12 August 2026

Mr GAFFNEY (Mersey) - I rise to speak to the Police Offences Amendment (Increased Penalties for Damage to Tasmanian War Memorials) Bill 2026. I note that it has originated as a private member's bill by the honourable member for Bass, as an obvious and immediate response to yet another mindless desecration of a Tasmanian war memorial.

I know that many Tasmanians would be disappointed to learn that there have been 14 significant acts of vandalism to war memorials since 2007, especially disheartening as we have, in recent decades, witnessed growing community interest in supporting commemorative events such as Anzac Day, Vietnam Veteran's Day and Remembrance Day. Community involvement in commemorative services is more apparent now than it's ever been. In fact we now have tens of thousands of Tasmanians who devotedly attend their local Anzac Day services, for some, both at dawn and the community services later the same morning, often with a hearty community breakfast after dawn services put on by service clubs and the RSLs. If I took my own immediate community, Anzac Day in Latrobe, sees a huge community turn out that fills the town centre. It's one that begins with a parade of veterans, cadets, school students and community organisations, all led by the Latrobe Federal Band, the oldest continuous brass band in Australia. Both the dawn and latter community services have speeches that acknowledge the incredible sacrifices made by our armed forces, with the laying of wreaths and floral tributes in recognition of those who never returned and many of whom are buried in foreign fields far from their families, homes and loved ones.

Mr President, the last point is a key point. Almost all the wars and conflicts our armed forces have been involved with have been far from Tasmania, far from our home, and often far from Australia in the Northern Hemisphere. Those who have lost their lives in service areas

overseas rarely make it home and are interred close to where they fell, or are committed to the ocean's depths. Whilst we fully appreciate the role of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and the Office of Australian War Graves, it's the war memorials in our local communities that give a family a direct and lasting connection with the sacrifice of their loved one. That's why an act of desecration to a war memorial is profoundly offensive.

It's not only the physical desecration that causes offence. This year we saw numerous shouts and vocal interruptions at services from people who should know better. There's a time and a place for almost everything, and certain groups of people decided the Anzac Day ceremony was their time and their place to create a disturbance. A time where they sought to disrupt parts of the ceremony they disagreed with, and shame on them for doing so. Maybe that's the true nature of a free society, a society that our armed forces fight so hard to defend. From my perspective, it's a sad indictment of our society when the misguided heckles echoing populist politics intrude on such important occasions.

That's not to say there aren't consequences for such disruption. We have just seen the successful prosecution in a Melbourne Magistrates Court of four members of the nationalist neo-Nazi group that were found guilty of behaving in an offensive manner in public, with fines of up to $1900 each. There was a similar case in New South Wales where a Sydney man was charged and pleaded guilty to an act of nuisance for booing during Sydney's dawn service. Tasmania had its own example at this year's Anzac Day service in Longford with the booing of Her Excellency the Governor, Barbara Baker, as she delivered the Acknowledgement of Country, a move that brought swift condemnation from all sides, that reinforced the government's statement that any disruption 'offends the solemnity of this important national occasion', but with no arrests or prosecution of the heckler. If only there was a part of the bill that might address such behaviours, possibly that's where education programs can begin to make a difference as espoused by the RSL.

There have been comments that war memorials should be listed on the Tasmanian Heritage Register to give them greater protections. That's not to say that all war memorials are historical monumental structures first built in the aftermath of the Great War. In Latrobe, we have the Sheean Memorial, which leads to the Sheean Walk. It's a memorial monument developed in the 1990s to commemorate the incredible courage and bravery of Edward 'Teddy' Sheean VC. The memorial details how he sacrificed his own life whilst defending his HMAS Armidale shipmates from attack by Japanese fighter planes - an ordinary seaman.

It was thanks to a significant campaign supported by all sides of politics and the RSL that finally led to his courage and sacrifice recognised with the Victoria Cross, the highest possible award of gallantry, and a Collins Class submarine named in Ted's honour. The memorial was recently updated with the award of his posthumous VC and the walk to Bell Parade refreshed at the same time.

The walk is a unique series of plaques placed along the route to commemorate the actions of Australian soldiers who fought in World War II in Malaya, Borneo, Vietnam and Korean conflicts. It demonstrates that memorials are involving remembrances of service given by our armed forces to defend our freedoms and our way of life. When compared to what we used to know as the home country, our war memorials recognise and acknowledge those who serve and came home, as well as those who did not. As such, they are very much a living history.

If we moved around the stone cenotaphs in town centres and into our small and rural communities, we have locally made honour boards, memorial gates, windows and gardens of all kinds. These are all highly personal memorials placed in halls, gardens, churches and schools, acknowledging the service and sacrifice of the service members in their communities, many of which are updated as new conflicts and service arise. All of these memorials of war service and sacrifice are installed and maintained by local people.

Wilful damage and desecration of war memorials of any kind is an unconscionable act. I am concerned that whilst there is an absolute need to have legislation in place that will bring the full weight of the law down on offenders, it must do so, though, in a way that acts as a complete deterrent to even begin to contemplate committing such a heinous act. The bill's expansion of the maximum penalty sure does that and re-establishes the importance of place that war memorials of every kind have in our communities.

The bill also changes an order to pay compensation for damage out of being a civil action into a court order. It's a change that will avoid frustrating delays and seeking restitution from offenders and make sure they are fully accountable in making good any damages they may have caused, either deliberate or accidental.

However, Mr President, what does concern me about this bill is a proposed minimum of 25 penalty units in the new schedule. A penalty at the current rate of $205 for each unit amounts to $5125, a significant sum. It's a transposition of what was the maximum penalty of conviction of 25 penalty units, and now it's a new maximum limit of 500 penalty units. The latter is subject to a court's sentencing deliberations, while the new minimum removes it completely. The bill does add the provision to make a community correction order and to impose other sanctions, and makes other orders a court may consider to be appropriate in the circumstances. The latter points give a court the opportunity and the discretion to set penalties that can be shaped to suit the degree of the offence and penalties that might better reflect the expectations of the community in which the offence occurred.

I understand as part of the discussion in drafting the bill, the RSL was keen to see the development of educational programs with a restorative justice approach which would raise awareness of what a memorial means to the community and the impact of an offence. That's not to let an offender off lightly; it's simply an additional tool available to a court in its sentencing. Given that the old maximum is to be the new minimum, the absolute penalty that a court has no choice but to impose before considering any other option available to it, I'll be moving an amendment to retain the discretionary-based sentencing drafted in current legislation. It's not a soft option as it still allows a court to impose a 500-unit penalty, jail an offender and add additional penalties as it sees fit.

It does allow, though, for a court to impose a sentence that best reflects the offence. For example, if a person playing five-a-side soccer at a memorial hall kicks a ball that damages an honour board, is it right that they have a 25-unit penalty applied to them where maybe a bit of education and community service would create a far better outcome? In considering an amendment, I did consult with the Law Society of Tasmania for its response to my proposed amendment and to the bill in its entirety. I received the following reply:

Your proposed amendment would remove the mandatory part of the sentence and if the bill were to pass, the amendment would be an improvement.

Having said that, the Society remains of the view that the bill should not be passed.

That's a striking response from what we would expect to be a quite conservative profession that has a deeper understanding of prosecuting and defending criminal cases in a variety of courts. If we look at its website, the society has this byline:

The Law Society of Tasmania is a peak industry and statutory body that has two major functions. The first is to regulate legal practice in the State of Tasmania. The second is to provide services to its members to assist in maintaining high standards of practice in the Tasmanian legal profession. The Law Society of Tasmania represents and upholds the independence of the Tasmanian legal profession, and advocates for a fair and just legal system for all Tasmanians.

So, we have the peak industry and statutory body governing the legal profession of Tasmania saying that whilst my proposed amendment would be an improvement, the bill itself should not be passed: the very definition of damning with faint praise and a salutary comment for us to consider. Our armed forces served to maintain our freedoms that we all have today. We don't have to look far even today to see the impact of draconian, autocratic governance. I can fully understand the frustration in seeing wilful damage on sacred memorials. These are central places that acknowledge the sacrifices made by so few for the benefit of so many.

However, people are only human; we are imperfect, we're fallible and we make mistakes. We always will, and our court system is best placed to make a judgment that's most relevant to the circumstances of a case. Let's give them that opportunity, and that includes extending the penalty.

The bill does reflect the moves in other jurisdictions in increased maximum penalties. However, it goes further by including a mandatory minimum penalty, which is, in my mind, a step too far, especially when it removes the court's discretion to consider what it may see as better alternatives that will give better outcomes to better reflect the expectations of the affected communities. I support the intent of the bill and the potential to improve it with amendment, but questions remain as to the actual need for it in reality. I look forward to hearing the contributions of other members before I decide my part.