Legislative Council, Tuesday 21 March 2023

Ms FORREST - Mr President, I do not support the amendment. I think we are just jumping at shadows here. What this motion calls for is for the Government to give strong consideration - not to legislate, not to tell LGAT what to do, not to tell local government what to do - but to consider whether this is a reasonable step. I do not support it. We should leave local government in there.

I hark back to a fairly well publicised event in one of my local council groups where a person was charged with an offence that well and possibly has made them ineligible to obtain a Working with Vulnerable Person's card. At the moment, there is no barrier to that person recontesting, being re-elected and potentially putting members of our community of risk in that role. We see it as a right, as an elected member, to be able to go to our service clubs, go to our elderly people's garden parties, go to schools and all sorts of places and engage with children and vulnerable people. Yes, under some supervision at times. Certainly, if you go into a school without a WWVP card, then you will be escorted entirely while you are on site. I have my own. I am registered with a WWVP card for other volunteer work I do as well as visiting schools and any other facility where there may be vulnerable people.

We also have vulnerable people in our offices every day. We have vulnerable people in our offices who come in and talk about all sorts of personal matters, their financial circumstances. We should not have people who could potentially engage with those people on their own, behind a closed door, who may take advantage of them. In many respects, financially, sexually, whatever way you like, it is simply not okay. It is important this is a really important safety step.

In terms of coming back to the amendment before the Chair at the moment, it is not suggesting that the government legislate. It is suggesting that consultation should occur. As I am led to believe from the Leader's comments, even for us as elected members in this place and the other place, to comply with this requirement, there will be legislative change. They will go through the process. Consult, develop legislation, bring it before the other place and here, and we will pass it. I imagine, from the feeling of the views on this, we will be most likely to pass that legislation. It is the same with local government. Hopefully on this occasion they will consult with local government. We know that has not been such a successful thing in some other matters. The Government will go to local government. They will go to LGAT, they will go to all councils and set their feedback on that. Certainly, in my electorate - I know this is a matter of great concern - particularly after the highly publicised case. There have been other cases and circumstances too.

I have an objection to removing local government from this because it is not asking that we do not consult them; it is basically saying 'look at this. Government, do your work; Attorney General, Minister for Justice, go and consult and see what LGAT thinks and what local government seems to think on this'. They should; and if they agree, then bring it back. That is all we are asking them to do.

I urge members to reconsider that position and leave it in there. As I mentioned, as elected members, we certainly do engage with vulnerable people almost on a daily basis, and many would say that local government is a level of government that is even closer to the people and to the community than we are. In many respects they are more likely than us to be in the presence of, and engaging and potentially interacting, in a supportive way, with vulnerable members of our community.

I cannot see what the problem is. Yes, it may disqualify a small number of people from undertaking that work, but we would we want them excluded anyway, surely? Is that not the purpose of it? We exclude them from volunteering with vulnerable people, with children. Is that not what the purpose of it is?

Let us not jump at shadows here. Let us ask the Government and the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice to look at how do we legislate it to make it a requirement of being an elected member; and what do we need to do, consulting with the local government sector, to progress it for local government elected members who are closer to the people and carry just as much risk to the health and safety of the vulnerable members of our community as we do, and every other volunteer who does.

I know that it can be a little onerous for people to go through this process, but that is for a good reason - we want people working with vulnerable people and children to be as safe as we can make it. If you do not see the evidence of that, just look at the royal commissions we have had.

I do not support the amendment. I hope that other members may back me in this and we will deal with this and, through the motion, encourage the Government to look at both elected members of this place, the Parliament of Tasmania, and members of local government.