Mr BAYLEY (Clark) – Honourable Speaker. I rise to talk about the Land Use Planning and Approvals (Stony Rise Development Approval) Bill. As indicated by previous speakers and in the earlier debate, we fundamentally cannot and will not support this bill.
Stony Rise is a slippery slope, make no mistake about that. It is a slippery slope into ensuring that any developer who has the ear of government and the capacity to make their life hard can get what they want. All they have to do is put a full‑page ad in the newspaper, make a few calls and complain about the system, and here we are, we have a bill within a week or two being debated in the House and the rules of the House being suspended so it can be debated. The minister makes much of taking the politics out of planning, and what this bill does is show that that is just a whole load of BS. This is nothing more than a political fix for a developer who is having trouble with the system.
I am hearing the debate. I understand the issue, but let us make no mistake that this is a figment of failure of this government over many years – a decade now – to actually do the work necessary to put in place the systems, strategies and structures to ensure that these kinds of planning developments, if indeed they are meritorious, as I am hearing, if indeed they are supported by the community and if they are needed, that they can be approved.
The reality here is this is a development that was not approved because it is not compliant. Simple as that; it was not compliant. It does not comply with the land use strategy and it has significant traffic-related issues. It all goes back to the government and their capacity to actually do the legwork early to actually fix the problems and make sure that developments that do have merit can be approved and will be approved.
Coming on the back just a few weeks ago of the debacle of the State Coastal Policy amendment and retrospectively approving developments that contravene the State Coastal Policy, primarily the Robbins Island wind farm’s wharf, this demonstrates how far this government is willing to go in terms of facilitating development for their mates.
We are deeply concerned that there was no transparency this morning on our question about the donations that this developer may or may not have given to the Liberal Party. It is a pretty simple exercise for the Premier to make a commitment to this House to pick up the phone to the state director and ask the question, ‘Did Tipalea Partners donate to us prior to the last election?’ and put that on the table and make sure that it is part of the second reading speech of the minister to declare whether or not that is the case. We are still here debating this special legislation that is going to benefit this developer significantly, and we do not know if they donated to the Liberal Party.
Before anyone jumps to accusations of extrapolation and over‑exaggeration, let us not forget that in other jurisdictions property developers are banned from giving to political parties, and in other jurisdictions property developers are directly implicated and have been found guilty of improper conduct when it comes to their engagement with elected representatives. It is a serious issue. It is a significant issue. It is a significant conflict. It is one of the reasons why we Greens have developed a bill that we tabled today to further increase transparency when it comes to political donations in this state, so that we do not have to wait as long for revelations about donations – how many and what donations have been given – and we do not have a threshold that is set as high as $5000; it will be reduced to $1000.
This is exactly the kind of circumstance as to why we have that legislation on the books, and we intend to bring it on next week. It is because this is a sector that has proven that it cannot be trusted. That is not to say that everyone cannot be trusted, but as a sector it cannot be trusted. It is extraordinary actions such as this special legislation in this parliament to approve a major development that raises eyebrows and raises concerns. It is a significant issue. The fact that they can get this level of action through one newspaper advertisement within two weeks is scandalous.
I went downstairs during lunchtime to a Reconciliation Tasmania event and that was fabulous. There were kids talking about their experiences and kids putting paint to paper to talk about their experiences and how Aboriginal people in this state are treated.
I want to raise the point – and I will raise it in the next debate as well. Here we have action being taken within a week and half or two weeks of a full‑page newspaper ad being taken out by a developer. Meanwhile, the Aboriginal community is still waiting three‑and‑a half years since the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs came into this House and tabled a report that said the Aboriginal Heritage Act does not work and cannot protect heritage.
Is there any surprise that there is disillusionment and despair within the Aboriginal community and their allies about the way government treats their interests? When they wait three‑and‑a‑half years for a bit of action on how to protect ancient heritage that can never be replaced, and meanwhile, in this place, within a couple of weeks of an ad we are debating legislation to approve a multi‑million dollar development that will benefit a single developer, and bend the rules accordingly.
We are not saying this is a bad development. Clearly, I am hearing people speak to the benefit. I hear local members talk of their passion, but it has to follow a process. The reality is government should just get on with the job of amending the strategies and fixing the planning elements so that this kind of development can actually be approved.
This is a new low for the Liberals coming on the back of the amendment to the State Coastal Policy. This is a new low for the Liberals in terms of giving special treatment to developers to bypass planning laws. It is not good enough. This House should have nothing to do with it. We can only hope that the other place will have a harder and closer look at this, because it is a really reckless idea that sets a very dangerous precedent. It is a slippery slope. The member for Clark, Ms Burnet, has flagged it.
This is why we are so concerned about things like the strategic review of kunanyi/Mount Wellington. It is a bare‑faced attempt by this government to change the framing and change the approach to managing something as special as kunanyi/Mount Wellington so that developments can be approved, whether it be through a special facilitation approval or a new assessment process like DAPs. A cable car on kunanyi looks like it is being lined up for approval by a government like this when this parliament is allowing this government to set precedents such as this in relation to development.
Ms Burnet – They will come up with something.
Mr BAYLEY – They will come up with something. Maybe it will be a full‑page ad, Ms Burnet, but that will prompt government into action. They are busy on Facebook, and member for Clark Mr Behrakis is busy putting nice cable car emojis next to his promotion of the kunanyi review. It is clear that it is next. We can see it as plain as day that that is what they are lining up to do. This is deeply concerning.
We have planning rules and we have a planning tribunal for a very specific reason, and that is to make sure the proper process is followed. It is to make sure that people have recourse: that there is third‑party merits‑based appeal and processes such as this one. Indeed, processes such as the POSS process and the Major Projects process, which we Greens opposed when they were debated in this place, are processes that throw those things out the window. They throw out the existing planning scheme, they throw out third‑party rights of appeal and they throw out a proper voice for communities. They ultimately are developer‑friendly bills and processes that do nothing to take the politics out of planning. In fact, they actually insert politics fair and square in the middle of planning because it allows developers access to the relevant minister. The minister can then go and move forward on this kind of legislation.
By attacking our planning laws, the Liberals are effectively attacking Tasmanian people and Tasmanian people’s voices, and that is a really big concern. It pitches developers and their priorities over those of the people. This is a bad precedent. There seem to be a lot of promises being made to corporate entities and corporate mates over recent times that we are just slowly unpicking and unstitching. We have now seen, thanks to questioning, about the commitment to the pokies pre-commitment card and the lobbying of the pokies industry winding back government’s policy in that space. This looks like a similar favour for developers, as will be the bill coming up.
We will proudly oppose this. We hope that the government gets on with the job of fixing the land use strategies and other elements. When this does pass, as it seems it will, the next question is what the government is going to do and how are they going to fix the traffic and public transport issues?’ We have a public transport system that is in a dire state because of the lack of investment by government and the lack of focus on Metro over many years. We have problems in Hobart particularly. We note that public transport and traffic issues are an explicit reason as to why this development was not approved in the first place, so it begs the question, as well as special legislation to facilitate and approve a development like this, what is the government going to do to address the fundamental issues that have led to this development being rejected in the first place?
I do not think it is good enough just to push it through and pass it. That is a bad precedent that is deeply concerning for a lot of people. It also means that if that happens, what is the government going to do to address the issues? It is been knocked back for reasons. Those reasons are not being addressed as part of this bill, necessarily, so how are they going to be fixed. going forward so that this is a functional piece of infrastructure and that the issues that have been identified do not cause issues into the future?
We will oppose this bill. It is a bad bill. It puts the politics fair and square in the middle of planning. It is a slippery slope on the back of the State Coastal Policy changes and it begs the question, what else is this government going to respond to to approve to bring legislation into this House? ‘We’ll change the rules about how we do our business so we can whack it through at the end of the year’. This feels a bit like a Friday afternoon media release. It is the end of the year. We are doing a bunch of dirty work over the next week or two and this is one of them. We do not support it. It is a bad bill. It is going to lead to bad outcomes in other places and it should not be approved.
