Dr WOODRUFF question to PREMIER, Mr ROCKLIFF
Your Budget and the state of the environment response yesterday shows just how far the Liberals are prepared to bend to the will of large corporations. Struggling Tasmanians and our deteriorating environment are losing out big time. You refuse to make the big end of town pay their fair share and have prioritised a billion-dollar stadium instead of building homes and hospitals. On top of this, you tried to push through a bill to do the bidding of multinational ACEN, pre-empting a Supreme Court decision on the Robbins Island wind farm approval and subverting the rule of law.
You pretended the Validation (State Coastal Policy) Bill was urgent and tried to bulldoze it through in Budget week yesterday. It suffered a significant setback in the other place last night thanks to Greens and independents raising concerns. It seems there is nothing you will not do to sell out Tasmania’s interest to the whims of multinational corporations. How do you justify your dishonesty and failed priorities to them?
Mr ABETZ – Point of order, Speaker. The assertion ‘your dishonesty’ directed to the Premier is a clear reflection that needs to be withdrawn.
The SPEAKER – If the Premier feels that he has been misrepresented, the Premier can ask for that to be withdrawn and the Premier can ask for that to be the case. The personal reflection is a personal reflection. The Premier can make that call. Otherwise, there is an opportunity for the Premier to seek the call at the end of Question Time to explain why he has not been misleading. If the member had said that he had lied, that would be different, but it is actually a personal issue.
Mr ROCKLIFF – It is a personal reflection and I have a pretty thick skin after a couple of decades in this place, but we do need to respect each other and engage in respectful discussion, robust debate nonetheless.
It would be in the interest of the parliament if Dr Woodruff did withdraw that.
Dr WOODRUFF – I withdraw that. Can I change the final part of the question, then, to how do you justify pretending the urgency of that bill and your failed priorities to Tasmanians?
The SPEAKER – The question would have stood without the reclarification because the word was withdrawn, so I will take that. Premier, I will call you to this but I need you to be conscious of not reflecting on a vote of a bill that has passed this House and may very well be coming back to this House at some stage, so if you can answer without reference to that it would be appreciated.
ANSWER
Honourable Speaker, this is the House of Assembly and I am mindful of how the Legislative Council does its business. My understanding is that the leader made a decision to withdraw discussion on the bill for various reasons due to some engagement, as you would expect, with her colleagues in the Legislative Council. It seemed to me a pragmatic, sensible and measured way forward.
I am interested in some of your commentary about multinationals and demonising investment in Tasmania. I can point to investment in renewable energy, investment in mining and investment in aquaculture. I was very interested in the accounting error in the Greens’ alternative budget. I think you have done a great job in terms of at least producing an alternative budget, but there is an accounting error where you are taxing an industry that you will close down, so there would be no industry, effectively, to tax. I am not sure how that works. I would have another look at how you produce your alternative budget. It seems a little inconsistent to me – some would say kooky – that you would want an industry shut down sending thousands of people to the dole queue but at the same time taxing an industry that no longer exists under your regime.
We welcome investment in Tasmania, whether they be local investors, national investors or international investors, because when people invest in Tasmania they employ Tasmanians, they invest in capital and that supports Tasmanian businesses, small, medium and large, and our economy.
