Transcript of Clark candidates forum hosted by The Australia Institute at Hobart Town Hall, 27 April 2021.
Lisa Gershwin
Okay, this might have been a mistake putting me first, sorry. So let me make a confession: I am the least political person you could ever hope to meet in your life. I’m a research scientist, I work on jellyfish. But I’m also a few other things. I was born on the autism spectrum. And that doesn’t go away when you grow up. So I am still autistic, I always will be. As such, I’ve been bullied, I’ve been discriminated. I’m not here to complain about those things. I’m just here to say that, you know, I’ve experienced some pretty negative things relating to my disability. I also have been suffering from depression and PTSD. So I’ve had to deal with a mental health system that’s utterly broken, completely broken, it’s hard to get the care. (applause) Thank you, it’s hard to get the care that people like me need, the system is broken.
And in addition to those, I’ve been homeless, and you might not think of a doctor, I’m a doctor, not a medical doctor. I mean, I can heal the bones of jellyfish, but that’s about it. But you know, I am a PhD and you don’t think of a PhD that spent seven and a half years as a research scientist at CSIRO as being homeless, but this is what homeless people look like. I have been homeless in Tasmania for 18 months, in Launceston and Hobart. The reason I share these things with you is so that you can appreciate I am not a normal candidate for parliament. I’m not like other parliamentary candidates. I’m human. I hurt. I have hopes. I have dreams and they’ve been shot to shit. Pardon my French. So thank you. So you get to a point where you decide you wake up one morning and you say you know what? I’m going to have to either stand up and shout or I’m going to have to sit down and shut up. So I’m standing. I’m Lisa Gershwin, and I’m running for parliament.
Jax Ewin
I’d like to work acknowledge of pay my respects to Aboriginal elders past, present and emerging. My name is Jax Ewin. I am a small business owner, I operate a florist in Sandy Bay and a queer cafe Hairy Legs. I’m also currently sitting member of Hobart City Council. I’m a queer, non binary feminist, I have a degree in social political science and philosophy. I hope to do further study one day, but I’m a kind of a little bit busy at the moment. I’ve also been homeless, in and around Hobart, and right across Australia, as a child, and also as an adolescent. And as an adult, escaping family violence. These are all issues that are really, really close to my heart. And I’m standing as an independent candidate, because I believe that only independents really can represent the community truly, that they’re from. I’m standing for complete transparency. I have a website. And on that website, I’m listing every single donation that is cash or in kind in real time, because, you know … and that they’re few and far between. But I think you know, it’s the principle of the thing. And I think that’s really important. I’m standing because I want to fix the housing crisis. I think both major parties have really led us down in that area. You know, the Liberals’ promise to deliver less than half of the social and public housing needs for our community is just pathetic.
I’m also standing because I want to see a Human Rights Act for Tasmania. I think that will give us the legal framework to, you know, provide the housing and the education and the health, including mental health needs, of our community, as well as the environmental protections that our precious places deserve. I think that’s all I really want to say. I’m not going to stick around for the entire night because I have to go work at six o’clock tomorrow morning. And I’m already very tired. But I will let you know that in case there are questions you do want to ask that I can’t answer tonight. I’m actually running an Ask-me-anything event on Facebook at the moment. So you can send me a text or an email with your comment on the event. And I’m answering all of those questions publicly and in real time, because I think total transparency is what we as a community deserve. It’s what you deserve from us as candidates. And that’s what I’m completely committed to. So thank you for listening.
Tim Westcott
Hi, I’m Tim Westcott and I’m the Animal Justice Party candidate for Clark. I joined the Animal Justice Party because it’s the only party in Australian politics that takes the plight of non-human animals seriously. When the party suggested I stand, I was hesitant at first because unlike some of the people that I’m running against, I’m not a professional politician. As I’m sure you can tell. I realised that we’ve got enough professional politicians in the Tasmanian House of Assembly. And what we don’t have is animal advocates. Non-human animals are usually an afterthought in the legislative process, if they’re thought about at all, and I want to see that change. So if I’m elected, I’ll work with whichever party forms government to ensure that non-human animals are considered in all legislation that will impact them, and push for changes that will help non-human animals and the humans who care for them. So this will include combating the climate emergency by accelerating the transition away from climate destructive industries, and protecting and restoring carbon-absorbing forests and marine environments. I’ll also protect the animal and human victims of domestic violence by making it easier for domestic violence victims to remain with their animals, and ensuring harm or threats to harm to domestic animals, by perpetrators of domestic violence, are treated as acts of domestic violence.
I hope to protect Tasmania’s unique wildlife by improving anti roadkill measures and ending the hunting of native wildlife, and rapidly phasing out intensive factory farming and outlawing the routine mutilation of animals. We’ve already started to see some pro-animal changes happen in New South Wales Victoria where Animal Justice Party MPs have been elected. And it’s absolutely possible to get an AGP MP elected in Tasmania too. Whether it happens in this election is ultimately in the hands of voters but I sincerely believe that it will happen before too long. Even in this very short election campaign, we’re seeing issues involving animals come to the fore. Numerous allegations of wrongdoing have been levelled against Tasmania’s largest dairy farm, which has in the past being a significant political donor. And in just the last week, we saw the publishing of Richard Flanagan’s high profile book savaging the salmon farming industry. And this book is on track to become one of the best-selling books in Tasmania’s history. On both of these issues, the response from our elected representatives has been silence, doubling down on the support of these industries, and dodging the mistreatment of animals that sits at the core of these issues. The people and the animals of Tasmania deserve better.
Sue Hickey
Good evening, everyone. I’m Sue Hickey. I too am acknowledging our first nations people, elders past, present and emerging. I guess I’m standing as an independent member of Clark, because my work is not finished in Clark, and I won’t be able to hold the government account. During my time and government, I saw many things that absolutely appalled me, and that I found totally unacceptable. And that’s probably why they sacked me. As to being a professional politician, I don’t think I was particularly good at it. Because inside I tried and tried, I think I’ve fought every single day of the last three years to make that government more accountable and transparent, and even decent. One of my greatest challenges was trying to get the government to show heart on homelessness, mental illness, and getting people through the health system. And there were many times where I had to beg and plead and send emails and photos and really challenge them, you know. I said to both premiers, ‘if you can’t look at it with your heart please look at it with your wallet, because it’s just costing us a fortune in social injustice’. I spent over 30 years in the small business world where I employed lots of Tasmanians. As a mature student I went back to uni and got an MBA. I was a Telstra businesswoman in 2007.
I’m not telling you this, to brag. I’ve been a Lord Mayor, I’ve been an alderman, I’ve been a director of large companies and not-for-profits. I’m a strong believer in lifelong learning. I’ve been a Speaker of the House, a Member for Clark since 2018. I’ve have had nearly 40 years of working for charity, including Rotary. I am a hard worker, I have an enormous sense of justice, and justice for all. And I’m a believer also that we need greater diversity in our parliament. There are many things that have been on my watch that I have been sick about. But one of the best things I saw was the debate that went on with the dying-with-dignity legislation. And this was because the parliament had a genuine conscience vote. And people could actually speak freely and participate in the debate and fight strongly for their beliefs, whether it was against or for. So I am a very big believer in that majority government is dangerous for Tasmania. It hasn’t worked. (applause). Thank you. It hasn’t worked. It’s failed us. And I think the fact that the Liberals didn’t even have the grunt to show up to you guys and be accountable says everything about them.
Vica Bayley
I’ll echo my acknowledgement of the traditional owners of the country here and pay my respects. My name is Vica Bayley the Greens number two candidate for Clark. Cassy O’Connor is the number one candidate and sends her apologies. She’s at a women’s forum tonight so I’m here in her stead. I grew up in a sheep farming family at Sorell. I’ve worked as a property valuer, as a teacher, but probably most known for working alongside the political system over the last 20 years in the environment movement. And I guess in that position I’ve seen firsthand the obfuscation, the deceit, the secrecy that’s become a hallmark of government and politics in Tasmania, whether it be pokies, whether it be RTI legislation, whether it be Lake Malbena, whether it be firearms, you know, there’s endless lists of problems. ABS data shows that participation in civic and political groups is down from 12.8% in 2014 to 12.2% in 2019. Trust and satisfaction in politics is way down. Apathy. There’s a there’s a paper called The Apathy Country: 20% of voters are uninterested, 25% are not interested in elections, and get this, a full third of voters don’t care who wins. Okay, so that comes from a paper called The Apathy Country which got me thinking about The Lucky Country, the book by Donald Horne. There’s a famous phrase in there, The Lucky Country, we all think that’s about sunshine and great bounty and so forth. But if you read the full quote, of The Lucky Country, Donald Horne writes, “Australia is a lucky country run mainly by second rate people who share in its luck. You know, doesn’t that sum it up here in Tasmania? (applause)
I’ve worked parallel to the political process and I joined the Greens last year at the height of the Black Summer bushfires. I joined because to me, that was the only party that offered any hope for the future, whether it be for climate, whether it be for looking after people or for transparency. And these elections about policies, and I’ll guess I’ll mainly talk about a policy that we’ve released a couple of weeks ago, strengthening democracy. But you could look at the parks policy we released today, you could look at the make-corporates-pay policy that was released a little while ago. Spread through our policies are issues that make government more accountable, and empower people in the decisions that governments make. But just simply in this policy, the strengthening democracy, there’s a cap on political donations of $3,000, and a ban on corporate donations, real time disclosure, and an electoral expenditure cap. When it comes to truth in political advertising, the Greens propose a political advertising commissioner and a model similar to South Australia. Transparency and accountability. We want a stronger Integrity Commission that actually has teeth and can actually do work. We want to see a new Act – the Information Accessibility and Transparency Act – that has a commissioner so that when requests for information are put in, they don’t come back black. You know, they simply come back black. And we need to deal with commercial-in-confidence as something that people hide behind. And additionally, misconduct in public office, you know, we need an entity that deals with misconduct in public office. And fundamentally, we all know this, all the commentators know this. We need 35 seats in the House of Assembly. Thank you,
Mike Dutta
I want to also pay respects to the first nations people. And I want to make a statement that sovereignty was never ceded. I acknowledge the past, the present and the emerging leaders. I’m Mike Dutta. I’m originally from Fiji. And I came here about 36 years ago. I have been a minister of religion. I did my theological studies in Auckland, New Zealand. I was a teacher at the Hobart College for about 23 years. I taught psychology, religion, philosophy, and also legal studies. I also practised law. And then after that, I’ve got my own business. And now I’m a businessman. I want to say to you that the statement that I read that we change minds is a fantastic statement. I believe in the elected and the voters of Clark, I have faith in you. Because you are the leaders who changed the course of the history of this political landscape. We have so far for many years have been entrenched, trapped in a duopoly. It’s like Coles and Woolworths in the political landscape, that needs changing. You don’t need majority to govern. You need to accept the will of the people. That it what’s needed. (applause)
If I am elected, I will work with the others. It is not about ideology. It is not about getting my own way. It is about making sure that we do the best, in the best interests of the people of Tasmania. That is important. I’m standing simply because of the following reasons. I think, firstly, like Abraham Maslov said, there are basic needs of a human being. And the first basic need of human being is food. And the food equates to me of health care, nutrition, how we look after people’s body and health and mind. That is very, very important. It’s broken, it needs fixing. Secondly, we need home and shelter. Housing is a problem. They say give us another four years, we will fix it. What have they done in the last seven years? Something went amiss. Maybe they were sleeping, I don’t know. But it needs to be done. Thirdly, donation is something I’m totally against. I was given $500 $200 $100. I returned it and I said ‘I don’t want any money I will stand on my own’. It’s my political career. And the fourth thing that I would say is this that…I will speak to you later.
Ella Haddad
Hi everybody. I’m Ella Haddad, a very short Labor member for Clark. Thank you, Thomas for that beautiful Welcome to Country. I’d like to reiterate my acknowledgement of Tasmanian Aboriginal people and acknowledge that this land was never ceded. I was elected three years ago. And I don’t consider myself a career politician. Before I was elected. I was working in Tasmania’s health and community services sector, as a worker and on the boards of many Tasmanian health community service organisations for a little while in the public sector as well. Good governance is a passion of mine and it was something that I promoted in all of the community organisations that I’ve worked in. I thought I’d just say very quickly a little bit about why I ran. Part of the reason that I ran is that I saw firsthand working in that community services sector, the damage that the cuts of the Liberal government had done. Making 750 million in their first year 450 in their second year and the cuts have gone on since then. So I was motivated enough to put my money where my mouth is and run for Parliament because I was angry about those cuts. And I was angry about the effect that budget cuts were having on community services that were vital to Tasmanians. Things like housing, disability, community services, alcohol and drug services, which is where I worked, mental health services and more. So that was something that motivated me enough to put my hand up and run. I didn’t expect to win to be honest, and nobody did expect me to win. But to my surprise, we ran a really good grassroots campaign and I was elected.
Since I’ve been there, I’ve continued to see the Liberal government create a culture of secrecy inside the Tasmanian public sector, to the point where public servants first reaction when they receive an RTI request – this is not a criticism of public servants, it’s a culture that the ministers have created – is to hide information and to refuse to release information. Political donation disclosure laws is something that I’m extremely passionate about because there is no level playing field in Tasmanian politics. Even within the other political parties, there can be vastly different amounts of money spent on campaigns. And no one knows because there are no disclosure requirements for candidates, and there were no disclosure requirements for parties, and there is no spending caps, and that’s completely wrong. So I’ve taken that on board myself within my party, and we’ve got a private member’s bill that had begun debate in the Tasmanian Parliament. And the government has gone to an election a year early before that bill was able to be completed and finish being debated. So under our bill, every donation received by a candidate or a party would be disclosed in real time and there’d be spending caps on parties and on candidates. And there’d be public disclosure of spending after an election campaign, a bit like what happens now in the Legislative Council. So that’s something I’m personally really passionately passionate about and will continue to push for in my party. In my personal life I’m a single mum, I’ve been raising two teenage daughters. My younger one hates it when I say that because she’s only 12 and she’s not even a teenager. But I’ve been raising those girls on my own since they were two and five. I’ve been broke. I’ve moved home to my mother’s house as an adult. And I was really lucky to have that support, because I know countless Tasmanians who have been in the same situation as me and weren’t fortunate enough to have that family support, which I was lucky to have. I grew up in a family where fairness and equality were our key values and they’re values that I continue to bring to Parliament and to bring to my candidacy this time around.
Kristie Johnston
Hello, I’m Kristie Johnston, independent candidate for Clark. I too would like to acknowledge Tasmanian Aboriginal community, it’s original, traditional and continuing custodians of the land we gather on tonight and pay my deep respects to elders past, present and emerging. As Mayor of Glenorchy the people I talk to every day in greater Hobart community bring issues to my desk that have fallen squarely within the remit of state government. These issues like the lack of vision and action on passenger rail in the existing rail corridor, like reining in the terrible social damage the poker machine industry causes. Like the disgraceful mess that our health system is in and the lack of community- and home-based preventative medicine, like the gross under-funding of our public schools or the desperate shortage of affordable and accessible housing. Like the lack of teeth that our Integrity Commission has has when it comes to prosecutions. And from personal experience I know that this has left the Glenorchy community in particular without justice for the wrongs of the past. But I can only achieve so much in local government and the community are really tired of the same old answers from the political parties of all persuasions. The message I’m hearing loud and clear out on the streets is that people are absolutely sick and tired of political parties and their games. We voted the same way a number of times, and we’ve got the same result, it’s really time to try something different. I have worked hard to a distrusted and dysfunctional council around and we’ve had an Integrity Commission report, Auditor General’s report, and also a board of inquiry report demonstrates what had happened there. However, the Glenorchy City Council is now at open and available to its community it serves. It’s transparent and accountable. There are no more secret deals and gross mismanagement. And of that I’m incredibly proud. And I know what it’s like to be fighting for transparency and accountability in government. I’m now seeking the trust of the people of Clark, (inaudible) the issues that matter to them and expose the political games and the incompetence of the major parties.
I want to take aim at and tackle our state parliament from within, fight the good fight for our community. I promise I will listen to our community and make every decision based on merits, on my conscience, I’m free to support the good ideas and reject the bad, I don’t have to follow any party line. I’m a true independent, no one will be pulling my strings and I will not be bought. And we’ve seen a horrific influence that big donors like the gaming industry have on major political parties, and clearly what happened at election time. That is not a healthy democracy. I’m not accepting any donations from my campaign. My time at Council was demonstrated and I can’t be scared off, no matter how hard they try, I’m a pretty tough cookie. I’ll stand up for community and do the right thing time and time again. With a background in criminology and law, working and volunteering in the community sector and most recently in local government, I can clearly see and I hear what the issues are. I have the skills and the experience we need in parliament. Check out my website and I ask for the discussion around majority government, absolute arrogance from them to say they’ll only govern in a majority. (inaudible)
Eloise Carr – Moderator
As I mentioned before, South Australia and the ACT have truth in political advertising laws. And that means that if during the course of the election campaign, you provide false and misleading information, it’s an offence and you can be prosecuted. Given there appears to be widespread community support for the idea, would you or your party commit to pursuing truth in political advertising laws for Tasmania?
Sue Hickey
I would fully support that. I actually had the Speaker of the ACT down just a week or so ago, and she explained to me about how their RTIs work. It starts with basis of putting everything out first, and it’s going to be very exclusive to limit something. I’ve been advocating for a Parliamentary Budget Office so that all claims that these parties are putting out, this monstrous great Monopoly money, is actually costed, so that you know what you’re voting for and whether it’s going to be affordable. I’ve been a victim of the Libs negative campaigning of recent times. So I think a law that says you can’t say things that are incorrect, would be well supported by just about everybody of truth in the parliament. And on that note, I’ll just finish by saying that I too am funding my own campaign, not accepting any donations, because of the deep shame I felt when I found myself caught up in the 2018 election where I felt that the party had been bought by third party donations. And that was a shameful, disgusting part of that history.
Vica Bayley
Yes. On our website you’ll find the policy which has a chapter on truth in political advertising. The best our political laws cater for at the moment is not using the name or likeness of another candidate. We propose to repeal that part of the legislation and make sure that it’s it’s only an offence to try to imitate or basically replace it with a ban on distributing advertisements purporting to be on behalf of a candidate without the permission of that person, which is clearly not going to happen. Truth in political advertising laws would be modelled on the South Australian model, but it only required the Commissioner – we’d established a Commissioner – to be satisfied that the the advertisement is inaccurate and misleading in a material context. Appeal rights would be available. And lastly, at the Political Advertising Commissioner, a statutory Political Advertising Commissioner would be established. An assessment of the appropriate officer to be Commissioner would be undertaken with a specific assessment of the Tasmania Electoral Commission, and the Office of the Ombudsman. The matter of resourcing required will also be canvassed. So we’re strong supporters of truth in political advertising. And you need only look at the political advertising environment at the moment to see how frustrating and how misleading it is.
Ella Haddad
Yes, absolutely, truth in political advertising legislation is something that Labor would support. It’s one of the many areas where our electoral laws are deficient at the moment and the section that Vica just talked about repealing, 196, Labor’s position is also to repeal that section 196 of the Electoral Act, that’s the section that stops people using the name and likeness. But that’s not enough. And when we’ve just seen, you know, this disturbing rise of the alt right culminating in – thankfully over now – Trump presidency where anything goes, and mad right wing politicians can just say whatever they like. And when it’s printed in the media that somehow becomes, you know, truthful and cogent. It’s really frightening. And I think we need to be frightened as a community and on a global level, that things can be so disturbingly skewed by political candidates, by sitting political members, and also by the media. So we will be committed to keep looking also at the ACT and the South Australian models, and they’ve got fines in them of $8,000 for individuals and up to $40,500 for corporations. So they’re significant fines, which indicates, you know, when there’s (inaudible) in legislation, it really shows that that’s something that Parliament and then the community takes incredibly seriously. And that’s something that I think that we should all be committed to it.
Jax Ewin
But, of course, and why the bloody hell is it not already a thing? How have we got away without this legislation for so long? I just want to say about donations, because I barely make minimum wage and I’m supporting financially several friends and family members. If you’d like to make a contribution, I’m happy to receive it but it will be declared in real time on my website. I’m going to nick off now, I’ve been (inaudible) for 12 hours and I’m exhausted. But if you do have any questions for me, please check me out online, happy to answer everything. It’s all on my Facebook page, so Jax Ewin Hobart City Councillor, you can text me, you can email me You can contact me on social media, because I really want to hear from you about what’s important. And I want to answer all your questions.
Kristie Johnston
Look, at the risk of repeating what our previous speakers have said. Absolutely. It really does beg the question ‘if we don’t have truth in advertising election campaigns how can we speak truth in our parliament?’ We want to make sure they’re truthful. So that’s really important to absolutely recommend and accept changes to make political advertising.
Tim Westcott
Yep. Just I’d like to echo everyone else, the Animal Justice Party supports truth in advertising laws, and I would definitely support them if they came up in parliament.
Mike Dutta
I will very strongly and wholeheartedly support that. I think if you look at some of the political advertising, it’s been misleading and mysterious, and I think this really needs to be dealt with. And I will be so delighted if this happens. Thank you.
Lisa Gershwin
Okay, this is where my Asperger’s comes out and has a really fun time. Okay. Like seriously. One of the hallmarks of Asperger’s is a very strong sense of social justice. It is bizarre to me that we need to create legislation to have truth in advertising. Why don’t we just have the truth? Seriously? Like, I mean, I don’t understand why we need legislation for this. And I don’t understand why we’re going to limit it to just advertising during campaigns. I mean, I don’t know maybe this is why we are all so unengaged with the political process, despite the fact that we’re here tonight, right? But seriously, so many of us feel very, very disengaged with the process of democracy. And I think it’s because we simply don’t trust it. We don’t believe anything we’re being told, not just during campaigns, but all the time. There’s no transparency, there is no truth. There’s all this doublespeak, and all this spin and all of that. Stop it, just stop it. Behave like adults.
Eloise Carr – Moderator
Thank you. I think I’d like you to ask the next question.
Questioner – Francis Flannery
To people running as independents, how do you feel about the fact that you’re not allowed to identify as independents on the polling sheet. I’m also an independent running for Franklin. And when I found out I was to be in the final column under the heading ungrouped, I was very angry about that. I tried to change it. They said it can’t be don’t. They say it’s an act of Parliament, 2005, that makes it impossible for me say I’m an independent, what do you think about that?
Kristie Johnston
It is so tough to be independent in our current system, at an election time. So I’m in Group B by myself, because I was able to get 100 nominations on my form. But at the top of my column, it doesn’t say independent, it doesn’t identify that I’m fiercely independent, and a true independent, it just says Group B, which makes it really hard for people to be able to direct where to vote, and to be able to identify who are those independents. I know that Sue, likewise, is you know in a column of her own, Group E. And then the other three independents out in the Ungrouped column. It makes it incredibly difficult to be able to demonstrate that you are an independent voice. And certainly our legislation needs to be reformed. There’s a whole heap of things that make it extra hard for independents, but particularly on the ballot paper for people to actually be able to be informed when they look at the ballot paper to see who their true independents are.
Questioner – Francis Flannery
Do you think the parties are afraid of independents?
Kristie Johnston
Absolutely. Today in my letter box I’ve got a flyer from the Liberal party which says that if you vote for an independent you’re voting for a Labor government. They are absolutely frightened of independents. What they are frightened by this being held to account. We ask tough questions, we ask to actually focus on the issues and not on their own party politics and pointing the finger at the other side of the chamber. Because then they’d actually had to do something, we’d actually have to have some improvements in health, in housing, and a whole range of issues. They just completely happy to keep on doing the same spin that Lisa was talking about beforehand and keep on going with the same rhetoric year after year. They don’t want to be held accountable and they’ll come at election time and promise big promises and we’ll see $150 million plucked out of the bottom drawer, suddenly housing, and before you know we’ve got the same old again.
Sue Hickey
I have to agree that running as an independent is very, very difficult but I’ve got to tell you also being part of the party is extremely difficult. Trying to get your voice heard. So I was allocated I think it’s B or G I’m not certain, that column, because I was able to get 100 signatories. I think I actually got something like 250 in the end.
Questioner – Francis Flannery
I could have got 100 signatures but I do I wasn’t aware of that.
Sue Hickey
I think it’s in the candidate handbook though. But it’s worth it’s worth reading because lots of pitfalls that you can fall down. So yes, the parties absolutely are running scared because of independents. I think what’s happened is up to seven years of the same nondelivery, nonperformance, that people this time are really disillusioned and they’re questioning the benefit of having majority government. And the fact that they’ve got some really strong independents as you can make out from behind me, is actually giving people a real choice. People are sitting up and taking notice of that, that we are calling out that this isn’t good enough for Tasmania. If we put them back in again for four years, we get the same ministers doing the same appalling job, they’re not held to account. You can’t sack them. When they do stuff up in Parliament and they have to go before the Privileges Committee, which I found myself the chair of, the result is a $40 fine, or I can challenge them to a duel. The reason this is important is because it was former Liberal member, Adam Brooks, who is known to be a crack shot. So I might have been killed. So that’s another reason why I thought it was a really daft idea, but that legislation still exists. And so we probably need a bit more Asperger’s in the Parliament.
Questioner – Leanne Minshull
Hello, my question is on renewable energy and Marinus. All three parties voted for 200% renewable energy in the parliament last whenever. But none of the parties are actually (inaudible) that energy. I had a text from the Greens saying they couldn’t come but they were concerned about Marinus’ business case. But I’d actually like to know if we’ve got 200% renewable energy what is it (inaudible) Battery of the Nations, I don’t think anyone’s actually addressing that.
Vica Bayley
Greens energy policy is not my speciality. But I do know that they are opposed to the Marinus link. Putting aside the cost, as you say, the driver when it comes to industrialising our energy sector, particularly when it comes to wind and associated impacts with wind, environmental and social, is of deep concern. There’s long term – putting aside how many how Marinus is paid for – there’s long term concerns around the basic economics of it, and what that does to power prices and power distribution here in Tasmania and the system. When it comes to 200% renewable energy here in Tasmania, I don’t know exactly what the Greens policy is around what to do with that energy. But I would imagine it would be to invest it in things such as green hydrogen, and other, you know, renewable energy initiatives that I’ve got a long way to go when it comes to development here in Tasmania, but genuinely offer real potential when it comes to carbonising the economy, replacing fossil fuels. And, you know, at the end of the day, offering a transition away from the current state of the energy market and into something that’s truly sustainable.
Ella Haddad
I think there are real questions about how Marinus is going to be delivered. And it’s not an area that I’m expert in either. So I apologise up front for that, but I think there do need to be questions answered about how it will be paid for and the cost to the Tasmanian tax payer of actually delivering that project, if indeed it does get delivered. But as to what will be the use for the energy if we if we reach that, I think it does need to be looking at investing in more renewable energy industries in Tasmania, like hydrogen, solar and wind, investing in industries that can come here to create jobs here in Tasmania, so that we can continue to invest in renewable energy industries here and be a model for the nation and a model for the, for the world in developing those industries. Because, you know, one of the things that I find really important when we’re talking about electing political parties and being in government is that how governments spend their money is a choice. So how another party spends their money is a choice. If they choose to invest in particularly big infrastructure projects or in social housing and social justice projects that I am passionate about, how governments spend their money is a choice. So that then is a choice people are making at this election as well.
Questioner – Roland Browne
This is week 5 of the election campaign. An exquisitely important part of our lives when we choose the government. Here we are in Clark with a forum, talking about accountability and transparency. And where is Attorney General Elise Archer? She should be here tonight to answer questions on electoral reform. It is arrogant of her and the government not to send a representative. Now, having said that, just because she’s not here doesn’t mean that she avoids answering the question. So I’ve got a question that is directed to the Attorney General. And I will invite (inaudible) all of the characteristics to come forward to answer the question. Now, my question is this. We have seen the insidious influence of political donations in the 2018 election for the gambling industry, and Sue has appropriately described it as shameful. The question is – it has to be narrowed down because the electoral reform is so complicated – donations from developers. And when I say developers I’m talking about property developers, fish farm developers, forest industry developers, and land developers. We now have a situation in Australia with donations from developers have been banned in Queensland and New South Wales. So my question to the candidates that have come tonight is this: what commitment will you give to banning donations from developers? If you won’t be banning them, why not?
Lisa Gershwin
That guy should run for office. Um, yes, absolutely. Everything you said about banning donations from developers, but I’ll go one further. So in Tasmania, the government gives subsidies, that is grants and exemptions, to big businesses to lure them to Tasmania. And that’s a good thing. And the government gives subsidies to small businesses to grow them into big businesses. And that’s a good thing too. But then something goes horribly wrong. When these businesses become profitable, we keep giving them the subsidies. Seriously, this is crazy. When we raise a child, we pay for their school, we pay for their food, their clothes, all these things, we help them get a good start in life. And then we sort of ‘boom’ out the door and say, ‘Yo, dude, go get a job. pay rent’, right? But with these big businesses, we’re not doing that. We keep giving them these subsidies. Now we are in crisis here in Tasmania, we’re in a health crisis. We’re in a housing crisis. We’re in a transport crisis. We’ve got all kinds of crises going on. And yet we’re still giving money and exemptions to these big businesses. So not only we should be banning the donations to the political parties from these big businesses, these developers, we should actually stop putting money in their pockets so that it can go straight to their shareholders, who are already making money hand over fist. That money should be coming back to the communities, back to us to solve our big problems.
Tim Westcott
It seems to me that the businesses that are giving the most money are businesses that harm people, harm animals, harm the planet. So yeah, I will absolutely get a commitment to block those businesses from giving large political donations because I don’t think it’s healthy for our democracy. And to Lisa’s point, I just want to say that we give $30 million a year each year to the racing industry. And I think that’s shameful.
Sue Hickey
The advantage of having been in the party is that I know donations are not given – serious donations that is – are not given without a quid pro quo pro. I know of a property developer who was funding various candidates in the party I was in. I didn’t get one, but $10,000 cheques would appear in the name of his mother, he would also give money to the party as such. There was a secret list. And the preferred candidates knew who was on the secret list, so that the lower level candidates weren’t allowed to know who was a donor, and why they were a donor. So that always alarmed me. On top of that, you know, you just can’t expect people to be donating $50,000 without some sort of expectation from a minister or someone else in the government, that they won’t get a significant return on that investment, because that’s what private enterprise is all about. So I’m afraid I’m absolutely against it. I don’t believe there should be any third party donations. But on top of that, we should have electoral reform. I had argued for it prior to being sacked. And I thought it was about to happen. But unfortunately, there was another agenda. And I also agree that we should follow the legislation of Queensland and New Zealand and certainly ban developers of all of that criteria that you mentioned Roland.
Vica Bayley
Look, as an anonymous politician said to a study that was commissioned in, I think it was 2018, ‘if someone gives you $1,000, they support you, if they give you $100,000, they’ve bought you’. So yes, clearly, we need some reform in this space. And as I mentioned, in my introduction, the Greens are strong supporters, and have always been about reform when it comes to political donations. And that does include a ban from developers, but it shouldn’t just actually stop at developers. What about tobacco companies? What about gambling and liquor companies? What about some of the other companies that are contributing to broad-scale harm in our community? So yes, absolutely, we support that. And in fact, the Greens have also – putting aside stopping subsidies – Greens have also released a policy to make corporates pay. Some of our biggest corporates and industries here in Tasmania, mining and salmon, they pay a pittance for the exploitation of our inheritance at the end of the day. I think it’s something like 160% below the national average when it comes to mining royalties. So we also have a policy to make corporates pay and make sure that that money goes directly into the budget to fund the health, the housing, the education and other outcomes that we so desperately need here in the state.
Mike Dutta
To answer your question, I will give you my total guarantee that I will commit myself to banning donation. You know, donations are risky. And what I’ve heard from Sue, it is deplorable, that people are able to do things like that. It is my view that once donations are given and received, there are obligations tied to it. What happens after that is that these people then influence policy decisions. And it’s an undue influence, because they want policies to go in a particular way. There was a report done in 2019, it was revealed that during the 10 year period in Tasmania $25 million was donated to the two major parties. And only 20% of that was disclosed. It is shameful. And I’m so proud and so happy to hear the question, and I hope that the new government will go in, we’ll be able to bring this about. Thank you very much.
Ella Haddad
It’s a really important question and one that you know I care about deeply. People say that Tasmania’s political donation laws are broken. I’ve said it myself, the truth is they’re not broken because they just don’t actually exist at all. So the only disclosure requirement at the moment, of any donation, is under Commonwealth law, and it’s a ridiculously high threshold, $14,800 I think it’s up to, it changes a bit each year. And that’s only donations to a party. So who knows if candidates are receiving donations of that size? I know I certainly am not. But who would know, because there’s actually no obligation whatsoever. So Labor has put forward a Donation Disclosure Bill that was, as I said before, it would make donations of over $1,000 reported in real time every 30 days and published on the TEC website, and that would be cumulative donations. If people donate 250 dollars multiple times and it reaches $1,000, that donation is disclosable in real time. It will also effect spending caps on parties and candidates. It would also ban foreign and anonymous donations. And what I said at the time of tabling that bill is that it is simply a start. It’s a start. It’s not everything that is required to reform Tasmania’s pretty lax political domination laws and electoral laws more broadly. Now, what the government did is that they commissioned a report from their own department, the Justice Department, and then they sat on it for over 12 months. And that’s Elise Archer who sat on that report, it was sitting in the bottom of her drawer. We were calling for its release, the Greens were calling for its release, Sue was calling for its release and they sat on it and sat on it. And then what did they do? They finally released it with great fanfare, and said that they were going to introduce actually pretty much all the recommendations in the report. It’s an excellent report, and the recommendations are good. They committed to them. And I was surprised and actually really happy and expecting to see legislation brought forward that would go further than Labor’s bill, because as I said, our bill is simply a start. What happened then? They called an election to avoid the issue, which they’ve absolutely done, and they avoided questions in that last week of Parliament as well, by the way, which was shameful. I don’t believe that they have any commitment to producing those laws. I think that they released the report and said they’d bring on a bill to to remove it as a campaign issue for me and for the other parties and independents.
Eloise Carr – Moderator
I’ve been struggling to find on the internet where Labor is declaring us donations this election.
Ella Haddad
It’s a really important point. So what the premier did when he called the election is he agreed, he committed the Liberal Party to disclosing donations over $5,000. And the Labor Party matched that. So I checked the website, actually, just before I came here, and there is one, it’s on the ALP taslabor.com.com.au and I think you click on the… I’ll find it and send it to you. But it is there on the Tasmanian Labor website. I’ve also decided to – that doesn’t apply to candidates. But I’ve decided to do that. So I have actually received one donation that was over $5,000, it’s from my dad. (laughter) And it’s $5,005. And the reason we went over 5000 is because he’s a beloved dad, he decided to check if the bank account worked before he donated me $5,000, which is really generous. He’s retired, he can’t really afford to, to donate that money. But he did it because I’m also a self funded candidate, I’ve borrowed against my house. I’m a single parent. Yes, political parties receive big donations, but candidates are responsible for their own spending. So I don’t shy away from the fact that I have received some small donations from friends and family, only one big one, which was my dear old dad. So that’s on my personal website, as to what other candidates have done I don’t know.
As I’ve said, Labor’s bill is a start. And I would like to see it go further. We’re in opposition, we don’t have access to the parliamentary drafters. And so I did my best to draft the bill that was based on a previous attempt, but it doesn’t go as far as the other states do. And I would like to see it go further. And if we reach government, we’d be looking at that report that the Justice Department have introduced, which includes some other recommendations that I think need implementing as well. So we did at least move an amendment about developer donations when the Major Projects Bill was being discussed, which would have prevented developers from being able to submit anything; had they donated to political party or candidate, they would have had to declare that the political party or candidate would have had to declare that as well. And those developers would have been prevented from actually putting forward a project. So that was a little bit of an attempt during the debate on that bill, which wasn’t around political donations. And the government told us off for removing those amendments, because they said it’s outside the scope of the bill. We didn’t believe it was outside the scope of the bill, we believed that it was an important thing to cover in that bill. But of course, the government rejected those amendments and they failed.
Kristie Johnston
Yes, I do support a ban on developers, donations. And I find it really quite strange coming from local government. The Local Government Act, a creature of the parliament itself, has a requirement to declared pecuniary interests, and there are laws around accepting donations for a government member. But the parliament doesn’t set the same standards for itself.
Questioner – Rosemary
I have a question about climate change. There is a paper at the moment, a background paper, it’s been put out for comment. It was released on the nineteenth of March, just two weeks ago. Submissions in response to that paper have to be in by this Thursday, two days before the election. This is appalling. The first question on this background paper is on the Climate Change Act and state government response to climate change. So this is the government ‘doing something’ about a climate change act. And my question is actually to the two sitting people, and (inaudible). I don’t know how many people realise there is a Climate Change Act and a background paper put out by this government. I want to know if they know. I’m currently placing submissions. I want to know what there knowledge of the Act and Review is.
Sue Hickey
I’m going to be completely honest with you. This last month has been a complete blur for me. And when did that come out? 19 March. Okay, there’s a possibility that I have missed it or printed it off to read at a later time. But I do believe we need a Climate Change Act. But I’m not certain what the contents of that are. And I think we could, if we get a balance of power situation in parliament, we could ask for that to be extended so that people have a longer period to respond.
Questioner – Rosemary
Just to clarify it’s about net zero emissions pathway options for Tasmania.
Sue Hickey
Right, no that one doesn’t ring a bell. Yeah, it’s very typical of the government to bring things out though when there’s a lot of other crazy activity on so that people can’t be aware of it. And I’m not certain how that was distributed. How did you find out about it?
Questioner – Rosemary
(inaudible)
Sue Hickey
Yes, so in other words, it hasn’t been widely disseminated, and hidden under the cloak of darkness. What a surprise. Yes, so thank you, Rosemary. I can commit to trying to get the timeline extended. I’d be very surprised if anyone on this dais wouldn’t agree to that. I think you know, we’ve come a long way as far as climate change goes, there’d be very few people that I’m thinking that are non believers in Tasmania, and I will commit to having a look at this. I can’t promise you anything else because I haven’t seen it. I’m sorry. And I apologise for the way it was disseminated.
Ella Haddad
I think you hit the nail on the head and really demonstrated something that’s a hallmark of this government, which is hiding information. Like the fact that they’re in caretaker mode right now. How can they be releasing something for public comment with due dates for submissions that are due during caretaker? it’s not the first time that I’ve seen this government behave in this way. If they want something buried they’ll put out a call for submissions on Christmas Eve and so they are due on the fifth of January. They did that on some LGBT law reform that they didn’t want people thinking and talking about, late last year. It’s a hallmark of this government to behave in this way. But as to the actual paper, I have to confess, same as Sue, I haven’t read it because I’ve been deep in campaign mode as well. But I know that the Act is overdue for review. I knew the Act existed. But I think that it’s probably not fit for our times, because things have moved on a lot since 2002. So I encourage you to make submissions because the Act does need to be strengthened, and to reflect the challenges of climate change as we now know them to be the greatest, the greatest incredible challenges that we need to face as a community and as a parliament.
Vica Bayley
Yeah, well, look, I guess in terms of governance, Rosemary, yes, it’s a hallmark of this government. During COVID, for example, they found plenty of time and space to consult the community over a tourism master plan for the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area and a range of other things, but they couldn’t progress consultation over the pokies policy and how they are going to progress that going forward. So it’s very much selective engagement when it comes to these kind of processes. And then I think the other thing we have found when it comes to consultation is it falls on deaf ears more often than not. Despite logic, despite science, despite, you know, good principles around planning for the future. It quite often falls on deaf ears in relation to this. I think everyone would make a commitment here in terms of extending it, it’s entirely reasonable. The Greens have released a climate change policy. The reality is the only reason that Tasmania has currently reached net zero emissions is because of the reduction in forest logging. Going back over the last decade, that’s the most significant factor in terms of reaching net zero. So a hallmark of a Greens policy would be to stop native forests logging, to establish carbon capture and conservation reserves so that we can actually protect the carbon that’s in the ground and in the forests so that we can actually sequester more carbon out of the atmosphere. And along the way if the federal government regulations, the Climate Solutions Fund, was actually amended to make avoided logging an eligible activity with Tasmania, you know, the Tasmanian government and people could earn up to $800 million over the next 50 years for taking that action.
Lisa Gershwin
I just wanted to extend an invitation. I don’t know how many of you know, but Tasmania has a what’s called the Tasmanian Independent Science Council. So if you find things that you sort of want some comment on, or that you think, you know, should maybe make some kind of a comment on something. The purpose of the Tasmanian Independent Science Council is to make sure that science is being reflected in policy. So it’s only an email away to just send something and go ‘I don’t know if you knew about this, but could you maybe get involved and make a comment’. So anyway, just wanted to extend the invitation.
Questioner – Amanda Sully
We had a packed town hall here in 2018 after that election, we still do not know where three quarters of the millions of dollars of money came from the for Liberal Party. (inaudible) And I’m sorry to say where the donations came from for the Labor Party. Ella we met with you while ago and we wrote a memo which we still don’t have answers to around the fact that in your bill, you actually said tonight that you are banning foreign donations? No, there’s no ban on foreign donations. There is no based on anonymous donations under $1000. So why? (inaudible – more on donations) I would love nothing more than an actual real Labor Party opposition that does something on real time disclosure. (inaudible) No foreign donations and a cap on donations, not some ridiculous million dollars. And also a party that walks the talk and understands thee difference between truth and misleading.
Ella Haddad
We did make and talk about the Bill and I did get your letter in November. But I took it as a as a letter that was criticising the final version of the bill. The bill has been amended. As you know, I’m always available to talk to you about these issues. And I do care deeply about these issues. Trust me, the bill was amended, and it did include a ban on foreign donations of over $1,000. And it defines that, so I took the definition from the Commonwealth act to define what a foreign donor means. I don’t have that definition with me here tonight. I’m happy to provide it. So we did amend the bill from the draft bill to the final version that was tabled. So foreign donations, over $1000 are defined and I just borrowed the definitions from the Commonwealth legislation. Anonymous data donations are capped at $1000. The 30 day disclosure, I agree, I would like it to be more frequent than that. And I actually think that, for that to happen, there needs to be basically… Well, the problem is the offences that we created in our bill are quite significant offences, significant offences for candidates and parties financial and jail time offences if they fail to comply with the provisions in the bill. To do that is actually quite onerous. So you know, I don’t know how their Liberal Party operates, but our party office has two FTE staff. So even the provisions in our bill, they will be responsible for disclosing every party donation and then have oversight over every sitting member and every candidate’s bank accounts. So if they fail to declare a donation or to see that they they will be liable to face significant offences The reason for that is that there isn’t public funding for elections. I would like to see money out of politics altogether. I would like to see that because political campaigns are really expensive. And as I said when I was drafting my first bill, what I put forward in my bill is not everything that needs to happen in terms of changing our electoral donation laws. It’s a start, and it’s a start that I think started the conversation and it definitely pushed the government into making some commitments. But as I said before, I don’t think their commitments are genuine.
Questioner – Jules
Hello, I just like to get some comments from candidates about pokies this election. Labor and Rebecca White have changed their strong stance since that last election. I also want to hear what Ella to say about Labor backing down on this issue.
Kristie Johnston
I’m particularly passionate about this issue because it causes $2 million harm a month in Glenorchy. That’s ridiculous. Poker machines partly do not belong in pubs and clubs in our communities. And both parties have turned their back on the harm it causes in our community because it’s too hard to talk about that. And that’s just causing so much stress amongst our community. We need to move to harm minimisation measures as well, they are incredibly important. But ultimately the goal will be they are not only in our pubs and clubs in our communities.
Lisa Gershwin
I’m not really across the pokie issues. My platform is mental health, disabilities and housing or homelessness. So even though I’m not across the specifics of the pokies issue, you know, I am aware obviously, that it creates a lot of mental ill health, creates a lot of financial distress. You know, I know that it’s a problem on multiple levels. You know, if elected to Parliament, I would obviously take a deep dive into understanding the pokies issue a whole lot more and understanding citizens perspectives on it, but you know, I just haven’t taken a deep dive into it.
Mike Dutta
Thank you very much. I am very strongly against this. A friend of mine was sucked into this. And last year he died. Before that, before he died, he lost his wife, his children, his house, and he died a pauper. I rang him a number of times, I couldn’t get any alerts, rang the police. They found him dead. No one even wanted to bury him. My wife, my daughter and I, we did the the last rites. What I’m saying is this, why pokies? Get them out of the pubs and clubs. Point two is this. Why pokies? It’s because of profits, profit from people who are in the lower socio-economic areas. And you see the evidence clear, not only here in Tasmania, but in many other states. Evidence galore that people who get sucked in, they get damaged, harm is so bad, depression, breaking of families, and there’s so many other social and psychological impacts on them. Take them out full stop, thank you.
Ella Haddad
No one denies the harm that poker machines do in our community and to the poorest in our community. No one denies that, least of all me. So I used to work in alcohol and drug sector. I know a lot about harm minimisation measures. I’ve lost family members and friends to drug addiction and overdose. And that’s part of what motivated me to work in the alcohol and drug sector in the first place. 2018 was a pivotal point for the Tasmanian people. There was a chance to change the deed that the government holds with the pokie industry. That deed was due to be signed by whoever won the 2018 election and we had a really bold policy based on harm minimisation at that time, arguably an extreme version of how minimisation: removal altogether from pubs and clubs. We lost that election. That new deed will be signed by the Liberal government. They haven’t released the legislation yet which is another deceitful thing, that they have gone to an election without releasing that legislation is shameful. The Tasmanian people had a choice in 2018 to decide which party was going to be able to sign that new deed and they didn’t choose the Labor Party. Our commitment then was to harm minimisation, our commitment now is to harm minimisation. The Tasmanian people missed that chance to choose a different party to sign that deed. Harm minimisation is still at the core of our policy. But it will look different because the Liberal government were the ones elected to sign that new deed. So harm minimisation still needs to be implemented. And that’s what we will continue to do when the government finally releases their legislation or if we when government, we’ll be implementing the harm minimisation measures that still can be because they exist in other jurisdictions.
Vica Bayley
I hope people recall that the Tasmanian Greens are strong and ongoing champions for reform in this space. The pokies industry and I guess the the outcome and what we saw last election is one of the most poignant reasons why we’re probably all here today. And one of the most stark examples of the corruption of our governance and politics in Tasmania, the millions of dollars that got poured into that election campaign, the billboards on pubs and clubs, the lies and the fear campaign that was promulgated around jobs. It really highlights I guess why we’re out tonight, and are seriously concerned. Of course, the Tasmanian Greens support the removal of pokies from pubs and clubs. These are machines that are designed to win, you know, these machines, there’s no luck in it, they are designed to rob the community on the whole. So in reality, they have no place at all, they really shouldn’t be something that people play. But we do have a position to take them out of pubs and clubs full stop. And we need to make sure that where they are played, there are measures that, yes, minimise harm. But then there’s also, outside of that space, there’s measures that actually deals with the fallout from the collateral damage, the the mental health issues, the alcohol, the drug, the homelessness, the addiction, and so forth. This is a kind of holistic problem when it comes to Tasmania. It’s a case in point around while our politics is utterly corrupted. And a demonstrates how the interests of big corporates are so often prioritised over and above ours, the people.
Sue Hickey
I wish the pokies had ever been invented. But I also say that about Facebook and a few other things. Definitely there is a huge need for harm minimisation around the pokies. I’m a bit conflicted about taking them out of the pubs and clubs and only because I don’t think it should all be focused in one suburb, and that is Sandy Bay. So that’s an issue that I’m also concerned on another reason and that is that once you take it away, and people go online or other forms of gambling. Like I had a man said to me that pokies is the worst form of gambling. But that’s why he now bets on the horses because he knows they’re true. I’ve read the Losing Streak book, and I’m aware of how this all came about. But when you see someone in a pub or club, someone keep an eye on them and can see that they are doing harmful behaviour and you know, help them out with Salvation Army or something, it’s not good enough. But I am concerned about just moving to one spot. And if you’re going to ban the pokies per se, because they say it’s 2% of real problem gambling, I think that’s really not identifying the problem at all. So I’m not exactly accepting that. But you know, what about the proliferation of bottle shops? You know, we’ve got one of those on every corner, in every shopping centre You know, that’s just causing as much harm or different kinds of harm and probably leads to people making stupid choices and going to poker machines. And then the flow on. So I do agree it’s a holistic problem. And we need some sort of social license around it so that people can speak up and call it out because I am seeing a lot of people suffering as a result of gambling. But I’d probably see more people as a result of mental health, drugs, alcohol and other abusive forms of behaviour
Questioner – Dan Broun
Tasmania has two great assets. It’s people, like those who’ve come here tonight. And secondly, a prime asset finer than any other the state owns, the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area. A lot of people that because it’s World Heritage, in national parks, its sitting there perfect the way it’s always been. The International Union for the Conservation of Nature identified recently that along with the Great Barrier Reef, it’s invaluable. It’s endangered from two things: climate change, and the impacts of tourism. This government, through its Expressions of Interest process, backed by the Labor Party, is allowing development within that World Heritage Area and development degrades it. The place I represent, in the fight to protect Lake Malbena, will be degraded to the degree of 5000 hectares through one tiny development. There are 60 developments that kept secret under this Expressions of Interest. My question is definitely directed at the Elise Archer. Elise signed an exclusive possession lease over Halls Island in Lake Malbena. This exclusive possession release prohibits any (inaudible). You will go to jail, if you’re prosecuted for going there. This is in Walls of Jerusalem National Park. Does the Labor Party support the Expressions of Interest process if they are elected? And if not what are they going to do about it?
Ella Haddad
The problem is that they keep them secret. I think there’s more than 20 that are not listed on their site. They listed some from an earlier year. It’s not an area that I’m expert in, but they are secretive about it. And I’ve got huge problems with that.
Questioner – Dan Broun
So why don’t you speak out against it publicly? Our group has begged and pleaded for a public statement against it and we have been received nothing.
Ella Haddad
Okay, well, I’m sorry to hear that. And I know there’s a mood in the room tonight to make the Labor Party the enemy because the government haven’t shown up to this forum. (boos) And it’s shameful that they haven’t shown up to this forum. But I don’t have to defend the government’s Expression of Interest process. I’ve had nothing to do with it. And I know and we have called for them to release what’s on the list because they haven’t even done it. They haven’t. And it’s them that’re doing that, they’re in government, they’re in power. The Labor Party is not in power, and I’ve got huge problems with their process.
Questioner – Dan Broun
Take responsibility for Labor policy. Fishers and walkers need a friend in the Labor Party. (inaudible)
Sue Hickey
I guess I was part of a party that had a jobs and growth mantra, which I with a private sector background usually went along with. But having witnessed the way the government handled the disgraceful Westbury Prison and just shuffled it down the road onto a nature reserve just appalled me. Also to hear of the secrecy and the price for the Halls Island Lake Malbena issue, I was disgusted and ashamed of that as well. And this is why we do need to look at why majority government is not good for Tasmania. It bullies things through. There are good people in some of these parties, but they are gagged. They are not allowed to have a voice and they can’t speak out against things that they know are wrong. So the powerful take control and that is what everyone has to sing, to the same hymn. I can commit to if I’m elected into parliament, and I deal with the balance of power, I will stand up for these things for greater scrutiny and accountability. I hated seeing legislation pushed through. For example, Madeleine Ogilvie voting for the protest laws to send it upstairs, you know when I had blocked it the first time, she allowed with her balance of power for it to go upstairs. It then set up there for a year. And I challenged the government to bring it on, which of course it did, and it got defeated. And this is why we don’t want parties up in the Upper House, either. We need that to be staying (inaudible due to applause).
Vica Bayley
Full power to you and your group for standing up here. The process is fundamentally flawed. It’s not even an official process. It’s been cooked up in a back political room. And it’s got two real purposes. The first is to get ideas out of the industry, and build political momentum behind them, pass them through an unaccountable panel against, you know, unclear guidelines, and publish it on the front page of The Mercury. That builds political and public pressure behind that process. But worse, what it does is identify the barriers to that development actually getting up and being approved. And with Lake Malbena it was writ large. The development was passed through the EoI process. And then they went ahead and disassembled the World Heritage Area Management Plan. They even rezoned Lake Malbena, after they had consulted people about it, because it wasn’t, you couldn’t build a standing camp, putting aside the fact that it’s huts on that area. So look, it’s a classic case of misuse of power, deceit, and deception. The Greens released our parks policy today, which is on the website, we would abolish completely the EoI process. And we’d make sure that reserve activity assessment, which is actually the process that Parks uses to assess any development application in a park from a toilet to a lodge, we’d make sure that statutory. Which means that it’s able to be challenged, We’d make sure that it’s robust. And we’d make sure that it’s independent. And that’s with including with a parks agency that sits underneath a standalone Environment Department. So we’re really clear on what we do with the EoI and tourism developments, including protecting more areas as new national parks and reserves, and actually looking for tourism opportunities in those areas, as opposed to the heart of areas that have been protected for decades.
Tim Westcott
So generally speaking, I completely object to the proposal. But more broadly, we’re in the middle of a biodiversity crisis. And we need to be caring for our ecosystems around Tasmania. The development proposals in the parks, the fish farming industry, which I was hoping to get a question about tonight but no one asked that one, the broad scale clearing that we’ve seen over decades for for livestock farming, these are all seriously damaging our ecosystems. We need to protect what we’ve got and restore our ecosystems in Tasmania.
Kristie Johnston
I would completely agree we have two amazing assets in our people and our World Heritage Areas. Look as we said beforehand, there it needs to be in an open and transparent Expression of Interest process and clearly it has not been that at all demonstrated. And the problem is that, as we’ve said numerous times tonight, we don’t know who has been bought, who is calling the government’s strings at all. And that is quite key when we say these kinds of processes occurring in our parliament where people are doing deals behind closed doors, and we don’t know who is pulling the strings. As Sue said earlier, we have an opportunity to make a massive difference. Clark is where it’s going to happen this election, and you’ve got choice. You don’t have to accept the same old crap that we’ve got. And we’ve had time and time again. You can choose a different path. You can choose people who will stand up for transparency, accountability, who won’t have their strings pulled and won’t be bought. You’ve got that choice in Clark and I cannot stress enough how important, is on behalf of the entire state – I don’t want to put the burden on Clark but we have an entire state – that you do change the way you vote, send a really clear signal to both the major parties that we’re not going to put up anymore with their dodgy deals behind closed doors. We’re not going to put them any more with fudged Expression of Interest processes. We want transparency and accountability, we want peoples voices to be heard, thank you very much for your question.
Lisa Gershwin
Following on from what Kristie said, because pretty much she said most of what I was going to say. But I also wanted to point out that this is the very same government that has a minister with total control over salmon lease approvals. And this is the very same government that is lying to us about the forestry and the big trees and all of this. This is the same government that’s pushing through changes to the planning laws. So that if you want to, if you want to challenge something, a planning approval, you have to put up a bond. So an ordinary citizen would have to put up a bond to cover the legal fees of the developer that you’re challenging. This is the very same government that’s trying to take all of the reasonable aspects of participation in democracy away from us. So following on from what Kristie said, we have a choice. We have independents who are truly independent; there is zero possibility that I can be bought and I dare say there is zero possibility that the other independents running in this division, Clark, can be bought. So you guys have a choice in just a few days. And I implore you to use it for the sake of all of us.
Eloise Carr – Moderator
We’re over time, we’ll wrap it up there. Thanks everyone for coming.
