In Parliament, I called for fairer TasWater charges for Tasmanian households, sporting clubs and businesses. I raised concerns about cases where customers are facing unreasonable sewerage charges because of the number or size of their water connections.
I am working to ensure these concerns are heard and to find a practical pathway with TasWater, the Tasmanian Government and the Economic Regulator that delivers fairer outcomes for customers.
Mr FERGUSON (Bass) — Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I appreciate Dr Razay, bringing the MPI to the House today. I have been working, as the Liberal member for Bass, on the very same issue, including raising certain correspondence I have been receiving. I think some of that is in common with you, Dr Razay, and no doubt other members.
I have been very concerned about this issue and, as the Treasurer kindly told the House, I met with him only yesterday about the same matter that has been raised in the MPI today. It is a matter of public importance.
I am disappointed with some of the remarks from the Labor Party spokesperson on this matter. The Labor member, the Labor Shadow Treasurer, may well be proud of this as a Labor reform, but the reform is not working on the ground for Tasmanians.
It was the case that, in the face of a need for upgrading infrastructure right around the state, the 2013, I think, Labor Government lawmaking around the creation of TasWater has actually locked in some of the problematic corporate structure and the reliance on dividends that councils will continue to draw out of the business, which is part of the challenge now.
I want to remind the House that it was in, I think, 2017, that the Liberal Government wanted to take over TasWater so that this House and this Parliament could fully deal with and take responsibility for these challenges. The Labor Party fought tooth and nail against our proposed takeover of TasWater, which would have seen TasWater become a state-owned entity. It would have seen TasWater at GBE scrutiny hearings. It would have seen TasWater mainstreamed as a state-owned business, and it would have seen the House, the Parliament and whoever is in power actually in a position to take responsibility for the challenges that are being faced.
Labor fought against it tooth and nail—and won, and won, and won.
I also want to make the point that, while the Tasmanian Government is a 10 per cent equity owner of the business, it takes 0 per cent of the dividends because we did not want a situation under the then Hodgman Government where, while we were prepared to make investments after having been effectively defeated on the TasWater takeover, we wanted to make investments into the infrastructure pipeline for the business but we did not see, as Mr Winter was then mayor, ourselves then expecting a return on that investment in the way of dividends.
Why? Because it only would have led to higher water and sewerage bills. That is the hypocrisy of the Labor Party that I want to call out here and now today.
I also want to make a different point, and that is that Mr Winter has unfortunately conflated the corporate plan with the independent economic regulator’s determinations. That has been an unfortunate conflation because it is only the economic regulator that, under these laws created by Labor, can make a pricing determination.
I know the economic regulator, and respect that office and respect the person as well, but I am concerned that we are now in a situation where we have a determination which is in force and effect under PSP No. 5. I do not believe that it is operating as it was potentially intended because we now have a perverse situation where, for example, fixed service charges are linked to the size of a customer’s water connection, and that is deemed as the amount of connection fees that need to be charged on sewerage.
I see that as a huge problem that must be overcome. Without breaching into a meeting yesterday, that is the point I have made to others as well. If there can be a way for the Government to use its offices—that is, its relationship and its ongoing partnership with TasWater—I want to see the Government doing that with TasWater and with the regulator, to see whether there is a path for the economic regulator to reconsider some of these matters, potentially on the basis of the information that is now coming forward with the charging experience that customers are having.
I have been supporting a number of sporting clubs, a number of individual businesses, and also some individual householders who have not, I do not think, been mentioned yet. I could be wrong, but some householders have more than one water connection while they still have only one flushing toilet in the house. By legacy alone, they have more than one water connection and are now being charged for two sewerage connections, which is totally perverse.
I can only imagine that the economic regulator would not have imagined that scenario.
I appreciate the member for bringing the issue forward, and I ask the Treasurer and the House to help us find a pathway with the business and the regulator.
Below are two of my speeches from this week in Parliament on the Firearms Amendment (Strengthening Firearms Security) Bill 2026 to amend the Firearms Act 1996:
This week I spoke in Parliament about strengthening firearms security and our responsibility to get these laws right.
Our community deserves laws that improve safety, treat responsible firearms owners fairly and focus enforcement where the risk is greatest. That means supporting better information-sharing and tougher consequences for illegal firearms, while ensuring legitimate farmers, sporting shooters and other licensed owners can continue their lawful activities.
I do not support caps on firearm ownership. My speech explains why.
—–
Mr FERGUSON (Bass) – Honourable Speaker, I rise to speak to the Firearms
Amendment (Strengthening Firearms Security) Bill 2026. As member for Bass in northern
Tasmania, I want three things out of our deliberations on this bill today. I want the state to be
as safe as it can reasonably be. I want people to be able to go about their lawful business. I want
to have, at the end of our deliberations of both Houses, I truly hope to have a law that brings
a risk-based approach to get the best law possible, not one that gives politicians a temporary
feeling of satisfaction.I remember very well 28 April 1996. It was a Sunday afternoon in Tasmania. I was 22.
I was a first-year teacher at Exeter High School. I remember it very well, and the brutality that
was visited upon our state by a murderer who should never, ever be celebrated. Thirty-five
people dead. I read 23 were wounded, but the number truly wounded was much, much bigger;
so much bigger, because really, we had a state traumatised, if not a nation traumatised on that
day, and I will never forget it.Firearms law is an area where our parliament has to get a balance, and we need to do our
best to get the right balance. We have a responsibility to protect our community. We have
a responsibility to make laws that are practical and fair to the thousands of Tasmanians who
lawfully own and use firearms, whether that is for their recreational hunting, for their dog meat,
or to feed their family. Whether it’s for people who are sporting shooters – that’s their chosen
sport – for people in the pest control space, or for collectors – people who have a historical
interest in weapons that are actually not a particular dangerous firearm, but nonetheless they
technically could kill a person and they therefore need to be governed.Now, I know many of these people, and those people have obtained their licences, they’ve
done the training that’s required to get a licence. They’ve had to meet the test under the existing
law to be shown to be an appropriate firearms owner. They’ve accepted the responsibilities that
have come with that, and they’ve invested in secure storage. Quickly, can I remind the House
that it was under minister Hidding that a whole new regime of storage requirements came in,
and it was a very hot topic at the time. Our Liberal government faced some pressure at that
time, but we did that because we believed it was right and proper to make sure our rules and
laws were as robust as they should be, particularly when we know that criminals love to steal
firearms.The bill does make changes for law-abiding firearms owners, those groups that I’ve just
described and for whom I have a care and a regard that we get a balance right here. It creates
new reporting obligations. It changes the classification of some firearms. It establishes new
requirements around lending and storage. I acknowledge that plainly. But I do not believe that
this is a heavy-handed bill in relation to lawful firearms owners – and nor should it be.
I do want to see a heavy-handed bill when it comes to criminals, though: people who
have stolen a firearm, who have no right to own or possess one; who have failed the social test
that they’re an appropriate person; who are in possession of one that is stolen, illegal or
manufactured at home using a 3D printer, for example; or who are in possession of a firearm
that is not registered. I want a law that’s heavy-handed there. We do that. The minister has done
that in the bill. This is part of the balance. As part of that balance, we need to recognise
legitimate occupational and recreational uses. A much stronger focus, where I believe it
belongs, is on those stolen firearms, the illegal possession, trafficking, and the criminals who
put firearms into the black market. We’ve spoken at length about those in previous debates,
particularly around my own involvement in the work that we’ve done in this House on dealing
with outlaw gangs.As a longstanding constituency member in my northern electorate, I’ve heard directly
from a large number of people who’ve had some concerns about what might be the final
outcome of this bill. I think it’s fair to say there’s been a real spectrum, a diversity of views on
the subject. I don’t want to sound biased or unreasonable or disrespectful to any other
constituencies, but I haven’t had people in the street stop me and say, ‘Michael, I hope you’re
going to crack down on the number of firearms that a person can possess’. I haven’t had that,
but I know it’s out there. I recognise that. I don’t disrespect those people who hold that view.
I don’t agree with that view, and I’ll explain why shortly, but I haven’t had that. I have, however,
had good, reasonable people, people that are not asking for any special treatment, who have
said that they are concerned about the Prime Minister’s wish for a cap on the number of
firearms. I think that’s reasonable for them to be concerned about that, because they don’t see
themselves as dangerous people and they recognise that they’re highly regulated in this space
already.One person – I won’t give his full name, but I can say I know him well, I taught him at
high school – Guy wrote to me, and he uses firearms for crop protection and to harvest meat
for his family. Guy supports the National Firearms Register and mandatory sentences for
firearm crime. But he asked parliament, through me, not to scapegoat responsible owners for
the conduct of other people who break the law. One line in his email particularly caught me.
He said that ‘one firearm in the hands of a criminal or an extremist is far more dangerous than
multiple firearms that are held responsibly by a licensed citizen’. I really feel that that goes to
the heart of how I want to approach this issue. Note those points I made at the top about how
I want a safe law, I want a law that allows other people to go about their lawful business, and
I want one that responds to risk. Let’s take the lawmaking to risk like how we fight fires – we
take the resource to where the risk is.
TasFarmers have made a similar point from the perspective of our people on the land, the
men and women who are growing our food and fibre. TasFarmers described firearms used by
farmers as tools of trade within the wider agricultural inventory. That organisation has raised
concerns about reclassification and unnecessary red tape, but they have importantly also
supported the National Firearms Register, better information-sharing, and increased penalties.
I hope that parliament and all of us constituency members, in my case for the northern
electorate of Bass, should listen to all of that, not just the parts that may suit one side of the
argument. Briefly, on antique firearms, we have had an unsatisfactory position around antique
firearms for some years now. That broad exemption has not been sustainable. The law needs
to recover that position and manage it with good governance and, without going into detail and
describing what the minister did in his speech, I endorse the new approach. It’s reasonable and
it also regulates what is some level of genuine risk in a reasonable way.
I also want to put it really strongly on the record that I am a strong supporter also of the
National Firearms Register. I’ve been surprised – and this is not a criticism – but I’ve been
surprised at how hard that project has been for all jurisdictions in this country. That project is
now, by states, territories and the Commonwealth, at least four years down the track since its
origins. I understand it’s coming to better fruition now, but that is a big job. It reflects the
importance of reliable data sharing, matching and chain of custody for firearms and firearms
parts. I look forward to the register being fully implemented. It really will allow us to achieve
what’s set out in the bill, which is to require much better information storage and stronger
requirements when firearms are lent, and also those matters around the dealers and how they
would be part of the chain of custody for firearms and firearms parts.
Now, without glossing over that, I acknowledge that these are some extra obligations for
licensed owners. I would respectfully say to people like my friend the honourable member for
Lyons, Mr Di Falco, representing his party position of the Shooters, Farmers and Fishers:
please see that as the price that your party, or your constituency, should also contribute to
helping us all to find the balance here. We do have, yes, in some cases, more onerous
requirements on those legitimate firearms owners, but if we get the balance right, a healthy
balance, they are able to continue to go about their lawful business and to be able to practise
their sporting shooting, to be able to continue to support their livelihood as farmers. I think that
is a balance that we’re seeking to strike here, and it’s a reasonable proposition for me to be
making. I would, however, just point out to the minister and my government colleagues, let’s
be careful and sensible along the way, that we really clearly communicate the changes in a way
that’s easily and readily understood, so that people don’t inadvertently find themselves falling
foul of the law because they weren’t across the detail. I’ll just leave that point there.
I do not support arbitrary ownership caps. I’ve thought very carefully about it and, as a
longstanding member for Bass, I understand the political appeal of a cap. I get that, I understand
that. It certainly is something that’s easily understood in the community, if you were to go out
and say, well, isn’t it good that we put in place a cap? I understand the relevancy or the ease
with which we can say, isn’t that a good thing? However, I’m not interested in feeling good.
I want to do good as a politician. The challenge was laid out by the honourable member for
Lyons, Ms Butler, earlier in her contribution, and I appreciate and respect her point of view,
but the point was made well: how do you want to feel in 15 years’ time? That’s a good point.
When none of us in 15 years are here, I suggest – maybe a few of us – yes, you do want to be
able to look back and say well, I had an opportunity to do something. None of us want to live
with the sense of regret that we didn’t, on this day, do our best work. With that perspective,
I say it would be a feel-good outcome, but not a do-good outcome.
If parliament is going to restrict a lawful activity, then there must be a clear, risk-based
reason for doing so. A bare number does not achieve that, and that’s what really has irritated
me with the Prime Minister’s approach on this subject. A person who owns two firearms may
present a serious risk because of their behaviour, criminal associations, family violence history,
their mental state or unsafe storage. Another person may lawfully own – like the pest reduction
professional I spoke to for a long time on the phone on Flinders Island may lawfully own
considerably more firearms for farming or for pest reduction and present very little risk at all,
arguably less risk than a P plater on the road. I divert myself here, but the most dangerous time
for a person to be on the road is after they’ve completed their Ls, where they had a supervisor,
and they’re now free on their own with a motor car, a very powerful engine around them.
Different firearms have different purposes. A farmer may need different calibres for crop
protection and should have different calibres for crop protection, for livestock destruction or
pest control. A sporting shooter may compete in different disciplines. I’m also concerned about
the practical problem. Even if we would agree and endorse caps, there will be a workaround
and you won’t have done a thing about the risk you have perceived. Different family members
will get licences and set up their storage, and you’ll have the same number of firearms because
adult members of the same family will do that, but more hands and properties to regulate.
You’ve done nothing about the risk. If anything, you might have diluted it in some way because
you have more new locations that need safe storage. Did we achieve that? I doubt it. That would
be bureaucracy without reducing risk and I want to keep our focus on risk.
Regarding the post-Bondi reforms and the circumstances that brought us there, when
7 October happened, it was a devastating day for our country, just like 28 April 1996. Different
circumstances, but immeasurable tragedy. Leading up to that horrific event – and I don’t blame
a single politician for that event, but the context was clear. The Jewish community in this
country, Australians with a Jewish history or faith, had been under so much pressure
experiencing anti-Semitism. The Council of Australian Jewry had been calling for more
support. John Howard, who was the hero of the 1996 National Firearms Agreement, together
with Kim Beazley, Tony Rundle and Michael Field, said it best when he said: ‘Why can’t we
have a full-throated denouncement of the anti-Semitism and some of the rhetoric that we had
to be exposed to, for example, at the Sydney Opera House?’ The New South Wales police said,
‘Oh no, they didn’t say “gas the Jews”; they said “where’s the Jews?’.’ I say they were both
offensive. I have a close Jewish friend who lives in Melbourne who said to me during this
period, before Bondi: ‘Michael, my family are actually, we’re not thinking that we will go to
Israel, but we think it’d be safer there.’ They are the circumstances that not my family but many
Australian families were living through during the post-7 October and pre-Bondi attacks.
It disappoints me that straight after Bondi, the national conversation was attempted to be
taken into a place of firearms reform when, as the minister has made clear, two men who should
not have had any firearms had three and killed all those people.
Regarding the criminal offending provisions, I’m a strong supporter of the fourth pillar
of this legislation. As the minister and my colleagues on this side will know, I have argued
strongly for this element to be brought back. Our House failed, this parliament failed in 2015
when we had the opportunity to take the strongest possible position around illegal, unregistered
and stolen firearms, and we squibbed it. I wonder how much less crime might have occurred if
we’d have had laws in our state that meant this: if you’re in possession of a firearm that’s stolen,
illegal or unregistered, you’re going to jail. I wonder how much less crime we might have had
in the last 11 years. We’ll never know the answer to that, but this House needs to right that
wrong. We need to succeed where we failed previously, and I hope every member will support
those stronger sentencing provisions. They’re not as strong as I would ideally like but you can’t
always afford to be an idealist in politics. The presumptive mandatory, I think it’s right on for
this House to agree upon that. If you’re driving a stolen Ford Falcon, you know it’s not yours,
you have no excuse. But how much more important if you’re holding, have buried or are
trafficking in a firearm that’s not registered to you and you know you shouldn’t have it. You
should know that when apprehended you’re going to jail. I want to see that passed into law. I
congratulate the minister for his dedicated work on this, including suffering a whole range of
insults on the way through, and I support the legislature.
Mr FERGUSON (Bass) – Chair, while there is clearly a line of division through the
Chamber on this particular question, the debate has actually been great to listen to. It has been
good for our community to be exposed to the very different points of view and the perspectives
behind the positions that have been taken by members of this House. I appreciate contributions
that have been made around the Chamber, in particular from the Treasurer just earlier and
Professor Razay who made one of the finest contributions I have heard since the debate began
on Tuesday.
I will draw out a couple of points. First of all, I think one or two members on the other
side of this Chamber have based their remarks on a false belief that for members on any side
of this Chamber or the crossbench this is somehow ideological. I’m a former firearms owner
and a former firearms licensee. For our own family reasons, which I won’t be discussing in
detail, we made the decision that when we had children, we wouldn’t have firearms in the
House. That was our decision and I surrendered those firearms myself. My choice, our choice.
If anybody would like to explore that with me, you’re most welcome to at another time. But
that’s not a choice that I seek to impose on any other family. So long as the basic tests of being
an appropriate, fit and proper person, to be licenced, you’ve done the training, you don’t have a
problematic criminal history, you have a genuine reason to be licenced and to own and possess
and use certain categories of firearms, and that they’re stored appropriately.
Now I think Prof Razay – he’s now absent from the Chamber – and I feel more empowered
to speak to this now – made an inspired point and that is that much of the debate that we’ve
already had around this bill and now into the clauses has actually been around a wraparound
stronger safety net. Safety all round. That the bill makes a whole range of important
improvements to the management of this Act, an Act that has really had very minimal change
in those 30 years since the Firearms Act was enacted in 1996. It’s now had a thorough review
and resolving areas of law that have been deficient and in need of improvement for some
considerable period of time.
I really want to remind the House that – and we’re all guilty of this at times – but if those
of us old enough to remember 1996, let me remind you that, as the minister for Primary
Industries pointed out, in that Howard government era – and I hope it would have been just the
same if it was not a Liberal government – we saw strong leadership on, not just responding to
Port Arthur and the tragedy that shook our nation, but also responding with a risk based
approach. Because the risk was about rapid repeating semi-automatic and automatic firearms,
which were in homes around our country, including this state. It was a direct response. That
level of government paid 100 per cent of the cost of the buyback. What a contrast.
Also, in the context of Bondi, let’s remember the real causes of that tragedy, which
grieved us all, in particular, our Jewish brothers and sisters, that is our Australian brothers and
sisters who belong to the Jewish faith or have a Jewish ancestry. Australians, our fellow
Australians. The backdrop to that was not the nature of the firearm. The backdrop to that was
the absolute failure of far too many senior political leaders in this country to give what
John Howard called what was needed a full throated denouncement of the antisemitism that
had been tolerated for far too long. The ugliest scenes of which were at the synagogue in
Caulfield and, of course, the Sydney Opera House, where police were dithering over whether
or not they said, ‘Gas the Jews’ or ‘Where’s the Jews’. That was the backdrop to the debate that
then was forced upon this country about the need for a particular Albanese led firearms laws,
and here we are today.
I don’t think that this debate is a healthy one if we attempt to summarise it as to whether
or not you’re for caps or against caps. That would be a poor perception that we send from this
House today, because there’s been so much goodwill and so much rapid repair around the
overall legal framework. A whole range of people now are going to be subject to more scrutiny
when they apply for their licence or apply for a permit to purchase. I believe we’ve done a lot
of good work and, particularly with media listening, I wouldn’t want our whole debate to be, if
you like, summarised around the polarised element that we’ve confronted here today.
I want to close with this point. The same arguments around caps today could equally have
been made with 10 firearms for recreational hunters and 20 firearms for primary producers.
The same arguments could have been made, and where’s the science in that? The same
arguments could have been made if, let’s say, the opposition were moving that recreational
hunters could only have two firearms and primary producers could only have four. The same
arguments could have been made. The nature of our debate would be no different. Where’s the
science in that? I recognise that as 35 politicians, all of goodwill on this subject, I genuinely
know and believe that all of us want to leave this House today, when the bill is completed,
believing genuinely that we tried to find the right balance. There are different opinions on
where that balance ought to lay.
I want to close where I started. I will not allow my position, which is a strongly held one
which I’ve now articulated on two occasions, and I say this with respect to the member for
Lyons, Mr Mitchell, I wouldn’t want it to be misunderstood as ideological, because I’m a father,
and I’m a grandfather now, and I think very, very carefully about the safety of our children, our
vulnerable, our shopkeepers, our people in the street, people who are suffering coercion and
worry about their future. I think about that a lot. I want them to be safe. I want them to be as
safe as possible with an evidence based approach. Even though this is the Liberal Party’s
position which is shared by a number of members of the crossbench, it’s also my personal
position.
With the amendment or without the amendment, there will be no guarantee of no future
disasters or massacres or tragedies. None of us can guarantee that on either side of this question.
But we do at least owe it to our electorates – indeed each other and our families – that we’ve
struggled through this and that we’ve respected the different points of view. If Dr Razay had
given a different position but with the same passion he displayed here today, I would
congratulate him equally as I intend to do when I next speak with him. They’re the reasons that
I don’t support the amendment by the opposition, and I respect others who’ve chosen a different
path.
Tasmanian Labor moved to water down our motion calling on the Albanese Government to reverse its proposed changes to private health insurance rebates for older Tasmanians.
Their amendments changed “will” to “may”, removed acknowledgement of the existing pressure on our hospitals, and deleted the call for Canberra to reverse the changes. Shameful!
I argued against it.
Tasmanian MPs should stand up for Tasmania – even when that means standing up to their own party in Canberra.
Michael Ferguson MP
Liberal Member for Bass
Mr FERGUSON (Bass) – Well, I and the government members on this side of the House do not, repeat, do not support Labor’s apologetic, Canberra-oriented amendment before the House. That should cause no surprise to the Labor opposition that we won’t be playing their game to try to excuse the federal Labor Albanese government for what they are trying to do to Tasmanian seniors who are currently using their hard?earned, often low and fixed incomes to pay for private health insurance. If this law proposed by Canberra were to pass ? yes, it’s subject to an inquiry ? it will be a direct increase in the cost of living for those Tasmanians, I repeat, most of whom are on low and fixed incomes, and it will let Canberra off the hook.
Because, as people are forced, through the increased cost of their private health insurance, to make the very difficult decision to let go of their private health insurance ? which they don’t have to pay for, they don’t have to buy it, they’ve chosen to – in a mixed-use health system in Australia, they’ve chosen this path – and by the way, for the last best part of 30 years, at least 25, those people have accepted at face value Canberra’s promise that if they choose to invest in their private health care, it will be with them through their life. They’ve assumed wrongly that Canberra will honour that commitment as they age. As they leave their private health insurance, they’re going to become public hospital patients in an already-stretched system nationwide.
Why would the House agree to an amendment from the Labor Party, a state Labor Party which doesn’t have enough self-respect for itself, as representatives of the Tasmanian people, to stand up for Tasmanians? It’s our job ? and I’ll let the member opposite know, Ms Haddad, the honourable member for Clark, that when the previous Liberal government made decisions we didn’t agree with, we said so.
Mr Pearce – We did.
Mr FERGUSON – Mr Pearce knows well because he was the federal member for Braddon, and he was in the meeting that I called about the freight equalisation scheme. He was in the meeting, so he well knows my conduct, my public and my private advocacy for the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme (TFES).
Ms Haddad – But you’ve forgotten how to pick up the phone to Canberra now?
Mr FERGUSON – This is what happens. They get exposed, so their trigger reaction is to interject, though they were listened to in silence.
Ms Haddad – You worked us out, what a burn.
The SPEAKER – Order.
Mr FERGUSON – When the federal Liberal government tried to drop the Mersey Hospital on the state without an adjustment payment, I said no. The Hodgman government said no. We said, publicly and privately, no, you’re not going to be doing that. When there was a proposal for a co-payment at an emergency department at public hospitals, as Health minister, I said no, we’re not going to be supporting that. So don’t give us this tripe that somehow we’ve been cute and cuddly with our Canberra party colleagues on matters where we knew we had to stand up for our state, for the people of Tasmania. We’re actually not like you.
Speaker, through you, I say to the opposition: we are actually not like you on the other side. We do have some self?respect as politicians representing Tasmanians, and we’ve stood up time and again. No doubt there are plenty of other examples where we have done so.
Let’s have a look at this amendment.
Ms Haddad – Look at the amendment. It’s factual. There is a Senate inquiry going on.
The SPEAKER – Order. Honourable member for Clark, Ms Haddad, you can sum up soon.
Mr FERGUSON – Every single substantive change that Ms Haddad has moved, they all go in the same direction. Soften the criticism. By the way, have a look at motion No. 149. Gee, it’s actually pretty soft in respect of the idea of criticism. I mean it is almost a love letter of respect. It is so polite. There is no free political advice in there. There’s no brutal language that would offend a thin?skinned Labor politician. It’s the model of respectability. Congratulations, Ms Howlett. I’ll tell the House, by the way, Ms Howlett advised me that she wanted to put forward a motion that the Labor Party could support and that others wouldn’t feel the need to amend. How interesting.
Every move here in the amendments water down the language. They remove the call for action and they protect the Australian Labor party in Canberra. The original motion says that the Commonwealth’s changes will put additional pressure on Tasmania’s public health system. Labor want to change ‘will’ to ‘may’. That’s a gift for the Albanese Labor government.
The motion already recognises that older Tasmanians are already being affected by a lack of aged care beds. Labor wants to delete that already. Can’t imagine why. Instead, they want to insert ‘some’ before the words ‘older Tasmanians’. Give me a break.
The motion says that the Commonwealth changes will only exacerbate this issue further and Labor wants to delete that statement entirely. Most tellingly, and this is really what gives me the irrits more than any of the other amendments ? the final one, in the original motion, calls on the Australian Government to reverse the changes. Labor wants to delete that entirely.
Ms Haddad – How can you reverse changes that haven’t been made yet?
Mr FERGUSON – Oh. Thank you for that interjection. Well, then you shouldn’t worry about it then. You see, the issue here is that this is the policy ?
Ms Haddad – Then why move the motion?
The SPEAKER – Order. Honourable member for Clark, Ms Haddad, you can sum up in a few minutes.
Mr FERGUSON – This is the policy position of the Australian Labor government in Canberra. It’s gone to a Senate inquiry. I had a quick look at that website ? there are five members of that inquiry: two Labor, two Liberal and one Green. So, the government with the Green friends have a majority of that committee. I look forward to their findings, I really do, and then we’ll all know what the Greens’ position is. I suspect many will be able to guess what it is, Canberra?wise, but regardless of what the Senate inquiry finds, they’re not going to make findings of fact that we can’t make tonight. It’s self?evident that as you push older people who are already on a fixed? and low?income basis to a more expensive private health insurance, which I’ve read is around $1000 for a couple, they’re going to drop their insurance in some numbers. Maybe that number is uncertain. It’s certainly not going to increase uptake of private health insurance, and I don’t believe for a moment that the use of the word ‘may’ is acceptable at all.
Why protect Canberra in these circumstances? The motion doesn’t have a red-hot go at the Labor Party; I don’t even think it gets mentioned. It talks about the federal government. It’s a very reasonable motion. We’ve seen it in this House time and again. I think it was only last November I moved a private members’ motion in this place around Bell Bay Aluminium. In fact, specifically it was calling on the federal government to honour its commitment around the green aluminium production credits, and do you know what, Speaker? That motion passed that evening with the support of the crossbench, because Labor and the Greens opposed it. On that night, Labor and the Greens couldn’t even vote for a motion to hold Canberra to its original promise on supporting aluminium smelting at Bell Bay. Their own words, not mine. Their words ? and guess what? You helped Labor, federally, get rid of that scheme. You helped Labor, federally, walk away from that promise. Then you come in here demanding that the Tasmanian taxpayer carry all of the heavy lifting to support that important smelting business at Bell Bay. You spent two weeks prosecuting the Tasmanian Government, this level of government, to do all the heavy lifting, because you felt it was more important to support your mates in Canberra. Not good enough. Not good at all. You gave up.
What about Rushy Lagoon? We know that some of your members on the other side have privately been telling people in the community they don’t support the Rushy Lagoon ? what, $7 million?subsidised advantage for one bidder for that property. Yet, what must we suffer? Not only do federal Labor back it in, we got state Labor, we got video after infernal video, telling everybody how rubbish the ground is at Rushy Lagoon, backing in that decision, because it’s more important to the state opposition to be seen to supporting their Australian Labor Party colleagues in Canberra than the people that they’ve been voted to represent. So, no, we don’t support the amendments and, if we go down losing on the amendments, we’ll go down honourably on that. Then we’ll keep going because we’ve taken a position, which is a responsible one, because we do care about the impact that this adverse decision will have on our community and we equally care about the impact that it will have ? not may – will have on our Tasmanian public hospitals.
I spoke in the Tasmanian Parliament to support the condolence motion following the devastating tragedy in Nepal.
Nepal holds a special place in my heart. Some years ago, I had the privilege of visiting Kathmandu and other parts of the region, working alongside local churches and seeing firsthand their work supporting people experiencing hardship.
What I remember most is the kindness, gentleness and humility of the Nepalese people I met.
Today, around 3,000 people originally from Nepal call Northern Tasmania home. They are our neighbours, colleagues and friends, contributing enormously to our hospitals, aged care, businesses, professions and community.
The tragedy also touches our Parliament House family directly, with Nepalese members of staff deeply affected by what has happened and by friends and loved ones who remain missing.
To Tasmania’s Nepalese community, particularly my friends and neighbours in Northern Tasmania: we are grieving with you.
The people of Nepal, both near and far, are in my prayers and those of my family.
My speech in full:
Mr FERGUSON (Bass) – Thank you, Speaker, and first of all thank you to the Premier for presenting the House with this important motion today, and I also want to thank every other member of the House so far who’s spoken in support. I want to support it too, wholeheartedly, but also with a heavy heart.
So many members who have spoken have spoken about the connection that they as an MP have with the Nepali community and I want to briefly do the same.
A number of years ago, I had the great privilege of visiting Nepal as part of a leaders program, including spending some precious and memorable time in and around Kathmandu. While there, I was part of a team supporting local churches in Nepal and northern India, and I saw firs hand some of their practical work helping people who are experiencing real human hardship, including a sewing centre helping widows earn an income and an orphanage caring for the most precious of the Nepali.
What I saw was Nepali helping their fellow Nepali. I saw a lot of both the wealth and poverty of Nepal and I have many wonderful memories of the people. It affected me in a positive way.
I can remember balmy evenings walking around the Thamel quarter of Kathmandu, bartering with my rupees for a colourful handmade shirt. I still have it. I visited temples and some beautiful gardens. I went to the famous Rum Doodle restaurant at the mythical, fictional 40,000-and-a-half feet altitude with the signatures of all the mountaineers who had summited Everest-Sagarmatha, and we had the privilege to sign a foot.
I also made a trip to Everest – Sagarmatha – or I should say I made a trip to view the summit, in case anyone was wondering.
I also had with me, only because it’s here all the time, this little travel Bible. I remember sitting in the gardens of the Yak & Yeti Hotel in Kathmandu reading this Bible, in the book of James, recommended reading in the peace of that place, and I remember very vividly receiving some wonderful inspiration in that moment. So, it’s very precious to me. I carry it around this building and I was sworn in on this Bible, with memories of Nepal, only last year when we came back to this House after the election.
But as nobody listening will be surprised to hear, none of those special memories are eclipsed by the memories of the people I met with over the course of those travels. The Nepali people I encountered were full of kindness, a profound gentleness, humility and a very quiet and peaceful nature. That’s what I experienced everywhere. I know it’s a big generalisation to make about an entire culture, but I can say from my experience that it is an accurate generalisation of the Nepali people and their culture.
Today, those memories make this terrible tragedy feel especially deep and personal for many. Our state is blessed with a large number of people who call Tasmania home who were born in Nepal. They’ve brought with them that same kindness, goodness, humility and generosity, that quiet and humble spirit of peacefulness to our culture and made us all the stronger for it.
Northern Tasmania, my area, is home to around 3000 Nepali people. They’re our neighbours and friends. They care for Tasmanians in our hospitals and aged care facilities, they are our bus drivers, IT professionals, entrepreneurs and, of course, they’re students. They are contributing, in particular, in areas of skills in demand or skills shortages, job vacancies that would remain vacant were it not for their willingness to be part of our community.
And, as the member for Clark highlighted, they also bring with them their extraordinary love of what surely must be Nepal’s national sport, cricket. You might have thought it was an English sport but it’s very much a Nepali sport. Without boasting, I can say I sent a few overs down the wicket during one of the tournaments of the Nepali Cricket League at Riverside. I took no wickets.
The Nepali community of northern Tasmania deserves a special mention here today. Only recently they provided hospitality and cultural enrichment to northern Tasmania at the Civic Square with the celebration of the Nepali New Year festival. It was a wonderful event. There were many people there, Nepali, Australian, and people from other backgrounds.
When I recall how many people were at that special event in April, I think of how much pain is being felt in Launceston, in northern Tasmania, as we speak. That’s just a small slice of the global pain that’s being felt by people who love and care for family members back home, people who are desperately hoping that the person they love and care for is still alive, can still be found and still be saved, like that precious child we saw rescued by those brave rescuers at the weekend after, I think, two days under the rubble. Thank God for that. I’m thinking of those people.
This tragedy also comes very close to home for us here in this Parliament. Three people who work here are from Nepal, our Parliament House staff members Anil and Prajita, and one of our contract security guards, Bir. Those three go about their work quietly and efficiently, one keeping us safe and two keeping this place looking amazing.
What the three of them are contributing, like the rest of their team mates, allows us to go about our business as members of this House and this parliament to provide good government and democracy for the people of Tasmania.
I’m pleased to report that, as best we know, their families back home are safe and well. But they know people who are missing and are deeply affected by this tragedy. They know of friends and other loved ones who remain missing. I particularly want them to know today that their parliamentary family is thinking of them as well.
I have a specific purpose in mentioning this because I want everyone listening to know just how connected every part of the Tasmanian way of life is, whether it’s city, suburb or region, to this terrible global tragedy. The pain being felt in Nepal is being felt around our community. It’s much deeper than the six o’clock news. We are connected and we want to stand with you, our fellow community members.
I say to Tasmania’s Nepali community, particularly to my friends and neighbours in northern Tasmania in and around Bass, we are grieving with you and we’re hoping for you.
Nepal gave me some conversations, memories and personal growth, and I’m always going to be grateful for that.
At this really terrible time, may the people of Nepal, near and far, know that they’re being remembered here in Tasmania, that they’re appreciated, that we are digging deep and donating to the relief effort, that they are in my prayers and those of my family around our dinner table.
I support the motion and hope for the very best for the Nepali nation.
Mr FERGUSON (Bass) – Last Remembrance Day, I was at the Hobart Cenotaph. When
I see a person seated on their own, I often take the opportunity to go and sit beside them. That’s
what I did on this occasion, and I got to know Craig Valentine, a very nice man who lives here
in the south of Tasmania. I’d like to share with the House what emerged following our happy
meeting. We got chatting before the service began. During the service, the rain started beating
down on everybody who was in attendance – I might be bringing back some memories for
some. I was very grateful that I’d chosen the opportunity to sit with Craig, because he then
shared his umbrella with me. I hadn’t brought one.
As we were chatting, I also remarked upon the very beautiful red poppy that he was
wearing. It was very different to the usual ones that we see. They’re all beautiful. This one was
especially beautiful. I asked him about it. Craig told me that his son Damon had made it by
hand. In fact, that Damon makes many of them. He also told me that his son Damon is a
returned serviceman who’d served our country in East Timor. I said to him I’d love to buy one,
if that was possible. One thing led to another, which led to Craig and his wife Sandra very
kindly arranging to visit me and gifting me one, and one for each member of my family. I’m
very grateful for that. This is the pin that I’m wearing in the Chamber today.
Damon got in touch recently and told me that he had created something very special to
mark the 60th anniversary of the Battle of Long Tan, and Damon had made the decision to
donate it to his home state of Tasmania. I hope that all members have noticed it. I think we
have. That work is now on display in the foyer here in Parliament House. It’s available for all
of us members to enjoy, our staff and, of course, visitors to our Parliament. I know members
will agree it’s a very beautiful piece of work. It’s a gorgeous piece of Tasmanian sassafras
covered with Damon’s handmade poppies. I counted the poppies: I counted 131. Each poppy
takes Damon about five hours to make, and it took him over seven weeks to make this for us.
Of that number, the Long Tan Cross, which is the central feature across the map of Tasmania
that the red poppies make up, is made up of 18 white poppies – 18 Tasmanians died as a result
of the Vietnam War. What a gift. How grateful we must be for that generosity.
When Damon makes these poppies, remembrance and service is very close to home.
Damon knows what it means to serve, and there’s something very fitting about the timing of
his gift. I didn’t arrange it this way, but earlier this week, the parliament passed my private
members’ bill to strengthen Tasmania’s laws protecting our war memorials. Furthermore, on
that day, on Vietnam War Veterans Day itself, the plaque arrived just in time to be on display
60 years on from the Battle of Long Tan and we unveiled Damon’s plaque here in parliament
and speaking to you and your counterpart in the other place, the President, thank you for making
that possible and for ensuring that that gift will be protected here and looked after for many
generations to come in its long-term home, which I leave to your good officers to decide.
I was pleased that Craig and Sandra were able to join us and members from this House
and the other place also came along to meet them and hear the story behind the work, and to
admire the work, and the legislation that protects war memorials and Damon’s plaque itself are
both very different things, but they’ve come into fruition at the same time. Both have played a
huge role in ensuring that service and sacrifice are respected and remembered. I remind the
House again that at the Battle of Long Tan itself, the bloodiest of the conflicts in that overall
war, 18 Australians were killed and 24 were wounded, and we’ve remembered them this week.
I think that that the remembrance that we have been all part of has played a very special role in
the life of our parliament. I know it means a lot to Tasmanians, contemporary veterans, thank
you to Damon for your generous gift. We’re so grateful to you. All members, I know, share in
that gratitude to you, and I say to Damon as well, to his parents, Craig and Sandra, and to all
veterans, thank you for your generosity and your service.
