Dr WOODRUFF (Franklin – Leader of the Greens) – Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing the bill on. It is unusual that I jump to speak at this point. The reason I am doing that is because I am proposing that we adjourn this bill today to debate it at another time, that other time being 10 September. I will explain my reasons. I have been in conversations with other members in the House. I am speaking on behalf of Rodney Croome and the people he has spoken to that he represents, who have written to all members. All members would have received these emails so what I am going to talk about will not be news.
Everyone would understand that when the legislation was introduced to expunge historical offences for homosexuality and cross-dressing, part of that legislation in 2017 required a review after three years. That independent review in 2020 recommended 13 changes be made to improve the legislation and the processes. Of those, five did not require legislation. They related to streamlining the process, supporting applicants, promoting the scheme and disposing of documents. The other recommendations are included in the bill before us, except recommendation 13, which is to provide for redress. It was recommended that redress be included in amendments to the legislation. It is also relevant to understand that in 2017, Will Hodgman apologised on behalf of the state of Tasmania to all the people whose lives were harmed and the lost lives that Tasmanians wrongfully convicted of homosexuality and cross‑dressing suffered. Those people’s lives were changed forever and people live with the scars today.
Rodney Croome supplied members with a detailed document. I will not go into it now, but it is a document called Unfair and Unjust: A Briefing Paper on Financial Redress for those Convicted Under Tasmania’s Former Laws Against Homosexuality and Cross-Dressing. As a result of Rodney Croome’s work, the work of other people and the independent review, the Greens have consulted with other members and provided drafting instructions to the Office of Parliamentary Counsel (OPC) to prepare amendments around providing for opportunities for redress for past harms and injustices that have occurred.
Those amendments are still being prepared by the OPC and it is not our place to pressure the OPC to speed up their process of amendments. Because this bill was only tabled recently, members would understand that OPC has not had long to do this work. I am confident that they are working as hard as they can on all the legislation that they are making changes to. However, to be able to provide members with the opportunity to consider the amendments that Rodney Croome and others who have been affected have asked us to consider, I will move that the debate be adjourned until Tuesday 10 September so that members can see the amendments and assessing whether they are appropriate or not. In moving to adjourn, I am not assuming that members will support those amendments. However, I am asking the House to adjourn the debate so that we can work together on this important issue.
The parliament has worked collaboratively to provide justice for the wrongs of the past, from the bringing in of the expungement legislation to the apology then premier, Will Hodgman, made on behalf of the state of Tasmania. We believe considering redress is important for healing, for closing the loop of the injustices that were done and for fully atoning for the state’s harms, loss of life, trauma, humiliation, stigma, discrimination, lifelong shame that many people who were wrongfully convicted of homosexuality and cross-dressing still live with. The majority of Tasmanians would agree that a mechanism for redress should be included in this bill, as the independent review recommended.
We are awaiting the OPC’s amendments and I expect 10 September would be plenty of time for OPC to provide the amendments and for members to consider them and make their own assessment. I hope that members will support and understand the reason for our move to adjourn this bill until 10 September.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER – There can be a 35-minute debate on this or I will put the question to the House. Does the Attorney-General want to speak to this before –
Mr Barnett – Am I entitled to speak to the –
Dr Woodruff – I have just moved it so, yes, you can.
Mr Barnett – You just move to adjourn?
Dr Woodruff – I move to adjourn.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER – You can have a 35-minute debate.
