Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Hansard source

There are a couple of things I wanted to talk about tonight, the first of which is the Tasmanian Community Fund, which over many years has done some amazing things for the Tasmanian community, particularly those in need, be it women fleeing from domestic and family violence or communities that need new facilities, such as all-abilities playgrounds or community halls. You name it; they've done it. Sadly, though, more recently, they were participants in a political and divisive campaign. Every year, the Tasmanian Community Fund receives an appropriation from the Tasmanian government through their budget of many millions of dollars. That is provided to the board independent of government to then be administered to the community for, as the act sets out, the benefit of all Tasmanians. Sadly, though, the board last year decided to provide $557,000 to the 'yes' campaign in the referendum. That is taxpayers' money that went to the 'yes' campaign of the referendum.

The Tasmanian Auditor-General has conducted a review of the Tasmanian Community Fund and how they do business. That report was absolutely scathing of the fund's board and the work that they had done—their lack of documentation, their lack of risk assessment and management and their lack of identification of conflicts of interest and how to manage them. There was no documentation at all backing their decision to provide over half a million dollars of taxpayers' money to the 'yes' campaign. What's worse is that, in 2020, the Auditor-General, the same office, provided recommendations to the TCF board to up their game when it came to documentation and the way they did business. Those recommendations were ignored. And here we are in 2024,with the same entity making the same recommendations, far more scathing this time though, and it is a real shame that this money, instead of going to communities that need it in Tasmania, is being provided to divisive campaigns.

Instead of saying, 'I'm sorry; we got it wrong,' the board has doubled down, saying they did the right thing and that, of course, the Auditor-General got it wrong—a bizarre claim, if you ask me. The fact is that they've now engaged lawyers. Some have suggested public relations firms. I would love to know who's funding their work to justify their contribution to the 'yes' campaign. These are questions they must answer, and they're questions I've written to the board about today, along with the Premier of Tasmania and the relevant minister. What's more, given they refused to accept the recommendations in 2020 and have doubled down on their terrible decision in 2024, I think the board needs to resign. If they won't, they need to be sacked. It is a very sad day for what has otherwise been a very good organisation in Tasmania.

I turn to another matter now, and that is relating to the University of Tasmania—a very alarming event, particularly off of recent events that have occurred globally. At the University of Tasmania, a lecturer of food science participated in an event which has become rather something of a headline grabber in Tasmania, and it has caused a great deal of concern for the Tasmanian Jewish community. There was, as I said, an academic from the University of Tasmania, Adel Yousif, who has described Hamas as a legitimate resistance movement amongst other things. This issue is something that has caused great concern across the global Jewish community and many observers of this conflict in the Middle East. Mr Yousif said in a slideshow he presented to educators for Palestine and educators for peace, an event that was held in Hobart on 26 June, that there are a range of misconceptions relating to Israel. The first one was that Israel is a democracy. The second one was that Israel has the right to exist—that's apparently a misconception! What kind of response would you have, as a member of the Jewish faith and the Jewish community in Tasmania, if you had a fellow Tasmanian saying that? Another misconception is that Hamas is a terrorist organisation. This is a group, as we know, that, sadly, butchered, raped, mutilated and kidnapped civilians in Israel on 7 October last year. To suggest it's a misconception that this is a terrorist organisation, which is actually its designation under our intelligence authorities, frankly, is an alarming thing.

The reason I raise this is that the University of Tasmania say, in defence of this member of their academic staff, they want to protect freedom of speech. I say: okay; that is not a problem, but this is where we need to temper our support of things like freedom of speech against other rights as well. We have to weigh up the risks of allowing people to say whatever they want, whenever they want, whatever the cost, against what impact that might have on the community. We only had the terror threat level elevated in this country, on the back of incredibly serious advice about the probability of something occurring in our country, because of the very events I have just talked about: the conflict between Israel and Hamas and the public debate around that. The fact that there are people out there espousing such things is part of the reason we have this issue. I hope the University of Tasmania, protectors of free speech though they are, look at what is being said under the banner of free speech and weigh up the consequences and costs for our community. To allow that to go unchecked is, I think, a grave error, and I hope the University of Tasmania reconsider their approach on this matter.

Finally, I'd like to talk about another matter that occurred in Tasmania. Observing the law is paramount for a functioning democracy. For people to be able to go about their business and to live their lives to the fullest of their potential, we all must abide by the law. That's something that is fundamental in a functioning democracy. So it was interesting to see that we had supporters and members of the Bob Brown Foundation before the Tasmanian Magistrates Court just last week, and they were charged with and found guilty of trespass. They wore it as a badge of honour. They went outside the court and held a press conference and told us all how wonderful it was that they had broken the law to achieve their end.

The same people who don't respect the laws of our land went and set up their own 'Tasmanian Environmental Court of Law', run by the citizens of Tasmania. Because the law of the land, as passed by the parliament, constituted of people who are elected by the citizens of this country, is not good enough, they set up their own court to sit in judgement—based on a summons from this 'Tasmanian Environmental Court of Law' I'm reading from—over proprietors of certain businesses and members of government for the following:

(1) Continued total support and endorsement of native forest logging and habitat destruction in Tasmania despite full knowledge that it contributes to the climate emergency and puts people and endangered species' lives at significant risk.

(2) Colluding with successive Federal and Tasmanian governments to undermine federal and state environmental and biodiversity protection systems.

The penalty this citizens' court is going to issue to these people is 'life imprisonment or the immediate payment of $1.3 billion'. How they have quantified this dollar value or decided that the recipient of the summons I'm reading from is deserving of life imprisonment I don't know, but I find it ridiculous. These people think that the law doesn't apply to them—that it should be broken because it is wrong, that our courts get it wrong, as do the people who author laws to protect people who are going about their lawful business.

The Bob Brown Foundation and other groups go and do things in forestry coups. You've got well-meaning, hard-working, honest men and women—people I know my fellow Tasmanian over there, Senator Urquhart, supports—who work in the forestry industry in dangerous conditions and in terrible weather as well. You've then got these people who are now issuing summons to these honest, hardworking men and women and who honestly think it's okay to go and lock onto machinery, chain themselves to gates and chain themselves to tree trunks in industrial situations where you've got spinning blades, heavy equipment and machinery moving about. Of course, the law doesn't apply to them because they're doing the angel's work, and the rest of us are just pure evil. But they can sit in judgement of us. I say: 'Shame on them. Take your summons back. Let the rest of us get on with doing what we do best and respect the laws that apply to everyone and should apply equally to all Tasmanians who are doing the right thing.'