To:
Ms Archer, Ms Armitage, Mr Bacon, Mr Best, Mr Booth, Mr Brooks, Mr Dean, Mr Farrell, Mr Ferguson, Mr Finch, Ms Forrest, Mr Gaffney, Ms Giddings, Ms Goodwin, Mr Green, Mr Groom, Mr Gutwein, Mr Hall, Mr Harriss, Mr Hidding, Ms Hiscutt, Mr Hodgman, Mr McKim, Mr Mulder, Mr Morris, Ms O’Byrne, Mr O’Byrne, Ms O’Connor, Mr O’Halloran, Mrs Petrusma, Mr Polley, Ms Rattray, Mr Rockliff, Mr Shelton, Mr Sturges, Ms Taylor, Mr Valentine, Ms White, Mr Wightman and Mr Wilkinson …
6th August 2013
Dear Tasmanian State Parliamentarians,
Open letter in support of free speech and reform in Tasmania,
I write to ask that you do not rely on the existence of discussion and protest in the community as a basis to rescind forest reserves currently before Parliament. Such an approach would set Tasmania back by diminishing the principle of free speech but also, at a practical level, setting the bar to reform in this State impossibly high.
As you are well aware, the Tasmanian Forests Agreement Act 2013 enables either House of Parliament to make a determination that there has been protest in the Tasmanian community and that proposed forest reserves should not proceed as a result.
Put another way, the Act enables you as a Parliamentarian to require a total uniformity of position amongst conservationists before proposed reserves become a reality. This situation represents a new approach to implementing reform and begs two questions for you as a Parliamentarian and leader in our community to consider:
1. Do you want to direct Tasmania down a path where silence in the community is a prerequisite before reform can proceed and be implemented?
2. Is it good democratic process to hinge the success of a reform on punishment for anyone who speaks out in protest?
I hope your answer to both of these questions is ‘no’. Tasmania is a democracy where freedom of thought and freedom of speech are fundamental principles of great importance. We don’t live in a society where 100% of all people will agree with decisions taken by government. Disagreements in the community, and public debate, are to be expected: they are what makes society stronger. Parliamentarians might disagree with what people say, and with how they say it, but Civil Liberties Australia would expect Parliamentarians of all parties and persuasions to defend Tasmanian’s right to freedom of speech.
What Tasmanians want from our Parliamentarians is an ability to listen to all sides of a debate and make a decision, as opposed to relying on the existence of debate as a reason to block reform.
If we do go down the path of requiring silence as a prerequisite to reform we not only undermine free speech but we also risk holding Tasmania back from ever undertaking reform in the future.
It is worth considering how this new precedent would operate for other issues outside forestry, such as mining or the Tasmanian public service.
– Looking at mining: if communities in the north-west of the State continue to rally against the government decision to name the north-west as ‘the Tarkine’, will Parliament vote to repeal mining leases previously issued by the Minister for the region?
– Looking at our public service: if public servants take stop work action to rally for wage rises greater than the Government is willing to provide, would Parliament be entitled to rescind other public sector reforms such as paid maternity leave?
Clearly these examples are not the kind of Tasmania any of us want to live in. They would represent a society where those who speak out and exercise their right to free speech risk having other reforms they care about taken away from them.
I would be very interested to meet with you at any stage to discuss this important issue further.
In conclusion, I urge you to not rescind forest reserves because community discussion continues to occur. Tasmania faces many challenges and reform must be on the minds and the agendas of our Parliamentarians. I encourage you to listen the views in the community but embrace the reform we need.
Yours sincerely,
Richard Griggs,
Tasmanian Director for Civil Liberties Australia
www.cla.asn.au
• Jenny Webber, in Comments: Finally a sensible contribution to this very important issue. Too many people who need to have thought better than diminishing the principle of freedom of speech, have dragged this debate to new lows. Thank you Civil Liberties Australia and thank you Tasmanian Times for giving this air.
