MP stands by votes with Libs
Madeleine Ogilvie explains why she voted for the Government’s protest and mandatory sentencing Bills, and turns to the next big decision — poker machines
MADELEINE Ogilvie has defended the way she voted on anti-protest laws and mandatory sentencing legislation.
The independent Member for Clark voted with the Liberal Government on both issues to ensure the Bills passed the Lower House.
In a Talking Point article in today’s Mercury, Ms Ogilvie said re-entering Parliament as an independent gave her freedom to vote in a way she said best represented the interests of her electorate and the state.
Ms Ogilvie said she voted for the workplace trespass Bill because of the effects of protests on people like farmers.
“Farmers are worried about the welfare of animals, impacts on family, worker safety and biosecurity risk,’’ she wrote.
“Protesting outside is perfectly fine and legal, but do protests really need to go inside people’s businesses?”
Ms Ogilvie said the mandatory sentencing legislation included judicial discretion for “exceptional circumstances” and that she had faith in the judiciary to do the right thing.
RE-JOINING the Tasmanian Parliament as an independent gives me a new freedom to vote on issues and legislation in a way which I see best represents the interests of my electorate, and the wider state.
In the past few months I have voted with the Government on some matters, with Labor, and alone with the Greens on others (such as the global climate strike motion).
My priorities are jobs, transport and good governance. I try to reflect those priorities at all times, particularly when casting my vote. When deciding how to vote as an independent, I will work with the Liberal Government, the Greens and I am more than happy to work with Labor for the benefit of Tasmania.
On each vote I endeavour to consider the whole of Tasmania first, the needs of my electorate second and my personal views last. I read and consider every word of every Bill and accept offers of briefings and meetings. I seek to negotiate appropriate amendments and use the forms of the Westminster system to deliver results.
This decision making process, while not perfect (because let’s face it, life is imperfect), gives me the best chance of reflecting what people want, while getting the legislative balance right.
I am constantly lobbying the Government and make no apologies for being the squeakiest of wheels on behalf of the people of Clark.
In the cut and thrust of parliamentary debate it may sometimes not be clear why I voted one way or another. So I wanted to clearly explain my thinking in relation to two contentious Bills I supported in the last week of Parliament.
I must say the Government could have done a better job of explaining its approach. The workplace trespass Bill essentially rewrote the colloquially named antiprotest laws.
I said at the time of the original Bill that it was fatally flawed and the High Court then so determined. In my view the new Bill is not.
When our much loved and valued farmers come to Hobart to ask for help, we need to listen. There are real concerns about farm invasions. Farmers are worried about the welfare of animals, impacts on family, worker safety and biosecurity risk. Protesting outside is perfectly fine and legal, but do protests really need to go inside people’s businesses?
I have also sought and received assurances that the Bill will be reviewed to ensure there is no fettering of union action. This is important for fairness and workplace freedom to protest. A legal jurisdictional issue in clause 10 needs to be resolved. I will be keeping a close watching brief.
The second contentious Bill involved mandatory minimum sentencing. It was a Bill in two parts. The first part brought all frontline workers into the rules previously established for assaults on police.
This provided consistency – the horse having already bolted so to speak.
The second part dealt with child sex offenders — the worst of crimes. As a legal purist I would say mandatory sentencing is not the optimal jurisprudential approach, as there are risks of unintended consequences. The Bill does not adopt a pure mandatory approach. It allows judicial discretion in “exceptional circumstances”. Key commentators have been strangely quiet about this point. Undoubtedly our very fine independent judiciary will do the right thing.
The House of Assembly was equally divided along party lines on both votes, with the exception of the Liberal Speaker. A casting vote was required. For the above reasons I cast my vote to allow the Government to progress the Bills to the Legislative Council.
Our parliament is the most robust and democratic in the nation. In our bicameral structure the House of Assembly takes account of the voice of the people, and the Legislative Council reviews and amends important legislation. My vote to progress the Bills is in line with Westminster conventions.
Next year, one of the big issues will be pokies regulation. An overly ambitious target to tackle pokies regulation fell short at the last state election. I was part of the Labor policy development team and supported it. Labor has stepped away from its policy sensing that the people had spoken on the issue. It is clearly time for a rethink.
Bet limits and enforceable voluntary exclusions do not require legislation and should happen straightaway.
The Government has also talked often and loudly about an increase to the Community Support Levy. Industry and community sector people say they are frustrated with the way the CSL is distributed. The lack of dedicated funding for measurable reductions in gambling-related harm is of concern.
Contemporary standards of governance should apply to the CSL. A separate CSL fund, with an independent board and increased transparency is warranted. Let’s make it easier to directly fund programs that work.
To know whether the Government’s proposal is good, bad or indifferent, we need more than two fact sheets. Let’s see the entire proposal. Only by considering the whole regulatory package — Bill, licensing arrangements and regulations — can we assess the impacts on harm minimisation, jobs and investment.
The Federal Group proposed a breaking of the monopoly, for which they deserve credit, but we haven’t been told what arrangements are proposed for them. I hope we see the proposed legislation very soon.
A VOLUNTARY EXIT SCHEME MAY ASSIST TO REDUCE OVERALL POKER MACHINE NUMBERS AND HELP BUSINESS OWNERS TO CHANGE DIRECTION WHILE MAINTAINING BUSINESS CONTINUITY
Let’s implement a voluntary exit scheme. Such a scheme may assist to reduce overall poker machine numbers and help business owners to change direction while maintaining business continuity. I have always said we must bring the industry with us on this because they deliver the outcomes and provide the jobs.
All sides of this discussion want to ameliorate the impacts of problem gaming on everyday people. Who couldn’t agree with that?