Ms BADGER (Lyons) – Deputy Speaker, that was a tremendous analogy that the member for Clark had, Mr Behrakis, that councillors take off their politician hat and they put on their planning hat because that sounds exactly like taking the politics out of planning as we currently are. That is not what this bill is going to achieve. It is atrocious that we have spent the day trying to rush this through. It is completely disrespectful to the 29 different councils and all the councillors right across Tasmania.
It is not properly understood. This morning, we asked the minister for Parks a question about some of the overlay with this DAP bill and then proposed other DAPS as a part of the RAA reform and we still do not have an answer. Why is that? Because it is not clear through the department? Is it because there is no answer? Is it because this is going to overwrite the other process? That is where I would like to begin, to highlight the failure of this bill to adequately explain the relationship between the proposed statutory approval process for developments in national parks, which would be known as a ‘reserve activity assessment process’, and the LUPA/DAP process, so as it is currently worded in this bill the proposed DAP could apply to developments on public land in our parks and reserves.
Developments in national parks could be eligible for DAP determination if the development proposal is valued at the new $2 million threshold for non-metropolitan areas ‑ I will touch on the change of that threshold later – or the minister is satisfied that the application is controversial, which could cover just about every proposal for luxury accommodation in our national parks, including the proposal for private lodges around the South Coast Track. In fact, with that smaller $2 million limit, it is going to cover an awful lot more because we know how expensive it is to get developments done in regional areas – be it regional Tasmania generally or in our national parks and the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area. Despite this possibility, the relationship between the proposed DAP and the RAA is barely mentioned in the papers prepared for the public consultation on this draft DAP bill. Indeed, it was only referred to because it was something brought up in consultations on the DAP proposition paper.
The government response to these concerns was brief and blatantly dismissive, with a statement that the DAP model being proposed through the review of the National Parks RAA process is a separate process to the proposed LUPAA DAP.
This response is inadequate for three reasons. First, it contradicts what was said in the RAA reform consultation paper. According to this paper, we are not talking about a totally separate process. Rather, this paper talks about the importance of ensuring the RAA assessment process does not duplicate or replace suitable other processes or those that are undertaken by persons with relevant experience. What is more, this paper provides this as an example of a suitable assessment process for the RAA process that should not be duplicated. I quote from the RAA reform consultation paper:
A proposal that will be subject to a determination by an independent development assessment panel appointed by the Tasmanian Planning Commission should propose amendments to the LUPAA via the Land Use Planning and Approvals (Development Assessment Panels) Amendment Bill 2024.
In other words, when it comes to the RAA consultation paper, the Tasmanian government is clearly not thinking of a possibility where projects subject to the LUPAA DAP process will not have to go through the RAA statutory assessment process. If this is the intention of the bill, this really needs to be clarified.
Second, the proposed reforms to the RAA, including the introduction of an RAA DAP, has completely gone into a black hole. The government’s only commitment at the moment is that it will develop an RAA reform options paper that will help determine the next steps, but we still do not have a time frame for that paper when we know that those reforms are critically urgent. Without details on the RAA reforms and what they might look like, there is no guarantee on how the LUPAA and RAA processes will interact. Potentially we are looking at a situation for developments in national parks or in the TWWHA and public lands where they will be subject to two DAP processes – a double DAP, if you like. Without the details on the proposed RAA reforms – reforms that were originally committed to over three years ago – we do not know and it is not clear to Tasmanians.
Thirdly, if the DAP report on consultations was correct and we are going to stick with the separate LUPAA and RAA approvals process, then there is a question about what guidance proponents are given about which process should come first. Under the existing process, there are no rules dictating or directing proponents as to the order in which to complete the LUPAA and RAA assessments. It is permissible for proponents to choose to proceed with applying for a permit under the LUPAA followed by applying for RAA authorisation, or vice versa.
In reality, Parks’ preferred approach, although it is not a fixed requirement, is for proponents to get partway through the RAA process – that is up to the environmental impact statement stage – then to commence and complete the LUPAA planning permit application, before returning to the finalisation of the RAA process where any Parks authority under the NPRM Act or regulations is decided. How all this works when there are two DAPs at play is not something that is explained in the LUPAA/DAP consultation papers.
This bill and the language that has accompanied it is completely disrespectful to the local government sector, and it fails to recognise just how critical local government is for democratic, responsible decision‑making. That is particularly true in rural communities. It is local councillors – who work so hard, who are so underappreciated and who are underpaid for the workload they have – who intimately know their areas and their communities. No single minister or panel can have that depth of knowledge and local understanding. It is no wonder that this proposal was strongly opposed by councils across Tasmania and LGAT just a few hours ago. They have told us that DAPs are a long way from removing the politics out of planning. They are actually removing the local out of planning.
This proposal fails to recognise the significant expertise of councils. Councils stand at the convergence point in the planning system. They are the on‑ground mediators between developers, communities and government. The importance of this expertise should not ever be dismissed. One of the criteria for the development application being eligible for DAP in regional and remote areas, which I spoke about before, is that the determination, if it is for a discretionary permit, is not subject to the Environmental Management or Pollution Control Act 1994 and the development is valued at over $2 million in non‑metropolitan areas.
I would note that when this bill was initially consulted on, this value was set at $5 million. Every council that I spoke to in Lyons thought at the time that that was a ridiculously low amount of money. You do not have to talk about major developments for long to know that $5 million in a regional area is going to go by pretty quickly. You know how much it costs if you live rurally in Tasmania and you want to get a tradesperson out to your house – how much more expensive it is than if you are in metropolitan area.
In the bill that we have before us, that has been changed to $2 million, and yet no explanation has been provided for that dollar limit. Certainly, by rushing this bill through, no explanation has been provided to the local government authority who are opposing it today.
Can the planning system use improvement? Yes, of course it can. Absolutely. I would like to read part of Mick Tucker’s statement from his ABC interview that sums it up perfectly:
The reality is local government – we can actually go through around 12,000 development applications a year, and we have about 1 per cent that goes to appeal panel, and the reason that most of those go to appeal panel is because of outdated convoluted land use management strategies, as well as the Land Use Planning and Approvals, which is from 1993. We are dealing with bad state government legislation.
It is 30 years old. It is the same age as me. An awful lot has changed in 30 years, so it is probably about time that we updated that legislation. That is one of the many pieces of legislation that needs to happen that we could have urgently been debating today, which would be in the best interests of all Tasmanians. This is a terrible day for planning in Tasmania. It is an absolute shame that we have tried to push this through.
My condolences to minister Ellis who tried to take the politics out of planning and instead achieved taking the people out of planning. In fact, this bill almost takes the planning out of planning. It is 100 per cent just politics and we will absolutely oppose this bill.
