

Liberal

Party

exposed

the

tax.

The

Labor

Party

did

not

like

it.

It

was

uncomfortable.

I

think

I

am

reasonably

well

read

on

these

things.

Unless

I

have

missed

something,

it

is

still

Labor

policy.

Unless

I

have

missed

something,

the

vacant

shack

tax

increase,

the

special

new

tax,

is

still

Labor

policy.

That

is

what

Labor

took

to

the

last

election.

They

claimed

it

was

a

housing

initiative

of

course

but

it

was

actually

a

tax

on

people that Mr O'Byrne would pretend to be advocating for today.

The

claim

of

dismissal

or

ignoring

or

not

caring

can

all

be

set

aside

because

they

are

wrong.

The

Government

has

not

increased

land

tax.

We

have

not

increased

land

tax

rates.

We

have

not

changed

the

method

of

calculation.

We

have

not

changed

the

role

of

the

Valuer-General

in

determining

periodically

what

is

the

current

market

rate

and

the

wealth

of

that

property.

If

anybody

is

experiencing

difficulty

in

paying

their

land

tax

we

would

like

to

hear

from

them

via

the

Commissioner

of

State

Revenue.

They

can

apply

to

the

commissioner

and

the

commissioner

is

able,

if

he

is

persuaded,

to

defer

lump

sum

payments.

He

can

enter

into arrangements for people to pay their land tax by instalments.

It is only the other side of the House that has a plan to increase taxes on shacks.

Time expired.

[12.14 p.m.]

Ms

STANDEN

(Franklin)

-

Madam

Deputy

Speaker,

I

rise

to

contribute

on

this

matter

of

public

importance.

In

particular

I

want

to

highlight

the

impact

of

land

tax

on

the

private

rental market and on housing affordability and availability generally within this state.

The

crisis

in

housing

affordability

and

availability

existed

prior

to

the

COVID-19

pandemic.

The

problem

is

well

understood.

The

issue

is

that

it

has

not

gone

away.

About

40

000,

or

one

in

four,

households

are

living

in

the

private

rental

market

across

Tasmania

so

this

issue

affects

a

very

substantial

proportion

of

households

in

our

community.

It

does

the

heavy

lifting,

it

has

been

said,

in

a

housing

market

where

people

are

struggling

to

get

into

home

ownership,

renting

on

average

10

years,

so

longer

and

longer

in

order

to

save

for

a

home

deposit.

The

shortfall

of

approximately

11

300

social

and

affordable

houses

is

pushing

more

and more people into homelessness.

Anglicare's

report

on

rental

affordability

released

every

year

has

consistently

shown

us

that

there

are

very

limited

options:

in

some

cases,

no

options

at

all

for

people

on

very

low

incomes

to

access

private

rental

properties.

More

than

30

per

cent

of

the

average

household

budget

is

expended

on

rent,

generally

the

largest

proportion

of

the

household

budget.

The

latest

rental

affordability

report

put

out

by

Shelter

said

that

an

average

income

household

in

Hobart

would

be

placed

in

rental

stress

if

paying

the

current

medium

rent.

Low

incomes

and

an

inadequate

supply

of

rental

housing

continue

to

drive

this

decline

in

rental

affordability

in

Hobart.

Even

in

regional

Tasmania

the

average

household

seeking

to

rent

would

be

facing

rent levels around 26 per cent of its income.

Other

authorities

have

more

to

say

on

this.

Hobart

has

been,

for

a

couple

of

years

now,

one

of

the

most

unaffordable

capital

cities

in

the

country.

Regional

parts

of

Tasmania

are

not

far

behind.

In

Launceston,

and

parts

of

the

east

coast

and

other

parts

of

regional

Tasmania,

people

are

really

struggling

to

find

an

affordable

rental

property.

House

rents

in

Hobart

have

been

up

over

27.2

per

cent

over

the

past

five

years.

Recently

there

has

been

some

softening

of

the

rental

market.

Estimates

are

that

decline

of

around

4.3

per

cent

in

rental

prices

amounts

to

around

$20

or

so

extra

in

average

weekly

household

budgets.

That

is

being

described

as

temporary

relief

just

like

the

income

support

measures

that

have

been

slowly

reduced by the Commonwealth Government.

It

will

take

some

time

for

market

corrections

to

flow

through

the

economy

because

most

people

in

the

private

rental

market

are

in

lease

agreements

of

12

months

or

so.

The

October

CoreLogic

report

and

the

Tenants'

Union

of

Tasmania

Tasmanian

rent

report

of

the

June

quarter

2020

showed

that

whereas

the

overall

change

in

medium

rent

was

up

5

per

cent

for

the

year,

in

places

like

the

north-west

it

was

up

10.2

per

cent

for

that

year.

I

will

be

looking

with

interest

what

happens

in

the

which

will

more

accurately

reflect

the

impact

of COVID-19.

The

REIT

president,

Mandy

Welling,

said

that

Hobart's

annual

growth

was

2.6

per

cent

above

the

national

average.

She

said

that

renters

should

not

expect

to

see

that

situation

continuing,

that

rents

were

expected

to

change

dramatically

over

the

months

and

that

those short-term reductions are expected to be short lived.

Prior

to

the

pandemic

more

than

8000

low-income

Tasmanian

households

were

experiencing

rental

stress.

Sadly,

more

than

20

000

Tasmanians

lost

their

job

during

this

pandemic.

About

3500

Tasmanians

were

on

the

social

housing

waitlist,

a

figure

that

has

been

increasing

due

to

the

lack

of

social

housing

and

unaffordable

private

rental

markets.

The

latest

quarterly

housing

report

to

September

2020

is

now

overdue.

In

the

report

before

that

the

Housing

minister

reported

that

just

five

new

social

houses

had

been

completed

of

a

target

of 350 or 80 per annum promised from the commonwealth debt waiver.

Much

more

needs

to

be

done

in

housing

affordability

and

availability,

including

accelerating

the

building

of

social

housing.

Housing

security

goes

hand

in

glove

and

is

fundamental

to

job

security,

to

engagement

in

education

and

training,

and

to

contributing

to

society

generally.

All

of

these

things

underpin

economic

recovery.

In

terms

of

the

land

tax

bills

reported

to

be

increased

by

30

per

cent,

or

40

per

cent

this

year,

what

will

landlords

do?

Well,

as

the

ABC

recently

reported,

and

as

the

member

for

Clark,

the

Leader

of

the

Greens,

has

said,

people

like

Peter

and

Jill

Wood

and

Maxine

Lowry

are

not

all

wealthy

investors.

We

are

talking

about

mum-and-dad

Tasmanians,

some

of

whom

have

inherited

shacks,

and

that

is

part

of

the

lifestyle

we

enjoy

as

Tasmanians.

Others

have

invested

in

the

private

rental

market in order to make a contribution to their superannuation as they get older.

The

recently

established

Tasmanian

Residential

Rental

Property

Owners

Association,

has

argued

that

ultimately

all

of

this

will

impact

not

just

landlords

in

the

short-term,

but

also

tenants in the long-term. Most recently, Louise Elliott wrote an opinion piece that said -

Landlords

are

certainly

considering

their

risk

appetite

and

the

decisions

they

make

will,

sadly,

ultimately

will

be

detrimental

to

tenants.

And

it

will

cost

the

government

more.

Fewer

rental

properties,

higher

rents,

more

demand

on

social

housing

and

more

pensions

to

be

paid

out

will

be

just

a

few

of

the

consequences.

It

has

recently

been

argued

that

a

number

of

properties

have

transferred

from

the

short-stay

market

back

to

the

private

rental

market.

Investment

returns

remain

high

in

that

private

rental

market.

The

latest

data

report

on

the

short-stay

accommodation

sector

for

the

period

to

June,

as

I

understand

it,

is

now

significantly

overdue

-

some

two

months

overdue.

The

report

that

showed

that

some

400-plus

properties

had

transferred

from

the

short-stay

market

into

the

private

rental

market

but

it

is

not

clear

how

long

that

correction

will

remain.

Time expired.

[12.22 p.m.]

Mr

STREET

(Franklin)

-

Madam

Deputy

Speaker,

the

hypocrisy

of

Labor

bringing

this

issue

here

as

a

matter

of

public

interest

is

unbelievable.

The

easiest

thing

to

do

as

a

politician

is

to

pander,

and

tell

people

what

they

want

to

hear.

The

fact

is

that

Labor

removed

the

exemption

for

shack

owners

in

2011.

They

took

the

shack

tax

to

the

2018

election.

This

Government

provided

a

waiver

on

land

tax

because

of

the

COVID-19

situation.

It

provided

ongoing

waivers

for

land

tax

to

some

people.

If

Mr

O'Byrne

and

Labor's

position

is

that

the

waiver

should

be

ongoing,

then

it

is

incumbent

upon

him

when

he

brings

down

his

alternative

budget

-

which

we

know

he

is

not

going

to

do

-

to

fully

cost

the

waiver

he

is

proposing.

The

other

tricky

thing

he

has

done,

is

that

he

has

not

really

proposed

a

waiver.

What

he

has

done

is

give

bit

of

a

nudge

and

a

wink

to

shack

owners

to

say,

yes,

Labor

is

on

your

side,

and

the

Government

is

terrible

and

all

it

wants

to

do

is

increase

your

land

tax.

He

is

not

prepared

to

go

on

the

record

and

say

that

he

would

extend

the

waiver,

because

he

knows

he

cannot

cost

it.

He

is

not

prepared

to

do

the

work

to

tell

Tasmanians

what

services

he

is

prepared to cut in order to provide that waiver.

That

is

pandering.

It

is

absolute,

galling

hypocrisy

from

Labor

once

again.

It

is

becoming a theme in this place, and not a particularly attractive one.

[12.23 p.m.]

Ms

OGILVIE

(Clark)

-

Madam

Deputy

Speaker,

there

was

some

colourful

language

there - a very interesting contribution.

I

have

the

great

benefit

of

not

being

part

of

a

party,

so

I

can

speak

directly

about

what

constituents

are

telling

me.

I

will

make

a

quick

contribution

on

a

couple

of

contacts

I

have

had,

from

people

who

have

pointed

out

anomalies

in

the

rates

of

land

tax

between

themselves

and

their

neighbours.

Those

issues

are

quite

real,

and

it

is

something

that

we

need

to

consider.

I

will

be

writing

to

the

Government

and

seeking

assistance

to

try

to

sort

out

some

of these issues.

The

issue

is

not

only

about

our

Tasmanian

culture

and

the

way

we

live

here

on

our

beautiful

little

island

with

our

shack

culture

and

living

by

the

sea

and

all

the

activities

we

know

and

love

to

do.

However,

times

have

changed

and

there

is

a

great

deal

more

pressure

on

property

in

Tasmania.

I

am

deeply

concerned

about

our

kids

as

they

move

forward

into

the

stage

of

life

where

they

are

looking

to

buy

houses,

loaded

up

with

HECS

debt,

and

now

if

they

choose

the

wrong

course,

even

more

HECS

debt,

unable

to

get

a

start

on

the

property

ladder

and

perhaps

even

delaying

being

able

to

have

a

family

because

they

are

paying

off

the

debt we have loaded them up with.

We

have

seen

this

new

model

come

completely

unstuck

in

America.

It

is

something

I

am

very

concerned

about

here.

It

is

a

multi-layered

issue

with

state

and

federal

components

to

it

but

the

intergenerational

equity

issue

is

extremely

important.

We

need

to

be

thinking

about

this

and

focusing

on

it

in

Tasmania.

One

of

the

things

we

can

do

is

alleviate

some

of

the

cost

of

higher

education

if

that

is

where

things

are

headed.

We

would

love

our

children

to

be

able

to

stay,

live

and

work

in

Tasmania,

but

to

do

that

we

need

to

provide

jobs,

accommodation

they

can

afford

and

career

trajectories,

whether

they

go

for

a

while

and

come

back - how we manage those things.

I

want

to

get

on

the

record

about

the

real

impacts

for

people,

families,

kids

-

my

kids,

your

kids,

all

of

us

have

families

-

and

about

how

we

move

forward

with

this

stuff.

I

do

not

mind

paying

tax

and

feel

it

is

part

of

being

a

decent

person

in

a

democracy

and

our

community, but I like to see my taxes spent wisely as well.

I

note

that

some

people,

when

it

comes

to

land

tax,

particularly

in

this

pandemic

year,

have

had

a

rotten

year

and

need

a

bit

of

help

smoothing

the

cash

flow.

That

is

a

real

issue.

We

have

done

that

with

other

contractual

relationships

such

as

leases

and

licences

where

people

have

needed

a

bit

of

extra

help.

That

is

the

big-picture

stuff

we

ought

to

be

thinking

about

whilst

we

go

through

the

details

and

nuts

and

bolts

of

how

land

tax

operates

and

I

hope

at some stage we will be able to have that bigger-picture discussion.

Matter noted.

END-OF-LIFE CHOICES (VOLUNTARY ASSISTED DYING) BILL 2020

(No. 30)

First Reading

Bill received from the Legislative Council and read the first time.

ELECTRICITY, WATER AND SEWERAGE PRICING (MISCELLANEOUS

AMENDMENTS) BILL 2020 (No. 40)

Second Reading

[12.28 p.m.]

Mr

FERGUSON

(Bass

-

Minister

for

Finance)

-

Madam

Deputy

Speaker,

the

Treasurer

has

prepared

this

bill

and

I

am

bringing

it

through

on

behalf

of

the

Government

for

reasons that have been explained. I move -

That the bill be now read the second time.

Throughout

this

unprecedented

global

pandemic,

the

Government

has

remained

committed

to

reforming

and

adapting

administrative

arrangements

to

manage

and

mitigate

the

impact

on

our

economy

and

community.

In

these

challenging

times,

the

maintenance

of

our

essential infrastructure services such as electricity and water and sewerage services is critical.

The

independent

regulation

of

electricity

and

water

and

sewerage

prices

is

a

forward-looking

process,

with

pricing

proposals

and

regulatory

determinations

extending

out

a

number

of

years

into

the

future.

The

regulatory

pricing

periods

for

both

these

industries

are

due

to

expire

at

the

end

of

the

current

financial

year.

However,

the

current

pandemic

is

creating

widespread

uncertainty.

This

affects

the

ability

of

our

regulated

service

providers

to

plan

ahead

to

determine

the

needs

of

customers

and

the

costs

of

service

delivery,

both

of

which

impact

upon

pricing

outcomes.

Uncertainty

and

risk

usually

lead

to

the

application

of

financial contingencies that may place upward pressure on prices.

This

bill

extends

the

current

regulatory

periods

for

electricity

and

water

and

sewerage

by

12

months.

For

electricity,

this

will

apply

to

the

regulatory

periods

for

both

regulated

small

customer

retail

prices

and

the

regulated

feed-in

tariff

rate.

The

bill

extends

the

regulatory

periods

on

the

same

basis

that

applies

under

the

current

regulatory

determinations.

This

will

provide

additional

time

for

both

Aurora

Energy

and

TasWater

to

better

assess

their

respective

current

and

future

operating

environments

and

provide

pricing

submissions

to

the

Tasmanian

Economic

Regulator

that

reflect

the

most

efficient

outcomes

for

the

Tasmanian

community.

This

bill

amends

the

Electricity

Supply

Industry

Act

1995

to

extend

the

application

of

the

2016

standing

offer

price

determination

for

regulated

standing

offer

electricity

prices

by

12

months

to

30

June

2022.

This

will

allow

the

Tasmanian

Economic

Regulator

to

approve

prices for 2021-22 under the provisions of the current price determination.

The

bill

also

extends

the

application

of

the

2019

regulated

feed-in

tariff

rate

determination

by

12

months

to

30

June

2022.

Again,

the

extension

of

the

regulatory

period

means

that

the

Tasmanian

Economic

Regulator

will

calculate

the

regulated

feed-in

tariff

to

apply for 2021-22 on the same basis that currently applies.

This

bill

also

amends

the

Water

and

Sewerage

Industry

Act

2008.

The

bill

will

extend

the

application

of

the

2018

water

and

sewerage

price

determination

by

12

months

to

30

June

2022.

This

means

that

the

maximum

prices

for

2020-21

stipulated

in

the

2018

water

and

sewerage price determination will remain unchanged for 2021-22.

However,

the

Government

and

TasWater

signed

a

memorandum

of

understanding

on

1

May

2018

with

commitments

to

accelerate

water

and

sewerage

infrastructure

investment

and

deliver

improved

water

and

sewerage

services.

The

MOU

also

included

a

price

freeze

in

2019-20 and an annual price increase cap of 3.5 per cent from 2020-21 to 2024-25.

In

addition,

water

and

sewerage

prices

have

been

frozen

for

2020-21

in

response

to

the

COVID-19

pandemic.

This

means

that

actual

prices

for

2021-22

will

be

lower

than

the

regulated

maximum

prices

contained

in

the

extended

price

determination

and

are

expected

to

continue to be set in line with the annual price cap provisions contained within the MOU.

These

amendments

will

also

ensure

that

TasWater's

current

approved

price

and

service

plan

will

apply

for

an

additional

year

to

30

June

2022.

This

will

result

in

the

approved

customer

service

arrangements

and

customer

service

contract

continuing

unchanged

into

2021-22.

To

further

maintain

the

current

regulated

service

arrangements,

the

bill

also

amends

the

customer

service

code

issued

by

the

Tasmanian

Economic

Regulator

to

ensure

that

the

minimum service standards set out in the code for 2020-21 will also apply for 2021-22.

The

bill

also

sets

the

and

sewerage

regulatory

period

to

align

with

the

extension

of

the

current

regulatory

period,

with

the

period

to

commence

on

1

July 2022 and run for four years until 30 June 2026.

Madam

Deputy

Speaker,

this

bill

is

another

example

of

the

Government

acting

to

ensure

that

regulatory

arrangements

respond

and

adapt

appropriately

to

the

current

pandemic

situation.

The

amendments

within

the

bill

will

provide

time

for

Aurora

and

TasWater

to

develop

pricing

submissions

that

better

reflect

the

likely

future

needs

of

the

Tasmanian

economy

and

community.

This

will

result

in

pricing

proposals

that

are

more

efficient

and

based

on

less

uncertainty than would currently be the case.

The

bill

will

maintain

pricing

and

customer

service

outcomes

in

line

with

the

current

regulatory

arrangements

and

does

not

place

any

additional

regulatory

or

administrative

burdens upon Aurora or TasWater.

The

amendments

will

provide

for

improved

regulatory

outcomes

in

terms

of

prices

faced

by

the

Tasmanian

community

while

ensuring

efficient

financial

outcomes

to

support

the

ongoing sustainability of these essential services.

I commend this bill to the House.

[12.34 p.m.]

Mr

O'BYRNE

(Franklin)

-

Madam

Deputy

Speaker,

I

thank

the

Minister

for

Finance

for

stepping

in

on

this.

I

have

had

a

conversation

with

the

Treasurer

and

understand

the

reason

for

it

and

accept

that

he

is

taking

this

on

behalf

of

the

Treasurer.

This

is

a

sensible

amendment

bill

that

responds

to

a

unique

set

of

circumstances.

I

will

at

the

outset

acknowledge

the

briefing

from

department

officials

and

thank

them

for

their

ability

to

answer

all

our

questions

-

the

complex

ones

and

the

simpler

ones

from

me.

I

appreciate

their

briefing

on

this.

It

gives

us

a

greater

understanding

of

the

motivation

and

the

workings

of

these

pricing proposals and the regulatory determinations.

The

bill

responds

to

a

unique

moment

in

time.

As

the

minister

outlined

in

his

second

reading

speech,

we

have

been

confronting

some

significant

challenges

across

our

community,

both

business

and

private.

Bills

such

as

this,

to

respond

to

that

need,

are

completely

appropriate.

The

bill

amends

the

Electricity

Supply

Act

1995,

to

extend

the

application

of

the

2006

standing

offer

price

determination

for

regulated

standing

offer

electricity

prices

by

12

months,

to

30

June

2022.

It

also

extends

the

application

of

the

2018

water

and

sewerage

price

determination

by

12

months,

to

30

June

2022.

It

does

this

in

context

of

the

MOU

that

was

signed

in

2018

between

the

Government

and

TasWater,

in

relation

to

a

range

of

matters.

It

also

amends

the

current

customer

service

code

issued

by

the

Tasmanian

Economic

Regulator

to

ensure

that

the

minimum

service

standards

set

out

in

the

code

for

2020-21

will

also

apply

for 2021-22, providing the businesses and the community with the certainty that is required.

We

acknowledge

the

Government's

steps

in

taking

this

approach

with

electricity.

However,

we

are

still

surprised

they

have

not

dealt

with

the

issue

of

bill

shock

that

many

Tasmanians

are

facing

when

they

open

the

energy

bills

they

have

received

for

the

last

two

quarters.

We

have

heard

some

horrific

stories

of

bill

shock

from

Tasmanians

who

did

the

right

things

and

their

usage

has

increased

significantly,

from

staying

at

home

when

they

were

asked

to

do

so,

studying,

working

and

schooling

from

home.

They

have

done

the

right

thing

by

the

Government

and

by

the

rest

of

Tasmania

by

staying

home

and

therefore

their

usage

has

increased.

We

know

Tasmanians

have

some

of

the

highest

bills

in

the

country

by

way

of

our

usage and our energy usage profile.

We

know

many

Tasmanians

have

suffered

bill

shock

and

we

have

been

calling

for

the

Government

to

acknowledge

that

beyond

the

measures

they

have

taken.

We

believe

the

measures

taken

to

assist

people

to

confront

and

pay

their

energy

bill

do

not

go

far

enough.

We

seek

a

repeat

of

the

Government's

pre-election

strategy,

in

the

summer

of

2018,

where

they

sent

out

an

energy

supplement

to

Tasmanians.

This

was

not

a

discount

on

their

bill.

It

was

a

letter

and

payment,

signed

by

the

Premier

and

signed

by

the

energy

minister,

made

directly

into

people's

homes.

You

do

not

have

to

be

very

cynical

at

all,

minister

for

energy,

to

realise

the

motivations

of

your

Government

at

that

time

to

curry

favour

with

a

certain

part

of

the community to curry votes.

Then

when

Tasmanians

desperately

needed

you

to

be

there,

to

provide

some

level

of

assistance

to

deal

with

the

issue

of

bill

shock

it

was

not

an

election

time

so

you

were

nowhere

to

be

seen.

While

this

bill

goes

some

way

towards

smoothing

out

and

making

this

arrangement

an

extension

of

the

existing

arrangement,

and

moving

into

the

uncertain

future

particularly

in

the

months

is

appropriate,

I

would

not

be

patting

ourselves

on

the

back

too

much

because

there

was

an

opportunity

for

you

to

step

up

and

support

many

Tasmanians

who

were

suffering

with

enormous

energy

bills

over

and

above

their

normal

time,

but

you

were

nowhere

to

be

seen.

I

wonder

if

there

was

an

election

in

the

wind

whether

you

would

have acted as you did in the pre-election sugar hit in 2018.

We

still

call

for

that.

We

still

think

it

is

appropriate

for

those

Tasmanians

who

are

suffering

from

bill

shock

of

their

energy

bills

should

be

provided

with

a

level

of

assistance

over

and

above

what

has

already

been

announced

by

this

Government.

It

continues

to

be

our

position.

The

second

reading

speech

outlines

the

memorandum

of

understanding

signed

between

the

Government

and

TasWater

on

1

May

2018,

with

commitments

to

accelerate

water

and

sewerage

infrastructure

investment

and

deliver

improved

water

and

sewerage

services.

There

are

some

significant

question

marks

over

that

deal

and

the

potential

perverse

outcomes

and

pressures

that

will

be

placed

on

TasWater.

That

memorandum

of

understanding

followed

a

two-year

war

that

was

waged

by

this

Government

on

TasWater

to

seek

a

hostile

takeover

of

TasWater.

The

Premier,

the

Treasurer,

took

that

policy

to

the

election

of

2018,

but

on

the

day

of

the

opening

of

the

new

parliament

backflipped

and

effectively

capitulated

after

a

two-year

war

trying

a

hostile

takeover

of

TasWater.

They

signed

an

MOU

purported

to

deliver

a

whole

range

of

benefits

for

the

community.

At

the

time

we

raised

some

real

concerns

about

the

nature

of

that

MOU;

about

the

financial

capacity

of

TasWater

to

deliver

on

an

accelerated

infrastructure program.

Part

of

the

reason

for

the

MOU

and

the

$200

million

injection

over

10

years

for

TasWater

was

to

speed

up

its

capital

program

and

bring

projects

like

the

Macquarie

Point

treatment

plant

into

scope.

We

know

that

is

not

in

scope

and

we

heard

recently

from

evidence

provided

to

a

committee

in

the

other

place

that

investment

is

significantly

under

risk.

There

is

no

plan

to

do

that.

The

pricing

outcomes

of

that

MOU

are

putting

significant

pressure

on

TasWater's

books.

Typically

with

this

Government,

whenever

there

is

a

tough

issue they try to kick it down the road.

With

TasWater,

despite

trying

to

take

it

over

for

two

years

and

backflipping,

they

have

claimed

a

$200

million

cash

injection

will

deliver

a

range

of

benefits

for

the

community.

We

have

not

seen

that.

We

raised

significant

concerns

at

the

time

of

the

MOU.

We

supported

the

passage

of

that

MOU

and

the

subsequent

legislation

through

this

House

on

the

basis

that

it

was

not

constructive

for

a

government

to

be

at

war

with

a

utility,

creating

great

uncertainty

not

only

in

that

business

but

across

the

community.

We

raised

significant

concerns

about

the

ability

to

bring

forward

that

capital

program.

We

raised

significant

concerns

about

the

future

financial

viability

of

not

only

the

infrastructure

program

but

of

TasWater.

We

are

starting

to

see

evidence

seep

through

that

what

we

warned

about

only

two

years

ago

is

now

starting

to

come forward.

COVID-19

has

had

a

massive

impact

on

TasWater,

but

there

are

some

fundamental

questions

still

to

be

asked.

They

need

to

be

answered

by

the

Government.

The

claims

that

you

made

in

not

only

justifying

the

war

but

saying

that

a

capital

injection

would

bring

forward

the

infrastructure

program

-

there

is

no

evidence

the

infrastructure

program

has

been

brought

forward.

There

is

real

concern

about

what

the

arrangement

looks

like

in

terms

of

TasWater's

financial

situation,

particularly

heading

into

the

eighth,

ninth

and

10th

years

of

that arrangement.

We

support

this

necessary

amendment

bill.

It

goes

some

way

to

providing

certainty

and

ameliorating

any

unexpected

outcome

from

these

price

determinations

because

the

existing

ones

obviously

will

be

continued.

We

think

it

is

a

massive

missed

opportunity

for

the

Government

not

to

acknowledge

the

issue

of

bill

shock

in

our

electricity

prices

and

the

bills

that

struggling

Tasmanians

have

been

facing

over

the

last

two

billing

periods.

Massive

bill

shock.

We

think

it

further

exposes

the

lack

of

delivery

on

their

commitment

to

peace

in

the

war they conducted with TasWater. Having said that, we will support the bill.

[12.45 p.m.]

Ms

O'CONNOR

(Clark

-

Leader

of

the

Greens)

-

Madam

Deputy

Speaker,

the

Greens

support

this

legislation.

It

is

a

necessary

bill

in

a

time

of

pandemic.

It

will

provide

some

certainty

to

both

Aurora

and

TasWater

about

the

prices

that

may

be

set

over

the

but

it

will

reassure

Tasmanians

that

there

will

not

be

upwards

pressure

on

the

price

of

their

power, water and sewerage.

We

are

heading

into

a

calamitous

global

recession.

I

do

not

want

to

be

what

Mr

Tucker

would

call

the

doomsayer,

the

Cassandra,

the

prophetess

of

doom,

in

this

place,

but

all

the

signs

are

there

that

the

world

is

heading

into

a

significant

serious

and

deep

global

recession.

At

some

point

the

rubber

is

going

to

hit

the

road

with

things

like

regulated

price

setting.

It

is

really

important

that

in

Tasmania

we

have

an

independent

economic

regulator

and

a

system

of

setting

prices

that

is

by

and

large

above

politics.

At

some

point,

the

Government

or

parliament

is

going

to

have

to

take

the

brake

off

the

economic

regulator.

Otherwise,

what

is

the point of having an independent economic regulator?

We

need

to

be

mindful

of

that

and

the

potential

for

very

significant

shocks

to

people

when

they

receive

their

water

and

sewerage

bill

and

their

electricity

bills.

I

hope

that

is

something

the

Government

is

actively

considering.

While

it

makes

sense

to

extend

the

regulatory

pricing

period

to

the

middle

of

2022,

economists

are

telling

us

that

we

are

only

just

beginning to see the evidence of a global depression.

The

Reserve

Bank,

for

example,

when

it

cut

interest

rates

to

0.5

per

cent,

is

projecting

that

interest

rates

will

stay

at

record

lows

for

years

to

come.

That

is

an

acknowledgement

that

the

global

economy

is

staggering

and

reeling

as

a

result

of

the

coronavirus

pandemic.

I

too

have

spoken

to

constituents

who

got

a

terrible

shock

when

their

electricity

bill

arrived

this

year.

The

months

of

lockdown

and

the

pandemic

were

the

winter

months,

so

not

only

were

people

home

more

and

there

were

more

people

in

the

house

during

the

day,

it

was

colder.

Of

course

the

power

bills

have

soared.

Any

government

that

is

thinking

about

this

clearly

and

strategically

and

wants

to

deliver

long-term

cost-of-living

benefits

to

electricity

consumers

needs

to

have

a

look

at

the

Labor-Greens

government's

energy

efficiency

rollout

program.

That is how you deliver permanent savings to people on their electricity bill.

We

need

a

robust

concessions

scheme

in

place.

Tasmania

has

had

that

for

many

years.

It

makes

all

the

difference

to

the

lives

of

people

on

Commonwealth

support,

or

low-income

people.

We

are

going

to

see

the

price

of

utilities

increase.

You

cannot

keep

a

lid

on

electricity

price

rises

for

ever.

The

same

goes

for

water

and

sewerage.

I

encourage

the

Government

to

think

about

this.

For

a

fraction

of

the

allocation,

for

example,

of

the

$3.1

billion

infrastructure

fund,

we

could

roll

out

free

energy

efficiency

upgrades

to

every

single

low-income

household

in

Tasmania

for

about

$2500

a

household.

That

will

reduce

their

power

bills

by

hundreds

of

dollars

every

year,

as

well

as

bringing

down

our

emissions

from

energy, because, of course, we do still import coal power across Basslink.

Rather

than

having

to

bring

in

legislation

which

allows

Aurora

and

TasWater

to

effectively

tread

water

on

their

costs,

the

Government

needs

to

be

thinking

about

long-term

investment in bringing down the cost of living for Tasmanian households.

I

know

there

is

a

financial

wall

between

the

expenditure

of

government

as

such

and

a

government

business,

but

there

is

an

allocation

of

a

$3

billion-plus

Infrastructure

budget,

so

why

isn't

the

Government

supporting

TasWater

to

upgrade

some

of

its

critical

and

failing

infrastructure? Surely this is the time.

It

would

have

a

very

similar

effect

on

employment

but

it

would

also

mean

we

are

modernising

and

strengthening

our

water

and

sewerage

infrastructure

and

we

will

need

to

do

that

in

part

because

of

the

accelerating

impacts

of

climate

change

and

the

likelihood

that

some

of

our

water

and

sewerage

infrastructure

simply

will

not

be

able

to

cope

with

the

high

levels

potentially of inundation, extreme weather events and the like.

The

Greens

would

be

encouraging

government

to

think

a

bit

more

long

term

about

how

it

invests

public

money

in

bringing

down

the

cost

of

living,

as

well

as

assisting

TasWater,

which

has

been

handed

a

hugely

difficult

task,

to

upgrade

some

of

the

infrastructure

that

we

know

desperately

needs

upgrading,

such

as

Launceston's

water

and

sewerage

system.

It

is

a

really

hard

ask

of

government

to

put

primarily

the

cost

of

all

of

that

on

TasWater,

which

means the cost is borne by customers.

We

support

the

bill

because

it

is

a

necessary

extension

of

the

regulatory

period

in

a

time

of

pandemic,

but

let

us

start

thinking

more

long

term

about

how

we

permanently

bring

down

the

cost

of

living

for

Tasmanian

electricity

users

by

investing

in

megawatts,

which

means

energy

efficiency,

and

providing

some

sort

of

structural

capital

investment

support

for

TasWater

in

order

to

enable

it

to

upgrade

the

infrastructure

that

every

single

Tasmanian

relies

on.

[12.52 p.m.]

Mr

BARNETT

(Lyons

-

Minister

for

Energy)

-

Madam

Deputy

Speaker,

it

is

an

honour

to

stand

here

as

Minister

for

Energy

in

support

of

the

Leader

of

the

House

and

Minister

for

Finance

and

also

the

Premier

and

Treasurer

on

this

very

important

bill

and

to

indicate

up

front

that

there

is

not

a

government

in

history

that

has

done

more

to

focus

on

the

cost of living and the cost of doing business.

We

have

introduced

and

implemented

measure

after

measure

to

ensure

that

Tasmanians

and

Tasmanian

businesses

can

respond

to

the

challenges

they

have

before

them

and

to

keep,

wherever possible, the cost of living pressures and business pressures down.

Frankly,

it

was

irksome

to

hear

the

shadow

minister

for

energy

and

finance

preaching

to

this

Government

and

trying

to

send

a

message

that

he

is

in

support

of

small

business

and

others

in

this

great

state

of

Tasmania

when

the

member

has

a

track

record

of

being

minister

for

economic

development

under

a

Labor-Greens

government

that

lost

10

000

jobs

and

this

state

went

into

recession,

not

to

mention

the

fact

that

over

that

seven-year

period

there

was

a

65 per cent increase in electricity prices.

Ms

O'Connor

-

You

know

that

was

about

the

gold-plating

of

the

network.

It

was

nothing to do with the government of the day. It happened across the country.

Madam

DEPUTY

SPEAKER

-

Ms

O'Connor,

you

have

had

your

contribution,

thank

you.

Ms O'Connor

- I would like the minister to tell the truth.

Mr

BARNETT

-

Of

course

Labor

and

the

Greens

are

very

embarrassed

by

that

fact,

not to mention their call at the time for power rationing during that very challenging time.

We

are

a

Government

like

no

other

that

has

a

special

focus

on

delivering

for

Tasmanians

and

during

this

COVID-19

pandemic

people

have

been

working

at

home,

schooling

from

home

and

of

course

there

have

been

power

bills

for

some

households

and

they

have

been

impacted

and

that

is

why

we

have

implemented

unprecedented

levels

of

support.

The

Premier

has

delivered

$1

billion

worth

of

support

for

Tasmanian

businesses

and

the

Tasmanian

people,

the

Tasmanian

community.

In

fact

it

is

more

than

double

the

level

of

support

provided

by

any

other

state

relative

to

our

size

on

a

proportionate

per

person

basis.

We are proud of the support we have provided.

Electricity

and

water

customers

have

needed

that

support

in

these

times

and

we

have

responded

by

waiving

the

quarterly

electricity

and

water

and

sewerage

bills

issued

to

small

businesses

from

1

April

2020

this

year.

In

fact

there

were

an

estimated

34

000

small

businesses

that

benefited

to

the

tune

of

some

$27

million

in

terms

of

that

bill

waiver.

This

is

a

very

significant

commitment

for

and

on

behalf

of

the

taxpayers

of

Tasmania

to

support

those

businesses

during

the

coronavirus

pandemic,

the

greatest

health

and

economic

challenge we have had in our generation. We have responded and in fact have delivered.

There

was

a

$1000

grant

to

power

customers

within

an

embedded

network

and

those

customers

that

operate

in

a

larger

complex

like

a

shopping

centre

building

or

hospital.

In

fact

the

criteria

has

recently

been

reviewed

and

provided

another

two

months

for

broadening

that

criteria

so

that

they

can

respond

and

gain

that

$1000

grant.

On

top

of

that

you

have

the

$45

million

of

concessions,

one

of

the

most

generous

concession

systems

in

Australia

here

in

Tasmania

delivered

under

the

Gutwein

Liberal

majority

Government.

This

is

good

news

and

it should be noted and commended. It is one of the most generous schemes in the nation.

On

top

of

that

the

Government

has

recently

announced

a

1.38

per

cent

decrease

in

regulated

electricity

prices

for

the

2020-21

year.

That

is

also

good

news

-

electricity

prices

have

gone

down.

In

real

terms

they

have

gone

down

12

per

cent

for

households

and

19

per

cent

for

small

business,

in

stark

contrast

to

the

65

per

cent

from

the

other

side.

It

is

very

good

news

and

we

will

continue

to

do

everything

we

can

to

help

those

in

small

businesses

and

to

help Tasmanian residential customers.

We

have

the

Aurora

Energy

$5

million

COVID-19

grant.

They

are

a

fantastic

partner

supporting

Tasmanians

wherever

possible

and

I

note

that

there

is

still

some

$4

million

available

from

that

fund.

If

anyone

is

struggling

with

their

bills

I

urge

them

to

contact

Aurora

Energy. Reach out to Aurora Energy as soon as possible to make your situation very clear.

In

conclusion,

I

want

to

say

that

deferring

this

by

12

months

is

strongly

supported,

extending

that

regulatory

review

period

of

the

retail

costs

of

power

and

water

prices

by

another

12

months

to

30

June

2022.

It

effectively

freezes

the

review

of

the

retail

cost

for

water

and

electricity

services

and

I

strongly

commend

this

bill

and

thank

the

minister

for

delivering

on

it.

The

Government

remains

cautiously

optimistic

that

its

power

bill

relief

initiatives

are

working

well

and

that

this

bill,

together

with

all

those

initiatives,

will

continue

to support the Tasmanian community.

[12.59 p.m.]

Mr

FERGUSON

(Bass

-

Minister

for

Finance)

-

Madam

Deputy

Speaker,

in

the

minute

I

have

before

we

suspend,

and

I

will

respond

in

further

detail.

I

thank

members,

particularly

the

Opposition

and

the

Greens,

not

so

much

for

their

commentary

but

their

in

principal support for the bill. This is an important further measure, as we have said.

This

is

not

a

set-and-forget

process.

Throughout

the

whole

period

of

this

pandemic

since

it

really

hit

our

state

in

a

big

economic,

social

and

health

way

in

March,

we

have

been

working methodically through the range of areas where we can be providing support.

I

thank

those

who

have

acknowledged

those

initiatives,

in

particular

the

fact

that

the

Government

has

the

most

generous

response

package

of

any

of

the

states

and

territories

around

the

country

as

a

proportion

of

GSP.

We

are

leading

the

nation

very

strongly.

That

helps to point to the fact that Tasmania is leading the strongest rebound.

Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2.30 p.m.

ELECTRICITY, WATER AND SEWERAGE PRICING (MISCELLANEOUS

AMENDMENTS) BILL 2020 (No. 40)

Second Reading

Resumed from above.

Mr

FERGUSON

(Bass

-

Minister

for

Finance)

-

Madam

Speaker,

Mr

O'Byrne

and

Ms

O'Connor

have

raised

a

number

of

energy

issues,

and

my

colleague,

Mr

Barnett,

the

Minister

for

Energy,

has

already

responded.

I

have

some

further

comments

to

make

for

the

benefit

of

the debate.

We

recognise

the

cost

of

living

impacts

that

have

been

experienced

by

Tasmanian

residential

consumers

and

corporate

customers.

The

Government

has

provided

over

$1

billion

in

support

to

the

Tasmanian

community

through

these

difficult

times.

As

I

said

before

the

break,

that

is

more

than

double

the

level

of

support

provided

by

the

relative

to

our

size.

We

understood

energy

and

water

customers

needed

support

during

these

times.

The

Government

truly

appreciated

the

bipartisan

-

indeed,

the

multi-partisan

-

support

we

received

when

those

decisions

were

being

made.

Decisions

were

being

made

in

short

timeframes,

and

to

know

that

we

were

able

to

bring

those

matters

to

the

House

and

receive

support

is

a

matter

of historic record, and is appreciated.

Electricity

and

water

customers

received

support.

The

Government

responded

by

waiving

quarterly

electricity

and

water

and

sewerage

bills

issued

to

small

business

from

1

April

2020.

We

also

have

the

Government's

$45

million

Electricity

Concession

Scheme,

which I am advised is regarded as one of the most generous schemes in the nation.

In

June,

the

Government

announced

a

1.38

per

cent

decrease

in

regulated

electricity

prices

for

2020-21.

This

decrease

is

phenomenal

when

you

realise

that

very

few

businesses

would

be

in

a

position

to

do

that,

and

in

view

of

the

history

of

increased

power

prices,

Mr

Barnett

has

already

reflected

on

that

in

his

contribution.

Over

the

last

six

years,

this

government

has

delivered

prices

that

have

reduced,

in

real

terms,

by

12

per

cent

for

households

and

19

per

cent

for

small

business.

That

is

phenomenal.

It

is

something

people

cannot

lose

sight

of,

nor

think

that

it

was

an

automatic

process

that

simply

happened.

It

did

not.

Government,

by

working

with

its

businesses,

has

been

able

to

achieve

some

fantastic

outcomes.

The

Tasmanian

Economic

Regulator's

Comparison

of

Electricity

and

Gas

Prices

Report

from

September

shows

that

Tasmanians

continue

to

experience

some

of

the

lowest

of

power

prices in Australia.

Aurora

has

been

a

fantastic

partner

through

the

pandemic.

The

GBEs,

in

particular

Aurora,

have

been

keen

to

look

after

their

customers

-

our

Tasmanian

community.

I

thank

the

management

and

the

board

of

Aurora

for

the

compassionate

actions

they

have

taken,

with

the

support

of

the

Premier

and

the

Minister

for

Energy.

I

do

not

know

if

that

has

been

the

case

in

the

other

states,

especially

where

there

may

not

be

the

same

structure

of

ownership.

It

is

a

very positive story for Tasmanians.

Matters

concerning

TasWater

were

also

raised,

and

I

will

provide

a

high-level

response.

Mr

O'Byrne

in

particular,

commented

on

the

memorandum

of

understanding.

He

is

correct

in

that

the

initial

level

of

assistance

pledged

by

the

Government

was

$200

million.

However,

that

changed

in

the

2019-20

budget.

The

assistance

was

increased

and

reprofiled.

The

$200

million

equity

contribution

was

brought

forward,

and

is

being

funded

over

five

rather

than

10

years,

and

has

been

supplemented

with

a

further

$100

million

in

grant

funding

over

a

further

five years.

Funding

has

been

developed

in

consultation

with

TasWater

to

ensure

that

TasWater

remains

financially

sound,

noting

it

is

currently

98

per

cent

owned

by

its

local

government

owners, but also ensuring that capital is invested where it is most needed.

It

is

a

matter

of

record

that

I

have

been

applying

the

pressure

of

government

that

we

are

able

to,

given

we

are

a

2

per

cent

equity

holder

in

TasWater.

We

have

advised

TasWater

of

the

need

to

resolve

issues

in

their

Capital

Delivery

Office,

particularly

by

working

with

the

Civil

Contractors

Federation

and

the

government.

While

not

in

any

position

of

power

in

this

matter,

we

have

been

working

to

bring

the

parties

together

to

find

ways

for

tenders

to

go

to

market.

TasWater

management

needs

to

continue

to

keep

a

close

eye

on

that

process.

However,

I

am

hearing

more

positive

signals

from

the

civil

contractors

community.

I

will

continue

to

closely

observe

this

area

to

ensure

we

get

maximum

capital

out

the

door,

so

that,

as

well

as

the

legacy

issues

TasWater

is

dealing

with

in

some

cases

-

with

infrastructure

in

poor

condition

and

going

well

past

its

economic

life

in

some

cases

-

those

jobs

are

done

and

Tasmanians are employed to do them.

The

timing

of

investment

and

capital

projects

moves

around

due

to

different

factors

including

competing

needs,

project

complexity,

project

management

and

planning

considerations.

I

will

not

go

through

the

outcomes

the

government

wanted

to

achieve

in

its

proposal

to

take

over

the

business.

That

is

now

in

history:

opposed

by

the

Labor

Party,

I

understand

opposed

by

the

Greens,

and

certainly

opposed

in

the

Legislative

Council.

We

are

improving

impacts

on

the

community

and

helping

TasWater

to

have

its

best

chance of success.

Ms

O'Connor,

on

behalf

of

the

Greens,

raised

concerns

about

energy

prices.

I

thank

Ms

O'Connor

for

those

remarks

and

concerns

about

prices,

and

her

linkage

of

that

to

the

current

global

recession.

I

do

not

own

a

crystal

ball;

if

I

did,

I

would

not

know

how

to

use

it.

I

do

not

know

what

the

future

holds

to

allow

us

to

respond

to

claims

about

future

global

economic

circumstances.

However,

I

do

know

that

electricity

prices

and

the

futures

market

are

telling

a

different

story

to

the

one

outlined

by

Ms

O'Connor

in

her

contribution.

I

am

not

making

predictions

today,

but

I

am

advised

the

current

outlook

-

based

on

Australian

Stock

Exchange

future

contract

market

prices

-

suggests

that

mainland

wholesale

prices

would

remain

stable

over

the

foreseeable

future.

If

anything,

a

global

recession

would

be

expected

to

reduce

demand

and

put

downward

pressure

on

prices.

If

anybody

has

taken

a

look

around

the

markets

-

and

I

do

not

think

it

is

ever

wise

to

pinpoint

today's

market

movements,

whether

they are up or down -but if you take a general -

Ms O'Connor

- Thank you, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.

Mr

FERGUSON

-

Thanks

to

Pfizer

actually,

for

their

phenomenal

success

in

developing

a

stage

3

trial

with

more

than

40

000

participants

obtaining

more

than

90

per

cent

improvement.

That

trial,

together

with

the

political

stability

that

is

emerging

out

of

the

United States, can perhaps help explain that recovery.

I

do

not

want

to

focus

my

remarks

around

the

last

few

days

of

economic

recovery

on

stock

exchanges.

That

is

never

prudent

politics.

It

is

usually

luck

that

you

might

try

to

link

something

from

today's

movements

around

a

particular

issue.

However,

the

market

attitude

has

completely

turned

around

from

23

March.

They

will

continue

to

go

up

and

down

no

doubt, but there is no doom and gloom.

I

thank

Mr

Barnett,

Mr

O'Byrne

and

Ms

O'Connor

for

their

comments.

On

behalf

of

the

Premier

and

Treasurer,

I

appreciate

the

support

for

the

bill.

Mr

Deputy

Speaker,

I

commend

the bill to the House.

Bill read the second time.

Bill read the third time.

ENERGY CO-ORDINATION AND PLANNING AMENDMENT (TASMANIAN

RENEWABLE ENERGY TARGET) BILL 2020 (No. 43)

Second Reading

[2.41 p.m.]

Mr BARNETT

(Lyons - Minister for Energy) - Mr Deputy Speaker, I move -

That the bill now be read a second time.

The

Tasmanian

Government

recognises

that

the

energy

sector

is

rapidly

changing.

Australia's

energy

market

is

undergoing

a

major

transformation

from

dependence

on

fossil

fuels

to

predominantly

using

renewable

energy.

Comprehensive

and

diverse

variable

renewable

energy

generation,

with

dispatchable

energy

generation

for

firming,

is

required

to

enable a sustainable transition.

Tasmania

is

already

punching

above

its

weight

in

generating

low-cost,

reliable,

clean

energy

for

the

nation,

producing

nearly

a

quarter

of

Australia's

renewable

energy

while

consuming

just

2

per

cent

of

the

nation's

energy.

We

have

world-class

wind

and

water

resources

at

our

disposal

in

Tasmania.

This,

combined

with

our

firm

dispatchable

hydroelectric

generation,

places

Tasmania

in

a

unique

position

to

drive

the

nation's

energy

transformation.

We

can

harness

the

immense

potential

in

renewable

energy

to

grow

our

economy,

attract

investment,

create

jobs

and

transform

Tasmania

from

being

Australia's

leading renewable energy state into a world leader of low-cost, reliable and clean energy.

To

help

achieve

this

plan,

the

Government

is

developing

the

Tasmanian

Renewable

Energy

Action

Plan

which

outlines

our

vision

and

suite

of

actions

to

develop

renewable

energy

generation

in

Tasmania

over

the

coming

20

years.

The

final

Tasmanian

Renewable

Energy

Action

Plan,

which

will

be

released

in

coming

months,

sets

out

clear

objectives

and

actions

to

turn

Tasmania

into

a

renewable

energy

powerhouse.

A

key

pillar

of

the

action

plan

will

be

the

setting

of

a

world-leading

Tasmanian

Renewable

Energy

Target

which

will

see

Tasmania doubling its renewable electricity generation by 2040.

This

bill

sets

the

ambitious

and

achievable

renewable

energy

targets

that

will

underpin

the

decisive

action

that

the

Tasmanian

Government

is

taking

to

encourage

investment

in

our

renewable energy sector.

With

our

Tasmania

First

energy

policy,

we

have

committed

to

Tasmania

being

100

per

cent

self-sufficient

in

renewable

energy

by

2022.

Tasmania

is

on

track

to

reach

this

target

before

2022

with

the

recently

completed

Cattle

Hill

Wind

Farm

and,

under

construction,

Granville

Harbour

Wind

Farm;

projects

helping

us

achieve

this.

These

projects,

when

fully

operational,

will

provide

an

additional

256MW

of

generation

capacity.

Such

projects

represent

hundreds

of

millions

of

dollars

of

investment

and

hundreds

of

jobs,

particularly

during construction, in regional areas of Tasmania.

The

Energy

Co-ordination

and

Planning

Amendment

(Tasmanian

Renewable

Energy

Target)

Bill

2020

before

you

today

will

help

build

upon

such

successes

by

legislating

the

Tasmanian Renewable Energy Target (TRET) and supporting interim target.

Achieving

the

TRET

will

increase

the

state's

renewable

energy

output

equivalent

to

200

per

cent

of

2022

renewable

electricity

generation

levels.

This

means

by

31

December

2040,

21

000

GWh

of

electricity

generated

in

Tasmania

will

be

from

renewable

energy

sources.

An

interim

target

has

been

set

to

achieve

half

of

the

TRET

by

2030,

with

15

750

GWh

of

electricity generated in Tasmania to be from renewable energy sources.

The

TRET

and

interim

targets

legislated

by

the

bill

apply

to

electricity

generated

by

equipment

connected

to

the

National

Electricity

Market

in

Tasmania.

Renewable

energy

sources

including

wind,

solar

and

water

(including

hydro),

and

other

energy

sources

declared

by the minister will contribute to these targets.

Whilst

it

is

anticipated

that

the

majority

of

increased

generation

will

come

from

large-scale

renewable

energy

sources,

it

is

envisaged

that

distributed

energy

sources,

such

as

rooftop solar, will contribute to the targets.

Another

renewable

energy

source

that

could

contribute

to

the

TRET

a

form

of

bioenergy.

This

could

involve

sources

such

as

agricultural

waste,

biomass-based

components

of

municipal

solid

waste

and

biomass

from

sewage

or

wood

waste.

Given

the

unknown

nature

of

how

technologies

may

evolve

to

utilise

these

sources,

it

is

prudent

that

no

particular

source

is

ruled

out

as

having

the

potential

to

contribute

to

the

TRET.

But

let

me

be

clear

that

while

the

Government

supports

bioenergy

and

the

job-creating

opportunities

it

represents,

we

have

been

consistent

in

that

we

have

always

intended

renewable

energy

sources

that

are

set

to

contribute

towards

the

TRET

to

be

based

on

solar,

water

and

wind.

The

harvesting

of

native

forests

specifically

for

renewable

energy

production

is

not

currently

required

or

anticipated

to

be part of the TRET.

In

terms

of

how

we

declare

additional

sources,

it

is

vital

that

we

give

this

important

legislation

the

strength

it

deserves.

This

legislation

sets

out

a

long-term

vision

out

to

2040.

With

this

in

mind,

today

we

are

tabling

an

administrative

amendment

so

that

new

sources

of

renewable energy to be declared by the minister will be through a disallowable instrument.

The

economics

of

Tasmania's

wind

offering

suggest

that

significant

build-out

of

new

renewable

electricity

generation

will

occur

in

the

state.

Renewable

energy

is

one

of

Tasmania's

greatest

economic

opportunities.

By

legislating

the

TRET,

the

Government

is

providing

the

energy

sector

with

investment

confidence.

It

also

provides

a

clear

signal

to

the

Australian

Energy

Market

Operator

(AEMO)

about

Tasmania's

strong

commitment

to

developing

its

renewable

energy

potential

to

support

changes

to

the

National

Electricity

Market

(NEM).

AEMO

has

noted

this

by

including

the

TRET

in

modelling

of

the

latest

Integrated

System

Plan

(ISP).

The

ISP

identifies

Marinus

Link

as

an

actionable

project,

one

that

is

critical

to

address

cost,

reliability

and

security

issues.

This

means

that

Marinus

Link

is

absolutely required and forms an essential part of the NEM's optimal development pathway.

While

the

TRET

strengthens

the

position

of

Project

Marinus,

the

interim

and

final

targets will only be achievable with the full commissioning of Marinus Link.

The

growth

in

renewable

electricity

generation

driven

by

introduction

of

the

TRET

has

the

potential

to

support

a

Tasmanian

renewable

hydrogen

industry

where

low-cost,

reliable

and

clean

electricity

will

be

critical

to

its

viability.

Renewable

hydrogen

also

has

the

potential

to

support

the

delivery

of

the

TRET

by

increasing

on-island

demand

which

will

support increased renewable electricity generation.

Renewable

hydrogen

production

is

an

emerging

industry

and

Tasmania

is

well

placed

to

leverage

our

competitive

advantage.

Tasmania

is

in

the

box

seat

to

deliver

cost-competitive

renewable

hydrogen

on

a

grand

scale,

with

the

cost

of

production

estimated

to

be

10

to

15

per

cent lower than from any other Australian power grid.

Tasmania's

Renewable

Hydrogen

Action

Plan

aligns

with,

and

is

complimentary

to,

the

National

Hydrogen

Strategy.

This

includes

the

announcement

that

the

Commonwealth

Government

has

committed

more

than

$370

million

to

establishing

an

Australian

hydrogen

industry.

In

addition,

Tasmania's

pumped

hydro

energy

storage

opportunities,

as

part

of

the

Battery

of

the

Nation,

will

support

the

nation's

transition

away

from

a

reliance

on

thermal

generation.

In

particular,

Tasmania

has

a

strong

competitive

advantage

in

deep-pumped

hydro

energy

storage.

The

first

phase

of

Battery

of

the

Nation

will

involve

investment

of

up

to

$1

billion

and

create

around

300

construction

jobs.

More

broadly,

a

1500

megawatt

Marinus Link with Battery of the Nation will stimulate:

●

$7.1 billion into the local economy;

●

up

to

1400

direct

and

indirect

jobs

associated

with

the

interconnector

and

supporting transmission; and

●

up

to

2350

direct

and

indirect

jobs

associated

with

the

renewable

energy

developments over a decade.

The

Tasmanian

Renewable

Energy

Coordination

Framework

is

currently

being

developed.

This

framework

will

support

and

manage

the

growth

of

the

Tasmanian

renewable

energy

industry.

The

scope

relates

specifically

to

the

new

generation

and

associated

transmission

required

to

achieve

the

TRET

and

support

Marinus

Link

and

Battery

of

the

Nation.

With

the

confidence

setting

the

TRET

will

give

to

the

market,

this

framework

will

provide the practical measures to support growth in the sector.

As

we

continue

to

manage

and

rebuild

from

COVID-19,

we

are

focused

on

growing

jobs

in

those

areas

where

we

have

a

competitive

advantage.

Introduction

of

the

TRET

will

support

this

by

helping

strengthen

investment

in

our

renewable

energy

sector.

It

will

help

drive

important

projects

such

as

Project

Marinus

and

Battery

of

the

Nation,

which

will

generate billions of dollars of investment and thousands of jobs in Tasmania.

It

is

important

to

note

that

these

two

projects

are

interdependent.

Renewable

electricity

generation

and

the

transmission

infrastructure

to

support

it

go

together.

One

of

the

challenges

associated

with

these

ambitious

projects

is

to

ensure

that

the

generation

and

transmission

projects

are

managed

in

an

orderly

way

to

ensure

the

best

outcomes

for

the

state

and

the

people of Tasmania.

There

are

benefits

in

enabling

parties

to

share

some

non-public

information

about

proposed

renewable

energy

generation

developments.

This

could

include

situations

where

two

or

more

prospective

generators

are

developing

projects

where

proceeding

completely

independently could result in overexpenditure or duplication of infrastructure.

Provisions

of

the

Commonwealth

Competition

and

Consumer

Act

2010

are

designed

to

prohibit

certain

anticompetitive

behaviours.

These

provisions

are,

quite

rightly,

comprehensive

and

robust.

They

are

so

robust

that

the

mere

sharing

of

non-public

information

can

give

rise

to

an

inference

or

presumption

that

there

has

been

cartel

conduct

or

anticompetitive behaviour.

This

means

that

licensed

electricity

businesses

and

prospective

generators

are

naturally

cautious

about

sharing

information

about

their

projects,

even

where

cooperative

approaches

to

developments,

including

shared

development

of

connection

and

transmission

infrastructure,

could

result

in

avoiding

expensive

and

unnecessary

duplication,

thereby

achieving

more

efficient outcomes and lower prices overall.

This

is

not

a

problem

unique

to

Tasmania.

The

issue

has

been

recognised

nationally,

and

there

is

a

comprehensive

reform

package

being

developed

to

address

the

problem.

The

reform

package

is

called

the

Coordination

of

Generation

and

Transmission

Investment,

or

COGATI.

This

is

a

significant

but

complex

reform

package;

however,

it

is

nowhere

near

complete.

We

do

not

propose

to

wait

for

the

other

states

and

the

Commonwealth

to

reach

agreement

on

the

detail.

We

are

taking

a

proactive

approach

to

developing

local

solutions

to

meet our own needs, on a timetable that works for us.

The

ability

for

jurisdictions

to

apply

carefully

considered

exemptions

from

prohibitions

on

certain

conduct

is

recognised

within

the

Competition

and

Consumer

Act.

The

development

of

legislative

exemptions

is

not

a

novel

innovation.

Exemptions

have

been

used

in

many

aspects

of

the

economies

of

Australian

states

where

the

importance

of

competitive

outcomes has been balanced with the need for more orderly and efficient arrangements.

The

many

examples

from

across

the

country

include

energy,

water

and

sewerage

and

the

transport

sector.

Within

Tasmania,

specific

exemptions

previously

enacted

by

parliament

include:

●

Competition Policy Reform (Tasmania) Act 1996;

●

Electricity Reform Act 2012;

●

Electricity Supply Industry Act 1995;

●

Electricity

Supply

Industry

Restructuring

(Savings

and

Transitional

Provisions) Act 1995;

●

Gaming Control Act 1993;

●

Rail Company Act 2009;

●

TOTE Tasmania (Sale) Act 2009; and

●

Water and Sewerage Corporation Act 2012.

We

have

worked

with

the

electricity

businesses

to

understand

the

rationale

for

an

exemption.

We

have

also

engaged

in

discussions

with

officers

of

the

Australian

Competition

and

Consumer

Commission

to

develop

a

narrow

exclusion

to

ensure

that

licensed

electricity

businesses

and

prospective

generators

are

able

to

share

limited

non-public

information

for

the

benefit

of

the

orderly

development

of

the

Tasmanian

electricity

grid

and,

ultimately,

Tasmanian customers.

The

exemption

proposed

in

this

bill

has

been

crafted

so

that

TasNetworks

may

not

share

with

generators

or

potential

generators

information

about

connection

costs

that

it

has

been

provided

by

other

competing

generators.

This

obviously

includes

Hydro

Tasmania

but

also

includes

the

numerous

potential

wind

generators

who

are

seeking

to

develop

Tasmania's

world-class wind resource.

What

this

narrow

exemption

does

do

is

allow

TasNetworks

and

generators

(including

Hydro

Tasmania)

to

share

information

about

modelling

assumptions

and

technical

information about potential network capacity.

Not

being

able

to

share

some

limited

information

in

certain

circumstances

means

that

businesses

could

be

making

sub-optimal

decisions

based

on

a

less

than

complete

understanding

of

some

of

the

technical

aspects

of

future

grid

connection

and

operation.

This

is

a

multimillion-dollar

market,

and

both

the

Government

and

businesses

need

to

be

armed

with sufficient information to make responsible decisions.

Mr

Deputy

Speaker,

this

bill

will

help

to

grow

jobs,

Tasmania's

economy

and

cement

Tasmania's

position

as

a

world

leader

in

renewable

energy.

We

will

continue

to

work

with

entities and proponents to ensure an efficient outcome for the Tasmanian community.

The

TRET

is

a

world-leading

target

that

will

place

Tasmania

as

the

renewable

energy

epicentre

of

Australia.

Its

enshrinement

is

the

start

of

a

very

important

journey

for

all

Tasmanians.

I commend the bill to the House.

[2.56 p.m.]

Mr

O'BYRNE

(Franklin)

-

Mr

Deputy

Speaker,

I

thank

the

minister

for

allowing

his

officers

to

brief

the

Opposition

on

this

important

bill,

and

for

his

comprehensive

second

reading

speech

which

plots

out

the

arguments

for

and

the

complex

nature

of

the

matters

we

are

dealing

with

in

what

seems

like

a

simple

bill.

However,

it

does

deal

with

some

complex

matters,

not

the

least

sharing

information

between

TasNetworks

and

the

potential

generators

and how that will work in the future.

We

support

the

renewable

energy

industry

in

Tasmania,

working

with

successive

governments

over

a

generation,

encouraging

investment

in

hydro

generation.

It

was

the

Labor

Party

through

the

2000s

that

invested

significantly

in

this

area

which

has

laid

the

groundwork for -

Dr Woodruff

- Excuse me, the Labor-Greens government at the federal level.

Mr

O'BYRNE

-

No,

I

am

not

referring

to

that.

I

am

referring

to

the

Bacon-Lennon

government in terms of Basslink.

It

was

the

Labor

Party

on

its

own

that

invested

significantly

in

Basslink

and

ensuring

that

there

was

a

connection

to

the

mainland

so

the

extra

renewable

energy

that

we

could

generate

could

be

sold

into

the

mainland

for

return

of

investment

and

benefit

to

Tasmanians.

It

also

significantly

underpinned

our

energy

security.

Whenever

we

talk

about

energy

provision

in

Tasmania

the

fundamental

question

that

needs

to

be

answered

every

time

is

energy

security

and

what

provides

energy

security

to

Tasmanian

businesses,

to

families

across

the state to ensure that we can keep the lights on.

As

an

island

we

are

heavily

reliant

on

our

own

generation.

Basslink

as

the

redundancy

assisted

us

in

supporting

a

whole

range

of

businesses

in

keeping

the

lights

on.

We

went

through

a

significant

challenge

in

2016

when

this

Government

struggled

to

respond

to

the

energy

crisis

of

their

own

making.

I

will

touch

on

that

in

a

moment.

It

was

the

Labor

government

over

many

years

that

has

invested

not

only

in

the

Hydro,

not

only

in

Basslink

but

we

were

the

first

to

build

the

wind

farms

in

Tasmania

in

Woolnorth

and

Musselroe.

These

were

the

Labor

investments

to

maximise

the

opportunity

of

our

renewable

energy

resource.

That

has

proven

to

be

a

foundational

decision

for

the

decisions

that

are

now

being

made

to

make best use of what is a renewable energy future.

Tasmania

has

been

and

will

continue

to

be

supported

by

both

major

parties.

At

times

the

Greens

seem

to

peel

off

and

have

a

different

opinion

on

wind,

and

a

different

opinion

on

various

forms

of

generation.

No

doubt

they

will

put

their

positions

on

the

record.

It

is

unequivocal

from

the

Labor

perspective

of

our

support

for

renewable

energy.

We

continue

to

provide

that

support.

We

will

support

this

bill

in

enabling

us

to

take

that

and

to

ensure

that

the

opportunity,

the

jobs,

the

investment

and

the

future

underpinning

and

energy

security of the Tasmanian energy generation sector can be guaranteed. That is important.

When

you

look

AEMO's

integrated

system

plan

report,

the

challenge

we

have

is

that

a

decision

on

whether

to

move

to

renewables

or

not

on-island

is

being

clouded

by

the

national

politics

of

renewable

energy

and

the

anti-renewable

energy

champions

inside

the

federal

Liberal

Party.

It

is

all

well

and

good

to

connect

to

a

national

market,

but

if

the

national

market

is

not

governed

by

a

government

that

is

co-ordinating

investment

in

renewable

energy

and

focusing

on

renewable

energy,

then

all

of

the

work

that

we

are

doing

to

encourage

renewable

energy

on-island

comes

to

nought.

The

problem

is

we

have

a

federal

government

that has continued to have this fight over carbon-intensive generation -

Mr Street -

Been following federal Labor today, David?

Mr

O'BYRNE

-

Yes,

we

have

sorted

it

out.

Our

policy

is

unequivocal

in

terms

of

supporting

a

renewable

energy

future

for

Australia.

Our

policy

is

very

clear

in

supporting

the

ISP.

The

problem

is

the

federal

Liberal

government

has

been

very

clear

about

its

priorities

when

it

comes

to

energy.

It

has

announced

taxpayer

support

for

gas-fired

power

plants,

and

even

for

coal

plants,

both

extensions

and

new

plants.

It

refuses

to

support

a

more

renewable

energy

future.

That

is

the

challenge

we

have.

Marinus

Link

and

the

Battery

of

the

Nation

only

make

sense

in

a

renewable

energy-powered

mainland.

The

Marinus

Link

feasibility

study

makes

that

clear.

It

is

Tasmania's

great

storage

capacity,

coupled

with

our

wind

resource

that

sits

at

the

heart

of

our

renewable

energy

future.

To

deliver

that

future

we

need

a

federal

government

that

is

not

anti-renewables

and

that

will

act

as

support

for

growth

of

renewable

energy.

The

AEMO

ISP

makes

it

clear

that

under

the

current

policies,

which

is

referred

to

in

the

report

as

a

slow

change

scenario,

Marinus

Link

stage

1

is

not

needed

until

2036. Stage 2 is not needed at all.

AEMO

has

made

it

clear

that

with

pro-renewable

policies

and

much

more

renewable

investment

on

the

mainland,

the

case

for

the

Marinus

Link

is

brought

forward

into

the

2020s.

That

is

the

kind

of

future

we

want

for

Tasmania.

Unfortunately,

the

politics

of

the

Liberal

Party, the internal war over this issue - you can shake your head, Mr Street, but that is true.

Mr Street

- It is the hypocrisy of your lot tearing themselves apart this morning.

Mr

O'BYRNE

-

No.

You

are

in

government

federally

and

you

are

investing

in

coal,

you are investing in gas and you have a federal senator for Tasmania -

Members

interjecting.

Mr

O'BYRNE

-

We

support

the

ISP

and

renewable

energy.

You

have

Senator

Eric

Abetz

even

advocating

for

nuclear

energy.

The

federal

Labor

Party

in

terms

of

the

shadow

minister is clear to support - pardon?

A member

- You always have the high moral ground.

Mr

O'BYRNE

-

You

have

a

federal

Liberal

government

which

is

backing

in

coal

and

gas. That is what they are doing in terms of their policy.

We

support

the

Australian

Energy

Market

Operator

Integrated

System

Plan

and

the

ability

to

have

a

national

transmission

network

that

enables

and

encourages

renewable

energy

and

renewable

energy

projects

across

the

country.

The

AEMO

ISP

report

makes

it

very

clear

that

unless

there

is

a

change

in

the

federal

government,

Marinus

struggles

to

stack

up

in

terms

of

time

lines,

not

only

stage

1

but

also

stage

2.

We

know

that

the

politics

is

played

virtually

every day.

I

remember

back

at

the

end

of

2018

when

the

minister

and

I

had

an

exchange

across

the

Estimates

table

about

one

example

of

how

COAG

is

not

working

on

this

matter,

when

you

had

the

then

New

South

Wales

Liberal

environment

minister

wanting

to

move

a

motion

around

committing

targets

to

zero

net

emissions

by

2050.

That

was

torpedoed

by

Angus

Taylor.

This

is

a

Liberal

state

government

wanting

to

move

a

motion

around

zero

net

emissions

by

2050

and

a

pathway

towards

that,

which

is

good

for

Tasmania,

but

then

you

had

a

Tasmanian

minister

who

represented

minister

Barnett

voting

with

Angus

Taylor

to

torpedo

a

motion that would have supported and was in the best interests of Tasmania.

The

politics

of

energy

nationally,

particular

within

the

federal

Liberal

Party,

is

the

biggest

risk

to

Marinus,

and

the

biggest

risk

to

the

billions

of

dollars

of

investment

and

the

thousands

of

jobs

which

could

be

created

by

Marinus

Link.

The

commitment

to

the

Marinus

Link

and

the

ability

to

build

that

brings

on

line

all

of

the

proposals

and

projects

that

are

in

the

pipeline,

all

the

wind

projects

across

the

state

that

could

be

built,

but

without

the

commitment

to

Marinus,

without

the

capacity

of

Marinus,

there

is

a

real

question

mark

about

that

investment.

The

AEMO

ISP

Plan

makes

it

very

clear.

It

says

that

the

Marinus

Link

timing

is

heavily

influenced

by

emission

abatement

policies

of

the

federal

government

in

a

national

grid. It also says -

Marinus

Link,

two

new

high

voltage

direct

charge

(HVDC)

cables

connecting

Victoria

and

Tasmania,

each

with

750

MW

of

transfer

capacity

and

associated

AC

transmission,

should

be

progressed

such

that

the

first

cable

can

be

completed

as

early

as

2028-29

(should

the

Step

Change

scenario emerge)

because the AEMO ISP talks about various different scenarios and that is policy related -

or

no

later

than

2031-32

(should

the

Tasmanian

Renewable

Energy

Target

[TRET]

be

legislated

or

the

Fast

Change

scenario

emerge,

and

the

cost

recovery

be

resolved).

This

requires

delivery

of

early

works

for

both

cables

to

be

completed

prior

to

a

final

investment

decision

in

2023-24.

If

by

then

the

Tasmanian

Government

does

not

legislate

the

TRET,

or

if

there

is

no

successful

resolution

on

how

the

cost

of

the

project

will

be

recovered

(from

consumers

and/or

other

sources),

then

the

project

schedule

should

be

revisited.

Marinus

Link's

first

cable

is

on

the

least-cost

development

path

in

all scenarios except for Slow Change,

which is the current environment we find ourselves in.

Marinus

Link's

second

cable

should

be

able

to

be

completed

as

early

as

2031-32,

with

the

decision

rules

for

its

completion

to

be

defined

in

the

2022

ISP.

That is the next iteration of the AEMO's ISP report. The report makes it clear again -

If

we

find

ourselves

in

the

Slow

Change

scenario,

then

AEMO

will

reassess

the need to progress development of the Marinus Link ...

This

goes

to

the

two

principles

here.

We

support

the

state

Government

in

moving

to

legislate

this

target

because

it

provides

certainty,

it

sends

a

message

to

the

market

and

makes

it

clear

about

the

best

of

intentions

for

Tasmania,

but

we

have

the

fundamental

issue

of

who

is

going

to

pay

and

how

is

it

going

to

be

allocated

because

that

is

yet

to

be

resolved.

Whilst

many

people

have

talked

about

the

beneficiary

pays

principle,

that

is

still

to

be

resolved

in

COAG.

We

are

concerned

because

of

the

politics

at

the

federal

level

because

with

a

federal

government

underwriting

and

backing

in

coal

and

gas,

that

does

question

our

ability

to

deliver

the

environment

where

Marinus

stacks

up,

and

then

you

have

Victoria

and

other

states

agreeing to a beneficiary pays principle.

There

have

been

a

number

of

reports

and

I

am

sure

the

minister

has

seen

them.

Again,

they

are

opinion

but

they

are

informed

opinion.

By

raising

them

I

am

not

saying

we

agree

with

them

but

having

the

potential

for

a

stranded

asset,

having

technology

and

other

renewable

projects

come

online

in

the

mainland

changes

the

market

dynamics,

particularly

in

the

slow

change

scenario.

We

could

be

doing

all

this

work

on-island

but

the

challenges

nationally and off-island are not being resolved.

This

is

only

one

piece

of

a

very

complex

puzzle,

we

acknowledge

that,

but

if

we

are

to

deliver

on

this,

the

work

needs

to

be

done,

and

if

there

is

a

COAG

decision

we

would

want

the

Tasmanian

minister

to

vote

in

Tasmania's

interest,

not

to

just

back

in

blindly

the

federal

minister

who

has

been

on

the

record

as

being

anti-wind.

In

my

view,

Angus

Taylor,

in

some

of

the

comments

he

has

made,

is

not

a

friend

of

Tasmania.

Whilst

he

mouthed

the

words

around

pumped

hydro,

we

know

that

some

of

his

decisions

are

actively

working

against

the

best interests of Tasmania and that needs to be taken into account.

We

know

if

we

are

not

able

to

get

Marinus

online,

our

energy

market,

particularly

with

the

major

industrials,

is

delicate

and

if

one

of

those

major

industrials

removes

themselves

from

the

market

or

close,

we

have

a

significant

challenge

in

terms

of

not

only

keeping

a

good

hand

on

energy

provision

in

Tasmania

but

the

reliability

and

some

of

the

challenges

we

will

face

in

terms

of

the

regulator's

response

to

pricing

in

Tasmania

and

what

that

will

do

to

consumers across Tasmania. We think that will be a massive challenge.

We

have

heard

maybe

four

or

five

times

that

there

has

been

a

fast-track

announcement

of

Marinus

but

we

know

it

is

going

to

take

some

time.

In

our

view,

it

is

all

the

AEMO

ISP

plan

makes

it

clear,

because

with

Basslink,

essentially

the

process

started

in

the

late

1990s,

construction

commenced

in

2002

and

finished

in

2005.

When

you

look

across

the

world

at

the

Viking

Link

and

the

North

Sea

Link,

the

Viking

Link

commenced

in

2015.

It

is

double

the

length

and

more

complex

because

of

the

environment

it

is

in.

Construction

commenced

in

2018

and

is

due

to

finish

in

2023;

a

very

quick

turnaround

time

compared

to

Tasmania.

That

is

not

necessarily

a

reflection

on

TasNetworks

and

Hydro.

It

is

a

reflection

of

the

environment

we

find

ourselves

in

when

you

have

a

federal

government

that

is

actively

undermining

a

renewable

energy

future

for

the

country.

Therefore,

of

all

the

states

that

have

the

potential

uplift

advantage

of

a

renewable

energy

future

for

the

country,

it

is

Tasmania

because

we

are

world

leading

and

we

need

to

continue

to

be

at

the

cutting

edge

of

that.

It

is

not

just

about

what

we

build,

what

we

generate

and

what

we

sell.

It

is

about

the

intellectual

property

and

the

international

expertise

we

can

build

that

creates

a

fantastic

opportunity

for

our renewable energy businesses in Tasmania.

We

support

this

bill.

We

are

very

concerned

about

the

national

environment

we

find

ourselves

in.

We

wish

we

had

a

federal

government

that

was

working

in

Tasmania's

interest

and

supporting

the

ISP

and

the

full

benefits

of

what

it

will

provide

for

our

country,

the

jobs

it

will

create

and

reducing

the

country's

zero

net

emissions.

Having

said

that,

we

support

the

bill with those concerns.

[3.15 p.m.]

Dr

WOODRUFF

(Franklin)

-

Mr

Deputy

Speaker,

it

is

galling

to

sit

here

and

suffer

through

a

lecture

on

taking

strong

action

on

renewable

energy

and

reducing

the

devastating

and

accelerating

pace

of

the

climate

emergency

from

a

member

of

the

Labor

Party,

the

same

party

that

is

in

lock-step

with

the

federal

Liberal

Party.

A

unity

ticket

between

the

federal

Liberal

and

Labor

parties

for

the

last

decade

has

held

Australia

back.

It

has

put

us

into

the

ignominious

position

of

being

pariahs

internationally

because

of

our

galloping

increase

in

federal funding for fossil fuel industries.

Albanese

and

Morrison

have

stood

shoulder

to

shoulder,

shamelessly

embarrassing

all

Australians

and

all

young

people

and

waving

a

red

flag

for

the

expansion

of

the

gas

industry.

That

is

shameful.

For

that

member

to

stand

in

this

place

and

point

the

finger

at

the

Liberal

Party

without

pointing

it

right

back

at

his

own

party

is

disgusting.

He

will

be

held

responsible

by

the

young

people

of

Tasmania

for

his

words.

They

can

read

them

and

listen

to

that lecturing and hypocrisy.

What

we

really

need

to

hear

is

some

spine

from

the

Labor

Party

at

the

federal

and

the

state

levels.

The

Labor

Party

in

Tasmania

did

not

vote

with

the

Greens'

motion

to

ban

thermal

coal

mining

in

Tasmania.

What

a

joke

of

a

party,

to

put

their

hands

on

their

hearts

and say they care about real action on climate change.

On

to

this

bill.

The

facts

are

all

too

clear

and

should

be

known

to

every

member

in

this

House.

However,

it

is

hard

to

keep

up

with

the

increasingly

alarming

reports

appearing

from

the

scientific

community

as

they

struggle

to

understand

the

rate

of

change

they

are

observing

in

the

planet's

systems.

They

have

now

established

a

new

risk

tags

starting

at

$3.5

billion

for

Marinus.

We

do

not

have

a

final

cost

for

Battery

of

the

Nation.

We

have

to

understand

how

much of that will end up being paid for by Tasmanian customers in their power bills.

Until

it

is

clear

that

those

costs

will

not

be

paid

by

the

Tasmanian

Government,

or

by

Hydro

Tasmania

or

TasNetworks

-

and

through

them,

by

the

Tasmanian

people

-

we

and

many

others

in

Tasmania

remain

deeply

cynical

about

the

cost

benefits

to

Tasmanians

from

those two large pieces of infrastructure.

The

Australian

energy

market

operator

does

not

require

this

bill

to

be

signed

off

this

year.

We

were

advised

of

that

in

the

briefing,

and

the

minister

continues

to

state

that.

It

is

not

true,

according

to

the

Australian

Energy

Market

Operator

Integrated

System

Plan,

which

said

the

Tasmanian

renewable

energy

target

would

need

to

be

legislated

prior

to

a

final

investment

decision

in

2023-24

and

they

say,

'If

by

then,

the

Tasmanian

Government

does

not

legislate

the TRET, then the project schedule should be revisited'.

We

do

not

understand

why

the

minister

continues

to

peddle

what

appears

to

be

a

mistruth

when

AMEO

has

said

it

needs

to

be

done

in

the

years'

time

-

not

that

it

needs

to

be

signed

off

this

year.

What

is

going

on,

and

why

is

there

a

rush?

There

are

huge

risks economically.

I

thank

Climate

Tasmania

and

the

members

of

Climate

Tasmania

who

provided

their

thoughts

on

this

bill

and

made

a

submission.

They

raised

questions

about

whether

this

bill

is

an

effective

way

to

reduce

greenhouse

gas

emissions

and

said

that,

in

the

context

of

a

climate

emergency,

we

have

to

consider

whether

the

proposed

suite

of

Tasmanian

projects

is

likely

to

contribute

to

a

significant

reduction

in

greenhouse

gas

emissions.

They

made

a

submission

previously

to

the

draft

Renewable

Energy

Action

Plan,

and

they

argued

that

in

terms

of

reducing

Tasmania's

emissions,

other

sectors

in

addition

to

electricity

are

more

important

than

electricity

generation.

Their

implication

from

government

documents

is

that

the

export

of

renewable

electricity

from

Tasmania

through

mostly

wind

farms

is

a

necessary

and

cost-effective

source

of

dispatchable

renewable

electricity

that

would

be

needed

on

the

mainland

to

remove

coal-fired

power

stations

when

they

retire.

We

are

very

concerned

that

the

Government

is

pushing

this

as

the

only

future

without

considering

the

other

competitive

risks

to

that

happening

and

the

social

and

environmental

costs

of

Battery

of

the

Nation

and

Marinus.

It

is

only

recently,

in

the

last

week,

that

we

can

see

how

quickly

the

tech

industry

is

moving

to

respond

to

the

climate

emergency

and

the

opportunity

to

get

into

the

marketplace

and

displace

coal

and

gas-fired

power.

Just

on

Thursday

the

biggest

battery

in

Australia

was

announced,

the

largest

in

the

southern

hemisphere,

by

the

Victorian

government,

a

300-megawatt

big

battery

in

Victoria.

That

comes

on

the

back

of

each

state

in

Australia

-

Northern

Territory,

South

Australia,

Western

Australia,

all

the

other

states

-

making

very

significant

investments

and

commitments

to

big

battery

storage

to

provide

an

opportunity

for

stabilising

the

grid,

increasing

the

capacity

of

transmission

links

and

providing

emergency

security response and all the other things we need to transition into a renewable energy grid.

It

is

the

case

that

just

about

all

wind

and

solar

projects

proposed

for

the

grid

now

arrive

with

a

battery-ready

option

attached

to

them.

When

you

have

the

big

utilities

setting

up

with

enormous

battery

capacity

-

we

are

talking

200

megawatts

in

New

South

Wales

from

AGL

and

1200

megawatts

in

all

from

AGL,

just

one

company

alone

-

it

tells

us

that

the

speed

of

change in the battery market is enormous.

In

summary,

we

do

not

trust

the

level

of

spin

and

secrecy

from

this

Government

around

Battery

of

the

Nation

and

Marinus.

We

are

especially

concerned

about

what

this

bill

will

enable.

This

bill

is

silent

on

other

renewable

energy

sources.

It

provides

an

opportunity

for

biomass burning to be utilised and declared a renewable source by the minister.

The

world

science

community

is

rapidly

making

a

U-turn

in

their

understanding

of

the

serious

impacts

of

biomass

burning.

The

latest

work

by

European

Union

scientists

made

it

very

clear

that

we

must

completely

change

our

monitoring

and

reporting

conditions

for

biomass

accounting

and

there

are

no

acceptable

payback

times

that

are

realistic

and

compatible

with

maintaining

the

targets

set

by

the

Paris

Agreement.

I

am

reading

from

the

European

Science

Advisory

Council

to

the

European

Parliament.

They

say

that

recent

estimates

are

that

1.5

degrees

may

be

exceeded

in

10

to

20

years

and

an

acceptable

payback

period for accounting for biomass emissions should be no longer than five to 10 years.

The

Victorian

Government

has

ruled

out

the

possibility

of

declaring

biomass

burning

a

renewable

energy

source.

They

could

see

the

dangers

of

going

into

that

place,

the

dangers

of

the

emissions

that

would

occur

and,

more

to

the

point,

the

incredible

dangers

to

the

loss

of

biodiversity

from

native

forests

if

they

were

declared

the

potential

feeding

stock

for

biomass

furnaces

and

for

a

massive

clear-felling

spree

that

would

have

decimated

what

remains

of

the

beautiful

Victorian

forests.

The

Victorian

government

has

declared

that

wood

products

from

timber

from

native

forests,

waste

products

from

timber

from

native

forests

and

sawmill

residue and biomass from native forests cannot be declared a renewable energy source.

Despite

what

the

minister

and

the

Premier

might

like

to

pretend,

this

Government

is

fully

committed

to

biomass

energy.

The

Department

of

State

Growth

website

makes

that

very

clear.

It

is

listed

as

a

biomass

resource

under

renewable

energy.

It

is

listed

as

a

priority

area,

including,

and

I

quote,

'harnessing

renewable

energy

based

on

Tasmania's

endowment

of

residues

from

the

agriculture

and

forestry

industries'.

This

Government

is

intent

on

exploring

and

using

every

opportunity

to

use

our

native

forests

to

feed

into

biomass

burning

opportunities

when

they

arise

and

if

they

can

be

encouraged

to

arise

and

be

developed

as

business

opportunities.

We

wrote

to

the

Premier

to

put

our

very

real

concern

that

this

needed

to

be

ruled

out

for

this

to

be

a

genuine

renewable

energy

target.

To

be

genuine

it

must

not

include

biomass

burning.

The

Premier

did

not

respond

which

was

unfortunate,

and

instead

the

response

from

the

Minister

for

Energy

makes

it

clear

that

they

are

not

prepared

to

rule

out

biomass burning. They say they are -

…

open

to

adopting

sustainable

practices

that

minimise

waste

and

turn

underutilised

bioproducts

into

value-added

propositions

that

would

include

wood waste.

There

can

be

no

argument

at

this

time

in

this

climate

emergency

to

use

wood

or

wood

products

from

native

forests

to

feed

into

furnaces

and

to

call

that

burning,

clear-felling

and

all

the

waste

on

the

floor

and

the

emissions

from

that

a

renewable

energy

source.

It

would

be

a

disastrous

place

for

us

to

go

as

a

planet.

It

would

be

a

terrible

stain

on

Tasmania,

and

it

would

be

devastating

to

the

biodiversity

of

forests,

the

plants

and

the

animals

that

they

protect

for our joint heritage.

It

is

clear

that

the

Government

has

invested

a

lot

of

time

and

is

very

interested.

The

Greens

put

in

a

right

to

information

request

on

correspondence

around

biomass

and

this

substantial

body

of

work

has

come

back.

The

funding

that

has

been

put

into

that

makes

it

clear

that,

whatever

the

Government

says,

biomass

burning

is

on

the

agenda

and

biomass

burning has to be ruled out.

We

flagged

to

the

Premier

that

we

would

be

seeking

to

amend

this

legislation.

I

can

say

to

the

House

that

we

will

be

going

into

Committee

on

the

bill

so

we

can

amend

it

to

rule

out

biomass

burning.

It

gives

the

Premier

time

to

change

his

mind.

I

hope

he

will

understand

that

this

is

something

he

carries

as

part

of

his

leadership.

He

can

step

in

and

accept

this

amendment.

That

would

be

a

fantastic

thing

for

Tasmania.

It

is

an

opportunity

for

the

Liberals

and

Premier

Gutwein

as

Minister

for

Climate

Change

to

set

the

course

for

where

Tasmania

needs

to

be

in

the

future.

It

starts

today.

This

bill

is

going

to

2040

and

we

want

to

make sure that biomass burning has no part of that.

Time expired.

[3.45 p.m.]

Mr

STREET

(Franklin)

-

Madam

Speaker,

there

is

nothing

like

politics

to

get

in

the

way

of

an

issue

that

everyone

in

this

place

basically

agrees

on.

Renewable

energy

generation

is

one

of

Tasmania's

great

competitive

advantages

and

one

of

the

things

that

we

should

be

concentrating on in the future.

I

will

make

a

short

contribution

on

the

bill.

Renewable

energy

is

one

of

Tasmania's

key

strengths.

It

is

one

of

our

competitive

advantages.

It

is

well-known

and

well-proven.

It

is

part

of

who

we

are

and

it

is

part

of

where

we

have

come

from.

All

around

Tasmania

there

is

evidence

of

the

foresight

and

the

fortitude

of

Tasmanians

gone

by

in

developing

a

renewable

energy

system

that

is

the

envy

of

not

only

Australia

but

also

the

world.

It

is

not

just

about

the

past.

There

has

never

been

a

more

important

time

to

invest

in

Tasmania

and

to

invest

in

jobs.

We

need

to

be

putting

in

place

the

settings

to

help

Tasmania

respond,

to

help

it

build

and

grow

its

way

out

of

COVID-19

and

into

a

prosperous

future.

There

are

opportunities

for

Tasmania in both the local and national sector.

The

Australian

energy

industry

is

one

in

transition.

The

global

supply

and

use

of

energy

is

dramatically

shifting

as

countries

are

now

looking

for

cleaner

renewable

forms

of

energy

in

order

to

decarbonise

their

economies.

Older

forms

of

generation

are

gradually

switching

off.

In

the

rest

of

Australia

there

is

an

ever-growing

shift

to

intermittent

forms

of

renewable energy like wind and solar.

Tasmania

is

the

nation's

leading

renewable

energy

state.

It

is

perfectly

placed

to

deliver

what

the

country

needs

-

low

cost,

reliable

and

clean

energy

that

will

create

jobs,

help

lower

emission and put downward pressure on electricity prices.

TRET

will

double

our

renewable

generation

to

a

global-leading

target

of

200

per

cent

of

our

current

needs

by

2040.

The

importance

of

this

target

cannot

be

understated.

Through

legislating

the

target,

we

are

confirming

our

commitment

to

a

sector

that

has

the

potential

to

deliver

Tasmania

billions

of

dollars

of

investment

and

thousands

of

jobs

through

greater

investment

in

wind-pumped

hydro

and

renewable

hydrogen

initiatives.

This

is

a

fantastic

signal

not

only

to

the

Tasmanian

and

Australian

markets

but

to

the

world.

By

introducing

a

renewable

energy

target,

we

can

greatly

strengthen

investment

in

our

renewable

energy

sector

and drive our major projects such as Marinus and the Battery of the Nation.

There

is

a

strong

link

between

our

jobs-generating

projects

and

the

TRET.

The

AEMO

has

noted

this

by

including

the

TRET

in

the

modelling

of

its

latest

integrated

system

plan.

The

ISP

identifies

the

Marinus

Link

as

critical

to

the

future

of

the

national

electricity

market.

This

means

that

Marinus

Link

is

required

to

ensure

the

Australian

power

grid

remains

stable,

reliable and affordable.

Renewable

energy

is

our

future

and

the

future

is

now.

We

are

on

the

cusp

of

reaching

an envied status of being 100 per cent self-sufficient in renewable energy generation by 2022.

Wind,

with

the

recently

completed

Cattle

Hill

Wind

Farm

and

under

construction

Granville

Harbour

Wind

Farm,

will

achieve

this

status.

There

are

more

projects

on

the

way

such

as

the

wind

farms

at

Jim's

Plain

and

Robbins

Island.

I

welcome

these

job-creating

outcomes

and

opportunities

that

particularly

benefit

Tasmania's

regional

areas.

We

need

to

be

encouraging

and

supporting

new

developments,

hence

the

importance

of

the

TRET.

We

are

going

to

surge

past

our

status

of

being

100

per

cent

self-sufficient.

It

only

makes

sense

that

we reach for the much greater target of 200 per cent.

Setting

an

industry-leading

target

such

as

the

TRET

is

one

part

of

maximising

our

renewable

energy

competitive

advantage.

We

also

need

the

participants

in

that

industry

to

take the action required to deliver on their projects.

The

legislation

also

provides

for

an

exemption

from

the

Commonwealth

Competition

and

Consumer

Act

2010

to

allow

the

sharing

of

information

between

generation

and

transmission

project

proponents.

This

will

greatly

help

with

facilitating

a

shared

approach

to

development

of

connection

and

transmission

infrastructure

and

will

assist

in

avoiding

expensive and unnecessary duplication of project assets.

This

is

the

way

forward.

This

is

the

way

Tasmania's

long

and

important

renewable

energy

sector

can

take

the

forward

and

become

a

global

example

of

how

a

best-practice renewable energy system operates.

The

TRET

is

the

way

forward

for

an

abundant

Tasmanian

renewable

energy

market

that

places

downward

pressure

on

prices,

increases

Australia's

grid

reliability

and

creates

thousands of jobs for Tasmanians.

[3.50 p.m.]

Ms

O'CONNOR

(Clark

-

Leader

of

the

Greens)

-

Madam

Speaker,

the

first

thing

I

want

to

do

is

commend

my

excellent

colleague,

Dr

Woodruff,

on

her

thorough

second

reading

speech

contribution

and

examination

of

this

bill

and

agree

with

everything

that

Dr

Woodruff

has said.

My

second

point

relates

to

what

Mr

Street

just

said

where

he

had

a

swipe

at

us

about

getting

political

about

renewable

energy.

The

issue

is

there

is

actual

renewable

energy,

which

is

verified

by

science

and

common

sense.

Then

there

is

the

political

interpretation

of

what

renewable

energy

might

be,

which

is

why

we

are

having

a

discussion

in

this

place

now

about

the Government's apparent will to burn native forests for energy.

We

are

in

this

position

as

a

country

where

we

are

playing

catch-up

on

tackling

climate

change

because

we

have

two

parties

at

the

national

level

who

have

been

in

lockstep

on

backing

the

fossil

fuel

industries.

It

probably

has

something

to

do

with

the

massive

donations

that

have

gone

from

fossil

fuel

interests

into

the

Liberal

and

Labor

parties.

Last

year,

in

the

Electoral

Commission

returns,

about

$1.3

million

was

donated

by

fossil

fuel

interests

to

the

Liberal

Party,

the

party

of

Government,

and

about

$700

000

to

the

Australian

Labor

Party.

That is why this nation is an international laggard and a disgrace on climate inaction.

All

over

the

world

right

now

there

are

young

people

who

are,

for

the

first

time

in

about

four

years,

feeling

much

more

optimistic

about

the

future

because

come

20

January

the

adults

will

be

back

in

the

room

in

Washington.

In

all

likelihood

will

have

a

United

States

administration

that

is

reinvigorated

on

the

need

to

take

urgent

climate

action.

It

means

that

young people are more hopeful now about world leadership on tackling climate change.

I

hope

we

see

some

real

shifts

in

Australia

from

both

the

major

parties,

who

need

to

recognise

you

cannot,

in

a

time

of

climate

and

biodiversity

emergency,

have

a

gaslit

recovery.

You

cannot,

like

the

Labor

Party

has

done

repeatedly

out

of

one

side

of

its

face,

back

Adani

and

coal

mining

and

coal

exports,

and

then

on

the

other

signal,

particularly

to

young

people,

that they take climate change seriously.

I

note

the

passing

out

of

the

shadow

cabinet

today

of

one

of

the

true

dinosaurs

of

the

Australian

Labor

Party,

Joel

Fitzgibbon.

I

will

read

into

Hansard

what

the

Australian

Manufacturing

Workers'

Union

had

to

say

on

the

departure

from

the

shadow

cabinet

of

Mr

Fitzgibbon,

one

of

the

greatest

cheerleaders

for

the

coal

industry

this

country

has

ever

known

and who established the parliamentary Friends of Coal -

'Australia

needs

an

urgent

worker-led

COVID

jobs

recovery,

including

a

proper

response

to

climate

change,

putting

to

bed

irresponsible

gas-led

COVID

recovery

plans,'

says

the

Australian

Manufacturing

Workers'

Union

(AMWU).

The

resignation

of

Labor

Party

frontbencher

and

Hunter

MP,

Joel

Fitzgibbon,

signals

a

time

for

the

ALP

to

get

serious

about

climate

change

and creating safe, secure and well-paid jobs.

The

national

secretary

of

the

AMWU,

Steve

Murphy,

said,

'As

Joel

Fitzgibbon

transitions

to

the

backbench,

my

mind

is

with

the

thousands

of

workers

who

have

been

damaged

by

his

lack

of

ambition

and

honesty.

Our

economy

and

energy

needs

are

changing

fast, we need to face these challenges with workers front and centre.'

I

could

not

agree

more.

While

we

are

talking

about

the

similarities

between

the

two

major

parties

nationally

and

at

a

state

level,

I

need

to

highlight

that

Labor's

primary

industries

and

resources

shadow

minister,

Dr

Broad,

supports

burning

of

native

forests

to

produce

energy,

despite

the

fact

that

increasingly

scientists

around

the

world

are

saying

the

burning

of

native

forests

for

energy

is

a

climate

catastrophe

in

the

making

and

that

we

are

liquifying

our

beautiful

carbon-bank

forests

to

produce

energy

instead

of

protecting

them

and

restoring

those areas which have been deforested in the past.

The

federal

Labor

Party

does

not

support

native

forest

biomass.

The

Victorian

Labor

Government

does

not

support

native

forest

biomass.

In

fact

Victoria's

minister

for

climate

change,

Lily

D'Ambrosio,

has

issued

a

very

clear

directive

that

in

the

renewable

energy

target

legislation

they

passed

in

2017-18

-

and

she

has

done

this

by

a

declaration

in

the

Gazette

,

but

for

the

removal

of

doubts,

Lily

D'Ambrosio

has

made

it

clear

-

wood

and

wood

products

from

native forest are not renewable energy. That is what common sense tells us too.

I

will

be

completely

unsurprised

if,

when

we

move

our

amendment

to

make

it

really

clear

that

native

forest

biomass

is

not

renewable

energy,

the

Labor

Party

does

not

support

that

amendment,

even

though

it

would

substantially

provide

some

integrity

to

the

bill.

Before

the

Government

agreed

to

include

the

disallowable

instrument

that

requires

the

minister

to

come

into

this

place

should

he

believe

or

want

to

declare

another

energy

source

to

be

renewable

energy,

the

bill

until

that

point

would

have

allowed

Mr

Barnett

to

wake

up

one

morning

and

decide

that

a

particular

source

of

energy

was

renewable

energy

and

make

an

order

that

would

go

into

the

Gazette

,

but

there

would

be

no

recourse

to

parliament.

Part

2

of

the

bill

is

really

clear

that

it

allows

for

the

minister

to

declare

another

source

of

energy

beyond

solar,

wind

and

water as renewable energy.

We

have

to

move

past

the

cultural

and

ideological

paralysis

that

we

have

in

Tasmania

where

the

two

major

parties

will

bend

over

backwards

to

support

the

continuation

of

deforestation.

We

have

to

move

past

this.

I

do

not

know

how

many

people

here

have

seen

David

Attenborough's

documentary.

There

is

also

a

short

version

of

the

five

things

that

humanity

can

do

in

order

to

rein

in

our

emissions

and

begin

the

process

of

cooling

the

planet

a

little

rather

than

accelerating

its

heating.

I

think

number

three

in

his

list

of

five

things

we

must

do

is

stop

deforestation

and

start

reforestation.

We

need

to

protect

the

carbon

stores

we

have,

our

forests,

and

we

need

to

plant

more

forests

in

order

to

draw

down

more

carbon.

But

in

this

place

we

have

a

government

and

an

opposition

who

not

only

back

in

native

forest

logging,

which

is

heavily

subsidised,

but

would

clearly

back

in

a

forest

furnace,

the

burning

of

trees,

to

produce

energy.

If

Dr

Broad

does

not

agree

with

my

summation

of

their

position

I

look

forward

to

him

getting

up

in

this

place

and

explaining

what

their

position

is,

because

I

read

The Advocate

too, Dr Broad, and I saw your comments in

The Advocate

.

We

know

that

wood

energy

produced

from

both

hardwood

native

forest

and

some

softwood

plantations

in

the

European

Union

is

going

gangbusters

and

that

has

meant

there

has

been

massive

deforestation

in

order

to

feed

the

growing

EU

demand

for

wood

products

and

wood

pellets

to

feed

into

its

bioenergy

plants.

There

is

a

wood

plant

in

the

United

Kingdom

which

was

a

former

coal

plant

called

the

Drax

plant.

It

was

once

Britain's

biggest

coal

plant

but

now

burns

millions

of

tonnes

of

wood

pellets

each

year

sourced

primarily

from

North

America,

which

is

devastating

hardwood

forests.

Drax

soaks

up

hundreds

of

millions

of

dollars

in

so-called

green

subsidies

per

year,

meaning

the

expensive

energy

produced

is

largely

subsidised

by

taxpayers

under

the

guise

of

taking

action

on

climate

change.

Without

subsidies, the industry is not viable.

Here

in

Tasmania

we

have

a

long,

sorry

and

extremely

expensive

to

taxpayers

history

of

subsidising

the

native

forest

logging

industry

and

cosying

it

along

every

step

of

the

way,

unless

you

are

in

the

situation

where

you

have

Greens

in

government

and

an

industry

because

of

a

global

downturn

that

comes

to

government

on

its

knees

looking

for

help

as

it

did

in

2010-14.

The

subsidies

going

into

the

native

forest

logging

industry

continue.

The

subsidies

that

would

be

required

in

order

to

make

any

kind

of

forest

furnace

viable

would

be

substantial,

but

we

know

that

politically

in

this

state,

both

the

major

parties

would

stump

up

in

order

to

throw

the

mendicant

native

forest

logging

industry

yet

another

lifeline.

Not

only

is

it

unjustifiable

on

the

science

to

continue

to

log

our

native

forests

because

of

the

impacts

on

a

climate

and

biodiversity,

it

is

totally

unjustifiable,

unscientific

and

uneconomical

to

even

contemplate

liquifying our native forests and putting them into a forest furnace.

The

European

Parliament's

science

advisory

council

only

two

months

ago

called

on

EU

lawmakers

to

introduce

a

radically

new

standard

to

recognise

that

biomass

burning

is

not

carbon-neutral

but

instead

has

'massive

climate

effects'.

The

consensus

statement

from

scientists

of

the

28

EU

countries

advises

that

'swapping

coal

with

biomass

often

increases

net

emissions

to

the

atmosphere

when

the

whole

life

cycle

is

properly

accounted

for'.

They

say

the

current

carbon

emissions

calculations

do

not

reflect

the

reality

of

climate

heating

or

the

urgency to stop adding more emissions.

As

Dr

Woodruff

pointed

out,

we

have

had

an

exchange

of

letters

with

Government

where

we

initially

detailed

our

concern

to

the

Premier

and

Minister

for

Climate

Change

and

requested

that

a

specific

clause

be

put

in

the

bill

that

rules

out

the

use

of

native

forests

for

energy.

We

received

a

letter

not

from

the

Minister

for

Climate

Change,

but

from

the

Minister

for

Energy

and

Resources.

First

of

all,

it

was

rather

cowardly

of

the

Premier

and

Minister

for

Climate

Change

not

to

respond

to

our

letter

which

was

written

to

him

through

the

context

of

climate,

not

energy.

This

is

an

issue

about

forests.

It

is

not

an

energy

question,

which

is

why

we

wrote

to

the

Minister

for

Climate

Change,

yet

we

got

back

a

letter

from

Mr

Barnett.

In

that letter Mr Barnett points out that we requested in our letter to the Premier that -

(1)

the

Government

declare

that

native

forest

wood

products,

waste,

sawmill

residue

or

biomass

should

not

be

counted

as

renewable

energy

sources

towards Tasmanian renewable energy target; and

(2)

that

any

new

sources

of

renewable

energy

to

be

declared

by

the

minister

are

made through a disallowable instrument instead of a ministerial order.

We

now

have

a

disallowable

instrument

that

will

be

inserted

into

the

legislation,

and

that

is

a

bare

minimum

of

what

this

bill

needed.

We

were

not

giving

all

power

to

a

Minister

for

Resources

who

is

100

percent

behind

the

accelerating

deforestation

of

Tasmania's

landscape.

We

have

the

disallowed

instrument,

but

we

do

not

have

any

commitment

from

Government

not

to

promote,

subsidise

or

facilitate

a

native

forest

biomass

plant

in

Tasmania.

Mr

Barnett

makes

it

clear,

as

we

move

through

the

rebuilding

of

a

Tasmanian

economy,

it

is

critical

that

we

remain

open

to

adopting

sustainable

practices

that

minimise

waste,

and

turn

underutilised by-products into value-add propositions.

A

standing

native

forest

with

300-

or

400-year-old

regnans

and

an

incredible

complexity

of

flora

and

fauna,

is

not

a

place

that

delivers

by-products.

It

is

an

intact

ecosystem,

that

even

while

we

are

debating

here

today,

is

drawing

CO

2

out

of

the

atmosphere

and

sequestering

it.

It

is

an

insanity

for

a

Government

to

contemplate

turning

native

forests

into

energy,

in

a

time

of

climate

and

biodiversity

crisis

but,

State

Growth

-

good

old

State

Growth;

where

would

we

be

without

them

-

the

State

Growth

website

on

renewable

energy

is

very

clear

that

this

Government

would,

if

it

could,

establish

native

forest

biomass

in

Tasmania.

A

government

department

has

already

jumped

ahead

of

the

minister

in

announcing

that

native

forest,

that

biomass

for

wood,

is

a

renewable

energy

source.

The

website front page says -

Priorities for the renewable energy sector include:

●

facilitating

development

of

distributed

embedded

generation

projects

including wind, mini hydro and biomass technologies in particular.

●

harnessing

renewable

energy

based

on

Tasmania's

endowment

of

residues

from the agriculture and forestry industries.

We

are

used

to

being

gaslit

in

this

place.

We

are

used

to

having

the

Premier

and

Government

ministers

tell

us

something

is

true

when

it

is

not,

or

is

not

true

when

it

is.

The

Premier

said

in

this

place

this

morning

that

native

forest

biomass

-

and

I

am

paraphrasing

him

here

-

but

words

to

the

effect

that

it

is

not

part

of

the

Government's

plans.

In

that

case,

why

is

the

Department

of

State

Growth

-

which

is

engaging

with

businesses,

corporations

and

rent

seekers

-

advertising

forest

biomass

as

a

renewable

energy

source,

if

it

is

not

part

of

the

Government's plan?

Dr

Woodruff

earlier

had

the

results

of

the

right

to

information

application

that

we

made

to

the

Department

of

State

Growth

on

the

issue

of

biomass.

It

is

about

two

centimetres

thick,

most

of

it

is

redacted

and

there

are

a

whole

lot

of

black

pages,

but

it

is

very

clear:

there

are

people

working

in

the

Department

of

State

Growth

on

establishing

native

forest

biomass

in

Tasmania.

I

ask

the

Premier

and

Minister

for

Climate

Change,

first

of

all

to

have

the

guts

to

answer

his

own

correspondence,

but

not

to

treat

us

like

fools,

because

the

Department

of

State

Growth

has

let

the

cat

out

of

the

bag.

The

right

to

information

document

does

the

same.

The

minister's letter to us does the same.

What

did

they

do

in

Victoria?

I

will

read

from

Hansard

from

the

Victorian

minister

for

climate

change,

who

was

asked

this

question

by

our

wonderful

colleague

in

the

Victorian

parliament, Ellen Sandell -

The definition of renewable energy in the bill …

and it was a renewable energy target bill -

does

not

explicitly

rule

out

counting

as

renewable

energy

the

burning

of

native

forests

as

biomass.

Does

the

minister

anticipate

that

burning

native

forests

as

biomass

will

be

classed

as

renewable

energy

under

the

VRET

(Victorian Renewable Energy Target)?

Ms D'Ambrosio says -

I

thank

the

member

for

Melbourne

for

her

question.

The

Labor

Party

has

always

been

very

consistent

in

its

position

in

terms

of

refusing

to

use

native

wood

for

renewable

energy

target

schemes.

That

has

been

the

case

federally

and

it

has

been

the

case

in

Victoria.

That

will

continue.

Providing

this

bill

is

passed,

there

is

a

power

in

here

for

the

minister

to

declare

a

whole

range

of

other

renewable

energy

sources,

but

also

to

define

what

potentially

may

be

excluded

from

that.

I

have

been

very

clear

with

anyone

who

has

asked

me

this

question

over

the

journey

that

we

have

been

in

government that native timber would be excluded from the VRET auctions.

They

can

do

it

in

Victoria.

Why

can

we

not

do

it

here?

We

should

be

able

to

rule

it

out.

Labor,

in

this

parliament,

should

be

consistent

with

their

federal

and

Victorian

colleagues

and

the

scientists,

and

have

enough

backbone

to

say

they

do

not

stand

with

the

burning

of

native

forests

for

energy,

that

it

would

be

a

crime

against

the

climate,

it

would

be

a

crime

against

the

forest

and

intrinsic

values,

the

extraordinary

diversity

of

life

that

they

sustain.

It

would

be

a

crime

against

young

people,

who

would

see

a

government

burning

forests

to

produce

power

when there is abundant hydro, solar and wind resources.

It

would

most

certainly

damage

our

brand.

Our

brand

is

imperfectly

upheld

by

some

of

the

practices

here

in

Tasmania,

but

it

is

of

enormous

value

to

our

producers

and

exporters.

It

gives

them

the

edge

in

markets

all

over

the

world,

and

we

must

do

everything

we

can

to

protect

the

brand

and

to

make

sure

it

has

integrity

because

a

brand

without

integrity

is

meaningless.

In

closing,

the

Greens

will

not

be

opposing

this

legislation.

We

recognise

there

is

a

strong

desire

in

the

community

for

climate

action

and

for

a

rapid

investment

in

renewables

and

uptake

of

renewables.

We

also

believe

that

people

increasingly

want

to

see

an

end

to

native forest logging.

As

Dr

Woodruff

has

pointed

out,

this

bill

has

significant

deficiencies

in

that

it

provides

no

pathway

to

reaching

200

per

cent

renewables

by

2040.

There

are

also

enduring

questions

about

Marinus

Link

itself

and

Battery

of

the

Nation,

and

who

will

pay

for

it.

We

are

already

looking

at

somewhere

in

the

order

of

$7.1

billion

as

the

price

tag

that

has

been

put

on

Marinus

Link

and

Battery

of

the

Nation.

Tasmanians

are

rightly

asking

-

what

would

be

in

it

for

them?

Will

they

have

to

pay

for

it

either

upfront

or

through

their

power

bills

over

the

journey,

as

they

do

now

for

Basslink?

The

question

of

who

would

pay

for

Marinus

Link

still

has

not

been

answered

by

Government.

The

House

should

also

hear

the

minister

answer

those

questions

that

were

put

by

Dr

Woodruff

about

the

changing

scene

on

the

mainland,

the

new

battery

technologies

that

are

being

taken

up,

the

move,

for

example,

in

Victoria

-

they

are

investing

in

a

300

megawatt,

I

understand

it

is

a

$84

million

big

battery

near

to

Geelong.

They

want

that

in

place

by

New

South

Wales

announced

yesterday

that

they

would

be

going

out

to

auction

for

12

000

megawatts

of

renewables

and

2000

megawatts

of

storage to replace coal.

If

you

just

step

back

from

this

issue

and

look

at

it

objectively,

it

is

hard

to

escape

the

conclusion

that

we

are

already

being

left

behind

by

the

technologies

that

are

coming

online

and

increasingly

being

taken

up

by

governments.

It

was

the

South

Australian

government

that

led

the

way

with

the

big

Tesla

Battery.

Is

Marinus

Link

a

real

prospect?

A

number

of

us

have

our

doubts

particularly

in

how

rapidly

we

are

seeing

governments

move.

Is

it

not

amazing

how

after

decades

of

inaction

we

can

see

such

sudden

and

sharp

and

positive

shifts

in

the

right

direction?

It

is

almost

like

as

a

species

we

have

to

be

confronted

with

annihilation

before

we

get

off

our

backsides

and

are

able

to

act

collectively

in

the

collective

public

interest, in the interests of humanity and life on this earth.

There

are

questions

around

Marinus

Link.

I

am

an

Australian

first.

We

all

are.

My

heart

is

in

Tasmania.

We

need

to

look

after

this

island's

energy

needs.

We

need

to

look

after

this

island.

Should

we

have

surplus

that

we

are

able

to

sustainably

generate

and

ship

north,

I

believe

that

we

should:

we

have

a

responsibility

to

do

that.

We

need

to

have

the

conversation

as a community about what cost we are prepared to bear.

I

think

most

Tasmanians

do

not

want

to

see

the

north

of

this

island

turned

into

an

industrial

park.

Most

Tasmanians

would

like

to

think

that

our

energy

generation

assets

here

will

be

largely

Tasmanian

owned.

There

is

a

huge

question

over

who

would

own

our

energy

assets

should

we

meet

the

200

per

cent

renewable

target

and

be

pumping

across

Bass

Strait

the

equivalent,

or

thereabouts,

of

what

we

are

using

now.

About

60

per

cent

of

the

energy

infrastructure across the country is owned by a Chinese company.

Did I hear you scoff, Dr Broad? Do you think that -

Dr

Broad

-

Yes,

I

did

not

think

you

were

going

to

get

to

the

Chinese

this

time,

but

you

have, so that is -

Ms

O'CONNOR

-

I

am

sorry

you

are

not

interested

in

matters

of

sovereignty,

or

the

security of our infrastructure.

Mr O'Byrne -

Which company are you talking about?

Ms

O'CONNOR

-

I

said,

60

per

cent

of

our

assets

across

the

country

are

owned

by

Chinese

companies,

and

they

are.

It

is

a

legitimate

question

to

ask

who

would

be

owning

our

energy

infrastructure

in

the

future?

We

believe

it

should

be

owned

by

Tasmanians.

We

believe

that

farmers

should

be

able

to

generate

their

own

power

through

small-scale

renewables on farms and trade their surplus across to other farms.

We

have

to

stop,

in

Tasmania,

being

this

cargo-cult

state

where

we

just

love

the

big

thing.

We

can

achieve

a

substantially

increased

level

of

renewable

generation

without

turning

Tasmania

into

an

industrial

park.

We

should

have

much

more

focus

on

distributed

generation.

Small-scale

solar

farms.

We

need

some

windfarms

too.

I

am

not

one

of

these

people

who

finds

them

unattractive.

I

find

them

rather

beautiful,

but

they

should

be

in

places

where

there

is

no

other

significant

impact

on

the

environment

or

on

a

community.

There

is

one

windfarm

proposed

for

Tasmania

that

sticks

out

like

the

proverbial

and

that

is

the

Robbins

Island

windfarm.

That

proposed

windfarm,

which

would

be

the

largest

windfarm

in

the

southern

hemisphere,

is

on

a

wetland

that

should

have

had

Ramsar

listing.

It

is

an

incredibly

significant

and

sensitive

site.

We

need

to

be

able

to

plan

in

Tasmania

for

where

we

put

our

wind farms and we should have a renewable energy mapping process in place.

[4.20 p.m.]

Dr

BROAD

(Braddon)

-

Madam

Speaker,

the

member

who

has

just

resumed

her

seat

has

been

in

this

place

a

long

time

and

she

can

pick

the

exact

second

that

she

has

run

out

of

time, so props to you.

Ms O'Connor

- That was a devasting blow. You just cannot help yourself, can you?

Dr

BROAD

-

I

was

not

bagging

you

out;

I

was

just

making

a

comment.

If

you

want

me to bag you out, I will.

What

we

have

heard

from

the

Greens

today

is

a

lot

of

talk

about

a

climate

emergency.

It

is

the

biggest

issue

that

we

are

facing

and

those

who

come

after

us.

The

climate

emergency

is

something

that

we

need

to

do

something

about

yet

the

Greens

try

to

walk

both

sides

of

the

street - talk about the emergency but then bag the solutions. That is the way they are -

Dr

Woodruff

-

No,

we

are

not.

We

did

not

bag

anything.

We

raised

a

whole

lot

of

questions.

Ms O'Connor

- You think biomass from native forest is a solution, clearly.

Madam SPEAKER

- Order.

Dr

BROAD

-

Once

again,

they

cannot

even

let

me

begin

before

interjecting,

despite

the

fact they were both heard in virtual silence. Absolutely intolerant of any opposing views.

The

Greens

are

apparently

the

only

ones

that

care:

the

only

ones

that

care

about

climate

change

and

the

solutions

that

we

need

to

put

in

place.

One

thing

that

we

do

not

hear

them

say

is

how

proud

they

are

of

Tasmania

for

being

net-zero.

The

Greens

should

be

going

to

all

their

colleagues

around

the

world

and

talking

about

Tasmania

being

a

place,

a

state,

a

jurisdiction

that is net-zero in carbon emissions.

Ms O'Connor

- Because of our forests.

Madam SPEAKER

- Order, Ms O'Connor.

Dr

BROAD

-

This

is

something

that

the

world

is

aiming

for

by

2050.

The

world

is

aiming

for

this,

or

at

least

the

majority

of

the

world

is

aiming

for

this

by

2050.

We

are

already

there,

yet

you

would

think

that

Tasmania

is

a

logging

coupe

from

one

end

to

the

other

and

that

Tasmania

is

devastating

the

environment.

Yet

we

are

net-zero

and

have

been,

as

the

Premier

said

today,

for

the

last

four

years.

That

is

something

that

we

should

be

proud

of.

That

is

something

that

the

Greens

should

be

shouting

from

the

tree

tops.

Instead

of

being

up

there

swinging

in

the

wind

they

should

be

talking

about

how

Tasmania

is

net-zero.

We

should be proud of that.

Dr Woodruff

- That is total rubbish, Dr Broad. Do you remember the energy crisis?

Madam SPEAKER

- Order, Dr Woodruff.

Dr

BROAD

-

That

is

something

that

should

put

us

at

the

forefront

of

people's

minds

when

they

think

about

investing

somewhere.

Where

should

you

go

if

you

are

climate

conscious?

You

should

come

to

Tasmania

and

invest

because

we

are

net-zero

already.

What

we

are

trying

to

do

as

a

state

is

move

even

further

down

that

road

and

have

even

more

renewable

energy

and

drive

a

renewable

economy

to

make

us

even

better,

to

offset

other

states' emissions. This is something that we should be all working together on.

This

bill

should

be

non-controversial.

There

should

not

be

much

debate

about

the

intent,

yet

the

Greens

use

their

emotive

language

and

their

skills

in

politics

to

talk

about

forest

furnaces,

demonising

a

proposal

that

is

not

even

in

Tasmania.

There

are

no

proposals

before

us,

yet

that

is

a

good

reason

to

grandstand

and

to

again

drive

a

political

wedge

between

the political parties on the floor in this place.

What

we

should

be

doing

today

is

talk

about

how

we

can

get

renewable

energy

up

to

the

target

of

twice

the

energy

that

we

require.

We

are

net-zero.

That

is

something

we

should

be

proud

of.

You

cannot

walk

both

sides

of

the

street

and

bag

out

all

the

renewable

energy

projects that we are talking about.

Dr

Woodruff

talked

about

all

the

bad

things

that

windfarms

do,

apparently.

How

can

we

get

further

down

the

road

with

renewables?

How

can

we

increase

our

renewable

energy

in the state if we cannot have wind turbines and power lines?

Thankfully

the

Greens

were

not

a

political

force

when

Tasmania

was

electrified.

When

we

first

started

talking

about

putting

up

powerlines

in

this

state

to

electrify

our

homes

all

those

100-odd

years

ago,

could

you

imagine

if

the

arguments

were

running,

'Oh,

you

can't

have

powerlines'.

Imagine

powerlines

running

past

your

house

so

the

horse

and

carriage

has

to

go

around

the

power

pole.

These

are

the

arguments

that

they

would

have

put

up

back

in

the

day

and

these

are

the

arguments

they

are

putting

up

now.

You

cannot

have

powerlines.

How

outrageous

to

have

powerlines

in

this

day.

Yet

the

Greens

have

confirmed

today

that

they

do

not

support

renewable

energy

and

renewable

energy

projects.

They

will

stand

in

the

way

of

any

renewable

energy

project

that

has

a

wind

turbine

or

a

powerline

associated

with

it.

They were against hydroelectricity, they were against wind farms; they are against everything.

Dr

Woodruff

talked

at

length

about

overhead

powerlines

and

undersea

cables.

How

are

we

supposed

to

get

renewable

energy

to

offset

the

coal-fired

power

stations

on

the

mainland

if we cannot have overhead powerlines and undersea cables? You cannot have it both ways.

Dr

Woodruff

-

I

didn't

say

they

shouldn't

be

there.

I

said

there

should

be

a

plan,

Dr

Broad. You should talk to your communities in Braddon -

Madam SPEAKER

- Order.

Dr BROAD

- You cannot campaign on a problem and then bag out all the solutions.

Dr Woodruff

- Desperate and sad.

Madam SPEAKER

- Order, Dr Woodruff, this is my final warning.

Dr

BROAD

-

How

can

we

get

rid

of

the

brown

coal-fired

power

stations

in

Victoria

that

are

horrendous

for

our

climate?

How

can

we

get

Victoria

to

transition

away

from

that

dirty brown coal?

Ms O'Connor

- They are buying batteries.

Dr

BROAD

-

They

have

batteries,

but

what

do

they

need

to

fill

those

batteries

with?

You have to have both generation and storage. You cannot have it both ways.

In

the

past,

they

have

bagged

out

our

industrials

due

to

their

energy

use

and

so

on.

Would

they

rather

that

these

industrials

left

Tasmania

and

were

fired

by

coal

or

something

on

the mainland? You cannot have it both ways.

We

have

this

straw

man

argument.

At

least

the

Greens

are

consistent;

they

are

more

interested

in

the

politics

and

along

the

way

they

have

exposed

their

hypocrisy.

What

they

have

built

up

now,

and

they

have

done

it

in

the

media

over

the

weekend

using

their

very

clever

language

as

they

do,

they

talked

about

forest

furnaces.

I

did

not

hear

the

first

Greens

member

who

spoke,

Dr

Woodruff,

talk

about

forest

furnaces,

so

I

thought

that

was

going

to

be

the

end

of

the

debate,

but

then

Ms

O'Connor

stood

up

and

used

that

very

powerful

emotive

language that she is very good at, and said the words 'forest furnaces'.

There

has

been

a

fair

bit

of

work

done

on

biomass

in

Tasmania.

From

what

I

gather

and

the

research

that

is

done,

it

does

not

stack

up.

You

are

talking

about

a

moot

point.

Nobody

is

talking

about

going

into

native

forests,

cutting

them

down

and

sticking

them

in

some

sort

of

wood-fired power station.

Dr Woodruff

- If it's a moot point you won't have any problem finally ruling it out.

Dr

BROAD

-

The

reasons

why

is

because

they

do

not

stack

up

economically.

Wind

farms,

solar,

all

that

other

stuff,

is

way

better.

Nobody

is

talking

about

it

and

we

do

not

support that. What we support is genuine residues from sustainably managed forests.

This

is

in

effect

a

moot

point

because

it

does

not

stack

up.

It

does

not

stack

up

if

you

use

agricultural

waste,

it

does

not

stack

up

if

you

use

rubbish,

and

it

does

not

stack

up

if

you

use

wood

residues.

When

you

harvest

a

tree,

a

tree

is

round

and

planks

are

square

or

rectangular,

so

there

is

wastage.

There

is

the

outside,

the

sawdust

and

the

branches,

and

so

on,

that

come

with

it,

but

they

are

more

often

left

on

the

forest

floor,

but

from

the

tree

that

ends

up

in

the

sawmill

there

are

residues.

What

do

we

do

with

those

residues?

Do

we

bury

them

or

send

them

overseas

to

make

paper?

There

is

not

a

real

market

for

that.

What

is

wrong

with

some

of

those

residues

being

used

to

power

a

factory?

It

is

already

happening.

Most

of

the

sawmills

in

the

state

use

a

portion

of

their

residues

to

heat

their

boiler.

That

happens already. We are not talking about something that does not happen.

The

Greens

want

to

rule

out

generating

electricity

from

the

product,

so

what

should

we

do

with

that

residue?

Should

we

bury

it?

What

would

that

do?

What

happens

to

the

carbon

when

you

bury

it?

Yes,

it

all

comes

back

to

forestry:

just

stop

harvesting

trees

-

and

I

will

get

to

that

in

a

second.

What

would

be

wrong

with

a

biomass

project

where

residues

from

a

sawmill

could

be

used,

along

with

trash

from

agricultural

operations

like

when

you

harvest

a

crop

of

wheat

there

is

straw

left,

and

that

could

also

go

into

that

same

process,

or

even

municipal rubbish could go into something like that.

The

thing

is

you

have

this

technology

that

is

being

developed

and

it

is

not

like

sticking

it

into

a

wood

fire

that

you

see

in

your

house

and

all

the

smoke

comes

out

the

chimney

and

it

is

not

really

good

for

your

neighbours.

We

are

not

talking

about

a

project

like

that.

We

are

talking

about

getting

it

to

a

very

high

temperature

where

it

gasifies

and

the

vast

majority

is

burnt, and that energy can be converted into steam and therefore electricity.

Those

sorts

of

projects

happen

around

the

world.

Is

it

better

for

that

rubbish

to

be

buried

in

landfill?

We

will

see

some

emissions

come

out

of

that.

Isn't

it

better

to

have

another

project

where

a

biomass

facility

could

burn

that

and

generate

electricity,

along

with

all

other

sorts

of

biomass?

There

has

been

work

done

on

a

similar

process

to

create

biochar.

It

is

going

along

the

same

road

but

economically

it

does

not

stack

up.

All

this

stuff

about

going

in

with

the

chainsaws

and

knocking

down

all

our

native

forests

and

sticking

them

in

a

forest

furnace,

as

the

member

for

Clark

says,

is

just

not

going

to

happen.

It

is

absolutely

a

straw man argument.

The

Greens

are

going

back

to

their

core

issue,

which

is

forestry.

We

know

that

they

want

an

end

to

all

native

forestry

and

all

their

campaigns

keep

coming

back

to

that

because

they

are

losing

relevance.

They

are

looking

to

reignite,

pardon

the

pun,

debate

and

politics

and

campaigning

in

an

anti-forestry

sense.

They

are

really

struggling

for

relevance

because

there

is

only

a

small

group

of

these

forest

activists

that

are

moving

between

these

different

astroturfing

groups

to

give

the

appearance

that

it

is

a

mass

movement

but

it

is

not.

They

are

doing

everything

they

can

to

try

to

make

any

issue

they

can

think

of

about

native

forestry.

This again is yet another example of that. It is astounding.

Ms

O'Connor

in

her

contribution

talked

about

moving

past

cultural

and

political

ideology.

I

believe

the

Greens

need

to

do

that

too.

They

need

to

move

past

the

idea

that

everything

is

about

forestry.

They

should

be

proud

of

Tasmania.

They

are

not

proud

of

Tasmania. Fundamentally the Greens are not proud of our state.

Ms

O'CONNOR

-

Point

of

order,

Madam

Speaker.

Please

ask

Dr

Broad

to

withdraw

that

ridiculous

and

incorrect

statement.

Dr

Woodruff

and

I

are

both

immensely

proud

of

this

island and its people and we love it.

Madam SPEAKER

- I think that is fair enough.

Dr

BROAD

-

Madam

Speaker,

I

am

talking

about

the

greens

movement.

I

did

not

point that at any one particular person.

Ms O'Connor

- The

greens movement

is proud

of this

island, which

is why

we fight

so

hard for it.

Dr

BROAD

-

You

are

constantly

talking

it

down.

You

should

be

proud

of

Tasmania

being at zero and you are not. You should be proud that half the state's -

Madam SPEAKER

- Could you just apologise if you have reflected on the members.

Dr

BROAD

-

I

withdraw,

just

for

their

satisfaction.

Half

the

state

is

in

some

form

of

reservation

and

you

should

be

proud

of

that.

That

is

far

in

excess

of

any

jurisdiction

anyone

can

name.

Tasmania's

zero

net

emissions:

you

should

be

proud

of

that.

You

should

be

talking

about

that

all

the

time,

but

instead

you

talk

about

how

native

forestry

is

like

this

huge

industry.

You

would

expect

Tasmania

to

be

a

burnt-out

logging

coupe

from

one

end

of

the

state to the other and it is not. That is just a blatant falsehood.

We

can

talk

about

other

myths,

like

the

Greens

always

espouse

that

forests

are

static,

so

if

you

look

at

a

forest

it

will

always

look

like

that.

They

completely

miss

the

point

that

forests

reach

equilibrium

where

carbon

in

equals

carbon

out

and

those

sorts

of

things.

Anyway,

let

us

not

let

our

political

ideology

cloud

anything.

Everything

is

about

forestry,

including this bill -

Ms O'Connor

- Actually everything is about the climate.

Dr

BROAD

-

Yes,

well

let

us

be

proud

of

our

net

zero.

If

all

the

other

jurisdictions

in

the

world

were

like

Tasmania

we

would

not

have

a

climate

issue,

would

we?

This

is

the

point

I am trying to make.

Ms

O'Connor

-

Yes,

from

our

forests

that

have

been

protected.

That

is

why

we

have

got net zero. You cannot even bring yourself to say it. You are supposed to be a scientist.

Dr

BROAD

-

If

all

the

other

jurisdictions

were

net

zero,

we

would

not

have

a

problem.

I digress.

I

am

not

sure

if

the

Liberals

are

going

to

move

the

amendment

about

the

disallowable

instrument.

That

is

a

good

thing.

That

should

be

enough

to

get

the

Greens

over

the

line

to

show

that

their

straw

man

argument

is

indeed

a

straw

man,

and

they

need

to

focus

on

renewable

energy.

Perhaps

they

should

start

their

campaign

against

windfarms

and

powerlines. But, that is good and should hopefully calm them down a bit.

We

need

to

do

more

than

talk

about

renewable

energy

-

we

need

these

projects

to

go

ahead.

The

Liberal

Government

needs

to

get

on

with

Marinus.

It

is

a

significant

hold

up,

and

my

colleague,

Mr

O'Byrne,

member

for

Franklin,

went

through

this.

We

need

to

get

on

with

it

-

if

we

are

waiting

until

2030

before

we

get

Marinus

up

and

going

we

may

miss

the

boat.

Other

projects

on

the

mainland

may

undermine

the

business

case

for

Marinus

if

we

delay.

Delay could be the death of Marinus.

We

will

not

know

about

the

business

case

until

2024

-

this

supposedly

is

fast

tracking.

A

delay

until

2024

to

establish

the

Hampshire

to

Staveton

link

stops

Jim's

Plains

and

Robbins

Island

from

going

ahead.

That

infrastructure

is

vital

for

the

project

to

go

ahead.

We

need

the

Government

to

do

more

than

talk

about

it,

or

put

on

the

hard

hats

and

high-vis

and

relaunch

it.

In

conclusion,

I

note

that

the

Greens

are

at

least

consistent.

I

did

not

think

Ms

O'Connor

was

going

to

get

there

but

she

definitely

was

talking

about

forests.

That

has

been

their

reason

for

existence

for

a

number

of

years.

She

managed

to

slip

China

into

it.

In

her

contributions

in

this

place

at

least

she

has

ticked

that

list

-

'I

need

to

talk

about

China

,

I

need

to talk about forests, and then I will sit down'.

[4.38 p.m.]

Mr

BARNETT

(Lyons)

-

Madam

Speaker,

it

is

an

honour

to

finish

this

debate

before

we

move

into

Committee.

I

thank

the

speakers

who

have

contributed

during

this

debate.

Both

major

parties

have

indicated

their

support

for

the

bill.

This

is

not

simply

nation-leading

legislation

-

it

is

globally-leading

legislation.

I

am

pleased

and

proud

to

be

part

of

a

government

that

is

delivering

on

our

policy

objectives

and

our

ambition

to

reach

a

target

of

200 per cent self-sufficiency and renewable energy by 2040.

This

is

an

historic

occasion,

and

it

is

a

great

honour

that

all

of

us

in

this

place

have

the

opportunity

to

vote

in

support

of

this

legislation,

notwithstanding

the

comments

and

criticisms

to

which

I

will

respond.

Support

across

the

Chamber

is

indicated,

for

which

I

am

very grateful.

What

it

will

do

is

lock

in

the

low

cost,

reliable

and

clean

electricity

options

we

have

in

Tasmania

right

now.

Affordable,

reliable,

clean

energy

is

what

Australia

and

the

rest

of

the

world

wants

and

needs.

Tasmania

is

delivering,

thanks

to

our

natural

comparative

advantages,

such

as

our

water

resources.

Tasmania

is

1

per

cent

of

Australia's

land

mass,

but

we

have

12

per

cent

of

Australia's

rainfall

with

some

27

per

cent

of

Australia's

water

in

reservoir.

Hydro

Tasmania

is

the

largest

water

manager

in

Australia.

I

am

pleased

and

proud

to be a minister in this space.

We

also

have

the

advantage

of

wind

resources.

Parts

of

Tasmania

are

very

windy

much

of

the

time.

As

a

state,

we

are

blessed

to

have

these

natural

advantages

and

resources

to

use

for

the

benefit

of

the

Tasmanian

people

for

decades

to

come;

indeed,

for

generations

to

come.

This

legislation

enshrines

these

ambitious

targets,

but

I

believe

these

are

targets

that

can

be

met - not only 150 per cent by 2030, but 200 per cent by 2040.

I

will

respond

to

some

of

the

observations

that

have

been

made.

It

is

slightly

comical

that

my

shadow,

Mr

O'Byrne,

has

made

reference

to

the

Liberal-National

Coalition

Government

on

the

same

day

the

shadow

minister

for

agriculture

and

resources,

Joel

Fitzgibbon,

has

resigned

from

the

shadow

cabinet,

in

part

due

to

concerns

about

the

Labor

Party's

energy

policy.

It

is

somewhat

hypocritical

to

point

the

finger

at

the

Liberal-National

Coalition

Government

when

your

colleague,

Joel

Fitzgibbon,

has

just

resigned

from

the

shadow cabinet in federal parliament today.

The

federal

Labor

Party

has

to

work

out

its

policies,

but

I

note

that

it

was

Stephen

Jones,

on

behalf

of

the

federal

Labor

Party

and

the

Opposition,

who

took

credit

-

at

least

in

part

-

for

Marinus

Link.

He

gave

it

full

support,

for

which

the

Tasmanian

Government

is

very

grateful.

I

hope

full

support

from

the

other

side

of

the

House

will

come.

The

whole

point

of

setting

up

a

long-term

vision

and

target

is

to

build

bipartisan,

indeed

tripartisan,

support

across

the

parliament.

I

draw

the

attention

of

the

House

to

the

level

of

hypocrisy

coming

from the Labor opposition.

I

am

pleased

and

thankful

for

strong

support

from

the

federal

government

for

our

efforts

to

grow

Tasmania's

economy

and

for

the

strong

support

for

our

energy

policy.

This

started

as

a

Tasmania

First

energy

policy

launched

by

the

former

premier,

Will

Hodgman,

and

me

at

Lake

Gordon

prior

to

the

election.

Tasmanians

come

first.

The

Prime

Minister

referred

to

our

energy

policy

as

recently

as

Saturday,

and

said

he

is

keen

to

come

back

to

Tasmania.

No

doubt

there

will

be

more

to

say

about

that

in

coming

weeks

when

he

does

return.

We

are

pleased

with

the

Prime

Minister's

support

to

fast

track

Marinus

Link

planning

and

approval

processes - to go through the process in a very thorough way but as quickly as possible.

We

are

proud

that

Infrastructure

Australia

has

identified

Marinus

Link

as

one

of

the

top

15

infrastructure

projects

for

Australia.

We

have

been

lobbying

our

federal

colleagues

for

years

to

secure

that

commitment.

More

recently

in

the

federal

budget

the

Prime

Minister

and

the

Treasurer,

backed

by

Angus

Taylor,

federal

minister

for

Energy,

my

counterpart

and

colleague,

have

indicated

on

the

public

record

some

strong

support

for

Marinus

Link

being

one

of

the

top

three

transmission

infrastructure

projects

that

the

federal

government

will

get

behind

and

say,

'Yes,

it

is

required.

We

will

back

it

in

with

$250

million

across

those

three

infrastructure projects'.

All

of

that

is

on

the

back

of

the

Australian

Energy

Market

Organisation,

the

independent

organisation

that

identifies

and

puts

together

the

integrated

system

plan

which

says

the

Marinus

Link

first

cable

is

an

actionable

project.

That

means

that

it

is

required,

essential

and

important

to

the

National

Electricity

Market

in

the

20

years

ahead.

The

second

link

is

also

an

actionable

project

and

the

design

and

approval

process

between

now

and

2023-24, when the financial investment decision is made, is also an actionable project.

This

is

good

news

for

Tasmania.

This

backs

in

our

government

policy

and

the

hard

work

we

have

been

putting

in,

not

just

in

recent

months

but

recent

years.

This

is

saying,

'You

are

on

the

money;

you

have

something

very

valuable

in

Tasmania

for

the

rest

of

the

country;

you

have

something

that

is

so

important

to

us

which

is

affordable,

reliable

and

clean

electricity'.

This

is

exciting

news.

We

are

backing

it

in,

and

it

is

not

just

Marinus

Link,

it

is

the

Battery

of

the

Nation

plans,

which

means

pumped

hydro

thanks

to

the

work

of

Hydro

Tasmania.

There

has

been

some

debate

about

that

during

the

second

reading

debate

and

I

can

indicate

that

there

are

three

projects

that

are

identified

as

the

top

of

the

list

in

terms

of

the

3400

megawatts

of

potential

pumped

hydro

projects.

They

are

Lake

Cethana,

Lake

Rowallan

and

the

Tribute

power

station

on

the

west

coast.

Those

three

are

being

very

carefully

considered

as

we

speak

to

be

one

of

those

pumped

hydro

projects

that

would

then

proceed

subject

to

further

feedback

from

the

federal

government

and

the

underwriting

new

generation

investment

terms

and

conditions

which

will

need

to

be

negotiated

between

our

Government

and

the

federal

government.

That

means

a

long-term

commitment

to

that

new-generation

investment based on that pumped hydro project proceeding.

These

are

exciting

times

for

Tasmania.

As

I

and

the

Premier

have

said

publicly

and

privately,

this

is

one

of

the

most

significant

economic

opportunities

for

Tasmania

in

not

just

a

decade

but

beyond

that

as

well.

This

is

part

of

our

plan

to

move

through

COVID-19;

this

is

part

of

our

recovery

plan

to

progress

our

renewable

energy

plans

for

Tasmania.

We

have

talked

about

Marinus

Link,

we

have

touched

on

Battery

of

the

Nation

and

there

was

a

reference to renewable hydrogen.

I

am

excited

about

the

opportunities

for

Tasmania

in

terms

of

renewable

hydrogen

because

we

have

the

best

of

the

best

in

this

state

when

it

comes

to

renewable

hydrogen.

We

have

identified

Bell

Bay

as

a

hydrogen

hub

as

well

as

Burnie.

We

have

made

available

the

expressions

of

interest

process

with

some

23

applications

and

in

regard

to

the

assessment

process

the

response

to

that

will

be

made

available

in

the

near

future.

You

will

see

opportunities,

not

just

in

terms

of

feasibility

studies

but

in

terms

of

projects

going

forward.

We

look

forward

to

more

information

in

that

regard

and

I

am

looking

forward

to

making

that

available

to

members

of

the

public

and

to

the

parliament

together

with

others

in

the

not

too

distant future.

It

is

exciting

because

we

have

what

is

called

green

hydrogen

which

is

clean

hydrogen

made

from

100

per

cent

renewable

electricity.

That

is

different

from

brown

hydrogen,

which

is

made

from

coal,

and

it

is

different

from

blue

hydrogen,

which

is

made

from

gas.

It

is

different from other forms of hydrogen.

We

have

the

best

of

the

best

in

Tasmania.

We

are

blessed

with

these

natural

resources

and

as

a

government

we

are

taking

this

opportunity

and

grasping

it

with

both

hands

and

we

have

plans

to

deliver.

That

is

why

we

are

so

busy

in

the

renewable

energy

space.

It

will

deliver

thousands

of

jobs.

It

will

deliver

billions

of

investments.

In

terms

of

Marinus

Link

and

Battery

of

the

Nation,

we

are

talking

in

excess

of

$7

billion

of

investment.

It

will

deliver

improved

energy

security

for

Tasmania

and

Tasmanians,

not

just

business

but

our

residential

customers

as

well,

and

downward

pressure

on

electricity

prices.

We

are

pleased

and

proud

on

this

side

and

I

am

pleased

with

the

support

today

for

this

historically

important

globally-leading legislation.

I

would

like

to

respond

to

the

query

about

competition

issues

from

Mr

O'Byrne

and

to

indicate

in

terms

of

the

exemption

for

businesses

from

the

Commonwealth

Competition

and

Consumer

Act,

the

purpose

of

the

proposed

amendments

is

to

allow

greater

sharing

of

information

between

key

parties

in

the

energy

sector

to

facilitate

the

two

energy

initiatives,

Project

Marinus

and

Battery

of

the

Nation.

This

is

limited

to

licensed

generators

and

prospective generators and the transmission network service provider TasNetworks.

The

Commonwealth

Competition

and

Consumer

Act

2010

has

some

very

strict

prohibitions

designed

to

anticompetitive

or

cartel

behaviour.

Some

of

these

prohibitions

are

so

strict

that

the

mere

sharing

of

information

could

expose

parties

to

the

risk

of

prosecution.

For

the

most

part,

these

prohibitions

are

well

and

truly

justified

but

there

can

be

times

when

there

is

a

real

need

to

allow

parties

to

share

information.

This

need

is

recognised

in

this

legislation.

The

Competition

and

Consumer

Act

contains

a

provision,

section

51(1)(b),

to

allow

a

state

act

to

exempt

certain

behaviour

that

would

otherwise

be

breaches

of

the

Competition

and

Consumer

Act

as

long

as

it

is

expressly

legislated.

It

should

be

noted

that

it

does

not

apply to sharing information about pricing or cost inputs.

Is

Tasmania

the

only

state

with

this

issue?

Part

of

the

national

reform

projects

to

modernise

the

regulation

of

the

grid

has

been

a

project

called

the

Coordination

of

Generation

and

Transmission

Investments,

referred

to

as

COGATI,

and

this

comes

up

regularly

at

our

COAG

energy

ministers'

meetings.

The

national

reform

package

is

designed

to

achieve

greater

coordination,

reduce

duplication

and

get

a

more

efficient

outcome.

Unfortunately,

the

reform

process

is

not

moving

as

fast

as

we

would

like

in

Tasmania,

and

not

fast

enough

for

us

to

meet

Tasmanian's

needs

in

relation

to

Project

Marinus

and

Battery

of

the

Nation,

so

we

are

taking action now and getting on with the job.

What

if

generators

need

to

share

more

information,

or

act

in

reliance

on

that

shared

information?

If

following

the

sharing

of

information,

the

various

parties

need

to

have

further

exemptions

in

relation

to

acting

on

shared

information

to

facilitate

further

coordination,

then

there

are

several

options

available.

That

could

include

authorisation

by

the

ACCC,

a

joint

venture

approach

to

develop

shared

connection

infrastructure,

or

on

a

case-by-case

basis

a

more

specific

exemption

that

could

be

provided

by

regulation.

I

share

that

information

because

we

want

to

get

that

on

the

record.

It

is

a

fair

question

by

the

shadow

minister

and

I

wanted to respond accordingly.

In

terms

of

some

of

that

history

that

the

shadow

minister

has

referred

to,

I

acknowledge

past

governments

have

made

contributions,

whether

it

be

in

terms

of

Basslink

or

hydro

industrialisation.

We

have

a

proud

history

in

this

state

of

hydro

industrialisation

going

back

100

years

-

Waddamana

and

what

has

happened

since.

In

fact

my

hometown

of

Launceston

was

one

of

the

first

cities

that

was

lit

up

by

electricity

thanks

to

a

hydroelectric

power

station

at

Duck

Reach.

My

wife

and

I

were

walking

up

there

some

weeks

ago

and

we

looked

at

the

history,

the

heritage

and

the

educational

information

on

the

Duck

Reach

Power

Station.

It

is

definitely

worth

it

for

any

Launcestonians

or

others

walking

through

the

Gorge.

If

you

walk

further

up

the

Gorge

you

will

see

that

fantastic

piece

of

history

which

is

another

world

first.

It

was

a

world

first

in

the

early

1900s

and

here

we

are,

some

100

plus

years

later,

and

we

are

moving

into

another

world

first

for

and

on

behalf

of

Tasmania

and

that

is

what

we

are

delivering.

I

acknowledge

past

governments

have

been

absolutely

supportive

of

this

nature.

That

is

why I am trying to build support across government and the community.

Regarding

the

Greens,

the

member

for

Franklin,

Dr

Woodruff,

I

can

address

a

few

of

those

concerns.

It

is

a

little

comical.

I

appreciate

the

Greens'

support

for

the

bill.

They

have

expressed

some

concerns

and

I

will

share

some

remarks

on

their

views

on

bioenergy

shortly.

The

Bob

Brown

Foundation

is

anti-Marinus

Link

and

is

doing

everything

in

its

power

to

kill

that

project.

I

received

correspondence

from

Jenny

Webber,

who

has

a

management

role

at

the

Bob

Brown

Foundation,

and

had

to

respond.

The

most

recent

report

they

released

has

so

many

flaws,

based

on

flawed

assumptions;

flawed

understanding

of

Marinus

Link

and

its

future.

Dr

Woodruff

-

None

of

that

report

has

been

disputed

by

TasNetworks

or

Hydro.

Very

interesting.

Ms O'Connor

- The report raises a series of questions and issues.

Madam SPEAKER

- Excuse me, may I remind you where you are?

Mr

BARNETT

-

The

Greens

are

clearly

conflicted

with

the

Bob

Brown

Foundation

being

so

adamant,

so

opposed

and

so

critical

of

Marinus

Link

and

the

windfarm

transmission

line developments and the renewable energy developments on the north-west coast.

We

heard

from

the

Premier

this

morning

in

question

time

in

response

to

the

Greens'

questions

on

bioenergy.

The

Greens

many

decades

ago

supported

coal

or

were

against

it.

They

supported

hydro

and

were

against

it.

Any

major

renewable

energy

development,

where

are they? They are not there.

It

is

disappointing

regarding

that

history

but

maybe

history

will

not

repeat

itself

in

this

regard. Let us wait and see.

Ms O'Connor

- I thought you were trying to build collaboration and tripartisanship.

Madam SPEAKER

- Order, Ms O'Connor.

Mr

BARNETT

-

The

Premier

indicated

earlier

and

Shane

Broad

indicated

earlier,

Tasmania

has

four

years

of

net

zero

emissions.

You

do

not

hear

congratulations

and

well

done

on

your

target

of

getting

so

close

to

the

100

per

cent,

so

close

to

getting

to

200

per

cent

by 2040. That is the target. You do not hear from the Greens, congratulations and well done.

Let

me

advise

the

Chamber

who

I

have

heard

from,

because

we

have

released

the

draft

Renewable

Energy

Action

Plan.

We

have

had

strong

support

from

the

World

Wildlife

Fund.

I

have

had

two

meetings

with

them

in

recent

weeks

and

months

and

ongoing

communication

with

my

office,

for

which

I

am

very

grateful.

A

strong

advocacy

on

behalf

of

the

conservation

organisations

around

the

world;

they

recognise

that

Tasmania

is

taking

a

leading

role.

In

fact,

they

think

the

target

should

be

higher

than

200

per

cent

by

2040.

We

do

not

agree on everything, but that is okay. They are very supportive of what we are doing.

There

has

been

reference

to

our

draft

Renewable

Energy

Action

Plan

and

why

do

we

not

have

it

all

finalised?

That

is

because

we

want

to

engage

with

the

community

and

want

their

feedback.

We

are

consulting.

I

want

Tasmanians

to

own

this

plan

that

we

have

for

the

future,

not

only

to

2040

but

in

all

of

our

energy

renewable

plans

across

the

board.

It

is

because we are engaging, consulting and want that community feedback.

We

have

had

very

strong

and

positive

feedback

to

that

draft

plan.

The

final

plan

will

be

released

before

the

end

of

the

year.

That

is

the

plan

at

this

stage.

I

look

forward

to

making

that

available.

We

had

a

terrific

response

to

the

children's

version

of

the

draft

Renewable

Energy

Action

Plan.

There

were

more

than

80

submissions

on

that.

We

want

our

future

generation,

our

kids,

to

embrace,

to

be

involved

and

to

take

a

sense

of

ownership

of

our

plans

for

the

future

that

will

deliver

jobs,

investment,

cleaner

energy

and

a

cleaner

climate.

They

have embraced it and the feedback has been terrific.

There

has

been

a

view

expressed

by

Dr

Woodruff

that

there

has

not

been

enough

community

engagement.

One

of

my

key

messages,

not

just

to

the

energy

businesses

but

to

the

renewable

energy

proponents,

is

how

important

community

engagement

is.

I

have

written

to

them,

I

have

communicated

with

them,

when

I

meet

with

the

proponents

I

say

community

engagement is a top priority for the Government.

I

am

thankful

for

the

work

of

the

national

wind

energy

commissioner,

who

has

been

to

Tasmania

on

a

number

of

occasions

prior

to

the

pandemic.

I

look

forward

to

his

further

visits

with the borders opening.

That

is

further

engagement

with

the

community.

His

wise

counsel

is

greatly

appreciated.

Dr

Woodruff

asked

why

we

are

bringing

this

legislation

in

now.

She

said

we

were

rushing

it

as

we

do

not

need

to

do

it

until

2023-24

in

advance

of

the

financial

investment

decision.

We want to get on with the job. P for proactive. P for positive -

Dr Woodruff

- But you said it was required this year and that is not true.

Mr BARNETT

- P for professional -

Dr Woodruff

- You were not being honest.

Madam SPEAKER

- Order, please.

Mr

BARNETT

-

We

are

delivering.

We

are

getting

on

with

the

job.

We

do

not

want

to

wait.

Why

would

the

Greens

want

us

to

wait

until

2023-24?

It

is

an

absurdity

to

even

think

that.

Then

we

have

views

from

elsewhere

to

say

we

have

to

get

on

with

the

job,

move

on

with it.

We

are

getting

on

with

it.

We

have

worked

so

hard

behind

the

scenes.

You

probably

have

no

idea

of

the

time

and

effort

to

progress

this

important

renewable

energy

policy

for

Tasmania. This TRET legislation is a critical part of that.

Tasmania

is

blessed

in

so

many

ways.

We

have

now

three

renewable

energy

zones.

These

are

not

zones

that

are

identified

by

me.

They

are

identified

at

a

federal

level,

by

a

national

regulator.

The

three

zones

are:

the

north

west

and

the

west

coast;

the

central

highlands

through

to

the

centre

and

then

the

north

east.

These

zones

are

set

up

for

renewable

energy

development.

This

is

fantastic.

This

is

so

good.

This

says

that

we

have

what

the

rest

of the nation wants and needs.

There

is

a

reference

to

batteries

in

Victoria

and

the

300

megawatt

battery

that

Victoria

is

progressing.

Of

course,

we

need

batteries.

There

are

no

issues

with

that.

It

is

all

part

of

the

solution

that

has

been

identified

by

the

independent

regulator,

the

Australian

Energy

Market

Operator.

The

national

regulation

says

we

need

Marinus

Link.

This

is

part

of

our

future.

This

is

part

of

the

long-term

plan.

It

is

in

the

integrated

system

plan.

They

are

actionable

projects but batteries are definitely part of the future.

We

are

talking

about

dispatchable

energy

and

deep

storage.

That

is

what

we

have

in

Tasmania.

We

are

strategically

and

brilliantly

placed

with

our

topography

and

geography

to

have

pumped

hydro.

According

to

a

Hydro

Tasmania

report

many

months

ago

we

have

3400

megawatts

of

capacity

of

pumped

hydro.

On

top

of

that

you

have

the

enhancement

of

our

existing hydro-electric schemes.

Tarraleah

is

one

of

those

on

the

public

record.

That

has

been

carefully

considered.

Thanks

to

the

federal

government

commitment

through

ARENA,

thanks

to

the

state

Government

commitment

through

Hydro

Tasmania

that

work

is

ongoing

in

terms

of

the

feasibility of a redevelopment or a whole new power scheme at Tarraleah.

The

opportunities

are

galore.

We

will

chase

these

opportunities

and

the

opportunities

for Tasmanians and deliver those jobs and economic development in the decades ahead.

I

have

mentioned

the

draft

Renewable

Energy

Action

Plan.

There

is

the

Renewable

Hydrogen

Action

Plan.

I

touched

on

hydrogen

a

little

earlier.

We

are

excited

about

that

and

the prospects in the years ahead.

I

will

now

refer

to

bioenergy.

Dr

Woodruff

and

Ms

O'Connor

referred

to

bioenergy

and

painted

it,

of

course,

as

a

dreadful

opportunity

and

a

dreadful

thing

for

Tasmania

and

the

use

of

native

forests

for

that

purpose.

Let

us

be

very

clear

because

I

put

this

not

only

in

a

letter

to

Cassy

O'Connor

and

Rosalie

Woodruff

yesterday,

and

I

would

like

to

refer

to

a

couple

of

quotes

from

that

letter

that

was

referred

to

earlier

by

Ms

O'Connor,

but

my

office

and

my

department

have

briefed

the

Greens

on

this

and

this

has

been

on

the

public

record

some

weeks

ago

in

terms

of

the

Government's

plans.

I

will

extract

part

of

that

letter

so

that

it

is

very clear what I have said on behalf of the Government.

The

Government

has

been

consistent

in

that

we

have

always

intended

the

renewable

energy

sources

that

are

set

to

contribute

towards

the

TRET

to

be

based

on

solar,

water

and

wind.

The

harvesting

of

native

forests

specifically

for

renewable

energy

production

is

not

currently

required

to

be

a

part

of

the

TRET.

As

we

move

through

the

rebuilding

of

the

Tasmanian

economy

from

the

impacts

of

COVID-19,

it

is

critical

that

we

remain

open

to

adopting

sustainable

practices

that

minimise

waste

and

turn

under-utilised

byproducts

into

value-add

propositions.

This

could

indeed

involve

sources

such

as

agricultural

waste,

biomass-based

components

of

municipal

solid

waste;

biomass-based

components

of

sewage

and

wood

waste.

Given

the

unknown

nature

of

how

technologies

may

evolve

to

utilise

these

sources

it

is

prudent

that

no

particular

source

is

ruled

out

as

having

the

potential

to

contribute

to

the TRET.

Bioenergy

is

an

internationally

recognised

form

of

renewable

energy,

with

bodies such as the Australian Renewable Energy -

Greens members

interjecting.

Mr BARNETT

- Sorry, Madam Speaker.

Madam SPEAKER

- I am sorry too, minister.

Mr BARNETT

- I will just finish this quote:

Bioenergy

is

an

internationally

recognised

form

of

renewable

energy,

with

bodies

such

as

the

Australian

Renewable

Energy

Agency

undertaking

significant

work

in

the

bioenergy

industry

to

ensure

that

it

can

play

a

role

in

supporting

Australia's

energy

transition

as

well

as

helping

Australia

to

further reduce its emissions.

In

terms

of

how

we

declare

additional

sources,

it

is

vital

that

we

give

this

important

legislation

the

strength

it

deserves.

This

legislation

sets

out

a

long

term

vision

that

will

help

Tasmania

recover

from

COVID-19

and

build

from that base over the decades to come.

With

this

in

mind,

and

for

other

reasons,

we

will

be

tabling

an

administrative

amendment

so

that

new

sources

of

renewable

energy

that

are

declared by the Minister will be done so through a disallowable instrument.

I

concur

with

the

remarks

by

my

other

shadow,

Shane

Broad,

earlier

about

his

support

for

that

and

the

commonsense

approach

of

that

and

how

that

might

allay

the

views

of

the

Greens.

At

least

Ms

O'Connor

indicated

that

was

a

step

forward

from

their

point

of

view,

for which I am appreciative.

There

was

a

reference

in

terms

of

bioenergy

and

I

will

touch

on

that

a

little

bit

further.

There

was

a

reference

to

Victoria

and

what

was

done

there

but

there

was

no

reference

to

the

Commonwealth.

The

Commonwealth

in

their

legislation

has

listed

a

whole

range

of

renewable

energy

sources

and

the

list

is

very

long

indeed.

Ms

O'Connor

rightly

noted

that

Victoria

does

not

include

it.

Victoria

has

a

policy

to

close

down

their

native

forest

harvesting

by

2030

or

thereabouts

and

that

is

a

policy

we

simply

do

not

support

in

Tasmania.

This

is

the

policy of the Greens.

In

terms

of

forestry,

this

is

their

policy.

Their

policy

is

to

halt

native

forest

harvesting

altogether.

Bingo.

That

means

thousands

of

Tasmanians

would

be

on

the

unemployment

scrap

heap

on

day

one

once

that

occurred.

Halted,

bingo,

out

of

work.

Native

forest

harvesting,

you

are

out

of

work.

In

terms

of

native

forestry,

let

me

make

it

very

clear.

I

am

pleased

and

proud

to

be

the

minister

responsible

for

our

forests

which

are

sustainably

managed.

They

are

sustainable

forests.

Wood

is

good,

Madam

Speaker.

Wood

is

recyclable.

It

is

sustainable.

It

is

renewable.

In

fact

it

is

the

ultimate

renewable.

We

have

it

here

in

our

Chamber.

This

is

containing

carbon

sink.

This

wood

is

good

for

our

environment.

Wood

is

good. I am pleased to confirm that wood is good.

The

Greens

have

a

different

perspective

on

forestry

to

the

major

parties

in

this

Chamber.

In

terms

of

forestry

we

have

thousands

of

jobs

that

are

to

be

thrown

on

the

unemployment

scrap

heap,

a

$1.2

billion

industry,

and

particularly

in

those

rural

and

regional

areas,

those

forest

contractors,

forest

businesses

and

jobs

are

so

important.

That

is

why

we

are

so

keen

to

have

our

workplace

protection

legislation

passed

through

this

parliament

because

those

jobs

are

important.

When

you

go

and

tie

yourself

to

equipment

to

stop

people

making -

Ms

O'CONNOR

-

Point

of

order,

Madam

Speaker.

I

genuinely

think

the

minister

is

misleading

the

House.

The

Workplace

(Protection

from

Protestors)

Amendment

Bill

has

sat

in

the

Legislative

Council

for

almost

exactly

one

year

and

if

the

Government

is

so

keen

for

that

legislation

to

pass,

why

has

it

stalled

it

at

the

bottom

of

the

list

upstairs?

Tell

the

truth

in

here.

Madam SPEAKER

- You know that is not a point of order.

Ms O'Connor

- You cannot have him blatantly being dishonest in here.

Madam SPEAKER

- He is a minister and I am sure he is not being dishonest.

Mr

BARNETT

-

Thank

you,

Madam

Speaker,

and

I

know

you

know

that

to

be

true.

It

is

a

very

important

bill

and

we

have

every

intention

of

it

being

passed

through

this

parliament.

This

is

important

legislation

and

this

is

clearly

a

question

for

the

Labor

Party

as

to

whether

they

will

support

our

workplace

protection

legislation.

Will

you

or

won't

you?

We

know

the

views

of

the

Greens:

they

oppose

it.

We

want

to

protect

the

jobs

and

the

families

of

those

people

working

in

the

industry

from

getting

on

with

doing

their

job

and

protecting

those

businesses

from

invasion

in

their

workplace.

Similar

legislation

has

been

passed

at

a

federal

level

with

federal

Liberal

and

Labor

support

in

other

states

including

Queensland,

New

South

Wales,

and

Western

Australia,

all

with

the

support

of

the

Labor

Party. Here in Tasmania they are so tied up with the Greens it is not funny.

Let

us

have

a

couple

of

other

comments

on

the

importance

of

bioenergy.

I

was

pleased

to

officially

open

Tasmania's

bioenergy

future

online

summit

on

Monday

morning.

Bioenergy

has

a

very

important

role

to

play

in

Tasmania's

energy

future.

Crop

waste

and

remains,

manure,

sludge,

rendered

animal

fats,

used

oils,

food

and

organic

waste,

timber

harvesting

and

processing

residues,

construction

and

demolition

woody

waste

can

all

be

used

to

generate

bioenergy

and

by-products.

Shane

Broad,

my

counterpart

in

the

resources

space,

was

talking

about

the

various

uses

of

bioenergy,

not

just

for

energy

but

for

heating

and

for

a

whole

range

of

other

purposes.

It

is

already

used

in

Tasmania

and

we

have

a

vision

to

grow

that use and that opportunity going forward.

We

can

create

liquid

transport

fuel

from

used

cooking

oil

and

forest

harvest

and

processing

residues.

We

can

create

gas

for

heating

and

power

from

poultry

farms,

animal

manures,

brewery

sludges

and

dairy

and

meat

processing

waste.

We

can

create

heat

from

timber

and

agricultural

industry

waste

residues,

as

I

and

Dr

Broad

indicated

earlier,

and

municipal

waste

to

heat

manufacturing

processes

and

homes.

We

can

create

cooling

from

industry

residues,

agricultural

residues

and

municipal

waste.

A

bioenergy

facility

can

produce

a

combination

of

these

energy

sources,

so

bioenergy

is

the

original,

oldest

and

most

versatile

form

of

renewable

energy.

Bioenergy

has

the

potential

to

displace

fossil

fuels

in

every market so why won't the Greens come on board?

Ms

O'Connor

-

Just

be

honest.

It

is

biomass

from

native

forests

we're

against,

not

all

bioenergy. We are fine with sustainable bioenergy.

Mr

BARNETT

-

It

would

be

nice

if

you

could

clarify

that

for

the

record.

During

the

Committee stage that would be useful.

Ms

O'CONNOR

-

Point

of

order,

so

I

can

explain,

Madam

Speaker.

The

minister

repeatedly is misrepresenting us and our position and that incites interjections.

Madam

SPEAKER

-

I

think

you

are

a

bit

bigger

than

that,

Ms

O'Connor.

Try

not

to

be

incited.

Ms

O'Connor

-

Thanks,

Madam

Speaker,

but

we're

not

going

to

let

blatant

untruths

stand on the record unchallenged.

Madam SPEAKER

- Okay, thank you.

Mr

BARNETT

-

I

draw

to

the

attention

of

the

member

that

there

is

a

Committee

stage

coming

up

where

she

can

express

her

views.

I

am

expressing

the

views

of

the

Government.

We

recognise

bioenergy

can

assist

the

Government

in

delivering

its

commitments

and

priorities

climate

change,

waste

management,

forestry,

agriculture,

regional

development,

COVID-19

recovery

as

well

as

energy,

which

is

why

we

have

opted

for

a

whole-of-government

approach.

We

have

tasked

the

development

of

the

state's

bioenergy

vision

to

the

energy

team

in

the

Department

of

State

Growth.

They

have

had

criticism

from

the

Greens

during

the

discussion

this

afternoon

but

I

thank

the

Department

of

State

Growth

for its contribution and in so many other respects.

We

are

definitely

progressing

in

a

big

way

in

Tasmania.

This

is

going

to

help

us

through

the

COVID-19

recovery

phase.

This

will

be

one

of

the

best

and

most

significant

economic opportunities in the decade ahead. That is renewable energy.

It

is

a

key

part

of

the

Tasmania

brand.

I

will

just

finish

on

this

point.

The

Tasmania

brand

is

something

that

this

Government

has

strongly

supported.

It

is

out

in

the

community.

It

has

been

well-received

and

well

supported.

The

Tasmania

brand

is

clean

and

fresh,

it

is

pure,

it

is

natural.

Getting

to

100

per

cent

self-sufficient

in

renewable

energy

is

part

of

that

brand.

If

a

business

comes

to

Tasmania

and

invests

and

wants

to

manufacture

a

widget,

or

if

a

business

comes

to

Tasmania

and

wants

to

create

some

sort

of

service

they

can

say,

'We

are

part

of

the

Tasmania

brand.

We

have

100

per

cent

clean

energy

from

Tasmania'.

This

is

part

of the Tasmania brand. This is an exciting opportunity.

Sanjeev

Gupta

is

behind

the

recent

purchase

of

TEMCO

South32

at

Bell

Bay.

One

of

the

key

reasons

that

underpins

that

investment

was

our

energy

policy.

It

was

great

to

be

able

to

meet

with

Sanjeev

Gupta

on

a

number

of

occasions

to

hear

his

views

and

to

know

of

his

plans

to

make

green

steel,

know

of

his

plans

to

be

carbon

neutral

by

2030

and

to

know

of

his

support

for

our

energy

policy

in

Tasmania,

which

has

secured

those

270

odd

jobs

at

TEMCO

subject

to

the

Foreign

Investment

Review

Board

approval.

Let

us

not

beat

around

the

bush;

this

is

very

significant.

I

thank

the

many

stakeholders

I

have

had

contact

with

over

the

years

in

support

of

our

energy

policy,

specifically

to

NTD

and

Mark

Baker

who

has

been

very

supportive

of

not

just

our

TRET

legislation,

our

plans

for

renewable

energy

but

also

the

circular

economy

in

bioenergy

and

opportunities

there.

There

are

so

many

stakeholders,

I

am

not going to list them all. They are appreciated and I am very grateful for that.

In

conclusion,

I

will

be

putting

forward

this

amendment

which

says

that

we

have

been

consistent

as

a

Government,

that

we

have

always

intended

renewable

energy

sources

that

are

set to contribute towards the TRET to be based on solar, water and wind.

Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to the House.

Bill read the second time.

ENERGY CO-ORDINATION AND PLANNING AMENDMENT (TASMANIAN

RENEWABLE ENERGY TARGET) BILL 2020 (No. 43)

In Committee

Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.

Clause 4

Section 3 amended (Interpretation)

Dr

WOODRUFF

-

As

we

spoke

about

in

our

second

reading

speech,

Ms

O'Connor

and

I

on

behalf

of

the

Greens

wrote

to

the

Premier

with

our

concern

about

what

this

clause

could

enable.

We

believe

we

have

to

do

everything

we

can

to

rein

in

global

heating,

and

that

this

renewable energy target bill has to drive a decrease in carbon emissions.

We

pointed

out

to

the

Premier

that

the

science

in

this

area

has

been

advancing

apace

and

is

coming

to

the

conclusion

and

consensus

position,

at

least

within

the

European

community,

that

there

must

be

a

completely

different

manner

of

accounting

for

carbon

emissions

from

forest

furnaces.

Where

we

have

been

to

date

has

substantially

underestimated

the

real

carbon

emissions

from

the

whole

lifecycle

of

native

forest

felling,

burning

and

transportation

into

biomass

furnaces,

and

then

the

emissions

from

the

burning

of

the

native

forest wood itself.

These

carbon

emissions

leave

aside

the

real

issue

of

the

loss

of

biodiversity

that

would

come

from

felling

native

Tasmanian

forests

to

be

part

of

biomass

burning

based

on

native

forest

wood

in

Tasmania.

Leaving

that

aside,

we

are

very

concerned

that

the

European

Academies

Science

Advisory

Council

has

called

on

law

makers

to

introduce

a

radically

new

standard

that

recognises

biomass

burning

is

not

carbon

neutral

and

has

massive

climate

effects.

That

was

a

consensus

statement

from

the

scientists

of

the

28

countries

in

the

EU.

It

also

included

two

European

countries

not

in

the

EU

-

Norway

and

Denmark.

Those

scientists

advise

that

swapping

coal

with

biomass

often

increases

net

emissions

in

the

atmosphere

when

the

whole

lifecycle

is

properly

accounted

for.

The

current

carbon

emission

calculations

do

not reflect the reality of climate heating, or the urgency to stop adding more emissions.

In

simple

terms,

there

is

not

enough

time

to

grow

back

trees

to

absorb

enough

carbon

dioxide

from

the

atmosphere

to

make

up

for

the

biomass

emissions

chain

and

the

emissions

that

are

lost

during

the

cutting

and

burning

process.

That

is

why

we

encouraged

the

Premier

to

amend

the

bill

to

rule

out

biomass

burning

from

native

forest

wood,

and

native

forest

wood

products

in

this

bill:

not,

as

the

minister

misleadingly

would

have

you

believe,

all

bioenergy.

We are talking specifically about those from wood products originating from native trees.

I have three amendments and I will read them in as a block.

Mr Deputy Chairman, I move -

First Amendment -

By inserting the following paragraph before paragraph (a) -

( )

by

inserting

the

following

definition

after

the

definition

of

energy in storage

-

excluded energy source

means any of the following energy sources:

(a)

fossil fuels;

(b)

materials or waste products derived from fossil fuels;

(c)

wood or other products originating from native trees; or

(d)

energy sources prescribed by the regulations.

Second amendment -

By inserting the following after paragraph (a) -

( )

by

inserting

the

following

definition

after

the

definition

of

National Electricity Market

-

native trees

means trees that:

(a)

are

of

a

species

that

existed

in

Tasmania

before

European

settlement; and

(b)

are not sourced from a plantation.

Third amendment -

In paragraph (c), after 'means', by inserting ', other than an excluded energy source,'

Mr

Deputy

Chair,

these

amendments

seek

to

clarify

and

make

it

abundantly

clear

to

anybody

reading

the

renewable

energy

target

that

the

energy

sources

that

can

be

called

renewable

cannot

include

any

that

come

from

fossil

fuels.

In

Tasmania

that

could

include

thermal

coal.

This

Government

and

the

Labor

Party

have

refused

to

rule

out

mining

of

thermal

coal

in

Tasmania.

That

is

deeply

concerning.

Why

would

you

refuse

to

rule

it

out

if

you

do

not

want

to

rule

out

the

possibility

of

mining

and

using

that

on-island?

We

have

to

rule

that

out

as

any

potential

renewable

energy

source

including,

as

happens

in

other

places,

by mixing thermal coal and forest products together in furnace burning.

The

second

thing

that

this

amendment

makes

clear

is

that

the

products

we

are

talking

about

are

wood

originating

from

native

trees

and

we

specifically

clarify

that

those

are

species

that

existed

in

Tasmania

before

European

settlement

and

do

not

include

plantation

trees.

Dr

Broad

said

it

is

a

moot

point

to

say

that

we

do

not

support

this.

It

must

be

abundantly

clear

that

we

cannot

be

using

native

forest

product.

As

Ms

O'Connor

has

made

so

clear,

this

is

not

just

forest

waste.

When

we

talk

about

logging

native

forests,

everything

that

exists

in

those

forests

has

a

functioning

purpose

in

the

beautifully

rich

and

intact

ecosystems

of

Tasmania's

native

forests.

They

are

highly

biodiverse

and

recognised

around

the

planet

for

being

part

of

diminishing,

high-functioning,

biodiverse

ecosystems.

There

are

precious

few

of

them

left

in

Australia,

less

than

2

per

cent

across

the

whole

of

Australia,

and

Tasmania

has

about

a

half

of

that 2 per cent.

We

hope

that

the

minister

and

the

Premier

will

change

their

position.

It

is

very

disappointing

that

the

Premier

is

not

here.

The

Climate

Change

minister

ought

to

be

here

on

this

very

important

bill.

There

is

no

more

important

matter

to

attend

to

as

the

Minister

for

Climate

Change

today

than

to

be

here

to

talk

to

the

passage

of

this

bill

and

respond

to

the

issues

we

raised

with

the

Premier

and

Minister

for

Climate

Change

and

expected

to

have

a

response from him.

We

hope

the

Government

understands

it

is

time

to

remove

biomass

energy

from

native

forest

wood

from

the

Department

of

State

Growth's

website.

It

is

no

longer

appropriate

in

2020

with

the

accelerating

pace

of

heating

on

the

planet,

and

the

new

understanding

amongst

expert

scientists

around

the

world

is

that

it

is

no

longer

appropriate

to

consider

the

possibility

of

that

as

an

energy

source.

It

once

seemed

like

a

good

idea

in

the

1980s

and

1990s

but

things

have

changed.

They

have

changed

dramatically

for

the

worst

and

that

is

why

we

have

to

be

really

focused

on

only

having

renewable

energy

from

truly

renewable

sources

and

not

from

those

which

have

such

negative

emission

consequences

and

biodiverse

impacts

as

biomass burning from native forest would have.

Mr

DEPUTY

CHAIRMAN

-

For

clarity,

before

you

resume

your

seat,

Dr

Woodruff,

you said you had three amendments. They could all be dealt with as one.

Dr WOODRUFF

- That is what I am proposing.

Mr DEPUTY CHAIRMAN

- Thank you.

Ms

O'CONNOR

-

I

want

to

make

a

brief

contribution

on

these

amendments.

To

make

it

really

clear

so

that

no-one

who

reads

this

Hansard

in

the

future

believes

what

the

minister

has

said

about

our

position

on

bioenergy

more

broadly,

just

because

the

minister

is

refusing

to

make

a

distinction

between

energy

produced

from

other

biological

sources

and

energy

produced

by

native

forests

does

not

mean

we

cannot.

There

is

a

clear

and

sharp

distinction

between

the

two.

That

is

why

we

think

it

should

not

be

too

big

an

ask

for

the

Government

to

support

a

clarification

in

this

legislation

that

makes

it

clear

that

bioenergy

from

native

forests

would not be regarded as renewable energy, as it is not in Victoria.

This

position

is

backed

up

by

the

University

of

Tasmania

which

in

its

submission

to

the

Government's

renewable

energy

action

plan

made

it

really

clear.

I

will

read

from

the

'Bioenergy in Tasmania' section:

Using

renewable

biomass

to

produce

energy

is

becoming

an

established

method

for

generating

low-emissions

energy

and,

where

organic

waste

is

converted

into

energy,

is

a

key

element

of

the

circular

economy.

Across

the

OECD

bioenergy

accounts

for

2.4%

total

energy

generation

whereas

in

Australia

it

accounts

for

0.9%t

of

output.

Modern

waste-to-energy

systems

have

a

particularly

important

role

in

reducing

methane

emissions

(which

are

30

times

more

potent

than

CO2)

from

waste

sites.

However,

large-scale

bioenergy

generation

can

be

controversial

and

is

contested

in

many

communities

where

forest

residues

and

biomass

farmed

on

what

were

previously

food

producing

lands

are

used

as

feedstock.

These

issues,

combined

with

Tasmania's

abundant

hydro

and

wind

energy

resources,

suggest

that

large-scale

bioenergy

generation

is

unlikely

to

become

a

significant part of Tasmania's future energy mix.

There

may

be

scope

to

develop

small-scale

bioenergy

plants

linked

to

industrial, processing and waste management facilities.

The recommendation is no. 9 -

Bioenergy

generation

in

Tasmania

should

focus

on

small-scale

operations

using

existing

waste

materials

for

feed

stock.

Native

forests

products

should be excluded from the process.

We

have

the

EU

scientists,

we

have

UTAS

experts,

and

we

have

commonsense

saying

that

we

should

rule

out

the

use

of

native

forest

feedstock

for

bioenergy.

Yet

the

Government

is

refusing

to

rule

it

out.

It

has

a

Department

of

State

Growth

page

on

its

website

that

promotes

native

forest

biomass

as

renewable

energy.

This

is

the

stuff

of

a

troglodyte

mindset

which

refuses

to

hear

or

see

what

the

scientists

are

saying.

The

reason

there

is

some

risk

here

is

because

the

market

for

our

native

forest

woodchips

is

in

decline

and

has

been

in

decline

for

some time.

While

the

Energy

minister

and

the

Climate

Change

minister

cannot

admit

that

the

reason

we

are

a

net

carbon

sink

is

because

of

our

forests

that

are

protected,

the

Greens

will

come

in

here

every

time

and

say

that.

Tasmania's

forests

give

us

our

positive

climate

profile.

That

cannot

be

disputed.

It

would

be

a

great

day

to

have

a

minister

for

climate

change,

or

a

minister

for

resources,

acknowledge

that

instead

of

trying

to

use

the

Greens

as

a

punching

bag

on this issue.

Tasmania

is

a

global

climate

leader

for

two

primary

reasons:

one,

because

we

protected

our

forests,

and

two,

because

we

have

a

massive

renewable

hydro-generation

infrastructure.

It

is

our

forests,

however,

that

are

drawing

down

carbon.

It

is

our

forests

that

should

be

protected.

That

is

why

250

doctors

and

other

allied

health

professionals

wrote

to

the

Premier

last week and said -

It

is

great

to

see

Tasmania

has

recorded

net

zero

carbon-dioxide

emissions

for

the

fourth

year

in

a

row

as

detailed

in

the

State

and

Territory

Greenhouse

Gas Inventories 2018, released in June.

The doctors say -

It

is

critical,

however,

to

recognise

how

this

has

been

achieved.

The

data

reveals

Tasmania's

forests

are

the

critical

factor

in

our

state's

favourable

emissions profile.

This

achievement

mainly

resulted

from

a

reduction

in

native

forest

logging

since 2005.

Given

Tasmania's

privileged

position

of

not

relying

on

fossil

fuels

for

energy

generation,

the

most

important

climate

action

we

can

take

in

the

interests of human health is to protect native forests.

Mr

Deputy

Chair,

when

you

look

at

the

graph

of

our

greenhouse

accounts,

you

can

see

we

began

to

become

a

net

carbon

sequesterer

in

the

year

2013.

That

is

when

the

line

on

the

graph

changes

substantially,

because

of

the

forests

that

were

set

aside

under

the

Tasmanian

Forest

Agreement,

and

also

the

avoided

logging

that

happened

before

that

when

the

market

started

to

reject

Tasmania's

products

because

they

are

not

sustainable

-

and

that

is

why

we

cannot

secure,

or

Forestry

Tasmania

cannot

secure

forest

stewardship

certification.

That

is

where the risk is.

We

have

a

native

forest

logging

industry

which

is

heavily

reliant

on

subsidies.

We

have

a

global

market

which

is

moving

away

from

this

product

quite

quickly.

We

have

a

Chinese

government

prepared

to

use

punitive

trade

measures

against

Australia

and

has

already

said

no

to

our

beef,

barley,

some

of

our

wine

and

now

our

crayfish.

We

need

to

be

prepared

for

the

possibility

even

that

market

will

be

closed

to

our

native

forest

products.

Not

that

they

care

about

FSC

certification,

but

there

is

a

problem

here

for

the

industry

because

the

global

market

is

turning

hard

against

it.

That

is

why

we

are

concerned

that

the

Tasmanian

Government

will

throw them a lifeline by promising them a native forest biomass future.

We

know

there

are

people

in

the

industry

-

like

Terry

Edwards

-

who

support

native

forest

biomass

for

energy

production.

That

is

why

we

are

concerned.

We

will

not

accept

abuse

about

it.

We

come

in

here

to

defend

the

forests

and

to

speak

up

for

meaningful

climate

action, and that is what we have done today.

Mr

O'BYRNE

-

Mr

Deputy

Chair,

clause

4

of

the

bill

identifies

the

renewable

energy

source

being

solar,

wind

and

water,

and

the

original

bill

in

clause

4(d)

refers

to

'an

energy

source declared under section 3B'. That clause states -

The

Minister,

by

order,

may

declare

an

energy

source

to

be

a

renewable energy source for the purposes of this Act.

That

has

been

highlighted

as

deficient.

The

minister

and

the

Government

have

committed

to

dealing

with

the

process

with

a

disallowable

motion.

We

consider,

as

my

colleague

Dr

Broad

articulated,

that

is

an

easier

and

simpler

way

to

manage

issues

around

what

is

in

and

what

is

out,

having

taken

into

account

that

the

technology

and

other

developments

in

this

space

will

need

to

be

accommodated

by

the

Government

moving

forward.

Our

view

is

that

the

Greens

are

seeking

to

create

an

issue

where

there

is

not

one.

There are no forest furnaces.

It

is

an

awkward

way

to

deal

with

an

issue

that

could

become

quite

complex

in

terms

of

a

disallowable

motion

which

has

the

flexibility

of

covering

a

whole

range

of

different

changes

in technology and uses. We prefer the Government's approach to resolving this issue.

Mr

BARNETT

-

We

will

not

be

supporting

any

of

these

amendments

by

the

Greens.

It

is

all

consistent

with

the

Greens'

policy

of

closing

down

the

native

forest

industry

in

Tasmania

-

and

indeed

in

other

parts

of

Australia

-

and

that

would

put

thousands

of

Tasmanians out of work.

Ms

O'Connor

-

So,

now

you

are

saying

there

is

a

connection

between

the

industry

and

biomass plans?

Mr BARNETT

- Madam - Mr Deputy Chair -

Ms O'Connor

- Do not call him madam.

Mr

BARNETT

-

You

continually

and

rudely

interrupt.

I

am

attempting

to

respond

to

your

contributions

in

the

Committee

stage.

This

is

consistent

with

the

Greens'

policy

to

halt

native

forest

harvesting

and

close

down

the

native

forest

industry

in

Tasmania.

That

is

behind

all three amendments put forward by the Greens. Let us be very clear on that point.

The Greens wrote to the Premier on 5 November and part of that letter stated -

It

is

critical

you

rule

out

the

burning

of

wood

products

from

native

forests

as

a

renewable

energy

source

that

could

be

counted

towards

Tasmania's

target.

Biomass from native forests is not renewable energy.

In

2018,

the

Victorian

Government

declared

that

native

forest

wood

products,

waste,

sawmill

residue

or

biomass

cannot

be

included

as

renewable

energy

sources

within

the

Victorian

Renewable

Energy

(Electricity) Act 2000

.

As

Minister

for

Climate

Change,

we

ask

you

to

amend

the

TRET

Bill

in

a

similar

fashion

to

explicitly

make

clear

that

native

forest

products

cannot

be

declared a renewable energy source by the Energy Minister.

The

Greens'

position

is

very

clear

-

they

are

backing

the

Victorian

Government

amendment.

I

responded

on

behalf

of

the

Government

yesterday,

and

was

consistent

with

advice

previously

provided

to

the

Greens.

In

that

letter,

I

was

very

clear

that

we

have

consistently

said

our

renewable

energy

sources,

in

terms

of

contributing

to

the

TRET,

are

water,

wind

and

solar

-

and

that

the

harvesting

of

native

forest

specifically

for

renewable

energy production is not currently required to be part of the TRET.

In

the

letter,

we

also

talked

about

the

importance

of

other

aspects

of

rebuilding

the

Tasmanian

economy:

'…

it

is

critical

that

we

remain

open

to

adopting

sustainable

practices

that

minimise

waste

and

turn

under-utilised

byproducts

into

value-add

propositions'.

I

then

said

this

could

indeed

involve

sources

such

as

agricultural

waste,

biomass-based

components

of municipal solid waste, biomass-based components of sewerage and wood waste.

Dr

Broad

talked

about

wood

waste

and

wood

residues

being

used

in

boilers

and

for

heating

purposes

and

energy

purposes

in

saw

mills,

and

in

other

industrial

facilities

around

Tasmania.

It

is

already

happening

-

and

why

would

we

want

to

rule

it

out?

It

seems

obscure

and

absurd.

As

what

I

went

on

to

say

in

my

response

to

the

Greens,

given

the

unknown

nature

of

how

technologies

may

evolve

to

utilise

these

sources,

it

is

prudent

that

no

particular

source is ruled out as having the potential to contribute to the TRET.

There

has

been

little

comment

with

respect

to

the

Commonwealth

Government.

To

be

very

clear,

the

Commonwealth

Government's

legislation

-

the

Renewable

Energy

Electricity

Act

2000

-

defines

eligible

renewable

energy

sources

for

the

purpose

of

the

Renewable

Energy

Target

Scheme

as

including

-

and

lists

a

whole

range

of

these

-

hydro,

wave,

tide,

ocean,

wind,

solar,

geothermal,

hot

dry

rock,

energy

crops,

wood

waste,

agricultural

waste

and the list goes on. I will not go through all of it.

The

Renewable

Energy

Electricity

Regulations

2001

clarifies

the

meaning

of

wood

waste

and

it

includes

biomass

from

a

native

forest.

It

is

included

in

the

federal

legislation,

so

why

would

we

in

Tasmania

want

to

exclude

that?

This

is

an

ideologically

driven

amendment

by

the

Greens

simply

to

gain

and

garner

support

from

some

of

their

supporters

in

Tasmania

or

in Melbourne and Sydney. That is my view of the reason and rationale behind this effort.

We

have

made

it

very

clear

that

we

wanted

to

strengthen

the

legislation,

the

approach

of

continual

improvement

wherever

possible,

and

that

is

that

a

ministerial

order

can

be

delivered

and

be

made

a

disallowable

instrument.

We

have

no

intention

of

supporting

these

three

amendments

and

look

forward

to

moving

the

amendment

very

shortly

in

regard

to

the

disallowable instrument.

Dr

WOODRUFF

-

The

minister

is

all

over

the

place

and

is

making

a

series

of

contradictory

statements

which

paint

the

picture

beautifully

for

why

this

amendment

is

needed

here.

On

the

one

hand

he

says

there

is

no

intention

of

native

forests

being

used

for

biomass

burning,

and

on

the

other

he

accuses

us

of

wanting

to

shut

down

the

native

forest

industry -

Mr

BARNETT

-

Point

of

order,

Mr

Deputy

Chair.

Dr

Woodruff

is

misrepresenting

my

position and I ask her to be accurate in terms of my position.

Dr

WOODRUFF

-

If

the

minister

would

sit

down,

I

will

finish

my

speech

so

that

he

can

see

I

had

not

finished

representing

his

position.

Minister,

you

accused

the

Greens

of

wanting

to

close

down

the

native

forest

industry

and

'risk

thousands

of

jobs'

by

inserting

this

in

the

bill.

You

cannot

have

it

both

ways.

Either

the

Government

has

no

intention

of

biomass

burning,

in

which

case

just

accept

the

amendment

and

rule

it

out,

or

the

Government

has

an

intention

and

if

this

amendment

were

to

be

accepted

we

would

effectively

be

seeking

to

close

down the native forest industry and 'risk thousands of jobs'.

The

minister

is

not

making

any

sense.

What

we

are

doing

as

the

Greens

is

standing

up

for

science

and

for

climate

action.

That

is

all

this

is

about.

If

the

minister

calls

us

ideological,

we

are

ideological

about

listening

to

the

science.

If

that

is

an

ideology,

I

do

not

mind,

and

I

am

signing

up

for

it.

I

have

always

been

a

pragmatic

person

who

looks

at

the

reality

of

the

world,

which

is

probably

why

I

became

an

epidemiologist.

It

is

also

probably

why I joined the Greens, a party which looks at the evidence and listens to the science.

Like

other

members

of

the

Greens

and

people

who

vote

Greens,

many

people

in

Tasmania

are

confused

by

the

fact

that

the

Government

was

prepared

to

listen

to

health

experts

during

the

COVID-19

emergency

and

do

what

needed

to

be

done

to

put

thousands

of

Tasmanians

out

of

jobs

overnight.

The

Premier

came

in

here

at

one

point

and

said

20

000

people

had

been

put

in

unemployment

because

of

this

Government's

decisions

to

take

a

strong

response

to

the

COVID-19

emergency

to

safeguard

people's

lives.

That

is

what

leadership

looks

like

and

we

do

not

understand

why

this

Government

is

incapable

of

showing

leadership

during the enduring emergency which we will all live with for the rest of our lives.

Whether

COVID-19

disappears

or

the

year

after

from

a

vaccine,

we

all

hope

that

happens,

but

one

day

we

will

not

be

living

in

a

COVID-constrained

world.

That

is

the

nature

of

coronaviruses.

Things

will

change,

but

for

the

rest

of

my

life

and

every

person

in

this

Chamber,

everyone

who

is

watching,

we

will

be

living

in

a

climate

emergency,

so we do not apologise for listening to the science.

This

is

not

extremism.

This

is

the

Scientific

Advisory

Council

for

the

European

Parliament

who

are

warning

their

lawmakers

to

turn

around

and

change

their

accounting

system.

they

will

be

changing

their

accounting

system

dramatically.

Biomass

burning

will

be

gone.

It

will

not

be

counted

as

a

renewable

energy

source.

They

have

not

got

to

that

decision

yet

but

that

is

where

they

are

heading.

That

is

what

they

are

flagging

has

to

happen.

This

is

us

listening

to

the

science.

To

listen

to

a

dinosaur

in

the

Liberal

Party

talking

about

retrograde

history

is

disappointing,

but

I

am

not

surprised

that

the

Tasmanian

Labor

Party

would

walk

away

from

the

history

of

the

Gillard

federal

government

and

from

the

current

Andrews

Labor

government

in

Victoria

and

from

the

policy

of

the

Labor

Party

on

this

issue

because

they

are

so

conflicted

in

Tasmania.

They

are

incapable

of

making

any

different

move

on

anything

to

do

with

energy

or

native

forests

from

the

Liberals.

They

could

not

have

a

position

if

they

had

to

save

their

lives,

so

I

am

really

disappointed

and

really

unsurprised

at

the

same

time

that

the

Labor

Party

would

not

support

the

science

and

not

stand

with

all

those

young

Tasmanians.

I

see

members

of

the

Labor

Party

wringing

their

hands

with

concern

about

climate

emergency

and

talking

about

how

important

it

is

to

take

action.

Well,

this

is

what

action

looks

like.

This

is

voting

for

action.

This

is

voting

to

make

really

damn

sure

that

we

do

not

go

down

a

crazy

path

of

cutting

down

native

forests

and

feeding

them

into

a

furnace and calling it renewable energy and job stimulation. There are so many ways -

Mr O'Byrne

- Go and find a forest furnace then. Where is it? There isn't one.

Dr

WOODRUFF

-

I

do

not

mind

calling

it

a

fantasy.

Let

us

just

rule

it

out.

Let

us

rule

out

one

of

the

Greens'

kooky

fantasies.

That

would

be

fine

if

you

are

so

sure

but

in

actual

fact

it

is

not

true

because

it

is

very

clear

from

the

minister's

letter

there

is

every

intention

to

keep

this

open

and

live,

either

as

a

form

of

signaling

to

people

in

the

party

and

supporters

who

want

to

keep

the

dream

alive

that

somehow

we

can

kickstart

a

native

forest

industry

and

one

of

the

things

it

could

be

used

for

is

biomass

burning,

because

otherwise

why

would

you

use

the

phrases

like

the

minister

has

used

that

this

could

indeed

involve

sources

such

as

biomass-based

components

of

municipal

solid

waste,

biomass

based

components

of

sewage,

agricultural waste and wood waste. Wood waste is included.

Also minister, you go on to say in your letter to Ms O'Connor and me -

Given

the

unknown

nature

of

how

technologies

may

evolve

to

utilise

these

sources

it

is

prudent

that

no

particular

source

is

ruled

out

as

having

the

potential to contribute to the TRET.

Wrong.

It

is

entirely

prudent

to

rule

out

technologies

that

are

dangerous

and

will

enable

massive

emissions

of

carbon.

Just

because

a

new

technology

comes

along

it

does

not

mean

you

have

to

take

everything

that

is

created

and

use

it.

You

have

to

have

a

plan

to

rule

out

the

dangerous

ones

and

that

is

why

we

have

to

rule

out

native

forest

biomass

burning

and

make

sure that it has no place in Tasmania ever in the future.

Question - That the amendments be agreed to - put.

The Committee divided -

AYES 2

NOES 22

Ms O'Connor

Ms Archer

Dr Woodruff (Teller)

Mr Barnett

Dr Broad

Ms Butler

Ms Courtney

Ms Dow

Mr Ellis (Teller)

Mr Ferguson

Mr Gutwein

Ms Haddad

Ms Hickey

Ms Houston

Mr Jaensch

Mr O'Byrne

Ms O'Byrne

Ms Ogilvie

Mrs Petrusma

Mr Rockliff

Mr Shelton

Ms Standen

Mr Tucker

Ms White

Amendments negatived.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Clause 5 -

Part 1A inserted

Mr

BARNETT

-

As

I

foreshadowed,

I

have

amendments

to

clause

5

which

have

been

circulated.

I

will

not

go

through

too

much

about

this

because

we

have

made

it

clear

that

it

is

wind,

water

and

solar

which

have

been

identified

under

the

TRET

legislation.

I

have

made

it

clear

that

the

harvesting

of

native

forest

specifically

for

renewable

energy

production

is

not

currently required to be part of the TRET.

We

announced

this

publicly

some

weeks

ago.

My

office

briefed

the

Opposition

and

the

Green

representatives.

I

wrote

to

the

Greens

yesterday

to

confirm

this.

What

is

in

the

TRET

is

solar,

water

and

wind.

What

we

are

ensuring

with

this

amendment

is

that

any

new

renewable

energy

source

to

be

declared

by

the

minister

for

energy

will

be

through

a

disallowable

instrument.

It

gives

the

parliament

the

full

opportunity

to

review

renewable

energy

and

what

counts

towards

the

TRET.

The

amendment

will

bring

the

order

within

the

scope

of

section

47

of

the

Acts

Interpretation

Act.

That

means

that

any

future

order

must

be

tabled

in

both

Houses

of

parliament,

and

is

then

subject

to

disallowance

in

the

same

way

as

a

regulation.

As

I

have

indicated

in

the

letter

to

the

Greens,

I

hope

that

may

alleviate

some

of

their

concerns.

Obviously

not

all

of

them.

I

believe

it

strengthens

the

bill.

We

are

all

about

continual

improvement

wherever

possible.

This

is

a

further

improvement

to

the

bill

based

on

our

nation-leading

and

globally

leading

legislation.

I

look

forward

to

feedback

on

that.

I

will

leave it there and am happy to respond to any queries.

Madam Chair, I move -

First Amendment -

In proposed new Part 1A, proposed new section 3B

Leave out 'The Minister'.

Insert instead '(1) The Minister'.

Mr

O'BYRNE

-

As

in

my

on

the

this

is

a

sensible

amendment

which

provides

the

minister

and

the

House

not

only

flexibility,

but

a

level

of

scrutiny

that

can

adapt

to

changing

technologies

and

emerging

trends

in

this

area.

We

support the amendment.

Dr

WOODRUFF

-

We

will

support

this

amendment.

We

encouraged

the

Government

to

make

this

amendment.

We

welcome

the

fact

that

the

Government

has

taken

up

our

suggestion.

It

is

important

that

on

such

important

matters

as

this

the

decision

to

declare

a

renewable

energy

source

should

come

to

parliament

as

a

disallowable

instrument

instead

of

through an unaccountable ministerial order.

Some

of

the

things

the

minister

included

in

his

response

to

the

Greens

after

we

wrote

requesting that an amendment like this be added into the legislation were sources that could -

…

involve

sources

such

as

agricultural

waste,

biomass-based

components

of

municipal

solid

waste;

biomass-based

components

of

sewage

and

wood

waste.

It

is

clear

that

all

those

forms

of

waste,

if

we

are

just

looking

at

municipal

solid

waste

or

sewage,

can

involve

chemicals

that

can

be

toxic

to

human

health.

It

can

involve

not

only

smoke

pollution

depending

on

the

quality

of

the

burning,

but

also

have

repercussions

across

the

whole

collection

chain.

It

is

really

important

to

understand

exactly

what

might

be

fed

into

biomass burners and what the implications are.

From

a

carbon

emissions

point

of

view,

but

also

in

a

biomass

burning

plant,

we

do

need

to understand what is going in and what is coming out.

A

number

of

European

countries

that

have

for

years

rested

their

waste

solution

on

incineration

plants

have

been

back

peddling

very

quickly

from

that

position.

They

are

now

becoming

widely

discredited

because

of

their

emissions

and

because

of

some

of

the

toxic

outputs that come from these incineration plants.

It

is

very

important

that

the

parliament

has

an

opportunity

to

consider

the

implications,

the

risks

and

most

importantly

to

consider

the

carbon

emission

contribution

from

any

biomass

burning

operations

or

any

other

renewable

energy

source,

in

addition

to

solar,

wind

and

water

that could be declared. We do support this amendment.

Mr

BARNETT

-

I

am

very

pleased

to

hear

the

support

for

this

amendment.

I

appreciate

the

support

across

the

Chamber.

This

may

be

the

last

opportunity

to

indicate

my

thanks to the department for their support.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment to this clause. I move -

Second Amendment -

In

proposed

new

Part

1A,

proposed

new

section

3B,

at

the

end

of

the

proposed

new

section, insert the following subsection -

(2)

Section

47(3),

(3A),

(4),

(5),

(6)

and

(7)

of

the

Acts

Interpretation

Act

1931

applies

to

an

order

under

subsection

(1)

as

if

the

order

were

regulations.

I

have

circulated

that

in

the

Chamber.

We

have

dispensed

with

that

formality.

On

this

occasion

I

pass

on

my

grateful

thanks

to

the

department

for

all

their

work

over

many

months.

Likewise,

to

my

office,

Charles

in

particular,

who

has

done

a

sterling

job

on

this

and

other

parts

of

the

energy

agenda.

Congratulations,

well

done

and

many

thanks.

It

has

been

a

long

time

coming.

It

is

nation-leading,

it

is

global-leading

legislation.

I

am

pleased

with

the

full

support,

not

only

for

this

amendment

but

for

the

bill.

We

will

look

back

on

this

legislation

in

decades

to

come

and

say

it

built

the

foundation

for

the

future

and

paved

the

way

for

Tasmania

as a renewable energy epicentre for the globe.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 6 to 8 agreed to and bill taken through the remaining Committee stages.

Bill reported; report adopted.

Bill read the third time.

GAS INDUSTRY AMENDMENT BILL 2020 (No. 32)

Second Reading

[6.10 p.m.]

Mr BARNETT

(Lyons - Minister for Energy) - Mr Deputy Speaker, I move -

That the bill now be read the second time.

The

Gas

Industry

Act

2019

was

passed

by

parliament

last

year,

along

with

its

cognate

legislation, the Gas Safety Act 2019 and the Gas (Consequential Amendments) Act 2019.

I

remind

the

House

that

the

creation

of

these

two

new

acts

separated

industry

regulation

provisions

from

industry

safety

provisions

from

the

Gas

Act

2000

and

Gas

Pipelines

Act

2000, and eliminated inconsistencies and duplications between them.

The

Gas

Industry

Act

2019

and

Gas

Safety

Act

2019

have

not

yet

been

proclaimed

because

time

was

needed

to

review

regulations

and

codes

made

under

the

acts

to

ensure

consistency

with

the

powers

and

operation

of

the

new

primary

legislation.

It

was

during

this

review

that

two

issues

were

identified

in

the

Gas

Industry

Act

that

were

not

previously

identified

through

the

extensive

consultation

on

the

2019

acts.

The

bill

before

the

House

provides for amendments to the Gas Industry Act to address these two issues.

The

first

issue

relates

to

the

meaning

of

retailing

of

gas.

The

way

'retailing'

is

defined

in

the

Gas

Industry

Act

means

that

retailers

selling

only

to

customers

using

more

than

one

terajoule

of

gas

per

year

would

not

need

to

be

licensed.

This

is

an

unintended

consequence

of

the

Gas

Industry

Act

and

may

have

undesirable

outcomes

for

industry

and

customers

whose

gas use is above one terajoule per year.

One

such

outcome

arises

because

codes

only

apply

to

participants

who

are

licensed.

This

means

that

the

Gas

Customer

Transfer

and

Reconciliation

Code

would

only

apply

to

licensed

retailers

and

would

not

apply

to

a

retailer

who

supplied

exclusively

to

larger

customers.

This

would

potentially

create

poor

outcomes

for

industrial

customers

and

larger

commercial

customers

when

switching

retailers.

This

is

because

the

obligations

in

the

code

that

require

retailers

to

transfer

customer

data

upon

request

would

not

apply.

This

could

adversely

impact

orderly

arrangements

when

commercial

and

industrial

customers

choose

to

move to a different retailer.

A

further

undesirable

consequence

is

that

it

creates

an

uneven

playing

field

for

licensed

retailers

who

retail

gas

to

both

small

and

large

customers.

These

retailers

would

have

a

greater

compliance

burden

than

retailers

who

may

enter

the

market

and

retail

gas

only

to

larger

customers

without

an

obligation

to

be

licensed.

There

is

no

justification

for

this

competitive

disadvantage

being

imposed

on

retailers

servicing

the

small

customer

segment

of

the gas market.

The

bill

before

the

House

amends

the

'retail'

definition

to

be

consistent

with

its

historical

meaning

under

the

Gas

Act

2000.

The

threshold

for

the

categorisation

of

small

customers

was

introduced

in

the

Gas

Industry

Act,

where

previously

it

had

only

been

provided

for

in

the

codes.

The

threshold

of

one

terajoule

continues

to

provide

better

alignment

with

national

arrangements

for

customer

protections.

However,

this

amendment

severs

the

link

between

the

threshold

and

the

requirement

to

hold

a

retail

licence.

The

Office

of

the

Tasmanian

Economic

Regulator

has

advised

that

this

is

an

appropriate

way

of

addressing this issue. Gas industry representatives also agree.

The

second

issue

being

addressed

by

this

bill

relates

to

the

ongoing

management

and

administration of the gas codes.

After

considering

the

existing

gas

codes,

to

ensure

consistency

with

the

new

act,

the

Office

of

the

Tasmanian

Economic

Regulator

identified

the

benefits

for

providing

greater

flexibility

for

the

regulator

in

administering

the

codes,

including

the

ability

to

review

and

amend the codes, and improving ongoing efficiency.

There

are

currently

four

Tasmanian

gas

codes.

Three

of

those

codes

were

issued

by

for

Energy

-

the

Tasmanian

Gas

Distribution

Code,

the

Tasmanian

Gas

Retail

Code

and

the

Tasmanian

Gas

Bulk

Customer

Transfer

Code.

Only

one

has

been

issued

by the regulator; the Gas Customer Transfer and Reconciliation Code.

The

Gas

Industry

Act

as

it

stands

requires

that

any

review

of

a

code

may

only

be

conducted

by

the

issuing

authority,

and

further,

that

any

amendment

of

a

protected

provision

must

be

approved

by

the

Minister

for

Energy.

This

has

created

unnecessary

procedural

steps,

which this bill intends to remove.

The

bill

before

the

House

enables

both

the

Minister

for

Energy

and

the

regulator

to

review

or

amend

any

code,

regardless

of

who

issues

the

code.

In

line

with

this

principle,

it

also removes reference to protected provisions altogether.

The

bill

will,

however,

ensure

that

both

the

minister

and

the

regulator

communicate

with

each

other

about

administration

of

the

codes,

while

still

providing

greater

autonomy

for

the regulator to

undertake the ongoing

routine management of

both the current

and any future

codes.

The

regulator

has

the

statutory

obligation

to

act

in

a

fair

and

equitable

manner,

taking

proper

account

of

both

the

interests

of

licensees

and,

importantly,

the

interests

of

customers.

I

know

that

the

Tasmanian

Economic

Regulator

takes

the

role

of

protecting

the

interests

of

customers

very

seriously,

both

in

relation

to

this

legislation

as

well

as

other

legislation

under

his remit.

This

bill

removes

procedural

steps

that

do

not

serve

to

enhance

the

ongoing

management

of

the

codes.

Accordingly,

there

are

efficiencies

in

ensuring

that

the

regulator

has

an

appropriate

level

of

flexibility

in

the

ongoing

review

and

management

of

the

codes

as

the market continues to mature.

I commend the bill to the House.

[6.16 p.m.]

Mr

O'BYRNE

(Franklin)

-

Mr

Deputy

Speaker,

I

indicate

that

we

will

be

supporting

this

bill.

It

is

finishing

off

the

work

that

we

did

back

in

2019

with

the

Gas

Industry

Act

and

the

Gas

Safety

Act.

This

is

hopefully

the

final

instalment

to

ensure

those

two

acts

can

now

be

proclaimed

and

put

into

good

use.

Clearly,

the

two

reasons

for

this

amendment

bill

relate

initially

to

the

operation

of

the

market

and

to

remove

any

inefficiencies

or

uncompetitive

behaviours

and

providing

greater

support

to

those

retailers

to

ensure

there

is

clarity

around

small

and

large

customers.

It

makes

a

lot

of

sense

and

is

following

the

recommendations

of

the Tasmanian Economic Regulator and we support that.

Second,

it

is

dealing

with

the

efficiency

of

procedural

steps

that

are

taken

by

both

the

minister

and

the

regulator

to

manage

the

four

codes.

It

is

an

appropriate

and

sensible

way

to

go.

Minister,

you

have

our

support

and

hopefully

with

the

passing

of

this

bill

we

can

finalise

the work of the Gas Industry Act 2019 and the Gas Safety Act 2019 and move on.

[6.18 p.m.]

Dr

WOODRUFF

(Franklin)

-

Mr

Deputy

Speaker,

I

support

the

amendments

in

the

Gas

Industry

Amendment

Bill.

These

are

a

number

of

small

changes

that

follow

the

changes

to

the

Gas

Act

from

late

2019.

It

separated

that

into

the

Gas

Industry

Act

and

the

Gas

Safety

Act.

It

was

not

long

after

they

proclaimed

that

the

department

identified

a

number

of

things

needed

to

be

corrected,

particularly

that

the

definition

of

gas

retailer

needed

correcting.

A

further

change

was

also

proposed

to

allow

the

Gas

Regulator

to

review

codes

approved

by

the

minister.

After

a

good

and

thorough

briefing,

thank

you

very

much

to

the

staff

who

provided

that,

I

am

comfortable

that

they

are

warranted

and

important

amendments

to

the

Gas

Industry

Act.

We

cannot

let

this

bill

go

past

without

making

some

comments

about

the

situation

of

the

federal

Liberal

government

at

the

moment

and

its

position

on

gas

and

the

so-called

gas-led COVID-19 recovery.

The

Prime

Minister's

announcement

that

gas

would

be

part

of

a

COVID-19

recovery

is

disgraceful.

It

struck

a

lot

of

fear

and

anxiety

into

the

hearts

of

people

around

Australia

who

have

been

campaigning

for

years

about

concrete

action

on

climate

change

-

concrete

action

to

address the climate emergency.

There

is

no

doubt

that

once

in

the

1980s

and

1990s

gas

was

considered

to

be

an

important

move

as

a

transition

away

from

coal

and

oil.

Those

were

the

days

where

we

had

the

luxury

of

thinking

that

we

had

an

extensive

amount

of

time

to

transition

away

from

what

we

already

knew

-

that

the

world

was

in

trouble.

We

actually

knew

that

in

the

1950s

but

we

knew

it

quite

clearly

in

the

1980s

and

1990s.

We

understood

the

greenhouse

gas

emissions

were

heating

the

planet.

We

could

see

where

we

were

heading.

The

science

was

still

at

an

early

stage

and

at

that

point,

when

I

was

working

as

an

epidemiologist

on

the

health

impacts

of

climate

change

modelling

projections

into

the

future,

it

seemed

we

had

an

opportunity

to

at

least change the direction of Australian energy policy and finance, and divert it into gas.

We

have

since

come

to

understand

that

the

emissions

from

gas

and

the

so-called

fugitive

emissions

that

are

emitted

during

the

drawing

of

gas

from

deep

parts

of

the

earth

are

incredibly

high

greenhouse

gas

emissions.

It

puts

gas

into

an

extremely

risky

category,

in

terms

of

the

quantity

of

emissions

that

are

coming

from

a

single

joule

of

gas.

It

is

quite

clear

the

last

thing

we

should

be

doing

at

this

point

in

2020

is

shovelling

public

funds

into

fossil

fuel

corporations

to

expand

gas.

Even

though

this

was

spruiked

by

the

Prime

Minister

as

essential

for

COVID-19

recovery,

in

fact

all

of

the

projects

that

are

lined

up

for

gas

under

the

federal

Liberal

Government

are

certainly

not

short-term.

There

will

be

no

short-term

jobs

from the gas-led recovery.

It

is

a

total

lie

that

any

jobs,

any

substantial

industry

is

created

when

you

put

public

money

or

even

private

money

into

gas

fields

and

to

gas

transportation.

It

is

a

lie

that

it

is

a

big

job-creating

industry.

Simon

Holmes

á

Court,

who

is

well-known

for

his

energy

analysis

and

commentary

and

is

considered

as

somewhat

of

an

expert

in

the

area,

tweeted

recently

that

one

company

in

Australia

that

produces

400

megawatts

employs

just

13

full-time

staff.

That

is

by

no

means

an

industry

that

the

federal

government

-

or

any

government

-

should

be

focussing on in a COVID-19 recovery.

It

is

not

surprising

to

see

recommendations

for

a

massive

expansion

of

gas,

when

the

federal

government

put

gas

industry

executives

to

lead

the

COVID-19

economic

recovery.

No

alternatives

were

recommended

by

that

COVID-19

recovery

committee;

and

what

a

surprise

when

we

had

someone

like

Andrew

Liveris

who

was

the

Saudi

Aramco

and

Worley[OK]

board

member.

Saudi

Aramco

is

the

largest

gas

company

in

the

world

and

he

is

also a member of the Worley Board.

When

you

have

someone

like

Mr

Liveris

as

the

task

force

head,

it

is

no

surprise

that

the

recommendation

is

we

should

put

all

of

our

finances

into

gas.

The

Liberal

Party's

energy

policy

represents

the

best

interests

not

of

Australian

jobs,

not

the

future

for

Australian

children,

not

the

future

for

environmental

conservation;

it

represents

Liberal

Party

donors.

That

is

what

federal

Liberal

energy

policy

represents.

It

represents

the

donors

to

the

Liberal

Party,

the

fossil

fuel

companies

-

Woodside,

Santos,

Origin

Energy.

Those

are

the

companies

that

will

benefit

from

the

so-called

gas

led

COVID-19

recovery.

Stacking

the

COVID

Economic

Commission

with

gas

cronies

has

made

the

gas-fired

climate

acceleration

plan

predictable, but it is still shocking.

Most

Australians

who

understand

the

gravity

of

where

we

are

in

terms

of

climate

heating

are

struggling

to

understand

how

somebody

who

calls

himself

the

Prime

Minister

of

Australia

can

put

money

into

a

gas-led

recovery,

after

having

watched

and

listened

to

the

heartbreaking

stories

of

people

all

last

summer

in

eastern

Australia

-

towns

burnt

down

around

them;

watching

forests

burn

that

have

never

burned

in

human

history

-

rainforests

in

parts

of

northern

New

South

Wales

and

southern

Queensland;

watching

communities

and

brave firefighters who died valiantly trying to save their communities.

People

do

not

understand

how

a

Prime

Minister

-

who

knows

that

more

than

1

billion

native

animals

died

last

summer;

that

fires

of

a

type

never

before

been

seen

in

Australia

were

witnessed

and

bravely

fought

by

firefighters

by

helicopters,

on

the

ground,

foot

by

foot,

month by month - can put money into a gas led recovery.

It

is

not

only

the

Australian

energy

market

operator

that

has

made

it

clear

that

Australia

does

not

need

more

gas

generation.

It

is

not

just

CSIRO

scientists

who

made

it

clear

that

gas

generation

will

mean

a

more

expensive

form

of

electricity

than

renewable

energy.

It

is

not

the

economists

who

know

that

gas

extraction

creates

far

fewer

jobs.

It

is

not

the

scientists

who

are

telling

us

that

gas

is

totally

incompatible

with

Paris

goals.

It

is

not

the

investors

themselves

who

understand

and

who

do

invest

with

an

eye

to

the

future

-

they

understand

that

gas

has

bad

returns.

There

is

no

money

to

be

made

in

gas

unless

it

is

fundamentally

underwritten

by

public

taxpayer

money.

That

is

the

disgusting

thing

that

the

federal

Liberals

are up to at the moment.

Tomorrow,

there

is

a

bill

on

the

table

for

discussion

in

the

federal

parliament,

seeking

to

change

the

public

Clean

Energy

Finance

Corporation

(CEFC)

to

allow

it

to

fund

fossil

fuel

projects.

It

was

set

up

as

a

Clean

Energy

Finance

Corporation

to

provide

finance

for

renewable

energy

to

bring

down

greenhouse

gas

emissions.

This

Liberal-National

Government

is

gutting

the

CEFC,

if

they

have

their

way

in

the

House

in

Canberra

tomorrow,

to

enable

it

to

fund

fossil

fuel

projects.

Not

only

that,

the

bill

would

allow

the

Clean

Energy

Finance Corporation to use the fund to support gas fired power.

In

addition,

the

bill

will

exempt

the

CEFC

from

the

requirement

that

every

single

project

they

fund

must

deliver

a

public

benefit.

It

must

be

profitable.

This

is

a

complete

attack

on

the

CEFC

and

the

functioning

of

the

CEFC.

Everything

the

CEFC

has

done

has

been

incredibly

beneficial

to

Australia.

The

money

that

has

gone

through

the

CEFC

and

has

been

handed

out

to

renewable

energy

generation

is

why

we

have

huge

amounts

of

galloping

expansion

in

battery

technology;

incredible

forward

leaps.

Despite

the

troglodytes

making

energy

policy

in

the

Liberal

Party

and

all

of

the

failures

to

come

up

with

a

united

plan

with

the

states

and

territories

to

show

leadership,

the

business

community

have

been

calling

for

this loudly for five years now.

Year

on

year

they

have

been

calling

and

pushing

for

energy

policy

clarity,

but

not

like

this,

not

energy

policy

clarity

that

is

leading

us

back

to

the

1980s

and

is

taking

us

away

from

the

Paris

targets

that

will

ensure

we

resign

our

children

to

living

in

a

world

which

is

fundamentally

uninhabitable.

We

have

to

resist

and

we

will

resist

what

the

federal

Liberals

are

doing

to

energy

policy

in

this

country.

We

cannot

have

a

climate

policy

that

supports

more fossils fuels. Investing in the problem is not the solution.

One

ray

of

hope

I

see

on

the

horizon

is

the

election

of

Joe

Biden

as

the

President

of

the

United

States.

That

party

has

made

a

really

strong

commitment

to

the

United

States

reengaging

with

the

international

climate

community

and

to

upping

the

ante

on

the

commitments

not

only

within

the

United

States

-

and

let

us

face

it,

they

have

a

long

way

to

go

-

but

sitting

around

the

table

with

other

countries.

Prime

Minister

Morrison

had

better

watch

out

because

there

is

going

to

be

a

lot

of

pressure

on

this

federal

Liberal

Government

to

change its approach.

We

are

the

international

pariah

when

it

comes

to

our

position

on

climate

change

and

we

are

falling

behind

countries

around

the

world

at

a

time

when

we

ought

to

be

going

into

a

leadership

role.

We

have

the

smarts,

we

have

the

track

record

and

we

have

incredible

scientific

expertise

in

Australia.

Some

of

the

best

climate

scientists

in

the

world

come

from

Australia and from Tasmania. Our marine and Antarctic scientists are the best in the world.

We

have

an

opportunity

to

move

on

and

skip

gas

and

never

go

there.

I

certainly

hope

that

the

Greens

and

others

on

the

crossbench

tomorrow

will

be

putting

pressure

on

Labor

not

to support the bill and will be working to make sure it does not pass.

The

minister

talked

before

and

I

want

to

pick

him

up

on

some

Orwellian

doublespeak

he

used.

The

term

'blue

gas'

is

not

true;

it

is

a

lie.

No

such

thing

exists;

it

is

black

gas.

You

cannot

put

gas

in

a

different

category.

You

cannot

colour

reform

gas.

Gas

is

a

fossil

fuel

as

dangerous

as

coal

and

oil

and

as

dangerous

as

burning

native

forest

biomass.

We

cannot

have

those

sources

of

fuel

any

longer.

No

greenwashing,

bluewashing

or

any

colour

washing

of

fossil

fuels

will

make

any

difference.

People,

especially

young

people,

are

smart.

They

are

not

stupid.

The

Prime

Minister

and

the

Minister

for

Energy

in

Tasmania

can

call

these

things

what

they

like,

but

people

understand

that

they

are

toxic

to

the

planet

and

the

sooner

we

can

get rid of them as a form of energy generation the better.

We

understand

that

here

in

Tasmania

there

are

12

000

gas

connections

and

we

do

not

understand

that

there

is

any

expansion

of

the

gas

market

being

proposed.

We

do,

of

course,

need

to

create

a

hydrogen

alternative

and

we

dispute

the

idea

that

the

manufacturing

industry

is

reliant

on

gas.

There

are

alternatives

and

the

sooner

we

can

create

a

hydrogen

alternative

the better it will be for Tasmanian manufacturing industries.

[6.35 p.m.]

Mr

ELLIS

(Braddon)

-

Madam

Deputy

Speaker,

I

support

the

Gas

Industry

Amendment

Bill

2020

and

I

do

so

as

possibly

the

first

gasfitter

to

speak

in

this

place.

It

is

a

privilege

to

represent

the

men

and

women

of

that

wonderful

industry

that

brings

heat

to

the

homes

of

pensioners

in

the

middle

of

winter,

that

helps

us

cook

our

food,

that

manufactures

fertilisers

for

farmers

around

the

country

and

does

so

much

good

for

people

here

in

Australia

and

around

the

world

because

it

really

is

a

transformational

input

for

manufacturing

and

it

supports the wellbeing of people right around the world.

The

Government

recognises

that

natural

gas

is

important

for

both

commercial

and

domestic

users

in

Tasmania.

We

will

continue

to

support

the

sale

and

the

supply

of

gas

to

Tasmanian

consumers

through

ensuring

a

sound

regulatory

framework

for

Tasmanian

gas

users and operators.

This

bill

includes

a

minor

change

to

address

a

drafting

issue

relating

to

retailing

of

natural

gas

and

an

improvement

to

the

efficiency

in

which

the

regulator

conducts

his

reviews

of

gas

guidelines.

Improving

the

efficiency

of

regulations

can

have

positive

flow-on

effects

to

natural

gas

users

and

that

is

a

very

important

thing.

The

companies

and

households

that

use

gas

expect

to

be

protected

and

supported

in

how

they

use

gas

and

ensuring

the

Office

of

the

Tasmanian

Economic

Regulator

is

provided

greater

flexibility

in

administering

gas

codes,

including

the

ability

to

review

and

amend

the

codes,

will

improve

the

ongoing

efficiency

of

the

Tasmanian

natural

gas

market.

That

brings

down

prices

and

supports

people

with

the

cost

of living.

The

bill

before

the

House

enables

both

the

Minister

for

Energy

and

the

regulator

to

review

or

amend

any

code

regardless

of

who

issues

the

code.

The

bill

will

however

ensure

that

both

the

minister

and

the

regulator

communicate

with

each

other

about

the

administration

of

the

codes

while

still

providing

greater

autonomy

for

the

regulator

to

undertake

the

ongoing

routine maintenance of both the current and any future codes.

This

bill

is

also

addressing

an

unintentional

issue

with

the

drafting

of

the

Gas

Industry

Act

which

passed

parliament

last

year.

I

note

that

the

act,

whilst

passed,

is

yet

to

be

proclaimed.

This

issue

relates

to

the

meaning

of

retailing

of

gas.

The

way

retailing

is

defined

in

the

Gas

Industry

Act

2019

means

that

the

retailers

selling

only

to

customers

using

more

than

1

terajoule

of

gas

per

year

would

not

need

to

be

licensed;

in

other

words,

large

gas

consumers

who

have

retailers

who

are

not

covered

by

regulations

and

oversight

by

the

office

of

the

Tasmanian

Economic

Regulator.

It

is

clearly

an

unintended

consequence

of

the

Gas

Industry

Act

2019

and

could

have

undesirable

outcomes

for

the

industry

and

customers

alike.

We

have

seen

broad

support

for

the

principles

outlined

in

this

change.

For

example,

gas

is

a

competitive

market

and

when

a

gas

customer

would

be

transferring

between

retailers

the

gas

customer

transfer

and

reconciliation

code

would

not

apply.

The

bill

before

the

House

amends

the

retail

definition

to

be

consistent

with

its

historical

meaning

under

the

Gas

Act

2000

where

a

licence

will

be

required

to

sell

gas

to

customers

of

any

size,

large

or

small.

This

is

an

appropriate way of addressing this issue.

[6.40 p.m.]

Mr

BARNETT

(Lyons

-

Minster

for

Energy)

-

Madam

Deputy

Speaker,

it

is

my

honour to sum up the Government's position in support of this bill.

I

thank

members

for

their

contributions

and

support

for

the

bill.

The

final

speaker,

Felix

Ellis,

is

the

first

gasfitter

to

stand

in

this

parliament

and

to

speak

on

this

bill.

Congratulations

and

well

done.

Perhaps

the

first

plumber

as

well?

It

is

good

to

have

you

and

your

generation

in

this

parliament

to

share

your

perspective.

From

the

north-west

coast,

you

are

a

strong

advocate

for

your

community.

We

will

listen

and

learn

as

you

make

further

contributions in this place and elsewhere in Tasmania.

Gas

will

continue

to

have

an

important

role

to

play.

Gas

supports

a

whole

range

of

applications

in

industry,

transport,

direct

heating

and

industrial

processes

where

it

has

replaced

fuel

oil

and

coal,

particularly

along

the

north-west

coast

and

the

north.

More

than

11

000 residential homes are connected to gas.

It

is

important

and

accepted,

but

the

Government

is

promoting

our

renewable

energy

future.

We

have

been

debating

that

for

hours

this

afternoon,

and

in

that

historic

debate

passing

through

this

House,

we

are

fast

approaching

the

target

where

we

are

coming

close

to

being

fully

self-sufficient

in

renewable

energy

by

2022

-

and

then

200

per

cent

renewable

energy for 2040.

There

was

a

question

about

blue

hydrogen

from

Dr

Woodruff,

who

was

questioning

my

remarks

earlier

about

blue

hydrogen.

It

is

clearly

understood

that

hydrogen

can

be

made

from

gas.

It

is

referred

to

as

blue

hydrogen.

In

Tasmania

we

have

green

hydrogen,

which

is

renewable

hydrogen

made

from

renewable

energy.

It

is

made

from

water,

electricity,

which

is

renewable

electricity,

and

you

need

the

infrastructure

such

as

road,

rail

and

port.

They

are

the

three key ingredients to the manufacture of hydrogen, at least in Tasmania.

We

have

what

the

rest

of

Australia

and

the

rest

of

the

world

really

needs.

The

fact

is

the

rest

of

the

world

is

moving

to

2030

and

will

be

manufacturing

hydrogen.

There

is

a

national

hydrogen

strategy,

$370

million

backed

by

the

federal

government,

$300

million

in

concessional

loans,

$70

million

in

grants.

It

is

on

the

public

record.

Woodside

has

made

an

application for part of that funding -

Dr Woodruff

- Why didn't Tasmania get money from your federal Liberal colleagues?

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER

- Order, Dr Woodruff.

Mr

BARNETT

-

I

am

making

the

point

that

Woodside,

that

will

be

based

in

Tasmania,

has

made

an

application

for

some

of

that

funding,

if

you

were

listening.

It

is

on

the

public

record,

together

with

Country

Renewables.

I

am

making

that

note.

I

will

not

be

unfairly

and

incorrectly criticised for referring to blue hydrogen as made from gas.

Regarding

Tasmania,

we

have

green

hydrogen

or

renewable

hydrogen.

That

is

on

the

record.

Brown

hydrogen

is

made

from

coal.

We

have

the

best

here

in

Tasmania.

We

are

standing

up

for

that.

As

Energy

minister,

I

am

promoting

the

credentials

we

have

in

Tasmania

and will continue to do so.

There

were

some

drafting

issues

with

the

2019

legislation.

This

corrects

that

with

regard

to

retailers

and

how

they

operate

in

Tasmania

and

with

respect

to

codes

and

the

appropriate

arrangements

that

are

in

play.

These

are

administrative

amendments.

I

would

call

them

minor

amendments

but

they

are

necessarily

important

amendments,

so

we

have

support

and confidence in the gas sector and the gas industry here in Tasmania.

I

conclude

the

discussion

and

debate

by

thanking

my

department

for

their

support

and

getting

this

matter

right,

fixing

what

has

deemed

to

be

an

administrative

matter

that

could

have

been

done

better.

We

have

now

done

the

job.

We

are

here

for

continual

improvement.

Thanks

to

the

department

for

getting

that

job

done.

I

appreciate

their

support,

as

usual.

I

have

said

that

before

privately

and

I

say

it

publicly

today.

I

appreciate

that

and

likewise

Charles in my office, for your terrific support. I commend the bill to the House.

Bill read the second time.

Bill read the third time.

MOTION

Terms of Reference for Review of Phasing Out of Suspended Sentences

[6.46 p.m.]

Ms

ARCHER

(Clark

-

Attorney-General)

-

Madam

Speaker,

I

rise

tonight

to

deal

with

a

motion

that

is

necessary

for

this

House

and

the

other

place

as

well

in

relation

to

a

review

that needs to occur.

Madam Speaker, I move - That this House -

(1)

Notes

that

the

draft

terms

of

reference

of

the

review

laid

before

the

House

that

have

been

prepared

in

consultation

with

the

Sentencing

Advisory

Council

pursuant

to

subsection

2(3)

of

the

Sentencing

Amendment

(Phasing

Out of Suspended Sentences) Act 2017.

(2)

Approves

the

terms

of

reference

of

the

review

noted

at

(1),

in

accordance

with

subsection

2(4)

of

the

Sentencing

Amendment

(Phasing

Out

of

Suspended Sentences) Act 2017.

The

Tasmanian

Liberal

Government

strongly

believes

suspended

sentencing

is

fundamentally

flawed

and

remains

committed

to

phasing-out

suspended

sentences.

In

doing

so,

the

Government

is

acting

on

the

deep

concern

from

sentencing

experts

and

the

community

about

the

flawed

option

of

suspended

sentences.

The

Sentencing

Advisory

Council

is

an

advisory

body

formed

to

provide

the

Tasmanian

Attorney-General

with

high

level

independent

advice

on

sentencing

in

Tasmania.

In

2014,

the

then

Attorney-General

(the

late

Dr

Vanessa

Goodwin)

asked

the

Tasmanian

Sentencing

Advisory

Council

to

examine

options

for

phasing

out

suspended

sentences

of

imprisonment

in

Tasmania

and

introduce

alternative

sentencing options.

In

March

2016,

the

council

publicly

released

its

final

report

on

the

phasing-out

of

suspended

sentences

and

confirmed

that

Tasmania's

use

of

suspended

sentences

is

higher

than

all

other

Australian

jurisdictions.

This

heavy

reliance

on

a

sentencing

option,

which

is

at

times

incomprehensible,

continues

to

diminish

community

confidence

in

the

sentencing

process,

particularly

when

the

council's

research

revealed

that

34

per

cent

of

suspended

sentences

are

breached

by

re-offending

and

only

half

of

those

are

ever

followed

up.

Of

those

that

were

actioned,

the

suspended

sentence

was

only

activated

in

about

half

of

those

cases.

As

the

Sentencing

Advisory

Council

observed,

these

figures

show

that

the

punitive

nature

of

this sentencing measure remains somewhat illusory.

The

council's

report

confirmed

that

Tasmania's

use

of

suspended

sentences

is

higher

than

in

all

other

Australian

jurisdictions,

partly

due

to

the

limited

range

of

sentencing

options

that

were

available

at

that

time.

The

report

also

revealed

that

around

45

per

cent

of

Supreme

Court

offenders

who

breached

their

suspended

sentence

were

not

subject

to

any

breach

action.

The

Government

considered

that

the

high

use

of

suspended

sentences,

coupled

with

the

failure

to

act

on

many

breaches

of

suspended

sentences,

has

contributed

to

the

lack

of

community

confidence

in

this

sentencing

option.

The

sentencing

option

has

been

abolished

in Victoria and New Zealand.

The

Sentencing

Advisory

Council

report

proposed

a

new

sentencing

model,

recommending

that

the

Government's

reforms

to

abolish

suspended

sentences

and

introduce

new

sentencing

options

be

phased

in

over

a

five-year

period.

The

Sentencing

Amendment

(Phasing

Out

Of

Suspended

Sentences)

Act

2017

was

an

important

step

in

delivering

on

the

Government's

election

commitment

to

progressively

phase

out

suspended

sentences

of

imprisonment

and

replace

them

with

a

range

of

alternative

sentencing

options.

The

act

provided

for

a

number

of

amendments

to

the

Sentencing

Act

1997

and

All

except

three

provisions

of

that

act

have

already

commenced,

including

in

broad

terms

providing

for

the

new

sentencing

options

of

home

detention

orders

and

community

correction

orders and removing probation orders and community service orders as sentencing options.

The

2017

act

provided

for

these

two

new

sentencing

orders

of

courts

whilst

removing

probation

orders

and

community

service

orders

as

sentencing

options.

The

2017

act

also

provided

for

limiting

the

circumstances

in

which

sentences

of

imprisonment

can

be

suspended.

Following

consideration

by

parliament,

the

act

as

amended

included

the

framework

in

section

2

for

a

review

to

be

conducted

before

those

sections

were

considered

for commencement.

Turning

to

the

review,

the

amendment

inserted

into

the

Sentencing

Amendment

(Phasing

out

of

Suspended

Sentences)

Bill

deferred

the

phasing

out

of

suspended

sentences

until

after

a

review

conducted

by

the

Sentencing

Advisory

Council

of

the

sentencing

options

now

available

to

the

court.

The

amendment

requires

that

the

review

commence

no

sooner

than

18

months

after

the

commencement

of

home

detention

orders

and

community

corrections orders.

Section

2

provides

for

the

review

process

following

which

the

commencement

of

the

remaining

three

sections,

namely

sections

8,

10

and

19

can

be

considered.

These

sections

will

remove

suspended

sentences

of

imprisonment

as

a

sentencing

option

for

certain

offences,

except

in

exceptional

circumstances,

and

remove

the

power

-

except

in

exceptional

circumstances

-

to

order

an

offender

to

remain

on

a

suspended

sentence

of

imprisonment

or

have

a

suspended

sentence

imposed

as

a

substituted

sentence

where

the

offender

has

breached

a condition of their suspended sentence.

As

required

by

the

act,

the

draft

terms

of

reference

have

been

developed

in

consultation

between

the

Government

and

the

Sentencing

Advising

Council.

The

terms

of

reference

of

the

review

require

the

approval

of

both

Houses

of

Parliament

before

the

review

commences

and

this

is

by

way

of

this

motion

currently

before

us

today.

The

motion

before

the

Houses

is

pursuant

to

section

2

of

the

Sentencing

Amendment

(Phasing

out

of

Suspended

Sentences)

Act

2017.

The

purpose

of

the

motion

is

to

approve

the

terms

of

reference

of

the

review

so

that

the

Sentencing

Advisory

Council

may

conduct

a

review

in

accordance

with

those

terms,

hence the reason I said this motion is a formality.

The

Sentencing

Advisory

Council

has

indicated

that

it

will

complete

the

review

within

12

months,

following

which

its

report

in

relation

to

the

review

is

laid

before

the

Houses

of

parliament.

The

Government

may

then

give

notice

of

an

intention

to

commence

the

final

three

sections

of

the

act,

being

8,

10

and

19.

The

notice

can

be

considered

by

parliament

and

disallowed by either House, if that intention is not supported.

While

the

focus

of

the

review

is

not

mentioned

in

the

act,

it

is

considered

that

the

review

is

intended

to

focus

on

how

the

current

phase

of

measures

have

operated

since

their

introduction.

Turning

to

the

terms

of

reference

of

the

review

-

the

terms

consulted

on

between

the

Government

and

the

Sentencing

Advisory

Council

focus

on

three

new

sentencing

options

introduced

under

the

act

namely

home

detention,

community

correction

orders

and

the

court

mandated drug diversion program or drug treatment orders.

The

terms

of

review

are

broad

in

nature,

requesting

that

the

council

obtain

a

breadth

of

information

relevant

to

these

three

sentencing

options

and

provide

relevant

findings

and

observations.

They

enable

the

council

to

consult

widely

in

this

regard.

As

I

have

mentioned,

the

council

has

indicated

it

will

be

able

to

produce

the

report

within

12

months,

commencing

from the date the Government provides notice under section 2(5) of the act.

For

the

benefit

of

members,

I

will

provide

some

brief

information

about

the

three

sentencing

options

introduced

by

the

Government

that

have

been

operating

for

some

time

and

will be the subject of the review.

Turning

to

home

detention

-

as

an

alternative

to

prison,

home

detention

orders

are

a

suitable

sentencing

option

in

a

broad

range

of

circumstances.

These

orders

allow

for

the

punishment

of

an

offender

through

restrictions

on

their

liberty

while

incorporating

conditions

to

protect

the

public

and

aid

an

offender's

rehabilitation.

Offenders

are

not

eligible

for

these

orders

if

they

pose

a

significant

risk

of

committing

a

violent

or

sexual

offence

during

the

intended operational period of the order.

Core

conditions

attach

to

every

home

detention

order,

including

conditions

designed

to

effectively

supervise

and

rehabilitate

the

offender.

Electronic

monitoring

is

a

core

condition

of

a

home

detention

order,

unless

dispensed

with

by

the

courts

for

special

reasons

such

as

immobility

or

illness

of

the

offender.

Working

with

Community

Corrections

officers

an

offender's

activities

are

planned,

timetabled

and

approved

in

advance

allowing

their

movements to be monitored through an electronic monitoring device.

As

at

30

June

2020,

there

were

61

orders

subject

to

electronic

monitoring

under

a

home

detention

order,

an

increase

of

30

orders

from

the

first

year

of

operation.

Before

sentencing

to

home

detention,

a

court

is

first

required

to

have

considered

a

pre-sentence

suitability

assessment

which

is

prepared

by

community

corrections.

The

time

frame

for

the

completion

of

this

assessment

is

six

weeks.

Seven

additional

probation

officers

have

been

employed

to

undertake

these

assessments

and

case

management

of

offenders

who

are

subsequently

sentenced to home detention.

From

14

December

2018

until

30

June

this

year,

Community

Corrections

had

received

a

cumulative

total

of

420

assessment

requests

for

suitability

to

sentence

to

a

home

detention

order.

Persons

who

are

sentenced

to

these

orders

are

required

to

wear

an

electronic

monitoring

device

at

all

times

which

is

monitored

by

staff

in

a

dedicated

unit

of

Community

Corrections,

namely

the

Monitoring

and

Compliance

Unit.

Community

Corrections

has

employed

28

staff

in

the

Monitoring

and

Compliance

Unit

which

operates

a

24-hour

shift

roster.

This

is

comprised

of

24

monitoring

staff

including

six

supervisors

which

allows

for

three monitoring officers and one supervisor per shift and four support or management staff.

The

monitoring

team

is

responsible

for

monitoring

all

offenders

subject

to

electronic

monitoring

in

real

time,

and

responding

to

alerts

or

anomalies

in

information

and

tracking

in

accordance

with

violation

protocols.

Monitoring

operations

commenced

on

19

March

2019.

As

at

30

June

this

year,

as

I

said,

there

were

61

offenders

on

home

detention.

You

can

see

from

the

figures

of

assessments

that

not

everyone

is

placed

on

home

detention,

and

therefore

the

suitability

assessment

is

critical

in

ensuring

that

the

appropriate

people

receive

these

types

of

orders

from

the

court.

Out

of

the

61

offenders,

these

have

ranged

from

one

month

to

18

months

on

home

detention.

Eighteen

months

is

the

statutory

maximum

in

length.

The

highest number of orders ranged between four to six months duration.

The

total

number

of

home

detention

orders

completed

in

2019-20

was

79

and

the

completion

rate

was

78.5

per

cent.

Sixty-two

orders

were

completed

successfully

and

17

were

revoked

-

noting

that

supervision

orders

include

legacy

probation

and

community

service orders. Community correction orders have not been reported separately.

Community

correction

orders

were

included

in

the

sentencing

framework

to

take

the

place

of

both

probation

and

community

service

orders.

These

orders

allow

a

higher

level

of

flexibility

for

the

courts

to

make

the

orders

that

are

specifically

tailored

to

meet

the

needs

of

individual

offenders

and

achieve

community

safety

outcomes.

A

community

correction

order

is

a

single

order

that

can

incorporate

conditions

for

either

community-based

supervision,

community service or both.

Community

correction

orders

are

an

appropriate

sentencing

order

either

alone,

or

in

combination

with

other

orders,

for

a

wide

range

of

offending.

Depending

on

the

length

of

the

order

and

the

specific

conditions

imposed,

community

correction

orders

can

be

both

a

punitive

sentence

option

but

also

help

offenders

address

the

factors

that

led

to

their

criminal

behaviour

in

the

first

place.

Many

of

the

conditions

that

were

imposed

with

the

service

orders

and

probation

orders

have

become

available

under

community

correction

orders.

Those

conditions

include

a

requirement

to

submit

to

the

supervision

of

a

probation officer and/or perform community service for a specified number of hours.

Additional

conditions

that

were

not

expressly

available

with

community

service

orders

and

probation

orders

can

be

imposed

with

a

community

correction

order,

such

as

an

offender

not

associate

with

specified

people,

be

present

at

particular

places

or

not

be

absent

from

their

premises

during

specified

times.

Approximately

1000

such

orders

have

commenced

in

both

2018-19 and 2019-20.

Dealing

with

the

third

example,

court

mandated

drug

diversion,

as

an

alternative

to

prison

as

well

the

court

mandated

diversion

program

is

tailored

specifically

to

offenders

who

commit

crimes

as

a

result

of

their

abuse

of

illicit

substances.

Court

diversion

officers

work

with

offenders

whose

risk

of

reoffending

can

be

addressed

by

treating

their

substance

abuse

issues

while

remaining

in

the

community.

The

program

was

expanded

in

February

2017

to

provide

the

Supreme

Court

with

this

sentencing

option

under

the

Sentencing

Amendment

Act

2016. Entry to the program is subject to an assessment process and subsequent court order.

CMD,

as

the

participants

come

to

know

it,

involves

participants

being

required

to

attend

frequent

urinalysis

testing,

individual

counselling

sessions

and

group

counselling,

as

well

as

weekly

appointments

with

their

allocated

court

diversion

officer.

It

is

by

no

means

an

easy

option,

but

one

which

produces

very

successful

results

where

an

offender

is

willing

to

submit

to the program and be given this last opportunity by the court.

I

must

stop

here

to

deviate

from

my

notes.

I

have

seen

many

of

the

graduations

from

the

CMD

program.

For

those

who

truly

submit

to

the

program

and

recover,

so

they

fully

rehabilitate

from

their

drug

addiction,

their

lives

are

completely

changed

and

turned

around.

It

is

very

rare

that

they

maintain

employment,

but

I

went

to

a

graduation

recently

where

one

of

the

participants

was

able

to

maintain

his

employment

because

his

employer

was

wonderful

at

supporting

him.

He

also

had

family

support

from

his

parents,

but

knowing

the

intensity

of

this

program

I

honestly

do

not

know

how

he

kept

working

and

maintained

that

level

of

commitment.

He

is

quite

a

changed

person.

I

had

a

chance

to

talk

to

him

for

some

time

afterwards.

From

my

contact

with

the

participants

it

truly

has

been

an

incredible

program;

not

one

which

lets

an

offender

off

lightly

by

any

stretch

of

the

imagination,

but

goes

a

long

way into rehabilitating an offender and giving them one last chance.

One

of

the

other

graduations

I

attended

was

the

first

southern

Supreme

Court

CMD

order

from

one

of

our

acting

judges,

Porter,

who

attended

the

graduation

as

well.

Often

the

sentencing

judge

or

magistrate

will

also

attend.

The

magistrate

attends

because

they

preside

over

the

graduation

and

the

final

order

releasing

them,

or

discharging

the

order.

I

wanted

to

make those anecdotal comments.

In

the

last

financial

year

there

were

70

drug

treatment

orders

and

17

bail

diversion

orders.

In

conclusion

and

as

outlined

earlier,

the

terms

of

reference

before

the

parliament

and

certainly

this

House

have

been

prepared

in

consultation

between

the

Government

and

the

independent

Sentencing

Advisory

Council.

The

act

provides

that

a

House

of

parliament

may

pass

a

motion

approving,

or

refusing

to

approve,

the

terms

of

reference.

It

does

not

provide

for

the

amendment

of

the

terms

which

is

consistent

with

the

act's

expectation

that

the

Sentencing Advisory Council be consulted.

If

approved,

the

Sentencing

Advisory

Council

will

complete

the

review

over

the

months.

Within

five

sitting

days

of

receiving

the

report

the

minister

-

that

is,

me

-

must

lay

a

copy

before

each

House

of

parliament.

The

minister

may

at

that

time

or

afterwards

lay

before

each

House

a

notice

of

intention

to

commence

sections

8,

10

and

19

of

the

act

to

commence

those

phases

of

the

suspended

sentencing

reforms.

A

House

of

parliament

may

within

10

sitting days of that notice disallow the commencement of those sections, as I said previously.

In

closing,

the

motion

before

us

is

to

allow

the

Sentencing

Advisory

Council

to

do

this

important

work

in

accordance

with

the

amendment

that

was

made

in

the

other

place

to

the

bill

so

parliament

can

be

fully

informed

of

the

effectiveness

of

these

recently

introduced

sentencing

options

and

consider

any

proposed

commencement

of

the

future

reforms.

Parliament

retains

the

discretion

to

disallow

the

future

reforms

after

considering

the

report.

I

commend the motion to the House.

[7.05 p.m.]

Ms

HADDAD

(Clark)

-

Madam

Speaker,

I

indicate

that

Labor

will

be

supporting

the

terms

of

reference.

As

we

have

heard

from

the

minister

in

her

explanation,

bringing

these

terms

of

reference

to

the

parliament

was

as

a

result

of

an

amendment

moved

to

the

2017

Sentencing

Amendment

(Phasing

Out

of

Suspended

Sentences)

Act

and

will

equip

the

Sentencing

Advisory

Council

with

the

terms

of

reference

they

need

to

review

the

alternative

sentencing options that have been listed in the terms of reference.

I

acknowledge

that

the

Attorney-General

said

that

part

of

that

legislative

requirement

made

sure

that

the

terms

of

reference

cannot

be

amended

in

the

parliament,

but

I

note

that

there

seems

to

be

a

bit

of

an

omission.

I

acknowledge

that

they

have

been

developed

in

consultation

with

the

council.

In

the

work

they

conducted

in

2015

the

Government

put

together

a

range

of

suggestions

of

ways

they

could

achieve

their

aim

of

phasing

out

suspended

sentences.

They

did

not

overtly

say

they

did

not

support

suspended

sentences

being

retained

as

part

of

a

suite

of

sentencing

options

available

to

magistrates

and

judges,

but

they

worked

within

the

terms

of

reference

that

were

provided

to

them

at

the

time

to

put

together

a

range

of

options

for

consideration

by

government

to

have

a

look

at

how

they

could

achieve their aim of removing suspended sentencing.

I

will

put

on

the

record

again,

as

Labor

did

at

the

time,

that

we

do

not

support

the

entire

removal

of

suspended

sentences

as

one

of

a

range

of

sentencing

options

available

to

the

Tasmanian

courts.

We

put

those

views

on

the

record

very

clearly

a

number

of

times.

They

are

not

just

held

by

the

Labor

Party;

they

are

held

by

many

other

stakeholders

and

people

who

work in the criminal justice system.

For

example,

at

the

time

of

the

original

bill

being

debated,

the

Tasmanian

Bar

Association's

representative

at

that

time

said

that

they

did

not

support

the

abolition

of

suspended

sentences

from

Tasmanian

law

and

as

a

principle

they

would

prefer

to

see

them

retained.

The

Law

Society

of

Tasmania

in

2017

also

indicated

that

they

remained

opposed

to

the

removal

of

suspended

sentences

as

a

sentencing

option.

They

also

indicated

that

they

did

not

agree

with

the

two-year

cap

that

was

suggested

for

community

corrections

orders,

but

said

in

conclusion

that

they

supported

sentencing

reform

based

on

sound

policy

and

good

legislation which they did not believe the 2017 bill represented.

Similarly,

Civil

Liberties

Australia

made

it

clear

that

they

support

the

retention

of

suspended

sentences

and

also

expressed

concerns

about

the

increased

reliance

on

fines,

which

was

one

of

the

parts

of

the

original

bill.

I

will

get

to

that

in

a

moment

as

well.

The

Community

Legal

Service

of

Tasmania

said

they

do

not

believe

that

suspended

sentences

should

be

removed

as

a

sentencing

option

and

they

welcomed

the

Government's

decision

to

broaden

the

range

of

sentences

that

can

be

imposed.

They

had

no

problem

with

broadening

the

types

of

sentences

that

can

be

imposed

but

suggested

that

suspended

sentences

should

not

be removed from Tasmanian law and said that there was no evidence to say that works.

It

was

very

encouraging

to

hear

the

Attorney-General

speak

so

positively

about

the

results

of

the

court-mandated

drug

diversion

program

that

operates

in

the

Magistrates

Court

and

has

recently

been

extended

to

operate

in

the

Supreme

Court

as

well.

I

share

the

admiration

the

Attorney-General

has

for

the

staff

working

in

the

court-mandated

drug

diversion

scheme

and

the

offenders

who

take

those

orders

because

they

work

incredibly

hard

to make sure that those orders, which are not a light-touch order, work, and they do work.

As

we

heard

from

the

Attorney-General,

they

also

mean

that

people

can

do

things

like

retain

their

employment,

maintain

housing,

maintain

family

connections

and

maintain

parenting

responsibilities

when

alternative

sentencing

options

are

available

to

courts.

The

court-mandated

drug

diversion

scheme

is

one

very

good

example

of

a

problem-solving

court

that

is

working

well

in

Tasmania

and

working

well

in

other

parts

of

the

country

and

the

world.

Many

places

in

the

world

are

introducing

increased

alternative

sentencing

options

and

increasing

the

availability

of

problem-solving

courts.

I

would

like

to

see

those

things

expanded

upon

more.

We

know

that

when

somebody

is

sent

to

prison,

whether

it

is

for

three

years

or

three

months,

people

lose

their

housing,

lose

their

jobs,

and

lose

their

connections

to

family.

They

come

out

into

society

often

diminished

in

their

capacity

to

re-engage

in

a

productive

way.

Their

lives

are

often

ruined

as

a

result

of

that

interaction

with

the

criminal

justice system and with incarceration.

That

is

not

to

say

that

crime

should

go

unpunished.

Justice

needs

to

be

done.

Removing

a

sentencing

option

from

a

suite

of

options

available

to

the

judiciary

is

something

that I cannot reconcile with good sentencing policy in this state.

When

people

go

to

prison

in

Tasmania,

47

per

cent

of

people

who

exit

Risdon

return

there

within

two

years.

That

is

a

very

concerning

figure.

It

is

nearly

one

in

two

inmates

who

serve

time

in

prison

in

Tasmania

return

to

the

criminal

justice

system

within

two

years

of

having

been

released.

That

is

not

a

good

result

for

those

inmates

and

it

is

not

a

good

result

for

our

community.

What

it

means

is

that

one

in

two

people

have

returned

to

offending,

for

a

range

of

reasons.

They

are

not

good

results

for

our

criminal

justice

system

or

for

Tasmanian

people.

Part

of

the

reason

that

people

return

to

Risdon

is

because

of

the

conditions

in

which

they

are

treated

when

they

are

there

and

the

conditions

in

which

they

are

released

to.

There

are

national

statistics

from

the

Productivity

Commission

that

54

per

cent

of

prisoners

exit

prison into homelessness and 78 per cent exit prison into unemployment.

I

challenge

anyone

in

this

place

to

feel

like

they

would

have

the

best

chance

of

rehabilitating

their

life

if

they

are

exiting

prison,

more

than

half

into

homelessness

and

nearly

80

per

cent

into

unemployment.

It

should

not

surprise

us

that

with

those

odds,

47

per

cent

return within two years.

There

are

close

to

650

prisoners

at

Risdon.

It

is

overcrowded,

over

capacity

and

it

has

been

happening

under

this

Government's

watch

since

the

very

beginning.

The

minister

asks

what

would

I

do

in

her

position.

I

would

be

increasing

alternative

sentencing

options,

which

is

what

we

are

discussing

right

now.

There

is

a

policy

intent

of

this

Government

to

increase

the prison population. Removing suspended sentences entirely will add to that.

In

Risdon

right

now,

there

are

double

and

triple

bunking

inmates

through

the

complex.

Cells

designed

for

one

inmate

are

housing

two

inmates,

and

cells

designed

for

two

inmates

are

housing

three

inmates.

With

the

rate

of

lock-downs

very

high

under

this

Government,

in

the

case

of

two

men

double-bunking

in

the

men's

prison,

that

is

a

six-metre

square

space;

a

small

space.

Sharing

that

space

for

hours

on

end

becomes

particularly

difficult

with

the

frequency of lock-downs happening across the prison system.

The

reason

those

lock-downs

are

increasing

and

are

persistent

is

because

of

staff

shortages.

That

is

something

we

have

talked

about

in

this

place

before.

They

average

10

to

14

short

per

shift,

sometimes

up

to

18

or

20.

The

prison

simply

cannot

operate

in

the

way

it

needs

to,

to

operate

safely

for

both

staff

and

inmates

when

they

are

that

short-staffed.

Rolling

lock-downs

is

the

only

option

for

the

prison

to

open

units

and

to

be

able

to

do

their

work

safely for staff and for inmates.

One

correctional

officer

I

spoke

to

recently,

who

has

worked

there

for

a

long

time,

told

me

that

out

of

the

six

shifts

he

worked

in

the

weeks,

the

unit

he

was

assigned

to

in those six shifts had been unlocked only for one morning and one afternoon.

The

prison

is

crowded.

The

prison

population

has

increased

significantly

under

this

Government.

We

should

be

looking

to

alternative

sentencing

options.

The

rate

of

nearly

50

per

cent

of

people

returning

to

prison

is

not

something

we

should

be

proud

of

as

a

state

or

as

a

parliament.

A

magistrate

working

in

a

Tasmanian

court

system

described

Risdon

in

this

way

in

a

sentencing decision in February this year -

As

far

as

our

jail

system

goes

at

the

moment

it's

probably

the

worst

possible

time

for

anyone

to

do

anything

about

rehabilitation.

It's

like

putting

a

jug

of

milk

in

a

cupboard,

leaving

it

there

for

six

months

and

then

taking

it

out

and

thinking

it's

perfectly

okay

to

drink.

As

far

as

critical

rehabilitation

programs, there is a desperate need for them to be reinstated.

That

has

been

backed

up

by

the

Custodial

Inspector

who

has

released

a

number

of

reports

in

recent

months

tabled

in

this

parliament

which

go

to

the

very

heart

of

conditions

at

Risdon

Prison.

Now

is

not

a

time

where

people

are

being

offered

rehabilitative

options

that

can

allow

them

to

not

be

one

of

those

one

in

two

who

are

returning

to

prison

within

two

years.

It

is

true

what

the

Attorney-General

says

by

interjection

that

this

motion

is

about

alternative

sentencing

options.

We

support

alternative

sentencing

options

and

want

to

see

an

increase

in

those.

However,

removing

suspended

sentences

entirely

from

the

suite

of

options

available to magistrates and judges is not the answer.

It

touches

on

the

things

that

we

have

talked

about

in

here

before

around

parliament's

role

of

setting

laws

and

the

judiciary's

and

the

magistrate's

role

of

implementing

and

applying

those

laws.

It

is

not

our

job

as

members

of

parliament

to

set

sentences

for

people

who

face

the

court

system

in

Tasmania.

It

is

our

role

to

put

in

place

responsible

laws

that

allow

the

judiciary

to

do

its

job

of

assessing

each

case

as

it

is

presented

to

them

and

making

a

responsible

decision

to

impose

the

penalty

that

is

appropriate

in

the

circumstances

to

that

offending.

The

Sentencing

Advisory

Council

in

the

work

that

led

to

the

2017

bill

made

a

range

of

recommendations

and

gave

three

options

for

the

way

the

Government

might

like

to

look

to

forming

its

bill.

The

option

that

the

Government

went

with

was

one

that

indicated

that

they

would,

instead

of

suspended

sentences,

focus

on

the

three

things

that

are

named

in

these

terms

of

reference:

community

corrections

orders,

home

detention

orders

and

drug

treatment

orders. Those are named in the terms of reference.

The

other

two

are

areas

that

are

available

are

an

increase

in

fines

and

also,

of

course,

an

increase

in

imprisonment.

Those

things

are

not

part

of

the

terms

of

the

reference

but

I

believe

that

they

should

be.

I

acknowledge

that

we

cannot

amend

the

terms

of

reference

but

it

would

be

interesting

to

know

when

the

Sentencing

Advisory

Council

conducts

it

work

it

provides

the

information

to

parliament.

I

am

eagerly

awaiting

the

results

of

its

work

because

it

is

important

that

we

know

how

home

detention

orders,

community

corrections

orders

and

drug

treatment

orders

are

going;

how

many

have

been

issued

and

how

successful

they

have

been,

but

there

was

also

an

indication

in

that

original

legislation

that

there

would

be

an

increased

reliance

on

fines

rather

than

suspended

sentences.

It

is

a

shame

that

these

terms

of

reference

do

not

extend

to

informing

the

parliament

on

how

much

more

reliance

there

has

been

on

fines.

It

could

become

a

bit

of

a

self-perpetuating

problem

whereas

alternative

sentencing

options

fines

are

relied

upon

by

the

courts

and

if

enough

people

are

unable

to

pay

those

fines

they

will

find

themselves

incarcerated

for

failure

to

pay

fines.

Often

we

are

talking

about

some

of

the

poorest

people

in

Tasmania

who

will

not

have

a

high

capacity

to

be

able

to

pay

fines set by the courts. It is a shame that that is not included in the terms of reference.

I

am

also

interested

to

know

how

many

offenders

who

have

faced

the

courts

have

been

imprisoned

rather

than

having

made

available

to

them

one

of

the

three

sentencing

options

mentioned

in

the

terms

of

reference

or,

as

I

said,

a

fine.

What

would

also

be

interesting

to

know

is

an

estimation

of

the

cost

involved

because

they

also

indicated

in

their

work

in

2015

that

the

anticipated

cost

of

implementing

these

changes

was

somewhere

in

the

vicinity

of

between

$27

million

and

$50

million.

Those

figures

were

in

2015

and

implementation

obviously

began

later

than

that

after

the

bill

passed

in

2017,

so

it

would

be

interesting

to

know an anticipated cost of implementation of these measures so far.

I

was

grateful

to

the

Attorney-General's

office

for

recently

arranging

for

my

colleague,

Michelle

O'Byrne,

and

I

to

visit

their

Monitoring

and

Compliance

Unit

within

Community

Corrections

that

the

minister

mentioned

in

her

contribution.

That

is

the

unit

overseeing

the

home

detention

scheme.

It

was

very

instructive

to

see

that

in

practice

and

see

how

those

staff

within

Community

Corrections

monitor

people

on

home

detention

and

people

who

are

using

monitoring devices in prevention of family violence.

There

is

some

shared

ground

there.

I

want

to

see

an

increase

in

alternative

sentencing

options

and

that

is

why

these

terms

of

reference

are

very

important.

It

was

good

that

amendment

was

made

to

the

original

act

in

2017

so

that

these

terms

of

reference

could

come

to the parliament and the results of that work will come to the parliament as well.

I

hope

that

the

minister

has

not

pre-empted

the

results

of

that

work

by

the

Sentencing

Advisory

Council

because

I

was

a

bit

concerned

and

actually

a

bit

surprised

by

some

of

the

colour

in

her

language

in

describing

suspended

sentences

as

a

flawed

option

and

saying

that

the

reliance

on

them

was

incomprehensible.

I

believe

that

providing

people

with

options

to

rehabilitate their lives, options for treatment -

Ms

Archer

-

Why

did

you

ask

the

question

on

Peter

O'Neil

in

question

time,

then?

That was a suspended sentence. Try defending that one, hypocrite.

Madam SPEAKER

- Order.

Ms

HADDAD

-

Madam

Speaker,

I

will

conclude

my

comments

by

saying

that

I

support

the

increased

use

of

problem-solving

courts

and

I

support

the

increased

use

of

alternative

sentencing

options

in

the

Tasmanian

courts.

However,

suspending

a

sentence

should

remain

as

one

of

the

options

for

the

judiciary

to

use

as

they

see

fit

in

dealing

with

offending that comes before them.

We

know

that

when

people

are

equipped

with

the

tools

they

need

to

be

able

to

enter

into

alcohol

and

drug

treatment,

enter

into

mental

health

treatment,

be

provided

parenting

courses

or

education

in

other

areas

of

their

lives

that

they

would

benefit

from,

then

people

can

be

diverted

from

the

criminal

justice

system

and

set

on

a

path

where

their

lives

can

be

improved.

As

I

said

earlier,

not

just

their

lives

but

the

lives

of

all

Tasmanians,

because

when

we

see

a

reduction in offending we see safer communities and we all want to live in safer communities.

We

need

to

get

to

a

point

where

we

see

less

than

those

huge

numbers

of

47

per

cent

of

people

returning

to

prison

within

two

years,

more

than

50

per

cent

living

in

homelessness

and

78

per

cent

in

unemployment.

Those

are

figures

that

we

need

to

see

on

a

downward

trajectory.

Until

we

see

those

figures

on

a

downward

trajectory

we

will

not

see

offending

rates

easing

in

Tasmania,

and

we

all

want

to

live

in

safer

places.

We

need

to

be

able

to

work

with

people

who

find

themselves

tied

up

in

the

criminal

justice

system

in

a

way

that

allows

them

to

improve

their

lives

and

allows

them

to

do

the

best

that

they

can

to

avoid

finding

themselves

back

in

Risdon

Prison,

because

while

we

are

doing

that

we

are

failing

Tasmanians.

We

are

failing

those

people

who

find

themselves

in

prison

and

we

are

failing

our communities that we all want to see improve and be safer.

With

those

comments

I

support

the

terms

of

reference

and

very

much

look

forward

to

the

results

of

the

Sentencing

Advisory

Council's

work

being

presented

to

the

parliament

and

hope

that

at

some

point

maybe

through

a

different

form

of

the

House

we

may

be

able

to

hear

from

the

Attorney-General

about

those

other

points

I

raised

about

the

increased

reliance

on

fines, and also about the estimated cost.

[7.26 p.m.]

Dr

WOODRUFF

(Franklin)

-

Madam

Speaker,

the

Sentencing

Amendment

(Phasing

Out

of

Suspended

Sentences)

Bill

passed

in

2017

and

it

was

not

supported

by

the

Greens.

We

have

long

stood

with

the

evidence

of

what

works

in

turning

around

rates

of

recidivism,

keeping

the

community

safer,

and

ensuring

that

we

use

public

moneys

in

Corrections

to

rehabilitate

people

rather

than

to

lock

them

into

a

life

of

continual

crime.

We

have

always

supported any legislation that will achieve those outcomes.

It

is

very

well

understood

by

the

legal

profession

and

people

who

look

at

prison

regimes

around

the

world

that

prisons

lock

people

into

a

criminal

cycle

and

it

can

often

be

for

life.

They

lead

to

less

safe

communities

and

take

an

enormous

amount

of

public

resources.

You

have

only

to

look

at

the

huge

changes

that

are

occurring

in

parts

of

the

United

States.

Texas

is

outstanding

in

that

area

where

they

have

closed

four

prisons

in

the

last

handful

of

years,

so

there

are

big

changes

in

place.

They

all

draw

from

a

similar

well,

and

that

is

providing

a

range

of

alternative

sentencing

options,

and

a

suite

of

rehabilitation

which

is

genuine

and

properly

financed.

In

this

regard,

this

Government

has

dropped

the

ball

in

almost

all

of

those

areas, albeit with some important exceptions.

One

of

the

first

things

that

the

Liberals

did

when

they

came

into

Government

was

to

cut

the

REO

program.

It

was

a

mere

$200

000

a

year

at

the

time;

a

program

successfully

run

by

charities

working

with

people

as

they

exited

prison

to

make

sure

they

had

a

house,

to

connect

them

to

housing,

and

also

to

support

them

to

get

a

job

and

help

them

reintegrate

with

their

family

and

reintegrate

into

the

community.

That

program

established

under

the

Greens

Corrections

minister

from

2010

to

2014

was

so

successful

by

the

time

the

Liberals

defunded

it

that

it

had

zero

per

cent

recidivism

from

the

inmates

who

went

through

the

program.

Of

the

people

who

exited

prison,

none

of

them

reoffended.

That

is

an

extraordinary

accomplishment

and

it

speaks

volumes

about

the

ideology

which

governs

the

Corrections

portfolio

under

this

Government,

which

came

in

2014

under

a

mandate

to

be

tough

on

crime

and

to

make

populist

decisions

which,

on

the

face

of

them,

look

as

though

being

hard

on

people

is

going

to

be

effective and make the community safer. In fact, all the statistics since 2014 are worsening.

The

rates

of

violence

in

prisons

from

inmate

to

inmate

and

from

inmate

to

officer,

have

been

going

up.

Rates

of

compensation

claims

from

prison

staff

and

sick

leave

of

prison

staff,

have

gone

through

the

roof

-

not

to

mention

the

actual

number

of

people

in

prison

and

also

community

crime

rates.

The

annual

rates

each

year

for

certain

crimes

in

the

community

have

also

been

increasing.

It

gives

the

lie

to

the

idea

that

the

so-called

tough

on

crime

approach

makes

the

community

safer.

That

is

what

people

want

and

it

is

what

they

are

looking

for

in

a

corrections minister and in a government - they want a government that keeps people safe.

When

you

do

not

fund

education

and

literacy

programs

for

people

in

prison,

that

has

an

effect

on

their

ability

to

go

out

and

get

a

job,

rather

than

petty

crime

and

petty

theft

or

selling

drugs.

Many

people

who

go

to

jail

have

very

low

literacy

rates.

They

need

support.

That

is

a

perfect

time

to

help

them

get

an

education,

and

the

first

thing

is

to

learn

to

read.

All

of

those programs have dropped off.

Ms Archer

- No, they haven't. Rosalie Martin.

Dr

WOODRUFF

-

Minister,

it

is

great

that

there

are

some

exemplary

models,

but

I

can

assure

you

that

over

the

years

I

have

heard

from

staff

and

from

people

who

have

been

working providing that literacy education, through TasTAFE, that it has evaporated.

Ms Archer

- No it is not. We have re-released TasTAFE.

Dr

WOODRUFF

-

There

is

a

problem.

Maybe

something

has

changed

in

the

last

five

minutes but there is a real problem with options that are there.

Ms Archer

- Stop making stuff up.

Dr

WOODRUFF

-

It

is

there

on

paper,

but

inmates

cannot

access

it

because

they

are

in

their

prison

cells.

They

cannot

have

the

education

programs

because

the

cells

are

not

open

for

people

to

attend.

You

can

say

that,

but

minister,

I

hear

time

and

again

from

officers

who

are

talking

about

the

experience

of

inmates,

or

from

legal

representatives

where

inmates

cannot get to those sessions.

It

is

one

thing

to

offer

them

on

paper

and

to

have

them

funded

on

paper,

but

it

is

another

thing

to

seriously

make

them

available

to

people,

and

to

keep

them

up

on

a

regular

basis

so

people can learn to read. It is not easy to enable an adult to learn to read.

Let

us

return

to

the

motion

at

hand.

Suspended

sentences

were

one

tried

and

true

method

for

reducing

reoffending.

They

remain

a

method

that

can

be

chosen

by

judges

as

an

alternative

to

incarceration.

The

original

Sentencing

Advisory

Committee,

on

the

then

Liberal

Party's

policy

proposal

to

abolish

suspended

sentences,

was

prevented

from

examining

that

actual

question

and

from

asking

whether

abolishing

suspended

sentences

would

be

the

correct

path

to

take.

The

terms

of

reference

given

to

the

Sentencing

Advisory

Council

did

not

enable

them

to

make

a

deliberation

about

whether

suspended

sentences

should be abolished.

Now

this

bill

has

passed

through

the

lower

House,

although

the

Greens

did

not

support

it.

It

went

to

the

upper

House

and

the

bill

was

amended

by

Leonie

Hiscutt,

presumably

under

pressure

from

other

Legislative

Council

members.

I

have

not

read

the

detail

of

that

debate,

but

the

amendments

that

were

provided

in

the

bill

are

that

suspended

sentence

provisions

were

not

able

to

commence

until

between

18

months

and

two

years

have

passed

since

the

commencement

of

the

other

provisions.

Those

provisions

referred

to

in

the

bill

commenced

on

14

December

2018,

so

it

is

not

quite

two

years

but

I

am

assuming

it

will

be

by

the

time

this bill passes here and the other place - if it passes.

Ms Archer

- Is it 18 months, no sooner than 18 months.

Dr WOODRUFF

- It would be two years from December 2018.

The

second

amendment

provided

that

the

terms

of

reference

for

a

SAC

review

are

to

be

provided to both Houses of parliament, and that is the current stage.

The

third

amendment

was

that

the

report

by

the

Tasmanian

Law

Reform

Institute

(TLRI)

is

to

be

tabled,

and

the

SAC

in

the

terms

of

reference

before

us

has

advised

that

will occur within 12 months.

The

fourth

amendment

was

that

a

notice

of

intention

to

commence

sections

8,

10

and

19

is to be tabled, and not disallowed within 10 sitting days.

Madam

Speaker,

I

will

make

a

few

comments

about

the

terms

of

reference.

The

terms

of

reference

is

an

important

document.

The

SAC

has

approved

them

and

has

been

involved

in their development. I think that is correct?

Ms Archer

- They have been actively involved.

Dr

WOODRUFF

-

The

Greens

do

not

support

the

phasing

out

of

suspended

sentences

for

the

reasons

I

have

given.

It

is

important

for

judges

to

be

able

to

determine

what

the

appropriate sentencing option is and alternatives to imprisonment.

We

support

the

other

matters

that

the

terms

of

reference

for

this

review

will

investigate,

namely,

home

detention

and

community

corrections

orders,

and

court

mandated

drug

treatment

orders.

These

are

very

important

options

for

judges

to

have

and

are

essential,

as

the

minister

has

said,

for

people

to

be

able

to

have

full

rehabilitation

if

they

have

drug

addictions.

They

also

provide

opportunities

to

relieve

stress

on

the

prison,

and

provide

people

with

opportunities to be involved in a range of community correction activities.

There

are

only

four

terms

under

the

terms

of

reference

for

the

SAC

dealing

with

the

phasing

out

of

suspended

sentences.

That

seems

very

paltry

given

the

big

question

about

suspended

sentence

orders

and

what

contribution

they

make.

We

would

have

included

more

extensive

terms,

but

I

am

persuaded

that

number

29

-

any

other

matters

considered

relevant

-

should

give

the

Sentencing

Advisory

Council

plenty

of

scope

to

examine

and

make

recommendations about any other matter they consider relevant in this instance.

The

lack

of

detail

does

not

preclude

the

SAC

from

extensively

writing

on

any

matter

that

they

think

to

be

relevant.

On

that

basis,

we

are

comfortable

with

the

terms

of

reference

that

have

been

provided,

and

we

look

forward

to

reading

the

results

of

the

report

when

it

is

finished and tabled within 12 months.

[7.39 p.m.]

Ms

ARCHER

(Clark

-

Attorney-General)

-

Madam

Speaker,

I

am

pleased

that

the

member

raised

that

final

point.

It

is

usual

for

that

final

term

of

reference

to

be

included

in

a

collaboration

between

government

and

the

SAC

so

they

can

comment

on

any

other

matter

as

they see fit. It is important.

This

motion

was

a

rather

mechanical

motion

coming

before

this

House.

Unfortunately,

members

have

chosen

to

rehash

the

debate

which

was

actually

passed

by

the

House

with

this

requirement. That is why I am bringing this motion through the House today.

It

is

slightly

annoying

to

hear

some

of

the

mistruths

that

are

continually

espoused

by

members

in

this

House

who

do

not

have

personal

knowledge

of

many

things

they

are

saying.

I

find

it

particularly

galling

when

Ms

Haddad

starts

talking

about

our

corrections

systems

when

the

state

that

Labor

left

our

prisons

and

corrections

system

in

was

absolutely

appalling,

with

very

little

money

spent

and

the

closure

of

the

Hayes

Prison

Farm

being

in

motion.

Not

one

additional

correctional

officer

was

put

in

their

election

policy

for

the

2018

election.

In

fact

their

corrections

policy

was

virtually

non-existent.

They

have

the

cheek

to

come

in

here

and

criticise

when

we

are

the

Government

that

has

actually

implemented

the

alternative

sentencing options which allow us now to look at phasing out suspended sentences.

I

remind

the

House

of

the

rather

damning

figures

in

relation

to

suspended

sentences.

The

Sentencing

Advisory

Council's

research

has

revealed

that

34

per

cent

of

suspended

sentences

are

breached

by

re-offending

and

only

half

of

those

are

ever

followed

up.

Of

those

that were actioned the suspended sentence was only activated in about half the cases.

This

is

why

the

community

has

lost

faith

in

suspended

sentences.

They

do

not

have

any

punitive

value,

where

as

the

alternative

sentencing

options

that

our

Government

is

responsible

for,

home

detention,

not

only

takes

away

a

certain

amount

of

individual

liberty,

it

actually

serves

to

rehabilitate

because

they

can

maintain

a

home,

they

can

keep

working.

They

are

the

alternative

sentencing

options

that

we

support

because

they

are

well

rounded

and

have

that

punitive element but also have the rehabilitative element.

I

am

constantly

looking

at

ways

to

implement

more

rehabilitation

programs

within

the

prison.

Risdon

Prison

is

restricted

because

of

its

size,

because

of

its

capacity.

This

is

why

we

are

building

the

Southern

Remand

Centre,

which

will

be

completed

at

the

end

of

It

is

important

to

provide

modern

facilities

for

the

staff

as

much

as

for

prisoners.

In

fact,

even

more

so

for

the

staff

that

have

to

work

in

these

environments,

to

provide

the

rehabilitation

programs,

to

facilitate

all

of

these

programs

and

training

and

skills

and

literacy

areas

that

all

of

the

members

talk

about.

You

cannot

do

it

in

a

bubble.

You

cannot

do

it

with

the

current

facilities we have.

I

was

not

going

to

go

into

too

much

of

that

but

things

are

constantly

said

in

this

House

that

are

simply

not

true.

What

I

have

said

only

scratches

the

surface.

This

motion

is

necessary

to

get

the

terms

of

reference

passed

so

that

the

Sentencing

Advisory

Council

can

do

the

work

that

it

has

been

asked

to

do

in

relation

to

the

provisions

of

the

bill

that

we

took

through

the

House

and

is

now

an

act.

I

look

forward

to

receiving

the

Sentencing

Advisory

Council's report within the estimated time frame of 12 months.

Motion agreed to.

ADJOURNMENT

[7.44 p.m.]

Ms ARCHER

(Clark - Attorney-General) - Madam Speaker, I move -

That the House do now adjourn.

HIA-CSR Tasmanian Housing and Kitchen & Bathroom Awards

[7.45 p.m.]

Ms

BUTLER

(Lyons)

-

Madam

Speaker,

I

rise

on

the

adjournment

to

talk

about

the

HIA-CSR

Tasmanian

Housing

and

Kitchen

&

Bathroom

Awards

which

were

held

on

Friday

night.

Last

Friday

afternoon,

6

November,

the

Tasmanian

Housing

Industry

Association

held

the

awards

which

were

virtual

for

the

first

time.

HIA

executive

director

Stuart

Collins

said

that

despite

the

challenges

posed

by

the

pandemic,

HIA

has

been

committed

to

delivering

its

awards

program

to

ensure

members

continue

to

be

recognised

and

are

able

to

celebrate

excellence in building design, innovation and sustainability.

On

the

night,

the

winner

of

the

major

awards,

the

HIA-CSR

Tasmanian

Home

of

the

Year

was

Davies

Design

and

Construction.

They

won

their

award

for

the

stunning

contemporary

home

which

harmoniously

combines

a

mix

of

materials,

including

bricks,

cement

sheet,

copper

and

Colourbond

with

products

sourced

from

around

the

world.

Apparently,

the

site

also

has

a

really

striking

street

appeal,

a

maximisation

of

outlook.

It

has

a

north-facing

orientation

and

practical

layout.

That

was

seen

as

exceptional

by

the

judges.

Also,

the

level

of

detail

and

finish,

according

to

the

judging

panel,

was

simply

awe

inspiring.

That is a quote.

Other

award

recipients

were

Dylan

Coad

from

Cunic

Homes,

who

won

Apprentice

of

the

Year.

The

award

for

the

best

business

partner

was

awarded

to

Leanna

Mitchell

from

New

Trend

Homes

Tasmania.

Ronald

Young

and

Co

Builders

and

Wilson

Homes

respectively

took out the award for the category of professional, medium and major builders.

As

in

the

awards

were

well

supported

by

CSR,

Independent

Roller

Door

Services

Group

and

other

HIA

industry

partners

whose

support

remains

critical

in

ensuring

events which celebrate industry success continue.

I

take

the

opportunity

to

congratulate

all

the

people

who

were

nominated,

the

winners

and

finalists.

Each

year

the

awards

attract

an

outstanding

array

of

entries

across

a

number

of

different

housing

forms.

This

year

was

no

exception.

The

awards

also

presented

an

opportunity

to

acknowledge

individuals

and

businesses

for

their

professionalism,

innovation

and positive contribution to Tasmania's building and construction industry.

World Teachers' Day

[7.48 p.m.]

Ms

STANDEN

(Franklin)

-

Madam

Speaker,

on

30

October,

World

Teachers'

Day

was

celebrated

in

Australia.

This

is

my

first

available

opportunity

to

speak

on

this

topic

after

the

event.

Most

countries

around

the

world

celebrate

World

Teachers'

Day

on

5

October

when

much

of

Australia

is

enjoying

a

well-deserved

school

holiday

period.

In

Australia

World

Teachers' Day is celebrated on the last Friday of October instead.

World

Teachers'

Day

was

established

in

1994

by

UNESCO

to

recognise

the

vital

role

of

qualified

teachers

in

our

society.

World

Teachers'

Day

recognises

the

high

quality

of

early

childhood

teachers,

casual

relief

teachers,

principals

and

early

childhood

leaders

and

the

significant

contributions

they

make

in

classrooms

and

in

communities.

The

theme

this

year was A Bright Future.

I

have

a

son

who

is

perilously

close

to

starting

high

school.

I

am

very

proud

of

the

fact

that

he

desperately

wants

to

attend

his

local

high

school

where

he

most

certainly

has

a

bright

future

ahead

of

him

thanks

to

the

early

childhood

educators

and

teachers

who

have

influenced

him

so

very

positively

since

he

was

very

young.

He

has,

with

the

exception

of

just

one

day

in

eight

years,

been

very

keen

to

go

to

school.

That

has

something

to

do

with

the

friends

around

him,

and

it

has

something

to

do

with

the

soccer

at

lunchtime,

and

it

has

something

to

do

with

Pokémon,

Fidget

Spinners

and

Bay

Blades

and

whatever

else

the

trend

was

at

the

time.

But

the

one

constant,

and

we

have

checked

in

on

this

regularly,

in

his

enthusiasm

for

going

to

school

has

been

his

educators

or

his

teachers:

Lou,

Angie,

Bianca,

Pauline,

Alicia,

Sarah,

Katy

and

Simon.

These

early

childhood

educators

and

others

from

Uniting

Care,

Scott's

childcare

centre,

gave

him

the

best

start.

He

was

learning

through

play

from

day

dot.

As

he

got

older

and

went

into

after

school

care

he

was

challenged

and

given

more

responsibilities.

We

will

be

forever

grateful

for

the

safe,

kind

and

caring

learning

environment

those

educators

provided,

not

to

mention

the

kindness

they

showed

me

when

I

missed

my

son's

first

steps

and

when

they

explained

to

me

what

slap-cheek

was

or

when

I

worried

as

a

single

mum

about

my

job

security

or

could

not

work

out

with

my

sleep-deprived

brain

how

to

tackle

toileting

or

sleeping dramas.

When

he

started

kindy

at

Campbell

Street

Primary

School,

the

lovely

Mrs

Oldfield

welcomed

him

with

open

arms

into

her

kindergarten,

while

two

days

a

week

in

the

room

just

Pauline

and

Bianca

from

CamKindy

continued

to

support

his

learning

and

development.

Ms

Walch,

Ms

Wisniewski

now

Kennerley,

Mrs

Perkins,

Mrs

Fall,

Mrs

Kidd

and

Mr

Chadwick.

These

classroom

teachers

have

all

had

a

profound

impact

on

his

life

and

on

ours.

They

have

been

led

by

two

principals

in

our

time

in

the

school

community,

Ricky

Oates,

who

sadly

for

us

moved

schools

last

year

since

this

is

our

son's

last

year

in

primary

school,

and

Jo

Waldon,

who

masterfully

steered

the

school

through

this

extremely

tough

year

2020.

In

2020

many

non-teachers

who

were

trying

to

support

their

children

with

learning

at

home

articulated,

perhaps

for

the

first

time,

the

monumental

respect

they

have

for

teachers

and

the

work

they

do.

In

one

sense

this

recognition

is

wonderful.

However,

it

does

say

something

that

it

takes

a

global

pandemic

for

many

to

realise

the

importance

of

this

profession. It is a calling.

Those

who

have

been

so

called

to

it

make

magic.

They

give

more

than

they

receive,

they

care

deeply,

they

are

values

driven,

they

put

others

first,

they

are

kind,

they

are

smart,

they

are

motivated,

they

are

influencers,

they

are

leaders,

they

are

project

managers,

psychologists,

lab

technicians,

explorers,

artists,

directors,

conductors,

jugglers,

researchers,

life coaches, diplomats, communication experts, and that is all before 9 a.m. on a Monday.

I

am

deeply

appreciative

of

the

teachers

who

played

a

part

in

our

lives.

I

am

very

excited

too

about

the

teachers

who

will

play

a

part

in

it.

It

is

a

calling,

it

is

a

bright

future

and

I

thank

these

teachers

and

all

teachers

and

staff

in

schools

that

support

the

education

of

our

young people.

Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services Review

[7.53 p.m.]

Mr

ROCKLIFF

(Braddon

-

Minister

for

Mental

Health

and

Wellbeing)

-

Madam

Speaker,

today

I

release

the

Government's

response

to

the

Child

and

Adolescent

Mental

Health

Services

review

and

a

significant

step

towards

developing

an

integrated

pathway

for

children,

adolescents,

their

families

and

carers

to

better

navigate

the

mental

health

system.

The

Tasmanian

Government

is

investing

$4

million

in

the

upcoming

2020-21

Budget

to

commence

phase

1

of

implementing

the

comprehensive

recommendations

made

in

the

review,

all

of

which

have

been

accepted.

This

includes

establishing

statewide

leadership

roles

to

guide

the

changing

service

for

a

single

unified

CAMHS

and

to

ensure

a

consistent

service

response across Tasmania.

Phase

1

will

also

support

changes

to

the

way

CAMHS

responds

to

demand,

acknowledging

the

need

to

respond

to

children

and

young

people

who

have

the

most

complex

and

challenging

mental

health

presentations.

Changing

models

of

care

will

enable

CAMHS

to

realign

services

so

they

can

do

stronger

partnerships

and

linkages

with

other

services

and

government

agencies.

For

example,

part

of

CAMHS

core

work

under

this

shift

in

service

delivery

will

involve

engaging

more

closely

with

school

nurses

and

other

development

programs

within

schools.

We

will

also

begin

developing

new

programs

to

ensure

everyone

receives a specialist age-appropriate service, as I outlined this morning.

One

example

was

improving

mental

health

services

for

children

in

out-of-home

care.

We

will

establish

the

first

highly

specialised

intensive

mental

health

intervention

and

consultation

service

for

children

and

young

people

on

interim

or

finalised

child

protection

orders.

The

first

component

of

the

youth

early

intervention

service

will

be

implemented

by

the

end

of

2021-22.

This

new

service

will

focus

on

early

recognition

and

treatment

for

young

people

experiencing

early

psychosis

and

other

emerging

severe

and

complex

non-psychotic

disorders.

Key

elements

of

the

service

will

include

flexible

access

for

assessment

and

treatment, assertive outreach and interventions tailored to individual need.

The

role

of

perinatal

and

infant

mental

health

services

in

reducing

emotional

stress

on

parents

and

the

impact

of

that

stress

on

developing

children

cannot

be

underestimated.

This

initial

investment

supports

an

increase

in

the

capacity

of

existing

perinatal

and

infant

mental

health services to provide coverage to the north and north-west of the state.

Our

Government's

response

signals

a

fundamental

shift

in

the

delivery

of

CAMHS

in

Tasmania,

with

a

focus

on

integration,

changing

models

of

care

to

enable

CAMHS

to

respond

to

demand,

particularly

in

relation

to

severe

and

complex

cases,

addressing

service

gaps

by

developing

new

programs

and

building

better

links

with

other

services

and

government

agencies under a new organisational structure.

Such

systemic

change

is

a

long-term

proposition,

requiring

commitment

from

many

stakeholders

over

an

extended

period

and

I

thank

very

much

the

hardworking

staff

within

CAMHS and all participants involved in the review process.

Our

Government

is

committed

to

getting

this

fundamental

shift

in

the

delivery

of

services

right

and

we

are

getting

started

straight

away

to

ensure

that

young

Tasmanians

can

receive the best possible mental health care.

The

time

I

spent

this

morning

in

question

time

did

not

permit

me

to

put

all

of

that

on

record,

so

I

wanted

to

commend

all

those

involved

with

the

review

and

I

look

forward

to

seeing

some

real

but

much-needed

change

when

it

comes

to

the

delivery

of

mental

health

services for our children and young people in Tasmania.

Ringarooma Show

On the Town - Prostitutes and Brothels of 19th Century Launceston

Launceston Poetry Festival

[7.56 p.m.]

Ms

O'BYRNE

(Bass)

-

Madam

Speaker,

it

has

been

very

difficult

around

the

COVID-19

period

to

attend

all

of

those

really

amazing

events

that

happen

in

community

and

I

have

desperately

missed

the

show

season.

I

really

like

going

to

country

shows.

They

are

full

of

fabulous

produce

and

fabulous

people

and

are

a

wonderful

opportunity

for

people

to

get

together.

It

was

with

some

delight

that

I

was

in

a

position

to

be

able

to

attend

the

Ringarooma

Show

on

the

weekend.

I

congratulate

Sheri

Mahoney

and

the

entire

organising

crew

for

the

amount

of

work

they

did.

It

is

hard

enough

to

put

on

a

show,

let

alone

having

to

put on a show during the period of COVID-19.

It

was

a

smaller

event

than

normal.

Some

of

the

standard

feature

events

were

not

there

but

it

was

wonderful

to

be

able

to

see

the

animals

that

came

along,

the

produce

from

the

local

school,

the

fantastic

SES

who

were

on

display

-

and

I

give

a

shout

out

to

all

of

those

SES

workers,

many

of

whom

were

involved

recently

in

the

search

for

a

child

who

was

lost

on

the

Derby

tracks

and

they

were

very

thankful

when

they

were

able

to

find

him

and

safely

bring

him home, so it was great to see the SES there.

Sheri

said,

and

she

is

quite

right,

that

the

community

just

needs

a

day

like

the

show

which

brings

together

all

the

families

and

the

wider

community,

especially

after

this

year.

Everyone

needs

a

good

day

out,

to

have

a

good

time

and

forget

about

everything.

I

can

assure

you

they

did

not

forget

about

COVID-19

safety.

We

had

to

book

our

tickets

online

and

we

had

some

wonderful

bands

and

everybody

was

appropriately

distanced

but

it

was

a

wonderful

opportunity to get together and buy some great produce.

I

also

give

a

shout-out

to

the

Dorset

Community

House

who

had

their

smoothie

bike.

Many

members

of

parliament

would

have

tried

a

smoothie

bike

by

now

where

you

ride

the

bike

and

crush

the

smoothie

and

enjoy

the

produce

at

the

end

of

that,

mixing

both

good

exercise behaviour and some good outcomes.

It

was

a

shame

that

there

was

no

woodchopping

but

we

are

hoping

that

will

return

and

the

North

East

Axemen's

Association

is

really

excited

about

being

able

to

produce

an event next year for woodchopping. It is a fantastic thing to be part of.

I

was

also

there

with

the

member

for

McIntyre,

Tania

Rattray.

I

almost

accidentally

bought

a

puppy

but

managed

to

avoid

that

at

the

last

moment.

It

was

a

very

cute

puppy

and

I

am

sorry

because

the

young

child

who

was

trying

to

sell

this

gorgeous

little

kelpie

was

a

really good salesperson and I hope that puppy found a good home by the end of the day.

The

other

issue

I

want

to

raise

in

the

time

available

is

a

book

called

On

the

Town

-

Prostitutes

and

Brothels

of

19th

Century

Launceston

.

I

acknowledge

the

recent

publication

by

Launceston

researcher,

Dianne

Cassidy,

who

originally

comes

from

Braddon.

I

believe

she was a schoolmate of Alison Standen's.

As

the

shadow

minister

for

women,

I

acknowledge

the

importance

of

this

book

in

documenting

the

often

forgotten

lives

of

women

from

Launceston's

history,

and

there

are

many

stories

that

I

intend

to

bring

out

over

the

weeks

about

some

very

famous

Launceston

women.

Author

Dianne

Cassidy

is

a

former

staff

member

of

the

library

in

Launceston

and

she

continues

the

tradition

of

retired

staff

in

researching,

writing

and

publishing

stories.

Years

of

serving

the

public

has

honed

their

research

skills

and

this

book

is

a

testament

to

that.

We

often

find

that

the

historic

record

is

dominated

by

high

achievers,

and

in

many

of

our

records

they

are

notably

men

with

their

positions

of

power

-

as

opposed

to

women whose trail of archival records can often unfortunately focus on their failures.

Nineteenth

century,

class-conscious

Launceston

was

especially

difficult

for

ex-convict

women

in

a

colony

so

keen

to

leave

behind

the

hated

stain

of

convictism.

We

often

forget

that

Launceston

was

a

bustling

port

city

but,

just

like

other

cities

around

the

world,

sex

work

was

an

integral

part

of

it.

The

author

does

not

shy

away

from

the

risks

-

violence,

sexually

transmitted

diseases

and

coercion.

We

also

learned

the

history

of

criminality

and

street

work

that came for many convict women.

I

am

very

glad

that

Dianne

Cassidy

is

bringing

these

stories

to

light.

I

believe

her

book

is

incredibly

important.

It

is

a

missing

piece

in

what

is

a

jigsaw

puzzle.

People

in

my

electorate

of

Bass

who

are

avid

readers

of

local

history

will,

I

am

sure,

enjoy

On

the

Town

because it is a very important addition to our book shelves.

In

conclusion,

I

congratulate

Cameron

Hindrum

on

his

work

in

bringing

together

an

evening

to

pay

tribute

to

contemporary

Australian

women

poets,

as

part

of

the

Launceston

Poetry

Festival.

I

was

able

to

join

a

group

of

women

who

were

asked

to

read

a

poem

by

a

contemporary

Australian

woman

poet

celebrating

the

work

of

women

and

celebrating

the

fantastic

work.

I

was

very

pleased

to

read

a

poem

that

was

set

in

Hobart,

not

Launceston;

but

it

was

about

snow,

and

in

Launceston

many

people

would

recognise

that

we

had

a

phenomenal

snow

day,

and

that

magic

of

feeling

childlike

again

is

captured

in

the

Gwen

Harwood poem I read that evening.

I

congratulate

that

group.

They

were

not

expecting

a

lot

of

people

and

it

was

standing

room

outside

in

order

to

adhere

with

COVID-19

rules

at

the

Grand

Chancellor,

that

very

kindly

hosted

what

was

an

important

event

as

part

of

the

very

successful

Launceston

Poetry

Festival.

Anna Stewart Memorial Project

Derwent Valley Railway Preservation Society

[8.02 p.m.]

Ms

WHITE

(Lyons

-

Leader

of

the

Opposition)

-

Madam

Speaker,

I

rise

to

speak

about

an event that you also attended - the Anna Stewart Memorial Project.

The

event

was

held

on

Thursday

5

November

and

you

and

me,

the

Leader

of

the

Greens,

Cassy

O'Connor,

and

the

Independent

member

for

Nelson,

Meg

Webb,

joined

together

to

present

to

a

fantastic

group

of

women

who

had

been

brought

together

by

Unions

Tasmania's

women's

committee.

The

Anna

Stewart

Memorial

Project

is

an

annual

program.

It

provides

a

week

of

learning

and

empowerment

for

women

across

Tasmania

who

have

come

from

different

workplaces,

backgrounds

and

experiences.

It

is

an

opportunity

for

them

to

learn

how

they

can

gain

extraordinary

new

skills

and

be

empowered

to

make

a

difference

both in their workplaces and in their communities.

I

acknowledge

the

contributions

and

the

very

thoughtful

and

honest

stories

that

were

shared

by

the

panellists,

including

yourself,

Madam

Speaker.

I

hope

those

stories

gave

some

real

insight

into

what

it

is

like

to

be

a

woman,

not

just

in

politics,

but

a

woman

who

is

leading

in

her

field

in

Tasmania.

It

gives

some

hope

and

some

encouragement

to

those

people

who

were part of the conference program.

There

were

many

questions

that

we

also

took

and

hopefully

we

were

able

to

answer

those adequately and provide some advice and inspiration.

I

congratulate

the

Unions

Tasmania

women's

committee

and

their

chair,

Karen

Tantari,

as

well

as

Marta

Hondul

Lenton

from

Unions

Tasmania.

I

recognise

how

important

it

is

that

we

have

events

like

this,

where

women

can

come

together

and

share

their

experiences

and

support

other

women

to

grow

in

confidence

and

to

learn

new

ways

to

go

about

their

work.

I

have no doubt that those women will have gained so much from the week they spent together.

The

event

concluded

on

Friday,

with

a

broader

women's

conference

where

they

heard

from

other

amazing

speakers

from

other

parts

of

Australia,

about

how

they

can

take

action

in

their

workplaces

to

support

one

another

and

support

women

to

have

a

better

life,

and

build

a

better

community.

I

know

from

personal

experience

that

my

involvement

with

days

like

that

when

I

was

just

learning

my

job

were

incredibly

important

and

made

a

huge

difference

to

my

self-esteem

and

confidence

and

really

helped

me

enormously.

I

congratulate

the

women's

committee

on

the

work

they

continue

to

do

year

in

year

out

because

I

know

it

makes

an

enormous difference to the women who are able to participate in programs like that.

I

would

also

like

to

talk

about

an

event

that

I

attended

in

my

electorate

on

Saturday

in

the

Derwent

Valley.

I

was

invited

to

join

with

the

Derwent

Valley

Railway

Preservation

Society

for

the

launch

of

a

restored

locomotive.

Members

of

this

Chamber

would

know

that

my

colleague,

the

President

of

the

Legislative

Council,

Craig

Farrell,

is

a

big

train

fanatic.

He

has

been

a

member

of

Derwent

Valley

Railway

for

many

years.

He

was,

of

course,

in

attendance

on

Saturday.

It

was

a

really

special

occasion.

I

acknowledge

the

committee,

in

particular

Paul

Jones,

the

president,

and

Owen

Andrews,

the

secretary,

for

the

work

they

did

in organising the event.

The

locomotive

was

named

U5

and

was

an

ex-Tasmanian

Government

Railway

locomotive

that

had

been

rebuilt

in

the

Launceston

workshops

after

it

came

from

the

Snowy

Mountain

Power

Scheme.

This

locomotive

did

a

lot

of

work

in

Tasmania.

When

it

was

disposed

of

in

the

1980s

it

was

purchased

by

a

man

by

the

name

of

Ted

Lidster

who

is

a

member

of

the

Derwent

Valley

Railway

Preservation

Society.

It

was

at

that

point

that

it

found

a new home in New Norfolk. It has been there ever since.

There

are

only

six

of

this

class

built

in

the

world.

One

of

them

is

in

Tasmania.

It

was

fundamental

in

helping

to

rebuild

the

West

Coast

Wilderness

Railway,

which

has

become

the

ABT

Railway,

and

the

Derwent

Valley

Railway.

It

has

played

a

big

role

in

Tasmania's

heritage

rail

system.

It

has

undergone

a

massive

renovation

which

has

been

performed

entirely

by

volunteers.

It

is

a

beautiful

shiny

red.

It

was

named

on

the

day

with

a

special

unveiling

of

the

plaque

that

had

also

been

crafted

by

a

member

of

the

committee

in

honour

of

Ted,

who

is

the

owner

of

it.

It

was

therefore

named

Ted.

He

was

chuffed

and

did

not

expect

it

whatsoever.

It

was

lovely

to

see

how

humbled

he

was

by

the

recognition

his

peers

had

given him.

An

extraordinary

number

of

hours

were

dedicated

to

carrying

out

that

restoration

work.

A

lot

of

skilled

labour

was

required

and

is

entirely

voluntary.

They

do

it

because

they

love

it.

They

hope

to

be

able

to

get

back

on

the

railway

soon

and

provide

the

exceptional

tourist

rail

experience they

were able

to provide

many years

ago. It

would be

wonderful to

see the

trains

back on the track, travelling up and down the Derwent Valley.

The

biggest

problem

for

them

is

insurance

costs.

It

is

a

huge

burden

for

those

small

volunteer

organisations

to

meet

the

costs

of

insurance.

They

have

put

a

request

in

to

the

Tasmanian

Government

to

hopefully

get

some

support

from

the

Budget

which

will

be

handed

down

on

Thursday.

We

are

desperate

to

see

some

of

that

support

provided,

not

just

for

them

but

for

heritage

rail

and

tourist

rail

across

Tasmania

so

we

can

start

to

get

some

of

these

trains

moving

again

and

support

our

volunteers.

The

economic

benefit

would

be

enormous.

Not

only

would

it

be

a

major

drawcard

for

tourists,

but

locals

would

love

it

too.

I

would

love

to

be

able

to

jump

on

the

train

and

go

down

the

Derwent

Valley

and

get

off

at

Mount

Field

National

Park.

It

would

be

well

received

by

the

community.

They,

like

the

Labor

Party,

are

looking

forward

to

Thursday

to

see

whether

there

is

any

support

for

their

insurance

cost,

to

make sure they can get that railway back up and running.

The House adjourned at 8.09 p.m.