DOCSLIB.ORG

IJTM/IJCEE PAGE Templatev2

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
IJTM/IJCEE PAGE Templatev2 Int. J. Environment, Workplace and Employment, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2005 203 Old growth logging: does it matter if environmental protection costs jobs? Robert Gale Institute of Environmental Studies University of New South Wales Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia E-mail: [email protected] Abstract: This paper examines the assertion that ‘environmental protection costs jobs’, a point that is thematic in the Australian state of Tasmania where banning clear felling of old-growth forests is vigorously resisted because of associated job losses. The debate between ‘jobs’ and ‘environment’ protagonists often originates in disagreements about political power, economic growth, distributional impacts, and the valuation of the environment. Although the loss of jobs due to environmental protection initiatives is typically portrayed as unreasonable by affected parties such as industry workers, unions, businesses, and some governments, the conclusion drawn in this paper is that these job losses are no less legitimate than losses attributed to technological change or shifting consumer demand. What needs to be emphasised is that we would normally expect jobs to be created and lost in a dynamic economy. The real jobs argument is about making the transition now when there are still options to consider about forestry jobs. A key policy problem is the development of transitional strategies to aid community and individual adjustment. Keywords: environmental protection; jobs; Tasmania; forest policy; preelection politics; transition strategies. Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Gale, R. (2005) ‘Old growth logging: does it matter if environmental protection costs jobs?’, Int. J. Environment, Workplace and Employment, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp.203–220. Biographical notes: Robert Gale is Senior Lecturer in Environmental Management with the Institute of Environmental Studies, University of New South Wales, Sydney. His research and teaching interests are in the theory and practice of sustainability, environmental decision making, ecological economics, corporate sustainability reporting, sustainable tourism, and sustainable development in China. Dr. Gale is also a Faculty Associate at Royal Roads University in Victoria, Canada where he has taught Sustainability to MBA students, and designed and delivered many online courses. He is the Treasurer of the NSW Division of the Environment Institute of Australia and New Zealand. Copyright © 2005 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd. 204 R. Gale 1 Introduction The question ‘Does it matter if environmental protection costs jobs?’ is explored with reference to the Australian federal election of 9 October 2004. One argument is that there is an objective trade-off between forestry jobs and environmental regulations – the tougher the environmental regulations, the fewer the forestry jobs. Another argument is that in practice the jobs and environment polarisation is a myth – that lost jobs are replaced by other forestry or non-forestry jobs because tougher environmental regulations stimulate diversity in the economy and hence more jobs. Yet another argument is that the outcome of environmental protection measures on jobs is more complex than either of the two preceding arguments suggests because the outcome depends on a range of considerations that have to be negotiated in a specific context. The objective of this examination of the question ‘Does it matter if environmental protection costs jobs?’ is to review the policy options concerning forestry jobs in the Australian state of Tasmania proposed at the time of the 2004 election, the reception of these options by interested parties, the ways the options played out in the election, the election result and the interpretation of the result in terms of forestry job issues. 2 The preelection politics of the Tasmanian forest industry In 2004, Tasmanian forest policy continued to be governed by the 1997 Regional Forest Agreement (RFA), a 20-year arrangement that was designed to provide assurance to industry of the timber supply available so that it would have a framework within which to make investment decisions [1]. While the RFA was a satisfactory arrangement for the Tasmanian Government and industry, the fact that old-growth logging continued at a rapid rate concerned a number of environmental groups, politicians, and private citizens. Although the RFA was an attempt to end the controversy and conflict between environmentalists and loggers, the guarantee to industry of 300,000 cubic metres of sawlogs each year was bound to lead to renewed protest in forests with high conservation values. The Wilderness Society (TWS) and Green Party leader, Senator Bob Brown, among others, drew attention to the potential loss of iconic trees in the Styx Valley and the Tarkine Rainforest that could still be logged under the RFA. This, in turn, led to various campaigns to stop old-growth logging. For example, in July 2003, about 4000 protesters rallied in the Styx Valley objecting to old-growth logging practices. On 13 March 2004, an estimated 15,000 people in Hobart called for “Federal intervention to protect Tasmania’s forests” [2], and on 26 June, World Environment Day, thousands of people joined widespread gatherings across Australia to “stand tall for Tasmania’s forests” [3]. In 2004, efforts to change forestry policy included detailed proposals from several Environmental Nongovernment Organisations (ENGOs). WWF Australia announced its policy in July. This was followed a month later by a joint initiative of The Wilderness Society and the Australian Conservation Foundation in cooperation with Greenpeace. Details of the separate policy initiatives are reviewed in the following sections. Old growth logging 205 2.1 WWF Australia’s forest policy proposal Regarding the first of these two proposals, WWF Australia published a ‘Blueprint’ report with a four-part solution to forestry issues in Tasmania [4,pp.1–3]: 1 An end to clearing (‘land clearing’ or ‘conversion’) of existing native vegetation for other uses. 2 An improved forest management system. 3 The creation of one of the world’s best reserve systems. 4 Improved governance in the forest industry. WWF Australia was concerned that existing and proposed regulations permit or would permit about 100,000 hectares of forests on public land, about 200,000 hectares of forests on private land and any amount of nonforest vegetation to be cleared and converted. In proposing its four-part solution WWF Australia made the following statement [4,p.1]: “We recognise that this solution will impact on industry, so we have committed to providing workable and costed proposals to ensure that industry is put on a sure footing to secure a vibrant future with no net job losses. These proposals fall into four categories: 1 An improved and secure timber resource suited to downstream processing. 2 Investment in job-intensive downstream processing facilities. 3 Improvements in logging practices. 4 Investment in community-sponsored tourism proposals, especially around the improved reserve system.” The solution included an implementation provision of $274 million from the Federal Government over ten years of which $35 million would be used to “compensate affected landholders other than Forestry Tasmania”; $27 million would be used to “cease logging in the Tarkine Wilderness Area, compensate affected timber industry participants, and implement a forest industry restructure package for the northwest of Tasmania”; and $10 million would be used for tourism development. The WWF Australia Blueprint report received qualified support from the Tasmanian Conservation Trust insofar as “the State’s environmental movement will benefit from having the WWF involved, regardless of whether all the environmental groups agree with its views” [5]. Apart from this, the report has been extremely controversial in environmental circles with 13 of the Tasmanian conservation groups writing to WWF’s head office in Switzerland asking WWF to leave Tasmania [6]. Overall, there has been a great deal of criticism from The Wilderness Society and Greenpeace [5–8]. The Wilderness Society’s chief objections to the proposal are that it would [7–8]: • Allow the continuation of logging in high conservation value forests. • Allow the continuation of woodchipping in high conservation value forests. • Permit logging of forests which are hundreds of years old. • Not protect significant areas of Tasmania’s old-growth forests. • Significantly expand forestry plantations. 206 R. Gale TWS Tasmanian Campaign Coordinator Geoff Law made the following damning comment [7]: “It is more of an industry blueprint than a conservation document – offering a lifeline to Forestry Tasmania and Gunns to continue woodchipping Tasmania’s old-growth forest. It has been developed without the support of community and environmental groups in Tasmania, the people that have to live with the consequences of the document.” Virginia Young, TWS National WildCountry Campaigner, also faulted the document [7]: “This plan will sustain the export woodchip industry in Tasmania’s native forests, but will not protect areas of world heritage value such as the Styx Valley. No national conservation body can agree to such a plan and Tasmanian regional groups yesterday met and condemned it. They also condemned WWF’s failure to take the views of, and solutions proposed by, the Tasmanian conservation movement into account.” The point about the Styx Valley was particularly alienating for Greenpeace whose campaign manager Danny Kennedy stated that “The most
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Influence on the U.S. Environmental Movement
    Australian Journal of Politics and History: Volume 61, Number 3, 2015, pp.414-431. Exemplars and Influences: Transnational Flows in the Environmental Movement CHRISTOPHER ROOTES Centre for the Study of Social and Political Movements, School of Social Policy, Sociology and Social Research, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK Transnational flows of ideas are examined through consideration of Green parties, Friends of the Earth, and Earth First!, which represent, respectively, the highly institutionalised, the semi- institutionalised and the resolutely non-institutionalised dimensions of environmental activism. The focus is upon English-speaking countries: US, UK and Australia. Particular attention is paid to Australian cases, both as transmitters and recipients of examples. The influence of Australian examples on Europeans has been overstated in the case of Green parties, was negligible in the case of Friends of the Earth, but surprisingly considerable in the case of Earth First!. Non-violent direct action in Australian rainforests influenced Earth First! in both the US and UK. In each case, the flow of influence was mediated by individuals, and outcomes were shaped by the contexts of the recipients. Introduction Ideas travel. But they do not always travel in straight lines. The people who are their bearers are rarely single-minded; rather, they carry and sometimes transmit all sorts of other ideas that are in varying ways and to varying degrees discrepant one with another. Because the people who carry and transmit them are in different ways connected to various, sometimes overlapping, sometimes discrete social networks, ideas are not only transmitted in variants of their pure, original form, but they become, in these diverse transmuted forms, instantiated in social practices that are embedded in differing institutional contexts.
    [Show full text]
  • Senator Bob Brown - Australian Greens
    Senator Bob Brown - Australian Greens Bob Brown, born in 1944, was educated in rural New South Wales, became captain of Blacktown Boys High School in Sydney and graduated in medicine from Sydney University in 1968. He became the Director of the Wilderness Society which organised the blockade of the dam-works on Tasmania’s wild Franklin River in 1982/3. Some 1500 people were arrested and 600 jailed, including Bob Brown who spent 19 days in Risdon Prison. On the day of his release, he was elected as the first Green into Tasmania's Parliament. After federal government intervention, the Franklin River was protected in 1983. As a State MP, Bob Brown introduced a wide range of private member's initiatives, including for freedom of information, death with dignity, lowering parliamentary salaries, gay law reform, banning the battery-hen industry and nuclear free Tasmania. Some succeeded, others not. Regrettably, his 1987 bill to ban semi-automatic guns was voted down by both Liberal and Labor members of the House of Assembly, seven years before the Port Arthur massacre. In 1989, he led the parliamentary team of five Greens which held the balance of power with the Field Labor Government. The Greens saved 25 schools from closure, instigated the Local Employment Initiatives which created more than 1000 jobs in depressed areas, doubled the size of Tasmania's Wilderness World Heritage Area to 1.4 million hectares, created the Douglas-Apsley National Park and supported tough fiscal measures to recover from the debts of the previous Liberal regime. Bob resigned from the State Parliament in 1993 and Christine Milne took over as leader of the Tasmanian Greens.
    [Show full text]
  • PRIVATE RIGHTS, PROTEST and PLACE in BROWN V TASMANIA
    PRIVATE RIGHTS, PROTEST AND PLACE IN BROWN v TASMANIA PATRICK EMERTON AND MARIA O’SULLIVAN* I INTRODUCTION Protest is an important means of political communication in a contemporary democracy. Indeed, a person’s right to protest goes to the heart of the relationship between an individual and the state. In this regard, protest is about power. On one hand, there is the power of individuals to act individually or a collective to communicate their concerns about the operation of governmental policies or business activities. On the other, the often much stronger power wielded by a state to restrict that communication in the public interest. As part of this, state authorities may seek to limit certain protest activities on the basis that they are disruptive to public or commercial interests. The question is how the law should reconcile these competing interests. In this paper, we recognise that place is often integral to protest, particularly environmental protest. In many cases, place will be inextricably linked to the capacity of protest to result in influence. This is important given that the central aim of protest is usually to be an agent of change. As a result, the purpose of any legislation which seeks to protect business activities from harm and disruption goes to the heart of contestations about protest and power. In a recent analysis of First Amendment jurisprudence, Seidman suggests that [t]here is an intrinsic relationship between the right to speak and the ownership of places and things. Speech must occur somewhere and, under modern conditions, must use some things for purposes of amplification.
    [Show full text]
  • LABOR NEWSNEWS Octoberoctober 2008 2012 PREMIER’S MESSAGE an Abbott Federal Government Would Be a Disaster for Tasmania
    LABORLABOR NEWSNEWS OctoberOctober 2008 2012 PREMIER’S MESSAGE An Abbott Federal Government would be a disaster for Tasmania. It’s difficult to overstate the damage that the federal Opposition leader’s policies would do to the Tasmanian economy and government services if he is ever elected Prime Minister. The single biggest threat is the Liberal Party’s stance on the distribution of GST revenue. Mainland Liberal Premiers are united in pushing for a per capita distribution of GST revenue, which would strip up to $700 million per annum from Tasmania’s budget. That’s the equivalent of $5000 for every Tasmanian household. Mr Abbott has consistently expressed sympathy and support for his Liberal colleague’s campaign. His claims that such an approach would not disadvantage Tasmania are laughable. Liberal Premiers are pursuing a change in the way GST revenue is distributed because they PREMIER LARA GIDDINGS want to get their hands on more of it. With a finite amount of cash available, giving more to WA, Victoria, Queensland and NSW must mean there’s less available for the smaller States. The impact on public services in Tasmania of a further massive reduction in GST revenue would be devastating. But the potential damage to Tasmania of an Abbott government does not end there. Mr Abbott’s pledge to repeal the price on carbon would strip a further $70 million per annum from Tasmania, as we benefit financially from our strong advantage in renewable energy. He has also pledged to abandon the NBN, which would cost Tasmania 800 jobs in the roll-out phase and jeopardise our place in the new digital economy.
    [Show full text]
  • The Rise of the Australian Greens
    Parliament of Australia Department of Parliamentary Services Parliamentary Library Information, analysis and advice for the Parliament RESEARCH PAPER www.aph.gov.au/library 22 September 2008, no. 8, 2008–09, ISSN 1834-9854 The rise of the Australian Greens Scott Bennett Politics and Public Administration Section Executive summary The first Australian candidates to contest an election on a clearly-espoused environmental policy were members of the United Tasmania Group in the 1972 Tasmanian election. Concerns for the environment saw the emergence in the 1980s of a number of environmental groups, some contested elections, with successes in Western Australia and Tasmania. An important development was the emergence in the next decade of the Australian Greens as a unified political force, with Franklin Dam activist and Tasmanian MP, Bob Brown, as its nationally-recognised leader. The 2004 and 2007 Commonwealth elections have resulted in five Australian Green Senators in the 42nd Parliament, the best return to date. This paper discusses the electoral support that Australian Greens candidates have developed, including: • the emergence of environmental politics is placed in its historical context • the rise of voter support for environmental candidates • an analysis of Australian Greens voters—who they are, where they live and the motivations they have for casting their votes for this party • an analysis of the difficulties such a party has in winning lower house seats in Australia, which is especially related to the use of Preferential Voting for most elections • the strategic problems that the Australian Greens—and any ‘third force’—have in the Australian political setting • the decline of the Australian Democrats that has aided the Australian Greens upsurge and • the question whether the Australian Greens will ever be more than an important ‘third force’ in Australian politics.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2009–10
    Annual Report 2009–10 David Bartlett, MP PREMIER Dear Premier In accordance with the requirements of Section 36(1) of the State Service Act 2000 and Section 27 of the Financial Management and Audit Act 1990, I enclose for presentation to parliament the 2009-10 Annual Report of the Department of Premier and Cabinet. Yours sincerely Rhys Edwards Secretary 9 October 2010 Department of Premier and Cabinet - Annual Report 2009-10 1 The Department of Premier and Cabinet is a central agency of the Tasmanian State Government. The Ministers to whom the department is responsible are the Premier, and the Minister for Innovation, Science and Technology, Hon David Bartlett MP, the Minister for Local Government and the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, Hon Bryan Green MP, the Minister for Children, Hon Lin Thorp MLC, and the Minister for Community Development and the Minister for Climate Change, Hon Nick McKim MP. The department also supports the Secretary to Cabinet, Cassy O’Connor MP, who has been authorised to undertake administrative functions related to the Community Development Division’s Disability Bureau, Multicultural Tasmania, Seniors Bureau and Women Tasmania on behalf of the Minister for Community Development. The department provides a broad range of services to the Cabinet, other members of parliament, government agencies and the community. The department works closely with the public sector, the community, local government, the Australian Government and other state and territory governments. The department also provides administrative support to the State Service Commissioner and the Tasmania Together Progress Board, each of which is separately accountable and reports directly to parliament.
    [Show full text]
  • Bob Brown Foundation, 3 July 2020
    0172 Page 199 of 575 This information is provided from Circular Head Council From: Scott Jordan Sent: Fri, 3 Jul 2020 17:10:12 +1000 To: Circular Head Council Subject: Circular Head Council LPS Submission Attachments: Circular Head LPS submission.pdf, Circular Head Council LPS Submission - Appendix A.pdf Please find attached our submission in regards to the Circular Head Municipality draft LPS. The two attachments include the submission and one appendix. Scott Jordan takayna / Tarkine Campaigner [email protected] 0428 300 324 Suite 5, 23 Cattley St Burnie TAS 7320 The Bob Brown Foundation Inc. ABN 51 634 785 002 0173 Page 200 of 575 Document Set ID: 462887 Version: 1, Version Date: 06/07/2020 Print Date: 24 July 2020, 10:33 AM This information is provided from Circular Head Council Submission to Circular Head Council LPS Bob Brown Foundation is a conservation organisation based in Tasmania, with a focus on protection of Tasmania’s wild and scenic landscapes and the species which inhabit those landscapes. Over the past six years, we have had a focus on takayna / Tarkine, including the portion of this land that lies within the Circular Head Municipality and on the Robbins Island area. Bob Brown Foundation is also the owner of freehold title land in the Circular Head Municipality. The Draft LPS raises concerns for BBF concerning its treatment of public land within takayna / Tarkine. While the application of 23.0 Environmental Management Zone is appropriate to areas that have been identified in the Draft LPS, we believe the extensive use of the 20.0 Rural Zone is inappropriate and misapplied.
    [Show full text]
  • State and Local Government Partnership Agreements
    STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENTS Report to Parliament November 2004 Including progress from November 2003 to October 2004 Premier Paul Lennon and Mayor Ross Hine sign the revised Circular Head Partnership Agreement. © P Hoysted 2004 Prepared by the Local Government Division of the Department of Premier and Cabinet State and Local Government Partnership Agreements November 2004 Executive Summary Welcome to the State and Local Government Partnership Agreements Report to Parliament 2004. The program is into its sixth year and the number of Agreements and positive outcomes continues to rise. This year has seen the signing of the first reviewed Agreement under the program. The Circular Head Agreement was originally signed in June 1999 and a renegotiated Agreement was signed in September this year. A number of other Councils have also agreed to review and renegotiate their Agreements, including Launceston City, Flinders, Glenorchy City, Kingborough and Northern Tasmania Development. The Partnership Agreements program has proven that it can deliver tangible outcomes to local communities. Progress in the last twelve months has included: • Up to $10 million in State Government levies on Local Government have been abolished under the new Financial Reform Partnership Agreement. • The Rivers Run Tourism Association has been established and has produced a touring map and guide for tourists in Central Highlands and Derwent Valley municipal areas. • The Circular Head Community and Recreation Centre was opened in August. The facility caters for a range of sports and includes function facilities. The State Government provided funding under the original Partnership Agreement and allocated a further $200,000 under the revised Agreement signed this year.
    [Show full text]
  • The Devil Undone: the Science and Politics of Tasmanian Devil Facial
    University of Wollongong Research Online University of Wollongong Thesis Collection University of Wollongong Thesis Collections 2013 The evD il Undone: the science and politics of Tasmanian Devil facial tumour disease Josephine Veronica Warren University of Wollongong, [email protected] Recommended Citation Warren, Josephine Veronica, The eD vil Undone: the science and politics of Tasmanian Devil facial tumour disease, Doctor of Philosophy thesis, School of Social Sciences, Media and Communication, University of Wollongong, 2013. http://ro.uow.edu.au/ theses/4182 Research Online is the open access institutional repository for the University of Wollongong. For further information contact the UOW Library: [email protected] The Devil Undone: The Science and Politics of Tasmanian Devil Facial Tumour Disease Josephine Veronica Warren BA (Hons) University of Wollongong School of Social Sciences, Media and Communication 20 December 2013 This thesis is presented for the degree of Doctorate of Philosophy Abstract The Tasmanian devil is a carnivorous marsupial endemic to the island state of Tasmania, part of the larger continent of Australia, threatened with extinction from a deadly cancer. The research into the cancer, termed Devil Facial Tumour Disease (DFTD), followed a pathway that supported the hypothesis that the cancer was transmissible, passed from devil to devil by biting, called an allograft. By adopting a political sociological approach, I analyse the scientific research into the devil cancer through the concept of undone science, which I expand by developing a typology of reasons, both practical and political, for deficits of knowledge. My analysis initially finds that scientific evidence has not been established to confirm the transmission of the cancer by biting.
    [Show full text]
  • Tasmania's Green Disease
    Tasmania’s Green Disease DAVID BARNETT Going Green is a great way to end up in the red. A look at the decay of the island State. ASMANIA is chronically ill herself as a national from the Green virus, and figure, and to win a seat wasting away. According to in the Tasmanian Leg- T the Australian Statistician, islative Assembly. Tasmania is the only State or Territory It is also Bob whose population will decline—regardless Hawke, who was Prime of which of the ABS’s three sets of assump- Minister when the tions are used about immigration, fertility Wesley Vale project Photo removed for reasons of copyright and interstate population flows. By the was proposed, and year 2051, Tasmania’s population will be Graham Richardson, down from its present level of 473,000 to Hawke’s environment either (depending on which set you adopt) minister. You should 462,100, 445,700 or 418,500 people. also include Tasma- Perhaps Tasmanians are fortunate that nian Senator Shayne their fertile and pleasant island has be- Murphy, although he come an economic backwater, and a place made his contribution for mainlanders to escape the hustle and as an official of the Construction, Forestry Robin Gray a thermal power station and bustle which goes along with economic and Mining Union (CFMEU). a lump of money to abandon the Franklin activity, the roar of urban traffic which is Tasmania’s unemployment rate is 10.6 project. the consequence of two cars in every ga- per cent, against a national average of 7.5 Gray saw himself as another Charles rage.
    [Show full text]
  • Reuben Finn Conry
    National winner Year level 8 Reuben Finn Conry Calvin Christian School Lake Pedder And The Franklin Dam Reuben Conry 1 Lake Pedder And The Franklin Dam ‘People And Power’ 2019 National History Challenge 8.3 SOSE Mrs Beeton By Reuben Finn Conry Word Count-990 In 1979, the battle to save Lake Pedder was lost. This was simply because a few people in power decided to act. The events of the flooding of Lake Pedder has affected Tasmania, as well as Australia, and has a powerful message with its story: with great power comes great responsibilities. Lake Pedder And The Franklin Dam Reuben Conry 2 Lake Pedder was a beautiful Glacial lake surrounded by mountains. It had been called ‘The Jewel of Tasmania’ and many other titles that reflected the serene beauty of this particular lake. So it came as a shock to many when Eric Reece AKA ‘Electric Eric’ announced that Lake Pedder would be modified. The modification included flooding Lake Pedder. The Hydro-Electric Commision had joined with the Tasmanian government to make a dam so that it could supply Tasmania with electricity. While this would be beneficial for a developing state, there were other ways to get this power and save a priceless location. This started a battle that would change the way people thought about people power, and prove that everyday people could change the state that we live in. The people of Tasmania worked together to attempt to stop the flooding of Lake Pedder. There was a massive response from the people of Hobart, creating a ten thousand signature petition, the highest amount of signatures put together for one petition in Tasmania.
    [Show full text]
  • House of Assembly Wednesday 4 September 2019
    Wednesday 4 September 2019 The Speaker, Ms Hickey, took the Chair at 10 a.m., acknowledged the Traditional People and read Prayers. RECOGNITION OF VISITORS Madam SPEAKER - Honourable members, it is my great privilege to welcome to parliament grade 5 and 6 students from Hagley Farm Primary School. Members - Hear, hear. QUESTIONS Tasmanian Industrial Commission - Alleged Leaking of Submission Ms WHITE question to MINISTER for JUSTICE, Ms ARCHER [10.03 a.m.] You are the minister responsible for the Tasmanian Industrial Commission. Yesterday the member for Clark, Sue Hickey, claims that her submission to the Industrial Commission arguing for an $80 000 pay rise was leaked to the media in order to damage her. Did anyone in your office, did you or anyone associated with you, leak the member for Clark's submission? ANSWER Madam Speaker, I would normally thank the Leader of the Opposition for her question. It shows they have already run out of questions in question time. They are going to the absolute gutter in terms of questions. Yes, I have responsibility for the Tasmanian Industrial Commission but to have some loose and tenuous link on this matter is really quite ludicrous and to ask your first question - Ms White - It is a yes or no answer. Madam SPEAKER - Order. Ms ARCHER - I can answer the question, no. Madam SPEAKER - Warning number one, Leader of the Opposition. Tasmanian Industrial Commission - Alleged Leaking of Submission Ms WHITE question to PREMIER, Mr HODGMAN [10.04 a.m.] Will you ask Tasmania Police to investigate allegations from the member for Clark, Sue Hickey, that her confidential submission to the Industrial Commission was leaked to the media? 1 4 September 2019 ANSWER Madam Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the question.
    [Show full text]