Police Offences Amendment (Workplace Protection) Bill
Ms WEBB (Nelson) – Mr President, I rise to speak on the Police Offences Amendment (Workplace Protection) Bill. This bill, as we have all noted, is the next iteration of the Government’s attempts – as I would characterise them – to quash certain kinds of environmental protest actions in this state. In doing so, yet again, this bill risks jeopardising the fundamental rights of Tasmanian citizens.
This is an ideologically-driven and deliberately divisive culture war. Rather than seeking to de-escalate the divisions, the Government it seems is hell-bent on amplifying them. The intensely disappointing thing about this whole exercise is that the very real people involved at the frontline of the kinds of situations at the centre of this legislative effort, will be entirely let down in what they dearly want to see occur. One thing is for certain, this bill is not in the best interests of our state legislatively, economically, environmentally, democratically or socially.
Another thing is certain. That is, this bill will not do what it says on the packet. This is called the workplace protection bill. That is a title that is an outright lie. There is nothing in this bill that will ensure any greater level of protection for those in workplaces. This bill offers nothing protective, nothing preventive, nothing prophylactic. Not even anything pre-emptive when it comes to the kinds of activities that the Government has apparently put it forward to address. Quite the contrary, in fact.
If anything, this bill, will cause an increase in the very things the Government claims it wants to stop. That is not good. It is not good for workers, for businesses, for police, for protesters or for the general public. A decent, effective government would invest in efforts to reduce the kinds of policy disputes and ideological conflict that lead to protest actions. It would not actively engage in aggravating and amplifying those disputes and conflicts through misleading legislation. It would certainly not do so in a way that also impinges significantly on the fundamental democratic rights of its citizens. A decent and effective government would not do that.
So many of the rights and opportunities that we benefit from and take for granted today were hard won through peaceful, nonviolent protest. Reforms on many fronts that we hold dear and have led to many positive advances for our society, our laws and our culture. As has been pointed out, in many of the submissions and correspondence we have received on this bill, committed protest activity has delivered Tasmania many outcomes of value to our state. For example, the decriminalisation of homosexuality; the protection of iconic wilderness areas, now tourism drawcards; and our best practice anti-discrimination laws, just a few to mention. More broadly than just our state, we know the committed protest activity of ordinary citizens delivered women the vote; established a whole suite of gender equality protections now in place, brought about important public reckonings, like the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody; achieved essential industrial rights and protections and much, much more.
To be very clear, these outcomes we value were not won solely through protest action that was authorised, sanctioned, tamed or sanitised, to borrow the term the member for Rumney applied to this. Every one of these achievements and improvements came about through protest action that included measures that would be captured and highly penalised by this bill, every single one. This categorical, historical pattern of societal progress and protections won through protest, which included actions that were radical, confronting, inconvenient, obstructive and persistent. That pattern is there for us all to see. There is a clear message in this, given the many benefits now achieved through a robust right to protest, legislating to threaten this right risks depriving us of future benefits and ultimately paying a higher price than any hoped for, but unlikely to be achieve by this bill in the immediate quelling of conflict.
In speaking on this bill, the Government claims that it:
recognises that the freedom of communication, including protest, is a fundamental right.
Then we run into trouble when we start to contemplate how to balance that right against the rights of businesses to operate. The Government also claims it:
recognises that businesses may need to accommodate some level of disruption, due to the legitimate expression of these rights.
That is from the Government. Also they say:
Freedom of political communication does not mean unreasonable obstruction of lawful business viability and further, the bill recognises there are limits to rights particularly when businesses suffer substantial obstruction.
Interestingly, on that last point on my reading of the bill there is a great deal of vagueness in regards to what level of disruption to a business should or would be tolerated, as there is no explicit requirement that the obstruction of a business, dealt with in clause 5 of this bill need either be unreasonable or substantial. There is no degree of tolerance or accommodation detailed in terms of the obstruction to business activity and no doubt we will discuss that in the Committee stage, if the bill gets through to that point. What is clear is the Government is misleading us in its second reading speech, presenting in more modern rhetoric in the way they speak about what needs to be tolerated than what is actually in the detail of this bill and what it would allow or constrain.
Other members here have spoken about this challenge of balance. Were we each to assess what the right balance should look like, it is likely we would all land somewhere a little different, which tells us that there is no categorically right answer here. It is something we will all, in an ongoing way, continue to struggle with. An important thing to remember is that our existing laws do already strike a balance between protecting these various and sometimes conflicting rights and interests. Current laws, which have been developed over time and are sitting there in our context now already provide a response to unlawful actions taken by protesters. Current laws already provide a response to damaged property, assaults and trespass and nuisance.
We have heard clearly from union stakeholders that their message from workers in the relevant industries captured under the intent of this bill is that current laws are not being applied to the extent they would like to see in response to current situations. If this is the case, surely the first response is to more adequately apply current laws to give better effect to give balance that we have already defined and agreed to rather than skip past that to impose new, contested and more onerous laws. The Government talks about ‘the lawful expression of opinion’. That was from an extended fact sheet we received. However, the point make very clearly is protest is not simply an expression of opinion, it is an expression of political will, it is a call for action, it is a demand for attention to an issue, it is an attempt to prompt change and it can be a last-ditch attempt to protect and preserve before irrevocable harm is done.
While we may be able to expect expressions of opinion to always be lawful, it entirely misconstrues the nature of protest to believe or expect it must be so. In fact, by reference to history, we can assume to provide the greatest benefit there will be times that protest must not be lawful. Protest, especially urgent protest can and must have a significantly felt impact or it will not serve the purpose it seeks, to promote urgent action for change, for protection.
On environmental protest in particular, it is interesting in the context of these discussions and deliberations on this bill that many people have a particular view about people who engage in protest action, who are involved in these activities, what they are like and how they behave.
Interestingly too, we have just experienced a federal election that was won in significant part on the overwhelmingly community view that greater urgent action was required on climate change. Not only did the overwhelming community sentiment change the government federally, we actually saw blue ribbon conservative seats fall to Independent candidates, who were calling for climate change action, gender equality and greater government integrity. All typical issues that have previously required protest action to progress and are now mainstream expectations and vote winners in conservative suburbs of Australia, no less.
We also have children en masse striking for climate change action, taking action for their own future. We have environmental blockades being undertaken by a wide range of citizens in this state – as we have all heard through correspondence we have received – including people with professional backgrounds, grandparents, small business owners and people from all parts of our state. The insight that is provided by these participants in their correspondence describing their activity to us is quite telling, and would like to share a couple of those and read them into the record. Some I will put names to, because I have permission to do so, and others I will not. Firstly, here is an email we all received from a citizen of our state: (tbc)
I write to each of you today asking you to please understand the importance of the public citizen’s right to protest. Women’s rights, including our right to vote, First Nations rights and their ongoing struggle for equality sovereignty and constitutional recognition, the black lives matter movement, LGBTIQA+ equality including the marriage plebiscite, all of these important and imperative social movements were powered by the people and their fundamental and democratic right to protest. Our country would be a far more oppressive place to call a home had these pivotal moments in our social history not occurred.
Issues facing the environment are the same. Had people across the country not fought for the protection of precious wild places, we would be far deeper into the climate crisis than we already are.
I have volunteered with the Bob Brown Foundation twice in the last two months, protecting the Tarkine from being pillaged by the company MMG. Takayna, the Tarkine, is not only one of the last remaining cool temperate rainforests with connection to Gondwana remaining, it is also a huge carbon sink. The trees there are worth more in the ground than with 50 metres of toxic sludge sitting atop it.
Every protest I’ve joined with the BBF, both here and in Brisbane, have been peaceful, safe and nonviolent to both protesters and workplace employees. More often than not the protesters are the ones who suffer verbal and sometimes physical abuse by company workers. But that is also the risk protesters accept when speaking up about injustice.
The accusations made against the BBF of intimidation and performing unsafe actions are completely untrue. I have been on the ground multiple times and have only experienced pleasantries between protesters and company workers. I have always felt safe, both with the foundation and in all the interactions with those ‘against’ us.
Socially practising this democratic right is also hugely empowering. And when it comes to relieving eco-anxiety about the state of the world, which is a growing mental health epidemic, it is wonderfully alleviating. It takes you out of your head and pushes you towards something meaningful and you meet the most amazing individuals who come together for a safer future for all.
We have seen the public respond to the federal election with a call for more action on climate change. This means stopping native forest logging. MMG have another more environmentally responsible option and the money to do that, that leaves Tarkine at peace. That is why we are protecting this forest and will remain here until it is officially so.
Please protect the public’s fundamental right to protest. Our future on this planet depends on it.
That is from a female citizen of our state.
Now I would like to read one that I can put a name to. And again, it is one that we would have all received. This is an email that came through this week from Carol Barnett (TBC).
Dear MLC of the Tasmanian state government
My name is Carol Barnett, I am a 60-year-old retired registered operating theatre and recovery nurse of 40 years. I cared for Tasmanians for the last 10 years of my profession, working to ensure a clinically safe environment, ensuring my patients were safe from harm.
My family is eight generations Tasmanian from proud convict stock. My brother-in-law is minister Guy Barnett. I am married to his brother. Unfortunately, some government ministers, himself included, would like you to see peaceful protesters like myself face highly punitive fines and jail sentences for doing what I feel compelled to do in order to protect Tasmania’s unique world heritage value, biodiverse forests and the species that depend on them for survival.
I’m writing to inform you of my experience peacefully protesting in the Tasmanian native forests over the past three years. I chose to exercise my concerns for the endangered species and the environment they depend on by peacefully protesting in the very native forests that are being clear-felled and burnt.
It was a choice I didn’t take easily. But as taking part in letter writing, signing petitions and voting for Tasmania’s precious native forests was falling on deaf ears, I felt compelled to do more.
I first went to the Sumac forest camp, hosted by the Bob Brown Foundation, an old growth forested area which is still standing as a result of hundreds of peacefully protesting people like me, raising awareness of the logging taking place there. I took part in protests in Eastern Tiers with the Bob Brown Foundation in an area that is vital swift parrot breeding habit. It was in the process of being logged while swift parrots were selecting their breeding sites.
I was also present protesting in the Wentworth Hills for similar reasons, habitat destruction of the endangered species that depend on these native old growth forests.
Recently I was arrested at the Pieman River site of takayna Tarkine, where a mining company is illegally working to clear Gondwanan native forest, home to numerous endangered species, including the largest barn owl in the world, the masked owls, numbers down to levels that imminently risk the species’ survival.
The charges for my arrest were dropped in total at my court appearance. The road I was on was illegally closed. No repercussions for this illegal road closure, to my knowledge, have eventuated.
Addressing issues, some parties are asserting that peaceful protesters in relation to the Bob Brown Foundation are in some way using unsafe and abusive actions. This is far from my experience. I have never witnessed peaceful protesters in these settings provoking violence, with violence to workers, contractors or police. Indeed, I will not take part in a setting that perpetrated or condoned such actions.
My nurse training has been an advantage, informing my scrutiny of safety and welfare in these settings. All voluntary participants undergo nonviolence training before taking part in any BBF in situ protest, training that has been acknowledged by police officers to myself.
To quote one officer who said he, ‘wished more of the general public he dealt with would receive this training’.
Individual and group safety is taken seriously through skill development and safety training, personal responsibility is essential and encouraged. Physical and emotional support is demonstrated routinely at BBF protests and associated activities. I have only seen and been part of orderly, well-organised, cohesive, consensus‑based practise in implementing protests under this duty of care model.
It is with dismay that you and your colleagues could see myself, a concerned grandmother, passing legislation that could jail me for attempting to promote the health and safety of our natural environment. There is a better way forward for all of us and this new legislation you are being invited to pass, in my opinion, is not it.
Ms WEBB – The next one I would like to share, I am not going to put a name to, it is another female citizen of our state. Actually, sorry, it is another citizen of our state:
Dear Member of the Legislative Council,
My name is – I am a 29‑year‑old disabled enrolled nurse first‑year student of Psychological Science at the University of Tasmania. Growing up in rural north-west lutruwita, Tasmania, so close to the other-worldly beauty of the native ancient old‑growth forests has instilled in me an innate and unquestionable love in the value of these unprotected forests. In light of this, I have participated in numerous peaceful demonstrations and protests to try to raise awareness about the unnecessary destruction of these ecologically essential and one‑of‑a‑kind forests.
I have attended numerous nonviolent direct action (NVDA) training sessions and have a sound understanding of what is involved in various contexts and forms of protest. In all the protests I have participated in, most unfolded by the book, with most interactions taking place between the coordinated liaisons. The accusations of protesters being reckless, unsafe or violent is completely unfounded. I have really enjoyed all of the protests I have been involved in. All were nonviolent, planned and managed very effectively.
When I first started demonstrating in takayna Tarkine forests with the Bob Brown Foundation, I was extremely surprised and intrigued by the amount of courses, planning and training which went into each and every nonviolent protest, down to radio and communication checks, high visibility gear being provided and the solidarity and understanding of our united purpose. As a mantra that a coordinator told me at my first protest, ‘Remember, we don’t run, we walk with purpose’. And we continue to walk with purpose to protect the environment and the community that represents it.
We ask you to please vote with purpose and keep in mind you are protecting with your vote.
The last one I will read here at this juncture I can put a name to and that is from a Tasmanian called Philip Tapper (TBC). Philip writes this to us in his email:
I am in my 70th year, a retired health safety and environmental manager. I am familiar with the state and federal requirements for businesses to provide environmental approvals and management plans for particular projects they undertake. That the state and federal governments have given environmental approvals to MMG’s tailing dam works to date, current and proposed, astounds me. I have been to the Tarkine, seen the destruction of old growth forest for logging, road track building, and now for this proposed tailings dam. Yes, with other avenues achieving no respite, I have reluctantly protested against the destruction of this amazing forest by the foreign owned mining company MMG.
I have locked onto machinery and I have been arrested. All this has been done with the utmost care and attention to detail. Some examples: security guards were present on the access road and good mornings were exchanged – nothing more; protective mats were used to ensure no lock on equipment touched and damaged the machinery in any way; only a stationary, locked and inoperative – no-operator present – machine was the subject of my lock-on. My position on the machine was evaluated by myself and buddies. A chair was provided as were hot coffee and biscuits for the duration.
The police were courteous towards me as I was towards them. At no time did I approach, converse with or intimidate anyone; workers, security or police. Nor did I damage any contractor or police equipment. And as an OH&S professional with approximately 40 years, I believe the safety argument in relation to this proposed legislation is substantially a trumped up issue. There is more risk to these workers every day from their bush work environment and the machinery operations they undertake, than from peaceful protesters.
The real risk is to the ancient forest ecosystems, the flora and fauna, some of which the state and federal governments themselves acknowledge as being threatened with extinction. I was of the strong view that the MMG activity was illegal and my actions were purely aimed at stopping that activity on that particular day.
To stifle free speech further by the proposed amendments to current law is an over-reach. I am aware of escalations under current legislation by police as they lay more and more charges, and by the judiciary as they progressively increase fines and other penalties, nowhere near to the currently allowed maximum.
I respectfully request you oppose these legislative changes.
Ms WEBB – Madam Deputy President, those are examples of quite a flood of emails we received this week and in recent times about this bill, and are carefully, and thoughtfully, put together stories to share with us about people’s personal experience protesting.
I believe they assist to help in more fully understanding what the picture might be looking like out there, where these particular sorts of activities are occurring in the frontline of environmental protests. It is easy to have either outdated perceptions about what that might look like, or to make ready stereotypes about the sort of people that protest in those circumstances and about the way they might behave.
It is also easy to take anecdotal stories – which may or may not be current – and to assume that those are reflective of what is going on today. That would not be a full picture or a full understanding of the reality. We need to be fair in our understanding of that and the way that we are regarding it.
Moving on, the member for Hobart posed this question near the end of his contribution. What problem is this bill seeking to solve? That is a particularly interesting question and it is an essential one that we ask. Given that the High Court found that the Workplace (Protection from Protesters) Act 2014 was unconstitutional, the Government knows that it cannot be explicit in targeting protest activity outright in this bill. However, it is patently clear that it is protest activity that is squarely being targeted. I would like the Government to confirm if that is the case. If it wishes to claim otherwise, I would like it to put on record examples of activities or behaviours that are not protest related, which have been identified as needing to be addressed by this bill. Let us get them on the record here, in detail and with data on their frequency of occurrence and impact.
In the Government’s second reading speech, care is taken to barely mention the ‘p’ word – and certainly not when describing the apparent problem this bill purports to address. Instead of the ‘p’ word, on the first page of the Government’s second reading speech, we have descriptions of ‘unlawful interference’; the ‘actions of individuals and small groups’; ‘attempts to disrupt business activity’; ‘these actions’; ‘this behaviour’; ‘these types of activities’; and ‘unlawful activity’. All very coy and non-specific; but it is not acceptable to be coy about this.
Anytime the Government is proposing to expand offences and increase penalties by which the rights of its citizens may be curbed, it is incumbent on that Government to make a crystal-clear case. Three things are needed to make a crystal-clear case. The case must include an evidence-based demonstration of the problem that it seeks to address. There must be a demonstration that the proposed legislation provides an appropriate and effective solution or response to that problem. It must also be demonstrated that there will not be any detrimental or unintended consequences.
On that first point, that an evidence-based demonstration of the problem be presented, I note that the Government says this:
For some time now, businesses in Tasmania have been adversely impacted by the actions of individuals and small groups, and it remains an issue today.
Let us get this nice and clear. I will call on the Government now to quantify the issue, to justify those comments and assertions being made. How many instances have there been of businesses being impacted? How many instances have there been of worker injury or safety reports being made in relation to any of these instances? What actions have been taken in response to these documented incidences? In what way were the actions taken under existing laws insufficient in their response to those instances? What data is there on trend over time of these instances – any changes or trends from 2014 through to now, for example? Are we looking at the same issue now that we were looking at in 2014, or a different one?
We heard during a briefing from the Tasmanian Forest Products Association that during 2021, there were 20 instances of protest in forests that required a police presence. I think I am recalling that piece of information correctly, but I am happy to stand corrected. I am interested to know if this is an accurate number. What actions were taken in response to those instances? What charges were laid and penalties ultimately applied? In what specific ways were any actions taken under existing laws insufficient in their response on these instances? What data do we have on trends about these particular sorts of instances?
Picking up on the lack of evidence presented to us, the submission from Community Legal Centres on the draft version of this bill tells us – and I quote from page 4 of their submission:
It is not known how many protesters have obstructed a business or taken an action that caused a business to be obstructed. All unlawful entry with intent offences are captured in data collected by the Australian Bureau of Statistics which found that over the last year there was a 20 per cent decrease in the number of victims of unlawful entry with intent recorded in Tasmania. The data also noted that most unlawful entry with intent offences involved stolen property, 79 per cent of cases. Most offences occur in residential premises, 60 per cent of cases. As well, there has been a 133 per cent decline in unlawful entry with intent cases brought before the courts in Tasmania between 2008-2009 and 2020-2021. As a percentage of all offending, unlawful entry with intent cases brought before the courts in Tasmania has declined from 6.5 per cent of all offences to 3.9 per cent of all cases.
From that data, and in the absence of any data provided by the Government to support its assertions about these activities, I am prompted to ask why is there no evidence-based demonstration of this problem? It adds to the impression that this is an ideological exercise.
A further assertion from the Government in attempting to describe a problem here, is that, and I quote from the Government:
Importantly, there are also psychological impacts for people going about their daily work, who are confronted with these unlawful disruptions.
Again, I call on the Government. We have anecdotal stories of that, and I acknowledge those stories, but what do we have to present to us about the totality of that picture? How many instances of this type of impact have been reported, or captured in some way, in recent years, so we can understand the totality of that picture?
What response was made to any reported instances? In what way were responses made under existing laws shown to be insufficient? I am not asking these questions because I have any lack of empathy for people who may have been involved in those sorts of activities, and felt that impact. I am not disputing that some people have felt that negative psychological impact. I am interested that we construct a careful and evidence‑based picture of the problem we are seeking to solve here, so we can assess whether this bill is the right response to it.
A further assertion from the Government in attempting to pin down the problem this bill is responding to. The Government says this:
Of course, we also seek to protect those persons who foolishly place themselves, and often others, at risk in their attempts to disrupt business activity.
Again, I call on the Government to quantify that issue, to justify the comment being made.
How many instances of people putting themselves at risk have been reported and documented? What actions were taken in response to those instances under current arrangements? In what way were the actions taken in response, under existing laws, insufficient? In what way is this bill more protective than the existing laws of those people the Government is describing as foolish?
The Government has not provided a clear description of the problem to be addressed here, nor presented any evidence to support the extent or detail of the problem. In my view, that first criteria is a fail for the Government.
Given this, I would mention here the difficulty for us in assessing the nub of this issue without the Government providing us with an evidence‑based picture of it. Plainly, the central activities we are talking about are particular kinds of protest, especially in remote places, on worksites, and in particular, businesses.
All of us have heard vastly different stories in terms of these protest actions; assertions made from both sides of those encounters.
We have assertions put forward by the Government and others, about the actions of people engaging in protest. We have assertions from the Bob Brown Foundation categorically stating that it engages in nonviolent direct action.
It is difficult for us to make those assessments, and it is even more unfortunate that the Government have not provided us with an evidence‑based way to understand this problem, so that we can help navigate through those competing assertions.
It is hard for us even to assess what is being claimed in those assertions, if we are not fully understanding the terms, or the approaches that are being described. Some of those emails I read out begin to describe the approaches that are being taken by protesters. I asked for information from the Bob Brown Foundation about their approach to protest, to better understand what that was. I have no prior contact with them, so I have no idea about their approach.
I did receive some information from the Bob Brown Foundation which I would just like to make reference to here to help put on the record a better understanding, in some sense, about the claims being made, about the approach and attitude of protesters in some of these situations, at the centre of this bill.
I have a document here. It is a policy document on nonviolent, direct action. It says this:
This policy describes Bob Brown Foundation’s commitment to undertake all protests, events and public activities, following long-established principles of nonviolent direct action. This policy applies to all BBF employees, volunteers and contractors.
Policy
Bob Brown Foundation supports the right of all people to take part in peaceful protests and direct action to protect the national environment and affect positive change in society. All protests, public activities and events organised and conducted by the Bob Brown Foundation will always follow principles of nonviolent direct action. This policy includes violence towards people, animals and property. The Bob Brown Foundation will never support, or carry out violence, or damage to property or act that deny liberty, or freedom to leave an area. The Bob Brown Foundation will not carry out actions, or protests which knowingly cause fear, distress or humiliation to any individual who may be the subject of, or involved with the protest.
While protests or actions can evoke negative responses from individuals for a variety of reasons, our actions will never set out to provoke this response. Strategy, planning and conduct of all actions will seek to minimise this impact as far as possible. We believe that adhering to nonviolent methods is the only way to achieve our campaign goals. A strict policy of nonviolence is a tangible demonstration of our integrity and respect for others and is essential to maintaining the trust and respect of our supporters and the community. Participants in nonviolent direct action must be at least 16 years old.
That is the description there from this policy document of the approach taken and it is worth clarifying that on the record. In briefings from the foundation we had yesterday, we heard Jenny Weber take personal responsibility for the veracity of that approach and its application in the protest situations. I put that on the record not because I necessarily believe that some of the assertions being made about different sorts of behaviour are untrue, but we need to understand this is a complex picture and where you have an organisation clearly being targeted by this bill, in its actions, we have to give it the courtesy of understanding what their documented approach is, so we are not just making assumptions about how they operate and what people do under their name.
On the second page of this document is the nonviolent direct-action operating procedure and it describes a little bit more about that approach: (tbc)
All staff and volunteers are trained in nonviolent direct action and operate as peaceful environmental defenders. Before attending an action, each participant must complete the Bob Brown Foundation nonviolent direct‑action training. Every action includes trained police and site contractor liaison officers. The role of the liaison officer is to communicate the safety protocols of the action and what is planned and taking place at the action at any point in time. The liaison officers will always seek out for subjects of the protest to clearly explain who we are and what we are protesting on that day. One liaison officer is responsible for talking to the people on the site involved, reassuring them that no damage will be made to machines, infrastructure or people. The police liaison officer will be the single point of contact between the protesters and the police, explaining to the police the purpose and process of the action and ensuring clear, concise communication between police and protesters. The following protocols for actions are communicated to all participants who must agree to abide by them.
This is the list of the protocols they agree to abide by:
The safety of everyone involved in the action protesters and the subject of the protest is a priority. Remain calm. No running. No shouting. No physical contact. No intimidating attitudes. No aggression, physical or verbal. No humiliation. Everything is filmed for everyone’s safety. Hi-vis vests, site-appropriate clothing and closed shoes are compulsory. All climbers and those on the ground, near climbers, must wear helmets at all times. No one can climb, rig, or access a tree-sit until they have successfully completed a trained climbing program. If you are faced with a threatening situation do no respond with physical or verbal violence. Call the police as soon as possible.
I share that so we can have a clear understanding of the approach the foundation asserts it takes in its protest actions. That is really important and when we hear assertions made, we can then assume that is the case across the board in all cases, but what we are going to capture here with this bill is all those actions taking place out there, even those being undertaken under those parameters described in that document. It is important for us to realise those actions will be captured beyond the ones we might be assuming are taking place.
I note the Bob Brown Foundation also sent through to us a response to the paper we had been provided with by MMG. It is a really difficult thing and I made the point yesterday by interjection, we are not here to prosecute the merits one way or another of any particular situation or protest activity going on in the state at the moment. It is awkward that particular details about particular protests and the merits of that protest have come into this debate to some extent. That is not what this bill is about, we should not be forming our opinion on this bill based on the degree to which we might agree or otherwise with any particular protest action occurring or activity being undertaken that is prompting a protest action, either side of that. I found it difficult that sort of information has been brought into the debate and we are being provided with competing information about it. That is awkward and I have a particular difficulty if I feel one group of stakeholders is provided with greater opportunity to provide insight and access then others. I felt uncomfortable during briefing sessions when some sessions were held in camera, the content of which, largely, was not required to be in camera, which meant that other stakeholders who readily could normally sit in were not able to sit in.
Mrs Hiscutt – It is my role when these things are requested, anybody could have requested that and I would respect that.
Ms WEBB – Sure. It is unfortunate because those briefings are not on the record, we do not have a different way to hold them to account. We did have a party sitting in on these briefings remotely via video we actually were not made aware of at the beginning of the day. It was those parties that then provided further critique and briefing on the briefings of others. This is an issue we will have to discuss more as a Chamber in terms of how we deal with this. I know all members have received further information from the Bob Brown Foundation which was a response to the response from MMG to their briefing. I could seek to table that now. I do not believe it is relevant to this bill because as I said, the merits of particular activities by organisations and particular protest actions occurring in relation to those activities is not the essence of this bill. All members have those documents available and if there are members of the public who would like to see those documents, I am certainly prepared to share them.
I talked about three things that need to be done in relation to making a case for this bill. The first was identifying the problem to be solved which I do not believe has been effectively done. The second question or criteria, for a demonstration that the proposed legislation provides an appropriate or effective solution or response to the problem. The Government tells us this:
Our laws and penalties must clearly deter this behaviour and support people who are going about their lawful business
and further, it says –
We want to deter people from this aggravated, unlawful conduct that has such significant economic impact on businesses and workers in these sectors.
We have heard in some briefings from the legal fraternity that evidence does not support the idea that increasing penalties provides a higher level of deterrence. In relation to this, given a key intent of the Government is to deter people from certain activities, what evidence does the Government have that the laws and penalties presented in this bill provide a greater or more effective deterrence in relation to the specific behaviour being targeted? What has the sentencing pattern been in recent years, for example, in relation to current offences that are being used to address this behaviour? For the kinds of protest actions targeted by this bill that are currently occurring, what sentences are being handed down? Are courts consistently applying the available maximum sentences to indicate that these current behaviours are already being regarded as the most extreme iteration of current offences and sentence at the highest penalties currently available? Surely, if the current maximum sentences available are not being applied to current cases, we are not seeing then an indication from the courts that these maximums should be raised, for example, to allow for greater penalty either as greater punishment or deterrent. I do not know what this picture is. If the Government has the information, I am interested to hear it.
A great deal rests on the potential of this bill to act as deterrence in relation to very particular actions that are targeted by it. Every single industry group and business that we heard from in submissions and in briefings had this as their central measure of support for this bill: that it would stop or at least substantially reduce instances of problematic protest, as they see it, as a result of being a greater deterrence.
I think this is incredibly problematic. I hate to think that the Government has given these industry groups and businesses the impression that is the end that will be achieved by this bill. The Government certainly has not presented any evidence that is going to be the case and certainly cannot make any guarantees that will be the outcome of this bill. In fact, we have heard from numerous parties that it could very well have the opposite effect and that is quite tragic, that the Government may have given businesses and industries to believe that this will be an effective deterrent and will change patterns of behaviour at that very intense end of protest activity. There is nothing to tell us that will be the case.
Interestingly, one of the things that came up in briefings was the suggestion potentially that we cannot have it both ways. We cannot make an argument potentially that this will not be an effective deterrent, while also making the argument that it would have a chilling effect. I will talk about the chilling effect more later, others have mentioned it. I actually do not think that that is true. I do not think those two things are mutually exclusive at all. I think that this bill can be precisely that because the actions that would be impacted in both those very different ways, are entirely different actions.
What we are looking for, in terms of deterrence from this bill, from what I gather, is deterrence of those most urgent and extreme frontline protest actions that we have all heard described. There is nothing to tell us that bill will deter those actions. What we are talking about, in terms of a potential and likely chilling effect, is on the vast array of other sorts of protest activity that sit nowhere near that urgent and extreme end of things.
This bill on all expert advice that we have had, is likely to have a chilling effect on that category of protest activity, while at the very same time having absolutely little deterrent effect on the extreme end of protest activity. That is what we are hearing from experts as well. That is highly concerning because that is basically the polar opposite of what we would understand the intent of this bill to be.
Beyond deterrence, the Government states this bill is a commitment to workplace protection. The Australian Democracy Network says this bill does nothing to ensure workplace safety while doing everything to criminalise peaceful protest, and I would agree with that. There is nothing in this bill, as I mentioned earlier, its name is a lie, ‘Workplace Protection Bill’. There is nothing in this that actually offers greater protections as such in the workplace.
We have heard from others, including the member for Rumney in her contribution, that there are myriad workplace safety issues that are crying out to be addressed by this Government that were a priority for it. With the efficacy of this bill as a deterrent to those targeted actions seriously questionable, the Government’s claim that this bill is a commitment to workplace protections is spurious. In fact, it is odious, when there are genuine ways the Government could seek to de-escalate workplace protest actions but they are failing to pursue those things because they do not suit their ideological agenda.
The more we are talking about solving the problem, I have heard time and again in briefings and in contributions here, members asking, ‘If we don’t do this, what should do then?’ in regard to protesters disrupting businesses, especially in remote locations. I find that really understandable as a response. It is understandable that those whose livelihoods are affected by this kind of protest action, would feel frustrated and would want it to stop. It is highly understandable that some here who represent communities that are the most common locations for those protests would want to be able to do something to assist members of their community being affected in that way.
Quite simply and categorically, this bill will not make it stop. We know that the state cannot outlaw specific types of protest. The High Court would not have a bar of that. So, I believe the only answer is to look at what is driving protest activity and for the Government to take leadership to work constructively to de-escalate it. We have seen that leadership in the past result in improvement. This is an option that the Government has before it right now, but it is choosing not to pursue.
I believe that rather than squash protest out through increased charges and penalties – or at least attempt to do so – which we know will not work, the Government should be engaging more constructively with the issues that are driving the urgency of these protesters.
In her contribution, the member for Murchison raised structural matters that could also be addressed and suggested that if the environmental legislation protecting places is not adequate, then we should try to fix that. I can assure the member for Murchison, the NGOs and others are engaged in trying to do exactly that, at both a state and federal level.
We all know, very clearly, that law reform is not a quick business. Advocates for law reform count their campaign periods in years and decades, not months. Advocates for environmental law reform are up against some of the most financially powerful, politically connected industries in this country. It is a protracted David and Goliath fight to work for positive change on environment law reform.
So, in the meantime, while the law reform is being worked on at a structural level, these groups and advocates also protest at the frontline to protect and preserve. It is not one or the other. It is generally both happening concurrently. At the same time, I would think there is probably a third tranche of more general community engagement and protest that happens through less intense forms of protest activity like petitions, marches or rallies in capital cities or engaging with education through discussion and community engagement.
All those things happen concurrently, but we cannot just snap our fingers and fix structural issues to hope that those urgent frontline actions will stop and go away when the people undertaking them passionately and firmly believe that they are preserving and protecting something that would otherwise be gone. As we would all understand, once some of these areas are gone, that is it, there is no getting them back. Once a species is pushed to extinction, that is it, no getting them back.
In terms of the many people we have been hearing from this week who have participated in these frontline forest preservation actions, I am sure there is nothing more that most of them would wish for than to stand down because successful law reform had occurred at a state and federal level and greater protections were in place at a structural level.
I understand members here wanting to take action, especially on behalf of their communities, which are the site interactions between protesters, businesses and workers. But it would be wrong to legislate from a sense of frustration and a sense that we need to feel like we are doing something.
Passing this bill is a fruitless action to take in delivering an actual outcome for change to those particular protest situations. It risks other negative impacts on our broader community, whose rights we are also here to represent.
Which brings us to that third consideration in assessing this bill. In that third criteria, it must be demonstrated there will not be any detrimental, unintended consequences beyond what we could expect to be acceptable. The Human Rights Law Centre has made an argument that this bill is likely to chill the democratic right to protest, which is a vital part of democratic accountability.
We saw in the open letter from that broad range of civil society groups, this statement: (tbc)
The Tasmanian Government’s claim that it will not put in place anything that will limit lawful protesting is simply not true, when these anti‑democratic, anti‑protest laws do just that.
And again, from the same open letter.
The state Government’s proposed anti‑protest laws are undemocratic and unnecessary. These laws, if passed, will silence communities from having their voices heard.
Also, from TasCOSS in their submission on the draft of this bill, said: (tbc).
The bill may have a chilling effect on legitimate and lawful protest activity which could have a significant impact on the entire Tasmanian community, which could easily result in confusion and concern about whether legitimate protest activities are lawful.
The Community Legal Centres, in their submission, on the draft version of this bill, said: (tbc).
In our opinion the proposed amendment is likely to have a chilling effect on the right to peacefully protest, particularly spontaneous protests that occur without a police permit, with some members of the community unlikely to protest for fear of being charged.
Let us remember it can be any or every member of our community that may find themselves in a situation that prompts them to engage in protest. The member for McIntyre made this point very clearly in her contribution:
This is normal and common. It is an important way that we hold Government and decision‑makers to account through protest.
Government decision‑making, sadly, is not always reflective of community views, nor does it always include appropriate consultation with community to enable community voices to be heard and considered.
We have regularly seen Government decisions made and rushed through this place. We have even seen legislation passed which allows Government decision‑making processes, that would otherwise have appropriate community consultation built into them, to be fast‑tracked and community consultation to be dispensed with.
In these circumstances it is not uncommon that we see communities turn to protest actions to have their voices heard and to try to curb fast‑tracked processes, to try to change decisions that have been made.
The one that sprung to my mind was the Westbury community in recent years, and the member for McIntyre pointed out a potential opportunity there when changes to the Ashley Youth Detention Centre site become.
Ms Rattray – Once we get an understanding as a community, what is proposed for the area, and I would like to think the Government is still considering some other model other than just a straight‑out replica of the Risdon Prison.
Ms WEBB – Indeed, either way, depending on how Government goes about making its decision, is going to largely frame‑up how that community may respond. If it is something where the community feels they have not been heard, or have not had an opportunity to have their say, they may well turn to protest activity.
It is not just those protesters at whom the Government has primarily targeted this bill, who will be captured by it. This bill restricts democratic expression through protest of all Tasmanians. The changes in this bill and the heightened penalties will act to chill the availability of protest action for regular Tasmanians and local communities. In situations where it does not chill that action, it will expose those regular Tasmanians and local communities to heavy‑handed charges and penalties.
For many Tasmanians, leading regular lives in our local communities, the right to protest may not be one they have need to call on. But if this bill is passed in the immediate future, they also may not notice the detriment it might bring to their right to protest. It is likely many will not notice until potentially, one day they wake up and find they need to make themselves heard in relation to a Government decision, just like we have seen happen to communities in the past. Westbury, case‑in‑point.
Further to that, a point made by TasCOSS, in its submission. Actually, before I move onto that, I ask the Government what consideration has been given and what quantifiable assessment has been made of their expectation of the risk of this bill to chilling protest across the community in Tasmania.
Further to that, the point made by TasCOSS in its submission on the draft is this: (tbc)
Protests and demonstrations are particular significant for those members of our community who may be excluded from traditional law reform mechanisms and can provide opportunities for inclusive community debate and political expression.
And they say further,
TasCOSS is extremely concerned about the potential for the bill to discourage citizens from engaging in peaceful, legitimate protest for fear or confusion about the lawfulness of this conduct.
Because of the mention by TasCOSS of the fact marginalised people are sometimes most in need of being able to protest as they do not have access to law reform mechanisms and access to government decision making, I would like to read a piece of correspondence, but I will not put a name to, but it is from a member of the Tasmanian Aboriginal community and this is what they wrote to us: (tbc)
I’m writing to urge to vote against the anti-protest bill tomorrow. As a member of the Tasmanian Aboriginal community, I know that protesting is the only mechanism we have to represent ourselves. It is the only mechanism through which we have achieved a Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, land return across lutruwita, saving the resting places of our ancestors, the changing laws to help our people.
People who are born with automatic privilege, I am talking about not having to fight racism, sexism, health and education restrains, inter-generational trauma, et cetera, you may not fully understand the loss we continue to bear and the severe impact it has on our collective and individual social, mental, and physical wellbeing.
We have to fight to gain the tiniest amounts of what we have lost since invasion. We do not have any representation in government, we do not have a voice, we do not have the opportunity to really have our say. You can only do this through protest. Would you really remove the last way for us to be heard as a community? I worked for years in government and I know how inauthentic and meaningless consultation really is.
I am an engagement and communication specialist. I have been ignored and beaten down, so that the community’s voice, not just the Aboriginal community, is drowned out by economics. Well, economics can improve without ignoring people, through fair and transparent engagement can work to the benefit of all, to find the right solutions that are equitable and do not destroy the oldest continuing culture on earth.
I understand you may want to prevent loss of earnings for people in business, but we have lost our land, our heritage, our culture, our language, our people. When will it end? You and those businesses will not lose much at all through protest. You can only gain in the end by collaborative and constructive partnerships that will offer you social licence and more sustainable ways of working and succeeding.
Please, please vote this down.
It is important to highlight the different sorts of impact this bill might have on different sections of our community. I was pleased to receive that communication from a member of the Tasmanian Aboriginal community to remind me of that.
We have heard very clearly from the union movement it does not support this bill, because it risks capturing a range of activities and actions its members regularly engage as part of advocating for change and protecting their rights. Unions regard this bill as detrimental to workers’ rights overall. Others have read into the record here the communications from various unions we have received articulating this quite clearly.
Social services in our community regard this bill as a risk to already marginalised groups. Civil society organisations regard this bill as an unacceptable limitation on the rights of all citizens. The likelihood of detrimental impacts from this bill, beyond its central intend to curve the specific types of protests, is well articulated and cannot be dismissed. On that basis the third criteria are also a fail for the Government.
The Government has said and I quote from the second reading speech:
Several other jurisdictions have taken the necessary step of introducing legislation to curve these types of activities.
From that, I take it to mean that Government seeks to imply that this legislation is simply aligning us with other states and the Commonwealth in some manner. It is, however, doing nothing of the sort. The various legislation from other jurisdictions is all particular to circumstances in those jurisdictions. Many are highly controversial and significantly opposed in the community, as this bill is, and some are likely to face challenges in the High Court, and are yet untested on that level. The laws in other jurisdictions referred to by the Government do not sanction this Tasmanian bill and it is misleading of the Government to suggest that they do. Overall, to try to paint this bill as being a straightforward way of bringing us into alignment with some national approach on this issue is simply misleading.
I will move on to speak about some specific issues with this bill. We are given to understand by the Government that the bill does not present us with new offences or police powers. It is a simpler framework. It clarifies the law of trespass and public order offences making them more readily understood and enforced. It applies equally to all persons and businesses. It gives the court the ability to give higher sentences, if appropriate, for more serious conduct. That is the overview we are provided with about this bill. I acknowledge that the Australian Lawyers Alliance says, yes, this approach is more appropriate than the previous attempt; but that group still has significant concerns on the detail of this bill. Some of those I will make reference to as I pick up a few points throughout the bill.
The bill seeks to make changes to section 13 of the Police Offences Act 1935 around the matters of public annoyance. I note the Government has indicated its intention to put forward amendments to this clause, so my comments will relate to the bill as it is presented to us, with then some reference to the proposed amendments that we understand the Government is bringing.
The bill inserts a new element into section 13(1) of ‘unreasonably obstruct the passage of vehicles or pedestrians on a street’. The Government has confirmed that this conduct can already be charged under section 13, and it can also be charged under the Road Rules 2019. In general, my understanding is that it is not good practice to introduce new offences already captured under existing laws and in fact the legislature should be actively seeking to ensure new laws are not duplicating existing offences.
It is interesting the term ‘unreasonable obstruction’ has been incorporated from both the road rules and other offences. The Government tells us that obstruction would be understood to apply to ‘substantial or serious’ obstruction and the Government has flagged further amendments to this part of the bill to make this explicit. I understand that under the amendment they wish to bring, it would read, ‘unreasonable and substantial obstruction for the passage of vehicles or pedestrians on a street,’ or did I get that round the wrong way? Those two elements would be there. The Government has done this in recognition of the fact that there were considerable issues raised in relation to this clause. They have acknowledged the validity of those issues in bringing this amendment to their own bill and they are attempting to fix it on the fly. I find this very concerning. This is an admission from the Government that they got it wrong. Unfortunately, I believe that the amendment they are proposing to make does not fully deal with all the concerns that were raised relating to this clause.
Mrs Hiscutt – Mr President, is this not a discussion for the Committee stage?
Ms WEBB – I am touching lightly on matters through the bill and in fact my notes at various points as I go through say, ‘to be discussed in detail at the Committee stage,’ so –
Mr PRESIDENT – Yes, if you can keep it as broad as possible and then save the detail for the Committee stage.
Ms WEBB – Indeed. I note that others have had the leeway to make mention of some specific aspects of parts of the bill, so I will try to do that in the most appropriate way possible. Looking at the bill before us, I note comments from the Australian Lawyers Alliance in its submission on the draft bill. They said:
Whilst the Australian Lawyers Alliance welcomes the approach taken in the drawing of the bill, in that it represents a jurisprudentially composed effort at amending the act, the ALA holds significant concerns about the uncertainty attendant to the offences under the proposed section 13 of the act.
Further, they said:
It therefore appears to the ALA that the paragraph (b)(ea) would, in the first instance, cover conduct already captured.
They raised question about vagueness of terminology used and they are, as the Leader has rightly pointed out, all of the matters that no doubt we will go into in greater detail during Committee stage of the bill, if the bill arrives there.
The point that the ALA is making, in broad terms, is that a lack of clarity is detrimental to people when they are trying to interpret and understand what a law is about and how it might apply to them. They go on in their submission to say:
It is undesirable for a person not to know whether or not their intended conduct amounts to an offence until after they are charged and a court has reached a decision about the reasonableness of such conduct; and further, the ALA, therefore, considers the additional limb of the paragraph offers certainty to the extent that it duplicates a range of conduct covered by existing limbs of section 13(1). Beyond the compass of those limbs, however, it offers only uncertainty.
I am pointing out these aspects around the broad criticisms made of aspects of this bill because it goes to providing an explanation as to whether ,or not, and in what ways I can support or not support the bill, which is relevant to my second reading contribution.
Mr President, it is an important consideration. Citizens need to be able to understand what constitutes unlawful activity. When deciding whether to engage in an activity, how will citizens be able to assess whether it will constitute an unreasonable and substantial obstruction? What criteria will they apply? Where will they find that documented? It is going to be a situation that citizens grapple with, which is what will contribute to, what we are led to believe, is that chilling effect, which is a major concern raised.
Another major concern raised by some expert stakeholders during consultation on this draft bill was the potential unintended impact on others. We had numerous groups, such as TasCOSS and Community Legal Centres, concerned about the way this particular aspect ‑ which is in clause 4 of our bill, may well flow on to impact people who utilise public space and are known to be impacted more significantly by laws associated with public space than you or I might be impacted. This is what the Community Legal Centre said in their submission on the draft bill:
We note that the research demonstrates that people experiencing poverty and homelessness are more likely to be charged with public annoyance offences. Significantly increasing the maximum fine is likely to have a disproportionate impact on disadvantaged members of our community.
My assertion is that, yes, no doubt the Government would say that will depend on the circumstances but when it comes to public space, it has to be much clearer than that. We have to make sure that it is not going to disproportionately affect already marginalised Tasmanians. To further criminalise the use of public space as a response to potential uncertainty in terms when a person may be charged with existing offences is a disproportionate response to this issue. I consider that public space provision goes beyond the stated objective of this act.
I am also interested because, from what I can gather in the briefings and from understanding what we are trying to address with this particular provision in clause 4 ‑ and perhaps the Government can confirm this for me – I have the impression that this provision is essentially being created to allow a more –
Ms WEBB – In a broad way I was reflecting on one element of the bill in terms of how I regard my support of it. I have concerns relating to the change that is proposed in clause 4 to section 13 of the principal act. I feel concerned that what we appear to be doing, in including new elements there, is looking for one possible opportunity to enable arrest of protesters on a handful of remote roads, which are the site of protest actions. Really, there is not much else that is intended to be captured by that change. It concerns me that we would put a change in place for what would seem such a narrow apparent purpose, when it can have a much broader impact beyond that. It goes along with my concerns about the broad impact that might come from the bill, regardless of what certain intentions might be behind it.
I will talk briefly on further elements of the bill because, as has been pointed out, we will be going into them in detail in the Committee stage. The elements that are proposed in clause 5, which relate to section 14B of the Police Offences Act, adding elements to provide for aggravated trespass to be linked to various sorts of activities, as many others have discussed in their contributions. I am concerned about these aspects as well. In a similar way, I feel there is a lack of clarity around these proposed additions. I feel there is an issue around language being imprecise in them, and intention being imprecise in them.
The Community Legal Centres, in their submission on the draft bill, quoted further from the ACT Guide for Framing Offences. This is the quote they included in their submission:
Aggravated offences should be used very sparingly and carefully considered.
The Community Legal Centres also noted that in the High Court, Brown v Tasmania, it was made clear that a compelling justification is required by legislators where a heavy burden on the implied freedom of political communication is proposed. Aggravated offences that might impose into that space are going to have to be carefully considered in this context.
We heard from many groups who contacted us that the sorts of maximum penalties that are being aligned with these proposed new aggravated elements to the offence of trespass are disproportionate, and they are concerned about the impacts these may have. We have the first of these inclusions being focused on obstruction when trespass is committed, and there are significant penalties available for obstructing a business or undertaking – in fact, double the standard penalty for trespass, the same as aggravated penalty for trespassing in a home or with a firearm.
I think there are broad questions around these inclusions. Are each of them necessary? Would they actually provide outcomes that the Government is seeking? I think we have an open question there, as we do with the whole bill. It is questionable whether it would deliver the intentions the Government is seeking, which is a deterrence to particular kinds of behaviour.
We need to ask ourselves, are these necessary? We also need to ask ourselves, are they framed clearly enough? When we get to the Committee stage, if we do get to Ccommittee stage, we will be able to interrogate that in more detail. I note that many submissions on the draft bill raised questions about the clarity of the way these are framed.
With the second of those new inclusions where you are committing a trespass, and then the second one, where you are causing directly or indirectly a serious risk to the safety of yourself or another person, similar concerns are raised around the lack of clarity of the terms ‘directly’ or ‘indirectly’, and what would constitute a ‘serious risk’ to the safety of yourself or others.
The penalty units there are very significant. Many questions have been raised by stakeholders on this inclusion, and no doubt we will get to the bottom of some of those during the Committee stage. I am particularly interested to explore the parameters – or to what extent the protesters could be held responsible for people they have no direct contact with, and did not directly affect with their actions. That degree of connection will, no doubt, be one question we will need to tease out.
The third new inclusion around aggravating circumstances for trespass is, as some others have commented on, in relation to the body corporate committing a trespass, and in doing so obstructing a business or undertaking. This is an interesting one. It is a very large penalty. In fact, I believe it is 24 times higher than a simple trespass penalty, and I think higher than any other penalty in the Police Offences Act, but I stand to be corrected on that.
It is quite extraordinary, and groups like TasCOSS expressed concern about it being unclear how a body corporate might commit the offences, and the lack of clarity compounding what would seem a disproportionality and excessiveness of the penalty. That would be interesting to understand more about. We have had some information during briefings on how this might operate; I do not want to speak for the Government in trying to explain it. No doubt they will be able to do that themselves when asked to do so in a Committee stage.
Again, there is a lot of opportunity here for lack of clarity, and some confusion as to how it would be applied. I have pretty serious reservations about each of these elements that introduce these opportunities for aggravated trespass to be charged.
Mr President, I said before in this place, and I reiterate now, that it is important to remember that we cannot conveniently divide people into two camps, with workers on one side, and protesters on the other. It is politically convenient to divide people into us and them, to pitch people against each other, but the right to protest extends to all citizens – and many if not most citizens will engage with that right at some point in their lives, or someone close to them will, no doubt.
We had some other contributions from unions, and I note one came in during the lunchbreak speaking about workers. I am going to read in the communication that we received just recently from the Health and Community Services Union so that becomes part of the record here in the view of that union representing many very valuable workers in this state. It reads (TBC):
Honourable members of the Legislative Council
It is with great concern and urgency that I write to you today to request that the Police Offences Amendment (Workplace Protection) Bill 2022 be abandoned.
As secretary of the Health and Community Services Union, HACSU, it is my primary duty to defend our 9000 members from dangerous work conditions, unsustainable workloads, inadequate remuneration and insecure employment. The Legislative Council is considering this bill at a time when the Tasmanian health care and community systems are reeling from over a decade of inadequate resourcing and policy shortcomings, the cumulative effects of which became abundantly apparent due at the onset of the COVID‑19 health emergency.
Whilst our entire society suffers from the consequences of government failures, it is our members who actively suffer the immediate frontline stresses of service provision to vulnerable Tasmanians. These members are increasingly frustrated by the intransigence of government when meaningful reform is required and demanded and wish to expand their capacity to organise and exercise their right to protest on and around worksites, many of which are not covered by the so-called protected industrial action provisions.
Furthermore, as rightly identified by members of the Legislative Council, successive Tasmanian governments have failed to address community concerns about environmental and heritage protection and management, inequitable market constructs and inequitable social practices. Instead of demonstrating collaborative leadership, governments have employed politically divisive legislative measures and proposals that further polarise the Tasmanian community. This practice must come to an end.
This bill is another such divisive measure. No degree of amendment changes that fact. Therefore it must be voted down. Governments must focus legislative efforts on collaboratively addressing community concerns and frustrations which lead to protests, rather than increasing penalties for acts already covered by existing provisions in the Police Offences Act and the Criminal Code. We at HACSU are very willing to be part of collaborative approaches and I intend to write to the Premier and heads of agencies to discuss this is in greater detail.
Yours sincerely
Tim Jacobson, State Secretary
23 June 2022
I agree with many of the sentiments in that correspondence from HACSU. As expressed in that correspondence, I feel that no degree of amendment to this bill makes it appropriate legislation to be supported in this Chamber. I know I have flagged with members potential amendments for this bill. I have considered those amendments on the basis of requests from outside advocates and groups from the civil society groups that have been interacting with us about their concerns on the bill. I reserve my right to bring those amendments, if and when we get to the Committee stage, but I do not necessarily believe that, even if all were going to get through, they would make this a redeemable bill.
It may well be that I choose not to bring those amendments after all when we get to that point. I am just trying to be upfront and on the record at this point in time about my overall broad feeling about this bill. Protest, as we have just heard, does not happen in a vacuum. It is a product of its social and political environment. Any escalation of protest action can be linked to what is occurring in the social and political environment around it. We need to look for effective ways to address any intensification of protest by bringing people together, not driving them further apart.
Put simply, the Government has not effectively identified and established that there is a problem here that needs to be solved beyond remedies available. The Government has not demonstrated that this bill as a proposed solution will address the ambiguous apparent problem, and independent experts have reliably warned us that this bill will have broader consequences and a chilling effect on citizens here in our state.
I agree with the assessment of the Australia Institute in its submission on this draft bill. The bill continues to preference the ability of businesses to carry out work over the right of people to protest by giving broad powers to police to arrest peaceful protesters and imposing harsh penalties. I also agree with the Human Rights Law Centre that this bill is not necessary or proportionate, nor does it contain robust safeguards and oversight needed to protect against misuse.
Finally, I concur with the recommendation of TasCOSS in its submission. It is a thoughtful recommendation and it was this:
That the Tasmanian Government engage in further consultation to adequately identify the needs of businesses and workers and to present these findings to the community before proceeding with any further attempts to legislate in relation to these issues.
We make this recommendation in light of the importance of the freedom of political expression and the significant detrimental effect any limitation of this right may have on our community.
On that note, I conclude my remarks and state that as this bill is before us, as a responsible legislator, I cannot support the bill.
See more of Meg’s legislation speeches
