Ms O’CONNOR (Hobart) – I think the other day I might have called Madam Acting Deputy President, Madam Deputy Speaker, Madam Acting Deputy Chair, so I will get it right this time. Thank you. Madam Deputy President.
There have been some excellent contributions on the Land Use Planning and Approvals Amendment (Development Assessment Panels) Bill of 2024 and I particularly appreciated the member for Elwick’s contribution and that deep knowledge of local government and defence of the local government sector in Tasmania. Each of the contributions from non-major party members in here have provided important context and a different aspect and way of looking at this legislation.
Contrary to what the planning minister and the Premier have been saying constantly about this legislation, this legislation does not take the politics out of planning. It takes the public out of planning and that is the idea; that is the intention of this bill. It restricts the public’s opportunity to feed into a development application, a draft report. A draft permit is prepared by the panel before the public even has an opportunity to understand this process is in train. Then it is very clear when you step through the clauses of the bill there is a 14‑day fixed period for a hearing. There is a capacity for the panel to request an extension to the time they have to decide, but there is no capacity to extend the time for a hearing.
The Ralphs Bay project of state significance hearings in the then Resource Development and Planning Commission took more than three weeks, because it was a large and complex and obnoxious and totally inappropriate development. But within that three weeks the community, as well as a range of experts, obviously the developer, all had an opportunity to present their case and to test the proposal being put forward. Because of its independence, the rigour of its processes, the care and time the RDPC put into that assessment, on the evidence it rejected it, much to the joy of the local community. Each time I drive past there and see those birds on the sand flats, I feel very thankful for the strength of community when people here in Tasmania decide they want to defend their place.
The other way that this legislation removes the public from planning is to remove those merits-based appeal rights and, again, it is deliberate. The idea here is to provide a fast-track path for developers. We have heard through the second reading speech of the minister and the Leader of Government Business, and in fact we heard it from the member for Pembroke, that there have been too many refusals at a local government level. Well, not on the evidence. Not on the evidence put forward by the Tasmanian Planning Commission, which in its submission of 12 November said this:
The position paper confirms that the Tasmanian planning system is already among the fastest, if not the fastest, in the country when it comes to determining development application occasions. This demonstrates the local government sector is not only capable, but administers development assessment processes efficiently. Any new DAP process or to capitalise on local government experience and resources before creating parallel alternatives and putting the sector under further resourcing pressure.
It is regrettable, we were not given the opportunity to be briefed by Mr Ramsay (OK) from the TPC today. While I acknowledge there has been subsequent correspondence to this submission, the concerns expressed and the statements made in this submission on the consultation draft would have been good to test with the commission. That clear pointer to the efficiency of local government here of data provided by the Local Government Association of Tasmania and relayed by the member for Elwick in her contribution shows just how efficient it is. Western Australia, as the member for Mersey pointed out, has one of the slowest times and they have development assessment panels. Victoria has development assessment panels in place. But what we have had here, and this is a feeling expressed by a number of members, is a disrespect for local government that is unhelpful, apart from anything else, and also really insulting. We have here the Central Coast Council’s furious submission where they point to an insult from the planning minister. So they point to an October 24 email announcing public consultation on the bill was divisive, inflammatory and disrespectful. The minister said this bill will ensure planning decisions are driven by the planning rules, not the personal biases of individual councillors with an axe to grind. What a disgraceful thing to say about the entire local government sector in this state. With respect, I hope the minister with responsibility for local government has taken his colleague, Mr Ellis, to task here because that is not the way to get productive outcomes and have a good working relationship with the local government sector in Tasmania that every day just quietly get on with the job.
Then the minister said there are too many examples where critical housing or job-creating projects are being blocked by ideologically motivated councillors. The Central Coast Council’s mayor, Councillor Cheryl Fuller, has asked for the minister to apologise and must be held to account by the Premier. The insults have been flying. We heard one from the Premier himself. The Central Coast Council’s submission says the government should provide evidence to support the suggestion that projects are regularly being blocked by councillors. An obvious measure would be the number of applications where professional staff have recommended approval but councils have refused the application.
At Central Coast Council, only three dwellings have been refused over the past three years. On all three occasions, refusal was recommended by professional staff and supported by councillors, as the development did not comply with the state planning provisions. We comprehensively reject the need for an amendment to LUPAA as currently framed. Tasmania has the shortest statutory assessment time frames in the country and no sufficient evidence has been put forward to support the change. The draft bill is clearly politically motivated. The Tasmanian government should instead focus on much-needed changes to the planning system for which a genuine and urgent need exists. This includes proper resourcing of the review of the state planning provisions and the regional land use strategies, both of which have held up far more development than council decision-making.
If there is a problem here – and this point has already been made in the debate – it is with the government, which has been in government for 10 years. A previous premier and planning minister, Mr Gutwein, promised Tasmanians that planning would be simpler, cheaper and faster. Yet here we are, with the same land use planning strategies that we have had in place for 15 years that arguably need an update. This morning at the briefing – I have known Mayor Paula Wriedt, for a very long time – I am not sure I have seen her that furious. There was a clear feeling of being insulted by government, a frustration with the untruths and the attacks from government and a feeling of just being ignored. We have the LGAT unanimous decision of – I think it was the 12 November, I have a date on it, but anyway, we have the recent unanimous LGAT decision. We have such a cross-section of mayors opposed to this legislation, from Mayor Mick Tucker to Mayor Brendan Blomeley. Right across the state, the mayors and the council, the councillors who undertake this assessment work know that they have been ignored and they have been shafted.
But I tell you who has not been shafted, and that is the Property Council. While Tasmanians and the local government sector might have had seven days of consultation, what we found out this morning in the briefing is that the Property Council has been working with government on this legislation for the past 18 months. That is right. Then we had a bit of an admission from the head of the Property Council, that they are currently helping government with regulations.
Mrs Hiscutt – That is not right.
Ms O’CONNOR – I wrote it down, honourable leader, if you want to refute that in your second reading contribution, you are most welcome to. I was sitting there and I heard Ms Elston say we are working through the regulations. She did say that. Here is an opportunity for the property sector to feed into the development of legislation and regulation that the local government sector is not being given and Tasmanians certainly are not being given.
I want to make a short contribution on this bill because it would be terrific if the Council could just dispatch with this odious bill today and therefore some efficiency in this debate is required, but I cannot go back to my chair without reading in some of the hundreds of emails that we have received from our communities and our constituents. Yes, a number of them are from the south of the state, but I am getting them from other parts of the state as well.
This one is from the Cultural Heritage Practitioners Association of Tasmania, which wrote to us on Monday this week to convey their significant concern with the draft Land Use Planning and Approvals Amendment (Development Assessment Panels) Bill of 2024 understandably debated in parliament this week. Cultural Heritage Practitioners Tasmania is a non‑profit group comprising heritage practitioners from a range of disciplines with expert and long-term perspective on cultural heritage protection and management. And this is from Anne McConnell, who is the coordinator and there are eight key points here.
The apparent exclusion of the Historic Cultural Heritage Act 1995 from the development assessment panel process is alarming. Local government is required to apply and abide by the provisions within the Historic Cultural Heritage Act of 1995, but what we have at the back of this bill is a repeal of a clause in that act and a replacement with a clause that says this part does not apply, so the part that requires the application of the Planning Act to heritage works does not apply here. So, the panel, as we were told in the briefing this morning, can take some advice from the Heritage Council and then they can completely ignore it, which is not a luxury and nor should it be that local government has in assessing its development applications.
Back to this correspondence – It is unclear how the Aboriginal Heritage Act of 1975 will work in relation to the development assessment panel process. I put this to the honourable leader now as a question so that we do not have the same situation we did yesterday with the Stony Rise bill when there was no response on the second reading. How does the Aboriginal Heritage Act work in relation to the DAP process?
Back to the correspondence –
CHPT is not convinced of the necessity for the bill given there is already a major projects development assessment panel process pathway.
(22) The provision of planning schemes to be amended outside the standard statutory process when the development assessment power process is being used is of extreme concern to us.
(23) The lack of third party appeal rights under this amendment bill.
(24) The lack of clarity on how development assessment panels are constituted.
And again, silence in the act, the commission will have the job once the minister or developer seeks a DAP. The commission will have the task of appointing a panel and there is complete ambiguity about where those panel members may come from. The history and the research is that often in development assessment panels what you have is, panels comprised that are very pro-developer.
(25) That applications for a DAP panel process can be made at any point in a proposal. The need for a DAP panel process pathway should be determined only when a proposal is first submitted.
CHP does not support the likely application of the bill to protected area developments that have special conservation requirements and require specialised expertise for assessments. We found out this morning that this legislation would apply across public and private land and the entire Tasmanian reserve estate. Given that we have many – more than a dozen, I believe – expressions of interest processes banked in with the Office of the Coordinator-General, it sure would be tempting for a developer who wanted to put a lodge in the wilderness to take it through a DAP. If you want to identify a controversial project, it would be that.
From Kate in North Hobart:
I always ask myself what problem any new legislation is trying to solve. Here, I fail to come up with an answer. At no point have either of the major parties, in ramming this through the other House, made a clear case as to what is wrong with the current planning system.
And again, Leader of Government Business, I ask you to please provide evidence of the statement we hear constantly, that there have been too many refusals at the local government level.
Kate says:
It’s clear the intention here is to increase the power of central government hand in hand with developers, cutting out the voice of the community. The proposed system puts too much power in the hands of the minister and is ripe for corrupt behaviour.
It sure is, Mr President. It is ripe for plenty of donations to flow into the party of government or the candidate who happens to be the responsible minister.
That ignoring all voices but those of developers is the driving force here is further evidenced by the fact that 92 per cent of submissions as part of the consultation opposed the panels. Please stand up for transparency, independence and public participation in planning decisions. They are all critical for a healthy democracy.
Peter from West Hobart:
The bill is clearly designed to bypass critical scrutiny of important, generally big developments by elected representatives or concerned community members. The proposed panels appointed by organisations associated with the government will not be independent. Such politicisation of the development approval process is not acceptable in a democracy.
Please vote against the legislation and protect the rights of Tasmanians to influence local development decisions.
Dr Annie Philips says:
The creation of DAPs gives the minister far too much power over proposed controversial developments, allowing him or her to favour developers, proponents, friends at their discretion.
Please make a stand and say, ‘Yes’ to a healthy democracy’, ‘Yes’ to transparency, independence, accountability and public participation in decision making.
From Ridgeway:
I’m writing to impress on you to vote down the DAP bill jointly pushed through the House of Assembly by the two‑party duopoly, against the vote by the whole crossbench against the interests of due process in approval of certain projects.
And on it goes, Mr President.
The level of community concern about this undermining of the independence of the planning system, this attempt to seize, in fact rip away, power from local government and to remove, to a significant extent, public participation and appeal rights, has caused very significant unease in our community. It has also caused anger at the local government level, because mayors and other people who work hard in local government have been dismissed and insulted. On government’s part there is no valid justification for this legislation.
We are being put in a very similar situation to what we have been in recent weeks with a number of pieces of legislation where the government puts up this bogeyman, like the Robbins Island wharf validation. It puts up a bogeyman and makes statements like, ‘Too many refusals’ or ‘Local government is just not up to the job’, or whatever they say. ‘We were protecting the Tasmanian way of life’. So, it is governing by jingo, propaganda, and constant gaslighting. We should not be taken for fools. This legislation does not have a valid justification for it. It does have the support of the Property Council. It does not have the support of LGAT. It does not have broad community support. It certainly does not have the Greens’ support. I will be voting against this bill because it is a disgrace.
Mrs Hiscutt – Whilst the honourable member is on her feet, it is 6 p.m. In light of the time, I am hoping – obviously not.
Ms O’CONNOR – Are you asking me to adjourn? I do not feel like it. Sorry.
