Legislative Council, Wednesday 22 June 2022

Ms FORREST (Murchison) - Mr President, this is one of the bills that normally I would prepare a few written thoughts. I am not going to go on for ages, having said that, but there has been so much changing in such a short and tight time frame, with all good intent in my respect, to deal with the very real problems that many of us have identified with this approach. I may be a little bit repetitive or I may go over stuff. I might forget to say stuff I intended to or things I intended to.

Let me say from the outset that people would know in and outside this place that I have always had a strong belief in the right to free speech, and for the right to protest. I, too, like the member for Rumney, have participated in protests in my former work life, particularly for the right of all workers to go to work and return safely.

I acknowledge the comments made by the member for Rumney about the many long outstanding issues of worker safety - physical and psychological safety - that are not being addressed in a timely manner. I call on the Government to get on with that. Surely that must be a priority. It is not part of this bill - I accept that - but if the Government claim to be serious about worker safety and workplace safety, they are not doing it in a way that convinces me they are really genuinely serious about it. As the member for Rumney outlined, there were a number of things - I think it was Committee B - asking the same sort of questions about numbers of workers on leave with psychological or physical injury. We accept that part is COVID 19 related, particularly the psychological injury but not all of it. This has been going on for a long time.

For me, a lot of this is about finding a balance between rights and responsibilities. Where there is a right there is always a responsibility. All of us would probably accept that we all have a responsibility to act in a safe manner, potentially toward ourselves though some people struggle with that when they are mentally unwell but also toward others. If they do not, we have laws to punish them, if necessary, or to at least give clear guidance into what society expects. It does not expect you to murder, assault or to rape people. That is the standard. There are many, many other standards. There is a right for people to be safe.

For me, I represent a really interesting community in this state. I have some of the most seasoned protesters you could hope to meet who live, work and play in my electorate. I have some of the workers in my electorate who suffer at the hands of people who perhaps do not respect the rights of some of my people - I call them 'my people'. They are people who I represent who work in my electorate, who live in my electorate, who have a right to go to work in a way that is safe and that includes their psychological safety.

When I see anyone particularly upset but when you think about the mining, forestry and agricultural sector which is a pretty big part of my electorate, we tend to have this stereotypical view that most, particularly the mining sector and the forestry sector, are men who are tough, who do not complain. They call a spade a spade and everything else and that they are pretty invincible. Well, that is not the case. They are humans just like everybody else and the businesses they work for have real humans running the workplace.

We met one of those real humans today. That was Mr Steve Scott who has been the General Manager of MMG, Rosebery, for not that long - probably, a couple of years now, but I have known all the GMs from MMG and Venture Minerals. I know a lot of you have met Andrew Radonjic from Venture Minerals and probably others also. These men are human. They have families who see the negative impact on some of these people. Where do we find the balance here to enable people to have their voice heard, to protest in a way that, sure, can be inconvenient, disruptive - that is the whole nature of protest. What is the point of protesting if no one notices as there is no point in that. But you can and should protest in a way that does not put the life or health of others at risk and includes both psychological and physical health.

That is where I come from in all of this. I also, at the outset, commend the Government from what I could almost say, finally listening and stopping this - what I suggest is a stupid approach to try to put in stand-alone legislation about a matter where there were clearly provisions in our current legislation that dealt with matters of trespass. Yes, there were some challenges with that but time and time again, including when I have spoken to my mining community and the forestry community - that is what they wanted to see. They did not want to be the meat in the sandwich or the wedge that was trying to be used by the Liberal Party in the past and that is what they have been.

One of these people in the industry I spoke to felt like they were being used like a wedge - not in this legislation, but in previous legislation - and were required to write to us to tell us they supported the previous approach even though they really did not. That is not okay either. That is being coerced by the Government.

I commend the Government for taking this approach of addressing their mind to the provisions in the Police Offences Act that focus on trespass, strengthening the penalties. This is what the workers and the businesses I represent have been asking for.

In doing that, we have identified a few problems and challenges here that have been really difficult to overcome and will comment more potentially in the Committee stage, depending on what other members have to say about this. I compliment the member for Rumney on her comments on clause 4 and I also compliment the minister on his willingness to listen and to bring forward an amendment that he hopes will seek to address the very real and genuine concerns raised by members of this place.

I was listening to the Leader reading the second reading speech which really does not consider that amendment at all. Basically she was saying that it was all tickety-boo as it is. Clearly, if the Government is bringing an amendment is not tickety-boo as it is; it actually needs some change.

Mrs Hiscutt - The minister was listening to the concerns and was trying to address that.

Ms FORREST - That is what I am saying. Maybe, they should remember the second reading speech to give some acknowledgement to that, though that is my point. It is actually the way the second reading speech came across - it was suggesting it is all good.

Anyway, I know there will be more comment in the Committee stage on this and I will not reprosecute that at this point.

In terms of the other aspect of people being able to go to work safely, in a safe place and a safe manner and return home in the same condition ˗ perhaps more tired than when they arrived ˗ there is also the fact some of these actions are causing significant financial harm to businesses, operators, and workers. We know that for some contractors ˗ not all ˗ in the mining sector they tend to pay their contractors whether or not they are able to work. It is too difficult not to and there are also certain agreements in place with some of these contractor organisations. In some others, particularly in the forestry sector, if a contractor does not deliver their load of logs, they do not get paid. That must cause enormous hardship for those families.

I know the reason people are protesting is to protect those trees so they are not cut down in the first place. We are not going to go into a forestry debate, but the state has, over many years, worked really hard to protect areas that should be protected. There will always be contentious areas. Overall, a lot of our state is reserved. I hate using the words 'locked up', because it is not locked up. People can go there and enjoy it. It is preserved in a way that enables the trees to keep growing, until they die and fall over and new ones grow. There are many facets to this.

I appreciate all the briefings that were provided, as much as possible giving a voice to everyone who wanted one. I am not sure of any who asked who did not get to briefings and want to go through some of the comments from these.

Mrs Hiscutt - We had four hours of briefings. I had two hours for the fors, and two hours for the against. There was another group and I asked them to contact members individually.

Ms FORREST - Thank you for that, Leader.

I would like to read from a letter from Tasmanian Minerals, Manufacturing & Energy Council. Ray Mostogl is the CEO. I have known Ray for a very long time and have been very involved with TMEC for the last 17 years, since I was elected. It was called the Tasmanian Minerals Council at that time, it now includes energy. Ray Mostogl says in his letter to all of us: (tbc)

Raising awareness and seeking to influence outcomes is a hallmark of a modern society. Where alternate ideas can be openly shared and in time, either changes are adopted, or those seeking a change recognise the broader society does not wish to adopt the view. How adults air and interact when there are opposing ideas, sets the tone for the quality of our society. Importantly, it demonstrates to the next generation what behaviour is acceptable when it comes to having conflicting airs viewed.

We all do well to learn about how to have differing views respectfully, without seeking to harm the person who has a different view. You can do a lot of harm with words as well as with fists and other implements. He goes on:

I would imagine if the behaviours which are currently occurring in Tasmania between representatives of the Bob Brown Foundation (BBF) and employees and contractors of MMG, were replicated by our children in our schools, by our medical professionals in health facilities, etcetera, there would be outrage and condemnation.

I ask all of us here if you think that would not be the case? Are we okay with teachers wearing body cameras? At this stage they do not. These devices are not standard issue for mine workers who must interact with protesters. I would be very surprised if some of those who must deal with the taunts and disruptions on a frequent basis, as is occurring in the current case, are not already or in time, will experience symptoms of PTSD. We have a duty to these people to try to prevent that sort of impact on our workers.

The Tasmanian parliament is charged with creating laws of a civilised and respectful society. When people choose to operate in contradiction to these principles they are either breaking the law and suffer the consequences, or if not, laws are amended to address this unacceptable behaviour. The Tasmanian parliament sets the tone for how Tasmanian society operates. Irrespective of which side of the debate a person sits, there could not be anyone who believes confrontations which are occurring, are a sign of a caring, respectful society. There must be a way in the 21st century with the advent of social media and all other modern communication tools and systems for opinions to be heard without the physical confrontation which is currently occurring.

I know that we heard from people who are engaged in the protests I refer to here, that they have a no violence ethical framework under which they operate. However, I know and I think we all know from some of the things we have seen and heard today that is not always the case. The member for Rumney might have said you cannot guarantee everyone in that organisation is going to do the right thing.

It is very intimidating for people to be filmed all the time, if they are trying to go about their work. I know that it is a public place, it is not like you are being filmed in your home, which is an inappropriate thing to do anyway and is illegal, but you are still being filmed without your consent. Even when I went down there to look at this site, at the South Marionoak site, Bob Brown Foundation protesters were down there, they were all behaving very respectfully. They were standing back on the side of the road, on the side of the staging area before you head down into the actual site under investigation for a potential tailings dam. But they were filming us. I thought, what are they going to use that for? When I am up for election next time is that going to surface somewhere with an inappropriate and disconnected by line over it? Maybe they will, I do not know, but I did not give my permission to be filmed.

Generally, when I attend any Zoom meeting, other event, conference or anything, when recording is in place, your consent is sought. You have an opportunity to leave at that point if you do not wish to. Even though I did not feel particularly threatened by their activity, I felt that somewhat intimidating and they were not being threatening in any other way. I know one of them quite well. He is a good bloke; he is very passionate about the area and protesting and he is entitled to protest in the way he was on that occasion. Absolutely, he is.

Mr Mostogyl goes on - I will just leave a little bit of this out: (tbc)

It is important for members of the Legislative Council to consider in its deliberations the balance between stopping the atrocious behaviours, which are occurring on a daily basis, and what may hypothetically occur. TMEC pleads with the members of the Legislative Council to not allow what is actually happening to be ignored because of a hypothetical, remotely possible outcome.

With respect to Mr Mostogyl, I disagree to a point that some of the concerns raised are not hypothetical. We know they could actually occur, in terms of a rally or a protest that is pulled together at short notice. I used the example in the briefing if we had a tragic event, say the murder and rape of a young woman in Princess Square in Launceston for example. We have seen this happen in Victoria or Melbourne often enough to know that it happens and people were so incensed that an impromptu rally was called to express our great and deep concern by such an event. You could well see thousands of people turn out, that would spill out of Princess Square into the streets surrounding it.

We do need to be clear that this is not intended to capture those sorts of circumstances. It cannot be, because that would be limiting free speech. That would be limiting the right for people to actually say, this is not okay. I am sure that most people in that sort of protest would not actively seek to block the road. You might find that people who came across it might join in. If an ambulance came along with lights and sirens, because it is just up the road from the hospital, I am sure they would make every effort as they could to quickly get out of the way. It is a different approach, we are talking about.

I will be interested to listen to the debate on the proposed amendment from the Government and to see whether that clause 4 should be excised completely, or whether the amendment the Government proposes to it will actually address some of these concerns. The main issue I recognise, and the people I represent absolutely recognise, is where you have a road that is not as part of private land, that is blocked entirely with the only access to a worksite being further down that road, that is where the problem is and, where work is being disrupted for hours. Part of that is a resourcing issue. You only have so many police on the west coast and they can only be in one place at a time. Yes, you can call them down from the north-west. Often, by the time the workers get there, they are confronted, they try to deal with it and try to get the protesters to allow them through. Then the police are called. By the time they get there, they may well have decided to move on at that point, or not. So, they have lost hours of work.

Some would say this is not relevant, but to me it is relevant. In that the site that these workers are trying to access, is a site of a proposed potential tailings dam. For the MMG mine to continue, it needs to deal with its tailings. The current tailing storage is almost full, there are two. Otherwise, all the jobs of MMG basically will die out with the business. I do not think any of us want to see that. We do not want to see a whole lot of job losses but we also do not want to see our environment trashed. Absolutely we do not.

The only way to find out if this site is even suitable is to allow the workers to go in and do soil testing, do drilling, do full surveys to see whether there are threatened species there of fauna or flora, to map all of that. If you cannot get in there to do that, then what? You go somewhere else. So, they go to Natone Creek, on the other side of Rosebery. I have heard on very good authority that if they decide to go there, the Bob Brown Foundation will be there too and protest that as well. Yes, it is on the same side of the river as the current tenement and it is closer to the town, but it is still a site that is in the bush and potentially there could be a threatened species in there too.

The other argument is they can use a paste process for their tailings. I have had discussions about this and I will have further discussions with MMG about this and experts in the field, because the Bob Brown Foundation clearly told us in the briefing that that is a workable solution. This is a very old mine. It goes down three kilometres. It is stinking hot down the bottom, they have air conditioning units in it. You have to have all sorts of tests before you can go down, like you have to be well hydrated before you go down. They should test your urine to make sure you are before you go underground. It is quite warm down there. There are a lot of old workings. I am not a geotechnical engineer, I do not think anyone else in this place is either, but I would much rather rely on the evidence of experts in this as to whether that is even a workable solution.

Even if it is, even if you can put all the tailings in a paste form down underground there, as I understand it, that would mean that all the waste rock would need to come to surface. That is okay, you can do that; you can bring all the waste rock up rather than backfill the drives with the waste rock. But that is potentially acid-forming rock. Once you bring it above the surface, you have the issue of acid drainage. That is an environmental catastrophe waiting to happen too.

Ms Webb - I do not think we are prosecuting the merits or otherwise of a particular site with this bill.

Ms FORREST - I am making the point about the protest action that is stopping an activity that is really trying to see if we can keep a business going. It has a huge financial impact on this business. If MMG does not get an outcome from the testing soon, the tailings dam will be full and all those jobs will be gone. Once you put a mine into care and maintenance, it does not just rev up overnight again. It would be like starting up a coal fired power station - I think it would be longer.

The Tasmanian Minerals, Manufacturing and Energy Council support for this bill comes from member companies and their firsthand experience of body corporate-led, highly-organised, applying intimidatory tactics, often operating with stealth and applying intentional actions designed to disrupt a business. This is clearly not the domain of the homeless or marginalised Tasmanians innocently seeking shelter or to occupy a public space. [TBC]

The reason I read that and reiterate the points of where that comes from is that we do need to be sure that homeless people and other vulnerable people are not caught up in legislation designed to prevent harm to workers going to work.

I could take issue with the title of the bill too, as the member for Rumney did to some degree, but it is about that aspect of worker safety. It is definitely about that aspect. All the other things - well the Government has its work to do and should be held to account. Maybe there are other ways we can do that.

I know that Unions Tasmania opposes the bill in broad terms but I put to them and to everyone here, if you are not going to protect the workers that the unions represent to attend a workplace safety, such as this, then how do you do it? How do we do it? How do we look after the people that I represent, the member for McIntyre represents, who work in these sectors? The construction industry is a pretty dangerous profession, it is more dangerous than mining and forestry and agriculture, in terms of deaths. How do we prevent this harm potential, real, and actual harm?

The union gives a lot of really good examples of where protests have been held effectively and to make a really clear point, including that sit-in around Sydney Harbour, where they actually preserved all those older buildings around The Rocks. That is a fantastic and great outcome. I do not know what was going on specifically at that time, but there are places for those sort of mechanisms to protect something, but where it is a legal process. We need to be really careful we are not stepping over the rights and responsibilities framework.

I am concerned about clause 4. I will listen to the debate in the Committee stage about the proposed amendment to see how we deal with that. I recognise there needs to be some mechanism that can deal with people deliberately and wilfully obstructing a work site entrance that is not the door of the business, effectively, because obviously once you go across there you already are trespassing. You are not trespassing on the road when the road does not belong to the business; it belongs to us.

Steve Scott from MMG made the point that the right to protest should not prevent people undertaking lawful work approved under current legislation. I know that this is a real contested space, in terms of forestry particularly. Once the tree is cut down, it is cut down and if they really are precious trees, or threatened species of trees, or there is threatened species of animal or bird living in that area, then we do need to try to prevent that happening. That is why we need to have really robust processes for the assessment of those and if they are not right perhaps we should fix those.

Ms Rattray - It is called a Forest Practices Plan.

Ms FORREST - Yes, and the Forest Practices Act and if that is not doing the job then that needs to change. If other aspects are not adequate, like our environmental laws, if they are not adequate then let us deal with that. We do need to protect our environment.

Ms Webb - You will probably find those organisations are working at that structural level as well as standing there protecting - as they see it - the forests because structural changes is hard and long. Protecting the forest happens in the meantime.

Ms FORREST - If the environmental legislation is not adequate to protect our environment, which we all value, I love the environment that I live in. It is some of the most beautiful - I have the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area (TWWHA). What is not to love about that? Some others might share a little bit; even the member for Derwent may get a little bit of that. We all highly value what we have here in Tasmania so we need to ensure it is protected, but we also need to find this balance with allowing people to go about their work in a safe manner.

Stepping out in front of a moving vehicle, or stopping a vehicle and then immediately locking-on, even before the vehicle has been turned off, puts the driver and the workers of that vehicle in a very precarious position. If that occurs, the first thing they have to do is make sure that the brake is on, that the vehicle is turned off, and even that the wheels are chocked, because if someone has locked-on and the vehicle did move, then if that person is harmed they are potentially liable.

Imagine living with that. Most of the members here know what it is like driving to the north and driving into the sun, particularly in the winter. If there was a rope that was holding up a tree sit and you did not see it and ran into with a truck and brought down a tree sit, how do you live with that? These are humans - humans up the tree, humans in the truck all potentially harmed by such an event.

Mr President, I know there will be some debate around particular wording and I know the member for Nelson also has some amendments for clause 5 to address matters there. I will listen to the debate around that to see whether that will be a more appropriate and better way to deal with the provisions. But if people are going to be subject to these much higher penalties, which is what the industry has been calling for and others have been calling for, then it does need a high bar. It should not be that minor things are caught up in this. It should be serious offences - 'the worst of the worst' as I think it was described, the worst action in the worst circumstance. That is how our laws work, that is how our penalty system works.

There is evidence that high penalties do not act as a deterrent particularly in certain areas. I do not believe that in crimes like sexual assault, murder, the so called 'crimes of passion' - a terrible term for them - when people act often without thinking or their thinking is distorted - they think, 'Oh geez, I might end up in prison if I do this', or 'I might get a really high financial penalty'. No, they do not think about that at the time. There is heaps of evidence around that.

Engaging in a protest where you have to go somewhere remote, for example, or even if you have to just turn up down town for a protest, it is a deliberate act. You made a decision to go there. A higher penalty may well be a deterrent because you know if you would act in a way that is outside of the law in that action that you have decided to do - very few of these things are people who suddenly turn up. We heard from the Bob Brown Foundation that it absolutely does not happen with them. They are all briefed, they all go through the plan, and they all go through how to respond and to be non violent and all the other measures they take. That is a very deliberate decision. They will be very deliberately aware that there is an increased penalty for certain actions that might occur.

There is possibly a difference here where it is a premeditated thought about a deliberate act that an increased penalty may well be a disincentive to take a certain action. I guess time will tell. We do stepped penalties in many of our areas of legislation to deal with varying severities and varying severity of impact on the victim.

I do not wish to say much more than that. I support the principle of this and I commend the Government for putting it into the Police Offences Act as has been asked since 2014 when I did not support that approach back then. In doing so, it has raised this very real concern of blocking access to a work site that is down the road beyond the site where the obstruction occurs. I want to find a way to deal with that to enable the people I represent to go to work safely and come home again, and to get their work done. I will be looking for the best possible solution I can get out of this place for that, and I will be listening to the debate. I might just have to hop out of the chair from time to time in the Committee stage.