Ms BURNET (Clark) – Mr Deputy Speaker, congratulations on your elevation. This is the week of the minister trying to rewrite the way that planning is undertaken in Tasmania. It is the week of handing himself greater powers. It is the week when Mr Ellis wants to introduce precedents. The planning ministry under his delegation is with this bill, Stony Rise and the development assessment panel’s LUPAA amendments will be grabbing at as many levers as possible to interfere with planning in the state of Tasmania.
To the first of these bills, the LUPAA Supporting Development Bill, which is before us, likely seen as the least innocuous, as Labor seems to think, of the planning legislation before this House when you compare this with the unnecessary interfering Stony Rise Development Approval Bill or the corruption of process –
Dr BROAD – Point of order, I would like to point out that the member who is on her feet should be careful not to pre-empt orders of the day by discussing bills that are on the notice paper. She should stick specifically to this one, rather than casting forward to what may happen as another order of the day.
DEPUTY SPEAKER – A reasonable point.
Ms BURNET – Thank you. What we have before us is the LUPAA Supporting Development bill. It is not the LUPAA Supporting Development at Port Latta bill. So, it is not a spot rezoning if you like, or not spot‑specific, as is quite unusual and unprecedented here. The LUPAA Supporting Development bill has a specific intention in two parts. One is to tack on another two years to allow substantial development to commence. The other is to allow the minister to grant that extension.
The minister, not the planning authority, who may have already granted the extension twice and who arguably knows what is happening in its patch, so the municipality or council would understand whether or not substantial commencement of works had been obtained. There are significant questions to ask regarding why either of these are necessary. Why would there be an extension of time required to allow land not being used in most cases for six years or over? Is there any benefit to a proponent to not develop for that length of time? It might sound perverse, but land banking does occur. Is there a possibility that any approved development application may benefit from land banking? This may not be the situation for all development approvals that have not yet started substantial works. What benefit when we get to the end of the time again, then what? Will it be a question of this parliament making yet another extension?
What we have before us in relation to LUPAA Supporting Development bill, is we are not considering something that is being considered under major projects legislation to which minister Ellis has referred. This should not be confused with this piece of legislation and that planning pathway, as flawed as it may be.
The other component of this bill that is troubling is the grab for power and the corruption of process, which fundamentally erodes the robustness and the arm’s length relationship with planning and development authorities as they stand. The minister wrests the decision‑making away from the planning authority even for this extension. It is just that erosion of the planning authority’s actions and responsibilities. It gives the opportunity for political interference to occur. This is not limited to Port Latta, as I have already said. There is nothing in this bill that refers to Port Latta.
I thank the staff for the briefing that I received. It certainly provides some food for thought and for some further questions.
There are a number of questions. If I may, before I finish, list those questions which have arisen from the second reading speech. The first one is always a complex question when you are talking about planning. The minister referred to extensions to permits that relate to complex or technical developments. I wonder how that is described or how that is interpreted, depending on what development approval is being considered for this extension of time. What is a complex or technical development? How do you how do you interpret that?
The bill proposes to extend the time frame by inserting additional provisions at sections 42(C) and 53 of the act to allow the minister. The question is why the minister? Why not the planning authority, as it stands and not the minister? We do not break away with how planning is undertaken, how those extensions have been arrived at by the planning authority in the past, and what other factors might be at play as well, when they are making the consideration, rather than a political decision by the minister interfering.
It says, in the notes and perhaps in the second reading speech, that the minister will be able to provide one additional extension of two years in circumstances where the minister is satisfied due to the technical or complex nature of a proposed use or development, the use of development is not, or is unlikely to be, substantially commenced before the permit would lapse, and that the extension by the minister would enable the use of development to commence.
Another question in relation to this is what happens – whilst we have this in front of us, that is part of the proposed legislation, that it is one additional extension of two years. It begs the question of what does happen when they are almost started but they have not quite started substantial works. What happens then? If it is a Port Latta development or another development, it is unclear to me exactly what that may or may not be. Is it something as small but still complex, as a development in an inner-city block or a country town? Those questions need to be answered with this bill.
I have touched on the comparison to major projects pathway. This is not a major projects pathway. It was not considered by its very nature with this development approval, unless I am wrong. It did not get ticked off by that major projects process. These are the questions that I hope to receive answers for.
There are a number of amendments to which I have made the changes in relation – and it is quite an easy change, to change from the minister making decisions back to the planning authority. That would provide a lot more surety for communities. It would probably provide a lot more surety for planning authorities who seem to be in the firing line currently, reading some comments from the minister in the papers this week, and on the airwaves. For clause 4, it is my intention to move those amendments which were distributed earlier.
Otherwise I look forward to the further discussion and some clarity in those questions.
